TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics

Oh my! Are you trying for the biggest ego or the biggest hind quarters?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The point I'm making is that this stuff is easy. If I'm teaching it and its 1st year stuff its not going to be rocket science, it'll be within the grasp of any competent high school leaver. And Kaiduorkhon say he's been doing this for longer than I've been alive. That he's talked to Feynman about his work. So why doesn't he grasp stuff which is taught to 1st years?

And yet again you show you've got double standards. I make a statement of fact, that I teach students a 1st year module and I get called egotistical. Kaiduorkhon makes a claim about a 'unified field theory' and you're all chummy with him. Pincho Paxton makes a claim about a theory of everything and that he's a ''Di Vinci genius" and you're all chummy with him.

You really do need to learn the difference between someone saying "I am good at this one thing, which is not particularly advanced" and "I'm a genius who knows everything and has all the answers". I claim to be the first. Pincho claims to be the second. So why don't you call him egotistical? Do you think he is egotistical? If not, why not? Either he and I are both egotistica, he is or neither of us are. In terms of the claims : results ration he's a long long way ahead of me (ie lots of claims, no results compared to my few claims and results to match).

If you can retort my comments about the symmetry of space-time in Newtonian physics or how mathematics doesn't stipulate anything about the (non)absoluteness of time or space then please do so. It'd make a refreshing change from your complete inability to discuss anything scientific and your lies and double standards.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On one hand it seems like you are denying that your ego is monumental. On the other hand you are showing your monumental hind quarters.

My question was meant to ask you which you were trying for, biggest ego or biggest hind quarters. I never expected you to be going for both. But now I see that you are not over reaching.

And if you want to address my speculations take your comments and criticisms here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Mathematics informs us that space is non absolute. ”
-----------------------------------------------------
Alphanumeric:
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 , 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 while Einstein says its got symmetry .

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

Kaiduorkhon:

Are you arguing against the relativistic findings that space is non absolute? Are you saying that conclusion is a 'presumption' about Nature? Are you saying that Minkowski did not precede, contribute to and endorse Einsten's presentation of non-absolute space and/or space-time?


------------------------------------------------------
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
We also learn from mathematics that time is non absolute. ”
-----------------------------------------------------

Alphanumeric:
No, by the same reasoning.

Kaiduorkhon:
(Yes?)
------------------------------------------------------
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Mathematics did not fail Einsten's proof that the three dimensional universe is actually four dimensional. ”
-----------------------------------------------------
Alphanumeric:

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.

Kaiduorkhon
The structure of how those directions 'knit together' is the difference between Newton's (4th coordinate) motion of the earth through space, whereas, Einstein's 4th coordinate is literally applicable to everything 3 dimensional; moving at right angles to all three of it's three recognized dimensions, simultaneously.
--------------------------------
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
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'. ”
----------------------------------------------------
Alphanumeric:
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 you have a vector in it which can be written as where . In you have a vector in it which can be written as where .

Not exactly an 'unimaginable' extension. The symmetry group of is the Galilean group, translations and rotations, with the rotations in and translations such that . The symmetry group of is the Galilean group, translations and rotations, with the rotations in and translations such that .

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.

Kaiduorkhon:
As has been expressed previously by this camp: we don't do math.

Notwithstanding, 'string theory' is not theory, it is hypothesis. As is the Big Bang - the so called 'Big Bang Theory'.
------------------------------------------------

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
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. ”
------------------------------------------------

Alphanumeric
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.

Kaiduorkhon:

Vectors determine direction and/or velocity. The 5th dimension of electricity is established by moving at right angles out of 4-D matter. The 6th dimension of magnetism is established by moving with but at right angles to electricity.

Spending three hours talking about physics with Feynman by no means proclaims or implies that I 'worked with him'. Moreover, although he conceded my points, we argued quite a bit - it was a constructive process.

-------------------------------------------
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Whereas, the history of scientific evolution does not agree with your projected views at all. ”
-------------------------------------------
Alphanumeric
And that's why we still think the Sun goes around the Earth, which was created 6000 years ago, along with Man fully formed.

Kaiduorkhon:
Are you arguing against the rejection and/or balking or pillaging of advanced works such as Giovanni Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo, and (innumerable others) more recently, Nicolai Tesla and Albert Einstein - who was back to working on his 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant (Now 'revised' to 'LCDM', 'quintessence' and 'dark energy', to account for the recently discovered acceleration of the expanding universe) when he perished?

The so called Big Bang 'theory' is no less a creationistic whimsy than that of the more contemporary whimsycologists. That is, whether something came from nothing 6,000 years ago, or something came from nothing billions of years ago: "Nothing begets nothing." - Locke/Hume (Refer, Steady State)
---------------------------------------------

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
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. ”
------------------------------------------------
Alphanumeric:
If a piece of research is published in SA and then not in any reputable journal what does that say about the research?
------------------------------------------------
Kaiduorkhon:
In this case, it proves that the 1976 dated research was twenty years ahead of the confirmation of an accelerating universe in 1996. Furthermore, my prediction predated the '76 prediction, by 17 years.
------------------------------------------------
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
What makes you assume I don't read books and proceed furthermore to advise me to 'try reading a book'? ”

Alphanumeric:
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.

Kaiduorkhon:
You allege that I don't know basic geometry or electromagnetism. What there is to be understood about it non mathematically, I understand. This is an advantage as well as a handicap. Case in point, in basic geometry: 'infinite dimensions' is a non sequitur (in two words).

You skipped any consideration for the contraction of matter in the direction of it's motion at a rate (approximately) proportional to its velocity. (This is one of the empirical proofs that matter is in a constant state of accelerating expansion.)

