Reality
in [Math]
|
Prev: Wegener's Continental Drift theory may be telling on Atom Totality social acceptance Chapt 1 &3 #155; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: I have two testicles. I just checked.
From: xxein on 11 Jun 2010 18:19 On Jun 11, 4:06 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > There is a space filling medium. It is capable of motion and > resilience. It exerts an expansive pressure in all directions. It is > but a small step from there to the recognition that this very same > material substance is what is formed into the atoms and molecules of > gross matter. To take that step, however, a vast conceptual chasm has > to be crossed. > > Look around you. Look at a glass, a metal one-piece wrench, or any > other one-piece object. I am now going to ask you to do something that > will do violence to every instinct of a trained scientist:- Recognize > that it is indeed one piece! > An object isn't a collection of separate particles moving randomly > within a local space. It is one big particle with no empty places > inside it. Think of it as exactly what it looks like, all the way > through. It is no different than it looks. > There are, of course, very fine grained density gradients all > through the unit, and you can't see them overtly. But if you look > closely enough, you can see them too (with a little help from some > instruments.) > > Note. Today's theorists would say that anyone who made this claim is > either uneducated or insane. {In a lunatic asylum a sane man is > abnormal!} A later generation that understands the structure of the > physical world will know that a material continuum fills space. It > will know that we are made of highly organized, patterned portions of > this One universal material. It will know that light and energy are > functions of the structure of this substance. Imagine what would > happen to a modern scientist who materialized in a public park at such > a time, and proudly announced that matter is made of a void, that > light is a vibration of nothing, that his feet and the ground > supporting them are made of disembodied particles as far apart, on a > smaller scale, as the stars in the sky. Where do you think he would > end up if he insisted that everything we see in the park isn't really > there? xxein: You already know that I will agree that. But nobody is willing to think out of the box anymore. Why do they keep insisting that we knew everything back in the 1920's? Even Einstein doubted his stuff until he died.
From: dlzc on 11 Jun 2010 18:42 Dear xxein: On Jun 11, 3:19 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 11, 4:06 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: .... > > Note. Today's theorists would say that anyone > > who made this claim is either uneducated or > > insane. .... > > xxein: You already know that I will agree that. > But nobody is willing to think out of the box > anymore. They do. What they don't do is limit their imaginations to models that either violate observation, make no new predictions, or simply mirror simpler theories. > Why do they keep insisting that we knew > everything back in the 1920's? "They" don't. Why is it we keep testing theories, making observations, challenging models? If we "knew everything", why would this continue? > Even Einstein doubted his stuff until he > died. Scientists know they only have theories, not Truth. Cranks forget this, and Natural Philosphers snicker. David A. Smith
From: artful on 11 Jun 2010 20:06 On Jun 12, 6:06 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > There is a space filling medium. There is a space filling invisible pink unicorn That's just as valid physics as what you are saying
From: Sam Wormley on 11 Jun 2010 20:50 On 6/11/10 5:19 PM, xxein wrote: > But nobody is > willing to think out of the box anymore. Thinking outside the box is great... as long as it is not contradicted by physical reality!
From: Jim Burns on 11 Jun 2010 22:59
glird wrote: > There is a space filling medium. Are you sure about that? It seems much more likely to me that there is a space filling extra large. Jim Burns > It is capable of motion and > resilience. It exerts an expansive pressure in all directions. It is > but a small step from there to the recognition that this very same > material substance is what is formed into the atoms and molecules of > gross matter. To take that step, however, a vast conceptual chasm has > to be crossed. > > Look around you. Look at a glass, a metal one-piece wrench, or any > other one-piece object. I am now going to ask you to do something that > will do violence to every instinct of a trained scientist:- Recognize > that it is indeed one piece! > An object isn't a collection of separate particles moving randomly > within a local space. It is one big particle with no empty places > inside it. Think of it as exactly what it looks like, all the way > through. It is no different than it looks. > There are, of course, very fine grained density gradients all > through the unit, and you can't see them overtly. But if you look > closely enough, you can see them too (with a little help from some > instruments.) > > Note. Today's theorists would say that anyone who made this claim is > either uneducated or insane. {In a lunatic asylum a sane man is > abnormal!} A later generation that understands the structure of the > physical world will know that a material continuum fills space. It > will know that we are made of highly organized, patterned portions of > this One universal material. It will know that light and energy are > functions of the structure of this substance. Imagine what would > happen to a modern scientist who materialized in a public park at such > a time, and proudly announced that matter is made of a void, that > light is a vibration of nothing, that his feet and the ground > supporting them are made of disembodied particles as far apart, on a > smaller scale, as the stars in the sky. Where do you think he would > end up if he insisted that everything we see in the park isn't really > there? > |