Notices
Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: LOST & FOUND In Space?

  1. #1 LOST & FOUND In Space? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    A record of every past universal event?

    LOST & FOUND IN SPACE
    (Maybe Yesterday Isn't Gone? Perhaps There is an Ultimate Justice?)
    Everything visually perceived is an extension of where it originates. Every seeing experience occurs as a result of quantifications of whatever is seen, traveling across space to make contact with the sensory facility of the eye. The incoming light energy is literally an extension of where it came from. Whether we visually see things or not, all physical entities are emitting EM energy at all times. All physical matter in the universe is absorbing and emitting incoming and outgoing energy in the currency of Planck’s quantum h constant.

    If these exchanges of energy were back tracked indefinitely, the record of events that occurred in the past is available to whatever facility is able to carry out the - perhaps endless - back tracking in a real space and time of the past which is permanently recorded in past space-time.
    That’s the physical premise this concept of every event being permanently recorded, is based on. The philosophical and theological implications are that there exists a permanent, quasi holographic record in three and more dimensions, of every event that has ever occurred, and that such record is permanently manifest - at any given moment - in past space-time.

    The theological implications include that this is how ‘God sees, hears and knows all’, having access to all past portions of the ongoing continuum of events in the entire history of all universal events.

    Several people I’ve talked with about this recommended that I post it in a science forum and see what the forumites have to say about it.

    What do you think? (In this scenario, what you think may be permanently projected on the universe also, along with all of your physically manifest actions..)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: LOST & FOUND In Space? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    I think that there is no doubt that every event that has ever occurred has left a record, and that record is still available. For example, we are able to see evidence of what occurred 15 billion years ago by this record. Unfortunately for us, much of the detail in the record is no longer available to the senses of our species. Furthermore, and more important, is that there is a time differential.

    If god is located there, and not here, then how can god know about what happens here instantaneously, as even light takes time to reach there. If god is not able to be aware instantaneiously, then it has the same delimma as our species faces. If god is here, then it must be everywhere. If god is everywhere, then is god perhaps no more than an anthropomorphization of nature, as that is then identical to the definition of nature.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Theological Implications?
    In the course of conversations concerning the above issue, notable interpretations emerge in a theological context as much or more as in the scientific or philosophical realms. Some of those introduced to this consideration show an insight - and sometimes an apprehension - regarding how those who’ve escaped justice in their mortal lives may be brought to account and punished in any ‘hereafter’ that mortals may pass on to.

    For this reason, any proposed ‘passing to the other side’ is rejected by some, out of fear that they will be revealed for serious trespasses not previously revealed. That is to say, these particular kinds of people, don’t dare believe in any kind of day of reckoning, as it were... This is not at all to say that all atheists or agnostics are particularly guilty, but only to review that some of them certainly are, for reason of their inordinately abundant guilt, armorized with a heavily fortified disbelief system.

    Allowing for the sake of discussion, a scenario such as that described, where all souls continue as individuals in ‘the hereafter’, and everyone there represents or is aligned with a Godhead that knows every action and thought of all mortal people in their temporal lives - this record does not so much contemplate any punishment,, per se, that may ‘catch up’ with previously fugitive mortal offenders.

    A theological concept of ‘heaven and hell’ in such a context might not so much entail a belated punishment so much as what would be the revelation of all the right and wrong behaviors that each person in mortality was responsible for and which baggage they carry with them as a soul in the hereafter.

    Everyone is a sinner to some degree, whereas, some of us are more and less sinners than others. Some of us redeemed what mortal sins we committed, some of us were appropriately called to account for our mortal sins, while living as mortals - so you go to the hereafter with your major sins already having been aired out and resolved.

    Relatively minor sins are not a source of much concern here, since everyone is guilty of a lot of lesser sinning, and the immortal audience to those kinds of trespasses is accustomed to and generally disregards ‘breadcrumb sins’.

    Predominantly honorable, self redeemed baggage is - more or less - heaven. Predominantly dishonorable, unredeemed baggage is hell.

    What would be a source of serious concern is mortal trespassers such as those guilty of capital or particularly heinous crimes, who ‘got away with it’ in the mortal realm. ‘Punishment’ in such a context might simply mean that in the hereafter, everyone knows everyone else’s mortal ‘movie’ and no one is fooling anyone about anything, anymore.

    One interpretation of this mortal to hereafter cycle is that, since the wrongdoings of people who escaped corporeal justice are known to all other souls in the hereafter, no further injustices or deceptions can occur, and the soul arriving in the hereafter finds itself in a place where they are either more or less comfortable with what ‘catches up with them’, and are correspondingly more or less able to bear their exposed responsibilities.

    The serious offenders may be ‘punished’ only in the sense that they are inescapably found out for what they were responsible - and not previously accounted - for, in the mortal realm.

    Buddhist Science?
    Some contemplations of this hypothetical plot lead to a quasi Buddhist wheel of karma, where the unredeemed soul in the hereafter has the choice of existing in that realm, without any punishment save that of no longer being able to conceal their former trespasses, or, to rejoin with mortality on the ‘wheel of karma’ and ‘make a better, more improved, less sinful movie (personal history)’, which allows them to be more comfortable when they pass on to the realm of immortality.

    There are other theological and/or philosophical connotations to the proposed congregation of all souls into a Godhead (atonement - at-one-ment) that knows - but is not necessarily responsible for - every minor and major event in the universe, in and out of the anthropomorphic realm.

    Incidentally, there are more living people - mortal coils - on the planet in the present, today, here and now, than have ever accumulatively occupied this earthly realm in all of past history. Hence, per capita, there is probably more ‘good and bad’ being done in the present than ever before in the history of human kind.
    Unfortunately, it appears that unredeemed wrongdoing - until further notice - is, by far, the dominant paradigm (That is to say, in the mortal realm, personal and methodological wrongdoing and individual or organized evil, apparently maintains a high rate of success and temporal reward, characteristically accompanied by the belief that 'There is no justice', in this realm (and that there is no hereafter, or day of reckoning) - Re. PEOPLE OF THE LIE, and, ON A ROAD LESS TRAVELED, by Dr. Peck).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Beautiful.

    I most definitely agree with your first statement. All things are, in a sense, recorded. I also believe we do have access to this knowledge if we chose to accept it (this message will self-destruct ). It would not come to us in the form of a movie or something like that. It is only accessable to those who will understand it. I feel that it would be very difficult to understand. At least for now.

    Hmm... am I crazy?

    So this after-life thing your talking about... I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying if we could see the past no one would sin? Or that we can see the past and return to "earth" because of it? Maybe I'm just a little tired but, I don't quite understand what you were trying to say.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Beautiful.

    I most definitely agree with your first statement. All things are, in a sense, recorded. I also believe we do have access to this knowledge if we chose to accept it (this message will self-destruct ). It would not come to us in the form of a movie or something like that. It is only accessable to those who will understand it. I feel that it would be very difficult to understand. At least for now.

    Hmm... am I crazy?

    So this after-life thing your talking about... I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying if we could see the past no one would sin? Or that we can see the past and return to "earth" because of it? Maybe I'm just a little tired but, I don't quite understand what you were trying to say.
    Dear DaBob (I don't think either of us is at all nuts - crazy, maybe, but not insane. There are two ways to lose your mind in this world: acknowledge things as they are, or, deny things as they are. I believe people like us choose to go crazy - not insane - by way of the first of the two offered definitions)

    In speaking of a 'movie', I am only speaking in metaphor of what amounts to a physical record impressed in space-time of the past - a record that we may/could have immortal access to.

    Among the facets of the Buddhist religion, there is 'the Wheel of Karma'. After seven or so improving lifetimes, one no longer has to reincarnate and remains in the blissful realm of Nirvana - the Buddhist word for 'heaven'.

    The entire proposed setting is speculative of course, but it's based on real possibilities confirmed in and by what we know of physical science. It would indeed be 'very difficult to understand, at least for now' (in the mortal realm - beyond comprehension or description; ineffable).

    In the theological context I'm subjecting here, it has to do with how much differently people would behave in this - here & now - realm, if they knew every soul that ever lived would have a kind of divine - all knowing - access to their (anyone and everyone's) 'movie' - the one directed, cast and produced by themselves, from birth to death.

    That each and every person who ever lived does go to another common realm - far beyond our mortal understanding, perhaps even unfettered by the limitations of the Celeritas Constant of lightspeed.

    Consider what Hermes says in his post - an interesting addition to the proposed conditions, that God - by whatever other definition - may not be able to be everywhere at the same time. Ten Four. Whereas, anthropomorphic - human - conception of the universe, I'm almost certain Hermes agrees, is not by any means the last word on what, how, when, where and why the 'universe' ('one-verse'/UnifiedField, aka 'God') carrys on. Another feature of Buddhism is a condition of 'timelessness', this strongly connotes 'simultaneity' - beyond all the limitations of anthropomorphic science and the ken of foolish mortals.

    http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
    kraziequus@yahoo.com
    _______________________________________

    P.S. DaBob:Your Avatar - and the candor of your post - is another example of what beautiful can be.

    May the Buddha smile upon You & Yours.

    I have 'wretched' and a passel of her slapstick friends to thank, for letting me know - in their own way (Sheesh), what 'Avatar' means. One look at wretched's and I ain't sayin' nothin furthermore... (It's another genre of the innumerable variations on pulchritude & beatific?)

    All Things Bright & Beautiful All Creatures Great & Small
    All Things Warm & Wonderful The Lord God Made Them All

    "If I knew the beginning and the end, I'd put everything else in the middle." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    Actually, there is a record left behind by everything. It's called the speed in which light moves on what we consider normal standards. Lets say, for example, if you went far enough *outside* the current limits of the universe (those limits were probably set by the big bang, hence space curvature), you could see events that happened quite a long time ago. The farther away you go, (lets say unlimited speed) the longer it will take light to travel to your position. Thus, with a super powerful telescope of sorts (or godlike vision? Hahaha), you could actually go far enough away and view back at the earth and probably watch the solar system be born. Or watch the big bang, if you were REALLY far away. Thus you could literally exist at any given point in "time" and exist "outside" of time in a way. However other than viewing I don't believe it would be possible to actually visit any point in time via that method, but who knows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Actually, there is a record left behind by everything. It's called the speed in which light moves on what we consider normal standards. Lets say, for example, if you went far enough *outside* the current limits of the universe
    Why ao drastric? If you were to move 5 billion light years away from here, then you would see light from the time of creation of the solar system. That is well within the universe. Of course, by the time you get there, even moving at the speed of light, you will be too late to see it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 LOST & FOUND: In Space-Time. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Actually, there is a record left behind by everything. It's called the speed in which light moves on what we consider normal standards. Lets say, for example, if you went far enough *outside* the current limits of the universe (those limits were probably set by the big bang, hence space curvature), you could see events that happened quite a long time ago. The farther away you go, (lets say unlimited speed) the longer it will take light to travel to your position. Thus, with a super powerful telescope of sorts (or godlike vision? Hahaha), you could actually go far enough away and view back at the earth and probably watch the solar system be born. Or watch the big bang, if you were REALLY far away. Thus you could literally exist at any given point in "time" and exist "outside" of time in a way. However other than viewing I don't believe it would be possible to actually visit any point in time via that method, but who knows.
    Dear Jeremyhfht:

    Beautiful.

    You have just made it 'much easier to understand (the past)', in the present! You one-upped me on my own presentation.

    Bravissimo muchisimo.

    Only a technicality, but whether credible or not, I must say, I've thought and written of what you just posted, but, I didn't write or express that thought - scenario - here on this thread, and you did, and - in my inspired expression of your achievement - you did it very well (Superbly). Sir. 8)
    Indeed, as you move away from the internal universe at light speed and beyond ('optical'/'event' horizons), the immortal vehicle and its perspective coud view - if not occupy - any and all selected portions of the past (There is an endless ensemble of 'optical'/'event' horizons at various locations throughout the universe).

    Until further notice, it doesn't look like you can plumb or otherwise sound the future from the methods - thought problems - we are sharing here, but it certainly does look like the past is - at least visually (if not palpably) accessible. I cannot thank you enough for your contribution, Sir. You and DaBob have the deck and the conn. I am also surrendering the Captain's stateroom to you. I may have achieved escaping the burly bonds of earth, but you landed us elsewhere and got us back.
    I'm staying in the pod, while you guys play golf, do wheelies, pledge allegiance to the flag, and otherwise frolic in any number of space-times and timed places where and when no person has ever romped, whirled, pledged allegiance, or played, before.
    (Now: that's what I'm talkin' about.)
    Good morning, sunshine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    "He [Walter Schempp] had called his theory 'quantum holography', because what he'd really discovered was that all sorts of information can be recovered and ressembled into a three-dimensional image. Schempp had discovered, as Puthoff had predicted , that the Zero Point Field was a vast memory store. Through Fourier transformation, MRI machines could take information encoded in the Zero Point Field and turn it into images."


    From a book called The Field by Lynne McTaggart; page 90.

    What do you think of this?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    "He [Walter Schempp] had called his theory 'quantum holography', because what he'd really discovered was that all sorts of information can be recovered and ressembled into a three-dimensional image. Schempp had discovered, as Puthoff had predicted , that the Zero Point Field was a vast memory store. Through Fourier transformation, MRI machines could take information encoded in the Zero Point Field and turn it into images."


    From a book called The Field by Lynne McTaggart; page 90.

    What do you think of this?
    Dear DaBob:
    I think I owe you many kudos for finding and pointing this out. I've not heard a smidgen of it before and I doubt that Jeremy has either. Did you know this before, or, did you just ferret it out on accounta what we've been talking about, here?

    DaBob: I think it's Beautiful.
    That's what we're talkin' about.

    Incidentally, the latest edition of my book is entitled TOTAL FIELD THEORY.
    http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 LOST & FOUND In Space-Time? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Actually, there is a record left behind by everything. It's called the speed in which light moves on what we consider normal standards. Lets say, for example, if you went far enough *outside* the current limits of the universe
    Why ao drastric? If you were to move 5 billion light years away from here, then you would see light from the time of creation of the solar system. That is well within the universe. Of course, by the time you get there, even moving at the speed of light, you will be too late to see it.
    Dear Hermes:
    Your point is well taken about the limitations imposed by C. On the other hand, be reminded that the value of C is relative to the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is associated.

    That is, consider a vehicle departing earth and achieving the speed of light away from earth. Then consider that same vehicle projecting a beam of light straight ahead of itself - that beam of light moves away from the space craft vehicle at the speed of light, while the vehicle moves away from earth at the speed of light. This is how you can leap from one value of C to another. The light projected from and ahead of the space craft is beyond earth's 'event' ('optical') horizon, and moving twice the speed of light away from and relative to the earth, which is not the coordinate system from which it originates.

    The value of C, and the value of time, is covariant with the value of space it - C and/or time - originates in. There is no infringement on SR, or any other established principle, in the proffered setting. Please correct me here if, where, why and how I'm wrong. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: LOST & FOUND In Space-Time? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    Dear Hermes:
    Your point is well taken about the limitations imposed by C. On the other hand, be reminded that the value of C is relative to the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is associated.

    That is, consider a vehicle departing earth and achieving the speed of light away from earth.
    Do you think that this is possible?

    Then consider that same vehicle projecting a beam of light straight ahead of itself - that beam of light moves away from the space craft vehicle at the speed of light, while the vehicle moves away from earth at the speed of light. This is how you can leap from one value of C to another. The light projected from and ahead of the space craft is beyond earth's 'event' ('optical') horizon, and moving twice the speed of light away from and relative to the earth, which is not the coordinate system from which it originates.
    Did you perhaps read somehwhere about this notion of moving at twice the speed of light? If so, where? I do not know of any mechanism in physics that would enable the vehicle move at the speed of light with respect to the earth. As well, the speed of light is not considered to be additive. Consider this. If you and I were together, and then if I were to start running away from you at a speed of 1 mile per hour, with my flash light shining in front of me, do you think that the light from the flash light would be moving away from you at c + 1 miles per hour? I believe that you are saying yes. However, I doubt that you will find any science books that agree.

    The value of C, and the value of time, is covariant with the value of space it - C and/or time - originates in. There is no infringement on SR, or any other established principle, in the proffered setting.
    Can you elaborate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 LOST & FOUND In SpaceTime? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    That Rascal Puff wroteear Hermes:
    Your point is well taken about the limitations imposed by C. On the other hand, be reminded that the value of C is relative to the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is associated.

    That is, consider a vehicle departing earth and achieving the speed of light away from earth.
    Do you think that this is possible?

    Quote:
    Then consider that same vehicle projecting a beam of light straight ahead of itself - that beam of light moves away from the space craft vehicle at the speed of light, while the vehicle moves away from earth at the speed of light. This is how you can leap from one value of C to another. The light projected from and ahead of the space craft is beyond earth's 'event' ('optical') horizon, and moving twice the speed of light away from and relative to the earth, which is not the coordinate system from which it originates.
    Did you perhaps read somehwhere about this notion of moving at twice the speed of light? If so, where? I do not know of any mechanism in physics that would enable the vehicle move at the speed of light with respect to the earth. As well, the speed of light is not considered to be additive. Consider this. If you and I were together, and then if I were to start running away from you at a speed of 1 mile per hour, with my flash light shining in front of me, do you think that the light from the flash light would be moving away from you at c + 1 miles per hour? I believe that you are saying yes. However, I doubt that you will find any science books that agree.

    Quote:
    The value of C, and the value of time, is covariant with the value of space it - C and/or time - originates in. There is no infringement on SR, or any other established principle, in the proffered setting.
    Can you elaborate?

    Hermes wrote:
    “Did you perhaps read somehwhere about this notion of moving at twice the speed of light? If so, where?”
    __________________________________________________ _
    Dear Hermes:
    Actually, I acquired this notion in researching for a book that I authored on the subject, initially entitled ‘An hypothesis on gravity’, then ‘The New Gravity’, then, ‘Gravity Is The 4th Dimension’, now ‘TOTAL FIELD THEORY’, which is presently accessible - with a few missing illustrations - at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
    In a 4-D space time continuum such as the one we live in and are a part of, yesterday’s speed of light was lesser than today’s, and today’s speed of light is lesser than tomorrow’s. In a *physically expanding universe of *4-dimensions, the arrow of time flows to ever increasing size, with accompanying variations of time that corroborate the ever changing - ever enlarging - 4-D space-time continuum. Otherwise known as ‘non-absolute space’.
    A pie plate chart of omnidirectionally expanding space time < features an intersecting point representing past space-time, expanding outward (in this case illustrated from left to right) into the future. Although the intersecting point is ‘end space’ in three dimensions, it is simply the retrogression of space-time into the infinite microcosms, in four dimensions.
    Let us call the intersecting point, ‘Moment A’, and the larger portion of the V shape, ‘Moment C’, with the transversely considered center - the here and now space - ‘Moment B’ - we always occupy in a considered, physically expanding 4-D space time continuum:
    yesterday’s square mile - in Moment A, is not as large as today’s ‘Moment B’ square mile; whereas, tomorrow’s square mile, when compared with itself at Moment B, is larger than today’s - ‘Moment B’ - square mile.
    Consequently sixty miles per hour yesterday is not as fast as sixty miles per hour today, whereas, tomorrow’s ‘Moment C’ sixty miles per hour, is faster than today’s ‘Moment B’ square mile. Corroborately, yesterday’s hour is less than today’s hour, and today’s hour is correspondingly less than tomorrow’s hour. Non-absolute time.
    Moreover, yesterday’s ‘Moment A’ speed of light, is less than today’s Moment B speed of light, and today’s Moment B light-speed is less than the speed of light at Moment C, in future spacetime.

    This is how and why the value of time - and velocity - is covariant with the value of space it occurs in. You, understandably, may have questions. Whereas, before any particularly progressive discussion between us may unfold, I humbly ask you to take the time to read the book at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: LOST & FOUND In SpaceTime? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    In a 4-D space time continuum such as the one we live in and are a part of, yesterday’s speed of light was lesser than today’s, and today’s speed of light is lesser than tomorrow’s.
    I tend to think that you have this backward.

    Whereas, before any particularly progressive discussion between us may unfold, I humbly ask you to take the time to read the book at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
    .
    I tried again, but everywhere I went I only found quotations of others. I could not find your detailed explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: LOST & FOUND In SpaceTime? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    In a 4-D space time continuum such as the one we live in and are a part of, yesterday’s speed of light was lesser than today’s, and today’s speed of light is lesser than tomorrow’s.
    I tend to think that you have this backward.

    Whereas, before any particularly progressive discussion between us may unfold, I humbly ask you to take the time to read the book at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
    .
    I tried again, but everywhere I went I only found quotations of others. I could not find your detailed explanation.
    Dear Hermes:
    I did not rewrite physics. I found everything just as it is, whereas, key portions of theory and phenomena have gone unrecognized. I quote authorities at length - and narrate - to authenticate my unprecedented re-cognitions.

    In the interim between our last two transmissions - about 47 minutes, it isn't likely that you did anything like a thorough read of what you say you're unable to find. The work requires - and is worthy of - a thorough read. This takes more time than an hour or two, and we could exchange a lot of information for weeks via the net, with you making statements, offering challenges, and asking questions that will not encumber our communication, if you simply read the condensed version of the otherwise 627 page, 1979, 6th edition. The one we're talking about is less than a hundred pages duration. You are entirely capable of reading and comprehending it in a matter of hours, but certainly, not in 47 minutes of skimming in search of a singular miraculous paragraph or page.

    It is noteworthy that you say you think that I have things backwards, since that is the posturing of the previously uncontested bivouacs. I don't think and I certainly hope that you don't expect me to re-write here, what is already written at the provided URL, where you will find the elaborations that you understandably call for. If you don't, then you may say with confidence that what I say is there, isn't there...

    The physical universe is 4-dimensional, therefore you and everything you know to be physical, is constantly enlarging, at an accelerating rate of expansion. Objects in free fall above the earth's surface are not actually descending. Rather, the entire frame of reference is rising up to overtake all apparently descending objects. This is the cause of what is called 'the universal rate of descent of objects in free fall'.

    I don't expect you to assimilate and process the contents of the book at issue here, overnight. I suggest that you reserve your determinations about the import of the book's anthologically predominant contents, before making any further statements about it. I believe you will find this a reasonable premise to go on, before we proceed further with this particular discussion, which I do wish for us to make progress in. You will recognize what you already know, interpreted and proved in a manner that neither you nor anyone else - besides readers of my book - have anticipated. Among other things, it's a take off on the old interrogative adage: 'Do you understand everything you know'.

