[RascalPuff]

Exerpt from Chapter One of Total Field Theory (the New Gravity is the 4th Dimension):

"As we shall see, the popular term 'Newtonian concept of attraction (a pulling force)', as applied to gravity, was never unconditionally endorsed by Newton. The concept of gravity as 'a pulling force of attraction' remains a speculative though understandably popular term, coined by Newton's beneficiaries. All of this is to say that the conceptualization of gravity as any sort of pulling force of attraction was not Newton's resolute conceptual or by any means exclusive definition of gravity.

Allow the derivation of this last statement to be further qualified: I wish to cite at this time what is to say the least, a most interesting alternative concept concerning the identity of (what Newton was always careful to call 'universal') gravity. An otherwise completely ignored statement which might even be correctly categorized as 'obscure', or 'inconsequential'. Were it not for the fact that this statement is made by Sir Isaac Newton. And, were it not for the fact that this statement is included in the very (3 page, non-mathematical) Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.

From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting planets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following statement about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of planets & apples, quote:

“For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain." That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact.

I repeat the quote (of particles and systems-of-particles: of matter), 'are either mutually impelled towards each other and cohere in regular figures (orbits; juxtapositions), or, are mutually repelled and recede from each other .'

It implies directly and categorically, that gravity may in fact be the opposite of the universally considered impelling or 'pulling force of attraction'; that is to say, Isaac Newton and his formal definitions, directly and resolutely suggest that gravity may in fact be a repelling or pushing force.

It is difficult to over dramatize the very existence of this statement, its author, and especially its contextual implications. It categorically allows that everything Newton mathematically confirms and describes in The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA - from orbiting planets, falling apples, aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric tides - all the large and small phenomena of gravity - is caused by one of two kinds of forces: the conventionally considered impelling or pulling force of attraction, or, its exact opposite, a repelling/ pushing force. That is fact #1.

Fact #1 evokes at least one question: Allowing possible advantage in Newton's Gravitational Alternative that gravity may in fact be a repelling (pushing) force rather than an impelling (pulling) force, how might any such advantage be experienced and applied? That question and its derivation might still be deemed obscure and inconsequential, if its direct unequivocal answer did not exist, most profoundly, at the heart-foundation of the latest and most advanced generalized theory of gravity in the history of Physical Science. That being Albert Einstein's GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.

In the first quarter of this century, Albert Einstein, in observing the already well known inversely proportional equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values (which will be explained, shortly), described this equivalence as: 'an astonishing coincidence', and then applied the cause of his astonishment to the monumental task of formulating an unprecedented theoretical generalization concerning the identity of gravity. That, being none other than the General Principle Of Relativity; which principle is quite literally the foundation upon which rests Einstein's entire General Theory of Relativity. The most advanced statement about gravity, to date.

The General Principle is also misnomered as the 'Equivalence Hypothesis', or, more appropriately, 'The Principle Of Equivalence', which states: 'There is no way to distinguish the effects produced by the inertial force of acceleration (a pushing/repelling force) from the effects produced by gravitational force (assumed to be a 'pulling/impelling force: identity unknown').

Regards

- RP

[dleviwing]

I still do not see what you are referring to; what translation are you referring to?

I am not concerned with my reputation but I find that you hardly qualify as an expert in the physical sciences. Maybe if a reputable publisher picks up your work and give you greater credibility, I may reconsider; until then, I think my expertise exceeds yours and I see no value in your “Gravity is the 4th dimension” nonsense.

Does this qualify you????

Memorial Of The Murder Of Corine Christensen in 1986. REPORT FROM V.F.W.. Bill Motto (‘Wage Peace’) POST 5888 And: * BATTERED & BULLIED WOMEN MAKE BETTER PANCAKES & BURGERS: The Rape, Murder & Resurrection Of Columbia K.B. Robertson is also one (of two) co-founders of congressionally chartered Veterans Of Foreign Wars - Bill Motto - Post 5888. (U.S.N. BMSN E-3 Coxswain . 1st Loader naval artillery. 3 1/2 years sea duty aboard an ammunition ship. ‘58 -‘62. Bay Of Pigs, Cuba, May, ‘61.) The author is presently a V.F.W. Chaplain and free lance writer. Residence, Santa Cruz, CA. Published by Cold Steel Enterprises. Subsidiary to Death From Above Issuance’s. A Great Continental EuroAsian Green Grass RiverDragon Production

[RascalPuff]

From dleviwing (David), to RascalPuff 5/30/07.
___________________________________________

I still do not see what you are referring to; what translation are you referring to? I am not concerned with my reputation but I find that you hardly qualify as an expert in the physical sciences. Maybe if a reputable publisher picks up your work and give you greater credibility, I may reconsider; until then, I think my expertise exceeds yours and I see no value in your “Gravity is the 4th dimension” nonsense. Does this qualify you???? Memorial Of The Murder Of Corine Christensen in 1986. REPORT FROM V.F.W.. Bill Motto (‘Wage Peace’) POST 5888 And: *BATTERED & BULLIED WOMEN MAKE BETTER PANCAKES & BURGERS:The Rape, Murder & Resurrection Of Columbia K.B. Robertson is also one (of two) co-founders of congressionally chartered Veterans Of Foreign Wars - Bill Motto - Post 5888. (U.S.N. BMSN E-3 Coxswain . 1st Loader naval artillery. 3 1/2 years sea duty aboard an ammunition ship. ‘58 -‘62. Bay Of Pigs, Cuba, May, ‘61.) The author is presently a V.F.W. Chaplain and free lance writer. Residence, Santa Cruz, CA. Published by Cold Steel Enterprises. Subsidiary to Death From Above Issuance’s. A Great Continental EuroAsian Green Grass RiverDragon Production

__________________________________________________ ______________

Dear dleviwing.
For a man who alleges not to be concerned about his reputation you write like a man who is concerned about his reputation.

'What translations are you referring to?' You ask.

I'm referring to the three page preface to Newton's Principia Mathematica, which don't require any translation when they're written in English to an English speaking person, which, I think includes you... sir.

Your (abstract, obfuscatory) statements that I am not qualified as an expert (which I've not purported to be, though I do have a way of proving it), are not qualified.

The list you troubled to carry to this forum is 'About the author'. With a few titles of his previous works.

Incidentally, I'm no longer living in Santa Cruz, CA. and have moved to the east coast of Virginia state. Refer 'About the author'....

It's a standard format at or near the closing of a lot of books.

More about the author:

I never really had a publisher, I have sponsors who finance my small press books and essays, since 1959. I've never made much money at it, though my sponsors have an excellent track record for consistent if modest profit. My third edition was internationally distributed and sold out through the Portola Institute's Whole Earth Catalogue in 1970. Consequent small press editions were distributed and sold out in six of ten editions, all over California state in 41 book stores. I received and still treasure hundreds of letters from my readers, who are unabashedly impressed.

On the other hand it appears that you aren't impressed with my qualifications or history, and that you won't be until Scientific American or the Physical Science Journal, or Time-Life magazine gives you and others like you the go ahead on being impressed with my qualifications.

Am I qualified? I suppose that depends on whether I'm qualified or not. Science is not a democracy. As I've pointed out before, if it were a democracy, the universe would still be revolving around a flat, square, hollow earth, etceteras... People like yourself might still be burning people like me at the stake. Although, the inquisition hasn't really rescinded, only its methods have changed.

I may only speculate from the resonance of your latest post that you aren't satisfied with affirmation of what I call Newton's 'gravitational alternative' - that gravity is either an impelling or a repelling force, in those words. It appears that you figure, as long as you don't concede to your own undoing, you won't have been undone. Lately, as regards your brashness about whether or not Newton's Preface to the Principia says what it says, as I have brought the quotation to you, since you indicated your inability to locate it.

For a fellow that researches as much as you apparently do, it's kind of surprising that you are unable to locate the statement I cite, when it exists in context of the three pages of Newton's Preface to the Principia. as I described then and still do describe - and quote.

I would be content to ramble further on but I just received a phone call from another one of my small press sponsors and my dog just politely reminded me that it's time for her dinner. Being on the net - albeit in a condensed format - is nice too.
Until next time, Mr deliviwing, sir, I wish smooth sailing to you and yours.

Regards
- RP

Post Script: You misspelled nonsense.
(Perhaps that word is too challenging for you?)

[N0B0DY]

Well, I thought we had a few things in common, RP, but apparently you are looking to hold the prevailing theory by your bombardment of threads or looking to hold a grandmaster title like Michael.

At any rate, the motion of the earth had to do with Einstein's geodesics, and the swallowing with your proposition of an expanding sun and earth.

I never mentioned dark matter, but dark energy which creates dark matter. Photons create matter, and gravitons create antimatter; electromagnetism creates 3d objects in forward time, and gravity creates 3d objects in backward time. Even granny understands it.

The dark energy pertaining to your proposition, I thought, was the false vacuum that expanded your matter proportionate to the expansion of the universe as a whole. I'm not really sure why larger systems would cover more space, when only mass increases through acceleration, but following the implications I simply wanted to know why the earth wouldn't rush up to meet a feather at the same time it would a rock.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Well, I thought we had a few things in common, RP, but apparently you are looking to hold the prevailing theory by your bombardment of threads or looking to hold a grandmaster title like Michael. At any rate, the motion of the earth had to do with Einstein's geodesics, and the swallowing with your proposition of an expanding sun and earth. I never mentioned dark matter, but dark energy which creates dark matter. Photons create matter, and gravitons create antimatter; electromagnetism creates 3d objects in forward time, and gravity creates 3d objects in backward time. Even granny understands it. The dark energy pertaining to your proposition, I thought, was the false vacuum that expanded your matter proportionate to the expansion of the universe as a whole. I'm not really sure why larger system would cover more space, when only mass increases through acceleration, but following the implications I simply wanted to know why the earth wouldn't rush up to meet a feather at the same time it would a rock.

_____________________

Dear Nobody:
Allow me to confide a few things in you.
I am trying to engage participation in this forum as much as possible, because, I fear the paranoids are after me. I have learned that there are self designated oppositions to me, personally. I know that they initiate rhubarbs with a lot of people including me, however, in my case and a few others I've observed, they don't prevail. They have the retaliatory power to ban - without recourse - just about anyone with the possible exception of Robert, who is by far the most powerful man on this forum. The very founder of it. He's not out to rack up a lot of hi posting scores, he's holding this entire activity together, and something very important may come of it yet. I will never be a grand master here or anywhere else. I seriously doubt I will go beyond three stars. But that will help make me more a part of this community, which is important to me.
I am willing to engage you or anyone else in a discussion as long as it doesn't fall into a circuitous pattern as you have already described. You would have me rewrite my book in corresponding with you, rather than you reading it. You would split hairs about dark matter and dark energy and reaffirm that which is already ST. You would have me in argument with you about the meaning of G.P. Thompson's experimental evidence and mathematical confirmation, which is since well known to every credentials bearing physicist in the world. I may be mistaken but it seems to me that it's your intention to belabor me with having to reprove what is already established. This falling feather business means one of the two of us isn't getting off the ground and what you say about not wanting to engage in unnecessary disagreement is what I say also. This is called 'gridlock', and I don't think either one of us have time for it. You don't wanna read my work in progress condensation fine, but until you do, I don't want to spend more time peeing in the wind about it. I suggest that if you wish to continue to correspond with me, that you very specifically qualify any and all disagreements with me, after you've given due considerate thought. If you can disqualify my work en toto you'll be doing me a favor, in the meanwhile I can give you multiple reasons for why gravity, electricity and magnetism are the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions, respectively, for every reason that you submit they aren't. About 20 or more % of my book has been written due to the advise and corrections of other people. Lloyd just recently taught me something I should have known years ago. You may teach me something, but, until further notice, it isn't going to be along the lines of the 'universal rate of descent', for example. You aren't arguing with me, sir. You're arguing with the status quo on that issue. I learn a lot by reading posts on this forum. When dleviwing and I aren't at each others throats I learn a lot from him also, from reading him when he's talking to other people. But he's not exactly easy to get along with. I'm here to learn, and, to teach, in that order. If I can learn from you I will. But so far it's more like a skunk fight than a dialogue. I repeat. It is my distinct impression that you are out - in my case - to project 'crazymaking' rather than get serious about science.
I may already have said enough to get me banned. Real reasoning is not always the grist of this forum. Hell. There's people saying reality isn't real. It's been banned for lack of evidence... There's no motion, space, time or gravity. Nothing is real except maybe a jar of Smucker's strawberries from out there in the gravitonic fields. (Incidentally, gravitons are about as real as the tooth fairy as far as Truly Yours is concerned... SuperStrings, Leptons, Tachyeons, Leprechauns, Put ons and take offs... Gravity is a nerf ball and a hail of bullets. Granny is anything but clear on any of this piffle)
Regards
- RP

[N0B0DY]

Well, let me just say you're right about one thing. I'm not interested in swallowing the consensus based soley on empirical and theoretical science without philosophically extending it to draw my own logical conclusions. You can't explain matter without antimatter because you can only observe sensorily with c as the yardstick, and c is far from accurate. True c is absolute, non-existent, and relative rates of propagation and energy transfers can only be the result of antimatter slowing light down to c.

I've pressed Lloyd and Dave and many other scientists to explain there exact positions regarding what is outside of the universe and/or what the universe is made of exactly.

The bottom line is any conceivable universal functioning doesn't work, I've looked deeper into it than anyone I've come across, and that's my safety net to safely say that nobody knows what he/she is talking about except Einstein who admitted that there is nothing left of the castle.

Sincerly, best of luck in your search for truth. Your out-of-the-box thinking is truly brilliant, if your own.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Well, let me just say you're right about one thing. I'm not interested in swallowing the consensus based soley on empirical and theoretical science without philosophically extending it to draw my own logical conclusions. You can't explain matter without antimatter because you can only observe sensorily with c as the yardstick, and c is far from accurate. True c is absolute, non-existent, and relative rates of propagation and energy transfers can only be the result of antimatter slowing light down to c. I've pressed Lloyd and Dave and many other scientists to explain there exact positions regarding what is outside of the universe and/or what the universe is made of exactly. The bottom line is any conceivable universal functioning doesn't work, I've looked deeper into it than anyone I've come across, and that's my safety net to safely say that nobody knows what he/she is talking about except Einstein who admitted that there is nothing left of the castle. Sincerly, best of luck in your search for truth. Your out-of-the-box thinking is truly brilliant, if your own.

_______________________________________________

Dear Nobody.
Thanks.
As regards you complementary last sentence in the above missive, the 'if your own' clause...:
There's not a thing I know that I didn't learn from someone else.
Starting with the English language, and some Spanish and Italian.

On the other hand, what I learned in physics were metaphorical pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that no one put together before I did. I became sure of this because the more I studied the more I found that everytime someone proved all of matter is in a constant state of accelerating expansion, they dropped it like a hot potato, 'because, anyone can see that matter isn't expanding'.....

Just as 'anyone can see that the universe revolves around the earth every twenty four hours.' To perceive otherwise is bonkers, right? Uh huh....

I simply re-cognized what was already there. I didn't even do that all by myself, but I inspired others to help me in unanticipated ways once I got the ball rolling in their lanes... Galileo's experiments with variusly 'weighted' objects falling at the same speed and contradicting Aristotle - and later Newton - is what got me started. Inert and Heavy mass being equivalent to each other when they're not supposed to be the least bit related. One's about gravity the other's about inertia. 'An astonishing coincidence' Einstein called it, which indeed it is.

I went about the business of developing an hypothesis simultaneous with trying to disprove it, not believing I could possibly be blazing a trail no one else had never been on before. I'm still trying to disprove my own theory, and I will thank anyone who may do it for me... (Buona fortuna). The more I look for disproof, the more proof I have found...
Incidentally, Nobody, this is my 360th post, and If I'm not mistaken, it's the crossover point from two black stars to three. I think that appropriate.
Thank you sir.
- RP

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff I'm referring to the three page preface to Newton's Principia Mathematica, which don't require any translation when they're written in English to an English speaking person, which, I think includes you... sir.

I would think that the title would give you a clue Kent; Newton’s book was written in Latin as was most books of that era. Sir Edmond Haley provided the first translation to English around 1687 or so. There were only 400 prints at the time so if you have one, you can sell it and give up writing for a living.

BTW: Thanks for the spell checking; I’m sure it will provide a worthwhile occupation for you. Would you care to check my other posts for type-O’s??

[RascalPuff]

Dear dleviwing:
It may surprise you to know that I do look over many of your posts and it's not to correct your typo's. It's because I learn a lot from you, and Lloyd, as well as others. In the former cases, in spite of your fractious potentials for abrasiveness.
Your information about Newton's Principia is interesting, for example.

Notwithstanding the fact that I'm still referencing the English translation as regards the statements Newton makes about an 'impelling or repelling' alternative regarding gravity. A few entries ago you said that no such entry was in your copy and I replied with a quote of that entry, which does in fact occur in every of all of Newton's Principia Prefaces, in all languages, to the best of my knowledge. It seems we've wandered a little off course since your 'bogus' terminology aimed at my credibility, which hazarded your own credibility in turn.

Regards
- RP

[RascalPuff]

Google: Preface Principia Mathematica:

Last sentence of first paragraph, verbatim, translated to English from the Latin:

Since the ancients (as we are told by Pappas), made great account of the science of mechanics in the investigation of natural things; and the moderns, lying aside substantial forms and occult qualities, have endeavoured to subject the phænomena of nature to the laws of mathematics, I have in this treatise cultivated mathematics so far as it regards philosophy. The ancients considered mechanics in a twofold respect; as rational, which proceeds accurately by demonstration; and practical. To practical mechanics all the manual arts belong, from which mechanics took its name. But as artificers do not work with perfect accuracy, it comes to pass that mechanics is so distinguished from geometry, that what is perfectly accurate is called geometrical; what is less so, is called mechanical. But the errors are not in the art, but in the artificers. He that works with less accuracy is an imperfect mechanic; and if any could work with perfect accuracy, he would be the most perfect mechanic of all; for the description of right lines and circles, upon which geometry is founded, belongs to mech