TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics

Mark McCutcheon is a known wacko so if he's copying your work he really wasted his time.

No wonder you didn't want to answer my direct question of where and when your work has been published in a journal, the answer is "Nowhere and never". But good job on ignoring any points I raise or any questions I ask. Your complete inability to defend yourself from criticism and your possum defence of flat out evasion only serves to confirm my comments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It appears that you're covetous not only of the publicity Mr. McCutcheon has gleaned for himself, but also envious of the alert surveillance he's brought upon the work of & for Truly Yours (in the first two chapters of his thenceforth whacko work).
------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunify
I'm not trying to state the obvious, but since you have had a difficult time in the publishing and promotional areas of scientific work do you suppose you could provide us with a few pointers? For instance is it a good idea to send your work to physicists or is it enough to post it and let them come to you?

Dear Unify:
In my experience, it's a good idea to post work and not concern yourself with a 'community' of conflicting ideas, thoughts and theories. There's a heap of 'in-fighting' underway 'in-ranks', and 'outsiders' are also a serious threat to established reputations.

Theoretical physics is in a highly confused and utterly contentious transition in this era. You will note that there is a culminating (if coy and camouflaged) return to Einstein's formerly abandoned work. (The 'expanding universe' is accelerating...)

This trend, i submit, will continue, and, Einstein's formerly abandoned Unified Field (Cosmological Constant) will be - is in the process of being - reinstated, as I predicted in published, copyrighted and distributed manuscripts (in three languages) more than fifty years ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"In reality, mathematics can say very little about the 4th dimension. There is nothing in the hypothesis of the 4th dimension that would make it inadmissable from a mathematical point of view, this hypothesis does not contradict any of the accepted axioms and, because of this, does not meet with particular opposition on the part of mathematics. Mathematicians even admit the possibility of establishing the relationship that should exist between 3-D and 4-D space, i.e., certain properties of the 4th Dimension. But they do all this in a very general and indefinite form. No exact definition of the 4th Dimension exists in mathematics...

"The basis of the denial of the fourth dimension, which has been supported by the theoretical and fallacious plane and cubical geometry, has been the inability to produce an additional or fourth perpendicular to a cube, as the basis of an additional power multiplication, whereas, poor little plane arithmetic and algebra, without geometrical reference, being abstract, indicate the perfect ability to do so...

"Very rightly do they do so, for if the geometrist will go back to his first perpendicular, he will find it perpendicular to a sphere, for did he not assume a dot as his first basis of a geometrical theorem, which if conceded at all, must be spheroidal. Matter, if existent at all (and we cannot fallaciously assume a truth that is not), must be spheroidal. Surely the 'PlaneAndSolid' geometrist does not claim his 'dot' or 'point' to be cubical, for then he would have no further cause for his progressive antics.

We see that there is no cubism, and that we can have as many perpendiculars to the inside or outside of the sphere as we may wish. Each power raising, or root taking, is on the basis of spheroidal increase or decrease by that many units of its radial or time dimension. The only 'straight line' then is the radial or time line, demonstrated by spheroidal dissection on its radial axis. There is also much laughter at the 'Plane&Solids'" - R. Buckminster Fuller, 4-D TIMELOCK, p. 17

Apparently, what Fuller is qualifying, is that, although a geometric point does not exist, it is not square, it is round. Otherwise the motion of the square point A, to generate a Straight Line A --->B, begins a sequence of unnatural cubism, proceeding all the way up to the 4-D 'supercube'.

Fuller seems to be reminding us that the perpendicular - right angle - Euclidien law of (the extrapolation of) dimensions, can and does proceed from any shape at all; the three recognized dimensions of space being 4 dimensional and of a quasi infinite number of shapes and sizes.
The reader is encouraged to look up Buckminster Fuller in 'Who's Who'? The majority of entries have a few paragraphs of fine print - whereas Fuller's achievements fill the page. He is not a man to be underestimated.
----------------------------------

How ‘Indefinitely Spreadable’ It Is...
George Gamow, in one mighty peculiar sentence, shows us what's wrong with Einstein's Cosmological contribution.
"Einstein's Cosmological Constant is unstable, and might *start expanding or contracting at the slightest provocation." - George Gamow, GRAVITY.
(((Say When?)))
Refer: As You (Squarely) Like It. By William Shakespeare.

Dear George Gamow:
Please do let us know when and where it *stops.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“A defect (of Newtonian Classical Mechanics) also eliminated (resolved) only by the General Theory of Relativity, lies in the fact that there is no reason given by the mechanics itself for the equality of the gravitational and inertial mass of the material point.” - Albert Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS.

Newton was fully aware of the unexplained, hauntingly unresolved problem: the functional intersection of inert and heavy mass values. Describing this coincidence too often passes as explanation for this coincidence; which falsely currencied description is no explanation at all.

