[dleviwing]

Are you claiming that others have plagiarized your work by calling gravity the fourth dimension? If you have published a book with this information then your work should be copyrighted and you can take action toward those plagiarists. It may be better to wait till they are presented the Nobel Prize before making any claims against them. Personally I feel rather flattered when others use the concepts I’ve created.

You should present your work as an article here on ToeQuest.

As used in physics, “dimension” is the quantitative measure of a physical property. Inferring that dimension refers to alternate realities or phenomena beyond our spatial realm is just absurd science. It is these type of interpretations of QM that create the bizarre and ridiculous views.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Are you claiming that others have plagiarized your work by calling gravity the fourth dimension? If you have published a book with this information then your work should be copyrighted and you can take action toward those plagiarists. It may be better to wait till they are presented the Nobel Prize before making any claims against them. Personally I feel rather flattered when others use the concepts I’ve created. You should present your work as an article here on ToeQuest. As used in physics, “dimension” is the quantitative measure of a physical property. Inferring that dimension refers to alternate realities or phenomena beyond our spatial realm is just absurd science. It is these type of interpretations of QM that create the bizarre and ridiculous views.

_________________

The highest form of compliment is imitation. There is no time in my schedule for taking action against a hovel of people who have indeed plagiarized my work, which has been copyrighted and sold out in what is now nine internationally distributed small press editions, since 1959. 'Gravity is the 4th dimension' was graffitti on the subway walls of New York City, and all over a dozen large west coast cities, as early as 1971. It is particularly well known in Berkeley, California; especially on the University of California at Berkeley campus. It was distributed and sold out in small press in over 41 California bookstores. My sponsors invariably profited, establishing a track record for sales which I wasn't interested in making a personal profit from. (Google Miles Mathis: The Third Wave - who publishes all of his magnificent work on the net without cost to the reader. The same is true of Ms. Karene Jade Howie and Geoff Halsburg, regarding 'The Wave Structure of Matter').

The first two chapters of Mark McCutcheon's 'The Final Theory' are conspicuously lifted out of my work. I agree with you entirely that such activity can only benefit the proved. I consider all such pilfering efforts as complimentary to and a tonic for my work - they're helping get the word out. As I have said before, all the eggs that are being laid on the other side of the road regarding my material will eventually find their way home - all the quicker if any of the purloiners receive enough publicity. Of course I'm complimented by the qualified pirates.

Your allusion to the definition for dimensions is not contradicted relative to the definition I discovered nearly fifty years ago. It is hardly an 'inference'. It corroborates the definitions of geometry and mathematics. Ostensibly you're not familiar enough with my work to argue with it.
A condensed work in progress of the material at issue here is http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
By no means do I refer to realities or phenomena beyond our spatial realm (on the contrary), although in later chapters I do some speculation on QM, among other issues - which is clearly identified as speculation. Your unprepared critique of the material at issue is presumptuous, if not bizarre and ridiculous. You are called upon to make your case against my unprecedented recognition of gravity, electricity and magnetism as the 4th, 5th, & 6th dimensions.

Regards,
- RP

[dleviwing]

I am quite qualified to critique your work Mr. Robertson. I have over 40 years in the design and application of scientific instrumentations and methodology. Though you are well read, you lack the insight of hands-on experience in the applied sciences. Your tools seem to be only a pencil and paper; I have performed the work and analyzed the data. I have also served on the NBS applications committee. Though I agree with many of your observations of the current models, I do not see where your work improves them.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by dleviwing I am quite qualified to critique your work Mr. Robertson. I have over 40 years in the design and application of scientific instrumentations and methodology. Though you are well read, you lack the insight of hands-on experience in the applied sciences. Your tools seem to be only a pencil and paper; I have performed the work and analyzed the data. I have also served on the NBS applications committee. Though I agree with many of your observations of the current models, I do not see where your work improves them.

Hope you don't mind my calling you Dave:
Your latest communication (above) I must thank you for. Maybe we can discard the abrasive quality of some of our communications. I have no way of knowing your qualifications beyond what I read in what you write to me and others. I have no reason to doubt your word, though there are times when you make overstatemens - saying that I consider geometrically non metric considerations such as length and breadth as being physical manifestations - 'entitities', for example. I know that you are knowledgeable and astute. I have read much of your work in your communications with others. Your acuity is indeed impressive. You're quite right, with a few applied exceptions I am not an experimental - hands on - physics buff (Beyond 2 years of Liberal Arts, I am self educated, and yes, most of my work is done via reading and writing - researching and comparing papers).

Regarding your statement: "...I agree with many of your observations of the current models, I do not see where your work improves them." Please consider the following statements by P.D. Ouspensky On The 4th Dimension:


NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE.
An entire chapter entitled The 4th Dimension.

P.D. Ouspensky sets an 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 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 a ripple if the answers therein are recognized or not... The specific import of this statement will be clarified with the progression of this report.)

Dear Dave, continued:
I cannot predict what may come of the augmented consciousness of recognizing the 4-D space-time continuum as aligning itself with time and motion in the form of gravity. (The question is not 'Where and what is the 4th dimension? The question is, where and what is it not? In the temporal sense, it goes from its present reputation of being imperceptible, to being ubiquitous, even to the point of being audible in the settling down of a spun coin or platter on a hard surface.)

I see gravity - its effects - on or near the surface of a major gravitational system as being the inertial-mechanical results of the perpendicular expansion of the three recognized dimensions, effecting what Einstein' General Principle of Relativity is based on - acceleration of a given coordinate system. Action at a distance such as observed in aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric tides, I see as being the effects of the 5th and 6th dimensions of electromagnetism. It is not my responsibility to predict how these new recognitions will 'improve' current models, although I do see how some considerable numbers of current models are consequently displaced altogether by the improvements that you say you do not see.

Thanking you I am sincerely
- RP

[Aresteh]

Paragraph from A Brief Overview of Certain Aspects of the Thought of Petyr Demianovich Ouspenskyby Michael Presley By considering space and time as perceptual forms and not as direct objects of sensation [entities ?] a critical analysis of our conventional understanding of spatio-temporal relations cannot derive solely from an empirical analysis. Instead, its predicate must be psychological material. Ouspensky argues that we need first specify all necessary psychological parameters inherent within the human conscious faculty prior to constructing theory. In keeping with that line of thought outlined by Kant he accepts a supersensible or noumenal substrate as the foundation of our world. So, although our world intuition is grounded in spatio-temporally based physical relations, it follows that the noumenal ground upon which the perceptual object of experience ultimately derives its being must possess neither properties of space nor of time.

.
Dear Rascalpuff -- Could you make it clearer for us which of these two forms is your understanding.

for the journey -- reza

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Aresteh . Dear Rascalpuff -- Could you make it clearer for us which of these two forms is your understanding. for the journey -- reza

Dear Reza:

Does this help any:

NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE.
An entire chapter entitled The 4th Dimension.

P.D. Ouspensky sets an 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 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
____________________________________

"In reality, mathematics can say very little about the 4th dimension. There is nothing in the hypothesis of the 4th dimension that would make it inadmissable from a mathematical point of view, this hypothesis does not contradict any of the accepted axioms and, because of this, does not meet with particular opposition on the part of mathematics. Mathematicians even admit the possibility of establishing the relationship that should exist between 3-D and 4-D space, i.e., certain properties of the 4th Dimension. But they do all this in a very general and indefinite form. No exact definition of the 4th Dimension exists in mathematics.


"The basis of the denial of the fourth dimension, which has been supported by the theoretical and fallacious plane and cubical geometry, has been the inability to produce an additional or fourth perpendicular to a cube, as the basis of an additional power multiplication, whereas, poor little plane arithmetic and algebra, without geometrical reference, being abstract, indicate the perfect ability to do so...

"Very rightly do they do so, for if the geometrist will go back to his first perpendicular, he will find it perpendicular to a sphere, for did he not assume a dot as his first basis of a geometrical theorem, which if conceded at all, must be spheroidal. Matter, if existent at all (and we cannot fallaciously assume a truth that is not), must be spheroidal. Surely the 'PlaneAndSolid' geometrist does not claim his 'dot' or 'point' to be cubical, for then he would have no further cause for his progressive antics.

We see that there is no cubism, and that we can have as many perpendiculars to the inside or outside of the sphere as we may wish. Each power raising, or root taking, is on the basis of spheroidal increase or decrease by that many units of its radial or time dimension. The only 'straight line' then is the radial or time line, demonstrated by spheroidal dissection on its radial axis. There is also much laughter at the 'Plane&Solids'" - R Buckminster Fuller, 4-D TIMELOCK, p. 17



Please refer http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

Reza:Please let me know what you think of this.

Regards
- RP

[dleviwing]

Kent;
Fuller’s work is at best pseudo science. Using it in your publications only diminishes the value of you own concepts. You might say it’s just another alligator in the swamp.

