Total Field Theory: Reinstatement of Cosmological Constant & Steady State Theories

[MJA]

= was the absolute unifier Einstein was looking for.
And nothing is more simple or beautiful than that.
It was infront of him as well as all of us all along.
e = mc2

=
MJA

[theunify]

Thank you for this post, I especially like how you shaped your post like a comment a professor would leave on a midterm, that was appropriate, I feel truely blessed and scolded for being your student.

Dear Unify:
In my experience, it's a good idea to post work and not concern yourself with a 'community' of conflicting ideas, thoughts and theories. There's a heap of 'in-fighting' underway 'in-ranks', and 'outsiders' are also a serious threat to established reputations.

Theoretical physics is in a highly confused and utterly contentious transition in this era. You will note that there is a culminating (if coy and camouflaged) return to Einstein's formerly abandoned work. (The 'expanding universe' is Accelerating...)

This trend, i submit, will continue, and, Einstein's formerly abandoned Unified Field (Cosmological Constant) will be reinstated, as I predicted in published, copyrighted and distributed manuscripts (in three languages) more than fifty years ago.

[RascalPuff]

Thank you for this post, I especially like how you shaped your post like a comment a professor would leave on a midterm, that was appropriate, I feel truely blessed and scolded for being your student.

Originally Posted by RascalPuff
Dear Unify:
In my experience, it's a good idea to post work and not concern yourself with a 'community' of conflicting ideas, thoughts and theories. There's a heap of 'in-fighting' underway 'in-ranks', and 'outsiders' are also a serious threat to established reputations.

Theoretical physics is in a highly confused and utterly contentious transition in this era. You will note that there is a culminating (if coy and camouflaged) return to Einstein's formerly abandoned work. (The 'expanding universe' is Accelerating...)

This trend, i submit, will continue, and, Einstein's formerly abandoned Unified Field (Cosmological Constant) will be reinstated, as I predicted in published, copyrighted and distributed manuscripts (in three languages) more than fifty years ago.

**************
Re: It's About Time Again: The Stubborn Fantasy of "No Space, Time or Motion".

The 'Now' is an extension from Past to Present, just as the Future is a projected extension of the Present. In order to know where you are, you need know from whence you arrived. In order to know and/or determine where you're going, you need know where/when you are.

Einstein's Spacetime


Physics at the end of the nineteenth century found itself in crisis: there were perfectly good theories of mechanics (Newton) and electromagnetism (Maxwell), but they did not seem to agree. Light was known to be an electromagnetic phenomenon, but it did not obey the same laws of mechanics as matter. Experiments by Albert A. Michelson (1852-1931) and others in the 1880s showed that it always traveled with the same velocity, regardless of the speed of its source. Older physicists struggled with this contradiction in various ways. In 1892 George F. FitzGerald (1851-1901) and Hendrik A. Lorentz (1853-192:cool: independently found that they could reconcile theory and experiment if they postulated that the detector apparatus was changing its size and shape in a characteristic way that depended on its state of motion. In 1898, J. Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) suggested that intervals of time, as well as length, might be observer-dependent, and he even speculated (in 1904) that the speed of light might be an "unsurpassable limit".
MichelsonFitzGeraldLorentzPoincaré


Einstein in 1905

None of these eminent physicists, however, put the whole story together. That was left to the young Albert Einstein (1879-1955), who already began approaching the problem in a new way at the age of sixteen (1895-6) when he wondered what it would be like to travel along with a light ray. By 1905 he had shown that FitzGerald and Lorentz's results followed from one simple but radical assumption: the laws of physics and the speed of light must be the same for all uniformly moving observers, regardless of their state of relative motion. For this to be true, space and time can no longer be independent. Rather, they are "converted" into each other in such a way as to keep the speed of light constant for all observers. (This is why moving objects appear to shrink, as suspected by FitzGerald and Lorentz, and why moving observers may measure time differently, as speculated by Poincaré.) Space and time are relative (i.e., they depend on the motion of the observer who measures them) — and light is more fundamental than either. This is the basis of Einstein's theory of special relativity ("special" refers to the restriction to uniform motion).
Back to Top
The Fourth Dimension


Minkowski


Lightcone diagram showing the worldline
of a moving observer

Einstein did not quite finish the job, however. Contrary to popular belief, he did not draw the conclusion that space and time could be seen as components of a single four-dimensional spacetime fabric. That insight came from Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909), who announced it in a 1908 colloquium with the dramatic words: "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".
Four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime is often pictured in the form of a two-dimensional lightcone diagram, with the horizontal axes representing "space" (x) and the vertical axis "time" (ct). The walls of the cone are defined by the evolution of a flash of light passing from the past (lower cone) to the future (upper cone) through the present (origin). All of physical reality is contained within this cone; the region outside ("elsewhere") is inaccessible because one would have to travel faster than light to reach it. The trajectories of all real objects lie along "worldlines" inside the cone (like the one shown here in red). The apparently static nature of this picture, in which history does not seem to "happen" but is rather "already there", has given writers and philosophers a new way to think about old issues involving determinism and free will.
Einstein initially dismissed Minkowski's four-dimensional interpretation of his theory as "superfluous learnedness" (Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord..., 1982). To his credit, however, he changed his mind quickly. The language of spacetime (known technically as tensor mathematics) proved to be essential in deriving his theory of general relativity.
Back to Top
The Equivalence Principle



Einstein's happiest thought (1907): "For an observer falling freely from
the roof of a house, the gravitational field does not exist" (left).
Conversely (right), an observer in a closed box—such as an elevator or
spaceship—cannot tell whether his weight is due to gravity or acceleration.

Soon after completing his special theory, Einstein had the "happiest thought of his life" (1907). It came while he was sitting in his chair at the patent office in Bern and wondering what it would be like to try to drop a ball while falling off the side of a building. Einstein realized that a person who accelerates downward along with the ball will not be able to detect the effects of gravity on it. An observer can "transform away" gravity (at least in the immediate neighborhood) simply by moving to this accelerated frame of reference — no matter what kind of object is dropped. Gravitation is (locally) equivalent to acceleration. This is the principle of equivalence.
(To be continued)

[RascalPuff]

Re: It's About Time Again: The Stubborn Fantasy of "No Space, Time or Motion".

To understand how remarkable the equivalence principle really is, imagine how it would be if gravity worked like other forces. If gravity were like electricity, for example, then balls with more charge would be attracted to the earth more strongly, and hence fall down more quickly than balls with less charge. (Balls whose charge was of the same sign as the earth's would even "fall" upwards.) There would be no way to transform away such effects by moving to the same accelerated frame of reference for all objects. But gravity is "matter-blind" — it affects all objects the same way. From this fact Einstein leapt to the spectacular inference that gravity does not depend on the properties of matter (as electricity, for example, depends on electric charge). Rather the phenomenon of gravity must spring from some property of spacetime.
Back to Top

Gravity as Curved Spacetime

Einstein eventually identified the property of spacetime which is responsible for gravity as its curvature. Space and time in Einstein's universe are no longer flat (as implicitly assumed by Newton) but can pushed and pulled, stretched and warped by matter. Gravity feels strongest where spacetime is most curved, and it vanishes where spacetime is flat. This is the core of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is often summed up in words as follows: "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move".

A standard way to illustrate this idea is to place a bowling ball (representing a massive object such as the sun) onto a stretched rubber sheet (representing spacetime). If a marble is placed onto the rubber sheet, it will roll toward the bowling ball, and may even be put into "orbit" around the bowling ball. This occurs, not because the smaller mass is "attracted" by a force emanating from the larger one, but because it is traveling along a surface which has been deformed by the presence of the larger mass. In the same way gravitation in Einstein's theory arises not as a force propagating through spacetime, but rather as a feature of spacetime itself. According to Einstein, your weight on earth is due to the fact that your body is traveling through warped spacetime!
Computer animation showing
Newton's conception of space & time
Computer animation showing
Einstein's conception of spacetime

While intuitively appealing, however, the rubber-sheet picture has its limitations. Mostly, these have to do with the fact that it allows us to visualize the spatial aspect of Einstein's theory, but not the temporal one. To see this, we need only remember that Newtonian gravity must be approximately valid, whatever Einstein says, and Newton tells us that bodies move in straight lines unless acted upon by a force. Why, then, do the orbits of planets around the sun on the rubber sheet appear so far from straight, if there is no attracting force reaching out through spacetime to tug on them? The answer is that planetary trajectories are very nearly straight — in spacetime, not space.

The worldline of the earth, for example, resembles a stretched-out spiral whose width in space is only one astronomical unit, but whose length in the time direction is measured in lightyears! Another way to appreciate the importance of the "time" in "spacetime" is to apply the equivalence principle and ask whether the fact that we experience a gravitational field on the earth's surface is "equivalent" to stating that the earth's surface is continually accelerating outward. Obviously not, for we do not observe the earth to grow larger! (Wrong: Refer URl at bottom of this page...) The trouble is that, in speaking of the earth's surface, we have again lapsed into thinking of acceleration in spatial terms. On earth, where speeds are small compared to the speed of light and the gravitational field is weak, it turns out that nearly all of our weight arises due to the warping of time, rather than space. What this means in practice is that gravity on earth is "equivalent" to acceleration mostly in the sense that clocks on the surface run more slowly than clocks in outer space.
Back to Top

General Relativity

General relativity is based physically on the equivalence principle, but the theory also has a second, more mathematical foundation. Known as the principle of general covariance, it is the requirement that the law of gravitation be the same for all observers — even accelerating ones — regardless of the coordinates in which it is described. (It is for this reason that Einstein named his new theory "general", as opposed to "special" relativity — he dropped the earlier restriction to uniformly moving observers.) As he later said, to express physical laws without coordinates is like "describing thoughts without words". In this labor he was aided above all by his friend the mathematician Marcel Grossmann (1878-1936). Another mathematician named David Hilbert (1862-1943) nearly beat him to his final equations.
GaussRiemannGrossmannHilbert


Einstein in 1916

But the phrase "Einstein's spacetime" is entirely appropriate. No theory of comparable significance before or since is more nearly due to the struggle of a single scientist. At the end of 1915 Einstein wrote to a friend that he had succeeded at last, and that he was "content but rather worn out".

Relational or Absolute?

In 1918, Einstein described Mach's principle as a philosophical pillar of general relativity, along with the physical principle of equivalence and the mathematical pillar of general covariance. This characterization is now widely regarded as wishful thinking. Einstein was undoubtedly inspired by Mach's relational views, and he hoped that his new theory of gravitation would "secure the relativization of inertia" by binding spacetime so tightly to matter that one could not exist without the other. In fact, however, the equations of general relativity are perfectly consistent with spacetimes that contain no matter at all. Flat (Minkowski) spacetime is a trivial example, but empty spacetime can also be curved, as demonstrated by Willem de Sitter in 1916. There are even spacetimes whose distant reaches rotate endlessly around the sky relative to an observer's local inertial frame (as discovered by Kurt Gödel in 1949). The bare existence of such solutions in Einstein's theory shows that it cannot be Machian in the strict sense; matter and spacetime remain logically independent. The term "general relativity" is thus something of a misnomer, as pointed out by Hermann Minkowski and others. The theory does not make spacetime more relative than it was in special relativity. Just the opposite is true: the absolute space and time of Newton are retained. They are merely amalgamated and endowed with a more flexible mathematical skeleton (the metric tensor).


Nevertheless, Einstein's theory of gravity represents a major swing back toward the relational view of space and time, in that it answers the objection of the ancient Stoics. Space and time do act on matter, by guiding the way it moves. And matter does act back on spacetime, by producing the curvature that we feel as gravity. Beyond that, matter can act on spacetime in a manner that is very much in the spirit of Mach's principle. Calculations by Hans Thirring (1888-1979), Josef Lense (1890-1985) and others have shown that a large rotating mass will "drag" an observer's inertial reference frame around with it. This is the phenomenon of frame-dragging, whose existence Gravity Probe B is designed to detect. The same calculations suggest that, if the entire contents of the universe were to rotate, our local inertial frame would undergo "perfect dragging" — that is, we would not notice it, because we would be rotating too! In that sense, general relativity is indeed nearly as relational as Mach might have wished. Some physicists (such as Julian Barbour) have gone further and asserted that general relativity is in fact perfectly Machian. If one goes beyond classical physics and into modern quantum field theory, then questions of absolute versus relational spacetime are rendered anachronistic by the fact that even "empty space" is populated by matter in the form of virtual particles, zero-point fields and more. Within the context of Einstein's universe, however, the majority view is perhaps best summed up as follows:
Spacetime behaves relationally but exists absolutely.
James Overduin, November 2007


http://www.toequest.com/forum/toetheory-articles/2516-total-field-theory-reinstatement-cosmological-constant-steady-state-theories.html

[RascalPuff]

Re: The Stubborn Fantasy of "No Space, Time or Motion".

Originally Posted by spacedout
The past does exist, but we are not part of it. We live in a time-line in which the last step leads to the choice in the next step. Two steps cannot occur at the same time and it seems each cycle is moved up one step in time and follows a plus or minus x,y,z finite path that recycles. Everything exists at once we are a flowing identity in linear time-line. The past still exists and is alive as an other identity. the past still exists and always will we just moved through it.

Consider the first and last sentences of the above paragraph. They are non-sequiturial; that is, they appear to contradict each other. Whereas, contrary to the opening sentence of the above paragraph ('The past does exist, but we are not part of it'), we are - categorically - the sum total of our Past experiences, culiminating to the Present; the condition of which Present directly determines our/the Future.

Much of the contentious content in responses to this article and thread, are based on solipsism, which, until further notice (and in accordance with Webster's dictionary) is a philosophically founded mental state (consciousness), not necessarily applicable to the existential universe at all. The already included post is repeated here (solipsist advocates need not apply):

'Is There Really Time?' What is Time? What is space. What is motion?'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of whether or not anything or consideration really exists is an endemically popular tonic. ('Maybe we're a hallucination. Maybe everything is nothing'. Refer 'solipsism'.)

A lot of seriously proffered equivocation occurs in glib denouncements of the existence of anything, particularly with regard to whatever spatial issue of 'truth': space and/or time.

As though Plato was not a student of Socrates, and that each and both of them did not long ago put to rest, the rasberry dispirited vanity of such allegedly 'unanswerable questions & unresolvable riddles'.

The Western Civilization marked discarding of 'reality' has long been a (an alleged Eastern Civilization inspired) ploy for those who avert the responsibility of recognizing and acknowledging it.
Euclidiean and Pythagorean geometry and pi r as well as E= MC squared would and do exist in fact, with or without anthropomorphic existence or realization. The physical universe is as indifferent to humanity as the mathematics and philosophy that irrevocably and eternally prove 'truth', whether or not idle individuals deign to acknowledge such realities - such eternal trutns - or not...

THE MYTHOLOGY OF ARBITRARY SPACE & TIME:
The present standard of measurement for space is said to have been determined by a King who extended his arm and hand and pronounced that the distance between the tip of his nose to the end of his index finger would henceforth be the definitional standard, now called a 'yard'.
Divisible into three feet. Each foot divisible into 12 inches, each inch divisible into innumerable sub-divisions... (Re: 'Xeno's Paradox')

This (unarguably) capricious determination of the value of space, unfortunately brought about a misunderstanding that the existence and/or value of time is likewise arbitrary (a 'human invention') - just as the - above described - value of space was determined by arbitrary means.

(People did not invent motion, space or time. Words for those conditions, yes, but, not the existential conditions themselves.)

Whereas, space - what we have only recently learned to be inseparable from time (Yes. Minkowski was right - contrary to a popular - 'New Age' - school of thought saying otherwise); philologically evolving from 'space and time', to 'space-time', would still in fact exist, whether humans existed, to observe, measure or ambivalently standardize it or not (There are arguments that there is no universe before a given person arrives here and there will be no universe when such an argumentive person leaves. Such contentions are bonkers of course).

The formal definition of time is synonymous with motion, and conversely.
Motion occurs in space; within which space-time is the interval between two or more events. The reason Einstein modified Newtonian Classic Mechanical translation of 'Time and Space', to the Relativistic expression of space-time.

Repeat: There cannot be time without space, and conversely - much as there is no magnetism without electricity, or electricity without magnetism: therefore equals electromagnetism. (Monopoles - electricity or magnetism independent of <non concurrent with> the other, have yet to be found or proven. The same is true of 'particles', 'black holes', the 'big bang theory', and bastardized thermodynamic interpretations lurching to the myth of an 'inevitable', 'universal entropic heat death'...)

As previously reviewed:
Terrestrial time standards (as a down-to-earth - relatively local - example) are based on astronomical motions of the planet(s) through space around the sun.
A planetary year equals its completion of a 360 degree arc - round trip - about the sun (Which, itself is traveling at some 256 miles per second, bound toward Vega).
An earth month of 30 days is 1/12th of a year.
A week is 1/4th of that month.
A day is 1/7th of that week.
An hour is 1/24th of a day.
A minute is 1/60th of an hour.
A second is 1/60th of a minute...
Consequently, a second of time - for unavoidable example - is also 18 1/2 miles of space: traveled by the earth, in its annual orbit around the sun. (There are those who would and do argue that there's no such thing as 'speed', or, 'a mile per hour' - these are included among the philosophically floundering misanthropes at issue here...)

