TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Kaiduorkhon, Dec 3, 2009.

  1. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    So it has no rigour, no predictive power, no ability to be developed by an independent person and absolutely nothing worthwhile to say. Well done on wasting part of your life.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Is this an advertisement?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    While, 'Just this guy, you know' asks, 'Is this an advertisement?'
    (Someone charged you a fee for reading it?)
    -------------------------------------------

    Conspicuously, there is no critique value in either of your unqualified typographic boondoggles.

    Out of the cluster of vacant, ad hoc proclamations (punctuated with an interrogative advertisement), let Alphanumeric's most notable empty denial serve as an example of the Art of Missing the Point When you Can't Afford - or don't care to - Catch On...

    "...no predictive power"...

    In 1927, Silpher (unexpectely) discovered the spatial universe is expanding. Hubble later refined that discovery to, 'the further the source of light, the faster its rate of recession'.

    In 1996 it was (unexpectedly) discovered that the observed 'expanding universe' is accelerating...

    The 'wasted life' you (covetously and vainly) refer to in the work you ostensibly didn't absorb, has predicted an accelerating universe in seven published and sold out editions distributed in small press and sold out all over the world (in three languages), since 1958.

    Post Script: Refer 'The New Gravity', as commended by the internationally distributed 1970 edition of the Whole Earth Catalogue.

    On the other hand, you (plural) do consistently prove that you don't recognize the solution(s) when paint your own wagons and cabooses with it.
    Whereas, you will, when rolled up copies of the Physical Science Journal and Scientific American lock you in step with it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2009
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Where's the theory? Am I supposed to download the word document, or wade through reams of irrelevant info on the linked page?
     
  9. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Your watch is running just a smidgen too slow, James. The answers you've bet your reputation won't be found, are henceforth preceding - and following - your readably fractious and tense, nail biting lead.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Um... no, I didn't see an answer to my question there. Want to try again?
     
  11. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    The answer to your question (since the illustrations on the original post were hacked out by people who are terrified to see the confining walls of their security box fall down) is, yes, *wade through the (illustration hacked) text-intact information on the linked page. The word document access had to be omitted, because it also accesses my email.
    And see if you can emerge with a disagreement that has some palpable substance - cuz Truly Yours also, is just this guy, you know...
    (*Popcorn is optional.)
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2009
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I'm expecting some vague nonsense since there's no maths, but I'll take a quick look and get back to you.

    No, it doesn't work. When I click to download the document, it says I have to sign up to some Yahoo thing.

    Too hard. Forget it.
     
  13. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Granted, the hackers having removed the illustrations makes it a less illuminated read, but as you say, there's no math, so it's also simplified in comprehensive terms, where the text does describe what's in the missing illustrations.

    You probly won't read it until Al Gore, or somebody with 'credentials' endorses it. But, one way or another, sooner or later, you'll read it, from many different sources, in many different ways. You're already reading about Einstein's formerly abandoned, presently reinstated Cosmological Constant, every time you read about 'quintessence', 'dark energy', and/or 'dark matter'. 'They' are (embarrased); just calling it by different names. New Age Vocabulary.

    http://www.toequest.com/forum/toeth...mological-constant-steady-state-theories.html

    ('Too hard. Forget it'. - James R. 'Just some guy, ya know'.)

    How surprising is it to find out that the so called 'particles', which are actually found to be 'charges' of electromagnetic waves/fields (Ph.D's in the 'particle' discipline have yet to find any particles - having discontinuous 'surfaces' separating them from surrounding space, finding only ever smaller electric 'charges'), are not only expanding, but also accelerating. Like water ripples, for immediate example. And that, consequently, everything - quite everything - is in a constant state of accelerating expansion; maintaining the same relative density from one moment to the next (smaller and relatively more dense in the past, and larger and relatively less dense in the future), without impinging on the law of conservation of mass-energy...?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2009
  14. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Newly Installed Working Attachment

    Dear James R.

    Finally found a way around the formerly imposed obstructions.

    Here's hoping you find time to give it a fair perusal. It's 298 pages duration. You could apply yourself to it portions at a time. Value your evaluation. Hey, you may even be pleasantly surprised. Then again, maybe not. Would like to know what you think of it, if and when you give it a fair read. Of course the URL is at the beginning of this thread. : )

    Thank you for being there.
    Best regards,
    - K. B. Robertson
    (Aka, Kaidu, RascalPuff, eteceteras)
     
  15. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    LCDM is Camouflage for the Functional Return of Einstein's Unified Field.

    "There is no space empty of field." - Einstein

    "In his novel, THE SEARCH, C.P. Snow describes the reaction of a student in class on hearing the physics professor say he is not sure whether some of of the subject matter in the course is right. This indication of disagreement of those inside physics comes as a surprise to the student; he has heard of past scientific controversies, but the current science which he is studying seemed to lack them altogether, as if scientist-authorities backed it up by unanimous vote. 'Science', writes Snow, 'had seemed to be without people or contradictions.'
    "The knowledge that physics is not as unanimous or bloodless as it may appear from the outside came as a surprise to me also. I wanted to know more..."
    - Barbara Lovett Cline, THE MEN WHO MADE A NEW PHYSICS, Preface


    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."

    Exerpts from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas S. Kuhn, from paragraph 1:
    "Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".
    ...........................



    Abbreviated Reviews

    "It's still the same old universe, but gravity (including time) 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 Stephen Halfon, Ph.D., Philosophy (*Nassau University), Brooklyn, New York. (*1977 - 2007)

    "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

    "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 influence 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

    "Gravity really is the 4th dimension of time, 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 conservative 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 years earlier."
    - 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 space-time 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

    "KBR, I have read all of your posts and the entire many posts on the cosmological constant. I agree, much of what you have written, is how I also see one interpretation of Einstein's thinking. You have probably described most of it (non-mathematically) better than anyone before you, including Einstein himself, yet you have offered little new, to someone like myself, who long ago figured out Einstein's thinking, most the same as you."
    - Lloyd Gillespie, THEORY OF EVERYTHING Forum, 2007

    'Is space-time 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
    ________________________

    From: Associate Professor BenTheMan To RascalPuff (K.B. Robertson), 4/18/07

    Rascal ---

    It is not clear to me that you have done anything but quote outdated references.

    And, to be clear, Newton NEVER based ANYTHING on a graviton. One of the biggest problems Newton had with his own work was that he had no idea concerning what gravity actually WAS.

    From RascalPuff to BenTheMan:

    Dear BenTheMan:

    The point of the 'outdated' references is they're being retrieved from the trashcan by up-to-date contemporary physicists and being put back on the slate. The increasingly desperate big bangers (for example) are plundering key features of what was previously abandoned; while continuing on with their bankrupt (originally presented) 'big bang' , which now only vaguely resembles it's initial inception and presentation.

    Enter (collectively) in google: LCDM Cosmological Constant Lambda
    quintessence dark matter Expanding universe big bang acceleration red shift dark energy Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker.

    Enter in google: 'Einstein was right after all - maybe'.

    Yes. Newton repeatedly, deliberately and emphatically clarified that 'gravity' was a complete mystery to him.

    It is clear that your only respite is the statement of the obvious that you've extended. Thank you for your seasoned views.

    (Speaking of 'seasoned views', James R., I very sincerely respect yours. It would be a true honor, were you to evaluate this freely provided book.)
    -------------
    "There was a young lady named Bright. Who moved much faster than light. She departed one day, in a relative way, and returned on the previous night." - Eric Buller, 1923


    http://www.toequest.com/forum/toeth...mological-constant-steady-state-theories.html
    This a 298 page book, free to read for anyone who accesses it. This is an information resource, not an advertisement or commercial.
     
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Wow, quotes from years about by people who don't work in physics. If your work is so right why has it been available for so long and gotten nowhere?

    Can you use your work to provide me with te time dilation factor for two observers at a point with relative motion v?

    Can you use your work to provide me with the precession of Mercury?

    Can you use your work to provide me with the differential cross section of electron+positron -> muon + antimuon. Explain any and all notation used and any assumptions.
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    What?
     
  18. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Responses to your questions in the order of their presentation.

    Dr. Richard Feynman 'didn't work in physics'?

    Ph.D commentaries from philosophy professors (what Newon was) don't count?

    LCDM is the camouflaged functional return of Einstein's 'abandoned' Unified Field. The newly discovered accelerating universe is predicted in my 50 year old copyright, and in nine small press editions (up to 1999) ever since.

    Time dilation is comprehensively explained in my work.

    The loss of 43o of precessional arc (and less with the other planets) is explained in my work.

    Dirac's (now formally engaged) predictions are cogently applicable to your last question, as explained in my work.

    All of your questions - with their answers - are know to anyone who actually reads my work instead of just orbiting it with irrelevant interrogatives.
     
  19. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Dear Dywyddyr:

    Does your one word interrogative mean that you disagree with the provided quote, or, is their something you disagree with, about the provided quote?
     
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Where does "(16 ft per second, squared)" come from?
     
  21. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    It's where 32 fps - the descent rate of all objecte in free fall above the earth in the absence of air resistance - is derived.
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Ah I see. Nonsense.
    The acceleration due to gravity is 32 (and a bit) ft per second squared, not per second.
    I did notice that your document seems confused over ft/ sec[sup]2[/sup] and ft/ sec.
    And how is 16 involved?
    16 ft/ sec[sup]2[/sup] is less than half of G.
     
  23. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Well. You've got me there, Dywyddyr. All corrections, though we don't get many, are encouraged. There are several misspelled words - and typos - that have been corrected in the contents, also.
     

Share This Page