Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
A Rash,sleep-disturbing Look(in Black&white) (in Black & White)

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Brian Kirk Parquette on June 21, 2001 22:02:32 UTC

Its 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.?) :
Einstein was soft-machined into retirement from his solo high, lonesome. 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. Oh. Izzat so? The Old Man is forgiveable in his abandonment of his supreme theory of the union of the universal
taco with the stellar burrito. Dovetail-Confluencing light & gravity. Unearthing El Epitome Del Enchilada. The allegory relic so highly advertised as useless by the
*Big Bangers of yesteryear and the Chalupa, popcorn and balloon vendors of *today. On the other hand, *they arent talking about how Einstein was back to and
working on his abandoned Unified Field; to the time of his death, in May, of '55.
Long ago, this author noted that Einstein's designation for the repelling force inherent to universal gravitation is Lambda (Also, by coincidence, the Aztec calendars
key symbol: A - repeated 9 times. Translating to: "4-motion" Si). Shaped, not unlike a kind of transversely considered ax. Also the shape of a pizza-pie-charted
slice. So designated; so named. Godfathered by Albert - the Ax - Einstein. An affectionate if levititious term for the Maestro of gravity. Lambda (^) his sceptre.
Scarlet billows. 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 Ax Einsteins double bit
Lambda. 4 photostatic copies of a quarter for every counterfeit 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 parabolaes and curves which are not really
parabolaes 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 '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
The 'answer' is that physicists do not understand the identity of Einstein's 4th Dimension; since SpaceTime is one of the many
effects of the 4th Dimension, it is not understood or recognized what the geodesic gravitational curvature of SpaceTime is either.
Heres what authority says of Einsteins 4-D geodesic:
"We cannot visualize such a curved space. Because
humanity is not four dimensional."
- The LIFE Science Librarys UNIVERSE, p. 179
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 review.
( Refer p. ~ 43: Illustrated 4-D MASS-FIELD STRAIGHT-LINE GEODESIC . The walls have more or less been
perpendicular to the floor all this time, and conversely; without ever having been previously recognized as more or less representing 90 degree angles. ) Fact#9.
The Father Of Experimental Science, Galileo, proved that Aristotle was wrong when the latter surmised that heavier objects that weigh more than light objects, fall
faster in descent, when dropped from the same height at the same time, above the earth's surface. It does seem logical. It just doesn't happen to be true. Everyone who
is anyone in physics today, falls on hocus pocus, to make this annoying fact go away. Reduce it to a trivial matter of no - ho hum - importance. Whereas, it is a
major, unresolved enigma in theoretical physics. It is often falsely held up, either as a non-issue, or as a (falsely) resolved issue.
Galileo is said to be the first to make and note proof of that unexpected - ever since, bitterly disappointing - fact of reality. Being the universal rate of descent of all
objects in free fall, regardless of their mass values (in the absence of air resistance). 16 (32) feet per second squared, for bodies descending on or near the surface of the
('God is subtle, but not malicious.' - Einstein).
Much (low key, back stage) concern has been given to Galileo's unarguable fact of descending bodies in a gravitational field; ever since it was proven. Especially after
Newton made a law of gravity that does indeed dictate: the heavier object should indeed descend faster than the lighter - less massive - object. Because, according to
Newton's laws, there should inevitably be a greater mutual attraction between, say, a descending cannonball and the earth, than between a descending bb shot and the
The (ironic) mystery is frequently and glibly said to be resolved in the fact of the coincidence of inertial and gravitational mass values intersecting at the same
qualitatively accelerating coordinates. An obligatory description of the unanticipated and astonishing coincidence is not any explanation of the still completely
unexplained *coincidence. By definition - like gravity and for exactly the same reason - *not understood (and stonewalled) by the scien-tific- academic status quo.
Representatives of which all too often are found pretending an understanding of that which they do not understand. Furthermore, falsely representing what they (often
capriciously and coyly - with all authoritative gravity) laughably and tragicomically misrepresent. That is to say, a cannonball, according to Newton's
Law, should (is supposed to) fall faster than a descending bb shot. The cannonball does not fall faster than descending bb shots or
grains of sand or a leaping pod of airborne Blue whales. Everything falls at the same rate of acceleration, regardless of its mass value
(in the absence of air resistance). Proclaiming that inertial mass resistance to gravity exactly cancels out the gravity: does not explain why the allegedly unrelated (space and time) values are equal. Inertial values
always (without explanation) proportionately cancelling out what would be the difference between inertial and gravitational mass
Einstein's *General Principle is the only functional solution to this (The descending objects are not really falling at all.) It
continues:*unemployed: hither-thither (& yawn).
Newton was fully aware of the unexplained, hauntingly unresolved problem in point (the functional intersection of inert and heavy mass values. Describing this
coincidence too often passes as explanation for this coincidence; which falsely currencied description is no explanation at all). According to Aristotelian
intuition and Newton's laws, heavier objects should indeed, fall faster. They don't.
Instead: Everything in free fall on or near earth invariably descends at exactly the same rate (in a vacuum. Sans air resistance).

