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
Re: Effects of the expansion of physical matter with space. -
05-02-2007, 01:10 AM
Re: Effects of the expansion of physical matter with space. -
05-07-2007, 06:16 AM
+ 
= 
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'.)