According to Aristotelian intuition and Newton's laws, heavier objects should indeed, fall faster. They don't.

Instead: Everything in free fall on or near earth invariably descends at exactly the same rate (in a vacuum. Sans air resistance).
Repeat: Einstein's General Principle:
is the only recognizable explanation for this.

At the turn of the 19th century, a Russian scientist, Roland Von Eotvos, pursued finding a difference in descent rates of heavier and lighter objects. A difference which is supposed to be there, and isn't.
Eotvos, was inspired to achieve technological measurement of differences in descent time for variously light and heavy falling objects, down to a billionth of a second (A nanosecond).
He could find no variants in rates of descent (in time) for variously massed test objects (in space)..
No difference in descent rates - gravitational time from inertial space; uniformly perceived as unrelated - of comparatively lighter and heavier objects has ever been measured; to date.

The author (Truly Yours) submits that no difference will ever be found. Due to the more than coincidence - but rather the identity - of the fact that apparently descending objects are not really falling at all. The ever-expanding earth, matter of factly rising up to 4 dimensionally overtake and meet - make contact with - apparently falling bodies/objects.

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

The ('Impossible') reason all objects (appear to) descend at the same rate of acceleration.

“Objects of such different nuclear constitution as aluminum and gold fall with accelerations that agree to better than one part in 10-11, according to Roll, Krotkov, and Di#k (1964), one of the most important null experiments in all physics. Individual molecues fall in step, too, with macroscopic objects (Estermann, Simpson and Stern - 1935; and so do individual neutrons (Dabbs, Harvey, Paya and Horstmann - 1965), individual electrons (Wittborn and Fairbank - 1967), and individual mu mesons (Beall - 1970).”
- GRAVITATION, pp 13 - 16, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.

"*In a neutron (cyclotron) experiment, a beam of fast neutrons close to that of the speed of light was shot into a moderator block, the emerging neutrons were observed to rain down from the block with about the same speed as rain droplets fall". - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 145


“The most dramatic of all early tests of the general theory took place in 1919 during a total eclipse of the sun. Einstein had reasoned as follows: if an elevator in interstellar space were pulled upward with an accelerating velocity, a light beam traveling from side to side inside the elevator would bend down in a parabolic path. This would be regarded as an inertial effect, but according to the general theory, one can make the elevator a fixed frame of reference and view the curving of the beam as a gravitational effect. Gravity, then, is capable of curving light beams.”
- Martin Gardner, RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLION


"A beam of light projected horizonally over the earth's surface 'falls' at the same rate as any other test object. Only the hyper-speed of light sustains an apparently straight line, which is actually slightly parabolic, in accordance with slower moving - horizontally projected test objects with more easily measured arcs."
- KBR, TOTAL FIELD THEORY

 

So rather than responding to direct points raised you default to out of context quoting of physicists talking about something which isn't your work?

 

The quotes from Buckminster Fuller regarding the shortfall of near traditional representation of the 4th dimension in the form of a 'super-cube' ('cubism', derived in fact from what is a round geometric point - 'A', from which right angles commence - A<------>B ; etceteras, prompter hoc ), are directly referential to my work; which is, a priori, based on 'talking about something which isn't my work.'

You may call upon yourself, for example, to proceed with 'your own idea', which isn't based on or otherwise derived from the work of others... I submit that isn't a tenable premise; beginniing with the fact that you wouldn't have a language or a math, were you not basing these on the work of others.


Regarding the series of quotes related to the work of Eotvos, all of those are in context of relevant references to the invariance of gravitational settings, corrigible to and parallel with 'the universal rate of descent', and the much more than coincidental equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values; particularly as it applies to the 'curving of a light beam' - in Einstein's elevator, and/or, over the surface of earth (any major gravitational coordinate system, as reviewed at the close of this post).


Please be reminded that my response to your direct points is defaulted, in lieu of yourself demonstrating one lie (in this thread) for which I am responsible.
---------------------------------------------------

“The most dramatic of all early tests of the general theory took place in 1919 during a total eclipse of the sun. Einstein had reasoned as follows: if an elevator in interstellar space were pulled upward with an accelerating velocity, a light beam traveling from side to side inside the elevator would bend down in a parabolic path. This would be regarded as an inertial effect, but according to the general theory, one can make the elevator a fixed frame of reference and view the curving of the beam as a gravitational effect. Gravity, then, is capable of curving light beams.”
- Martin Gardner, RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLION


"A beam of light projected horizonally over the earth's surface 'falls' at the same rate as any other test object. Only the hyper-speed of light sustains an apparently straight line, which is actually slightly parabolic, in accordance with slower moving - horizontally projected test objects with more easily measured arcs."
- KBR, TOTAL FIELD THEORY

 

In spite of unprofessional, unprovoked, illegitimate contextual and personal criticism you maintain a well presented and intelligent discourse. More of the same please. It is a joy to read.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Goodness, gracious, Quantum Wave, sincere gratitude for the - however (ahem?) qualified - compliment; certainly including the consideration to post it. Your gesture in fact, genuinely humbles me.

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

Should you arrive at this placement, you will find that the provided accessory controls allow many different perspectives and approaches to reading it. For viewing page numbers and the entire work, in the shortest period of time, please click on the 'tiles' option on the lower right hand side of the page, once you enter the document (after enlarging the view). Thank you for your (notably candid) interest. Please let me know what you think of it.

 

LOL, sorry about the qualification. I need to read your link and delve into the book. I'm sure it is thought provoking.

 

"As Above, So Below
(Ut Supra, Ut Infra):
ain't necessarily so...

'Wave' CONTINUITY
& 'Particle'
DISCONTINUITY
Academic Panics @ Quantum Mechanics
(Excerpt from 'Total Field Theory', by K. B. Robertson.)

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

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

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

Leading to an undrained, ever rising swamp of determinacy and indeterminacy, entanglement, water ripple and shotgun pellets rolling sideways and speeding linearly through vertical and horizontal slits, in the ever imposing shadow of assumptive continuous wave eclipsed by the non-prevailing 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and the newly incumbent black body radiation - vocabularized in electrical theory and thermodynamics - introducing the circle of broken lines forming a sought-after curve but still leading to an apparently non discardable discontinuous 'quantum leap', because energy in discontinuous portions cannot be infinitely divided; establishing that radiant energy is not quantitatively infinite - in unequal units, Planck resolved that the frequency of the considered discontinuous wave is directly related to its duration, or more specifically, its length.
This was unexpected because it defined a seemingly antithetical, self contradicting equality in discontinuous and continuous energy packets - 'quantum', which, literally translated from Latin equals 'what quantity'. It came to pass that, depending on how these units are measured and otherwise evaluated, they alternately manifest as 'waves', and, as 'particles' - continuity, and discontinuity.

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

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

Black body radiation occurs in discontinuous packages of microcosmically indivisible energy units of erg seconds, where the individual, indivisible unit is designated as 'h', for the numerically expressed value of:
.0000000000000000000000000066, or, 6.62559 x 10-27.

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

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

Atomic (microcosmic) physics was understood to be in its early stages and the Planck dynamics were a portention that many other unexpected discoveries were due, as the science of observing and measuring microcosmic reality progressed - the evolutions of which were alternately championed and challenged, by Planck, Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr, Shroedinger and many others - that space does not allot for in the format of this dissertation.

 

Time Dilation & Expansion of Matter
--------------------------------------------

Question:

In a universe parallel to ours, exactly the same in every way; with all of the galaxies - including the Milky Way, and our solar system with all our planets as they are, including earth and everything on and within it and including its inhabitants and the molecules, atoms, electrons, photons, black body radiation - except... :

that this ‘twin universe’ and all of its contents was one thousand times smaller than the universe we in the here and now occupy - instead of the there & then occupation of the miniaturized universe (including all of our miniaturized selves):

Would this miniaturized universal space and all of its miniaturized contents undergo and experience the same time standards as the ‘regular sized’ universe we are part of?

Options

Time would be the same in the two compared universes.

Time would be different in the two compared universes.

If yes, please explain.

If no, please explain.


There is more to this.

Further discussion on the same issue, continues:

______

Part II

Proposed Relativistic Twin Paradox solution: in a *physically expanding universe.

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

An Expansive 4-D Thought Problem With a Dilatory (*mass-field) 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’.


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 - left to right - 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.


(Among other issues, a reinstatement of the presently abandoned Steady State and Unified Field theories is being considered here.)


The omni-directional acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the ever expanding, accelerating 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' (the 'curvature of space-time').


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 - enlarging the vehicle and everything on board, comparable to the distribution of a beam of inversely squared light - remains in deep space sustaining high velocity for what his senses and instruments measure as 30 days; then slows down to return to earth; learning that his earthbound twin brother and everyone else on earth (who was his age upon his departure) is considerably more aged than himself.

The record knows of no conceptual explanation for this (until now), 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.

Is this a viable scenario for time dilation?

Best regards,

- RP (Aka, Kaidu, K.B.Robertson)

 

Conceptual Evolution of Action-at-a-Distance and Related Issues Pt. I
----------------------

TOTAL FIELD THEORY
Relevant: Excerpts, notes & correspondence.
Quotations, paraphrasations or parallels to K.B. Robertson's ('Puff's/'Kaidus') works are permitted, with the qualification that the author's name is noted and duely accompanys cogent references, applications or other relevant information, and that the information is used for non-commercial purposes. The following email exchange is posted with permission from 'infamous steadfast' (James) and Truly Yours (K. B. Robertson, aka 'RascalPuff').
__________________

Cogent Correspondence:
This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ] Date:Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:13:22 -0800 (PST)From:
"Ben MacColley" (K.B. Robertson) kraziequus@yahoo.com

Subject:Re: Action at a distance (through 'functional space')
(Extension of power. A biological; existential imperative.)
To: James (----------------- )

'InfamouSteadfast' (James)


wrote - to, That Rascal Puff:
Dear sir:
I've been interested in asking a question of you ever since we made our aquaintance. I believe this question has a relevance bearing upon your theory; 'Gravity is the 4th dimension'.

Ever since I became interested in Physics, from about the age of 21, I've had this nagging question which, to date, nobody has given a sufficient answer to. The concept of action at a distance has been one which I cannot rationalize in a way that is consistent with the authorized contemporary conceptualization. Scientists will tell you that action at a distance is carried either by the photon, "Electromagnetism", the weak force, "W & Z bosons", and the strong force, "gluons". This explanation sounds good until one begans to try and understand how this information is past from one electron to another, one WorZ boson to another, or from one gluon to another.
The reasoning is of course, the notion of field and, the action of a wave propagating thru it. Now what puzzles me is this; A wave must by defination propagate thru a medium and the medium is empty space if one is discribing the intervening area between the particles mentioned in the forgoing paragraph. If one chooses to hold to current theory, the space between particles is distorting and this distortion causes the passing of information onto the next particle.

If this is so, then space itself has substance and what the character of this substance is, is what intrigues me. Years ago, I became interested in Aether theories, by and large because of my respect and admiration for Tesla. Understanding that standard theory, mainly because of the Michelson-Morley experiment, has disqualified the possibility of an Aether, I have begrudgingly abandoned the concept. However, I still question the rationale given for action at a distance.
My question: If space has substance, which it must have for information to be passed at a distance, "What is the character of this substance"?
With humble regards................................James Pugh...... .... 'Infamous, steadfast'
___________________

Dear Mr. James (---------------) Infamous Steadfast, Sir:
Good to hear from you.
Copyright Kent Benjamin Robertson, 1975 - 2006, All rights reserved.
(I encourage your communication and discussion of the following information to and with whomever you wish, with the respectful reminder that you cite your source of information and its copyright. With that qualification, I hope you help me tell the world what either or both of us think of the following information, with whatever contributions, disqualifications, corrections and/or augmentations and confirmations may be made, by however many others, per individual <certainly and especially including yourself - a question may be as vauable as an answer>, as regards accredation for cogent - additional - information.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Without levity, condescension or overconfidence, in mutual consideration of your perhaps endlessly important question (paraphrased): 'What is space?'
Tantamount to any subjection of 'Action at a distance' : perplexed the heck out a lot of thoughtful people we happen to (have the opportunity to) know of. Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein in particular.

Questions have a way of reinforcing one another when they're on the same wavelength, as it were - with or without intended puns tailored to this occasion. I'll add more questions with a few possible progressions resembling answers, many of which you may well have already considered, in which case we can together consider a review and assemblage of how many Angstrom units there may be to whatever frequency we're seeking to understand more about.

'Action at a distance' has some derivational roots and connotations that are often overlooked by even the most avid students of existential physics...

Consider 'Extension of self'. It proves out as a category of biological imperative; directly if unexpectedly related to 'Action-at a-distance'.

We find primates extending their arm and leg length by improvisation of a 'tool' - a 'stick' to increase extension (action at a a greater distance than the unassisted simian or human body can achieve without the improvisation of something other than the inherent physical abilities and limitations of the body).

The - former - definition for homosapien use to be 'he or she who improvises, utilizes and otherwise employs tools' (A formal definition of 'human', included 'the toolmaker and user'). Since Jane Goodall and several others have documented simians improvising leaves as spoons and ladles, and sticks as further extensions of the body, anthropology has been obliged to, either, categorize simians as humans, or find some other definition for the human animal...

Moreover, simians are likely as the genus 'hominid' to have begun to 'throw' sticks and stones with deliberation, to even further effect: 'action at a distance'.

The incentive for this creativity was probably and firstly related to acquirement of food. Knocking fruit from a tree; with an extension of self - an augmentation of power, via the employment of a 'stick' for example. The throwing of that stick. The throwing of a rock or what have you (what you have).

This category of thought fairly leads to a realm of the progression of improvising and otherwise creating various means of extension of self through space: 'action at a distance'. Even when it doesn't involve us, it becomes something we have begun to think about, personally as well as existentially, the former preceding the latter...

The evolution of human thought - for better and worse - has been largely contributed to by all contingencies of action at a distance. Some more obvious than others. That rabbit stew I'm in search of gets easier to acquire if I extend myself, with a stick. The stick gets even more extended if I project it, and more efficient if I acquire a straighter stick and sharpen the end of it by rubbing it against the equivalent of #80 or so sandpaper I improvise in the surface of, say, an outcropping of granite or whatever mineral talus.

Rocks effect the same advantage when I throw them, and eventually get around to attaching several differntly shaped ones - rocks - to the end of a stick; forming a mace, or what will become known as a spear. These evolve to a sling to throw the rock, or a notched lever to further enhance the velocity of the thrown spear, by extending the arm and acquiring the leverage to impart that much more speed to the thrown spear. Then moving on to the bow and arrow. All of these inspirations relating directly to action at a distance, which is originally related to extension of self's power to act through space at a distance.

Again, much of the incentive for thinking about action at a distance at its rudimentary foundations is in pursuit of nutrition - the acquirement of sustenance, so basic as to be a biological imperative for survival.

On to warfare and the concept of projectiles. The evolution of increased innovations on acting at a distance, become, in hunting and warfare (however unfortunately in some applications): killing at a distance. Again, another form of the biological imperative for survival - for the acquirement of food, self defense, or the capacity to plunder food, territory, livestock, foodstuffs and inevitably, the propertization of people to whichever person or group of persons first and best learns to overpower another person or group of persons.

Evolving from extended and thrown stick or rock, sharpened stick and beveled rock, slings, spear levers, bows & arrows, catapaults, combinations of sulpher, salt and carbon to form gunpowder generating pyrotechnically activated - ever swifter, more flatly trajectoried - projectile throwers by way of explosively driving a missile through a tube casing, evolving furthermore to the contemporary hi tech ability to deliver fissile, transcontinental multiple warheads, or carry peaceful people in to the final frontier, going where no person has gone before, to find new worlds, etceteras...
-------------------------------------------------

Conceptual Evolution of Action-At-A-Distance Pt II

Continued from Pt I (above)

All of these incentives originate in and contribute to our learning how to acquire food or information for ourselves or power over others, by way of improved methods and means of acting at greater distances. Again, much of the evolution of human thought has that goal as the incentive for what has now become our perhaps most important and unanswered question:
Pre & Post Graduate:

'What about action at a distance'? 102.
It's become an obsession long before it gets recognized in any classroom filled with people orbiting the same - only partially answered - question...
104 finds InfamouSteadFast asking RascalPuff:
What is the quality of the space that conducts F (force) acting at a distance (across 'space')?

'What IS space??'

'What is the quality of the space that conducts F (force) acting at a distance (across 'space')?'

And, what causes, propagates and/or conducts 'Action-at-a-distance'?

Maxwell called something that's got a lot to do with it, 'electromagnetism'. And showed everyone the structural qualities. We know it's not Gilbert's Magnetism, but we also know that in many ways it's very much like magnetism; then again, it's not. A whole bunch of scientific high rollers say it's closely related to - if not somehow the identity of - gravity; which does have the same speed - and structure - as electromagnetism ('light').

We're presently pondering this issue together via electromagentic action at a distance. No news here? (And new the nows?)

More ingenuous, thought provoking questions...
Why is it that sound travels faster through water than through air?
We kind'a figure it's because the conducting molecules are closer together and therefore are more conducive as a medium of conduction.

What about the fact that light slows down when it passes through a 'solid' conducting medium, such as water, or a prism, and then, after having passed through such medium, reclaims the speed it had before it was slowed down as it passed through the - whatever - solid, transparent medium?
Just what (why/how/when/where) is 'refraction', anyway?

Although the electromagnetic spectrum is, say, a yard wide, why is it that we can only see about two inches of that band width of frequencies?
Never mind the limitations of our sensory perception of sight. What is really going on here when refraction that we can see, divides light passing through a conducting medium - be it a mist of collective water droplets or a notably triangular shaped prism: that is actually a tetrahedron - a pyramid shaped, transparent solid mass...

Often thought of as *'having four sides', when the bottom of the pyramid is left out of the equation, which is *incorrect, until we acknowledge the bottom plane of the pyramid, which gives it five individually considered planes, forming a triangular shape effected by an orthogonal structure in three dimensions which are actually four, which conduct - while slowing down - projection of the fifth and sixth dimensions through it; resulting in a 'refraction' of the transient light, constituting its division in to 'the seven - visible - colors of the solar spectrum'.

When combined as light <not opaque coloring substances> originate in the colorless white light, efracted to seven colors - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet (ROYGBIV), then reconstituting itself back into the combination of all those colors resulting in its original state of white light, re-engaging the speed it lost as it passed through the conducting medium.

Might it be comparable to the so called 'curvature of space' so often if wearisomely employed as an unrewarding description of the 4-D space-time continuum?

Is the conducting - refracting - medium 4-dimensionally expanding? Resulting in the fact that, between the time a given frontal of a given beam of light enters the conducting medium, that medium continues to 4-dimensionally expand, as the fifth and sixth dimensions (of electromagnitism) pass through it, resulting in the apparent 'refraction' - displacement - of the 'geometrically straight' light beam, due to the fact that the point of exit isn't where a 'straight line' would actually exit, if the conducting medium (prism) was not 4-dimensionally expanding, ever faster, as the light beam passes through it?

Does the fact that, from the moment of the entry of a frontal of light into a conducting medium, that conducting medium has enlarged from the size it was at the space-time moment of entry - in the interim of transmission - to the space-time moment of exit?

Is 'refraction' a form of 'geodesic'?

Is the apparent division of the incoming, primary white light into the seven basic - solar spectral - colors, and the apparent shift from a straight line into seven individual course changes, actually a straight line 'geodesic', after all?
A so-called 'curvature of space-time'?

Due to the non acknowledgement and the non-recogniton of what the 4-D space time continuum keeps proving itself to be (the unrecognized over-all 4-D enlargement of the conducting prism or rain-drop, around what is actually an unaltered, unshifted beam of straight line traveling light)?

In the mix here, is the fact that 'refraction' doesn't happen when light passes through a transparent conducting medium, the surface planes of which are parallel, such as in a flat planed pane of plate glass. Meaning, we're dealing with a model of a completely horizontal beam of light striking a completely vertical conducting medium, passing through it, without being refracted; whereas:
when that same horizontally traveling beam of light strikes and enters the angled plane of, say, a prism (or a large or tiny drop or sphere of water), on it's way through and before and as it exits, it is refracted - divided into seven colors (ROYGBIV), in that order:
suggesting in this consistently patterned exit, that the different lengths of the correspondingly different colors are (or appear to be) somehow differently conducted and corroborately transformed (shifted, diverted from their straight line course), while slowing down in the conducting medium, and then, somehow - as previously noted - re-acquiring their entrance speed, upon exit...
(Note: the exit - in the case of a prism or a sphere - occurs at the converse angle of the angle of the conducting medium at the moment of the light beam's entrance...)

'What is the character of this(*conductive and/ortransient) substance?'
Darned if I know anything for sure about this, Sir.
But: a lot of previously unfurled flags are now down on the same question, the same question being many questions with as many answers...

Truly Yours can't tell you so much what it - light, gravity, inertia - is, but, I think I'm closer to telling you what it's doing and why it may be doing it (until further notice?)
Another potential if partial answer is that the search for a conducting medium seems, since Michelson & Morley gave us some elbow room with their very important (if null) experiment, is based on an assumption that such conducting medium is necessary. There is the consideration that such a conductor already exists, in a form - phenomenon - we don't recognize.
It keeps occuring to me that 'there is no space empty of field' ( - Einstein) .. And that 'the field' itself, is the ubiquitous, omnipresent panacea for 'conducting medium'.

Yes, fields do cross paths and flow through each other - we see that - dramatically - in the exemplary *slowing down of 5 & 6 D electromagnetism, *corresponding to and varying with the density of the exemplary 4-D conducting medium it's traveling through.

So what's to prevent the omnipresent 5th & 6th dimensions of electromagnetism themselves from furthermore conducting whatever transient field may project through it?

Does E really equal MC squared, or, is that just some sort of popularly patronized ethereal euphemism that has no conditional presence, effect or manifestation in space-time?

(The Big Bang advocates functionally ignore the 4th D, while simultaneously 'acknowledging it'.... <That is, the so called 'Big Bang' is prohibited from crutch or stool to stand or sit upon, in a 4-Dimensional universe. 'This is the way to do physics'. - Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, GRAVITATION> I'm not well versed in psychology or diagnosis, but, this may be a leak proof case of severe schizophrenia? Selective - multiple choice - reality?)

Never mind the extolled dictum of the hypnotically gesturing interpretation of *Lagrange space as being functionally non-existent, exclusively non-metric zero space ZPE & ZE <Zero Point Energy, or, Zero Energy> - 'no gravity here' (at certain points between earth and sun): such interpretation of *L-1 thru *L-5, etceteras, is patently bonkers.

Why? Consider this: in a tug-of war, where each opposing side is evenly matched and neither of the two sides overpowers the other while exerting a lot of force in opposite directions :
it is not true that there is 'ZE - Zero Energy' - at any point - Zero Point Energy [ZPE] at any point between the two opposing forces on either end of a given rope <conductor of force>. On the contrary, there's a lot of energy at all points in the taut and squeeking - perhaps strand twisting and frictionally smoking - rope between the two evenly matched tug of war makers. NASA can talk about placing a space platform at Lagrange Zero Point Energy to their hearts content, whereas Truly Yours respectfully submits that there ain't no such place in any so called 'empty' space...

Thank you very much for your letter, Sir James. RSVP. Please tell me what you think of my response(s).

 

Science distinguishes gravity form electromagnetic radiation, as you point out.

