I suggest that gravity is caused by space expansion energy.

[Smellsniffsniff]

If gravity cannot be anything inside the particles, and everything inside has very small surface to be affected by a raw force,
It could be a raw force from the outside and practically uneffected by any possible particle density.
In the beginning of time, space expanded by a seemingly raw force.
We can see the photons from the beginning of time, they come from far out in space from all directions.
Q.E.D we should experience it's raw expansion energy aswell. Inwards.

2 particles at different places, blocks the raw force between them, and move towards eachother (you know what I'm saying right? It's gravity)

And a whole bunch of other forces.
That are actually
The same force.

Asks for permission to post this here. If not asks for permission to have it moved to pseudoscience.

[temur]

What is "raw force"?

[Smellsniffsniff]

Movement of objects without the use of photons
Space expansion energy
The cause of the force would be the creation of space.

[Klippymitch]

Your right about the expansion of space but wrong about the gravity part...

The density of an object determines it's gravity. Well there's other factors as well but I dont fully understand them all.

[BenTheMan]

Q.E.D we should experience it's raw expansion energy aswell. Inwards.

Expansion...inwards?

[Pandaemoni]

How would the presence of two particles "block" the "raw force" between them?

To me, that "blocking" sounds a lot like "gravity," which is to say that your theory presupposes some gravitational force, rather than explaining where it comes from. If the force merely "blocked" the force of expansion then the distance between the two particles relative to a given non-accelerating frame of reference should not change (i.e., they should neither get closer together nor further apart). The expansion of space would not affect them, because it is "blocked" between them, but that is not to say that they should start falling towards one another. What *would* cause them to attract one another is if this supposed blocking force more than compensates for the expansive "raw force" of space (assuming I understand your use of "raw force", which is a bot elusive to me).

That's pretty much "gravity" for you. In effect, as I understand it, you can think of gravity as a localized contraction of spacetime, and that, in a sense, does stand in opposition to the general expansion of spacetime that occurs in the universe overall. That is not necessarily to say that one causes the other, though.

Think of spacetime as a 2-dimensional rubber sheet with two dots drawn on it (the two particles), at the edges of the sheet strong men are pulling, stretching it in all directions. From the 2-D perspective of the rubber sheet, the two particles (spots) are getting further apart as the sheet expands. Now imagine that you place a blowing ball in the sheet between the two particles. The sheet of rubber will curve in reaction to the bowling balls mass, and the two particles may (if they are close enough to the bowling ball) get closer together from a 2-dimensional perspective, notwithstanding the continuous expansion. The bowling ball seems to produce an effect that directly opposes the expansion, but its cause it quite different than the cause of the expansion itself.

Gravity is frequently conceptualized as the two particles being two balls, each curving the surface of the sheet. The attraction between them is just an apparent effect due to their having to interaction with the topology of curved spacetime while they otherwise move about in relation to one another.

Under that model, the universe can be expanding, static or contracting and gravity would continue to exist just fine, because the cause of gravity (the effect of mass on the topology of spacetime) and the cause of spatial expansion (God knows) are different things.

[temur]

Gravity is frequently conceptualized as the two particles being two balls, each curving the surface of the sheet. The attraction between them is just an apparent effect due to their having to interaction with the topology of curved spacetime while they otherwise move about in relation to one another.

Under that model, the universe can be expanding, static or contracting and gravity would continue to exist just fine, because the cause of gravity (the effect of mass on the topology of spacetime) and the cause of spatial expansion (God knows) are different things.

More precisely, mass effects the geometry of spacetime more than it effects the topology.

[Smellsniffsniff]

I just logged in and I see that you were having doubt. What I meant with uneffected by particle density, is that they would still be equally heavy and contribute to the gravity force of an object equally much.

The raw force from big bang comes from the outside and just like photons reacts with matter. But in a more raw way. the force waves intersect with eachother and space very little, and thus pass eachother. The part of it that actually expands space is very little per second.

Any other problems and I will post this evening.

Bye.

[Oli]

If gravity cannot be anything inside the particles,
Higgs boson?

and everything inside has very small surface to be affected by a raw force,
It could be a raw force from the outside and practically uneffected by any possible particle density.
Characteristics of this "raw force"?

2 particles at different places, blocks the raw force between them, and move towards eachother (you know what I'm saying right? It's gravity)
So it acts on presented area rather than "mass"?

The raw force from big bang comes from the outside and just like photons reacts with matter. But in a more raw way. the force waves intersect with eachother and space very little, and thus pass eachother. The part of it that actually expands space is very little per second.
A more "raw" way? Define, please.
So where did this raw force come from, if it's from "outside"?
Presumably it should have stopped the big bang ever taking place, if it was acting inwards on whatever caused the big bang.

[Kaiduorkhon]

Effects of the expansion of physical matter with space.

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

An Expansive Mass-Field Thought Problem With a Dilatory Solution:

The realm of the very small - microcosms - is said to host strong forces acting at very short distances; that are not considered to be related to large, 'weak forces of gravity', said to exist only in very large spaces and act at large distances in the very large - macrocosmic - spaces and times. So it is presently and dominantly considered, in the macrocosmic realm of the very large, exemplary, planetary-generated forces.
Gravity is thought not to occur - significantly - in the microcosmic realm of the very small. Whereas, gravity, like Gold, is actually where you find it, and how much of it you find; in large and *small, tenuous and *compact electromagnetic densities (*refer, nuclear binding forces). Moving in one of two possible - direction(s). Toward and/or away (impelling or repelling) from its material (4-D particle/charge) source.

Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’
Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.
Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.

In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...
It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1039 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.
The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1039 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...
Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes>).
The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.
When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...
Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...
Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit around the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).
The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant, relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.
When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.
There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.
Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A.
The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time.
Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of space and time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.
The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.

The acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.
This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
Space-Time.
This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'.
It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.
The Twin Paradox Re-visited:
A popular example of relativistic non-absolute time (time dilation phenomenon) is known as the 'twin paradox'. One of two twin brothers remains on coordinate system earth, while the other twin departs the earth in a spacecraft vehicle, approaches the velocity of light; remains in deep space sustaining high velocity for what his senses and instruments measure as 30 days; then returns to earth to learn that his earthbound twin brother and everyone else on earth (who was his age upon his departure) is considerably more aged than himself.
There is no conceptual explanation for this, however, the mathematics of relativity indicate that time dilation is a true effect of greatly increased velocities. The twin paradox becomes conceptually comprehensible with the application of the issued , expanding mass-field concept:
When an object - a space-craft and its contents accelerates faster than the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is normally associated (a system of relatively uniform space and time; in this case, the earth, the mass-field constructed spacecraft and its contents are distributed over a greater area, as its mass value increases with its velocity). Consequently it becomes an independent coordinate system, having relatively larger values of space and proportionately slower experiences of time than its original coordinate system, earth.
In a spacecraft nearing the velocity of light the individual hairs on the heads of it's astronauts may (for example) be dilated (enlarged) to the diameter of a large radio telescope dish (relative to the dimensions of space recognized on coordinate system earth). Yet, the astronauts detect no change of spatial values relative to themselves or their ship and its contents, including all of its time measuring instruments, because everything on board is proportionately dilated in 4-D space-time. For example: It takes these mass field dilated astronauts several of earth's relatively micro-spatial hours - and one of their relatively macro-spatial seconds - to sneeze. Upon returning to coordinate system earth, they must slow their speed, and in so doing they proportionately decrease their formerly dilated size and mass values.
Upon disembarking the now 'normal sized' spacecraft, they learn that many years have passed on earth, while they and their instruments have experienced, recorded, and can account for only a month of time in space.
Up to the time of this writing, there are not even any failed efforts to conceptually account for 'time dilation' and the 'twin paradox' that popularly accompanies it.
The (resiliently unrecognized and denied) ever enlarging value of physical-material space is a ‘non absolute space’, which causes ‘non-absolute time’. The fundamental import of this discussion is that the value of given units of time (seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years) is entirely determined by the 3-D value (size) of the spatial moment it (time/motion) occurs in.
Re: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie (The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned <Steady State> Cosmological Constant.)

Enter in google: 'Einstein was right after all - maybe' . Collectively enter in google: Cosmological Constant Lambda Expanding Universe big bang acceleration red shift dark energy Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

Regards,
- RP

[BenTheMan]

Smell---

The problem, as Oli pointed out, is that you haven't clarified what you mean by ``raw'', and that you are relying on external forces. Using external fields is ok (it's one of the only ways we know how to use path integrals), but the external field doesn't appear in the final answer. Your theory seems to be relying on an external field.

Also, we know gravity is a vector field. That is, at every point in space, the gravitational field has a magnitude and a direction. We know that there is no net gravitational field in space, which is what your theory seems to be saying.

[Smellsniffsniff]

A more "raw" way? Define, please.
So where did this raw force come from, if it's from "outside"?
Presumably it should have stopped the big bang ever taking place, if it was acting inwards on whatever caused the big bang.

It came from big bang named "the outside" since it surrounds the space we are in from a distance. In the same way photons come from there, space expansion energy, SEE, comes from there.

A more raw way would be caused by space expansion then photons, since photons initially had a direction in which its entirety moves. The raw force on the other hand, diverge just like a wave on a sea. It's messenger particle is higgs bosons.

[Smellsniffsniff]

Smell---

The problem, as Oli pointed out, is that you haven't clarified what you mean by ``raw'', and that you are relying on external forces. Using external fields is ok (it's one of the only ways we know how to use path integrals), but the external field doesn't appear in the final answer. Your theory seems to be relying on an external field.

Also, we know gravity is a vector field. That is, at every point in space, the gravitational field has a magnitude and a direction. We know that there is no net gravitational field in space, which is what your theory seems to be saying.

how could you ever tell the difference between an almost homogen outer field and an inner field? Given that the higgs bosons responsible are contracted due to their speed, they could very well transport a momentum to the mass without changing much at the first few attempts.

Think again.

Now having that said, I guess it is possible that a photon it caused by a spin in the higgs bosons, while SEE is caused by the raw movement of higgs bosons.

[MacM]

[advertisements removed]

[Smellsniffsniff]

Very interesting MacM, I will emidietly go and buy pampers now.

[fishtail]

Higgs bosons are not a reality yet, just a proposed particle, along with a
bazillion others.

[Kaiduorkhon]

The title of this thread may have a notably cogent solution at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie , which I did write.
Getting some complimentary responses from 'out of the box' readers; while there is also an element of tentatively grounded Einstein - and Classical Physics - bashers.

Would be honored to receive an evaluation from Ben the Man - and others - on this issue.

Best regards,
- Kaiduorkhon

[Kaiduorkhon]

Effects of the expansion of physical matter with space (Excerpt).

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

An Expansive Mass-Field Thought Problem With a Dilatory Solution:

The realm of the very small - microcosms - is said to host strong forces acting at very short distances; that are not considered to be related to large, 'weak forces of gravity', said to exist only in very large spaces and act at large distances in the very large - macrocosmic - spaces and times. So it is presently and dominantly considered, in the macrocosmic realm of the very large, exemplary, planetary-generated forces.
Gravity is thought not to occur - significantly - in the microcosmic realm of the very small. Whereas, gravity, like Gold, is actually where you find it, and how much of it you find; in large and *small, tenuous and *compact electromagnetic densities (*refer, nuclear binding forces). Moving in one of two possible - direction(s). Toward and/or away (impelling or repelling) from its material (4-D particle/charge) source.

Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’
Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.
Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces.

This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.

In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...
It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1041 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.

The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1041 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...

Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes>).
The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.
When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...
Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...
Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit around the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).
The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant, relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.
When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.
There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.
Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A.
The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time.
Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of space and time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.
The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.

The acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.
This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
Space-Time.
This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'.
It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.

The Twin Paradox Re-visited:
A popular example of relativistic non-absolute time (time dilation phenomenon) is known as the 'twin paradox'. One of two twin brothers remains on coordinate system earth, while the other twin departs the earth in a spacecraft vehicle, approaches the velocity of light; remains in deep space sustaining high velocity for what his senses and instruments measure as 30 days; then returns to earth to learn that his earthbound twin brother and everyone else on earth (who was his age upon his departure) is considerably more aged than himself.

There is no conceptual explanation for this, however, the mathematics of relativity indicate that time dilation is a true effect of greatly increased velocities. The twin paradox becomes conceptually comprehensible with the application of the issued , expanding mass-field concept:
When an object - a space-craft and its contents accelerates faster than the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is normally associated (a system of relatively uniform space and time; in this case, the earth, the mass-field constructed spacecraft and its contents are distributed over a greater area, as its mass value increases with its velocity). Consequently it becomes an independent coordinate system, having relatively larger values of space and proportionately slower experiences of time than its original coordinate system, earth.

In a spacecraft nearing the velocity of light the individual hairs on the heads of it's astronauts may (for example) be dilated (enlarged) to the diameter of a large radio telescope dish (relative to the dimensions of space recognized on coordinate system earth). Yet, the astronauts detect no change of spatial values relative to themselves or their ship and its contents, including all of its time measuring instruments, because everything on board is proportionately dilated in 4-D space-time. For example: It takes these mass field dilated astronauts several of earth's relatively micro-spatial hours - and one of their relatively macro-spatial seconds - to sneeze. Upon returning to coordinate system earth, they must slow their speed, and in so doing they proportionately decrease their formerly dilated size and mass values.
Upon disembarking the now 'normal sized' spacecraft, they learn that many years have passed on earth, while they and their instruments have experienced, recorded, and can account for only a month of time in space.
Up to the time of this writing, there are not even any failed efforts to conceptually account for 'time dilation' and the 'twin paradox' that popularly accompanies it.

The (resiliently unrecognized and denied) ever enlarging value of physical-material space is a ‘non absolute space’, which causes ‘non-absolute time’. The fundamental import of this discussion is that the value of given units of time (seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years) is entirely determined by the 3-D value (size) of the spatial moment it (time/motion) occurs in.

Re: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
(The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned <Steady State> Cosmological Constant.)

Enter in google:
'Einstein was right after all - maybe'. Collectively enter in google: Cosmological Constant Lambda Expanding Universe big bang acceleration red shift dark energy Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson WalkerRegards,
- Kaiduorkhon

[darksidZz]

You are such a loser man, this is already well documented as a theory, that matter is expanding and causes a perception of gravity, you are stealing ideas from http://www.amazon.com/Other-Theory-Physics-James-Carter/dp/0963659219

His book is old and so are you, go read it and see what he thinks. Then again alot of his ideas simply cannot be true for various reasons just like your endless paper of dripe.

[Kaiduorkhon]

Dear Mr. self proclaimed 'speaker of the truth':
It's much more likely that any book that reminds you of mine was purloined from my work,
rather than conversely (*there's a lot of this going around).

If any book you can direct anyone to can predate 1959 and ten internationally sold out small press editions in four languages since then, I'd be glad to shake the author's hand. The titles and key excerpts of my work have been graffitti and tags on the subway walls of NYC and San Francisco since 1970. It was a localized best selling essay on the Italian and French Rivieras in 1959.
There are literally millions of international, seasoned and recent, second and third generation witnesses. On & off the net.

Aside from that, you're short on common courtesy and long on vacant avarice - Mr. name calling misanthrope.
Ostensibly you haven't read the so called 'dripe' you're frothing 'n dribbling about.
Had you done so, you would have encountered this and publicly saved what little of you there may be to privately salvage:


Abbreviated Reviews


"There is nothing new about Newton's Classical Mechanical gravity or Einstein's 4th dimension of time, except preeminent non-mathematical proof that they are one and the same. The New Gravity Is The 4th SpaceTime Dimension." - K.B. Robertson, Ibid.

"It's still the same old universe, but gravity is the 4th dimension of that same old universe. I'm grateful for the indelible change in my perception of it. It may be impossible to overstate the importance of this book. The one, two three and X Y Z of comprehensive infinity."
- Mark Stephan Halfon, Ph.D., Philosophy (*Nassau University), Brooklyn, New York. (*1977 - 2005)

"An ambitious new treatise on the otherwise seasoned subjects of Space & Time. We are not qualified to evaluate it, but are pleased to see it in this ('comic book') format." - THE WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE, Portola Institute, 1970 - ‘71

"An unprecedented and awesomely credible non-mathematical theory which matter-of-factly proves that gravity is the 4th dimension of time, then forthwith discovers the previously unrecognized - therefore unidentified - 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism."
- Dr. John Shaw, Chemistry Prof. 1971, University Of California @ Berkeley

"Gravity Is The 4th Dimension' - A documentary scientific 'Future Shock'. Overwhelming. Major conceptual breakthrough. It must be disqualified or formally acknowledged at the foundations of modern theoretical physics; there is no middle ground. So advanced it's simple." - Mark Vukovic, Electronics Tech, U.S.N. USS Shasta (AE-33), San Francisco, CA.

"This book has clearly made a formerly mystified theoretical physics truly comprehensible to anyone with high school reading skills and 'street people' in general. Beyond its overt revolutionary scientific import, the social implications are also profound. Bound to surprise and constructively inf luence an enormous number of people for a very long time. Ignoring or denying it won't make it go away. Now I know what E=MC squared means." - Don Donahue, original printer and publisher of ZAP Comix, San Francisco, 1970

"Gravity really is the 4th dimension, and levity and mirth use to be the 5th and 6th dimensions, until K.B. Robertson proved them to be electricity & magnetism, respectively. - Herb Caen, The San Francisco CHRONICLE

"Not without levity, the sharp shooting author expertly documents his academic and historical subject; then - suddenly - the reader is experientially surrounded by it. There is no intellectual escape from the 4-D space-time continuum anymore, in or out of an ignorant or uninterested yawn. The very act of reading these words is directly and physically sustained by it. Observing various responses of others, in the early stages of recognizing it, is a recreation in itself. The documentary is scientifically irreproachable, the informal narrative is a social liberation. The Fascist elements don't like it already." - Sallie Taylor Melinda Bryan, 1979

"Academic L.S.D. in a Stockholm punchbowl, and everybody's invited. Ready or not there is no way out of this but through it. A scientific Odyssey. The most remarkable fact about 'The New Gravity' is that it was not discovered and written fifty or more years ago."
- Gregory Nageotte, Ph.D. Philosophy, Santa Barbara, CA. 1979

