Einstein Never Found Contentment

"Jeff?Relf" wrote in message...
...

Max Planck found a better way to model black-bodies;
i.e. a better match for the empirical data.

Likewise, Einstein found a better way to model gravity;
i.e. a better match for Mercury's orbit, etc.

If you found a better model, then let me ask you this:
How is it a better match for the empirical data ?

Frankly, i'm not completely certain that "my" model is
better than mainstream-science models, Jeff. But i do
consider it to be at least as good as them, and perhaps
a lot better in some respects.

I'll try to speak on two levels he

Personal and General

Let's then briefly cover the Continuous Big Bang (CBB)
model as opposed to the many models accepted and/or
studied by mainstream science collectively gathered
under the name "Big Bang". (Yes, there are actually
several models of Big Bang theory. There are some
who think that there are as many Big Bang models as
there are cosmologists!)

Personal --

This is hardly very important to anyone else, but it is
important to me. I have researched for more years
than i'd care to count this "science" of cosmology, and
i long ago decided that all Big Bang models are simply
modeled after the Christian genesis event. On one
hand, scientists seem avid about separation of science
and religion, while on the other hand they unabashedly
hold as "gospel" that the Universe just *poofed* into
existence roughly 14 billion years ago. At the time of
this "poof", there was nothing... nothing... no space, no
time... nothing. One cannot speak of this event using
phrases like, "What was it like before the Big Bang?",
because "before" indicates a period in time, and there
*was no time* until the Big Bang. No time, no space.

So anyway, on a personal, subjective level, i felt very
compelled to search, to keep searching. It's not any
kind of religious compulsion. I'd like to believe in God,
i'd *love* to. However i'm no more certain that there
is a God than anyone else is. So i feel that I'm just
being honest with myself. And i personally like the CBB
model of the Cosmos!

General --

Next, let us try to be objective. In a way, the CBB is
exactly the same as other BB models. The "god" of
the book of Genesis in the Bible is a powerful old man
father figure. All he had to say was, "Let there be light:"
and there was light!

The secret god of cosmology is the "natural principle of
uncertainty". Cosmologists like to speak of a vague, ill-
defined "continuum", and it was a "disturbance in the
continuum" that may have resulted in the Big Bang and
the creation of the Universe. What allows for this? What
is it that happens to be the only thing that science will
even consider as a possibility? The Uncertainty Principle.
The UP effectively said, "Let there be light:" and there
was light.

Now let's look to a genesis event for the CBB model.
oc has been posting here for many years about this
model and how it was first conceived by his dear friend
and mentor, Gordon Wolter. But all this time, oc has
been fairly silent about Wolter's description of any type
of beginning, or genesis, for the CBB model. All i know
is that Wolter did believe in the Christian God, that he
believed that a person could have direct communication
with this God (there was no need for intervention by the
church, or even by Prince Siddhartha, aka "Buddha", the
Muslim, Mohammed, nor the founder of Christianity,
Jesus of Nazareth), and that Wolter believed that the
power behind the CBB model is an ill-defined force he
called a "supra-cosmic overpressure", or SCO. So
effectively, the SCO can be the "god" of the CBB model
for those who require such a thing. And many do, you
know. The vast majority of people on this planet require
that there be some sort of "beginning" (and end) to the
Universe. And most of them also require the existence
of a superior living being who is accountable for the
creation of the Cosmos.

So generally and objectively speaking, there appears to
be little if any difference between God (& Allah, the Tao,
etc.), the Uncertainty Principle, and the Supra-Cosmic
Overpressure. However, the thing about the SCO (and
the CBB model) is that it's more readily open to a belief
that the Universe is infinite in time and space. Infinity is
not, however, an easy concept for most people to fathom.
But for those who do try to fathom infinity, the CBB is
certainly a far better model than any other.

Just as it is presently impossible to sense the enormous
toroidal Universe of the CBB model (except with our own
active imaginations), it's impossible to tell how extensive
this idea is. Are there other toroids? Are they adjacent
in a 3-4 dimensional cell structure? or are they separated
by a "continuum" similar to the separation of galaxies?

How static or dynamic is the toroid? Does it grow? or
does it shrink? Does it do both, grow and shrink, perhaps
at regular intervals? How vibrating is it? How big is it,
actually? What is actually the nature of the SCO? Is it
just a machine-like entity? or a living one? Asking who
manufactured the SCO would be about the same as
asking, "Who made God?", isn't it? or is the SCO a truly
infinite thing or being?

The empirical data? I believe this is all from observations
made mostly under extremely nebulous conditions, so
there is no reason as yet to favor any mainstream model
over the CBB model. All data support both models, but
the CBB model makes more logical sense, and is a much
better interpretation of the data in my opinion.

Next, let us leave this talk of beginnings and endings VS.
infinity, and speak of things that are "more nearby" and
closer to our hearts -- things like G R A V I T Y...

tbc

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com

This guy writing under the pen name 'Miles Mathis' has an interesting
synopsis on the Pioneer anomaly wherein he relates it to the clock
rate.

http://milesmathis.com/pion.html

From the thumbnail sketch of the 'big picture' again, one can look at
the P.A. as an inverse of the "anomaly" of Mercury's perihelion
precession. That is, from here at our vantage point on Earth, when
looking at Mercury, we're looking deeper into the sun's gravity well
where the pressure/density (PD) of space is lower, where the clock
runs slower, and incidently, space is stretched sun-ward in the
direction of flow as in the 'venturi' analogy.
Whereas when we look 'waaay out at where the Pioneer
craft are, the reverse is true ; the PD value of space is higher, the
clock runs faster, and space is *contracted* sun-ward in the direction
of flow.

This contraction of space in addition to the clock rate, is what's
being missed in all current theories (including M.Mathis') about the
Pioneer anomaly.

One can have more fun with this. In deep-past lookback, deep into the
*cosmological density gradient*, where the PD value of space is
beginning to climb exponentially back towards the BB, where the clock
rate is climbing concomitantly with it, space is also *contracting*
relative to us 'out here'. So what does this say about the "size of
the universe"??

On May 10, 8:32*am, "Painius" wrote:

The empirical data? I believe this is all from observations
made mostly under extremely nebulous conditions, so
there is no reason as yet to favor any mainstream model
over the CBB model. *All data support both models...

Not *all* data. There's one major exception - the 1a supernova data
(circa the mid-1990s, made possible by HST deep field observations).
The SN1a "standard candles" of luminosity were appearing dimmer than
the 'should be' at a given redshift. This was interpreted as evidence
of "ever-accelerating expansion" of the universe, which became dogma
overnight. And of course it's predicated on the VSP which has no
concept of the *cosmological density gradient*, which when factored
in, will explain the anomalous dimming. The expansion curve will shift
toward DEcelerating expansion and a closed universe. And it'll
eliminate need for the mythical "dark energy" supposedly driving the
'eternally-accelerating' expansion.


the CBB model makes more logical sense, and is a much
better interpretation of the data in my opinion.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:46:00 -0700 (PDT), oldcoot
wrote:

Not *all* data. There's one major exception - the 1a supernova data
(circa the mid-1990s, made possible by HST deep field observations).
The SN1a "standard candles" of luminosity were appearing dimmer than
the 'should be' at a given redshift. This was interpreted as evidence
of "ever-accelerating expansion" of the universe, which became dogma
overnight.

Yeah, and they never corrected it. From Earth as an observational point,
one side of the universe is expanding and the other is contracting. You can
not see 'across' the Universe. This is very easy to prove. Divide the
observational hemisphere of any Universe shot measure the concentration of
stars -- one area will be dense with stars, the other side won't be. The
area with less density is expanding. The other is not. It just keeps
getting denser until it 'winks' out.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:46:00 -0700 (PDT), oldcoot
wrote:

Not *all* data. There's one major exception - the 1a supernova data
(circa the mid-1990s, made possible by HST deep field observations).
The SN1a "standard candles" of luminosity were appearing dimmer than
the 'should be' at a given redshift. This was interpreted as evidence
of "ever-accelerating expansion" of the universe, which became dogma
overnight.

Yeah, and they never corrected it. From Earth as an observational point,
one side of the universe is expanding and the other is contracting. You can
not see 'across' the Universe. This is very easy to prove. Divide the
observational hemisphere of any Universe shot measure the concentration of
stars -- one area will be dense with stars, the other side won't be. The
area with less density is expanding. The other is not. It just keeps
getting denser until it 'winks' out.

On May 10, 8:32*am, "Painius" wrote:

Now let's look to a genesis event in the CBB model.
oc has been posting here for many years about this
model and how it was first conceived by his dear friend
and mentor, Gordon Wolter. *But all this time, oc has
been fairly silent about Wolter's description of any type
of beginning, or genesis, for the CBB model. *

Actually i've mentioned on a regular basis that Wolter was forthright
in stating that the CBB model brings with it a set of 'flat earth'
issues just as every new paradigm does. These become the 'givens' of
the new paradigm. With the CBB model, there's the question of Ultimate
Origin.. what lies at the 'ends' of eternity and of infinity's octave-
like 'fractalization'? What is the Source of the SCO? What are the
exact mechanisms of nonlocality, non-plurality, and hyperfluidity?
These are the 'givens'. And we work with the givens just as did all
who went before. With every horizon that's crossed, there's always a
new one looming in the distance.

So generally and objectively speaking, there appears to
be little if any difference between God (& Allah, the Tao,
etc.), the Uncertainty Principle, and the Supra-Cosmic
Overpressure. *However, the thing about the SCO (and
the CBB model) is that it's more readily open to a belief
that the Universe is infinite in time and space.

As mentioned numerous times, it also validates Einstein's original
Lamda or Steady State idea, but in a much bigger and expansive way
than he ever envisioned.

Infinity is
not, however, an easy concept for most people to fathom.
But for those who do try to fathom infinity, the CBB's is
certainly a far better model than any other.

In that i am unanimous. (Mrs. Slocombe) :-)

Just as it is presently impossible to sense the enormous
toroidal Universe of the CBB model (except with our own
active imaginations), it's impossible to tell how extensive
this idea is. *Are there other toroids? *Are they adjacent
in a 3-4 dimensional cell structure? or are they separated
by a "continuum" similar to the separation of galaxies?

Also discussed before. Wolter saw our macro-universe (or
'Megagalactic' universe) as a simple H atom embedded bubble-like in
the 'SPED' of a higher cosmos, where they are as numerous as H atoms
in *our*
cosmos.

How static or dynamic is the toroid? *Does it grow? or
does it shrink? Does it do both, grow and shrink, perhaps
at regular intervals? *How vibrating is it? *How big is it,
actually?

If modeled on an H atom, it is as stable and permanent in *its* cosmos
as any H atom is in
`our` cosmos. As far as how "big" it is, you'd have to invoke frames
of referance.. "big" relative to us here on Earth? Or as seen from the
'outside' frame? Or from the higher cosmos?

What is actually the nature of the SCO? *

The 'supra' in supra-cosmic means it's a state of pressurization
exiting at *all* levels, forever upward and outward and forever
downward into matter. Thus it is the One Force powering One Flow ever-
downward, at all levels, everywhere, throughout all time.

Is it
just a machine-like entity? or a living one? *Asking who
manufactured the (source of) the SCO would be about the same as
asking, "Who made God?", isn't it? or is the SCO a truly
infinite thing or being?

The CBB model nucleated from one fundamental question : why is there
no perceptible upper limit to amplitude of energy transmissible by EM
radiation? And it very deftly answers that question. I know of no
other model that does so. IN ADDITION, there are numerous, elegantly
cross-congruent 'sidebars' and spinoffs which come unsought and
unsolicited. They include : the long-sought 'wild card' in physics-
unification of gravity with the SNF in the UFTOE/GUT, conciliation of
QM and relativity, the natural expansion/extension of SR/GR,
resolution of the "dark matter/ dark energy" issue, and addresses the
biggest questions in cosmology like the ultimate fate of the (visible)
universe.
And all this follows from one simple adjustment
to the sitting paradigm : replace the "void" of space with the
universe-filling Plenum of space -- the dynamic, highly mobile, sub-
Planckian-wavelength Fluid that's expansible/compressible and amenable
to *density gradients*. And then there's the 'key in the lock' to
understanding it all, the SCO.

So, if one model offers all this in one package, the question is- is
this model bunkum or is it very real in its primary tenets?

Next, let us leave this talk of beginnings and endings VS.
infinity, and speak of things that are "more nearby" and
closer to our hearts -- things like *G R A V I T Y...

Yeeah, bro. Hear, hear

On May 10, 10:25 am, www.freedomtofascism.com wrote:

From Earth as an observational point,
one side of the universe is expanding and the other is contracting. You can
not see 'across' the Universe. This is very easy to prove. Divide the
observational hemisphere of any Universe shot measure the concentration of
stars -- one area will be dense with stars, the other side won't be. The
area with less density is expanding. The other is not. It just keeps
getting denser until it 'winks' out.

Uh, dude. Not quite sure what you're sayin' here, but the 'sphere of
our visible cosmos' is quite isotropic (read: homogenous) from one
side of the sky to the other. But there is a *very slight* anisotropy,
about 1 part in 100,000, called the dipole anisotropy. It's a slight
blue-red Doppler shift due to our Local galactic group's velocity
against the CMBR 'rest frame'. Turns out to be something like 300 km/
s, IIRC.
If interested, Google 'dipole anisotropy' and
'COBE'.

The 'sphere of our visible cosmos', in terms of scale, would be about
the size of a marble embedded in a pretty hefty size 'donut' or bagel.
See- http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/

From here in the center of our little 'marble', the BB *seems* to have
happened "everywhere at once" somewhere in our past.

TYPO :

The 'supra' in supra-cosmic means it's a state of pressurization
exiting at *all* levels..

Should read *existing* at all levels...

Blah blah blah, Jeff! lmao!

You're acting just like the GoofBall!

Saul Levy


On Tue, 6 May 2008 19:39:30 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf
wrote:

In your idle daydreams, you've forgotten about what really matters.
No matter if our environment is cooling or heating up,
we must adapt or perish.

The only lord that matters is the “ land Lord ”;
going up a level, every landlord is a tenant.

Anything that increases your metabolism ( e.g. eating )
shortens your life; i.e. it burns out your light-bulb, so to speak.
Living faster means dying sooner.

Living things ( including humanity in general ) have but one “ choice ”:
“ Live faster ( by consuming more ) or Live longer ”.

Just as eating and drinking too much ruins your health,
over-consumption has ruined the health of the global economy.

Taxes and regulations are the “ rent ” you pay to live
in a healthier, slower, more civilized society. For example..

While “ sperm donors ” get an automatic ( computerized )
life-long irrevocable lien ( no judge can touch it )
accruing at 12 percent A.P.R. ( in “ interest and penalties ” )..

The mothers with young kids that I know get:
1,200 apartments for 120 dollars per month, free medical, free food,
free cash, free day care, free schooling ( college ), etc., etc.

No wonder people will do anything to immigrate to the U.S. !
“ able-bodied ” males ( like me ) get the bill.. nothing more.

On May 10, 11:56*am, oldcoot wrote:

* * * * * * * * * If interested, Google 'dipole anisotropy' and
'COBE'.

The 'sphere of our visible cosmos', in terms of scale, would be about
the size of a marble embedded in a pretty hefty size 'donut' or bagel.
See-http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/

From here in the center of our little 'marble', the BB *seems* to have
happened "everywhere at once" somewhere in our past.

Forgot to add - from the illustration, it becomes obvious that the
CMBR 'rest frame' is itself in a state of flow from the BB point back
to the 'Crunch' point. Our little 'marble' is like a boat adrift on a
river, out of sight of the headwaters where the river originated and
unaware of the "waterfall" that lies ahead. But from the overview of
the 'outside' frame, the whole picture is seen.

Of course the size of the 'marble' (i.e., its Horizon) is determined
by the finite speed of light and the time that's elapsed since the
marble's decoupling from the BB (also known as its lightcone).