[elas]

[B]Do you have a new theory?[B]

Using the name ‘elas’ I had considerable differences with the administrators of ‘Physics Forums’ on this very issue. Eventually the debate was banned and the rules for ‘Theory Development’ were changed to prevent further debate. At the risk of alienating others I will restate my disagreement with your submission.

[B]Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own.[B]

The Standard Model is not flawed, it does however, lack a complete interpretation. There are two possible solutions to this shortcoming-
a) an addition to the existing theory or,
b) a new theory that underpins current theory and allows (or gives rise to) a complete interpretation of ST.

[B]This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions.[B]

So (a) is unlikely to produce results (there have been many failed attempts) because we do not need more predictive ability, what we do need is to know ‘how’ and ‘why’. For this the most likely solution is to be found following the course set by (b).

Using this approach, I set out to test various ideas on ‘PF theory Development’ only to be told this was improper use of the site. Others, and I were told to go for peer review and many sarcastic comments were made some by the administrators, who should have known better.

Fortunately, shortly after the rule changes, I was able to produce something suitable for peer review where it has been for the past four months without a decision.

Clearly (regardless of the decision) I had something if interest to put forward. So I am disappointed that there is now nowhere for theory developers to discuss their ideas prior to submission for review, unless they are connected to a university. Such prior discussion is essential to development.

It is also possible that PF has missed an opportunity to gain a valuable piece of publicity for their site; although, admittedly that remains to be seen.

I hope the administrators of physics sites will realise the need for a genuine theory developement site where all the 'nutcases' are allowed a liberal degree of freedom to push their ideas forward.

[senexa]

Amen to that!

I quite agree with you that a mistake has been made here in the restrictive nature of this particular forum.

But then, the same mistake has been made throughout the history of scientific thought as those whose careers are deeply embedded in existing theories fight against new ideas, i.e., Einstein, Darwin and Galileo.

The sad thing is that open discussion on even the wilder ideas could lead everyone to a new understanding and even possibly to exciting discoveries.

[Severian]

Quote

The Standard Model is not flawed, it does however, lack a complete interpretation. There are two possible solutions to this shortcoming-
a) an addition to the existing theory or,

I agree, and I think this is the way forward. The SM makes so many good predictions that we should build on it rather than replace it.

Quote

b) a new theory that underpins current theory and allows (or gives rise to) a complete interpretation of ST.

Presumably ST is 'string theory'. Again, this is holding onto the SM - no string theorists are suggesting that the SM is wrong. They hope to demonstrate that the SM is a low energy limit of string theory. That way, you keep the nice predictive features of the SM, while explaining some of the 'why's with string theory. This is not really any different from (a).

Quote

So (a) is unlikely to produce results (there have been many failed attempts) because we do not need more predictive ability, what we do need is to know ‘how’ and ‘why’. For this the most likely solution is to be found following the course set by (b).

I disgree. There are plenty of new physics theories out there which build on the SM and will be testable soon. A lot of these are actually inspired by string theory's low energy limit in fact.

Quote

Fortunately, shortly after the rule changes, I was able to produce something suitable for peer review where it has been for the past four months without a decision.

If you have something to be peer reviewed then that is great! My post was not to discourage this, but to encourage people to think through their ideas before making a fool of themselves? So before you put yourself up for public ridicule (which is what all new theories are subjected to (Einstein's included)) you have to ask if it makes reasonable predictions for things that have already been tested.

For example, if it is a quantum theory, does it describe the motion of electrons correctly? Does it describe electromagnetism? Does it get the correct value for the magnetic moment? (I was being a little tongue in cheek with my first post - I don't expect you to have it calculated to 10 significant figures, but it should agree with 2 to a reasonable approximation.)

If it is a theory of gravity, does if have newtonian gravity as its low energy limit? Does it predict the correct perhelion of Mercury?

If you have a theory which passes these sort of tests, then we will be very happy to hear aboiut it. If it doesn't pass these tests then surely it is already wrong, and a lot more 'wrong' than the SM. Putting up a theory for peer review which you already know is wrong is asking for public humiliation.

