TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics

[AlphaNumeric]

The LHC is searching for whatever news it can scoop, including 'gravitons' and 'the god particle', the latter hypothetical entity is said to have ('probably') been present at the 'Big Bang'.

Gravitons are everywhere all the time, they carry gravitational disturbances in the same way photons carry electromagnetism. It's just a single graviton is hard to see.

At about 100 Giga electron volts... the interactive energy of all particles - strong & weak forces - start to be a manifestation of a single force. Things start to unify. Particle physicists are mystified by this (unification). This is where the so called 'multi-dimensional universe' (of 11 & more dimensions) is actually the intersection of back-tracked geometric lines of electromagnetism in concordance with the central theme of Total Field Theory - specifically, this means that the microcosms are just as extensive as the macrocosms. It also means that the so called Big Bang ('creation') theory is wrong.

This is nonsense. 100GeV is just about the electroweak energy scale, where electromagnetism and the weak force unify. This was understood in the 70s. The strong force doesn't come into it until you get to around a million billion GeV, the GUT scale.

And the whole thing about 11 dimensions+ is not to do with string theory, the person is obviously talking about some pet theory.

Kaiduorkhon, can you tell me why there isn't a 13 dimensional supersymmetric theory?

"There is no such thing as a one - or two - dimensional entity that influences three and more dimensional space." - Truly Yours

Evidence?

Dear AlphaNumeric:
Please offer your choice of a quantitative model of string theory.

I haven't claimed to have one. String theory provides a single framework within which gravity, gauge theories and cosmology all unify in a natural manner but presently we don't have the precise construction of how to get our universe out of the model. There's plenty of various bits which give cosmological or QCD descriptions. I have worked with people who have done models of the cosmological constant using string theory. I've also worked with people who've used string theory to model QCD processes. Your question is very close to a strawman, unless you realise no one has claimed there's a full model of the universe currently in string theory.

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
The LHC is searching for whatever news it can scoop, including 'gravitons' and 'the god particle', the latter hypothetical entity is said to have ('probably') been present at the 'Big Bang'. ”

AlphaNumeric:
Gravitons are everywhere all the time, they carry gravitational disturbances in the same way photons carry electromagnetism. It's just a single graviton is hard to see.

Kaiduorkhon:
Please let me know when one or more gravitons get isolated or otherwise proved. As you might say: 'Evidence?'

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
At about 100 Giga electron volts... the interactive energy of all particles - strong & weak forces - start to be a manifestation of a single force. Things start to unify. Particle physicists are mystified by this (unification). This is where the so called 'multi-dimensional universe' (of 11 & more dimensions) is actually the intersection of back-tracked geometric lines of electromagnetism in concordance with the central theme of Total Field Theory - specifically, this means that the microcosms are just as extensive as the macrocosms. It also means that the so called Big Bang ('creation') theory is wrong. ”


AlphaNumeric:
This is nonsense. 100GeV is just about the electroweak energy scale, where electromagnetism and the weak force unify. This was understood in the 70s. The strong force doesn't come into it until you get to around a million billion GeV, the GUT scale.

Kaiduorkhon:
All right. The GeV is out dated. The interrogative (and the proclamation about the Big Bang theory) remains intact.

AlphaNumeric:
And the whole thing about 11 dimensions+ is not to do with string theory, the person is obviously talking about some pet theory.

Kaiduorkhon:
It's a very popular 'pet theory'.

AlphaNumeric:
Kaiduorkhon, can you tell me why there isn't a 13 dimensional supersymmetric theory?

Kaiduorkhon:
I have no idea, particles and strings are not my field. And though I am making mistakes, I've recently learned more about your work than you have mine.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
"There is no such thing as a one - or two - dimensional entity that influences emerged three and more dimensional space." - Truly Yours ”

AlphaNumeric:
Evidence?

Kaiduorkhon:
Real space-time events are not known to occur beneath a minimum of three dimensions.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Dear AlphaNumeric:
Please offer your choice of a quantitative model of string theory. ”

AlphaNumeric:
I haven't claimed to have one. String theory provides a single framework within which gravity, gauge theories and cosmology all unify in a natural manner but presently we don't have the precise construction of how to get our universe out of the model. There's plenty of various bits which give cosmological or QCD descriptions. I have worked with people who have done models of the cosmological constant using string theory. I've also worked with people who've used string theory to model QCD processes. Your question is very close to a strawman, unless you realise no one has claimed there's a full model of the universe currently in string theory.

Kaiduorkhon:
Wasn't sure, but didn't think there was a full model of a string theory universe. Wanted to know if, perhaps, you had something along those lines.
Your answer includes the statement: "I have worked with people who have done models of the cosmological constant using string theory to model QCD processes", constitutes the antithesis of a 'strawman', whereas, it's tantamount to an admission that the cosmological constant is reinstated.

Post Script:
This Post (beginning of p. 15) arrived while I was editing the last Post on p. 14, which has questions appended to it that are not attached to this Post. Will you kindly address and respond to those questions?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Please let me know when one or more gravitons get isolated or otherwise proved. As you might say: 'Evidence?'

Gravity is very weak so you need to have enormous energy scales to detect single gravitons. This doesn't mean they aren't there, just difficult to detect. We don't expect weather satellites to detect single molecules of water at the bottom of the ocean but we can still test weather models based on the behaviour of water.

All right. The GeV is out dated. The interrogative (and the proclamation about the Big Bang theory) remains intact.
'

What? Did you even read what I said. The person you're quoting is wrong, talking absolute nonsense. They are incorrect in their comments about models combining known forces and they are simply referring to their own pet theory with regards to a fully unified model. A GeV is a unit of energy, it's not 'out dated'. That's like saying a metre is outdated. The claims by that person about the BB are just their ignorant pet theory.

Can't you tell the difference between mainstream and crank? You can't even notice when someone says something categorically false about something which is in 'The Standard Model' and has been for 30 years. Nobel Prizes were given for it!

Clearly you're hardly in an informed position when it comes to evaluating mainstream ideas or the validity of your own pet theory.

It's a very popular 'pet theory'.

What, the authors? I doubt it given they obviously don't know about the SM.

I have no idea, particles and strings are not my field. And though I am making mistakes, I've recently learned more about your work than you have mine.

Particles and strings obviously aren't your field. Neither is anything else in science, you've made that abundantly clear. And you learning something new about string theory isn't hard given you know nothing about it. Specifically my work though, you don't know anything about it.

Real space-time events are not known to occur beneath a minimum of three dimensions.

Space-time events are zero dimensional, they are points in space-time. Quantum field theory is built on zero dimensional particles. General relativity allows objects of any number of dimensions to alter space-time curvature. Haven't you ever solved the Einstein Field Equations for point sources? Of course not.....

Your answer includes the statement: "I have worked with people who have done models of the cosmological constant using string theory to model QCD processes", constitutes the antithesis of a 'strawman', whereas, it's tantamount to an admission that the cosmological constant is reinstated.

Where did I claim that people denied the possibility of a cosmological constant? Nowhere! Doesn't mean such things have anything to do with you. The non-zero cosmological constant first came from Einstein and was given experimental support by supernovae observations implying an accelerating expansion. Nothing at all to do with you.

You noticeably have no comment regarding p. 5, Post 50 - which was authored by me and could serve well as an introduction to any discourse on microcosmic physics, certainly including string theory. Did you ignore it because it resembles a 'cut & paste' or a 'blog' which you have expressed an aversion to (in this case, from my own book)?

Yes, I scrolled past it.

Do you consider your avatar - representing a looped string? - as the signal you emit in identifying with the established inner circle of string theorists?

I consider my avatar to mean I have an interest in string theory.

Is your self described and admitted disrespect in this discourse your way of demonstrating that you don't take seriously, alternative avenues of approach to the existing problems in physics unless they're authored by someone of notariety, or with some considerable background in formal education regarding mathematics or physics?

I expect people who denounce mainstream models to at least understand them on some kind of working level. I expect people proclaiming to have viable models of gravity or electromagnetism or everything to be able to model particular phenomena which current models can. I expect people to be able to discuss things in their own words, not resort to massive copy and pastes.

When you proclaim "Trust me", to me, can you reassure me why I should?

I've demonstrated a much better grasp and familiarity with mainstream models than you. I don't get my information from Google and YouTube.

Do you anticipate that the LHC is going to confirm string 'theory'? (Refer 'M Theory' - which isn't a theory either; rather an advanced string hypothesis, having, as you say of my - unread - work, 'accomplished nothing'.)

No, I don't. It might find things which lend more credence to string theory such as supersymmetry and extra dimensions but not confirm it.

Have you read Prof. P.Woit's "Not Even Wrong"?

No, I prefer to get an understanding of string theory by reading its working details and using my knowledge of other areas of physics, including quantum field theory and general relativity, to evaluate it for myself. I don't need the information in textbooks or papers to be filtered into laymans words for me by someone with an obvious bias, one way or the other. You obviously do.

Have you an opinion of how much excitement and incentive and myopic commital has been invested in the culmination of a 15 - 20 year project at the cost of over eight billion dollars has culminated within the 'string theory community'?

The LHC is to test the Higgs sector of the electroweak model, colour deconfinement in quark-gluon plasmas of QCD, photon-photon scattering in QED, flavour mixing in the lepton sector and perhaps find an explanation for dark matter via supersymmetry. These are all motived by the Standard Model and simple extensions of it. String theory doesn't come into it.

Exotic things like extra dimensions or black holes are not the reason the LHC was built and are simply things it might see if they exist at energies below 14TeV. Neither of those would confirm or deny string theory.

The fact you seem to clueless about the purpose behind the LHC and the motivation given to various experiments it will do illustrates my point about you, that you are utterly ignorant of something you so emphatically denounce.

Do you consider the LHC to be the forthcoming liberator of the scientifically restrained string theory and its advocates? Are you following the funding, grants and the herd of string theorists - also following the money?

The LHC and string theory are independent things. Please try to grasp that. As for following the money, I am not. A few weeks ago I went looking on uni websites to see about possible postdoc positions in particle physics. For every string theory place there were at least 2 or 3 experimental/phenomenology positions, sometimes 4 or 5. If I'd done Lattice QCD or the MSSM or neutrino physics I'd have easily had twice the number of options for jobs. The specific area I work in is very small, probably less than 20 people working on it in the world. The big string theory areas are the AdS/CFT correspondence or M-theory unifications or topological flop transitions.

If I were after money I'd not be bothering about a PhD or a postdoc place, I'd be working in a bank. Or aeronautics. Or engineering. Or nuclear physics. All of those pay a hell of a lot more than working in a uni does. People don't become physicists for the money, they do it because they enjoy it, they like answering questions no one else ever has. If I get a postdoc place I might earn £17,000 - £25,000. The opening salary for one bank I looked at was £40,000. I have friends I did my undergrad with who are on £70,000 already.

Please offer your choice of a quantitative model of string theory.

Are you so stupid you're asking an already answered question again or is this an accidental copy and paste?

 

[quantum_wave]

...

Are you so stupid you're asking an already answered question again or is this an accidental copy and paste?

I hardly think that statement deserves being referred to as stupid. I don't see where you have been specific about your choice of a quantitative model of string theory. To say you are interested in it is vague and unspecific. How about a link to your previous answer?

KBR, I am finishing up another short session at the Maple Pavilion, only covering about ten pages. But they were an important ten pages including chapters 9 and 10 . Looking forward to Chapter 11.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I hardly think that statement deserves being referred to as stupid..

I called him stupid for asking a question he'd already asked and I'd already answered.

I don't see where you have been specific about your choice of a quantitative model of string theory.

How about where I specifically quoted the first time he asked the question and responded to it at the end of this post. Or is that a little too subtle?

To say you are interested in it is vague and unspecific.

To be perfectly frank if I told you the title of my thesis or stated the area I'm interested in neither you nor he would have any clue what its about. And unlike you I don't see the need to talk about my work when no one asks or no one will follow.

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Please let me know when one or more gravitons get isolated or otherwise proved. As you might say: 'Evidence?' ”

AlphaNumeric
Gravity is very weak so you need to have enormous energy scales to detect single gravitons. This doesn't mean they aren't there, just difficult to detect. We don't expect weather satellites to detect single molecules of water at the bottom of the ocean but we can still test weather models based on the behaviour of water.

Kaiduorkhon:
Your metaphor is reminiscent of the 'effects of (hypothetical) black holes'. Black holes are very controversial - the issue has increased public and professional tolerance threshholds for what constitutes the difference between fact and speculation. I do not know Scientology, but have heard that it embraces a lot of unscientific stuff. Is it philosophy, religion, or both? Is that the way it is with gravitons and black holes?


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
All right. The GeV is out dated. The interrogative (and the proclamation about the Big Bang theory) remains intact.
' ”
AlphaNumeric:
What? Did you even read what I said. The person you're quoting is wrong, talking absolute nonsense. They are incorrect in their comments about models combining known forces and they are simply referring to their own pet theory with regards to a fully unified model. A GeV is a unit of energy, it's not 'out dated'. That's like saying a metre is outdated.

Kaiduorkhon:
In saying 'the GeV is outdated', clearly I refer to the amount of energy, and not the unit that measures it. Ostensibly, you understand that and are deliberately digressing with what you preceive as an opportunity to reprimand.


AlphaNumeric:
The claims by that person about the BB are just their ignorant pet theory.

Kaiduorkhon:
I am the person with the 'pet theory' that says there was not ever a 'singularity' that exploded and is the cause of the observed 'expanding universe'. I am the person who determines that theoretical physics will return to a universal status quo such as that of the (abandoned) Steady State.

AlphaNumeric:
Can't you tell the difference between mainstream and crank? You can't even notice when someone says something categorically false about something which is in 'The Standard Model' and has been for 30 years. Nobel Prizes were given for it!

Kaiduorkhon:
You have allowed the usage of metaphors (for gravitons), which method I do not contest...

Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama were given the Nobel Prize for peace. Kissinger (along with Secretary MacNamara) was the architect of the Vietnam War and got the Nobel Prize for 'expediting peace in Vietnam'. Obama himself clarified that he was reluctant to accept the (irony of the) honorific. That is to say, the Nobel Prize is not above refute or politics.

AlphaNumeric:
Clearly you're hardly in an informed position when it comes to evaluating mainstream ideas or the validity of your own pet theory.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
It's a very popular 'pet theory'. ”

AlphaNumeric:
What, the authors? I doubt it given they obviously don't know about the SM.

Kaiduorkhon:
Standard information resources abound with convuluted and conflicting 'Standard Models', this is particularly true of the 'Big Bang' on a macrocosmic scale, and quantum physics on a microcosmic scale: to the point that there is a serious question of what 'Standard Model' applies to whatever particular phenomenological/existential condition is at point.

What do you mean by 'SM', AlphaNumeric - other than that it apparently refers to a 'Standard Model'? (Or, perhaps you allude to 'string theory's' <characteristically> dichotomized "M Theory"?)


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
I have no idea, particles and strings are not my field. And though I am making mistakes, I've recently learned more about your work than you have mine. ”

AlphaNumeric:
Particles and strings obviously aren't your field.

Kaiduorkhon:
My work does not recognize 'particles', or 'strings' as they are presently interpreted. "There is no space empty of field". - Einstein


AlphaNumeric:
Neither is anything else in science, you've made that abundantly clear.

Kaiduorkhon:
Since, until further notice, you've not read my book, and, since you flatly ignore what you call my 'cut & pastes' and 'blogs' (as they occur in this thread), you're not qualified to ascertain the extent of my knowledge of science.

AlphaNumeric
And you learning something new about string theory isn't hard given you know nothing about it. Specifically my work though, you don't know anything about it.

Kaiduorkhon:
Given you know nothing about Total Field Theory's central theme and it's unprecedented contingencies, your oblique 'salutations' are returned.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Real space-time events are not known to occur beneath a minimum of three dimensions. ”


AlphaNumeric:
Space-time events are zero dimensional, they are points in space-time. Quantum field theory is built on zero dimensional particles. General relativity allows objects of any number of dimensions to alter space-time curvature. Haven't you ever solved the Einstein Field Equations for point sources? Of course not.....

Kaiduorkhon:
As you have already been straightforwardly told, I don't do higher math. My work is a non-mathematical translation of the higher maths that apply to (among other phenomena) Special & especially General Relativity. My work is primarily based on re-cognition of what was and is already known or theorized; explains previously uncomprehended/unexplained facts. Space-time is the interval/duration between two or more spatially accomodated events. My quantum field theory proceeds - in the form of electricity and as a 90 degree unit of space (consequently always having the same value), which emits and accelerates from any (four dimensional) material entity.

Space-time curvature is explicable in a four dimensional setting, wherein, Einstein applies his interpretation of the Equivalence Principle to explain the apparent curvature of light when passing near a major gravitational system, as specifically addressed and explained in Total Field Theory.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your answer includes the statement: "I have worked with people who have done models of the cosmological constant using string theory to model QCD processes", constitutes the antithesis of a 'strawman', whereas, it's tantamount to an admission that the cosmological constant is reinstated. ”


AlphaNumeric:
Where did I claim that people denied the possibility of a cosmological constant? Nowhere! Doesn't mean such things have anything to do with you. The non-zero cosmological constant first came from Einstein and was given experimental support by supernovae observations implying an accelerating expansion. Nothing at all to do with you.

Kaiduorkhon:
The Cosmological Constant was abandoned when Silpher-Hubble discovered a (red shift) expanding universe (1927 - '29). It has not been identified as having returned from 'retirement', while it is - especially since 1998 - incorporated in several innovations of astrophysics (refer LCDM - Lambda Cold Dark Matter).

In saying (twice, in two different ways) that the (Einstein's) cosmological constant (- /\ Lambda) has 'Nothing at all to do with you', excludes altogether one of the central themes of my book, which you directly imply you refuse to read. The cosmological constant retrieves the Steady State Theory and disqualifies the 'Big Bang Theory' (and all of it's 'transitional adjustments'). It is the causal identity of the force that produces the 'expanding (accelerating) universe'.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
You noticeably have no comment regarding p. 5, Post 50 - which was authored by me and could serve well as an introduction to any discourse on microcosmic physics, certainly including string theory. Did you ignore it because it resembles a 'cut & paste' or a 'blog' which you have expressed an aversion to (in this case, from my own book)? ”

AlphaNumeric:
Yes, I scrolled past it.

Kaiduorkhon:
Case in point.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Do you consider your avatar - representing a looped string? - as the signal you emit in identifying with the established inner circle of string theorists? ”

AlphaNumeric:
I consider my avatar to mean I have an interest in string theory.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Is your self described and admitted disrespect in this discourse your way of demonstrating that you don't take seriously, alternative avenues of approach to the existing problems in physics unless they're authored by someone of notariety, or with some considerable background in formal education regarding mathematics or physics? ”

AlphaNumeric:
I expect people who denounce mainstream models to at least understand them on some kind of working level. I expect people proclaiming to have viable models of gravity or electromagnetism or everything to be able to model particular phenomena which current models can. I expect people to be able to discuss things in their own words, not resort to massive copy and pastes.

Kaiduorkhon:
I expect people to read my book before they critique it; then to itemize their evaluation(s).

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
When you proclaim "Trust me", to me, can you reassure me why I should? ”

AlphaNumeric:
I've demonstrated a much better grasp and familiarity with mainstream models than you. I don't get my information from Google and YouTube.

Kaiduorkhon:
My book was originally small press published and distributed in essay form (in three languages) over two decades before you were born. The first edition in staple-back book format was sold out via local bookstores in Berkeley-San Francisco and via international mail order, via the 1970 Whole Earth Catalogue. Five more small press editions were sold out before the internet was available to the public. I didn't get my information from Google and YouTube. The latter of which, as I've already explained, represents a massive example of the irresponsible license that is being taken in the name of teaching 'string theory'.

Very recently, I have accessed Google to acquire information, much of which, I am aware is dated - and questionable - depending on the given source.

Do you consider 'string theory' to be 'mainstream'?


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Do you anticipate that the LHC is going to confirm string 'theory'? (Refer 'M Theory' - which isn't a theory either; rather an advanced string hypothesis, having, as you say of my - unread - work, 'accomplished nothing'.) ”

AlphaNumeric:
No, I don't. It might find things which lend more credence to string theory such as supersymmetry and extra dimensions but not confirm it.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Have you read Prof. P.Woit's "Not Even Wrong"? ”

AlphaNumeric:
No, I prefer to get an understanding of string theory by reading its working details and using my knowledge of other areas of physics, including quantum field theory and general relativity, to evaluate it for myself. I don't need the information in textbooks or papers to be filtered into laymans words for me by someone with an obvious bias, one way or the other. You obviously do.

Kaiduorkhon:
Yes. I do. Is it not appropriate to gather as much information as reasonably possible on a subject, even from sources which you may not necessarily agree with? Does reading 'Mein Kampf' imply that one is a nazi? Does it not reveal the nature of the opposing view and thereby further one's perspective and education?


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Have you an opinion of how much excitement and incentive and myopic commital has been invested in the culmination of a 15 - 20 year project at the cost of over eight billion dollars has culminated within the 'string theory community'? ”

AlphaNumeric:
The LHC is to test the Higgs sector of the electroweak model, colour deconfinement in quark-gluon plasmas of QCD, photon-photon scattering in QED, flavour mixing in the lepton sector and perhaps find an explanation for dark matter via supersymmetry. These are all motived by the Standard Model and simple extensions of it. String theory doesn't come into it.

Exotic things like extra dimensions or black holes are not the reason the LHC was built and are simply things it might see if they exist at energies below 14TeV. Neither of those would confirm or deny string theory.

Kaiduorkhon:
Due to your last series of statements, I now know more than I did before I read them. Sincere thanks.

AlphaNumeric
The fact you seem to clueless about the purpose behind the LHC and the motivation given to various experiments it will do illustrates my point about you, that you are utterly ignorant of something you so emphatically denounce.

Kaiduorkhon:
I must admit, I learned much of my 'ignorance' of 'string theory' from Prof. Peter Woit, though Prof. Brian Green's 'Elegant Universe' is well done, especially for mathematicians.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Do you consider the LHC to be the forthcoming liberator of the scientifically restrained string theory and its advocates? Are you following the funding, grants and the herd of string theorists - also following the money? ”

AlphaNumeric:
The LHC and string theory are independent things. Please try to grasp that.

Kaiduorkhon:
I'm aware of that.

AlphaNumeric:
As for following the money, I am not. A few weeks ago I went looking on uni websites to see about possible postdoc positions in particle physics. For every string theory place there were at least 2 or 3 experimental/phenomenology positions, sometimes 4 or 5. If I'd done Lattice QCD or the MSSM or neutrino physics I'd have easily had twice the number of options for jobs. The specific area I work in is very small, probably less than 20 people working on it in the world. The big string theory areas are the AdS/CFT correspondence or M-theory unifications or topological flop transitions.

If I were after money I'd not be bothering about a PhD or a postdoc place, I'd be working in a bank. Or aeronautics. Or engineering. Or nuclear physics. All of those pay a hell of a lot more than working in a uni does. People don't become physicists for the money, they do it because they enjoy it, they like answering questions no one else ever has. If I get a postdoc place I might earn £17,000 - £25,000. The opening salary for one bank I looked at was £40,000. I have friends I did my undergrad with who are on £70,000 already.

Kaiduorkhon:
Commendations to you then. Thank you for responding to my question.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Please offer your choice of a quantitative model of string theory. ”

AlphaNumeric:
Are you so stupid you're asking an already answered question again or is this an accidental copy and paste?

Kaiduorkhon:
It's obviously a residual question extended from my last post.

Google sources say that string theory has 2 prominent problems:
1) 'Predicts ten space-time dimensions - requiring six unobserved spatial dimensions, microcosmically wrapped up in one way or another.'
- Peter Woit, paraphrased

(The number of dimensions alleged to be bolstered in and about string theory vary from 'infinite', to 26, to 11, to 6, that I've read of. That's why it's a little confusing to determine whose 'pet theory' belongs to whom.)

2) 'Relies on an infinite number of terms, requiring a summation to get a result.The sum is almost certainly infinite. String theorists contemplate an infinite number of consistent theories of gravity with no principle for choosing among them.' - Peter Woit, Google: 'Is String Theory Even Wrong'.
------------------------------------
Recreational Post Script : )
Imagine yourself a complete novice-beginner on the subject of physics and encountering objections - targeting someone as claiming to have 're-written' physics'... Consider now that situation, with the 'target's' counter-statement and the terms and vocabulary reflected in it... Would it promote the study of physical science, or discourage it?

The talk of myself thinking to have ‘re-written physics’, occurs in the midst of what has been diversely and responsibly described as complete dissolution throughout the past several decades of theoretical physics - now peppered & sprayed with hypotheses, impersonating ‘theory’, personal abuse as educational policy, and a glueon sniffing lexicon (of hundreds of irreverently labeled real, hypothetical and unfound <AWOL> 'particles') to kill & die for. An ad hoc - artist's licensed -sharply abbreviated tour of New Age Disneyland follows:

"Copenhagen interpretation, collapsation, quarks, super strings, entanglement, wasted time, tachyons, gravitons, neurolinguistic programming, strangeness, big bang, charms, foam, 12 flavors, bottom-top, upper-lower, lies, psycho-molecular restructuring, DeathSpeak, static point mass emitting motionless electromagnetism beyond a static field, infinite parallel universes, celeritas constant isolated from light speed and electromagnetism - denied as information, dark matter, operant conditioning, 'scientific community', the Ministry of Truth, ‘tired light’, white holes, the-art-of-missing-the-point-when-you-can't-afford-to-catch-on, god-particles, Macho & Wimp particles, black holes, Mach's principle sans inertia, digressing-to-actuality, leptons, baryons, expanded-tolerance-threshholds, pink smoke on the Perrier, battered & bullied-women-make-better-pancakes & burgers (leprechauns, put-ons, take-offs) 'M Theory' variously translates to 'Membrane', 'Matrix', 'Mother', 'Meta', 'Magic' & 'Mystery', whereas Professor Peter Woit suggests that 'Mythical' may be more appropriate, given that years of work on 'M Theory' have yet to lead it to even a good conjecture ('Make 7! UP Yours!' - New World Order particles?) Lately, hip-hop physics rhubarb rappers are gargling about altogether eliminating Newton and Einstein and Maxwelll from the (‘What?’) gravitational field and slapsticking ‘waveicles’": while alluding to and skunk-fighting about the exemplary works of Newton, Hertz, Faraday, Maxwell, Thompson, Planck, Einstein, Rutherford, Bohr, Pauli, Jeans, Bondi, Gold, Hoyle, Eddington, etceteras, as being ‘gibberish’ (for example : ).

No, I certainly have not ‘rewritten physics’, although I have very significantly contested the dismissal of reality for lack of evidence, and contributed to empirically re-cognizing and resuscitating it, in situ. Not without the New Age Devo’s impetuously spin-doctored, transitions, adjustments, revisions, rip- offs, politically correct proclamations, friendly fascism, damned denials & obtuse humorless objections. (Say 'Good nite', Gracie?)

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Your metaphor is reminiscent of the 'effects of (hypothetical) black holes'. Black holes are very controversial - the issue has increased public and professional tolerance threshholds for what constitutes the difference between fact and speculation.

Black holes are not controversial in the scientific community. You sound like a creationist saying "Evolution is controversial". No, the scientific community has an overwhelming consensus. The 'controversy' is stirred up by people who don't do any of the science. Like you.

I do not know Scientology, but have heard that it embraces a lot of unscientific stuff. Is it philosophy, religion, or both? Is that the way it is with gravitons and black holes?

****ing hell, Scientology?! Do you simply vomit back words you think are relevant?! Scientology has nothing, absolutely categorically zero, to do with science. It's a hack cult-like religion invented in the 50s or 60s by a science fiction writer. You didn't even bother to Google what Scientology is! This perfectly illustrates how you are simply throwing every bit of ignorance you have at me and hoping just one bit sticks.

I am the person with the 'pet theory' that says there was not ever a 'singularity' that exploded and is the cause of the observed 'expanding universe'. I am the person who determines that theoretical physics will return to a universal status quo such as that of the (abandoned) Steady State.

So when trying to denounce string theory you think quoting a hack's pet theory is a relevant reply?

Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama were given the Nobel Prize for peace. Kissinger (along with Secretary MacNamara) was the architect of the Vietnam War and got the Nobel Prize for 'expediting peace in Vietnam'. Obama himself clarified that he was reluctant to accept the (irony of the) honorific. That is to say, the Nobel Prize is not above refute or politics.

My point is that its such a well known result that major awards have been given for it. If you don't know about it then it throws into question any claim you make about mainstream physics.

Standard information resources abound with convuluted and conflicting 'Standard Models', this is particularly true of the 'Big Bang' on a macrocosmic scale, and quantum physics on a microcosmic scale: to the point that there is a serious question of what 'Standard Model' applies to whatever particular phenomenological/existential condition is at point.

Again, there is no 'conflict'. If you get your information from Google, YouTube and pop science books you might be fooled into thinking there's conflicting results but there aren't.

What do you mean by 'SM', AlphaNumeric - other than that it apparently refers to a 'Standard Model'? (Or, perhaps you allude to 'string theory's' <characteristically> dichotomized "M Theory"?)

SM = Standard Model, the model of QED, electroweak and QCD put together.

And there's nothing 'dichotomized' about M theory.

you're not qualified to ascertain the extent of my knowledge of science.

You've been wrong about string theory, quantum field theory, black holes, relativity, cosmology on even qualitative grounds. You have not shown a single iota of quantitative understanding. Your posts here speak for themselves, you are profoundly ignorant of mainstream physics.

As you have already been straightforwardly told, I don't do higher math. My work is a non-mathematical translation of the higher maths that apply to (among other phenomena) Special & especially General Relativity.

Your work is a translation of the 'higher mathematics' to a non-mathematical explaination, yet you admit you don't do higher mathematics? That's like claiming you're a translator from Russian to English but you don't speak Russian.

And as your posts in this thread show time and again you don't know the current state of relativity or quantum mechanics so anyone getting their information from you is an example of the blind leading the blind.

My quantum field theory proceeds - in the form of electricity and as a 90 degree unit of space (consequently always having the same value), which emits and accelerates from any (four dimensional) material entity..

You don't have a quantum field theory nor do you have a model which describes Nature in any way. Please don't tell such pathetically transparent lies.

The cosmological constant retrieves the Steady State Theory and disqualifies the 'Big Bang Theory' (and all of it's 'transitional adjustments'). It is the causal identity of the force that produces the 'expanding (accelerating) universe'.

No, it doesn't. The SST doesn't explain the CMB power spectrum. And the cosmological coonstant is so small its only just being able to have an effect.

I expect people to read my book before they critique it; then to itemize their evaluation(s).

I don't have the masses of free time quantum_wave has. Give me the page number where you demonstrate your model of electromagnetism can accurately describe a single phenomenon in the universe.

My book was originally small press published and distributed in essay form (in three languages) over two decades before you were born.

The Quran and the Bible were distributed before you were born, doesn't make them right.

I didn't get my information from Google and YouTube.

No, you just quote people unrelated and uninformed about a topic, that's much better.

The latter of which, as I've already explained, represents a massive example of the irresponsible license that is being taken in the name of teaching 'string theory'.

I'm unsure as to whether you're saying the irresponsibility is YouTube's or string theory's. People can put, within reason, whatever they like on YouTube and title videos whatever they like. If you go on YouTube expecting to get accurate informed views then you're a naive idiot. There's thousands of hacks pushing their own pet theories on YouTube. There's thousands of science documentaries on there too. If you are unsure how to seperate fact from fiction then go straight to the source, the textbooks or published papers.

Do you consider 'string theory' to be 'mainstream'?

Yes.

Google sources say that string theory has 2 prominent problems:
1) 'Predicts ten space-time dimensions - requiring six unobserved spatial dimensions, microcosmically wrapped up in one way or another.'
- Peter Woit, paraphrased

(The number of dimensions alleged to be bolstered in and about string theory vary from 'infinite', to 26, to 11, to 6, that I've read of. That's why it's a little confusing to determine whose 'pet theory' belongs to whom.)

All previous quantum field theories, like QED, QCD etc required the number of dimensions to be set by hand. String theory predicts the number of dimensions. The number depends on which theory you're working in. The initial string theory only had bosonic modes and has in 26 dimensions. Then 5 superstring theories (with fermions) were constructed with 10 dimensions. All of these are just effective theories of a single 11 dimensional theory. The number of dimensions is 11 but some people prefer to work in special cases, the particular string theories. They are all linked via dualities so they are all just reformulations of one another written in ways which don't make it clear they are the same theory underneath.

If you have a theory which is U duality invariant then you don't need to worry which particular string theory you work in because you can reformulate it into any other string theory by using the known transformation rules. I have a paper on this as it happens.