"I am unable to disqualify it."
- Dr. Richard Feynman, 1966, Professor Emeritus, Cal Tech

"It reads a hell of a lot more easily and comprehensively than anything else of the subject of Einstein's Relativity. Reads at least as easily as the brass tacks section of any good sci. fi. mag., and it is not science fiction." - Travis T. Hipp, KSAN radio, San Francisco, 1970

"The old saw, 'There is no gravity, the earth sucks', is no longer tractable. The New Gravity (Is The 4th Dimension) is the old gravity, in a pushy new paradigm of Einstein's 4 dimensional space-time continuum. Guaranteed to illuminate even the most diffident mind. It will chancelessly see you and raise you indefinitely. The New Gravity will never let you down."
- Arthur Kretchmer, 1979, Article Editor, PLAYBOY Magazine

'Is gravity really the 4th dimension? Or has the author only cleverly built his theory around reality so that no one can tell the difference? ' - K.B. Robertson, Ibid
__________________________________

The Everything ('cept "Final" ) Theory
Was Einstein right or wrong in saying: "If you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it"?
"No space empty of field".
'Wavicles' = gravy over potatos or potatos under gravy: the ambivalence of particle and wave theory.
The non-mathematical translation and reinstatement of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field Theory
(The math is already fait accompli - ipso facto).
The gravitational effects of the expansion of 4-D physical matter with 5 & 6-D space.
Einstein's so called 'biggest blunder' was right after all.
Mr. Mark McCutcheon's - *'Final Theory' -gravitational party is 47 years tardy.
Electromagnetic resolution of quantum mechanics & field theory.
Atonement of continuity with discontinuity.
Two universal forces instead of four.
Cause of time dilation, negative inertia and black holes.
The original Extraterrestrial Physics 101.
Return of the orphaned Steady State theory.

The undoing of New Age era Einstein, Newton, gravity & gradeschool bashers - http://www.allworldknowledge.com/newton/
________________________________________


Regards,
- Kaiduorkhon
_____________________


April 5, 2004

To whom it may concern,

My name is Mark S. Halfon and I have known Kent Robertson for more than thirty years. We were neighbors in San Francisco in the early 1970’s and have remained friends through the years. Although we lost contact for quite a while, our friendship has recently been rekindled. Kent is a remarkable individual in many ways. He has a sense of justice that has been at the core of his life. I have always known Kent to be a man of integrity. He cares deeply about the most vulnerable among us – children and women.


Kent’s character is best captured by events that have occurred in his life. I recall one incident when Kent visited my home in Brooklyn. Late at night he heard a woman scream, and he immediately went outside to ensure that the woman was not being victimized. It turns out that she was screaming in jest, but Kent didn’t know that as he went to her defense (against a small phalanx of men at about 3:AM on a Brooklyn side street). Unfortunately there are no "Good Samaritan" laws in the United States, but they wouldn’t be needed if our citizenry exhibited the concern for others that has been the centerpiece of Kent’s life.

There is nothing I prize more than my children. When Kent was visiting my home, he would baby-sit for my son Jesse. Although I was aware of accusations against Kent, I knew that my child was in good hands. It should be noted that Kent has the capacity to become deeply angry at those he perceives to be unjust. His anger can manifest itself as heated rhetoric, but fortunately rhetoric alone is no crime. Despite Kent’s anger and rage at others, I believe he has always controlled his behavior.

He is not aggressively dangerous; he is defensively formidable. Never have I witnessed a moment of violence from a man whom I have known for more than three decades. His words may offend people. His presence, particularly his intellect and unexpected wide spectrum knowledge, may intimidate people. But I see a kind and compassionate human being whose friendship I cherish.


Mark S. Halfon

Associate Professor and Chair

Philosophy Department

Nassau Community College

(Ph. Work: 1-516-572-8013

Home: 1-718–856-8177

Madprof21@optonline.net)

__________________________________________________ _____

To Whom It May Concern:


My name is Patrick Wehner and I was Ben Robertson’s Landlord for a period of about 5 years from 1999 to 2004. Ben lived in an apartment complex in Santa Cruz (CA) owned partially by my Mother which I manage.

In the entire time I have been Manager I have never heard of or observed Ben committing any violent act.

Ben and I became friends over the years and he assisted me in various ways to create a good living environment for the other tenants at the 8 unit complex.

In that entire time I never received a valid complaint regarding Ben. At the very beginning of my tenure as manager there was one tenant who had a slight problem with noise, but in my investigation of this complaint I believe this was a problem with the complaining party not having good people skills and Ben cooperated in resolving the matter. Soon after this complaint the other tenant moved in with her family and I thereafter Ben had a good relationship with the rest of the tenants.

I consider Ben a man of his word and a reliable individual. I would rent to him again in a heartbeat.

Sincerely,

Patrick Wehner

pat@sterling-gc.com

ph: 1-408-489-1374

1566 Sabina Way

San Jose, CA 95118
_______________________

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[MacM]

Very interesting MacM, I will emidietly go and buy pampers now.

Your pun seems bizzar but I'll not comment on your spelling "emidietly"?



BTW JR: I merely linked another thread you started here on the subject of UniKEF and to appropriate information of that concept which parallels the one being proposed.

Interesting how another member can assert that form of gravity but if I do so it is advertising - Shssss. Get a life.

[Smellsniffsniff]

You mean I should have written imidietly? I was just lazy and wrote the word in my little google search and found that it existed there.
1/3 uses it atleast.
I find it irrelevant.

[MacM]

You mean I should have written imidietly? I was just lazy and wrote the word in my little google search and found that it existed there.
1/3 uses it atleast.
I find it irrelevant.Ever try spellcheck here? It is still wrong and 1/3 wrong is still 1/3 wrong.

My comment is in fact more relevant than your insult toward me. My work includes a calculus evaluation by a real physicist and supporting physical testing. How about yours?

[Smellsniffsniff]

There's no need to comment that.

Though, given that space is somewhat 3D, and everything came from a dot. Wouldn't it be obvious that the inside of the dot (or singularity) was much bigger then any space with the same size?

And wouldn't it be obvious that matter in the same way contains more space then a room of the same size?

So purely hypothetically, a continous "adding" gravity field should be increasing the mass through acceleration in relativity, and not reducing it.

Given that the mass is bigger after then before, the mass should also contain more space after then before.

Given that, it has absorbed something, and the gravity comes from outside and not inside.

Okay?

[MacM]

Given that, it has absorbed something, and the gravity comes from:
Outside
and not
Inside.

Okay?

Most of your post is pure gook to me. That just means it makes no sense not that you are wrong or right.


Only the last comment seems valid. My work involves push gravity (external) not mass attraction (internal) in origin.

[Smellsniffsniff]

I think I understand very well.

Neutrinoes, right?

Forget it.

Or something else?

[MacM]

I think I understand very well.

Neutrinoes, right?

Forget it.

Or something else?
Definitely not neutrinos. I suspect what is now theoretically called Dark Energy (unmeasured or seen) that is expanding the universe is what I originally dubbed UniKEF. That is Dark Energy may well cause gravity AND expand the universe if you look at the possible physics involved.

[Smellsniffsniff]

SEE. space expansion energy, there's no need to name it "Spunk" or "R2D2" or "POW energy".

Now having said that, we know that the universe originated in a dot.
A dot contained all this, so there was more too the dot then what first meets the eye, right? Given that it is quite clear that SEE can originate from that dot, and that matter is also some kind of dot that is more then what meets the eye, more then space is anyway, it can also convert to space expansion energy, SEE, since it can convert to more space then its expresion in the room. What causes gravity and thereby an increase in mass for gravitational objects, is the decrease of mass elsewhere. Given that gravity is almost evenly distributed, it cannot origin anywhere else then from the big bang.

In the same way, the weak force works in a similar way, caused by a higher covered angle of gravity. Possibly.

[MacM]

Now having said that, we know that the universe originated in a dot.
A dot contained all this, ........


Actually no. We don't know that. It is a theory called Big Bang. I personally (as do many physicist) discount the reality of singularities.

I favor a Big Rip view where the initial enception occured over a finite volume of some unknown but larger finite dimension.

The enception in my view (theory) is this:

Where "N" is Nothingness" and ""S" is Something".

N---------------> [(-S) + (+S)]

Existance is bifurcated nothing and hence there never has been a creation because collectively nothing exists. This very much parallels what we see in the vacuum foam of virtual particles coming into existance and vanishing, etc.

[Smellsniffsniff]

Room has dimensions, all things have dimensions. Time is a dimension, length is also a dimension. Giving time a length in the beginning is equally novice as a bike to one who has ridden it merely twice.

[TruthSeeker]

Expansion...inwards?
Turning inside out. I have imagined that as well... :D
But that's pure speculation, of course...

[Smellsniffsniff]

You mean it's to gasply to discuss? oh, come now camel avatar guy, it would have happened eventually anyway...

[TruthSeeker]

"camel avatar guy"... I take that is me....

Hey! Don't make fun of my pet!

Anyways... no, I just mean that we don't have any concrete evidence pointing towards that specific scenario. The data we have can also explain other scenarios. Maybe it IS expanding inwards, who knows? :shrug:

[MacM]

Room has dimensions, all things have dimensions. Time is a dimension, length is also a dimension. Giving time a length in the beginning is equally novice as a bike to one who has ridden it merely twice.

Pardon me but these don't seem like orginal thoughts. You are reciting what you have read or been told. The fact is I doubt rather seriously if time is a dimension at all. It appears more to be a product or attribute of a dynamic 3D universe.

[MacM]

"camel avatar guy"... I take that is me....

Hey! Don't make fun of my pet!

Anyways... no, I just mean that we don't have any concrete evidence pointing towards that specific scenario. The data we have can also explain other scenarios. Maybe it IS expanding inwards, who knows? :shrug:

Actually for anyone wanting to look SRT predicts a rather strange set of circumstances. i.e. - If you have substantial distance between you and another observer and you accelerate into relavistic velocities you will find mathematically the faster you receed the closer you get!!!!

Such that the "Accelerating Expansion" of the universe may well be anti-Lorentz Contraction due to a slowing of the expansion. Chew on that for a while.

i.e. - If you decellerate from 0.9c (gamma = 2.294); l ' = 0.4359 * l to 0.85c, (gamma = 1.898) or l' = 0.5268 * l in 10 years time. You'll find that

0.5268/0.4359 = 1.208, such that if we consider the universe to be 13 B lyr today in 10 years at the lower velocity it would appear to be 15.7B lyr. That happens to be 2.71B lyr expansion in 10 years of an expansion at the rate of 271,000,000 c!!!!

Still believe in SRT.?


Good luck.

[TruthSeeker]

You're crazy, man.... :p

[MacM]

You're crazy, man.... :p

Right. That is why I have accumulated more than a half dozen priori's. How many do you have smart ass.

BTW: This BS post of yours does not acknowledge much less address the VALID mathematical issue I raised. Try doing that next time. :spank:

[Smellsniffsniff]

About cleverness and crazyness:
"You would be suprised how much they coincide" - captain Jack Sparrow.

[Kaiduorkhon]

Auxiliary to 'gravity is caused by space expansion energy'.
Micro & Macro Mix

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

A positive charge omnidirectionally emits an outgoing electric force, and, a negative charge omnidirectionally absorbs an incoming electric force (paraphrased).

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

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

The dilemma of macro gravity in alternating contention and agreement with micro phenomena -presents a qualified history...
(Circa 1900 thru 1930 and ever since).. on Max Planck's - Helmholtz inspired, Rubens confirmed - 'Quantum Mechanics'.

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

It is only obscurely known or recognized that, although there are indeed opposing - J.J. Thompson-electron-launched - arguments on this subject, Einstein and Planck were in the same camp, along with Schrodinger, regarding the much controvesied if not misunderstood 'problem' of microcosmic 'continuity' of wave ('mechanics')-field theory, and 'discontinuity' of so called 'particles'.

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

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

By and by from this, arose a further quandary of defining the dynamics of what was projected, compared to the method or conditions of projection; such methods and conditions are still developing and the subject of much heated and cooled contention and agreement.

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

Quantum Mechanics contests
(if not gainsays) this.

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

.0000000000000000000000000066, or, 6,6 x 1027

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

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

Atomic (microcosmic) physics was understood to be in its early stages and the Planck dynamics were a portention that many other unexpected discoveries were due, as the science of observing and measuring microcosmic reality progressed. The evolutions of which were alternately championed and challenged, by Planck, Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr, Shroedinger and a retinue of others...

(It may be correctly observed and stated that: 'Long posts' are generally discouraged in most every communications exchange on the net? In any event, this location is subjecting the large and small, pro and con considerations for a TOTAL FIELD THEORY)

There is a trend of asking big questions, parallel to short attention spans reserved for and impatiently projected upon whatever - however abbreviated - extended response
(Hence, the relative abbreviation of this dissertation?).

Moving right along while shifting gears:

It's been said by this record before and may be called upon to be repeated any number of times:
There are two kinds of math. Metric, and, non-metric. The first is obliged to be responsive to and directly determined by measurably real conditions; with or without mathematical descriptions of them. On the other hand...

Non-metric math is, for example, not obliged to conform to any existentially (conditionally, physically, spatially, dynamically, phenomenologically) manifest state or process of observed, measurable reality. Been said before: an exemplary pair of non-metric mathematical formulas can be equally correct, while reciprocally and mutually disproving each other. Numbers only. Who needs reality to do non-metric mathematics? Has little or nothing to do with 'science'.


('If you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it.' - Einstein)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

To be continued.

[Smellsniffsniff]

You are all welcome to post whatever you want.

Thanx.

[Saquist]

If gravity cannot be anything inside the particles, and everything inside has very small surface to be affected by a raw force,
It could be a raw force from the outside and practically uneffected by any possible particle density.
In the beginning of time, space expanded by a seemingly raw force.
We can see the photons from the beginning of time, they come from far out in space from all directions.
Q.E.D we should experience it's raw expansion energy aswell. Inwards.

2 particles at different places, blocks the raw force between them, and move towards eachother (you know what I'm saying right? It's gravity)

And a whole bunch of other forces.
That are actually
The same force.

Asks for permission to post this here. If not asks for permission to have it moved to pseudoscience.

I'm kinda following you here but If Einstien was correct then the Gravity is the effect of matter on space time....It doesn't have a particle associated with it. In fact we might be looking in the wrong place for gravity.

[MacM]

Sorry to have been a bit curt but getting snide remarks didn't bode well.

FYI: Your philosophical view suggesting a push gravity concept is hardly new.

LeSage' first suggested it over 350 years ago. The fact is many (including myself) have advanced the concept well beyond mere speculation or philosophy. But to be berated in this discussion .....well it speaks for itself. I've done actual testing of the concept with rather exciting results but I think it would be a waste of my time to try and advance this thread considering the innuendos already cast.

Have fun. I'm well over 50 years ahead of you on this. Maybe before you reach my age you will have figured it out.

Bye.

[Kaiduorkhon]

The concept of gravity as a repelling force precedes 350 years, so what's new? For that matter, Newton's 'gravitational alternative' precedes that of Le Sage (1690). Did either of them ever identify gravity, electricity and magnetism as the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions, in those words?

(Snide remarks? Make your - ageism oriented - name calling case <Tell me how old I am?>.) Make your - 'way ahead of you' - case. Where's your forum or website? What's the title of your book, authored by whom?

Since you (MacM) didn't address your post to anyone, there's no way of knowing who your post is intended for. In any event, a similar incident occurred a few knots aft, and this is my response to it.
__________________________________________

Dear Mr. self proclaimed 'speaker of the truth'
(What a previous critic - who shortly thereafter changed his name - called himself on this very issue):

It's much more likely that any book that reminds you of mine was purloined from my work, rather than conversely (*there's a lot of this going around).

If any book you can direct anyone to can predate 1959 and ten internationally sold out small press editions in four languages since then, I'd be glad to shake the author's hand. The titles and key excerpts of my work have been graffitti and tags on the subway walls of NYC and San Francisco - and all over western coastal U.S. cities, since 1970. It was a localized best selling essay on the Italian and French Rivieras in 1959.
There are literally millions of international, seasoned and recent, second and third generation witnesses. On & off the net.

Aside from that, you're short on common courtesy and long on vacant avarice - Mr. name calling misanthrope.
Ostensibly you haven't read the so called 'dripe' you're frothing 'n dribbling about.
Had you done so, you would have encountered this and publicly saved what little of you there may be to privately salvage:


Abbreviated Reviews

"There is nothing new about Newton's Classical Mechanical gravity or Einstein's 4th dimension of time, except preeminent non-mathematical proof that they are one and the same. The New Gravity Is The 4th SpaceTime Dimension." - K.B. Robertson, Ibid.

"It's still the same old universe, but gravity is the 4th dimension of that same old universe. I'm grateful for the indelible change in my perception of it. It may be impossible to overstate the importance of this book. The one, two three and X Y Z of comprehensive infinity."
- Mark Stephan Halfon, Ph.D., Philosophy (*Nassau University), Brooklyn, New York. (*1977 - 2005)

"An ambitious new treatise on the otherwise seasoned subjects of Space & Time. We are not qualified to evaluate it, but are pleased to see it in this ('comic book') format." - THE WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE, Portola Institute, 1970 - ‘71

"An unprecedented and awesomely credible non-mathematical theory which matter-of-factly proves that gravity is the 4th dimension of time, then forthwith discovers the previously unrecognized - therefore unidentified - 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism."
- Dr. John Shaw, Chemistry Prof. 1971, University Of California @ Berkeley

"Gravity Is The 4th Dimension' - A documentary scientific 'Future Shock'. Overwhelming. Major conceptual breakthrough. It must be disqualified or formally acknowledged at the foundations of modern theoretical physics; there is no middle ground. So advanced it's simple." - Mark Vukovic, Electronics Tech, U.S.N. USS Shasta (AE-33), San Francisco, CA.

"This book has clearly made a formerly mystified theoretical physics truly comprehensible to anyone with high school reading skills and 'street people' in general. Beyond its overt revolutionary scientific import, the social implications are also profound. Bound to surprise and constructively inf luence an enormous number of people for a very long time. Ignoring or denying it won't make it go away. Now I know what E=MC squared means." - Don Donahue, original printer and publisher of ZAP Comix, San Francisco, 1970

"Gravity really is the 4th dimension, and levity and mirth use to be the 5th and 6th dimensions, until K.B. Robertson proved them to be electricity & magnetism, respectively. - Herb Caen, The San Francisco CHRONICLE

"Not without levity, the sharp shooting author expertly documents his academic and historical subject; then - suddenly - the reader is experientially surrounded by it. There is no intellectual escape from the 4-D space-time continuum anymore, in or out of an ignorant or uninterested yawn. The very act of reading these words is directly and physically sustained by it. Observing various responses of others, in the early stages of recognizing it, is a recreation in itself. The documentary is scientifically irreproachable, the informal narrative is a social liberation. The Fascist elements don't like it already." - Sallie Taylor Melinda Bryan, 1979

"Academic L.S.D. in a Stockholm punchbowl, and everybody's invited. Ready or not there is no way out of this but through it. A scientific Odyssey. The most remarkable fact about 'The New Gravity' is that it was not discovered and written fifty or more years ago."
- Gregory Nageotte, Ph.D. Philosophy, Santa Barbara, CA. 1979

"I am unable to disqualify it."
- Dr. Richard Feynman, 1966, Professor Emeritus, Cal Tech

"It reads a hell of a lot more easily and comprehensively than anything else of the subject of Einstein's Relativity. Reads at least as easily as the brass tacks section of any good sci. fi. mag., and it is not science fiction." - Travis T. Hipp, KSAN radio, San Francisco, 1970

"The old saw, 'There is no gravity, the earth sucks', is no longer tractable. The New Gravity (Is The 4th Dimension) is the old gravity, in a pushy new paradigm of Einstein's 4 dimensional space-time continuum. Guaranteed to illuminate even the most diffident mind. It will chancelessly see you and raise you indefinitely. The New Gravity will never let you down."
- Arthur Kretchmer, 1979, Article Editor, PLAYBOY Magazine

'Is gravity really the 4th dimension? Or has the author only cleverly built his theory around reality so that no one can tell the difference? ' - K.B. Robertson, Ibid
__________________________________

The Everything ('cept "Final" ) Theory
Was Einstein right or wrong in saying: "If you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it"?
"No space empty of field".
'Wavicles' = gravy over potatos or potatos under gravy: the ambivalence of particle and wave theory.
The non-mathematical translation and reinstatement of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field Theory
(The math is already fait accompli - ipso facto).
The gravitational effects of the expansion of 4-D physical matter with 5 & 6-D space.
Einstein's so called 'biggest blunder' was right after all.
Mr. Mark McCutcheon's - *'Final Theory' -gravitational party is 47 years tardy.
Electromagnetic resolution of quantum mechanics & field theory.
Atonement of continuity with discontinuity.
Two universal forces instead of four.
Cause of time dilation, negative inertia and black holes.
The original Extraterrestrial Physics 101.
Return of the orphaned Steady State theory.

The undoing of New Age era Einstein, Newton, gravity & gradeschool bashers - http://www.allworldknowledge.com/newton/
________________________________________


Regards,
- Kaiduorkhon
_____________________


April 5, 2004

To whom it may concern,

My name is Mark S. Halfon and I have known Kent Robertson for more than thirty years. We were neighbors in San Francisco in the early 1970’s and have remained friends through the years. Although we lost contact for quite a while, our friendship has recently been rekindled. Kent is a remarkable individual in many ways. He has a sense of justice that has been at the core of his life. I have always known Kent to be a man of integrity. He cares deeply about the most vulnerable among us – children and women.


Kent’s character is best captured by events that have occurred in his life. I recall one incident when Kent visited my home in Brooklyn. Late at night he heard a woman scream, and he immediately went outside to ensure that the woman was not being victimized. It turns out that she was screaming in jest, but Kent didn’t know that as he went to her defense (against a small phalanx of men at about 3:AM on a Brooklyn side street). Unfortunately there are no "Good Samaritan" laws in the United States, but they wouldn’t be needed if our citizenry exhibited the concern for others that has been the centerpiece of Kent’s life.

There is nothing I prize more than my children. When Kent was visiting my home, he would baby-sit for my son Jesse. Although I was aware of accusations against Kent, I knew that my child was in good hands. It should be noted that Kent has the capacity to become deeply angry at those he perceives to be unjust. His anger can manifest itself as heated rhetoric, but fortunately rhetoric alone is no crime. Despite Kent’s anger and rage at others, I believe he has always controlled his behavior.

He is not aggressively dangerous; he is defensively formidable. Never have I witnessed a moment of violence from a man whom I have known for more than three decades. His words may offend people. His presence, particularly his intellect and unexpected wide spectrum knowledge, may intimidate people. But I see a kind and compassionate human being whose friendship I cherish.


Mark S. Halfon

Associate Professor and Chair

Philosophy Department

Nassau Community College

(Ph. Work: 1-516-572-8013

Home: 1-718–856-8177

Madprof21@optonline.net)

__________________________________________________ _____

To Whom It May Concern:


My name is Patrick Wehner and I was Ben Robertson’s Landlord for a period of about 5 years from 1999 to 2004. Ben lived in an apartment complex in Santa Cruz (CA) owned partially by my Mother which I manage.

In the entire time I have been Manager I have never heard of or observed Ben committing any violent act.

Ben and I became friends over the years and he assisted me in various ways to create a good living environment for the other tenants at the 8 unit complex.

In that entire time I never received a valid complaint regarding Ben. At the very beginning of my tenure as manager there was one tenant who had a slight problem with noise, but in my investigation of this complaint I believe this was a problem with the complaining party not having good people skills and Ben cooperated in resolving the matter. Soon after this complaint the other tenant moved in with her family and I thereafter Ben had a good relationship with the rest of the tenants.

I consider Ben a man of his word and a reliable individual. I would rent to him again in a heartbeat.

Sincerely,

Patrick Wehner

pat@sterling-gc.com

ph: 1-408-489-1374

1566 Sabina Way

San Jose, CA 95118
_______________________

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[MacM]

(Snide remarks? Make your - ageism oriented - name calling case <Tell me how old I am?>.) Make your - 'way ahead of you' - case. Where's your forum or website? What's the title of your book, authored by whom?

Since you (MacM) didn't address your post to anyone, there's no way of knowing who your post is intended for. In any event, a similar incident occurred a few knots aft, and this is my response to it.

Thanks for the comments. I specifically made this general because there were more than one party guilty of BS posts. Yours has not been one of them.

I do have a web site and a book is in the works. My work includes a review by a world recognized physicist (Dr Edward Allard) which can be googled. I have also conducted physical testing of the push gravity concept.

However, since I strongly believe relativity is flawed and thanks to some dim witted individuals in charge here that swear by relativity I cannot post information about UniKEF but a search of threads and you'll find a thread started by James R himself.

[TruthSeeker]

Right. That is why I have accumulated more than a half dozen priori's. How many do you have smart ass.

BTW: This BS post of yours does not acknowledge much less address the VALID mathematical issue I raised. Try doing that next time. :spank:
Everyone knows you are the biggest crackpot on sciforums... :rolleyes:

99.9% of your threads end up in the cesspool or pseudoscience...:rolleyes:

[MacM]

Everyone knows you are the biggest crackpot on sciforums... :rolleyes:

99.9% of your threads end up in the cesspool or pseudoscience...:rolleyes:

Typical BS. What a sad commentary for this site.

Shsss.

[Smellsniffsniff]

Aah, so BS means ********, i thought you were a fan of back street boys.

Well as you can see, truthseeker, he is one of those guys that says "no, that is totally wrong, this is right and besides that is my theory"
It is so obvious. You wish he could keep his pants on.

[MacM]

Aah, so BS means ********, i thought you were a fan of back street boys.

Well as you can see, truthseeker, he is one of those guys that says "no, that is totally wrong, this is right and besides that is my theory"
It is so obvious. You wish he could keep his pants on.


What is really funny is how you think you are funny. You aren't funny and you definitely aren't smart. I should be embarassed by your BS. I don't think so. You are pathetic.

[Smellsniffsniff]

Oh great, now he takes of his underpants. Can't he just STFU!?

[TruthSeeker]

Wow. What a bunch of retarded losers.... :rolleyes:

[MacM]

Wow. What a bunch of retarded losers.... :rolleyes:

Yep. They like to pitch but don't like to catch.

[Smellsniffsniff]

Yep. They like to pitch but don't like to catch.

Go on and post your link, if you think your theory is linked to mine. But do understand that posting gravity and push in the same sentence is not equal to my theory, Li'll MacM. I was well prepared and well awares that the theories do show up. Non of them include space expansion energy directly from big bang. Don't ignore this post.

I very well know your tactics.

[MacM]

Go on and post your link, if you think your theory is linked to mine. But do understand that posting gravity and push in the same sentence is not equal to my theory, Li'll MacM. I was well prepared and well awares that the theories do show up. Non of them include space expansion energy directly from big bang. Don't ignore this post.

I very well know your tactics.

My tactics? I most certianly do not ignore posts. Not grasping "Gravity" and "Push" in the same sentance puts you at a disavantage since it has been around hundreds of years.

I'll not bother posting a link to UniKEF. James R calls that advertising. Go figure. If advocating any view isn't advertising I'd like to know what it is. Anyhow it can be found on site by clicking on my user name.

[Smellsniffsniff]

How is it, that when I click on your theory, explorer shuts down, and when I reach your paper, it's a tube movie about perpetual motion.

Are you calling that science?

[MacM]

How is it, that when I click on your theory, explorer shuts down, and when I reach your paper, it's a tube movie about perpetual motion.

Are you calling that science?

Interesting. I have no tube movie about perpetual motion. And I have no control over Explorer. Futher more when I click on the link it goes right to the Home Page.

[Smellsniffsniff]

Well all that was no good, you'll just have to send me a book and a bill on that book. But I wont pay more then 35 american dollars.

[Klippymitch]

Interesting. I have no tube movie about perpetual motion. And I have no control over Explorer. Futher more when I click on the link it goes right to the Home Page.

I have my doubts on you MacM. At least Smellsniffsniff is questioning and trying to understand the universe. This already makes him smarter than 90% of the population of earth. It doesn't matter whether he gets it wrong the first, second or even the third time. But each time he comes up with a better conclusion and answer to the questions he is asking. Whether he will ever find the right answer to the questions he himself is asking will never be known until it happens.

I haven't read much posts from you accept a few from this thread and a lot of it sounds like a hoax. If I find you posting new ideas and explaining things that you yourself have questioned. I will change my mind instantly.

[MacM]

I have my doubts on you MacM. At least Smellsniffsniff is questioning and trying to understand the universe. This already makes him smarter than 90% of the population of earth. It doesn't matter whether he gets it wrong the first, second or even the third time. But each time he comes up with a better conclusion and answer to the questions he is asking. Whether he will ever find the right answer to the questions he himself is asking will never be known until it happens.

I haven't read much posts from you accept a few from this thread and a lot of it sounds like a hoax. If I find you posting new ideas and explaining things that you yourself have questioned. I will change my mind instantly.

Having doubts about my views would be perfectly within your perogative. But linking this statement to the assertion that my link shows perpetual motion or that I advocate perpetual motion is out right slander. I most certainly do not.

It would seem very easy for you to just click on my user name and then my web link to verify that it doesn't take you to some perpetual motion flick.

Now let me clarify. There is a U-Tube video of a gravity-bouyancy mechanisim running and it is available on my site but it has nothing to do with my theories and further I've seen the video and the machine only turns 3/4 of a revolution - it is not a running purportedly perpetual machine. It doesn't run at all. It is no more signifigant that placing a weight on a free turning wheel and the wheel rotating until the weight is at the bottom.

But that link is not to that video. Further I have over 200 members and there are hundreds of threads and other authors and a dozen different theories and links on site.

[Smellsniffsniff]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69267

How to make a graviton to photon converter.