Effects of the expansion of physical matter with space.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

".....what's so special about saying gravity is the 4th dimension? That's just plain obvious. So, what causes 4th dimension ground state motion, to begin with?___What's the prime mover? Now, there's a question? And don't say the standard answer, "It's always been." What is the scientific prime mover? There is only one...

(I'm only guessing, Mr. Gillespie, but I think you're alluding to God... You're certainly right in saying 'There is only one', but could you make your enigmatically poignant question a little more user friendly? <Please refer to 'Science "versus" God', in my featured articles here at Theory of Everything> )

RP, if you noticed, I asked "What is the scientific prime mover?". I hardly think that refers to "god." And as far as my statements about gravity, mass, motion, and Einstein, etc., they are posted all over this board, and so far I see no valuable, usable insight in my or anyone else's work, yet, including yours. Re-read what I wrote to you, to get yourself a better grounding in this forum. Your knowledge is nowheres near as important, as you think it is. It's just another, in a long line of gauge invariant models. I think all gauge invariant models are bogus___period, except a possible absolute fundamental substance model, but that leaves the problem of mass-identity. So, now that you know I dis-agree with your views, maybe we could discuss specifics, instead of your foolish personal battle of who owns Einstein's work. It's his, not yours, even if you are the one to state the obvious moot point, "Gravity is the 4th dimension." Like I said, you show me your knowledge of a prime mover of fundamental substance, and I'll be much more impressed, than re-stating Einstein, over and over. And your 5th and 6th dimensions, both fit inside the 4th, and even the 3rd, with difficulty___yet, no true 4-body math...

Something I did notice though, was the fact that if you use the Yin/Yang symbol, just half of it, it could easily fit your diagrams of the traveling em-wave/electron changing orbit, if it were drawn completely in 3D/4D perspective___you know what I mean, a spiraling in or out position tear-drop. Still, what's new?___Quantum mechanics, classical, relative and standard model mechanics covers all this...? If you offered new solutions to the mass problem, then I'd say you had something, but so far, I only see slight extensions of quantum projections, and a truly false gauge invariant cc model. This gauge invariant cc model has been proven false, by hundreds of physicists, over the last twenty years, with just simple matter density facts, logic and experiments. It fails at velocity state space origin, middle universal evolutionary phase state space, and final decay phase state space/matter/motion mechanics, even though gravity is fine for the 4th dimension___What's its original prime mover? You have nothing, until you answer the fundamental matter/motion question___It's all abstract, until...!

Sorry,
Lloyd

[MJA]

RP, not only have you missed the entire reality of time being no more than "Fundamental Matter In Motion", your basic physics is backwards, i.e., increased velocity increases mass, not the size of hairs, or any other objects. As any mass approaches c, it's size shrinks to zero mass, through mass entropy dissipation___Lorentz/Einstein. One must remember, Einstein asked the question, "If I looked in a mirror, at the speed of light, would I see my image?" He answered, "No." The time dilations are others' foolish mis-interpretations of Einstein's original work, other than when he was theorizing abstractly. He never physically advocated any real time/matter/motion dilations. The quote in my signature is Einstein's own words.

Lloyd

Brilliant answer Lloyd, thanks! Of all the people to have come before us, Einstein is my favorite. The similarities between us is uncanny and I believe most humbly I have finnished his work on unification. Your response using Einstein's mirror question brought back great memories of my own work on that question some time ago. Perhaps I will share it all with you oneday. I will say this: "before a light reaches you or is turned on, the observer is ahead or faster than C. When the light is turned on it goes racing by". I love the thought of it.


MJA

[RascalPuff]

Excerpt from Total Field Theory, by Rascal Puff (K. B. Robertson)

I wish to cite another accordance of the General Theory; which states that a thrown baseball or a fired bullet does not actually describe a curved or parabolic path to the earth, when projected horizontally above its surface. Instead, they actually move in straight lines which only appear to be curves and parabolas.

The reason for this says Einstein, is that, 'What is 4-Dimensionally straight gives the illusion of being curved or parabolic when projected on the 3 recognized Dimensions Of Space'...
These quasi 3-D parabolas and curves which are not really parabolas and curves, but instead are 4-D straight lines, are called 'geodesics'.
Einstein's geodesic account of gravity is that, 'Matter causes the 4-D Space-Time continuum to curve in the area surrounding it'. This fact is formally referred to as, 'Einstein's postulate of the 4-D Space-Time metric'.


If we find this Einsteinian description of gravitation vague, it is simply because it is indeed a vague description, yielding small conceptual compromise when compared with the familiar if mysterious 'tug' of Classical Newtonian gravity. One may question, What does Relativity mean when it accounts for gravity by referencing the 4-D Space-Time metric and the curving of the 4-D Space-Time Continuum? And how does this 4-D Space-Time Continuum cause bodies to descend, or geodesically appear to descend?

The 'answer' is that physicists do not understand the identity of Einstein's 4th Dimension; since space-time is one of the many effects of the 4th Dimension, it is not understood or recognized what the geodesic gravitational curvature of space-time is either.


“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance. These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE

The false enigma is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging, pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accomodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object. (Now you know. <Know you now?>)
Here's what false authority says of Einstein's 4-D geodesic:
"We cannot visualize such a curved space. Because humanity is not four dimensional." - The LIFE Science Library's UNIVERSE, p. 179

“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. "As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance." These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE

Neither will it ever be visualized, until Matter is recognized to be 4-Dimensionally expanding. As simply illustrated here and affluently verified throughout this mere historical - previously unrecognized - review.



(Illustration C: 4-D MASS-FIELD STRAIGHT-LINE GEODESIC <Back to Euclidean geometry>.

)
Neither will it ever be visualized, until Matter is recognized to be 4-Dimensionally expanding ('curved space'). As simply illustrated here and affluently verified throughout this mere historical review. (Illustration C: 4-D MASS-FIELD STRAIGHT-LINE GEODESIC <Back to Euclidean geometry>. - K. B. Robertson, world's #1 Einstein Groupie.

Is The Total Field of gravity, electricity and magnetism as the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions really a tractable account for 'the relativistic curvature of space', or, has the author only cleverly assembled his theory - and sprayed this forum with abstract words and ideas - around reality so that it's challenging to tell the difference?
_____________

"It is evident that the popular conviction that a generalized field theory is unable to explain the problems of the discontinuous structure of matter and quantum mechanics rests upon prejudice." - Einstein, PHYSICS and REALITY

“Everywhere, including the interior of ponderable bodies, the seat of the field is empty space. There is no space empty of field." - Albert Einstein, IDEAS and OPINIONS

“The combination of the concept of continuous field with that of mass-points discontinuous from space appears inconsistent. A consistent (total) field theory requires continuity of all elements of the theory, not only in time but also in space, and in all points in space. Hence the material particle has no place as a fundamental concept in a field theory.” - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 345

“According to General Relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field.” - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348

“Since the General Theory of Relativity implies the manifestation of physical reality as a continous field, the concept of discontinuous particle cannot play a fundamental part, the ‘particle’ can only appear as a limited region of space in which the field strength and/or density of energy is particularly high.” - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348

"The unsatisfactory part of the total field theory showed up externally by the necessity of assuming finite dimensions for the particles, in order to prevent the electromagnetic field existing at their (*unfound) surfaces from becoming infinitely large." - Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS, p. 77

"What appears certain to me in the foundations of any consistent field theory , the particle concept must not appear in addition to the field concept. The whole theory must be based soley on partial differential equations and their *singularity (*discontinuous, static particle) free solutions." - Einstein, IDEAS and OPINIONS, p. 306


"It is agreed on all hands that the only principle which could serve as the basis of quantum theory would be one that constituted a translation of a field theory into the scheme of quantum statistics." - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 334

"'Empty space' is not the absence of 4-D matter, but rather, a physical 5 & 6 dimensional (electromagnetic) extension of it." - p. 60 GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION, by Kent B. Robertson, Copyright August 1988

"No amount of collection of facts could lead to these equations unless the Principle of General Relativity were used. This is the reason why all attempts to obtain a deeper knowledge of the foundations of physics seem doomed to me unless the basic concepts are in accordance with General Relativity from the beginning." - Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 352.
---------------------------------

"...Descarte 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 combination with the General Principle of Relativity, to show the true kernel of Descarte's idea, 'there exists no space empty of field'." - Einstein, p.p.375 - 6, IDEAS & OPINIONS.



"Matter and space are seen to be inseparable and interdependent parts of a single whole." - Fritjov Capra, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, p. 208

"According to the physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach... material objects not only determine the structure of the surrounding space, but are in turn influenced by their environment in an essential way." - Fritjov Capra, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, p. 209

"Regarding the tenability of gravitation as an impelling force, paralleled by the Cosmological Constant as a repelling force, a natural and complementary occurrence of this apparently incongruous ambiguity exists and prevails in the fact that omnidirectional electric field lines around a positive charge are directed away from the center of the charge; whereas, the field lines around a negative charge move inward. As easy as the concentrically oscillating - two way - ripples generated by a drop upon the center surface of a water bucket." - K.B. Robertson, p. 521, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION, Copyright 1979.

Newton asserted ‘Hypothesis non fingo’. - ‘I make no hypothesis’.


Yet, his entire, unarguably revolutionary Classical Mechanics was based on the hypothetical particle that science has yet to assuredly accommodate. The ‘particle concept’ that dominates physics and the vast majority of colloquial planetary human thought: has never been proven beyond hypothetical scientific retainers. ‘The (rarely) indicted ‘particle panel’ Isn’t found ‘wrong’ here, but rather: resiliently incomplete; so as to aggressively exclude the incumbent role of the continuous field generated by charges of electricity, in the balance of material considerations.- K. B. Robertson


"No two particles ever make contact. When they get too close, they move off." - Bertrand Russell, The ABC of Relativity.


"Contact requires the interaction of one discontinuous surface with another, since there are no surfaces defining the so called particles, there is no contact. The charges only become increasingly more dense as you approach their centers. Particle seeking expeditions return only with the fields and charges of electricity in which their searches are conducted. The true 'surface' of the sun, for example, exists exclusively at the frontal of the first light that was emitted from it at its emergence, thenceforth the sun only becomes continuously more dense as you approach it's center. The same is true of the electron and all sub atomic charges of electricty, colloquially called 'particles' " - K. B. Robertson, Gravity Is The 4th D./Total Field Theory



“Man began speculating about atoms long before science became an organized activity Even to the ancient Greeks it appeared sensible to assume that there might be some kind of ultimate building blocks of matter...
“Then, many centuries later, the great Isaac Newton concluded that matter was formed in ‘solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles’ - in other words, the atom was something like a billiard ball. Newton’s idea (*of the described ‘particle’) was pure speculation.” - Matter, p. 119, Life Science Library.


The ‘billiard ball’ concept of ‘particle’ was more readily reinforced by direct - subjective - experience, than was any concept of mysterious continuous forces generated by and emanating - action at a distance across space - from discontinuous particles and combined systems of particles; to influence other particles and systems of particles. - K.B.R. , Ibid

The Gravity Model VS Big Bang Theory SCIENCE FORUMS 7 July 2006

Ophiolite wrote:
The apparent motion of galaxies as revealed by the redshift is simply not consistent with a single massive body causing the acceleration. We should see a significant proportion of galaxies - those 180 degrees around from the massive body, to be blue shifted. That is not the case.
Unless you postulate a multplicity of massive bodies surrounding the visible Universe your conjecture dies stillborn. Do I hear the sound of William of Ockham sharpening his razor?
__________

RascalPuff (K.B. Robertson, responded):

Harken thee unto this...

"The 'thump' of a great apple, in the stillness of a crisp October morn. Motivated, only by the mere necessity, of perfect ripeness." - Hawthorne

(The more ripe fruit having an inclination to land nearer the source.)

Is the clever flaunting of William of Ockam's razor strop, the most interrogatively audible resistance that can be offered to buttress the (latest, exemplary Big Bangologist) desperation (of 'dark matter'? Or appeased arms taken up against malfeasantly employed, evasive chaff of plural or singular massive bodies?)? Haplessly conjuring vacuously witty incantations against the inescapably incumbent and simply consistent, historically echoing bite of Albert's double bit Lambda ( <> - the inescapable alliance - synonymity - of repelling with impelling gravitation): the vroomfondel of which so consistently and predictably leans at ready residential rest against the impeccably pruned and maintained Tree of Life, bearing Buckminster Fuller's 4-Dimensional Seed of Knowledge, and that of the Emperor's 5 & 6 Dimensional Electromagnetic Dragon (Featuring the mighty Ophiolite's familiar rail, tickling the dragon's tail?).

This distinctive vignette is internet recorded and elsewhere archived, to be translated and understood now, and later. Within the legacy of 1905, 1916 and 1919 - it will likewise not be effectively averted.

Numerology and other false, strange, quarky and tyrannical charms will only count themselves further out. The math was long ago provided, whether your powers of moderation move this thread back to Cosmology, Trashcan it, or erase it - or myself and/or Mr. Davidson along with it - from your (nonchalantly volunteered) smoked salmon and Chardonnay, forum quaffing mind. (Ciao & Prego.)

********************************
Relative to the present, the 4-D space time continuum with all of its accompanying radiation was much more dense and hot in the past, relative to the present. In the Einstein bequeathed 4-D scenario, there is no 'beginning'. It just keeps getting smaller, more dense and hotter, forever (squared), relative to the present and the future. As considered from the eternal now - the B, in an A, B, C (Past, Present and Future) standardized 4-D space time continuum.


That is affirmative.

It seems that the issue of a 'beginning' and especially that of background radiation are the main bugaboos here. A point is no less scored for a Steady State 4-D universe - regarding background radiation - than it is on the BB. (Refer 4-D space time continuum <, with A at the 'intersection' - which backtracks ever smaller, forever, with correspondingly increased heat and density, B, in the middle, as the present, and C as the larger, more tenuous Future). 'Now', is always B - 'the eternal now'; the middle of the sideways V diagram of the 4th D. There is no contradiction of the law of conservation of mass energy - it's the same amount of 4-D energy, distributing itself over an increasing volume of space, squared. All densities are relative. The law of conservation of mass-energy (massergy) stands, in situ. The Steady State Theory is returned - and synonymous - with the Cosmological Constant.


Apparently, few calculators wish to relate much to there being no common center, and that the observed recession is in direct line of sight regardless of the point of observation (this not being a signature of any big bang, but rather, that of a Steady State - Cosmological Constant - universe. And yes, the accelerating universe is annoying big bang advocates, as the later data continues to stack up on that formerly desolate ('biggest mistake'/ 'blundering') desk.

As for a poll on how many big bangers there are, vs FILL IN HERE. I've said it before. If science were a democracy, the universe would still be revolving around the flat, square or hollow earth every 24 hours. Thanking all replies. Ostensibly, this issue is far from resolved. The Cosmological Constant continues to show every sign of reinstatement - that's basically the abandoned Steady State universe of Bondi, Gold and Hoyle. The 4-D space time continuum plays a key role in this debate and is not receiving the consideration that finds it explaining what is otherwise inexplicable. Clarifying what is otherwise ineffable.


Relative to the present, the 4-D space time continuum with all of its accompanying radiation was much more dense and hot in the past, relative to the present. In the 4-D scenario, there is no 'beginning', it just keeps getting smaller and hotter, forever, relative to the present and the future - as considered from the eternal now - the B, in an A, B, C (Past, Present and Future) standardized 4-D space time continuum.


That is affirmative. Reprise. This may also be a comprehensive explanation for 'black holes' - a solution that seems to be inadvertantly or deliberately ignored.

Apparently, few calculators wish to relate much to there being no common center, and that the observed recession is in direct line of sight regardless of the point of observation (this not being a signature of any big bang, but rather, that of a Steady State - Cosmological Constant - universe).

And yes, the accelerating universe is annoying big bang advocates, as the later data continues to stack up on that formerly desolate ('biggest mistake'/ 'blundering') desk. Einstein was back to working on his formerly abandoned, unfinished Unified Field; Cosmological Constant, at the time of his death in May of '55...

*******************


(Reprise: Ophiolite wrote:
The apparent motion of galaxies as revealed by the redshift is simply not consistent with a single massive body causing the acceleration. We should see a significant proportion of galaxies - those 180 degrees around from the massive body, to be blue shifted. That is not the case.
Unless you postulate a multplicity of massive bodies surrounding the visible Universe your conjecture dies stillborn. Do I hear the sound of William of Ockham sharpening his razor?)

"We should see a significant proportion of galaxies - those 180 degrees around from the massive body, to be blue shifted. That is not the case... Postulate? Stillborn conjecture? The sound of William Ockham sharpening his razor? (How you do carry on.)"

*************************

Suggest you take two anvils, sir, and call yourself a doctor - or a midwife - when the nearest hydrogen star breaks over Marblehead.

(The true 'old school' is back, to take its rightful place at the head of the line. No longer tolerating the incumbent plundering and 'auxiliary', New Math wielding, Super String pulling placements. <How long can you tread water?>)


Regards, K. B. Robertson - Rascal Puff,
Aka, the White Mongol, Magic Horse, World's Number One Einstein Groupie.
Aegis of the Great Continental Green Grass River Dragon.


To Whom it may concern:
Thank you for reading this missive.
Please draw and express your own conclusions.
Best regards, K. B. Robertson

"The biggest obstacle to my learning has been my education." - Einstein

"There was a young Lady named Bright, who moved much faster than light. She departed one day in a relative way and returned on the previous night." - Eric Buller 1923


The Physical, Material universe is officially prohibited from expanding, continued:


Since the popularization of the concept of the spatially expanding universe, several methods of describing it have also become popular. Once such method is what Dr. H. P. Robertson of CalTech calls, 'the spotted balloon analogy', where the student of the red shift expanding universe is instructed to visualize a large balloon with many spots upon its surface. When the balloon is in the process of being inflated (expanding), the distance separating the individual spots (stars, solar systems, galaxies) on the surface of the balloon increases proportionately with the expansion of the entire, balloon's surface - which surface is thought of as being analogous to the expansion of space.

In explaining the spotted balloon analogy, Dr. Robertson specifically emphasizes that the 'spots' upon the surface of the expanding balloon, are not to be visualized or thought of as being 'painted' onto the balloon's surface.
Elaborating further, Dr. Robertson clarifies that painted on spots would expand proportionately with the balloon (space). Since the 'spots' in the spotted balloon analogy are analogous to mass, and because Dr. Robertson agrees with the rest of the ST 'community' in stringently maintaining that mass is not expanding (that physical matter is not an expanding field), he instructs the students to visualize the 'spots' as being 'raisins glued upon the balloon's surface' - because raisins glued upon an elastic balloon's surface do not themselves enlarge with the surface of the inflating balloon. But, the distance separating each individual raisin does become greater with the expansion of the balloon (Space).

Dr. Robertson further comments on this point by expressing his perspective that, "If matter were expanding we would have no way of detecting or observing the expansion, since everything would be expanding uniformly." This explanation by Dr. Robertson (from p. 108, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, by Lincoln Barnett) is barren of any meaning. It is in fact a rationalistic, bias, unscientific and subjectively motivated foregone conclusion. Not by the standards of some remote technical nuance, but in its own context.

By this I mean that the only definite means we have of observing the expansion of the universe is in the red shift observed in the spectra from light sources, and exactly contrary to what H. P. Robertson states - if physical mass is expanding we do indeed have a way of observing it (you dropped something?), and among other means, a method of detection is found in spectral red shift, just as it has been found to be in fact...

Moreover, and having equal importance, stellar parallax triangulation would be useless in detecting the expansion (as it has been found to be in fact), because the measurable distance between stars and galaxies in a physically expanding (mass-field) universe, remain relatively unchanged. That is to say, the density of the physically expanding mass field universe is the same (Steady State) from the infinite past to the infinite future. This is to summarize that Dr. H. P. Robertson, instructing his students to visualize raisins glued to, rather than spots painted on the expanding balloon (analogous to space), is categorically steering his students away from any recognition or acknowledgement of the in situ, physically expanding (mass field; steady state) universe.

Please allow that this markedly pointed antithesis of H.P. Robertson's proclamations is not intended as an affront on him personally. However, it is a simple truth that each and every of the innumerable times that the contemplation of a physically expanding universe has presented itself in Nature, to the alleged 'competent scientific mentality', it is either

ignored entirely or ineffectively considered and prematurely discarded with the forgone,


irresolute and consistently incorrect opinion that it (the incumbently expanding physical

mass field) 'cannot be true'.

(Excerpted from 'The New Gravity', Copyright 1970 by K. B. Robertson. All rights reserved. With acknowledgement, may be produced for non commercial educational and recreational purposes. Additional copyright 2007)

Please refer to http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
Total Field Theory. Gravity Is The 4th Dimension. The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned (Steady State) Unified Field. The Big Bang Theory is Wrong. Entropic 'Heat Death' is a Myth.

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
- Einstein

Thank you for reading this missive.
May Readers draw and express their own conclusions

Best regards, K. B. Robertson (That Rascal Puff)
World's Number One Einstein Groupie
Apprentice to Albert - 'The Axe' - Einstein

[mkirkpatrick]

Is it really expansion?Or just the illusion of movement (motion)from the singularity of
emergence,the "point" from which the "arrow" of "willed intent" sprang from?



regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Is it really expansion?Or just the illusion of movement (motion)from the singularity of
emergence,the "point" from which the "arrow" of "willed intent" sprang from?



regards michael.

Dear Mr. Mckirk:
The standard I'm going by regarding expansion begin in the mid '20's with Silpher and Poincare, in the '30's with Laplace and Hubble, and then there have been more recent reports of acclerating expansion stacking up on the editor's desk at Scientific American and the Physical Science Journal between '95, '98, 2000, and the present.

Regards, RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Dear Mr. Mckirk:
The standard I'm going by regarding expansion begin in the mid '20's with Silpher and Poincare, in the '30's with Laplace and Hubble, and then there have been more recent reports of acclerating expansion stacking up on the editor's desk at Scientific American and the Physical Science Journal between '95, '98, 2000, and the present.

Regards, RP

Thanks RP,that is an impressive standard for sure.But is the standard correct? I see
movement/motion,as illusions,shadows cast by the light of absolute intent.The relative
physical universe is basically an illusion,and is only relatively real,Not absolutely real.

There is no motion within the REAL,only that which is unreal moves.



regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Dear mkirkpatrick:
There is no known condition in the universe that is motionless (Absolute Zero unachieved until further notice). Matter is 4-D accelerating expansion. Functional - elecromagnetic - space itself is expanding (there doesn't seem to be any 'void', or absolute space). Recent, multiple and reliable reports are accumulating that find the expansion of space to be accelerating - opening the door for the return of Einstein's abandoned Cosmological Constant (which is already retrieved from the waste basket and on the slate, being nonchalantly *pillaged as an 'auxiliary' instrument, to prop up the all-time defunct 'big bang' <*no big shakes>).
__________________________________________________ _______________________

purveyor of knowledge[/b];29435]

[/b]
This is a brilliant question rascal! How big our universe appears to us is dependent solely upon our consciousness. If we lived in a universe that was smaller but the speed of light were the same, it would be as if nothing changed accept our consciouse perception of how fast the speed of light is - so instead of distances being shorter, the speed of light would be faster. But how fast is the speed of light if not based on our consciouse perception of the rate of time? In other words, without conscious perception the speed of light is arbitrarily fast or slow, so the speed of light is really a measure of our own consciousness and how big we perceive things to be.

What makes a second feel like a second, and what's to stop a second from feeling like an instant or an eternity? It is our conscious rate of perception which is guaged by the speed of light that determines how big we guage absolutely everything to be.

So how big or small could a universe possibly be? Well, the speed of light could never possibly be greater than 1/0 because if it were it would actually be less than itself (1/0 is the crossover of negative and positive infinity - imagine it as the overlapping of two circles or as the yin yang symbol where duality is complete). So 1/0 is the greatest speed possible and would be the universe where consciousness is completely condensed. So basically that's what's going on inside of light. The light inside the photon is travelling at a speed of 1/0 because the pure light is the most condensed form of consciousness.
Pure Consciousness=Pure condensed light travelling at the speed 1/0

______________________________

Consider two lines forming a right angle ( ^ L > ); moving out of a geometric point, let these lines and the 90o of space between them represent a quadrant (pie chart)of the observed expanding universe and/or C, moving outwardly out of *geometric point (intersection of right angle lines) *microcosmic infinity, toward macrocosmic infinity. Where the two back-tracked lines intersect into a geometric point is perceived as the limitation - the end and beginning - of all extended space.
In three dimensions this is true. Same as it is true of the pie chart depicted in a sideways perspective - < . This is an example of three dimensional thinking, as it is misapplied to impose limitations on Einstein's 4-dimensional space-time continuum universe. The Standard Theory purports to have acknowledged the functional presence of Einstein's 4th dimension, while at the same time excluding its irrevocable effects and functions.

That is to say, the intersection of the the right angle straight lines is a 'dead end' (and a 'beginning point') for the universe 'as we know it', only in 3-dimensions, not in 4 (5 & 6). When the illustrations are understood as a diagram of 4-D space-time, then the retrospective spatial convergence and intersection of the infinite macrocosmic future, into the (alleged 'finite beginning' of time and space) infinite past, which seemingly reflects a limitation on the historical existence of space and time is not a true representation of the nature and structure of 4-D expansion.

The apparent 'ultimate' and 'inevitable' convergence and intersection of space and time into the alleged 'finite' microcosms (geometric point/cul de sac), is the universe occurring just as large and having the same relative general density as it has 'now', but at an earlier 4-D space-time epoch in the 4-D continuum. Where our velocity of light 'then' (Moment A) is not comparatively what it is 'now' (Moment B), just as our velocity of light 'now' in 4-D space-time is not comparatively what it will be in the future (Moment C).

In this consideration we can see that the microcosms are just as infinite as the macrocosms. ('Inward' is just as endless as 'outward'.)
The velocity of transitory electromagnetic energy (light) is constantly recognised as being absolute (celeritas constant - C); yet it is constantly accelerating - it's acceleration being a squared five and six dimensional electromagnetic extension of the acclerating expansion of 4-D mass energy.

The same consideration can be observed in another perspective, that of concentricities
( Re: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/alberteinstein-Quotes.htm )

+ = This animated diagram (left to right) shows In-Waves contracting into microcosmic infinity - becoming infinitely dense as they endlessly contract smaller, and Out-Waves growing infinitely larger and more tenuous as they expand outward. When combined, these two vectors form a Standing Wave constituting the Wave-Center 'particle'; the center of which is infinitely dense field/wave energy, fullfilling the identity of what is mistakenly called a particle or 'point mass'. There is no 'particle-wave dualism', only a misunderstanding about the 4-dimensional space-time continuum, as it is excluded from consideration, while simultaneously said and alleged to be 'acknowledged'. (Refer, conceptual 'gridlock'.)
__________________________________________________ _____________

A negative charge draws energy inward - like Newton's gravity.
A positive charge repels energy outward - like Einstein's Cosmological Constant.

The two combined generate a standing wave - like the 4-D space-time continuuum.
_____________________

From left to right, the first two illustrations (above) may also be seen as representing an upper view of magnetic energy entering the center of the earth's northern hemisphere, and a lower view of magnetic waves exiting the earth's southern hemisphere (as seen from yet another perspective, below).
__________________________________________


______________________________________________

Yet another interpretation of the immediate above illustration follows:

The Cause of Quantum Mechanics & Negative Inertia?
Professor Paul Dirac's proposed anti-particle (electric charge, referred to as a 'particle') and its proposed explosion upon contact with a conventional 'particle' (electric charge), may be an ongoing event constituting the status quo of 4-dimensionally expanding reality as we experience it...

Consider a sphere such as a macrocosmic planet, the sun, or a microcosmic system such as an electron 'particle' (electromagnetic charge). Each generates a familiar, spiderweb shaped electromagnetic field, wherein the magnetic portion of that field emanates in a 'northerly' direction from the north pole of the issued sphere, loops around it in a circular motion which suddenly is traveling in a southerly direction upon reaching and passing the ecliptic middle of the issued sphere.

Whereupon the continuing loop completes a full (torus structured) circle around the planet, sun or electron that generates, maintains and sustains it; said magnetic field then entering the southern pole of it's given system of origin (planet, star, electron) to resume a northerly direction through the axial center of and relative to the polar system at issue. This described dynamic represents an ongoing cyle of magnetism generated by and emanating from, around, and back into the system that generates, maintains and sustains it. The sphere itself, en toto, is stablized by a magnetic field which is constantly moving in opposite directions - northerly out of, then looping around to a southerly course, and back into and through the core of the issued spherical entity in a northerly direction, ad infinitum.

The reverse of directions - from north to south - occurs at the ecliptic (equatorial bisection) of the issued, spherical electron, planet or star Each given system is also emitting electrical energy in straight lines at right angles from the ('particle') system that the circular magnetic field is parallel to.

These magnetic directional reversals and electric discharges may correspond to the occurrence of observed - right angle emitted - quantum emissions. In the four dimensional (tensor) setting that Einstein has assigned to all material systems; these two (northern and southern) hemispheres are oppositely interacting with each other ('as anti-particles'), apparently resulting in the Dirac-predicted explosion, constituting nothing less than the omnidirectional expansion of 4-D ('point mass') systems and how they sustain themselves (the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing area). The omnidirectional motion of electromagnetism may also account for the generation of negative inertia (the tendency to oppose force applied to it; in accordance with Mach's principle) in every such individual ('mass point') system.
___________________________________


More will be said about the above illustrated (ubiquitous and multi meaningful electromagentic field) phenomena in other T.O.E. posts by RascalPuff, including observations of parallels between the below illustrated 'Smith Chart' (Re: google - a graph for measuring radio wave impedence - especially from antennae; designed by Smith over seventy years ago and still used today) and it's remarkable ('coincidental') alignment with Riemannian geometry and the structure of the electromagnetic field, per se.

Extracted from Wikipedia - Public domain illustration ineligible for copyright


Constructively critical commentary, commendations and/or or contributions are respectfully invited.

(To be continued)





[b]

[mkirkpatrick]

If two illusions meet,will there shared bogasity as "spectres dancing in the mist"cancel each other out?




regards michael.

[dleviwing]

I must admit RascalPuff, of all the ambiguous interpretations of Einstein’s Relativity, yours is quite unique. Einstein assigned time as the fourth dimension in all his work on Relativity. It is quite alright though if you would like to say that the measurement of gravity, rather than the measurement of time, is the fourth dimension in your own theory. Several problems with science today is the fact that many authors have clouded real science with their own interpretations Relativity and QM theories; after all, it is easy to charge more if the topics appears complex and mysterious; also it keeps out the riffraff laymen.

Most theories are “work-in-progress” and not really definitive knowledge supported with empirical data. I have seen many provide criticism of the current models but very few providing any solutions. Do you have any solutions to offer or are you just saying you support the views of those whose web sites you have posted? Literally interpreting the mathematical terms of gauge theories can lead to many bizarre concepts.

BTW: Hypotheses and theories are synonymous; both require axiomatic concepts to start with.

[RascalPuff]

I must admit RascalPuff, of all the ambiguous interpretations of Einstein’s Relativity, yours is quite unique. Einstein assigned time as the fourth dimension in all his work on Relativity. It is quite alright though if you would like to say that the measurement of gravity, rather than the measurement of time, is the fourth dimension in your own theory. Several problems with science today is the fact that many authors have clouded real science with their own interpretations Relativity and QM theories; after all, it is easy to charge more if the topics appears complex and mysterious; also it keeps out the riffraff laymen.

Most theories are “work-in-progress” and not really definitive knowledge supported with empirical data. I have seen many provide criticism of the current models but very few providing any solutions. Do you have any solutions to offer or are you just saying you support the views of those whose web sites you have posted? Literally interpreting the mathematical terms of gauge theories can lead to many bizarre concepts.

BTW: Hypotheses and theories are synonymous; both require axiomatic concepts to start with.

_______________________________________________

The statement and translation of 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension' includes time. Until I authored and published it beginning 48 years ago, it was an unprecedented statement, uniquely traceable to me. In '98 there were no statements on the net about gravity, electricity or magnetism being the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions. Now there are a host of renditions on it by as many 'authors'.

My work was posted on the net 12/'99 by one volunteer, Brian Kirk Parquette, who then went about the business of saying he authored it. It's turned into an interesting quandry of purloiners arguing among themselves about what amounts to who among them stole it first. It is unstealable of course.

Your critique does not gainsay the statement that gravity, electricity and magnetism are the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions respectively - an unprecedented observation based on geometric definition for dimensions including the definition for time.

Regards
- RP