    That's why you're seeing so many quotes. My entire unprecedented work authenticates itself on what was and is already known. It may need editing. It may be redundant in places. There is room for improvement. Whereas, it has yet to be disqualified, and it explains much more about Einstein's works, and the works of others, than any other comparably explanatory book.

    Providing that you are willing to do it, you can go ahead and skip the introductory material and begin with the amplified lecture delivered in San Francisco University's 'small theater', thirty years ago. From there you are fully capable, as I have already said, of reading the entire book in a matter of hours. Until then, with all due respect, Hermes, Sir, I think we'll both be more or less peeing into the wind... Please read the book, draw your own conclusions, and then, by all means, tell me what you think is wrong with it, and we'll have a platform from which we may efficiently communicate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: LOST & FOUND In SpaceTime? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    Please read the book, draw your own conclusions, and then, by all means, tell me what you think is wrong with it, and we'll have a platform from which we may efficiently communicate.
    On the bottom of Part I is a table of contents. Nowhere can I find those parts. Give me a link to them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    Dear DaBob:
    I think I owe you many kudos for finding and pointing this out. I've not heard a smidgen of it before and I doubt that Jeremy has either. Did you know this before, or, did you just ferret it out on accounta what we've been talking about, here?

    DaBob: I think it's Beautiful.
    That's what we're talkin' about.

    Incidentally, the latest edition of my book is entitled TOTAL FIELD THEORY.
    http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
    Well this book has a history with me. I used to not really be in to much besides, maybe a future doing stunt man work (this was in the begining of high school). On a trip to Mexico with my family we did alot of driving and I had this book to read. It is the book that introduced me to many, many things. Particularly quantum physics. So it has been a while since I read it but, it is suprising how much I got from it. After I had been reading this idea of yours I remembered and posted the quote (It is fun telling stories). Is is a very good book if you have time to read it. Alot of pseudoscience stuff on religion and paranormal type things while all the time staying very scientific. For someone with no backround in science it was quite a trip.

    Anyways, what do you think? I must say, science is sort of a hobby for me (not much real training), so this may make more sense to you than to me. Does this "TOTAL FIELD THEORY" have anything to do with the "Zero Point Field"?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    "He [Walter Schempp] had called his theory 'quantum holography', because what he'd really discovered was that all sorts of information can be recovered and ressembled into a three-dimensional image. Schempp had discovered, as Puthoff had predicted , that the Zero Point Field was a vast memory store. Through Fourier transformation, MRI machines could take information encoded in the Zero Point Field and turn it into images."


    From a book called The Field by Lynne McTaggart; page 90.

    What do you think of this?
    In following this prominent 'Psuedoscience' thread, it seems to carry itself well until the last few exchanges, entailing hard physics. Even that seems fairly accounted for in DaBob's post (above). I have read most of TRP's book, including the notes, and commented that, although it could use some editing, it's seriously interesting. I know of no precedent for it. I think that Hermes may have something to contribute - in contention or agreement, but I think his requirements belong under the category of 'Physics', or 'Cosmology'.
    The philosophical and theological implications of this potentially extensive post are self evident. Notwithstanding, I look forward to what the adept Hermes may have to say furthermore, should he in fact take enough interest to read TRP's worthy and rousing physics/cosmology book, which, I must agree, cannot be anticipated and must be read to be understood.
    Blessed is he who has reached the point of no return and knows it for he shall enjoy living.
    - Bennet
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: LOST & FOUND In SpaceTime? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    Please read the book, draw your own conclusions, and then, by all means, tell me what you think is wrong with it, and we'll have a platform from which we may efficiently communicate.
    On the bottom of Part I is a table of contents. Nowhere can I find those parts. Give me a link to them.
    Dear Hermes:
    I must tell you that the edition posted at Delphi, with its table of contents and supplications, does not mark any chapters as they are listed in the table of contents. This delphi presentation as it reads on the computer moniter is the somewhat roughly drafted eleventh edition. I apologise for the fact that, unlike the hard copy editions preceding it, it's pages are not numbered and it's chapters are not marked as such throughout the book, as they occur in the table of contents (with its supplication) at the beginning of Chapter I.

    Please accept my sincere apologies for disappointing you with regard to the table of contents (with its supplication) and page numeration.
    In consideration of other Readers, please allow this review of the URL we are speaking of -

    http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.

    As I mentioned previously, please take the license of skipping the introductory portions of Chapter I, the main body commencement of which occurs about one third of the way into Chapter I.

    I am much complimented by your active interest in the issued work.
    Again, I apologise to any and all Readers, for the inconvenience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    DaBob wrote:
    "Anyways, what do you think? I must say, science is sort of a hobby for me (not much real training), so this may make more sense to you than to me. Does this "TOTAL FIELD THEORY" have anything to do with the "Zero Point Field"?"
    ____________________

    In speaking of 'Zero Point Field', are you referring to the 1700's work of Joseph Louis Lagrange, of the Royal Society - The Lagrange Points of the sun-earth system? If so, TOTAL FIELD THEORY accomodates that work and its observations, though my book does not specifically address that issue. I am looking forward to reading all of what you just alerted me to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    First I want to say that I am very busy these days so I kinda have to keep this short.

    This is a definition of the "Zero Point Field":
    http://www.wddty.co.uk/thefield/noflash/faq.asp?q=1

    This is the website for the book:
    www.thefieldonline.com

    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    In speaking of 'Zero Point Field', are you referring to the 1700's work of Joseph Louis Lagrange, of the Royal Society - The Lagrange Points of the sun-earth system? If so, TOTAL FIELD THEORY accomodates that work and its observations, though my book does not specifically address that issue. I am looking forward to reading all of what you just alerted me to.
    I am sorry I do not know who originaly began this theory, and I do not know who J. L. Lagrange is. Maybe the above links will clearify. When I read that book I understood very little and I am still trying to fully understand this "Zero Point Field" idea so like I said before: you may understand this better than me.


    Your book sounds very cool. I am assuming you are going to have it published. If so, any idea when? I would like to read it but I am so busy.

    Good Luck (If there is such a thing).
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 LOST & FOUND In Space? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    DaBob:
    I clicked on your two provided URLs

    "Lynne McTaggart
    THE QUEST FOR THE SECRET FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE."


    Although related to Lagrange (Zero Point Energy - ZPE) 1 - 5, your subject is quite different otherwise. Here's the review you allowed access to:

    1. "What exactly is 'The Field'?
    The Field is the Zero Point Field, a subatomic field of unimaginably large quantum energy in so-called empty space.

    "If you add up all the movement of all the particles of all varieties in the universe, you come up with a vast inexhaustible energy source all sitting there unobtrusively in the background of the empty space around us, like one all-pervasive, supercharged backdrop. To give you some idea of the magnitude of that power, the energy in a single cubic yard of 'empty' space is enough to boil all the oceans of the world.

    "The Field connects everything in the universe to everything else, like some vast invisible web. The papers published by these scientists written about in The Field show that the solid stable stuff we call matter is an illusion and is simply subatomic particles constantly moving and being gripped on by the background sea of energy. Everything in our world, no matter how heavy or large, boils down to a collection of electric charges interacting with the Zero Point Field.

    "It's a bit like the Force in Star Wars. As quantum waves also encode information, it also as though, on the tiniest level of reality, a memory of the universe for all time is contained in empty space that each of us is always in touch with."

    _____________________________

    Note in the last paragraph of the above review, the term 'quantum waves'.
    The sub-title of TOTAL FIELD THEORY, is No Space Empty of Field (Einstein)

    Yes. My work is closely related to the work you pointed out, though at no point in my published work do I speak of a collective memory. On the other hand, TOTAL FIELD does directly allow for and connote (a 'so called') 'empty space' that each of us is always in touch with'.

