Author Topic: The 'Ugly Head' of Einstein's Abandoned Cosmological Constant 23 Jan 2018  (Read 561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ron Besser

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3439
    • View Profile
    • Email
The 'Ugly Head' of Einstein's Abandoned Cosmological Constant

I read this as part of the introduction to this Category and find it useful to comment briefly.  First I am not a scientist, but I do claim to be a cosmologist, and it is to cosmology this question should be examined.  I do not claim any scientific knowledge as most who comment on this mystery have, but I do claim that cosmology itself can partially answer the conundrum: HOW IS GRAVITY RELATED TO THE ELECTROMAGNETIC CURRENTS AROUND EARTH?

1) Electromagnetism is a deep universe secret.  How it complains about reality can be simply stated this way: Electromagnetism is neither a force or a state; electromagnetism is a constant without mathematical formula due to the fact that electromagnetism is prematerial and has no real or direct experience in space or in time.  We state further:

2) Electromagnetism is not foolish enough to doubt Einstein at all, as Einstein never knew what he was talking about precisely.  In his second theory on relativity, Einstein met with obstacles of mathematical prodigies that he could not finish, and he could not finish the equation he wanted most with application to electromagnetism because he made one error in computation no one understands today at all.   In the equation E = M C2 we find that light carries no particle whatsoever as he does not allow light particles to equate with any gravity reaction.  But in fact light particles are shown by recent experiments to be reactive to linear gravity only, and that fact alone should enlist the minds of physicists better than it has so far.

3) Electromagnetism is not a force or a static definition, but it is a stasis of sort that exists outside of the parameters of scientific preparticle analysis.  A proton has several hundred states in an atom depending on what the atom is to be used as.  In a state of matter, a proton is twice the size of a neutron.  But in a pre state of matter, the proton is only half the size of a neutron.  Why?

Neutrons are composed of quarks and antimatter.  That is not a well know hypothesis but I am assured that happens to be the case for lots of reason not offered here.  Why would a neutron be made up of quarks and antimatter?  Antimatter itself is a dark secret of the universe too and I offer this to explain it: antimatter consists of one neutral quark and one hot quark and both quarks are in a state of cosmic defiance to regular matter.    Regular matter consists, exclusively, of one proton, one anti-proton, and two neutrons, and while this explains basic matter, it does not explain how normal matter can evade antimatter at the same time and still form molecular atomic weights of unusual proportions.

The real answer lies in the state of being theory which goes something like this: If matter is to be considered a unified theory of relativity, then matter must be also relative and not singular as Einstein proposed.  I must leave that alone for further development, but be advised the material inside the state of being is extremely sensitive and I leave it for another time.

4) Einstein once wrote, “I am convinced that the house I live in is full of rare earth materials I cannot see.”  He further stipulates that the house he lived in was also a solid state of static electromagnetic disturbances kept rational because if the house were alive, it would grow around me and eat me.  I am summarizing from his notes on keeping the kettle hot for a cup of tea which I wrote several months before I died in the United States and remains as a manuscript only.

Now you heard the first voice pronoun in the above statement because I can become quite fascinated with Einstein and frequently I take on the persona that such a genius was.  I do this by becoming enmeshed in his statements concerning the Absolute quantum theory which we must come to understand if we wish to understand that light is heavy and that space is weak and that the two, space and light, interact simultaneously with the square of distance they must become attracted to as a final approach to the quantum theory that all things consist in God, as he put in several time, and he is right.  God does not have be religion, but although he is the center of religion, God is also the first scientific principle man will discover shortly.

5) The proposal is this:

Minor disturbances in the quantum field theory are just that and should not be considered algorithms that affect matter or space.  In Einstein’s writing, we read that he had no good reason to propose that light was with weight, but he intuitively deduced the positron had weight because light could be bent around a large curve by gravity bodies.  This took him almost twenty years to prove to himself but he did it with Max Planck in the early 1930's.  When Planck died he said he never quite understood why Einstein went off the road with a theory of relativity that did not contain a formula for a constant to correct derivation of light particles that began as light but ended up as a gravity strap on certain material boidies only Einstein theorized had to exist but had no way to prove them.

6) Max Planck decided Einstein was only slightly off key and proposed that any relativity equation should contain the correction Einstein withdrew out of criticism of the work he had done in 1923 and 1925 and 1926.  In that work Einstein concluded that the Absolute correction was an equation which had to be seen and not heard and said that he withdrew it in order to provide some sense to his own mind that could not find a good reason to use it at all.  Yet the equation is used today in deep space probes to send satellites to Jupiter and the outer fringe of the universe and we know that such calculations are now worked on vast sized computers, but Einstein figured the equation rather simply.  Since he was confidant that E = M C2 then C2 = E/M and the equation does not work precisely, but is close enough.  When E stands for the electromagnetic charge of space, then light (  C squared) becomes a function of M which is the static charge that light takes on when it begins to travel into outer space from some source other than a fire or explosion.

This is not precisely the terminology used by science to explain the meanings of E M and C in the equation but I have modified it so the explanation I give here helps one to understand the need for an equation that requires the  E = M C2 to also explain how the correction for absolute gravity responses are measurable to some degree at all.

7) Electromagnetism is without an explanation on earth, yet it permeates the universe as far as the eye can see, and it does so because it is prematerial.  Science pretends that preparticles in an atom preexist, but they do not preexist at all.  Preparticles exist only as a complete stage of matter of materialized formation so that they carry a charge to produce atomic matter that can be stabilized as elements to build structures and materials to use by man on earth.  Trees, by this explanation, are true axioms of matter that can produce other matter, and that is so long as the original material is composes of atoms that can exchange preparticle portions of themselves for recombination of similar, but different materials– for example leaves and seeds and bark.

Therefore, matter must be recombiant well enough to surge past the restriction of particle theories that exclude the electromagnetic force that permeates every atom and every preparticle it is composed of.

Einstein wrote to my thinking one day the following eclipse of centuries of thinking he does “up there.”  He said, “Ron up here I am a lonely old man without a lot to say except to worry over what I did on earth a century and more ago now.  No one takes me seriously enough to tell how light still gets bigger and lighter as it moves out of its source until it dissipates into space as a weak chunk of electromagnetic material.  I spend hours looking at my charts I have here and they keep telling me that light is only a phosphorus decimal point when it ends it travels to the furthest reaches of existing space.  I reach for the stars, but they do not reach back for me.”

8) I now reach for the last statement I will make here and it is a beaut.

Einstein writes a lot these days and I do not pretend to understand string theory very well, but matter is not just made up of preparticles, and t hat is because it is also made up of electromagnetic trials that cannot be perceived but revealed through the distinction of disciplinarian constants that are unrevealed to the finite mind, but Einstein did not have a finite mind. And bny heaven he penetrated what we cannot see or feel but is part of matter that defies explanation except through through the electromagnetic calculation   E = M C2 .

Einstein reconfigure that equation several ways during his life time in the flesh, and he recalculated it several times out of the flesh on the mansion worlds.   If  E = M C2 is correct so is his constant C2 = E/M .   If that is correct than the other variations of the equation are correct, right?  Wrong!

The equation M = C2 x 2.13513517 is correct.  That is a given with Einstein and me in our inside bubble abstraction I gave above.

The equation M = E/C2 is problematic because C squared is not a constant as C squared times 2.13513517 is and the 2.13513517 is constant and represents the correction to apply to the speed of light in order to propertly correct for a space deviation that allows light to dissipate as a phosphorus photon.

The 2.13513517 constant is the ratio between straight space and curved space and one must understand that space does not lie in a flat plane but but is slightly ellipsoid in its flow shape around a core universe no one in science can calculate or move aside as it is the source of the constant gravity that is non linear but entirely abstracted as the 2.13513517 concept.

Let me explain something else while I have your attention, Let us look at the number  3.14159265 which all of you recognize as PI.  PI is not electromagnetic gravity but a ration in the circles we draw for lots of reasons from curves on an Interstate Highway to the elementary use of nuclear physics.  The North Koreans cracked that code thirty years ago but got it wrong and wrong twice over until they discovered they must apply a constant to gravitational computations other than what we show here. PI is a ration between the circle center and the constant arc we call a circumference, and that deviation is not used in space time calculations except on earth, and I Einstein understood immediately that the circle ratio excluded any use of gravitational calculations except for doing the work of curves on this planet.  I also feel that PI can be used for gravity calculations if gravity is to be considered an important part of transportation leaving earth, as this ratio is finite but deterministic how far a space craft can move in a straight line before crashing.

In closing, recognize that the ability to hear and see space travel is intrinsic in knowing what solutions to apply to space traffic conditions.  Space is not a plastic but a hydraulic and that can easily be applied to new calculations as to how to fly a space ship without crashing into material objects like moons and planets and space bodies including ones own exhaust.

One last statement:

Einstein uses the term “absolute” correctly but people like Max Planck convinced him that there is no such thing in a relative universe.  Einstein has corrected his thinking as Planck has as they collaborate yet.  In speaking of the Einstein Absolute, once must become quite familiar with the cosmology of space organization and how space flows and not permeations construct speed calculations rather than light shifts to organize a much better view of distance between object in the heaves.

Ron Besser


RAYSON" I SPEAK IN CAPITOLS BRIEFLY AND IT IS TO SAY THIS WAS A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH RON TO DICTATE A VERY COMPLICATION RELATIVITY CONCEPT.  I am now using normal lettering and that is to say we will use this conceptual planner between myself and Ron and anyone else who can do this without breaking a part at the seams in writing it for me.  Ron has no problem what so ever and knows enough to write cogently over issues most would gag at.  I am leaving this alone until I get to Urantia in the next few years and then we visit CERN with Ron and so on and write later as he is falling apart with keyboard issues again.  Good day.  Rayson
Located in Historic York, Pennsylvania


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
    • View Profile
Goodness Ron and Rayson! I had to google and read up on Relativity that Einstein came up with. Come to it, Albert Einstein came up with two theories. One which is Special Relativity(SR) and the other being General Relativity(GR). What you propose gets muddled up between the two theories, however, as you are presenting more in relation to electromagnetism, this is where it gets tricky, more so when pre-particle or pre-matter comes into the equation. This is not just cosmology, it is both physics and, may I improvise a new terminology, interdisciplinary science and philosophy. Einstein even is quoted as getting such inspiration from a philosophical stance. I watched a documentary recently made and aired and it occurred to me often times Albert gets his ideas purely by experience in natural settings.  He is man who thinks as he walks and talks, the mind active as it goes.

All I can say after reading briefly about Relativity and by looking at your post, I should recommend this to be reserved for CERN scientists to look at. As it is these people who are delving into those nano-particles through the rigours of the Large Hadron Collider.  These avid scientists would be the ones who would be the most to grasp and be so awestruck by the Ultimatons, they(although are getting so close to uncovering some of it)  and even Einstein did not know about. The key thing about SR is the speed of light, the higher the velocity or speed (c squared) the greater the energy=mass. Bearing in mind, in your post above, in one breath are we talking about material matter, and in another breath are we talking about pre-matter (pre-particle) that cannot be seen with naked eyes, hence so immaterial, and as such, could this be viewed as infinite energy of a source unknown to material minds?  We know we are veering on to the invisible or the spiritual type energy that cannot be quantified but is qualifiable by very tiny, constant living cells of unknown proportion and potential. The more that is perceived, the fascinating such a study becomes, thank you for the insight, and thank you Albert for your life's work in inspiring so many to see physics in a different way.

I have not had the chance to study the above subject at length, so I join Ron in saying I am no scientist either, however as soon as one thinks and ponders and learns, then things start to emerge in the mind that creates waves of thought. All the best to you and the audience that you share this with. Thank you.



  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
I like Einstein and think he's probably one the most well known figures on our planet along with his famous formula.  So I tried to follow what you wrote below and only came up with a few questions and some cool supplemental info.

E=MC2 is Einstein's Theory of Relativity equation saying that mass and energy are equivalent.  Einstein's E=mc2, which says that mass and energy are the same thing, and you can convert from one to the other using a constant, "c2".  

Electromagnetic calculation is vastly different in research and its many applications.  Look here at the list:

I don't get it when you write, "7) Electromagnetism is without an explanation on earth".  When wiki says, Electromagnetism is a branch of physics involving the study of the electromagnetic force, a type of physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles."

You wrote that "If  E = M C2 is correct so is his constant C2 = E/M"  

But E=MC2 solved for C2 would flow like this:

- To get the "m" on the other side.  First divide both sides of the equation by "m" so you get e/m=c2

- to get the "e" on the other side you have to multiply both sides of the equation by (1/e) since the "e" is in the numerator

- you have to multiply it by (1/e) so the "e" cancels out on the left side...this leaves us with 1/m=c2/e

- When solving for C2, it would be 1/c2=m/e

Visual aid -

You wrote, "The equation M = E/C2 is problematic because C squared is not a constant as C squared times 2.13513517 is and the 2.13513517 is constant and represents the correction to apply to the speed of light in order to propertly correct for a space deviation that allows light to dissipate as a phosphorus photon."

