TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics

[Kaiduorkhon]

p. 23 post 221, by alephnull: verbatim excerpt.

After spending just over one 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'. That is the first time in my life I have ever been able to say those words with utter conviction. Time Cube comes to mind.

Kaiduorkhon:
"Time Cube comes to mind".
I don't read minds, I went to the designated url and learned that you were paralleling my work with that despicable offal. Now you 'explain' that isn't what you meant - that it is common knowledge what you intended and that the 'misunderstanding' is due to my ignorance of what goes on, on the net...

alephnull:
Now, to make up on that hour of my life I just lost, I'm off to fit two hours worth of drinking into one.

Kaiduorkhon:
(Try several double kamikazes?)
---------------------------------------------------------

You just said, 'After reading your work'...

You read 298 pages in 'just over an hour'?
--------------------------------------------------------------
“ Originally Posted by alephnull
I'm going to break this down for you so you do not miss the point.

I said that after reading your work, the only conclusion I could draw is that it 'is not even wrong'. This is a well known term used in science for work that is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or on theories that cannot be falsified or used to predict anything.

Kaiduorkhon:
Your 'explanation' of "a well known term used in science for work that is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect"; etceteras, is doubletalk.

Since 1959, my work has predicted the 1998 ascertainment that the expanding universe is accelerating; the return of Einstein's 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant ( Lambda /\ ); since 1965 it also predicts that the Steady State Theory, as well, is enroute reinstatement. It also observes that the Lorentzian contraction of matter is actually Doppler effect - further establishing that physical matter is a constantly accelerating omnidirectionally expanding 4-D field. It comprehensively explains the 4-D space-time continuum, and, the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values. It comprehensively explains the curvature of light as it passes nearby major gravitational coordinate systems. It disqualifies the so called Big Bang 'theory', it comprehensively explains the causal identity of so called 'black hole' singularities (if they exist). It also explains the why C is constant, and, 'time dilation'. It also non mathematically explains the dynamics of quantum mechanics, and why each quantum unit has the same value - why quanta are the 'currency' of transient arriving and departing energy units. And there's much (much) more... Total Field Theory for Talented Truck Drivers, and a Garden Variety Unified Field. http://www.toequest.com/forum/toeth...mological-constant-steady-state-theories.html

You ask me if I understand 'duality'? Yes. I understand 'waveicles'. Do you? You proclaim to have read my book. In your forthcoming revisional post you are returned to that struggling allegation that you did, after all, read my book. You didn't. In your own directly implied superior inflection: You got up and walked to a bar at the end of the first of four reels of a movie you missed the middle and ending of. There's a quaintly comprehensive explanation of the adventure of having written that book right here on this thread. Page 25, post 245. You, like AlphaNumeric, probably didn't read that either.

If you're not going to stay on topic, if you're going to hi-jack my thread as a platform to curl your existential nothing dimensions into a NewAge, nail biting cliff hanger, why not just sail on over to the nearest skyscraper and make instantaneous history? The metaphor is already here. If this thread isn't eradicated by the incumbent powers that be, here on ScienceForums, we are all, as I have said before, already in the jaws of history. My work behooves disqualification or acknowledgement. And one of those two destinies will unfold, perhaps in my own life time. Auxiliary stories are being told here, such as the behavioral profile of (- especially the most active participants -) who post(s) here, and how...

alephnull:
I then said 'TimeCube' comes to mind. This wasn't a recommendation.

Kaiduorkhon:
That was a plug for abject evil and a comparison of my work with an unmitigated Nazi rant. You made no effort whatsover to explain otherwise. You got caught, and since, you're found back-pedaling with: "I have no idea what you're saying", when you get called out on it. You do a - notably very timely - commercial for a blatent Fascist and proclaim: ''This wasn't a recommendation"? ("Don't think about elephants".)

alephnull:
TimeCube is also well known in the science community (particularly forum goers) as the author received a lot of publicity when he offered a large reward to anyone that could disprove his 'Theories'.

Kaiduorkhon:
The 'author' of www.timecube.com is ('also well known') living proof that Dr. Peck's 'People of the Lie' is the truth. Contempt for the worthy and reverence for the undeserving is firmly established in the example you have brought to this discourse. You haven't even the grace to admit you severely erred. This 'conversation' subjecting that unspeakably vile piece of human garbage is grist for his famed mill - and you, alephnull, brought it here. And reply:
"I have no idea what you're saying". When it's what you're saying, and what you've already said, that is at issue. Verbal Judo voodoo.

Furthermore, there is no 'science community' anymore. Hasn't been since the early '60s, when the big bang gang advanced on the community with their pop bottle rockets and set the entire arena gone to blazes. CBR is residuals from a younger, relatively more dense - physically accelerating - universe. There are more estimates on the mean thermodynamic status of deep space in values of K than there are cards in a poker game. Penzias is a bad joke.

Moreover, and most significantly, you're gaffe aimed at my work was a sadomasochistically hysterical attack on Truly Yours, personally.

The 'Time Cube comes to mind' was a ploy to augment the deception that it has to do with a 'super cube' or 'hyper cube' - both and each of which are very well known, modern-traditional icons for Einstein's 4th Dimension. The projection of the cube at right angles from itself is a time line. It is rejected as such because it means that all of physical reality is 4-Dimensionally expanding, ever faster; accelerating at right angles from itself. Which, 'obviously it is not'. (Obviously, it is...) If I had to omit all but one paragraph in this post, this paragraph is the one reserved for selection. The time line projection of the 4-D SuperCube/HyperCube is the lynch pin of this entire skunk fight, and all arguments contingent to it. A metaphor of war.

You and everyone you are allied to, have carried Dr. Brian Greene's - and the well known keeper of www.timecube.com - colors and standards to Stalingrad - within hundreds of yards of the Volga; falsely claiming you've crossed it, while investing over a quarter of a million troops to 'make good' on your prevaricated word, only to lose that signal battle and subsequently, the war. In this bellicose metaphor, your investment of several Divisions of KIA/MIA losses - are incalculable, while it may now be estimated what magnitude of POWs were overwhelmed and taken in that battle (over 300,000), which history will always recall as the turning point of the 3rd Reich's mad invasion of Russia's western parameter. The only place that unhinged plan ever looked viable, was on paper. Overly dramatic? Indeed. But equally difficult to over state... The time line of the projected HyperCube is, and always will be, your undoing.

You vainly deny it all. Now that's entertainment. Like AlphaNumeric's quest for smoke on the Perrier. I care not to inventory the occasions of foul commentary projected by this history trumping, Brian Greene torch wielder, who's already got his hand on the escape hatch should the irreproachably spotless craft encounter a rogue wave, turbulence or seismic episode. Hypocrisy being among his favorite indictments. Whether it be The Elegant Universe or www.timecube.com - each is 'well known in alephnull's scientific community' - as one who sees to it. The first time in his life he's been able to publicly immolate himself with utter conviction - hence his next troubled proclamation confirms that...

alephnull:
The trouble being they're also 'not even wrong' and hence cannot be disproved.

Kaiduorkhon:
The 'author' of www.timecube.com 'can't be disproved' ?
(That he isn't worth the time is no argument).
That's like saying the Holocaust can't be proved.
(Have you not yet beheld Holocaust? How many times?)
There's an old saw that says "You can't beat the devil". Fact.
You may for yourself figure out who started and maintains that false rumor.

Alephnull:
I at no point said I read the entirety of your work. Fact.

I stated that I read an hour of your work. Fact.

I later said I had read your work. Fact.
Surely you knew exactly how much I meant because I had already said. (you clearly remembered because you were quick to grab this quote)

Kaiduorkhon:
I (surely) have no idea what you're saying.

Alephnull:
I fail to see what the problem is. You also failed to answer my question on wave-particle duality, I ask simply because I want a better picture of exactly what you think it means to be a particle.

Kaiduorkhon:
If you or anyone you know ever finds one, you can clone me with it and I'll be able to give you a picture of exactly what I think it means to hallucinate myself as a particle. The interim finds you apparently entangled in compactified collapsation of Copenhangen interpreted double slit plugs.

The title of this thread is Total Field Theory w'out mathematics. Disqualify it or wear it. There was a time when you could forget it, but that alternative is no longer available to you, anymore than it is AlphaNumeric. All the mathematics in the world won't liberate you from the common knowledge that nothing begets nothing. That applies to the creationist big bang gang as much as it does the fishy stringers.

'Time Cube comes to mind.' HoHaHee.

Never mind searching for the 4th dimension - where is it not? The formidable challenge is to find a space empty of field, or empty of the 4-D space-time continuum, or it's five and six dimensional electromagnetic extensions.

Contorted proclamations that you will not read my work, or mendacious claims that you have, accompanied by grotesque name calling and a policy of chanting that my work and anyone who has any agreements with it are 'nothing' (or @#$, or %^&*+, or FILL IN HERE) is not the stuff of which the scientific community will be reconstructed.

The best thing for you and yours may be to individually and/or collectively take two anvils and call yourselves a doctor in the morning. G'day.

