Relitavists vs. aether
Inger Astri Kobbevik Stephens
newsgroups communicate with one another that I hesitate a little to
participate in these forrčs. But I cannot stop myself, I am so pleased
and excited. I am educated in Art not science but read SCI AM for a year
then stumbled over an Aether theory while searching with the word "cold
fusion" (I had liked so much the pictures the string theorist were
drawing).
Needless to say after reading some of this Aether theory I was in a
dilemma, I still liked the pictures by the string guys but if this
Aether thing was right then most of modern physics must be bollocks.
Without the training it's hard for me to know the validity of one or the
other by testing the math or knowing all the experiments etc. But, and
this is the point for you all..... Aether theory makes sense to a not
scientist over for the field theories precisely because it is in accord
with all kinds of other observations by non science community. I don't
have to take Louis Savains word that what he says makes sense it simply
does. But to be able to look at the web site of Hawkin is excluding not
only because all the important Proofs are in math I don't understand it
but because it is not sensible to talk for example about time
immediately after the big bang when all the matter in the universe is so
close together that the gravity effects on four-time...............etc
well I could say it's mental feedback.
Taking a look at any number of proofs by earlier scientists is more
pleasant
You guys hate the mention of Belief as nonscientific, well there's no
doubt in my mind that scientific method is a truly wonderful tool
but in the end we can only believe or disbelieve even when your a
scientist, because this (belief/conviction) is a prime motive for action
which again is synonymous with change (development).
Well I would like to learn more about Aether theories and in the
meantime marvel at the arguments of the relativists being gunned down by
a logic which is understandable for me too.
Once scientists and artists worked much closer together and brought our
understanding to new depths at great speed , maybe we've reached the
stage that this will be possible again.
There doesn't seem any point in reading SciAm again until the aether
possibility is completely proven wrong (which I don't believe will
happen), even if the pictures were good.
ps. if anyone in the aether camp would like to work on developing some
nice pictures to help explain the theory i would be interested in a
collaboration.
excuse my interruption.
Lucas Stephens
(England/Norway)
EL
> ps. if anyone in the aether camp would like to work on developing some
> nice pictures to help explain the theory i would be interested in a
> collaboration.
>
> excuse my interruption.
> Lucas Stephens
[EL]
Yes please, your help is greatly appreciated.
I cannot find an appropriate black sheet of paper, could you?
You see, the classic Aether is long gone but now I call it Primedium
extracted from Primordial medium.
It is void of matter and energy and that is why black is best.
It is chaotic, that is why draw absolutely nothing please, because any
brush stroke is an order.
Now look at the black sheet and enjoy. :)
EL
Rusty Shackleford
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.03012...@posting.google.com...
Could it be looked at as Virtual Particles popping in and out of existence?
If so then it would look like a television screen with no signal.
Rusty Shackleford
mshaefnerNOSPAMrglobal.net
Inger Astri Kobbevik Stephens
EL
[EL]
This is a typically classical case of confusing random order with
chaos.
Ask yourself one single question.
In a television noise signal picture, can you recognise that it is
made of two distinctive black and white pixels being randomly
distributed?
Yes, Then it is a random distribution and not chaos.
No, you must be kidding or lying. :):)
Chaos is best represented as a background with respect to a
foreground, that is *Chaos* is relative and not absolute.
Aether or Alatheer was originally the name of *Air* (notice the "a"
and the "r"). When air was demonstrated to be a medium full of atoms
causing pressure, the background concept was taken a step beyond the
observable.
It is the state of no information at all.
Regards.
EL
EL
> why not use a transparent........ in painting black is a mixture of the primary colours.
[EL]
Excellent!
The point is that the chaotic aether should deprive you from any
information.
If black is regarded as a case of not light and no information
consequently, fine.
yet I can understand your point perfectly, as an artist would most
certainly use a black colour as an information material on white paper
background. Aether is a very relative concept, so now you understand.
It is not just the least informative but the non-informative medium.
It is for that particular reason that Einstein abandoned any defence
of Aether and while not negating it from being the chaotic background,
he did not see any logical reasoning for perusing its proof or its
refutation as both are futile without information and useless to the
kinetic physics that was mostly popular then. Maxwell equations and
Planck's constant as well as all the transformations and geometries
was focused on the dynamics and kinetics of motion and velocities etc.
In our era of advanced science we take that approach a step a head,
and rather than the change of spacetime geometries being the focus of
our attention we generalize to any change of state whether that was
motion, colour or pain.
