TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics

Ah, you can't retort any physics or maths I've said so you're proclaiming I couldn't be a professional anything because I don't suffer fools gladly. If you'd ever been to university you'd know the behaviour and attitudes of academics run from the kindly old father figure through to the bitter and resentful jackass. I'm sure I know which end you think I'm closer to but that doesn't negate any criticisms of the physics and mathematics Kaiduorkhon has made claims about.

So no one is allowed to make comments on you in a thread not started by you, even when you post in it? By that logic you're not allowed to make any comments about me since I didn't start this thread.

Strings don't negate the existence of space. Strings are things in space. Quantum field theory talks about points but it doesn't mean there's no such thing as space. Yet again you show your ignorance.

Firstly, the majority of the physics community has little or no opinion on it, since they don't work in it. I don't work in the area of active galactic nuclei so I have no informed opinion about the theories which try to explain such things. The majority of people who do work in theoretical physics do support string theory as a viable and justified approach to quantum gravity.

And there's more to string theory than 'a defunct mathematical matrix'. Again you show you haven't got a clue about it. Surely you know you haven't learnt much (if anything) about string theory so why are you just spouting BS when you know you'll be called on it? If you're going to try and BS about string theory, don't do it to a string theorist.

Name one other theory which has a consistent quantum model of the graviton and which recovers the Einstein Field Equations as an effective theory.

If you aren't a failure please explain how you've achieved nothing over decades of pushing your pet theory?

The very title of this thread is a lie.

I make no attempt to be professional on here. I am do not insult people who can show understanding and knowledge. I don't insult Dywyddyr or BenTheMan or Prometheus or Guest or QuarkHead or DH or Trippy or Rpenner or a few others. Why? Because all of them show they have spent time trying to learn and understand things and they put their physics (or maths or chemistry) where their mouths are. You and q_w and other cranks haven't. I teach people who have very little knowledge in maths and physics but I do so very politely. I'll explain the same thing 3 or 4 times to people, each time in a slightly different way trying to find a way they understand. I tell them they are welcome to ask me outside of the problem classes if they are stuck or need help with revision. Why? Because if they turn up they make it clear they are willing to put in effort to understand. Cranks make no such attempt.

If you want to be treated professionally you should act professionally to. Don't come here making claims you don't and won't back up and ignore any and all corrections and then expect politeness and patience from people.

For every 1 maverick which has succeeded in physics in the last century there's been thousands, if not more, of hacks and nuts who've failed. And every crank thinks he's the maverick which will succeed. Just look at this forum, loads of them and most contradict one another. They can't all be right.

Can you name 1 maverick in theoretical physics in the last 100 years who didn't have considerable formal education in physics or mathematics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are missing who the biggest fool is. And when you mention me in reference to your disdain for me I link you to the thread where we have been discussing just that. link. Why not take your comments about me there and I will not be stimulated to keep offering you the link from other threads.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A numbers error?
You specifically related the 16 ft/ sec/ sec SOMEHOW to the 32 feet/ sec (sometimes /sec /sec) without saying where it came from...
You "allotted" nothing, simply tried to dismiss it as some sort of typo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is dismissed, and has been from the outset of this faux pas, as a mistake.

 

The name of Michael Faraday comes to my mind though his legend is older than 100 years.

 

Exactly: a complete failure on your part in understanding the value (or even units) of G.
Just a minor mistake* - which doesn't bode well for anything further you have to say in that "work".

* That was sarcasm.

 

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Hmm, ego or hind quarters? ... Nope, still both and growing. Certainly no professional of anything would act like you. ”

AlphaNumeric:
Ah, you can't retort any physics or maths I've said so you're proclaiming I couldn't be a professional anything because I don't suffer fools gladly. If you'd ever been to university you'd know the behaviour and attitudes of academics run from the kindly old father figure through to the bitter and resentful jackass. I'm sure I know which end you think I'm closer to but that doesn't negate any criticisms of the physics and mathematics Kaiduorkhon has made claims about.


“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Comments and criticisms about me should go to link. ”

AlphaNumeric:
So no one is allowed to make comments on you in a thread not started by you, even when you post in it? By that logic you're not allowed to make any comments about me since I didn't start this thread.

Kaiduorkhon:
The catch phrase in the above quote is 'by that logic'. A link was the issue.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
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). ”

AlphaNumeric:
Strings don't negate the existence of space. Strings are things in space. Quantum field theory talks about points but it doesn't mean there's no such thing as space. Yet again you show your ignorance.

Kaiduorkhon:
How does a 'one dimensional loop' occupy space?
As regards quantum field theory, a field, by definition, occupies space. It has a center 'point', which is also referrred to as a 'point mass'. Draw your own conclusions. Moreover, quanta have a palpable value in erg seconds. (Refer space-time.)


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
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? ”

AlphaNumeric:
Firstly, the majority of the physics community has little or no opinion on it, since they don't work in it. I don't work in the area of active galactic nuclei so I have no informed opinion about the theories which try to explain such things. The majority of people who do work in theoretical physics do support string theory as a viable and justified approach to quantum gravity.

Kaiduorkhon:
...'as a viable and justifiable approach'....

