KaiduOrkhon
-
Posts
126 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by KaiduOrkhon
-
-
The two discussions, Quantum Mechanics/ Photoelectric Effect/Particle Theory, and, the subject of relativity and field theory are generally considered antithetical/contrary-to each other...
The discontinuous fork in the formerly continuous road through theoretical physics.
In 1900, theoretical physics was near to recognizing, utilizing and pursuing continuous field theory to its fullest extents; when Max Planck's discovery of the 'constant h factor' emerged - a discontinuous, invariably uniform value (of 'photons') that the continuous field could be (and is in fact) reduced to (re: 'black body radiation').
This discovery deterred any further vigorous pursuit of the direction Maxwell was proceeding in, with his recently established continuous field theory.
Theoretical physics branched out, at Plank's introduced juncture of discontinuity; wherein and thenceforth (since 1900), theoretical physics in general was dichotomized, bifurcated.
Field Theory is about continuous waves.
Quantum Mechanics is about discontinuous ('wave mechanical'; so called) 'particles.'
The two subjects are considered mutually exclusive. Continuous Field Physics apparently contradicted by Discontinuous 'Particle' physics ('wave mechanics')...
Whereas, the apparently inherent contradiction is actually an illusion. Continuous Field theory begets Discontinuous Particles; there is no real 'contradiction': at the transition of the four dimensional mass, consisting of four ninety degree quadrants, producing 'quanta'.
Any more energy generated by that system, has no more room to occur inside that 360o 4-D mass/matter system, the 5th quadrant of ninety degrees - generated by and a result of the four dimensions constituting the material energy that generates it, moving at right angles out of 4-D matter, in a fifth 90o unit of electricity (the 5th dimension) 'quantum leaping' out of the four ninety degree quadrants of physical matter (sub atomic charges, i.e. 'particles').
________________________________
"Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language." (Heisenberg)
(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' at light speed (relative to the apparently 'standing <'static'> field' from which it originates and by which it - electromagetism - is generated).
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.
(Illustration of quadrasected logarithmic spiral not transferable here.)
Above is a geometric expression of exponentially - extrapolating - 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 an array of 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 - collective - 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.
(*Refer series of - immediate below - complementary illustrations, the first of which co-axially represents outwardly transient <5-D> electricity moving at right angles out of a central 4-D axis of apparently 'static', <corporeal> 'standing field' of material 'charge', aka, 'particle' <Note: a geometric 'point' occupies no space: whereas, the term 'Point charge' , refers to any 4-dimensional system of 'mass', i.e, sub-atomic 'particle' / 'charge'; that is, any electron, neutron or proton, individually or collectively constituting material reality; all of which Einstein established as four dimensional> Note <re: immediate below graphics>: a positive charge field moves outwardly; a negative charge field moves inwardly -alternative vector forces in nature:
...macrocosmically comparable to gravitationally impelling force and the repelling force of Lambda - the Cosmological Constant ).
___________________________
Actually, the 5th dimension (5th ninety degree quadrant) doesn't ‘mysteriously’ leap out of 4-D matter at all, but rather is an inevitably extrapolated, continuous - inevitably accelerated - extension of it, appearing as a discontinuous unit - 'Planck's constant h', always having the same value, because it is always the 5th ninety degree unit extending out of the 4 physical dimensions that preceded and generated it.
The (5th) ninety degree units moving at right angles from the 4-D charges ('particles') are called photons, or 'quanta' and are the smallest fundamental, consistent unit of energy. They do not actually contradict continuous field theory, but rather, are generated by the 4-D space-time continuum of particular matter.
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 (electromagnetism) is exponentially extended from matter and therefore accelerating at a much faster - quantum leaping - rate...
Producing 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 dimensional quadrants - photons - at right angles from it's (material, corporeal, concentric) 4-D 'boundaries'. Refer Fritjov Capra's Tao of Physics, which does not resolve the above but allows for *the illusion of apparent contradiction - which is actually mutually supportive - the central meaning of * 'Tao'.
Subsequent to this conceptual departure in what had formerly been the generally agreed conceptualization of continuous field physics, Eddington said:
"We'll call matter 'particles' on Mondays, we'll call it 'waves' on Tuesdays, and we'll call it 'waveicles' the rest of the week." - Paraphrased.
Eddington's Spartan sense of humor about the apparent dilemma directly implies that the alleged objective quandary is chimerical.
Continuous field physics does not contradict discontinuous particle physics, or conversely. They accompany one another; the latter being generated by the former. As gravity is both a push (at short distances) and a pull (at long distances - re: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie), so particles and fields are likewise non contradictory and supportively reciprocal. Covariantly existing together. The particles (5th ninety degree unit of four D matter) projected at right angles from and outside of the 4-D accelerating fields of expanding matter.
The question of why matter is expanding is so far undetermined by anyone, certainly including the minority of people who recognize the accelerating expansion (of physical - 'solid' - matter).
On the other hand we have the opportunity to understand that matter is definitely expanding, and that it - for whatever reason - generates electricity and magnetism, which move, respectively, at right angles out of matter. Electricity emitted perpendicular to 4-D matter, and magnetism moving at right angles to electricity (re: 'electromagnetism' - the 5th & 6th dimensions).
Regards,
- KO
0 -
Newton asserted ‘Hypothesis non fingo’. - ‘I make no hypothesis’. Yet, his entire, unarguably revolutionary Classical Mechanics was based on the hypothetical particle that science has yet to assuredly accommodate. The ‘particle concept’ that dominates physics and the vast majority of colloquial planetary human thought: has never been proven beyond hypothetical scientific retainers.
‘The (rarely) indicted ‘particle’ Isn’t found ‘wrong’ here, but rather: resiliently incomplete; so as to aggressively exclude the incumbent role of the continuous field in the balance of material considerations.- KB Robertson
Regards,
- KaiduOrkhon
0 -
Micro & Macro Mix
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A positive charge omnidirectionally emits an outgoing electric force, and, a negative charge omnidirectionally absorbs an incoming electric force (paraphrased).
Indeed. Moreover. Sometimes opposites do attract, and sometimes they repel. Newton says gravity may be an impelling - or a repelling - force (What this record calls, 'The gravitational alternative'). Einstein says gravity (the cosmological constant) is - at least sometimes - a repelling force; adding furthermore that gravity may be both a repelling and an impelling force.
Truly Yours tends to observe that gravity is usually a repelling force, on or near major gravitational masses, and an impelling (aquatic, terrestrial and atomospheric) tidal force (for example) at greater distances (And with 'microcosmic tides' interacting between subatomic 'particles'). Summarizing that, since Newton introduced what he fully acknowledged as a mysterious, occult force of gravitation, usually - but not militantly - to be thought of as an impelling force, this record sees no reason why Einstein is disallowed from introducing a repelling force acting parallel to Newton's impelling force ('For every action, there is a reaction, equal & opposite')... Summing up a tandem (Newton-Einstein) repelling and impelling force, with each man offering major contributions to understanding the universe; neither of which men - or forces - are mutually exclusive.
The dilemma of macro gravity in alternating contention and agreement with micro phenomena -presents a qualified history...
(Circa 1900 thru 1930 and ever since).. on Max Planck's - Helmholtz inspired, Rubens confirmed - 'Quantum Mechanics'.
The 1897 dated observation of black body radiation led Planck to attempt to observe an invariable increase in entropy, which resulted in null thought and laboratory experiments; leading to Planck's 1900 revision of Boltzmann's alternately continuous and discontinuous statistical interpretaton of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (later paralleled by Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy).
It is only obscurely known or recognized that, although there are indeed opposing - J.J. Thompson-electron-launched - arguments on this subject, Einstein and Planck were in the same camp, along with Schrodinger, regarding the much controvesied if not misunderstood 'problem' of microcosmic 'continuity' of wave ('mechanics')-field theory, and 'discontinuity' of so called 'particles'.
Leading to an undrained, ever rising swamp of determinacy and indeterminacy, dog-paddling entanglement, water ripple & (Copenhagen Christened) shotgun pellets rolling sideways and speeding linearly through vertical and horizontal slits, in the ever imposing shadow of assumptive continuous wave eclipsed by the non-prevailing 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and the newly incumbent black body radiation - vocabularized in electrical theory and thermodynamics: introducing the circle of broken lines forming a sought-after curve but still leading to an apparently non discardable discontinuous 'quantum leap', because energy in discontinuous portions cannot be infinitely divided; establishing that radiant energy is not quantitatively infinite - in unequal units, Planck resolved that the frequency of the considered discontinuous wave is directly related to its duration, or more specifically, its length.
This was unexpected because it defined a seemingly antithetical, self contradicting equality in discontinuous and continuous energy packets - 'quantum', which, literally translated from Latin equals 'what quantity'. It came to pass that, depending on how these units are measured and otherwise evaluated, they alternately manifest as 'waves', and, as 'particles' - continuity, and discontinuity.
By and by from this, arose a further quandary of defining the dynamics of what was projected, compared to the method or conditions of projection; such methods and conditions are still developing and the subject of much heated and cooled contention and agreement.
Quantum Mechanics (perhaps better understood as 'quantum dynamics') was not altogether contradictory to the at that time, much established continuous wave theory - often confirmed in delicate laboratory observations as well as more pedestrian observations such as the often exemplified fact that a swinging pendulum loses its momentum in a continuous declination of kinetic energy...
Quantum Mechanics contests
(if not gainsays) this.
Contingent black body radiation occurs in discontinuous packages of microcosmically indivisible energy units of erg seconds, where the individual, indivisible unit is designated as 'h', for the numerically expressed value of:
.0000000000000000000000000066, or, 6,6 x 1027
Establishing that ordinary sizes as perceived by human observers were not the end measure of what was occuring in the much smaller realms of physicality and dynamics.
Max Planck had not excluded the previous standards of observation and measurement, whereas, he certainly had established that the characteristics of the larger physical world were not aligned with those of the smaller physical world, and that the Latin statement, ut infra, ut supra and conversely ('as above, so below'), was a generalisation, but not a law.
Atomic (microcosmic) physics was understood to be in its early stages and the Planck dynamics were a portention that many other unexpected discoveries were due, as the science of observing and measuring microcosmic reality progressed. The evolutions of which were alternately championed and challenged, by Planck, Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr, Shroedinger and a retinue of others...
(It may be correctly observed and stated that: 'Long posts' are generally discouraged in most every communications exchange on the net? In any event, this location is subjecting the large and small, pro and con considerations for a TOTAL FIELD THEORY)
There is a trend of asking big questions, parallel to short attention spans reserved for and impatiently projected upon whatever - however abbreviated - extended response
(Hence, the relative abbreviation of this dissertation?).
Moving right along while shifting gears:
It's been said by this record before and may be called upon to be repeated any number of times:
There are two kinds of math. Metric, and, non-metric. The first is obliged to be responsive to and directly determined by measurably real conditions; with or without mathematical descriptions of them. On the other hand...
Non-metric math is, for example, not obliged to conform to any existentially (conditionally, physically, spatially, dynamically, phenomenologically) manifest state or process of observed, measurable reality. Been said before: an exemplary pair of non-metric mathematical formulas can be equally correct, while reciprocally and mutually disproving each other. Numbers only. Who needs reality to do non-metric mathematics? Has little or nothing to do with 'science'.
Excerpt from http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
('If you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it.' - Einstein)
To be continued.
0 -
An Expansive Mass-Field Thought Problem With a Dilatory Solution:
The realm of the very small - microcosms - is said to host strong forces acting at very short distances; that are not considered to be related to large, 'weak forces of gravity', said to exist only in very large spaces and act at large distances in the very large - macrocosmic - spaces and times. So it is presently and dominantly considered, in the macrocosmic realm of the very large, exemplary, planetary-generated forces.
Gravity is thought not to occur - significantly - in the microcosmic realm of the very small. Whereas, gravity, like Gold, is actually where you find it, and how much of it you find; in large and *small, tenuous and *compact electromagnetic densities (*refer, nuclear binding forces). Moving in one of two possible - direction(s). Toward and/or away (impelling or repelling) from its material (4-D particle/charge) source.
Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’
Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.
Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.
In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...
It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1041 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.
The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1041 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...
Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes>).
The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.
When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...
Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...
Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit around the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).
The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant, relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.
When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.
There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.
Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A.
The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time.
Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of space and time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.
The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.
The acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.
This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
Space-Time.
This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'.
It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.
The Twin Paradox Re-visited:
A popular example of relativistic non-absolute time (time dilation phenomenon) is known as the 'twin paradox'. One of two twin brothers remains on coordinate system earth, while the other twin departs the earth in a spacecraft vehicle, approaches the velocity of light; remains in deep space sustaining high velocity for what his senses and instruments measure as 30 days; then returns to earth to learn that his earthbound twin brother and everyone else on earth (who was his age upon his departure) is considerably more aged than himself.
There is no conceptual explanation for this, however, the mathematics of relativity indicate that time dilation is a true effect of greatly increased velocities. The twin paradox becomes conceptually comprehensible with the application of the issued , expanding mass-field concept:
When an object - a space-craft and its contents accelerates faster than the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is normally associated (a system of relatively uniform space and time; in this case, the earth, the mass-field constructed spacecraft and its contents are distributed over a greater area, as its mass value increases with its velocity). Consequently it becomes an independent coordinate system, having relatively larger values of space and proportionately slower experiences of time than its original coordinate system, earth.
In a spacecraft nearing the velocity of light the individual hairs on the heads of it's astronauts may (for example) be dilated (enlarged) to the diameter of a large radio telescope dish (relative to the dimensions of space recognized on coordinate system earth). Yet, the astronauts detect no change of spatial values relative to themselves or their ship and its contents, including all of its time measuring instruments, because everything on board is proportionately dilated in 4-D space-time. For example: It takes these mass field dilated astronauts several of earth's relatively micro-spatial hours - and one of their relatively macro-spatial seconds - to sneeze.
Upon returning to coordinate system earth, they must slow their speed, and in so doing they proportionately decrease their formerly dilated size and mass values.
Upon disembarking the now 'normal sized' spacecraft, they learn that many years have passed on earth, while they and their instruments have experienced, recorded, and can account for only a month of time in space.
Up to the time of this writing, there are not even any failed efforts to conceptually account for 'time dilation' and the 'twin paradox' that popularly accompanies it.
The (resiliently unrecognized and denied) ever enlarging value of physical-material space is a ‘non absolute space’, which causes ‘non-absolute time’. The fundamental import of this discussion is that the value of given units of time (seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years) is entirely determined by the 3-D value (size) of the spatial moment it (time/motion) occurs in.
Re: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
(The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned <Steady State> Cosmological Constant.)
Enter in google: 'Einstein was right after all - maybe' . Collectively enter in google: Cosmological Constant Lambda Expanding Universe big bang acceleration red shift dark energy Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker
Constructive criticism, comments and contributions accredited.
Auxiliary http://forums.delphiforums.com/kaiduorkhon
Regards,
0 -
Effects of the expansion of physical matter with space.
An Expansive Mass-Field Thought Problem With a Dilatory Solution:
The realm of the very small - microcosms - is said to host strong forces acting at very short distances; that are not considered to be related to large, 'weak forces of gravity', said to exist only in very large spaces and act at large distances in the very large - macrocosmic - spaces and times. So it is presently and dominantly considered, in the macrocosmic realm of the very large, exemplary, planetary-generated forces.
Gravity is thought not to occur - significantly - in the microcosmic realm of the very small. Whereas, gravity, like Gold, is actually where you find it, and how much of it you find; in large and *small, tenuous and *compact electromagnetic densities (*refer, nuclear binding forces). Moving in one of two possible - direction(s). Toward and/or away (impelling or repelling) from its material (4-D particle/charge) source.
Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’
Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.
Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.
In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...
It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1041 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.
The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1041 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...
Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes>).
The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.
When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...
Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...
Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit around the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).
The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant, relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.
When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.
There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.
Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A.
The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time.
Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of space and time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.
The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.
The acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.
This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
Space-Time.
This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'.
It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.
The Twin Paradox Re-visited:
A popular example of relativistic non-absolute time (time dilation phenomenon) is known as the 'twin paradox'. One of two twin brothers remains on coordinate system earth, while the other twin departs the earth in a spacecraft vehicle, approaches the velocity of light; remains in deep space sustaining high velocity for what his senses and instruments measure as 30 days; then returns to earth to learn that his earthbound twin brother and everyone else on earth (who was his age upon his departure) is considerably more aged than himself.
There is no conceptual explanation for this, however, the mathematics of relativity indicate that time dilation is a true effect of greatly increased velocities. The twin paradox becomes conceptually comprehensible with the application of the issued , expanding mass-field concept:
When an object - a space-craft and its contents accelerates faster than the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is normally associated (a system of relatively uniform space and time; in this case, the earth, the mass-field constructed spacecraft and its contents are distributed over a greater area, as its mass value increases with its velocity). Consequently it becomes an independent coordinate system, having relatively larger values of space and proportionately slower experiences of time than its original coordinate system, earth.
In a spacecraft nearing the velocity of light the individual hairs on the heads of it's astronauts may (for example) be dilated (enlarged) to the diameter of a large radio telescope dish (relative to the dimensions of space recognized on coordinate system earth). Yet, the astronauts detect no change of spatial values relative to themselves or their ship and its contents, including all of its time measuring instruments, because everything on board is proportionately dilated in 4-D space-time. For example: It takes these mass field dilated astronauts several of earth's relatively micro-spatial hours - and one of their relatively macro-spatial seconds - to sneeze. Upon returning to coordinate system earth, they must slow their speed, and in so doing they proportionately decrease their formerly dilated size and mass values.
Upon disembarking the now 'normal sized' spacecraft, they learn that many years have passed on earth, while they and their instruments have experienced, recorded, and can account for only a month of time in space.
Up to the time of this writing, there are not even any failed efforts to conceptually account for 'time dilation' and the 'twin paradox' that popularly accompanies it.
The (resiliently unrecognized and denied) ever enlarging value of physical-material space is a ‘non absolute space’, which causes ‘non-absolute time’. The fundamental import of this discussion is that the value of given units of time (seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years) is entirely determined by the 3-D value (size) of the spatial moment it (time/motion) occurs in.
Re: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
(The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned <Steady State> Cosmological Constant.)
Enter in google: 'Einstein was right after all - maybe' . Collectively enter in google: Cosmological Constant Lambda Expanding Universe big bang acceleration red shift dark energy Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker
Constructive criticism, commentary and contributions accredited.
Best regards,
- RP (RascalPuff)
0 -
The Everything ('cept "Final" ) Theory
Was Einstein right or wrong in saying: "If you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it"? "No space empty of field".
'Wavicles' = gravy over potatos or potatos under gravy: the ambivalence of particle and wave theory.
The non-mathematical translation and reinstatement of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field Theory (The math is already done).
The gravitational effects of the expansion of 4-D physical matter
with 5 & 6-D ('functional' / 'Metric') space.
Einstein's so called 'biggest blunder' was right after all.
Mr. Mark McCutcheon's gravitational party is 47 years tardy.
Electromagnetic resolution of quantum mechanics & field theory.
Atonement of continuity with discontinuity.
Two universal forces instead of four.
Cause of time dilation, negative inertia and black holes. The original Extraterrestrial Physics 101. Return of the orphaned Steady State theory.
The undoing of New Age era Einstein, Newton, gravity & gradeschool bashers - http://www.allworldknowledge.com/newton/
__________________________________________________
Constructive criticism, commentary and contributions encouraged and accredited.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
Best regards,
- Kaiduorkhon
(Kudos to SFN and its veracious administrators.)
0 -
'A False World View'
"If reason and free will exist, then Einstein's cosmos is false. If a spiritual realm exists outside of a closed system of cause and effect, then Einstein's cosmos is false. If God is personal and transcendent then Einstein's cosmos is false. If God is the creator and differs in quality from the creation, then Einstein's cosmos is false. If there is a discrete separation between elements of the creation (heaven-earth, light-dark, land-sea, species after their own kind, man/creature, man as an individual) then Einstein's cosmos is false."
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/050128
An invitation to read more of author Fred Hutchison's views on Einstein, and draw and express your own conclusions.
0 -
Miles Mathis: A Redefinition of Gravity
Enter in google:
The Third Wave
A Redefinition of Gravity (‘All works on this site are copyright Miles Mathis and may be reproduced for educational and non commercial purposes only’.)
Miles Mathis
(*K. B. Robertson - K. B. R. - is the narrator of this report).
http://www.geocities.com/mileswmathis
Miles Mathis, continued:
[Preface added August 11, 2005] This week I became aware of the theories of Mark McCutcheon and his book The Final Theory. I haven't read it, but I have read all the material on his website and the long discussion he has with Dave Ruske (who uses the word 'cheat' in referring to McCutcheon's The Final Theory) that is linked from Wikipedia. Readers of part 1 of my Third Wave paper who know of The Final Theory (Copyright 2003, by Mark McCutcheon) will no doubt immediately equate my theory with his. And I admit that it appears to be very similar at first. We are both hypothesizing universal expansion of matter as an explanation of mass (*Four + decades after K. B. Robertson preceded each and both of you). I therefore rush to explain the differences. McCutcheon has proposed his theory as a replacement not only for the current concepts of mass and gravity and inertia, but also for all other physical fields. The charge on the proton is explained by expansion, which also negates the electromagnetic field. In fact, McCutcheon summarily throws out all atomic forces, all Relativity, and all the findings of QED and QCD. This is why he calls his theory the final theory. He tells us that it explains everything.
My theory is very different. It is not a theory of everything, although it does resolve several physical concepts, giving us a partial simplification of theory. I would never call my theory a final theory, since I don't believe in final theories or theories of everything. We are so far from knowing how things work in the universe that any talk of a final theory or a unification theory is pure hubris, whether it comes from inside academia or outside. We don't have enough knowledge to unify, at this point. You cannot unify near chaos. You can only make your contribution to order. - Miles Mathis
_____________________________
Excerpt from Part I The Third Wave: A Redefinition of Gravity:
The Third Wave solves all these problems with one postulate. For there is one final change that would explain the decreasing distance between the spheres. The distance would decrease if each sphere were getting larger. In this case, space is just a grid. It is nothing but a concept. It is a three-dimensional Cartesian graph that we superimpose over the two spheres for our own benefit, and that is all it is. This grid does not expand. Space does not expand. It is the still reference frame in regard to which the spheres expand. To postulate material expansion, we must provide a background for this expansion. If both the spheres and the space expanded, then the expansion would be meaningless. It would be unmeasurable. In the final analysis, space is a mathematical field that we freely create in order to measure the expansion. We then suppose that the centers of each of our two spheres do not move as time passes. But the two spheres get larger. This would cause the distance between them to decrease, and would create a situation that one might call gravitational.
You will say, "Yes, that explains a decreasing distance between spheres, but it does not explain gravity in the real world, since we do not see spheres expanding."
To answer that, let us imagine that our two spheres are expanding at the same rate. By that I mean that if sphere A is initially half the size of sphere B, then it remains half the size as the two expand. No matter how big they get, sphere A is always half the size of sphere B. Is it possible to imagine that? Of course. It is quite simple. It gives us small problems when we start thinking about mass and density, but structural spheres give us no trouble at all. It is no problem, mathematically, to postulate such expansions.
Notice that if we now make sphere A aware of itself and its surroundings, like a baby being born, it will have no way of knowing from its incoming data that it is getting bigger. It will assume that it is staying the same size, and that its companion sphere is staying the same size; and if it does so, then it will assume that there must be some force of attraction between it and the companion sphere. For this would be the easiest way of explaining why they were coming together. If it were a very precocious baby sphere, it might even invoke Occam’s razor to explain gravity as a force. But it would be wrong.
Not only gravity, but also inertia, is explained by the Third Wave. You can see that expanding spheres would resist any forces from any direction, since no matter which way you apply a force, the sphere is already moving against your force. This is why gravitational mass and inertial mass are always equal. Gravity and inertia are two names for the same motion. The expansion of the sphere causes both gravity and inertia.
Exerpts from Part I The Third Wave: A Redefinition of Gravity, by Miles Mathis. (continued)
My critique of Relativity was begun to solve a problem—that of the Pioneer Anomaly (*A mistake or mistakes from the origin - at the foundations - of a given subject. K.B.R.). I therefore approached the problem as both mathematician and physicist. I saw the final equations of Einstein as applied mathematics. Not esoteric theory, but physical equations. They therefore must be made to make sense not only as abstractions but as predictors of motion. In this they were failing. The physical community had finally been forced to admit this in 1999, when, after almost 30 years of fiddling, they had still been unable to solve the Pioneer Anomaly. So the Jet Propulsion Lab allowed Newsweek to report on the anomaly. Unfortunately, from the point of view of theoretical physics, this only brought the final cranks out of the closet. Physicists were inundated with new theories but none of them were seen to be at all promising. A good percentage were apparently written on the back of paper napkins, if the horror stories we hear are to be believed. So the walls went back up, and this time they were forbiddingly high and reinforced. The physical community wanted to waste no more time with paper napkins.
In some ways this was understandable. In other ways it was tragic. It has become a common feature of modern life in almost all fields—publishing, art, science, airport security, etc. The presumptions and unmannerly behavior and outright sociopathy of some have restricted the communications and movements of all. We all of us have had so many bad experiences that we begin to doubt the possibility of a good one. And there are other factors, ones which the physical community must take responsibility for. Closed doors and closed minds are not found only in town councils and corporate meetings.
For this reason and many others, Relativity is now the strangest sub-field in all of physics. In the universities, it barely exists. As a living field, it does not exist at all. What I mean by that is there is no sub-department of Relativity at most universities. It is not taught as a sub-field that you can enter and hope to make a contribution to, like all other sub-fields in physics. Relativity is taught as dogma—as a finished field. You learn it only to use in other fields. At the university and research level, Relativity is only a defensive field. Most of the work now done in the field is in keeping away pests. Look at Physical Review Letters or ArXiv, and their positions regarding Relativity. No research papers are published. None.
None are even considered. In the past two decades, the editors of most journals have fortified all means of approach, in order to fend off invaders. These invaders, rather than give up, have instead multiplied. The internet has allowed for the mutual support of a vast sub-culture of doubters, nay-sayers and theorists. As would be expected of any large group, most are deluded. But the sheer size and persistence of this group has forced the status quo to extreme measures, including blacklisting. The major journals have blacklisted not only pesky outsiders, but also marginal characters from within the field. As part of this blacklisting, the field of physics has quite simply shut the sub-field of Relativity.
This all goes to say that it is a very different world intellectually than the world Einstein entered when he began publishing with Annalen der Physik in 1901. The field of physics had not yet closed itself off from "amateurs." It was remembered then that Newton was an amateur—a self-taught mathematician and physicist—as were many of the greatest scientists and mathematicians of history. Einstein was a bit of an amateur himself, as the stories of his patent office imaginings confirm. The "university professional" was still a thing of the future. Forty years later amateurs still existed, though in fewer numbers. Karl Popper (*Sir Karl Popper - regarded as one of the greatest philosphers of physical science in the 20th century. - KBR) was resented maybe, but he was respected by most. Einstein himself understood the necessity of philosophy in the intellectual sciences, and he tied his theory early on to various epistemologies and metaphysics. He found it just as important to learn to speak of Kant and Hume as to learn the equations of Riemann. He was the last to do so.
The next two generations of physicists would lose all respect for the past. First Relativity and then Quantum Mechanics were seen to supercede all the theories of the past, and history became a clean slate. Richard Feynman could speak of philosophers with open disdain, and even Einstein was given only lip service. Einstein’s "regression" into philosophy and his quarrel with the Copenhagen interpretation of QED (*Quantum ElectroDynamics) made him a dinosaur in his own lifetime. TIME magazine may have voted him the most important person of the 20th century, but physicists considered him a befuddled old classicist by the 1940’s.
My mathematical critique of Special Relativity therefore arrives at a rather inauspicious time. It could not be less welcome. This is ironic considering the mixed respect that Einstein has in the field of physics. He is believed to have been mistaken about almost everything important, in the grand scheme of things; and yet the equations of Relativity are sacrosanct. They are sacrosanct not because they are understood and admired—they are sacrosanct because they are the foundation of so much current research. Relativity theory is a miniscule part of modern physics. Very few people know anything about it. The few that do are working on billion-dollar projects—to discover the graviton or launch the next satellite. The last thing they want is some theoretical controversy to get in the way of funding. Even these scientists know very little about the theory. Most are glorified engineers. Theoretical physicists do not work in Relativity, since there is believed to be nothing left to do. The big names are in QED, especially in string theory and other esoteric modeling. They are also not interested in Relativity. It is no longer sexy. It is a settled question. It is not up for discussion.
So you can see that the field, despite seeming to be at a very creative time historically—due to the theoretical freedom that the top physicists would seem to have—is actually quite rigid and dogmatic.
There are certain things you do and certain things you do not do. Superstring theory is prestigious. Looking at basic algebra is not. Looking into the distant future is progressive. Looking at old dusty papers is not. Tying esoteric theory to time travel and science fiction and Star Trek and the Dalai Lama is au courant and cool. Tinkering with ancient history is not. Stephen Hawking can claim that physics will be over in ten years, since ten years is still in the future (and apparently always will be, by some paradox), and not break any unstated laws. But a scientist who claims that Einstein or Newton or Feynman may have made a verifiable mathematical error is seen as monomaniacal and anti-social.
Despite all that, I am confident that my math will speak for itself with those who have eyes to read. It is to be hoped that I have left very little room for argument in my equations. Metaphysics may allow for endless bickering, but algebra was invented to finalize the argument. Even the tensor calculus may allow for some movement: there are places to hide amongst the matrices. With algebra there is no shelter as large as a shrub to huddle beneath.
Concerning my critique of the calculus itself, my argument there is likewise unobstructed. A chart that lists differentials is not open to much interpretation or misinterpretation. I do not open myself up to deconstuction. Even if you don’t like my comments regarding the historical method, or my explanation of graphing, it is hard to deny that I have solved the calculus "without the calculus". This, by itself, is news on a grand scale.
I began this book when I stumbled across the first great error many years ago, in reading Einstein’s Relativity. Although it soon became apparent that the error was both elementary and profound, I thought at the time that it was an isolated error. But my naivete evaporated as I subsequently reread other important theoretical papers, and my awe of the past evaporated with it. What I came to realize, with rising disbelief (as well as some excitement), is that my faith—the faith of all scientists—in the basic theory and math of physics has been unfounded. It became apparent that the theory and math of many famous and influential papers, both classical and modern, had never been checked closely—or not closely enough for my taste at any rate. Buried in these papers were algebraic and geometric errors of the most basic kind. Suffocating beneath dense, often impenetrable theories and unnecessarily difficult equations of so-called higher math were errors that a high school student could understand, were he or she presented with them in a straightforward manner.
My goal became to do just that. To strip physics of its mystifying math, its unnecessary proliferation of variables and abstract concepts, its stilted language and dry jargon, and to speak in clear everyday sentences and simple equations. Einstein is famous for stating that a theorist should be able to explain his theory to an eighth grader, but he did not practice what he preached. Like his precursors, he could not explain his theory even to his peers. Relativity has remained uncorrected for a century not because it is flawless but because, as written, it has been impervious to understanding.
_______________________________________________________
A Public Notice. To whom it may concern:
CAVEAT (Aviso)
In 1998 google search did not find a single reference to the statement/title 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension' or, any references to the acclerating expansion of physical matter (of course that statement is by definition a matter of google - and other net crawler confirmed - archived history).
Since December 1999 the statement began to appear, excerpted from a book by the same title, authored, printed in hard copy, distributed and sold out by myself, K.B.Robertson - in nine small press editions since 1959 thru 1999 and placed in several locations on the internet (especially the astronomy net) in 1999, by one Brian Kirk Parquette (Bkparque), who, upon reading the book and introducing himself to this author, requested what he called 'the honor', of posting it on the net (beginning with the Astronomy net departments), since, at that time, this author did not use or know how to employ the internet.
Since 1999 a passel of google findings emerge with references to 'expansion theory' and 'gravity is the 4th dimension (electricity & magnetism are the 5th & 6th dimensions’).' Including a series of early placements "Posted by Brian Kirk Parquette" - verbatim and extensive excerpts of the issued book; without reference to the authorship of myself, K.B.Robertson, directly implying - and in some cases proclaiming B.K. Parquette’s authorship of my work, which has since emerged in several forms under several allegory authorships ...
Including the beginning - first two - chapters of Mark McCutcheon's 2003 - 2004 release of The Final Theory.
Refer google: 'Discussing the Final Theory with Mark McCutcheon, by *David Ruske', excerpts follow:
Mr. David Ruske addresses his readers:
"In July of 2003 I stumbled across an Internet advertisement for a book by Mark McCutcheon titled "The Final Theory." After reading through his website (http://www.thefinaltheory.com I felt that the author had either formulated a very different physics, or had crafted some very fine snake oil. I was curious, but couldn't find anything on the web telling me whether the book was really worth US$30.
"Well, now I know. The book is another take on an expansion theory. In a nutshell, expansion theory says that the reason gravity is so indistinguishable from an acceleration is because it is acceleration, caused by matter expanding at an ever accelerating rate. There is no gravitational force in expansion theory; it's Einstein's equivalence priniciple taken literally. "The Final Theory" starts there, and doesn't end until it tries to rethink much of modern physics."
Mr. David Ruske addresses Mr. Mark McCutcheon
*"I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I fear I have to wonder about the sincerity of this effort. Nowhere on your website is "expansion theory" mentioned, instead the basis of this "final theory" is kept vague. You're not the first to try to take Einstein's equivalence principle literally, as a quick search on Google <Since December 1999> will reveal. The only open question is whether or not you're aware of the fact."...
Discussing "The Final Theory" with Mark McCutcheon
Mr. Mark McCutcheon responds to Mr. David Ruske:
"In answer first to your suspicions of my sincerity, I feel very strongly that it would be a mistake to discuss my core concepts on my website. There are many others who have tried their hand at alternate theories, as you know, and, frankly, their ideas are quite kooky and half-baked, either because they have the wrong inspiriation initially, or because they are unable to follow it through to any depth. But this doesn't stop them. They go on and on making less and less sense, and ultimately end up just chatting quite irrationally in their own websites about all their ideas. I realize that some may still put me in that boat with my theory, but I see a clear difference with my book, and I will not diminish it in that manner. This truly is the answer to how our universe operates -- not just in my opinion or pet theory .. examine the evidence as you read, even solid mathematical proof as on page 190, which it seems you may not have reached. Taken out of context, my ideas would probably be laughed off the stage, but in context, I hope you can see it is a serious, viable, scientific theory that puts standard theory to rest. Also, yes I am now aware that at least one other person has tried to pursue discussion of expanding matter on Google groups .. one of the other readers who responded (and who has volunteered a review on my site and is now part of the discussion group) informed me of that the other day (*Not three or four years ago?). I assure you, I'm not that person and I have nothing to do with any such physics discussion groups. I have been well aware of the existence of these groups for well over a decade -- perhaps two? -- (*Mr. McCutcheon is vague on whether it’s ten, or perhaps twenty years he’s been well aware of what he was just informed of ‘the other day’...) and have always been horrified by them, partly because they are so abusive, and partly because most people there claim to be scientifically educated and intelligent (and I'm sure they are), yet they banter on endlessly day after day and even year after year about who understands one aspect of our science better than another. In the end, no one really has any solid answers, which is why they're all there, typing away endlessly, hoping to convince themselves or others of their current understanding, or hoping for answers from others, which never com. I hope you can see that that is all you're left with, without my book. I have never joined these groups, and have had no desire to even scan them for over a decade, since I already know what they're all about. This is the legacy that today's science paradigm leaves for even our most intelligent, educated, scientifically enthusiastic people."
- Mr. Mark McCutcheon, in response to Mr. David Ruske's previously stated questions, doubts and 'suspicions'...
<The chapters following 1 and 2 - of McCutcheon's 'Final Theory' - form a slapstick trend of Mr. McCutcheon alternately dismissing reality for lack of evidence or further paralleling the work of Truly Yours> ).
_________________________________
I (K. B. Robertson) have been made aware of the recent publications entitled ‘The Third Wave: A Redefinition of Gravity’, and, ‘The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific Legacy’, by Miles Mathis and Mark McCutcheon, respectively.
Mr. McCutcheon published in 2002 -2003, Mr. Mathis published in 2004.
The selective works of both authors parallel the key ingredients of my 48 yr old publications (An Hypothesis on Gravity, copyright 1959, ‘60, ‘66. The New Gravity, copyright ‘70, ‘71, ‘72, The New Gravity is the 4th Dimension, copyright ‘79, ‘85, ‘99, 2006, 2007 ) - namely the accelerating expansion of corporeal matter (not merely ‘empty space’) itself. Both Mr. McCutcheon and Mr. Mathis refer to the issued, key copyright material as ‘expansion theory’.
This author’s first (1959) edition of the subjected work, is a small press hard copy fifteen page essay (in four languages), distributed throughout western Europe (in 5,000 copies) out of Naples, Italy. The hard copy essay format was converted to a saddle stitched hard copy edition (in a ‘comic book’ format, by the San Francisco Comic Book Co.; printed and published by Don Donahue, the original printer and publisher of Robert Crumb’s ‘Zap Comix’), February 1970. Three thousand copies of which were distributed and sold out on consignment in book stores all over the San Francisco Bay Area, including, Moe’s, Shambala, Cody’s and the University of California bookstore, in Berkeley, CA. This staple back edition was also reviewed in and internationally sold out, by the Portola Institute’s 1970 vintage Whole Earth Catalogue.
Ensuing small press editions evolved to a flat back (‘perfect bound’) paper back series of publications that were distributed and sold out in 41 bookstores all over California state; the 6th - 1979 - edition of which is 627 pages duration. Later editions of which are condensations of the larger book. Culminating to it’s internet publication in December of 1999, by one B. K. Parquette, who introduced himself to this author (K. B. Robertson), read the book and volunteered for ‘the honor’ of posting it on the net; at no cost to the reader’s who were given free access to read it on computer moniters. It is still posted on the net, at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie - ‘The Reinstatement of Einstein’s Presently Abandoned Unified Field (Steady State) Theory. (Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions, The Big Bang Theory is Wrong, Entropic ‘Heat Death’ is a Myth)’ Copyright 1959 - 1999 - 2007, by K. B. Robertson. All rights reserved.
(With acknowledgement, may be reproduced and distributed for non commercial educational purposes.)
The first two chapters of Mr. Mark McCutcheon’s book - ‘The Final Theory’ - are direct and conspicuous parallels of K. B. Robertson’s ‘Gravity Is The 4th Dimension’. McCutcheon’s production is ‘Copyright 2002 - 2004' (several years after Gravity Is The 4th Dimension appeared on the net). All rights reserved. Universal Publishers/uPUBLISH.com Boca Raton . 1st revised edition
ISBN: 1-58112-601-8 http://www.universal-publishers.com
Mr. McCutcheon’s book is available exclusively through purchase. It is profusely advertised in science forums on the net (‘The Final Theory - Gravity explained’), and can be acquired via Amazon book sellers, on the net.
Whereas, all of Mr. Miles Mathis’ - The Third Wave - book is freely accessible on the net, Copyright Miles Mathis, with the allotment that, with acknowledgements (of its origin) it may be reproduced for educational and non commercial purposes. Enter in Google: Miles Mathis, The Third Wave: A Redefinition of Gravity, and find immediate access to the author’s remarkably prolific and astutely documented works in their entirety. That is to say, Mathis freely gives his - 2004 - 2007 dated, ongoing work-in-progress, 19 chapter - book to the public, while McCutcheon exclusively sells his (‘Beyond Newton and Einstein’) six chapter, 417 page book via the net; at $30.00 per copy.
Enter in google:
The Third Wave
A Redefinition of Gravity (‘All works on this site are copyright Miles Mathis and may be reproduced for educational and non commercial purposes only’.)
Miles Mathis (*parenthesized statements with asterisks - * - are inclusions by K. B. Robertson)
http://www.geocities.com/mileswmathis
[Preface added August 11, 2005] This week I became aware of the theories of Mark McCutcheon and his book The Final Theory. I haven't read it, but I have read all the material on his website and the long discussion he has with Dave Ruske (who uses the word 'cheat' in referring to McCutcheon's The Final Theory) that is linked from Wikipedia. Readers of part 1 of my Third Wave paper who know of The Final Theory (Copyright 2003, by Mark McCutcheon) will no doubt immediately equate my theory with his. And I admit that it appears to be very similar at first. We are both hypothesizing universal expansion of matter as an explanation of mass (*Four + decades after K. B. Robertson preceded each and both of the subjected authors). I therefore rush to explain the differences. McCutcheon has proposed his theory as a replacement not only for the current concepts of mass and gravity and inertia, but also for all other physical fields. The charge on the proton is explained by expansion, which also negates the electromagnetic field. In fact, McCutcheon summarily throws out all atomic forces, all Relativity, and all the findings of QED and QCD. This is why he calls his theory the final theory. He tells us that it explains everything.
My theory is very different. It is not a theory of everything, although it does resolve several physical concepts, giving us a partial simplification of theory. I would never call my theory a final theory, since I don't believe in final theories or theories of everything. We are so far from knowing how things work in the universe that any talk of a final theory or a unification theory is pure hubris, whether it comes from inside academia or outside. We don't have enough knowledge to unify, at this point. You cannot unify near chaos. You can only make your contribution to order.
__________________________
While Miles Mathis releases all of his book to the public, freely, Mark McCutcheon explains his commercial posturing and scientific interests to Mr. David Ruske in a series of emails published by Mr Ruske (Enter in google: Mark McCutcheon Final Theory David Ruske <a portion of the conversation follows>
Discussing "The Final Theory" with Mark McCutcheon
In July of 2003
I stumbled across an Internet advertisement for a book by Mark McCutcheon titled "The Final Theory." After reading through his website (http://www.thefinaltheory.com), I felt that the author had either formulated a very different physics, or had crafted some very fine snake oil. I was curious, but couldn't find anything on the web telling me whether the book was really worth US$30.
Well, now I know. The book is another take on an expansion theory. In a nutshell, expansion theory says that the reason gravity is so indistinguishable from an acceleration is because it is acceleration, caused by matter expanding at an ever accelerating rate. There is no gravitational force in expansion theory; it's Einstein's equivalence priniciple taken literally. "The Final Theory" starts there, and doesn't end until it tries to rethink much of modern physics.
I won't attempt a full review of the book here. It wouldn't be justified, because I haven't read the thing in its entirety. I gave it up after chapter 3, which attempted to explain orbits in terms of geometric expansion alone (no gravitational force, no curved space, just objects getting bigger and moving past one another at some mystical velocity). I tried to get past chapter 3, and that prompted the lengthy email exchange reproduced below. The exchange was interesting, if not illuminating.
In my opinion, "The Final Theory" is broken at its foundation, and demonstrates some curious misunderstandings of standard theory. But Mark McCutcheon's opinion is different, and the other two people on his mailing list seem to agree with him for the most part. So maybe it's just me.
The great advantage of a wildly unconventional theory is that critics can be dismissed as being narrow minded or too infected by conventional thinking. I'm sure those traps do exist, to some extent. It's important to remember, though, that the novelty of an idea does not in itself make it any more correct.
I hope you enjoy the conversation reproduced below, and that it's the sort of information you're looking for. I wish I'd have been able to read this before purchasing the book...
[update: Many people write and ask me for Mark McCutcheon's email address. While I don't give out the address as such, I will point out that there is an "email the author" link on the website of his on-demand publisher; see http://www.upublish.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126018. Discussion of this book may be found in this thread of the Universe Today forums. And no, I can't sell you my copy of the book, I already gave it away.]
Discussing the Final Theory with Mark McCutcheon
From: Dave Ruske
To: Mark McCutcheon
Date: Thu July 3, 2003
Subject: Final Theory Website & Book
Mark, I came across your website on your "Final Theory" book, and I'd like to offer what I hope is a constructive outside opinion. As an engineer who's always had an interest in physics, but lacks the in-depth mathmatical knowledge to follow it at more advanced levels, I'm attracted to the premise that the universe may be more intuitively explained by an alternative framework. It wouldn't be the first time in history where we've been forced to re-examine long-held beliefs, so I entertain the possibility.
Unfortunately, your website falls a little short of convincing me to spend US$30 on the book, because although many interesting observations are made, there is no resolution for any one of them --- just repeated assertions that the issues you bring up are indeed resolved. The problem here is that, for all a visitor to your site knows, the remainder of the book could be an appeal to faith in invisible little men who manipulate matter with ethereal tweezers. Or, alternatively, your theory may be dead-solid, testable, and ultimately correct.
I just thought I'd write and give you the perspective of a visitor to your website, one who's intrigued, but not yet convinced there's anything beyond the usual junk science between the covers.
I'll be watching for the reviews to start showing up on Amazon.com and elsewhere, and make my buying decision at that point.
Best wishes, and for what it's worth, I seriously hope you've hit the mother lode.
Dave Ruske
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Dave Ruske
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003
Subject: Re: Final Theory Website & Book
Hi Dave .. thanks for your comments. I agree completely, of course. That is my dilemma precisely ... how do I get the word out about this new book and theory in a convincing manner without basically rewriting the book on my website or in emails. I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives. However, I also realize that once I start discussing the new theory in any detail I open up a whole can of worms. As simple, rational, and commonsense as this new theory is, it is impossible to do justice to it on a website. If I mentioned what I believe gravity actually is (and I could easily state it in one sentence), I'd have to follow it up with exactly the further discussions that I already wrote out very clearly in the book. People would have all the same questions that I have already anticipated (and heard from close family and friends during development) and answered in the book. I would have endless email exchanges, or people immediately assuming it is a flawed theory because they superficially think it through and think they see a flaw and just dismiss it without any further thought or discussion.
That is my dilemma, at the moment. I don't feel I can do justice to the theory in any less than the 400-page book -- to just blurt out any part of it would be self-defeating out of context. In fact, now that radio station hosts are beginning to show an interest, I am facing the same dilemma about how much I should discuss the core theory on air soon as well (still haven't worked that one out yet). But I certainly see your point -- how do you know I'm not a nutter with another theory about aliens or gods or little green men? My answer to this problem was to put as much of my thought processes, insights, and even book content on my website as possible without actually discussing the new theory itself. Hopefully after reading all my website material -- and even my entire first chapter (available upon request from the site) -- people will see many new, solid, rational ideas about our science and its problems, and will see a solid first chapter that shows I don't have a a little-green-man type of mentality. (*The first and second chapters of Mr. McCutcheon’s book directly parallel the key points in my book. - K. B. Robertson)
So far, it is very early in the promotion process, so it is impossible for me to know if my current approach is enough. I appreciate and fully understand your perspective, and I welcome any suggestions you may have. What would it take to convince someone such as yourself to buy a copy, short of opening a whole can of worms by starting to discuss the new theory itself, which would probably be a nightmare of endless emails justifying one point or another or anwering one question after another, which is already fully expained in the book?
Thanks for your comment,
Mark
From: Dave Ruske
To: Mark McCutcheon
Date: Fri July 04, 2003
Subject: Re: Final Theory Website & Book
Once there are some reviews to read, you get the credibility of referrals --- no exposition of the theory itself is really needed once there are people with some knowledge of physics saying that your theory deserves consideration. Those first reviews will be key, I think.
Thanks for your response, and good luck with it!
Dave Ruske
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: Dave Ruske
Date: Mon Jul 21, 2003
Subject: Reviews are in ...
Hi Dave, just a FYI to inform you that several people have now read the book and offered to write reviews. You may want to check out the site again (see Reader Review page). I realize you have to take my word for it that I didn't make them up and/or suppress horrible responses. All I can say is that these are real reviews from real people who do not know me, and are the first two responses so far.
Best,
Mark
From: David RuskeTo: Mark McCutcheon
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2003 Subject: Theory Problems?
Ok, Mark, I'm an optimist, so I bought the book. Maybe it's me, but I can't make it through the first few chapters without seeing some real showstopper-type problems. I've outlined a few below, maybe you can point out where I went wrong.
Velocity is defined as distance over time. If we throw a ball in empty space, we know it keeps going at what we perceive at a constant velocity. If we accelerate it to 10km per hour, then in one hour's time the ball will be 10km away after one hour, 20km at two hours, etc. We could determine this by looking at the ball and applying simple trigonometry, or by having a very long, physical ruler parallel to the ball's path.
So far, so good. But according to expansion theory, the ruler along the ball's path will be continuously expanding, as will the ball and everything else. By your math, in fact, after about 19 minutes the distances in the equations will have doubled in size. After an hour, the ruler will be roughly 8 times larger than it was originally, though it would seem we have no way of detecting this.
Wait a minute, though, that ball is still traveling parallel to the ruler. In order to cover the length of our expanding 10km ruler in one hour's time, one of two things needs to be going on: either our ball in vacuum is accelerating to keep up with the growing ruler, or time isn't the linear quantity we've been assuming.
Such acceleration would also be necessary to keep the moon in orbit. If the earth and moon were really passing each other at a constant relative velocity similar figure 3-5, they'd collide rather quickly, as both bodies would be increasing in size at an accelerating rate. If matter alone expands, and not the space between, this accelerating growth will overtake a simple velocity of any magnitude.
Moving on to figure 3-6, I fail to see how the objects would ever appear to completely encircle one another. The right-hand side of that diagram does show an effect similar to what would be seen, I believe, but continue the diagram a little bit further and you'd eventually end up with two objects almost stationary (along the Y axis) side-by-side, finally expanding in to one another. The relative motion along the Y axis (as you look at figure 3-6) would be little different from what you propose with the dropped object in figure 2-8.
Two more problems I see is that the non-gravity of expansion theory doesn't drop off with distance (since two objects will expand towards each other at the same rate no matter where they are), and our orbital observations do not seem to be consistent solely with the radius of orbiting bodies. How does expansion theory account for these inconsistencies with the observed universe?
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I fear I have to wonder about the sincerity of this effort. Nowhere on your website is "expansion theory" mentioned, instead the basis of this "final theory" is kept vague. You're not the first to try to take Einstein's equivalence principle literally, as a quick search on Google will reveal. The only open question is whether or not you're aware of the fact.
I agree with you that something seems amiss in our current understanding of the universe, and I wouldn't be shocked if some portion of expansion theory might even provide valuable clues. But if I've reasoned incorrectly above, I'd appreciate knowing where I went wrong.
Thanks,
Dave
From: Mark McCutcheon
To: David Ruske
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2003
Subject: Re: Theory Problems?
Hi David,
Thanks for your email. I hope all my readers do email me, since questions like this are bound to arise in a book full of completely alternate views of everything in physics. I won't always have the time for detailed individual responses, but at this early stage I try as much as possible. Soon I'll set up a FAQ to help new readers who email me, so that I don't have to keep retyping much the same emails, but so far you are only the third reader to respond, so I'll give it a go personally. Oh, and at the request of the others who have responded, I have set up an informal email discussion group. At this point we have just exchanged email addresses which we include in our exchanges, with me as moderator. If you're interested in joining, just say the word. But first, I'm sure you want some answers.
In answer first to your suspicions of my sincerity, I feel very strongly that it would be a mistake to discuss my core concepts on my website. There are many others who have tried their hand at alternate theories, as you know, and, frankly, their ideas are quite kooky and half-baked, either because they have the wrong inspiriation initially, or because they are unable to follow it through to any depth. But this doesn't stop them. They go on and on making less and less sense, and ultimately end up just chatting quite irrationally in their own websites about all their ideas. I realize that some may still put me in that boat with my theory, but I see a clear difference with my book, and I will not diminish it in that manner. This truly is the answer to how our universe operates -- not just in my opinion or pet theory .. examine the evidence as you read, even solid mathematical proof as on page 190, which it seems you may not have reached. Taken out of context, my ideas would probably be laughed off the stage, but in context, I hope you can see it is a serious, viable, scientific theory that puts standard theory to rest. Also, yes I am now aware that at least one other person has tried to pursue discussion of expanding matter on Google groups .. one of the other readers who responded (and who has volunteered a review on my site and is now part of the discussion group) informed me of that the other day. I assure you, I'm not that person and I have nothing to do with any such physics discussion groups. I have been well aware of the existence of these groups for well over a decade -- perhaps two? – (*Mr. McCutcheon is confused about whether it’s ten, or twenty years that he’s been aware of ‘these discussion groups’) and have always been horrified by them, partly because they are so abusive, and partly because most people there claim to be scientifically educated and intelligent (and I'm sure they are), yet they banter on endlessly day after day and even year after year about who understands one aspect of our science better than another. In the end, no one really has any solid answers, which is why they're all there, typing away endlessly, hoping to convince themselves or others of their current understanding, or hoping for answers from others, which never com. I hope you can see that that is all you're left with, without my book. I have never joined these groups, and have had no desire to even scan them for over a decade, since I already know what they're all about (*indeed). This is the legacy that today's science paradigm leaves for even our most intelligent, educated, scientifically enthusiastic people.
Ok, off my soap box and on to your core question:
I find that no one, so far, gets every point that I make in the book initially .. some are completely fine with points that others struggle with initially, and vice versa. The issue you struggle with in this email is a very common one for readers initially, and the reason is because you are open-minded enough to consider Expansion Theory, but you cannot help but still be ruled by Newton's view of our universe. Even though you are willing to give Expansion Theory a good shot, your mind must latch onto *something* as its core "reality simulator" when you imagine and think about object motion, and yours is still half with Newton as you consider Expansion Theory. I struggled with this too, initially, and until I got over it I couldn't move beyond *writing* the first few chapters, which you're struggling to read. Let me explain ...
Whether you realize it or not, you are still thinking of objects possessing absolute, straight-line momentum, as Newton stated. You have not yet reached the breakthrough that allows you to see that this is a fallacy that has corrupted our understanding of the universe we inhabit. As I show in the pages you refer to (p 119 -), all object motion is *relative*. Objects *never* travel in straight-lines with absolute speed and momentum -- never. Even Newton realized this, but he invented a magical gravitational force to justify why his straight-line ideal never actually occurs --- I mean this quite literally -- never. Think about it. Objects *always* travel in curved trajectories past each other (even a ball rolling in a straight line rolls *around* the planet, as I state in the book). So, your struggle with orbits has one foot in with Expansion Theory and one foot in with Newton. You see the Natural Orbit Effect concept, but you force the orbiting object to still continue with Newton's invented absolute straight-line momentum. In actuality, the object has a natural *orbital* momentum. That's what objects *do* in our universe. Your mental machinery is currently *Newtonian*, and so you imagine this conflict of how an object could possibly turn corners all on its own. I hope you can see my point, upon deeper reflection. It is *very* difficult to make this breakthrough, but crucial.
Similarly, on the object coasting along by the ruler, you also have one foot in Expansion Theory and one foot out. You are willing to consider that atoms all expand within the *subatomic* realm, resulting in the effective constant sizes and other familiar physical laws that we all know and experience, but then you imagine objects expanding in *atomic* space, as if the subatomic expansion of Expansion Theory wasn't there. Tough new concepts, I know, but crucial to grasp. The coasting object is not somehow accelerating in regular space here outside the atom. Objects, likewise, aren't doubling every 19 minutes here on the outside. This is the underlying *subatomic* reality, which is not occuring on our atomic dimension but in the subatomic realm, *resulting* in effective *non* expanding objects that are drawn to each other by some apparent mysterious force. You are picturing the coasting object as if there is only *one* spatial reality -- here on the outside of the atom -- and forcing the *atomic* object, which is a product of the underlying subatomic realm, to behave as if it resided in the subatomic realm. It doesn't. Again, as in the book, these are two sides of the same coin, where our reality is one side, supported by the unseen other.
Hope something here helps. I'm now getting quite motivated to write that FAQ I mentioned!
Best.
Mark
For a continuation of this discussion, enter in Google: "Mark McCutcheon David Ruske discuss Final Theory", or, click on:
htttp://homepage.mac.com/ruske/finaltheory.html
Mr. David Ruske comments, in an email conversation with Mr. Mark McCutcheon (author of ‘The Final Theory’):
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I fear I have to wonder about the sincerity of this effort. Nowhere on your website is "expansion theory" mentioned, instead the basis of this "final theory" is kept vague. You're not the first to try to take Einstein's equivalence principle literally, as a quick search on Google will reveal. The only open question is whether or not you're aware of the fact.
Indeed, an effort to take Einstein’s equivalence principle literally, was first published on the internet in December of 1999 (followed on the internet by a series of notably similar theories), and first published in hard copy - under the title ‘An Hypothesis On Gravity’ in May of 1959, evolving into a series of hard copy small press editions, under the titles ‘The New Gravity’, ‘Gravity Is The 4th Dimension’, and most recently ‘Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions - A Non mathematical Reinstatement of Einstein’s Presently Abandoned Unified Field - Steady State - Theory; The Big Bang Theory Is Wrong.’
(To be continued)
_____________________________________
Below are verbatim excerpts (and asterisk - * - marked, parenthesized editorial comments by K. B. Robertson) derived from a review of McCutcheon’s ‘The Final Theory’, by ‘Austin’ on Hypography, 3.14.2005
Re: The Final Theory - 03-14-2005, 06:43 PM
McCutcheon is certainly persistent and ambitious. Moreover, the concept of Expansion Theory is bold. And we all like 'bold'.
But in the final analysis, his whole book is founded upon the not-terribly-insightful observation that modern theories regarding gravity are clearly missing a grand underlying truth. Beyond that, the book clearly has major flaws in it.
My background: an honors graduate in computer science about 100 years ago at a major university (USC), I aced all the calculus based courses in physics. This is probably what led to my becoming, eventually, the chief engineer on a nuclear-powered attack submarine. Days gone-by now...but all true.
My overall take on McCutcheon's book: at almost $30/copy it is fundamentally dishonest.
Yes, he has one good idea in the form of Expansion Theory regarding its application to gravity -- but it's not even his idea. Moreover, he tries to coast the rest of the way by shucking and jiving, using hand-waving arguments instead of rigorous or complete thinking.
Note that there is not a single reference in the book to who originated Expansion Theory (or any other references, for that matter). McCutcheon isn't honest enough to state that an originator of Expansion Theory -- well before McCutcheon's implied origination of it -- is Peter Bros, whose ideas were published in a series of books about Copernican concepts of the universe.
(*Mr. Austin cites a precedent for McCutcheon’s presentation of ‘Expansion Theory’, naming one Peter Bros as ‘an originator’ - rather than ‘the originator’ - predecessor, referencing the reader to Bro’s "ideas - published in a series of books about Copernican concepts of the universe". Mr. Austin does not offer any book title or further reference to his important criticism of Mr. McCutcheon - as not having originated the "Expansion Theory". Mr. Austin continues his critique...)
Frankly, I still like the boldness of the approach, even if it is wrong. Failing is a good thing -- it is the fastest and most courageous way to learn -- and we need to do it more often if we are to ever come up with a complete Theory of Everything that actually works.
So, I really don't have the desire for a complete skewering of McCutcheon's book. Courage is as courage does. But I will point out some of the most commendable ideas, blatant falsehoods and (intentional?) oversights:
(1) The Good -- The best and brightest in this book is captured in the first two chapters on Expansion Theory (*The chapters that parallel the key points of my book) as it pertains to gravity and orbital mechanics in the form of (though he doesn't use this term) non-linear dynamics. This is good stuff, and should be followed up by a modern-day von Neumann to give it the mathematical rigor that it clearly needs.
(2) The Bad -- The author has a pedantic, petulant writing style at times that can mask or obliterate his own circular arguments, even if they were true...and often they are not. He gets lost in the minutiae at times and sometimes just plain "loses it" both emotionally and factually. For example, he goes completely aground in his discussion as to how (by his misperception) a horizontally fired object can't _ever_ go into a circular orbit by Newtonian theory ("Gravity based circular orbits are impossible"). This is stuff and rubbish -- a horizontally fired projectile can clearly go into a circular orbit when fired with sufficient velocity provided that there isn't a looming mountaintop somewhere in the projectile's future. But he doesn't stop there with that one mistake -- he goes on and on and on about it (his mistake, that is) until the reader can only continue slogging through the reading by taking an interlude to write "stupid!" in the margin...e.g., as I resorted to on page 116. Seriously folks, this is blatantly stupid stuff. At a bare minimum, as this paragraph points out, it is at least nothing more than one of McCutcheon's emotional rants about his own misinterpretations. Either way, it's more than a little bit sad.
(3) The Ugly -- Many, many instances of exculpatory evidence exist against 'The Final Theory'. McCutcheon is clearly overreaching with respect to Expansion Theory. Notably, the author either does not bring these disproofs of his ideas up or glosses over them. Examples include:
(a) Energy consumption: The energy required for expansion is just another form of 'magic' (as McCutcheon calls it) to replace existing, magical matter-attraction theories of gravity. This was a gloss-over; the author asserts that he'll prove this isn't the case, then fails to do so.
(b) Laws of Life: While he was apparently awake during high school discussions on Laws of Thermodynamics including 'entropy', McCutcheon does not discuss 'consciousness' at all. As this is core to understanding probability waves and modern quantum theory & mechanics, I can only presume that he doesn't have much of a grasp on these subjects.
© Electron diffraction: The author blatantly ignores the experimentally observed effect that a *single* photon put through a diffraction process will exhibit wave diffraction. This is profound -- and widely available -- knowledge. That the author would ignore it does not speak well for his arguments. (Ref.: "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert)
(d) Wave/Particle Nature: As with the parabolic descent nonsense, the author's style is to misconstrue or obfuscate the current thinking regarding the observed wave/particle nature of photons. It's simple: non-observed 'matter' is a probability/possibility wave. Observed matter exhibits its particle nature. Yet the author conspires to confuse the reader (or himself) on this foundatational point. "Quantum Reality" is a must-read in this regard...it is truly not to be missed, and is a highly pleasurable read.
(e) Bell's Theorem: Completely missing-in-action. The Quantum Fact that all reality is non-local is kind of a big deal. Again...see "Quantum Reality" if you prefer enlightenment over diatribe.
(f) Muon time-compression: Also readily available info the author ignores, the fact is that muon's at near light speeds decay more slowly than the ones that are not travelling that fast.
I could go on and on and on myself...but it all comes down to this: were Einstein, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, John Bell, David Bohm, Neils Bohr, von Neumann, Max Planck, etc., etc. all out to lunch...or is McCutcheon?
Sorry...I've done my homework, and it's not the former. McCutcheon overreaches...and misses the mark of Truth.
A much better book to read (and much more tolerable): "Einstein and Buddha". I recommend it highly. Especially to McCutcheon.
Last edited by Austin : 03-23-2005 at 04:34 PM.
_________________________________________
Another excerpt from another Hypography hosted critique:
Re: The Final Theory - 06-23-2005, 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeroy
I'm about half way through the book and honestly I really like the concept. Even before reading this book, I've often thought of Einstein's space-elevator and gravity and wondered... What if gravity was just inertia?
I never really thought of atomic expansion, but it seems plausible. Although the way the author explains it, he doesn't seem to be very objective on the idea. It seems he backs up scientific models that he can explain with expansion and tries to debunk models and theory's that he can't make fit. That makes me feel like he's a salesman and not a scientist.
______________________________________
Reply to the final theory as recorded on Science AGOGO.com
posted October 10, 2005 06:48 PMOctober 10, 2005 06:48 PM http://www.scienceagogo.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=1;t=000466;replyto=00000
The Final Theory revisited.
It seems that Uncle Al may have the word on this book. I am now in pages seventies. I have been anxious to see what the author had to say as a substitute for Newton’s and Einstein’s conception of gravity. It looks like he sees the atom in a constant state of expansion thereby causing everything composed of atoms to be in a constant state of expansion. In his world this uniform atom expansion does not really have objects falling to the Earth it has the earth expanding outward to meet the object just as the object is expanding to meet the Earth. To accept this view we must concede that everything in our three dimensional universe and right here in our solar system, is in constant expansion. He rationalizes this on the basis that because all of this expansion is uniform and universal we do not see it – there is nothing to compare it with. His discussion so far deals only with the Earth and the most rudimentary examples. I will continue to read his effort but I wanted to post this to discourage any one being tempted to buy the book right now.
The author lost me on a very fundamental issue. We know that the acceleration of a falling object is directly related to the Mass of the object towards which it is falling. Earth’s "surface" gravity is stated to be 32.16 feet per second, per second. The suns are like 900 feet per second, per second. To apply his approach it seems to me the sun should be expanding about 28 times as fast as the Earth. That would apply to every other planet more massive than the Earth as well. As old as these objects are we should be in one big ball by now! I will continue to read the book to be sure I have not miss-judged it.
Jim Wood
Registered: Sep 2005 | IP: Logged
_________________________________
Reprise: A Note on Mr. Mark McCutcheon and the gathering multitude of other belated scribes of his <'google group'> generated genre:
Enter 'McCutcheon, physically accelerating universe' in google: A 2002 copyrighted book entitled The Final Theory emerges, the first two chapters of which conspicuously parallel the 48 year old published and copyrighted, small press hard cover history of the (previously unanticipated) *accelerating universe (*enter in google) proved to prevail within the following dissertation <herein: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie>. The Author of 'The Final Theory', one Mark McCutcheon, apparently alleges not to have heard of or been influenced by the featured dynamic of this near half century aged work, which was published on the net 12/'99. Within and after chapter two of The Final Theory, Mr. McCutcheon goes on to further proclaim that there is no gravity, that Newton and Einstein were wrong <they did make some well known mistakes, many of which they clarified awareness of>, and that 'his work' is 'The Final Theory'.
After re-writing the unprecedented nexus of my book in the first two chapters of his, Mr. McCutcheon plods waywardly on into what he calls the 'rethinking of our scientific legacy'... Readers may only draw their own conclusions. This author looks forward to a growing success for Mr. McCutcheon and 'his work' <or any like it>, the archived key ingredients of which will inevitably find their way back to their point of origin, under the widely distributed knowledge of tens of thousands of international and multilingual readers and the original authorship of Truly Yours, K.B.Robertson, and the title: 'Gravity Is The 4th (space-time) Dimension', 'The New Gravity'; etceteras...
Literally having been written on the subway walls of New York City in the early '70's, and all over the cities of San Francisco and Berkeley since the mid '70's)
The Exclusion of Politics from Science; of Ad Hominem from Empirical. Alternate title: Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism = 4th, 5th & 6th space-time Dimensions.
The 'Big Bang Theory' is wrong.
Original Extraterrestrial Physics 101.
Mark McCutcheon's so called 'Final Theory' isn't final, and, indeed it is repeated herein, that major portions of the first two chapters are conspicuously parallel to 'Gravity Is The 4th Dimension (The New Gravity)', by K.B. Robertson. Whether or not Mr. McCutcheon or the venerable Mr. Mathis drew their key themes from my work or not is a mere technicality. The point is that my copyright precedes either and both of theirs by over forty years.
Google access and evaluation of Miles Mathis’ book is readily available in referring to:
The Third Wave:
A Redefinition of Gravity
by
Miles Mathis
( http://www.geocities.com/mileswmathis )
________________________________________________
In closing, the reader is referenced to google: Brad Templeton’s ‘10 Big Myths About Copyright.'
Linking
Might it be a violation just to link to a web page? That's not a myth, it's undecided, but I have written some discussion of linking rights issues.
Permission is granted to freely print, unmodified, up to 100 copies of the most up to date version of this document from http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html , or to copy it in off-the-net electronic form. On the net/WWW, however, you must link here...
Thank you for reading this missive. Best regards,
- K. B. Robertson
"Reality is an illusion - albeit, a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein
"There once was a Lady named Bright, who moved much faster than light. She departed one day in a relative way, and returned on the previous night." - Eric Buller 1923
0 -
Er, a Greek philosopher, (Agustaros?) said: "There's always something larger than large and there's always something smaller than smal".
Einstein said that 'the universe is finite in space but unbounded in time' - I think that means that it may have finite parameters at any given moment, but that the parameters are endlessly enlarging.
There are still several variations on Steady State theory outside the restricted boundaries of the big bang; the (supposedly out dated; possibly reinstated) Steady State theory harbors no beginning or end.
There is a print-painting of a terrier looking dog with a sailor boy on a box of Crackerjack, holding an inevitably smaller box of Crackerjack, upon which is printed another image of what appears to be the same dog beside another - looks like the same - sailor, only smaller; holding yet another box of Crackerjack; with what would seem has a printed painting of another dog beside another sailor holding a yet smaller box of Crackerjack and so on...
It seems to go on forever, if the pictures could somehow be made ever smaller and still exist, as the visibly descending and/or ascending sequence of images certainly suggests... Geometrically squared rectangular boxes of heirarchically arranged Crackerjack containers and icons, out of infinite smallness proceeding to infinite largeness...
Perhaps an important representation of Einstein’s Unified Field without mathematics. Multi-moment space-time. An ensemble of constantly enlarging systems...
....an ever enlarging - and ever diminishing - blue & white terrier dog with a blue and white sailor boy holding a red striped box of Crackerjack with the image of a Sailor with a Terrier dog, may never again be the same.
Who said the ever-smaller sequenced pictures - smaller or larger, past, present & future - had to ‘end’, ever?
If the atoms of the universe of the past get ever smaller and the atoms of the universe of the present get ever larger and the painter or printer passed his job on from one generation to the next, where's the ‘end’ of the illustrated hierarchy of images - the multi-moment space-time ensemble of differently sized pictures of the same dog and sailor boy holding a box of Crackerjack with a picture of himself and his dog on it?
Same thing happens on a cylindrical container of MORTON salt, the byword of which is ‘When it rains, it pours." Meaning that humidity or dampness in the air does not prevent the salt from being smoothly dispensed from the container, or whatever shaker it may be contained by. The pictorial logo on this dark blue colored, cylindrically shaped package is a little girl in a yellow skirt, walking in the rain, holding an open umbrella over her head with her right hand; with a container of MORTON salt, pouring out of the metal spout cradled in and under her left hand and arm; upon which is the same pictorial; and so on; squared - same as the CRACKERJACK.
Then, there's Land O Lakes" butter and dairy products 'Where goodness begins'. It's an icon of a beautiful young Native American woman perched on a lake backgrounded - presumably Minnesota - mound of grass, offering a sample of the product - in this case, a pound of butter upon which she is the labeled icon; squared. It doesn't look like the Land O Lakes anecdote of 'Where goodness begins' has any explanation of where it ends... Yes. The same thematically endless heirarchy as the multi-moment 4-D MORTON salt icon - 'When it rains (water) it (Morton salt, still) pours', and, the CrackerJack Sailor - squared.
Einstein was caught up in a similar dilemma, only it was in Switzerland; back in the early 20th century.
The imperative that 'space has to end somewhere' may be as dogmatic as the Crackerjack sailor's K-9 companion. There's a lot of perspectives holding to the view that ('... must end somewhere!') space (space-time) doesn't really have to end at all.
(Sort of like this seemingly ubiquitous internet thread?)
Consider the word 'infinity'. Does it mean what it says, or not? Then there's 'endless', and 'pi r squared' and 'eternal'. There are words and equations and concepts that say some things needn't begin or end anywhere, contrary to the limitations of the anthropomorphic experience.
Perhaps these contentious words should be extirpated from all languages that express them. Perhaps the beginnings of these man made concepts should be brought to a proper and fitting end.
Of course everyone is entitled to their own endless ensemble of multi-moment space-time contained opinions... This post (unlike this internet residing thread?) has a beginning and ending for example. There's no denying it. It had to begin and end somewhere. (Squared.) - Refer, The Rise & Fall of Gravity, by K. B. Robertson
0 -
The Rise & Fall of Gravity
Copyright by K. B. Robertson 1979 - 2007 All rights reserved.
A light sided approach to the ponderous subject of General Relativity.
Space-time Gravity Is The 4th Dimension:
For more cost free rhythm and reason, please consider a season that resonantly sings beyond theories of strings.
From Euclid's straight line shine to Isaac's golden apple and its geodesic grapple.
A catchy little tune that most anyone can croon, by the curved silvery light of Albert's expeditionary moon.
Dr. Einstein's waking inspiration may yet sweep the sleeping nation at the slightest provocation.
An unrecognized solution that could start a peaceful revolution. Big Bang Gangology’s further confirmation of their favorite libation - more denial and debate with the orphaned Steady State.
Behold Albert's resurrected smart bomb with enduring aplomb. Benevolent bomb leaves all the buildings and people intact; takes 4-D space-time to get them back on track .
Asked the teacher what gravity was, an' all he said is what gravity does. Said I wanna know why, not how things fall. Teacher said nobody knows that one at all.
Asked the people on the 6 O'Clock news; they said on that we have no views. Same thing happened in a physics lesson - a picture of Newton gave a puzzled expression.
Still wanted to know what gravity is, so I went outside and continued the quiz. Asked a mathematician and he took all day saying gravity is numbers. So I ignited one and went into suspension, tintanambulating beyond the 3rd dimension. The answer appeared as a gentle kiss, so I wrote another poem and it goes like this...
Poetry for all times and places, poetry for all rhymes and spaces. Where are the dimensions and where are they not, boundless dimensions of color and thought; infinite dimensions of cold and of hot. But countless dimensions of space there are not.
Dimensions of music, of wine and of thee, of these there are many, but of space only three.
A 3-D you anna 3-D me, munching 3-D apples from a 3-D tree. 3-D up an' 3-D down, 3-D apples to the 3-D ground. A 3-D fall anna 3-D 'thump'. 3-D sugar inna 3-D lump.
3-D east an' 3-D west, Sir Isaac Newton did his 3-D best. 3-D universe, 3-D math - 3-D projectiles onna 3-D path. 3-D smooth and 3-D rough; 4-D Einstein singin' "Three ain't enough."
4-D amplifier and 4-D gear, singin' 4-D lyrics into 3-D ears. 4-D guitar an' 4-D strings. Albert's 4-D song about 4-D things.
3-D professors onna 3-D jag, stuffin 4-D physics in a 3-D bag.
If yer lookin' for a message in here, it's of 4-D headaches from a 3-D beer. 3-D professors tellin' 3-D lies, gettin' 3-D money for the Nobel Prize.
3-D scientists onna 3-D pension, refusing to recognize, space-time gravity is the 4th dimension.
(Variations on this thought provoking vignette appear else-where on the net. Copyright 1979, by K. B. Robertson. All rights reserved. With acknowledgement for authorship, may be reproduced and distributed for educational, recreational and non commercial purposes. Condensed book <not for sale> freely accessible at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie )
0 -
COASTAL PACIFIC, WELL INTENDED BUT MISINFORMED U.S. PACIFISM
In a recent discussion with a sincere 'anti-war-pro-peace advocate, this record offered that it had attended a meeting, of peace proponents - an array of Committees for Non Violence - from all over the United States and Europe, who met at SWORDS & PLOW-SHARES on Mission Street In San Francisco in the early 1980’s. There were many different and oppositional view-points expressed at that time and place as to what might or not be the best way to create and maintain peace In the world. One point, however, that everyone there uniformly agreed on was, that each and every sovereign nation must keep and maintain a standing military for self defense purposes in order to assure peace as well as to risk war, of course.
I asked the subjected, peace promulgating man of the ‘90’s if he knew of any nation in the world that didn't have a military, since he had interrupted the record to proclaim that the abolition of militarism should have happened a long time ago, and that ‘war doesn’t accomplish anything’, resolving that 'some countries don't have a military'. I asked him what countries he was referring to. He hesitated for a full thirty seconds, finally 'answering' with a question:
'Switzerland?’
The record reminded the young peacemaker that Switzerland may be the most fortified country in the world and has one of the most highly trained and well equipped standing armies and, that what he had probably confused for the absence of a military was in fact Switzerland's traditional policy of ‘nuetrality' when it comes to wars on the European continent... The well intended, characteristically underinformed adversary reluctantly agreed. He could not furthermore think of any 'other' country that doesn't have a standing military, at least for self-defensive purposes... (Puerto Rico is without a military, but is protected by the United States; as are the East and West Indies.)
All of this is to consider the importance of understanding what it is that you are opposed to, and especially in the spirit of being opposed to war itself. Antiwar activism In Vietnam between 1965 and 1975 would mean nothing - except treason - to the Vietnamese people, who were obliged at that time to fight a defensive war. Ostensibly, some wars are perceived differently, depending on the perspective of the aggressor or the defender. That is to say, there are In fact 'right' wars and 'wrong' wars. 'Good' warmakers and 'bad' warmakers. These are some of the differences between defensive warfare and offensive warfare; between obligatory killing and 'optional', avoidable murder; esp. when the oppressor is assured of success.
Blessed Be The Peacemakers
Abolishing war is a very high and well-intended goal therefore. But Sun Tzu, author of the 2,000 year old THE ART OF WAR (based on the I CHING; translated to English and distributed for the lst time in the U.S., in 1988), strongly advises - whenever possible - the studying of every enemy to the fullest degree possible, before the engagement of that enemy.
That is to say, in order to eliminate the acknowledged scourge - and unfortunately accompanying constructive industrial, scientific, medicinal and theological tonic - of war from the socio-human experience, it is best to understand as much as possible about what it is we are attempting to abolish;and how that accomplishment may be most realistically - and expediently - achieved: how and what non-destructive incentive(s) may inspire people to industrious, scientific and socially progression: without the abominably costly motivational impetus of war.
'Humanity must put an end to war; before war puts an end to humanity'.
- J.F.K.
"In times of war: truth is the first casualty.”
- Sen. Hiram Johnson, 1917
(Paraphrased from An ancient Greek axiom)
“When you tell the truth, be sure you have one foot in the stirrup.”
- An Old Mongol Proverb
The European culture at large, certainly including the United States, Is in fact for, these self-revealing reasons of historical ignorance, socially instilled denial, and Informational evasion, alarmingly ill-equipped to fullfill the agreed-upon noble mission of the peacemakers: who are quick to oppose war, and equally reluctant to understand what it is that they disagree and conflict with.
In John Keegan's A HISTORY OF WARFARE, copyright 1994, he quotes Aldous Huxley proclaiming that + ‘An intellectual is someone who has found something more interesting than sex .’
Keegan goes on to say that +’A civilized person is definable as someone who has found something more interesting than combat ( war/ violence )’:
The record is honored to narratively and anthologically re-authenticate that the knowledgeably empowered pen continues to be mightier than the historically deleting sword, and that: Europe & The U.S. have Another - Functionally Forbidden - History.
May You Encounter Peace, Herein:
A Brief Book-Review Of: NOMADS, CIVILIZATION & WAR:
by K B Robertson (Aka: 'The White Mongol')
0 -
NOMADS, CIVILIZATION & WAR
An Abbreviated History of the Eurasian Horsepeople
The Hinges Of History
The Grass Routes Of World Civilization
EuroAmerica’s Undone Homework & How It Is Done
The Full Circle Of Consequential Warfare
(Condensed from 415 pages)
by K B Robertson, Copyright © 1994, ‘95 & 2001
(Note: The word ‘civilization’ has two correct spellings: with a ‘z’; or an ‘s’, i.e. ‘civilisation’.)
Formerly titled: THE ORIGINAL HOLOCAUST:
A Generally Unrecognized Real History Of Western Civilization And The United States
FOREWORD
What is there in common with The Domino Theory, Genghis Khan, ‘The Original Holocaust’, The Origins Of The International Slave Market, The Age Of Exploration, The New England Colonization, Global Circumnavigation, The Domino Theory: Backwards, and The Vietnam War?
QUESTION: What do these considerations have in common?
ANSWER: More than you may realize. Much more indeed.
Summary of Chapters
CHAPTER ONE
The Original Dragon's Egg
Grass: The First Living Planetary Nomad
The Pastoral Infantry Invaders
Vs
The Sedentary Agriculturists:
The Nomad Infantry & Chariot Invasions:
On World Civilization - 4400 BC
Very Early Animal Ancestors: The High Plains Adrifter
The Domestication Of The Horse
Dayshift In The Grasslands
The Cattle Culture
CHAPTER TWO
The Equine Family Stable: 4 Kinds Of Horses:
Barb, Norwegian Dun, Przhevalski & Arabian
'Barbarian' is originally the beard, on a Barb(arian) Horse
The Four Kinds Of Warfare:
Primitive-Ritual, True, Real & Nuclear Warfare
The Four Revolutions In Warfare
Chariot Warfare, Cavalry Warfare, Gunpowder & Nuclear Warfare
The Three Kinds Of Cultures:
Trading Cultures / Trading & Raiding Cultures & Raiding Cultures.
Defensive Armor:
Plate / Scale & Mail.
CHAPTER THREE
The History Of Killing At A Distance: For Food Gathering & Warfare
The Evolution Of The Club-Staff/Spear-Lever/Lance: Bow & Arrow
Enter The Chinese Dragon
The Buddha & The Apparently Original Bogeyman
The Chinese Lion Dog:
Animal Employment Of High Technology: The Iron Guardian
Chinese Silken Armor & Sioux Ghost Shirts
CHAPTER FOUR
The Errors Of Voltaire, Gibbon And Clausewitz:
Regarding European Philosophy, History and Warfare
The Champion Masters Of War:
55 Of The Approximately 90 Horsepeople Tribes
A Reign Of Horsemen
Genghis Khan As Illiterate Engineer
The Real Amazon Women Warriors
Hornets & Honeybees
The Parting Parthian Shot
CHAPTER FIVE
The Difference Between Killing And Murder
The World's Most Powerful Women
The Mighty Darius & The Scythian Rabbit
Warfare And Slavery
Horse People And Hemp
Soldiers Are Not As Other Men
Western Europe's Renaissance & Why It Occurred
CHAPTER SIX
A Mongol Definition
The Difference Between Huns & Germans
Vikings & The Battle Of Hastings
The Difference Between Politics & Culture,
Agriculture & Pastoralism,
Is The Difference Between Civilization & Nomads
The Fall Of Kiev, Kracow And Liegnitz; The Sack Of Moravia
H. G. Wells And Horsepeople
The Great Wall Of China And Why It Was Built
The Era Of Genghis Khan's Yassa : Unification Of Horsewarriors
CHAPTER SEVEN
The Mongol Invasion Of Europe
The Siege Of Baghdad
An Abbreviated Chinese Mongol History
There Can Only Be One Kha Khan - The Mongol Civil Wars
The King Eclipse Of The Yuan Mongol Dynasty
The Taj Mahal And Why It Was Built
The Forbidden History Of Europe And The United States
Marco Polo - European Liaison To Kublai Khan:
Western Europe Pays Tribute By Sacrificing Eastern Europe
CHAPTER EIGHT
The European Flight To The New World
ReDiscovering The United States
Edward Gibbon's Decline & Folly Of The Romantic Umpire
The Reverse Domino Theory
('No Cover-Ups In This Administration')
The Yellow Peril
The Original Domino Theory
THE FULL CIRCLE OF CONSEQUENTIAL WARFARE
Circle The Dragons
CHAPTER NINE
The Forbidden History Of Europe & The United States.
The Declination And Folly Of Western Civilization
War Is Fun:
The Perils Of +PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE VIA ORWELL AND HUXLEY:
Civilization And +Psy-War: War Is A Joke
Western Civilization Salutes The East
THE CONQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES:
Entertainingly Amusing Violence In Two Dimensions:
Tragic Violence - That We Must Stop! In Three Dimensions
THE INVISIBLE (What?) War
Network Television Crazymaking PANIC AT THE INSANITY FACTORY
1984's Orwellia Takes Away Books.
Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD extinctifies Reading Interest.
CHAPTER TEN
The Seville Statement
Where to Start Stopping the Infrastructural Violence
The Rape Mentality
The Seville Statement II
Bibliography & AFTERWARD
153 - 159
_____________________
INTRODUCTION
*Chapter One
How many high school and college educated people understand the history of the nomads and their massive impact on shaping biological life and human civilization Itself, all over the world for nearly two hundred fifty million years: in the case of nomadic biological grass and flowers, and seven millennia in the case of human warfare?
How many understand that 'camel caravans’ and so-called ‘desert dwellers’ are only a narrow consideration in the subjection of nomads. Bedouins for example, are certainly a noble lot of hardy nomadic peoples, they are not, however, a horsepeople culture. How many educated Americans or Europeans are familiar historically, with the EuroAsian 'horse people'?
The unfortunate generalized answer to all of the above questions is that very few such educationally qualified people have much familiarity at all with the presented subjects. That is to say, nomadism and horse. people; with regard to their historical roles and importance and: how they have been inadvertently and deliberately placed in 'the back-ground’ of world history - where any such history exists at all acknowledging the megalithic historical role of the generally illiterate, unwashed pagan horsepeople, relative to civilization and its citizens...
Post graduated Westerners get one look at this title and respond:
"I get the CIVILIZATION & WAR part...
But, where do the NOMADS come into the historical picture?”
The improved question is:
How and why did the nomads get left out of the picture?
The neglected subjects - horse peoples - were illiterate; historical events regarding them were almost exclusively reflected by writers from the generally dominated, civilized cultures; hence the measurably residual historical negligence: aimed at the general omission and/or deliberate diminishment of such an enormously important historical perspective; being so vainly obscured, withheld so successfully, from so many, by so few, for such a long time.
THE FIVE MILLENNIUM, EUROASIAN OCEAN OF GRASS
The record has spent much time in the passively ambient, invigorating milieu of many modest and large community and city libraries, in the United States and Europe, for the past 45 years: In Search Of Genghis Khan, and, Where He Originated, and how, and why. Finding the way darkened and obscurely marked; sensing first a rustle of grass, a yellow flower, a faint whinny and then slowly, a gathering stormy rime of ice, lightning, heat and thunder: steppe ponies and warriors alternately screaming as horses; roaring as lion dogs and the sea - insuperable as the red flowering span of windblown horsepeople’s ordu (Horde) fires upon the great, grassy blu-green ocean of trans-EuroAsian tumult . Realm Of The Great EuroAsian Continental Green Grass RiverDragon.
Herein is the successful literary siege of academically resurrected Chinese Mongol Orkhon's tumens (cavalry divisions of ten thousand), finally piercing and sacking what had been impenetrably indomitable, sedentary library stacks. A Modern Academic Coup: An unanticipated Armageddon, hitherto unrecognized, springing from the ordinary records of most any large library in the world.
THE GOLDEN BOUGH of the gestalted West, revealed to be originally rooted in the pre-historic STAG HIERARCHY; out of THE ROYAL HORDES of the East.
STAG HIERARCHY
From the beginning of what is known of horsepeople is their establishment of army leadership hierarchy, via the leader-tribe-nation who dominates and unifies the most people through warfare. This is the system of THE ROYAL HORDES. A kind of human parody of hierarchical establishment as determined by any number of different kinds of animals; certainly including the stag, the horns of which were among the first tools and weapons utilized by humankind; much later decoratively venerated by nomadic horse-people - and most pre-historic Paleo-Meso-Neolithic human communities - for millennia; for at least 8,000 - 12,000 years.
Giving access to what was previously unreachable. Making typographically near the chronologically distant. Making academically easy the historically difficult. All the histrionic loot in the world sequestered away - previously unmended, disunited patches in a trans-oceanic EuroAmerican library collective; un-navigably adrift in tempestuous European tea-pots.
The Arrogant, traditionally myopic Western back to the Prohibitively Terrifying East...
(Where the Ho-Hum tea in all the fiercely rattling English pots came from; noted in poorly translated parentheses, when noted at all. The anthologically gathered history herein, making previously outlawed Asian tea for the Europeans, and North American Indian popcorn by, of and for the self deprecating, sadly ignorant, self-destructivively amused EuroAmericans...)
Rivers of parenthetically confined blood, sweat and tears; for five thousand historically neglected, revisionally omitted, covered up, prevaricated and/or deliberately and inadvertently obscured years...
FIVE MILLENNIA: ESCAPE FROM HISTORICAL OBSCURITY
Central Asia. A terrible, beautiful place. The Near, Middle & Far East. Mega-Realm of the terribly beautiful Master Of World War - The Emperor's Dragon: King Of Animals.
Looming less inscrutable and more two dimensionally static. Like George Gamow's FLATLAND beneath the growing shadow of the subjected, accelerating nomadic parameters; under the metaphorically thrown, 4-dimensionally wide-loop of the provided horsepeople's Five Millennium, horse-hair woven lassos. Launched by cruel north country horsemen who lay hold on bow and spear; have no mercy, and, whose grassland-choir voices collectively roar over the vast, transcontinental EuroAsian steppes - Nature’s scathing answer to the puny man-made monument to the highest civilization’s Appian Way - like the angry, howling prarie-sea.
An awesome, anthropomorphically only-human thought: NOMADS, CIVILIZATION & WAR began to be an unknown, unexcercised - but functionally manifest - title about 3,000 years before Christ. Indifferently waiting for this humble plebeian record to unearth it from scattered, disconnected oblivion on a thousand unattended, ethnographically uncharted pedantic/scholastic shelves. NOMADS, CIVILIZATION & WAR was titularly unprecedented - academically marooned and passively unrecognized, if not deliberately ostracized; for counter educational, stigmatically studded reasons - until 1994 AD: there are past and present political as well as historical revelations, therefore, in the foregoing.
Leaving everything in life including the very grass a little greener; meadow land and wild flowers more abundant, and sweeter - forevermore. Were it only that the record had been lucky enough to have picked up and read a book such as this one, forty five (and 5,000) years ago.
in being so honored to deliver this Nomad World History Book - perhaps the only replication of the lost *MONGOL GOLDEN HISTORY BOOK - *‘The Altyn Debtor’, which, like the female God, ‘Ashura’ was extinctified - by near and far, hysterically misogynic chauvinist male ‘historical revisionists’ who academically murdered the female counterpart for the Semite God ‘Yahweh’, then covered up the figurative - historically revisional - murder of Ashura; then covered up the coverup. This appears to be what happened to *The Mongol Golden History Book (‘The Altyn Debtor’), for reasons that will be further subjected as this historicial discussion progresses.
(*Not to be confused with the floridly styled, accurately historied, Persian scribe rendered SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS, which is still accessible to academia and the reading public. Mike Edwards, of NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, compares the SECRET HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS as being unto Genghis Khan, what Homer’s ODYSSEY is to Odysseus.)
(Introduction, continued)
Offered herein, among other edification's, is tentative light upon the horse-archer originated stigma projected on Semites, and the Yellow, Mongol - and White Mongolian - race. Including the consummately proven, unwelcome revelation that Caucasian Europe: is not as ‘White’ as its trans-globally incumbent reputation.
That, EuroAsia does not actually find its borders on the parameters of Eastern Hungary and Poland (Western Europe’s so called ‘buffer zone’, insulating it from far eastern aggression), but that EuroAsia actually stretches from the Pacific to the Mediterranean: across about 90º of earthly *latitude.
Cause of the Great European Migrations
The instrumentation of azimuth and sextant, measuring latitude and longitude respectively; when accompanied by an accurate chart as well as a chronograph (clock), and an up to date Ephemeris (an annual chart, pinpointing the day by day changing positions of key celestial sources of light at given times), is all any adroit navigator requires, combined with an accurate chronograph (timepiece; allowing the navigator to know exactly ‘when’ he is, in order to accurately determine ‘where’ he is), as well as accurate instrumentation for measuring the relative and real motions of heavenly bodies (‘the celestial vault’), was inspired to invention, development and application, by Western Europe’s urgency to accurize navigation and develop navies, birthing the ‘Age Of Exploration’, so as to augment international trade, and, to escape the Euroasian continent and its masters, the Chinese Mongol Horsepeople:
All of this and more, proven herein by the record, which authenticates itself on the foundations of the some of the greatest (still relatively ‘obscure’ and generally unknown) writings, by world class past and present historians - from Herodotus, to Socrates and Plato, to Voltaire, Clausewitz, Gibbon, Bury, Liddel, Wells, Durant, Bronowski, Spuler, Phillips, Chambers, Trippett & Keegan: the enormous contributions - and some apparent errors - of whom are anthologised in the foregoing (Culminating to the fastest growing violent crime in America - the physical abuse; including rape - of women and children by adult men. A critically important 'domestic phenomenon', of which most polled people are <remarkably enough> unaware. Invoking the anecdote that no problem can be resolved until if and when it is recognized and acknowledged.)
There isn't much in this condensed anthology & narrative, that hasn't been and is not still entirely available to anyone who can read any language; who has access to most any large library, anywhere in the world.
(With acknowledgement, this copyrighted material may be produced and distributed for education and non-commercial purposes.)
Excerpts to be continued - not necessarily in sequence with the Table of Contents.
- K. B. Robertson
0 -
The 'Ugly Head' of Einstein's Abandoned Cosmological Constant
Newton asserted ‘Hypothesis non fingo’. - ‘I make no hypothesis’. Yet, his entire, unarguably revolutionary Classical Mechanics was based on the hypothetical 'particle' that science has yet to assuredly accommodate. The ‘particle concept’ that dominates physics and the vast majority of colloquial human thought: has never been proven beyond hypothetical, quasi-scientific retainers. ‘The (rarely) indicted ‘particle’ Isn’t found ‘wrong’ here, but rather: resiliently incomplete; so as to aggressively exclude the incumbent role of the continuous field in the corporeal balance of material considerations. - K. B. Robertson
"In the laboratory of Michael Faraday (1791 - 1867), who made many important contributions to the knowledge of electricity and magnetism, there is an interesting entry in 1849. It reads:
'Gravity. Surely this force must be capable of an experimental relation to electricity, magnetism, and other forces, so as to build it up with them in reciprocal action and equivalent effect. Consider for a moment how to go about touching this matter by facts and trial.'
"But the numerous experiments this famous British physicist undertook to discover such a relation were fruitless, and he concluded this section of his diary with these words: 'Here end my trials for the present. The results are negative. They do not shake my strong feeling of the existence of a relation between gravity and electricity, though they give no proof that such a relation exists.' " - George Gamow, GRAVITY
(How Odd Is It?)
"It is very odd that the theory of gravity, originated by Newton and completed by Einstein, should stand now in majestic isolation, a Taj Mahal of Science, having little of anything to do with the rapid developments in other branches of physics. Einstein's concept of the gravitational field grew from his Special Theory of Relativity, and the Special Theory was based on the Theory of the Electromagnetic Field formulated in the last century by the British physicist, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79). But in spite of many attempts, Einstein and those who have followed him have failed any (gravitational) contact with Maxwell's electrodynamics... "Einstein's theory of gravitation was more or less contemporary with quantum theory, but in the forty-five years since they appeared, the two theories have had quite different rates of development. Proposed by Max Planck and carried forward by the work of Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie, Erwin Schroedinger, Werner Heisenberg, and others, quantum theory has made colossal progress and evolved into a broad discipline that explains in detail the inner structures of atoms and their nuclei." - Gamow, GRAVITY
"On the other hand, Einstein's theory of gravity remains to this day essentially as it was when he formulated it half a century ago. While hundreds, even thousands, of scientists study the various branches of quantum theory and apply it in many, many fields of experimental research, only a few persist in devoting their time and passion to further development in the study of gravitation. Can it be that empty space is simpler than material bodies? Or did the genius of Einstein accomplish everything that could be done about gravity in our time and so deprive a generation of the hope of further progress?" - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 136.
"There is no space empty of field." - Einstein, *Contributiions to Science (*Ideas & Opinions)
("There is no 'empty space', only 'functional, metric space'." - K. B. Robertson, Apprentice to Albert - 'The Axe' - Einstein.)
"Magnetism, gravity, and action at-a-distance have not lost an iota of their baffling mystery since Gilbert (before Newton 1642 - 1726)" - Arthur Koestler, THE SLEEPWALKERS.
"Since the General Theory of Relativity implies the manifestation of physical reality as a continuous field, the concept of discontinuous particle cannot play a fundamental part, the ‘particle’ can only appear as a limited region of space in which the field strength and/or density of energy is particularly high." - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348
"The combination of the concept of continuous field with that of mass-points discontinuous from space appears inconsistent. A consistent (total) field theory requires continuity of all elements of the theory, not only in time but also in space, and in all points in space. Hence the material particle has no place as a fundamental concept in a field theory." - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 345
"It is very probable that there is a hidden relation between gravity on the one hand and the electromagnetic field and material particles on the other, but nobody is prepared today to say what kind of relation it is. And there is no way of foretelling how soon any further important progress will be made in this direction." - Excerpted from the Preface to GRAVITY, by George Gamow.
"According to General Relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field." - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348
___________________
THE 'UGLY HEAD' of the AGAIN and AGAIN BANISHED SINE QUA NON
"Big Bang', 'SuperStrings', 'Dark matter', 'Quintessence' and 'New Age' etceteras,
versus the 'out dated' 'ugly headed' Cosmological Constant, Lambda /\
(A repelling force, unlike any known other, in that it becomes greater with increased distance. Re: acceleration.)
“It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation’)...
“In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein’s proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.
“Thus Einstein’s original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder’, rejected by Einstein, and the cosmological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again.” - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270
Exerpted from free forum @ http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
0 -
Date: 2007-04-12 T20:47:08
NEW CLUES ABOUT THE NATURE OF DARK MATTER: Einstein May Have Been Right After All:
The good news from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is that Einstein was right — maybe.
A strange form of energy called "dark energy" is looking a little more like the repulsive force that Einstein theorized in an attempt to balance the universe against its own gravity. Even if Einstein turns out to be wrong, the universe's dark energy probably won't destroy the universe any sooner than about 30 billion years from now, say Hubble researchers.
"Right now we're about twice as confident than before that Einstein's cosmological constant is real, or at least dark energy does not appear to be changing fast enough (if at all) to cause an end to the universe anytime soon," says Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore.
Riess used Hubble to find nature's own "weapons of mass destruction" — very distant supernovae that exploded when the universe was less than half its current age. The apparent brightness of a certain type of supernova gives cosmologists a way to measure the expansion rate of the universe at different times in the past.
Riess and his team joined efforts with the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS) program, the largest deep galaxy survey attempted by Hubble to date, to turn the Space Telescope into a supernova search engine on an unprecedented scale. In the process, they discovered 42 new supernovae in the GOODS area, including 6 of the 7 most distant known.
Cosmologists understand almost nothing about dark energy even though it appears to comprise about 70 percent of the universe. They are desperately seeking to uncover its two most fundamental properties: its strength and its permanence.
In a paper to be published in the Astrophysical Journal, Riess and his collaborators have made the first meaningful measurement of the second property, its permanence.
Currently, there are two leading interpretations for the dark energy as well as many more exotic possibilities. It could be an energy percolating from empty space as Einstein's theorized "cosmological constant," an interpretation which predicts that dark energy is unchanging and of a prescribed strength.
An alternative possibility is that dark energy is associated with a changing energy field dubbed "quintessence."
This field would be causing the current acceleration — a milder version of the inflationary episode from which the early universe emerged.
When astronomers first realized the universe was accelerating, the conventional wisdom was that it would expand forever. However, until we better understand the nature of dark energy—its properties—other scenarios for the fate of the universe are possible.
If the repulsion from dark energy is or becomes stronger than Einstein's prediction, the universe may be torn apart by a future "Big Rip," during which the universe expands so violently that first the galaxies, then the stars, then planets, and finally atoms come unglued in a catastrophic end of time. Currently this idea is very speculative, but being pursued by theorists.
At the other extreme, a variable dark energy might fade away and then flip in force such that it pulls the universe together rather then pushing it apart.
This would lead to a "big crunch" where the universe ultimately implodes. "This looks like the least likely scenario at present," says Riess.
Understanding dark energy and determining the universe's ultimate fate will require further observations. Hubble and future space telescopes capable of looking more than halfway across the universe will be needed to achieve the necessary precision. The determination of the properties of dark energy has become the key goal of astronomy and physics today.
CONTACT
Don Savage
NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC
(Phone: 202-358-1547; E-mail: dsavage@hq.nasa.gov)
Ray Villard
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD
(Phone: 410-338-4514; E-mail: villard@stsci.edu)
Adam Riess
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD
(Phone: 410-338-4509; E-mail: ariess@stsci.edu)
0 -
Science 'versus' God
It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
"People have attacked me because I do only one thing. But that one thing is to try to figure how the world is put together. The world is incredible, just the fact that you and I are here, and that the atoms of your body were once part of stars. They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together. Anyway," he laughed,"I’m a nut, you know. Crazy."
The poster of the above message added:
Few agree with Carl Sandage, he admits this with his own words. He attempted to theologize science.
If you are making the point that unanimous agreement does not exist, you are correct but this has been known for some time. Astrophysics is a relative new field and theoretical. Attempts to formulate a Theory of Everything (TOE) continue much at the contempt of theists who oppose this.
Intelligent Design will not replace science.
_______________________________
K B Robertson (RascalPuff) wrote:
Your invocation of Carl Sandage and theism launches the endemic rhubarb between theology and science - as though the two issues were stringently antithetical.
Whereas, 'god' is routinely considered as the intelligent designer of the universe since the times preceding and including Pythagoras, to the present; where mathematicians and heuristic scientists daily and openly proclaim to prove the existence of a supreme being. In contrast to your direct implication that it is tantamount to scientific heresy to do so. It is a long and widely known fact that the exemplary Einstein not infrequently - and openly - said that his endeavors included an inquiry as to 'how God thinks'. Due to the nature of what scientists preoccupy themselves with, many are not only non-atheistic, but closer to God than many avid church-goers and pulpit pounders.
The posturing of contemporary practitioners of science is certainly not in league with the 'creationist' schools of thought who glibly speak of a time when an anthropomorphically assembled 'god' snapped 'his' prototypically unimprovable fingers and 'made' a universe and earth, oh, say, several thousand years ago. Thereafter, inhabiting the earth with people, perhaps at a time not long before the Monkey Trials.
Such organized beguilements do not at all parallel the endeavors of men and women in science who are in search of the parameters of the final frontier, aiming to go where no man or woman has gone before. In these circles, the - perhaps inevitable - issue of god emerges only inadvertantly and until further notice in such company, it is regimentally understood that:
God is on sabbatical.
Perhaps after stubbing 'his' irreproachable metatarsal over scientific expeditions in search of a Theory of Everything (TOE).
The debate over the Biblical presentation of the original creation of humanity and Darwin’s Origin of the Species - the adventures of the Bible (many of which continue to prove out as true) and the contrary facts of life - is an argument that may never end. Speaking for myself and no small number of others I find it no less divine or miraculous - no less an ‘act of God’ - that mankind exists and arrived in the here and now (on its way to a future of there and then), by way of an evolutionary process approximately or precisely as Darwinism reveals. The transition from a fertilized mammal egg to embryo to a recognizable human fetus, includes an intermission of the entire process of evolution, not excluding the reptilian feature of gill slits - this is a powerful station for Darwinism, which, in 1950, was pronounced by Pope Pius XII (and other popes since then), as non contrary to Christianity.
Of course these considerations are not unusual in discussions relating to the mystery of human existence and the despair that may accompany an unanswered existential question of whether or not there is a God. A major grist of devout atheism is that ‘believers’ are afraid not to believe in God... That the burden of human consciousness is unbearable without the comfort of a supernatural reason for being.
Whereas, the inescapable fact that inanimate matter organized itself not only to become animate, but to become sentiently self aware is manifest proof of ‘higher power’; a so called ‘intelligent designer’, aka ‘supreme being’. ‘Nature’ by any other name.
Such considerations tend to reverse the question of whether there is or not a God, to a question of how could there not be...
Anti-theism is marooned with the manifest self and others who came into being ‘inadvertently’; without any guidance from a higher power. It would seem in such contemplations that it is much more difficult to be an an atheist, or anti-theist, than to yield to what is apparently the inevitability of intelligent design, so far, beyond the mortal human ability to fully accommodate.
There is the issue of ‘divine intervention’; reasoning that if there is a God, why are terrible events - large and small - allowed to occur in the course of human existence. This question and the disappointment that accompanies it, is based, a priori, on the existence of a ‘personal God’ - a power which insures justice - per individual - in the corporeal world of mortality. Clearly, such expectations of God intersect with superstition.
That perspective leads to what is called ‘victimology’. Where it is reasoned that those who suffer - especially extreme - misfortune, are (invariably) slated to do so by ‘the will of God’, who metes out punishments for trespasses committed in this life, or, in cases applying to the suffering of very young children, those who have sinned in a (reincarnated) life preceding this one (Granted that life is inherently a struggle, and that some suffering is inevitable...). In other words, those who suffer severe misfortune are unsympathetically perceived as being pronounced guilty - with a sentence of punishment passed - by God. Such reasoning is commonplace (and a misapplication of the word, ‘karma’) as it is applied to the destitute masses in the country of India, for example.
In Western culture, these and other dilemmas led to the separation of church from state. The schizoid argument continues, with routine stories of religious ritual and regalia being prohibited and removed from government institutions, for example. While the federal government continues to mint certificates of currency bearing the inscription, ‘In God We Trust’.
Your vigilant awareness and defense of scientific method and its practitioners does not go without appreciation in this discussion.
0 -
"Big Bang', String Theory & the 'out dated' Cosmological Constant. (In lieu of a dialogue on background radiation)
“It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation’)...
“In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein’s proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.
“Thus Einstein’s original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder’, rejected by Einstein, and the cosmological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again.” - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270
The ‘ugly head’ Of The 'outdated' Truth:
“The cosmological constant has now a secure position... Not only does it unify the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, but it renders the theory of gravitation and its relation to space-time measurement so much more illuminating and indeed self evident, that return to the earlier view is unthinkable. I would as soon think of reverting to Newtonian Theory as of dropping the cosmological constant.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE, p. 24
“I can see no reason to doubt that the observed recession of the spiral nebulae is due to cosmic repulsion, and it is the effect predicted (in 1919) by Relativity Theory which we were hoping to find. Many other explanations have been proposed - some of them rather fantastic (* ‘tired light’, ‘the big bang’,’dark matter’, ‘gravitons’, ‘super strings’ ‘anti-matter’) - and there has been a great deal of discussion which seems to me rather pointless. In this, as in other developments of scientific exploration, we must recognise the limitations of our present knowledge and be prepared to consider revolutionary changes.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, pp. 89 - 90, A TREASURY OF SCIENCE (Harlow Shapley publishers)
There are other scientific disagreements with the so called Big Bang theory:
"The Mt. Wilson astronomer, Carl Sandage, found that stars in a cluster called NGC 188 appeared to be at least 24 billion years old. 'We are in trouble', said Sandage... for the earth could certainly be younger than the universe, but if the universe has been expanding at the present rate for 24 billion years (instead of 13 billion, as submitted by big bang acolytes), it would seem that it should be more spread out than it is. So the astronomers have a new problem to resolve." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49-50
Asimov states in the same discussion on the only recently discovered 'expanding universe':
"Astronomers have now generally accepted the fact of this expansion, and Einstein's 'field equations' of his General Theory of Relativity can be construed to fit an expanding universe." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49
0 -
The ‘big bang’ took the ‘scientific community’ by surprise in 1927 - 1929.
. An - ad hoc - explanation was hurriedly put together by Lemaitre, Gamow, and others - if the expansion of space in the universe was back tracked, it was reasoned, it would eventually converge at a point of intersection (since estimated to have been some 13 billion years ago), where all the matter in the universe must have been compacted, causing intense pressures and heat which resulted in and caused the ‘big bang’ explosion, resulting in the spatially expanding universe, as it is spectroscopically (‘red shift’) observed today. There are more recent variations on this theme, but the described dynamics are the origin of the ‘Big Bang’ perspective.
Problem: There is no common - big bang - center from which the observed expanding universe expands. The expansion is astrophysically established as dynamically expanding in direct line of sight, away from a given observer, from any location. This is not the signature of an explosion from a common center.
It is the signature of a repelling force acting across space out of all material bodies, paralleling all the characteristics of conventional gravity, while acting in the opposite direction. Namely, what Einstein called ‘the cosmological constant’ - a force unlike any other known, because it increased - instead of decreased - with distance.
Einstein’s Unified Field theory of 1919 predicted an expanding universe - a prediction that Wilem de Sitter foresaw (in Einstein’s equations) as early as 1917. A decade before the expanding universe was spectroscopically discovered between 1912 and 1922, by, Dr. Vesto M. Silpher, and translated in 1927 by Georges Lemaitre, and 1929 by Edwin Hubble as proof of a spatially expanding universe, observing (by way of spectroscopic ‘red shift’) that the speed of a receding galaxy increases with distance (‘Hubble’s “red shift”).
Einstein - under much influence by Wilem de Sitter - had predicted an expanding universe, and that it is the result of a repelling force acting out of all material bodies, just like gravity, except, in the opposite direction. This is the force that Einstein proposed prevented the universe (full of mutually impelling bodies) from collapsing on itself - a problem that Newton himself called attention to, for which there was no previous explanation.
When the spatially expanding universe was discovered, it was resolved that this explained why the universe didn’t collapse on itself, and for this reason, under much ensuing controversy, Einstein was persuaded to abandon his previously submitted Cosmological Constant repelling force....
Recent data is accumulating, finding that the spatial universe is not only expanding, but that it is also picking up - increasing in - rate of speed of expansion. Again, this is not the signature of a big bang originated universe, whereas, it is the signature of the abandoned Cosmological Constant: a force which increases with distance... It is well known that Einstein abandoned his Cosmological Constant repelling force(designated with the Greek sign ‘Lambda’, an inverted V, like this /\ ; calling it his ‘biggest blunder’ ), due to the discovery of the spatially expanding universe. It is not so well known and no issue of controversy that Einstein went back to working on his formerly abandoned unified field - cosmological constant - theory, at Princeton, before he died, May, 1955...
Besides the ‘red shift’ established expanding universe, there is one other evidentiary phenomenon in particular, which is said to support (if not ‘prove’) the big bang ‘theory’, and that is the issue of cosmic microwave background radiation predicted in 1949 by George Gamow and confirmed (via satellite) in 1963, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. In the interest of keeping this post from being further extended, the issue of background radiation will be with held
in this particular post and resumed in a post soon to follow. (Thank you for reading this missive.)
0 -
When Science is Displaced by Falsity
The much applauded and controversial 'Big Bang Theory' is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
The much applauded and controversial 'Super String Theory' is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
(Please refer, Webster's dictionary, or, any dictionary of scientific terms.)
These importantly expansive misunderstandings negatively influence and handicap the entire world of contemplation at the foundations of objective thinking. These endlessly repeated misnomers sustain themselves. Calling hypotheses 'theories' is unscientific and misleading, digressive and harmful. Would I be banned - or omitted from posting - for tactfully pointing this out? (In some cases I already have been).
Is there no room for a cordial fireside chat about such - very important, fundamental, symptomatic - 'misunderstandings' (Resting comfortably in the center of 'Standard Theory'; expanding tolerance thresholds on the foundations of academia)?Are they not plaintively germane to the influence of scientists on public acceptance, controversy, tolerance, perspective, science, art, fiction and culture?
0 -
A light sided approach to the ponderous subject of General Relativity.
Title - Space-time Gravity Is The 4th Dimension:
Asked the teacher what gravity was, an' all he said is what gravity does. Said I wanna know why, not how things fall. Teacher said nobody knows that one at all.
Asked the people on the 6 O'Clock news; they said on that we have no views. Same thing happened in a physics lesson - a picture of Newton gave a puzzled expression.
Still wanted to know what gravity is, so I went outside and continued the quiz. Asked a mathematician and he took all day saying gravity is numbers. So I lit one up and, went into suspension, tintanambulating beyond the 3rd dimension. The answer appeared as a gentle kiss, so I wrote another poem and it goes like this...
Poetry for all times and places, poetry for all rhymes and spaces. Where are the dimensions and where are they not, boundless dimensions of color and thought; infinite dimensions of cold and of hot. But countless dimensions of space there are not.
Dimensions of music, of wine and of thee, of these there are many, but of space only three.
A 3-D you anna 3-D me, munching 3-D apples from a 3-D tree. 3-D up an' 3-D down, 3-D apples to the 3-D ground. A 3-D fall anna 3-D 'thump'. 3-D sugar inna 3-D lump.
3-D east an' 3-D west, Sir Isaac Newton did his 3-D best. 3-D universe, 3-D math - 3-D projectiles onna 3-D path. 3-D smooth and 3-D rough; 4-D Einstein singin' "Three ain't enough."
4-D amplifier and 4-D gear, singin' 4-D lyrics into 3-D ears. 4-D guitar an' 4-D strings. Albert's 4-D song about 4-D things.
3-D professors onna 3-D jag, stuffin 4-D physics in a 3-D bag.
If yer lookin' for a message in here, it's of 4-D headaches from a 3-D beer. 3-D professors tellin' 3-D lies, gettin' 3-D money for the Nobel Prize.
3-D scientists onna 3-D pension, refusing to recognize, space-time gravity is the 4th dimension.
(Variations on this thought provoking vignette appear else-where on the net. Copyright 1979, by K. B. Robertson. All rights reserved. With proper accreditation for authorship, may be reproduced and distributed for recreational & educational purposes.)
0 -
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't time dilation a relatively long established fact proven with cesium clocks and fairly conventional flights near and around the earth? (Please refer to message #9 by Molotov Cocktail on page 1.)
0 -
The Everything ('cept "Final") Theory (Reprise)
PART I Scenario: Miniature & Parallel Universe
The following question originated at a dinner party among friends. There was an interesting and educational variety of answers.
Question:
In a universe parallel to ours, exactly the same in every way; with all of the galaxies - including the Milky Way, and our solar system with all our planets as they are, including earth and everything on and within it and including its inhabitants and the molecules, atoms, electrons, photons, black body radiation - except... :
that this ‘twin universe' and all of its contents was one thousand times smaller than the universe we in the here and now occupy - instead of the there & then occupation of the miniaturized universe (including all of our miniaturized selves): would this miniaturized universal space and all of its miniaturized contents undergo and experience the same time standards as the ‘regular sized' universe we are part of?
Yes or no.
Addendum options
Time would be the same in the two compared universes.
Time would be different in the two compared universes.
If yes, please explain.
If no, please explain.
--------------------------------------------------------
Infinite largeness and smallness. Time dilation:
a physically expanding universe?
--------------------------------------------------------
PART II (Addendum)
Two coordinate systems have different time standards accompanying their larger and smaller space standards. The thesis 'Twin Paradox & Time Dilation' resolved, w'out mathematics is actually a reference the physical as well as spatial universe in a constant state of accelerating expansion. The above dissertation is an abbreviated presentation of our universe at an earlier, smaller moment of time (Moment A universe, say, yesterday), and that same ('our') universe, at a later, larger moment (B - the 'eternal now' Where everything that is 'constant' is sustained by its omnidirectionally expanding constancy).
That is to say, we are not actually talking about two different universes (A and B) here, but rather, the same universe at an earlier and a later moment, and the differences in the values of time that accompany the ever enlarging values of space. This is what is called a 'thought problem', since today's (larger) universe cannot be compared with its (smaller, relatively more dense) self, as it was yesterday.
---------------------------------------------------------
In a proposed physically expanding universe, yesterday's square mile is smaller than today's, and today's square mile is smaller than tomorrow's, ad infinitum. Yesterday's sixty miles per hour is slower than today's sixty miles per hour, today's is slower than tomorrow's sixty miles per hour. The very speed of light varies, but remains constant, for the same reason.
A diagrammatic model of constant physical expansion can be represented by a pie chart shape < with the intersection of the two lines representing the smaller past (moment A) , while physical reality moves - expands - from left to right (----->A--->,B--->,C) - the middle of the pie chart representing larger moment B (the 'eternal now'), with the widest portion as moment C (ad infinitum). The same square mile (on earth, in a physically expanding universe) occuring ever more largely - maintaining its relative density - at different moments in time (with infinite smallness in the Past and infinite largeness in the Future. No 'big bang beginning' and no entropic heat death. The abandoned Steady State and Unified Field Theories, reinstated...).
In this setting, yesterday's sixty miles per hour is slower than today's sixty miles per hour, and today's slower than tomorrow's. Accordingly, the speed of light at moment A (yesterday) is slower than today's, and today's is slower than tomorrows, while, the speed of light is constant, relative to the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is associated. The value of space determines the value of time and the C of E=MC2. Another way of perceiving this is, that the value of time is determined by the value of space it - time/motion - occurs in.
The omnidirectionally expanding continuum of change maintains the constant.
The earth and everything upon and within it at moment A is much smaller and more dense than the same relatively enlarged earth at moment B (when compared with itself at the earlier moment), just as moment B earth will be relatively much larger and less dense at moment C, when compared with itself at moment B. Inhabitants of this earth are in a uniform process of enlargement they remain unaware of, because their entire physical environment, along with themselves maintains a uniformly changing density and size.
There is no contradiction of the law of conservation of mass energy, because it's the same amount of energy distributing itself over an ever increasing volume of space. Squared. The relatively larger, slower moving people at moment C, are unaware of the constant change in their size and corresponding change of time standards, relative to the relatively smaller, correspondingly more dense, faster moving people (themselves) at earlier moments B and A.
Is this not - among other relativistic considerations - a reasonable scenario of time dilation, non-absolute space-time, and the celeritas constant, and if not, why not?
Thank you for reading this missive.
0 -
Will Someone Please Explain to me What is and is not Spamming?
48 years ago I wrote a book. Since then I've written, published, distributed and sold out ten small press editions of that book - about gravity. It is long ago sold out and no longer for sale. I have posted a condensation of the book at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
Problem: For example. Recently someone asked me 'WTF is gravity'? That is an excellent and enormous question.
The book at issue here is an answer to that question. The question cannot be answered in three or four sentences, paragraphs or pages. It requires a (condensed) book length discussion to properly respond to the question.
Problem. About half the time I respond to such questions by providing the URL, a moderator - or someone - will proclaim that I am 'spamming'.
This eight chapter book and a lot of other information (at http://forums.delphiforums.com/kaiduorkhon) is not being sold over the net, it is being offered as a public service, without any cost or gimmicks for the education and recreation of the interested reader.
Question: When non-commercial - interesting, educational and recreational information is freely offered and made accessible on the net, is it to be categorized and discriminated against, the same as someone who is using the net for commercial purposes?
Sometimes the moderators say nothing about the above described communications and sometimes the moderators, administrators and even the non indoctrinated readers call it 'spam'. Ongoing dialogue has been 'locked', and, I have been extemporaneously banned for this on many science forums.
I have learned through experience that nearly every time this happens it is presumed that something is being sold or otherwise financially profited from, whereas, what it is, is a free book. Offered to the public, which may or not read it and draw their own conclusions. I learn much from my readers when they respond to my work, pro or con.
The condensed rendition is already adequately descriptive and self redeeming but due to the fact that the reading public occasionally tells me what they think of it and how to make it better, improvements are made.
It is a work in progress. It will always be made available to the public at no cost whatsoever. Posted on the net at the above URL.
QUESTION: Is This Spamming? Giving away free, vital, non commercial information. Isn't that one of the reasons for being of the internet? And, if the described activity is 'spamming' why is it categorized as such right along with the entrepeneurs who would use the net to their financial advantage? (My hard cover books are all sold out and no longer for sale.)
Thank you for reading this missive. RSVP. K. B. Robertson
(Gravity Is The SpaceTime 4th Dimension.)
0 -
Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field reinstated w'out mathematics. The joining of Field with Quantum Mechanics. The exclusion of politics from science. A scientific paradigm shift in alliance.
The serene world of science panics, at the bogey of quantum mechanics.
Democritus foresaw the invisible atom, but since then his discovery is found with substratrum. From antiquity, and in ubiquity the continuous wave was the rave, the lodestone magnet, the compass; and transparent field - all were known to be electrostatically real.
Faraday found the cathode ray.. Thompson uncovered the electron one day. Then Rutherford discovered the neutron in a different way.. It came to be increasingly understood, that Maxwell's continuous waves were under the celestial hood. Certainly the wave emitting electron could not be subdivided - at first it was whispered and then openly confided.
Along came even smaller mysterious articles of Max Planck’s curiously indivisible particles:
Transforming a known world of electrostatics into a schizoid tangle of quantum mechanics. The doors were opened for the entrance of the proton, but there had been no vacancy for the residential photon. Other atomic tenants varied in weight height and disguise, but the photon is always - inscrutably - the same value and size. No telling when a deteriorating atom might change its balance or valence, while the unchanging photon showed no such talents. Vigils are kept to find it changing its station, but its stubborn identity is confirmed in black body radiation.
At dollar conventions where no change is invited, twenty nickels sit down to an audience excited. The quantum takes for granted inclusion, while greenbacks resent the currency of intrusion. To and from spherical shells the electron darts, while the unchanged quantum arrives before it departs. If you’re looking for a message in here, it’s of Max Planck’s quanta and Niels Bohr’s sphere’s. Invincible in principle, Newton’s Mechanics are sure as shooting, while quantum mechanics are robbing and looting. Evolutionary experiments are eclectic, but the final conclusions are photoelectric. As though these convulusions are not enough, reality panned out some other stuff. The only certain universal permanancy is Einstein’s constant light-speed and Heisenberg’s indeterminacy.
Einstein’s discipline was special relativity, while his Nobel Prize was for photo-electricity. Otherwise emerged as quantum anarchy - Uncle Albert having firstly proven to be right - ahead of Brownian motion and the speed of light. This century old issue of size is how Einstein won the Nobel Prize - how the peace loving master-blaster stayed alive in 1905.
Anaxgoras of pre biblical days took big and little to greater heights and stays, he said "There’s always something larger than large, and always something smaller than small." Perhaps that’s among the smallest large statements of them all. May this admonition of illusion be this very brief sonnet’s early conclusion.
- K. B. Robertson, Copyright 1979 & 2007 All rights reserved. May be used for educational and recreational purposes with the stipulation that proper accreditation is extended to the author.
Addendum: (Extracted from Wikipedia <the google encyclopedia>) "... when a light ray is spreading from a point, the energy is not distributed continuously over ever increasing spaces, but consists of a finite number of energy quanta, that are localized in points in space, move without dividing and can be absorbed or generated as a whole". - Albert Einstein
"This statement has been called the most revolutionary sentence ever written by a physicist in the 20th Century. It signals the end of perceived continuuity and endorses the beginning of duality. The wave is no longer exclusively continuous. The particle is no longer exclusively discontinuous. The two seem to join and share each other’s qualities together as one."
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
****************
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
by Thomas S. Kuhn
A Synopsis from the original by Professor Frank Pajares
From the Philosopher's Web Magazine
(As extracted from Google)
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
(Excerpt from paragraph one: "Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education."
*******************
A Discontinuous Quantum Emitting, Continuous Field Sustained System
Professor Paul Dirac's offered anti-particle (electric charge, referred to as a 'particle') and its proposed explosion upon contact with a conventional 'particle' (electric charge), may be an ongoing event constituting the status quo of 4-D space-time reality as we experience it...
Consider a sphere such as a macrocosmic planet, the sun, or a microcosmic system such as an electron 'particle' (electromagnetic charge). Each generates a familiar, spiderweb shaped electromagnetic field, wherein the magnetic portion of that field emanates in a 'northerly' direction from the north pole of the issued sphere, loops around it in a circular motion which suddenly is traveling in a southerly direction upon reaching and passing the ecliptic middle of the issued sphere.
Whereupon the continuing loop completes a full circle around the planet, sun or electron that generates, maintains and sustains it; said magnetic field then entering the southern pole of it's given system of origin (planet, star, electron) to resume a northerly direction through the axial center of and relative to the polar system at issue. This described dynamic represents an ongoing cyle of magnetism generated by and emanating from, around, and back into the system that generates, maintains and sustains it. The sphere itself, en toto, is stablized by a magnetic field which is constantly moving in opposite directions - northerly out of, then looping around to a southerly course, and back into and through the core of the issued spherical entity in a northerly direction, ad infinitum.
The reverse of directions - from north to south - occurs at the ecliptic (equatorial bisection) of the issued, spherical electron, planet or star Each given system is also emitting electrical energy in straight lines at right angles from the ('particle') system that the circular magnetic field is parallel to. These magnetic directional reversals and electric discharges may correspond to the occurrence of observed - right angle emitted - quantum emissions. In the four dimensional setting that Einstein has assigned to all material systems; these two (northern and southern) hemispheres are oppositely inter-acting with each other ('as anti-particles'), apparently resulting in the Dirac-predicted explosion, constituting nothing less than the omni-directional expansion of 4-D systems; not excluding the relativistic consideration that mass value increases with velocity. The omni-directional motion of electromagnetism also accounts for the generation of negative inertia (the tendency to oppose force applied to it; in accordance with Mach's principle) in every such individual system.
(This is an unprecedented interpretation of the combined work of Dirac, Planck and Einstein. Copyright 2/2007 & 1979 by K.B. Robertson, all rights reserved. May be reproduced with accreditation for authorship. More will be said about this later.). http://forums.delphiforums.com/kaiduorkhon
0 -
An Expansive 4-D Thought Problem With a Dilatory (mass-field) Solution:
The realm of the very small - microcosms - is said to host strong forces acting at very short distances; that are not considered to be related to large, 'weak forces of gravity', said to exist only in very large spaces and act at large distances in the very large - macrocosmic - spaces and times. So it is presently and dominantly considered, in the macrocosmic realm of the very large, exemplary, planetary-generated forces.
Gravity is thought not to occur - significantly - in the microcosmic realm of the very small. Whereas, gravity, like Gold, is actually where you find it, and how much of it you find; in large and *small, tenuous and *compact electromagnetic densities (*refer, nuclear binding forces). Moving in one of two possible - direction(s). Toward and/or away (impelling or repelling) from its material (4-D particle/charge) source.
Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’
Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.
Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.
In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...
It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1039 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.
The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1039 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...
Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes>).
The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.
When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...
Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...
Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit around the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).
The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant, relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.
When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.
There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.
Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A.
The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time.
Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of space and time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.
The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.
(Among other issues, a reinstatement of the presently abandoned Steady State and Unified Field theories is being considered here.)
The omni-directional acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.
This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
Space-Time.
This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'.
It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.
The Twin Paradox Re-visited:
A popular example of relativistic non-absolute time (time dilation phenomenon) is known as the 'twin paradox'. One of two twin brothers remains on coordinate system earth, while the other twin departs the earth in a spacecraft vehicle, approaches the velocity of light; remains in deep space sustaining high velocity for what his senses and instruments measure as 30 days; then returns to earth to learn that his earthbound twin brother and everyone else on earth (who was his age upon his departure) is considerably more aged than himself.
There is no conceptual explanation for this, however, the mathematics of relativity indicate that time dilation is a true effect of greatly increased velocities. The twin paradox becomes conceptually comprehensible with the application of the issued , expanding mass-field concept:
When an object - a space-craft and its contents accelerates faster than the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is normally associated (a system of relatively uniform space and time; in this case, the earth), the spacecraft and its contents are distributed over a greater area (its mass value increases with its velocity). Consequently it becomes an independent coordinate system, having relatively larger values of space and proportionately slower experiences of time than its original coordinate system, earth.
In a spacecraft nearing the velocity of light the individual hairs on the heads of it's astronauts may (for example) be dilated (enlarged) to the diameter of a large redwood tree (relative to the dimensions of space recognized on coordinate system earth). Yet, the astronauts detect no change of spatial values relative to themselves or their ship and its contents, including all of its time measuring instruments, because everything on board is proportionately dilated in 4-D (mass-field) space-time. For example: It takes these mass field dilated astronauts several of earth's relatively micro-spatial hours - and one of their relatively macro-spatial seconds - to sneeze. Upon returning to coordinate system earth, they must slow their speed, and in so doing they proportionately decrease their size and mass values.
Upon disembarking the now 'normal sized' spacecraft, they learn that many years have passed on earth, while they and their instruments have experienced, recorded, and can account for only a month of time in space.
To the knowledge of this record, up to the time of this writing, there is no conceptual account for 'non-absolute time', 'time dilation' or the 'twin paradox' that popularly accompanies it.
The (stubbornly unrecognized and denied) ever enlarging value of physical space is a ‘non absolute space’, which causes ‘non-absolute time’ (and is also the cause of the conventionally considered - 'Hubble red shift' - expansion of materially unoccupied space.
The fundamental import of this discussion is that THE VALUE OF GIVEN UNITS OF TIME (seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years) IS ENTIRELY DETERMINED BY THE 3-D VALUE (size) OF THE SPATIAL MOMENT IT (time / motion ) OCCURS IN.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
or http://forums.delphiforums.com/kaiduorkhon
(This is not a business solicitation of any kind)
0
What's the 'Proper Interpretation'?
in Relativity
Posted
"As long as we are considering an individual electron, we could be mislead into thinking that its waves are physical realities. Each electron in fact demands a 3-Dimensional Space to itself. This makes it obvious that these waves are merely a mathematical phantom; consequently it is profoundly disconcerting to find that experiment confirms their existence. The apparent congruity between calculation and experiment must be in some sense illusory. It is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the experiments and their results have yet to receive their proper interpretation."
- Pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE, by J.W.N. Sullivan
_______________
"According to the General Theory of Relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field." - Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348
Gravity on or near a major gravitational mass, acting as a repelling force, rather than an impelling force. An alternative directional vector.
Newton allows for it.
Einstein requires it.
But Carl Sagen and his friends don't allow for or require it.
On the contrary, they reject it altogether.
"Since the General Theory of Relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density is particularly high." - Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348
___________________________
Having One's Tea While Explosively Spilling It Also, continued:
'Obviously the universe is not made up of a bunch of disturbed areas. Because, if it was, by now it would have *spread indefinitely.' - J.W.N Sullivan (THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE) and G.P. Thompson
(A *tensor equation - *4th coordinate; of time and motion - applicable where only three coordinates were previously perceived.)
Note: the ‘obvious’ is not put into words here.
The obvious, being that the physical - as well as spatial - universe is found to be *expanding. Whereas, that inevitably *descriptive word - expanding - is displaced with 'spread indefinitely'.
Note also, J.W.N. Sullivan's (LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE) and George Gamow's (GRAVITY) reference to expanding charges of electricity (particles): they are not called that. Instead, they are obliquely referred to as 'unstable', and 'disturbed areas' (On medical hold?)
New Age Verbal Judoists. Flipping themselves off?
*Conversely: becoming exactly as three dimensionally small, as the universe becomes four dimensionally larger around a given 3-D entity (Refer Schwartzchild radius). Squared. (Refer: Black holes: Where Mr. Flatlander & Co. do bullish business and bearish residence without the 4th dimension.)
The so called 'indefinite spread' is in fact very well defined. Refer, Sir Isaac Newton's gravitational alternative, and Albert Einstein's four dimensional, acceleration, and so forth, squared. Proving a steady state universe; discovering the 5th & 6th dimensions, allowing a causal explanation for black hole singularities, etceteras.
Having to do, for example, with anytime anyone drops - or in any way projects, or hurls - anything at all at any time, anywhere on/ near this planet.
Exerpted from http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie