A permanent physical record of every past universal event?

LOST & FOUND IN SPACE
(Maybe Yesterday Isn't Gone? Perhaps There is an Ultimate Justice?)

Everything visually perceived is an extension of where it originates. Every seeing experience occurs as a result of quantifications of whatever is seen, traveling across space to make contact with the sensory facility of the eye. The incoming light energy is literally an extension of where it came from. Whether we visually see things or not, all physical entities are emitting EM energy at all times. All physical matter in the universe is absorbing and emitting incoming and outgoing energy in the currency of Planck’s quantum h constant.

If these exchanges of energy were back tracked indefinitely, the record of events that occurred in the past is available to whatever facility is able to carry out the - perhaps endless - back tracking in a real space and time of the past which is permanently recorded in past space-time.

That’s the physical premise this concept of every event being permanently recorded, is based on. The philosophical and theological implications are that there exists a permanent, quasi holographic record in three and more dimensions, of every event that has ever occurred, and that such record is permanently manifest - at any given moment - in past space-time.

The theological implications include that this is how ‘God sees, hears and knows all’, having access to all past portions of the ongoing continuum of events in the entire history of all universal events.

Several people I’ve talked with about this recommended that I post it in a science forum and see what the forumites have to say about it.

What do you think? (In this scenario, what you think may be permanently projected on the universe also, along with all of your physically manifest actions..)

Several people I’ve talked with about this recommended that I post it in a science forum and see what the forumites have to say about it.

Who are these people?

Given the limited knowledge of the origins of our universe and all the speculation involving that, it wouldn't surprise me. Is that the response you wanted?

If the universe was so straight forwards then you would suggest that you could trace energy back to it's humble beginnings, however science would state that you would have to apply the Inverse Law into effect which governs the distance of readible energy ontop of which there is the much disputed particle-waveform duality which could suggest multiple universes, which means the yesterday you see, might not of been the same yesterday you observed firsthand.

The problem is that you can't reconstruct the interactions you're referring to. Take a photon of light entering your eye, for example. When it hits your retina, it is absorbed - the photon simply disappears. There's no record of it every having existed. So, how do you hope to reconstruct it, to see where it came from, for example?

The problem is that you can't reconstruct the interactions you're referring to. Take a photon of light entering your eye, for example. When it hits your retina, it is absorbed - the photon simply disappears. There's no record of it every having existed. So, how do you hope to reconstruct it, to see where it came from, for example?

All of this sounds like a rehash of some guy's book from the early 90's, I forget his name, but I'm fairly sure the book had 'god' in the title, as did a lot of pop-sci at the time.

The basic idea was that if you could go faster than the speed of light, you could look back in time by focussing on where you'd come from. It then got more ludicrous by saying you could reconstruct dead people from the 'imprint' they left on the Universe, or somesuch nonsense. Guy that wrote this had a PhD, and I recall I was having coffee with some of the staff I worked with at the University, and this book came up, and the general concensus was that they would strip him of any professorial titles and ask him to resign if he worked with us.

Dear phlogistician:

"I forget his name, but I'm fairly sure the book had 'god' in the title, as did a lot of pop-sci at the time."
So, you and your ad hoc, back room secret necrophile society of good ol boys, lynched the forgotten name and title of the guy who was writing 'pop sci'? Did you ever tell him he was presciently busted or did you keep and burn that secret also, along with the title of his story and his name?

The problem is that you can't reconstruct the interactions you're referring to. Take a photon of light entering your eye, for example. When it hits your retina, it is absorbed - the photon simply disappears. There's no record of it every having existed. So, how do you hope to reconstruct it, to see where it came from, for example?

I agree that's a problem, but the proposed scenario allows for the back tracking of all events.

So, you and your ad hoc, back room secret necrophile society of good ol boys, lynched the forgotten name and title of the guy who was writing 'pop sci'? Did you ever tell him he was presciently busted or did you keep and burn that secret also, along with the title of his story and his name?do you recommend a different course of action for purveying nonsense?

You're doing fine.

Hey Dorkon, in reply to your drivel I say "quick a flibber nibber wobble booble photon emission spectrum relativity qwank".

Which makes as much sense as anything you've posted. You may now return to your mental health facility. Please empty your pockets of any sharp objects beforehand, you know the drill.

You're doing fine.
That was both clever and amusing, a rare combination.

Who wrote it for you?

Science Forum Dialogue, continued:
OK. Take two more anvils & call yourself(s) another doctor in the :AM.
(Today's winning words are baby Occam's proximity nerfball cheat.)

About photon reconstruction James R,

i thought Neurons register pretty much every thing though synaptic connections are weaker and are only formed after repeated bombardment of photons, but neurons can register every information that enters through visual nerve, we remember it conciously if its a repeat, like learning mode for BNNs; either way it is registered, so a reconstruction is possible during REM sleep

just a thought
Rick

About photon reconstruction James R,

i thought Neurons register pretty much every thing though synaptic connections are weaker and are only formed after repeated bombardment of photons, but neurons can register every information that enters through visual nerve, we remember it conciously if its a repeat, like learning mode for BNNs; either way it is registered, so a reconstruction is possible during REM sleep

just a thought
Rick

Dear Zion:
You've got two. Be wrong. Phlogistician and Ophiliote tandemly and all of the other anonymous Ph.D over-riding nights of the invisible university, disagree with you. You're not making any cents.

Of course every event in the universe adds to the cosmic ledger, that's what they don't like about it. Gonna talk themselves out of the universe, cook the Past, Present & Future books (They have their reasons and plans, the information is unavailable to only human mortal man).

Thinking is disallowed in the manifestly presiding company.

Take your spherically nerfball hurling place at the nearest mental institution. Across from the gathering assemblage of gravity and 4-D space-time continuum fighters. So far (above surface) it's Parquette, Caleb, Mark McCutcheon and Miles Mathis - four, Einstein & Robertson zero (Refer Lagrange 1 thru 5 <out on the rifle range>, where 'there is no gravity').

(Neener neener.) The family of five won't survive if the designated target stays alive. Get widda quack smoking, wobble gobble desperado relativity program (Where quantity - stacking it higher - is the only currency).

All of this, both clever and amusing, who - and Rocket man Peter Elton Townsend John- wrote for Ophlogistician (are doubled up on second), I don't know is on third, it doesn't make any difference is outfield and I don't give a damn is playing shortstop. Spherically expanding atomic hardballs have never been shinier in Mudville - where there is no call for Newton's gravitation or the curvature of Einstein's space-time.

(Keep the change, it's more than enough of all they've got. You are not allowed to count - or find - them out. Learn your menial, powerless place in the anonymous university committee's established, ad hoc internet heirarchy. Stand by and rig for more fecal bombardments from the stumblegut leadership sectors all across the secret campus. Spun out FM band on the running ground - never will be found.)

Hey Dorkon, if it were possible to reconstruct events and people, the first people I'd like to introduce you to would be Heisenberg and Schroedinger, who could explain to you why they couldn't possibly be there, and would then instantly disappear in a puff of logic.

Hey Dorkon, if it were possible to reconstruct events and people, the first people I'd like to introduce you to would be Heisenberg and Schroedinger, who could explain to you why they couldn't possibly be there, and would then instantly disappear in a puff of logic.

I don't recall saying that events or people could be reconstructed - that was the factor you introduced. What I did ask is whether or not past events are theoretically accessible, traced to where they are, from the present.

I don't recall saying that events or people could be reconstructed - that was the factor you introduced. What I did ask is whether or not past events are theoretically accessible, traced to where they are, from the present.

And they aren't.

And they aren't.

Until further notice, yours is not the final word on this issue. I have asked a question. You have made a proclamation.
Make your case.

Until further notice, yours is not the final word on this issue. I have asked a question. You have made a proclamation.
Make your case.

While awaiting your response, you may find the following information - including Schroedinger and Heisenberg - helpful. I lifted some of it directly out of Wikepedia and google, and I ad libbed some of it from standard physics information sources as I recall them since I began study in 1958 to the present. Barbara Lovett Cline's The Men Who Made A New Physics is particularly cogent in the inspiration of my freelance notes. Perhaps you could contribute some finer points to this rough draft macro and especially microcosmic trivia and straigten me out on some chronologically warped space-time observations relating to the extremes of quantum mechanics and relativity in special and general considerations (the question I put forth, preceding the following information, was):


AreDiscontinuousQuantumMechanics & ContinuousFieldTheoryReallyMutuallyExclusive?

My offered (however abbreviated) response, was:

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

Before & After Field Physics:

A Brief History
Timeline of Electromagnetism

(Re: Google. 'History of electromagnetism')

Ancient times:

amber rubbed with fur attracts bits of dust and hairs

static electricity - spikes on cold, dry days, lightening

lode stone compass
1600: English scientist, William Gilbert, publishes "De Magnete"


1700: Lectures and demonstrations given by various scientists using electricity to attract and entertain audiences


1747: Ben Franklin (1706-1790)

two kinds of charges: positive and negative
Like charges repel, unlike charges attract
Conservation of Charge: An isolated system has constant total charge.
1785: Charles Austin de Coulomb (1736-1806)

Coulomb's Law F = k Q1 Q2 / r^2 ~~~~~~ k = 9 x 10^9 N-m^2/c^2

The force between two charges Q1 and Q2 is proportional to their product divided by the separation distance r squared. Inverse square law.
1780: Luigi Galvani (1737-1790) discovers electricity from two different metals causes frog legs to twitch


1790: Alessandro Volta (1745-1827) finds chemistry acting on two dissimilar metals generates electricity. He later invents the voltaic pile - the battery.


1820: Hans Christian Oersted (1777-1851) electric current affects compass needle


1820: Andre Marie Ampere (1775-1836) in Paris finds that wires carrying current produce forces on each other.


1820: Michael Faraday (1791-1867) at Royal Society in London develops idea of electric field and studies the effect of currents on magnets and magnets inducing electric currents.

1827 - Thomson, Tait, Riemann, Helmholtz (Refer via Google)

1860: James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), a Scottish physicist and mathematician, puts the theory of electromagnetism on mathematical basis
1873: Maxwell publishes "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" in which he summarizes and synthesizes the discoveries of Coloumb, Oersted, Ampere, Faraday, et. al. in four mathematical equations. Maxwell's Equations are used today as the basis of electromagnetic theory. Maxwell makes a prediction about the connections of magnetism and electricity leading directly to the prediction of electromagnetic waves.

1885: Heinrich Hertz shows Maxwell was correct and generates and detects electromagnetic waves.
1895: Guglielmo Marconi puts the discovery to practical use by sending messages over long distances by means of radio signals. i.e. the "Wireless".

Magnetic Fields : History of Electromagnetism
Until 1820, the only magnetism known was that of iron magnets and of "lodestones", natural magnets of iron-rich ore. It was believed that the inside of the Earth was magnetized in the same fashion, and scientists were greatly puzzled when they found that the direction of the compass needle at any place slowly shifted, decade by decade, suggesting a slow variation of the Earth's magnetic field.

Electric Generator or Dynamo
Michael Faraday of England and American Joseph Henry separately built the first laboratory models of electric generator in 1832. Frenchmen, Hippolyte Pixii, France built a hand-driven model of an electric generator in 1833. American, Nikola Tesla built the first alternating-current generator in 1892.

Electronics
The history of electronics began to evolve separately from the history of electricity late in the 19th century. The English physicist J.J. Thomson identified the electron by and the American physicist Robert A. Millikan measured its electric charge in 1909.

*****

1686 - Newton, understandably for his time, hypothesized the idea that everything including light is reducible to tiny, discontinuous, static 'particles' of 'solid matter'.

1752 Benjamin Franklin - famous stormy kite flight led him to develop many of the terms that we still use today when we talk about electricity: battery, conductor, condenser, charge, discharge, uncharged, negative, minus, plus, electric shock, and electrician. (Enter 'Benjamin Franklin electricity' google.)

1823 - Faraday discovers the principle of inductance, where a moving magnet generates a flow of electric current in a coil of wire. This experimental observation led to the realization that electricity and magnetism are unified - hence the formulation of the noun 'electromagnetism'. Faraday speculated that Newton's so called particles might actually be tiny charges of electricity; that the electric field ('charged particle') is static (non-expanding) and did not learn of its spatial structure.

1827 Thomson

1861 - Maxwell accurately formulates his renowned electromagnetic equations which predict and determine the field is expanding (generated by and emanating) from all (so called) particles at the same speed as light and gravity and generating the same familiar inverse square structure as gravity and light. Maxwell expires while attempting to confirm that his mathematically predicted 'space waves' are (in fact) the identity of light.

1886 - Hertz fulfills Maxwell's objective; experimentally confirming Maxwell's electromagnetic equations.

1895 - the discovery of X rays.

1896 - the discovery of radioactivity

1897 - J. J. Thompson discovers the electron, proving Faraday's hypothesis that Newton's particles actually are microcosmic charges of electromagnetic energy.

1898 - the discovery of radium.

1900 - discovery of black body - discontinuous 'quantized' radiation.

1905 - Brownian motion, photoelectric effect, The Special Theory - about uniform motion and light, thru

1916's General Principle, about non-uniform motion and gravity - Einstein states that 'the particle is a localized region of space where the field density is particularly high.'

1937 - G.P. Thompson experimentally proves and mathematically confirms that electrons, neutrons and protons are constantly expanding charges of electricity without discontinuous boundaries seperating them from surrounding space. (He looks up from his accurate equations and experimental proof, concludes that his experimental proof must be wrong, because, 'obviously, physical reality at large is not expanding'. (Refer, J.W.N. Sullivan, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE).

*******

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In physics, the Dirac equation is a relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation formulated by Paul Dirac in 1928 and provides a description of elementary spin-½ particles, such as electrons, consistent with both the principles of quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. The equation demands the existence of antiparticles and actually predated their experimental discovery, making the discovery of the positron, the antiparticle of the electron, one of the greatest triumphs of modern theoretical physics. ...the Dirac equation was originally invented to describe the electron... ***

Cogent freelance excerpts follow; from a dialogue between (the Honorable) Sergey500 and Truly Yours, in his 'What IS space', Hypography Science Forums thread, November, December 2005:

That Rascal Puff (K. B. Robertson) to Sergey500:

You don't mention my quote that a positive charge omnidirectionally emits an outgoing electric force, and, a negative charge omnidirectionally absorbs an incoming electric force (paraphrased).

Indeed. Moreover. Sometimes opposites do attract, and sometimes they repel. Newton says gravity may be an impelling - or a repelling - force (What this record calls, 'The gravitational alternative'). Einstein says gravity is - at least sometimes - a repelling force; adding furthermore that gravity may be both a repelling and an impelling force.

Truly Yours tends to observe that gravity is usually a repelling force, on or near major gravitational masses, and an impelling (aquatic, terrestrial and atomospheric) tidal force (for example) at greater distances. Summarizing that, since Newton introduced what he fully acknowledged as a mysterious, occult force of gravitation, usually - but not militantly - to be thought of as an impelling force, this record sees no reason why Einstein is disallowed from introducing a repelling force acting parallel to Newton's impelling force... Summing up a tandem repelling and impelling force, with each man offering major contributions to understanding the universe; neither of which men - or forces - are mutually exclusive.

The dilemma of gravity WITH & WITHOUT PUNCTUATION: often reminds Truly Yours of:

The superfluously conflicting schools of thought (Circa 1900 thru 1930 and ever since) on Max Planck's - Helmholtz inspired, Rubens confirmed - Quantum Mechanics'.

The 1897 dated observation of black body radiation led Planck to attempt to observe an invariable increase in entropy, which resulted in null thought and laboratory experiments; leading to Planck's 1900 revision of Boltzmann's alternately continuous and discontinuous statistical interpretaton of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (later paralleled by Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy).

It is only obscurely known or recognized that, although there are indeed opposing - J.J. Thompson-electron-launched - arguments on this subject, Einstein and Planck were in the same camp, along with Schroedinger, regarding the much misunderstood 'problem' of microcosmic 'continuity' of wave-field theory, and 'discontinuity' of so called 'particles'.

Leading to an undrained, ever rising swamp of determinacy and indeterminacy, entanglement, water ripple and shotgun pellets rolling sideways and speeding linearly through vertical and horizontal slits, in the ever imposing shadow of assumptive continuous wave eclipsed by the non-prevailing 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and the newly incumbent black body radiation - vocabularized in electrical theory and thermodynamics - introducing the circle of broken lines forming a sought-after curve but still leading to an apparently non discardable discontinuous 'quantum leap', because energy in discontinuous portions cannot be infinitely divided; establishing that radiant energy is not quantitatively infinite - in unequal units, Planck resolved that the frequency of the considered discontinuous wave is directly related to its duration, or more specifically, its length.

This was unexpected because it defined a seemingly antithetical, self contradicting equality in discontinuous and continuous energy packets - 'quantum', which, literally translated from Latin equals 'what quantity'. It came to pass that, depending on how these units are measured and otherwise evaluated, they alternately manifestat as 'waves', and, as 'particles' - continuity, and discontinuity.

From this arose a further quandary of defining the dynamics of what was projected, compared to the method or conditions of projection.

Quantum Mechanics (perhaps better understood as 'quantum dynamics') was not altogether contradictory to the - at that time, much established continuous wave theory - which was often confirmed in delicate laboratory observations as well as more pedestrian observations such as the often exemplified fact that a swinging pendulum loses its momentum in a continuous declination of kinetic energy. Quantum Mechanics contests this.

Black body radiation occurs in discontinuous packages of microcosmically indivisible energy units of erg seconds, where the individual, indivisible unit is designated as 'h', for the numerically expressed value of:

.0000000000000000000000000066, or, 6,6 x 1027

Establishing that ordinary sizes as perceived by human observers were not the end measure of what was occuring in the much smaller realms of physicality and dynamics.

Max Planck had not excluded the previous standards of observation and measurement, whereas, he certainly had established that the characteristics of the larger physical world were not aligned with those of the smaller physical world, and that the Latin statement, ut infra, ut supra and conversely ('as above, so below'), was a generalisation but not a law.

Atomic (microcosmic) physics was understood to be in its early stages and the Planck dynamics were a portention that many other unexpected discoveries were due, as the science of observing and measuring microcosmic reality progressed - the evolutions of which were alternately championed and challenged, by Planck, Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr, Shroedinger, and many others, certainly including Heisenberg and his principle of indeterminacy (which is not a sanctuary for your disagreement with and denial of an in situ, permanently standing universal history of every large or small event that has ever occurred in as many dimensions as accomodates them.).

A permanent physical record of every past universal event?

Emmm, y'know.... Theological issues concerning God and so forth aside, having read this, now, several times over - I can't say as how I can see any particular problem with this. In principal. Given that every cosmological model that exists to date concerns ways of understanding observation derived through pretty much the means described - that we plunder the wealth of "stored" visual data, both at our own discretion and within our means to discern, remains simply a matter of course.

Pick a constellation, any constellation, and between the flick of an eye one can be observing multiple separate events unfurling as they originally occurred at differing points in time (depending on distance) happening contemporary as one observes....

This is simply astronomy, can't say I'm really picking up all that well where it is you're trying to go with this.

Please refer Part VII, TOTAL FIELD THEORY, @ http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.

Mmmm.... I'm not quite sure I follow quite how exactly my signing up to four months with Delphi actually clarifies your proposition, exactly....

Basically though, what you're suggesting is that it should be possible, theoretically, to be able extrapolate information concerning everything that's ever happened simply by analysing resonant and refractive wavelengths of energy - correct?

INTERMISSION :)
(In lieu of a response from the name calling, off topic staggering Phlogisophiolite):

Speaking at the 2005 Solvay conference David Gross (Nobel laureate) said:

"We are in a period of utter confusion.....These equations tell us nothing about where space and time come from and describe nothing we would recognise. At best, string theory depicts the way particles might interact in a collection of hypothetical universes..............we are missing something fundamental."

"It is evident that the popular conviction that a generalized field theory is unable to explain the problems of the discontinuous structure of matter and quantum mechanics rests upon prejudice." - Albert Einstein, PHYSICS & REALITY

"I feel sure we have to return to the program which may be described properly as the Maxwellian - namely the description of physical reality in terms of fields without particles." - Einstein, p. 270, IDEAS & OPINIONS

THE CONFLUENCE OF CONTINUITY & DISCONTINUITY

THE SOLUTION FOR TOTAL Continuous FIELD THEORY INCLUDING THE ILLUSORY 'CONTRADICTION' of DISCONTINUITY as perceived in QUANTUM MECHANICS:
CONTINUOUS FIELD CAUSES, COMPLEMENTS & RECIPROCATES DISCONTINUOUS 'quanta'/'photons' - Planck's QUANTUM 'h' FACTOR - WITHOUT CONTRADICTION.
Einstein was not awarded the Nobel Prize for his Special and General (continuous field) theories of relativity, but rather for his contributions to photon-discontinuity ('particle') theory, i.e. 'quantum mechanics'. This is the refuge of the Particle 'theory' school of thought, where quantum mechanics is adopted as the foundation of the 'theory' of Particle Physics and discontinuity; whereas, relativity is about continuous waves - field theory.

The two discussions, Quantum Mechanics/ Photoelectric Effect/Particle Theory, and the subject of relativity and field theory are generally considered antithetical/contrary-to each other. The perceived discontinuous fork in the formerly continuous road through theoretical physics.

In 1900, theoretical physics was near to recognizing and utilizing - pursuing continuous field theory to its fullest extents (*which the record humbly submits, is since accomplished herein); when Max Plank's discovery of the 'constant "h" factor' emerged - a discontinuous, invariably uniform value that the continuous field could be (and is in fact) reduced to. This discovery deterred/diverted any further pursuit of the direction Maxwell's accumulating camp was proceeding in, with his continuous field theory...
Theoretical physics branched out, at Plank's introduced juncture of discontinuity; wherein and thenceforth, theoretical physics in general was dichotomized; brachiated:

Field Theory is about continuous waves.
Quantum Mechanics is about discontinuous units (of waves, called 'particles'; more recently called 'waveicles').
Re: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie , especially Part VII.
(Yes sir, Mr. Anonymous, you are basically correct. How the self designated opposition got into name-calling and resurrecting perished people is their own off-topic, socio-political religious tantrum, I mean tangent.)

:) ... You're very kind, I'm just relieved I managed to get the gist.

In principal, it's a perfectly fine idea. The sort of stuff you're thinking about, information wise, should (again in principal) actually be there - the problems, as I believe (name calling aside) the others may be expressing is finding some way of implementation.

Observations of phenomena on the macro scale - these fall within our remit of our current ability to observe. Those on the micro scale of events however... These may prove more illusive.

Think of it like looking for a perfectly white cat in a perfectly white room illuminated by perfectly white light - how does one pick out the cat if, in practice, it blends in so very perfectly with everything else observable around it?

Interesting cat. Sir. Notice the belated response from the formerly vigorous and now notably tardy parties. They specialize in insubstantial - savoire faire - one liners. Who needs content, countenance or bearing?

Until further notice, yours is not the final word on this issue. I have asked a question. You have made a proclamation.
Make your case.

Heisenberg and Schroedinger. It it impossible to accurately determine both the direction and momentum of a photon, and the act of measuring affects the outcome. This much is proven.

Heisenberg and Schroedinger. It it impossible to accurately determine both the direction and momentum of a photon, and the act of measuring affects the outcome. This much is proven.

The indeterminate factor is well known. So far it is impossible, is the import of your cited prohibition. That does not exclude the theoretical possibility of determining where it came from, as well as where it's going; with what effects. The present element of so called (status quo) impossibility cannot and does not presciently foretell the future in the real world.

(Speaking of Schroedinger, have you not heard the exemplary Mr. Anonymous make it clear that the future of science - and Schroedinger's cat - may make near that which was distant, and easy, that which was difficult?)

Your disregard for the theoretical future, as well as the past, is not well grounded.

Interesting cat....

:) ... Possibly, but it is, fundamentally speaking, you're basic problem here. Who knows, perhaps when we finally get our collective mits on a physics book that has all the blanks filled in.... Maybe then there's something to be done with it.

Interesting notion. Good to ponder. I enjoyed. Unusual for down here. Keep it up you'll be setting a precident....

A ;)

A multi-topic discussion of import - regarding micro and macrocosms - to whomever it may concern:

Verbatim Excerpts from Science Forum/Debate (Google) follows...
G’bye Quantum Wierdness; Hi Wavicle’s
Streamlined (verbatim) version
of ‘ScienceForum & Debate’ (via GOOGLE).
................................................

1. 07-27-2004, 05:02 AM #1
Radical Edward
Alucard

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Meme Pool
Posts: 1,902

GOODBYE QUANTUM WIERDNESS
An experiment performed by Shahriar S. Afshar has raised serious doubts about both the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and, to boot, the many-worlds interpretation. Recall that to date it was thought that all interpretations of QM would predict exactly the same phenomena. However, Afshar's experiment has shown an effect that violates complementarity and partitioned universe.

The experiment is very simple - it's a standard 2-slit affair, with the following modification: observe the dark bands in the standard experiment, and place wires in these dark areas. These regions are where the wave models destructively interfere. Ergo there is "nothing" there to detect. However, the wires would scatter particles if they were present - and it turns out they do. For the first time, we observe "photons" behaving as particles and waves at the same time (in the same universe). Bye-bye Copenhagen. Bye-bye Everett.

If this experimental result can be replicated - and it seems trivial to do - it may well spell the end of such notions as "photons"... and who knows what for electrons and so on? The favoured interpretation of QM may well become the Transactional model (based on de Broglie's original "pilot wave" theory); the required wierdness in this model comes from allowing waves to propogate backwards in time. This - whilst counter-intuitive - seems considerably less radical and unpleasant than Bohr's idea that the real world is "unknowable", and most scientists would admit that time is a poorly understood aspect of the world.

http://www.rowan.edu/news/display_a...m?ArticleID=965
__________________
Badger Mushroom Snake

*******************
07-27-2004, 09:58 AM

#2
yourdadonapogos
Organism

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Area 51
Posts: 1,05
how do they know where the dark bands will be to place the wires?

*************************

07-28-2004, 04:03 AM #3
Radical Edward
Alucard

&
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Meme Pool
Posts: 1,902
you can work that out using basic diffraction models, by calculating the points at which constructive and destructuve interference occur for two waves of identical phase.
__________________

Badger Mushroom Snake
***************

07-28-2004, 09:16 AM #4

Cap'n Refsmmat
Primate

&
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lemme check... driver?
can you stop?
Posts: 2,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical Edward
- it may well spell the end of such notions as "photons"...

It will WHAT?

************************

07-28-2004, 10:14 AM #5
yourdadonapogos
Organism


Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Area 51
Posts: 1,059

is the pattern always the same for the same light scource the same distance, from the same two slots?

******************

07-30-2004, 02:21 AM #6
Radical Edward
Alucard

&
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Meme Pool
Posts: 1,902

yeap, basic diffraction stuff.
__________________
Badger Mushroom Snake


***************************

07-30-2004, 03:57 AM #7
This is rather bad news for the Copenhagen interpretation then, although the experiment and its conclusions have to be subject to peer review.
__________________
Dave
Mathematics Forum Moderator

dave
View Public Profile
Send a private message to dave
Visit dave's homepage!
Find More Posts by dave
Add dave to Your Buddy List
08-08-2004, 05:02 PM #8

Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but I'm interested to see whether there's been any new developments on this. I've been observing from a distance, but it seems that there hasn't really been a lot of progress with the entire peer-review stuff.
__________________

Dave Mathematics Forum Moderator

***************************

08-09-2004, 04:58 AM #9
TheProphet
Baryon
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 148

Read the article.. And i'll try to get hold of that number of New Scientist aswell! And i'll keep an watchfull eye after the one Photon experiment! HEnce this is truely interesting!
********************************
08-11-2004, 06:33 AM #10
Severian
Baryon

&
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 146

The interference bands only have a one dimensional line where the destructive interference is entire. Around that line, the interference band will be dark but not completly absent of light. So unless the wires are infinitely thin (which I presume they are not) the experiment shows nothing at all, because the measurement is still capable of collapsing the wavefunction.

***********************

08-22-2004, 06:00 AM #11
Kent Benjamin Robertson
(Equus, KaiduOrkhon, Aka The White Mongol, etceteras.)
Quark
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 26

Would it be adequately brief and readable of Equus to suggest that Sir Arthur Eddington's 'waveicles' are being re-encountered here?
Weren't DeBroglie & Schroedinger on or near the very same wave length(s)?

Didn't Einstein say, 'There is no space empty of field'? And that 'the notion of discrete, discontinuous ('billiard-ball like') particles with distinct surfaces separating them from surrounding space, is based on prejudice'? (Paraphrased. IDEAS & OPINIONS, Pt. II: Contributions to Science.)

When a circle representing a particle (which is actually a charge of electromagnetism without discontinuous boundaries) is divided into four 90o quadrants, and that circle is called a 4-D particle, and that particle has never been found (- even 'Particle Physics' has become a Standard of Reality that doesn't realistically qualify as anything more than an hypothesis. An entire Academic Cirruculum of Bachelor's, Master's and Ph.D's, majoring and post graduately laboring in a hypothetically conjured universe full of so called ('billiard ball like') 'particles' (having surfaces making them discontinuous from surrounding space - separating material from spatial - not one of which has ever been found after exhaustive expeditions in search of a truely defined 'particle', returning only with fuzzy - space-time generating - charges of electricity, having no distinct boundaries; which only become more dense as you approach their centers. The conspicuously incomplete menu is worth repeating: Particle physicists would serve up a reality sandwich: if they had two slices of bread and some ham?)...

Isn't this an a priori standardization (based on subjective anthropomorphic senses) overruling empirically resolved experimental resolution, scientific heresy?

Don't the four 90o quadrants composing a consummate 'circle' (whether called a 'particle' or a charge', represent the four dimensions Einstein discovered in everything that was previously considered three dimensional? Is not the definition for physical dimensions the right angle motion (of whatever) out of the dimension preceding it?

A=geometric point. A--->B=geometric point moving in (and thereby generating) a one dimensional Straight Line? When that one dimensional straight line A to B, moves at right angles to itself, B to C, does that not constitute the geometric progression from a dimensionless geometric point (A), to a one dimensional straight line (A-B), and does not that straight line B - C become a two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles (90o) to itself?

The resulting two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles (90o) to itself, doesn't that generate a three dimensional space, occupied or unoccupied by matter?

Does not every expedition in search of a 'particle', so far, return only with increasing evidence that there are only charges of electricity, emitting longer or shorter frequencies of electricity and magnetism, *always having the same value?

*The shorter (ultraviolet related) waves being more dense, and the longer (infrared related) waves being more tenuous - and that 'there is no contact between physical systems', since such event requires the interaction of two or more discontinuous 'surfaces', and that such discrete, discontinuous boundaries continue to elude our - post hoc ergo prompter hoc - perception of what consistently proves to be ('surfaceless') 'contact' and 'collision': confined to an a priori subjective interpretation; without an objective leg, stool or platform to stand, sit or enjoy an encore upon?

(Ph.D 'particle physicists': Quo Vadis?)

'No two particles ever come into contact. When they get 'too close', they move off'.
- Bertrand Russell, THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

Charges of electricity that fulfill the formal definition for 'material particle'; that is, microcosmic entities that occupationally demand three or more dimensions of space, disallow the simultaneous occupation of it's space by any other 'particle' (surfaceless charge of electricity), and possesses negative and positive inertia... (Heavy and Inert Mass)...

Didn't Einstein prove that 'three dimensional matter is actually four dimensional', and that the previously unrecognized (so called, 'incomprehensible', 'unimaginable') 4th dimension is somehow closely related to time and motion?
Are not the above described progressions of dimensions generated by moving at right angles - ninety degrees - from the preceding dimension?

Doesn't this geometric law of right angle moving, progressively generated dimensions, require all three dimensional entities to be moving at right angles to themselves: in one of two possible directions, either constantly growing smaller, or constantly growing larger (in either case, at right angles to the three recognized dimensions constituting any such entity) - in order to fulfill their Einsteinian and geometric proved identity as four dimensional entities?

Is not the physical universe consistently found - while remaining unrecognized: as constantly growing larger - moving at right angles to all three of it's dimensions, fulfilling it's obligation to be four dimensional, or, constantly growing smaller - moving at right angles to all three of it's recognized dimensions. in either case, fulfilling its established(if 'incomprehensible' and 'unimaginable') identity as 4-dimensional?

Doesn't this correspond to the four ninety degree quadrants making up a circle? And, if and when anything moves at right angles out of that four dimensional circle, isn't whatever that may be, obliged to be identified as the 5th dimension (moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter)?

Isn't electricity in fact generated by four dimensional matter, and isn't it observed to be constantly moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter, and, doesn't that require the arbiters of scientific definitions and nomenclature to recognize and identify electricity as the 5th dimension: moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter? Wouldn't that 5th ninety degree quadrant be obliged to occur outside the four quadrants that fulfill and complete a circle?

Might not the transition of a fifth ninety degree quadrant exponentially constitute what is otherwise the unexplained 'quantum leap', furthermore explaining why each such 5th ninety degree quadrant generated by and projected from the 4 ninety degree quad circle of 4-D matter it is an extension of; always has the same value - 'just like photons', i.e., Planck's Constant h factor? (Which is considered a contradiction of field physics, rather than an extensional consequence of it... )

Could not that so called 3-D 'particle' in this way be recognized as a 4-D charge of expanding electricity, emitting 'quantum leaps'; invariably having the same uniform values - the issued 5th ninety degree quadrant (obliged to occur outside of and be projected by the 4-D matter that emits it)?

Moreover, doesn't magnetism invariably accompany electricity, and doesn't it invariably move at right angles to electricity, and isn't that a requirement for those 'professionals' in charge of paying attention to and interpreting such dynamics, to recognize and identify magnetism as the 6th dimension...?

Since Einstein proved formerly perceived '3-D matter' is actually 4-Dimensional, and that the 4th dimension is somehow closely related to time and motion (modifying 'space and time', to 'space-time', because the 'two' <'space and time'> were then recognized as being inseparable), and the laws of geometric progression require 3-D entities to be moving at right angles to all three of their recognized dimensions, having one of two alternatives therefore, of constantly moving at right angles from themselves, growing ever smaller, as the '4-D space-time continuum', or, growing ever larger, as the 4-D space-time continuum.

If: Einstein and the laws of the progression of dimensions are correct, and since objects released above the earth's surface don't 'fall upward' (which would prove a constantly contracting physical universe made up of ever shrinking charges of electricity), but instead, objects released above the earth's surface are observed to 'fall down'....

Doesn't this mean that the object (Newton's apple, for example) doesn't really move from A to B, but rather that the entire coordinate system - the physically expanding earth (and universe), in it's constantly ongoing enlargement, including the uniformly expanding observer and all of his instruments of measurement, are moving from B to A, creating the illusion of the (whatever) 'falling' object, by way of the ever expanding acceleration of the entire coordinate system earth, beneath the 'falling' object, creating the illusion that the object is moving 'downward', rather than that the earth (entire frame of reference) is rising up to meet it....?

Wouldn't this explain what Einstein meant when he said that the apparent parabolically curved trajectory of a thrown baseball or fired cannonball for example, is not actually curved, but is actually straight - a 'geodesic' - because 'space-time curves' around the apparently descending object and generates the illusion of a parabolically trajectoried object...?

Is not the explanation herein, why all objects, regardless of their mass value, 'descend' at the same rate of acceleration and strike the earth at the same time, when simultaneously released from the same height? Since, cannon ball and bb shot are not actually falling at all, but only appearing to do so, due to the ubiquitous uniform expansion of the entire frame of reference, including any and all observers and test object(s)? Revealing the illusion of an apparently falling object; with the earth instead rising-up to overtake, meet and strike it, rather than conversely?
(Re: "Non-absolute space". And, "The universe is finite (*at any given moment in space), but unbounded." - Einstein
(*KBR)

Non mathematically and comprehensively explaining why inert and heavy mass 'coincidentally, cancel each other out', anomalously said to account for what Einstein called 'an astonishing coincidence'.. (and based his entire General Theory of Relativity upon) - otherwise a blatant contradiction of Newton's Laws of Gravity, which clearly require a proportionately increasing gravity generated by a correspondingly larger mass; therefore dictating a scenario of a greater mutual attraction between a falling cannon ball and the earth, than between a falling bb shot and the earth, resulting in what is certainly 'supposed to be' the inevitably faster rate of descent for correspondingly 'heavier' objects (Re: Aristotelian thought - which is reasonable enough, but in this case is - remarkably - inapplicable)...

In this universal status quo, would not a so called 'black hole singularity' actually be a 3-D static object in a 4-D expanding universe; with the 3-D object becoming as small and dense as the ever mores swiftly expanding 4-D universe becomes large and uniformly tenuous around it, forever (squared)?

Would this not leave the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy intact, since we are considering the same amount of uniformly expanding energy increasingly distributing itself over ever larger volumes of (metric functional, rather than non-metric absolute) space, where all constantly expanding physical charges (neutrons, protons, electrons, mu mesons, et al) remain relatively the same size and density, without the requirement of 'the spontaneous creation of hydrogen' which caused Bondi, Gold and Hoyle to abandon the otherwise entirely tenable 'Steady State Theory' (Now foregrounding a so called 'Big Bang' to 'explain' the - unexpectedly discovered, 1927 thru '32 spatially expanding universe.)

Whereas, the astrophysical consensus on the structural dynamics of the observed spatially expanding ('beginning') universe proves out that there is no common ('big bang', 'ylem', 'cosmic egg') center from which the ('red shift') expanding universe, expands...

That is, no matter where the observer is located in universal space, the expanding universe exhibits celestial systems, light sources, stars, galaxies, etceteras, to be moving away from the observer, in direct line of sight...

Indicative of a repelling force (Einstein called it the 'Cosmological Constant', symbolizing it in his equations with the Greek letter Lambda (- /\ ) acting out of individual material systems, macrocosmically affirming Bertrand Russell's observation about microcosmic 'particles' (charges of electricity having no distinct boundaries, becoming increasingly more dense toward their centers):
'No two particles (macrocosmic systemic material celestial entitities) ever come into contact, when they get too close, they move off'.
- Bertrand Russell THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

Is not the unexpected and 'unexplained' Relativistic discovery that physical matter contracts in the direction of its motion at a rate proportional to its velocity: because matter is an ever expanding-accelerating field, and that the successful *application by Einstein of the transformations of H.A. Lorentz (who developed the conversions exclusively for the description of field energy) *to so called 'particles', proves that the issued contraction of physical matter is actually 'Doppler effect', as exclusively applicable to field energy...?

If so called falling objects are actually being overtaken and struck by the ever ongoing rising up (acceration @ 32' per " per ") of the entire coordinate system, creating the illusion of 'falling objects' (much as the axial spinning motion of the earth at 24,000 mph, generates the illusion that the sun and celestial vault revolve around it every 24 hours); doesn't this mean that the so called 'impelling (attractive) force' (F) of gravity is actually 'a repelling force' (as Newton offers that gravity may in fact be, *in those words, in his three page Preface to the PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA?)


'The idea that brute, inanimate matter can inexplicably act at a distance across space to influence other matter, is to me so great an absurdity that no man with a competent faculty for thinking could ever fall into it.'
- Isaac Newton, On Universal Gravity.

Please keep in mind that J.C. Maxwell had yet to discover and mathematically describe electromagnetic fields generated by mass and projecting through space (gravity was once thought to act at a distance instantaneously, when in fact it - non-coincidentally - is found to propogate at exactly the same speed as light, since that's what it is).

Whereas, it was and is the cardinal objective of Einstein's (presently abandoned) Unified Field, to find gravity and electromagnetism two apparently unrelated phenomena, actually having the same causal identity...
Einstein was persuaded to abandon the Cosmological Constant, with which he predicted an expanding - not a big bang - universe: eight years before it was discovered.

He called it ‘the biggest blunder I ever made in my life’; which indeed this author humbly submits it was, insofar as it was a mistake for him to have allowed 'the (non-sequiturial) scientific community', to persuade him that what he had predicted - a spatially expanding universe - was caused by a 'big bang beginning' (perceived as being 'inevitable', when the observed expansion was 'back-tracked' to an assumed intersecting point of origin, where all of the receding light sources and celestial systems were assumed to converge on one point in space from which the expansion 'began').

Whereas, that is an archaic three dimensional restriction imposed on an allegedly 'acknowledged' 4-D universe; wherein the back tracking does not recede to a point of intersection, but rather where that would-be finite beginning intersection which is said to have contained all of the matter of the universe, generating pressures and temperatures resulting in an explosion, causing the observed spatial expansion as it is presently seen; moreover perceived as destined to result in a 'universal heat death', where the expansion will dissipate all of matter to a point of 'non-motion'.


There are variations on the so called big bang theory, one of which purports a 'pulsating universe', that endlessly 'big bangs', spreads out to a point of stoppage, collapses on itself, big bangs, spreads out to 'heat death', collapses on itself, ad infinitum. In this law breaking departure from allegedly acknowledge 4-D reality, Newton's law that a body in motion remains in uniform motion, until acted upon by an outside force... Leaving the question of what 'resistance' - opposing action - is going to slow down the expanding universe; eventually obliging it to 'stop' expanding; thenceforth obliging it's (unidentified, so called) 'gravitational attraction' to pull it back together (back track to the point from which it originated, then and thereupon to reiterate the 'Big Bang', causing the spatial universe to expand, 'slow down', 'stop', recollapse on itself: squared.
Such a 'scientific interpretation' also directly implies a 'theology' of hopelessness, since any evolutionary or other constructive process in the 'pulsating universe' is foreordained to be completely obliterated; leaving any and all life forms, certainly including humanity on earth; presciently committed to 'enlightened' philosophies of endlessly predestined destruction, leaving animate, sentiently evolving life forms, imparting artifacts, ironing the bugs out of DNA & RNA, and playing volley ball on the beaches of the world; writing the future and posterity in the sands of futility...

The big bang 'theory' is not a theory at all, but rather (like 'particle theory') only a hypothesis, and a very poorly founded one, for which there has yet to emerge any tractable proof at all.
Georges Henri Lemaitre ('Father of the Big Bang'), Edwin Hubble and many others since, upon being surprised to discover the spatial universe was expanding, were put upon to conjure an explanation for it; resulting in the ad hoc, ex parte jiffyfix of the so called big bang.

Hawkings has the moment of intersection and the 'resulting explosion' - the moment of 'beginning'- down to a nano-gnat's caboose: chronologically and spatially applied to an event that did not happen.

As this record has previously observed, Stephan Hawking's personal and political courage is not in question, here; whereas his 'refinement' of the big bang: fine tuning what is among the most grandiosely celebrated faux pax's in the history and evolution of science - which (oxymoronic, non-sequitural, and yes, sometimes prevaricating) 'community' today (schizophrenically) insists it 'acknowledges' the 4-D space-time continuum, while simultaneously excluding it from the big bang theory - which is intractable in a 4-D universe, where the so called 'inevitably limiting point of convergence and intersection' of all ('back-tracked') spatially expanding matter, 'runs out of space', only in three dimensions...

Whereas, in four dimensions, the back-tracked spatially expanding universe only becomes infinitely smaller, squared.

The 4th D proves that smallness is just as endless as largeness. Whereas, the 3-D restricted big bang is about as tenable (in the words of K. Kostner playing Jim Garrison in JFK) as an elephant hanging over a cliff, with its tail tied to a daisy...

On the other hand, it seems that gravitational force on or near a massive coordinate system is a repelling force, whereas, it likewise seems to be an impelling force at great distances (refer, aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric tides).

Einstein reasoned that the Cosmological Constant was a parallel but opposite vector in tandem with and counteracting Newton's (ever causally unidentified) gravitational force of attraction; which even Newton himself candidly critisized - in the spirit of a true scientist - because he could not explain why a universe full of mutually attracting bodies did not collapse on itself.

When it was learned that the spatial universe was expanding, Einstein's prediction was poo-pawd, superimposed with the ad hominem hustle of the Lemaitre inspired big bang gang, all advocates of which are obsessed with the need for a 'beginning' - schizophrenically 'acknowledge' the 4th D, while ignoring it as a disqualification of their elaborately pampered, groomed and well scrubbed 'democratic' dismissal of reality, for lack of evidence...

Is not a good title for a series of observations like this: GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION (Electricity is the 5th dimension. Magnetism is the 6th dimension)? The Non-Mathematical Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field...?

The question is not:
'Where, what and when is the 4th dimension?'
The question is: 'Where, what and when is it not?'

The challenge is not in the proving of it.The challenge is in the disproving of it.

Everyone and anyone can see that the universe revolves around the earth every 24 hours; just as they can see that home run base-balls and spiral pigskin passes travel in parabolic trajectories, and that precipitating objects descend from A to B, rather than the entire coordinate frame of reference ascending from B to A...

I'm not sure if this has been stated to you or not, however I'm guessing that most of the information you've posted here has come from another source.

The forums attempts in a causal way to keep certain rules, one of them is copying texts from anywhere on the internet and posting them.

What is usually suggested is to either house a file with the text in on your own webspace or link to the original text. It's also suggested that a brief paragraph "Teaser" from the text is quoted, with your own comments to make discussion.

The main reason for this formality is purely that texts that are either unpublished or just blogs, maillist archives, chatroom logs etc, Take up alot of space and consume a great deal of bandwidth and processor time.

So if you could try to do that with your posts in the future, it would be greatly appreciated rather than having me "Moderate" your posts.

I'm not sure if this has been stated to you or not, however I'm guessing that most of the information you've posted here has come from another source.

The forums attempts in a causal way to keep certain rules, one of them is copying texts from anywhere on the internet and posting them.

What is usually suggested is to either house a file with the text in on your own webspace or link to the original text. It's also suggested that a brief paragraph "Teaser" from the text is quoted, with your own comments to make discussion.

The main reason for this formality is purely that texts that are either unpublished or just blogs, maillist archives, chatroom logs etc, Take up alot of space and consume a great deal of bandwidth and processor time.

So if you could try to do that with your posts in the future, it would be greatly appreciated rather than having me "Moderate" your posts.

Dear Stryder:

The other source this information came from is my own published post (Not a blog),Total Field Theory (Survey Notes Pt. II) at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
I hope this is acceptable to you.
I have linked to the entire website several times and been crticized for 'spamming', whereas the website is an entire book, with nothing 'for sale'.

Thank you for your consideration.

Seems I share my disdain for your prose with others, Dorkon;

"The original poster is another prime example of someone who thinks they've rewritten physics, but all I see is words, no maths." (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=6451)

Others have put my other thoughts about you quite succinctly too;

http://killdevilhill.com/astronomy/read.php?f=33&i=352&t=129

You've spammed forum after forum, yet nobody takes you seriously, nor have you caused a paradigm shift in physics. I suggest you give up, and try to do something fruitful.

Seems I share my disdain for your prose with others, Dorkon;

"The original poster is another prime example of someone who thinks they've rewritten physics, but all I see is words, no maths." (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=6451)

Others have put my other thoughts about you quite succinctly too;

http://killdevilhill.com/astronomy/read.php?f=33&i=352&t=129

You've spammed forum after forum, yet nobody takes you seriously, nor have you caused a paradigm shift in physics. I suggest you give up, and try to do something fruitful.

'Rewritten physics?'. Hardly. One doesn't jack the universe up and place a new one under it. The math is already done. You find everything right where it is, while re-recognizing it. Google and other net crawling chronology confirms that the statements 'Gravity, electricity & magnetism are the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions (with all of it's unprecedented contingent recognitions)' were not anywhere on the net until posted by a volunteer - Bkparque - in December '99, in the condensed 9th edition of a hard copy essay and book, originally published in Naples, Italy and New Jersey in 1959. It's sold out all over the country (and in Europe, in three languages) in small press, ever since.
It has yet to be disqualified, though, since it was posted on the net in '99, Parquette, Caleb, McCutcheon and Mathis have variously replicated key portions of it without so much as the mention of my name - it's all over the net and in McCutcheon's Final Theory .

Paradigm shift? Your name calling, unfounded, envy motivated antithetical attack is an example of those who would and do vacantly deny it. Although McCutcheon uses it in the early chapters of his book he stumbles and lurches off on his own to avoid a conspicuous blazing of a remarkably wide, clear, unprecedented ground breaking trail that's already established by Truly Yours.
The best observation McCutcheon pens was published by him four years after it was posted on the net by B.K.Parquette - 12/'99; originated with my work, originally titled, An Hypothesis on Gravity (in '59 - following through on Einstein's General Principle and the elevator analogy as it had never been followed through before).

The title then evolved to 'The New Gravity', then 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension', and more recently, 'Total Unified Field Theory'. at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie, since it's being presented to and given free to the public your spamming allegation is empty.

Dr. Richard Feynman couldn't disqualify it when he skipped three classes to argue it with me in his office at UCLA, in October of '66; he notably introduced very little math and complimented and encouraged me in my work; which does quote from many authoritative sources in order to connectively authenticate the unprecedented findings and narration.

You seem to think that a conspicuous following is necessary in order for a work to be tenable, when history shows many opposite trends, just as it is unfolding now, though the 'shift in paradigm' is in fact measurably underway, right here on the internet - those who are participating in this shift are deliberately or inadvertantly excluding knowledge of or accredation to this author. The more controversial this belatedly celebrated work becomes under any name, the closer my unfilchable work rises to world class surface.

And you would have me abandon it in the middle of it's much belated emergence. Why don't you and your 'disdainfully sharing' followers, and all those like you, simply read - instead of squawking about - the condensation at the provided URL and disqualify it as it has yet to be nullified - why not just do it - disqualify it - instead of covetously heaving and sighing with vainly impotent frustration and aspersion hurling anger?

Kaidourkhon,
The title then evolved to 'The New Gravity', then 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension', and more recently, 'Total Unified Field Theory'. at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie, since it's being presented to and given free to the public your spamming allegation is empty.
I visited the website, but found no theory, only a discussion forum. Perhaps you have a link to the theory itself?
Kaidourkhon,
Einstein was persuaded to abandon the Cosmological Constant, with which he predicted an expanding - not a big bang - universe: eight years before it was discovered.
Not exactly. The equations of General Relativity lead to an unstable universe, one that would either contract or expand. Einstein added his Cosmological Constant to stabilize the universe. It could be either a repulsive force to counteract a collapsing universe, or an attractive force to stabilize an expanding universe. Einstein did not predict an expanding universe, but instead used the Cosmological Constant to predict a stable universe.

Kaidourkhon,
Please keep in mind that J.C. Maxwell had yet to discover and mathematically describe electromagnetic fields generated by mass and projecting through space (gravity was once thought to act at a distance instantaneously, when in fact it - non-coincidentally - is found to propogate at exactly the same speed as light, since that's what it is).
According to General Relativity, gravitational waves are predicted to travel at the speed of light. Does a gravitational field travel at all? Where is a reference to the back the statement that gravity is found to propogate at exactly the same speed as light? Information travels at exactly 'c'. Let me ask a question, please. The Shapiro effect has been verified. Electromagnetic radiation has been measured to propogate more slowly when passing through a gravitation field. The light takes longer to arrive when it passes near massive objects or their gravitational fields. General Relativity predicts this is because light travels a longer path around mass, a curvature of spacetime caused by the gravitational field of the mass. Does your 'gravity' that travels 'exactly' the speed of light take longer to propogate through gravitational fields? In other words, does gravity follow the curvature of spacetime like light? If it does, how can it escape past the event horizon of a black hole?

Does a gravitational field travel at all?

Consider this, a Particle Travels, a Wave is a Transversal method, where as a Field surrounds a point that emits it. Therefore a "Gravitational field" doesn't travel.

Kaidourkhon,

I visited the website, but found no theory, only a discussion forum. Perhaps you have a link to the theory itself?

Not exactly. The equations of General Relativity lead to an unstable universe, one that would either contract or expand. Einstein added his Cosmological Constant to stabilize the universe. It could be either a repulsive force to counteract a collapsing universe, or an attractive force to stabilize an expanding universe. Einstein did not predict an expanding universe, but instead used the Cosmological Constant to predict a stable universe.

Kaidourkhon,

According to General Relativity, gravitational waves are predicted to travel at the speed of light. Does a gravitational field travel at all? Where is a reference to the back the statement that gravity is found to propogate at exactly the same speed as light? Information travels at exactly 'c'. Let me ask a question, please. The Shapiro effect has been verified. Electromagnetic radiation has been measured to propogate more slowly when passing through a gravitation field. The light takes longer to arrive when it passes near massive objects or their gravitational fields. General Relativity predicts this is because light travels a longer path around mass, a curvature of spacetime caused by the gravitational field of the mass. Does your 'gravity' that travels 'exactly' the speed of light take longer to propogate through gravitational fields? In other words, does gravity follow the curvature of spacetime like light? If it does, how can it escape past the event horizon of a black hole?
___________________________

1. Kaidourkhon,
“ The title then evolved to 'The New Gravity', then 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension', and more recently, 'Total Unified Field Theory'. at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie, since it's being presented to and given free to the public your spamming allegation is empty. ”

I visited the website, but found no theory, only a discussion forum. Perhaps you have a link to the theory itself?

Dear 2 inquisitive:
I’ve been calling forums websites since 2002 when I first starting using computers on line. You’re right, it is a forum, but take note that there is no reciprocal discussion there (at least not yet). Rather, it is a monologue and narrative forum format, featureing a series of quotes that are related to one another; reaching unprecedented conclusions.

“Kaidourkhon,
Einstein was persuaded to abandon the Cosmological Constant, with which he predicted an expanding - not a big bang - universe: eight years before it was discovered.”

Not exactly. The equations of General Relativity lead to an unstable universe, one that would either contract or expand. Einstein added his Cosmological Constant to stabilize the universe. It could be either a repulsive force to counteract a collapsing universe, or an attractive force to stabilize an expanding universe. Einstein did not predict an expanding universe, but instead used the Cosmological Constant to predict a stable universe.

Dear 2inquisitive:
You probably know that Friedmann found that Einstein’s Cosmological Constant ‘might start expanding or contracting at the siightest provacation’. Well. I submit that E’s C (repelling force) C is in fact expanding - causing the observed, spatially expanding universe (w’out a big bang); most resembling a Steady State universe.

Kaidourkhon,
“Please keep in mind that J.C. Maxwell had yet to discover and mathematically describe electromagnetic fields generated by mass and projecting through space (gravity was once thought to act at a distance instantaneously, when in fact it - non-coincidentally - is found to propogate at exactly the same speed as light, since that's what it is). ”

According to General Relativity, gravitational waves are predicted to travel at the speed of light. Does a gravitational field travel at all? Where is a reference to the back the statement that gravity is found to propogate at exactly the same speed as light? Information travels at exactly 'c'

2inquisitive: The reference to back the statement that gravity is electromagnetism is repeatedly established in the issued text forum.

. Let me ask a question, please. The Shapiro effect has been verified. Electromagnetic radiation has been measured to propogate more slowly when passing through a gravitation field. The light takes longer to arrive when it passes near massive objects or their gravitational fields. General Relativity predicts this is because light travels a longer path around mass, a curvature of spacetime caused by the gravitational field of the mass. Does your 'gravity' that travels 'exactly' the speed of light take longer to propogate through gravitational fields? In other words, does gravity follow the curvature of spacetime like light? If it does, how can it escape past the event horizon of a black hole?


2inquisitive: Black holes are hypothetical. Allowing that they exist, they are a contracting 4-D space time continuum. The meaning of that is clarified in the text you are referred to at the forum - http://forums.delphiforums.cc/EinsteinGroupie

Ergo, It (gravity) doesn’t escape past the ‘event’ (‘optical’) horizon of a black hole.

Dear 2inquisitive:
Below are excerpts from Pt III of the issued forum:

“It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation’)...
“In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein’s proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.
“Thus Einstein’s original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder’, rejected by Einstein, and the cosmological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again.” - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270

The ‘ugly head’ Of The Outlawed Truth (Outlawed and uglified, ‘again, and again, and again’... ):

“The cosmological constant has now a secure position... Not only does it unify the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, but it renders the theory of gravitation and its relation to space-time measurement so much more illuminating and indeed self evident, that return to the earlier view is unthinkable. I would as soon think of reverting to Newtonian Theory as of dropping the cosmological constant.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE, p. 24

“I can see no reason to doubt that the observed recession of the spiral nebulae is due to cosmic repulsion, and it is the effect predicted (in 1919) by Relativity Theory which we were hoping to find. Many other explanations have been proposed - some of them rather fantastic (* ‘tired light’, ‘the big bang’,’dark matter’, ‘gravitons’, ‘super strings’ ‘anti-matter’) - and there has been a great deal of discussion which seems to me rather pointless. In this, as in other developments of scientific exploration, we must recognise the limitations of our present knowledge and be prepared to consider revolutionary changes.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, pp. 89 - 90, A TREASURY OF SCIENCE (Harlow Shapley publishers)

Long ago, this author noted that Einstein's designation for the repelling force inherent to universal gravitation is Lambda (Also, by apparent coincidence, the Aztec calendar's key symbol: ^ <repeated 9 times in a circle around the Aztec calendar>. Translating to: "4-motion" ).
Shaped, not unlike a kind of transversely considered axe. Also the shape of a pizza-pie-charted slice. So designated; so named. Godfathered by Albert - 'the Axe' - Einstein. An affectionate if levititious term for the Maestro of gravity. Lambda (^) his undismissable sceptre. Scarlet billows (for those who insist. Resistance is futile...)

Speaking of supremely toothy, pearly white authority in the name of Albert Einstein. Any Ph.D. in physical science who today chooses to disgrace himself in public contention with the Cosmological Constant: Is deferred to the obligation of professionally kissing the thin lips of Albert The Ax Einstein’s double bit Lambda.

4 photo static copies of a quarter for every counterfeit greenback dollar in change-seeker.
At yore command. A 4-D chicken in every pot. An improved world, beyond Shake'n Bake. (Old Mack. He's back?) ((Rated GENERAL AUDIENCE. Marca Registrada.))

A rash, sleep-disturbing look (in black & white) at Einstein's 4-Dimensional Geodesics.
This discussion is rapidly approaching its close. Before it closes, I wish to cite another accordance of the General Theory; which states that a thrown baseball or a fired bullet does not actually describe a curved or parabolic path to the earth, when projected horizontally above its surface. Instead, they actually move in straight lines which only appear to be curves and parabolas.

The reason for this says Einstein, is that, 'What is 4-Dimensionally straight gives the illusion of being curved or parabolic when projected on the 3 recognized Dimensions Of Space'.

These quasi 3-D parabolas and curves which are not really parabolas and curves, but instead are 4-D straight lines, are called 'geodesics'.
Einstein's geodesic account of gravity is that, 'Matter causes the 4-D Space-Time continuum to curve in t he area surrounding it'. This fact is formally referred to as, 'Einstein's postulate of the 4-D Space-Time metric'.

If we find this Einsteinian description of gravitation vague, it is simply because it is indeed a vague description, yielding small conceptual compromise when compared with the familiar if mysterious 'tug' of Classical Newtonian gravity.

One may question, What does Relativity mean when it accounts for gravity by referencing the 4-D Space-Time metric and the curving of the 4-D Space-Time Continuum? And how does this 4-D Space-Time Continuum cause bodies to descend, or geodesically appear to descend?
The 'answer' is that physicists do not understand the identity of Einstein's 4th Dimension; since space-time is one of the many effects of the 4th Dimension, it is not understood or recognized what the geodesic gravitational curvature of space-time is either.

“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance. These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE

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. (Now you know. <Know you now?>)

Here's what false authority says of Einstein's 4-D geodesic: "We cannot visualize such a curved space. Because humanity is not four dimensional."
- The LIFE Science Library's UNIVERSE, p. 179

“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. "As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance." These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE

Neither will it ever be visualized, until Matter is recognized to be 4-Dimensionally expanding. As simply illustrated here and affluently verified throughout this mere historical review.

(Illustration C: 4-D MASS-FIELD STRAIGHT-LINE GEODESIC <Back to Euclidean geometry>. The walls have more or less been perpendicular to the floor all this time, and conversely; without ever having been previously recognized as more or less representing 90 degree angles. ) Fact#9. (Shunt illustration to the right hand margin, to read more accompanying annotation.)

Kaiduorkhon, Like I said before the idea of a Discussion forum is just that. You place forwards a summary, then your thoughts on what that summary contains and agree to discuss/debate.

What you do not do is continue to Cut/Paste from one location to another, infract one more time and I'm afraid I'll have to start moderating properly.

I know this post was in response to someones questions, but you could use external URL's to show where this information is located.

I asked for a link to Kaiduorkhon's 'theory'. He did not provide a link, but instead more quotes of others and gibberish.

Kaiduorkhon, your expanding mass theory does not reflect the measurements physicists have already made. For instance, at what velocity does the Earth 'expand' to overtake objects? Gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth is different than gravitational acceleration 25,000 kilometers above the surface. We can have more than one object affected by gravitational acceleration, some on the surface, others at various distances above the surface. How do you explain tidal effects, such as the moon and sun's effects on the oceans of the Earth? If all of the universe is expanding in such a manner to keep astronomical bodies a given distance apart, how can bodies of different masses exibit different gravitational accelerations? You seem to take the equivalence of inertial frames, then try to apply that logic to non-inertial frames. Acceleration is absolute, accelerate a charged particle and its properties are different than a particle moving inertially.

I asked for a link to Kaiduorkhon's 'theory'. He did not provide a link, but instead more quotes of others and gibberish.

Kaiduorkhon, your expanding mass theory does not reflect the measurements physicists have already made. For instance, at what velocity does the Earth 'expand' to overtake objects? Gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth is different than gravitational acceleration 25,000 kilometers above the surface. We can have more than one object affected by gravitational acceleration, some on the surface, others at various distances above the surface. How do you explain tidal effects, such as the moon and sun's effects on the oceans of the Earth? If all of the universe is expanding in such a manner to keep astronomical bodies a given distance apart, how can bodies of different masses exibit different gravitational accelerations? You seem to take the equivalence of inertial frames, then try to apply that logic to non-inertial frames. Acceleration is absolute, accelerate a charged particle and its properties are different than a particle moving inertially.

These issues are engaged in the forum (which I did call a website) that you prove not to have read. I am prohibited from transferring cogent information from the forum you allude to as merely being quotes from others and gibberish (The corroborating statements of Gamow, Eddington and Asimov are glossed over as 'gibberish'?) Your critique and objections would have me write or transfer the entire forum to this location, neither one of which actions are practical or allowed.

A tenth small press edition is underway and letters such as and including yours are features in the Afterward. Action at a distance effecting aquatic, atmospheric and terrestrial tides are explained, as well as orbital phenomena, the spatially expanding universe, inertial variations and gravitation on or near the surface of a major gravitational mass - accounted for in the work (as it stands in the forum) you purport to be doing a qualified critique on. (Refer: The Art of Missing the Point: When You Can't Afford - or choose not - to Catch on.) :rolleyes:

The talk of myself thinking to have ‘re-written physics’, occurs in the midst of what has been responsibly described as complete dissolution throughout theoretical physics - now sprayed with hypotheses, impersonating ‘theory’:

“Copenhagen interpretation, collapsation, quarks, super strings, tachyeons, glueons, gravitons, strangeness, big bang, charms, foam, static point mass emitting motionless electromagnetism beyond a static field, celeritas constant isolated from light speed and electromagnetism - denied as information, dark matter, ‘infra-red tired light’, Mach's principle sans inertia (leprechauns, put-ons, take-offs). Lately, hip-hop physics rappers are gargling about altogether eliminating Newton and Einstein from the (‘What?’) gravitational field and ‘waveicles’”; while alluding to the exemplary works of Gamow, Asimov and Eddington as being ‘gibberish’ (for example).

No, I certainly have not ‘rewritten physics’, although I have very significantly contributed to empirically re-cognizing and resuscitating it, in situ. Not without the New Age Devo’s :eek: impetuously spin doctored objections. :rolleyes:

Dear Stryder:
The other source this information came from is my own published post (Not a blog),Total Field Theory (Survey Notes Pt. II) at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.

This is a blatant lie - unless you count material already stolen without permission from another website and placed on your own, to be acceptable.

This is a blatant lie - unless you count material already stolen without permission from another website and placed on your own, to be acceptable.

The 'other' website was http://einstein.periphery.cc/. It is my website, it no longer exists. There are many quotes in my narration and monologue, whereas, they all accredit their origins - to authenticate whatever original points I'm making; which are numerous and unique to my work.

All the rest of my work is original and has been for decades (nearly fifty years).

'Stolen' is it?

'Lies' are they?

When the source is identified it is not plagiarization, it is, or can be an infringement.

There's a world of ostensible difference.

When something is 'stolen', you dont publish who and where you stole it from.

'Stolen'?

That word applies to a growing hovel of plagiarizers - all over the net and elsewhere - relative to my original work - and that of many others.

You would authenticate - and emulate - such purloinments and filchings: if you could get away with it.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html,

My original work is published in small press and sold out all over the world, in four languages - since it was published in Naples, Italy and New Jersey, in 1959, and the Portola Institute's 1970 WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE - complimented and distributed it internationally, by mail order, respectively.

It has since then been sold on consignment, in nine editions; in over forty one California - including university - bookstores, certainly including Berkeley, UCLA and Cal Tech.

'Gravity is the 4th Dimension (for example) has been graffitti on the walls of Lost Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Isla Vista, New York City subways & enclaves - and the world - for over thirty five years.

Dr. Richard Feynman paid his respects to the subjected work as we debated it in his study in October, 1966.

Cite what work was stolen, from whom and how it appears in my work as stolen material.

Make your allegory case or wash your enviously saturated invective, desperately name calling, familiarly whining and complaining, would be table-turning keyboard, or, wear and live with it. (Girar. O quemar. Buona fortuna.)

Having revisited your post I find that you mention the source for the material I was referring to. Mention it, in passing, without a clear identification through structure, language, punctuation, or font that you are identifying the source.

I ought, rightly then, to apologise for calling you a liar. I feel strangely disinclined to do so. Why? The seemingly unendless length of your rambles so discourages thorough reading that when one sees paragraph upon paragraph of unattributed material, one is reluctant to search and search to find that buried, obscure reference. Abbreviate your style and I shall not only apologise, but become your firmest advocate.

Having revisited your post I find that you mention the source for the material I was referring to. Mention it, in passing, without a clear identification through structure, language, punctuation, or font that you are identifying the source.

I ought, rightly then, to apologise for calling you a liar. I feel strangely disinclined to do so. Why? The seemingly unendless length of your rambles so discourages thorough reading that when one sees paragraph upon paragraph of unattributed material, one is reluctant to search and search to find that buried, obscure reference. Abbreviate your style and I shall not only apologise, but become your firmest advocate.

May other Readers of this rhubarb have the opportunity to know that the former website (now forum) at issue here is http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie .

May it be that those who take interest in this 'misunderstanding' may draw their own conclusions, regarding my proper identification of the origin of specific sources of information, which are stringently authentic and abundantly prolific - adding empirical authority to seemingly incredible premeses that the Reader would otherwise have to 'take my word for'.

The present forum at issue is, I acknowledge, a (condensed from 627 page, 6th edition) work in progress and certainly could use some sequential streamlining, editing (and there is much more information than presently posted)

(I think, Ophiolite, in you usage of the word 'unendless', you mean 'seemingly endless'. I salute your sincere and steadfast resumption of integrity in this discussion. That is much more like the venerable <if cranky?> Ophiolite that I - and others - have learned much from and are familiar with.) :rolleyes:

I look forward to your - perhaps inevitable - contributions to my work. You and any other such contributor will of course be duely accredited.