Reality is simple; it’s people who make it complex. When you know enough that you can tell a PhD he’s full of $&!%, then write another book. Do you need any help?

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Kent; Fuller’s work is at best pseudo science. Using it in your publications only diminishes the value of you own concepts. You might say it’s just another alligator in the swamp. Reality is simple; it’s people who make it complex. When you know enough that you can tell a PhD he’s full of $&!%, then write another book. Do you need any help?

__________________________________________________ __________

The Greatest Standing Errors In Mathematics & Physics - Today, 12:06 AM



Dear Dave:
Please tell me what you think of Miles Mathis' works.

Nothing being sold here. It's all free, educational and fun. Compliments of Miles W. Mathis.
http://www.geocities.com/mileswmathis/index.html
With acknowledgements:
May be reproduced for educational and non commerical purposes.

Regards
- RP (K. B. Robertson)

[dleviwing]

I’ve converted his web pages to PDF document from your other. I haven’t had the time to read much of it yet though. So far I find his work entertaining. I like his writing style in that he has done his research and comprehended the science quite well. He seems to recognize many of the problems but I have noticed some misunderstanding of the terminology.
Is there a chapter you would like me to comment on?
Unfortunately there is too much scientific theory that is hyped as science fact. This has lead to many of his views and criticisms. You would be surprise at how many scientist would agree with him.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Kent;

Originally Posted by dleviwing Fuller’s work is at best pseudo science. Using it in your publications only diminishes the value of you own concepts. You might say it’s just another alligator in the swamp. Reality is simple; it’s people who make it complex. When you know enough that you can tell a PhD he’s full of $&!%, then write another book. Do you need any help?

Dear David:

Reprise on the Fuller quote (above) that you are responding to:

"In reality, mathematics can say very little about the 4th dimension. There is nothing in the hypothesis of the 4th dimension that would make it inadmissable from a mathematical point of view, this hypothesis does not contradict any of the accepted axioms and, because of this, does not meet with particular opposition on the part of mathematics. Mathematicians even admit the possibility of establishing the relationship that should exist between 3-D and 4-D space, i.e., certain properties of the 4th Dimension. But they do all this in a very general and indefinite form. No exact definition of the 4th Dimension exists in mathematics.


"The basis of the denial of the fourth dimension, which has been supported by the theoretical and fallacious plane and cubical geometry, has been the inability to produce an additional or fourth perpendicular to a cube, as the basis of an additional power multiplication, whereas, poor little plane arithmetic and algebra, without geometrical reference, being abstract, indicate the perfect ability to do so...

"Very rightly do they do so, for if the geometrist will go back to his first perpendicular, he will find it perpendicular to a sphere, for did he not assume a dot as his first basis of a geometrical theorem, which if conceded at all, must be spheroidal. Matter, if existent at all (and we cannot fallaciously assume a truth that is not), must be spheroidal. Surely the 'PlaneAndSolid' geometrist does not claim his 'dot' or 'point' to be cubical, for then he would have no further cause for his progressive antics.

We see that there is no cubism, and that we can have as many perpendiculars to the inside or outside of the sphere as we may wish. Each power raising, or root taking, is on the basis of spheroidal increase or decrease by that many units of its radial or time dimension. The only 'straight line' then is the radial or time line, demonstrated by spheroidal dissection on its radial axis. There is also much laughter at the 'Plane&Solids'" - R Buckminster Fuller, 4-D TIMELOCK, p. 17
_____________________________________

As far as I can discern here, Dave, what Fuller is qualifying, is that, although a geometric point does not exist, it is not square, it is round. Otherwise the motion of the square point A, to generate a Straight Line A ------>B, begins a sequence of unnatural cubism, proceeding all the way up to the 4-D 'supercube'.

It seems to me that Fuller is reminding us that the perpendicular - right angle - Euclidien law of (the extrapolation of) dimensions, can and does proceed from any shape at all; all of the three recognized dimensions of space being 4 dimensional and of a quasi infinite number of shapes and sizes.
P.S. David: Have you ever looked up Buckminster Fuller in 'Who's Who'? The majority of entries have a few paragraphs of fine print - whereas Fuller's achievements fill the page. He is not a man to be underestimated. 'Psuedoscientist'? I think not. I am surprised to hear a man of your learning say such a thing about Buckminster Fuller. Do you disagree with my interpretation of his intended meaning, in the subjected issue of cube vs spheroid, as applied to the shape of the (non existent) geometric point?

Best regards
- RP