 

[alephnull]

p. 23 post 221, by alephnull: verbatim excerpt.

After spending just over one 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'. That is the first time in my life I have ever been able to say those words with utter conviction. Time Cube comes to mind.

Now, to make up on that hour of my life I just lost, I'm off to fit two hours worth of drinking into one.
---------------------------------------------------------

You just said, 'After reading your work'...

You read 298 pages in 'just over an hour'

(I'll return to make this post a little more accurate after I copy your exact wording of late...)

I at no point said I read the entirety of your work. Fact.

I stated that I read an hour of your work. Fact.

I later said I had read your work. Fact.
Surely you knew exactly how much I meant because I had already said. (you clearly remembered because you were quick to grab this quote)

I fail to see what the problem is. You also failed to answer my question on wave-particle duality, I ask simply because I want a better picture of exactly what you think it means to be a particle.


EDIT: here's the quote you're looking for

"I said that after reading your work, the only conclusion I could draw is that it 'is not even wrong'. This is a well known term used in science for work that is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or on theories that cannot be falsified or used to predict anything. "

Nothing contradictory there I'm afraid. I did read (for an hour) and what I read was your work, and what I could draw from it is what I said.

 

[quantum_wave]

Kai, I assume your would rather field the criticisms yourself, and I conclude that you are perfectly capable of doing so. But I just have to look, having read the book. I have read the book with interest because I see that it represents a complete cosmology in the sense that I described earlier. Neither BBT or String Theory address important cosmological questions that you do and you do so with complete internal consistency.

I will point out to anyone interested that if you were to read the book with an eye to impartiality all of the questions are answered within. It then becomes a question of you testing your understanding of what Kai says in the book. That might take some testing because the ideas are controversial. Sorting out the understanding can then lead to attempts to show where science makes the work "not even wrong" but no one has approached anything to show that yet.

It doesn't mean you have nailed reality but you have covered the field by addressing the questions of particles, gravity, time and space, and spacetime while being consistent with what we observe in the real world. And mentioning the reinstatement of steady state theory, you have done a good job in presenting a rationale worth considering to those who are uncomfortable with the "God did it 13.7 billion years ago" or "something from nothing" cosmology.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Neither BBT or String Theory address important cosmological questions that you do and you do so with complete internal consistency.

The GR description of the BBT exists in both standard cosmology and string theory. It's an experimentially tested and justified description of the large scale structure of the universe. Kai has nothing of the sort. Can he accurately predict the CMB power spectrum? Nope.

And thus your claim is false.

 

[quantum_wave]

The GR description of the BBT exists in both standard cosmology and string theory. It's an experimentially tested and justified description of the large scale structure of the universe. Kai has nothing of the sort. Can he accurately predict the CMB power spectrum? Nope.

And thus your claim is false.

The claim is not false. Nothing in your post makes it false. Also, pay attention to the complete cosmology (I don't mean it covers all questions) and internal consistency (I don't mean it resolves all science), I mean that what it says ties all of its aspects together without inconsistency and with consistency to physical observations. Are you now proclaiming that BBT and String Theory meet that standard?

 

[alephnull]

Kaiduorkhon:
That was a plug for abject evil and a comparison of my work with an unmitigated Nazi rant. You made no effort whatsover to explain otherwise. You got caught, and since, you're found back-pedaling.

...

Me explaining something to you is not me back pedalling.

Kaiduorkhon:
The 'author' of www.timecube.com 'can't be disproved' ?
(That he isn't worth the time is no argument).
That's like saying the Holocaust can't be proved.
(Have you not yet beheld Holocaust? How many times?)
There's an old saw that says "You can't beat the devil". Fact.
You may for yourself figure out who started and maintains that false rumor.

Feel free to go and disprove him and earn yourself some money. (I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that debate)
Maybe then you can fund yourself, do some experiments, publish some findings, you know, be a scientist.

TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out credibility.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Also, pay attention to the complete cosmology (I don't mean it covers all questions) and internal consistency (I don't mean it resolves all science), I mean that what it says ties all of its aspects together without inconsistency and with consistency to physical observations.

Neither you not Kai have any models which have experimental justification/accuracy which are not simply lifted wholesale from current mainstream models. You certainly don't derive them from your own founding principles via step by step concrete logic. You have no such working model of any cosmological phenomenon and therefore to say "consistency to physical observations" is only not a lie in so far as you have nothing predicted about any physical observations in a way which is a working model.

Are you now proclaiming that BBT and String Theory meet that standard?

