[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Dear Rascal .... I am, truly, impressed with your ideas. Without a Physics department and a budget of a few sqillion dollars or so, none of us is likely to come up with a theory of everything. My understanding of Hypothesis, Theory and Fact is as follows; IMO An Hypothesis is, on the face of it, something that supplies an explanation for the known phenomena and is therefore worthy of investigation by others. A Theory is an Hypothesis that is clearly demonstrated by Mathamatics to be acceptable and does not disagree with the known Laws. A Fact or Principle or Law is a Theory that has been proven mathamatically and experimentally to be correct. To be truthful, no one on this forum has a theory. What we call theories are hypothesis. Unfortunately this is all that most will remain. In a world of scarce resources, limited budgets, and numerous problems, only those of us that have managed to obtain political credibility, by fair means or foul, are likely to have their hypothesis taken seriously. Of course, rare genius may break thru these statistical obstacles occasionally. Who knows, they may even come from this forum. One thing is for certain, it won't be me. In my opinion, your theory is up there. Your theory, along with Dave's and Lloyds are three that have honestly caused me to stop in my tracks, reevaulate what I knew, and forced me to the distasteful conclusion that I knew less than I thought I did. Not an easy thing to accomplish with a bastard like me. So this is not faint praise. Whether you will get the political break, the lucky acknowledgment, the good fortune, so that it is picked up by those with the power and will to advance it remains to be seen. I, who have no theory of my own, no axe to grind, have criticised yours knowing the obstacles you face, and that most likely you have taken it as far as you can humanly do so. I am ashamed! The richer the booty, the thicker the parasites, and that definition alone shows that you have a worthy Hypothesis/Theory. Lets not dispute between these terms. Unfortunately, I learn best by pulling things to bits. This of course is never appreciated when it is someone else's thing. However, Rascal, I am no more than a Devils Advocate, and as such you will benefit in the long run. You will face, and by the sound of it, have already faced, much worse than this. I am still considering your most recent post. cool bananas ... greg

_________________

Dear Greg:
You honor me with your humble boldness, hee hee.
Much of the experimental and mathematical fortification for my (hypotheoretical) work is already long done.

What my work does, mostly, is recognize and join what was previously unrecognized and unjoined. That is my forte. Non-mathematical recognition of what's been there all along, in situ, unrecognized. That's what proffers whatever authenticity I may reflect.

Much of existing theory is mathematically and experimentally proven but the meaning of the math is overestimated, underestimated, misunderstood or forsaken altogether.

How many unrecognized things does E=MC2 prove, after all?

It's still an exemplary work - and an equation - in progress, and may always be.
And for all of its magnificent applications, F, for force, is still vaguely and narrowly understood; especially in terms of causation...

These are but few things to work with, and upon. Incidentally, to my knowledge, my translation of the field force origin and cause of wave mechanical QM has no equal anywhere. I do not know of any unsuccessful failures to non mathematically translate and account for why quanta are emitted always in the same value from all and everything that emits any and all quanta. (Please refer Pt VII of http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.

I encourage you to challenge others to disqualify my work en toto, and particularly my (predicted) accelerating universe (The Cosmological Constant is already in the desperately modified equations of the Big Bang theory).

Tell me why gravity, electricity and magnetism aren't the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions.

Tell me why the 'curvature of space-time' isn't the omnidirectional expansion of the entire physical frame of reference.

Tell me why I haven't explainded the so called universal rate of descent of test objects in free 'fall' (They aren't falling).

Tell me why the 5th element emitted from a 360o exponential quadrant isn't a quanta and how and why that doesn't - or can't- explain the uniformity of Planck's quantum h factor.

Tell me why I haven't reinstated Einstein's formerly abandoned cosmological constant unified field.

Tell me why I haven't explained the negative inertia of individual entities (omnidirectionally anchoring themselves with quantum emissions in all directions)


As for my work being pillaged by anyone else: they work for me. Far too many people, literally in the entire world, know that the work at issue here originated (however obscurely) with me...

The moment any given individual or institution claims and is ceremoniously rewarded for my work is the moment a deluge of information will arrive from all directions clarifying its origin. Ergo, my work can be stolen, but it can't be gotten away with...

(I'm already obscurely famous <enemies and all, and you may well believe there's plenty of them...>... Want my autograph? Hee Haw...)

It is an honor to correspond with you, Greg, my friend. By all means, attack my work in any way that you meaningfully can. Disqualify it if you can. I will thank you for unburdening me... I have everything to gain by learning another path...
(Good luck?)

Best regards,
- RP

[Graybeard]

Rascal .... you present too many challenges per post. I am thinking on your above and previous.

Your use or invention of the word Hypotheoritical regarding our previous posts deserves an award. Why didn't I think of that

While I am thinking, perhaps you would care to unentangle the below sentence, it is so full of double negatives that it makes me dizzy each time I start on it. I am referring to the grammar not the science. Perhaps you left it laying round and your wife accidently put it thru the spin dryer. Unsuccessful Failures, its too much for me, especially preceded by a negative

I have a very small brain, it prefers a diet of monosyllables!

ROTFLMAO ...

Originally Posted by RascalPuff I do not know of any unsuccessful failures to non mathematically translate and account for why ........ etc

Will be back here soonest

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Dear Greg:
Thanks for noticing the double negative.

"I do not know of any unsuccessful failures to non mathematically translate and account for why ........"


I meant, I don't even know of any failures at attempts to non mathematically translate...

Much more, later.

Thank you.
Best regards,
- RP

[north]

[quote=Graybeard;33262]North .... your amended explanation appears to contain obvious contradictions. As the bold shows.

They would say nothing of the sort, as a few moments of reflection will show you. They would say 'this galaxy is moving away from us and you are moving away from us and it, even faster!!' NOTHING is moving towards anything else. NO THING. This is a 'four dimensional' description, a term I don't like, but nevertheless. You cannot perceive this as you have previously stated, 3D is good enough, and more than enough for you.

I disagree

as I mentioned . the mainstream looks at " expansion " from a linear point of view , as in a plane of sight and of information such as the comparision of left and right outer-rings of a galaxy.

but as I've asked before is the globular center of the galaxy actually moving away from us as well? it is an " assumption " is this the case? it is.

as well , if one looks straight above and below our position ( Earth ) are these globular galatic centers doing the same ? expanding away from us ?

nobody knows because they , mainsream , havn't done it !! I have asked this question as well .

response , it would take millions of years!!!

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by north as I mentioned . the mainstream looks at " expansion " from a linear point of view , as in a plane of sight and of information such as the comparision of left and right outer-rings of a galaxy. but as I've asked before is the globular center of the galaxy actually moving away from us as well? it is an " assumption " is this the case? it is. as well , if one looks straight above and below our position ( Earth ) are these globular galatic centers doing the same ? expanding away from us ? nobody knows because I have asked this question as well .

Hmmmm .... Not sure what you mean .... In Rascals theory everything is expanding everywhere including matter.

What you refer to as 'mainstream' does not look at expansion from any point of view.

If we refer to mainstream then everything is experiencing the force of the 'cosmological canstant'. But gravity and the electromagnetic force are sufficient to overcome this force up to the Galaxy cluster perimeter. At this distance gravity is sufficiently weakened due to the inverse square law of the distance that expansion continues.

Their are three independent ways to measure this.

1... 1/r(squared) relationship of light and the galaxy's intensity.
2.. Observe the Spectrum of the distant galaxy and caculate it wavelength emissions for Calcium H and K emissions/ absorption .. freq shift = lab freq (1 + V/ c)
3.. Use Hubbles constant v = Ho x d

Each of these three are independent and do not rely on each other, therefore agreement is considered conclusive.

For close galaxies, those part of the local group such as M31, Andromeda it clearly becomes apparent that this galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way at a rate of 300 klm/second. Hubbles constant does not work at this range, thereby proving that gravity is influencing the result. Light is not affected by gravity so the other two formulas agree.

For a Distant cluster such as the Coma Cluster all 3 formulas agree that it is receding at a radial velocity of 7000 klm/second. As gravity has no effect at this range (310 million light years distant) hubble's constant is in agreement.

These 3 formulas are very simple to calculate and I will explain them so that you can be satisifed with their results if you like. No heavy maths is involved at all.

this is a very short rough explanation, but it underlies the mainstream opinion.

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

This is a picture of M31, the Andromeda Galaxy, the largest galaxy in the cluster called the Local Group. The Milky way is the second largest.

M31 is hurtling towards us, dragging its two satellite galaxies with it, at a velocity of 310 klm/ second.

It appears as a giant spinning circular saw blade heading directly for our tiny sun. It contains millions of Stars appearing as dust in the picture.





cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Dear Greg:

Yes. There are some bastard trajectoried systems of debris in the expanding universe. Hey, how about the two galaxies in 'collision'. Now there's a pair of bastards, eh?

Best regards,
- RP

[Graybeard]

Rascal ... Yes ... there are some bastard galaxies from our point of view. At present the milky way is colliding with another galaxy, a smaller one. I think it may be Hydra. But it is far from the arm that we are on.

Not everything in the Wikipaedia is correct. It lists Andromeda approaching us, or us approaching it, at around 140 klm /sec. I am fairly sure this is incorrect and the true figure according to the blue-shift of light is 310 klm/sec. This is a radial velocity and takes no account of lateral motion, only the average of 'as the crow flies'

The Milky Way and Andromeda are considered a binary system locked together in a spiral Death Dance. They are the two major galaxies in 'The Local Group' cluster which itself is part of a larger Super Cluster called the Virgo Super Cluster.

They will most likely collide in a few billion years, but with Einsteins Theory of General Relativity and as distance in space can be rather meaningless except between the two objects concerned this is a fairly loose prediction.


cool bananas ... greg (thanks for the thanks ... )

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Rascal ... Yes ... there are some bastard galaxies from our point of view. At present the milky way is colliding with another galaxy, a smaller one. I think it may be Hydra. But it is far from the arm that we are on. Not everything in the Wikipaedia is correct. It lists Andromeda approaching us, or us approaching it, at around 140 klm /sec. I am fairly sure this is incorrect and the true figure according to the blue-shift of light is 310 klm/sec. This is a radial velocity and takes no account of lateral motion, only the average of 'as the crow flies' The Milky Way and Andromeda are considered a binary system locked together in a spiral Death Dance. They are the two major galaxies in 'The Local Group' cluster which itself is part of a larger Super Cluster called the Virgo Super Cluster. They will most likely collide in a few billion years, but with Einsteins Theory of General Relativity and as distance in space can be rather meaningless except between the two objects concerned this is a fairly loose prediction. cool bananas ... greg (thanks for the thanks ... )

_______________________

Dear Greg Graybeard:

It would seem that we Universal Theory aficianados, in attempting to align our acknowledged disarray of ducks, expect to find that the universe will prove out to have all of it's ducks in a row, and that our challenge is to find the grounded rudder for that quacking regimentation...

It's my inertially inspired opinion that such a grounding exists, even in view of what evidence we have that the unexpectedly paddling pachyderms are not always following the courses our studies lead us to believe is their modus operandi (re: original causation)...

Our noble member, Mr. Nobody, for example, may be on the trail of the Magic Bullet, in suggesting that angular momentum - although I am not a big bang advocate - may allocate an explanation for how things evolved from a symmetrically omnidirectional explosion, into a sometime potpourri of wildly ricocheting galaxies, for example. Yes.

At my braggadocio inspiration (Expert, M1 Rifle), Mr. Nobody has allotted that what observed thither and skelterisms we may view (within the optical horizon), could be the result of angular momentum motivated anomalous dynamics other than the explosively linear straight lines we might expect from a common locus of expansion projecting from a proposed original singularity...

This strange (perhaps commie pinko?) fellow, Nobody, implies that a type of aether may act as a conducting medium for various spins (including the impetus of angular momentum and contingencies), gaining purchase on what was hitherto only a white elephant; causing what was linear trajectories to become curvilinear, for example; then, perhaps, moving on to the mystery of the much controvesied curvature of warped space-time itself...

Professor Pat, and You, Sir, are also a part of this wild eyed, bizarre, freaked out conspiracy.

As for me, well, ostensibly, I have nothing to do with this ridiculous sequence of amateur signatures. Until if and when anybody who is anyone agrees that it's obvious; were scheduled to be enroute violent opposition from the big bang, as well as the steady state gang. Neither do I think their will be any sanctuary for us from the rowdy rippers...

Forewarned is forearmed, Sir.

(And in this case, so far, we have eight arms - the better - perhaps - to embrace our conceivably culminating delirium with...
<Correction, ten arms - There's always Michael, who is almost certain to inform us that there's a heck of a lot more to this than meets first blush, not to mention the windows to the soul...>.)

Happy trials, er, I mean trails,
thanking you all yet even once again...
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks for the vote of confidence Rascal.there is always more to it than
meets the eye,for behind the gaze lies mindful consciousness.




regards michael.