    Hermes thoughtful point seems to be that C prevents being in touch with every 'thing' in the collective universe. Questions and answers regarding that issue are a mixed - relativistic - bag.
    _____________
    Like yourself, I too am busy these days, part of my preoccupation is preparing an improved presentation of TOTAL FIELD THEORY in a hard cover 12th edition, and, as it occurs on Delphi, and elsewhere.

    Thank you very much for alerting other Readers and myself to Ms. Lynne McTaggart's work (FIELD THEORY), which, to say the least, certainly is germane - directly related - to what's shaking on this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    Hermes thoughtful point seems to be that C prevents being in touch with every 'thing' in the collective universe. Questions and answers regarding that issue are a mixed - relativistic - bag.
    Yes but as I understand it, it is not about speed. The idea is that at the quantum level all things are the same. What happens to one is felt by all. Apparently this connection is very strong between twins. Twins can feel eachother from very far distances at precise moments. The science shows that even if these twins were seperated between galaxes there would be no delay. It is called "nonlocality".

    There is a term I like. Once you get that small everything is a giant quantum soup.

    Hope I'm not going off topic.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    Hermes thoughtful point seems to be that C prevents being in touch with every 'thing' in the collective universe. Questions and answers regarding that issue are a mixed - relativistic - bag.
    Yes but as I understand it, it is not about speed. The idea is that at the quantum level all things are the same. What happens to one is felt by all. Apparently this connection is very strong between twins. Twins can feel each other from very far distances at precise moments. The science shows that even if these twins were seperated between galaxies there would be no delay. It is called "nonlocality".

    There is a term I like. Once you get that small everything is a giant quantum soup.

    Hope I'm not going off topic.
    Hey DaBob:
    Hadn't heard the expression 'non-locality', though I don't at all think you're off topic.

    More familiarly, it's also called (a certain kind of) 'simultaneity', a certain kind of 'synchronicity', and although there's still no explanation of it that I know of, it likewise applies to schools of fishes. Although they're not at a great distance from each other, each fish within a thick and large school of fishes maneuevers simultaneously - precise instanaeity.

    I'm not sure, but I think the same principle - whatever is the explanation for it - is also applicable to flocks of birds in flight. Distances in these matters (no puns intended) don't seem to make any difference. I think you're right 'on topic', sir. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Yes but as I understand it, it is not about speed.
    It is about speed, particularly the fact that it is not infinite. As the speed of light is finite, Newton's definition of gravity is not correct.

    The idea is that at the quantum level all things are the same. What happens to one is felt by all.
    Quantum mechanics is not required for this, but only gravity. If there is gravity between any two objects, then there is interaction. But, and this is the key point, this interaction is not instantaneous. BTW, what might you mean by all things are the same?

    Apparently this connection is very strong between twins. Twins can feel eachother from very far distances at precise moments.
    I have heard claims to this effect.

    The science shows that even if these twins were seperated between galaxes there would be no delay.
    I think that you have a misunderstanding of the science. Motion over space takes time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    I will try to explain as I understand but, I must warn you this doesn't make complete sense to even me yet.

    By saying all things are the same I mean...

    A quantum particle is not really mass in the sense that we think of it. It is more like the smallest possible unit of energy. There are different levels of this energy but, they are not like the macroscopic world. To the human eye things are sepereated in space. At the quantum level all things are interconnected. There is no big or small, fast or slow, good or bad, etc. This interconnectedness is what allows for one action to effect the entire universe instintaniously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    I think that you have a misunderstanding of the science. Motion over space takes time.
    The idea is that no motion is needed. Once one unit knows all know. It is a nonlocal interaction. Meaning it does not start here and go there, it simply starts everywhere. Hmm... now my brain is hurting... I'll try to send you a telepathic message... sending.... aach, need more practice.

    I am sorry but, I don't think I can explain it any better than this. I have heard much better explainations though.

    I am also sorry that I am not yet familiar with how gravity works exactly. Still need time to read up on it.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    The idea is that no motion is needed. Once one unit knows all know. It is a nonlocal interaction. Meaning it does not start here and go there, it simply starts everywhere. Hmm... now my brain is hurting... I'll try to send you a telepathic message... sending.... aach, need more practice.
    Please work on that telepathic message, and make sure that it is instantaneous. Then I will surely understand.

    I am also sorry that I am not yet familiar with how gravity works exactly.
    How could you possibly not know how gravity works? Just because no one else does either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    eh

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    How could you possibly not know how gravity works? Just because no one else does either.
    No one knows how gravity works???
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    No one knows how gravity works???
    My but we are good. You received that telepathically, and almost, but not quite, instantaneously!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    eh

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    How could you possibly not know how gravity works? Just because no one else does either.
    No one knows how gravity works???
    Well, DaBob:
    Hermes is sorta pullin' yer leg. He's right, of course, but, more specifically, though we know how gravity works, we don't know why it works - we don't know its causal identity.

    So far, the best guesses are finding it closely related to electromagnetism. But then yer back to the drawing board on what the causal identity of electromagnetism is, moreover, there are differences (or, at least apparent differences) between gravity and electromagnetism. Once again, we're fairly on to what it does, but not what it is or what causes it.

    Speaking of how gravity works entails F=G over mmr squared - Force = Gravity over mass x motion r squared, where F for Force is unidentified.
    In this Newtonian equation, Force = Gravity and conversely; we're sure of that, we know what it does, but not what it is.

    Force, Gravity, Electromagnetism - we don't know what any of them are, only a fair amount about what they do.

    One of the mysteries of gravity at the surface of the earth, for example, is that we're calling it a force, "work done by a force - F - when it moves it's point of application through a distance".

    There's a lot of obscure controversy on how gravity (F) on or near the earth's surface can be doing work, since the earth's surface isn't recognized as being kinetic, that is, the surface of the earth isn't recognized as moving perpendicular to itself. This enigma is the source of a lot of misunderstandings.

    With no puns intended, my work finds the surface of the earth (4 dimensionally) moving perpendicular to itself, rising up to overtake and strike apparently descending objects.

    It takes a lengthy essay or a condensed book to clarify this (while inclusively explaining 'action-at-a-distance' - aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric tidal effects, for example), is why I've referred anyone who may be interested, to check out http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    Hermes is sorta pullin' yer leg. He's right, of course, but, more specifically, though we know how gravity works, we don't know why it works
    You are right, I am pulling his leg. However, I am doing so by telling the truth. Newton did not even try to explain how gravity works. Einstein also did not explain how. Perhaps we are getting hung up on the difference between how and why. There are theories about gravity, of course, such as the notion of a particle known as the graviton is how it works. Anyway, no one is close to undertanding how gravity works EXACTLY, as he hoped to understand from a book already written.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Wow this is good news... sorta...

    So many things to do. I love unsolved mysteries.

    Who knows what the future has... I can't wait.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Excerpts from the closure of Pt II, TOTAL FIELD THEORY:

    "The example of planetary field reciprocally and physically conflicting with solar field, and lunar mass reciprocally and physically conflicting with hosting planetary field, is already directly experienced in the proven, acknowledged fact that two or more physical bodies never (surficially) contact each other. Due to conflicting field forces of electrical charges: disallowing the simultaneous occupation of their space by any other field-charge.

    An Expansive 4-D Thought Problem With a Dilatory Solution:

    The realm of the very small - microcosms - is said to host strong forces acting at very short distances; that are not considered to be related to large, weak forces of gravity, said to exist only in very large spaces and act at large distances in the very large - macrocosmic - spaces and times. So it is presently and dominantly considered, in the macrocosmic realm of the very large, exemplary, planetary-generated forces.

