Einstein Never Found Contentment

"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.

Double-A I relate to Einstein in my spacetime of now Can't stand the
direction my country is going. Have no friends. I have Rudy and she
gives me great comfort. Einstein I don't think ever had a dog. Well he
traveled a lot. Einstein and I could have been as close as out two
equations Go figure Bert

On Apr 29, 1:13*pm, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Double-A I relate to Einstein in my spacetime of now *Can't stand the
direction my country is going. Have no friends. I have Rudy and she
gives me great comfort. Einstein I don't think ever had a dog. Well he
traveled a lot. Einstein and I could have been as close as out two
equations *Go figure *Bert

You have friends here. Einstein had his violin that gave him comfort
to play on.

Double-A

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 (?).

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 (?).


I think Einstein was undecided about that and flip flopped several
times. He was trying to prove ttat particles of matter were solutons
(standing waves) in his last years, which raised the question:
standing waves in what?

Double-A

On Apr 30, 2:01*pm, Double-A wrote:times. *

He was trying to prove that particles of matter were solutons
(standing waves) in his last years, which raised the question:
standing waves in what?

Yeah, in what and *of* what?

On Apr 30, 4:26*pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:01*pm, Double-A wrote:times. *

He was trying to prove that particles of matter were solutons
(standing waves) in his last years, which raised the question:
standing waves in what?

Yeah, in what and *of* what?


Bill, 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?

Double-A

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).

Double-A Late in life Einstein had sad eyebrows. He never had a good
sense of humor like mine. I have out lived him I have had more time to
think then him. There is no way I could relate to a pig. I have lots of
virtual friends Einstein never had a webtv. I could have been a good
friend to Einstein and could make him laugh often We talked once on
gravity and inertia (one to one) Now I could show him that motion has a
time lapse I know he would like that. I knew how famous he was back in
1951,but I did not take advantage of that,and 15 minutes is much to
short a time to talk gravity and inertia I should have gone
to South Station and road back to Prinston with him. I was stupid
Bert

But have you gotten any smarter, BEERTbrain, since 1951? lmao!

Saul Levy


On Tue, 6 May 2008 11:39:55 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Double-A Late in life Einstein had sad eyebrows. He never had a good
sense of humor like mine. I have out lived him I have had more time to
think then him. There is no way I could relate to a pig. I have lots of
virtual friends Einstein never had a webtv. I could have been a good
friend to Einstein and could make him laugh often We talked once on
gravity and inertia (one to one) Now I could show him that motion has a
time lapse I know he would like that. I knew how famous he was back in
1951,but I did not take advantage of that,and 15 minutes is much to
short a time to talk gravity and inertia I should have gone
to South Station and road back to Prinston with him. I was stupid
Bert