[RascalPuff]

Corporeal matter is in a constant state of omnidirectionally accelerating expansion and is the source of - and generates - all micro-macrocosmic universal motion, including quantum mechanical photons and the spatially expanding universe.

Best regards,
- RP

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Corporeal matter is in a constant state of omnidirectionally accelerating expansion and is the source of - and generates - all micro-macrocosmic universal motion, including quantum mechanical photons and the spatially expanding universe. Best regards, - RP

Rascal .... does Omni mean all directions ?

Also if matter is in this constant state of expansion, then why ?

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Rascal .... does Omni mean all directions ? Also if matter is in this constant state of expansion, then why ? cool bananas ... greg

Greg:
Yes. Omni in this context is intended to mean all directions (from center).

G.P. Thompson (son of J.J. Thompson) discovered that electrons are in a constant state of expansion. He subjectively overruled the objective findings of his own experiments and mathematical confirmation. Refererence, J. W. N. Sullivan's, Limitations of Science. Thompson's findings and methods are well known, but overruled for the same 'reason' Thompson cast them aside:

"obviously matter isn't expanding".


"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.... “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." " - Pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE, by J.W.N. Sullivan
_______________

"According to the General Theory of Relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field." - Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348


The 'why' interrogative is applicable to a lot of issues that are not answerable in a 'why' context .

kewl cucumbers,
- RP

[Graybeard]

What I meant was how ? what drives this expansion ?

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard What I meant was how ? what drives this expansion ? cool bananas ... greg

“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." " - Pages 103 & 104 of THE Limitations of Science, J.W.N. Sullivan.

"What drives the expansion?"


I don't know what drives the expansion, Greg.

I can only observe with the Standard Theorists that everything seems to be expanding - the difference being that I accept the experimentation and the mathematical confirmation, and follow through with it, while the status quo is flash frozen on the rejection.

There is no conflict with the law of conservation of mass energy, insofar as it is the same amount of energy, distributing itself over an increasingly greater area. Densities remain relatively stable.

As for why, it seems that matter is found doing this, so far, without any explanation of 'why'. Maybe we could say that the partial vacuum of space draws matter ever omnidirectionally further out. Maybe it's a 'Why does the chicken cross the road' kind of a question...

Incidentally, in 1959 and 1970, my published and internationally distributed work, predicted the *acceleration of the *1996 observed expanding universe. The stack of reports of the acceleration of the expanding universe continues - ever since - to grow higher. I based my prediction on Einstein's (abandoned) cosmological constant (increases with distance), which has since been unabashedly recovered and desperately purloined (refer 'Lambda Cold Dark Matter', aka LCDM) by the otherwise bankrupt Big Bang Gang...

Best regards,
- RP

[neutralino]

What are you talking about? Of course matter is not expanding! I'd like to see some real references as well please (you must know how to reference books: Title, author, publishing company, year of publication). I suspect that the part you've written in green is not written by Thompson.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Graybeard What I meant was how ? what drives this expansion ? cool bananas ... greg

Greg me old mate,forgive this rather rude interjection,I just coun't resist it!What drives
this expansion is consciousness! Get with the program.




regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by neutralino What are you talking about? Of course matter is not expanding! I'd like to see some real references as well please (you must know how to reference books: Title, author, publishing company, year of publication). I suspect that the part you've written in green is not written by Thompson.

__________________________

Dear neutralino:
As stated in my post, the source of the information was acquired from J.W.N. Sullivan's Limitations of Science - Sullivan is ostensibly the author of both quotes, including the second one (in green).

Here's a portion of a google obtained, 1993 review, by Maura Flannery:


I'd like to discuss a book that I first saw on the bookshelf of a colleague. It's a paperback called The Limitations of Science by J.W.N. Sullivan. It's a 1963 reprint (New York: Mentor) of a book which originally appeared in 1933. It caught my eye because I had read another book by Sullivan, the second volume in the series called Aspects of Science (New York: Knopf, 1926). I really enjoyed it, and so I considered borrowing Limitations, but never got around to it. When I came across it in a used bookstore in Madison, Wisconsin (which is full of bookstores) at $1.50, I couldn't resist. On the back cover, Sullivan is described as "a mathematician, philosopher, and musician, who was called at his death by TIME magazine, 'one of the world's four or five most brilliant interpreters of physics to the world of common men.' " I had never heard of him until I read an article on the beauty of physics by S. Chandrasekhar, who quotes Sullivan (Physics Today, 32 [1979], p.25). Since I'm interested in the aesthetics of science, I followed up on the quote and came to Aspects of Science, which is a collection of essays. I enjoyed it because Sullivan was saying in 1926 many things which I think still need saying today: that science is an exciting, passionate occupation, that is it more than laws and facts presented in a dry form.

• Best regards,
• - RP
• http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[neutralino]

You make very hard work of referencing things. Anyway, from what I gather, that book is a popular science book (not written by a scientist), and the quotes are definitely not directly from Thompson, so it is merely speculation.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by neutralino You make very hard work of referencing things. Anyway, from what I gather, that book is a popular science book (not written by a scientist), and the quotes are definitely not directly from Thompson, so it is merely speculation.

"...Sullivan is described as "a mathematician, philosopher, and musician, who was called at his death by TIME magazine, 'one of the world's four or five most brilliant interpreters of physics to the world of common men."

Thompson subjectively rejected his objective findings - and the same findings have been rejected ever since - for the reasons described by (mathematician) Sullivan.
This is Thompson's speculation, not that of Sullivan.
Google makes very easy work of referencing things.
Where's the beef?