String theory and the BBT both give quantitative descriptions of the dynamics of space-time on a universal scale which has experimental justification. They are consistent quantifiable constructions which model gravity in ways consistent with experiments. And I don't mean that in the sense of having nothign to say about them, I mean they both describe gravitational processes via the Einstein field equations, which have experimental support. In the case of string theory the existence of the EFEs can be derived rigorously and step by step from founding postulates which make no mention of gravity or general relativity.

In that sense both the BBT and ST are superior to work put forth by either of you two.

 

[quantum_wave]

Neither you not Kai have any models which have experimental justification/accuracy which are not simply lifted wholesale from current mainstream models. You certainly don't derive them from your own founding principles via step by step concrete logic. You have no such working model of any cosmological phenomenon and therefore to say "consistency to physical observations" is only not a lie ...

Now you see, this is what makes you your own worst enemy. Lie? Nothing you say matters after you show that your insults flow so easily and so inappropriately. Lie; isn't there a better way to say that. Learn something about making a point and you might be able to make one. Learn something about what Kai says and address that, not your straw men.

I told you the same thing here in so many words and you didn't learn. What point is there in trying to teach you anything if you come back and make the same mistakes?

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

The GR description of the BBT exists in both standard cosmology and string theory. It's an experimentially tested and justified description of the large scale structure of the universe. Kai has nothing of the sort. Can he accurately predict the CMB power spectrum? Nope.

And thus your claim is false.

--------------------------------------------------------

When you say, "The GR description of the BBT exists in both standard cosmology and string theory. It's an experimentally tested and justified description of the large scale structure of the universe. Kai has nothing of the sort."

This parallels false claims that 'Einstein predicted the BBT', when he introduced cosmological constant (Lambda /\ - a repelling force, 'just like gravity' but, acting in the opposite direction), to prevent the gravitationally dominated universe from collapsing on itself. It is true that it intended a static universe, balanced out by the two different vectors of forces at issue, whereas, it is also true that Friedmann and others pointed out that Einstein's CC Lambda /\, is 'unstable', and 'apt to start expanding or contracting at the slightest provocation'...

Such 'provocation' has since transpired, on several facets, including the relatively more recent recognition that the expanding universe is accelerating, and, that Einstein's Lambda, unlike any other known force, increases with distance... Enter the retrieval and reapplication (reinstatement) of Einstein's CC Lambda /\ upon the controversial heels of 'quintessence' and 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', i.e. 'LambdaColdDark Matter'; etceteras.

'Kai has nothing of the sort'. - AlphaNumeric

The sub title of my Total Field Theory is 'The Reinstatement of the Cosmological Constant and Steady State Theories'. The projected reinstatement of the CC has already come to pass, in LCDM, i.e., the acceleration of the expanding universe is gaining on you; the circumspection of the Steady State Theory accompanies that 'adjustment' as a matter of course. The interior contents of the event horizon parameters are not 'thinning out', because, matter itself is undergoing accelerating expansion with the accompanying space.
---------------------------------------------------------

Google CMB power spectrum. Peruse the various presentations.

There are no certainties established relating CMB to the BBT, there are only probabilities. Moreover, an alternative explanation isn't on the BBT advocate's hungry agenda...

To repeat what was already stated in my last post:
"Furthermore, there is no 'science community' anymore. Hasn't been since the early-mid '60s, when the big bang gang advanced on the community with their pop bottle rockets and set the entire arena gone to blazes. CBR is residuals from a younger, relatively more dense - physically accelerating - universe. There are more estimates on the mean thermodynamic status of deep space in values of K (Kelvin) than there are cards in a poker game. Penzias is a bad joke.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Now you see, this is what makes you your own worst enemy. Lie? Nothing you say matters after you show that your insults flow so easily and so inappropriately. Lie; isn't there a better way to say that. Learn something about making a point and you might be able to make one. Learn something about what Kai says and address that, not your straw men.

Well done on responding to nothing of what I said. It dulls the comments you make about my supposed 'easy flowing insults' and inappropriate responses when you don't actually retort anything I said.

Neither you nor Kai have a working model of anything to do with cosmology or any other area of physics as it happens. You mentioned consistency with experiments. I pointed out you have no predictions for any experiments, relating to the big bang or anything else. Even string theory has predictions about the behaviour of gravity, predictions which pass experimental tests. You retorted none of that.

If I'm so off the mark and just throwing insults than you should be able to blow apart my posts, irrespective of what insults I pepper them with. If you aren't concerned about them, ignore the insults and respond to the perfectly valid comments I make.