You also skipped what you call 'pointless babble' about 'time dilation', which you asked if I could explain, earlier in this thread. (Selective memory?)

 

Crackerjack. Morton salt & Land O' Lakes butter. Squared.

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

4-D Space-Time Continuum, continued:

It’s everywhere, and especially represented in some places in particular.... there is a print-painting of a terrier looking dog with a sailor boy on a box of Crackerjack, holding an inevitably smaller box of Crackerjack, upon which is printed another image of what appears to be the same dog beside another - looks like the same - sailor, only smaller; holding yet another box of Crackerjack; with what would seem has a printed painting of another dog beside another sailor holding a yet smaller box of Crackerjack and so on...

It seems to go on forever, if the pictures could somehow be made ever smaller and still exist, as the visibly descending and/or ascending sequence of images certainly suggests... Geometrically squared rectangular boxes of hierarchically parallel and orthogonal Crackerjack containers and icons, out of infinite smallness proceeding to infinite largeness. Si. Nut city. (It took a while to learn the difference?)

Called me ‘Seahorse’ on the day we met. Gave me an English translated copy of Einstein's, 'Ideas & Opinions'. Mara Benevida Neapolis started it, in Naples, Italy, April of '59 (While Caryn H. Robertson has always underestimated her part in contributing to the evolution and publication of this work, since 1960).

Seahorse spots the ‘displaced’ box of Crackerjack and begins to see in its familiar artwork graphics what he will eventually recognize as an important representation of Einstein’s Unified Field without mathematics. Multi-moment space-time. An ensemble of constantly enlarging and diminishing systems...

Ready or not teleported to a place no different than and identical to all the places and times he’s ever known, a day like any other day, only Crackerjack boxes are now showing up in Italy with New World Icons of an ever enlarging - and ever diminishing - blue & white terrier dog with a blue and white sailor boy holding a red striped box of Crackerjack with the image of a Sailor with a Terrier dog, would never again be the same with or without punctuation... Pensive studies widened, more light was let in: wisdom and knowledge proving once again, like gold, to be where you find it.

Who said the ever-smaller sequenced pictures - smaller or larger, past, present & future - had to ‘end’, ever?
If the atoms of the universe of the past got ever smaller and the atoms of the universe of the present got ever larger and the painter or printer passed his job on from one generation to the next, where was the ‘end’ of the illustrated hierarchy of images - the multi-moment space-time ensemble of differently sized pictures of the same dog and sailor boy holding a box of Crackerjack with a picture of himself and his dog on it?

Same thing happens on a cylindrical container of MORTON salt, the byword of which is ‘When it rains, it pours." Meaning that humidity or dampness in the air does not prevent the salt from being smoothly dispensed from the container, or whatever shaker it may be contained by. The pictorial logo on this dark blue colored, cylindrically shaped package is a little girl in a yellow skirt, walking in the rain, holding an open umbrella over her head with her right hand; with a container of MORTON salt, pouring out of the metal spout cradled in and under her left hand and arm; upon which is the same pictorial; and so on; squared - same as the CRACKERJACK.

Since then we’ve noticed elsewhere, "Land O Lakes" butter and dairy products 'Where goodness begins'. It's an icon of a beautiful young Native American woman perched on a lake back grounded - presumably Minnesota - mound of grass, offering a sample of the product - in this case, a pound of butter upon which she is the labeled icon; squared. It doesn't look like the Land O Lakes anecdote of 'Where goodness begins' has any explanation of where it ends... Yes. The same thematically endless hierarchy as the multi-moment 4-D MORTON salt icon - 'When it rains (water) it (Morton salt, still) pours', and, the CrackerJack Sailor - squared.

Sort’a like getting a big box of something under the Christmas tree or for your birthday and when you go to open it, it turns into a hierarchy of empty boxes growing ever smaller or larger depending on whether you're wrapping or unwrapping the smallest or largest box... Depending on whether you're giving or receiving the container(s)...

There were too many coincidences, Einstein was caught up in a similar imbroglio, only it was in Bern, Switzerland, just northwest of where all this cartoon compounded dilemma was unfolding and back in the early 20th century.

 

Dealing & PHEELING with PHUN PHYSICS PHOBIA...

Dear Alphanumeric:
Do you have enough recreational with your educational?
Dare you and yours be entertained by and simultaneously edified within this 'pointless babble'?
The spirit of which may indeed draw more people into more serious studies?
------------------------------------------------------

The Non-mathematical Reinstatement
of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field


Space-time Gravity Is The 4th Dimension:

For more cost free rhythm and reason, please consider a season that resonantly sings beyond theories of strings.


From Euclid's straight line shine to Isaac's golden apple and its geodesic grapple.


A catchy little tune that most anyone can croon, by the curved silvery light of Albert's expeditionary moon.


Dr. Einstein's waking inspiration may yet sweep the sleeping nation at the slightest provocation.


An unrecognized solution that could start a peaceful revolution. Big Bang Gangology’s further confirmation of their favorite libation - more denial and debate with the orphaned Steady State.


Behold Albert's resurrected smart bomb with enduring aplomb. Benevolent bomb leaves all the buildings and people intact; takes 4-D space-time to get them back on track.

Asked the teacher what gravity was, an' all he said is what gravity does. Said I wanna know why, not how things fall. Teacher said nobody knows that one at all.

Asked the people on the 6 O'Clock news; they said on that we have no views. Same thing happened in a physics lesson - a picture of Newton gave a puzzled expression.

