D-theory is updated
pekka.v...@webinfo.fi
a temporary stage to some other model. For example, the abstract
propability waves of elementary particles were too much for him.
The geometric structure of empty space is not a part of quantum
mechanis. Empty space, its lengths and its directions, are not
quantized there. Geometry of empty physical space may have an
essential role to combine quantum mechanics with gravity. According to
the Relativity theory an empy space has some properties. It is more
than nothing.
The structure of empy physical space can be defined cell-structured
and to seem isotropic. It is abolute (, but not the same as Newton's
absolute space) and Lorentz-compatible. It shows that a certain
geometry is standing behind the abstract propability waves and behind
the non-locality of quantum mechanis. It will suggest a new solution
to the gauge problem of quantum mechanics. The solution is in the
space.
More about this subject:
http://www.netikka.net/mpeltonen/siirretyt/tekstit/dtheory.htm
Pekka Virtanen
KONCHOK.PENDAY
pekka.virtanen [pekka.v...@webinfo.fi] wrote:
> Albert Einstein did not accept quantum theories.
One of the few things
he was ever right about!
> He said that they are a
> temporary stage to some other model.
So far, *EVERYTHING* has been a
temporary stage to aether theory!
> For example, the abstract propability waves
> of elementary particles were too much for him.
Thank god there was
some barf even he
could not snarf!
> The geometric structure of empty space
????
Gosh!
I would have thought
that if empty space has
geometric structure in it
IT'S NOT EMPTY AT ALL!
"EMPTY SPACE"
HAS AT LEAST:
1] THE AETHER
2] THE ELECTRON GAS
3] PLASMA
AS WELL AS LIGHT
AND OTHER RADIATION
MAYBE IT'S
NOT QUITE EMPTY!
> is not a part of quantum mechanis.
THANK GOD!
I WOULDN'T WANT TO
BE PART OF THAT EITHER!
> Empty space, its lengths and its directions, are not quantized there.
OK.
We can do the measurement
when we order the carpet!
> Geometry of empty physical space may have an essential
> role to combine quantum mechanics with gravity.
OR MAYBE NOT!
> According to the Relativity theory an empy
> space has some properties. It is more than nothing.
WHAT WANK!
FUCK RELATIVITY!
> The structure of empy physical space can be defined
AS DEFINITELY
*NOT* EMPTY!
> cell-structured and to seem isotropic.
SPACE HAS NO STRUCTURE!
BUT IT IS FULL OF AETHER!
> It is abolute (, but not the same as Newton's absolute
> space) and Lorentz-compatible. It shows that a certain geometry is
> standing behind the abstract propability waves
????
And what stands
behind the geometry?
IS THERE A GUARANTEE?
> and behind the non-locality of quantum mechanis.
> It will suggest a new solution to the gauge problem
> of quantum mechanics. The solution is in the space.
WHERE ELSE
COULD IT BE?
IF IT'S NOT IN SPACE
IT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!
> More about this subject:
>
> http://www.netikka.net/mpeltonen/siirretyt/tekstit/dtheory.htm
>
> Pekka Virtanen
READ RADO!
BY FAR the BEST book on physics EVER written:
=============================================
AETHRO-KINEMATICS IS THE MAIN RADO TEXT
It�s 527 pages of tightly-reasoned analysis
by the greatest physicist of all time!
http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_3.pdf
=============================================
NO BULLSHIT!
I GUARANTEE IT!
JUST HARD-NOSED
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY!
It�s also the best
history of physics
ever written!
Even better than
Richard McKeon!
But Rado perfectly
illustrates both
McKeon�s analysis
AND PREDICTIONS!
HIS �LEAST PARTICLES�
ANALYSIS IS ONE OF MCKEON�S
FOUR PRIMARY MODES OF THOUGHT!
THE ONE THAT PERFECTLY
HEXPLAINS AND CONSTRUCTS
THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
THAT�S A BIG
DOUBLE WOW-WOW!
CAUTION: *NOT* FOR
the faint of heart!
May be dangerous to
preconceived prejudices!
Steve�s site is:
http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
My intro to Steve�s work is:
http://net-prophet.net/nobul/rado/rado.htm
See �05* AETHER PHYSICS� in the
right-hand column of my blog at:
http://net-prophet.net/blog/
AND the �PHYSICS� CATEGORY
in the left-hand column!
Also see the �AETHER PHYSICS� TOPIC
under the �2-FORUMS� in the blog PAGES.
That�s the reading list for now,
but �Aethro-dynamics� will be
released ANY DAY NOW!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1660
thejohnlreed
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:11:28 -0800,
>
>
> > Albert Einstein did not accept quantum theories.
jr writes> Who gives a damn?
>
> One of the few things
> he was ever right about!
jr writes> You are an expert on this?
>
> > He said that they are a
> > temporary stage to some other model.
>
jr writes> A statement that will apply at any point along the road to
knowledge.
> So far, *EVERYTHING* has been a
> temporary stage to aether theory!
jr writes> Taking into consideration Rado's direction it is not
surprising that he was influenced by the concept of an all pervading
aether. This medium has become even more convenient as a source for
any number of virtual particles that snap into and out of existence to
serve the object-space least action consistent fantasies that we claim
are the base for our perceived object-space least action consistent
universe.>
> > For example, the abstract propability waves
> > of elementary particles were too much for him.
>
jr writes> You can call a probability curve a wave if the
probabilities along the curve change in time along the direction of
the plane of the curve. All of physical math is an abstraction. You
must have known him well to make such dismissive summary judgements.
snip opinionated loud and offensive repetitive bill board trash that
follows.
johnreed
KONCHOK.PENDAY
thejohnlreed [thejoh...@gmail.com] wrote:
> On Dec 15, 7:25 pm, "KONCHOK.PENDAY" <K...@net-prophet.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:11:28 -0800,
>>
>> pekka.virtanen [pekka.virta...@webinfo.fi] wrote:
>>
>> > Albert Einstein did not accept quantum theories.
>
> jr writes> Who gives a damn?
KP:
>> One of the few things
>> he was ever right about!
>
> jr writes> You are an expert on this?
I consider I am.
Your smilage may vary.
>> > He said that they are a
>> > temporary stage to some other model.
>>
> jr writes> A statement that will apply at any point along the road to
> knowledge.
ONLY UNTIL
you finally
figure it out.
After that,
you can relax!
>> So far, *EVERYTHING* has been a
>> temporary stage to aether theory!
>
> jr writes> Taking into consideration Rado's direction
> it is not surprising that he was influenced by the
> concept of an all pervading aether.
Especially since it's the only
theory that makes any sense!
> This medium has become even more convenient
> as a source for any number of virtual particles
I'm sorry, but the aether is MOT
a source for ANY virtual particles!
Neuorosis and psychosis
automatically produce
unlimited virtual particles!
> that snap into and out of existence to serve the
> object-space least action consistent fantasies
Why not just
take them out
of the WANK bin?
It's so much easier than
making them out of aether!
> that we claim are the base for our perceived
> object-space least action consistent universe.
WHO claims that?
Certainly not me!
>> > For example, the abstract propability waves
>> > of elementary particles were too much for him.
They are
TOO MUCH
for me too!
> jr writes: You can call a probability curve a wave if the
> probabilities along the curve change in time along the
> direction of the plane of the curve.
You can call an elephant an
over-ambitious mouse, but
I doubt he'll come to you
when you call!
> All of physical math is an abstraction.
YES!
There is no physical
at all in physical math!
But apparently the universe itself
is not constructed of abstractions.
No matter how much math
you cram into a limited
area, it's won't glow!
Poor albert never figured that out!
> You must have known him well
Too well!
I've read some of his
noxious plagarized wank,
and some of the prior
work he stole it from
before he fucked it up!
WHAT A WANKER!
> to make such dismissive summary judgements.
That's NOT a summary judgment!
It's a post-trial verdict!
But it certainly is dismissive!
I might add contemptuous too!
> snip opinionated
Yes, I am very opinionated!
And I pity those without!
> loud
I probably post
at about the same
volume you do!
> and offensive
Offense is in the
eye of the beholder.
> repetitive
Yes.
I am very patient and
keep offering you the
same clue, over and over!
You are pretty bright!
I bet some day you
will get it too!
> bill board trash that follows.
Isn't the volume of stuff
the eye can hold one of
the great mysteries of life?
> johnreed
thejohnlreed
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:19:58 -0800,
>
If you select a physical sub-stratum on which to base a least action
consistent explanation of the least action consistent stable universe
motion, you must determine whether or not your sub-stratum works
because it is consistent with least action motion, or because it is
the cause, or consequence, of that motion. I say that since all our
known models, past and present, have shown a least action consistency
for any mathematical veracity, then the aether derived, so called
aethron model may work, for the same reason. That is, if it does work,
it will work to the extent that it is consistent with least action
motion.
Where the aether provided a sub-strate for the efficient dispersion of
energy as waves, and the field provided a means to picture action at a
distance, Rado proposes that we construct our universe from slippery,
structureless, little aethron balls. Note the pictorial
representations for Rado's aethron motion. Is it a coincidence that
the body of these representations are identical to electromagnetic
structures?
Why bundle a least action consistent electromagnetic package with the
primitive idea for an object-space representation involving a so
called aethron fantasy? Do we require matter to build matter? We can
by pass this problem with the mathematics. So that rather than an all
pervasive aether we can simply start with 2 rings that represent the
least action consistent origin of 3D matter when joined. The two rings
are two circles with the circumference of one passing orthogonally
through the center of the other. The physical properties that follow
can be adjusted to fit our perception where the two original rings are
clearly representative of least action consistent motion. Thus, if we
start with two straight lines we can treat each line as a dipole, or
we can treat each line as an unlike or like, monopole. From the
subsequent join we can build an electro magnetic atom, or an aethron
if required, and a least action consistent universe. A functional
least action consistent mathematical build will take us further than a
build based essentially on our assumptive notion that matter is made
of matter.
Have a good time,
johnreed