2) 'Relies on an infinite number of terms, requiring a summation to get a result.The sum is almost certainly infinite. String theorists contemplate an infinite number of consistent theories of gravity with no principle for choosing among them.' - Peter Woit, Google: 'Is String Theory Even Wrong'.

If you'd actually worked with Feynmann you'd know his work was for such results, writing processes as an infinite series expanded in a perturbation parameter like a weak coupling. This is inherent to ALL models of nature which use perturbations, quantum field theory, relativity, electromagnetism, even fluid mechanics. If you have a known solution for a system and you change the system slightly then you change the solution slightly. Series solutions are a standard method in any physics course. If you're unfamiliar with this then you lack one of the basic tools used by anyone doing any kind of physics. And unlike the majority of other quantum field theories, string theory has no loop divergences and is UV complete.

See what you get for getting your information from Woit? Ignorance.

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your metaphor is reminiscent of the 'effects of (hypothetical) black holes'. Black holes are very controversial - the issue has increased public and professional tolerance threshholds for what constitutes the difference between fact and speculation. ”

AlphaNumeric:
Black holes are not controversial in the scientific community. You sound like a creationist saying "Evolution is controversial". No, the scientific community has an overwhelming consensus. The 'controversy' is stirred up by people who don't do any of the science. Like you.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
I do not know Scientology, but have heard that it embraces a lot of unscientific stuff. Is it philosophy, religion, or both? Is that the way it is with gravitons and black holes? ”


AlphaNumeric:
****ing hell, Scientology?! Do you simply vomit back words you think are relevant?! Scientology has nothing, absolutely categorically zero, to do with science. It's a hack cult-like religion invented in the 50s or 60s by a science fiction writer. You didn't even bother to Google what Scientology is! This perfectly illustrates how you are simply throwing every bit of ignorance you have at me and hoping just one bit sticks.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Scientology gaffe was hyperbole, AlphaNumeric. I apologize for your having taken it seriously. On the other hand, I do not understand why you took it so seriously, since I thought the humor was self revealing.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The problem is I have absolutely no way of gauging when you're being deliberately stupid and actually stupid. You have posted the ramblings of YouTube hacks on their pet theories when attempting to talk about string theory. You have complained about 'infinite series' in string theory when your buddy Feynman got his Nobel Prize for inventing a method of calculating those series in QED. You claim electromagnetism is the 5th and 6th dimension which illustrates you don't know even 1st year electromagnetism or vector calculus. You think string theorists and the LHC are heavily related. You claim to be giving non-mathematical explanations of GR or QFT when you don't know any mainstream model's mathematical explanation or even non-mathematical one.

You accidentally post so many stupid things due to ignorance I can't tell the few times you're being ironic or joking.

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

The problem is I have absolutely no way of gauging when you're being deliberately stupid and actually stupid. You have posted the ramblings of YouTube hacks on their pet theories when attempting to talk about string theory. You have complained about 'infinite series' in string theory when your buddy Feynman got his Nobel Prize for inventing a method of calculating those series in QED. You claim electromagnetism is the 5th and 6th dimension which illustrates you don't know even 1st year electromagnetism or vector calculus. You think string theorists and the LHC are heavily related. You claim to be giving non-mathematical explanations of GR or QFT when you don't know any mainstream model's mathematical explanation or even non-mathematical one.

You accidentally post so many stupid things due to ignorance I can't tell the few times you're being ironic or joking.

The subject in point about the YouTube hacks on their pet theories is that it's a functional example of how misrepresented the subject of string theory may be, and, how that misrepresentation is being taught to grade and high school children. You have reminded me repeatedly of the unreliability of YouTube. I've not contested your reminders and generally agree with them.

Feynman did indeed receive the Nobel Prize for his method of calculating an infinite series of dimensions in QED. On the other hand, I'm incredulous at the interpretations of Feynman's acheivement(s).

The factor of directional motion as marked by 'vectors' is familiar to me.
I don't see how that excludes the identification of electricity and magnetism as being the 5th & sixth dimensions (of electricity & magnetism).

The LHC and string theory/theorists are no more related than all other - especially microcosmic - sciences and instruments of measurement. The entire 'particle physics' circle of scientists (in particular) are, understandably, looking forward to what the LHC will reveal and/or disqualify regarding the micro as well as the macro. String theory happens to have become one of the primary subjects of this thread; while all facets of physical science are alerted now, since the LHC was only very recently fully functional and activated.

You say that I don't know any mainstream models of non mathematical interpretations of GR or QFT, when in fact those subjects are addressed in my book.

I'll see what I can do about providing page numbers that locate these discussions for your evaluation, though you seem to be very reluctant to access and evaluate the book at the provided link (at the beginning of this thread), for any reason.

It appears that you have foreordained that the issues in point can't be effectively approached w'out mathematics, while the fact is that certainly, for the most part, there are no precedents for most of my approaches and interpretations, which fact may account for your consistency in condescending my work and myself, personally.

 

[quantum_wave]

Hi Kai, Your book is superb. All the way through it I have been reminded of a little 150 page book I read years ago and have referred to many times over the years since, "Looking at the Invisible Universe", James Jespersen and Jan Fitz-Randolph. That team also wrote, "From Quarks to Quasars". Both books are math-free but present pictures of the thinking of the same people that you reference throughout your book. It is mostly about light across the electromagnetic spectrum from Olbers to Guth but ties together the major discoveries throughout that period.

Your work has addressed every aspect of what I expect from a thorough Cosmology of the universe. Explanations for expansion, mass, gravity, inertial connections, and resolutions to the obvious problems of the Standard Cosmology and the standard Particle Model. Excellent, well thought out and well presented in an interesting and sometimes rightfully sarcastic and mildly caustic style. PM me on getting an autographed copy by mail. I must have it for my reference shelf.

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

Hi Kai, Your book is superb. All the way through it I have been reminded of a little 150 page book I read years ago and have referred to many times over the years since, "Looking at the Invisible Universe", James Jespersen and Jan Fitz-Randolph. That team also wrote, "From Quarks to Quasars". Both books are math-free but present pictures of the thinking of the same people that you reference throughout your book. It is mostly about light across the electromagnetic spectrum from Olbers to Guth but ties together the major discoveries throughout that period.

Your work has addressed every aspect of what I expect from a thorough Cosmology of the universe. Explanations for expansion, mass, gravity, inertial connections, and resolutions to the obvious problems of the Standard Cosmology and the standard Particle Model. Excellent, well thought out and well presented in an interesting and sometimes rightfully sarcastic and mildly caustic style. PM me on getting an autographed copy by mail. I must have it for my reference shelf.

Hey Ed:
Much thanks for your encouraging words and certainly I do have confidence that - with your own facilities - you non mathematically acccomodate a lot of what were previously exclusive to mathematical expression and encryptation.
You are apparently and explicity well read, and it's good to know that you've found parallels and counterparts where you have, in the work of other responsible authors.

As you can probably see now, for those who haven't read the book, they're not anticipating any effective non mathematical approach or translation, and consequently dismiss the work out of hand w'out reading it. Very comparable to how the fact that physical matter is indeed constantly undergoing accelerating expansion, is repeatedly proven and then rejected, because "Obviously, matter (the earth and everything upon, within and around it, for example - along with the entire universe) is not expanding."

Until further notice, Ed, I regret to say that all editions of my book are sold out and out of print, until I get around to producing an eleventh edition. Very complimented by your request and disappointed in myself that I cannot reciprocate. Presently assuaging myself by making it accessible, for free, on the net. Am open to any commentary, suggestions, additions or corrections.

Please stay in touch and though you don't happen to be on my 'friends' list, I do very much consider you my friend. I do regret that AlphaNumeric and you are generally adversarial, as I think each and both of you have things to learn from each other.

Clearly, AlphaNumeric is not to be underestimated, and he certainly deserves due credit.

On the other hand, given that fact (until further notice) that he has not read the book we're pivoting from, he is underestimating it. I have seen this many times before, and in this experiential context, there's two kinds of people - those who've read the book, and those who haven't. Even when people of the former (of the two) classification(s) disagree with me, their disagreements are much more specific, discreet and respectful. May it suffice to say for the moment that it qualifies itself, as you know, abundantly, and it has yet to be disqualified.