Still wanted to know what gravity is, so I went outside and continued the quiz. Asked a mathematician and he took all day saying gravity is numbers. So I lit one up and, went into suspension, tintanambulating beyond the 3rd dimension. The answer appeared as a gentle kiss, so I wrote another poem and it goes like this...


Poetry for all times and places, poetry for all rhymes and spaces. Where are the dimensions and where are they not, boundless dimensions of color and thought; infinite dimensions of cold and of hot. But countless dimensions of space there are not.

Dimensions of music, of wine and of thee, of these there are many, but of space only three.

A 3-D you anna 3-D me, munching 3-D apples from a 3-D tree. 3-D up an' 3-D down, 3-D apples to the 3-D ground. A 3-D fall anna 3-D 'thump'. 3-D sugar inna 3-D lump.
3-D east an' 3-D west, Sir Isaac Newton did his 3-D best. 3-D universe, 3-D math - 3-D projectiles onna 3-D path. 3-D smooth and 3-D rough; 4-D Einstein singin' "Three ain't enough."
4-D amplifier and 4-D gear, singin' 4-D lyrics into 3-D ears. 4-D guitar an' 4-D strings. Albert's 4-D song about 4-D things.

3-D professors onna 3-D jag, stuffin 4-D physics in a 3-D bag.
If yer lookin' for a message in here, it's of 4-D headaches from a 3-D beer. 3-D professors tellin' 3-D lies, gettin' 3-D money for the Nobel Prize.
3-D scientists onna 3-D pension, refusing to recognize, space-time gravity is the 4th dimension.

(Variations on this thought provoking vignette appear else-where on the net. Copyright 1979, by K. B. Robertson. All rights reserved. With acknowledgement for authorship, may be reproduced and distributed for educational, recreational and non commercial purposes.)

A Brief History of Rhyme (The dreaded thread)

Poetic science alliance.
Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field reinstated w'out mathematics.
The joining of Field with Quantum Mechanics.
The exclusion of politics from science.
A scientific paradigm shift in alliance.
Scientific panics at quantum mechanics
Democritus foresaw the invisible atom, but since then his discovery is found with substratrum. From antiquity, and ubiquity the continuous wave was the rave, the magnetic transparent field, all proved to be electrostatically real.

Faraday found the cathode ray. Thompson uncovered electrons one day. Rutherford discovered protons a different way. Temporally understood Maxwell's waves beneath the celestial hood, discovered electromagnetic fields as no one ever thought he would. The wave emitting electron could not be subdivided - at first it was whispered, then openly confided.
Yet along came smaller mysterious articles, of Max Planck’s curiously indivisible particles:


Transforming a known world of electrostatics into a truculent tangle of quantum mechanics. Conceptual doors were opened for the entrance of protons, but no comprehensive vacancy for the residential photons. Other atomic tenants varied in weight height and disguise, but the photon is always the same value and size. A deteriorating atom might change its balance or valence, while the unchanging photon showed no such talents. Vigils are kept to find it changing its station, while its stubborn identity confirms in black body radiation.

At dollar conventions where no change is invited, twenty nickels sit down to an audience excited. The quantum takes for granted inclusion, while greenbacks resent the currency of intrusion. To and from spherical shells the electron darts, while the unchanged quantum arrives before it departs.

If you’re looking for a message in here, it’s of Max Planck’s quanta and Niels Bohr’s spheres. Invincible in principle, Newton’s Mechanics are sure as shooting, while quantum mechanics are robbing and looting. Evolutionary experiments are eclectic, but the final conclusions are photoelectric. As though these convulusions are not enough, reality panned out some other stuff. The only certain universal permanancy, is Einstein’s constant light-speed and Heisenberg’s indeterminacy.

Einstein’s fort was special & general relativity, while his Nobel Prize was for photo-electricity. Uncle Albert having firstly proven to be right - ahead of Brownian motion and the speed of light. This century old issue of size is how Einstein won the Nobel Prize - how the peace loving master-blaster stayed alive in timely year of 1905.

Anaxgoras of pre biblical days took big and little to greater heights and stays, he said "There’s always something larger than large, and always something smaller than small." Perhaps the smallest large statement of all. May this admonition of illusion be this brief sonnet’s conclusion.

The 20th century path has been rough - to the point of surrendering enough of this stuff.

- K. B. Robertson, Copyright 1979 & 2007 All rights reserved. May be used for non commercial educational and recreational purposes with the stipulation that proper accreditation is extended to the author.

Though this ballad may be spiritual or mental, any semblance to education is purely coincidental.

Readers are invited to this paragon of camp, may the poetic winner be rewarded with writer's cramp?
Whoever may think that here is no thought, please feel free to continue and give yer best shot.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well done on utterly failing to understand the point I was making.

Mathematics is not physics. Mathematics doesn't make physical predictions. Mathematics allows us to take physical postulates and derive their physical implications.

Mathematically you can construct a model where time and space are absolute. Mathematical you can construct a model where time and space are not absolute. Mathematics doesn't say which one is physically valid.

Einstein and Minkowski made 2 physical postulates : The speed of light is inertial frame independent. Physical predictions should be inertial frame independent.

From these physical postulates you can use mathematics to derive physical predictions for those postulates.

You appear not to understand vector calculus. An event requires 4 coordinates to uniquely define it. 3 spacial coordinates and a time coordinate, (t,x,y,z). Objects motion through space can be parameterised by time, so the position of the Earth in space would be given by \(\mathbf{x}(t) = (x(t),y(t),z(t))\) but this is true irrespective of whether you're doing Newtonian or Einsteinian physics.

