I guess that is pretty hard to take if you are immersed in it. But AN at least is aware that he can parlay his education in to something where a great deal of money can be made, i.e. Finance for example
.
TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics
- Thread starter Kaiduorkhon
- Start date
.No, I've read papers by them instead. I've watched video lecture courses by them. I've read lecture notes by them. Have you?
You can't claim some position of superior knowledge when you readily admit you don't know the actual details of their work, an area which I work in as well. Why would I need to read someone else's characterisation of the very community I am within? I don't need to read Greene's books to learn about string theory, I already know the quantitative details of all the things he talks about qualitatively. Why buy "A dummy's guide to...." when I've already read "An expert's guide to...." ?
Rather than having to rely on the bias reporting of people, I can read the current state of string theory directly from the papers published on it in journals or on ArXiv. read all the string theory papers which appear on ArXiv for 3 months will tell you more about string theory's state than reading all the string theory pop science books on Amazon will. Of course you need to have experience with quantum field theory, general relativity, differential geometry and all the 'high math' Kai doesn't (and you don't) so its obvious why you stick with the pop science books.
Unfortunately it means your ignorance breeds more ignorance.
No, but did you pick up on their concerns about the lack of testable predictions or the confusion and major changes in direction, the abdication of their initial enthusiasm? What was the time frame of the notes and videos just out of curiosity?
I am aware of their concerns yes. However, if you want to talk about such things then I suggest you look at Smolin's work in LQG.
LQG is built on general relativity notions and attempts to construct space-time as an emergent thing, in and of itself. A very nice idea. And Smolin gets out some nice results, a big one being manifest background invariance, as one would expect from GR. The problem is, despite having a GR basis, he cannot even derive the known equations of motion of GR! String theory can. Section 3.4.2 in Green, Schwarz and Witten's 'Superstring Theory' walks you through it and anyone who knows basic GR and QFT will follow it. ST predicts the existence of gravity, actual gravity, without any fiddling. Smolin is still working on getting anything close to that.
You can view string theory not as a means to an end but a tool. It provides powerful insights into gauge theory, gravity, differential geometry, quantisation, extra dimensions, supersymmetry. All of these things appear in other areas of physics but they are put in 'by hand' and thus often lack of natural context. They all arise naturally in string theory and thus physicists are led to think about things in new ways, which then get applied to standard physics. An example of MHV, 'Maximal Helicity Violation'. It came out of work by Witten in string theory, using principles Penrose developed in Twistor theory. It now is used in standard gauge theory to reduce what used to 10,000 calculations to a handful. Now people realise you don't need the string theory underneath but without that initial motivation no one would have realised it exists at all.
You talk about how you want to motivate new ideas and new speculation with your 'work' but you dislike it when string theory motivates new speculation or ideas or approaches. It's stimulated entire new research groups in mathematics departments too, with differential geometry for compact spaces becoming a bigger area.
I've read papers by Susskind and Smolin which have come out in the last few years. I've seen a lecture course online which Smolin did probably 5ish years ago on LQG. I have been lectured by Michael Green on string theory. I have been to conferences where Witten and Vafa have given talks. And those are in things I don't actually do research into. In areas I do work in I've read hundreds of papers, dozens of books, talked/collaborated with people from numerous universities (in several countries), been to several conferences and sat through a great many seminars.
Tell me, what textbook did you use in your university course in physics, out of interest?
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
P. 23 Post #221 alephnull to Kaiduorkhon (excerpt):
"After spending just over an hour reading your work from an intellectual and educational point of view, all I can do is quote Pauli and say "It's not even wrong". This is the first time in my life I've ever been able to say those words with utter conviction. Time Cube comes to mind."
-----------------------------------------
Kaiduorkhon to alephnull:
"Thank you alephnull, for underscoring that 'Time Cube' dims your navigational lights. Apparently you aren't aligned with dimensions defined by perpendicular axes - orthogonal geometry is it? The stuff from which SuperCubes (aka, '4-D Hyper Cubes') emerged as an icon of Einstein's proferred 4th dimension. You volunteer yourself as being among those who have yet to get used to it."
-------------------------------------------------
alephnull to Kaiduorkhon (and QW):
There are several apparently related misunderstandings addressed to me in email and on forum threads, notably alluding to what appears to be the same restriction on following through with what amounts to the same obstruction.
(Incidentally, I looked up 'sesquipedalian' in the dictionary and learned that it means a lot of syllables and/or using long words. Not only was this mention on your part, off topic, it also has six syllables in it, and, is a long word. It appears more to be an objection to my part in composing arrangements of concise words that tend to simplify what might otherwise be complex. Miles Mathis, for example, has likewise been criticized for equally off topic reasons - namely, expressing the English language in a fluent and comprehensive manner. Thank you, alephnull, for expanding my vocabulary, as well as the comprehensive consciousness of all your other readers... And now, back to our story.)
One dissentor said he read my work up to the example of an ascending elevator used by Einstein to explain what he meant by gravity being acceleration, and then went on to learn that I was proposing that the entire earth is accelerating upward - to parallel the point made by Einstein's famous demonstration of what produces the principle of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values... It was at that preposterous point that the subjected reader said he cranked my book shut (words to that effect).
The condescending dissentor added a commentary about what you call the 'Time Cube'. More popularly recognized as a 'Super Cube', to 'approximately' illustrate and otherwise diagram Einstein's 4th dimension. My would-be nemesis clarified that the projection of the cube through space at right angles from itself was a spatial line and not a time line. I found that a rather strange thing for him to proclaim, since Einstein's 4th dimension is so often said and described to be a dimension of time...
All of this is to say that the guy said I couldn't handle the truth. That I had desperately grasped a straw in the turbulence of my confusion and mistaken a spatial line for a time line...
Of course he engaged Condition Red - that being that 'obviously, the earth, and all physical matter, is not undergoing a constant state of accelerating expansion.' A ridiculous, whacked out, idiotic, crank proposal on the part of the author who wrote the book he just slammed shut at the described, laughably absurd juncture. Certainly he wasn't going to let himself be hoodwinked by such chicanery; consequently restraining himself from reading the follow-through on the aborted proposal... Forsook the rest of the entire book, as it were. Walked out at the end of the first reel of a four reel movie.
A lot of people prematurely exit this same theater, for the same 'reason'...
I know this first hand, having made the same departure, many times, in the same theater, for the same reason(s).
Please allow me to expand on this, as it were...
How I Became World's #1 Einstein Groupie
by K. B. Robertson
A Brief History of a Series of Discoveries
(If this factual report reads sort'a like a fairy tale, it's likely because in many - if metaphorical - ways, that's what it is.)
In the experience of this author there are two histories of the evolution of physics. The objective history that was established by the men and women who contributed to it’s progressive evolution, and the subjective history of this author’s learning of that evolution and then recognizing and authenticating an unprecedented statement - previously proven but continuingly unrecognized on the foundations of physical science.
Discovering that Newton’s gravity is Einstein’s 4-dimensional space time continuum did not happen in premeditation, or all at once, or in any given flash of insight, but rather through a process of learning, motivated by what at first was no more than mild curiosity.
‘What is gravity?’ I was fourteen years old and had no idea that, in pursuing the answer to this question, I was about to embark on what would become the main course in my life’s work.
Confident that I could learn the answer in a fairly short period of time, through research of standard information sources.
In referencing several encyclopedias and other resource materials I slowly became aware that there was no comprehensive answer to that question (‘What is gravity?’). There is voluminous and impressive information on the effects of gravity (‘the unidentified Force’ - ‘F’) - what it does... But the question of what gravity is - what causes it - remains a popularly pursued - until now, unresolved - mystery.
Newton literally invented The Calculus, to enable him to measure acceleration, parabolic arcs and many other effects of gravity, but, there is only a gathering data base of speculations (some of which in the past 30 or so years have evolved into a trend of unscientific inquiry and unscientific representation) of it’s causal identity.
The causal identity of gravity is no less mysterious now than it has been through the ages of scientific inquiry.
My first discovery about gravity was that no one has ever known what it is; only what it does...
That was of itself interesting, and in the words of Barbara Lovett Cline (The Men Who Made A New Physics), ‘I wanted to know more.’ The recently learned fact that no one knows or has ever known what gravity is, allowed me to think that even an amateur such as myself might have as much business researching it as anyone else.
Curiosity about gravity was further refurbished when I learned of Galileo’s experiments with descending objects, released from the same height at the same time - when he found the unexpected result that, regardless of the mass values (size, density, weight) of objects, they all descend at the same rate of acceleration and strike the ground, when dropped from the same height at the same time. Before Galileo’s findings, it had been presumed since Aristotle and before, that the heavier a given object, the faster it descends in free fall. Not true.
The record already had some knowledge of Newton’s Laws of gravity, one of which states that the greater mass value - the heavier - a given object, the more gravitational impelling force (presumed to be a force of ‘attraction’ ; unidentified, but said ‘not’ to be ‘magnetism’ or ‘electricity’) it possesses.
It follows by this law that when a small stone is dropped alongside of a boulder sized stone, the latter should fall faster and strike the ground sooner than the smaller stone (released from the same height at the same time - esp. in the absence of air resistance <a feather and a cannon ball, in the absence of air resistance, descend at exactly the same rate, measured to concurrence beyond a billionth of a second; in scientifically documented searches for the anticipated difference in descent rates - not finding it, down to and beyond the measure of a nanosecond>...).
According to Newton’s law as applied to this consideration, there ‘should’ be a greater mutual attraction between the larger stone and the earth, than between the smaller stone and the earth, and therefore the larger - heavier - stone ‘should’ fall faster.
It doesn’t.
(The popular but incorrect ‘explanation’ that ‘negative inertial resistance’ inversely corresponds to the ‘pull’ of gravity and exactly cancels out what would otherwise be an increased descent rate for the heavier object, is well marked, by Einstein and many others, as an inadequate, false explanation.)
That fact intrigued me and led me to pursue further studies. I was aware that much of Einstein’s work was about Newton’s gravity; did not pursue Newton’s or Einstein’s mathematical work on gravity because my knowledge of that subject (mathematics) was (and remains) limited.
At age seventeen I conjured up what seemed to be a radical and unlikely explanation for why all objects descend at the same rate of acceleration. It did explain why this happened, but the explanation required that the entire earth’s surface be constantly rising up, creating the illusion of falling objects; causing them to appear to fall: at the same rate of acceleration.
In this apparently ‘unlikely’ scenario, the unexplained identical rates of descent for the test objects was ‘explained’, ‘because’ the earth’s surface was rising up and overtaking the apparently falling objects...
I had no good reason at that time for attributing the required expansion to the earth. Had very limited knowledge (of what is scientifically known) of the ‘building blocks of the universe’ - electrons, neutrons and protons; that they are called ‘particles’, which are in fact unexpectedly found and consistently proved to be 'charges of electricity, without distinct surfaces.'
Since the sub-atomic ‘electric charge’ has a mass value (opposes resistance to acceleration proportionate to its mass value <‘weight’>), and, demands three dimensions of space to its <perceived> finitely located self): it is called a ‘particle’; rigidly conceptualized as ‘billiard ball’ like, having a distinct surface, separating its perceived finite boundaries, making it ‘discontinuous’ - from the space surrounding it - like any and all other material entities; as they are colloquially experienced and consequently conceptualized. Refer: ‘particle theory’ (is not really a theory, but rather an ‘hypothesis’, since the so called particle has yet to be confirmed on the foundations of modern physical science...)
Had only heard of the 4th Dimension as Einstein introduced and then others described it - had no knowledge of it. Did not know of or associate any of those realities with the absurd explanation I had for the descent of free falling objects.
It was more a lark than a serious consideration: OBVIOUSLY THE EARTH IS NOT - AND ALL OTHER PHYSICAL ENTITIES IN THE UNIVERSE ARE NOT - EXPANDING. I had arrived at what I did not recognize then as being a historically crowded metaphorical precipice, and I had made the same rejection everyone else had, who had arrived there - unbeknownst to me at that time.
There was a perfectly functional hang-glider waiting for anyone who cared to fly with it (the elaborately proven, consistently rejected and denied fact that universal matter at large is a constantly expanding four dimensional field), and for quite some time I stood there at that crowded precipice, looking at the new fangled, completely untested solution, and then glanced down the cliff that everyone there had pulled up short on...
I went about the objective of disproving this incredible (even ‘ridiculous’) idea that all of the material earth - and consequently, the thereby obliged physical universe of space and matter - was constantly expanding.
I was sure it was wrong. Had to be wrong. I would not fly off that cliff, even though I knew, that new fangled thing just might after all fly. I didn’t ‘believe’ it (Yet).
How, after all, for example, could something like this be ‘going on’, (the entire physical universe as well as the spaces between the ‘particles’, is constantly expanding, ever faster..). without it having been previously observed and proven - by people much more talented and skilled than myself?
There is the apparently patent fact that anyone can see for themselves at any time and in any place, that the physical environment - everything - at issue here: (‘Obviously’)‘isn’t expanding’...
("Avoid the hazard of thinking you understand something, that you don’t really understand" - Robert Pursig, Paraphrased,
ZEN & THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE.)
Such misunderstandings result in ‘gridlock’, disallowing any possibility of resolution, since whatever the problem or misunderstanding may be, it is not recognized as such, and is therefore not dealt with: ‘Gridlock’.
The ‘incredible’ premise (that all of physical reality is constantly expanding ever faster) did ‘solve’ the problem of the universal descent rate of all free falling objects. But it certainly appeared to present a lot more problems than it did solutions.
The more Yours Truly circumspected the problem and the more widened the contingent issues became, the more I began to realize that for all of its ‘incredible’ contingencies, the idea that the entire physical - as well as spatial - universe was expanding, was supported - generously - on the foundations of contemporary and historical physics. But the glitch was: when the prevailing reality emerged in the experimental laboratory; often with mathematical confirmations, it seemed, I was learning, to be consistently rejected out of hand; always on the misguided (though certainly understandable) premise that ‘obviously, universal matter - every physical entity in your environment including yourself - is not in a perpetual state of constant expansion... ‘Anyone can see, after all, that no such expansion prevails.'
J.J. Thompson discovered the electron, and, also begat a son named G.P. Thompson, who discovered that electrons (and subatomic particles in general) are not descrete, surfaced, hard-bodied-billiard-ball-like particles, but, rather, that they are charges of electricity having no distinct boundaries - charges of electricity that possess inertia and demand three dimensions to themselves - 'just like particle'. G.P. Thompson contemplated the idea that the charges might be expanding, but dismissed the notion on the familiar premise that, 'Obviously matter is not expanding'. (Refer: The Limitations of Science, by J. W. N. Sullivan)
However stubbornly it may appear, in however many differently proven ways, in the internationally recorded laboratory...
I continued to refuse to test the new fangled (certified ‘untested’ and ‘disqualified’) thing-a-ma-jigee (with wings), and jump off the metaphorical precipice, and fly. Sure would look foolish going splash in the imagined, forgiving ocean down there and flightlessly swimming ashore. Of course it wouldn’t fly.
If it was meant to fly, someone much more knowledgeable than myself, surely would have gotten off the ground with it by now... 'Obviously matter is not a constantly expanding field, because, if it was, by now everything would have spread out indefinitely... ' Where would the 'extra energy' be coming from?
That would be a contradiction of the law of conservation of mass energy - but then, if all of subatomic constituents of the universe were expanding uniformly, there would be a balance of relative density, where the same amount of energy would be increasingly distributed over a greater amount of space.
If everything in the physical universe is expanding , caused by the ever expanding neutrons, protons, electrons, mesons, charms, strangeness and quarks, etceteras (atomic and subatomic particles large and small): then I can fly.
So of course I couldn’t fly.
Dragging my obviously non aerodynamic caboose on the ground.
A swanless ugly duckling bon mot: for sure...
Just wanted to make sure that I really couldn’t fly, so I delved further into the stubbornly ascending matter, as it were...
( I had already read that a host of mathematicians had 'proven', repeatedly and diversely, that 'it is impossible for a bumblebee to fly.' It was before the great Ken Kesey wrote, Sometimes A Great Notion.)
I began to discover more about this ‘incredible notion’ (Including the ocean motion?) It also resolved other dissolute and importantly unresolved issues in physical science. The relativistic (Lorentz) contraction of physical masses in the direction of their motion at increasing rates of contraction proportional to their velocity, could be attributed to ‘Doppler effect’: if matter was an expanding field... Since Einstein proved that matter does in fact behave that way, doesn't that also prove that matter is an expanding field? But that was, once again, against the well established rules of rejection on this very ('obscure') issue... 'Anyone can see, after all, that universal matter is not expanding...'
Advancing plateaus of recognition and realization, celebrating the learning of the hard work of dedicated scientists when they compulsively dismissed the results of what they called ‘null experiments’ - the first such celebration on my part being when I learned that Roland Von Eotvos went meticulously looking for a difference in descent rates between heavier and lighter objects in descent and couldn’t find any difference at all, down to a billionth part of a second. That is somber (though incomplete) evidence that the earth is rising up to meet the apparently falling objects.
Einstein's ‘time dilation’ could likewise be explained for the same reason. Relativistic ‘non-absolute space and time’ - ‘space-time’, could likewise be accounted for (An enlarging hierarchy of multi-moment space-times interminably arriving from the past into the present and projecting toward the future - A=small/past & dense, B=medium/present, and C=large/future & tenuous).
All these unprecedented functionally founded concepts - and previously unexplained phenomena - were being imaginatively accommodated, and explained, on the basis of the same singular premise - that physical matter itself is a constantly (ever faster) expanding; accelerating field: ’the mass field’, I began to call it. Though I was still sure that there must be something about it I didn’t understand - that others did - that disqualified it.
Looking at the implied, metaphorically winged flying machine a little more seriously now, still afraid of being embarrassed in front of all those people who had for so long made camp on that cliff and Knew Better than to try to fly (with the provided resources as they understood them).
Oh yes. I knew the story of Icarus flying too close to the sun - the wax binding keeping his home made feathered wings together, being melted by the sun, because Icarus tried to fly too high.
Bitter-sweetly marooned with the idea that I may have happened into a major discovery of literally astronomical proportions. Certainly an inspiring thought, but I dared not take it - or myself - too seriously.
Yet, the more I researched to disqualify it (because I wanted this White Elephant off my back), the more information gathered tended to support rather than disqualify - I did not fear any disqualification I was hoping to find; it would put away the otherwise increasingly accumulating evidence that I was on to something very important.
With regard to 'belief systems', it was very difficult for me to believe that no one else had come up with this before, and that there must be a very good reason or series of good reasons for why it was just as untenable as it appeared to be at first consideration... Future research would reveal that others had indeed preceded myself (as documented herein), but not by the same avenues and invariably abandoning their incomplete research on the understandable but incorrect premise that, 'obviously, the physical universe is not constantly expanding (also as documented herein).'
At age seventeen, in mid 1958, I joined the military while continuing my research.
The EuroAmerican, transcultural CRACKERJACK
(And precipitous Morton salt)
GrecoRoman Odyssey
It was not scientific or inspiring (at first) to be sitting in a Neapolitan restaurant thousands of miles from the North American continent seeing a ‘foreigner’ who didn’t speak much English enjoying a box of Yankee Crackerjack. Anyone could easily wonder at the incongruity of it, after all.
As I was saying it was not the usual stuff of conventional or even metaphysical science, to see the answer I was looking for, in or upon a box of Crackerjack, in the lovely hands of a Neapolitan native in a restaurant full of Italian people and Italian made everything, especially food.
But this did happen, under those circumstances. Of course my most logical and reasonable facilities told me I might have been pushing this projected hobby horse, as it were, a little too far into the parameters of - perhaps even laughable - improbability. Spending too many late hours at the emerged, ad hoc, amateur’s (he or she who loves his or her work) office.
More about alternately losing and finding myself in the (ho hum) artwork on a box of gringo Crackerjack in Italy, in a moment...
Disqualification would resolve the increasingly unresolved issue and would have been (and still would be) an unburdening... As it was going, I dwelled in the shifting nether-realm of alternately thinking myself a vain imbecile and maybe a major contributor to the evolution of physical science.
Just before age eighteen I was gifted a copy of Einstein’s IDEAS & OPINIONS. I nearly - politely - balked the offering, because although I was aware that Einstein’s work dealt with gravity and light - the subjects I was interested and pursuing studies in, I was intimidated by and impotent in mathematics, especially the high order mathematics that I knew Einstein, and Newton, and many others worked in.
As things developed it is likely that, had I been skilled in mathematics I may never have carried through with this unprecedented non-mathematical interpretation of what is for the most part well accounted for in mathematical formulations which have distanced the mathematical innovators from a conceptually comprehensive understanding of what their (metric) mathematics are describing and/or confirming. There is not so much a need for more mathematics here, as there is a need to understand what the mathematics, mean (Exactly what are the qualified mathematical formulae correctly and accurately describing? Segue to my unforeseen appearance upon the well lighted proscenium?)...
But as I read Einstein’s work as it was presented in the second half of that book (Ideas & Opinions: Contributions To Science), I recognized that the issues he was dealing with in that particular book, were not so much presented mathematically, and what was being explained non-mathematically (by Einstein), seemed to remarkably parallel the ideas I had been independently developing, or, I should say that my ideas remarkably paralleled his.
This instilled more confidence that the apparently absurd notion that the entire physical universe is expanding, was not absurd or ridiculous at all. On the contrary, it seemed - with some exceptions - to be exactly what Einstein was describing, though he didn’t quite specifically and non-mathematically proclaim the physical universe to be expanding, he certainly - characteristically and elaborately - allowed for that possibility, and from what I’ve since been told and learned of his mathematics, they seem to patently prove a physically as well as spatially expanding universe.
This was an extremely humbling, and equally encouraging, uplifting experience... (On more escalating elevators than one?)
By age twenty I had gone through a series of cycles where it appeared to be an untenable idea and then was redeemed by further thought and research, until I was obliged to realize that until if and when someone or authority could show me what was wrong with this system of thinking, it was not only as good as the existing status quo in physics - it was better. It explained more otherwise unexplained major mysteries - not piecemeal, but rather consistently, with the same over all generalization: physical matter is a constantly - ever faster - expanding field.
Truly Yours eventually realized that it was not any contradiction of the Law of Conservation of Mass Energy. It was the same amount of energy, increasingly distributed over a greater area, in accordance with the law of the inverse square. Could not explain ‘why’ universal matter was expanding, but I was gathering more and more sobering reasons to consider that it was in fact doing so, and that the collective mass of the earth was expanding at 32 feet per second, per second... The descent rate of free-falling objects on earth.
(Descent rates vary correspondingly, in accordance for the most part with Newton's revelations. In this consideration there seems to be an abundance of crudely unfinished thoughts alleging to 'contradict' the 'universal - accelerating - rate of descent of object's in free fall. That truism includes the appendage: 'In the absence of air resistance', while, a remarkable number of would be arguments continue to emerge in subjections of 'terminal velocity', which, in earth's atmosphere, is about 120 m.p.h. - as fast as free falling objects descend, not accelerating furthermore simply because air resistance disallows an accurate observation or experience of the acceleration at point here. This 'contradiction', and the commonplace 'argumentive' employment of it <including orbital velocity ballistics>, provide a notable insight into how many weekend physics wizards are not at all qualified to do anything but read and listen a lot and remain silent for long periods of time with a corresponding 'attention span' - another boldy diminishing discipline, often worn as some sort of meritorious trait, rather than the mark of rank - 'uppity' - freshmen).
Einstein makes a very big deal out of it (the coincidental' equivalence of heavy and inertial mass values - observed in the 'universal rate of descent'). Calls it ‘an astonishing coincidence’. The whole world has been talking and wondering about it - the ensuing General Principle Of Relativity, equating the unidentified force of gravity with acceleration - ever since...
Please review this alternative perspective:
The false enigma is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging, pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accommodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object.
Much important help was gifted to this author - by a certain Neapolitan Guppy and her friends - in the early and critical stages of researching and developing this superlative and unprecedented non mathematical translation of Einstein’s greatest achievements - The Special & General Theories of Relativity; leading to the Unified Field Theory.
This work probably would never have been completed, were it not for a reclused woman and her friends. This woman’s name is Mara Benevida; she and many of her friends are as responsible for the initial rough draft writing of Gravity Is The 4th Dimension (Einstein’s abandoned U.F. reinstated w’out mathematics) as this author.
Speaking of retrieval, 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 seemed 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 parallel and orthogonal Crackerjack containers and icons, out of infinite smallness proceeding to infinite largeness. Si. Nirvana in the guise of Nut city. (It took a while to learn the difference?)
Called me ‘Seahorse’ on the day we met. Gave me an English translated copy of Einstein's 'Ideas & Opinions'. She started it.
Seahorse spots the ‘displaced’ box of Crackerjack and begins to see in it’s familiar artwork graphics what he will eventually recognize as an important representation of Einstein’s Unified Field without mathematics. Multi-moment space-time. An ensemble of constantly enlarging systems...
Ready or not teleported to a place no different than and identical to all the places and times he’s ever known, a day like any other day, only Crackerjack boxes are now showing up in Italy with New World Icons of 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, would never again be the same with or without punctuation... Pensive studies widened, more light was let in. Wisdom and knowledge proving once again, like gold, to be where you find it.
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 got ever smaller and the atoms of the universe of the present got ever larger and the painter or printer passed his job on from one generation to the next, where was 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.
(Since then we’ve noticed elsewhere,"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.)
There were too many truly fantastic coincidences, Einstein was caught up in a similar imbroglio, only it was in Switzerland, just northwest of where all this cartoon compounded dilemma was unfolding and back in the early 20th century. Too many (large and small?) coincidences, as said by some critics of Leo Tolstoy’s WAR & PEACE. Even Mara Mare was too much like Natasha in that same eloquent but redoubtable story (though there were differences?)
You know, optionally salted peanuts, popcorn, and that sort of thing... Way too catering to all things theatrical if not thespian. Even that rhymes too much. It was all too aerodynamically flocking much.
How could anyone tell someone else about a thing like this...?
The scientific status quo has an understandable resistance to any alternative interpretations of what is - as well as what is not - known
First began learning when I told the young prodigy who started it all by retrieving the pointed out aquarium quarry - the sobriquet 'Sea horse' with which Mara launched and made the formerly grounded idea airborne. He, in turn, told her what it did for him. She understood and told other people about it, in several different languages. It was more confusing at that time, than this presently unfolding description of the tangled woofs and warps...
The Crackerjack box as gift to a friend was a conscious and well humored philosophical wink and salute to and/or about her new sailor boy friend.
Mare didn’t anticipate the 4-dimensional dynamic that went with the sweet offering to her (nameless Mirage) friend, any more than had the foil for her lark, but the joined pair of bon vivants crisply caught and went on to field the expansive idea splendidly, with a lot of help from their friends. Certainly and emphatically including Caryn Frances Hersberg Robertson (who consistently underestimates and understates the importance of her inspirational and pragmatic contributions to the better and best portions of this work), without whom this author would never have found the inspiration or encouragement to pursue and write this narrative documentary.
Other names were added to the originally dubbed ‘seahorse’, including ‘Americano Marino Maverick’. Mare eventually got around to calling her seahorse, ‘bumblebee’ also, as though the prevailing ambiance (Disneyland?) wasn't ethereally complicated enough...
In response to any empirical proof that may emerge, nullifying the central theme of this proffered premise and all of it's contingencies - that I have 'wasted so much time for nothing', all I can say is it certainly was an extensively educational and enjoyable vacation, even if I celebrated in the wrong place. And, of course, should I ever be straightened out on what 'the right places' are, my acolyte readers and I will have all that much more to write home about. Sort of like Theoretical Physics for Talented Truck drivers, and, The Everyday Garden Variety Unified Field.
In the words of Galileo's proclamation against the inquisitional orders to disregard what was proven about the movement of the earth... "... still, it moves'.
Say what you will mathematically of the flightless bumblebee - like Albert 'The Axe' Einstein's double bit Lambda: 'Still, it flies'.
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-t...cal-constant-steady-state-theories.html?ltr=T
"After spending just over an hour reading your work from an intellectual and educational point of view, all I can do is quote Pauli and say "It's not even wrong". This is the first time in my life I've ever been able to say those words with utter conviction. Time Cube comes to mind."
-----------------------------------------
Kaiduorkhon to alephnull:
"Thank you alephnull, for underscoring that 'Time Cube' dims your navigational lights. Apparently you aren't aligned with dimensions defined by perpendicular axes - orthogonal geometry is it? The stuff from which SuperCubes (aka, '4-D Hyper Cubes') emerged as an icon of Einstein's proferred 4th dimension. You volunteer yourself as being among those who have yet to get used to it."
-------------------------------------------------
alephnull to Kaiduorkhon (and QW):
--------------------------------------
There are several apparently related misunderstandings addressed to me in email and on forum threads, notably alluding to what appears to be the same restriction on following through with what amounts to the same obstruction.
(Incidentally, I looked up 'sesquipedalian' in the dictionary and learned that it means a lot of syllables and/or using long words. Not only was this mention on your part, off topic, it also has six syllables in it, and, is a long word. It appears more to be an objection to my part in composing arrangements of concise words that tend to simplify what might otherwise be complex. Miles Mathis, for example, has likewise been criticized for equally off topic reasons - namely, expressing the English language in a fluent and comprehensive manner. Thank you, alephnull, for expanding my vocabulary, as well as the comprehensive consciousness of all your other readers... And now, back to our story.)
One dissentor said he read my work up to the example of an ascending elevator used by Einstein to explain what he meant by gravity being acceleration, and then went on to learn that I was proposing that the entire earth is accelerating upward - to parallel the point made by Einstein's famous demonstration of what produces the principle of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values... It was at that preposterous point that the subjected reader said he cranked my book shut (words to that effect).
The condescending dissentor added a commentary about what you call the 'Time Cube'. More popularly recognized as a 'Super Cube', to 'approximately' illustrate and otherwise diagram Einstein's 4th dimension. My would-be nemesis clarified that the projection of the cube through space at right angles from itself was a spatial line and not a time line. I found that a rather strange thing for him to proclaim, since Einstein's 4th dimension is so often said and described to be a dimension of time...
All of this is to say that the guy said I couldn't handle the truth. That I had desperately grasped a straw in the turbulence of my confusion and mistaken a spatial line for a time line...
Of course he engaged Condition Red - that being that 'obviously, the earth, and all physical matter, is not undergoing a constant state of accelerating expansion.' A ridiculous, whacked out, idiotic, crank proposal on the part of the author who wrote the book he just slammed shut at the described, laughably absurd juncture. Certainly he wasn't going to let himself be hoodwinked by such chicanery; consequently restraining himself from reading the follow-through on the aborted proposal... Forsook the rest of the entire book, as it were. Walked out at the end of the first reel of a four reel movie.
A lot of people prematurely exit this same theater, for the same 'reason'...
I know this first hand, having made the same departure, many times, in the same theater, for the same reason(s).
Please allow me to expand on this, as it were...
How I Became World's #1 Einstein Groupie
by K. B. Robertson
A Brief History of a Series of Discoveries
(If this factual report reads sort'a like a fairy tale, it's likely because in many - if metaphorical - ways, that's what it is.)
In the experience of this author there are two histories of the evolution of physics. The objective history that was established by the men and women who contributed to it’s progressive evolution, and the subjective history of this author’s learning of that evolution and then recognizing and authenticating an unprecedented statement - previously proven but continuingly unrecognized on the foundations of physical science.
Discovering that Newton’s gravity is Einstein’s 4-dimensional space time continuum did not happen in premeditation, or all at once, or in any given flash of insight, but rather through a process of learning, motivated by what at first was no more than mild curiosity.
‘What is gravity?’ I was fourteen years old and had no idea that, in pursuing the answer to this question, I was about to embark on what would become the main course in my life’s work.
Confident that I could learn the answer in a fairly short period of time, through research of standard information sources.
In referencing several encyclopedias and other resource materials I slowly became aware that there was no comprehensive answer to that question (‘What is gravity?’). There is voluminous and impressive information on the effects of gravity (‘the unidentified Force’ - ‘F’) - what it does... But the question of what gravity is - what causes it - remains a popularly pursued - until now, unresolved - mystery.
Newton literally invented The Calculus, to enable him to measure acceleration, parabolic arcs and many other effects of gravity, but, there is only a gathering data base of speculations (some of which in the past 30 or so years have evolved into a trend of unscientific inquiry and unscientific representation) of it’s causal identity.
The causal identity of gravity is no less mysterious now than it has been through the ages of scientific inquiry.
My first discovery about gravity was that no one has ever known what it is; only what it does...
That was of itself interesting, and in the words of Barbara Lovett Cline (The Men Who Made A New Physics), ‘I wanted to know more.’ The recently learned fact that no one knows or has ever known what gravity is, allowed me to think that even an amateur such as myself might have as much business researching it as anyone else.
Curiosity about gravity was further refurbished when I learned of Galileo’s experiments with descending objects, released from the same height at the same time - when he found the unexpected result that, regardless of the mass values (size, density, weight) of objects, they all descend at the same rate of acceleration and strike the ground, when dropped from the same height at the same time. Before Galileo’s findings, it had been presumed since Aristotle and before, that the heavier a given object, the faster it descends in free fall. Not true.
The record already had some knowledge of Newton’s Laws of gravity, one of which states that the greater mass value - the heavier - a given object, the more gravitational impelling force (presumed to be a force of ‘attraction’ ; unidentified, but said ‘not’ to be ‘magnetism’ or ‘electricity’) it possesses.
It follows by this law that when a small stone is dropped alongside of a boulder sized stone, the latter should fall faster and strike the ground sooner than the smaller stone (released from the same height at the same time - esp. in the absence of air resistance <a feather and a cannon ball, in the absence of air resistance, descend at exactly the same rate, measured to concurrence beyond a billionth of a second; in scientifically documented searches for the anticipated difference in descent rates - not finding it, down to and beyond the measure of a nanosecond>...).
According to Newton’s law as applied to this consideration, there ‘should’ be a greater mutual attraction between the larger stone and the earth, than between the smaller stone and the earth, and therefore the larger - heavier - stone ‘should’ fall faster.
It doesn’t.
(The popular but incorrect ‘explanation’ that ‘negative inertial resistance’ inversely corresponds to the ‘pull’ of gravity and exactly cancels out what would otherwise be an increased descent rate for the heavier object, is well marked, by Einstein and many others, as an inadequate, false explanation.)
That fact intrigued me and led me to pursue further studies. I was aware that much of Einstein’s work was about Newton’s gravity; did not pursue Newton’s or Einstein’s mathematical work on gravity because my knowledge of that subject (mathematics) was (and remains) limited.
At age seventeen I conjured up what seemed to be a radical and unlikely explanation for why all objects descend at the same rate of acceleration. It did explain why this happened, but the explanation required that the entire earth’s surface be constantly rising up, creating the illusion of falling objects; causing them to appear to fall: at the same rate of acceleration.
In this apparently ‘unlikely’ scenario, the unexplained identical rates of descent for the test objects was ‘explained’, ‘because’ the earth’s surface was rising up and overtaking the apparently falling objects...
I had no good reason at that time for attributing the required expansion to the earth. Had very limited knowledge (of what is scientifically known) of the ‘building blocks of the universe’ - electrons, neutrons and protons; that they are called ‘particles’, which are in fact unexpectedly found and consistently proved to be 'charges of electricity, without distinct surfaces.'
Since the sub-atomic ‘electric charge’ has a mass value (opposes resistance to acceleration proportionate to its mass value <‘weight’>), and, demands three dimensions of space to its <perceived> finitely located self): it is called a ‘particle’; rigidly conceptualized as ‘billiard ball’ like, having a distinct surface, separating its perceived finite boundaries, making it ‘discontinuous’ - from the space surrounding it - like any and all other material entities; as they are colloquially experienced and consequently conceptualized. Refer: ‘particle theory’ (is not really a theory, but rather an ‘hypothesis’, since the so called particle has yet to be confirmed on the foundations of modern physical science...)
Had only heard of the 4th Dimension as Einstein introduced and then others described it - had no knowledge of it. Did not know of or associate any of those realities with the absurd explanation I had for the descent of free falling objects.
It was more a lark than a serious consideration: OBVIOUSLY THE EARTH IS NOT - AND ALL OTHER PHYSICAL ENTITIES IN THE UNIVERSE ARE NOT - EXPANDING. I had arrived at what I did not recognize then as being a historically crowded metaphorical precipice, and I had made the same rejection everyone else had, who had arrived there - unbeknownst to me at that time.
There was a perfectly functional hang-glider waiting for anyone who cared to fly with it (the elaborately proven, consistently rejected and denied fact that universal matter at large is a constantly expanding four dimensional field), and for quite some time I stood there at that crowded precipice, looking at the new fangled, completely untested solution, and then glanced down the cliff that everyone there had pulled up short on...
I went about the objective of disproving this incredible (even ‘ridiculous’) idea that all of the material earth - and consequently, the thereby obliged physical universe of space and matter - was constantly expanding.
I was sure it was wrong. Had to be wrong. I would not fly off that cliff, even though I knew, that new fangled thing just might after all fly. I didn’t ‘believe’ it (Yet).
How, after all, for example, could something like this be ‘going on’, (the entire physical universe as well as the spaces between the ‘particles’, is constantly expanding, ever faster..). without it having been previously observed and proven - by people much more talented and skilled than myself?
There is the apparently patent fact that anyone can see for themselves at any time and in any place, that the physical environment - everything - at issue here: (‘Obviously’)‘isn’t expanding’...
("Avoid the hazard of thinking you understand something, that you don’t really understand" - Robert Pursig, Paraphrased,
ZEN & THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE.)
Such misunderstandings result in ‘gridlock’, disallowing any possibility of resolution, since whatever the problem or misunderstanding may be, it is not recognized as such, and is therefore not dealt with: ‘Gridlock’.
The ‘incredible’ premise (that all of physical reality is constantly expanding ever faster) did ‘solve’ the problem of the universal descent rate of all free falling objects. But it certainly appeared to present a lot more problems than it did solutions.
The more Yours Truly circumspected the problem and the more widened the contingent issues became, the more I began to realize that for all of its ‘incredible’ contingencies, the idea that the entire physical - as well as spatial - universe was expanding, was supported - generously - on the foundations of contemporary and historical physics. But the glitch was: when the prevailing reality emerged in the experimental laboratory; often with mathematical confirmations, it seemed, I was learning, to be consistently rejected out of hand; always on the misguided (though certainly understandable) premise that ‘obviously, universal matter - every physical entity in your environment including yourself - is not in a perpetual state of constant expansion... ‘Anyone can see, after all, that no such expansion prevails.'
J.J. Thompson discovered the electron, and, also begat a son named G.P. Thompson, who discovered that electrons (and subatomic particles in general) are not descrete, surfaced, hard-bodied-billiard-ball-like particles, but, rather, that they are charges of electricity having no distinct boundaries - charges of electricity that possess inertia and demand three dimensions to themselves - 'just like particle'. G.P. Thompson contemplated the idea that the charges might be expanding, but dismissed the notion on the familiar premise that, 'Obviously matter is not expanding'. (Refer: The Limitations of Science, by J. W. N. Sullivan)
However stubbornly it may appear, in however many differently proven ways, in the internationally recorded laboratory...
I continued to refuse to test the new fangled (certified ‘untested’ and ‘disqualified’) thing-a-ma-jigee (with wings), and jump off the metaphorical precipice, and fly. Sure would look foolish going splash in the imagined, forgiving ocean down there and flightlessly swimming ashore. Of course it wouldn’t fly.
If it was meant to fly, someone much more knowledgeable than myself, surely would have gotten off the ground with it by now... 'Obviously matter is not a constantly expanding field, because, if it was, by now everything would have spread out indefinitely... ' Where would the 'extra energy' be coming from?
That would be a contradiction of the law of conservation of mass energy - but then, if all of subatomic constituents of the universe were expanding uniformly, there would be a balance of relative density, where the same amount of energy would be increasingly distributed over a greater amount of space.
If everything in the physical universe is expanding , caused by the ever expanding neutrons, protons, electrons, mesons, charms, strangeness and quarks, etceteras (atomic and subatomic particles large and small): then I can fly.
So of course I couldn’t fly.
Dragging my obviously non aerodynamic caboose on the ground.
A swanless ugly duckling bon mot: for sure...
Just wanted to make sure that I really couldn’t fly, so I delved further into the stubbornly ascending matter, as it were...
( I had already read that a host of mathematicians had 'proven', repeatedly and diversely, that 'it is impossible for a bumblebee to fly.' It was before the great Ken Kesey wrote, Sometimes A Great Notion.)
I began to discover more about this ‘incredible notion’ (Including the ocean motion?) It also resolved other dissolute and importantly unresolved issues in physical science. The relativistic (Lorentz) contraction of physical masses in the direction of their motion at increasing rates of contraction proportional to their velocity, could be attributed to ‘Doppler effect’: if matter was an expanding field... Since Einstein proved that matter does in fact behave that way, doesn't that also prove that matter is an expanding field? But that was, once again, against the well established rules of rejection on this very ('obscure') issue... 'Anyone can see, after all, that universal matter is not expanding...'
Advancing plateaus of recognition and realization, celebrating the learning of the hard work of dedicated scientists when they compulsively dismissed the results of what they called ‘null experiments’ - the first such celebration on my part being when I learned that Roland Von Eotvos went meticulously looking for a difference in descent rates between heavier and lighter objects in descent and couldn’t find any difference at all, down to a billionth part of a second. That is somber (though incomplete) evidence that the earth is rising up to meet the apparently falling objects.
Einstein's ‘time dilation’ could likewise be explained for the same reason. Relativistic ‘non-absolute space and time’ - ‘space-time’, could likewise be accounted for (An enlarging hierarchy of multi-moment space-times interminably arriving from the past into the present and projecting toward the future - A=small/past & dense, B=medium/present, and C=large/future & tenuous).
All these unprecedented functionally founded concepts - and previously unexplained phenomena - were being imaginatively accommodated, and explained, on the basis of the same singular premise - that physical matter itself is a constantly (ever faster) expanding; accelerating field: ’the mass field’, I began to call it. Though I was still sure that there must be something about it I didn’t understand - that others did - that disqualified it.
Looking at the implied, metaphorically winged flying machine a little more seriously now, still afraid of being embarrassed in front of all those people who had for so long made camp on that cliff and Knew Better than to try to fly (with the provided resources as they understood them).
Oh yes. I knew the story of Icarus flying too close to the sun - the wax binding keeping his home made feathered wings together, being melted by the sun, because Icarus tried to fly too high.
Bitter-sweetly marooned with the idea that I may have happened into a major discovery of literally astronomical proportions. Certainly an inspiring thought, but I dared not take it - or myself - too seriously.
Yet, the more I researched to disqualify it (because I wanted this White Elephant off my back), the more information gathered tended to support rather than disqualify - I did not fear any disqualification I was hoping to find; it would put away the otherwise increasingly accumulating evidence that I was on to something very important.
With regard to 'belief systems', it was very difficult for me to believe that no one else had come up with this before, and that there must be a very good reason or series of good reasons for why it was just as untenable as it appeared to be at first consideration... Future research would reveal that others had indeed preceded myself (as documented herein), but not by the same avenues and invariably abandoning their incomplete research on the understandable but incorrect premise that, 'obviously, the physical universe is not constantly expanding (also as documented herein).'
At age seventeen, in mid 1958, I joined the military while continuing my research.
The EuroAmerican, transcultural CRACKERJACK
(And precipitous Morton salt)
GrecoRoman Odyssey
It was not scientific or inspiring (at first) to be sitting in a Neapolitan restaurant thousands of miles from the North American continent seeing a ‘foreigner’ who didn’t speak much English enjoying a box of Yankee Crackerjack. Anyone could easily wonder at the incongruity of it, after all.
As I was saying it was not the usual stuff of conventional or even metaphysical science, to see the answer I was looking for, in or upon a box of Crackerjack, in the lovely hands of a Neapolitan native in a restaurant full of Italian people and Italian made everything, especially food.
But this did happen, under those circumstances. Of course my most logical and reasonable facilities told me I might have been pushing this projected hobby horse, as it were, a little too far into the parameters of - perhaps even laughable - improbability. Spending too many late hours at the emerged, ad hoc, amateur’s (he or she who loves his or her work) office.
More about alternately losing and finding myself in the (ho hum) artwork on a box of gringo Crackerjack in Italy, in a moment...
Disqualification would resolve the increasingly unresolved issue and would have been (and still would be) an unburdening... As it was going, I dwelled in the shifting nether-realm of alternately thinking myself a vain imbecile and maybe a major contributor to the evolution of physical science.
Just before age eighteen I was gifted a copy of Einstein’s IDEAS & OPINIONS. I nearly - politely - balked the offering, because although I was aware that Einstein’s work dealt with gravity and light - the subjects I was interested and pursuing studies in, I was intimidated by and impotent in mathematics, especially the high order mathematics that I knew Einstein, and Newton, and many others worked in.
As things developed it is likely that, had I been skilled in mathematics I may never have carried through with this unprecedented non-mathematical interpretation of what is for the most part well accounted for in mathematical formulations which have distanced the mathematical innovators from a conceptually comprehensive understanding of what their (metric) mathematics are describing and/or confirming. There is not so much a need for more mathematics here, as there is a need to understand what the mathematics, mean (Exactly what are the qualified mathematical formulae correctly and accurately describing? Segue to my unforeseen appearance upon the well lighted proscenium?)...
But as I read Einstein’s work as it was presented in the second half of that book (Ideas & Opinions: Contributions To Science), I recognized that the issues he was dealing with in that particular book, were not so much presented mathematically, and what was being explained non-mathematically (by Einstein), seemed to remarkably parallel the ideas I had been independently developing, or, I should say that my ideas remarkably paralleled his.
This instilled more confidence that the apparently absurd notion that the entire physical universe is expanding, was not absurd or ridiculous at all. On the contrary, it seemed - with some exceptions - to be exactly what Einstein was describing, though he didn’t quite specifically and non-mathematically proclaim the physical universe to be expanding, he certainly - characteristically and elaborately - allowed for that possibility, and from what I’ve since been told and learned of his mathematics, they seem to patently prove a physically as well as spatially expanding universe.
This was an extremely humbling, and equally encouraging, uplifting experience... (On more escalating elevators than one?)
By age twenty I had gone through a series of cycles where it appeared to be an untenable idea and then was redeemed by further thought and research, until I was obliged to realize that until if and when someone or authority could show me what was wrong with this system of thinking, it was not only as good as the existing status quo in physics - it was better. It explained more otherwise unexplained major mysteries - not piecemeal, but rather consistently, with the same over all generalization: physical matter is a constantly - ever faster - expanding field.
Truly Yours eventually realized that it was not any contradiction of the Law of Conservation of Mass Energy. It was the same amount of energy, increasingly distributed over a greater area, in accordance with the law of the inverse square. Could not explain ‘why’ universal matter was expanding, but I was gathering more and more sobering reasons to consider that it was in fact doing so, and that the collective mass of the earth was expanding at 32 feet per second, per second... The descent rate of free-falling objects on earth.
(Descent rates vary correspondingly, in accordance for the most part with Newton's revelations. In this consideration there seems to be an abundance of crudely unfinished thoughts alleging to 'contradict' the 'universal - accelerating - rate of descent of object's in free fall. That truism includes the appendage: 'In the absence of air resistance', while, a remarkable number of would be arguments continue to emerge in subjections of 'terminal velocity', which, in earth's atmosphere, is about 120 m.p.h. - as fast as free falling objects descend, not accelerating furthermore simply because air resistance disallows an accurate observation or experience of the acceleration at point here. This 'contradiction', and the commonplace 'argumentive' employment of it <including orbital velocity ballistics>, provide a notable insight into how many weekend physics wizards are not at all qualified to do anything but read and listen a lot and remain silent for long periods of time with a corresponding 'attention span' - another boldy diminishing discipline, often worn as some sort of meritorious trait, rather than the mark of rank - 'uppity' - freshmen).
Einstein makes a very big deal out of it (the coincidental' equivalence of heavy and inertial mass values - observed in the 'universal rate of descent'). Calls it ‘an astonishing coincidence’. The whole world has been talking and wondering about it - the ensuing General Principle Of Relativity, equating the unidentified force of gravity with acceleration - ever since...
Please review this alternative perspective:
The false enigma is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging, pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accommodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object.
Much important help was gifted to this author - by a certain Neapolitan Guppy and her friends - in the early and critical stages of researching and developing this superlative and unprecedented non mathematical translation of Einstein’s greatest achievements - The Special & General Theories of Relativity; leading to the Unified Field Theory.
This work probably would never have been completed, were it not for a reclused woman and her friends. This woman’s name is Mara Benevida; she and many of her friends are as responsible for the initial rough draft writing of Gravity Is The 4th Dimension (Einstein’s abandoned U.F. reinstated w’out mathematics) as this author.
Speaking of retrieval, 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 seemed 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 parallel and orthogonal Crackerjack containers and icons, out of infinite smallness proceeding to infinite largeness. Si. Nirvana in the guise of Nut city. (It took a while to learn the difference?)
Called me ‘Seahorse’ on the day we met. Gave me an English translated copy of Einstein's 'Ideas & Opinions'. She started it.
Seahorse spots the ‘displaced’ box of Crackerjack and begins to see in it’s familiar artwork graphics what he will eventually recognize as an important representation of Einstein’s Unified Field without mathematics. Multi-moment space-time. An ensemble of constantly enlarging systems...
Ready or not teleported to a place no different than and identical to all the places and times he’s ever known, a day like any other day, only Crackerjack boxes are now showing up in Italy with New World Icons of 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, would never again be the same with or without punctuation... Pensive studies widened, more light was let in. Wisdom and knowledge proving once again, like gold, to be where you find it.
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 got ever smaller and the atoms of the universe of the present got ever larger and the painter or printer passed his job on from one generation to the next, where was 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.
(Since then we’ve noticed elsewhere,"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.)
There were too many truly fantastic coincidences, Einstein was caught up in a similar imbroglio, only it was in Switzerland, just northwest of where all this cartoon compounded dilemma was unfolding and back in the early 20th century. Too many (large and small?) coincidences, as said by some critics of Leo Tolstoy’s WAR & PEACE. Even Mara Mare was too much like Natasha in that same eloquent but redoubtable story (though there were differences?)
You know, optionally salted peanuts, popcorn, and that sort of thing... Way too catering to all things theatrical if not thespian. Even that rhymes too much. It was all too aerodynamically flocking much.
How could anyone tell someone else about a thing like this...?
The scientific status quo has an understandable resistance to any alternative interpretations of what is - as well as what is not - known
First began learning when I told the young prodigy who started it all by retrieving the pointed out aquarium quarry - the sobriquet 'Sea horse' with which Mara launched and made the formerly grounded idea airborne. He, in turn, told her what it did for him. She understood and told other people about it, in several different languages. It was more confusing at that time, than this presently unfolding description of the tangled woofs and warps...
The Crackerjack box as gift to a friend was a conscious and well humored philosophical wink and salute to and/or about her new sailor boy friend.
Mare didn’t anticipate the 4-dimensional dynamic that went with the sweet offering to her (nameless Mirage) friend, any more than had the foil for her lark, but the joined pair of bon vivants crisply caught and went on to field the expansive idea splendidly, with a lot of help from their friends. Certainly and emphatically including Caryn Frances Hersberg Robertson (who consistently underestimates and understates the importance of her inspirational and pragmatic contributions to the better and best portions of this work), without whom this author would never have found the inspiration or encouragement to pursue and write this narrative documentary.
Other names were added to the originally dubbed ‘seahorse’, including ‘Americano Marino Maverick’. Mare eventually got around to calling her seahorse, ‘bumblebee’ also, as though the prevailing ambiance (Disneyland?) wasn't ethereally complicated enough...
In response to any empirical proof that may emerge, nullifying the central theme of this proffered premise and all of it's contingencies - that I have 'wasted so much time for nothing', all I can say is it certainly was an extensively educational and enjoyable vacation, even if I celebrated in the wrong place. And, of course, should I ever be straightened out on what 'the right places' are, my acolyte readers and I will have all that much more to write home about. Sort of like Theoretical Physics for Talented Truck drivers, and, The Everyday Garden Variety Unified Field.
In the words of Galileo's proclamation against the inquisitional orders to disregard what was proven about the movement of the earth... "... still, it moves'.
Say what you will mathematically of the flightless bumblebee - like Albert 'The Axe' Einstein's double bit Lambda: 'Still, it flies'.
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-t...cal-constant-steady-state-theories.html?ltr=T
Last edited:
Seriously, those posts do nothing to actually help you. Can't you be more to the point, answering direct questions and justifying specific claims?
Mathis demonstrates he hasn't read (or at least hasn't understood) any string theory or even much basic university level physics. The fact you don't notice any of this illustrates you don't know much about that either. You can't come here and attack me for not reading your book when you make it so obvious that for decades you haven't read work you've been denouncing. It is intellectually dishonest of you to complain about me not reading your work when you blindly parrot someone whose claims you haven't checked on a subject you don't know. Having your own ignorant comments is better than repeating someone else's! It adds laziness to ignorance.
I admit, I haven't and I won't read your book. Your comments have more than convinced me you have nothing valid to say in a discussion and thus the book will be likewise. But I wouldn't go around forums saying "Kaiduorkhon is wrong!", posting my own work and then neglecting to mention I hadn't read your work. The fact you are on forums whining about how you're right and mainstream isn't is bad enough but to be dishonest enough to not having even understood that work is a cardinal sin in my opinion. Ignorance is bad. Willful, deliberate ignorance of something which you try to talk about so much is detestable.
If you'd come here and in discussion illustrated you have an excellent grasp of the mainstream view of electromagnetism, extra dimensions, geometry, vector calculus etc then I'd have looked at your work because you'd have convinced me you are an informed person who has sufficient intelligence and understanding to give a decent evaluation of mainstream work and to have the potential to do something original and interesting. You didn't. You epically failed in that regard. And the fact that you've picked up no maths or physics beyond high school in the decades you've been whining about your work is pathetic. You could read just a page a day and still get through dozens of textbooks in that time!
You, like q_w, have squandered your time. If your work is demonstrated wrong, you have nothing, just like q_w. I might be a supporter of string theory but if my work is proven wrong I have plenty of technical and analytic skills which can be applied elsewhere.
Mathis demonstrates he hasn't read (or at least hasn't understood) any string theory or even much basic university level physics. The fact you don't notice any of this illustrates you don't know much about that either. You can't come here and attack me for not reading your book when you make it so obvious that for decades you haven't read work you've been denouncing. It is intellectually dishonest of you to complain about me not reading your work when you blindly parrot someone whose claims you haven't checked on a subject you don't know. Having your own ignorant comments is better than repeating someone else's! It adds laziness to ignorance.
I admit, I haven't and I won't read your book. Your comments have more than convinced me you have nothing valid to say in a discussion and thus the book will be likewise. But I wouldn't go around forums saying "Kaiduorkhon is wrong!", posting my own work and then neglecting to mention I hadn't read your work. The fact you are on forums whining about how you're right and mainstream isn't is bad enough but to be dishonest enough to not having even understood that work is a cardinal sin in my opinion. Ignorance is bad. Willful, deliberate ignorance of something which you try to talk about so much is detestable.
If you'd come here and in discussion illustrated you have an excellent grasp of the mainstream view of electromagnetism, extra dimensions, geometry, vector calculus etc then I'd have looked at your work because you'd have convinced me you are an informed person who has sufficient intelligence and understanding to give a decent evaluation of mainstream work and to have the potential to do something original and interesting. You didn't. You epically failed in that regard. And the fact that you've picked up no maths or physics beyond high school in the decades you've been whining about your work is pathetic. You could read just a page a day and still get through dozens of textbooks in that time!
You, like q_w, have squandered your time. If your work is demonstrated wrong, you have nothing, just like q_w. I might be a supporter of string theory but if my work is proven wrong I have plenty of technical and analytic skills which can be applied elsewhere.
You are wrong about this. I read his last post and understood it from the perspective of having read the book. Read his post, consider reading the book. Then you can resume you critique. Until then your remarks are hollow.
You are wrong here too. You have a personality that seems quite capable of becoming fixated on those who you think are "not even wrong", without realizing that you are "not even wrong". Your personal attacks are a reflection of your personality flaws. While, on the other hand, I am perfect :humor:.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Dear AlphaNumeric:
The Post (to alephnull, and you, including 'How I Became World's #1 Einstein Groupie') just preceding the one you posted last (at that time), was being written and edited prior to your opportunity to consider.
Perhaps you may find time to read it, and then again, maybe not. It isn't likely to make any difference to you, anyway.
On the other hand, fortunately, we're not the only people who are perusing and evaluating the ongoing discourse. To state the obvious: All of us, sir, are in the jaws of history.
Can't speak for you, whereas, whatever our past, present or future posits and destinations have been, are, or may be: There are many people to thank for the ongoing expedition - now including yourself and alephnull, among so many others. True enough that I don't do math, but then, there's folks like alephnull and yourself who are meticulously handling that end of the one dimensionally curved, mathematically certified loop. : )
Note to QW: Am aware of Smolin and his book but haven't read it yet. He's is most likely talking about another 'Kai', besides myself. (In the larger scheme of things, my work is relatively 'obscure' - a drop in the bucket, as it were... ) Thanks for the heads-up.
The Post (to alephnull, and you, including 'How I Became World's #1 Einstein Groupie') just preceding the one you posted last (at that time), was being written and edited prior to your opportunity to consider.
Perhaps you may find time to read it, and then again, maybe not. It isn't likely to make any difference to you, anyway.
On the other hand, fortunately, we're not the only people who are perusing and evaluating the ongoing discourse. To state the obvious: All of us, sir, are in the jaws of history.
Can't speak for you, whereas, whatever our past, present or future posits and destinations have been, are, or may be: There are many people to thank for the ongoing expedition - now including yourself and alephnull, among so many others. True enough that I don't do math, but then, there's folks like alephnull and yourself who are meticulously handling that end of the one dimensionally curved, mathematically certified loop. : )
Note to QW: Am aware of Smolin and his book but haven't read it yet. He's is most likely talking about another 'Kai', besides myself. (In the larger scheme of things, my work is relatively 'obscure' - a drop in the bucket, as it were...
) Thanks for the heads-up.Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
-----------------------------------------------------
Dear AlphaNumeric:
The above quoted post was so outstanding, a committee of mediators voted to see that it was given an opportunity to be reconsidered in review...
It is a model of what behavioral science calls 'defensive aggression'. That is, alleging certain conditions to exist which justify what you would have perceived as a 'defensive posture' on your part, which is actually an offensive comportment.
"You can't come here and attack me for not reading your book..."
"..intellectually dishonest".
"..blindly parrot..."
" ..laziness and ignorance."
"I admit, I haven't and I won't read your book. Your comments have more than convinced me you have nothing valid to say in a discussion and thus the book will be likewise."
"But I wouldn't go around forums saying "Kaiduorkhon is wrong!", posting my own work and then neglecting to mention I hadn't read your work."
"The fact you are on forums whining about how you're right and mainstream isn't is bad enough but to be dishonest enough to not having even understood that work is a cardinal sin in my opinion."
"Ignorance is bad. Willful, deliberate ignorance of something which you try to talk about so much is detestable."
"...You epically failed".
"And the fact that you've picked up no maths or physics beyond high school in the decades you've been whining about your work is pathetic. You could read just a page a day and still get through dozens of textbooks in that time!"
(Early in this thread AlphaNumeric was told that I have a math mental block due to post traumatic stress disorder - which is, by definition, incurable, though it can be managed with a meds regimen and counseling. Both of which I have, from the Vets Administration.)
"You, like q_w, have squandered your time. If your work is demonstrated wrong, you have nothing, just like q_w. I might be a supporter of string theory but if my work is proven wrong I have plenty of technical and analytic skills which can be applied elsewhere."
-------------------------------------------------------
A review of your entries in this thread is a study in contrived, off-topic name-calling, put-downs, take offs, gotcha'isms, one-up-manship, empowering self via intended disempowerment of others, self gratification at other's expense, neurolinguistic programming, double-think, behavior modification, operant conditioning, tolerance threshold expansion, neuromolecular restructuring and poor sportsmanship (to name a few).
Being on or off topic is your choice, and the record shows, you deal the blows, and do it your way.
In the interests of the readers of this thread, you are encouraged to practice your mathematics to make your points, at will. The Readership is our judge. Whereas, a one dimensional string - especially such as curves in a loop - does not exist, except in your revisionist geometry, in which you are unarguably fluent. All of string 'theory' is suspended from a non-existent region of space, without physical manifestation - and proceeds in a circuitous loop from there.
Alephnull's - and your - replacement of a time line with a space line regarding what he calls a 'Time Cube' finds you tandemly camped out in fear of falling from a non existent precipice, and trying to dog paddle while wearing ice skates. That is what I understand about 'Einstein's Supercube'. It depicts a continuum of space-time motion. Since you admit you 'scrolled past' Buckminster Fuller's blog on 'cubism' in this thread, you roundly missed all that. Your penchant for not responding at all to (and scrolling past) what you don't agree with is (by your own admission) methodical.
Last edited:
This seems to be your problem, you are unable to filter science fact from fiction and you just quote people regardless, in a way that you think makes sense and fortifies your argument.
This is what I was referring to with my time cube comment.
www (dot) timecube (dot) com (I do not have sufficient privelages to post links yet)
I was merely drawing a parallel between this work and your work.
EDIT: Also, I have never at any point spoke of 'timelines' or the replacement of such things.
Last edited:
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear alephnull:
You have just demonstrated that when AlphaNumeric was held to account for what he wrote, verbatim - it is my inability to filter science fact from fiction...
To express this more specifically your opening statements in your last post are verbatim, as follows:
"This seems to be your problem, you are unable to filter science fact from fiction and you just quote people regardless, in a way that you think makes sense and fortifies your argument."
You proceed with:
"This is what I was referring to in my time cube comment.
www(dot) timecube (dot) com (I do not have sufficient privileges to post links yet)"
"I was merely drawing a parallel between this work and your work."
Dear alephnull, continued:
Here is a verbatim copy of what I responded to relative to your commentary at point:
P. 23 Post #221 alephnull to Kaiduorkhon (excerpt):
"After spending just over an hour reading your work from an intellectual and educational point of view, all I can do is quote Pauli and say "It's not even wrong". This is the first time in my life I've ever been able to say those words with utter conviction. Time Cube comes to mind."
Kaiduorkhon to alephnull:
"Thank you alephnull, for underscoring that 'Time Cube' dims your navigational lights. Apparently you aren't aligned with dimensions defined by perpendicular axes - orthogonal geometry is it? The stuff from which SuperCubes emerged as an icon of Einstein's proferred 4th dimension. You volunteer yourself as being among those who have yet to get used to it."
-------------------------------------------------------------
You gave no indication or explanation whatsoever that you were referring to an URL when you said: "Time Cube comes to mind".
Speaking what comes to mind - I do not read minds. I have no way of knowing that you intend and URL when you say 'Time Cube'.
Take note of the capital letters you use in Time Cube, in your first usage of it on page 23, post 221. Since you are in fact in alliance with AlphaNumeric, and he has indeed mixed time lines with space lines, my response was in accordance with the available information - as provided by yourself and AlphaNumeric.
Presently, I will impart the obliquely provided URL
www.timecube.com
I do this so that I may - for the first time - discover what it is that you mean when you say [I]"I was merely drawing a parallel between this work and your work."[/I]
Having previewed this post and thereby accessed the information at the URL provided by you, I behold what may be the wildest and most deliterious rant I've ever beheld on the internet - or anywhere else - in my 68 years of living.
Although there are a few illustrations toward the middle of this profoundly extensive, pompous, blustering hot air, it is mostly very bold, enlarged and colored text, the very beginning of which follows, verbatim:
EARTH HAS 4 CORNER
SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY
TIME CUBE
IN ONLY 24 HOUR ROTATION.
4 CORNER DAYS, CUBES 4 QUAD EARTH- No 1 Day God.
******************
FREE SPEECH in AMERICA is
"BULL SH*T",
EVIL EDUCATORS
block and suppress
www.timecube.com.
You are educated evil,
and might have to kill
the evil ONE teaching
educators before you
can learn that 4 corner
days actually exist -but
all Cube Truth denied.
Dumb ass educators fear
me and hide from debate.
They are paid to teach a propaganda book - not
Cube Truth - for which
they would be fired. Evil
teachers betray students,
as ONE is a Death Value.
Cube 4x4 voids 1 & God.
USA ripe for holocaust.
Man evolves from teenager -
in cube metamorphosis
but ignores teenager to worship a male mother,
guised in woman's garb,
churchman called father.
Adult god is adult crime
upon their own children.
More holocaust deserved.
The 12 hour or 1/2 Day clock is an intended EVIL against humanity -
indicting every human on Earth as Dumb, Educated Stupid and Evil -
for imaginary Cubed Earth has 4
Days within simultaneous rotation.
One God would equal a God Dunce
as Humans evolve from Children.
****************************
Americans are dumb, educated ONE
stupid and they worship ONEism Evil.
It is not immoral to kill believers, for the stupid bastards EVOLVE from son
or daughter who precedes them. NOT one damn human adult has ever been
created - for ONLY babies are CREATED - and every adult has within them the LIFE given by children who DIE to give-up their lives to their parent
image - so their mom or Dad can live. Adults are EVIL to deny they evolved from children - and claim their adult EGO image is a god likeness. Such damn evil AMERICANS should have their tongue cut out for the heinous hoax they are perpetrating upon their own children. I know now why the Jews
deserved their holocaust - worshipping their own adult EGO image as a damn god whil ignoring and betraying the very children who sacrifice their LIFE
so their Moms and Dads could Live. There is nothing godly about stupid
and evil adults who betray their own children who gave them Life. I AM
WISER THAN ANY DAMN MAN OR GOD WHO EVER EXISTED. IF THE
HALF AND HALF CO-CREATED JESUS RETURNS TO EARTH, I WILL PERSONALLY KILL THE BASTARD MYSELF. ALL CREATION OCCURS
BETWEEN AND AS OPPOSITES. YOU DUMB-ASS, EARTH, THE UNIVERSE
AND EVERY LIVING THING IN IT EXISTS BETWEEN A TOP AND BOTTOM, BETWEEN A FRONT AND BACK, BETWEEN OPPOSITE SIDES,
AND INSIDE AND OUTSIDE. ALL YOU DUMB EVIL BASTARDS EARN...
etceteras.
------------------------------------------
This fantastic rave goes on for tens of thousands of words, literally, as anyone who clicks on alephnull's provided url may witness for themselves.
It is emphatically and patently Nazi. Verbally assaulting, literally, all that is Holy. It is authored by 'Dr. Gene Ray - The Greatest Philosopher and the Greatest Mathematician.' There is a color photograph of him standing beside what appears to be his own design of a super cube, which he calls a 'Time Cube'.
Every kind of bigotry and blasphemy is prolifically brandished in angry, triumphant style.
Near the middle of this extensive scroll of madness there are a few photographs and diagrams of several different styles of cube. One of which is a stylized 'super cube' - which alephnull says: "The Time Cube comes to mind". Then goes on later to 'explain' that he intended something else.
www.timecube.com
----------------------------------------------
A thousand pardons, alephnull, for a moment there I thought you were in league with AlphaNumeric - the Miles-Mathis-denigrating, string 'theory' advocating guy. Albeit, by association, AlphaNumeric appears to be a satanist like your self.
May God have mercy upon your affiliated souls.
I love how you say this but don't see your hypocrisy for having no knowledge of mainstream physics but you critique it. Or having no knowledge of string theory yet you tell me I'm in a dead end career. Or no knowledge of my life but you make all kinds of comments about me. Your comments about my life and my work are based on nothing yet you have the hypocrisy to accuse me of 'hollow' comments?!
See, you make comments about my work, in string theory, when you know no string theory and you don't know any of my work.
Good job.
What's the purpose of that link. I accuse you of not knowing any string theory in my post, nothing in your link counters that. In the link I accuse you of not having any post where you show the university level knowledge you have. Nothing in the link in your link counters that. I accuse you of having accomplished nothing in your work and nothing in your links counters that. You claim you thinking about stuff and writing your Google.doc counts, which is laughable.
You just continue with your "If I link to something maybe people will think I've given a retort" flawed logic.
Do you know any string theory or quantum field theory or general relativity? Do you have any of the mathematical knowledge or skills required to give an informed critique of any of them?
You just continue with your "If I link to something maybe people will think I've given a retort" flawed logic.
Do you know any string theory or quantum field theory or general relativity? Do you have any of the mathematical knowledge or skills required to give an informed critique of any of them?
AlphaNumeric, these responses to you are from earlier posts:
This one regarding your repeated insults ...
This one regarding your repeated insults ...
And from Kai regarding your behavior on his thread:
You are your own worst enemy.Kaiduokhon said:
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Introductory Note:
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. Expeditionary searches for a discontinuous particle, return with continuous - characteristically concentric - wave systems having no specific boundaries separating them from surrounding space. ‘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.- Kai
('Particle Jungle' is the expression of the author-anthologist's, K.B. Robertson's, reference to the below listing of various entities called 'particles'; even one of which has yet been located. Expeditions in search of a 'discontinuous particle', until further notice, return only with evidence of an undulating charge of electromagnetic energy having no discontinuous surface and only becoming more dense at the approach to its center. 'Particle physics' is an ersatz formal category without a forensic example. An army of Ph.D's without a palpable doctoral to perch upon. A prodigious wish sandwich menu consisting of two slices of bread without content, beyond a bonkers brigade of spun out baloney doctors. A grand vignette - losing sight of the generalized forest of ubiquitous field energy, displaced with the empty proliferation of specifically anticipated but unfound leaves. What 'particle physicists' thrive on. What the foreground of physics has become. The swaying fields of generalizations are being displaced with particularly squeeking specifications. Hollywood acronyms such as WIMP and MACHO. Hyperbolically cloud chambered curves and straight lines in a smugly embellished cavalierly accelerated cyclotronic world - endlessly dividing larger meadow pies into smaller road apples - that has become a front and center stage in far too many more ways than Shakespeare's last play, reason - or Dirac - dictates.... A meticulously detailed, crazymaking list of the incumbent ball and it's incredibly flavored links of up and down, top to bottom spinning links of chain, follows... <dark matter, superstrings and collapsed batteries optionally included> )
Particle Jungle: Extracted from Wikipedia via google - List of Particles - entered by hand from prepared copy and charts...)
Note: It is not the objective of this author to discount the importance of experimental measurement of so called particles, whereas it is the intent of this author to encourage a more sobering approach to microcosmic physics by recognizing and acknowledgeing that the pursuit of knowledge in 'particle physics' is actually a misnomered adventure into discovering more about field physics. Moreover, misplaced flippancy and slapstick posturing is no refuge for a discipline that literally and figuratively doesn't know of or apparently doesn't care for the difference between levity and hyperbole as compared to professional countenance and responsible temperance.
______________________________________________
(Extracted and condensed from 'google'. Enter: 'List of particles'.)
"Fermions, Bosons, Hadrons, Baryons, Mesons.
There are 12 flavors of elementary Fermions - 6 Quarks and 6 Leptons. Their respective antiparticles are known as antiquarks. Up. Down. Strange. Charm. Bottom. Top. Antiup quark, antidown quark, antistrange quark, anticharm quark, antibottom quark, antitop quark.
The respective antiparticles of leptons are known as antileptons, although the antiparticle of the electron is called the positron for historical reasons.
Leptons also exist in six flavors - charged lepton / antiparticle, neutrino / antineutrino. Muon neutrino. Muon antineutrino. Tau neutrino. Tau antineutrino.
Neutrion masses are known to be non zero because of neutrion oscillation, but their masses are sufficiently light that they have not been measured directly as of 2006.
Bosons (integer spin).
Name: Photon. Charge 0. Spin 1 Mass (GeV) Force mediated: Electromagnetism.
W+ 1 80.4 Weak Nuclear
Zo 0 1 91.2 Weak Nuclear
Gluon 0 1 0 Strong nuclear
Higgs 0 0 >112 see below
The Higgs boson (spin 0) is predicted by electroweak theory, and is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed.
In the Higgs mechanism of the standard model, the massive Higgs Boson is created by spontaneous symmetry breaking of the Higgs field.
The intrinsic masses of the elementary particles (particlularly the massive W and Z bosons) would be explained by their interactions with this field.
Many physicists expect the Higgs to be discovered at the large Hadron Collider (LHC) particle accelerator now under construction at CERN.
Hypothetical Particles
Supersymmetric theories predict the existence of more particles, none of which have been confirmed experimentally as of 2006.
The neutralino (spin 1/2) is a superposition of the superpartners of several neutral Standard Model particles. It is a leading candidate for dark matter. The partners of charged bosons are called charginos.
The photino (spin 1/2) is the superpartner of the photon.
The gravitino (spin 3/2) is the superpartner of the graviton boson in supergravity theories.
Sleptons and squarks (spin 0) are the supersymmetric parts of the Standard Model fermions. The stop squark (superpartner of the top quark) is thought to have a low mass and is often the subject of experimental searches.
*Other theories predict the existence of additional bosons."
This goes on - and gets more detailed - for another 3/4ths of a page...
*The graviton (spin 2) has been proposed to mediate gravity in theories of quantum gravity.
The graviscalar (spin 2) and graviphoton (spin 1)
The axion (spin 0) is a psuedoscalar particle introduced in Peccei Quinn theory to solve the strong CP problem.
The Saxion (spin 0 scalar R parity=1) form together with the axion a supermultiplet in supersymmetric extensions of Peccei Quinn theory.
The X boson and the Y boson are predicted by GUT theories to be heavier equivalents of the W and Z.
The magnetic photon.
Sterile neutrinos are introduced by many extensions of the Standard Model and may be needed to explain the LSND results.
Mirror particles are predicted by symmetry that restore Parity Symmetry.
Magnetic monopole is a generic term for particles with non zero magnetic charge. They are predicted by some GUT theories.
Tachyon is a generic name for hypothetical particles that travel faster than the speed of light.
The Preon was a suggested substructure for both quarks and leptons, but modern collider experiments have all but disproven their existence.
COMPOSITE PARTICLES
Hadrons
Hadrons are defined as strongly interacting composite particles.
Hadrons are either:
Ferminons, in which case they are called Baryons.
Bosons, in which case they are called Mesons.
Quark models, first proposed in 1964 by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig (who called quarks 'aces'), describe the known hadrons as composed of valence quarks and/or antiquarks tightly bound by the color force which is mediated by gluons. A 'sea' of virtual quark-antiquark pairs is also present in each Hadron.
Baryons (fermions)
(For a detailed list, see 'List of baryons')
Ordinary baryons contain three balance quarks or three valence antiquarks, each.
Nucleons are the fermionic constituents of normal atomic nuclei:
Protons. Neutrons.
Hyperons such as the _ _ _ _ and _ particles which contain one or more strange quarks, are short lived and heavier than nucleons. Although not normally present in atomic nuclei, they can appear in short lived hyper nuclei.
A number of charmed and bottom baryons have also been observed. Some hints at the existence of exotic baryons have been found recently, however, negative results have also been reported. Their existence is uncertain.
Pentaquarks consist of four valence quarks, and one valence antiquark.
_________This listing goes on to mesons, pions, kaeons, exotic mesons, tetraquarks, glueballs and 'hybrids' of all of the above.
Also listed are Phonons, Exitons, Plasmons, Polaritons, Polarons,
Magnons, WIMPs ('particles that may explain dark matter'), Pomerons, Regge poles, Regge Theory, Skymions, Pions, Chiral Isospin, Quantum Chromodynamics, goldstinos, instantons, dyons, gions, OhMyGodParticles and spurions....
Then there are tardyons, luxons (travels at the speed of light and has no rest mass), whereas, 'tachyons travel faster than the speed of light and has an imaginary rest mass'.
The list and the references go on and on...
Post Script:
The immediate below interrogative and complaint from alephnull disregards the note at the top of this post, that the contents are 'extracted and condensed' from Wikipedia. It's sort of like the opportunistic critiques such as, when I say "I knew of string theory before I knew of Miles Mathis..." That evoked a dissertation from AlphaNumeric, about the difference between 'knowing of' and 'knowing about' - as though such a qualification by and from him was necessary - any perceived opportunity to condescend is promptly pounced upon and/or lampooned. : ) Re: Verbal Judo & Flipping Yourself off.
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. Expeditionary searches for a discontinuous particle, return with continuous - characteristically concentric - wave systems having no specific boundaries separating them from surrounding space. ‘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.- Kai
('Particle Jungle' is the expression of the author-anthologist's, K.B. Robertson's, reference to the below listing of various entities called 'particles'; even one of which has yet been located. Expeditions in search of a 'discontinuous particle', until further notice, return only with evidence of an undulating charge of electromagnetic energy having no discontinuous surface and only becoming more dense at the approach to its center. 'Particle physics' is an ersatz formal category without a forensic example. An army of Ph.D's without a palpable doctoral to perch upon. A prodigious wish sandwich menu consisting of two slices of bread without content, beyond a bonkers brigade of spun out baloney doctors. A grand vignette - losing sight of the generalized forest of ubiquitous field energy, displaced with the empty proliferation of specifically anticipated but unfound leaves. What 'particle physicists' thrive on. What the foreground of physics has become. The swaying fields of generalizations are being displaced with particularly squeeking specifications. Hollywood acronyms such as WIMP and MACHO. Hyperbolically cloud chambered curves and straight lines in a smugly embellished cavalierly accelerated cyclotronic world - endlessly dividing larger meadow pies into smaller road apples - that has become a front and center stage in far too many more ways than Shakespeare's last play, reason - or Dirac - dictates.... A meticulously detailed, crazymaking list of the incumbent ball and it's incredibly flavored links of up and down, top to bottom spinning links of chain, follows... <dark matter, superstrings and collapsed batteries optionally included> )
Particle Jungle: Extracted from Wikipedia via google - List of Particles - entered by hand from prepared copy and charts...)
Note: It is not the objective of this author to discount the importance of experimental measurement of so called particles, whereas it is the intent of this author to encourage a more sobering approach to microcosmic physics by recognizing and acknowledgeing that the pursuit of knowledge in 'particle physics' is actually a misnomered adventure into discovering more about field physics. Moreover, misplaced flippancy and slapstick posturing is no refuge for a discipline that literally and figuratively doesn't know of or apparently doesn't care for the difference between levity and hyperbole as compared to professional countenance and responsible temperance.
______________________________________________
(Extracted and condensed from 'google'. Enter: 'List of particles'.)
"Fermions, Bosons, Hadrons, Baryons, Mesons.
There are 12 flavors of elementary Fermions - 6 Quarks and 6 Leptons. Their respective antiparticles are known as antiquarks. Up. Down. Strange. Charm. Bottom. Top. Antiup quark, antidown quark, antistrange quark, anticharm quark, antibottom quark, antitop quark.
The respective antiparticles of leptons are known as antileptons, although the antiparticle of the electron is called the positron for historical reasons.
Leptons also exist in six flavors - charged lepton / antiparticle, neutrino / antineutrino. Muon neutrino. Muon antineutrino. Tau neutrino. Tau antineutrino.
Neutrion masses are known to be non zero because of neutrion oscillation, but their masses are sufficiently light that they have not been measured directly as of 2006.
Bosons (integer spin).
Name: Photon. Charge 0. Spin 1 Mass (GeV) Force mediated: Electromagnetism.
W+ 1 80.4 Weak Nuclear
Zo 0 1 91.2 Weak Nuclear
Gluon 0 1 0 Strong nuclear
Higgs 0 0 >112 see below
The Higgs boson (spin 0) is predicted by electroweak theory, and is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed.
In the Higgs mechanism of the standard model, the massive Higgs Boson is created by spontaneous symmetry breaking of the Higgs field.
The intrinsic masses of the elementary particles (particlularly the massive W and Z bosons) would be explained by their interactions with this field.
Many physicists expect the Higgs to be discovered at the large Hadron Collider (LHC) particle accelerator now under construction at CERN.
Hypothetical Particles
Supersymmetric theories predict the existence of more particles, none of which have been confirmed experimentally as of 2006.
The neutralino (spin 1/2) is a superposition of the superpartners of several neutral Standard Model particles. It is a leading candidate for dark matter. The partners of charged bosons are called charginos.
The photino (spin 1/2) is the superpartner of the photon.
The gravitino (spin 3/2) is the superpartner of the graviton boson in supergravity theories.
Sleptons and squarks (spin 0) are the supersymmetric parts of the Standard Model fermions. The stop squark (superpartner of the top quark) is thought to have a low mass and is often the subject of experimental searches.
*Other theories predict the existence of additional bosons."
This goes on - and gets more detailed - for another 3/4ths of a page...
*The graviton (spin 2) has been proposed to mediate gravity in theories of quantum gravity.
The graviscalar (spin 2) and graviphoton (spin 1)
The axion (spin 0) is a psuedoscalar particle introduced in Peccei Quinn theory to solve the strong CP problem.
The Saxion (spin 0 scalar R parity=1) form together with the axion a supermultiplet in supersymmetric extensions of Peccei Quinn theory.
The X boson and the Y boson are predicted by GUT theories to be heavier equivalents of the W and Z.
The magnetic photon.
Sterile neutrinos are introduced by many extensions of the Standard Model and may be needed to explain the LSND results.
Mirror particles are predicted by symmetry that restore Parity Symmetry.
Magnetic monopole is a generic term for particles with non zero magnetic charge. They are predicted by some GUT theories.
Tachyon is a generic name for hypothetical particles that travel faster than the speed of light.
The Preon was a suggested substructure for both quarks and leptons, but modern collider experiments have all but disproven their existence.
COMPOSITE PARTICLES
Hadrons
Hadrons are defined as strongly interacting composite particles.
Hadrons are either:
Ferminons, in which case they are called Baryons.
Bosons, in which case they are called Mesons.
Quark models, first proposed in 1964 by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig (who called quarks 'aces'), describe the known hadrons as composed of valence quarks and/or antiquarks tightly bound by the color force which is mediated by gluons. A 'sea' of virtual quark-antiquark pairs is also present in each Hadron.
Baryons (fermions)
(For a detailed list, see 'List of baryons')
Ordinary baryons contain three balance quarks or three valence antiquarks, each.
Nucleons are the fermionic constituents of normal atomic nuclei:
Protons. Neutrons.
Hyperons such as the _ _ _ _ and _ particles which contain one or more strange quarks, are short lived and heavier than nucleons. Although not normally present in atomic nuclei, they can appear in short lived hyper nuclei.
A number of charmed and bottom baryons have also been observed. Some hints at the existence of exotic baryons have been found recently, however, negative results have also been reported. Their existence is uncertain.
Pentaquarks consist of four valence quarks, and one valence antiquark.
_________This listing goes on to mesons, pions, kaeons, exotic mesons, tetraquarks, glueballs and 'hybrids' of all of the above.
Also listed are Phonons, Exitons, Plasmons, Polaritons, Polarons,
Magnons, WIMPs ('particles that may explain dark matter'), Pomerons, Regge poles, Regge Theory, Skymions, Pions, Chiral Isospin, Quantum Chromodynamics, goldstinos, instantons, dyons, gions, OhMyGodParticles and spurions....
Then there are tardyons, luxons (travels at the speed of light and has no rest mass), whereas, 'tachyons travel faster than the speed of light and has an imaginary rest mass'.
The list and the references go on and on...
Post Script:
The immediate below interrogative and complaint from alephnull disregards the note at the top of this post, that the contents are 'extracted and condensed' from Wikipedia. It's sort of like the opportunistic critiques such as, when I say "I knew of string theory before I knew of Miles Mathis..." That evoked a dissertation from AlphaNumeric, about the difference between 'knowing of' and 'knowing about' - as though such a qualification by and from him was necessary - any perceived opportunity to condescend is promptly pounced upon and/or lampooned. : ) Re: Verbal Judo & Flipping Yourself off.
Last edited:
No it wasn't. It would be rather difficult not to see it. It was hilarious.
Thanks Kai. I can't wait to see the list in a few years when they begin to sort out the data from the LHC
.This is wrong. Well, that is assuming you're referencing the 'graviton'.
Newton didn't base anything on a hypothetical particle, if you read through his work at no point does he make any assumption on the existence of a graviton. It has no bearing on his work.
His work would hold up even if the graviton did not exist. Classical mechanics describes the motion and interaction of macroscopic objects, which makes no asumptions based on any hypothetical particles.