Einstein Never Found Contentment

erratum :

On May 10, 6:16*pm, oldcoot wrote:

...the Lorentz
contaction of the arm would exactly cancel the expected phase shift..

Make the *lengthening*, not contraction.

On May 10, 7:33*pm, oldcoot wrote:
On May 10, 3:23*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

The correct 'model' to explain gravity is varying ether
density and flow around massive objects. *Try to visualize a varying
density (according to the inverse square law) ether envelope around
the sun that rotates as the sun rotates. *
When Mercury's elliptical
orbit approaches the sun (right hand rule), the ether flow is WITH the
velocity of Mercury. *But the closer in to the sun Mercury gets, the
more effective the ether is in KICKING the ellipse.

Sorry but no cigar. What you're describing is the Lense-Thirring or
'frame dragging' effect. The sun's rotation rate is many orders of
magnitude too small to generate the effect you describe. You'd begin
seeing it with a millisecond pulsar which can rotate at up several
hundred revolutions *per second*, or with a high spin-rate black hole
which can spin much faster.

This is the cause
of the slow precession, NOT varying space-time!

Nope.

Einstein’s GR was a mathematical ANALOGY of the observed effects,
NOT a cause of those effects. *

Yep, it's a brilliantly crafted metaphor (e.g., "curvature of space")
describing observed effects, but scrupulously avoiding explaining the
mechanism _causing_ the effects. The "curvature of space" for
instance, describes the
**rate of acceleration** of flowing space. It is GR's accelerometer
readout. No acceleration = no "curvature" = no gravity *irrespective
of the actual velocity of the flow* (in sub-relativistic speed
regimes, that is).

Ether density and flow explains every
observation in nature supposedly "predicted" by Einstein! *—

Indeed. But please ditch the archaic and stigma-ridden 'E' word and
replace it with something more definitive and descriptive of the
spatial medium.. like sub-Planck(ian) energy domain or SPED.

Dear oldcoot: I never said that the ether envelope of the sun
revolves at the same speed that the sun does. The actual angle and
velocity of the ether flow will influence how much Mercury gets
"kicked". The "big spot" on Jupiter is the point where her spiral of
ether reaches the surface. One can calculate the "angle" of the
spot's ellipse. That will give an approximation of the angles of
ether reaching the sun. The huge radiant output of the sun tries to
push the ether away. That accounts for the surface "roughness" of the
sun, and likely influences the location of sun spots and solar flares.

Note: I base my explanations on my own reasoning, not on the bits and
pieces of the reasoning of others. Since ether flow and density
explains things, and because of my invalidation of M-M (no CONTROL), I
reinstate ETHER as the fundamental energy source in the universe.
Screw Planck! — NoEinstein —

On May 10, 7:41*pm, oldcoot wrote:
And BTW, the Lense-Thirring or 'frame dragging' effect is space
dragging matter, not matter dragging space as commonly taught.

Dear oldcoot: My science isn't being taught yet. Hang in there; it
soon will be! — NoEinstein —

On May 10, 8:02*pm, "Painius" wrote:
"Jeff?Relf" wrote in message...

Dear Paine: I’m not an Einstein “junkie”, but I do have the Fifteenth
Edition of his ‘Relativity, the Special and the General’. For some
reason a lot of people have the erroneous idea that… “space moves”.
X, Y, Z space is a fixed 3D reference grid that can have any units of
length and can place the origin at any point within the vacuum of
space, or within any matter that is in space.
The reference point for ‘acceleration’ is the coordinates of
where the moving object was one “time unit” before; say, one second
before.
A true vacuum (also devoid of ether) has ZERO energy. The energy
density of the ether near a massive object varies according to the
inverse square law. And the effective total energy potential in say
one meter is just the weight of the material that might be placed
there. A light material will have less energy potential than a
heavier material. There is nothing about the force of gravity that
comes close to the “locked in” atomic energy in matter. But the
available PE, if you sum the entire surface of the Earth, is far
greater than any present nuclear blast. Imagine that the entire
surface of the Earth was covered in a ten story concrete building that
will be demolished at the same time. “That” will give you some idea
of the power of gravity! But out in space, away from massive objects,
the ether flow doesn’t amount to much.
The only thing needed to measure the “spatial field” is a
bathroom scale with a unit mass. Gravity doesn’t have a “wavelength”,
because gravity is caused by flowing ether. The smallest units of
ether are what I call IOTA. Since different size clumps and tangles
of IOTAs form sub-atomic particles, the size of the things is way
smaller than the shortest wavelength.
Einstein defined gravity as: “Acceleration along the world line
in the space-time continuum.” But I’ve invalidated M-M. And that
immediately invalidates Lorentz and Einstein. There is no such thing
as varying space-time! Oh, you could screw with the length and time
units at will, but space-time does NOT vary according to the proximity
to massive objects!
Paine, your ideas show the drive that few others have to find
answers. Instead of a “screwed up” spatial field, just substitute
flowing ether, and you’ll have the physics correct! I invite you to
read some of my earlier posts. — NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...967db2b?hl=en#


...



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 ?

One of the most interesting ideas i've ever read about
is Gordon Wolter's concept of flowing space. *Before i
read oc's accounts here on UseNet, i'd already read the
15th edition of _RELATIVITY_ by Einstein, but i hadn't
actually digested it much. Yet i remembered something
in that book that related to the idea of the VED.

What's the VED? *That's what oc was calling the dense
plenum of space-time way back when i first started to
read him. *VED stands for "vacuum energy density".
And it is this vacuum energy density that flows into
matter and causes gravity. *At some point, after seeing
that oc described the VED as an energy of wavelengths
that are actually less than the Planck length, i suggested
that the VED might also be called the subPlanck energy
domain or SPED. *And this is how we've been referring to
it since then.

In the 15th edition of _RELATIVITY_, Einstein wrote a
brief but impacting intro and a short treatise at the end
in Appendix V titled "Relativity and the Problem of
Space". Einstein "sneaks" us in the right direction in this
treatise. *Unfortunately, the references are vague
enough, and ol' Albert was old enough (it was published
about three years before he died), that the idea got
very little attention by science, and little if any further
mention. *It's notable that a copy of the 15th edition is
not to be found for free on the internet. *While Project
Gutenberg has the book for free, it's only up to the 10th
edition.

(I thought it was interesting that this 10th edition's table
of contents lists Appendix V and its title. Appendix V was
not added until the 15th edition. *And this 10th edition,
when you travel to its end, actually goes only as high as
Appendix IV.)

In the intro Einstein speaks to how physical objects are
not "in space", but instead are "spatially extended".
Then, in Appendix V, he writes about what he called a
"relativistic field" that actually comprises space-time.
But that was as specific as he allowed. *The field's very
obvious relationship with gravity is mainly due to the
fact that Einstein included the treatise as an addendum
to what he'd already written in the book about general
relativity. *And general relativity is about gravity. *But
nowhere did he actually come out and say that the
relativistic field caused gravity. *Nor did he mention
anywhere that the energy in the field actually "flowed".
And yet he was very clear that this field of energy did
not "fill" space, but actually "comprised" space. *This
relativistic field of energy *is* space, and space *is*
this field.

I have speculated that Einstein knew much more than
he was letting on, but he was unwilling to divulge more
information because of the US' premature usage of his
nuclear power on Japan during WWII. *And to harness
the enormous power of the spatial/gravitational field, a
power that makes nuclear force look like toy gun caps,
he wanted to leave to an older, more mature generation
of people.