And the whole 'at right angles' stuff is nonsense. If anything, Newtonian physics has all space-time directions as orthogonal as its metric is Euclidean. Relativity allows for a non-Euclidean coordinate system which lets to some bases not being orthogonal or orthonormal.

Learn some geometry before making claims about the geometry of Newton or Einstine's work.

But you're willing to make claims about the level of understanding of multi-dimensional geometry by mathematicians and physicists? You claimed the 4th dimension is unimaginable yet mathematicians and physicists work with higher dimensional systems all the time. You need only open a textbook to see this.

If you don't do maths don't presume other people can't either.

In other words if you avoid doing anything mathematical then you can make mathematical claims of whatever the hell you like.

This utterly failed to retort what I said, electric fields in N dimensional space-time have N-1 components, so you cannot accomodate them by the inclusion of a single additional spacial direction. Only someone profoundly ignorant of electromagnetism would make such a ridiculous claim.

Ah, so because the scientific method involves trial and error and experimental observations its all a massive conspiracy to suppress the truth? Given your lack of knowledge about physics and even the qualitative ideas behind it I don't trust you to know its history without it being rose tinted.

Got to go now, I'll continue later.

 

Kaiduorkhon, thanks for upgrading the character of the forum and introducing some insightful reminiscences and thought provoking poetry in posts #65 and #66. I am enjoying your book which may give me more than a few hours of pleasure, history and insight. I’m sure I will understand your kind post about the cause of gravity from your perspective when I finish as will I be able to characterize your view of cosmology. And if I can’t by then I may have a few questions. Thanks for being around. You confirm that wisdom and intelligence go hand in hand.

 

You seem to put a lot of stock in post #31 of this thread...
You subject 'electron + positron -----> muon + anti-muon differential cross sections - the model addressed in QED...'; you go on to say that you ask if I understand these considerations because they are 'outside most crank's experience', summarizing with the question of whether or not I can provide you with an expansion, from the above...

Kaiduorkhon's response:
After my having initiated the subject of Dirac's work and your having proclaimed to work with and understand it, let it follow that you understand that there is consideration of a torus structure constituting the morphology of an electron system, certainly including the magnetic field that flows through it's core and around the electron system proper, very comparable to the geomagnetic field of the earth, for example.

For the sake of discussion may it follow that the magnetic field is generated by the electron (or the exemplary earth), and that it flows out of the north pole of the electron (or earth) system, curves around it and flows back in to the south pole of that system. Exactly at the equatorial point of the subjected system, the flow of the magnetic field reverses directions, from an originally northward flow - out of the upper core - to a forthcoming southward flow - into the lower core.

The northern portion of this system is flowing 'up' and 'down' (out of the core) relative to the system that generates it, while the southern portion of the system flows 'down' and 'up' (into the core). Therein resides the causal dynamics of the expansion, namely, the causal identity of 'anti-matter', with the resulting, continous (Dirac determined) explosion (expansion), resulting from the northern hemisphere's reversal of direction as it flows into and becomes the southern hemisphere - refer 'differential cross section'; consider a transversely bisected bagel (Aka, Dr. Feynman's QED lunch).

In the same post (#31) you subject what you choose to refer to as my implication of what you term as an 'Orwellian conspiracy' (regarding geometric interpretation of the 3rd & 4th dimensions). In this post you also refer to a 'massive conspiracy to suppress the truth' (which I will highlight when the text arrives at it...). May it suffice to observe for the moment that you have a penchant for fabricating opportunity to use the word 'conspiracy', which is often 'spin doctored' to connote non credibility...

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Are you arguing against the relativistic findings that space is non absolute? Are you saying that conclusion is a 'presumption' about Nature? Are you saying that Minkowski did not precede, contribute to and endorse Einsten's presentation of non-absolute space and/or space-time? ”


AlphaNumeric:
Well done on utterly failing to understand the point I was making.

Mathematics is not physics. Mathematics doesn't make physical predictions. Mathematics allows us to take physical postulates and derive their physical implications.

Mathematically you can construct a model where time and space are absolute. Mathematical you can construct a model where time and space are not absolute. Mathematics doesn't say which one is physically valid.

Kaiduorkhon:
This is why you were asked earlier whether or not you understand metric and non metric space and/or mathematics - the former (metric) adheres to describing conditional qualities of reality; while, the latter (non-metric) is free to construct mathematical ambiguities that may involve two correct - yet mutually contradictory and exclusive - equations. You haven't deliberately responded to that question, until now - where you inadvertantly answer it with empty declaration.

AlphaNumberic:
Einstein and Minkowski made 2 physical postulates : The speed of light is inertial frame independent. Physical predictions should be inertial frame independent.
-------------------------------------------------

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Kaiduorkhon
The structure of how those directions 'knit together' is the difference between Newton's (4th coordinate) motion of the earth through space, whereas, Einstein's 4th coordinate is literally applicable to everything 3 dimensional; moving at right angles to all three of it's three recognized dimensions, simultaneously. ”

AlphaNumeric:
You appear not to understand vector calculus. An event requires 4 coordinates to uniquely define it. 3 spacial coordinates and a time coordinate, (t,x,y,z). Objects motion through space can be parameterised by time, so the position of the Earth in space would be given by but this is true irrespective of whether you're doing Newtonian or Einsteinian physics.

And the whole 'at right angles' stuff is nonsense. If anything, Newtonian physics has all space-time directions as orthogonal as its metric is Euclidean. Relativity allows for a non-Euclidean coordinate system which lets to some bases not being orthogonal or orthonormal.

Learn some geometry before making claims about the geometry of Newton or Einstine's work.