    Gravity is thought not to occur - significantly - in the microcosmic realm of the very small. Whereas, gravity, like Gold, is actually where you find it, and how much of it you find; in large and *small, tenuous and *compact electromagnetic densities (*refer, nuclear binding forces). Moving in one of two possible - direction(s). Toward and/or away (impelling or repelling) from its material (4-D particle/charge) source.

    Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’

    Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.

    The (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity is the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.

    In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...

    It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1039 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.

    The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1039 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...

    Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes>).

    The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.

    When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...

    Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...


    Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit aroound the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).

    The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.

    When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.

    There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.

    Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time , at Moment A.

    The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time. Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.

    The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.

    The acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.

    This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
    Space-Time.

    This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’.

    It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.

    The (stubbornly unrecognized and denied) ever enlarging value of space is a ‘non absolute space’, which causes ‘non-absolute time’.

    The fundamental import of this discussion is that THE VALUE OF GIVEN UNITS OF TIME (seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years) IS ENTIRELY DETERMINED BY THE 3-D VALUE (size) OF THE SPATIAL MOMENT IT (time / motion ) OCCURS IN.
    .................................................. ..................

    Einstein authored three major works on Relativity. Two are very well renowned academically as well as socio-politically. Einstein's two renowned theories are of course, the Special Theory of 1906 - which is all about light - ElectroMagnetism - and uniform motion (the C, of E=MC 2). And, the General Theory of 1916, which is all about Matter, Gravity and non-uniform motion (acceleration).

    In 1919, Einstein authored a third work which is not so well known; primarily because it was only temporarily accepted by the scientific community; then abandoned eight years later.

    Alloted time does not permit me to elaborate the details of Einstein's third and least known work, but I am sure you will find its title very familiar. It is the Unified Field Theory. The conceptual objective of which was to find electromagnetism and gravity one and the same force.

    It would take at least thirty minutes to cursorily begin to do it justice here; in the allotted time we cannot afford to go into that detail.

    On the other hand, in a matter of one minute or less we may recapitulate the fact that the primary objective of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field Theory was to unify the Special & General Theories into one singular statement, The Unified Field. Specifically the unification of what are otherwise academically considered to be separate and unrelated forces. Forces, which The Unified Field proves as actually having the same causal identity - ElectroMagnetism & Gravity.

    Repeat: The Unified Field is abandoned; its cardinal objective was to find ElectroMagnetism and Gravity as two apparently unrelated forces which actually have the same causal identity.
    Presently summarizing here, that gravity is the 4th Dimension because Physical Matter is found to be an expanding ElectroMagnetic Field. And conversely.


    “Relativity theory furnishes a new way of looking at gravity and describing it, but it still remains a mysterious, little-understood phenomenon. No one knows what connection it has, if any, with electromagnetism. Einstein and others have tried to develop a unified field theory that will unite gravity and electromagnetism in one set of mathematical equations. The results have been disappointing. Perhaps some young reader of these words. will someday see how to formulate such a theory." - p. 108, Relativity For The Million, Martin Gardner.

    Summarizing that the cause of gravitational action-at-a-distance is the 5th & 6th Dimensions, which are also (each and both), categorically, an expanding electromagnetic field. Fact #7.

    We have, among other things in the past 65 minutes, overseen the reinstatement and confirmation of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field Theory. Matter as well as electromagnetism is found to be constantly expanding. Past is measured prologue. Study scientific history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    WOW!! I am not sure why gravity is called a demension. Sorry I am having a hard time following. Please summarize, if possible, in more simple terms.

    Is this part of your book?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Dear DaBob:
    Yes. What you read - above - is part of my book.
    Complimented by your interst and candor.
    Hopefully the following dissertation will clarify, in relatively simple terms (no puns intended) how and why gravity is a dimension, and how and why it is the 4th dimension of time and motion. There's more to it than this, whereas the following is continuous with what you just read, and we may deal with any further discussion, in what may proceed from here:
    __________________________

    Didn't Einstein say, 'There is no space empty of field'? And that 'the notion of discrete, discontinuous ('billiard-ball like') particles with distinct surfaces separating them from surrounding space, is based on prejudice'? (Paraphrased. IDEAS & OPINIONS, Pt. II: Contributions to Science.)

    When a circle representing a particle (which is actually a charge of electromagnetism without discontinuous boundaries) is divided into four 90o quadrants, and that circle is called a 4-D particle, and that particle has never been found (- even 'Particle Physics' has become a Standard of Reality that doesn't realistically qualify as anything more than an hypothesis. An entire Academic Cirruculum of Bachelor's, Master's and Ph.D's, majoring and post graduately laboring in a hypothetically conjured universe full of so called ('billiard ball like') 'particles' (having surfaces making them discontinuous from surrounding space - separating material from spatial - not one of which has ever been found after exhaustive expeditions in search of a truely defined 'particle', returning only with fuzzy - space-time generating - charges of electricity, having no distinct boundaries; which only become more dense as you approach their centers. The conspicuously incomplete menu is worth repeating: Particle physicists would serve up a reality sandwich: if they had two slices of bread and some ham?)...

    Isn't this an a priori standardization (based on subjective anthropomorphic senses) overruling empirically resolved experimental resolution, scientific heresy?

    Don't the four 90o quadrants composing a consummate 'circle' (whether called a 'particle' or a charge', represent the four dimensions Einstein discovered in everything that was previously considered three dimensional? Is not the definition for physical dimensions the right angle motion (of whatever) out of the dimension preceding it?

    A=geometric point. A--->B=geometric point moving in (and thereby generating) a one dimensional Straight Line? When that one dimensional straight line A to B, moves at right angles to itself, B to C, does that not constitute the geometric progression from a dimensionless geometric point (A), to a one dimensional straight line (A-B), and does not that straight line B - C become a two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles (90o) to itself?

    The resulting two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles (90o) to itself, doesn't that generate a three dimensional space, occupied or unoccupied by matter?

    Does not every expedition in search of a 'particle', so far, return only with increasing evidence that there are only charges of electricity, emitting longer or shorter frequencies of electricity and magnetism, *always having the same value?

    *The shorter (ultraviolet related) waves being more dense, and the longer (infrared related) waves being more tenuous - and that 'there is no contact between physical systems', since such event requires the interaction of two or more discontinuous 'surfaces', and that such discrete, discontinuous boundaries continue to elude our - post hoc ergo prompter hoc - perception of what consistently proves to be ('surfaceless') 'contact' and 'collision': confined to an a priori subjective interpretation; without an objective leg, stool or platform to stand, sit or enjoy an encore upon?

    (Ph.D 'particle physicists': Quo Vadis?)

    'No two particles ever come into contact. When they get 'too close', they move off'.
    - Bertrand Russell, THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

    Charges of electricity that fulfill the formal definition for 'material particle'; that is, microcosmic entities that occupationally demand three or more dimensions of space, disallow the simultaneous occupation of it's space by any other 'particle' (surfaceless charge of electricity), and possesses negative and positive inertia... (Heavy and Inert Mass)...

    Didn't Einstein prove that 'three dimensional matter is actually four dimensional', and that the previously unrecognized (so called, 'incomprehensible', 'unimaginable') 4th dimension is somehow closely related to time and motion?
    Are not the above described progressions of dimensions generated by moving at right angles - ninety degrees - from the preceding dimension?

    Doesn't this geometric law of right angle moving, progressively generated dimensions, require all three dimensional entities to be moving at right angles to themselves: in one of two possible directions, either constantly growing smaller, or constantly growing larger (in either case, at right angles to the three recognized dimensions constituting any such entity) - in order to fulfill their Einsteinian and geometric proved identity as four dimensional entities?

    Is not the physical universe consistently found - while remaining unrecognized: as constantly growing larger - moving at right angles to all three of it's dimensions, fulfilling it's obligation to be four dimensional, or, constantly growing smaller - moving at right angles to all three of it's recognized dimensions. in either case, fulfilling its established(if 'incomprehensible' and 'unimaginable') identity as 4-dimensional?

