Proof of One

You are correct. It never seems to matter to my many world-class friends. Many of whom I have publicly cited.

As usual, you are misleading. This forum, unlike others, does not allow the deletion of a post. Occasionally, probably due to a bandwidth problem, a submission is aborted. When I hit the "back" button and resubmit the reply, it is double posted. I then edit the post to a sentence, or so, and move on. Should you know how to delete a post on this forum, please advise me. In the meantime, I have learned, when a submission is aborted, that I should reenter the thread and check to see if it is posted. Of course this runs the risk of losing data and requires a lot of time when one is replying at four forums simultaneously. (See: index/table of contents) I prefer the double post gambit becaause, usually, when this happens at Physics Forum, I discover that my computer has been locked out; as has my reply to a misleading post by a mentor. I never reply to a post from one individual with more than one post, except as noted above. I never post drivel; or ask questions that can be readily found in any dictionary or easily Googled. In fact, I do much the opposite by citing many references. Can you please do the same. I have been keenly interested in Alan’s work from the beginning of Inflation Theory and through all of its modifications. Let’s just say that we agree to disagree concerning its implications regarding the accelerating, galactic recession paradox. I refer to “anti-gravity” as Cosmic Inertia. I have carefully studied the phenomenon (some refer to it as the Cosmological Constant) for over fifty years. I am much impressed with Ernst Mach’s work. I am sure that I am correct with Cosmic Inertia. What could Newton have possibly understood about inertia? Einstein, with GR, admitted that he was baffled. Mach stood almost alone. You might take a clue from Einstein.

You have done that nicely with your forum profile. What else needs to be known can be gleaned from your posts that are compiled at said profile.

I only post when a reply is required. I do not initiate any posts other than to explain to others or defend myself. Never would I take positions as you have; particularly concerning your limited experience concerning the matters of these dialogues..

I don't understand the relevance of this statement.

Views are never increased when I visit the site. The views are now approaching 380; and, the Thread is quickly moving up the first page on this topic when the Threads are sorted in descending order of viewers.

I was on a full, five year scholaeship (including living expenses) in a most elite program. My Curriculum Vitae was abruptly interrupted. Subsequently, I went from the deck of the New Jersey to the DMZ in Korea for an extended period of time. You would have had to live in the McCarthy era to understand.

Obviously, you know little of Inflation Theory as proposed by Alan Guth.

That's why I am here . . . and elsewhere. I do believe that if you will build a field, they will come !

It does make me think about Intellectual Inquiry. And, such thought stokes my admiration for the courage and curiosity of this site.

May your day be as good. Suffer a fool; until . . . ........the fool won't suffer you.

It is not my site. It is: http://www.physicsmathforums.com. A Physics, Math, Astroromy, Philosophy website . . . much as this forum. I do very much enjoy the Renaissance spirit of Dr. Elliot McGucken's site. (If for no other reason than that he was permanently banned with Brunardot from Physics Forum.) I'm quite sure that I have never spoken of Pulsoid Theory as "wonderful." If I ever have, I have misspoken. It is not for me to judge whether it is "wonderful."

Please carefully read this Thread. There is too much for me to post in this reply. After reading this Thread, please cite any one example of logical support that I have given with which you disagree. I am a theoretical physicist/philosopher, not a research physicist or engineer. Should you not understand where I am coming from, please attempt to discuss it with Steven Weinberg.

I am in complete agreement. Note that I am not leading this discussion. I have only been responding to others since my first post . . . up to, and including this one. I have, over and over. Just a few of many such posts are the "The Mystique of the Ellipse," and Tini Circle Groups. I will post much more extensive mathematical proof concerning subatomic particles, their bonds, and chemical bonds . . . as soon as their is a respite from this nattering. There would seem to be merit to your argument. However, I have discovered otherwise. Once the Big Bang was accepted by the Pomo elite, over much objection, about eight years after Einstein’s death, until the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) proved its ludicrousness, I had no credibility. First I had to prove that all Pomo theory was little more than superstition. Since HST, and other research observations, there has been no viable theory other than Pulsoid Theory. That, in itself, does not make Pulsoid Theory correct; but it does make it the only fundamentally sound, alternative theory. Certainly, no more than I.

Update: (A few hours later) Viewers of this Thread are now over 300. In a few more hours this thread, Pulsoid Theory, will be on the first page of all Threads on this topic when the Threads are sorted in descending order of viewers. This interest is very encouraging; particularly, if you consider that it was accomplished in only a few hours longer than one week from when PoO joined the Thread.

Thank you for your contemplated effort. I am sure that you will be rewarded. Please advise as you progress; and do not hesitate to ask specific questions regarding the math and logic. I will do my best to quickly reply.

I absolutely concur. I know of no failure of Pulsoid theory to meet such criteria. I am sure that most are. Now almost 280 a little while after your post. It is a bit of a "deal" when you consider the time involved. Note: "Trsvelling faster than light...", the precursor of this Thread, quickly, more than quintupled in viewers after languishing for almost two months at 400 viewers; since PoO joined it is now more than 2600. Cornell University is where I studied (with full scholarship); I consider Philip Morrison as my mentor. This was the McCarthy era. I got into a ton of trouble with Oppenheimer and J. Edgar Hoover.

Thank you very much for your effort and what appears to be sincere concern. I am very familiar with peer review concerning more journals than I care to think about. You could say that I am an avid student of peer review. Peer review is, for the most part, entirely closed to “outsiders” and nonorthodoxy. Such is the precise purpose of peer review. Also, many of my close friends fear reprisal if too closely associated with myself or my theories. They upset the “natural order” for which peer review was established to prevent. (An excellent example of this fear, ego, and close-mindedness is the unwarranted censorship at Physics Forum as wielded by a few misguided acolytes of the Pomo elite.) I have spent many 100s of thousand dollars over the last 50 years attempting to “work” within the system, without much success beyond making many close friends. I know of no other way to enlighten mankind than what transpires in my “manner” herein and elsewhere on the internet. I’m so aware of the article that you cite that sometimes I think I wrote it. Can’t you understand; at great personal sacrifice, I am doing something about it. Nor can I; I concur with your logic. Considering all the encouragement that I have received from the highest levels of academia and research, it took many years for me to understand what a Paradigm Shift (a term that I used before Thomas S. Kuhn) entailed. For fifty years, no one has assailed the logic or math, regardless of how I have provoked academia. I, and you . . . and Elliot, are.

Thank you very much for your effort and what appears to be sincere concern.

This comment appears to be meaningless drivel; unless, you can supply some context that gives it meaning. Not sure what you are referring to (see above comment). Number Theory is merely one of many branches of Pure Mathematics. Do you have any training in either? I agree, entirely, with Wikipedia's excellent definition of theoretical physics. I can find no salient variance concerning Wikipedia’s succinctness and my more elaborate definition. I know of no theoretical physics theory that provides more mathematical rigor than Pulsoid Theory. To the best of my knowledge there is no theory in physics that postulates a redefinition of Pure Mathematics to “set” its foundation. I have suggested, before, that you learn some fundamental mathematics or consult some knowledgeable person. I believe that Matt Grime, a member of this forum, who is knowledgeable on the subject, may be able to assist you.

No contradiction in my original statements. Do some basic research before you waste everyone's time. Pure Mathematics. Theoretical Physicist.

It is glaringly obvious that you have little training as a theoretical physicist. You probably also lack training in philosophical logic and pure mathematics. Otherwise, you would clearly understand that “documentation,” “details,” “actual science,” are not of importance concerning a prediction from a theory. Such is the function of the research scientist and engineers. What is important is that a theory can rationalize what is observed that otherwise is inexplicable. It is the intervening “dark” matter as defined by Pulsoid Theory as it affects the Relative, Hierarchic Compression (RHC) of the involved objects . . . and all other objects.. I believe I mentioned that peer review has not been available to me for over 50 years; certainly not when orthodoxy is at stake. What peer reviewer would ever knowingly permit an institutional Paradigm Shift? With your assist, and that of others, there is no other way around peer review that I have been able to devise. The ultimate judgment is in the hands of the viewers of many forums. As it should be. Judging from my record breaking following among the forums, it has some value. So much value that Physics Forums permanently bans my viewing, while using my acronyms and neologisms to advertise their site. Hopefully, there are a few open-minded persons that will not agree with you. Persons that are looking for an alternative theory to the voodoo metaphysics of the current Pomo elite theoretical physicists . . . who, for the most part, seem to have little rational theory. Big Bang, indeed !!!

I predicted an effect such as the Pioneer Anomaly at Caltech, on March 11, 1994 with Kip Thorne and John Schwarz. Several years later I discussed it with David Paige and Sorel Fitz-Gibbon with UCLA, while at breakfast. All discussions were before any of them were aware of the anomaly; and in 1994, I was unaware of the anomaly. You could crassly refer to the photon effect as that which is observed with the "double slit" experiment. I prefer to think of the "photon effect" as the nonlocality of a light wave that causes it to behave "somewhat" as a particle when it "hits" a photon detector. This "effect" is easily explained with Pulsoid Theory; just as any gravitational "effect" is easily rationalized. The "when" and "where" of predictions is not important. What is important is that the enigmas are rationalized.