Theory of Everything  

  
Go Back   Theory of Everything > Member Articles > TOE Theory Articles
Reload this Page Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.
Register Website Toe Club Your Blog Arcade

Comment
 
LinkBack Article Tools Display Modes
Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.
Old
 
RascalPuff
Aka the White Mongol
RascalPuff has a spectacular aura about
 
RascalPuff's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,449
Thanks Given: 89
Thanked 81x in 77 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2007
Rep Power: 21
   
Awards Showcase
2nd Place - Monthly Theme Quiz 
Total Awards: 1
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".

Regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie...

Last edited by RascalPuff : 11-06-2007 at 05:59 PM.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
By RascalPuff on 11-07-2007, 11:15 AM
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.

Hey Greg:

"Do you not agree that c decreases proportionate to h increasing?"

What does your usage of 'h', mean?

- RP
Reply With Quote
  #21  
By N0B0DY on 11-07-2007, 11:44 AM
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.

Sorry, Rascal, was your question directed at Greg for a reason or was that a typo?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
By RascalPuff on 11-07-2007, 01:01 PM
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.

Dear Nobody:

My question was directed at Greg for a reason and was not a typo.
__________________

The transmission was:
___________________

Hey Greg:

"Do you not agree that c decreases proportionate to h increasing?"
(This was Greg's question to me in his last transmission. My reply was)

What does your usage of 'h', mean?

- RP

Best regards ,
- RP
Reply With Quote
  #23  
By baudrunner on 11-07-2007, 01:03 PM
The Oort cloud as prism..

After all is said and done and we discover that the anomalous red shift is caused by the passage of light waves through the Oort cloud which slows their transmission and therefore reduces their frequency what will be said of dark matter and dark energy?

I'm glad that I am not the only one who makes efforts to debunk the big bang theory.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
By Graybeard on 11-07-2007, 04:44 PM
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff View Post
"Could it be that we are in a contracting Universe, getting denser in proportion daily?"
Greg:
In such a conditional universe as you propose - test objects would 'fall', up, instead of down.
I don't think so, as matter contracts in proportion with space all objects would have to remain within the 'boundary'. The way I view it two objects in contact would not seperate in contraction, but would 'accelerate' inwards at exactly the same rate ??? They would be just as 'crowded' as before because there would be less space to occupy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY View Post
Sorry, Rascal, was your question directed at Greg for a reason or was that a typo?
Nob ... I don't know why Rascal asked me that question either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY View Post
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.
....................
Do you not agree that c decreases proportionate to h increasing? The wavelengths get longer and longer exponentially.
I am not exactly sure what this question is saying, but Nob I am glad that you also see the problem of our observations only detecting space expanding.

There are 3 ways that I know of to detect the expansion of space, both of you (Rascal & Nob) seem to be mixing them together. At least from my limited understanding of them.

1 .. Use the 1/r2 relationship of light and the galaxy's intensity to determine its distance at two different times and divide the distance traveled by delta t.

2.. Observe the spectrum of an object and compare its emission lines to those of calcium and hydrogen in the laboratory.

3 .. Use Hubble's Law (the relationship between a distant galaxy's distance and its speed) to try and solve the problem.

Each one of these have a degree of independence from the others, yet still arrive at the conclusion that space is NOT expanding where matter is bound by 'attractive' gravity (where matter is preponderant) ..... and that space IS expanding where 'repulsive' gravity (pressure and temp are in greater proportion than Mass .. or the Cosmo Constant) dominates.

Rascal ... which in particular is Nobs question relating to ???

(we should really ask a moderator to transfer this to Roberts monthly theme ?? shouldn't we ??)

cool bananas ... greg
Reply With Quote
  #25  
By RascalPuff on 11-07-2007, 07:50 PM
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.

Please pardon me gentlemen, I'm still contemplating the various imports of this discussion.

There are several Standard Theorist interpretations of 'red shift' that remain unresolved and controversial.

Regarding a universe of contracting matter, I don't agree at all.
G.P. Thompson (son of J.J. Thompson) proved that electrons are expanding fields; as recorded by J.W.N. Sullivan, in The Limitations of Science (Thompson subjectively overruled his objective findings, on the premise that "Obviously everything isn't expanding".)

This discussion has taken several turns that I have yet to understand.

What is Robert's Monthly Forum?

Requesting your patience and advice.

Best regards,
- RP
Reply With Quote
  #26  
By Graybeard on 11-07-2007, 09:52 PM
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff View Post
Regarding a universe of contracting matter, I don't agree at all.
G.P. Thompson (son of J.J. Thompson) proved that electrons are expanding fields; as recorded by J.W.N. Sullivan, in The Limitations of Science (Thompson subjectively overruled his objective findings, on the premise that "Obviously everything isn't expanding".)

This discussion has taken several turns that I have yet to understand.

What is Robert's Monthly Forum?

Requesting your patience and advice.

Best regards,
- RP
Rascal ... no one is suggesting that the Universe is contracting or static. What I am saying is that the logical reasoning you provide for an expanding Universe of Space and Matter also works for a contracting or static Universe. Your logic does not rule out either possibility?

In other words, and as plainly as I can put it, these imaginary Universes are allowed by the logic you use to support the fact that BOTH Matter and Space is expanding.

Here is Roberts Post:
Quote:
The monthly theme for November, 2007 is the Expanding Universe. It will begin today, November, 4th, 2007 and last until the first Saturday in December. On Saturday morning we will have a group chat to discuss the theme, review topics from the forum, discuss what we know and don't know, etc. Then, after the chat, we will continue to study the material collected over the preceding 30 days, in preparation for the Final Exam the following day on Sunday. Members will take the test and the results will be immediately posted for all to see. Then I will record all the grades and distribute awards later that day. Members may repeat the test every few days to improve their permanent rankings; however, only the day one grades will be used to distribute the awards.
Here is Robert's Link .... there are about 6 threads there already. What I am saying is that this thread should be moved there to add to the knowledge base for the Quiz at the end of the month

http://www.toequest.com/forum/universe-expansion/


cool bananas .... greg

(Rascal ...no hassles if you feel I have taken your thread off course ... its all good)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
By RascalPuff on 11-08-2007, 04:25 PM
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.

Hey Greg:

Always good to hear from you.

"(Rascal ...no hassles if you feel I have taken your thread off course ... its all good)

Not a problem.
Just wondering how I can condense my work into a relatively short starter for Robert's forum.

Best regards,
- RP
Reply With Quote
  #28  
By Graybeard on 11-08-2007, 05:06 PM
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert
The monthly theme for November, 2007 is the Expanding Universe.
Well ... Just start a thread stating your main principles and let the rest of us take it from there.

Robert is going to use all the info to compile a base set of knowledge and conduct a quiz at the end of the month.

cool bananas ... greg
Reply With Quote
  #29  
By Robert on 11-11-2007, 03:01 AM
Re: Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.

Hi RascalPuff,

I added a link to this article in the "Universe Expansion" home page. If you would like to narrow the focus to a single principle or concept in your article please feel free to start a new thread in the "Universe Expansion" forum.

--Robert
Reply With Quote
Comment


Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Article Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new articles
You may not post comments
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Article Article Starter Category Comments Last Post
Total Field Theory: Reinstatement of Cosmological Constant & Steady State Theories RascalPuff TOE Theory Articles 3 05-26-2007 02:17 PM
Reinstatement of Abandoned Cosmological Constant RascalPuff Your TOE Theory 2 04-21-2007 06:32 PM
The 'Ugly Head' of Einstein's Abandoned Cosmological Constant RascalPuff Cosmology 4 04-21-2007 04:16 PM
What do you think.. is "Lifes Biggest Question HappytheStripper Philosophy Questions 9 04-07-2007 07:26 AM
fractal charge attraction=attention? dan winter Neuroscience 3 01-09-2007 07:22 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

Article powered by GARS 2.1.8m ©2005-2006