    Doesn't this correspond to the four ninety degree quadrants making up a circle? And, if and when anything moves at right angles out of that four dimensional circle, isn't whatever that may be, obliged to be identified as the 5th dimension (moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter)?

    Isn't electricity in fact generated by four dimensional matter, and isn't it observed to be constantly moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter, and, doesn't that require the arbiters of scientific definitions and nomenclature to recognize and identify electricity as the 5th dimension: moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter? Wouldn't that 5th ninety degree quadrant be obliged to occur outside the four quadrants that fulfill and complete a circle?

    Might not the transition of a fifth ninety degree quadrant exponentially constitute what is otherwise the unexplained 'quantum leap', furthermore explaining why each such 5th ninety degree quadrant generated by and projected from the 4 ninety degree quad circle of 4-D matter it is an extension of; always has the same value - 'just like photons', i.e., Planck's Constant h factor? (Which is considered a contradiction of field physics, rather than an extensional consequence of it... )

    Could not that so called 3-D 'particle' in this way be recognized as a 4-D charge of expanding electricity, emitting 'quantum leaps'; invariably having the same uniform values - the issued 5th ninety degree quadrant (obliged to occur outside of and be projected by the 4-D matter that emits it)?

    Moreover, doesn't magnetism invariably accompany electricity, and doesn't it invariably move at right angles to electricity, and isn't that a requirement for those 'professionals' in charge of paying attention to and interpreting such dynamics, to recognize and identify magnetism as the 6th dimension...?

    Since Einstein proved formerly perceived '3-D matter' is actually 4-Dimensional, and that the 4th dimension is somehow closely related to time and motion (modifying 'space and time', to 'space-time', because the 'two' <'space and time'> were then recognized as being inseparable), and the laws of geometric progression require 3-D entities to be moving at right angles to all three of their recognized dimensions, having one of two alternatives therefore, of constantly moving at right angles from themselves, growing ever smaller, as the '4-D space-time continuum', or, growing ever larger, as the 4-D space-time continuum.

    If: Einstein and the laws of the progression of dimensions are correct, and since objects released above the earth's surface don't 'fall upward' (which would prove a constantly contracting physical universe made up of ever shrinking charges of electricity), but instead, objects released above the earth's surface are observed to 'fall down'....

    Doesn't this mean that the 'descending' object (Newton's apple, for example) doesn't really move from A to B, but rather that the entire coordinate system - the physically expanding earth (and universe), in it's constantly ongoing enlargement, including the uniformly expanding observer and all of his instruments of measurement, are moving from B to A, creating the illusion of the (whatever) 'falling' object, by way of the ever accelerating expansion of the entire coordinate system earth, moving upward beneath the 'falling' object, creating the illusion that the object is moving 'downward', rather than that the earth (entire frame of reference) is rising up to meet it....?

    Would this not explain what Einstein meant when he said that the apparent parabolically curved trajectory of a thrown baseball or fired cannonball for example, is not actually curved, but is actually a Straight Line 'geodesic' - because 'space-time curves' around the apparently descending object and generates the illusion of a parabolically trajectoried object...?

    Is not the explanation herein, why all objects, regardless of their mass value, 'descend' at the same rate of acceleration and strike the earth at the same time, when simultaneously released from the same height? Since, cannon ball and bb shot are not actually falling at all, but only appearing to do so, due to the ubiquitous uniformly accelerating expansion of the entire frame of reference, including any and all observers and test object(s)? Revealing the illusion of an apparently falling object; with the earth instead rising-up to overtake, meet and strike it, rather than conversely?
    (Re: "Non-absolute space". And, "The universe is finite (*at any given moment in space), but unbounded (*in time)." - Einstein
    (*KBR)


    Non mathematically and comprehensively explaining why inert and heavy mass 'coincidentally, cancel each other out', anomalously said to account for what Einstein called 'an astonishing coincidence'.. (and based his entire General Theory of Relativity upon) - otherwise a blatant contradiction of Newton's Laws of Gravity, which clearly require a proportionately increasing gravity generated by a correspondingly larger mass; therefore dictating a scenario of a greater mutual attraction between a falling cannon ball and the earth, than between a falling bb shot and the earth, resulting in what is certainly 'supposed to be' the inevitably faster rate of descent for correspondingly 'heavier' objects (Re: Aristotelian thought - which is reasonable enough, but in this case is - remarkably - inapplicable)...

    In this universal status quo, would not a so called 'black hole singularity' actually be a 3-D static object in a 4-D expanding universe; with the 3-D object becoming as small and dense as the ever mores swiftly expanding 4-D universe becomes large and uniformly tenuous around it, forever (squared)?

    Would this not leave the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy intact, since we are considering the same amount of uniformly expanding energy increasingly distributing itself over ever larger volumes of (metric functional, rather than non-metric absolute) space, where all constantly expanding physical charges (neutrons, protons, electrons, mu mesons, et al) remain relatively the same size and density, without the requirement of 'the spontaneous creation of hydrogen' which caused Bondi, Gold and Hoyle to abandon the otherwise entirely tenable 'Steady State Theory' (Now foregrounded <displaced> by a so called 'Big Bang' to 'explain' the - unexpectedly discovered, 1927 thru '32 spatially expanding - 'red shift' - universe.)

    Whereas, the astrophysical consensus on the structural dynamics of the observed spatially expanding ('beginning') universe proves out that there is no common ('big bang', 'ylem', 'cosmic egg') center from which the ('red shift') expanding universe, expands...

    That is, no matter where the observer is located in universal space, the expanding universe exhibits celestial systems, light sources, stars, galaxies, etceteras, to be moving away from the observer, in direct line of sight...
    The Big Bangologists pardon themselves for their inability (abject failure) to find a common center from which the - newly discovered - expanding universe recedes, 'because the universe is so big'.
    (Big enough to transcend geometry and get that lost in, we may only surmise?) This observation finds the big bang 'theory' to be a poorly improvised hypothesis, lost in in it's own three dimensionally anomalous space.
    Repeat: until further notice, there is no common center from which the so called 'Big Bang' expands. This is not the signature of an axial explosion.


    The described dynamics of the expansion strongly signifys a repelling force (Einstein called it the 'Cosmological Constant', symbolizing it in his equations with the Greek letter Lambda - /\ ) acting out of individual material systems; macrocosmically affirming Bertrand Russell's observation about microcosmic 'particles' (charges of electricity having no distinct boundaries, becoming increasingly more dense toward their centers):
    'No two particles (macrocosmic systemic material celestial entitities) ever come into contact, when they get too close, they move off'.
    - Bertrand Russell THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

    Is not the unexpected and 'unexplained' Relativistic discovery that physical matter contracts in the direction of its motion at a rate proportional to its velocity: because matter is an ever expanding-accelerating field, and that the successful *application by Einstein of the transformations of H.A. Lorentz (who developed the conversions exclusively for the description of field energy) *to so called 'particles', proves that the issued contraction of physical matter is actually 'Doppler effect', as exclusively applicable to field energy...?

    If so called falling objects are actually being overtaken and struck by the ever ongoing rising up (acceleration @ 32' per " per ") of the entire coordinate system, creating the illusion of 'falling objects' (much as the axial spinning motion of the earth at 24,000 mph, generates the illusion that the sun and celestial vault revolve around it every 24 hours); doesn't this mean that the so called 'impelling (attractive) force' (F) of gravity is actually 'a repelling force' (as Newton offers that gravity may in fact be, *in those words, in his three page Preface to the PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA?)

    Get back to me on this, DaBob - there's plenty more where this came from, and my typewriter, Molly Keyboard McColley, likes to share. Please don't hesitate to ask questions, and if you care to correct anything, by all means do so. Constructive criticism and corrections are taken as favors here. Contributions also. Si.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Dear DaBob:
    This post fairly - approximately - rounds off the one (above) preceding it. Please let me know what you think. All constructive criticisms, corrections or contributions - from any fellow forumite - are cordially welcome.
    _________________________

    Please keep in mind that J.C. Maxwell had yet to discover and mathematically describe electromagnetic fields generated by mass and projecting through space (gravity was once thought to act at a distance instantaneously, when in fact it - non-coincidentally - is found to propogate at exactly the same speed as light, since that's what it is).

    Whereas, it was and is the cardinal objective of Einstein's (presently abandoned) Unified Field, to find gravity and electromagnetism two apparently unrelated phenomena, actually having the same causal identity...
    Einstein was persuaded to abandon the Cosmological Constant, with which he predicted an expanding - not a big bang - universe: eight years before it was discovered.

    He called it ‘the biggest blunder I ever made in my life’; which indeed this author humbly submits it was, insofar as it was a mistake for him to have allowed 'the (non-sequiturial) scientific community', to persuade him that what he had predicted - a spatially expanding universe - was caused by a 'big bang beginning' (perceived as being 'inevitable', when the observed expansion was 'back-tracked' to an assumed point of origin, where all of the receding light sources and celestial systems were assumed to converge on one point in space from which the expansion 'began').

    Whereas, that is an archaic three dimensional restriction imposed on an allegedly 'acknowledged' 4-D universe; wherein the back tracking does not recede to a point of intersection, but rather where that would-be finite beginning intersection which is said to have contained all of the matter of the universe, generating pressures and temperatures resulting in an explosion, causing the observed spatial expansion as it is presently seen; moreover perceived as destined to result in a 'universal heat death', where the expansion will dissipate all of matter to a point of 'non-motion'.


    There are variations on the so called big bang theory, one of which purports a 'pulsating universe', that endlessly 'big bangs', spreads out to a point of stoppage, collapses on itself, big bangs, spreads out to 'heat death', collapses on itself, ad infinitum. In this law breaking departure from allegedly acknowledge 4-D reality, Newton's law that a body in motion remains in uniform motion, until acted upon by an outside force... Leaving the question of what 'resistance' - opposing action - is going to slow down the expanding universe; eventually obliging it to 'stop' expanding; thenceforth obliging it's (unidentified, so called) 'gravitational attraction' to pull it back together (back track to the point from which it originated, then and thereupon to reiterate the 'Big Bang', causing the spatial universe to expand, 'slow down', 'stop', recollapse on itself: squared.
    Such a 'scientific interpretation' also directly implies a 'theology' of hopelessness, since any evolutionary or other constructive process in the 'pulsating universe' is foreordained to be completely obliterated; leaving any and all life forms, certainly including humanity on earth; presciently committed to 'enlightened' philosophies of endlessly predestined destruction, leaving animate, sentiently evolving life forms, imparting artifacts, ironing the bugs out of DNA & RNA, and playing volley ball on the beaches of the world; writing the future and posterity in the sands of futility... (Refer, Jeremy Rifkin's ENTROPY)

    The big bang 'theory' is not a theory at all, but rather (like 'particle theory') only a hypothesis, and a very poorly founded one, for which there has yet to emerge any tractable proof at all.

    Georges Henri Lemaitre ('Father of the Big Bang'), Edwin Hubble and many others since, upon being surprised to discover the spatial universe was expanding, were put upon to conjure an explanation for it; resulting in the ad hoc, ex parte jiffyfix of the so called big bang.

    Hawkings has the moment of back-tracked 'intersection' and the 'resulting explosion' - the moment of 'beginning'- down to a nano-gnat's caboose: chronologically and spatially applied to an event that did not happen.

    As this record has previously observed, Stephan Hawking's personal and political courage is not in question, here; whereas his 'refinement' of the big bang: fine tuning what is among the most grandiosely celebrated faux pax's in the history and evolution of science - which (oxymoronic, non-sequitural, and yes, sometimes prevaricating) 'community' today (schizophrenically) insists it 'acknowledges' the 4-D space-time continuum, while simultaneously excluding it from the big bang theory - which is intractable in a 4-D universe, where the so called 'inevitably limiting point of convergence and intersection' of all ('back-tracked') spatially expanding matter, 'runs out of space', only in three dimensions...

    Whereas, in four dimensions, the back-tracked spatially expanding universe only becomes infinitely smaller, squared.

    The 4th D proves that smallness is just as endless as largeness. Whereas, the 3-D restricted big bang is about as tenable (in the words of K. Kostner playing Jim Garrison in JFK) as an elephant hanging over a cliff, with its tail tied to a daisy...

    On the other hand, it seems that gravitational force on or near a massive coordinate system is a repelling force, whereas, it likewise seems to be an impelling force at great distances (refer, aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric tides).

    Einstein reasoned that the Cosmological Constant was a parallel but opposite vector in tandem with and counteracting Newton's (ever causally unidentified) gravitational force of attraction; which even Newton himself candidly critisized - in the spirit of a true scientist - because he could not explain why a universe full of mutually attracting bodies did not collapse on itself.

    When it was learned that the spatial universe was expanding, Einstein's prediction was poo-pawd, superimposed with the ad hominem hustle of the big bang gang, all advocates of which schizophrenically 'acknowledge' the 4th D, while ignoring it as a disqualification of their elaborately pampered, groomed and well scrubbed 'democratic' dismissal of reality, for lack of evidence...

    Is not a good title for a series of observations like this: GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION (Electricity is the 5th dimension. Magnetism is the 6th dimension)? The Non-Mathematical Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field...?

    The question is not:
    'Where, what and when is the 4th dimension?'
    The question is: 'Where, what and when is it not?'

    The challenge is not in the proving of it.
    The challenge is in the disproving of it.

    "There is no space empty of field." - Einstein

    Everyone and anyone can see that the universe revolves around the earth every 24 hours; just as they can see that home run base-balls and spiral pigskin passes travel in parabolic trajectories, and that precipitating objects descend from A to B, rather than the entire systematic coordinate frame of reference ascending from B to A...

    The Inquisition is alive and well;
    only its methods have changed.
    __________________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    I will read it soon but, (I have said this before) I am just a student who enjoys this type of science like a hobby (it is like a religion to me, mixed with all others). The reason I say this is, while I enjoy reading it, I may not be able to give any helpful criticism. As you can tell I am already having some trouble understanding it.

    I don't have the time right this moment but, I will read it. Thanks for trying to help me understand. This stuff is awesome.

    -EDIT-

    Quote Originally Posted by I
    As you can tell I am already having some trouble understanding it.
    Please note that this is not because you are not being clear but, because of my limited current knowledge on the subject. That is why I keep asking for more clearification. I look forward to reading it all soon.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    OK we are going to have to take this a little slower. One piont at a time here.
    My mind is going crazy. The first point:

    So what about this 90o thing. Whenever something moves in a 90o to itself it creates a new demension? I am not sure how you came to six dimensions.

    The fourth one has something to do with space-time. How does this cause a 90o angle?

    The fifth had to do with electricity. Are you saying that when electricity is present this dimension arises (or is always there)?

    The sixth was magnetism.

    I am having a difficult time understanding this 90o thing. How do these three things create these angles?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Chapters One & Two
    http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

    Consider also the 90o quadrants within a 'golden rectangle', and 'golden spiral' ('Phi') as accessible in google and wikepedia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    aagh sorry man...

    I am going back to school and have a job and a load of other stuff. Who knows when I will be able to read this.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •