Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light

• Previous message: Leonard Pardin: "Re: Is time a measurement?(actually in search of edification)"
• In reply to: Mitchell Jones: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
• Next in thread: luke: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
• Reply: luke: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:54:51 -0400

"Mitchell Jones" <mjones@jump.net> wrote in message
news:mjones-2A3F4E.19022512072004@chiapp18.algx.net...
> In article <LbedndzK4PVvr23dRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
> "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > "Einstein developed this insight, treating gravity as an
> > accelerational field. He realized that being held stationary in
a
> > gravitational field (as on the Earth's surface) had the same
effects
> > on one's measurements as being accelerated in deep space by a
rocket
> > (at 9.8 m/s2). Thus he formulated his principle of equivalence
of
> > gravitational and inertial acceleration (EGIA). However,
Einstein
> > analyzed gravity and its effects subjectivistically, placing
> > observers in accelerated states or in free fall relative to
other
> > observers and considering how their measurements would differ.
He
> > thus failed to see the objective and physical implications of
the
> > EGIA. Let us instead treat space as a physical entity and
presume
> > that like effects result from like causes. Let us presume that
the
> > accelerating space ship and the Earth-surface observer are both
in a
> > state of acceleration relative to their surrounding inertial
space;
> > neither being free to return to the natural state of
> > non-acceleration relative to space. We therefore find that the
EGIA
> > implies that in a gravitational field, inertial space itself is
> > accelerating towards the gravitational attractor. Indeed, an
> > inertial space that accelerates radially towards all matter at
> > GM/r^2 explains the ballistic, mechanical aspects of gravity.
Thus
> > we find that we can improve Newton's theory by transforming his
> > absolute space from a solid to a liquid; allowing it to flow
into
> > matter like a fluid into a sink. Can such a "flowing" space also
> > explain the other effects of gravity--such as the red shift of
> > atomic spectra and the curvature of light? If so, can it be mere
> > coincidence? " --- Henry H. Lindner
>
> ***{OK, Lauren, you posted the above quote and Lindner isn't here,
so
> these questions are for you:
>
> (1) If we postulate that "space" flows into masses to explain
gravity,
> then what do we postulate to explain *why* the "space" flows? Do
we
> postulate gravity, perhaps? :-)

Electromotive force?

>
> (2) Where does "space"go after flowing into a mass? Does it flow
right
> back out again? If water flows out of a bathtub, it does so
because the
> drain is open. If the drain is plugged, or if there is no drain,
then it
> doesn't flow out. Do you claim that there are drains in masses
through
> which inflows of "space" can drain out?

Good one.

Each particle has a black hole, information is sucked into black
holes, then re-appears as dark matter or quantum matter (space).
[Klein, Hawking]

>
> (3) If the "space" doesn't drain out, then it must remain in the
mass
> into which it flowed, right? Therefore, as more and more "space"
flows
> into a mass, the pressure difference causing the flow ought to
become
> less and less, right? And eventually, the pressure should
equalize,
> right? In other words, as time passes the gravity of a massive
body
> ought to become less and less, until it eventually falls to zero,
right?
>
> If satisfactory answers to the above questions cannot be found,
then the
> "space flow" theory of gravity is in ruins, is it not?
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> [snip]

     "Material particles are created where the photonic field
constituting empty space collapses into atomic vorteces. Fluid
vorteces, therefore, must manifest the physical properties of
material. It is the density gradient of the photonic vortex
surrounding material particles that bends light rays. If you inspect
a vortex in your bath tub, you will see for yourself that it
refracts the light it transmits to cast both a bright spot and a
shadow on the bottom of the tub. A whorl comprising a hologram is a
standing-wave vortex, and you can see for yourself that it also
bends light to produce bright spots and shadows. A vortex manifests
the inertia of its spin, and inertia is the definitive physical
property of a material particle. Mass is nothing but a measurement
of gyroscopic inertia. Physics students can prove in ten minutes
that vortex equations are equivalent to field and matter equations.

     Since a hologram is defined by vorteces and since particles are
vorteces, the universal hologram is a cosmic compound vortex that
defines itself by the very waves it transmits. As particles bend
light to focal points, and radiant energy condenses into particles
at focal points, all the particles in the universal hologram
literally procreate all the particles in the universal hologram.
Continuous movements throughout the universe produce continuously
changing focal points so that all material particles move
continuously as they grow and decompose back to radiant energy." --
Thomas Pawles

• Previous message: Leonard Pardin: "Re: Is time a measurement?(actually in search of edification)"
• In reply to: Mitchell Jones: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
• Next in thread: luke: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
• Reply: luke: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]