AlphaNumeric:
And there's more to string theory than 'a defunct mathematical matrix'. Again you show you haven't got a clue about it. Surely you know you haven't learnt much (if anything) about string theory so why are you just spouting BS when you know you'll be called on it? If you're going to try and BS about string theory, don't do it to a string theorist.

Kaiduorkhon:
'String theorist'? The entire issue is nullified in the fact that 'string theory' is a non sequitur, in two words. Apparently you don't anticipate being called on that.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
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, mathematics 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. ”

AlphaNumeric:
Name one other theory which has a consistent quantum model of the graviton and which recovers the Einstein Field Equations as an effective theory.

Kaiduorkhon:
'Model'? Does it fullfill positive experimentatiion and/or prediction?
(Did someone finally isolate a graviton?) Also, my work, Total Field Theory, fullfills your definition (sans graviton).


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your ranting list of alleged failures, conspicuously fail (to even attempt) to make any case. ”
AlphaNumberic:
If you aren't a failure please explain how you've achieved nothing over decades of pushing your pet theory?

Kaiduorkhon:
'Achieved nothing?' Another non sequitur in two words.
There's an international inventory of readers - including scientists - who disagree with you.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
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.. ”

AlphaNumeric
The very title of this thread is a lie.

Kaiduorkhon:
Your's is a hostile interpretation. The correct term is 'allegation'.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
It is unfortunate that his demeanor seems, at this point, to preclude his scientific potential.. ”

I make no attempt to be professional on here. I am do not insult people who can show understanding and knowledge. I don't insult Dywyddyr or BenTheMan or Prometheus or Guest or QuarkHead or DH or Trippy or Rpenner or a few others. Why? Because all of them show they have spent time trying to learn and understand things and they put their physics (or maths or chemistry) where their mouths are. You and q_w and other cranks haven't. I teach people who have very little knowledge in maths and physics but I do so very politely. I'll explain the same thing 3 or 4 times to people, each time in a slightly different way trying to find a way they understand. I tell them they are welcome to ask me outside of the problem classes if they are stuck or need help with revision. Why? Because if they turn up they make it clear they are willing to put in effort to understand. Cranks make no such attempt.

If you want to be treated professionally you should act professionally to. Don't come here making claims you don't and won't back up and ignore any and all corrections and then expect politeness and patience from people.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
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. ”
-------------------------------------
AlphaNumeric:
For every 1 maverick which has succeeded in physics in the last century there's been thousands, if not more, of hacks and nuts who've failed. And every crank thinks he's the maverick which will succeed. Just look at this forum, loads of them and most contradict one another. They can't all be right.

Can you name 1 maverick in theoretical physics in the last 100 years who didn't have considerable formal education in physics or mathematics.
______________________________________________________
Kaiduorkhon:

Marie Curie

Nikola Tesla was a self taught 'inventor', electrical engineer - his achievements have yet to be fully inventoried. He departed in 1943.

'The Limitations of Science' - J.W. N. Sullivan was a journalist.

http://www.slate.com/id/2150974/

 

NOTE: All of the below authorities proclaim that the 4th Dimension is non-mathematically 'incomprehensible', even 'unimaginable'. 'Very difficult', 'Extremely hard', 'We can no longer visualize'. 'Because humanity is not 4-Dimensional'.

Readers are cautioned against concluding that these authorities are right, and encouraged to read the accompanying discourse, and draw their own non-mathematically facilitated conclusions.

(Excerpts of 'other people's work', follow, as educational material contributing to the non mathematical comprehension of Total Field Theory: Reinstatement of the Cosmological Constant and Steady State & Unified Field Theories.)

"In 1916, Albert Einstein published his General Relativity, a mathematical theory of gravitation which replaced Newtonian concepts with abstractions so difficult that it took a decade even for most mathematicians to grasp them. The essence of Einstein's theory was that the presence of matter distorts space and makes it curve. The concept of space curvature stemmed from many dimensional, non-straight-line geometry created abstractly through equations. Just as a surface can curve in ordinary 3-Dimensional space, so in non-Euclidean geometry a 3-Dimensional space can itself curve in 4-dimensional space. No one can visualize such a curved space because humanity is not 4-Dimensional..."
- LIFE Science Library, THE UNIVERSE, p. 179

"When events occur in 3-Dimensional Space it is not possible to draw an actual graph of 4-Dimensional space-time, but mathematicians have ways of handling such graphs without actually drawing them."
- Martin Gardner, RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLION, p. 98

"The 4-Dimensional world of relativistic physics is the world where force and matter are unified; where matter can appear as discontinuous particles or asa a continuous field. In these cases, however, we can no longer visualize the unity very well. Physicists can 'experience' the 4-Dimensional space-time world throughout the abstract mathematical formalism of their theories, but their visual imaginations - like everybody else's - is limited to the 3-Dimensional world of the senses. Our language and thought patterns have evolved in this 3-Dimensional world and therefore we find it extremely hard to deal with the 4-Dimensional reality of Relativistic Physics."
- Fritjov Capra, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, P 150


P.D. Ouspensky, has the same kind of trouble in his NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE. An entire chapter entitled The 4th Dimension.
Ouspensky sets an over and understated example of being so near and yet so far...

