TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics

So given the *cough* rigour and *cough* accuracy of your figures for G (and I still don't see where the 16 fits at all) how much credence can be given the the rest of it?
How much credence should be given to the rest of it?
If any of my apprentices had offered work with an error like that so early on the whole thing would have been returned immediately with the instruction "Bring it back when it's right. Stop wasting my time".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Speaking of time, neither you nor any of your apprentices will have any idea what it is - or how to properly preoccupy yourself with, or waste it - until you understand why Einstein united it with space, emerging with 'space-time'. Popular guesses on this issue are equivocations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

According to you, you mean.
However such a sloppy basic error so early on merely screams "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about".
I may get round to looking at the rest of it, but at the moment it doesn't look to be worth my time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sooner or later, one way or another, you - and your apprentices - will 'get around to looking at the rest of it', via one - or a combination - of media. That is to say, the 'expanding universe' is found to be accelerating, and, Einstein's 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant (Lambda - as in LCDM) is gaining on you... You and yours may learn why now, or you may learn later.

 

Given nothing in your quote implies he's talking about your work I question its validity. Further more you can't disprove the existence of God but that doesn't make it science.

Back in Newton's day philosophy, maths and science were all wrapped together. A philosophy PhD now is generally entirely devoid of any physics or mathematics. In contrast Newton was highly skilled in mathematics and well versed in physics. So no, philosophy doesn't cut it when it comes to theoretical physics else they'd teach philosophy in physics departments. Instead they teach maths.

That doesn't mean your work is right. It's possible to construct a great many models of nature where the universe is accelerating but they are falsified by something else. Furthermore saying "The universe is accelerating" doesn't mean you can describe that acceleration properly. Newton says that Mercury's orbit should precess, which it does, but he predicted the wrong amount so his model is falsified.

Which page? And how can you get 43 arc seconds from a theory which doesn't have any mathematics? Or are you contradicting yourself?

I know Dirac's work can provide the answer, its part of the reason I ask it. I know Dirac's work (ie I have a working understanding of quantum field theory, including quantum electrodynamics) and I know how to calculate the differential cross section which QED predicts. Which page in your work demonstrates you can reproduce QED?

You claim that you don't have any mathematics yet QED is a highly mathematical area of physics. You can't construct it without having such things as Hilbert spaces, first and second quantisation, Euler-Lagrange methods, Hamiltonian mechanics, Noether's theorem, Lie algebra, gauge theory. If your answer to my question is "Look up QED" then you can't claim to have a TOE without mathematics since QED requires a lot of mathematics.

Your answers only illustrate my point, that you either can't answer the questions or you lie about having no mathematics in it.

 

More Data Cogent to the Incumbent Issue (BigBangology & Popbottle rockets)

Dear Reader: please note that there was formal, academic dialogue referring to an accelerating universe, fully twenty years before it was finally big 'news'...

The Editors, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,
415 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017

*14 May 1976

"An Accelerating Universe?" "...that most reasonable observational data.... fit closely all models to which the expansion is accelerating. "The prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... "something must be terribly wrong."..."The net forces between (receding) glaxies really are repulsive (Re: 'Hubble's Law - the more distant a given stellar or galactic light source the faster it's rate of recession from the point of observation". Re: Einstein's Cosmological Constant <repelling force acting parallel to and in the opposite direction as the popular concept of 'Newtonian impelling force>, a force different from others in that its velocity increases - rather than decreases, with distance.)
- SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 'Science and the Citizen', December 1975, James E. Gunn and Beatrice M. Tinsley.

'I point out this apparent conflict with the understanding that Gunn and Tinsley concluded "...the prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... and that something must be terribly wrong."

Especially so if "...the net forces between (receding) galaxies... really are repulsive... and if gravitational values really are "equivalent to and synchronous with inertial acceleration values beyond a billionth of a second and the technical ability to measure any difference" (THE NEW GRAVITY <Is The 4th Dimension>, April 1976, Kent B. Robertson).
'Is it possible we are overlooking a rather obvious consideration, concerning the real nature of 'gravity?'
Very Truly Yours,

David F. Sicks, Anchorage, Alaska cc - Mr. Kent Robertson
( Mr. David F. Sicks received no response.)


Revisionary BB Politics - 11-11-2007, 05:22 PM (Posted by K. B. Robertson <RascalPuff – ‘RP’>, on ToeQuest)

Recently in this Theory of Everything internet enclave, the following - exemplary - excerpt was included – in bold red lettering - in a post by the unarguably venerable neutralino (is a Ph.D in physics):

"Note that nowhere in the BB theory does it state 'the universe exploded into existence', or in fact anything to do with explosions!!"
This conceptual posturing is merely an example of the fact that the big bang theory has evolved from it's inception as a 'beginning explosion', into a Standard Theorist bunker of denials that any 'original explosion' commenced what is now popularly referenced as 'The Expanding Universe'.

Proclamations that there is no original explosion associated with the big bang theory have become the status quo. When someone proclaims or implies otherwise, they are promptly described as a 'novice', and 'corrected', as exemplified by the above quoted statement by neutralino.

This controversy leads to the question of where the big bang theory originated, and, how it was described.
Here is the google acquired answer to that question…

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ce/sc0022.html

“In the winter of 1998, two separate teams of astronomers in Berkeley, California, made a similar, startling discovery. They were both observing supernovae — exploding stars visible over great distances — to see how fast the universe is expanding. In accordance with prevailing scientific wisdom, the astronomers expected to find the rate of expansion to be decreasing, Instead they found it to be increasing — a discovery which has since “shaken astronomy to its core” (Astronomy, October 1999).“This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on “a day without yesterday. “After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big Bang as fact. But while most scientists — including the mathematician Stephen Hawking — predicted that gravity would eventually slow down the expansion of the universe and make the universe fall back toward its center, Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding. He argued that the Big Bang was a unique event, while other scientists believed that the universe would shrink to the point of another Big Bang, and so on. The observations made in Berkeley supported Lemaitre’s contention that the Big Bang was in fact “a day without yesterday.” When Georges Lemaitre was born in Charleroi, Belgium, most scientists thought that the universe was infinite in age and constant in its general appearance. The work of Isaac Newton and James C. Maxwell suggested an eternal universe. When Albert Einstein first published his theory of relativity in 1916, it seemed to confirm that the universe had gone on forever, stable and unchanging.”
----------------------------------------

Neutralino's response:
Re: Revisionary BB Politics - 11-11-2007, 06:38 PM

“Ok I'm ready to eat a tiny slice of humble pie now, RP. My response that you've quoted in red (because it was originally quoted in red) is not correct. I can't remember saying that last night, and have no idea why I would do, but I did (I checked).

So here's my stance on the big bang. Many people say that there was an "explosion" at some point in space, or that the universe was created from a single point in space. This, clearly, is incorrect (since the universe consists of the spacetime of the universe).

However, one can say that there was an explosion that created spacetime and that is why the universe is expanding in the way we see today. The important things to notice are that firstly, this explosion did not take place in a specific point in spacetime, since this would imply a centre, which contradicts the cosmological principle. Secondly, we note that we cannot run the clock back to time zero and see an infinitely dense point of matter. Thirdly, this explosion is not like any explosion that we would imagine. When we think of explosions, we think of fragments of something being thrown further into space. However, this explosion was an explosion on the universe itself which created the universe (if that makes sense.)

Anyway, talking about explosions, whilst technically not incorrect, gets confusing. I would much rather take the stance that the big bang theory states that the universe was once far more dense than it is today.

So, I apologise to you, RascalPuff, and to anyone else who read my incorrect views.

[As an aside, in future it may be better to get a reference from a non-catholic source if discussing workings and successes of a catholic priest!]”
-----------------------------------------

The reversionary transition came about, because there is no common center from which the expanding universe, recedes. The dynamic structure of the expanding universe is such, that the recession of light sources is moving directly away from the observer, in direct line of sight, no matter what location the expansion is observed. 'The center is everywhere'. This is not the dynamic signature of an explosion - especially when it is learned that the expansion is proceeding ever faster: accelerating.

On the other hand the described dynamics are the signature of a repelling force acting out of all material bodies, 'just like gravity', except, in the opposite direction. Refer, 'the Cosmological Constant'.

 

I know why we waste time - so we can imagine machines that can waste it for us, doing useful things by wasting energy and resources. We haven't managed to make (or imagine) a machine that doesn't waste time or energy; this seems to be some kind of fundamental law or other...

 

SA is not 'academic dialogue', it's a pop science magazine. Academic dialogue would be papers published in a reputable journal putting forth a new idea which is then mentioned in other papers by other people.

And like I said, simply saying "The universe is expanding" doesn't mean you are describing it correctly. I've done work in examining inflation and I've constructed systems which describe an expanding universe but end up predicting the wrong CMB spectrum or don't provide enough expansion or too much. You can't just say "Look, I said it was expanding ages ago" and think that you're going to be accepted hands down.

 

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Dr. Richard Feynman 'didn't work in physics'? ”

Given nothing in your quote implies he's talking about your work I question its validity. Further more you can't disprove the existence of God but that doesn't make it science.

--------------------------------
Response: You are free to question anything you like, Dr. Feynman skipped three classes talking to me in his study at UCLA in 1966, and conceded after that time that he was unable to disqualify my work.
---------------------------------

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Ph.D commentaries from philosophy professors (what Newon was) don't count? ”

Back in Newton's day philosophy, maths and science were all wrapped together. A philosophy PhD now is generally entirely devoid of any physics or mathematics. In contrast Newton was highly skilled in mathematics and well versed in physics. So no, philosophy doesn't cut it when it comes to theoretical physics else they'd teach philosophy in physics departments. Instead they teach maths.
-------------------------------
Response: Nobel Laureate, Dr. Gross has publicly stated that today's physics is in an utter state of confusion, and that its mathematics don't establish what they allude to. Ostensibly, physics doesn't need more math. It needs more non mathematical comprehension of the existing math as it is practiced in and applied to physical phenomena.
-------------------------------

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
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. ”

That doesn't mean your work is right. It's possible to construct a great many models of nature where the universe is accelerating but they are falsified by something else. Furthermore saying "The universe is accelerating" doesn't mean you can describe that acceleration properly. Newton says that Mercury's orbit should precess, which it does, but he predicted the wrong amount so his model is falsified.
------------------------------------
Response:
According to you, Newton's remarkable prediction is 'falsified', because he didn't roll a 300 game when he won the championship, and by the same metaphorical token, a correct prediction is false if and when - by the advantage of hindsight - any adjustment is applicable to the correct prediction...
---------------------------

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon;2432982Time dilation [I
is[/i] comprehensively explained in my work.

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

Which page? And how can you get 43 arc seconds from a theory which doesn't have any mathematics? Or are you contradicting yourself?
-----------------------------------
Response:
There are ten editions - including essays as well as books - of my work. The information contained on which page, varies. Moreover, in the present format as it is offered on the provided URL at the beginning of this thread, the page is findable if and when you address extrapolating spirals (you'll see the illustrations), when you are employing the 'tile' (multi-page presentation) modality of the computer presentation.

Knowledge of mathematics is not necessary to simply learn that planet Mercury loses 43o of arc per century. Whereas, you have notably taken this vacant opportunity to ask if I'm contradicting myself.
--------------------------------

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Dirac's (now formally engaged) predictions are cogently applicable to your last question, as explained in my work. ”

I know Dirac's work can provide the answer, its part of the reason I ask it. I know Dirac's work (ie I have a working understanding of quantum field theory, including quantum electrodynamics) and I know how to calculate the differential cross section which QED predicts. Which page in your work demonstrates you can reproduce QED?

Response:
Since you claim to know Dirac's work (which I referred you to) can provide the answer, and since I don't do higher mathematics, what has your proposed 'assignment' to do with the in situ resolution, other than flaunting your knowledge of higher mathematics?
---------------------------

You claim that you don't have any mathematics yet QED is a highly mathematical area of physics. You can't construct it without having such things as Hilbert spaces, first and second quantisation, Euler-Lagrange methods, Hamiltonian mechanics, Noether's theorem, Lie algebra, gauge theory. If your answer to my question is "Look up QED" then you can't claim to have a TOE without mathematics since QED requires a lot of mathematics.
-------------------------------
Response:
Quantum Electro Dynamics is no more the path to a Unified Field (TOE) theory than are all of the types of mathematical approaches you so diligently list. My answer to your question isn't "Look up QED", it is rather the observation that physics doesn't need more math, it needs more comprehensive understanding of what the existing math alludes to.

------------------------
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
All of your questions - with their answers - are know to anyone who actually reads my work instead of just orbiting it with irrelevant interrogatives. ”
----------
Your answers only illustrate my point, that you either can't answer the questions or you lie about having no mathematics in it.
---------------------------------
Response:
Your closing summary (above) only illustrates you assumptive prescience that I can't answer your questions, while you take another unfound opportunity to question my credibility: this time, in stating that I 'lie about having no mathematics in it'. Knowing what E=MC2 means, doesn't oblige me to understand how to practice algebra. Neither does referencing any number of mathematical informations that constitute the motif of physical science at large.

 

Excuse me, sir, but my prediction was and always has been that the expanding universe is accelerating. Please review the similiarities and the differences between these two key words: 'expansion' & 'acceleration'. As you speak of them in your last post, you consistently use the word expansion even when the correctly applied term is acceleration - accelerating expansion, to be more precise.

 

Given we don't know what you showed him, how much time he put into it, the quantitative predictions you made or even the validity of your story anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Like I said the inability to disprove is not the same as proof.

And the fact you've been peddling this stuff for 40 years and gotten nowhere would suggest you've not impressed many people, including Feynman. He died in 1988, how come he didn't help you develop your work and publish it?

Your response does nothing to retort my comment that philosophy PhD comments are not justification or particularly relevant to your claims. Secondly I wonder if you're paraphrasing because speaking as someone who works in the theoretical physics community its not 'utter confusion'. It's in a state of flux due to the great many ideas put forth for physics which the LHC might see but 'utter confusion' is a bit of a stretch. Thirdly your logic is flawed. Mathematics not being the answer to all problems doesn't mean you chuck it out the window. Besides, the fact the mathematics is complicated doesn't mean there's no understanding of its physical meaning. Such a comment is commonly the view of people who don't understand mathematics so assume no one else does.

Is this your method of discuss, paraphrasing people to the point of bullshit? Newton's gravitational model cannot account for light bending, gravitational time dilation or the precession of Mercury. If a theory predicts X and Y is seen the theory is not correct. This doesn't mean its useless, it just isn't a fundamental theory. Newtonian dynamics is also falsified, as it cannot account for time dilation due to motion or relativistic energies or the frame independence of the speed of light. All are observed phenomena which Newton said wouldn't occur.

So provide me with the page number for the link you provided at the beginning of this thread.

I know you don't need mathematics to know the experimental fact that Mercury has a 43 arc second discrepancy from Newtonian mechanics but you need to know mathematics to work out that given the masses and positions of all the planets, moons and shape of the Sun that the Newtonian gravitational interactions of them on Mercury lead to a different motion to the one seen. You can't work out the discrepancy from theory and experiment if you don't have a theory to make a prediction.

If you have a theory of everything which can account for the 43 arc second discrepancy then that claim means that you have a model which, when given the masses, positions and motions of all planets and moons, as well as the shape of the Sun, you can compute the gravitationally governed motion of Mercury and you find the orbit has a precession in it precisely that observed by experiment. That requires you to have a mathematical model as you turn numerical quantities like mass, position and velocity into gravitational forces and then from that determine the trajectory of a planet. If you don't have mathematics in your work then you can't possibly do that. By the sounds of it you're just saying "I can explain that experimental result" and then not providing any justification for that claim.

You claim to have a theory of everything thus you should be able to model all things which current mainstream physics can. One such phenomenon is electron+positron -> muon+antimuon differential cross sections. The model used is QED and has significant experimental verification to high accuracy. Since I know how to derive the expression for the differential cross section I am able to check if any answer you give is actually correct by comparing with the expression I know to be accurate to parts per million (at least).

I ask such a question because its something outside of most crank's experience. They think if they can provide a mass for the electron they have explained quantum mechanics. The concept of a function like a differential cross section is alien to them and completely throws a spanner in their claims.

Can you provide me with an expression for the differential cross section of electron+positron -> muon+antimuon in terms of the in going and out going momentum of the particles? If not then you have not got a theory of everything since you can't model a well known and well studied physical phenomenon.

If you have discussed physics with Feynman, who got a Nobel Prize precisely for the development of QED, then surely you're familiar with such concepts? If you've been doing stuff like this for 40 years surely you've come across Feynman diagrams and the S matrix a few times, when just reading around a bit?

So basically you can't provide me with a quantitative prediction for the quantum interaction I asked? Then why do you claim to have a theory of everything?

You claimed to have a total field theory without mathematics. The very notion of a field is a mathematical one. And you haven't got a 'total' field theory since you miss out things current field theories can describe.

40 years and you're achievements involve lying on forums? Wow, that's impressive.

 

You've simplified the entire ongoing exchange, particularly the more ambitious response you offer in your most recent post...

I'll respond to each of your premeses, when you justify your last effort at ad hominem one-up-manship and off topic gotchaism - that being:

"40 years and you're achievements involve lying on forums? Wow, that's impressive."

You're probly obliged to agree, this has become a fairly extensive thread.

You're definitely obliged, having imposed the obligation on yourself, to show the readers of this thread, and myself, one lie in it, for which I am responsible.

 

You have lied about having a theory of everything. Was that too subtle an example for you?

 

The Unabashed Reinstatement of the
Cosmological Constant (Lambda), continued

Before and since the latest writing of this condensed (originally, 1959) presentation of Total Field Theory: Gravity (including time) is the 4th Dimension, the 'big bang' "theory" has been ambitiously renovated - unflinchingly retrieving the 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant from the round file - putting it back on the slate (refer 'LCDM' - Lambda Cold Dark Matter, and the regularly employed big bang employment of the term, 'cosmological constant', in those words...). Moreover, the ex parte big bang gang has nonchalantly declared that it doesn't - after all - need a common center from which it originates. Under these rearrangements, the covertly bewildered, usurped, big bang gangologists carry on with 'business as usual'...

Enter in google: 'Einstein was right after all - maybe'. Then <collectively> enter in google: cosmological constant lambda expanding universe big bang acceleration red shift dark energy dark matter Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker, and draw your own conclusions about what's happened to astrophysics and the big bang theory, especially since 1976 thru ‘98 and continuing.
- K. B. Robertson 4/21/2007

The expansion is proven, dynamically structured as though the center (alleged origin of the big bang - said to be the beginning cause of the observed spatial expansion of the universe) is everywhere. No matter the location of any given observation point: the structural dynamics of the observed expanding universe are such that always the red-shift recession of the measurable surrounding universe (of receding objects) is: in direct line of sight; moving directly away from points of observation; wherever they are located.

This is not a 3-dimensional signature.

It is the 4-dimensionally prevailing status quo;establishing a structural expansion corroborating a physically and spatially expanding - steady state – universe, where the center is everywhere; as it is in fact observed to be. Proving every point of mass (charge/ disturbance; systems of combined particles) and its (their) generation of omni-directionally expanding electromagnetism and gravity: as the collective cause and origin of the observed, red-shift measured expanding universe.

The Big Bang is categorically founded on a 3-D premise. In what is insisted to be an ‘acknowledged’ 4-D Universe.
Refer, George Orwell's 1984 *DOUBLE-THINK & *NEWSPEAK (*two mutually conflicting parallel lines to infinity): endless gridlock.

The Big Bang imposed retroactive progression to the bygone past's intersection of three dimensions to a point of origin (the anticipated end of retroactively expanding space - traced backwards in time to an inevitable intersection and consequent point of beginning), does not apply to a four dimensional space-time continuum...

The past of which is progressively smaller, to endless 4-D infinity, when the observed, spatially expanding (Big Bang originated; 3-Dimensionally fixated) universe is traced backwards through past time, from the present.
Back tracking the observed spatially expanding universe is popularly said by Big Bang advocates, to eventually arrive at an intersection where space ends: in three dimensions.

There is no open argument against the omniscience of the four dimensional space time continuum here. It is simply and altogether excluded as a solution (refer option/ aka, ultimatum).
The Big Bang Theory denies/excludes/ignores altogether here, what its double-talking perpetrators say they acknowledge (the 4th dimension)...
Meanwhile, the Big Bang Theory becomes dissolute, when it comes in a functionally applied contact with the (Invisible, What?) four dimensional space-time continuum.
------------------------------------

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their worldly origin and take them as immutably given.
They are then rather rubber-stamped as a ‘sine-qua-non of thinking’ and an ‘a priori given’, etc.
“Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times.
Therefore, it is not at all idle play when we are trained to analyze the entrenched concepts, and point out the circumstances that promoted their justification and usefulness and how they evolved from the experience at hand.
“This breaks their all too powerful authority.
They are removed when they cannot properly legitimize themselves; they are corrected when their association with given things was too sloppy; they are replaced by others when a new system can be established that, for various reasons, we prefer."
- Einstein, "Ernst Mach", Physikalishe Zeitschrift 17 (1916), 102; Collected Papers vol. 6, Doc. 29
-----------------------------

(P.S. Consider the Big Bang adoption of the formerly orphaned & ostracized Cosmological Constant & Steady theories, in order to 'maintain' the desperately stricken, anemically perished 'big bang beginning', ok? Maybe no one will be watching them, while they deign to do it in the road... <'What big bang makeover?'> Oh yes. They've gone through the line w'out paying for the abducted CC ( /\ Lambda) and Steady State; so far, it - 'the normal adjustment' - continues to be no big shakes...)

Whereas, in four dimensions (when space-time is not excluded from the universe, as the Big Bang Theory - while alleging to acknowledge the 4-D space-time continuum - excludes the 4th dimension altogether), past space goes on ever-smaller forever; smallness proceeding as endlessly as largeness: with the relativistic center (source of expansion) located everywhere in the occurrence of matter-field particles (without a spatial limitation at the falsely assumed and foreseen intersection of all matter, culminating in the alleged explosive <Big Bang> beginning); in the increasingly distant, ever smaller past to infinity, and growing ever larger forever in the increasingly distant future; to infinity.

 

Is this what you're proclamation that I allege to 'have a theory of everything', is based on.
----------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Response: Quantum Electro Dynamics is no more the path to a Unified Field (TOE) theory than are all of the types of mathematical approaches you so diligently list. My answer to your question isn't "Look up QED", it is rather the observation that physics doesn't need more math, it needs more comprehensive understanding of what the existing math alludes to.
---------------------------------------------

Your 'example' isn't 'too subtle', it simply doesn't qualify as an example.

Post Script. Although my work is presently posted on ToeQuest, I don't personally believe there ever will be a veritable Theory of Everything, neither do I consider any 'Final Theory' as being pragmatically tractable.

 

This is not even a coherent statement. The dimensionality of a system is the cardinality of the degrees of freedom. For a space-time its the number of independent directions you can move in. 3 spacial and 1 temporal. Gravity is not a direction you move in, its a force, an effect which alters the motion of objects. You fail to even know what 'dimension' means.

Oh no, physicists say "We were wrong" and learn from their mistakes!

That's not a fudge or a swindle, it's a simple corollary of having a space-time expand from a point.

Actually it's independent of the dimensionality of space-time. A homogeneus isotropic expansion will look the same from any point in space and in any direction, tautologically. All points are equally valid or special and so they all see the same effect.

You can formulate the FRW metric in any number of dimensions. Infact, if you look at the 5 dimensional Schwarzchild metric and see how it extended from the 4d version the 5d FRW metric is easily guessed.

3 spacial directions + 1 time direction = 4 dimensional space-time. Its rocket science!

It does, it's just the space-time continuum couldn't be Euclidean or Minkowski.

You don't actually know any GR, do you?

Your posts don't actually present results or justify your claims, you just babble about how wrong everyone else is and how right you are. Claiming some kind of Orwellian conspiracy of 'double think' is just another nail in your crank coffin.

 

Your compulsive digression to nefarious name calling, vacant proclamations and lately, necrophilia, finds you self-retired from the parameters of venerable debate.

Incidentally, at least one published and distributed book has been written about my books and essays. And, scores of statements based on my work are sprinkled all over the net. Whereas, you do undeniably clarify at least one important point: you haven't read my book, and, no one can compel you to.

 

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".

 

Are you trying to be ironic and illustrate a point or did you really just make that accusation?

Besides, simply ignoring the fact you have made a series of ignorant and misguided claims about mainstream physics doesn't magically absolve you of being wrong. The BB is not a fundamentally 3d theory, you can formulate it in any number of dimensions. Gravity is not, by definition, a space-time dimension.

Wow, you're on the internet?! If its online it must be true! Just like alien conspiracies, the Bible and Barney the Dinosaur.

What's the ISBN number of the book you talk about. Who was the publisher? How many has it sold? Was it exclusively about your work? Why have you not got your work published in a journal (or journals) if its worthwhile? Why have you failed to pass peer review? Having to resort to quotes of people from 30 years ago just raises the question "Why haven't you got anywhere for 30 years?".

 

Caveat:
Before late '99, as can be confirmed by GOOGLE and other chronological archives, there were no (zero) discussions on 'gravity is the 4th dimension', or gravity, electricity & magnetism as the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions. Or The Reinstatement of Einstein's Unified Field w'out Math: The Big Bang Theory is Wrong.

All that has changed, since.
In late '99 (under a bevy of witnesses, including his co workers at the time <in Santa Cruz, CA>), one Brian Kirk Parquette (bkparque) enthusiastically introduced himself to me and several of my friends and acquaintances; asked to buy a copy of the (condensed) 54 page, 5th edition of my (627 page) hard copy published - consistently sold out - book, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION (Electricity the 5th, Magnetism the 6th).

After reading and praising it abundantly, Parquette asked me if it was posted on the net. I said I didn't know how to use the internet and used computers only for word processing and printing out copy material from which I produced and distributed small press editions of my book. Having done so with a typewriter and off set press since 1970, and before then, published and sold out repeatedly in small press essay and soft cover book form, since 1959 (beginning in Naples, Italy and translated into three lanuages, all along the French and Italian Rivieras, prolifically responded to with positive accolades, in Italian, French and English).

Parquette asked me if it was okay for him to post it on the internet. Of course I was grateful for this opportunity and was happy to give him a disc containing several of my works, including the issued (condensed) physics book.

Until the Astronomy Net was temporarily retired on 6 December 02, for renovation, when you clicked on google and entered 'gravity is the 4th dimension', you went to the Astronomy Net and accessed a post by 'bkparque', who initiated that particular Astronomy Net post and referenced a series of URL 404's where he had posted info previously and then deleted it without further explanation. It was later revealed that he had presentend the work as his own and then retracted it.

Since then, one bkparque is sprinkled all over the web/net with 'posts by bkparque', espousing gravity as the 4th dimension. This goes back to Dec., '99 and February 2000 (and ever since...). Bkparque at first avoided telling his readers that such posts were authored by himself, deliberately leaving the reader with the directly implied impression that bkparque is the author of what he posts. In a an internet letter addressed, and rudely worded to Princeton's Dr. Wheeler, and Dr. Eliot McGucken (of Jolly Roger), Parquette eventually and overtly proclaims himself to be the 'Author' of several extended, verbatim excerpts from my book (Enter 'Dr. Eliot McGucken ‘Do let me know when it stops' 'Brian Kirk Parquette', in GOOGLE - argumentively engaged . McGucken and Dr. Wheeler, while impersonating myself...)

bkparque was reprimanded and corrected for copyright infringement (including bold and elaborate plagiarism), by Delphiforums.com for multiple copyright intrusions and misrepresentations on a variety of subjects, including claiming the title *'gravity is the 4th dimension' to be authored by himself (*included in his 'forum profile' as his 'personal quote'), along with the title of his forum - EXTRATERRESTRIAL PHYSICS 101 (Copyright 1979 by Kent Benjamin Robertson, AKA Kent Robertson ben Abraham, That Rascal Puff, KaiduOrkhon).

Reliable sources say that bkparque's brigand posts in the Astronomy Net Forums are one of the reasons that site was renovated

The title, 'Gravity Is The 4th Dimension' is copyrighted and published in 10 small press editions (thru 2007) since 1959, by Kent Benjamin Robertson - book was sold internationally through the 1970-71 WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE (Published by the Portola Institute), and which goes back to earlier titles, including 'The New Gravity', and 'An Hypothesis On Gravity'.

The work has since emerged under a flurry of authorships, some of whom are informed piecemeal and innocent of plagiarism, and some of whom - like bkparque - are lifting extended exerpts, rhyme, chapter and verse, directly out of K.B. Robertson's original work, the condensed 6th edition of which is free for any and all to read: the pillagers are now gridlocked with a fitting argument, contending who purloined the work first.

The lastest contender to join the fray (in 2002, advertising ‘his book' on the net) is one Mark McCutcheon, the first two chapters of whose book - The Final Theory - conspicuously parallels the work at issue here, authored by Truly Yours.
The first two electrifying chapters of McCutcheon's oxymoronically titled book are direct parallels of and, ostensibly extracted from Gravity Is The 4th Dimension, by Truly Yours. I am grateful for whatever attention Mr. McCutcheon may gather for himself, insofar as when he lays enough eggs on the other side of the road, the chickens will inevitably come home to roost.

As I have said before on this issue, whether Mr. McCutcheon pirated my work or not is a technicality. The point is that his so called 'Final Theory' party is nearly 50 years tardy. I am grateful to Mr. Mark McCutcheon for publishing his work in hard copy and advertising it on the internet, although I must admit resenting his greed in selling my work at $30.00 per copy while mine is given away free. Should McCutcheon ever be obliged to pay royalties, I hereby publicly promise to give whatever that may amount to, to worthy charity. More will be said about this culminating intrigue and duplicity, later. (Any suggestions are welcome.)


In 1967, Dr. Richard Feynman, Prof Emeritus (Nobel Prize Laureate), skipped three classes he taught at that time to talk with K.B. Robertson (AKA Kent Robertson ben Abraham), one on one in his (Feynman's) study, about the unprecedented statement 'gravity is the 4th dimension', after which time Dr. R. Feynman candidly conceded, 'I am unable to disqualify it'. Witnesses to this include Dr. Feynman's staff of that era, as well as Peter and Donna Tyner, and Vern and Miriam Reed, of Los Angeles.

10,000 small press distributed copies are sold out in 41 California bookstores in the past 30 years. It outsold 'JAWS' at the UC Berkeley Campus bookstore in the mid '70s, and was a best seller at CODY'S and MOE'S bookstores on Telegraph Ave. It (‘Gravity Is The 4th Dimension') has been graffiti on the walls of international cities - as well as the Birge - Physics - Building on Berkeley Campus, for decades.

A number of people certainly including myself have learned of and certainly taken interest in a series of emergences of this statement - Gravity is the 4th dimension ( Electricity is the 5th Dimension, Magnetism is the 6th Dimension, Extraterrestrial Physics 101, The New Gravity, Total Field Theory, The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field Theory, The Big Bang Theory is Wrong) - under as many different 'original authorships' - in the past several decades.
For an evolved discussion on the featured topic at hand in this forum the reader is respectfully advised to refer to the source at the above provided URL.
It may be interesting to see the evolution of this thread as it is contributed to by readers of the referred URL, as compared to the persons who (ostensibly) haven't read it.

Post Script:

Gravity is the 4th Dimension (Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions; the Big Bang Theory is Wrong; the Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field Theory) is a narrative and an anthological compendium of quotes from other books, researched, gathered and editorially connected to one another (by way of employing and connecting previously unrecognized works) in the unprecedented commission of what amounts to a historically substantiated - overwhelmingly documented - reinstatement of Einstein's presently abandoned *Unified Field Theory. *The objective of which is to find electromagnetism and gravity as being two apparently different phenomena, actually having the same causal identity .Of course I will gladly shake the hand of anyone who can precede my 1959 copyright.

The achievement of reinstating Einstein's formerly abandoned Unified Field Theory includes a seriatim of major break throughs in theoretical physics. When Parquette's impersonation and displacement of myself as the author of the subjected work was brought to my attention, I forthwith expressed my disappointment in him, at the same time that I assured him that all he - or anyone emulating him - would succeed in doing is making a fool of himself and expediting the conveyence of my formerly hard copy, small press confined work to the world.

Best regards,

- RascalPuff, Kaiduorkhon (K B. Robertson)