[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by neutralino Fine, I'll keep my mouth shut, then. I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks 30 threads in one forum on the exact same topic is a show of bad etiquette, though. Furthermore, if you believe one entering a thread and pointing out the parts of your post (from Wikipedia) that are speculation to be hijacking, then you are using an incorrect meaning of the word. Since you have, do, and probably always will refuse to answer anything that questions your theory, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Thus I will not answer any more of your posts in this thread.

___________________________

Until recently, the only way I used computers was as word processors. Did not go on line until 2002. Preoccupied with my own work, I don't know how to build a website. I have PTSD and am practically computer illiterate. The information I am posting in Robert's selected format on universal expansion are highlights from my forum.

Since there's a limitation on duration per post (10,000 characters), the result is a series of numbered posts that functionally and self evidently amount to the same thread.

"Since you have, do, and probably always will refuse to answer anything that questions your theory, there is no point in continuing this discussion."

You were just provided with a significant answer to your 'correction' about the difference between Dark Matter and Dark Energy - a credibly speculative answer for which, until further notice and up to this time, there is no counterpart.

Whereas, within the series of posts at issue here, there are many unprecedented potential solutions to previously mysterious subjects. For example, my 1959 work predicted - and still does predict; maintain - an accelerating universe.

Regards,
-RP

[RascalPuff]

Excerpt from neutralino's previous post (# 21 permalink):

"There has been speculation that the darks are one and the same, but at the moment this remains speculation. Besides, as discussed * here there is a problem with this idea: it suggests that we live at a special time in the universe's history where the energy density of dark matter and dark energy are equal."
__________________________________

In this article is the statement that:

'Scientists hate coincidences'.

Whereas, it seems to me that there should be an affinity for them - such as that of the 'coincidence' of gravitational and inertial mass values and what we've learned from it (via Einstein's General Principal).

May readers draw their own conclusions regarding the *article issued coincidence (of the premise that we live in a very special time in the universe), implying that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are directly related (if not two different manifestations of the same entity - dense and tenuous - as previously suggested by Truly Yours).

Best regards,
- RP

[Profpat]

I agree with you on coincidences RP. In fact my Idea tries to solve the coincidence that for every proton there just happens to be an electron to the 10th to the 80th power. I think most coincidences are not coincidences at all but have a rational explanation behind them.

[Mohsen]

Dear RascalPuff

Unfortunately I am not familiar with your work. I would appreciate it if you send me a link to your website. However I went and reread the first two chapters of "final Theory". To me there are many flaws in the concept.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that it advocates that attraction of masses together is because their expansion. It claims that accelerated expansion of earth in the rate of 9.8 m/s2 is the factor behind falling objects.
it seems you are advocating the same. Don't you think with this rate of expansion the earth should have reached the moon long time ago. Even solar system and may be even the milky way stars should have been collided at this time.
Then there is this claim that space also is expanding. If that is the case there no object should fall to the ground.

I have so many question about this final theory. May be I am wrong. Guide me.

Mohsen

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Mohsen Dear RascalPuff Unfortunately I am not familiar with your work. I would appreciate it if you send me a link to your website. However I went and reread the first two chapters of "final Theory". To me there are many flaws in the concept. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that it advocates that attraction of masses together is because their expansion. It claims that accelerated expansion of earth in the rate of 9.8 m/s2 is the factor behind falling objects. it seems you are advocating the same. Don't you think with this rate of expansion the earth should have reached the moon long time ago. Even solar system and may be even the milky way stars should have been collided at this time. Then there is this claim that space also is expanding. If that is the case there no object should fall to the ground. I have so many question about this final theory. May be I am wrong. Guide me. Mohsen

______________________________

Dear Dr. Mohsen:
Thank you very much for your response.

There are indeed many flaws in Mr. McCutcheon's ('Final Theory') presentation of expanding matter (in the first two chapters, as well as throughout the entire book).

It is not merely the expansion of the earth at issue here, but rather the (accelerating) expansion of the entire physical (as well as spatial) universe, based on the premise that the ultimate constituents of physical matter - electrons, protons and neutrons, are expanding, effecting the collective expansion of the entire physical universe, which my work clarifies is likewise responsible for the spatial expansion of the universe.

It appears that you are an aggressive reader.
On that note I ask you to refer to my forum site and respond to what you garner from that. http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie Parts I thru VII. It's a work in progress - condensation - of a 1979 vintage 627 page, sold out, 6th edition, dating back to 1959 (when I first predicted that the expansion of the spatial universe is also accelerating).
Is this acceptable to you?

thank you once again for your interest.
Best regards to you and yours,
Respectfully,
- RP

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by neutralino Since you have, do, and probably always will refuse to answer anything that questions your theory, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Thus I will not answer any more of your posts in this thread.

Neutralino;
If you google “K.B. Robertson” you’ll find the truth about RascalPuff and why he should just be ignored or just read for amusement.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Neutralino; If you google “K.B. Robertson” you’ll find the truth about RascalPuff and why he should just be ignored or just read for amusement.

To whom it may concern:
If you google "K.B. Robertson" you'll find that he has many generally anonymous, vacantly motivated, self made, recidivist, odious name-calling enemies, and may draw your own conclusions as to the cumulatively collaborative reasons why.

(It seems to be one of the advantages of being a non 'peer published' translator of Einstein's greatest hits.)

The moral pattern of the mud slinging, character assassinating, schmear campaigning sources is self revealing.
Apparently, dleviwing (who is not securely anonymous) is the latest recruit.

You may also review K. B. Robertson's (Rascal Puff's) blogs, here on Theory of Everything.

Best regards,
- RP

[dleviwing]

RP;
Neutralino is quite right in his assessment of your posting abuses. Pasting clips from your website is not appropriate when a link would work as well. You have duplicated the same pages in many posts; this is an abuse of the ToeQuest forums. You also past wikipedia and other excerpts rather than just using a links; this is simply clutter of the forums. You are right that your posts, website, and blogs indeed DO portray your character. If you have ever made a significant statement, it has been masked by all your bloviating nonsense.

[RascalPuff]

To whom it may concern:

Robert has designated this months theme:

"November, 2007 Theme. Why the universe is expanding and why that expansion is accelerating."

That's what my work is about, and I believe I've made the circumstances of my seriatim entries understandable.

Off topic exchanges have dissuaded me from continuing my - on-topic - participation in this month's theme.
Sincerely thanking all who have read my cogent missives.

Best regards,
- RP

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Neutralino; If you google “K.B. Robertson” you’ll find the truth about RascalPuff and why he should just be ignored or just read for amusement.

Thanks for the advice, David!