“It is difficult to describe even approximately the significance which the discovery of the 4th perpendicular in our Universe would have for our knowledge. The conquest of the air. Hearing and seeing at a distance establishing connections with other planets (How about if we start with establising connections on this planet?) or with other solar systems; all of this is nothing compared with the discovery of a new dimension.”

(What about the 4th dimension of space-time-gravity, the 5th of electricity, the 6th of magnetism? How much less are all of those projected ‘nothings’, compared with this ensemble of newly discovered electromagnetic vectors - the 4th, 5th & 6th physical dimensions?)

Ouspensky continues:
“But so far it ('the discovery of a new dimension') has not been made ."
(*Alas, the 4th dimension has had a psychotic departure from reality?).
What We Must Do, continued:
“We must recognize that we are helpless before the riddle of the 4th dimension, and we must try to examine the problem within the limits accessible to us.” - P.D. Ouspensky, Chapter: THE 4TH DIMENSION, in the title: A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE. p. 68
*With all due respect, sir: How about a drop in the bucket?
All the answers are there, looking up at the observer - ut infra, ut supra - not caring an accelerating ripple if the answers therein are recognized or not... The specific import of this statement will be clarified with the progression of this report.

“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” - Albert Einstein, IN SCHLIPP (1949) p. 112

For an even more detailed documentary of the remarkably employed Art Of Missing The 4-Dimensional Point, refer pages 69 thru 97 in P.D. Ouspensky’s A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE. This is a very well written and illustrated book and chapter (The 4th Dimension), by a deservedly esteemed and dedicated author - well worth reading. Ouspensky exemplifies and dramatizes the standard refusal to recognize what is proven - over-ruling results of objective experiment and mathematics with subjective misunderstandings.


"This concept is very difficult to visualize. It is a consequence of the 4-Dimensional space-time character of the sub-atomic world and neither our intuition nor our language can deal with this image very well."
- Fritjov Capra, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, p. 80

"In the General Theory of Relativity, the framework of the Special Theory is extended to include gravity. The effect of gravity, according to General Relativity, is to make space-time curved. This, again, is extremely hard to imagine. We can easily imagine a 3-Dimensionally curved surface, such as the surface of an egg. The meaning of the word 'curvature' for 2-Dimensional curved surfaces is thus quite clear; but when it comes to 3-Dimensional space - let alone 4-Dimensional space-time - our imagination abandons us. Since we cannot look at 3-Dimensional space 'from outside', we cannot imagine how it could be 'bent' in some direction."
- Fritjov Capra, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, p. 173

"The reader is cautioned against concluding that time is an additional physical dimension in the sense that it can be seen and felt like a material object. No one in our universe can see in 4-Dimensions or more because of the way our universe is constructed."
- James A. Coleman, RELATIVITY FOR THE LAYMAN, p. 69
........................

Dear AlphaNumeric:
Is it your contention that the above quotes and their authors are right, and that my non mathematical disclosure that they are wrong is mistaken? And if that is your station, then you obliged to make your case.

That you take liberties to disagree is well established, as is your consistent failure to qualify your disagreements beyond mathematics, which is the same kind of quandary that the above quotes are found - and lost - in.

You are invited to defer to the Buckminster Fuller quote, post #43 in this thread, that both you & yours have managed - twice - to miss the import of.

 

This illustrated you don't know string theory or QFT. Traditional QFT is done by quantising a field into points. String theory is a quantum field theory too, except the objects made by quantisation are one dimensional. QFT uses worldlines, string theory uses world sheets. The extension to world volumes using membranes is seen in M theory. All of them involve quantum fields filling space-time, they just differ in what the fields are quantised into.

Was that an attempt at a retort or simply thinking outloud?

If you have a theory where the fundamental objects are strings what would you call it? Quantum mechanics is the mechanics of quanta. Fluid dynamics is the study of the dynamics of fluids. Hardly a non-sequitur.

I didn't say it was experimentally justified over anything else. I said its the only consistent model of quantum gravity which recovers the Einstein Field Equations at classical limits.

Your work does not.

Achieved nothing, as in failed to accomplish, utterly lacking in results, got nothing to show for work, had no impact at all on anyone else.

And if I'm wrong about this why are you reduced to hocking your work on a forum? Why aren't you publishing in journals or books or giving talks at universities? Why is no one else working on your work? Why aren't you being paid to develop your work by academia?

Like I said, achieved nothing.

The thread title is "TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics ". I see no 'total field theory'. How is that a hostile interpretation?

Well done, I ask for a theoretical physicist and you give me someone famous for experimental physics and chemistry and an electrical engineer. Tesla tried a theory of everything and he got nowhere. Even your own examples fail to justify your point!

 

The question is AN, do you understand what KBR is saying about the 4-D spacetime environment, or about the expanding matter field? There is no space empty of field. Please confirm you understand what he is saying so that when you refute it, we at least know that you know what you are refuting. Right now it is clear you don't.

 

Kaiduorkhon said that quantum fields fill space. He said strings don't. So string theory negates the notion of space-time.

