On 5/31/2011 11:27 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 11:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 11:18 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 31, 10:58 pm, wrote:

And how do you explain RF coming from the outer space ? ? ?

I would not put much stock in his aetherial explanations. He's a KooK.

Well, it was Einsteins view upon it, I simply think he has it "close to
right."

But then, "they" are questioning his theory on relativity -- which, I
might add, depends on the gravitational ether for validity! And,
Einstein first denied the Luminferious ether, but when his theory kept
demanding such a medium, he made allowance for a gravitational ether --
you are aware of this, right?

So, give us your "non-kook" version of "what-is-REALLY-goin'-on?"

Regards,
JS


Indeed, let me be more specific, in regards to Einstein theorizing and
modeling the warping the "space/time", what exactly is gravity warping
in space? Is it warping the vacuum? And, wouldn't you first have to have
"something" to be able to warp it?

I am afraid, I have very set ideas on this, so before I put them to
text, you should first give me the "non-kook truth", of how you warp
"nothing?" :-)

Regards,
JS


Yanno'? I was just thinking, we need to agree on the ground rules
first, we do agree that "nothing" and "time" (as our concept of it
defines it) don't exist in reality, right? They are only imaginary
concepts constructed to put "order" and "understanding" on "our
universe?" (and yes, it is weird we put "time" into equations, since it
is only relative, and has no existence in reality.) In this regard, I
am speaking to time as ONLY being movement, and measured by the earths
rotation, so has NO meaning to someone on the other side of the
universe. Indeed, even very impressive "ATOMIC CLOCKS" are really just
measuring "radioactive decay", or the movement of atomic particles --
which I might add, we just discovered is NOT uniform and predicable, at
the present time -- this just being discovered ...

I mean, unless we get the "kooky stuff" out of the way first, everything
else will fail, in just being based on "kookery!"

As, I have to point out, your definition of "kook" and mine seem to have
far different meanings! So, if we are both looking at the same
phenomenon, and arguing the reality of them, we need to find out who is
in error!

Regards,
JS