A 24 hour day is based on the rotational motion of the earth on it's own axis. The circumference of the earth is just over 24,000 miles; that is how fast the earth is spinning - per hour. Proving very simply and elegantly that space, time and motion are synonymous - no singular facet of this triangular consideration existing without the 'other two'...
Time has come today from the past to the present and future. ABC, Moments 1, 2, 3; etceteras, squared...
Einstein's 'Non-Absolute Relativistic 4-D space-time.'
What it is:
Time, furthermore, in a physically expanding universe of 4 dimensions, is shorter and faster in smaller, past (microcosmic) spaces. and, slower (dilated) in future (macrocosmic) larger spaces; when compared to present time at any given moment of an observer in the eternal present: exactly between small-fast-space and large-slow-space.

In a 4-dimensional (physically expanding universe) a *square mile is not the same spatial size, when compared with itself; from the present: relative to (smaller, more dense) past or (larger, less dense) future 4-D expanding physical matter, and (causing the observed - non 'big bang' initiated expansion of space - Hubbles expanding, 'red shift', Universe.)

Neither therefore, is 60 *miles per hour (or 186,282 m.p.s. - the speed of light; '*celeritas constant <* C >) always the same relative speed. Nor is a year, month, week, day, hour or second, always the same comparative duration in the Present ( when compared with itself) in the physically expanding universe's Past or Future.
Proving among other things that the value of time varies with the value of space it occurs in.
Refer (the cause of) relativistic 'time dilation.' And relativistic 'non-absolute time'.
Relatively slow time occurring in relatively larger spaces; relatively fast time occurring in relatively smaller spaces...
The covariant relativity of time values - resulting in 'non-absolute time and space'.
For which, until now, there are not even any failed explanations.
In a 4-D (physically as well as spatially expanding) universe, the value of time and space (4-D space-time) inevitably varies, from coordinate system to coordinate system.

The speed of light for example, is ever-increasing, while remaining constant: relative to the coordinate system in which it originates and from which it is measured.
The value of time being covariant with the smaller and larger - earlier and later - 4-D space-times it occurs and/or is measured in.

http://www.toequest.com/forum/toetheory-articles/2516-total-field-theory-reinstatement-cosmological-constant-steady-state-theories.html

[jag]

Thank you Kai for the opportunity to throw my two cents in.

The reason QM doesn't work in our minds (in our minds only) is because we are looking at it backward in time. When we look out into the universe we are still looking back, but, we can easily see an example of how QM would look if seen from a 4D perspective...it seems that science is stuck trying to move from 3D to 4D on the QM side.

Start at 4D and think forward to 3D. Gravity becomes an impelling force.

Do this simple thought experiment...imagine you are in the 4th dimension (QM) looking forward in time and watching gravity become the third dimension, instead of the other way around (trying to imagine gravity moving out, (a repelling force), moving the 3rd dimension stuff, unwinding the 3rd dimension and moving it to the 4th dimension.)

The 4th dimension is creating and maintaining the 3rd dimension right now and that is my perception of the direction of time, so, my thinking is basically the same as yours but relative to a different direction of time.

The 4th dimension is the 4th state of matter...solid, liquid, gas and now the 4th state, dark matter...gravity!

The whole big bang thing is a problem for me also, because I see the opposite view point. My time line is moving from infinite to finite. Electromagnetic waves are not generated and radiate out from matter... that would be finite to infinite, instead, the 4D dark matter is collapsing in and exploding into electromagnetic waves and light (maybe similar to exploding stars) as it moves toward the mass, creating and feeding these "disturbed areas...easier to see from over here in the 4th dimension.

"No discourse on the 4th dimension, whether it be physics or science fiction would be complete without directly suggesting that it is unimaginable, or incomprehensible, or, something else, or, someplace else (far out.)"

I think it would be nice to go ahead and assume that we can imagine and comprehend the 4th dimension...but not without a small rewire job. Maybe around a 180 degree shift in time.

Understanding and thinking in the 4th dimension then working up and out from the present toward the future is not hard.

A collapsing universe moving from gravity (the 4th dimension) to disturbed areas, matter (3rd dimension) is like the big bang in the opposite direction in time. 0, 1st, and 2nd dimensions do not exist they are just mathematical ghosts that are used to define all of the other dimensions.

We look backward in time (from QM) and see the 4th dimension as an expansion or repelling force... a big bang...not so, or at least it can be seen from a different perspective. 4D gravity is actually an impelling force if you rewire time and see infinity becoming finite.

There are easy explanations of all events in nature by structure law valid always and everywhere. 4D toward 3D.

"In this, as in other developments of scientific exploration, we must recognize the limitations of our present knowledge and be prepared to consider revolutionary changes." Sir Arthur Eddington (A Treasury of Science)

Respectfully yours,
JAG (aka graybear13)

[RascalPuff]

An Overview of
TOTAL FIELD THEORY
by Austin P. Torney

0. Gravity is the 4th dimension, being ‘time and motion’—the 4-dimensional space-time continuum; for, matter is 4-dimensionally expanding field.

We’ve often wondered how the 2D Flatlanders could not have deduced or taken note of their infinitesimal 3rd dimension of height, but perhaps their brains were not made for this.

Can we humans feel the 4th dimension of expansion in a physical, psychological, or deductive way? Do you feel weighed down—being pulled, or do you feel uplifted—the sensation of being pushed up? You are surfing the 4D wave.


1. Gravity may be a repelling (pushing) force rather than an impelling (pulling) force (Newton), for space is expanding.

Newton could not see how his ‘gravity’ could act instantaneously through a void. Perhaps it doesn’t. Could it be that he arrived at the apple?


2. There is no way to distinguish the effects produced by the inertial force of acceleration (a pushing/repelling force) from the effects produced by the gravitational force( a pulling/impelling force, of unknown identity). (Einstein)

Einstein found it “astonishing” that inertial and gravitational mass values, which are not supposed to have anything to do with each other, are indistinguishable. Why is this so?


3. A field entity (or matter) is that which possesses inertia and occupationally demands 3 dimensions of space. (G.P. Thompson)

The General Theory of Relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field. (Einstein)

‘Particles’ of matter are surfaceless electromagnetic charges without distinct boundaries, that is, 4-Dimensionally accelerating fields.


4. Field entities spread indefinitely. (J.W.N. Sullivan)

Yesterday's square mile is much smaller and more dense than today's, and today's is much smaller and more dense than tomorrow's; squared. Should we divest our real estate?


5. Matter contracts in the direction of its motion increasingly proportional to its velocity. (Doppler, Lorentz)

Thus, matter is a 4-dimensionally expanding field. What is there to contain it? (For it is the only ‘it’.)


6. Matter, an electrical charge of energy, becomes increasingly more dense toward its center. (Maxwell)

Is matter just a density of energy, one that gives a solid feel?


7. Action-at-a-distance, such as tidal effects and the orbiting of planets and moons are motivated by the 5th & 6th Dimensions of electricity and magnetism, respectively, an expanding electromagnetic field. (Maxwell)

Electricity moves at right angles (perpendicular) out of 4-D matter, and magnetism moves at right angles out of 5-D electricity, as dimensions do. What is the 7th?


8. The cosmological constant repelling force of Lambda opposes the impelling force of gravity. (Einstein)

A cosmic balancing act?


9. The geodesic: The baseball player—and the ground—rises up to overtake and catch the popped up baseball.

Recall the old Irish saying, “May the road rise to meet you”—and don’t drink and walk at the same time.


10. Objects on or near earth descend at the same rate of acceleration because gravity is the 4th dimension and so the earth expands (rises) to meet them.

This is an amazing clue dropped from the Tower of Pisa by Mother Nature. We hear a thud and a clink as the cannon ball and the marble hit the ground at the same time, beside us.


11. E = MCC shows that matter is expanding. (Einstein)

And does it ever at that rate! We are going 4D places in a hurry!


12. Time is shorter and faster in smaller, past spaces and slower in larger, future spaces, when compared to the present time, since space is expanding.

Time approaches the timeless as we look back into it, while ahead of us, we’ll have all the time in the world!


13. There is no common center from which the spatially expanding universe recedes, for recessioning object are moving away from all points of observation. This is a 4-dimensional signature, the autograph of our universe.

The Big Bang theory of an explosion from one singular point is wrong. The expansion is everywhere.


(RP, change as you will—I don't know if I interpreted everything correctly.)

[Bogie]

I couldn't agree more about the state of theoretical physics. A consensus doesn't mean much. We always want to know the details and so far as I know, the details don't ever add up to a complete picture.

There are of course a few exceptions and your book on Total Field Theory is one. I took my time reading it and I fully enjoyed it (even begged for a hard copy, signed :) as I recall). I haven't seen any objections to it that don't just state different theoretical physics and most of those don't ever reveal a complete cosmology like TFT does. Thank you for doing it.