[RascalPuff]

TOTAL FIELD THEORY - No Space Empty Of Field.
The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field (Steady State) Theory.
by K. B. Robertson

Abbreviated Reviews

"There is nothing new about Newton's Classical Mechanical gravity or Einstein's 4th dimension of time, except preeminent non-mathematical proof that they are one and the same. The New Gravity Is The 4th SpaceTime Dimension." - K.B. Robertson, Ibid.

"It's still the same old universe, but gravity is the 4th dimension of that same old universe. I'm grateful for the indelible change in my perception of it. It may be impossible to overstate the importance of this book. The one, two three and X Y Z of comprehensive infinity."

- Mark Stephan Halfon, Ph.D., Philosophy (Chair,*Nassau University), Brooklyn, New York. (1977 - *2005)

"An ambitious new treatise on the otherwise seasoned subjects of Space & Time. We are not qualified to evaluate it, but are pleased to see it in this ('comic book') format." - THE WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE, Portola Institute, 1970 - ‘71

"An unprecedented and awesomely credible non-mathematical theory which matter-of-factly proves that gravity is the 4th dimension of time, then forthwith discovers the previously unrecognized - therefore unidentified - 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism."

- Dr. John Shaw, Chemistry Prof. 1971, University Of California @ Berkeley

"Gravity Is The 4th Dimension' - A documentary scientific 'Future Shock'. Major conceptual breakthrough. It must be disqualified or formally acknowledged at the foundations of modern theoretical physics; there is no middle ground. So advanced it's simple."

- Mark Vukovic, Electronics Tech, U.S.N. USS Shasta (AE-33), San Francisco, CA.

"This book has clearly made a formerly mystified theoretical physics truly comprehensible to anyone with high school reading skills and 'street people' in general. Beyond its overt revolutionary scientific import, the social implications are also profound. Bound to surprise and constructively inf luence an enormous number of people for a very long time. Ignoring or denying it won't make it go away. Now I know what E=MC squared means."

- Don Donahue, original printer and publisher of ZAP Comix, San Francisco

"Gravity really is the 4th dimension, and levity and mirth use to be the 5th and 6th dimensions, until K.B. Robertson found them to be electricity & magnetism, respectively. - Herb Caen, The San Francisco CHRONICLE

"Not without levity, the sharp shooting author expertly documents his academic and historical subject; then - suddenly - the reader is experientially surrounded by it. There is no intellectual escape from the 4-D space-time continuum anymore, in or out of an ignorant or uninterested yawn. The very act of reading these words is directly and physically sustained by it. Observing various responses of others, in the early stages of recognizing it, is a recreation in itself. The documentary is scientifically irreproachable, the informal narrative is a social liberation. The inveterate elements don't like it already."

- Sallie Taylor Melinda Bryan, 1979

"Academic L.S.D. in a Stockholm punchbowl, and everybody's invited. Ready or not there is no way out of this but through it. A scientific Odyssey. The most remarkable fact about 'The New Gravity' is that it was not discovered and written much earlier."

- Gregory Nageotte, Ph.D. Philosophy, Santa Barbara, CA. 1979

"I am unable to disqualify it."

- Dr. Richard Feynman, 1966, Professor Emeritus, Cal Tech

"It reads a hell of a lot more easily and comprehensively than anything else of the subject of Einstein's Relativity. Reads at least as easily as the brass tacks section of any good sci. fi. mag., and it is not science fiction."

- Travis T. Hipp, KSAN radio, San Francisco, 1970

"The old saw, 'There is no gravity, the earth sucks', is no longer tractable. The New Gravity (Is The 4th Dimension) is the old gravity, in a pushy new paradigm of Einstein's 4 dimensional space-time continuum. Guaranteed to illuminate even the most diffident mind. It will chancelessly see you and raise you indefinitely. The New Gravity will never let you down."

- Arthur Kretchmer, 1979, Article Editor, PLAYBOY Magazine

'Is gravity really the 4th dimension? Or has the author only cleverly built his theory around reality so that no one can tell the difference? '

- K.B. Robertson, Ibid

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hey Rascal, how does this work...? 'Is gravity really the 4th dimension? Or has the author only cleverly built his theory around reality so that no one can tell the difference? ' If the earth expands, as your theory claims, to create gravity, what's left to create the claimed gravity, when earth and "I" both reach inertial equilibrium? IMO, the waves have to push in, more than out, and I see no explanation of this in all your posts, or other material... Where is it...? "no one can tell the difference"___I can...

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Hey Rascal, how does this work...? 'Is gravity really the 4th dimension? Or has the author only cleverly built his theory around reality so that no one can tell the difference? ' If the earth expands, as your theory claims, to create gravity, what's left to create the claimed gravity, when earth and "I" both reach inertial equilibrium? IMO, the waves have to push in, more than out, and I see no explanation of this in all your posts, or other material... Where is it...? "no one can tell the difference"___I can... Lloyd

The operative words in your missive are 'In my opinion' - (you can tell the difference).

How can the difference be told, Lloyd?

"When the earth and I both reach inertial equlibrium", isn't going to happen, Lloyd, the earth is 25,000 miles circumference and is moving through a lot more space in given units of time, than you are, squared.


Best regards,
- RP

Post Script: It appears you are remiss in continuing our previous and recent *dialogues, Lloyd.
You've prematurely changed the inconsummate subject; apparently to re-engage and perpetuate an aggressive posture and 'keep me on the defensive.' *Including the one that finds you implying that I am 'dishonest', and then goes on to revise that implication to a category of 'mistake'... (We all make them).

A mistake need not at all be a dishonesty Lloyd.
Of course you know that.

Your syntax often proves characteristic wayward carelessness and (apparently deiberate) harsh insensitivity - not just as it is projected on me, but as a matter of historically recorded style, as you present yourself to others. At your best you prove to be a mature and guiding mentor and student; whereas, at your worst you seem to be nothing short of tyrannical (in either role).

Condescension, reprimand and derision usually do not compliment disagreement and/or correction, Lloyd. I know first hand from reading your works, that you can easily be above that. You're among the the most scientifically adept and would better serve yourself and others, without the disposable, subjective undercurrents. All of this post script is IMHO of course.

Best regards,
- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Rascal, the point here is physics, not emotions. I'll not address your bleating heart, just your physics. Now, if you're willing to discuss physics, please address the problems of wave and matter dynamics and inertias of. I see the same expansion, but for the life of me, can't see any applicable mathematics, in your ideas, to account for the ratios of earth's gravity expansion and the moon's gravity expansion rates, in the same time/distance ratios, of any c squared scenario. Like I asked___Where is it...?

Rascal, the difference can be told because, the math doesn't work...

the earth is 25,000 miles circumference and is moving through a lot more space in given units of time, than you are, squared.

Rascal, you seem to be locked into "time" as something having meaning, other than matter in motion. I am not. Time is matter in motion, and nothing more. If you stop using "time" as a "god", then maybe we could get somewhere. Even Einstein didn't have that much faith in "time." He believed in B. Spinoza's "god"___one of least action. "The given units of time" can't be squared, they don't exist!___that's mythology of your over-active abstract imagination. Try squaring the "Now", and you may see what I mean...

It seems any time anyone tries to use a cosmological constant, this is what happens___That old boogyman, "time/god", enters and plays hell with linguistics. State your positions as matter in motion, so we all may understand your ideas...

You and I move through space at the exact rate as the earth, sorry... My math tells me that if all were expanding at a simple rate of 32fps/s, all our mathematical/physical/mental problems would have been solved centuries ago, and we all know it hasn't been. Iff it were so, the earth would have long exceeded the moon's lesser gravity requirement expansion rate, making the moon, just a little dot... 32fps/s only applies to the earth, not any other celestial body, unless one exists with the earth's attributes, in almost identical amounts... Throw "time", as a meaningless measurement, away, and use matter in motion, to replace it, in order to do real physics, not abstract imaginary physics___Please...

You can like me or hate me, I don't care. I will continue to state my educated opinion___No "matter" what...

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

A quote from Lloyd and response from RP... Rascal, you seem to be locked into "time" as something having meaning, other than matter in motion. I am not. Time is matter in motion, and nothing more. If you stop using "time" as a "god", then maybe we could get somewhere. Even Einstein didn't have that much faith in "time." He believed in B. Spinoza's "god"___one of least action. "The given units of time" can't be squared, they don't exist!___that's mythology of your over-active abstract imagination. Try squaring the "Now", and you may see what I mean...

It seems any time anyone tries to use a cosmological constant, this is what happens___That old boogyman, "time/god", enters and plays hell with linguistics. State your positions as matter in motion, so we all may understand your ideas...

You and I move through space at the exact rate as the earth, sorry... My math tells me that if all were expanding at a simple rate of 32fps/s, all our mathematical/physical/mental problems would have been solved centuries ago, and we all know it hasn't been. Iff it were so, the earth would have long exceeded the moon's lesser gravity requirement expansion rate, making the moon, just a little dot... 32fps/s only applies to the earth, not any other celestial body, unless one exists with the earth's attributes, in almost identical amounts... Throw "time", as a meaningless measurement, away, and use matter in motion, to replace it, in order to do real physics, not abstract imaginary physics___Please...

You can like me or hate me, I don't care. I will continue to state my educated opinion___No "matter" what... - Lloyd

______________________________

Dear Lloyd:

'Matter in motion' is time - is a newly recognized whole new dimension; no less real than the preceding three; hence the (also frequently misunderstood, not infrequently denied) term, 'space-time'.

Displacing the concept of time with the concept of 'matter-in-motion' is no displacement at all. It's two different expressions of the same phenomenon.

'Now' in space is irrevocably connected to 'then' (past or future) in time:
'Now' and 'then' are connected by the dimension of matter in motion.

The so called 'eternal now' is ephemeral - now isn't then, and conversely...

Here isn't there.

Zeno excuded time, and behold his (perhaps deliberately created) fictional quandary of never arriving from his point of departure...

Time is the continuum that separates events in space.

Rates of omnidirectionally outward acceleration depend on outside parameters and circumference, while inward gravitational potential also depends on density - without contradiction. Gravity is complementary vectors of push and pull.

Now, then, there and here, have been and/or will be, inseparably contiguous with the dimension of time, which has been endemically misunderstood since the inception of it's mortal contemplation.

There is an interval of space dividing two events, that interval of event division is the dimension of time - in the case of three omnidirectionally expanding dimensions of space, contrary to what you declare: time is space: squared; at concentric right angles from itself, arriving endlessly in a 'now', having endlessly departed from - or approaching - a 'then'.

Arriving somewhere prior to departing wherever you're coming from: excludes time. Until further notice, moving against the flow of earthly time zones in a Concorde still won't make the arrival precede the departure... (Spinoza's god of 'least action' doesn't connote no action at all).

On the lighter side of this debate, the 'Crackpot Index' (which I don't personally agree with), subtracts five points from your argument for alluding to your 'educated opinion'.
And five more points are lost for mentioning 'Einstein'.

(HeeHaw - man, if that's the case I'm so many points in the hole that Stephen Hawking's tunnel can't locate me...)

Regarding personal sentiment toward you from me, Lioyd, Of course I don't hate you. Have absolutely no reason to even approach that adjective relative to you.

I consider you more of a thought provoking colleague more than an adversary. You are of value to my evolving contemplations of the dimension of time, for one obvious example. I have learned quite a lot from your posts and dialogue with others, for another...
I could say you're only lines on my moniter screen, and that I don't care, but, I'm still fortunate - and grateful - that you're there, authoring the issued, only lines...

Of course there's more to our contentious dialogue, and here's hoping we find time to get around to it - errrr, hoping you'll pardon the timely expression, sir?

Best regards,
- RP
(Zeno bought it here...)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Rascal, "time" means only its fundamental one thing___"Matter in motion." This is the mistake most thinkers make. Time is our psychological concept of celestial motions, and nothing more. You can't make theories, or Zeno, work on "time", and phony distance paradoxes. Put the real "matter in motion" in all equations, and "presto"___They make sense. In other words, put the matter/wave filled space in Zeno's distance paradox, and it only reduces to the most fundamental matter/waves. They just happen to be 3D, or they couldn't exist, except on paper, and in our exaggerated abstract imaginations___That ain't real___It's representations of ideas, and abstracts...

It's two different expressions of the same phenomenon.

This is true enough, but matter expresses physical reality, and time can be exaggerated into meta-nonsense...

Zeno excuded time, and behold his (perhaps deliberately created) fictional quandary of never arriving from his point of departure

No, Zeno didn't exclude time, he just didn't include matter/waves...

Time is the continuum that separates events in space

True enough, but better seen as matter/waves in motion. I just see far too much of a problem of invoking the continuum... It's too metaphysical. "Matter/waves in motion" better serves the "pie" that possibly can unite quantum and relative physics...

There is an interval of space dividing two events, that interval of event division is the dimension of time - in the case of three omnidirectionally expanding dimensions of space, contrary to what you declare: time is space: squared; at concentric right angles from itself, arriving endlessly in a 'now', having endlessly departed from - or approaching - a 'then'.

"Dimension of time" is far more seriously understood, as its fundamental motion and distances of real matter travel. And space is "matter in motion over distances." Don't you see, your differences of linguistics, are really no difference, at all. It just makes the conversations easier, when absolute fundamentals are used, instead of thinking the re-naming linguistics of one discipline are the only one, when the inter-disciplinary linguistics, have the ability to unite quantum and relative theories. I think it quite possible, if we threw out all the linguistic quagmires of both quantum and relative physics, we may really be able to completely unite them...

Regards,
Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

"... matter expresses physical reality, and time can be exaggerated into meta-nonsense..."
_______________


Lloyd, so far, we ain't finding any such thing as matter that doesn't move.

As you well know, Dave is an authority on that.

Speaking of 'meta', once again, as you well know, matter is always moving beyond whatever coordinates it previously occupied.

Regards,
- RP

[MJA]

Time is a dimension or tool of relative measure, and gravity is the force of nature created by motion.
The fourth dimension of measure is time.
To measure the relativity of gravity, an observer would use the dimensions of measure, including time.
Gravity and time or measure are not one and the same.
One is measure, and the other not.

=
MJA

[everymansmedium]

Hello Lloyd: #4
I must give you another perspective here.
(I will always indicate the importance of time as that is where I live.)
I realize the you were talking to RP. I will make my point quickly.
It seems we all forget that when we decided on calling time the constant. We could have gotten similar results if we had called space as the constant and said time was contracting. As a matter of fact if we did consider that you might find that it will indicate a reason for the observation of the acceleration that is noted in the observation that you call expansion of space. This acceleration that is noted is the reverse of what would be expected by current methods.

So when you say that you can not square NOW, you are correct but you must also remember that you can not square HERE any more than you can square NOW. Nor can you square HERE and NOW Either one is but a point of reference. I feel that (being = creation), this indicates NOW as the point of creation. Even so it is still only a point of reference when it comes to the determining of particle position. In this respect both space and time hold equal weight in any equation. Without either the result is wrong.
John.