Phosphorus photon do you mean phosphorus 32?  Because that's all I found and it's used only in biochemical research, particularly in studies of nucleic acid.

C squared IS constant in a vacuum in normal space as defined by us on Earth using our physical laws.

"In Einstein's view of the universe, "c" was the only thing that stayed the same in all reference frames and, to accommodate that, he showed how time and space themselves were stretchy concepts." "the idea of spacetime to explain why, even as you seem to sit still in space, you are still moving at "c" in the time dimension. Think of your normal movements in everyday 3D space and everyday time as the shadow of a more universal movement in 4D spacetime. To make the equations of special relativity work, you need to measure your motion in spacetime, rather than everyday space and time."

You wrote - "equation M = C2 x 2.13513517 is correct"  What is 2.13513517 and what source does it come from? How is it defined?

Here is an excellent article called; "Einstein and PI".  The formulas lose me but the concepts entice me to try to grasp more.  Stay with it and just read as it explains the Einstein - PI connection.

This took way to much time putting together BUT space, time, and all the how's, and why's concerning Father's creation - fascinates me beyond words

Posted on March 13, 2014 by Sean Carroll

Each year, the 14th of March is celebrated by scientifically-minded folks for two good reasons. First, it’s Einstein’s birthday (happy 135th, Albert!). Second, it’s Pi Day, because 3/14 is the closest calendrical approximation we have to the decimal expansion of pi, π =3.1415927….

Both of these features — Einstein and pi — are loosely related by playing important roles in science and mathematics. But is there any closer connection?

Of course there is. We need look no further than Einstein’s equation. I mean Einstein’s real equation — not E=mc2, which is perfectly fine as far as it goes, but a pretty straightforward consequence of special relativity rather than a world-foundational relationship in its own right. Einstein’s real equation is what you would find if you looked up “Einstein’s equation” in the index of any good GR textbook: the field equation relating the curvature of spacetime to energy sources, which serves as the bedrock principle of general relativity. It looks like this:

It can look intimidating if the notation is unfamiliar, but conceptually it’s quite simple; if you don’t know all the symbols, think of it as a little poem in a foreign language. In words it is saying this:

(gravity) = 8 π G × (energy and momentum).

Not so scary, is it? The amount of gravity is proportional to the amount of energy and momentum, with the constant of proportionality given by 8πG, where G is a numerical constant.

Hey, what is π doing there? It seems a bit gratuitous, actually. Einstein could easily have defined a new constant H simply be setting H=8πG. Then he wouldn’t have needed that superfluous 8π cluttering up his equation. Did he just have a special love for π, perhaps based on his birthday?

The real story is less whimsical, but more interesting. Einstein didn’t feel like inventing a new constant because G was already in existence: it’s Newton’s constant of gravitation, which makes perfect sense. General relativity (GR) is the theory that replaces Newton’s version of gravitation, but at the end of the day it’s still gravity, and it has the same strength that it always did.

So the real question is, why does π make an appearance when we make the transition from Newtonian gravity to general relativity?

Well, here’s Newton’s equation for gravity, the famous inverse square law:

It’s actually similar in structure to Einstein’s equation: the left hand side is the force of gravity between two objects, and on the right we find the masses m1 and m2 of the objects in question, as well as the constant of proportionality G. (For Newton, mass was the source of gravity; Einstein figured out that mass is just one form of energy, and upgraded the source of gravity to all forms of energy and momentum.) And of course we divide by the square of the distance r between the two objects. No π’s anywhere to be found.

It’s a great equation, as physics equations go; one of the most influential in the history of science. But it’s also a bit puzzling, at least philosophically. It tells a story of action at a distance — two objects exert a gravitational force on each other from far away, without any intervening substance. Newton himself considered this to be an unacceptable state of affairs, although he didn’t really have a good answer:

That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro’ a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.

But there is an answer to this conundrum. It’s to shift one’s focus from the force of gravity, F, to the gravitational potential field, Φ (Greek letter “phi”), from which the force can be derived. The field Φ fills all of space, taking some specific value at every point. In the vicinity of a single body of mass M, the gravitational potential field is given by this equation:

This equation bears a close resemblance to Newton’s original one. It depends inversely on the distance, rather than the distance squared, because it’s not the gravitational force directly; the force is given by the derivative (slope) of the field, which turns 1/r into 1/r2.

That’s nice, since we’ve replaced the spookiness of action at a distance with the pleasantly mechanical notion of a field filling all of space. Still no π’s, though.

But our equation only tells us what happens when we have a single body with mass M. What if we have many objects, each creating its own gravitational field, or for that matter a gas or fluid spread throughout some region? Then we need to talk about the mass density, or the amount of mass per each little volume of space, conventionally denoted ρ (Greek letter “rho”). And indeed there is an equation that relates the gravitational potential field to an arbitrary mass density spread throughout space, known as Poisson’s equation:

The upside-down triangle is the gradient operator (here squared to make the Laplacian); it’s a fancy three-dimensional way of saying how the field is changing through space (its vectorial derivative). But even more exciting, π has now appeared on the right-hand side! Why is that?

There is a technical mathematical explanation, of course, but here is the rough physical explanation. Whereas we were originally concerned (in Newton’s equation or the first equation for Φ) with the gravitational effect of a single body at a distance r, we’re now adding up all the accumulated effects of everything in the universe. That “adding up” (integrating) can be broken into two steps: (1) add up all the effects at some fixed distance r, and (2) add up the effects from all distances. In that first step, all the points at some distance r from any fixed location define a sphere centered on that location. So we’re really adding up effects spread over the area of a sphere. And the formula for the area of a sphere, of course, is:

Seems almost too trivial, but that’s really the answer. The reason π comes into Poisson’s equation and not Newton’s is that Newton cared about the force between two specific objects, while Poisson tells us how to calculate the potential as a function of a matter density spread all over the place, and in three dimensions “all over the place” means “all over the area of a sphere” and then “adding up each sphere.” (We add up spheres, rather than cubes or whatever, because spheres describe fixed distances from the point of interest, and gravity depends on distance.) And the area of a sphere, just like the circumference of a circle, is proportional to π.

So then what about Einstein? Back in Newtonian gravity, it was often convenient to use the gravitational potential field, but it wasn’t really necessary; you could always in principle calculate the gravitational force directly. But when Einstein formulated general relativity, the field concept became absolutely central. The thing one calculates is not the force due to gravity (indeed, there’s a sense in which gravity isn’t really a “force” in general relativity), but rather the geometry of spacetime. That is fixed by the metric tensor field, a complicated beast that includes as a subset what we call the gravitational potential field. Einstein’s equation is directly analogous to Poisson’s equation, not to Newton’s.

So that’s the Einstein-Pi connection. Einstein figured out that gravity is best described by a field theory rather than as a direct interaction between individual bodies, and connecting fields to localized bodies involves integrating over the surface of a sphere, and the area of a sphere is proportional to π. The whole birthday thing is just a happy accident.


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Every time I read Ron in transmissions like these where he amalgamates his human and divine roles so masterfully, he reminds me Jesus when he was fully aware of his human existence, his divine pre-existence, and the condition of his human and divine natures. combined or merged. With perfect balance he could at the same time play his human role or immediately assume the prerogatives of the personality of the divine nature.
In my case, although I know in advance that I can not understand the essentials of these theoretical approaches or their mathematical equations and formulas, I think that one way to pay tribute to both Ron and Andi for their brilliant theoretical expositions, is to pass completely on all the material, with the hope that at least it remains in the subconscious. And I am comforted by this definitive affirmation of Sathya Sai Baba: 
"In the human being is the divinity as a spark promoting life in its highest expression, is each element of the created, and is the mind participating in the Infinite Mind as an open curtain towards the ultimate scope: The spirit. There nests the secret of the Perfect Equation, there is the germ of the Magna Synthesis that brings man closer to the reality of God"


  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Just as Ron has indicated, I am no scientist, physicist, mathematician, or theoretician and I am working on having a better understanding of this information with the available time and resources; I’d say similar as to learning about the Urantia book.

From what I am able to glean, this is extraordinary new information for someone in these fields. However, a question has popped into my mind. How does this information on electromagnetism relate to the work of Nikola Tesla? As I understand it, Tesla was ahead of his time and his death, or murder in 1943, he left many unanswered questions on his discoveries as he was secretive and hid his notes in different locations and were often in code, the contents of his safe were gone when the FBI went and confiscated all the documents they could find.

Could RAYSON, Magisterial Son and Science Officer, offer us some explanation here?  
Thank you,



  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
  • I wish I could help people around and me.
    • MSN Messenger -
    • View Profile
    • Barato Sites
Re: The 'Ugly Head' of Einstein's Abandoned Cosmological Constant 23 Jan 2018
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2018, 12:05:14 AM »
Hey Einstein, what is it like to ride a light ray?