Your discussion of packets of energy and the ultraviolet catastrophe is strictly electromagnetic radiation. The catastrophe was solved by the reasoning that to move beyond the observed energy content of the largest known packets at the high energy end of the spectrum, the next larger packet, the next in the theoretical series of energy content and wavelength, would require more energy than can be made available by the system and would therefore not be radiated. In terms of the bucket analogy, that “bucket” of energy would never be filled and thus never radiated; the catastrophe is resolved.

Gravity would be an entirely different phenomenon. What can you tell me about the cause of gravity and connection between mass and gravity from our work in 500 words or less

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

?

 

"What can you tell me about the cause of gravity and connection between mass and gravity from our work in 500 words or less ?"

Gravity on or near the surface of a material system is caused by the ominidirectionally accelerating (4-D) expansion of that system, in accordance with the General Theory.

The connection between mass and gravity is established in the conventional standards referring to the correspondence of gravitational potential for action-at-a-distance determined by the mass value of a given material coordinate.

Gravity is a mechanical-inertial repelling force at near distances and an electromagnetic impelling force at far distances.

 

Thank you for your reply. And you didn't even need the full 500 words.

I'm just an armature so can you please use more words in place of the phrase "ominidirectionally accelerating (4-D) expansion of that system"; you have some words left over

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Is that is what is at the heart of the book?

Is the "General Theory", General Relativity (sorry to ask).

When you say, "conventional standards referring to the correspondence of gravitational potential for action-at-a-distance determined by the mass value of a given material coordinate", is that spacetime and the EFEs?

Is all of that explained in Total Field Theory? Do you explain the mechanical-inertial repelling force in English? And of course the electromagnetic impelling force at far distances; is there a chapter on that?

I'll have to check out the book. Thanks for the link in the OP.

 

Dear Quantum Wave:
Thank you very much for your interest.
Since you have cordially agreed to read the book, I do think it would streamline our communications if you addressed specific issues, after you do read it. I hope you don't find that an inappropriate conclusion on my part. That is, I hope you agree with me about proceeding with further questions after having read the book.

Upon accessing the downloaded book, please note after you click on 'Enlarged view', that there are quite a few different options of control made accessible (at the bottom of the page) for your reading convenience - please familiarize yourself with the various controls providing corresponding perspectives of the work.

Allow me to repeat that on the lower right hand side of the accessed page(s) you will see a small square icon divided into many square images, when you click on that it says 'tiles'. You will find that this provides access to many - numbered - pages of the book at a time; when you click on a given page it will englarge that page for you, until you click on it again, at which time it will go back to the 'tiled' presentation of pages. This may sound a little complicated but, fortunately, it's easier than it sounds when you actually do it.

Please stay in touch, sir.
Thanks again.

 

You do realise that physicists do experiments to test their ideas, right? Every single prediction from quantum field theory uses \(E^{2}-|p|^{2} = m^{2}\) and so if that equation wasn't right QFT would not be such an accurate model of Nature.

Rather than spending vast amounts of time typing out lengthy and pointless posts, try reading a book instead.

 

That should be a pretty interesting read for someone like me. I visited the book and as you say, access and navigation is very easy. Thumbing through the pages I find that much of it is familiar to me. Certainly looks like it would be worth a few hours, especially since I have your offer to discuss it after I get through. Thanks.

 

Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Does E really equal MC squared, or, is that just some sort of popularly patronized ethereal euphemism that has no conditional presence, effect or manifestation in space-time? ”
----------------------------------------------
Alphanumeric:
You do realise that physicists do experiments to test their ideas, right? Every single prediction from quantum field theory uses and so if that equation wasn't right QFT would not be such an accurate model of Nature.

Rather than spending vast amounts of time typing out lengthy and pointless posts, try reading a book instead.
----------------------------------------------
Kaiduorkhon:
The question (at the top of this post) was taken out of the context in which it occurred...
It is a rhetorical question for which the answer is provided (Why E really does equal MC2), throughout the contents of my book...

It is not my objective - at all - to discard the importance of mathematics...

On the other hand, it is established that mathematics has restrictive limitations. Often, we mathematically learn that a condition exists, but do not comprehend why or how that condition exists.

Mathematics informs us that space is non absolute.

We also learn from mathematics that time is non absolute.

Moreover, for further example, we learn that matter contracts in the direction of its motion at a rate (approximately) proportional to its velocity (not to be confused with 'Fitzgerald contraction').

Mathematics did not fail Einsten's proof that the three dimensional universe is actually four dimensional.

Mathematics also proves that the mathematically established 4th D is directly related to time, and motion.

Whereas, the exemplary 4th dimension is consistently described as non mathematically 'incomprehensible'. Uniformly considered 'unimaginable'. The Life Science library goes so far as to say that the 4th dimension is beyond human understanding 'because humanity is not four dimensional'.

My work non mathematically imparts a conceptual comprehension of all these qualities that are known of but not understood, beyond mathematics.

When the 4th dimension of matter, time and motion is non mathatically accomodated, it becomes possible, for example, to establish the identification of electricity as the 5th dimension, and magnetism as the 6th dimension.

These previously unrecognized facts about dimensions are established via the authority of simple geometry; as easily understood by any one introduced to the standing fact(s), presented in my book (which is - almost invariably, as well as inevitably - 'based on the work of others').

You describe these unprecedented conclusions as 'pointless'?

You advise me to desist from writing lengthy posts and try reading a book?

Almost everything either one of us know of physics (and science at large) we learn from books (or people who have read books) - many of them lengthy; though few of them are pointless. What makes you assume I don't read books and proceed furthermore to advise me to 'try reading a book'?

You have offered several 'profiles' of 'stereotypes' that you project on Truly Yours. You have also stated that physicists readily admit to making mistakes and promptly make due adjustments to correct themselves. Whereas, the history of scientific evolution does not agree with your projected views at all.

Incidentally, your allegation that Scientific American is of the 'pop' genre of physics publications, is of itself, questionable; albeit, the issue of the accelerating universe published by SA in 1976 (as quoted in this thread) is not founded on the reputation of the journal it was published in, but, rather, the two scientists (namely Gunn & Tinsley) who authored the subject - acceleration of the expanding universe - at point.

Another issue to be circumspected herein, is, do you know what the difference between metric, and non-metric mathematics, is? That is to say, what is your concept of 'dimensions' founded on?

 

No, mathematics informs us that if you make certain assumptions about Nature then the implications are that space is not absolute.

Newtonian space is absolute and its a completely consistent mathematical concept. It's simple \(\mathbb{R}^{n}\), Euclidean space. This space-time is not that of special relativity because the physical postulates of SR do not imply its existence. If you compute the space-time which has the symmetries consistent with the postulates of SR (invariant light speed, frame independence) then you find space-time is Minkowski. If there are n spacial dimensions and 1 time then Newton says you have a space-time with symmetry \(SO(n)\) while Einstein says its got symmetry \(SO(3,1)\).

Mathematics doesn't say which one is valid, only which one you get if you make particular physical assumptions.

No, by the same reasoning.

The universe was 4 dimensional in Newtonian physics. 3 spacial directions + 1 of time = 4 dimensions. The structure of how those directions knit together is the difference between Einstein and Newton.

Working in more than 3 dimensions is common place in mathematics. Infinite dimensional systems are at the centre of many things, some as simple as algebra, others as complex as Hilbert spaces.

Given \(\mathbb{R}^{3}\) you have a vector in it which can be written as \(a_{i}\) where \(\mathbf{a} = (a_{1},a_{2},a_{3})\). In \(\mathbb{R}^{4}\) you have a vector in it which can be written as \(a_{i}\) where \(\mathbf{a} = (a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},a_{4})\).

Not exactly an 'unimaginable' extension. The symmetry group of \(\mathbb{R}^{3}\) is the Galilean group, translations and rotations, with the rotations in \(SO(3)\) and translations \(t_{i}\) such that \(t_{i} : a_{i} \to a_{i} + t_{ij}\). The symmetry group of \(\mathbb{R}^{4}\) is the Galilean group, translations and rotations, with the rotations in \(SO(4)\) and translations \(t_{i}\) such that \(t_{i} : a_{i} \to a_{i} + t_{ij}\).

And this is just space-time coordinates, never mind multi-dimensional things like phase space. If you have an n dimensional box with m balls bouncing around it then the phase space of the system is of dimension 2nm. Can you tell me why?

See how easy it is? Working with problems of the form 'Given an n dimensional space' is standard for 1st years in a physics or maths course. String theorists work in 10 or 26 dimensions. I myself work with the 6 dimensions of superstring theory which we can't see. And in those 6 dimensional systems I work with parameter spaces of indeterminate dimensions, could be 0, could be 200. The algebra works whatever the value is.

Anyone who can actually do electromagnetism sees the problem with your claims.

Electric and magnetic fields are vectors. In n dimensional space an electric field has n-1 components, a magnetic field has n(n-1)/2. Can you tell me why? And no, this isn't rhetorical, I want to see if you grasp even simple facts in electromagnetism.

More formally, electromagnetic fields are gauge fields which form fibre bundles with the space-time manifold. They are not extra spacial dimensions, they are degrees of freedom of fields defined in the space-time. If you're such a whiz at physics you worked with Feynman you'd know this stuff.

And that's why we still think the Sun goes around the Earth, which was created 6000 years ago, along with Man fully formed.

If a piece of research is published in SA and then not in any reputable journal what does that say about the research?

Because you don't know basic geometry or electromagnetism I currently teach to 1st year students. And you claim to have been working on this kind of stuff for 40 years. That's more than a decade longer than I've been alive. It would suggest you haven't learnt much in that time.