Kaiduorkhon:
Does not 'orthogonal' refer to right angle projections, and/or perpendicular axes? If Einstein wasn't alluding to this definition when he declared a 4-D space-time continuum, what 'non-Euclidien geometric' license was he practicing, and why is the 4th dimension traditionally expressed in a 'supercube', that is, a cube, depicted as moving at right angles from itself?
-----------------------------------
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
As has been expressed previously by this camp: we don't do math. ”

AlphaNumeric:But you're willing to make claims about the level of understanding of multi-dimensional geometry by mathematicians and physicists? You claimed the 4th dimension is unimaginable yet mathematicians and physicists work with higher dimensional systems all the time. You need only open a textbook to see this.

Kaiduorkhon:
References to 'plural dimensions' and 'mult-dimensions' and 'infinite dimensions' are routinely evident in 'textbooks'. Non metric mathematics recreates and extrapolates with such misnomers routinely, hither & skelter.

AlphaNumeric:
If you don't do maths don't presume other people can't either.

Kaiduorkhon:
There is no 'presumption' involved in the engaged context.
'Superstring "theory"', for example, non-metrically engages all the math it demands, in order to suspend itself in an apparently endless seriatim of dangling participles.
------------------------------------------

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
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. ” ”

AlphaNumeric:
In other words if you avoid doing anything mathematical then you can make mathematical claims of whatever the hell you like.

Kaiduorkhon:
In other words, if you avoid doing anything metrically mathematical, then you can make mathematical claims of whatever the hell you like.
-------------------------------------
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Vectors determine direction and/or velocity. The 5th dimension of electricity is established by moving at right angles out of 4-D matter. The 6th dimension of magnetism is established by moving with but at right angles to electricity. ”

AlphaNumberic:
This utterly failed to retort what I said, electric fields in N dimensional space-time have N-1 components, so you cannot accomodate them by the inclusion of a single additional spacial direction. Only someone profoundly ignorant of electromagnetism would make such a ridiculous claim.

Kaiduorkhon:
The work at issue non mathematically and orthogonally identifies three dimensions, the 4th (time), being matter (moving at right angles from itself), the 5th being electricity (moving at right angles from matter) and the 6th being magnetism (moving at right angles to electricity).


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Are you arguing against the rejection and/or balking or pillaging of advanced works such as Giovanni Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo, and (innumerable others) more recently, Nicolai Tesla and Albert Einstein - who was back to working on his 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant (Now 'revised' to 'LCDM', 'quintessence' and 'dark energy', to account for the recently discovered acceleration of the expanding universe) when he perished?

The so called Big Bang 'theory' is no less a creationistic whimsy than that of the more contemporary whimsycologists. That is, whether something came from nothing 6,000 years ago, or something came from nothing billions of years ago: "Nothing begets nothing." - Locke/Hume (Refer, Steady State) ”

AlphaNumeric:
Ah, so because the scientific method involves trial and error and experimental observations its all a massive conspiracy to suppress the truth? Given your lack of knowledge about physics and even the qualitative ideas behind it I don't trust you to know its history without it being rose tinted.

Kaiduorkhon:
The presently ongoing 'transition' that today's physics is demonstrating, is an up-to-date (red handed) example of revisionary history, and suppression (displacement), of Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( /\ - 'Lambda'). Refer, 'quintessence', 'dark energy', 'LCDM', 'dark matter'; etceteras.

AlphaNumeric:
Got to go now, I'll continue later.

 

The Return and Reinstatement of Einstein's Formerly Abandoned Cosmological Constant (/\ - Lambda) Repelling Force: and the current, diminutive trend to transitionally reclaim this fact (with minimum accreditation to Einstein).

The heart-foundation of Einstein's Unified Field Theory is a (previously unknown repelling) force which Einstein discovered within and extracted from his General Theory Of Relativity. That is the same theory that revealed and introduced us to the 4th Dimension.

Einstein called this previously unknown force 'the Cosmological Constant'. When he spoke of it in his Unified Field equations he designated it with the Greek sign 'Lambda', which resembles an inverted capital 'V', like this: /\ .The non-mathematical definition of Einstein's 'Lambda' or 'Cosmological Constant':
'A previously unrecognized Universal Repelling Force, originating in all Matter and projecting across space at the velocity of light'.

Einstein's cosmological constant force does not eliminate or ignore the concept of gravitational attraction (the concept of a pulling force), but rather joins it. The repelling force and the impelling force are found co-existentially, side by side. The impelling force of gravity binds the universe together. The cosmologically constant repelling force of Lambda is Einstein's answer to Newton's candidly asked, previously unanswered question of why a universe full of impelling bodies doesn't collapse on itself.


Lambda. /\ The Cosmological Constant.
A repelling force acting across space out of material bodies; proportionate in strength and intensity to the mass value of its material source (particle/charge). Corresponding with Newtonian law - for every action there is a reaction, equal and opposite.

At a personal meeting with Hubble and others, Einstein was persuaded by the prevailing purveyors of what came to be universally considered - and mirthfully called - the big bang theory; to consider the *Cosmological Constant a mistake on his part; *said to be a repelling force acting exactly like and with gravity; except in the opposite direction; the strength of which increases instead of decreasing with distance. Preventing the collapse of a universe of impelling (mutually attracting) bodies.

At the unexpected discovery that the spatial universe is expanding (Silpher's discovery, 1927; Hubble's law, 1931). Einstein's Cosmological Constant Force was dismissed as superfluous. It was 'resolved' the the (spatial) universe did not collapse on itself because it was expanding.
Einstein was thereafter persuaded to call it 'the biggest blunder of my life'; as indeed this record takes accented note of agreement.

