[Graybeard]

Dear Rascal ... I think we have spoken often enough on this forum to forgo irritation over contentious issues.

I have found your posts, and there are many, on expanding 4-D geodesic space interesting, and attention grabbing. I have read them diligently, and as best I could, tried to come to terms with the concepts you are offering.

Your ideas are good, are great. But, if you exaggerate in order to further your explanation then you risk others alienation from your own good ideas. I am the worst at exaggeration. So having said this, I now am now going to criticise your post, and I don't expect, nor will I accept, any loss of friendship between us for doing so.


This is a review, by another, of Sullivans book 'The limitations of Science'.

Citing various examples to support his arguments and lead the reader towards established conclusions, the author quotes from such distinguished savants as Plato, Lavoisier, Newton, Darwin, Bragg, Minkowski, Freud, Pavlov and Huxley, among others, whose incredible contributions have made understanding of our Universe as engaging, complex and gratifying as we find it today. For all you non-scientists out there who feel like an outsider, denied membership to the Secret Society of High-Brows, this book will fill you with comprehensive information without insignificant details that bog you down;

Please note the famous names quoted, also note that none of them lived long enough, nor in the correct period to understand or grasp quantum mechanics. Its not that these people disagreed with the Big bang, or QM, they simply did not know about it, and so they have no opinion of it. You imply through Sullivan, that they do! Sullivan himself died in 1937, wrote this book in 1932ish-33ish, published in 1934. Heisenberg was 32, he had formulated his principle in 1925-27.

And yet you introduce this book as

'an abbreviated but entirely accurate description of yet another proven and still unrecognized fact which furthermore categorically confirms that Matter is 4-Dimensionally expanding.

The most popular sources include a renowned book on physics written by the late and eminent physicist, J.W.N. Sullivan. It is very appropriately entitled, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE.

This is not fair, not even to Sullivan, who may never have held this opinion, and if he were alive today may hold an entirely different opinion again.

You retracted the statement that Sullivan was a physicist, but you replaced it with

Okay, Greg. I just consulted google. Sullivan was not a physicist, whereas he was an eminently talented pre graduate poly technic Institute mathematician

Lets get it straight, he was not a mathamatician. And we will pass over the 'pre-graduate poly technic' adjective which is hardly flattering. In fact lets forget Sullivan.

The two Thompsons, Father and Son, both received the Nobel Prize, Dad for discovering the Electron to be a particle, (and for discovering the Electron). Junior for discovering the Electron was a wave. Both Right.

But according to you only one is right, the one that supports your theory, the other one doesn't get a mention, except for this

(Incidentally, G.P. Thompson is not to be confused with J. J. Thompson who was the discoverer of the electron some decades earlier).

I have not looked it up, however I do not accept the fact that gold was beaten out to its elemental layer. What is an elemental layer? I am presuming you mean one atom thick.

It was not a 'single molecular layer thick', as you say, but rather, a single elemental layer thick. There's a big difference, especially in this specific case - carried out by G.P. Thompson, as described by J.W.N. Sullivan.

You must prove this. as I do not accept that the technology of the period could have achieved it. Yet having defined this 'boundary' of the element or atom of gold you then contradict it with

G.P. Thompson, discovered that neutrons, protons and electrons are microcosmic charges of undulating electric field energy ('disturbed areas'), having no definite boundary surfaces whatsoever separating them from their surrounding space.

Is the Gold sheet a single atom thick and separate from space or isn't it ? one or the other!

There are other inaccuracies, or so I read it.

Rascal, listen, when I plagiarise your work and quote it in order to show how clever I am, I expect it to be right. I am a gullible fool, and imagine my feelings when other less learned people than me point out obvious inaccuracies, things that I have overlooked through laziness. .

I find nothing wrong with your ideas, it is totally unnecessary to gild a Lily.

cool bananas ... and no offence ... greg