As you know, one of the main & outstanding features of the work is that it's unprecedented interpretations are all based on the same premise (Physical matter exhibits all the effects, chacteristics and consequences of accelerating expansion). There's a great deal of advanced recognition of what was already partially understood. And of course, inevitably, indeed, the work is based on the work of others - it's a matter of the evolution of the knowledge it's based on, as scientific advancements usually proceed.

I have learned much from my readers. About 20% or more of the book is based on questions and answers that were provided to me by people who I cannot publicly accredit for their - sometimes inadvertent - contributions, because, ironically, I usually didn't even know their names.

Wandering off topic here, I've written one novel (faction: fiction based on fact), that I would like you, at your leisure to read. You may access it by entering in Google: "Butterfly, Owl & Eagle: Athena Marie Prima". Would like to know what you think of that.

There is also a fairly prolonged skunk fight that proceeds out of 'Total Field Theory', when you Google it, where there's a resolute, agreeable ending of the roller coaster thread, featuring Truly Yours winning 2nd Place in international competition, on the issue of 'Universal Expansion'. Of course, I am unabashedly boasting.

Again, I thank you very much for reading the work, and, as I'm confident you agree, the reading of it is a reward in itself. It provides non mathematical insights and comprehensive understandings on issues that were previously and exclusively accessible only to mathematical applications, expressions and interpretations.

 

[quantum_wave]

Hey Ed:
Much thanks for your encouraging words and certainly I do have confidence that - with your own facilities - you non mathematically acccomodate a lot of what were previously exclusive to mathematical expression and encryptation.
You are apparently and explicity well read, and it's good to know that you've found parallels and counterparts where you have, in the work of other responsible authors.

As you can probably see now, for those who haven't read the book, they're not anticipating any effective non mathematical approach or translation, and consequently dismiss the work out of hand w'out reading it. Very comparable to how the fact that physical matter is indeed constantly undergoing accelerating expansion, is repeatedly proven and then rejected, because "Obviously, matter (the earth and everything upon, within and around it, for example - along with the entire universe) is not expanding."

Until further notice, Ed, I regret to say that all editions of my book are sold out and out of print, until I get around to producing an eleventh edition. Very complimented by your request and disappointed in myself that I cannot reciprocate. Presently assuaging myself by making it accessible, for free, on the net. Am open to any commentary, suggestions, additions or corrections.

Please stay in touch and though you don't happen to be on my 'friends' list, I do very much consider you my friend. I do regret that AlphaNumeric and you are generally adversarial, as I think each and both of you have things to learn from each other.

Clearly, AlphaNumeric is not to be underestimated, and he certainly deserves due credit.

On the other hand, given that fact (until further notice) that he has not read the book we're pivoting from, he is underestimating it. I have seen this many times before, and in this experiential context, there's two kinds of people - those who've read the book, and those who haven't. Even when people of the former (of the two) classification(s) disagree with me, their disagreements are much more specific, discreet and respectful. May it suffice to say for the moment that it qualifies itself, as you know, abundantly, and it has yet to be disqualified.

As you know, one of the main & outstanding features of the work is that it's unprecedented interpretations are all based on the same premise (Physical matter exhibits all the effects, chacteristics and consequences of accelerating expansion). There's a great deal of advanced recognition of what was already partially understood. And of course, inevitably, indeed, the work is based on the work of others - it's a matter of the evolution of the knowledge it's based on, as scientific advancements usually proceed.

I have learned much from my readers. About 20% or more of the book is based on questions and answers that were provided to me by people who I cannot publicly accredit for their - sometimes inadvertent - contributions, because, ironically, I usually didn't even know their names.

Wandering off topic here, I've written one novel (faction: fiction based on fact), that I would like you, at your leisure to read. You may access it by entering in Google: "Butterfly, Owl & Eagle: Athena Marie Prima". Would like to know what you think of that.

There is also a fairly prolonged skunk fight that proceeds out of 'Total Field Theory', when you Google it, where there's a resolute, agreeable ending of the roller coaster thread, featuring Truly Yours winning 2nd Place in international competition, on the issue of 'Universal Expansion'. Of course, I am unabashedly boasting.

Again, I thank you very much for reading the work, and, as I'm confident you agree, the reading of it is a reward in itself. It provides non mathematical insights and comprehensive understandings on issues that were previously and exclusively accessible only to mathematical applications, expressions and interpretations.

Thank you for your friendly response. It seems appropriate for people to read the book before rejecting it but some people won't heed that advice. I'm still reading over chapters 11, 12, and 13 which have me putting on my thinking cap. You might be able to save my some time. Planck's "h factor" and "particles" is the topic. The 4-dimensional mass has a fixed amount of energy and that amount of energy remains constant relative to all mass as mass expands in the 4-dimensions. The 5th dimension is a generated as a continuous flow of energy at 90 degrees to the 4-D expansion. In regard to the energy generated in the 5th dimension, is it always in increments divisible by Planck's "h"? Another way to say that would be, is mass composed of energy in "h" increments?

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

Thank you for your friendly response. It seems appropriate for people to read the book before rejecting it but some people won't heed that advice. I'm still reading over chapters 11, 12, and 13 which have me putting on my thinking cap. You might be able to save my some time. Planck's "h factor" and "particles" is the topic. The 4-dimensional mass has a fixed amount of energy and that amount of energy remains constant relative to all mass as mass expands in the 4-dimensions. The 5th dimension is a generated as a continuous flow of energy at 90 degrees to the 4-D expansion. In regard to the energy generated in the 5th dimension, is it always in increments divisible by Planck's "h"? Another way to say that would be, is mass composed of energy in "h" increments?

Yes, Ed, it is a non mathematical expression of why Planck's constant 'h' always has the same value (90 degrees of the 5th dimension of electricity) - the incoming and outgoing exchange-currency of transitory energy, as it were. (Please review Chapter 11, pages 220, 223 and 226 - although, as you say, the subject is featured throughout Chapters 11 - 13.)
In a subatomic material system such as an electron, there are four 90 degree quadrants, equalling a 360 degree 'full house'.

AlphaNumeric apparently considers the applied definition for dimensions as not applicable to the example at point (the 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism respectively); which are indeed 'vectors', that is, considerations of direction and magnitude.

Now that you have read the book, we may also 'talk shop' about how the uninitiated (those who've not read the book) usually receive any consideration of the sound of gravity (the 4-D space-time continuum). Until you've read what and why that (auditory and visual) issue emerges and is resolved (the simplicity of it and it's very familiar audio-visual effects), it sounds ridiculous (with no puns intended).

Without having read the book and seen the unanticipated 'can opener' and how it's applicable to all kinds of hermetically sealed unknown factors and mysteries, the first response to the 'alleged' achievements of the book is negative ( one of rejection), that is, the skeptic is sure it can't be done and is undoable, when mathematics is minimally practiced, although, as you know, very basic geometry does play a significant role.

AlphaNumeric certainly appears competent in his work, whereas, he also represents one of the main reasons why the work has never been (per se) 'peer reviewed': they won't read it, 'because', "Obviously it's gotta have maths" ("Obiously physical matter is not expanding").

Hopefully, AlphaNumeric will give it a thorough read and from there, by all means, I would really like to see him forward any and all of his contentions of it. As things are, I concede that his knowledge of the academic approach to string theory - and many other facets of theoretical physics, are aligned with standard models, etceteras. Whereas, he makes no allowance for the possibility that there is much more to my 'interpretation' - which aligns and fortifys itself with accepted theory - than he anticipates.

I am grateful to AlphaNumeric for taking what time he has, in this discourse. While, with all due respect to him, I consider the cul de sac we're experiencing as being a model of the problems of communications that are characteristically encountered in the subjected context. With no offense intended, I do consider it inappropriate (for anyone in contention with it) not to read the offered information at issue. In the words of San Francisco Chronicle journalist, Herb Caen - who I talked to on a bus one day in the mid 1970's... "I'm not a scientist and I too was skeptical, but when I finally did read it, I realized avenues I hadn't foreseen - it took a couple of weeks for my socks to quit rolling up and down."

 

[quantum_wave]

Yes, Ed, it is a non mathematical expression of why Planck's constant 'h' always has the same value (90 degrees of the 5th dimension of electricity) - the incoming and outgoing exchange-currency of transitory energy, as it were.
In a subatomic material system such as an electron, there are four 90 degree quadrants, equalling a 360 degree 'full house'.

AlphaNumeric apparently considers the applied definition for dimensions as not applicable to the example at point (the 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism respectively); which are indeed 'vectors', that is, considerations of direction and magnitude.

...

OK, so the energy coming out of mass in the 5th and 6th dimensions is always in a constant relationship to the energy of the electromagnetic disturbance called a particle from which it is generated? It can be thought of as quantum in that the 5th and 6th dimensional 90 degree perpendicular dimensions that are generated are observed as photons. The wave length of the photon determines where it falls on the EM spectrum but the energy of the photon is alway "h"?

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

OK, so the energy coming out of mass in the 5th and 6th dimensions is always in a constant relationship to the energy of the electromagnetic disturbance called a particle from which it is generated? It can be thought of as quantum in that the 5th and 6th dimensional 90 degree perpendicular dimensions that are generated are observed as photons. The wave length of the photon determines where it falls on the EM spectrum but the energy of the photon is alway "h"?

In a summary response, your questions are self resolving; that is, I agree with your interpretations entirely.

In the interest of extending this response and it's topic, speaking furthermore of the achievements of the work, there is the irony of the fact that 'Celeritas constant' is maintained, while constantly accelerating. That is, the speed of light 'now' is faster than it was a day, hour, or minute ago, and yet, it remains constant.

Then there is the issue of 'black holes' - if they exist, they are a 3-D entity in a 4 (and more) dimensional universe, where the subjected black hole becomes as small in 3 dimensions, as the universe becomes larger around it, in 4 and more dimensions. The black hole isn't actually getting smaller, it is, on the other hand, the only thing that isn't getting larger, so, relatively speaking, it gets as small and dense as the universe becomes large and tenuous around it: squared. ('There's always something smaller than small, and there's always something larger than large'. - Anorexus, paraphrased)

Post Script:
I was editing my preceding response when your - this - latest Post arrived, please note the additonal information if you haven't already.
Although I've already posted the following list, AlphaNumeric has said that he scrolled past it, and am re introducing it now to ask you, as a person who has indeed 'read the book', whether or not you think the (listed) achievements were met, and, whether you might add anything to the list, in the way of proclamative or interrogative commentary...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This dissertation is not posted here with any intention to sell books.
Since 1959, the work has been small press printed, internationally distributed (in three languages) and sold out of print in ten hard copy editions of essays and books. It has yet to be disqualified. This is a publicly accessible condensation of the 627 page 6th edition of 1979, posted for the sole purpose of public enjoyment and education, with an invitation to whomever may care to correct, corroborate or otherwise comment upon.



1. Discovering that Newton's gravity is Einstein's 4th dimension.

2. Reinstating Einstein's formerly abandoned Cosmological Constant
(Lambda /\).

3. Reinstating the formerly abandoned Steady State Theory.

3. Identifying electricity as the 5th dimension.

4. Identifying magnetism as the 6th dimension.

5. Predicting that 'Hubble's expanding universe' is accelerating.

6. Demystifying and conceptually explaining 'time dilation'.

7. Non mathematically explaining the unification of space and time to 'space-time'.

8. Non mathematically explaining the 'curvature of space-time'.

9. Presenting & translating Einstein's Special and General Relativity comprehensible, w'out mathematics.

10. Conceptually explaining the causal identity of black holes.

11. Conceptually explaining the Lorentz contraction of physical matter.

12. Presenting the sound and sight of 4-dimensional gravity.

13. Making Einstein's Unified Field comprehensible to Martin Gardner's Millions.

14. Presenting and popularising the 20th Century counterpart for the revolutionary Copernican Heliocentric Theory.

15. Explaining that the velocity of light - C - is covariant with the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is associated.

16. Explaining that 'nuclear resinal forces' (the very dense microcosms) are earlier moments in the 4-D space-time continuum.

17. Making the 4-D space-time continuum non mathematically comprehensible to the average high school student.

18. Introducing the potential sum of the interaction of matter with Dirac's anti-matter - the apparent cause of the accelerating expansion of matter.

19. Extracting a non mathematically geometric explanation for Planck's discontinuous constant, out of the *Golden Rectangle and the continuous logarithmic spiral within that rectangle.

-------

*The continuous Wave Structure of apparently Discontinuous Matter

This (partial) list of achievements is presented here in response to the incentive provided by AlphaNumeric's allegation(s) that the author of this thread's topic is 'evasive', when, it seems, the opposite - as shown in this thread - proves to be the case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides a little bit of - acknowledged - redundancy, any comment(s) on this, Ed? I mean, would you care to expand on any of this, sir. Lol.

 

[quantum_wave]

In a summary response, your questions are self resolving; that is, I agree with your interpretations entirely.

...

Post Script:
I was editing my preceding response when your - this - latest Post arrived, please note the additonal information if you haven't already.

Thank you. I went back and took note of your edit of the response to my previous question. I was just in a thinking mode at the Maple Pavilion and thought I would tweak you for a quick assist. Thanks.

Although I've already posted the following list, AlphaNumeric has said that he scrolled past it, and am re introducing it now to ask you, as a person who has indeed 'read the book', whether or not you think the (listed) achievements were met, and, whether you might add anything to the list, in the way of proclamative or interrogative commentary...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

Besides a little bit of - acknowledged - redundancy, any comment(s) on this, Ed? I mean, would you care to expand on any of this, sir. Lol.

Ask me this again later if I don't address it myself. I haven't quite finished the book to my own level of satisfaction. As is often the case with me, the first pass through such new material merely tingles the brain in ways that say, "Oh oh, what was that?" . I still am addressing the tingling by referring to my notes and completing them for chapters that I read through but didn't contemplate thoroughly. I will be glad to give you my input but my pea brain needs time to make all of the necessary associations with all the other accumulated inputs.

 

[quantum_wave]

TFT 12-23-2009
Kai, I am testing my understanding of your Total Field Theory so look at this sequence and point out where I started off track:

Matter is a disturbed patch of 3-D space. The disturbance in 3 dimensions is an electromagnetic disturbance, i.e. a standing wave, but in 4-D matter is continuously expanding. The 4-D expanding wave is matter (mass) which generates repelling gravity at or near the surface of mass. The gravity or 4th dimension is equivalent to the expansion of the mass. Is that the same as saying that mass and gravity are equal?

The law is that regardless of the mass of an object, it expands at the same rate. So an apple falling to the Earth falls at the same rate as an anvil in our apparent 3-D world. The anvil is heavier because it has more mass, but all mass has the same response to the 4th dimensional gravitational field because all matter expands at the same rate.

Expanding 4-D mass emits or generates energy in the form of an electrical field at 90 degree angles to the expanding 4-D mass. The electrical field expands out of the mass along with a magnetic field. The magnetic field expands out of mass at 90 degree angles to the electrical field. They expand out of mass at the speed of light, so while matter is expanding in 4 dimensions, electromagnetic energy is being radiated incrementally to the rate of expansion. The electrical field is the 5th dimension and the magnetic field is the 6th dimension (the 5th and 6th dimensions are separate but perpendicular). But to those of us oblivious to the 4-D expansion of mass, the EM appears to travel at the constant speed of light.

The generation of the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions is continuous, not quantized (not emitted in discontinuous packets), but in continuously generated smoothly expanding fields. Gravity, the 4th dimension is generated at 90 degrees to the three Euclidean dimensions and so gravity, the 4th dimension is a continuously generated expanding wave (can it be referred to as a spherically expanding wave? Or is it omnidirectional since a sphere is three dimensional?). The 5th and 6th dimensions, electrical and magnetic waves are continuously generated fields at 90 degree angles from the 4-dimensionally expanding mass. But again to those of us oblivious to the 4-D expansion of mass, the electromagnetic waves appear to be packets of energy, Planck’s “h”, the photon in TFT.

The energy of photons is always “h” but the wavelength determines where it falls on the electromagnetic spectrum. Is it the energy level of the mass that is generating the continuous waves that determines the wavelength of the photon?

 

[quantum_wave]

Here is a little more of my testing of my understanding. Set me straight where I am off target:

I understand your position in the community. You feel you have a complete, interconnected, consistent view of the cosmology of the universe that describes what could be reality. A perfectly acceptable physical picture that addresses all of the main issues that a cosmology should address, i.e. was there or wasn’t there a beginning with an explanation, what causes the observed expansion, what causes the presence of mass, and what causes the inertial connection between masses, i.e. gravity, etc..