You are an artist, so take a look at this link. :)
http://hemetis.freeyellow.com/TKTODO.htm
It inspired Mark Cavin to make a very nice rendering about the
electromagnetic shell of the E and H fields in a TEM torus plane
compounded from orthogonal torus knot dynamic orbits. Make a search
for his name ANDed with TKTODO and you shall fid his link on a Deja
discussion that was acquired by Goole.
Aether itself has nothing of any interest, neither for a mainstream
physicist nor an artist. It only intrigues a mathematician.
You know why, because a mathematician has a grate appreciation for the
Zero. It is everything and nothing. :)
Regards.
EL
Rusty Shackleford
> [EL]
> This is a typically classical case of confusing random order with
> chaos.
> Ask yourself one single question.
> In a television noise signal picture, can you recognise that it is
> made of two distinctive black and white pixels being randomly
> distributed?
> Yes, Then it is a random distribution and not chaos.
> No, you must be kidding or lying. :):)
> Chaos is best represented as a background with respect to a
> foreground, that is *Chaos* is relative and not absolute.
> Aether or Alatheer was originally the name of *Air* (notice the "a"
> and the "r"). When air was demonstrated to be a medium full of atoms
> causing pressure, the background concept was taken a step beyond the
> observable.
> It is the state of no information at all.
> Regards.
>
> EL
I was neither kidding nor lying just trying to visualize something that is
invisible, but using my mind to conceptualize it like an artist would do. I
believe Chaos is a process where something moves from a stable state to a
state of chaos as in Entropy going from a low to a high state. If Virtual
Particles are popping in and out of existence I would not view it as Chaos
but random. If there is some law of physics that says this is bogus than I
stand corrected as I am not going to get in an intellectual argument with
you, as I would not only loose but be reduced to crackpot status like many
of the people who thought they were equal to your intellect.
Cheers
Rusty Shackleford
msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net
Inger Astri Kobbevik Stephens
EL wrote:
> Inger Astri Kobbevik Stephens <lste...@online.no> wrote in message news:<3E3635A1...@online.no>...
>
> > why not use a transparent........ in painting black is a mixture of the primary colours.
>
> [EL]
> Excellent!
> The point is that the chaotic aether should deprive you from any
> information.
> If black is regarded as a case of not light and no information
> consequently, fine.
> yet I can understand your point perfectly, as an artist would most
> certainly use a black colour as an information material on white paper
> background. Aether is a very relative concept, so now you understand.
> It is not just the least informative but the non-informative medium.
This is like being ready........ 'not doing something not doing nothing'. Not being ready is less useful
than being ready when it is time to act, it is hence very useful to have insight into how manifest things
interact with what is not manifest. It is in this way that I see a parallel with what I deal with in my
experience of art with what for example aspden deals with when he tries to come to terms with magnetic
fields and an exchange of energy or conservation of energy with the aether matrix, he hopes for a net gain,
so do I. His gain is electricity mine is information. It modern art much of the discourse of artworks deals
with precisely that which is not depicted.
>
> It is for that particular reason that Einstein abandoned any defence
> of Aether and while not negating it from being the chaotic background,
> he did not see any logical reasoning for perusing its proof or its
> refutation as both are futile without information and useless to the
> kinetic physics that was mostly popular then. Maxwell equations and
> Planck's constant as well as all the transformations and geometries
> was focused on the dynamics and kinetics of motion and velocities etc.
> In our era of advanced science we take that approach a step a head,
> and rather than the change of spacetime geometries being the focus of
> our attention we generalize to any change of state whether that was
> motion, colour or pain.
> .
> Aether itself has nothing of any interest, neither for a mainstream
> physicist nor an artist.
>
In my work it is what the experience of looking does to you that counts for a lot not so much what the
material piece is or could mean.
It is very difficult for any of us not to visualize a 2 or 3d sinario to 'depict' or map out this subject,
our bodies want us to. When the spacetime physicist works he has no bodily tool to judge his work and is
confident and reliant on his mathematical tool. Only the most foolish would then use 2 or 3d means to
interpret information from "spacetime" I think.
No to make art or dialog about things we cannot sense directly we have to make use of what we can sense
first then re-atune our senses to include the 'New' insight I think we have to change. This sounds not
very concrete, I need some feedback to be clearer I think.
> It only intrigues a mathematician.You know why, because a mathematician has a grate appreciation for the
> Zero. It is everything and nothing. :)
lots of Artists love Zero...... we invented it!!!!!
Regards.
Lucas
EL
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7563cb80.0301...@posting.google.com...
> > [EL]
> > This is a typically classical case of confusing random order with
> > chaos.
> > Ask yourself one single question.
> > In a television noise signal picture, can you recognise that it is
> > made of two distinctive black and white pixels being randomly
> > distributed?
> > Yes, Then it is a random distribution and not chaos.
> > No, you must be kidding or lying. :):)
> > Chaos is best represented as a background with respect to a
> > foreground, that is *Chaos* is relative and not absolute.
> > Aether or Alatheer was originally the name of *Air* (notice the "a"
> > and the "r"). When air was demonstrated to be a medium full of atoms
> > causing pressure, the background concept was taken a step beyond the
> > observable.
> > It is the state of no information at all.
> > Regards.
> >
> > EL
>
> I was neither kidding nor lying just trying to visualize something that is
> invisible, but using my mind to conceptualize it like an artist would do.
Wait, wait, you seem to have misunderstood my analysis of the options.
I asked you to ask yourself a question.
The question was concerning the ability of recognising a set of *two*
distinctive mental experiences, namely black and white pixels being
randomly distributed.
Since I have assumed to know the obvious answer, which is "yes you
can", then counting the two states existent in the set makes it an
order with binary limits, where the probability of black pixels are
equal to those of the white pixels, therefore the distribution of the
binary states follow a random distribution rule to guarantee
homogeneity. Otherwise you will see patches of black and white rather
than the ***forced order**** of randomness that leads to homogeneity.
I was sure that you shall not answer the question negatively as the
answer was too obvious to avoid, that is why I said that if such an
answer should be forced then you must be either kidding humorously or
lying recklessly. There was no accusations at all, because I was sure
that you shall confirm the recognition.
> I believe Chaos is a process where something moves from a stable state to a
> state of chaos as in Entropy going from a low to a high state. If Virtual
> Particles are popping in and out of existence I would not view it as Chaos
> but random.
[EL]
The words "popping into existence" had been decided by scientists to
be either "creation" or "emergence".
The words "popping out of existence" had been decided by scientists to
be "annihilation".
Again I fear that intuition does not match the arbitrated semantics of
the consensus when one makes an effort to express himself. In fact
emergence and annihilation are not random distributions at all because
that would be a sort of diffusion or rearrangement of what exists
already over time intervals. In fact emergence and annihilation are
the core essence of chaos.
It is really very simple to illustrate that. There is absolutely
nothing chaotic about a piece of ice placed in a pan on fire. It is
there, you can see it in the foreground and attribute as many
properties to it as you may wish. Then it melts and gains one degree
of freedom for motion more than the solid, but when it evaporates it
dissolves into the background and become an integrated component of
the air in the room or kitchen where you did that experiment. No more
ice cubes or blobs of water. You can hardly point its location and
most probably breathing in some of its molecules. You may say that it
is nowhere or/and everywhere around you, it is then that the ice cube
was annihilated as an entity of foreground and became a chaotic
background. There is absolutely nothing random about that. But if you
follow the state of chaos within a boundary such as air molecules
inside a balloon, you shall discover that the boundary interacts with
such a state in the form of pressure and temperature. If that air
contained water vapour from your lungs during inflating it and the
room was too cold, droplets of water may condense on the inner
surface. So while the air is randomly distributed for homogeneity of
the medium, chaos allow interaction at the world boundaries for water
droplets to emerge. Random distribution does not allow anything else
than seeking homogeneity. The surface of a piece of paper is a chaotic
medium that allows us to write on its boundary with a contrasting
colour or material. Without the chaotic background the writing shall
be distorted by the ordered sets of any existing deformations of the
medium.
> If there is some law of physics that says this is bogus than I
> stand corrected as I am not going to get in an intellectual argument with
> you, as I would not only loose but be reduced to crackpot status like many
> of the people who thought they were equal to your intellect.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rusty Shackleford
[EL]
Rusty, There was no need to get sensitive. You may freely argue
without the fear of being accused of being a crackpot.
I will never accuse you of anything at all. And I shall defend your
freedom of expressing your thoughts and asking questions because that
is the only way we may all learn. Not only you are learning but the
one who explains too because you force him to organise his thoughts
and refresh his memory.
Thank you very much for expressing yourself, Rusty.
You gave me the chance to learn.
EL
EL
> EL wrote:
>
> > Inger Astri Kobbevik Stephens <lste...@online.no> wrote in message news:<3E3635A1...@online.no>...
> >
> > > why not use a transparent........ in painting black is a mixture of the primary colours.
> >
> > [EL]
> > Excellent!
> > The point is that the chaotic aether should deprive you from any
> > information.
> > If black is regarded as a case of not light and no information
> > consequently, fine.
> > yet I can understand your point perfectly, as an artist would most
> > certainly use a black colour as an information material on white paper
> > background. Aether is a very relative concept, so now you understand.
> > It is not just the least informative but the non-informative medium.
>
> This is like being ready........ 'not doing something not doing nothing'.
I'd better hide my admiration lest you should think that I am being
sarcastic. :)
In science this is called a potential waiting to express itself.
>Not being ready is less useful
> than being ready when it is time to act, it is hence very useful to have insight into how manifest things
> interact with what is not manifest. It is in this way that I see a parallel with what I deal with in my
> experience of art with what for example aspden deals with when he tries to come to terms with magnetic
> fields and an exchange of energy or conservation of energy with the aether matrix, he hopes for a net gain,
> so do I. His gain is electricity mine is information. It modern art much of the discourse of artworks deals
> with precisely that which is not depicted.
[EL]
That is the experienced artist shall work on exposing the hidden
aspects, which are hidden from the senses by exposing them to the
senses.
The worst surprise you may encounter with chaos is that it is not
about "the hidden" to be exposed in the foreground of the background;
it IS the background.
Any wall painter is indeed a chaos artist when he succeeds in painting
the wall such that you may not identify a particular zone to differ
from any other within the painted area.
>
> >
> > It is for that particular reason that Einstein abandoned any defence
> > of Aether and while not negating it from being the chaotic background,
> > he did not see any logical reasoning for perusing its proof or its
> > refutation as both are futile without information and useless to the
> > kinetic physics that was mostly popular then. Maxwell equations and
> > Planck's constant as well as all the transformations and geometries
> > was focused on the dynamics and kinetics of motion and velocities etc.
> > In our era of advanced science we take that approach a step a head,
> > and rather than the change of spacetime geometries being the focus of
> > our attention we generalize to any change of state whether that was
> > motion, colour or pain.
>
> > .
> > Aether itself has nothing of any interest, neither for a mainstream
> > physicist nor an artist.
>
> >
>
> In my work it is what the experience of looking does to you that counts for a lot not so much what the
> material piece is or could mean.
[EL]
How about the experience of NOT looking at all. The state of NO
information is the best state of chaos.
When we sleep, we close our eyes to dive into chaos. Only then may our
dreams emerge.
It is silence that makes us appreciate the emergence of a note.
It is through ignorance that we come to learn and appreciate our
knowledge.
>
> It is very difficult for any of us not to visualize a 2 or 3d sinario to 'depict' or map out this subject,
> our bodies want us to. When the spacetime physicist works he has no bodily tool to judge his work and is
> confident and reliant on his mathematical tool. Only the most foolish would then use 2 or 3d means to
> interpret information from "spacetime" I think.
[EL]
Why?
Please recall the figure of the two vases that may be interpreted as
two kissing each other.
By switching the mental focus and switching the FG and BG we build
different interpretations as a mental illusion.
The image is the same while it is our mind the juggles chaos and
order.
2D and 3D has nothing to do with the criterion of what is what.
> No to make art or dialog about things we cannot sense directly we have to make use of what we can sense
> first then re-atune our senses to include the 'New' insight I think we have to change. This sounds not
> very concrete, I need some feedback to be clearer I think.
[EL]
Focus your mind on what I told you about the grounds.
If you manage to create pictures with foreground and background being
perfectly interchangeable then you have created a theme on chaos.
The border of chaos is the same for both, but it is the mind that
selects the most agreeable concept that matches a memory.
We may also fool the senses by being biased towards a specific
background colour and distribution.
>
>
> > It only intrigues a mathematician.You know why, because a mathematician has a grate appreciation for the
> > Zero. It is everything and nothing. :)
>
> lots of Artists love Zero...... we invented it!!!!!
[EL]
When!
You mean the income? :):):):)
LOL.
EL
>
>
> Regards.
> Lucas
G=EMC^2 Glazier
gravity" The other we call repulsion(the expansion of the universe) It
is natures way.Her balancing act. The same reason electricity and
magnetisum are plus and minus. Vacuum energy density a second before the
big bang was infinite,and we call this moment of spacetime a
singularity. You could theorize that the energies(forces) of aether are
both positive and negative,and location can show their two opposite
effects. Bert
Rusty Shackleford
> "Rusty Shackleford" <msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net> wrote in message
>Rusty, There was no need to get sensitive. You may freely argue
>without the fear of being accused of being a crackpot.
I was to sensitive. After re-reading your post I can see that there was no
offence intended. I just focused on the 'Lying' word and then freaked out
and did not see the context of the rest of the message in total.
>The words "popping into existence" had been decided by scientists to
>be either "creation" or "emergence".
The phrase 'popping into existence' was poetic license on my part and was
not meant to describe what is happening in semantic perfection. Actually
what I said was 'popping in and out of existence' not 'Popping into
existence' which is close to "creation" or "emergence" and then
"annihilation".
>Random distribution does not allow anything else
>than seeking homogeneity. The surface of a piece of paper is a chaotic
>medium that allows us to write on its boundary with a contrasting
>colour or material. Without the chaotic background the writing shall
>be distorted by the ordered sets of any existing deformations of the
>medium.
I can't really argue effectively on this point about Random and Chaotic
behavior as I have a limited knowledge about the differences between these
two concepts. I know what Random behavior is but looking at two pictures,
one of Random behavior and one of Chaotic what difference would one you see?
Is it Random behavior of Virtual photons or Chaotic behavior that causes the
Casimir effect between two reflecting plates in a vacuum, and is it that
important to be semantically perfect at this level of discussion on this NG.
If you and I were research scientist then I can see that the language that
we use to describe an experiment better be specific an not ambiguous, but to
a group of people talking about how to paint a picture describing Aether,
the semantic accuracy can suffer a bit.
Rusty Shackleford
msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net
EL
news:<25656-3E...@storefull-2353.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> The aether has two forces.
[EL]
Yin and Yang.
>One contraction(we call "attraction of gravity
>" The other we call repulsion(the expansion of the universe)
> It is natures way.Her balancing act.
[EL]
Is the equilibrium between darkness and light.
Is in the potential of to be or not to be.
It is the minimal logic of choice at threshold.
>The same reason electricity and magnetisum are plus and minus.
>
> Vacuum energy density a second before the
> big bang was infinite,and we call this moment of spacetime a
> singularity.
[EL]
Nonsense; there is no *before* when there is no time.
There is no time in a state of no motion.
Since there was no before when the effect took place,
Then that effect never had time to happen,
Therefore it never happened.
The chaos of Yin and Yang is dynamic by default.
Is where time always had a time before the time.
Is eternal; eternity within eternity.
No beginning and no end.
>You could theorize that the energies(forces) of aether are
> both positive and negative,and location can show their two opposite
> effects. Bert
[EL]
There is no sign for what emerges not.
Who was there when no one was yet to sign the sign?
Which sign is better for designating that which is in and that which
is out?
Who decides the face of direction?
Yin and Yang are neither enemies nor friends, they are the logic of
equity in possibility.
Emergence is in the breaking of symmetry from within to without.
Creation must be an act of birth, Bert.
EL
EL
[EL]
LOL.
:)
EL
Inger Astri Kobbevik Stephens
EL wrote:
In the Tao te ching old man says that the tao is closest to yin hence we
should adopt aherence to the yin where posible
>
> >You could theorize that the energies(forces) of aether are
> > both positive and negative,and location can show their two opposite
> > effects. Bert
>
(lucas)
The point of this thread is not what the aether looks like or it's
properties, but the way in which it is useful or stands in relation to
what we can see and know some of the properties of. It is only by useing
what we know that insight into what we don't know is gained.
> [EL]
> There is no sign for what emerges not.
there is
>
> Who was there when no one was yet to sign the sign?
rather what?
> (el)
> Which sign is better for designating that which is in and that which
> is out?
> Who decides the face of direction?
> Yin and Yang are neither enemies nor friends, they are the logic of
> equity in possibility.
> Emergence is in the breaking of symmetry from within to without.
> Creation must be an act of birth, Bert.
>
The signs and symbols we have invented are ok to a point but they are
not synonimous with the things they refur to
they only point the way, when we have the new insight into what the sign
was pointing to the symbol has no longer any use.
> we are using aether now it is by virtue of space that we can have
> extention.
lucas
An artwork about aether could be made using magnets
EL
> lucas
>
> An artwork about aether could be made using magnets
[EL]
If you are so persistent about drawing Aether I have a rather nice
idea for you. :)
Prepare a white drawing paper and use black pastel for the drawing
element material.
Now draw on that piece of paper a piece of paper on which there is a
piece of paper in the shape of origami. :)
The symbolic meaning is deep enough to draw attention to the fact that
the foreground in such a context is indeed the background of another
foreground embedded within the former foreground but as a background
with respect to the embedded foreground of the foreground. :)
There you have a very nice subject that could make a new Leonardo out
of you. :):):)
EL
Rusty Shackleford
Look at some of Maurits Echer's works.
EL
[EL]
And then?
Admire his genius art?
OK.
So?
G=EMC^2 Glazier
The two Casmir plates are pushed together by the wave force of the
aether. It is all about pressure density. Bert
Inger Astri Kobbevik Stephens
EL wrote:
> "Rusty Shackleford" <msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net> wrote in message news:<b1fa7...@enews3.newsguy.com>...
> > "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7563cb80.03013...@posting.google.com...
> > > Inger Astri Kobbevik Stephens <lste...@online.no> wrote in message
> > news:<3E3ACFE3...@online.no>...
> > >
> > > > lucas
> > > >
> > > > An artwork about aether could be made using magnets
> > >
> > > [EL]
> > > If you are so persistent about drawing Aether I have a rather nice
> > > idea for you. :)
(LS) i don't think we can draw what has no manifestation, to make a symbol might just confuse the issues
>
> > >
> > > Prepare a white drawing paper and use black pastel for the drawing
> > > element material.
> > > Now draw on that piece of paper a piece of paper on which there is a
> > > piece of paper in the shape of origami. :)
> > > The symbolic meaning is deep enough to draw attention to the fact that
> > > the foreground in such a context is indeed the background of another
> > > foreground embedded within the former foreground but as a background
> > > with respect to the embedded foreground of the foreground. :)
> > >
> > > There you have a very nice subject that could make a new Leonardo out
> > > of you. :):):)
> > >
> > > EL
> >
> > Look at some of Maurits Echer's works.
>
> [EL]
> And then?
> Admire his genius art?
> OK.
> So?
(lucas)
This is still in the realms of making symbols which are far removed from the reality.
The four space school has big problems because interpretation and explanation to lay people etc. has made use
of a plethora of two dimensional depiction's of the results of their math. An example is the picture of a
ball sitting in a kind of string net, where the net represents the space-time continuum being effected by
gravity. How absurd and misleading it is. Four dimensional space time cannot be described in any less than
four dimensional models, these as yet are math only. Four space cannot be imagined three dimensionally with
the time bit tacked on. If we do that we are in the realm of Newton. Of course we don't need the geometry
implicit in four space to describe how things work.
If we do use four space all kinds of unlikely things seem to become possible while things which are like
miracles which can be observed just by going out in nature and looking, remain totally unexplained for
example the way that water cools when it moves in a centripetal motion.
I don't think that an artwork has to be a symbol. If we use for example a phenominum which presents the
electrodynamic nature of the force of gravity and how interactions are set up which involve energy transfer
between electric charges then the implication or even explanation that the mechanics of the aether are
responsible, helps the viewer experience that something beyond their senses is being utilized. this would
give insight/meaning, which is the job of the artist.
It could be that the above phenominum is not so easy to harness.
Lucas
Inger Astri Kobbevik Stephens
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
can you ellaborate on this theme bearing in mind I don't understand much
math
Rusty Shackleford
I only bring him up because he is famous for art that depicts things that
are impossible to exist in reality observed by the human mind visually. If
anyone could paint Eaether then it would be him if he were alive. Maybe
Inger could use him as inspiration.
Rusty Shackleford
msha...@NOSPAMrglobal.net
G=EMC^2 Glazier
plates are very close together,so close that larger wave lengths can't
fit between them. The other side does not have this problem. More
waves(energy) on the outside pushes the plates together. This goes well
with my theory of attraction being a push force.(I posted that 2 years
ago) Bert
EL
[EL]
Now I got your point very clearly understood.
But I did invite you to see my web pages and in them I did represent
the emergence of field lines in Primedium between two electrons.
So even that Primedium has no picture in any absolute sense, there is
a picture in the middle of space of an interaction between particles.
EL
EL
I agree.
:)
EL
Inger Astri Kobbevik Stephens
> snip
> [EL]
> Now I got your point very clearly understood.
> But I did invite you to see my web pages and in them I did represent
> the emergence of field lines in Primedium between two electrons.
> So even that Primedium has no picture in any absolute sense, there is
> a picture in the middle of space of an interaction between particles.
>
> EL
What is your website address?
I looked at http://hemetis.freeyellow.com/TKTODO.htm, nice it reminds me of paintings I and others have made.
These are mostly Architypes in use off and on for millenia. Thanx for the tip.