oldcoot wrote:

>On Sep 2, 7:08 pm, Double-A wrote:
>>
>> From my recent reading about Einstein's Unified Field days in the
>> 50's, he considered particles to be solitons... in the field of space.

>
>Not only in the 50s, but he was fully aware of it in the 30s, as
>attested to in this document (posted several times previously). The
>last seven paragraphs of the text tell all --
>
>http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V08N3GRF.PDF
>
>His "Biggest Blunder" by far was sittin' on his duff (or laurels as it
>were) and letting the 'No-Medium' dogma take over science _while
>knowing full well better_. It's why Henry Lindner openly brands him a
>fraud and huckster.


How would know if Einstein made any blunders -- you don't understand
the mathematics.
>
>> Trouble was that Einstein's
>> theories couldn't explain what happened at those singularities, and
>> that's where he was stuck. Einstein never liked singularities.

>
>That was Wolter's "roach motel" issue also, the question of "where
>does the stuff go once it's injested thru the core of the nucleus?"
>The counterpoise question is "where does the stuff 'come from' in the
>BB?"


The question you will never be able to answer, and always run far away
from.

> This new guy who just showed up on Google (posted
>previously), also views fundamental particles as the micro equivalent
>of BHs, just as Wolter viewed the proton.
>http://home.flash.net/~tvlmgr/FluidSpace.htm
>But he adds this new insight: *Time dilation* as the inflow
>accelerates to the particle's 'event horizon', where the flow's
>velocity reaches c. Thus the inflow appears "frozen" to our referance
>frame "out here", giving it the appearance and behavior of a "solid",
>discrete entity.. while to *its* frame of referance, it remains a
>vortex going down a 'bathtub drain' into a zone of lowest hydrodynamic
>pressure. "Frame of referance is everything" was Wolter's favorite
>saying.
>
>So if protons are in fact microscale BHs, then it follows that a
>sufficiently large aggregation of 'em can result in the stellar
>collapse producing a single macro-scale BH.. sort of the BH equivalent
>of a Bose-Einstein condensate.


I would call this blender-physics -- dump in a little this, dump in a
little that, add a bunch of starch and hit "puree" -- instant
impressive-sounding theory. Completely meaningless, of course, but who
cares?
>
>> Did you notice the loud squawk from the stowfile? That is the typical
>> reaction..


The astute reader of usenet will have already noticed that you read my
post from out of your "stowfile".
>
>It's the totally predictable yip-yappery just like from saying "ruff"
>to the pit yorkie. Ignoring the noise is the worst possible affrontary
>to the little would-be ankle biters, as what they crave most is
>attention.
>
>BTW, the floor is still open for some intrepid Void-Spacer to step up
>and _explain_ (not describe) the *acting mechanism of causation* by


Why bother? You wouldn't understand or believe anything that doesn't
adhere to your preconceived ideas.

--
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads for alt.astronomy
Wee Davie Tholen is a grade-school lamer
Trainer and leash holder of:
Honest "Clockbrain" John
nightbat "fro0tbat" of alt.astronomy
Tom "TommY Crackpotter" Potter


"You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco."
--Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something"

"Why are you now discussing Art Deco, rec.music.classical,
the coward using a fake name who avoids answering questions
and doesn't try to discuss music with anyone?"
--David Tholen

"Quite a kook-out, Deco. You've been frothing even more
ever since I demonstrated how you believe that ah's family
name is "ah"."
--David Tholen