Proof of One

Are you aware of the statistics that this Thread has on this forum. And, the Google and Yahoo rankings of these discussions.

Fortunately, your opinion is not shared by everyone. Including many viewers herein; and, many others that have been receiving internet postings.

This forum, and several others, are far superior to anything avaiable at arxiv. You are correct. The operative word is "some." The drawback is that, apparently, no one is responding that is a trained pure mathematician or theoretical physicist. However, many are watching because this dialogue is getting top rankings through many search topics on Google and Yahoo. The real significance of this Thread is the large number of Viewers that are just watching. And, that no original logic or mathematics is being challenged. Such an audience and the participation/non-participation is not available ar arxiv or with peer review. It is rife with original mathematics. I have sent many .pdf files of large manuscripts to individual physicist. I might add that the only responses that I have received have been rave notices.

I believe that there is much significance to the finding of the Elliptical Constant; and, that after fifty years of "plying the trade," I believe I can see the significance of said constant relating to the universal Proof of One, which answers Gödel’s quest to prove the mathematics that underlies all the “proofs” of physics. I also see much significance of said geometry in explaining the internal structure of a light wave, the method by which that light wave becomes mass, and why subatomic particles are structured as they are, etc. As I remember, you are training in theoretical physics; have you studied SST extensively? Concerning geometry, algebra, and physics: The two don't talk physics much at home, she said. She's interested in geometrical approaches to space and time, and he thinks algebraically. "When he starts talking about (exotic kinds of) algebras, I just think, 'Yuuuccckk.' " 'A Lot of It's Guesswork' .....Patricia Schwarz with reference to her husband John Schwarz .....Los Angeles Times, November 17, 1999 Currently, there is no other theory that explains the phenomena, mentioned above, other than Pulsoid Theory; it would seem reasonable that Pulsoid Theory passes the logical and observation requirements to be an alternative theory until another one comes along. Certainly, Pulsoid Theory is far superior to SST in addressing the enigmas of Reality. Can you think of an alternative theory that fills the requirements that Pulsoid Theory does? Have you yet found any logic or mathematics of said Pulsoid Theory that you are in disagreement with?

Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion. I hope that others will not share it. History will resolve this problem. Win or lose, I've had a good ride for fifty plus years. Yes, you would think so. You do not understand the vindictiveness of the insular community concerning those that step over the line of orthodoxy. My considered mentor (as is common knowledge, was Philip Morrison) and a multiple laureate have wished me well publicly, and privately, in writing, have concurred with the merits of much of my work that they were familiar with. Yes, by insiders. Even Einstein needed Planck. Remember, for almost 50 years Einstein never received a Nobel for SR; and, about 40 for GR. The Nobel that he did receive was derisive as it was related to the beginning of QM, to which he never believed in . . . to the day of his death. Yes. I have complete records and voluminous notations; they literally fill a room of filing cabinets. All submissions are carefully documented as to their distribution. And top attorneys, with national firms, have represented me. Over the years, my costs are well into the mid-six figures. The rewarding part of all of this is that while seeking co-authors I have met many of the finest persons that I have known.

Obviously' date=' I have a theory. You might see: http://www.PulsoidTheory.com. Many submissions have been turned down because of my standing. I also find that peer revue is a considerable obstacle for a Paradigm Shift ! I was forcibly ostracized from academia after a flare-up with Oppenheimer that involved J. E. Hoover in the mid-‘50s. At the time, I was in an environment of many laureates, and classmates that so became. The person I consider my mentor, who very recently died, is one of the most honored non-theoretical physicists in the world. I think that I mentioned, at wherever you picked up this knowledge from, that I will keep this forum posted. If because of circumstances beyond my control that I cannot notify you, there will be info posted at the above link as soon as possible. I am quibbling on details, actually, from the east to west coasts; I prefer staying local because of physical problems. Attendance is beyond my control. Obviously, I will be quite flattered if any notable persons are in attendance. I do hope some long time friends and acquaintances (Who do not necessarily agree with my concepts) will attend.

Thank you for your clarification. You apparently misunderstood prior posts. Swansont found "no math"; and, I replied, “Do you consider the formulae for Pythagorean Triangles and Circles as "math"?” It would clearly seem, in context, that I did consider the formulae as “math,” as any reasonable person would. How you could misconstrue this dialogue into stating that I thought otherwise is truly amazing.

If you weren’t aware, I am the author. I have no control over these pulications. You will have to discuss the oversight with them. In the meantime, is there any logic or mathematics concerning the Pulsoid Theory with which you disagree? Most likely because that is where all the original thought was conceived, some fifty years ago. Do you have any concept as to what an original thought is that can withstand the scrutiny of philosophical logic, mathematics, and enigmatic observation? If that is the best that you can do, not finding a lot of meaning, I certainly have no control over your ability to find meaning and understanding. If you think so little, of what you put so much effort into "reading," certainly, there must be some logic or mathematics to which you disagree. You are correct; therein, lies the power of said Brunardot Series (It is a series, more than a sequence), which is original to the literature of mathematics. If you don’t understand the significance of revising the Fibonacci sequence after 800 years (possibly, more than a millennium)), you do not understand very much about mathematical history. Certainly, you are entitled to an opinion. I’m not sure that I can agree about the randomness; and, I’ve been called many things, for many years, but never before “an orange chimpanze (sic.) called bob.”

And, what would the point be? I didn't realize that you would miss my implied question.

Most of these tests are now underway at considerable expense at major research centers around the world. Any competent physics researcher should have little trouble devising the experiments; implementing them is mostly limited to facilities beyond the reach of many. I am not a researcher, you will have to contact them at any major university. I might recommend Caltech or UCLA; however, there are many more. As far as the math, apparently, you have read little of Pulsoid Theory. I have made more extensive mention in prior posts; however I will note here that you should first understand the Mystique of the Ellipse; look at the Cycle-Time Arrays; and study the Tini Circle Groups. You may find the revised Fibonacci sequence of interest; particularly, the explanation of why it and the Golden Ratio are directly related to all physical phenomena. Soon after school begins there will be a seminar at a major university with many laureates that will cover the details of the universal Proof of One, the Elliptical Constant, and Triquametric motion. I will attempt to keep you posted.

No need to be concerned when you are advising me regarding fact; though, I cannot understand the relevancy of your advising me that geometry predates 1950. Have I missed your point? Not sure where you are referring to. If you are referring to Pulsoid Theory in general, there are many possible tests; For example, a few could be: 1.) test for the photon effect; 2.) test for the Pioneer Anomaly; Also, See: Pioneer Anomaly 3.) test for Cosmic Inertia; 4.) test for the existence of twelve quarks, each with a full, .....unitary “charge”; 5.) test the variance of elliptical bonds at subatomic levels; 6.) test the speed of light for variation at great distances; 7.) test galactic cohesion as being the result of compression .....from without, rather than internal attraction; 8.) test light waves for correlation with the oscillations of .....Triquametric motion; 9.) the list can be near endless, only limited by the imagination .....of research engineers and physicists. See above. And, why are not Pulsoid Theory's gedunkens as relative, in the same manner, as Einstein's gedunkens? As for the math terminology, I will let scientific historians and the pure mathematicians judge. Do you have training as either? Your comment concerning lexicographers probably relates to neologisms and acronyms? My concern was not with the lexicographers. My concern was the easy connotation of a precise definition for complex phenomena, in a descriptive form; so as to release the layman from the obfuscating argot of the elite concerning bosons, fermions, gluons, the amalgam of forces described as gravity, etc., etc. One should be able to accurately predict the number of salient, subatomic manifestations, their mass ratios, their spin energy, their “charge,” etc. using the mathematical techniques of the elliptical Cycle-Time arrays when computed in 3D after setting the Elliptical Constant. It should be possible to predict, accurately, the paths of intra- and extragalactic probes, that currently cannot be done with GR (actually most calculations are done with Newtonian formulae).

See the above reply to swansont In a forum such as this, it is difficult to extend beyond what I have. For those that are interested, their are manuscripts available, upon request. I, certainly, do intend to be transparent in this forum with regard to any specific requests. I particularly welcome inquiry regarding the mathematics, which is quite revolutionary. I'm sure until swansont moves this Thread that the monitors would prefer you stay "on topic." Though, this Thread was moved once. It is difficult to undertand getting "off topic" when the topic is: "Other Topics, Pseudoscience and Metaphysics"; however, you should frame your questions about "Travelling faster than light...", which is what I originally proposed that Pulsoid Theory could neatly explain with its hyper-relativistic (superluminal) concept of Triquametric motion, when I was drawn into the morass that has resulted from trying to be helpful.

Using the theory, most predictions that are given are easily quantitative by reaearchers; such as the Pioneer Anomaly, the high energy background radiation, etc. There is no other explanation for most of the enigmatic phenomena that is listed. I am a theoretical physicist; not a research physicist. The vision must be provided before there is research. Einstein's theoretical work progressed from gedunkens. The theoretical physicist leads the way for the researcher. When there is a Paradigm Shift! in knowledge, those that have vision; and, those who propose theory must lead. Are you possibly unaware of the methods of String Theory and its offshoots as literally 1000s of physicists are working on with quite large grants? There are many equations that can be verified. At the post of the Mystique of the Ellipse the more significant equation is: Tr = Vr + 1 . Do you consider the formulae for Pyhagorean Triangles and Circles as "math"? And, how about the formula given re: Tangent Circles: a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + d^2 = (a + b + c + d)^2 / 2 Or, the formula given for the Natural function: NF = x^2 - x Have you seen before the formula for an ellipse given as: C^2 = 2v^2 - s^2 Do you know that the hypotenuse of any elliptical shape is a simple function of the distance between the foci? The function is clearly stated. Were you able to solve the mathematics of the arrays used with the Tangent Circle groups? All integers given are in accordance with thw tangent circle formula given above. Of course, I may have been a good guesser with these and the Ultron Ellipse arrays? You are very mistaken on this point. GR gives three solutions for the "speed of gravity"; one of which is infinite However, GR is well known to be flawed beyond certain very limited, contrived parameters. Caltech ran an experiment earlier this year in an attempt to locate gravity waves at a cost of near 500 million dollars. The experiment failed. They are in the process of increasing the sensitivity for another 500 million dollars to accomplish what you say has been done. I suggest that you give your measurements to Caltech. A billion dollars is a lot of money to be wasting. No math where? The revised Fibonacci sequence is quire salient as it contains the Natural function. The universal Proof of one contains math if you so define algebra and geometry. Let's move this Thread before you lead me into more warning points. I'm on probation for about a month.

When you use terms such as “at least a pair of brain cells to rub together can see”; I consider the post ad hominem. Earlier in this Thread, you commented, regarding myself: Now if this isn't ad hominem from you, then, I don't understand the term. I understand ad hominem as: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument…. Should you have a better definition, I will consider altering my use of the term. We are in agreement. Doesn’t work. Possibly you can lift the ban. Sorta like the procedure at this forum. After all, I had garnered “no points” to my knowledge before being banned in the middle of a requested reply from a Super Mentor. Good idea. I’ll try. If successful, I’ll post the arguments on the internet in a day or two for all to judge. I can not remember you, in any forum, specifically questioning my math or logic. I do remember much pejorative, nastiness without specific citations, as evidenced throughout this Thread. No sense arguing the point, until I can access the info and post it on the internet. You could make the job much easier, in our quest for the facts. Sorry. Obnoxious is certainly not my intent; however, I cannot question your feelings. Regarding your comment, “hijacked this thread,” everyone that cares can go back to the beginning on Page three. I don’t think the total of my posts on said page will support your position or indicate anything but polite helpfulness. Done that. Been there. See: http://www.PulsoidTheory.com. I always try to carefully abide by the rules. Occasionally, I am pulled off topic by the queries or attacks of ill-informed members that often mislead others. I am painfully aware of the privilege to post; and, take all warnings quite seriously. Too bad there are not warnings that are enforced for specious and ad hominem posts from senior members. Not much can be accomplished by “preaching to the choir.” As long as I am tolerated, when the readership or attacks wane, I will move on. The effort to respond to drivel is quite taxing. I have no idea what you are referring to. Please be more clear and I will respond as quickly as possible. Have you learned much about being a theoretical physicist. When I discuss with world-class theoretical physicists; they admit to having very few answers; and are always on the lookout for new alternative viewpoints to stimulate their research. You seem to be referring to ad hominem argument. If I should ever use ad hominem argument, I certainly regret it, as it is a sure mark of poor intellect. Agreed. You are again correct. There is no better way to lose one’s point. What other conclusion can be reached if my definition at the top of this post is correct? As a practice, I try to never tamper with another’s comments. I suppose the “coloring” that you refer to depends upon one’s personal bias, which is very difficult to account for. I wasn’t questioning the responsibility; only making an observation. Not so as a perusal of all my original posts should indicate. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point; however, if I had so intended, I certainly succeeded with your help. Yes, though, I was not using it to further my argument re: math and logic. Often such a “fallacy” can be very powerful. Good observation; but a poor analogy. I have answered this several times in the above posts. The argument is subjective; I can only see it settled by historians. I see the context much larger than you do. I don’t see how either of us can settle this as it has entirely different interpretation whether the context is narrow or broad. To my mind either is valid. You certainly may disagree. Whether your opinion is correct or not; it is your opinion to express as you like. I would think for a theoretical physicist in training, that you would find much of interest. What area of theoretical physics are you studying? Yes, I can.

Thank you for participating. Yes, you are correct in noting that I have repeatedly accused Tom of ad hominem argument. That is because he, apparently, doesn’t know the meaning of the word. He has never posted a reply to myself in any forum without using ad hominem argument; and, he always neglects any specific point of contention concerning anything mathematical or philosophically logical. Your vote is noted. I find the atmosphere much less repressive here than where there are Super Mentors that are judging in fields that they are not trained for; then ask direct questions; then lock your replies, edit them, or delete them; if they can not respond. If you are referring to why I am edited, deleted, and banned; Yes, I think of it quite often. Censorship is never a good thing without being clear as to the error of logic. It usually is an indication of weak ideas. Many persons are so trained that they are impressed with a catechism of rote, which they cannot escape from. Often opening an impressed mind to alternative thought can be quite difficult. Note the morass of academic, Pomo, theoretical physics. Every "breakthrough" creates more enigmas. Steven Weinberg has indicated that a "new physics" may be required in his 1992 book, "Dreams of a Final Theory."

I understand ad hominem as: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument…. Should you, or Tom, have a better definition, I will consider altering my use of the term. See below for math and substance of Pulsoid Theory. Thank you, sincerely, very much!!! Let’s move this discussion from this thread. You may pick the location. I don’t want to labor too much on this Thread; but, for the Viewers, that may not move with us, in response to your queries, I include the following:: Predictions and observations of Pulsoid Theory. Some good tests would be the high energy background radiation as discussed by Krauss; and, the Pioneer Anomaly, which has been given so much press recently. Of course, almost every enigma raised by current Pomo, theoretical physics is addressed. I particularly like the mathematical and logical explanations of gravity and the photon effect that Pulsoid Theory provides. There is also a a universal Proof of One, which answers Gödel's quest. There is math on most pages: The Elliptical Constant is groundbreaking; as is much that can be found in The Mystique of the Ellipse, and Tini Circle Groups (Tangent Infinity Integer Circles). I also have revised the Fibonacci sequence, which is certainly quite startling, while explaining why it is ubiquitous in Nature; and the real reason it relates to the Golden Ratio. There is much more that we can discuss; wherever you please. You may even bring Tom along. There is much original thought that impacts Pure Math and Cosmogony, as well, as theoretical physics. I apologize for the “new buzzwords.” I have tried to make them descriptive. There are over 60 original ideas; without the acronyms and neologisms, any discussion would be much more tedious. I write for advanced pure mathematicians and advanced theoretical physicists (primarily ST and SST); however, I make every effort to write in the vernacular at a High School level. Please critique the effort.

I was referring to your ad hominem statement of the following, which was part of said paragraph: It would appear obvious to anyone following this dialogue that one of us has this problem. I may be mistaken. I had so many posts deleted or edited that it is hard to remember them all. I could not access your link when I tried. Probably, my reply was discarded because I had been locked out of the site. Certainly, I want every opportunity that I can get to argue the mathematics of Pulsoid Theory. Said mathematics is the crux of the theory, which, incidentally, should add considerably to the theories of pure arithmetic. If I knew how to make myself more clear in the format of a forum, I would. It seems that providing links that a Viewer may optionally peruse is an excellent solution to the problem of clarity. I will gladly consider any other suggestion that you may have. Please; if I have ignored any arguments, advise of what they are. I will make every effort to immediately address them. Fair enough. You are at an advantage, as I am locked out of all these arguments. It seems then, that you have no disagreement with the merits of Pulsoid Theory as a viable, alternative theory to the ludicrous ones that are proposed by Pomo, academic theoretical physicists. I assume that you do not fall into the category of a theoretical physicist. Being so often the victim, in principle, I do not. "Lying" is a strong word. It should be used advisedly. I believe every one of your posts regarding “Proof of One” will make my point regarding ad hominem argument. The call should not be either of ours. So be such an unfortunate state of affairs. I did my best to assist when I began. At which time this Thread was languishing. Now the Thread is one of the most active within the forum; and all within only a few days. Regarding Einstein’s addition to original thought; history will be the final arbiter. Again, I cannot argue with your opinions. However, I still await your finding an issue of mathematics or logic of mine, which you can disagree. Every one who is viewing this dialogue is well aware of your feelings concerning my person. Why not let it rest?

Regarding ad hominem, I believe you have just made my point. Also, I can not access the URL you provide above as my computer IP address is locked out of PhysicsForums, even to view my own posts. I provided plenty of “math sense” in a reply to Gokul, which was deleted. You can locate all the "math sense" to make my argument that you want at: Pulsoid Theory. I can not argue with your opinion. I can only point out to the many "View"-ers of this dialogue that you consistently resort to ad hominem argument and never posit a single instance of a mathematical or logical statement from Pulsoid Theory that you disagree with. You must be able to find at least one premise that you disagree with. The theory has some 60 plus original ideas. Have you ever had an original idea? I am willing to put aside any differences that we may have and debate the issues; particularly, somewhere that you will not drag me off the Thread topic. Will you agree?

Thank you. It's nice to set the record straight. So much for academic Intellectual Inquiry.

The operative word in your comment is "tend."

Your pejorative, ad hominem attacks in this Thread (see above), which is under the topic, "Pseudoscience and Metaphysics," are interesting. Particularly, as you used an ad hominem attack to ridicule the Elliptical Constant and ignored what is no more than simple geometry and algebra, as a Super Mentor, elsewhere. Your ad hominem attacks, and those of other Super Mentors, such as Gokul43201, which led to editing posts and banning Brunardot at Physics Math Forum, do not belong in any forum. Censorship is the tool of mistaken minds that have a desperate fear of exposure. Seldom is the goal accomplished. Often interest is created . . . where there was none. And thus, it becomes the ally of those . . . desiring that exposure. You seem to speak, in your quote above, for the "Administration at Science Forums Network." Hopefully, such pejorative, ad hominem dialogue, as you often employ, will not be tolerated at SFN. I might note that in every forum Thread in which I post the Views increase immediately and exponentially, and many favorable comments are garnered despite the pejorative, ad hominem comments of “Super Mentors.” You of all persons, should be aware that the merits of a theory are judged on its logic and mathematics. For the past month you have seemed incapable of discussing the merits of Pulsoid Theory regarding its logic or mathematics. Is it possible that you can set aside your ad hominem animus long enough to address the real issue, which should be the logic and mathematics of the specific thoughts that you attack in general. I include, below, words from a very excellent post that includes detailed procedures that should be a guideline for your discussion herein . . . in your own words.