If Kai can't describe anything cosmological which we can measure why should we believe anything he has (or you have) to say on things we can't measure? The reason why people put such confidence into things like Einstein's predictions of gravitational waves or the SM's predictions of the Higgs mechanism is that they have passed all the tests we can currently put them to, they answer every question asked accurately. You can't describe a single thing we can measure so why should we believe you can describe anything we can't?

What point is there in trying to teach you anything if you come back and make the same mistakes?

Teach me what? It's obviously not cosmology or anythign else related to physics because neither you nor Kai can provide any. And in order to avoid discussing any physics with me you hide behind the "Oh he's being mean" whining. You want to know how to get me out of this thread and any other of your threads? To silence my insults and posts? Put your physics where your mouth is. That's all any crank needs to do. But you haven't because you can't. If you want to show you're more 'professional' and 'ethic' than me then explain why I'm wrong in my comments about the work you and Kai have done and justify your claims you have university level knowledge of some areas of physics and maths.

Because for all your comments about me being unprofessional I've demonstrated I have plenty of knowledge stemming from my profession. All you've done is avoid justifying any claim you make.

 

[quantum_wave]

Well done on responding to nothing of what I said. It dulls the comments you make about my supposed 'easy flowing insults' and inappropriate responses when you don't actually retort anything I said.

I did too. You said we were lying. I said your were your own worst enemy by using insults instead of the art of discussion.

Neither you nor Kai have a working model of anything to do with cosmology or any other area of physics as it happens.

I refer to cosmology as a description of the universe. Not a partial description, but using the partial description that we call the consensus, the best we can do to explain it, and then venturing into the unknown step by step with reasonable and responsible speculation. Kai has that in his view of TFT.

You mentioned consistency with experiments. I pointed out you have no predictions for any experiments, relating to the big bang or anything else. Even string theory has predictions about the behaviour of gravity, predictions which pass experimental tests. You retorted none of that.

But I have retorted. Time and time again. There are aspects of cosmology that cannot be quantified and tested, but they are still part of a complete view of cosmology.

If I'm so off the mark and just throwing insults than you should be able to blow apart my posts, irrespective of what insults I pepper them with. If you aren't concerned about them, ignore the insults and respond to the perfectly valid comments I make.

You are always talking about what science is has done. I am always pointing out that science only goes so far.

If Kai can't describe anything cosmological which we can measure why should we believe anything he has (or you have) to say on things we can't measure?

See above.

The reason why people put such confidence into things like Einstein's predictions of gravitational waves or the SM's predictions of the Higgs mechanism is that they have passed all the tests we can currently put them to, they answer every question asked accurately.

Oh really? And if that was even remotely true, it still is limited to current science and science theory. You are not talking about cosmology that addresses the issues that are part of a complete cosmology, i.e. Was there a beginning, what caused the beginning. What causes the presence of mass and gravity. What caused the initial expansion of the observable universe? I have asked you those questions and you have never given me a quantifiable answer or any evidence to support you answer.

You can't describe a single thing we can measure so why should we believe you can describe anything we can't?

See above.

Teach me what? It's obviously not cosmology or anythign else related to physics because neither you nor Kai can provide any. And in order to avoid discussing any physics with me you hide behind the "Oh he's being mean" whining.

"Mean" and whining? No, that is not what I am doing. I am pointing out why you are your own worst enemy and why you can't even make a simple point that isn't based on science and science theory. I am still waiting for you to show some observational evidence of a string. Or did I miss that. Why can't you? Why are you insisting on such things from Kai and can't produce the corresponding evidence that I ask you for?

You want to know how to get me out of this thread and any other of your threads?

This is not what I want.

To silence my insults and posts? Put your physics where your mouth is. That's all any crank ...

You see, you can't even get through one post without the unnecessary insults. People don't pay any attention to you when you go there. That is what I am trying to teach you.

For the record, I am not interested in hijacking Kai's thread to chat with you so I want to save you the trouble of responding line by line. Just a brief insult would be appreciated .

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

Well done on responding to nothing of what I said. It dulls the comments you make about my supposed 'easy flowing insults' and inappropriate responses when you don't actually retort anything I said.

Neither you nor Kai have a working model of anything to do with cosmology or any other area of physics as it happens. You mentioned consistency with experiments. I pointed out you have no predictions for any experiments, relating to the big bang or anything else.

Kaiduorkhon:
"...you have no predictions for any experiments, relating to the big bang, or anything else." - AlphaNumeric

My work predicts that because nothing begets nothing, and because the BBT is a creationist apparition, it withers on the ersatz vine it's grounded to. There has always been matter and energy and motion in the universe, and there will always be. This is what the words 'eternity' and 'infinity', mean. The enigma of 'where it all started' ('It must have started/begun somewhere at some time') is no less or more a dilemma than the proposition that it didn't 'start' at all - that matter, energy and motion have always been...

Whereas, the tie-breaker on this riddle is in the words of the philosophers, Locke and Hume - "Nothing, begets nothing". Ergo, everything's been here 'all along': forever. Matter and energy move around and morph a lot, but there's not any more or less of it now than there was or will be at any other past or projected place or time. In the words of H. D. Thoreau: 'Simplify. Simplify. Simplify'.

The interrogative, 'Why?' is applicable to all considerations. Why is the universe exhibiting accelerating expansion, for example - 'Gee. There must have been an initial explosion and what we're observing is the hangover from the big bang party that was thrown some 13 or 14 billion years ago.'

Since it's initial commencement in the early '60s, via Penzias and Wilson, 'adjustments' have been appended - at first a common center of where it all started was anticipated, when it was learned that there is no common center and that everything is expanding from everything else in direct line of sight regardless of the point from which observation is made, well, then it was 'adjusted' to sort of a bundle of big bangs - going off kinda like a string of firecrackers.

Evidence against THE BIG BANG: http://www.marxist.com/science-old/bigbang.html

AlphaNumeric:
Even string theory has predictions about the behaviour of gravity, predictions which pass experimental tests. You retorted none of that.

Kaiduorkhon:
You say string theory has predictions about the behavior of gravity that pass experimental tests, and, that 'you retorted none of that'. A retort will be forthcoming from this sector when you specify what predictions and experimental tests you're talking about....

AlphaNumeric:
If I'm so off the mark and just throwing insults than you should be able to blow apart my posts, irrespective of what insults I pepper them with. If you aren't concerned about them, ignore the insults and respond to the perfectly valid comments I make.

Kaiduorkhon:
The question I just asked you was not asked because you made perfectly valid comments, it was asked because there was no specificity in your allegations, while at the same time you remained on the corner, holding out your hat, expecting a retort of some kind - complaining about the stinginess of passers-by.

AlphaNumeric:
If Kai can't describe anything cosmological which we can measure why should we believe anything he has (or you have) to say on things we can't measure?

Kaiduorkhon:
You can't measure a parabolic arc? The rate of descent of objects in free fall in the absence of air resistance? The Celeritas constant? The acceleration of ripples on the surface of a quiet pool of water? The spectroscopic red shift? The list could be extended appreciably but you get the idea on what is in fact measurable. What you don't understand is what it's got to do with the book you haven't read: that you are critisizing, with your institutionally absorbed, foregone (spoon bending?) expertise.

AlphaNumeric:
The reason why people put such confidence into things like Einstein's predictions of gravitational waves or the SM's predictions of the Higgs mechanism is that they have passed all the tests we can currently put them to, they answer every question asked accurately.

Kaiduorkhon:
My readers and I have much better reason to have confidence in Einstein's predictions of gravitational waves than you or your acolytes do. Matter is a reservoir of ever expanding gravitational waves.

AlphaNumeric:
You can't describe a single thing we can measure so why should we believe you can describe anything we can't?

Kaiduorkhon:
Many of your words are engraved on the wind.
p. 29, post 281 & 289


AlphaNumeric:
Teach me what? It's obviously not cosmology or anythign else related to physics because neither you nor Kai can provide any.

Kaiduorkhon:
You've overlooked the undoing of just about everything you or any other quasi traditionalist physicist has to say, think and do: you've overlooked the time line in the projection emitting from the world renowned hypercube icon of what Einstein called the 4-dimensional space time continuum.
You would also do well to meditate on the meaning of pi r squared.

AlphaNumeric:
And in order to avoid discussing any physics with me you hide behind the "Oh he's being mean" whining. You want to know how to get me out of this thread and any other of your threads? To silence my insults and posts? Put your physics where your mouth is. That's all any crank needs to do. But you haven't because you can't.

Kaiduorkhon:
A bold allegation does not a point make.

AlphaNumeric:
If you want to show you're more 'professional' and 'ethic' than me then explain why I'm wrong in my comments about the work you and Kai have done and justify your claims you have university level knowledge of some areas of physics and maths.

Kaiduorkhon:
Those claims have been justified, many times, in many way, not only in the issued book, but in this thread, and not only by myself, but by QW as well, whose allusions to your behavior are in fact relevant to this discourse - your harsh claim is that there is some great contrast between your bad manners and your allegations about what you know. Whereas, very frequently, there's no difference. Merely words of retort to generate an illusion of meanng that often absents itself from your would-be explications. As though no one will notice that all too often you talk like a man with nothing to say.