This is wrong. String theory is a quantum field theory where the quantum field is everywhere in space. The difference between a quantum field theory like QED and a quantum field theory like string theory is that QED has quantised points while string theory has quantised strings. He cannot accept that a QFT is consistent with the notion of space-time yet claim string theory is not since string theory is just a special case of quantum field theory.

I am also refuting his claim mathematics say space and time are not absolute. Mathematics allows you to show that given particular physical assumptions then time and space are not absolute.

I am also refuting his whole 'metric space / non-metric space' nonsense. He's failed to grasp what a metric space is or how metrics are used. He's also failed to grasp that Newtonian physics, which is known not to be correct, is defined on spaces with metrics. Quantum field theory is defined on spaces with metrics. Whether or not a space can have a metric defined on it is not the criteria for validity. I can construct infinitely many different classical theories or quantum theories on spaces with metrics but they can't all be right. Conversely, its possible to construct a consistent quantum field theory on a space which doesn't have a metric because string theory isn't constructed with the assumption of there being a metrizable space-time.

Now if you or Kaiduorkhon want to discuss quantum field theories defined on spaces which lack of metric which is neither globally or even locally definable but none-the-less the theory is consistent then I'm happy to talk about it.

So its okay for him to make claims about string theory or metric spaces when its obvious he doesn't even know the basic principles but when you think I'm doing the same you complain about it? I've tried to get Kaiduorkhon to explain himself but he is evasive and posts massive of text from elsewhere or just quotes other people.

Do you understand that Newtonian, Einsteinian and quantum theories all have metrics? Do you understand that string theory is a quantum field theory? Do you understand that Kaiduorkhon contradicts himself if he accepts normal QFT is consistent with a space-time volume but then says string theory isn't because it involves strings?

I know you don't know anything about metrics and I heavily suspect Kaiduorkhon doesn't either. Don't post bullshit about a topic you don't know about and then get upset when someone who has actually opened a book at some point in his life points out mistakes.

 

EDITORIAL ADDENDUM FOLLOWS:

AlphaNumeric:
"I've tried to get Kaiduorkhon to explain himself but he is evasive and posts massive of text from elsewhere or just quotes other people."

Kaiduorkhon:
You describe references to text which confirms and reinforces points to be made, as 'evasive'; while at the same time you repeatedly demonstrate that you either aren't actually reading the so called 'massive text' and 'quotes from other people', or, are in fact the 'evasive' one in this dialogue. You have consistently harped and complained about relevant missives I've included in this argument, as though they are irrelevant. The Buckminster Fuller quote you completely ignored, for example, which was in direct response to an earlier retort about 'supercubes', made by you. The list of distinquished scientists and their proclamations that the 4th dimension is incomprehensible is another 'massive text' you've complete ignored; while you call me 'evasive'. Your feral penchant for insult is one consideration, while you've repeatedly called portions of my missives, 'lies'. Are you not responsible for what you say? Neither do you acknowledge corrections even when they are appropriately presented. You say that I've 'achieved nothing', while you lecture on the dynamics of zero dimensions - magically producing 'multi', and 'infinite' dimensions out of nothing, which begets nothing.

This entire issue of string 'theory' bottom lines on an hypothesis which has been popularised as 'theory' by en masse usage in 'scientific' publications and journals. It does not hinge on what metric and non metric space is, or whether I know the difference; etceteras.

Summarily, until if and when you read the offered information resource ('my book'), you have disqualified yourself from evaluating it. Never mind your proposed alternative that I read and believe what you read and believe and convert to someone that believes something comes from nothing: No Thing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
How does a 'one dimensional loop' occupy space?
As regards quantum field theory, a field, by definition, occupies space. It has a center 'point', which is also referrred to as a 'point mass'. Draw your own conclusions. Moreover, quanta have a palpable value in erg seconds. (Refer space-time.)
”
Alphanumeric:
This illustrated you don't know string theory or QFT. Traditional QFT is done by quantising a field into points. String theory is a quantum field theory too, except the objects made by quantisation are one dimensional. QFT uses worldlines, string theory uses world sheets. The extension to world volumes using membranes is seen in M theory. All of them involve quantum fields filling space-time, they just differ in what the fields are quantised into.

Kaiduorkhon:
'One dimensional loops of string', are not manifest in real space (string 'theory' hypothesizes 'world sheets') - quanta are measured, measurable units of space-time. 'M theory' is just another layer of a non existent foundation (namely 'string theory), alternately identifying M as meaning 'magic or mystical'. Google 'M theory' and behold a proposed journey into 'infinite worlds' and a series of hypothetical premeses that would evoke an alternating blush & blanch from Lewis Carroll's entire cast in Alice In Wonderland. Speaking of (inevitably) 'basing my work on that of other people', your work makes a mockery of major portions of the evolution of physics and the giants upon whose shoulders its evolution is based on.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
...'as a viable and justifiable approach'.... ”


Alphanumeric:
Was that an attempt at a retort or simply thinking outloud?

Kaiduorkhon:
'a viable and justifiable approach' is by no means a theory.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
'String theorist'? The entire issue is nullified in the fact that 'string theory' is a non sequitur, in two words. Apparently you don't anticipate being called on that. ”

AlphaNumeric:
If you have a theory where the fundamental objects are strings what would you call it? Quantum mechanics is the mechanics of quanta. Fluid dynamics is the study of the dynamics of fluids. Hardly a non-sequitur.

