"Jeff?Relf" <Jeff_Relf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message...
news:Jeff_Relf_2008_May_8__6_19_PZ@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Consider Alan Guth's ?o empty space ? and ?o false vacuum ?.
>
> You need a standard yardstick to measure its volume,
> a standard clock to measure its duration,
> and a watt balance to measure the pressure it contains.
>
> In your mind, all that crap is a ?o void nothing ?,
> but, in Guth's mind, its very complex.
>
> Guth knows ?o empty space ? is defined in terms of 4-D fields
> and / or the statistics of quantum mechanics.
And so Guth discards Einstein like all the rest. And
Guth continues down a dead-end pathway. There
is no such thing as "empty space", Jeff. There is
no empty vacuum, false or otherwise. It almost
seems as if your 4-D fields coincide with Einstein's
relativistic spatial/gravitational field, but the diff is
that you still see the 4-D field as "occupying" space.
The diff is that the field *IS* space. Space is made
of, is comprised of the spatial/gravitational field.
So the term "empty vacuum" has no meaning, and
certainly no place in reality nor in science, the study
of reality.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
P.S. Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
|
