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: glird on 13 Jun 2010 11:57 On Jun 11, 6:42 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Jun 11, 3:19 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > 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.> My theory is based on "observation", i.e. experimental results reported in the literature. It made several "predictions" -- i.e. statements re the structures and mechanisms of nature -- that were later confirmed by experimental physics, by people who found their own such results unexpected and amazing. Rather than mirroring the ignorance of present theories, mine explains the mechanism of gravity, what light is and how a quantum of energy operates, the intricate structure of atoms, etc etc etc. > > 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? > Because all present theories are either inadequate or downright false. > > Even Einstein doubted his stuff until he died. > > Scientists know they only have theories, not Truth. > Cranks forget this, and Natural Philosophers snicker. > David A. Smith Which are you, David, a crank who forgets that his theories may be false, or a Natural Philosopher who snickers at the idea that anyone might understand things better than most people?
From: glird on 13 Jun 2010 12:55 On Jun 12, 3:32 pm, Evans Winner <tho...(a)unm.edu> wrote: > ,------ glird wrote ------ > | Given that the material has no empty spaces in it, but a | > | volume of it may have particles present, a "gram" or a | > | "pound" is the wrong unit of measure for density. Even | > | so, the quantity of COMPRESSIBLE matter in a given | > | volume is variable; so the density is too. > > I am not sure I understand what the operation of compression > would actually mean in the case of the form of material you > are suggesting. If density means, as you put it, "quantity > of matter per unit volume," and if matter is an > undifferentiated solid in the sense that I think you mean, > what does it mean to say that there can be more or less of > it in a given volume? It would seem that differences in > density would not be possible. From The Universe What It is Made of and How It Works by Gerald Lebau: ____________ INTRODUCTION Twenty-seven centuries ago Thales set forth the thesis that a material substance which he called the "ylem" fills every place in the universe. Heraclitos then observed that material bodies undergo various kinds of change. Parmenides then said that change cannot be due to motion if there is nothing but one physical substance or many microscopic particles; for motion requires that a thing moves from where it is to where it is not. He said, "If there is no 'where-it-is-not' then motion is impossible. The motion of many particles involves a 'where-it-is-not' as much as the motion of one. Moreover, there cannot be many particles if nothing but the moving particles of matter exists. For many-ness requires something to enable one to distinguish between one particle of matter and another, and this is impossible if nothing but the stuff of the atoms exists." That entire argument is based on the unspoken premise that the ylem is incompressible. That, in turn, led to the kinetic-atomic theory that matter is made of ultimate particles separated by empty spaces; which is the primary plank in the present scientific paradigm. At the far end of every consequence based on that ancient premise lies total mystery. As of now the mystery is blamed on the way God made the world, rather than its real cause: The ancient premise is false. The constructions in this book are based on the alternative premise: MATTER IS COMPRESSIBLE. Rather than being made of point-sized particles, all material bodies, including the smallest particles, extend for meaningful distances in all directions. When a material body is compressed the matter of which that body is made is condensed into a smaller volume, rather than, as now believed, that its component particles move closer to each other in an intervening empty space. An easily movable bodily compressible material that fills all space can and does easily move within, around, upon and through more of itself by changing the volume that bits of displaced portions occupy during those motions. ____________ glird
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Jun 2010 15:05 On 6/13/10 11:55 AM, glird wrote: > The constructions in this book are based on the alternative premise: > > MATTER IS COMPRESSIBLE. > See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
From: bert on 13 Jun 2010 18:19 On Jun 13, 3:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/13/10 11:55 AM, glird wrote: > > > The constructions in this book are based on the alternative premise: > > > MATTER IS COMPRESSIBLE. > > See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole Sam Neutron stars have a gravity force that in reality proves this. O ya TreBert
From: funkenstein on 13 Jun 2010 19:00
On Jun 11, 10:06 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. Perhaps you mean to say there is an electromagnetic field (tensor) and gravitational field (tensor) which exist everywhere in space, which have real physical properties. > 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. > Not really. Maxwell's equations + GR do the job, they specifically define charge and mass in terms of the space-filling fields. > 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.) > So, you just contradicted yourself in that paragraph? > 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. I disagree. Today's theorists -are- comfortable with using the tools of fluid mechanics to model quantum systems, and -are- comfortable defining fields that exist everywhere in space. It is only your terminology that will be argued. Replace "material continuum" with "quantum foam" or "grid" or "space-time manifold".. though of course a later generation will use other language still. > [snip] It will know that light and energy are > functions of the structure of this substance. We know that already.. see Maxwell's equations + GR which describe those functions in detail. |