Please, look this picture.

socratus
+1
#1
Please, look this picture.
The picture shows gravity-mass bend the universe.
This picture (as effect of gravity) is known in the world
from 1919 when Einstein was ''crown'' as
''the greatest scientist after Newton's time''.
#
But what is interesting in this picture?
Masses really can change the surface of cosmos, but . . .
but only in local region of the Universe where there is
gravity-masses (like Sun's) as you see in this picture.
(and the gravity-masses in the universe is only about 5%)
Not the whole Universe -net is bend as you see in the picture.
The whole Universe is a flat net - two dimensions continuum,
and the picture shows that gravity is only a local phenomena.
But . . .
But from 1919 people watches and cannot understand
this simple and clear fact of their observation.
How it is a pity . . .
==========
Attached Images
1915-1919 - 2018.jpg (108.9 KB, 14 views )
 
socratus
+1
#2
P.S.
The Universe as whole is homogeneous.
The detected material masses* of the matter
( + dark matter /energy) in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe
is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot ‘close’
the Universe into sphere and* therefore
''the Fabric of space, time, heat and everything''
is an* ‘open’ and an infinite flat continuum.
==========
 
bill barilko
+1
#3
Uh...Yeah OK.
 
Danbones
#4
You might think they would allow writing like this on a physics forum...but here it is.
 
Curious Cdn
#5
It's all a big hologram.
 
socratus
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

You might think they would allow writing like this on a physics forum...but here it is.


Modern scientists accepted only one Bible: ''BIG-BANG''
Different view on the Universe is heretical.
===============
 
Hoid
#7
Many scientists believe in God.
 
socratus
#8
Einstein wasn't satisfied with his SRT because the theory
doesn't take in account*concept of ''gravity'' and therefore
he* involved masses in the theory.
So, at first, the SRT (as a flat spacetime) was absent of gravity-masses,
(zero gravity) and only later Einstein put masses in this absolute spacetime.

As a result of this idea, the ''absolute spacetime'' changed
its* Pseudo - Euclidean geometry into the beautiful theory
of Riemannian geometry.
Two expeditions from different places,*at one and the same day
proved Einstein's prediction. The triumph of GRT started to run.
On the basis of GRT many new theories were created.

In my opinion most these theories are paradoxical because
the two expeditions showed that only in local region of*
''an absolute spacetime''* (where there was masses of Sun)
the* Riemannian geometry takes place.
Without masses Riemannian geometry would change to
the Pseudo - Euclidean geometry.
=====
P.S.
'' A world without masses, without electrons, without an
electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty
world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles
appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world
becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is, non- Euclidian.''
/ Book 'Albert Einstein', the page 116, by Leopold Infeld. /
===========
 
Curious Cdn
#9
Nobody has yet disproven Einstein. I guess that interstellar tarvel in excess of the speed of light is therefore not possible and we are stuck here until we destroy ourselves.
 
petros
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Nobody has yet disproven Einstein. I guess that interstellar tarvel in excess of the speed of light is therefore not possible and we are stuck here until we destroy ourselves.

We are a long way off from interstellar tarvel whatever tarvel is.
 
Curious Cdn
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

We are a long way off from interstellar tarvel whatever tarvel is.

Sorry to confuse you, Clem. I know that you're a bit slow at "connecting the dots".
 
MHz
#12
Are you trying to build a flat universe to go along with the flat earth bullshit?

NASA produces animations that appear to be a 'selfi' as the camera which takes the picture is always the most important part of the picture.

Riddle me this. How much speed does light lose from the time it leaves the surface of the sun until it breaks free from the gravity of the solar system? How fast is light going that has come from another star when it passes the earth on it's way do colliding with our sun as she exerts the most influence because she is the biggest and hottest place and the center of it all.
 
darkbeaver
#13
Points and Spaces

Posted on January 21, 2019by Louis Hissink
Physics is dominated by the idea that matter is made of sub-atomic particles, protons, neutrons, electrons and the rest of the particles in the quantum zoo.
Newton’s and Coulomb’s forces for bodies or particles are represented by equations in which time is absent, meaning that both the electric and gravitational forces operate instantaneously.
Both equations assume that bodies can be represented by a point, in the case of gravity as the centre of mass. The centre of mass is an artefact and not physical.
So what is a Newtonian body? It’s made of particles inside a bounded volume of…space. What is space? It is the absence of matter, in this case particles. Space represents “nothing”. But we cannot have nothing between one particle and another particle since for gravity and the electric force to work, something physical must connect one to the other. Physical signals cannot pass through nothing.
Physics has thus invoked the Quantum domain that is a metaphor for the Aether proposed by the 19th century scientists. The Aether allows the propagation of light, among other phenomena.
The problem is the creation of the duality of observed and observer that creates space. Physically it is the idea of describing matter as particles suspended in space that is the problem. In an inanimate universe, as assumed by the Newtonians, space is unphysical and hence the Aether had to be proposed to allow information to pass from one particle to another, As the Aether is not politically correct, the Quantum domain, in all its incomprehendibility replaced the Aether.
It is the human brain, or consciousness, that creates space by the activity of thinking and forming the space between the observer or ego, and the observed, or body/particle. In much the same way consciousness seems to have also formed the Universe in which particles are suspended in space.
It starts to make sense if we instead assume life is a complex hologram as imagined by the physicist David Bohm. Then reality is all waves and particles become interference patterns in light. Particles only exist in our imaginations, not physically as separate physical entities.
And when the temperature of matter is raised to the state of red glow, glow mode in the plasma sense, then it becomes a thermionic emitter and emits light as energy. This light seems to have been transformed into photons by the human brain’s thinking habit necessitating the existence of particles in order to allow Newton’s and Coulomb’s equations to “work”.
Physically there are no electrons, protons, neutrons or photons. They only exist in our imagination, and if this is the case, then the Indian holy-men or Yogis, who assert that reality is an illusion, are closer to the truth.
This suggests monistic idealism, the model that consciousness is continually forming physically reality, is the model of reality that is compatible with observations. This idea is best interpreted by the aphorism that it’s not the means that justify the ends, nor the end the means, but that the means are the ends.
In addition: It is the human brain by the action of thinking that creates particles and hence space. Hence as space physically exists, then consciousness has to be forming physical reality, and not vice versa.
Update: It is also the human brain that created the duality of the present and tomorrow. a metaphysical or psychological space, between which exists time. The future only exists in our imagination or mind, and because it is formed from our memory, the future is always made of the past, It does not exist and when we do arrive at the future, it is still the present. And if you have no memory, then the past and the future would cease to exist.
 
MHz
#14
Is all that text not getting in the way of seeing the big picture clearly?
 
MHz
#15
And when the temperature of matter is raised to the state of red glow, glow mode in the plasma sense, then it becomes a thermionic emitter and emits light as energy. This light seems to have been transformed into photons by the human brain’s thinking habit necessitating the existence of particles in order to allow Newton’s and Coulomb’s equations to “work”.


If you back up before you meet your melting point you avoid having to start from scratch. In real terms if you can judge 'a buoy' from 'an anchor 'you will make it to the end of the path with the least damage, the term 'skin of the teeth' is used for a reason, as is 'hiss' when looking at what the most destruction in the least amount of time looks like.
How do we get a clear look when we only use a small portion of our brain for 'everything'? That is a lot of blank space to fill in.



 
socratus
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Points and Spaces
Posted on January 21, 2019by Louis Hissink
Particles only exist in our imaginations, not physically as separate physical entities.

Yeah, untill stone blows your head
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Points and Spaces
Posted on January 21, 2019by Louis Hissink
And when the temperature of matter is raised to the state of red glow,

The temperature is result of particles interactions
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Points and Spaces
Posted on January 21, 2019by Louis Hissink
Physically there are no electrons, protons, neutrons or photons. They only exist in our imagination, . . .

No comments
 
socratus
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

How do we get a clear look when we only use a small portion of our brain for 'everything'?
That is a lot of blank space to fill in.

Yeah, our brain has a lot of blank space to fill with nonsense.
======
 
darkbeaver
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

Yeah, our brain has a lot of blank space to fill with nonsense.
======




Ha hahahahahah yes a lot of blank space. I,ll wait for your scientific explanation of this real blank space. Make up your mind, is space blank or full of particles.
 
darkbeaver
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Is all that text not getting in the way of seeing the big picture clearly?


You of all posters here should avoid phrases like, "all that text". I,m afraid that seeing the big picture is just not going to happen to very little organisms like humans MHz. According to your own philosophy there is only one who has that power. Be careful lest yea step in the dung and track it through your church.

 
darkbeaver
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Sorry to confuse you, Clem. I know that you're a bit slow at "connecting the dots".


Sooo defensive and indignant, posters here are supposed to endure their tiny spelling errors with a smile. Could you expand on the matter of these dots you have been tarveling through?

Last edited by darkbeaver; Jan 22nd, 2019 at 10:55 AM..
 
darkbeaver
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

And when the temperature of matter is raised to the state of red glow, glow mode in the plasma sense, then it becomes a thermionic emitter and emits light as energy. This light seems to have been transformed into photons by the human brain’s thinking habit necessitating the existence of particles in order to allow Newton’s and Coulomb’s equations to “work”.