Kaiduorkhon:
'a theory where the fundamental objects are strings'...
What would I call it? If the so called 'objects' didn't occupy space, I would consider the philosophers, Locke, and Hume, both observing that 'Nothing begets nothing' (refer, 'the big bang'). So (as a cul de sac), I wouldn't call it anything; let alone a 'theory'.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Kaiduorkhon:
'Model'? Does it fullfill positive experimentatiion and/or prediction?
(Did someone finally isolate a graviton?) Also, my work, Total Field Theory, fullfills your definition (sans graviton). ”

Alphanumeric:
I didn't say it was experimentally justified over anything else. I said its the only consistent model of quantum gravity which recovers the Einstein Field Equations at classical limits.

Kaiduorkhon:
Academic word is that string 'theory' predicts and is in urgent search for an unfound 'graviton' - until such time of fullfilling that expedition, your 'model' will remain a vacillating 'approach'.

Alphanumeric:
'Your work does not'. (Unify QM and Einstein's Field Equations)

Kaiduorkhon:
Refer to pp. 216 thru 236. Please take particular note of what I call the 'translatory moment' on p. 226 - you may not make that reference, but then you have no ground to stand on for evaluating my work.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
'Achieved nothing?' Another non sequitur in two words.
There's an international inventory of readers - including scientists - who disagree with you. ”

Alphanumeric:
Achieved nothing, as in failed to accomplish, utterly lacking in results, got nothing to show for work, had no impact at all on anyone else.

Kaiduorkhon:
All four of your above allegations are patently and self revealingly false.

Alphanumeric:And if I'm wrong about this why are you reduced to hocking your work on a forum? Why aren't you publishing in journals or books or giving talks at universities? Why is no one else working on your work? Why aren't you being paid to develop your work by academia?

Kaiduorkhon:
'Hocking my work on a forum' ? I thought I was gifting it to the world; while at the same time, engaging discourse, such as that which we are preoccupying ourselves in this thread. I would only learn more, in the unlikely event that the central theme of my work is ever actually disqualified, and, since it is securely 'based on the work of other people', disqualification isn't likely. Whereas, your work is 'based' on several ('New Age' innovated) false premises, all else follows.

Journals and universities ask for formal credentials and do not evaluate my work for it's value. Until further notice from you, yours is the same station.

There is no way of either of us, or anyone else, knowing whether others are working on my work or not. Although in 1996 there wasn't anything on the net about 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension', and, since it was placed on the net in 1999, the expression is widely dispersed in a number of formats.

'Why aren't you being paid to develop your work by academia?'
Apparently your question asks why I haven't received any grants. Tantamount to asking why I haven't been granted 'tenure'. My response here is the same as it was previously, the work is not being evaluated, because I have no formal credentials.

Alphanumeric:
Like I said, achieved nothing.

Kaiduorkhon:
Like I said: no formal credentials, while constructively influencing an incalculable number of individuals and groups.

(Never mind essays, Alphanumeric, have you written a book - acknowledged that it's 'small press' in my case; while appropriately qualifying that its sold out in a series of editions and has been plurally reviewed by scientists and lay people alike. Under the title: 'The New Gravity', it was sold out internationally via the 1970 Whole Earth Catalogue. Duely noted that you begrudgingly describe these accomplishments as having 'achieved nothing'.)


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Your's is a hostile interpretation. The correct term is 'allegation'. ”

Alphanumeric:
The thread title is "TOTAL FIELD THEORY w'out mathematics ". I see no 'total field theory'. How is that a hostile interpretation?

Kaiduorkhon:
Until further notice, I don't know that you've actually read my book. Until then, your apparent stance on that issue reflects that you have not (and will not). Therefore, there is no way of knowing what you do or do not 'see' in or of my book.
You say, "I see no 'total field theory'. And ask: 'How is that a hostile interpretation?' You cited the title of this thread (Total Field Theory, w'out mathematics) and flatly stated that the title of this thread is a lie, in those words. Whereas, the title of this thread is an introductory purportation, and, as I've already said, an 'allegation'. It is very clearly not a lie. Yet you unihibitedly lie about it, in callling it what you (arrogantly) demonstrate, in the same stroke.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Marie Curie

Nikola Tesla was a self taught 'inventor', electrical engineer - his achievements have yet to be fully inventoried. He departed in 1943. ”

Alphanumeric:
Well done, I ask for a theoretical physicist and you give me someone famous for experimental physics and chemistry and an electrical engineer. Tesla tried a theory of everything and he got nowhere. Even your own examples fail to justify your point!

Kaiduorkhon:

At what juncture would you have 'theoretical physics' be defined, both in meaning, and chronologically - when and how did 'experimental physics' part ways with tradition and become 'theoretical physics'?
Many individuals and groups are searching for a theory of everything, and getting nowhere. Moreover, a lot of Tesla's work has yet to be translated, or even publicly considered, for that matter.
How does my response to your question fail to justify itself?

----------------------------------------------
(You seem to languish in projecting the word 'fail' - and 'failure' far too much. As though, if you practice denigrating expressions enough times, it will diminish the quality of my argument. Just as mathematics isn't physics, and physics isn't mathematics - neither is 'psychomolecular restructuring', 'operant conditioning', 'neurolinguistic programming' or excessive reiteration - amounting to common brainwashing - any kind of valid platform from which to teach. That you have been persuaded by such methods is evident in your vacuous allegiance to string 'theory'. You've read, heard, written and said it enough times to accept it as the norm: worse, you proselytize this educational engraving on the wind. While the immutable fact remains: G.P. Thompson photographed, demonstrated and showed us 'point mass' and the accelerating expansion of fields it generates, no such example has been established by the so called 'string theorists', who have deposited their entire 'theory' in the fantastic reservoir of a single linear dimension.)
-----------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that Marie Curie (two time winner of the Nobel Prize) doesn't qualify as being a theoretical physicist? 'Experimental physics' is excluded from 'Theoretical physics'? What qualifies you as the arbiter of such issues?
---------------------------------------------------
Editorial Post Script:
Apparently Dywyddyr considers a mistake a transgression - a voucher of more mistakes - while he reticently disregards the portentous omen of repeated and deliberate lies (prevarications/mendacity). The former is inadvertant and accidental, while the latter is deliberate, contrived, unfair and unjust. Duely noted. Dywyddyr has certainly made a point of rhubarb, though it may not be the point he wished to make.

And, since you didn't respond to it from post #64 of this thread, I'll say it again:
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. I call it 'mass-field Doppler effect'.)

You also skipped what you call 'pointless babble' about 'time dilation', which you 'asked' if I could explain, earlier in this thread. (Selective memory?)
You oblige this record to remind you that its theme is 'Total Field Theory', and 'the reinstatement of the Cosmological Constant & Steady State Theories'; not your hi-jacking, mask-wearing 1st year class on 'membrane, magic or mystical theory' on how nothing begets something - so deeply entrenched that you know not how to extricate yourself. A reemergence of the completely failed 'new math' - an exemplary experiment that extended across all of academia, before finally and famously precipitating to land flat on its caboose (refer, 'hind quarters').

(Must there be so many derogatory adjectives in this discourse?
'Well done', is it?)

 

You were doing fine until that last paragraph and I was thinking about a response, but then the ole AN was there again, struggling to prove whether it is the ego or the hind end that is in control at the moment.

You still don't have even an idea about what he does say about TFT. Instead you take up on minor chit chat without understanding the major topic.

 

Review & Reevaluation of the Equivalence Principle & Updated definition of 'work'.

“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.

(Updated definition of 'work':
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...)

 

Eötvös was Hungarian.

 

Kaiduorkhon, please use the quote function. You seem to be quoting things I've said which quote you quoting me and it makes it much more difficult to follow what you're saying.

If you're influencing people why are none of the people you've influencing publishing their development of your work? You failing to get your work published is bad enough but you're admitting that even with your work known to other people none of them can get anything based on it published. Are all the people you influence also outside the academic community? If so, what precisely have you accomplished?

And journals don't ask for credentials. I submitted a paper 2 weeks ago to JHEP and I had to provide contact details, the paper in pdf and select which area of physics it most applies to. The journal didn't ask for my credentials or require a university to vouch for me since I'm not a 'Dr' yet, it was little more than submitting a document for uploading.

Books do not require peer review. I know more than one crank whose published a book after being turned down by journals and they can't all be right, can they? There's thousands of books in the US which talk about how evolution is obviously wrong. There's thousands of books which say it is true. Publishing books is about selling copies of the book so the more sensational and the less quantitative it is the better.

And to specifically answer your question, no I have not written a book. I'm only 26 and I have not contributed enough original research to make a book, never mind one which people would want to read. However, I have written three papers, one of which was entirely me own work, the only collaboration was asking someone for papers on related work and a bit of algebraic clarification. These have either passed peer review or are currently undergoing peer review. What papers have you got in reputable journals?

I'll explain with an example, Faraday vs Maxwell. Faraday did a huge quantity of experiments involving electricity and magnetism. He didn't formalise his theories but he know that if you passed a current through a wire in a magnetic field then it'd be pushed by a force. Maxwell never did such experiments but come up with a unified theoretical framework which entirely described the phenomena Faraday had seen. Curie isolated Radium from the Uranium ore Pitchblend. She saw it was much more radioactive than Uranium and explored its chemical properties but she didn't work out a model to describe the radiation.

Savvy?

 

AlphaNumeric:
Hope you don't think I'm being contentious, but, frankly, I'm ignorant of how to 'reply in multi-quotes', and only a little familiar with how to 'reply with a quote'.

Until I know how to quote and multi quote I'm sorry to say that I'll have to continue in the manner I've been practicing. I can see how it would at times make things a bit confusing for the reader to discern, especially when it comes to quotes (within quotes).

Please accept my apologies in this regard - and please abstain from converting any part of this discourse into well intended instructions on how to correct my handicap.
(I have a PTSD induced - childhood & military acquired - learning block on some subjects, consequently I am almost completely computer - and math - illiterate).

 

Kaiduorkhon, The diagram on page 127 with the text leading up to it depict an infinite past and an infinite future in spacetime where each dimension is expanding together. From a perspective of “now”, if we look back we see time speeding up and if we look forward we see time slowing down, with a similar change in the rate of change of all dimensions.
1) Have you familiarized yourself with Hawking’s “No-Boundary Proposal”?
2) Is time logarithmic?

 

QuantumWave:
I am only slightly familiar with Hawking's 'No Boundary Proposal'. Although, within it, as I presently understand, he still establishes a singularity, and a 'beginning' (15 to 20 billion yrs ago). On the other hand, it certainly connotes the approximated model of (endless, past, present & future) space-time that I propose.

Einstein described the universe as 'finite but unbounded'. I translate that as meaning finite at any given moment in space, but unbounded in time.

The following quote is excerpted from a Google article about Hawking's 'No Boundary Proposal', and although it was introduced after Einstein's and Feynman's expirations, each of these men had corresponding ideas about it:

"Scientifically what you end up with is what Feynman tried to communicate originally by saying that time is a direction in space. The concept of imaginary time and the no boundary proposal are still evolving theories, but they do seem to be telling us that the direction of our ordinary clock time is simply a path toward another place in existence. The past is simply another place in time, as is the future."

"Is time logarithmic?"

Certainly in accordance with my interpretation of the space-time continuum, yes, time (is motion) inherently accompanies(the accelerating expansion of) space; both of which are therefore proceeding logarithmically (as 'space-time'). My simplified illustration of the structure of accelerating space-time does not take into consideration the accelerating shape that actually accompanies it, which is more Riemannian, and furthermore curves back upon itself (while simultaneously growing ever larger) to create and maintain a torus shaped system.

I perceive the accelerating expansion of the universe to constitute a 'finite but unbounded' space-time, collectively comparable to the 'torus' shape - such as the earth's geo magnetic field (exiting and entering the north and south poles respectively) - generated by all large and small material systems.

Thank you for your questions, and your continuing interest.

 

AlphaNumeric:
Kaiduorkhon, please use the quote function. You seem to be quoting things I've said which quote you quoting me and it makes it much more difficult to follow what you're saying.
------------------------------------------------------

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
'Hocking my work on a forum' ? I thought I was gifting it to the world; while at the same time, engaging discourse, such as that which we are preoccupying ourselves in this thread. I would only learn more, in the unlikely event that the central theme of my work is ever actually disqualified, and, since it is securely 'based on the work of other people', disqualification isn't likely. Whereas, your work is 'based' on several ('New Age' innovated) false premises, all else follows.

Kaiduorkhon:
Journals and universities ask for formal credentials and do not evaluate my work for it's value. Until further notice from you, yours is the same station.

There is no way of either of us, or anyone else, knowing whether others are working on my work or not. Although in 1996 there wasn't anything on the net about 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension', and, since it was placed on the net in 1999, the expression is widely dispersed in a number of formats. ”

AlphaNumeric:
If you're influencing people why are none of the people you've influencing publishing their development of your work? You failing to get your work published is bad enough but you're admitting that even with your work known to other people none of them can get anything based on it published. Are all the people you influence also outside the academic community? If so, what precisely have you accomplished?

Kaiduorkhon:
Yours is a fair series of questions, AN. There are 'indications' that quite a few people are indeed influenced by and developing my work - it remains to be seen if, where and when any 'breakthroughs' occur, and the nature of the advancement... Whether pilfered or not, there is still the issue of discovery precedence and sequence. Meanwhile, the cat is out of the bag, and, albeit an obscure specimen, it's central theme - in it's entourage of resolutions - far surpasses 'coincidence'.

I am also suggesting that it's entirely possible that my work influences people who care not to accredit me (my work) with having been their inspiration. As I have earlier submitted in this thread, there are already precedents for this very kind of purloining. Yes, McCutcheon is a whacko, but, the first two chapters of his book are hardly above suspicion - moreover, his book was released a few years after mine was placed on the net. It seems that Mr. McCutcheon chose not to continue - past his first few chapters - on the course of mine, since it would have been an all the more conspicuous parallel. Also, few people among my readers are inclined to carry it any further - it's relatively obscure, and incentive is diminished, because, once the reader emerges from that book, they reenter a mainstream tide of information that doesn't parallel - or contradicts - it.

On the other hand (with regard to what I have accomplished), I am happy to own a parcel of uncounted complimentary letters from lay readers, thanking me for introducing them to a non mathematical interpretation of (especially) Einstein's work(s). If nothing else, I have publicly released an unprecedented (non mathematical) interpretation of many - otherwise mathematically encrypted and 'mystified' - phenomenological constructs and concepts. I have been reassured many times, that, even if the work is invalidated, it provides considered insights for which there is no counterpart, on issues which have not even been unsuccessfully subjected. I dare say, for any serious reader, it is profoundly thought provoking. It's central theme orbits Newton's 'action-reaction' scenario, regarding the mysterious identity of gravity itself; where /\ is the 'reaction': comparable to the impelling force of a negative charge, and repelling force of a positive charge: where /\ is the positive charge. 'A force that increases with distance? Is that not a dynamic of a collective repelling force, acting out of all matter, 'just like (conventionally perceived) gravity', but, in the opposite direction?