It's Still The Same Old Story, continued:
The record can only very respectfully agree with Dr. Einstein's theory; as usual; while all others have grown weary. Abandoning the Cosmological Constant to the Friedman-Lemaitre-Hubble-Robertson (no relation to this author) -Walker model of an expanding - Big Bang originated-universe was indeed the biggest blunder of Einstein's life.

We will return to that redoubtably pensive consideration in a moment, but now this (I thought I told you never to play that song again, Sam.?) :
While a follow-through of reinstatement awaits anyone who pursues documentation of what happens when one objectively over-rules the subjective dismissal of the abundantly proven, objective concept of expanding matter: On the *chronically myopic premise that it is 'self-apparently' not happening.

Einstein's abandonment of his own Cosmological Constant - Unified Field - Theory (introduced in 1919, disengaged in 1927) is much controversied. On the other hand, they aren't talking about how Einstein was back to and working on his abandoned Unified Field; to the time of his death, in May, of '55.

“It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation’)...

“In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein’s proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.
“Thus Einstein’s original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder’, rejected by Einstein, and the cosmological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again.”
- George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270

The so called ‘ugly head’ Of The Outlawed Fact; the 'out-dated' quotes listed here, emerge as being patently germane to - and current with - today's theoretical physics; especially since 1996, when the expanding universe was confirmed to be accelerating.

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

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

Today, physics has postured itself to meet this unexpected reconsideration of the 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant' (the return of the 'biggest blunder'), with a revised vocabulary. Namely, 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'; even proceeding so far as to include 'Lambda' and 'cosmological constant' in the newly adopted vernacular. The functional coup may not be called that, neither may it be called a conspiracy; whereas, the working vocabulary for reinstating Einstein's 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant' (/\ - Lambda) is conspicuously not called (or celebrated for) what it is (the reinstatement of Einstein's abandoned cosmological constant repelling force acting out of matter across space, exactly like the traditionally conceptualized force - F - of gravity, but, in the opposite direction: refer, the subtitle of the TOTAL FIELD THEORY book, posted and accessible at the URL provided at the beginning of this thread)...

 

Clearly you don't even know what a metric is. A metric space is one with a particular structure defined on it. More qualitatively you can define a notion of distance in a consistent manner. A non-metric space is one where you haven't or can't define such a structure.

To physicists its more familiar in the definition \(ds^{2} = g_{ab} dx^{a}dx^{b}\) and the length of a curve C is \(s = \int_{C} \sqrt{g_{ab}dx^{a}dx_{b}}\).

In Newtonian physics \(g_{ab} = \delta_{ab}\) where \(delta_{ab}\) is the Kroncker Delta. In special relativity \(g_{ab} = \eta_{ab}\) where \(\eta_{ab}\) is invaritn under Lorentz transformations. More generally you get such things as the Schwarzchild metric for black holes.

These are all mathematical structures. The Euclidean metric is as mathematically valid as the Lorentzian one. Having a metric doesn't mean a space is physically valid. And its possible to construct spaces which have a well defined struture but no defined notion is distance. I happen to do research into such spaces.

The whole hyper-cube thing is just to allow people to get a basic understanding of what an extra spacial dimension would mean for objects they are familiar with. It is by no means a definition or a yardstick by which other extra dimensional constructions are measured by. If you only grasp a fourth spacial dimension because of such things then you've made no attempt to learn anything about multidimensional geometry.

Extra dimensions doesn't mean there's no definition of a metric. In the definition of a metric I linked to and I stated nowhere did I need to mention how many dimensions I was considering for my space, its valid in any number of dimensions. Clearly those 'textbooks' you mention you either didn't read or didn't understand.

If yuo'd ever studied string theory you'd know that the basic actions like the Polyakov action have metrics for the space-time and the worldsheet mapped out by the motion of the string. Metrics form the basic tools for the analysis of string motions.

Yet again you make claims about a theory you know nothing about simply to further your agenda. I can see why you and quantum_wave get on well.

Look up the Polyakov and DBI actions. Metrics are in both of them. They form the basis for a great deal of work in string theory.

You really should learn the meaning of words before you start making claims about mathematics and physics using them.

Again, you completely failed to retort anything I said. Try again.

 

To begin, 'string theory' is not a theory - it's based on a 'an infinitely thin, one dimensional loop'. One dimension is no manifestation in space, which, as I presently gather, string theory 'suggests' doesn't exist for it to be obliged to exist in (space).

Mathematical elegance does not a theory make. Moreover, by definition, mathematics for which there is no spatial counterpart is used extensively in string theory, as I presently understand it. You spend quite a bit of time espousing mathematics while you've been informed that it's - generally - beyond my ken. Your aggressive savoir faire on the subject of mathematics belies a defensive fortification with which I now learn you represent: the very precarious (if controversial) issue of 'string theory'.

I will get back to the so called string 'theory' and the metric and non metric mathematics issue furthermore, after I do some research on several 'no points' that are not presently familiar enough for me to talk with you about.

In the interim you may consider that 'my work' offers an explanation for the descrete quantum h factor in Max Planck's photoelectric findings, and, links it with Einstein's relativity.

May it suffice for the moment to also point out that you have skipped several formerly subjected points of discussion in this thread, you are developing a pattern of averting and otherwise suspending pending discussions. String theory also has a way of dismissing reality: for lack of evidence. I will have more to say about this, later.

Meanwhile, your advise on the popular representation of the 4th dimension reveals your inattention to previous communications (which you allude to as a waste of time) in this thread, specifically:
Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Does not 'orthogonal' refer to right angle projections, and/or perpendicular axes? If Einstein wasn't alluding to this definition when he declared a 4-D space-time continuum, what 'non-Euclidien geometric' license was he practicing, and why is the 4th dimension traditionally expressed in a 'supercube', that is, a cube, depicted as moving at right angles from itself?" The ensuing 'correction' is superfluous and bears your familiar stamp of vacant reprimand - extending qualifications that have already been - very specifically - established (By Buckminster Fuller, in the quote following yours, below)...

AlphaNumeric:
The whole hyper-cube thing is just to allow people to get a basic understanding of what an extra spacial dimension would mean for objects they are familiar with. It is by no means a definition or a yardstick by which other extra dimensional constructions are measured by. If you only grasp a fourth spacial dimension because of such things then you've made no attempt to learn anything about multidimensional geometry.
------------------------------------
Kaiduorkhon:
Whereas, the following qualifier (authored by Buckminster Fuller; with my editorial commentary) is reiterated, due to your having apparently ignored it, and instead, put forth the above ('opportunity' for) scolding and rebuke.



"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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

You are also remiss in responding to the first paragraph of post #69 in this thread, which I will therefore re-post, for your considered convenience:

You subject 'electron + positron -----> muon + anti-muon differential cross sections - the model addressed in QED...'; you go on to say that you ask if I understand these considerations because they are 'outside most crank's experience', summarizing with the question of whether or not I can provide you with an expansion, from the above...

Kaiduorkhon's response:
After my having initiated the subject of Dirac's work and your having proclaimed to work with and understand it, let it follow that you understand that there is consideration of a torus structure constituting the morphology of an electron system, certainly including the magnetic field that flows through it's core and around the electron system proper, very comparable to the geomagnetic field of the earth, for example.

For the sake of discussion may it follow that the magnetic field is generated by the electron (or the exemplary earth), and that it flows out of the north pole of the electron (or earth) system, curves around it and flows back in to the south pole of that system. Exactly at the equatorial point of the subjected system, the flow of the magnetic field reverses directions, from an originally northward flow - out of the upper core - to a forthcoming southward flow - into the lower core.

The northern portion of this system is flowing 'up' and 'down' (out of the core) relative to the system that generates it, while the southern portion of the system flows 'down' and 'up' (into the core). Therein resides the causal dynamics of the expansion, namely, the causal identity of 'anti-matter', with the resulting, continous (Dirac determined) explosion (expansion), resulting from the northern hemisphere's reversal of direction as it flows into and becomes the southern hemisphere - refer 'differential cross section'; consider a transversely bisected bagel (Aka, Dr. Feynman's QED lunch).
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of lunch, someone sent this to me and said they found it in a ham sandwich:

astro
Administrator Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 264

John Baez's Crackpot Index/String Theory/LQG/Tenure/Fame/Book Deals

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

John Baez's Crackpot Index/String Theory/LQG/Tenure/Fame/Book Deals

It has been very well documented that both String Theory and LQG rank high on the famous John Baez crackpot index:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/10/31/161746/39


Michio Kaku, Ed Witten, Lisa Randall, Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, and Lenny Susskind all rank way up on John Baez's crackpot index.

And yet, they receive millions upon millions of dollars for research, books, TV shows, blogs, and myspace pages. Thousands of groupthink physics fanboys are commanded from on high to snark all competing physical theories based in logic, truth, reason, and physics, and thus progress in theoretical physics has halted over the past thirty years, as elaborated on in Lee Smolin's THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS: THE RISE OF STRING THEORY, THE FALL OF SCIENCE, AND WHAT COMES NEXT--MDT.

What Baez's crackpot index leaves out is the true formula for postmodern success in the realm of pseudo-physics.

The higher the score on the Baez crackpot index, the better the opportunities, just as long as one is an aging, dishonest, amoral, snarky boomer, who rose to power as science fell.

As soon as they got tenure, the snark-a-lark boomers kicked down the ladders of truth, logic, and reason, which once provided the natural path for one to further one's career. And they replaced those ladders with fancy elevators for any useful-groupthink-fanboy-idiot who had nothing to lose by letting the baby be cut in half, as it was never theirs to begin with. So it is that they recruited legions of those who felt smarter when they were told they were smart--and the #'s looked good on the NSF balance sheets, for bodies are needed to justify millions upon millions of dollars. Adn if you asked, they would say, "we're almost there, just one more day!"

While physics has most usually been advanced by young mavericks asking and answering their own questions, felt deep in their individual souls, in many ways Susskind/Penrose/Smolin et al have legislated and bureaucratizzed curiosity, while they institutionalized zero progress in physics. Physics, like social security, has been redefined as that which empowers boomer's illusions of grandeur, while deepening their pockets. If you kneel before them, they give you a few dollars and send you forth to ignore/snark/castigate/impugn MDT and competing theories. A favorite pastime of young physics fanboys is to please their elders by demonstrating their procilivity with Baez's crackpot index--wielding it like a sledge hammer not against String Theory & LQG, which are backed by millions of dollars and institutionalized fanboy groupthink, but against small, indie physics. So it is that one's tax dollars are used against those who work real jobs.

Thus Sting Theory, Branes, Hawking's radition and blackhole entropy (for which there were never any tests nor proof), Twistors, LQG, and M Theory get millions upon millions upon millions of dollars, while physics comes to a standstill. Run the numbers on Baez's crackpot inex, and you will see that the sad boomer theories are nothing more than expensive crackpot theories, as attested to by Woit, Baez, and Smolin.