Now back to flowing space, here's a rub... there is no
known way to measure the spatial field, yet. *Its energy
is of such a short wavelength and such a high frequency
that no instrument yet devised by science is sensitive
enough to sense it, let alone to measure it. *So there is
no empirical data to go on other than that which science
uses to DESCRIBE THE EFFECTS of gravity. *Newton was
able to make great strides in this description. *Einstein
made even greater strides. *But neither Newton nor the
old man Einstein ever wrote anything, not one word in
any scientific writing, about what actually CAUSES the
phenomenon known as gravity. *Newton did write some
personal stuff that became known in which he said that
he felt that the cause of gravity was not only unknown,
but also "unknowable". *Newton thought God causes
gravity. *And as near as anybody can tell, so did Albert
Einstein.

Yes, i know. *Einstein was supposed to be an atheist.
The reason for this is that he could not conceive of a
benevolent God who would allow the atrocities of the
second world war, especially those in Germany. *But
then, he also once described his feelings about the
randomness of quantum mechanics (ironically a
discipline he helped to found), and especially about the
"natural principle of uncertainty". *He said that he did
not think that God plays dice with the Universe. *Maybe
he was not a true atheist after all?

So here basically is the very first idea and proposal i've
seen that explains the cause of gravity as something
other than an omniscient, all-powerful superbeing, or
the results of the actions of an unfindable, inexplicable
transfer particle. *The accelerating flow of the SPED
through and into matter pushes us down and holds us
down, keeps us from merrily floating away. The spatial
field, which is just a field of great and dense energy,
not any kind of great god or other fantastic being, is
the cause of the effect known as "gravitation". *It does
not have the magical ability to snap its fingers and, on
a whim, thwart the laws of physics. *It is a tremendous
force, far stronger than even the nuclear forces, and it
sustains those nuclear forces and the EM force as well.

So all existing empirical data applies to the effects of
the SPED just as easily as it applies to the effects that
are described by classical and modern physics. *The
only difference is that in the CBB model, the SPED is
the cause of gravity, while in all other models the
cause of gravity is either unknown, the result of the
action of an as yet undiscovered transfer particle, the
"graviton" (Note: *even if the graviton is ever actually
found, there is still no explanation yet as to how it
causes gravity), or attributable to God.

So! is it so hard to see why i fell head over heels for
the subPlanck energy domain? *g

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

On May 10, 9:16*pm, oldcoot wrote:
On May 10, 4:10 pm, NoEinstein wrote,
addressing Painius:

*....Well, those 'ages' of thinking have led me to discover that the
1887 Michelson-Morley experiment lacked a CONTROL, and was thus
unsuited as a light velocity detector. *Lorentz's idiotic explanation
for the failed result of M-M gave us Einstein's theories of relativity
and "ruled out" the existence of a "lumeniferous ether". *But by my
invalidation of M-M, I reinstate ETHER as the primary energy medium in
the universe.

Actually the MM null result was entirely consistent with a *vertical*
flow and would in fact be expected. The question has been asked - what
if one arm of the apparatus were made vertical instead of horizontal?
Wouldn't it then detect the vertical flow? No, because the Lorentz
contaction of the arm would exactly cancel the expected phase shift,
and you'd still get a null result.

Since ether units (that I call IOTA) are polar, ether
accounts for electromagnetism, gravity, light, and matter itself.

Give this man a ceegar!! But i call these sub-Planckian-wavelength
units "granulons" and they are indeed dipoles. When aligned en masse,
and when that alignment-state is oscillating, _this is the mechanism
of propagation of light and all EM radiation. It is the propagation
mechanism of Maxwell's E and H fields_. The *degree of alignment* of
"granulons" oscillating en masse determines amplitude of EM radiation.
Their bipolarity also explains polarization of light.
* * * * * * * * * * However, their bipolarity is not germaine to
gravity. The accelerating Flow of the spatial medium occurs, causing
gravity, whether any EM radiation is present or not.

But for me, "God" is: “The
embodiment, or the personification of all of the natural laws in the
universe.” *Since those laws don't require having been written down in
order to exist, then, they HAVE existed for all time, and they WILL
exist for all time, just like we expect applies to... God.

Well said. That was pretty close to Einstein's concept of "God"
whenever he was queried on the subject.

* * *Since matter must have formed from the pure-energy, ether, then
as matter forms the ether in "space" has to become less, and the ether
in matter becomes more.

You've got it partly right. But the "ether in matter" becomes *less*
since an atom is like a vacuole or "bubble" embedded in the much-more-
substantial (in terms of energy-density) matrix of space. Matter can
be termed a "hole in the ether".

YEEE-ECH!! Using that 'E' word is like fingernails on the
blackboard! :-))

The varying ether flow and density near
massive objects causes objects caught in that flow to be
gravitationally attracted.

The "attraction" occurs when and *only* when the flow is accelerating.
And the perceived "attraction" is actually a push force. "Attraction"
is a pseudoism like "suction", "cenrtifugal" force etc.

...there is little or no ether
between, say, widely separated galaxies...

Just the opposite. Out in deep space, farthest from any mass, the
pressure/density of space is *highest*.

You might want to take a gander at this site and hear this guy out -http://www.river.org/~jerry/grav1.htm
..and then seriously reconsider the rest of what you say here --



then there can be little or
no ether flow necessary to cause galaxies to be drawn together. *Since
there could be no clustering that is much above the space occupied by
the galaxy clusters observed, then there can be no gravitational
effects over distances that are any greater. *Therefore, there will
never be a... Big Crunch.
* * *I’ve found conclusive evidence in the Andromeda Galaxy data that
Black Holes occur in one size and one size only! *Black holes LOOSE
their gravity when they grow black and thus cold (no atomic
movement). *So gravity is incapable of holding all matter in a very
small space. *Therefore, the Big Bang DIDN'T happen! *For all
practical purposes, galaxies, and perhaps galaxy clusters are the
"units" of creation. *And those keep recycling the mass back into just
ether, and the ether back into mass.
* * *The confusing idea of Hubble about the universe expanding is due
to the fact that light AGES over long distances. *THAT is the cause of
the red shifts in distant galaxies, NOT Doppler effects. *The supposed
"missing mass" in the universe is just a huge error in Newton's Law of
"Universal Gravitation" (Ha, ha ha, ha, ha!). *If I explained to you
what that error is, you might steal my thunder… *I want to save some
of the latter for later! *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear oldcoot: My own X, Y, Z interferometer detects Earth's motion in
the cosmos quite well. And at no point is "ether flow" a cause of the
change in travel time. The correct cause of the interference fringe
changes observed is: The lateral motion of the entire apparatus
(attached to the moving Earth) during the time that a photon travels
to a 45 degree mirror. A moving apparatus will cause the photon to
reflect OFF CENTER of the 45 degree mirror. And how far off center
depends on the orientation of the apparatus relative to the Earth's
velocity vector. Since my CONTROL light course doesn't reflect from
the 45 degree mirror, the physical change in the length of the TEST
light course can be measured via interference.
My first generation interferometer didn't have the resolution to
allow easily counting the advance and retard. I'm presently building
a next generation interferometer that will have an expanded beam,
with, hopefully, more distinct interference fringes. When I can count
those, I can determine Earth's precise direction of motion and
velocity in the cosmos. My disproving of the "expanding universe"
will easily follow! — NoEinstein —

On May 10, 10:47*pm, oldcoot wrote:
erratum :

On May 10, 6:16*pm, oldcoot wrote:



...the Lorentz
contaction of the arm would exactly cancel the expected phase shift..

Make the *lengthening*, not contraction.

Dear oldcoot: The most damaging idea (to science) about matter
contracting in the direction of motion came from Lorentz. He tried to
shoe-horn his observations about... "the increasing resistance of
charged particles to go to 'c' in a vacuum" to explain the nil results
of M-M. There is NO contraction of ANY object due to a uniform
velocity! Because Lorentz was Einstein's mentor, Einstein just built
on anything that Lorentz said. And a contraction alone could never
correct for a "ruler" that needs to be lengthened! Lorentz nor
Einstein knew a thing about “strengths of materials”. They just
assumed that "velocity" can magically make any apparatus, of any
dimensions, configurations and materials CONTRACT identically. How
sub-stupid! All clingers-on to Einstein's relativity theories are sub-
sub-stupid! — NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...967db2b?hl=en#

On May 10, 10:58*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

The "big spot" on Jupiter is the point where her spiral of
ether reaches the surface. *One can calculate the "angle" of the
spot's ellipse.

