Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all. -
04-23-2007, 02:47 AM
A key factor of Einstein's Unified Field Theory is a (previously unknown repelling) force which Einstein discovered within and extracted from his General Theory Of Relativity. That is the same theory that revealed and introduced us to the 4th Dimension.
Einstein called this previously unknown force 'the Cosmological Constant'. When he spoke of it in his Unified Field equations he designated it with the Greek sign 'Lambda', which resembles an inverted capital 'V', like this: /\ . The non-mathematical definition of Einstein's 'Lambda' or 'Cosmological Constant':
'A previously unrecognized Universal Repelling Force, originating in all Matter and projecting across space at the velocity of light'.
Einstein's cosmological constant force does not eliminate or ignore the concept of gravitational attraction (the concept of a pulling force), but rather joins it. The repelling force and the impelling force are found co-existentially, side by side. The impelling force of gravity binds the universe together. The cosmologically constant repelling force of Lambda is Einstein's answer to Newton's candidly asked, previously unanswered question of why a universe full of impelling bodies doesn't collapse on itself.
60 Billion McDONALD'S Customers Have The Right To Know That Their Strongest Beef Is Four Dimensional (refer, FDA required list of ingredients).
Lambda. /\ The Cosmological Constant.
A repelling force acting across space out of material bodies; proportionate in strength and intensity to the mass value of its material source (particle/charge).
At a personal meeting with Hubble and others, Einstein was persuaded by the prevailing purveyors of what came to be universally considered - and mirthfully called - the big bang theory; to consider the *Cosmological Constant a mistake on his part; *said to be a repelling force acting exactly like and with gravity; except in the opposite direction; the strength of which increases instead of decreasing with distance. Preventing the collapse of a universe of impelling (mutually attracting) bodies.
At the unexpected discovery that the spatial universe is expanding (Silpher, 1927; Hubble 1931). Einstein's Cosmological Constant Force was dismissed as superfluous.
Einstein was thereafter persuaded to call it 'the biggest blunder of my life'; as indeed this record takes accented note of agreement.
It's Still The Same Old Story, continued:
The record can only very respectfully agree with Dr. Einstein's theory; as usual; while all others have grown weary. Abandoning the Cosmological Constant to the Lemaitre-Hubble model of an expanding - Big Bang originated-universe was indeed the biggest blunder of Einstein's life.
We will return to that redoubtably pensive consideration in a moment, but now this (I thought I told you never to play that song again, Sam.?) :
While a follow-through of reinstatement awaits anyone who pursues documentation of what happens when one objectively over-rules the subjective dismissal of the abundantly proven, objective concept of expanding matter: On the *chronically myopic premise that it is 'self-apparently' not happening.
Einstein's abandonment of his own Cosmological Constant - Unified Field - Theory is much controversied. On the other hand, they aren't talking about how Einstein was back to and working on his abandoned Unified Field; to the time of his death, in May, of '55.
“It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation’)... “In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein’s proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.
“Thus Einstein’s original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder’, rejected by Einstein, and the cosmological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again.” - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270 The ‘ugly head’ Of The Outlawed Truth:
“The cosmological constant has now a secure position... Not only does it unify the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, but it renders the theory of gravitation and its relation to space-time measurement so much more illuminating and indeed self evident, that return to the earlier view is unthinkable. I would as soon think of reverting to Newtonian Theory as of dropping the cosmological constant.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE, p. 24
“I can see no reason to doubt that the observed recession of the spiral nebulae is due to cosmic repulsion, and it is the effect predicted (in 1919) by Relativity Theory which we were hoping to find. Many other explanations have been proposed - some of them rather fantastic (* ‘tired light’, ‘the big bang’,’dark matter’, ‘gravitons’, ‘super strings’ ‘anti-matter’) - and there has been a great deal of discussion which seems to me rather pointless. In this, as in other developments of scientific exploration, we must recognise the limitations of our present knowledge and be prepared to consider revolutionary changes.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, pp. 89 - 90, A TREASURY OF SCIENCE (Harlow Shapley publishers)
Long ago, this author noted that Einstein's designation for the repelling force inherent to universal gravitation is Lambda (Also, by apparent 'coincidence', the Aztec calendar's key symbol: /\ <repeated 9 times in a circle around the Aztec calendar>. Translating to: "4-motion" ).
Shaped, not unlike a kind of transversely considered axe. Also the shape of a pizza-pie-charted slice. So designated; so named. Godfathered by Albert - 'the Axe' - Einstein. An affectionate if levititious term for the Maestro of gravity.
Speaking of supremely toothy, pearly white authority in the name of Albert Einstein. Any Ph.D. in physical science who today chooses to disgrace himself in public contention with the Cosmological Constant: Is deferred to the obligation of professionally kissing the thin lips of Albert The Axe Einstein’s double bit Lambda. <>
4 photo static copies of a quarter for every counterfeit greenback dollar in change-seeker.
At yore command. A 4-D chicken in every pot. An improved world, beyond Shake'n Bake. (Old Mack. He's back?) ((Rated GENERAL AUDIENCE. Marca Registrada.))
A rash, sleep-disturbing look (in black & white) at Einstein's 4-Dimensional Geodesics.
This discussion is rapidly approaching its close. Before it closes, 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.
Enter in google: "Einstein's 'biggest blunder' was right after all'., and
"The accelerating universe".
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.
The Standard Theory (big bang) presentation of the abandoned Steady State (since the 1927 discovery of the expanding Sylpher-Hubble universe) depicts a spatially expanding universe, where the occurrence of physical systems 'thins out and dissipates with the passage of time'...
Consequently disqualifying the proposed Steady State of Bondi, Gold and Hoyle... (Which does not present a dissipating universe, but rather, one that remains approximately the same density, past, present and future...)
But, when the physical systems themselves are enlarging (omnidirectionally accelerating from their centers - from sub-atomic particles to everything constituted of them), then, the premise that the universe ('inevitably') 'thins out' is compromised; by the accelerating expansion of matter itself.
Yes, I mean that the density of the collective universe - the physical contents of space - (consequently) remains 'relatively' the same.
The physical contents of the universe were more dense in the past, than they are in - when compared with - the present, and will be less dense in the future, when compared with the present.
Whereas, there is not any greater or lesser amount of physical matter (the law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon) - it's the same amount of energy, increasingly distributing itself over a greater area of space. Squared.
This is how there can be ongoing expansion (omnidirectional acceleration) in what is still an ongoing steady state universe.
The cause of the proposed expansion of matter is no more mysterious than the (hotly debated) cause of the expansion of space; which has recently been observed to be an accelerating expansion; notably corresponding with Einstein's 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant repelling force (a previously unknown force which becomes greater with distance; quasi synonymous with the Unified Field Theory <finding electromagnetism and gravity to have the same causal identity>) - now unabashedly retrieved from 'retirement' and referred to as 'Lambda Cold Dark Matter <LCDM>'...
Improvised by the big bangologists to patch up their formerly single-centered (non accelerating) big bang; which is transforming - 'evolving'/'adjusting' - into a hybrid steady state (by any other name), via the Cosmological Constant ('Dark matter', 'quintessence', et al), with no acknowledgment or recognition of the omnidirectional acceleration of matter itself... Note the accumulating 'adjustments' to maintain 'the big bang' school...
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.
Dear Rascal ... How goes it ??
Once again I am intrigued by your post. Could I get a clarification?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
The Standard Theory (big bang) presentation of the abandoned Steady State (since the 1927 discovery of the expanding Sylpher-Hubble universe) depicts a spatially expanding universe, where the occurrence of physical systems 'thins out and dissipates with the passage of time'...
I am reading this to say that the 'space' between two objects that are not gravitationally bound together is increasing ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
But, when the physical systems themselves are enlarging (omnidirectionally accelerating from their centers - from sub-atomic particles to everything constituted of them), then, the premise that the universe ('inevitably') 'thins out' is compromised; by the accelerating expansion of matter itself.
Yes, I mean that the density of the collective universe - the physical contents of space - (consequently) remains 'relatively' the same..
I'm Ok to here! Altho I think the word 'relatively' with all it's connotations could be dropped. Don't you mean 'the ratio of matter to space remains the same' ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
The physical contents of the universe were more dense in the past, than they are in - when compared with - the present, and will be less dense in the future, when compared with the present.
Whereas, there is not any greater or lesser amount of physical matter (the law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon) - it's the same amount of energy, increasingly distributing itself over a greater area of space. Squared.
This is how there can be ongoing expansion (omnidirectional acceleration) in what is still an ongoing steady state universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
The cause of the proposed expansion of matter is no more mysterious than the (hotly debated) cause of the expansion of space; which has recently been observed to be an accelerating expansion; notably corresponding with Einstein's 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant repelling force (a previously unknown force which becomes greater with distance; quasi synonymous with the Unified Field Theory <finding electromagnetism and gravity to have the same causal identity>) - now unabashedly retrieved from 'retirement' and referred to as 'Lambda Cold Dark Matter <LCDM>'...
1.. If the ratio remains the same how is it that we observe space expanding but not matter, underlined in above quote ?
2 .. How do you account for the agreement between the independant methods used that provide evidence for the 'standard theory's' conclusion that space is expanding ? (sorry for the convoluted sentence ... )
3.. Why haven't you posted on this subj in Roberts monthly theme ?
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard
Dear Rascal ... How goes it ??
Once again I am intrigued by your post. Could I get a clarification?
Hey Greg. Good to hear from you.
I am reading this to say that the 'space' between two objects that are not gravitationally bound together is increasing ?
Yes.
I'm Ok to here! Altho I think the word 'relatively' with all it's connotations could be dropped. Don't you mean 'the ratio of matter to space remains the same' ?
Yes.
1.. If the ratio remains the same how is it that we observe space expanding but not matter, underlined in above quote ?
2 .. How do you account for the agreement between the independant methods used that provide evidence for the 'standard theory's' conclusion that space is expanding ? (sorry for the convoluted sentence ... )
Space is observed to be in a state of accelerating expansion. The evidence is accumulating since 1976, and especially since 1996.
3.. Why haven't you posted on this subj in Roberts monthly theme ?
Have been unaware that's an appropriate location - will look into it.
cool bananas ... greg
The following illustration has been posted before, but does it help clarify the correlation of the expansion of matter with space?:
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.
4-D MASS-FIELD STRAIGHT-LINE GEODESIC <Back to Euclidean geometry>).
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
2 .. How do you account for the agreement between the independant methods used that provide evidence for the 'standard theory's' conclusion that space is expanding ? (sorry for the convoluted sentence ... )
Space is observed to be in a state of accelerating expansion. The evidence is accumulating since 1976, and especially since 1996.
Rascal ... what I meant to ask was ... How is it that we observe space expansion but not matter. If they remain in ratio we should observe either 1.. they stay the same, or, 2 .. both expand in proportion.
Why do the current methods of observation only perceive space as expanding ?
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard
Rascal ... what I meant to ask was ... How is it that we observe space expansion but not matter. If they remain in ratio we should observe either 1.. they stay the same, or, 2 .. both expand in proportion.
Why do the current methods of observation only perceive space as expanding ?
cool bananas ... greg
Greg: We do observe matter in a state of constantly accelerating expansion, we simply don't recognize it, because everything is expanding proportionately.
On the other hand, every time you drop something the test object is not moving from A to B... B is accelerating upward to overtake and strike A, generating the illusion that A is moving 'downward', instead of your entire frame of reference moving upward...
Current methods of observation are rejecting the offered alternative, because,
"obviously matter is not expanding".
Comparable to the age of the Copernican era, where the entire celestial vault is perceived as revolving around the earth, rather than the converse perspective of the earth spinning on its own axis and creating that illusion.
In this scenario, the parabolic arc of a thrown baseball, for example, is actually a straight line (Einstein called them 'geodesics')
I have perused, some parts in depth, others read assiduously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
Greg: We do observe matter in a state of constantly accelerating expansion, we simply don't recognize it, because everything is expanding proportionately.
Why, if both expand proportionatley, do we only recognise space expanding, but not matter.? Logic would dictate that we recognise both or neither, but not one or the other only ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
On the other hand, every time you drop something the test object is not moving from A to B... B is accelerating upward to overtake and strike A, generating the illusion that A is moving 'downward', instead of your entire frame of reference moving upward...
I understand this point as well as the geodesic curves, no problem
Rascal, this is the point I thought of the other night. Perhaps it sounds stupid and I am hesitant to voice it, but here goes.
Your EinsteinGroupie pages and other postings all support your theory that everything is expanding. Good. In other words the conclusion drawn is supported by the facts you provide.
But the facts you supply can also be used to draw another conclusion. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, its certainly a bit crazy, but it is not ruled out by your evidence provided. At least, I can't find a loophole, perhaps you can.
If the reverse was happening, matter was compressing, or the opposite of expanding, the geodesics remain the same, the measurements remain the same, our recognition of events remain the same.
Therefore if both outcomes can be deduced from your supporting evidence then surely a third conclusion can be drawn, Nothing is changing ! Of course this is not meant literally, just that it is not ruled out.
What argument, or debating point, or idea can you give me that will only allow for one of these outcomes and will rule out the other two.
Rascal, I haven't really thought this through as I would normally do, and it well may be that I have missed something glaringly obvious. But the Maths that I checked describe acceleration and deceleration as the same. The Maths does not differentate between these two, only our perception does.
cool bananas .... greg
Could it be that we are in a contracting Universe, getting denser in proportion daily ... LOL
Perhaps we should have debated this in Roberts Monthly theme forum ??
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.
Could it be a possibility, Rascal, that both space and matter expand proportionately, as you propose, but only spatial expansion is observed because the 5th and 6th dimensions you propose redshift their wavelengths due to the unobservable material expansion?
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY
Could it be a possibility, Rascal, that both space and matter expand proportionately, as you propose, but only spatial expansion is observed because the 5th and 6th dimensions you propose redshift their wavelengths due to the unobservable material expansion?
"Unobservable material expansion?"
Material expansion is felt and seen constantly.
It's what pins you to the omnidirectionally accelerating expansion of the earth.
By the definition of dimensions, matter is the 4th dimension (Einstein), and anything moves at right angles from it is the 5th - electricity moves at right angles out of the 4th (matter), whether it is redshifting or not.
Anything that moves at right angles out of the 5th dimension of electricity is the 6th, magnetism moves at right angles to elecricity, whether it is redshifting or not.
Matter is merely a more dense form of electromagnetism than light, which is a physical extension of matter, moving at a much faster rate of acclerating expansion.
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.
Understood, Rascal! I'm not saying you're wrong in your proposals, only that the observed expansion of space - evidentially-based on Hubble's redshifting - can be explained by wavelengths redshifting due to increased absorption and emission of light as it propagates through denser media.
This way, your theory will ring true because there doesn't seem to be a way around keeping the proportionate relationship of matter and space expansion, while we only observe space expanding according to the above means of observation.
Do you not agree that c decreases proportionate to h increasing? The wavelengths get longer and longer exponentially.
Linear Mode