If you back up before you meet your melting point you avoid having to start from scratch. In real terms if you can judge 'a buoy' from 'an anchor 'you will make it to the end of the path with the least damage, the term 'skin of the teeth' is used for a reason, as is 'hiss' when looking at what the most destruction in the least amount of time looks like.
How do we get a clear look when we only use a small portion of our brain for 'everything'? That is a lot of blank space to fill in.



Do we use our brain or our mind? Which do you prefer? Are we brain or are we mind? The brain fits nicely in a two quart ice cream container while mind seems to require infinity. I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of a universe with walls. Does the universe have a skull?
 
darkbeaver
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

Please, look this picture.
The picture shows gravity-mass bend the universe.
This picture (as effect of gravity) is known in the world
from 1919 when Einstein was ''crown'' as
''the greatest scientist after Newton's time''.
#
But what is interesting in this picture?
Masses really can change the surface of cosmos, but . . .
but only in local region of the Universe where there is
gravity-masses (like Sun's) as you see in this picture.
(and the gravity-masses in the universe is only about 5%)
Not the whole Universe -net is bend as you see in the picture.
The whole Universe is a flat net - two dimensions continuum,
and the picture shows that gravity is only a local phenomena.
But . . .
But from 1919 people watches and cannot understand
this simple and clear fact of their observation.
How it is a pity . . .
==========


Thankyou for your thought provoking contributions. I enjoy them very much.
 
MHz
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

You of all posters here should avoid phrases like, "all that text". I,m afraid that seeing the big picture is just not going to happen to very little organisms like humans MHz. According to your own philosophy there is only one who has that power. Be careful lest yea step in the dung and track it through your church.

'All' as in not one jot is out of place rather than it contained all the jots in the world.
 
MHz
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

Yeah, our brain has a lot of blank space to fill with nonsense.
======

Some more than others I fear.
 
socratus
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Some more than others I fear.

If you watch the picture of gravity-mass in the universe-net again,
you will understand the average coefficient of nonsense in our brains.
=====
Attached Images
Local space-time curvature.jpg (15.4 KB, 3 views )
Light ray.jpg (9.0 KB, 3 views )
 
darkbeaver
#26
In the theoretical sciences, it is commonly assumed that the role of gravity is settled. But as Richard Feynman observed, “There is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.” The problem is that mathematics will not account for the essential force in question. And yet, when theorists
 
darkbeaver
#27
Ding Dong the (Big) Bang is Dead

Posted on February 5, 2019by Louis Hissink
Dr. Pierre Robitaille just uploaded a YouTube video in which, finally, the nonsense of the astrophysical Big Bang theory is laid to rest
If in the beginning there was nothing, which then exploded, never happened, then all that can be then said is that the Universe must have always existed, with no start and no end.
This won’t be accepted by the fossilised brains of the true believers, of course, who will then try to find another imaginal to support their ideological/theological addiction of creating something from nothing.
Ironically the militan


















http://r5---sn-vgqsknlz.googlevideo....=5511222&c=WEB
 
MHz
#28
Congrats, not everyone can crash the Borg mother-ship. Great beginning.
 
darkbeaver
#29
Oil Fields Are Refilling… Naturally – Sometimes Rapidly

Tags:
Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.
Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.
Recent measurements in a major oil field show “that the fluids were changing over time; that very light oil and gas were being injected from below, even as the producing [oil pumping] was going on,” said chemical oceanographer Mahlon “Chuck” Kennicutt. “They are refilling as we speak. But whether this is a worldwide phenomenon, we don’t know.”


DB[ I mentioned this here about a decade ago.] We are actually doing the planet an environmental goodness by burning all that excess hydro carbon stuff which if left untouched would very quickly, geologically speaking, explode and drive us extinct along with all the other lifetypes we think we are saving by abstention. {DB}
 
socratus
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Ding Dong the (Big) Bang is Dead
Posted on February 5, 2019by Louis Hissink
Dr. Pierre Robitaille just uploaded a YouTube video in which, finally, the nonsense of the astrophysical Big Bang theory is laid to rest
If in the beginning there was nothing, . . . .
This won’t be accepted by the fossilised brains of the true believers,
of course, who will then try to find another imaginal to support
their ideological/theological addiction of creating something from nothing.
Ironically . . .

Ironically, you contradict yourself.
=====
 

Similar Threads

4
Best Picture?
by #juan | Apr 6th, 2010
48
picture
by mapleleafgirl | Feb 1st, 2007
6