AlphaNumeric:
Because for all your comments about me being unprofessional I've demonstrated I have plenty of knowledge stemming from my profession. All you've done is avoid justifying any claim you make.

Kaiduorkhon:
There you go again. Another of your demonstrations of allegation without substance. Perhaps you can harness such energies to something constructive, like inflating zeppelins.
--------------------------------------------------------------

"I am not required to accept the word of any master." [Lat.]

'This is the motto of the Royal Society of Science in England, meant to assert the independence of science from various authorities; but ironically we must now apply it to them, the various academic societies in the US, and to the standard model worldwide, which has taken over the dictatorial powers of the old Church and Monarch that Galileo and Newton had to resist.

Mainstream science has itself become the authoritative and tyrannical magister or master.' - Miles Mathis

 

[AlphaNumeric]

But I have retorted. Time and time again.

So you can provide me with a working model of some phenomenon from either your 'work' or Kai's? You can show step by step derivations of your results which are consistent with experiments?

And you over no reason why anyone should listen to your claims about what we can't measure when you can't even get it right for what we can.

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

Kaiduorkhon:

Review:
The 'Time Cube comes to mind' was a ploy to augment the deception that it has to do with a 'super cube' or 'hyper cube' - both and each of which are very well known, modern-traditional icons for Einstein's 4th Dimension.

The projection of the cube at right angles from itself is a time line.

It is rejected as such because it means that all of physical reality is 4-Dimensionally expanding, ever faster; accelerating at right angles from itself. Which, 'obviously it is not'. (Obviously, it is...)

If all but one portion had to be omitted from this post, this portion is the one reserved for selection. The time line projection of the 4-D SuperCube/HyperCube is the lynch pin of this entire skunk fight, and all arguments contingent to it.

You are adept at taking the offensive, in order to avoid being - however appropriately or obligatorily - on the defensive.

'You can't do this, or you won't do that, or you don't do the other thing', etceteras.
----------------------------------------------------------

Dear AlphaNumeric:
You have conspicuously ignored a lot of cases in point throughout this thread; this recent segment of our discourse being one of the more outstanding evasions on your part. It is the principle theme of the entire book at issue. If you cannot make a case of disqualification against it, your entire disagreement is compromised.

 

[quantum_wave]

Kaiduorkhon:

Review:
The 'Time Cube comes to mind' was a ploy to augment the deception that it has to do with a 'super cube' or 'hyper cube' - both and each of which are very well known, modern-traditional icons for Einstein's 4th Dimension.

The projection of the cube at right angles from itself is a time line.

It is rejected as such because it means that all of physical reality is 4-Dimensionally expanding, ever faster; accelerating at right angles from itself. Which, 'obviously it is not'. (Obviously, it is...)

If all but one portion had to be omitted from this post, this portion is the one reserved for selection. The time line projection of the 4-D SuperCube/HyperCube is the lynch pin of this entire skunk fight, and all arguments contingent to it.

You are adept at taking the offensive, in order to avoid being - however appropriately or obligatorily - on the defensive.

'You can't do this, or you won't do that, or you don't do the other thing', etceteras.
----------------------------------------------------------

Dear AlphaNumeric:
You have conspicuously ignored a lot of cases in point throughout this thread; this recent segment of our discourse being one of the more outstanding evasions on your part. It is the principle theme of the entire book at issue. If you cannot make a case of disqualification against it, your entire disagreement is compromised.

Your point is crystal clear.

During the lul would you clear up one question that I have about TFT. You explain that the universe is finite at any given point in time. And GR says space is being created as expansion unfolds. Do you consider that to be the case in TFT, i.e. there is nothing not even empty space outside the finite universe?

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

QuantumWave: (Excerpt):
"During the lul would you clear up one question that I have about TFT. You explain that the universe is finite at any given point in time."

Kaiduorkhon:
'Finite at any given moment in space, and infinite in time.'

QW:
And GR says space is being created as expansion unfolds.

Kaiduorkhon:
In accordance with my last correction (above), QW, yes.

QW:
Do you consider that to be the case in TFT, i.e. there is nothing not even empty space outside the finite universe?

Kai:
As you know, one of Einstein's most quoted quotes is:
"There is no space empty of field".

Whereas, a condition of 'nothing, not even empty space' is, IMHO, imponderable.

PostScript:
The website (Theory of Everything) that the url to my book leads to, is presently being renovated. Consequently, the url to access TOTAL FIELD THEORY is intermittently emerging as a 404 (inaccessible), until the host (Robert) has completed his updating of the site.

Good to hear from you as always, QW. : )
Do you understand and agree with the correction?