[alexross]

Hi Elas,
I understand your position. There is a fear that nameta9 broaches upon in that because the current 'theories' = hypotheses are so complicated no-one can question them and if you do you are on your own!
Rather than rabbit on about my own theories I will address your points.
Please let me rebuke you a little. People are entitled to question you and me for that matter. We all enjoy the intellectual masochistic sparring don't we?
Now Complex Quantum Mechanics which I sent away in 1999 does meet all your criteria and more. It resolves the problems of Conventional Quantum Mechanics but unfortunately for me there is not a level playing field.
The current theories are NOT good in their predictions.
Try and tell me the position of any electron at this moment! Sorry, I sound a little too scolding! Lets return to a placid state.
Now how about your comment that:

"If we look at the energy (Hamiltonian) of an electron in an electromagnetic field, we find that there is a contribution from the interaction of the electron's angular momentum and the magnetic field. For an orbital angular momentum"

Now to be fair I admit I do not know everything not certainly not the specifics you refer to but I can make a comment.
Is it proven that these contributions come from the momentum and the field?

It is worth bearing in mind that you can interpret mathematics in more ways than one.

In 2000 I challenged anyone to prove my theories wrong.
In 6 years I have had only 1 criticism and that is that I am being 'too complicated'.
Anyone else want to take up the gauntlet?

Now I hope you will take this in good spirit perhaps if your question had been worded a bit less like a defence of Conventional Quantum Mechanics I would not sound so disapproving. In fact I have very little to disapprove of and I am just setting out where I stand.
Anyone who wants to carry on the discussion. Please write rather than email me or post a thread.
Best wishes,
Mr Alexander Ross BSc(Hons) AMIMA Dip. Int. Trd.

This post has been edited by Sayonara³: 12 December 2008 - 02:37 AM
Reason for edit: Personal details removed.

[alexross]

Quote

Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own. On the whole, this is a fine attitude to take - we should always be skeptical, and it is good if people can think a little 'out of the box' and generate ideas which more standard thinkers may not have come up with. I have always thought that genius was not an ability to think 'better' than everyone else - it is an ability to think differently from everyone else.

However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions.

Let me give an example: the magnetic moment of the electron.

If we look at the energy (Hamiltonian) of an electron in an electromagnetic field, we find that there is a contribution from the interaction of the electron's angular momentum and the magnetic field. For an orbital angular momentum , this is with a magnetic moment



(The charge of an electron is and its mass is .)

However, if the particle has 'spin' (intrinsic angular momentum) , we also have a contribution to the magnetic moment of



is known as the gyromagnetic ratio, and its value depends on the theory. Since this can be measured in experiment very accurately, it is a good test of a theory to check if it predicts the correct gyromagnetic ratio.

For example, simple QM (the Dirac equation in an em field) predicts a gyromagnetic ratio . Experiments shows that is very close to 2, so this is good news, but since experiment shows that it is not quite 2, the Dirac equation cannot be the whole answer.

Quantum Field Theory, in the form of the Standard Model, predicts a deviation from 2. It is usual to write down the prediction for this deviation from 2 rather than the gyromagnetic ratio itself. For the SM this is:



The experimantal result is:



(A note on errors: the numbers in brackets denote the error on the prediction/measurement at the same precision to which the value is specified. For example means and means .)

You can see that the theory predicts the correct experimental value to incredible precision (although the experimental error is still better than the theory one). If you want to persuade scientists that the Standard Model is wrong, then you have to explain why this is a coincidence or show that your new theory predicts to at least this accuracy.

Hi Severian,
Thank you for posting your equations I will take a closer look. In the meantime please note you do not use quantum entanglement or such non-classical explanations here. As far as I am concerned that is CQM now and no longer QM.
Perhaps I should listen to criticism myself and start a new thread. I will chew that over.
regards,
Alex

[Severian]

alexross said:

In the meantime please note you do not use quantum entanglement or such non-classical explanations here.

Quantum entanglement is just the interference between different quantum states. The calculations of corrections to g-2 do include all such interference effects (even though I didn't go inot the calculations in general). Note that you have to use Quantum Feild Theory of course, since QM really only describes one particle moving in a potential.

[lucaspa]

senexa said:

But then, the same mistake has been made throughout the history of scientific thought as those whose careers are deeply embedded in existing theories fight against new ideas, i.e., Einstein, Darwin and Galileo.

In all three cases, the scientists involved took their ideas to their peers. NOT to amateurs on an amateur board. Einstein went thru the peer-review process. Darwin discussed his ideas with Lyell, Hooker, and Gray for 20 years before publishing. Galileo broached his ideas to fellow astronomers.

Quote

The sad thing is that open discussion on even the wilder ideas could lead everyone to a new understanding and even possibly to exciting discoveries.

The fora for that is scientific meetings, not here. Most exciting discoveries do have their roots in wild ideas first broached to colleagues at their institution or at meetings.

One essential of introducing wild ideas is the willingness to admit the idea is wrong when confronted with existing data that refute it. This is where 99.9% of scientific hypotheses die. In the investigator's head as he tests it against data in the literature or with colleagues who know a piece of the literature the investigator does not.

Unfortunately, that is not what happens in Internet forums. Instead, someone posits a brand new theory but will not listen to the data that refutes it and refuses to give the theory up. This results in a lot of wasted time by the other posters as they try to convince one person who simply will not be convinced. It is these types of discussions that tend to get squashed.

In order to be a good scientist, you have to be willing to abandon an idea when the data shows it to be wrong.

[swansont]

Quote

In all three cases, the scientists involved took their ideas to their peers. NOT to amateurs on an amateur board. Einstein went thru the peer-review process. Darwin discussed his ideas with Lyell, Hooker, and Gray for 20 years before publishing. Galileo broached his ideas to fellow astronomers.


The fora for that is scientific meetings, not here. Most exciting discoveries do have their roots in wild ideas first broached to colleagues at their institution or at meetings.

One essential of introducing wild ideas is the willingness to admit the idea is wrong when confronted with existing data that refute it. This is where 99.9% of scientific hypotheses die. In the investigator's head as he tests it against data in the literature or with colleagues who know a piece of the literature the investigator does not.

Unfortunately, that is not what happens in Internet forums. Instead, someone posits a brand new theory but will not listen to the data that refutes it and refuses to give the theory up. This results in a lot of wasted time by the other posters as they try to convince one person who simply will not be convinced. It is these types of discussions that tend to get squashed.

In order to be a good scientist, you have to be willing to abandon an idea when the data shows it to be wrong.

Indeed, it is a strength of the system and not a weakness that all new ideas have to go through a trial by fire before they are accepted. It also needs to be understood that those proposing new theories that go through such peer-review and do get accepted very likely had a firm understanding of the existing theories to which they added, which is another common difference with the online discussion community.

[CanadaAotS]

Quote

What level are you at? Would you understand this:
http://www.phys.ualb...html/node1.html
or is that too advanced?

omg... I was lost when I hit the introduction... :-p
lol

[elas]

Unfortunately I am not allowed to post new threads, I do not know why. So let me restart this debate by introducing my own formula: F=mr/2. Given that the force value is 0.719982 for all particles, then we can calculate the radius of all particles using this formula.
Now we know the Compton radius for the electron and using that to determine a converion factor we can use the Compton formula to calculate the radius of other particles. The Compton radii agree with my formula radii but only if it is assumed that all particles have a charge value of 1. So why do quarks have fractional charges?

[ecoli]

elas said:

Unfortunately I am not allowed to post new threads, I do not know why.

you should send an PM to dave or blike about this.

[elas]

Dave beat me to it, but thanks anyway. Hopefully problem will be sorted soon.
regards
elas

[KaiduOrkhon]

Yes. I have a new theory. Based on and authenticated within - previously unrecognized facets of - the foundations of Classical & Contemporary Experimental-Academic Physics.
It is entitled 'Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions: The non-mathematically translated Special & General Relativity, and the Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field: the Big Bang Theory Is Wrong. Entropic Heat Death is a Myth.'

To the best of my knowledge I am not allowed to share this freely accessible information with anyone on this website, because it has been pronounced to be 'Blatent Advertising'. I have been admonished: 'None of that'.
Clearly I misunderstand some very rudimentary communications or other procedure(s). I respectfully request further instruction in this matter. Perhaps my motives are misunderstood. I wish not to broker, sell or otherwise merchandise anything. I wish to access whomever may wish to click on a provided URL, to a source of anthological and narrated information; that it may be constructively criticized, disqualified, augmented, edited, or otherwise commented upon.
Thank you for reading this missive.
Sincerely, K. B. Robertson
kraziequus@yahoo.com

[KaiduOrkhon]

"Have you read the first post in this thread?"
____________________________

Yes. I have read the first post in this thread.
Please instruct me on how this is a point for or against those which I wish to make here - and in several other locations.

Thank you.
K. B. Robertson

[KaiduOrkhon]

An Offered Avenue of
Comprehension in the
Quantum Mechanical Field of
'Discontinuity' and
the 'Quantum Leap' (continued)...
The 5th dimension (5th ninety degree extension out of the four part, three hundred sixty degree quadrants) doesn't ‘mysteriously’ leap out of 4-D matter at all, but rather is an inevitably extrapolated, continuous - inevitably accelerated - extension of it (the 4-D mass from which it originates and by which it - the 5th dimension, is generated), manifest in an apparently discontinuous unit - "Plank's constant 'h' factor"; a discontinuous unit - photon - always having the same value, because it is consistently the 5th ninety degree unit extending out of the 4 physical dimensions that preceded and generated it.

The 5th ninety degree units (photons; 'Planck's "constant 'h' factor") moving at right angles - outside the fully occupied - 'no vacancy here, beyond four 90o quadrants, constituting a - system: projections of and from the 4-D charges ('particles') are called photons, or 'quanta' - the smallest unit of energy known to academia. The described dynamic does not actually contradict continuous field theory (as popular perceived and alleged), but rather, is a result of and generated by the 4-D space-time continuum.

The 5th and 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism respectively, are accelerating, just as the source from which they invariably originate (4-D matter), but the expansion of electricity and magnetism is exponentially extended from 4-D matter and therefore accelerating at a much faster - quantum leaping - rate. An illusion of 'contradiction' of continuous field theory, whereas the apparently 'discontinuous' particle is actually a 4-dimensionally and continuously expanding charge of electricity which generates 5 and 6 dimensional, 90o quadrants - photons - at right angles from it's 4-D boundaries.
(The record may be 'redundant' in the presentation of this issue, whereas, the repetitive descriptions wish to approach the unprecedented solution from several different perspectives. Thank you.)
This record describes the above explained ephemerality (the dynamics of Planck's 'constant "h" factor' known as the 'quantum leap'): as the 'translatory moment' - when the 5th 90o unit of electricity 'quantum leaps' out of the 4-D quadrant of 90o that generates furthermore, 90o of electricity, followed by 90o of magnetism; i.e. - the 5th and 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism, respectively. Comprehensively and continuously emitted in discontinuous units, called 'quanta' and/or 'photons'; often referred to as 'photo-electric effect'. The 'translatory moment' is also when the apparently 'standing field' of actually expanding (ever acclerating) 4-D matter, projects the 5th and 6th dimensions of electromagnetism, abruptly accelerates beyond the accleration-rate of 4-D matter (an apparent 'standing field' <'obviously physical matter, corporeal reality at large, is not expanding'>, emitting the recognized electromagnetic field; in discrete - 90o units); 'quantum leaping' (via the 5th and 6th 90o extrapolated units of electricity and magnetism:) at light speed (relative to the apparently 'standing <'static'> field' from which it originates and by which it - electromagetism - is generated).

(Refer illustration of logarithmic spiral <not to be confused with the spiral of Archimedes, which is not accelerating, as the logarithmical, exponentially expanding spiral is - acclerating; made up of four 90o quadrants, each of which is exponentially acclerated from the first 90o quadrant to the fourth 90o quadrant, fulfilling a manifest charge.

Illustration obtained from entering 'Geometry Junkyard' in Google.
(It also appears to be an expression of what is called the 'Golden Rectangle'...)
This shape, constructed by inscribing circular arcs in a spiral tiling of squares, resembles but is not quite the same as a logarithmic spiral. A similar spiral is used as the Sybase Inc. logo.

(The illustration is not transferrable from it's location on delphi, to this location on SFN, or, if it is transferable, I am ignorant of how that is accomplished.)

Above is a geometric expression of exponential - extrapolative - spiral progression from a center source (in this case a rectangle rather than a circle). It is approximately the structure of a nautilus shell - pompilius nautilis linnae, as well as any number of sea shells, snails and perhaps innumerable spiral shapes as they occur in Nature.
Referencing the above geometric expression; disregarding the rectangular center, there are four 90o quadrants exponentially progressing in clockwise motion, ending with the vertical straight line - where the evolution of the four segments preceding the vertical line fullfill a 360o whole.

360o divided by 90o equals four, followed by a 5th 90o 'pie chart' shape, extrapolated at right angles out of and far exceeding the area of the four 90o quadrants preceding it.
Repeat: note that the 5th 90o component occurs beyond 360o, and that, by way of extrapolation - exponential acceleration - the 5th component, although identical in 90o shape, very abruptly transforms to a size much larger than than all four combined 90o quadrants preceding it.
When the four 'sliced pie quarters' are gathered together in an equilateral circle , they complete a 360 degree whole. This represents a so called 'particle', more appropriately described as a 4 dimensional 'charge' of field energy.

The 5th section of 90o occurs outside of and at right angles to the described quadrant of four 90o segments. This record offers the (above diagrammatic) geometric expression - of an extrapolating spiral - as an example of 4-Dimensional acceleration of matter, generating a fifth 90o segment, representing the 5th dimension of electricity, contiguously extending - quantum leaping - at right angles out of the 360o, 4-Dimensional system from which it originates and by which it is generated; while the 6th 90o segment of 4-D charge-generated magnetism, exponentially extends at right angles out of the 5th. The 90o quadrant extending from the 5th is all the more acclerated - a 6th 90o quadrant, moving at right angles to the preceding 5th.
This record submits that the accelerated extrapolation of the 5th and 6th 90o quadrants at right angles from the 4-D 'charge', or 'particle', constitutes Planck's constant h factor, and, why it always has the same value (the emitted 5th & 6th 90o quadrants at right angles from the 4-D charge from which it originates and by which it is generated. The setting is one of compatability of discontinuous quanta as being the result of continuous field dynamics. I submit that this translation self evidently fulfills the context of this thread.

Thank you for reading this missive.
- K.B. Robertson

[KaiduOrkhon]

insane_alien said:

This is a place for guidlines about new theories not a place to post them.

Respectfully submit:
There is a series of consistent aversions to reciprocal communications, addressed to nearly all of my posts.

I am unsure how to interpret your responses, or those of D'jon, at other locations. I have provided access to my 'Home' URL and been told such provisions are 'Blatent Advertising'.

I sincerely and respectfully contend that accessing Readers who care to 'click-on' to the provided information and read it - and then comment upon it, pro or con; at their volition, by definition, avoids any lengthy dissertations in any post on any forum or website.

Whether or not a given Reader wishes to address the extended information and/or comment on it, is at the option of the Reader; without depositions of apparently overextensive information, as representatives of SFN consistently advise against.

I am sincerely attempting to abide by your rules - as I learn of them - to the best of my ability, Provision of a Home page URL does not seem to me, to be any kind of imposition at all, to the general policy of brevity. A typically abbreviated question frequently does not allow or fairly beget, or oblige, a more extensive reply - exceptions to this rule, granted.

I have been repeatedly told, in various ways, that there is no contribution on my part, as I submit there is. NOTABLY: There has been no specific address to or disqualifications of, any real or imagined equivocations - in context of the Home page URL click-on work I am referring to. The preemptive requirements are, that an extended statement is discouraged and/or disallowed at this location, and, any provision of an URL clicking on to the Home page at issue here, is prohibited.

Please tell me what you think of this description of the quandary apparent that prevails here. Is not the non-posting of a proposed 'new theory', and the provision for 'guidelines' what is presented here.

If this latter question is not germane to your intended meaning in saying:

insane_alien said:

This is a place for guidlines about new theories not a place to post them.

If not, will you - or perhaps D'Jon - provide me with what is or not intended in the responses Truly Yours is receiving from each and both of you (lately, for example)?

Thanking you, I am sincerely,
K. B. Robertson

[Martian]

What if a theory (or just a glorified idea) that someone is stating on this board is not as intellectually flattering or complex as todays theories but is in fact right?

I keep saying the earth is round but people balk at me for lack of mathematical expression.

[JustStuit]

You have a speculation which may or may not be true. Many speculations can actually be true. This does not make it a theory or anything.

[KaiduOrkhon]

Quote

What if a theory (or just a glorified idea) that someone is stating on this board is not as intellectually flattering or complex as todays theories but is in fact right?

I keep saying the earth is round but people balk at me for lack of mathematical expression.

_________________________

:-)

Well. Hello Martian. (Welcome to earth and if we were responsible for the mess, we'd apologize?).

Yours is among the more germane and astute responses we've received on this site in recent memory.

There's a glorious axiom that gives substance to the importance of simplicity. The Gravity and Unified Field work at point here, which is not being evaluated, but rather dismissed out of hand as unworthy of address, consideration or evaluation; such dismissal based on the categorically unscientific presumption that it can't be what it is.

D'jon and 'insane alien' have divined that the work I've authored must meet standards that it meets - and surpasses; must make predictions that it does make, and must offer explanations hitherto inexplicable, that it does explain.

Insane alien and J'Dona (? of most recent occasion) openly concede not knowing or taking the time to learn of the issue they anticipate - and proselytized - the failures and shortcomings of.

Insane alien has already proved himself as falsely anticipating what he mistakenly thinks, in proclaiming that 'the 4th dimension is time'; as though my (unprecedented) statement that gravity is the 4th dimension somehow must exclude time; whereas, time is motion and conversely, and is inevitably included in the statement, 'gravity is the 4th dimension' - the partial title of a work neither Insane alien nor J'Don have read, and show no interest in reading, while assertively predicting that 'the (paraphrased) forces which made me leave the first time, will most likely make me leave again.'

Insane alien's self proved false assumption apparently has not given he, or J'Dona, cause for pause.

The latter of the two has recently abandoned an ongoing thread at one location, choosing to leave my repartee to his earlier, respectfully challenged reasoning, unanswered at that thread (under the 'more tolerant' category of 'Psuedoscience and Metaphysics', entitled TOTAL FIELD THEORY Including Quantum Mechanics and 'particles'), and moved to join 'insane alien's speculative anticipations of my - consistently dismissed; simultaneously unevaluated, ungainsayed, specifically unaddressed work, in another discussion at another location ('Do you have a new theory'); gone on to generally reiterate previously made, generally irrelevant and otherwise inapplicable points.

As though listing a series of definitions for what constitutes a worthy scientific dissertation, is germane to the specific work they - until further notice - functionally refuse to authoritatively critique or otherwise editorially disqualify... Without ever making described, qualified contact with, or otherwise objectively surveillancing what they renounce, and predict public disinterest in (effectively displacing - and discouraging - any unbiased public response).
J'Dona speaks of my (paraphrased) 'previous failures to establish a following'. Whereas, I would much prefer a constructive argument addressing specific issues in the conspicuously 'untouchable' work at (notably tenacious, evasive) point, here.

Imperatively structured, command authority inflected, proclamative disclaimers abound, while none are qualified...

That would require a real knowledge of what they so far have - or candidly say they have - no way (interest or need) of knowing of.

That is, as though the work they are alluding to is something else, someplace else, based on some reasoning other than that upon which it is based, where, when and how it is, and for what reasons.

This pattern of disallowing my work from becoming a familiar and tenable subject on a given website or forum has repeated itself many times in many places, since I began using the net in September of 2002, and before then, in other 'innercircles' of 'good ol' boys'. Yet, in over four decades of publishing and selling out what is now ten (highly if obscurely acclaimed) small press editions, my unprecedented work has yet to be anywhere near disqualified. On the contrary, 'my work' (which is based on the work of many others far wiser and more knowledgeable than myself) clarifies and qualifies what was previously vague and unqualified.
Because it simply authenticates itself on the foundations of status quo physics, by way of recognizing and connecting previously unrecognized, unconnected facts.
My (notably entrenched) uninitiated critics are speaking of an unprecedented series of recognitions, anticipating and addressing a collective series of previously unexplained, uncomprehended, misunderstood facts, as though this work is not (cannot, must not be) beyond their present knowledge and understanding. Apparently taking 'personally' the unprecedented titular statement - for example - with its correspondingly unprecedented identifications and discoveries of previously unidentified, unknown and/or misunderstood findings - that apparently repelling title including the statements: Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions.

The non-mathematical Translation of Einsteins Special & General Relativity, and the Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field Theory, The Big Bang Theory is wrong. 'Entropic Heat Death' is a Myth'.

In parodying the experience of those encountering such a title (let alone the implied contents), were I not the author - discoverer/translator - of this work, I would make a point of reading it, in order to bring down the deck of cards that the unbalanced author must surely have stacked and gone bonkers over... Whereas, until such time as a given reader disassembles any such structure, item by item, or, locates the lynchpin that collapses the entire castle in the sky, I would not rest easily with what had every appearance of being a 'loose cannon', that far too many people were (and I assure you, hundreds of thousands already are; internationally) taking seriously.
The following sentiment is a portion of an e-mail letter (that I am granted permission to publish) from a sponsor of Hypography Science Forums: from which I was recently permanently banned - for three days; then re-admitted, only to be permanently banned again; with the stigmatic flag 'Banned' accompanying whatever may be left of my posts on Hypography Science Forums (under the user name, That Rascal Puff). My wife went on to join and introduce herself (in the 'Introductions' at Hypography); simultaneously speaking on my behalf, due to the fact of the discontinuance of any further opportunity for Truly Yours to qualify or otherwise defend himself...

...From invasive, 'hi-jacking' posts such as 'This message deleted by GAHD. Reason: That Rascal Puff is unworthy of google' (that's what it said, in the middle of a cordial and highly informative and educationally recreational, lively dialogue on TOTAL FIELD THEORY, with an administrator named 'Turtle', an administrator named 'IrishEyes', a sponsor named 'Infamous', a forumite named Craig, and a forumite named 'Buffy' - 'Resident Slayer'. 'Turtle' had of his own intiative, humbled Truly Yours with an off-the-beaten-path, 'Lounge' thread, entitled: 'Walking Stick and Turtle Discuss Total Field Theory'. I was firstly and wrongly 'banned, permanently' for 'multiple posts', which turned out to be the error of one 'orbsycli' (administrator; cohort of adminstrator, GAHD 'the pirate'.

Three days later, the Hypography Founder, one Tormod, of Oslo, Norway, who still has my highest respects, even though (due to the fact that he has since his foundership, understandably devoted more time to his growing family) he left the store generally unattended (by 'volunteer' administrators, in a 'free' forum), long enough to let the tyranny of administratively empowered elements such as 'orbsycli' and 'GAHD' preclude justice and practice creative troublemaking, name-calling and vacuously blaming and accusing, kangaroo courting, convicting and ejecting Truly Yours (for example).

GAHD sent me a series of 'Private Messages', which, I soon learned, I was disallowed from posting in the forum proper. GAHD goaded and bullied Truly Yours to a point where I did post his moral trespasses, gaffes and uncalled for flourishes of the abuse of power. This is how Tormod, as CEO, was finally persuaded by the cited rowdies, to ban me yet once again, permanently (for posting GAHD's Private Message in the forum mainstream - holding him publicly accountable for what he wished to carry out 'in the dark'. He got caught, and, I got busted for busting him...

There's been a lot of that going on around my work, and myself personally, for over forty years... <There's a message in there somewheres?>).

As I was saying, my wife registered with Hypography (the first and only forum she's ever joined), to amenably round off a few potential misunderstandings in the 'Introduction' category of new memberships. My wife, Caryn ('Godmothered by a computer spellcheck programe which insisted on calling her 'Crayon'), closed the letter with a statement that I had influenced and contributed to the letter's content (an unsurprising matter of fact.)
She was subsequently congratulated as a new member; told to log in, which she did, and then told shortly after her introduction, accompanied by the manifest posting of her message on my behalf, whereupon she was then barred from further access to any facet of Hypography. 'YOU HAVE BEEN BANNED. Reason: None'.

Then, as I was saying, I continued to correspond via private e-mail with Hypography sponsor and pen pal comrade, 'Infamous' ('InfamySteadfast', or, 'Infmy'); he gave me permission to publish our e-mail correspondence. The following missive is one such letter from 'Infamous', who is a fair minded, sensitive and knowledgeably truth seeking, energetic man in his early sixties, as am I. Note his stated speculations why I was really banned (including my wife, three times in less than five weeks; due to an altogether too familiar process of blaming the <would-be, innercircle designated> victims).

In this case, InfmySteadfast points out the empty reasoning of the ejection crew as being their 'suspicion' that my wife's letter was approximately co-authored with myself as the other contributor. This is true, as it was stated at the closure of the letter written by my wife and contributed to by myself. This is a given. Lacking any real reason for a series of faux pax's, the 86'ing party created a 'reason', which was no reason at all... <'suspicion' that I contributed to the content of my wife's letter...).

And now this:
Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:34:39 -0800 (PST)
From: "James Pugh" <rockytoptenor@yahoo.com> View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com. Learn more
Subject: Message for Tormod...............
To: "Ben MacColley" <kraziequus@yahoo.com>

Sir Puff;

I'll need to ask Tormod if he's interested in hearing from you first, he always quite busy and I'm not sure how he will react if I just forward the message without first asking.

I have some information that may explain why the problem occured with your wife's membership. I wasn't going to tell you this because I didn't want you to get upset, but now I think it's time for you to be brought up to date. When your wife delivered her first message, a few of our members had suspicions that it was really yourself that was responsible for the correspondence. Orby was the first to suggest it I believe, please don't quote me on this, I would really like to distance myself from this conflict. I personally don't have any problems communicating with you on any level, some others however, allow their egos to get in the way of benifical conversation.

I wasn't going to tell you the following for some of the same reasons but I feel it necessary to now relate my former involvement in your first re-instatement. It was I that politely asked Tormod if we couldn't give you another chance at forum membership. I'm afraid that asking again would fall on deaf ears, especially because everyone knows that it was thru my efforts that you regained your membership the first time. At any rate, if Hypography can be convinced that it is not yourself impersonating your wife as a way to regain a voice in the forums, they may allow her to join the forum. Understand, I'm in no way suggesting that I concur with this paranoid delusion of theirs, I'm just relating the content of conversations I was privy to.

It's really sad that some people have this need to exercise power over others. For what ever reason, it's something I've really never had the tast for. Maybe I'm the one that's weird, seems like just about everyone I know has this thing eating at them. I personally don't like to fight or exercise my will over others, I'm perfectly content to allow my fellow man to live his life in any way he wants, so long as he's not stepping on my toes, I have no desire to step on his.

I'll send Tormod a message and ask him if he wants to converse with you, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

I get the distinct impression that the real reason behind your problems at Hypography is a few of the higher ups feel threated by your superior intellect......just an opinion of mine, but I think there's some truth in this observation.................James

This is an example, along with that still being exemplified by qualified, awry elements of Science Forums and Debate (SFN), of how the first and only non-mathematical translation of Einstein's most significant achievements, is being greeted, by far too many ingrate elements. (There's ominous messages of import in here somewhere's? <The Inquisition has not expired. Only it's vehicularization - and some of its age old hell raising methods - have changed.)

Thank you, Martian, and whomever else it may earnestly concern, for reading this missive.

:rolleyes:

Sincerely,
K. B. Robertson
World's #1 Einstein Groupie
Apprentice to Albert - The Axe - Einstein
Aegis to the Great Continental EuroAsian Green Grass RiverDragon
The Last Man Standing.
Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

[KaiduOrkhon]

Dear J'Dona and Insane Alien:

Please refer to the next notably cognate and timely post by 'Martian', and consider my reply to that amiable entity and/or sentient being, as it applies to the recent posts by yourselves, in response to KaiduOrkhon, aka, Truly Yours, K. B. Robertson.

Sincere gratitude,
Kent Benjamin Robertson
Aka Kaiduorkhon
(That Rascal Puff)
kraziequus@yahoo.com