Saturday, September 28, 2013

Space Revisited

Good day,

Einstein did open up the idea of the particle aspect of wave propagation and he did elude to the importance of particle mass on space and space's subsequent 'warping' however the pursuit of the Big Bang has left these ideas farrow.  Where Einstein's contributions place the function of Space on the highest order of importance of understanding and then the Big Bang theorist reduce Space almost completely out of the equation.  I see that the best way of understanding particle interaction comes from the understanding of Space and its subsequent Shapes.  I'm not shy about allowing a fourth dimensional space existing before the beginning of this three dimensional space.  I'll also goes as far as being willing to acknowledge a fifth spatial dimension.  I do insist that the only parallel universes are those established by the passage of time and that time is 'linear' and progressive.  Time doesn't loop back on itself and always moves forward with respect to the third dimensional space.

Therefore when I refer to Space I am not referring to the third nor the forth dimensional space but of the substance between these, however it is possible that it is more than a spatial forth dimensional three dimensional spatial manifestation.  The closest approximation that I had imagined this construction was called the "ether" of Einstein's era and before.  However I believe there to be distinct and functional attributes that cause real and measurable effects on three dimensional particles and waves. The upshot of all this is that the only purpose of time is to indicate the direction of forth dimensional space from third dimensional space.  In this respect there is no moral differential therefore cosmology is not a factor in physics.  If cosmology is factored in then it becomes a subjective version of reality based in an artificially construction and can only fall short as far as Science is concerned.

This might seem contradictory to earlier posts.  Any contradiction is an illusion of misunderstanding the fundamental concept of meditating on scripture and receiving a clear understanding of the circumstances of life.  Then there is the  contemplation of natural law which reveals the way of the Divine design.  Both reveal God's intentions if one is searching for God's intentions since God is by definition the source.  It is cause that can be interfered with by mankind.  This is a Universal concept verified by the main religions I have had a chance to read about and by what I have been told of by others.  No atheist that I have run across has been able to supply any other explanation for source nor have been able to explain observable factors of natural laws that are clearly beyond the scope of any man's and/or woman's control.  This is a fair summation that indicates a supreme divine creator and only an insane person will argue against this.  It is fair to know if your source is insane although they may be able to do the tasks that any primate can do.

It is this interference that can distort true nature of Space and Shape especially when particles are taken from their natural state by unnatural means and their wave properties are distorted and even completely distorted.  Einstein already demonstrated the power techniques of observation can hide and reveal aspects of Space and Shape.  It might seem if you've read any of the earlier blogs here that I am belaboring this one specific experiment of Einstein's however with its relatively passive selection of cause and observation of result it demonstrates more than the wave and particle aspects of photons.  It is a very tangible example of the importance of experimental interaction and observation.




  1. I have this idea that virtual particles are just all in the mind of physical cosmologists, but they have not located any objects at all in actual objective reality of existence outside their mental concepts-manipulation with mathematics.

    What do you think?

    You are conversant with mathematics, also I presume with the kind of mathematics physical cosmologists avail of, by which they have in their mind come to the existence(?) of virtual particles (all in their mind though only).

    Tell me and readers what is wrong with their kind of mathematics.

    Marius de Jess

    1. Hehehehehe... ah there is the rub. I had abanboneb these writings a while ago so I just saw this not having logged j. For several months. Well, you can pick an apple off a tree and take a bit of it and chew, swallowing, and then that is digested. So particles do exist. However what is that existence, does the math do justice? We have sent men to the moon and they have come sack. We have sent various computers, lenses, radios, robotics, and many other sort of devices out into space and many of them have reached the destination that was desired. Math works. I have to guess you are not writing about sub-atomic particles... and it is very clear that the perceptions of those definitely has a subjectivity problem. I am not satisfied with the mathematics being used. I had developed my own approach and I think I made it clear, if not in this post then in others, that the ethics in of the world's scientific community is lacking and my mathimatical approach would be used for a scale of destruction that a-bombs will seem insignificant.