Einstein's General Principle is the only explanation for this.
Pursuing The Irresolutely Descending Cul De Sac
At the turn of the 19th century, a Russian scientist, Roland Von Eotvos, pursued finding a difference in descent rates of heavier and lighter objects. A difference which
is supposed to be there, and isn't.
Eotvos, was inspired to achieve technological measurement of differences in descent time for variously light and heavy falling objects, down to a billionth of a second
(A nanosecond). He could find no variants in rates of descent (in time) for variously massed test objects (in space)..
No difference in descent rates - gravitational time from inertial space; uniformly perceived as unrelated - of comparatively lighter and heavier objects has ever been
measured; to date. The author submits that no difference will ever be found. Due to the more than coincidence - but rather the identity - of the fact that apparently
descending objects are not really falling at all. The ever-expanding earth, matter of factly rising up to 4 dimensionally overtake and
meet - make contact with - apparently falling bodies/objects. The ('Impossible') reason all objects (appear to) descend at the same rate
of acceleration. Fact #10. Proving yet once again, gravity (rully) is the 4th dimension. (We hope no one has spilled their Oolong?)
Reality Check, continued:
"As regards any question of, 'Why didn't Einstein say gravity is the 4th Dimension'? He did. And categorically. Einstein said and proved that gravity is the 4th
Dimension much more eloquently and elaborately; much more absolutely than I or anyone else ever will. We could reference an abundance of Einsteinian
non-mathematical quotes at this time, quotes - in other words - finding gravity the 4th Dimension. Instead, at this time and in the name of brevity, well presently
reference what is literally the best-known mathematical formula in the world. The direct, non-mathematical translation of which irrevocably proves - as it always has -
that gravity is the 4th Dimension. The formula is E=MC2. The direct non-mathematical translation of which is: 'Energy equals Matter times the speed of light,
In grade school as well as jr. high school, I would hear other students ask a question which I have since then learned is also familiar to many others; that question
being: "Inthe formula 'E=MC2', why is C (light; field energy) squared (Out of M < Mass/Matter/ Particle>; which is perceived as a static, non-expanding, non-field)?"
I may have asked the question myself, but I knew less of mathematics than I do now. But others did ask that question, and that is understandable enough. The teacher's
(ubiquitous) answer, which I have also learned since then is familiar to many others, was not so understandable. That (alleged) 'answer' being: 'It (C squared) actually
isn't necessary'.
This answer, it will not surprise some of you to know, is quite standardized as a response to the question, 'Why is C squared, in the formula E=MC2?'
All are implored not to take my word for this. Simply ask the next physicist or mathematician you happen in to. If you pursue this question, you will get that answer
or its equivalent. I had no understanding of mathematics whatsoever, and yet it still left me and many others wondering:
'If in fact it isn't necessary, then why did Einstein include it in the formula?'
One may again reasonably ask, 'What is the speed of light squared from?' Of course the only answer is, 'The speed of light (C - celeritas constant) is squared from (out
of) Matter'.
Smoke On The Perrier:

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins