Paradoxes and Dilemmas

I don't follow you well in your orange world, sorry but in my orange world every orange is different. But the essential point I can understand is that makis and Patrick see or feel that there is some meaning in c^2 involving change in dimension.
I stick to the unit square meter per square second: m^2/s^2.
Let call m^2 Area: A.
A/s^2 look like m/s^2 the unit of linear acceleration...
Then we can call A/s^2 the unit of surface acceleration.
We can also call A/s the unit of surface speed.
The surface speed unit is usefull to describe the dynamic of let say oil poured at the center of a swimming pool. Oil will spread out on the surface of the water. The linear speed is not an adequate unit because of the wave on the surface of the water. A more appropriate unit to describe the system would be A/s.
I think something can be found by trying to find this meaning.
I found an interesting site [url] www.rsystem.org/ [/url]
groso modo the universe is a 3-D world of motion. This world of motion is the superposition of a 3-D space and a 3-D time. That goes deep in the nature of matter and energy !
Don't get discourrage because we don't understand your world, keep trying may be will understand you and get inlighted!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Jeremy, perhaps you would like to listen to Mr. Einstein say it in his own words. Click the link, listen, then tell us how it is that you know more then Einstein.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As many have told you, Mr. Einstein did not refer to VELOCITY SQUARED as being a velocity, that is proven by the sentence itself. You chide me for thinking I know more than Einstein when you yourself think you do. You point out that Einstein should have used the word "speed" instead of "velocity". Physicists are human and often use the words interchangeably because they feel their audience will know what they meant instead of what they said. Don't reify Einstein, he was just a man. It is precisely this attitude of "you think you are smarter than Einstein" that keeps anyone from being listened to. Was Newton dumber than Einstein because his theory got modified? Don't forget that Einstein himself had great doubts about relativity.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I'm sorry, but nobody is answering the question here. I don't think Mr. Einstein was wrong. The real question here is, is c^2 the speed or velocity of gravity?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It's neither because c^2 IS NOT A VELOCITY. Larry explained this so well that I'm not going to repeat it. Patrick, when you drive your car down the freeway do you tell people you are going 60mph or 60mile^2/hour^2? There IS a difference between these two statements and Albert E would agree with me.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
....then perhaps you can try and find one inaccurate statement in the "Nothing Thread". Actually Jeremy, <b>I CHALLENGE YOU</b> to find one single fault in the "ZERO Theory" thread. It sure is interesting that you are so wise to be able to condemn Eistein and also be able to just discredit others after only reading a quarter of the information. You might actually find the last quarter the most interesting. Until you can disprove what has been stated as proofs the burden is upon you to prove them incorrect.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I am puzzled, where did I CONDEMN Einstein? I am not going to take the bait here because that would fill the topic with more debate about ZERO theory. It is not up to me to disprove it, it is up to you to prove it. We'll just have to agree to disagree on its level of usefullness. Can you develop a single equation from it to crunch an actual number that can be compared to something in the real world?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
From reading the posts it looks like Makis is probably gone form this board for good. Even worse, it looks like some of you kicked him in ass as he left. Makis is the smartest, wisest, most knowledgeable, person I have even encountered including TVF and everyone else from this board. Makis isn't placed at the top of my list because he sees things as I do, it's because on top of his knowledge he can see things from many views. Perhaps if you people weren't so ignorant to label him a charlatan because he challenged your core beliefs, you might have had the opportunity to learn from him. Instead, you do as you have done with Einstein. You condemn him simply because You are Incapable of Understanding his level of logic, which is far superior to yours.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Nobody is picking on Makis, he was getting a little out of hand with his personal etiquette. Larry and I had a healthy round about the value of beanstalks over Orion rockets but we didn't decay into calling each other flat-Earther or making comments about how we were holding our full intelligence at bay so that mere mortals could understand us. It is easy to get carried away typing at a keyboard and I hope that that was all it was. I am perfectly happy to have him here if he can drop the superior intellect stuff and concentrate on his argument (which by his last post seems to be doing).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(Jeremy)Can you develop a single equation from it to crunch an actual number that can be compared to something in the real world?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>It's pretty simple Jeremy, actually it couldn't be any more simple. The equation is simply <b>0=0</b>.

0 is existence, 0 is all that IS, WAS, or ever CAN be. 0 can never be created or destroyed, just simply transformed into some other number or converted back to the original 0. All of everything exists only because 0 exists.

<b><u>How is 0=0 any different then E=mc^2?</b></u><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

OH
???






<b><font size=6><center>OH!!!</center></font id=size6></b>

Now I get it. Or, at least I think I do.

This is stunning. The people in Stockholm are going to be floored when they find out about this.

Man, I feel so dumb. If you don't mind I'll just sit over here and bask in your wisdom. Is that OK? BTW, which "one" of you is the author? Or is this a collaboraive effort? Anyway, congrats to all who deserve it!

I feel kind of sorry for Tom and the others. But, they really are pretty sharp. I bet they catch on REAL SOON.

Highest Regards,
LB

This forum needs an "ignore" feature. Badly and A.S.A.P.!

This argument is interesting from the standpoint of the sociology and politics of physics. It seems that the further an argument is from any grounding in experiment, the more mathematics and physics go at each other's throats. With a little more perspective, we would all realize that experiment is the real arbiter and should be looked to for guidance in choosing the right path, for both avocations. I don't begrudge math for its own sake, as long as its symbols are not substituted, without close grounding in experiment, for those of physics. At the end of the day, what matters is not whose argument sounds best, but which theory best matches experiment. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes decades for the politics to catch up to what's already been decided in the lab. With a little more perspective, we would save some of this energy we squander on fairly ridiculous quarreling for developing cogent information for communication to the outside world. Before we can hope to do that, we had better learn how to do so within our own.

Larry, any thoughts on how to go about building this?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
But it might be possible to alter the rate at which gravitons are absorbed and/or reflected by matter. So instead of "Gravity Amplification by Stimulated Emmission of Radiation" (GASER) we might be able to do "Gravity Attenuation by Stimulated Absorption/Reflection of Gravitons" (GASA/RG").
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
This would be especially useful if it could somehow be made directional.

If some of Dr. Van Flandern's recent speculations about planetary explosion mechanisms are correct, the ability to increase a mass's gravitational attenuation factor could be sort of dangerous.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is a good point. Do we have enough of an understanding of the parameters involved to make a safe experiment? If not, I suggest we acquire this understanding.