Einstein Never Found Contentment

On May 6, 8:47*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Once Einstein saw the evidence that galaxies were moving away from
each other at an accelerating rate he gave up his "static" universe..

Bert, he gave it up once he saw evidence of the Hubble Constant, which
is simply the increasing expansion-rate per unit of distance. The idea
of "ever-accelerating" expansion did not come into vogue until the
mid-1990s with the observation of the most distant 1a supernova
"standard candles" appearing dimmer than they 'should be' at a given
redshift. This led to the invention of "dark energy" as driving the
perceived ever-accelerating expansion.
And it's all predicated on space being isotropically
and functionally void all the way back to the BB (with the speed of
light invariant all the way back to the BB). The 'Void' model does not
recognize the *cosmological density gradient* (CDG) of space itself
which begins rising exponentially at deep cosmological distances. Once
the CDG is recognized and factored in, the expansion curve will shift
to DEcelerating expansion and a closed universe. "Ever-accelerating
expansion" becomes a grand illusion with no need for mythical "dark
energy".
And as a side note, the precipitous density-drop
from the instant off the BB also resolves the Horizon Problem and
eliminates the need for "inflation". Note the concomitant drop in the
speed of light across the CDG. This lightspeed drop, Wolter's "c-
dilation" is _as observed from the 'outside' referance frame_. Yet
from here 'inside', we observe artifacts such as the 1a supernova
dimming. From the 'inside' frame, c is always constant 'there' locally
just as it is constant 'here', locally. Thus there is no violation of
the Lorentz invariance (or any other constant for that matter). The
sole variable between 'here' and 'there' is the density value of the
spatial medium.

He (Einstein) got swayed with the bad popular
theory.(constant) That is the reason I fight bad popular theories.

Well, the presumed "void-ness" of space and the invariance of
lightspeed all the way back to the BB is a "bad" theory. It's the
reason Special Relativity is presently 'flat'. SR presently holds c
constant in all inertial frames. The natural extension/expansion of SR
is to recognize the CDG.. which will recognize c as constant in all
*density frames* as well. Updating SR will bring it out of its 'flat'
status, and grant proper understanding of 'c-dilation'.

And as a further side note, there is a concomitant dilation of the
clock rate across the CDG. Vastly more 'ticks of the clock' have
transpired since the BB than allowed under the sitting model. So what
does this say about the "age of the universe"??

Einstein's “ Cosmological Constant � is the λ in λ-CDM;
i.e. the “ Dark Energy � in the standard model of cosmology.

λ is a constant acceleration ( the Hubble Constant varies with z ),
3-D space is accuring like interest in an idle checking account.

As entropy accrues, the 4-D field of our Visible Universe
has diminishing “ action � ( Planck's constant is a unit of action ).

Gravity is dying off like a gasoline burning away,
fueling the engine of life.

Again, in “ Relatively and the Problem of Space � Einstein wrote:
“ There is no such thing as an empty space,
i.e. a space without field.

Space-time does not claim existence on its own,
but only as a structural quality of the field.

Thus Descartes was not so far from the truth when he believed
he must exclude the existence of an empty space.

The notion indeed appears absurd,
as long as physical reality is seen exclusively in ponderable bodies.

It requires the idea of the field as the representative of reality,
in conjunction with the general principle of relativity,
to show the true kernel of Descartes' idea;

there exists no space ‘ empty of field ’. �.

But the field is 4-D, endless, unponderable and unblockable.
Einstein said:

“ I see a pattern,
but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern.
I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker.

The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions,

so how can it conceive of a God,
before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one ? �.
-- “ The Expanded Quotable Einstein �,
Princeton University Press, 2000 Page 208

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.

The science community does not claim a field is a “ void nothing �,
you've invented that notion for your own pleasure.
3-D space is a property of the 4-D field.

At the quantum level, everything is modeled as a relativistic field
or a statistical field.. there are no ponderable objects, no waves.

At the giga parsec scale, our visible Universe is a 4-D field;
it's unblockable, invisible, and endless.. not a ponderable “ plenum �.

On May 6, 1:26 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:

The science community does not claim a field is a " void nothing ",

Oh really? Then why does it treat space, both practically and
mathematically, *as if* it were a void? Why does the science community
recognize no *density gradients* in the "field" of space? Sure, GR
recognizes a lightspeed drop in a gravity well. But WHY does that drop
occur? To suggest that it's because the *density of space* decreases
in a gravity well, and that the speed of light slows in the less-dense
medium, is to be accused of trying to resurrect the 'aether
theory'.

you've invented that notion for your own pleasure.

Then a number of people worldwide have independantly "invented"
exactly the same notion. Lightspeed slows in a gravity well (or
gravity field) due to decreasing space density, which is because space
is literally venting down to a zone of lowest pressure, with mass as
the flow sink. Think venturi. A black hole would be the most extreme
example of a flow sink (or pressure vent).
OK, so let's extrapolate back in the *other*
direction - away from the gravity field, out into deep space far away
from any mass. The pressure/density of space increases, and the speed
of light increases (relative to us here in the sun's gravity well).
Let's extrapolate further back, 10 billion LY or so. The pressure/
density (PD) of space is increasing slightly. Now go back 12 billion
LY. The PD is beginning to climb *exponentially*, with the speed of
light and the clock rate climbing concomitantly with it. And the climb
becomes steeper and steeper all the way back to the instant of
emergence from the BB. This is the *cosmological density gradient*
unrecognized by the science community steeped in its universally-
isotropic "field" which it treats functionally as a void.

(Apologies if this duplicates. The first attempt didn't send.)

On May 6, 1:26 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:

The science community does not claim a field is a $B!H(B void nothing $B!I(B,

Oh really? Then why does it treat space, both practically and
mathematically, *as if* it were a void? Why does the science community
recognize no *density gradients* in the "field" of space? Sure, GR
recognizes a lightspeed drop in a gravity well. But WHY does that drop
occur? To suggest that it's because the *density of space* decreases
in a gravity well, and that the speed of light slows in the less-dense
medium, is to be accused of trying to resurrect the 'aether
theory'.

you've invented that notion for your own pleasure.

Then a number of people worldwide have independantly "invented"
exactly the same notion. Lightspeed slows in a gravity well (or
gravity field) due to decreasing space density, which is because space
is literally venting down to a zone of lowest pressure, with mass as
the flow sink. Think venturi. A black hole would be the most extreme
example of a flow sink (or pressure vent).
OK, so let's extrapolate back in the *other*
direction - away from the gravity field, out into deep space far away
from any mass. The pressure/density of space increases, and the speed
of light increases (relative to us here in the sun's gravity well).
Let's extrapolate further back, 10 billion LY or so. The pressure/
density (PD) of space is increasing slightly. Now go back 12 billion
LY. The PD is beginning to climb *exponentially*, with the speed of
light and the clock rate climbing concomitantly with it. And the climb
becomes steeper and steeper all the way back to the instant of
emergence from the BB. This is the *cosmological density gradient*
unrecognized by the science community steeped in its universally-
isotropic "field" which it treats functionally as a void.

Besides you, no one claims a field is a “ void nothing �.
Empirically ( error bars and all ), a vacuum is a volume of low pressure;
but the 3-D volume is derived from the 4-D gravitational field.

The low pressure you keep talking about ( a.k.a. your “ void nothing � )
is a statistical measure that's far Less real ( i.e. less knowable )
than the ( well known, more real ) 4-D gravitational field.

Cause and Effect travels at c or below.
Imagine a human, far distant from a black hole, trying to measure
what's happening at the ( forever-forming ) event horizon.

He sees the ( ∞ redshifted ) standard yardstick is endless
and the ( ∞ redshifted ) standard clock won't tick.

Eons pass ( by his clock ) yet he sees nothing moving there,
not even a billionth of a meter ( according to the endless yardstick ).

All the fuel in our visible Universe will have been spent,
all “ action � ( measured in Planck units ) will have ceased,
all fields will have died, before the black hole has a chance to form.

But none of this matters much,
what matters most is the “ rent � you pay to your “ land lord �;
e.g. the taxes you pay and regulations you follow.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On May 1, 1:24 pm, Double-A wrote:

..in the chicken and egg department, if the SPED is the
fundamental carrier medium for EM waves, then what is the carrier
medium for the SPED?

There was this dialog with Painius last week in which an "Aha!" moment
occured regarding the 'granularity'/ wavelength-state of the SPED (re-
posting) :

On Apr 24, 9:30 am, "Painius" wrote:

The idea that the flowing carrier
medium of spatial energy is comprised of wavelengths
that are shorter than the Planck length actually goes
beyond the esoteric quantum mechanics and into a
realm that science considers "undefined".

Well, in light of abundant prima facie evidence by which the spatial
medium _demonstrates itself_, (the high, fixed value of c, lack of
perceptible upper amplitude limit to EM radiation, the behavior of
gravity, and the ability to crush massive stars down to a black
hole),
AND since we sensorially perceive that medium as "void", indicating
that its 'granularity' or wavelength-state resides below our sensory
and EM resolution, below the level that "has any meaning" by sensory
or EM standards, it can only be defined as sub-Planckian.

So they're
going to have to understand the quantum world ere
they want to tackle the cutting edge concept of.. "flowing space".

Understanding first the reality of the spatial medium, whether
flowing
or not, will open up understanding of the quantum realm and will
provide conciliation of QM and relativity, healing the great rift
between them. But that chasm will remain forever fixed under the
Void-
Space Paradigm.

So what the hell, let's plumb the sub-Planckian domain even
further. Remember that CBB image of the hydrogen atom with its two
'bathtub drain' vortices going into the poles of the central proton?
The stuff that's flowing in is the 'stuff' of space itself venting
down to its lowest pressure-state at the proton's core. OK, now
consider the sub-Planckian 'granularity' of the stuff that's flowing.
Let's invent a term for a single "granule" of the stuff. Call it a
"granulon".

In terms of scale, a single "granulon" of the stuff flowing into the
H
atom's nucleus will be as small as a molecule of water in a bathtub
drain. This is _two orders of scale_ downward, downward to the level
of an individual "granulon". And YUP, the thing is bipolar, an exact
microscale analog of the hydrogen atom, just as the H atom
itself is a microscale analog of the CBB universe. And it shares the
same planform that's seen all through nature at every level : two
hemispheres and a common equator spinning on a polar axis. Just as a
(spinning) black hole is a *gravitic dipole* with clear-cut 'N' and
'S' gravitic poles, a proton is a microscale BH analog with its N and
S magnetic poles (under the CBB model, that is).

And each "granulon" is likewise bipolar with N and S poles.

Remember how a magnetic fields are generated when sufficient numbers
of protons and/or electrons are aligned en masse? Now here comes the
kicker : when sufficient numbers of "granulons" are aligned en masse,
and when that alignment-state is oscillating,

_This is the mechanism of the propagation of light and all EM
radiation_.
It is the propagation mechanism of Maxwell's E and H fields.

Further, this is the basis of why there is NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER LIMIT
TO THE AMPLITUDE OF ENERGY TRANSMISSIBLE BY EM RADIATION, the
fundamental perception from which the CBB model nucleated.

Since the sub-Planckian energy density (or energy equivalence)
surpasses nuclear on the scale that nuclear surpasses chemical
(expressed fancifully as "E=mc^3"), it's easy to see that
unfathomably
high amplitudes of EM radiation are propagated by the oscillating
alignment-state and degree of alignment of "granulons" en masse.

Bipolar "granulons" composing the sub-Plank energy
domain (or SPED) would obviously explain polarization of light.

And their having a vorticed 'whirlpool' nature was suggested in a
bygone
era by Bernoulli and son. See -
http://www.scientificblogging.com/re...nd_dark_energy

(End re-post)

So the "carrier" of the SPED is ever-finer matrices of bipolar
"granulons" embodying ever-ascending levels of energy density.

The principle of *embeddedness* has been discussed here many times,
i.e., how an atom (the H atom for example) is like a vacuole or
'bubble' embedded in the SPED, and how our macro-universe is likewise
embedded bubble-like in the "SPED" of a higher cosmos.. making our
macro-universe a simple H atom in that higher cosmos. This principle
of universe-as-atom, with the H atom the 'interlock' or 'overlap'
stage, is the structure of infinity itself, extending forever upward
and outward, cosmos beyond cosmos, and forever downward into matter
(under the CBB model, that is).

Actually that's pretty fascinating, especially to anyone
who has studied chaos theory. "Order within apparent
chaos," and all that...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nix(Julia).gif

Infinitely upward, forever downward, truly staggering.

There are two chasms here, Bill... First the one that
will exist for a long time between relativity and quantum
theories. And then there's the gap between the "Royal"
big bang of cosmology and Wolter's CBB. This second
chasm is marked most vividly by the fact that the CBB
model, while already an impossible model to physically
experience, goes beyond quantum mechanics into the
realm of subPlanck wavelengths--frequencies so high
that they truly boggle the mind (even moreso than
particle physics does).

Since, as you say, acceptance of the CBB model would
swiftly lead to bridging the abyss between relativity and
quantum mechanics, and since this acceptance would
most likely be brought about by understanding what you
posted above, i'd say you are correct that it will be a
very long time before science is able to free itself from
the quicksand of the VSP.

Note to Jeff... neither oc nor Paine invented the void-
space paradigm. The reason you don't hear about it in
science is because it is now seen as a fundamental and
automatically accepted axiom. Scientists "KNOW" that
there is no ether, that space is nothing, a void. And as
you probably already know, when anybody makes their
mind up about something, thinking stops.

And the only way to start it back up again is to come up
with an amazing and outrageous way to burst science's
bubble!

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

"Double-A" wrote in message...
...
On Apr 29, 1:34 pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:24 am, Double-A wrote:

"I have never belonged wholeheartedly to a country, a state, nor to a
circle of friends, or even to my own family. When I was still a
rather precocious youn man, I already realized most vividly the
futility of the hopes and aspirations that most men pursue throughout
thier lives. Well-being and happiness never appeared to me as an
absolute aim. I am even inclined to compare such moral aims to the
ambitions of a pig." - Albert Einstein late in life.

Could such lament reflect a note of self-deprecation for capitulating
to the 'no medium', space-as-void doctrine while knowing full well
better (?).

Perhaps I have found a better answer to this. I think this is
Einstein's last word on the nature of space:

"There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without
field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a
structural quality of the field.

Thus Descartes was not so far from the truth when he believed he must
exclude the existence of an empty space. The notion indeed appears
absurd, as long as physical reality is seen exclusively in ponderable
bodies. It requires the idea of the field as the representative of
reality, in conjunction with the general principle of relativity, to
show the true kernel of Descartes' idea; there exists no space "empty
of field.""

- From the elusive "Appendix Five", "Relatively and the Problem of
Space" in Einstein's book "Relativlity - The Special and General
Theory", copyright 1961 by the Estate of Albert Einstein.

Does that sound like a void spacer? I don't think Einstein could
have been anymore clear about rejecting the void space concept in the
above sttatement. Einstein used the word "field" to describe that
which fills space. Of course, Einstein's "field interpretation" of
Relativity is not what is being taught at universities today. But
that's not Einstein's fault. You can blame guys like Wheeler for
that.

Double-A

Almost entirely correct, DA, except for the part about
Einstein using the word "field" to describe that which
"fills" space. This implies that Einstein believed that
space-time needs "filling". If you'll remember, in the
brief intro to the 15th edition of _RELATIVITY_, which
you cite above, Einstein wrote that physical objects
are not "in space", but are "spatially extended".

To me, this means that Einstein used the word "field"
to describe not that which "fills" space, but that which
"comprises" space. His awesome challenge for us to
pursue "space-as-field" has gone largely unnoticed by
science, which is far too deeply embedded in the dead
end of the void-space axiom...

In the very last sentence of the book, Einstein writes,
". . . one should not desist from pursuing to the end
the path of the relativistic field theory."

To my knowledge, there are no physicists who are
actively pursuing this path. It is the path to the "gold",
a path in dire need of genius equivalent to that of the
old man himself. Such genius, combined with the balls
to fight and to overcome the mainstream status quo,
surfaces only rarely.

Einstein's genius was in how he was able to get his
relativity theory into the bright limelight of controversy.
And he did this mainly by saying that there was no need
for an aether. So science in its infinite wisdom discarded
the aether. And while relativity theory might not require
an aether for it to work, quantum mechanics most
certainly _does_ require an aether, a spatial field, in
order to be better understood.

Science is presently experiencing several cul-de-sacs
due to its inability to accept the reality of space-as-
field, that space is a field of energy, a sub-Planckian
energy domain (SPED).

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

The aether was replaced by fields, not a “ void nothing �.
ElectroMagnetic fields are 4-D relativistic,
but Quantum Mechanics' Path Integral is merely statistical.

Although the 4-D gravitational field is mostly ignored
when doing high-energy physics, there'd be no space without it,
no standard yarstick, no standard second, no nothing !

The scientific community ( e.g. Fermilab's Tom Roberts ),
understands this; it's the ordinary person that doesn't understand
invisible / endless / 4-D / unblockable / unponderable fields.