Granted that I have yet to see resolution (general disqualification, or, acceptance); whereas, I do experience a lot of satisfaction in the distribution and (accumulatively growing) controversy that my work has effected. I once shared a bus ride with a guy who initiated the subject of 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension', and produced a copy of one of the editions of my work. Cross country, off and on for three days, he talked about the book while I listened and reciprocated with (compound) interest. It was a rare treat. He asked several of the same questions then, that you are (understandably) asking now...
I cannot tell you why the book hasn't been 'picked up on' by a major publisher - since it does demystify for the layman, a lot of formerly 'incomprehensible' considerations. You may take note that I entered this thread in 'Pseudoscience' category to avoid clashing with the orthodox conventions.

AlphaNumeric:
And journals don't ask for credentials. I submitted a paper 2 weeks ago to JHEP and I had to provide contact details, the paper in pdf and select which area of physics it most applies to. The journal didn't ask for my credentials or require a university to vouch for me since I'm not a 'Dr' yet, it was little more than submitting a document for uploading.

Kaiduorkhon:
Mine is a limited experience with submitting work to any publishing industry. However, from what you say, times and opportunities have changed. In my long bygone experience; apparently, as soon as it is revealed as a 'non-mathematical' interpretation, the effort is dismissed, forthwith. Whereas, I personally distributed over 10,000 copies to over 41 book stores in California; the books were placed on a consignment basis and consistently sold out. It is not unreasonable therefore, to anticipate the book's projected popularity on a national basis. And, since the 1970 Whole Earth Catalogue (within which the book was advertised, for mail order sales) was distributed internationally, for a small press publication, it's traveled extensively. If and when produced and distributed on a larger scale, it is not unrealistic to consider converting it's presently obscure messages and concepts into common household and garden variety knowledge, to lay readers.

But major publishing companies receive 50,000 and more unsolicited manuscripts per month.
They simply can't evaluate the incoming information.

I have indeed sent the work to many journals and even more popular publishers, without even so much as a form letter of rejection. And in those days there weren't home computers, and, they wanted originals - with no assurance that they would be read, or returned. I soon wearied of typing originals and releasing them to oblivion.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Never mind essays, AlphaNumeric, have you written a book? ”

AlphaNumeric:
Books do not require peer review. I know more than one crank whose published a book after being turned down by journals and they can't all be right, can they? There's thousands of books in the US which talk about how evolution is obviously wrong. There's thousands of books which say it is true. Publishing books is about selling copies of the book so the more sensational and the less quantitative it is the better.

And to specifically answer your question, no I have not written a book. I'm only 26 and I have not contributed enough original research to make a book, never mind one which people would want to read. However, I have written three papers, one of which was entirely me own work, the only collaboration was asking someone for papers on related work and a bit of algebraic clarification. These have either passed peer review or are currently undergoing peer review. What papers have you got in reputable journals?

Kaiduorkhon:
I've not been published in any form by any reputable scientific journal.

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
At what juncture would you have 'theoretical physics' be defined, both in meaning, and chronologically - when and how did 'experimental physics' part ways with tradition and become 'theoretical physics'? ”

AlphaNumeric:
I'll explain with an example, Faraday vs Maxwell. Faraday did a huge quantity of experiments involving electricity and magnetism. He didn't formalise his theories but he know that if you passed a current through a wire in a magnetic field then it'd be pushed by a force. Maxwell never did such experiments but come up with a unified theoretical framework which entirely described the phenomena Faraday had seen. Curie isolated Radium from the Uranium ore Pitchblend. She saw it was much more radioactive than Uranium and explored its chemical properties but she didn't work out a model to describe the radiation.

Savvy?

Kaiduorkhon:
I concede your point.
While, on the other hand, I think you can understand mine.
The exemplary Curie made one heck of a contribution. Tesla also.

It bears mentioning here that I am also of the qualified opinion that my work intimidates professional people. There is a reluctance to be the first one to throw your hat in the ring of accelerating expansion in accordance with my work. Gunn and Tinsley were, after all, right, in 1975-6, about the (quite unexpected) acceleration of the expanding universe (after an allegory beginning explosion, why isn't it maintaining a uniform velocity, or, slowing down?). Since confirmed in '96-'98. (Refer the Cosmological Constant - /\ - the force of which, unlike conventionally considered gravity, increases with distance...)

Incidentally, the prediction of 'background radiation' which is said to have disqualified the Steady State theory, simply persuaded the majority that it was the residuals from a previous, 'beginning explosion'. My work challenges and gainsays that foregone conclusion. It also offers a retinue of comprehensive - non mathematical - explanations (including 'time dilation' and the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values - which covers a lot of ground), for which there is otherwise no explanation at all.

Whatever else may be said of my work, it has yet - for whatever reason - to be 'officially' disqualified, or accepted. Which is the closure that remains in suspension. (What is more peculiar - in this age of 'instant communication', my book, or the fact that it remains formally unresolved? If it's such a bomb, why doesn't someone trained in such matters, simply and publicly neutralize it? Instead, facts are accumulating in its favor. No one could do anything but learn furthermore, from any general disqualification. In situ - right or wrong, or somewhere in between - its educational value - to say the least - commendably redeems itself.)