The premise (from my book) that we are talking about here, is:
'The universe is finite at any given moment in space, and infinite in time'. Ok?

Dear AlphaNumeric and alephnull:
Hopefully you are in agreement that the central premise for my work is founded on the ('radical') interpretation of the hypercube/supercube perpendicular projection from the interior cube, is a time line and not a space line. Your disqualification or acknowledgement and recognition of that premise is the present - pending - basis of this discourse.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Dear AlphaNumeric:
You have conspicuously ignored a lot of cases in point throughout this thread; this recent segment of our discourse being one of the more outstanding evasions on your part. It is the principle theme of the entire book at issue. If you cannot make a case of disqualification against it, your entire disagreement is compromised.

You can't make a case to support it. You claim to describe electromagnetism but you can't demonstrate it. q_w talks about experimentally consistent but you aren't. You claim to have mathematical proof point based theories are flawed yet they exist and are consistent, proving you wrong. You admit you don't know 'higher mathematics' yet you make claims about it.

I ask you to provide a single phenomenon you can accurately describe and you can't provide one.

What more do I need to do? I don't need to reply to your claims point by point, its up to you to provide evidence for your claims.

 

[quantum_wave]

QuantumWave: (Excerpt):
"During the lul would you clear up one question that I have about TFT. You explain that the universe is finite at any given point in time."

Kaiduorkhon:
'Finite at any given moment in space, and infinite in time.'

QW:
And GR says space is being created as expansion unfolds.

Kaiduorkhon:
In accordance with my last correction (above), QW, yes.

QW:
Do you consider that to be the case in TFT, i.e. there is nothing not even empty space outside the finite universe?

Kai:
As you know, one of Einstein's most quoted quotes is:
"There is no space empty of field".

Whereas, a condition of 'nothing, not even empty space' is, IMHO, imponderable.

Do you understand and agree with the correction?

The premise (from my book) that we are talking about here, is:
'The universe is finite at any given moment in space, and infinite in time'. Ok?

OK, but my pea brain doesn't grasp the answer fully. There is still an incomplete understanding that you might be able to clear up from your perspective:

It is still possible that the imponderable of empty space can be discussed from the standpoint that EM leads the advance in the volume occupied by the finite spatial universe. I understand you and Einstein to be saying that the field is advancing in volume as EM emanates from the "stuff" of the universe. To discuss my fine point, you and Einstein are saying that space and time are coupled and that the increasing volume of space occupied by the advancing EM did not exist until the EM advanced to occupy it.

Try to sort out a question in there .

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

You can't make a case to support it.

Kai
The book you refuse to read is abundant with supporting cases. Turning the tables and verbal judo doesn't work in the case of the question you've been confronted with.

AN:
You claim to describe electromagnetism but you can't demonstrate it.

Kai:
Demonstrate? You, and the ground you walk on, and everything you behold, is electromagnetism. Maxwell determined that quite a while back, maybe you forgot? You're also off topic from the question I'm asking you.

AN:
q_w talks about experimentally consistent but you aren't.

Kai:
The anthological information in the book you won't read is a ledger of experimental consistencies. You're also still off topic.

AN:
You claim to have mathematical proof point based theories are flawed yet they exist and are consistent, proving you wrong.

Kai:
Make your case. (You're still off topic.)

AN:
You admit you don't know 'higher mathematics' yet you make claims about it.

Kai:
Like, F=GMM over r squared, for example. (You're off topic.)

AN:
I ask you to provide a single phenomenon you can accurately describe and you can't provide one.

Kai:
Disregarding for the moment the book you won't read - you ostensibly don't read a lot of material in this thread. You have a real problem with that, while you deny information that is abundantly present right here in this thread. You're off topic from the question you've left suspended without responsible retort.

AN:
What more do I need to do? I don't need to reply to your claims point by point, its up to you to provide evidence for your claims.

Kai:
It's up to you to opportune yourself to consider and evaluate that evidence.
You've cultivated a method of denying resolutions that are already resolved.

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

OK, but my pea brain doesn't grasp the answer fully. There is still an incomplete understanding that you might be able to clear up from your perspective:

It is still possible that the imponderable of empty space can be discussed from the standpoint that EM leads the advance in the volume occupied by the finite spatial universe. I understand you and Einstein to be saying that the field is advancing in volume as EM emanates from the "stuff" of the universe. To discuss my fine point, you and Einstein are saying that space and time are coupled and that the increasing volume of space occupied by the advancing EM did not exist until the EM advanced to occupy it.

Try to sort out a question in there .

I think you've answered your own question, from what I can discern of what you're saying - and you're expressing it pretty well.