The Great Red Spot is an *atmospheric* vorticity, a cyclonic storm in
other words. And it's generated by gradients of windspeeds in the
bands circling the planet. Vorticities occur whenever there's a
sufficiently high velocity gradient in a flow (or between bands of
flow, as on Jupiter). As long as the gradients remain high, Jupiter's
Spot will remain. But if the gradients subside the Spot will fade too.
Nothing to do with "ether reaching the surface".

On May 11, 12:29 am, NoEinstein wrote:

My own X, Y, Z interferometer detects Earth's motion in
the cosmos quite well. And at no point is "ether flow" a cause of the
change in travel time. The correct cause of the interference fringe
changes observed is: The lateral motion of the entire apparatus
(attached to the moving Earth) during the time that a photon travels
to a 45 degree mirror. A moving apparatus will cause the photon to
reflect OFF CENTER of the 45 degree mirror. And how far off center
depends on the orientation of the apparatus relative to the Earth's
velocity vector. Since my CONTROL light course doesn't reflect from
the 45 degree mirror, the physical change in the length of the TEST
light course can be measured via interference.
My first generation interferometer didn't have the resolution to
allow easily counting the advance and retard. I'm presently building
a next generation interferometer that will have an expanded beam,
with, hopefully, more distinct interference fringes. When I can count
those, I can determine Earth's precise direction of motion and
velocity in the cosmos.

What you're not "getting" is the fact that any gravitating mass
(planet, sun, moon) is a *flow sink*, carrying with it an *entrained
flow field* (EFF) extending out many radii from the mass. That's the
omnidirectional 'reverse starburst' inflow pattern also known as its
gravitational field or gravity well. Due to Earth's entrainment of its
flow field, the flow is always vertical to the planet's surface and
**entrained to the planet**. This rules out using interferometers to
detect "Earth's precise direction of motion in the cosmos", as M-M
found out.

If you want to find an approximate "direction and velocity" relative
to a cosmic rest frame, about the best you're gonna do is look at the
dipole anisotropy of the CMBR. That's the very slight blue-red Doppler
shift from one side of the sky to the other. If interested, Google
'dipole anisotropy' and 'COBE'.

On May 11, 12:40*am, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear oldcoot: *The most damaging idea (to science) about matter
contracting in the direction of motion came from Lorentz. *He tried to
shoe-horn his observations about... There is NO contraction of ANY object due to a uniform
velocity! *Because Lorentz was Einstein's mentor, Einstein just built
on anything that Lorentz said. *And a contraction alone could never
correct for a "ruler" that needs to be lengthened! *Lorentz nor
Einstein knew a thing about “strengths of materials”. *They just
assumed that "velocity" can magically make any apparatus, of any
dimensions, configurations and materials CONTRACT identically. *How
sub-stupid! *All clingers-on to Einstein's relativity theories are sub-
sub-stupid!

Hooboy. You clearly have no grasp of *frames of referance* either, or
of the fact that Lorentz' time dilation, mass increase, and
*foreshortening of rods* has been proven true. Kind of lamentable, as
you do comport yourself with great decorum and civility, a rare
commodity here.

oc Pre-big bang was natures longest spacetime. It was a spacetime of
submicroscopic space energy being compressed by gravity to a point no
bigger than a proton. That took trillion trillion trillion trillion of
years. Finally a giant wave fluctuation triggered the big bang much
like a supernova explosion can trigger the formation of stars It is
gravities compression force + the intrinsic space energy to create
universes. Bert