Your solution views the universe as spatially finite at any point in time but with potentially infinite expansion. The energy is fixed and as matter expands it maintains its relative density. The expansion of matter causes repelling gravity near the surface of matter, but matter actually has no surface as such since matter is electromagnetic charges when viewed in 3-D space. I’m not clear off the top of my head on the gravity-at-a-distance.

There was no beginning and the look back is potentially infinite with the entire universe being smaller and smaller as we go back in time but the relative density of the universe remains the same no matter how far you look back. The look back features logarithmic scales of time, the speed of light, and the rate of expansion of matter.

You don’t address the separation of the galaxies except to say that there is a natural expansion that naturally accelerates just like the Archimedes curve of the Nautilus shell (phrasing help please). Does that leave the Big Rip on the table?

Your model is GTR with the addition of expansion as the 4th dimension. The model eliminates the need for Big Bang explanations of the formation of hydrogen, mass and gravity.

The CMBR explanation isn’t completely clear to me yet but I haven’t completed reviewing it so unless you want to address that for me I will keep reading and thinking about it. The "sound" of the 4th dimension.

The finite space leaves an open issue in my mind about the nothingness but that is commonly addressed in GR by saying that there is no “outside or beyond” the universe. My issue is that if there is a universe in finite space, what precludes other similar universes? And if there were others what would happen if they intersect and overlap?

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

TFT 12-23-2009
Kai, I am testing my understanding of your Total Field Theory so look at this sequence and point out where I started off track:

(Hi Ed: You are also testing my understanding of Total Field Theory. And that's a good thing for both of us and anyone else who's interested... )

QuantumWave:
Matter is a disturbed patch of 3-D space. The disturbance in 3 dimensions is an electromagnetic disturbance, i.e. a standing wave, but in 4-D matter is continuously expanding.

Kai:
When matter is 3-D, it may or not be a black hole, but it doesn't manifest in the measureable universe as we know it. Anything 3-D (and relatively static) is becoming as small and dense as the 4-D (relatively expanding) universe is becoming large and tenuous around it; hence my speculation that a black hole 'singularity' is a 3-D entity.

QuantumWave:
The 4-D expanding wave is matter (mass) which generates repelling gravity at or near the surface of mass. The gravity or 4th dimension is equivalent to the expansion of the mass. Is that the same as saying that mass and gravity are equal?

Kai:
I think the answer to this (above) question is contained in your next question, with my response. I think you are referring to the interpretation of mass value as governing gravitational potential, as in the Newtonian sense, which, as far as I can tell, you're right about (if I understand your question correctly, about what constitutes 'mass' - could you be more specific about what you mean as being 'mass'?)

QuantumWave:
The law is that regardless of the mass of an object, it expands at the same rate. So an apple falling to the Earth falls at the same rate as an anvil in our apparent 3-D world. The anvil is heavier because it has more mass, but all mass has the same response to the 4th dimensional gravitational field because all matter expands at the same rate.

Kai:
Please keep in mind that a given electron expands outward from its center at a given rate of speed. Whereas, a collective system of electrons expand through more area in a given unit of time, than does a singular electron expand in the same interval of time. The earth is about 25,000 miles in circumference, it expands at 32 feet per second, per second. An apple or an anvil do not move through anywhere near that amount of space in given units of time, although both the earth and the apple/anvil are constituted of electrons, all of which are individually expanding at the same rate of speed. The difference in gravitational potential of the apple and anvil are relatively negligible, compared to the acceleration of the earth, rising upward to meet each and both of them in free fall. Once the earth has overtaken the apple and the anvil, the anvil - having more (inertial) mass value - opposes correspondingly more resistance to the ongoing acceleration; that is, the anvil 'weighs' more - it's 'gravitational (as well as inertial) mass' is greater.

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 accomodating 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.


QuantumWave:
Expanding 4-D mass emits or generates energy in the form of an electrical field at 90 degree angles to the expanding 4-D mass. The electrical field expands out of the mass along with a magnetic field. The magnetic field expands out of mass at 90 degree angles to the electrical field. They expand out of mass at the speed of light, so while matter is expanding in 4 dimensions, electromagnetic energy is being radiated incrementally to the rate of expansion. The electrical field is the 5th dimension and the magnetic field is the 6th dimension (the 5th and 6th dimensions are separate but perpendicular). But to those of us oblivious to the 4-D expansion of mass, the EM appears to travel at the constant speed of light.

Kai:
Even when the 4-D quality of Matter is not accounted for, the EM appears to travel at the constant speed of light.

QuantumWave:
The generation of the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions is continuous, not quantized (not emitted in discontinuous packets), but in continuously generated smoothly expanding fields.

Kai:
The 5th dimensions of electricity and magnetism (respectively) are quantized. Please refer to pages 203 - 209 (and chapters 11 - 13), and consider the 'translatory moment', as described in the text. 4-D matter (not 5 & 6 D electromagnetism) is generated in a smoothly expanding (accelerating) field. 3-D matter, I repeat, is not 4-Dimensonally expanding, and, becomes as small and dense as the expanding 4-D universe becomes large an tenuous around it.

QuantumWave:
Gravity, the 4th dimension is generated at 90 degrees to the three Euclidean dimensions and so gravity, the 4th dimension is a continuously generated expanding wave (can it be referred to as a spherically expanding wave? Or is it omnidirectional since a sphere is three dimensional?).

Kai:
In my intention, a 'spherically expanding wave' and an 'ominidirectionally expanding wave', are synonymous. The Buckminster Fuller qualification applies to this consideration, i.e., no matter what the shape of something, when it's four dimensional, it's moving at right angles from its 3 recognized dimensions, omnidirectionally (and doesn't confine itself to the traditionally practiced example of a cube or rectangle). One of 'Bucky's' points here is that 'points' in one dimension don't exist, but are nonetheless (geometrically) 'round', and not 'cubicle' - the expansion concept proceeds from spherically shaped electrons and other charges of electricity constituting the sub atomic realm.

QuantumWave:
The 5th and 6th dimensions, electrical and magnetic waves are continuously generated fields at 90 degree angles from the 4-dimensionally expanding mass. But again to those of us oblivious to the 4-D expansion of mass, the electromagnetic waves appear to be packets of energy, Planck’s “h”, the photon in TFT.

Kai:
The 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism are discontinuously emitted at 90 degree angles from 4-dimensionally expanding mass. (Refer, the 'translatory moment') - this is why Planck's quantum 'h' is always the same value.

QuantumWave:
The energy of photons is always “h” but the wavelength determines where it falls on the electromagnetic spectrum. Is it the energy level of the mass that is generating the continuous waves that determines the wavelength of the photon?

Kai:
The opposite ends of the visible electromagnetic spectrum exhibit ROYGBIV, with the 'red' end having the longest - and weakest - waves, and the 'violet' end having the shortest - strongest - waves. All have the value of 'h'. The wavelengths seem to be comparable to the ripples emitted from a center source of disturbance on the surface of water - where the newest, earlier (smaller, inside) waves have the same amount of energy, in a smaller circumference, than the later (larger, outside), waves.

Post Script:
Although this cut and paste (authored by Truly Yours) is already in this thread, please include it in your considerations of what I list as the achievements of my work; namely, a redefinition of the technical meaning of 'work', and the reasons for that redefinition:

Upon occasions of free falling objects being overtaken and struck by - then to be inertially pinned down upon - the earth's surface, present day science does not recognise the consequent gravitational fulfillment of the scientific definition for 'work'. May it suffice to clarify for the moment, that contemporary theoretical physics does not acknowledge and consequently does not employ the advantage of comprehending and accounting for a proper understanding of 'objects at rest', while constantly acted upon by gravity: the unidentified 'force' - F; on the earth's surface. That is, such objects are perceived and conceptualized as 'not moving'. Whereas, the scientific definition for 'work' requires motion, which, in the case of the ever-accelerating 4-D space-time continuum and the - en perpetuatem - prevailing dynamics of the General (and Special) Theory of Relativity, is not recognised or acknowledged. Meanwhile 'force' is defined in several categories of motion, none of which are attributed to 'objects at rest' on the earth's surface (for example) in a gravitational field; all of which definitions are fulfilled. Not only in the inertial resistance to the acceleration of earth's suface upon the 'object at rest', but also and importantly, the - en perpetuatem - omnidirectional, accelerating enlargement of the - whatever - test object, itself...