New Hubble pictures, YEC explanations just don't make sense.

The only thing in Einstein I dont understand of what I know I have read is his figuring on the space around a cylinder. My guess is that it would be possible to refer this geometry to the "presentation" but not necessarily the substance of your nice picture. But That's just me.

For true I would say that it that we EXPECT a distance where lack of compenetration exists and the reason we think this is for the "energetic" thought between your post and this or for faluire to partition very small curvatures. Einstein adroitly avoids this issue by visualizing PHYSICAL REALITY as match of the bendableoverlay (no matter the interval between any distance no matter how defined) and Cartesian system alteration. I think Born may have objected to this but I would have to check. If one subsequently INSISTS that the logic dissociate within THE SAME REALITY no matter the level of organization then the difficulty you mentioned now would arise. There may be ways to do this with transfinites but first some issues in the history of logic, Frege on Cantor's demonstable diaglogue and post Godel work would need be aired in what is likely also the physics of the energy which may not be named particles of current physics to which I am not discussing speculatively today would be in need.