Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  "Does a boulder grow disproportionately larger than a grain of sand when they're each lying side by side on the beach? Why should the boulder 'fall' faster than the grain of sand when the entire frame of refererence is rising up to overtake, meet and strike it and the grain of sand?"
That's the point to my questioning your position, RP. Your explanation to me implies that the earth would cover more space than the boulder and the boulder would cover more space than the grain of sand. I never said that one or another would be larger or smaller, but asked why you said the larger covers more space than the smaller.
My first question was related to aerodynamics, whereby a crumpled piece of paper and a flat piece of paper would accelerate at different rates. This is empirical and would not be the case if all particles are expanding proportionately.
Then , following the implications of your explanation for the discrepancy, like objects of different masses would have to hit the ground at different times, but empirically they don't. |
____________________________________________
....This means literally, that we are able to make a seemingly absurd prediction with complete confidence that it is not absurd - or even a prediction - at all, but rather an inevitability. That inevitability being that the fundamental material constituents of all apparently solid Universal Matter, i.e., neutrons, protons electrons and all other so-called 'sub-atomic particles', are not 3-Dimensionally static solids - billiard ball like 'particles' - at all, but rather, surfaceless electromagnetic charges without distinct boundaries: 4-Dimensionally accelerating fields. Projecting/extending the previously unidentified 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism respectively, as we shall soon discover; forthwith.
Presently, we will consider further proof that physical, corporeal matter is a perpetually expanding, accelerating field...
Introducing an abbreviated but entirely accurate description of yet another proven and still unrecognized fact which furthermore categorically confirms that Matter is 4-Dimensionally expanding.
The most popular sources include a renowned book on physics written by the late and eminent physicist, J.W.N. Sullivan. It is very appropriately entitled, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE.
On pages 100 and 101 of the hard cover edition of that title, the author is describing an experiment and discovery (entailing the controlled *bombardment of singular-atomic-thickness Gold plates/ filaments; *with subatomic particles); originally fulfilled by physicist, G.P. Thompson (Incidentally, G.P. Thompson is not to be confused with J. J. Thompson who was the discoverer of the electron some decades earlier).
What G.P. Thompson did in 1937, when technology finally permitted him to be the first to access and measurably record the sub atomic/microcosmic realm of so-called 'particles (electrons, protons, neutrons; et al - sub-atomic particles)', was to overtly and experimentally discover and mathematically and repeatedly re-confirm that the ultimate physical constituents of matter - that is, neutrons, protons, and electrons - are not reducible to the anticipated microcosmic, 3-dimensional ‘particles’ having specifically defined boundary-surfaces; discontinuous from surrounding space.
Instead, G.P. Thompson, discovered that neutrons, protons and electrons are microcosmic charges of undulating electric field energy ('disturbed areas'), having no definite boundary surfaces whatsoever separating them from their surrounding space.
Because of the outcome of G.P. Thompson's original experiment and many other related experiments since then, physical science today formally recognizes, acknowledges, and categorically states, that two or more physical entities - be they individual neutrons, protons or electrons, or billiard balls in collision, or juggernauts moving in opposite directions at 90 miles per hour and colliding head-on: do not actually touch or contact one another.
The subjective term touch', and even the objective term 'contact' directly imply and require one surface meeting another surface. Of course, for all subjective purposes in the human experience, the terms 'touch' and 'contact' are entirely acceptable. We observe that apparently solid 3-Dimensional substance has apparently discontinuous surfaces, therefore we intelligently - but in this case incorrectly - assume that all solid material substance including that of our own bodies, is ultimately constituted-of and reducible-to solid 3-D particles; also having specifically defined surface-boundaries, discontinuous from surrounding space.
G.P. Thompson's original discovery that there are only charges of electricity which somehow influence each other at-a-distance-across space, evoked the following commentary from Lord Bertrand Russell:
'No two particles of matter ever come into *contact.
When they get too close, they move off'.
- p.126 THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.
(
Refer to Drawing 1 Illustration 7 Two charges/particles; in mutually oppositional collision.)
All of this is to review and clarify the context in which it is an observed and acknowledged physical fact that no two or more physical entities ever actually touch or contact each other.
The conclusion of 'touching', or 'contacting' is reached by way of the field produced by atomic and sub-atomic structures - which Thompson refers to as 'disturbed areas' - a physical constituent of those structures.
Although it is proven that any two or more material systems never actually contact each other, it is invariably observed and agreed that they do have, to say the least, an 'influence' on one another. Which influence must, because they do not touch or contact, be attributed to conflicting field forces.
"There is no such thing as space 'empty of field'. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field". - Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 375
For this reason, any answer to any question or consideration of whether or not two or more bodies touch, is entirely dependent upon the popular as well as literal interpretation of what is actually meant or circumspectly intended - in what qualified context - by and in the practiced; applied terms: 'Matter' and/or 'physicality'.
Discontinuity is, as a concept, displacing continuity; where the latter manifests in patently measured reality. A political coup in theoretical physics. Nobel Prize material in the Quick-Fix department of hasty discoveries. A series of historically obscure quick fixes (little denials), culminating into what only now emerges as a major cover-up. A Real Sign Of The Virtually Artificial ('L.H. Oswald acted alone') Times ('JFK shot himself').
Ostensibly, contemporary physics refuses to acknowledge or term an energetic field entity, Matter (instead, grotesquely calling it an 'unstable; disturbed area'), even though that field entity disallows the simultaneous occupation of its space by any other field entity. That is to say summarily, these two qualities observed of field entities are quite literally the formal definition of matter. That definition being: 'That which possesses inertia and occupationally demands 3-Dimensions of Space'.
That is Fact #3.
There is still more to this.
Sullivan comments furthermore on pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE:
"These disturbed areas which are discovered to demand 3-Dimensions of Space indicate the position of the electron; yet we cannot state that the disturbed area is the electron. Because any such locality has a tendency to spread, and if the matter of the universe were a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely."
Holy Smokes! The church is on fire?
Thompson (as described by Sullivan, Ibid.), repeatedly checks the experiment and its mathematical confirmation; repeatedly gets the same results, and then dismisses the entire finding.
Perished the disturbing thought.Before it spread indefinitely (Phht?). Along with everything else that couldn't possibly be expanding. Even though he just proved otherwise.
Saved the physical universe from 4 dimensional expansion. Been keeping General Relativity's most famous dimension, motionlessly suspended in three static, tenaciously non-expanding, glazed & permafrosted dimensions, ever since.
_________________
'TIME Magazine’s Man Of The 21st Century':
Einstein's 4-D universe is not an option in today's academia. Ostracized - banned; anathematized - from the classroom.
Why? Because it can't - mustn't - be where it is: everywhere .
The entire (perpetually ignored or actively dismissed) finding is Albert Einstein's allegedly 'immeasurable' and 'incomprehensible' 4-Dimensional Space-Time Continuum. The physically (spatially and materially) expanding universe...
What is happening here and ever since, is, G.P. Thompson, with J.W.N. Sullivan and the entire scientific community looking over his shoulder, is opting to subjectively over-rule and contradict the objectively proven and demonstrated, prevailing conditional reality, on the now very familiar and equally over-employed and foregone premise that it subjectively appears 'blatantly obvious' that Physical Reality-At-Large 'is not' (4-Dimensionally) expanding.
That is to say, Thompson did not simply fail to recognize and acknowledge the direct implications of his discovery. He, and J.W.N. Sullivan refused, and all physicists since then complicitly continue to refuse to recognize and acknowledge its meaning and its abundantly measurable, observable, even prosaically *audible manifestations.
(The very *sound of 4-D gravity is revealed, before this dissertation closes.)
This is contrary to scientific method.
And, Sullivan, is not through, yet.
Continued Profound (3-D anguish stricken)
Disconcertion(s):
I won't blame any who may not believe this next quote. I don't believe it either, and it's on pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE. Author Scientist J.W.N. Sullivan, summarily endorses and punctuates Thompson's dismissal of the experimental results (2+2 must equal 5).
"As long as we are considering an individual electron, we could be mislead into thinking that its waves are physical realities. Each electron in fact demands a 3-Dimensional Space to itself. This makes it obvious that these waves are merely a mathematical phantom; consequently it is profoundly disconcerting to find that experiment confirms their existence. The apparent congruity between calculation and experiment must be in some sense illusory. It is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the experiments and their results have yet to receive their proper interpretation."
- Pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE, by J.W.N. Sullivan (again):
“These disturbed areas which are discovered to demand 3-Dimensions of Space indicate the position of the electron; yet we cannot state that the disturbed area is the electron. Because any such locality has a tendency to spread, and if the matter of the universe were a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely."
(Indeed it has, and so it will continue, maintaining the same relatively uniform density, from one moment to the next, ad infinitum - yesterday's square mile is much smaller and more dense than today's, and today's is much smaller and more dense than tomorrow's; squared. All frames of reference remaining relatively equal; the infinitely small being no less endless and dense than the infinitely large is endlessly more thin and tenuous...Electromagnetic gravity is relatively stronger in the comparative earlier moments and relatively weaker in the comparative later moments of the continuous universal expansion. The value of time also changes, corresponding with the value of space it occurs in. More will be said about this, later.)
Re: Physical Matter is Six Simultaneous Euclidien Dimensions -
05-29-2007, 02:31 PM