Here is the formula by which success, tenure, fame, and money are distributed in physics--as one can see, the higher the score on the Baez crackpot index, the better off one is:

((score on Baez's crackpot index) + (age of physicist)^(number of former grad students no longer employed in physics)) * (# of spurious, speculative, untestable papers published) * (# of claims that the conjectures can be tested) * (# of tv appearances) * (# of backcover blurbs from esteemed crackpots)^(# of positive comments the receiver of backcover blurbs issued to the backcover blurber's crackpot theories (woit & penrose)) * (# of behind-the-back emails snarking logic, reason, and physics) * (# of revolutions one's field has gone through while still failing) * (# of time physicist resisted speaking the simple truth, for fear of rejection) = BAEZ CRACKPOT SUCCESS FACTOR

So it is that Susskind/Witten/Green/Kaku/Randall et al have brought physics to a halt, snarking all the way to the bank, while also killing religion, breaking up the family, contributing to skyrocketing tuitions and rising divorce rates, fostering the decline of the university, and killing the great books and classics, all to make way for their Anthropic principle, LQG, ST, snarky crackpot indexes, multiverses, string-a-ling strings, Branes, wormholes--all of which are far, far removed from Einstein's, Feynman's, Dirac's, and Bohr's greatness, and their accompanying humility.

So it is that rising physicists ought to read the Classics penned by the Greats--read Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Wheeler, Dirac.

Stay away from Hawking/Penrose/Baez/Greene/Randall/Kaku--for none of them have ever contributed to the advancement of science.

 

You have failed to understand string theory, you have failed to retort any of the points I've made, you have failed to understand what a metric is or what a metrizable space is, you have failed to grasp material taught to 1st year students. The fact you've been doing this for decades means you've wasted vast tracts of your life. Go you!

'Pot calling the kettle black' springs to mind. You've been pushing your nonsense for decades and you've achieved nothing. At least the people you mention can do physics, they understand geometry and metrics and could pass a high school physics exam. You've demonstrated you're profoundly ignorant of physics and all you can do to respond is quote other people.

You and q_w are obviously kindred spirits.

 

Hmm, ego or hind quarters? ... Nope, still both and growing. Certainly no professional of anything would act like you.
Comments and criticisms about me should go to link

 

You consistently fail to qualify your allegations of failure.
Moreover, it is you who fails to reciprocate any point I make - furthermore, as a string theorist, you argue against any points to be made; just as you directly imply that there is no space (to compensate for your one dimensionsional - non existent - strings).

Your first statement is that I fail to understand string theory, while there is a majority school of science which does not accept it. I should pursue a study of a defunct mathematical matrix?

String theory has been around for three and more decades and failed to make any thing but a lot of - endlessly quantified one dimensional loops and - grant money for its empty handed, mathemetics shuffling advocates. In your own praphrased words, 'mathematics is not physics', and conversely. String theory calls to mind the turtle upon which the universal contents rest.

Quoting and otherwise refrerencing the work of other people is the traditional foundation upon which precedents are established and advancements are made (The Buckminster Fuller quote you keenly ignored is a recent example - you call such preoccupations 'nonsense'). Whereas: you similarly digress on nearly every critical premise you cite; many of which notably apply to yourself - to include speaking of the pot calling the kettle black.

Your tirade of allegations are a (revealing) study in psychology, not science.
Your ranting list of alleged failures, conspicuously fail (to even attempt) to make any case.

And another thing, since your side of this dialogue does not hesitate to practice name calling - since you falsely described me as 'lying', you are a liar.
You have credentials, why not parallel them with some dignity? And why not qualify your blustering allegations?

 

Well put.

I am enjoying your book and am working through it slowly, today from the Maple Pavilion on the salt marsh at Upper Tampa Bay Park, a fine place for contemplation. AN may have been right for once in an accidental sense, we are kindred spirits. That graphic on page 101; is that your work or does it come from another source?

 

Since Fuller died in '83 how would his comments be relevant since he wasn't around for about two thirds of the

for String Theory that you give?

And you have STILL failed to explain what the 16 feet/ sec/ sec value is or where it comes from.

 

Hi QW:
The graphic on page 101 is my rendering, whereas, page 102 is a public domain extracted depiction of an electromagnetic field. Are you referencing page 101, or (more likely?) 102?

Since AN has in fact worked his way up to being among the scientific genre, I would like to see him occupy that domain in a responsible manner. So far, he is ambivalent whether objectivity precedes subjectivity or conversely. It is unfortunate that his demeanor seems, at this point, to preclude his scientific potential. I have no doubt that he can do better. He apparently vexes himself. He does make it clear that he condescends and underestimates mavericks, who, it so happens, have often led the field in the evolution of physics.

 

I am referencing page 101; thanks for your reply.

 

Ostensibly, you are not compensating for the context in which the Fuller statement was provided - it has to do with the 4th dimension being applicable to all things 3 dimensionally material, and, how all such shapes, sizes and densities - not just 'supercubes' - move at right angles from themselves, generating the ongoing 4-D space time continuum.

Your question reveals that you did not understand and apparently didn't venture to determine what my response was based on; which even AlphaNumeric finally acknowledged and responded to, though he too failed to accomodate the context in which Fuller's quote was provided.

The '16 feet/sec/sec' is a numbers error on my part, which I alloted for, the first time you initiated the subject. You STILL dwell on that error.

Whereas, quoting Fuller has nothing to do with string 'theory', and everything to do with the 4-D space-time continuum moving at right angles from all things formerly considered 3-Dimensional.