Special effects by Austin P. Torney
1.00 file(s) attached (6.47 MB): View All
For a double large image after you click View All on this document, click on 'Full Screen' for a full instead of half screen. The right and left arrows at the bottom of each page are clicked on to turn the pages of the book.
(Most of the illustrations were hacked out of the below text.)
.
TOTAL FIELD THEORY
Reinstatement of the Abandoned Cosmological Constant & Unified (Steady State) Field Theory. The New Gravity
* Copyright © December 1999 (*Previous copyrights 1959, '60, '66, '70, '79 '85 & '88.) * By Kent B. Robertson.
Published by Great Continental Eurasian Green Grass RiverDragon Productions Unlimited
*******************
A proposed resolution to an ongoing 4-dimensional space-time gridlock. © By K. B. Robertson.
__________________________________________________ __________
formerly entitled:
The New Gravity,
Gravity Is The 4th Dimension
Extraterrestrial Physics 101
Copyright © 1959, '60, '66, '70, '79, '85, '99, 2005 & 2006 by *K B Robertson
(* Aka, the White Mongol, That Rascal Puff, etceteras. All rights reserved. With acknowledgement, may be reproduced for educational and non-commercial purposes.)
(Please Note: Work In Progress. Gravity is the 4-D space-time continuum. By popular request of distinguished readers, the introductory material to this anthological and narrative work has been abbreviated to accommodate an easier beginning - toward a remarkably comprehensive and unprecedented understanding of post graduate information in later segments of this non-mathematical approach to theoretical physics in general, and Einstein's work in particular - the two considerations of which are inseparable. For the most part, the math in this subject is already history, what remains to be translated is the comprehensive meaning of the existing documentary references and math. It is the objective of this work to present a tenable non-mathematical interpretation, which, the reader will note, is all based on the same self-revealing premise.)
Since 1959, the work has been small press printed, internationally distributed and sold out of print in ten hard copy editions of essays and books. This is a publicly accessible presentation, posted for the sole purpose of enjoyment and education, with an invitation to whomever may care to correct, corroborate or otherwise comment upon.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Chapter One
FROM NEWTON TO EINSTEIN
The Gravitational Alternative
Chapter Two
THE 4-DIMENSIONAL REPRISE
Chapter Three
“OBVIOUSLY MATTER IS NOT EXPANDING”
Chapter Four
FINDING THE 5th & 6th DIMENSIONS
Chapter Five
MAXWELL’S ACTION AT A DISTANCE, LAMBDA,
& NON ABSOLUTE SPACE-TIME DILATION
Chapter Six
THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT & GEODESICS
Chapter Seven
THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE, INERTIA, GRAVITY & E=MC2
Chapter Eight
THE BIG BANG IS WRONG
THE SIGHT AND SOUND OF THE ‘INCOMPREHENSIBLE’ 4TH DIMENSION
Chapter Nine
REINSTATEMENT OF THE STEADY STATE & UNIFIED FIELD THEORIES
Chapter Ten
THE DIVISORY DILEMMA OF LARGE & SMALL FORCES
Chapter Eleven
QUANTUM MECHANICS RECONSIDERED
FROM 4-D PARTICLE TO 5 & 6-D FIELD Part I
Chapter Twelve
QUANTUM MECHANICS RECONSIDERED
FROM 4-D PARTICLE TO 5 & 6-D FIELD Part II
Chapter Thirteen
QUANTUM WAVE & FIELD MECHANICS
Chapter Fourteen
AUXILIARY INFORMATION
EPILOGUE Part I
Chapter Fifteen
EPILOGUE Part II
Chapter Sixteen
AFTERWARD
Chapter Seventeen
AFTERWARD Part II
Chapter Eighteen
AFTERWARD Part III
Chapter Nineteen
AFTERWARD Part IV
Chapter Twenty
ART, PROSE & POETRY OF THE 4-D SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM
**************************
INTRODUCTION
4-D accelerating expansion to macrocosmic infinity.
Copyright 1968 by Masao Komura. Special Effects Copyright 2007 by Austin P. Torney An ensemble of systems. A Hierarchy of multi-moment 4-D space-time surfaces. - K.B.R.
("We cannot visualize such a curved space, because humanity is not 4-dimensional" - Time-Life Science Series, p. 172) -------------------------- General -
Article illustrations disappeared (46 views)
Subscribe From:
Kai (Kaiduorkhon) 
Nov-27 12:34 pm To:
ALL (1 of 2)
14288.1 Dear Biblinski:
After writing the following letter, I was sent a series of alternative form letters for troubleshooting the problem. None of the suggested courses of action had any effect on the recovery of the subjected, missing lllustrations...
----------------------------------
kraziequus@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dear Photobucket staff:
> After using your services to transform email to a usable form, all of the
> images of an 'unrelated' article I have posted in Theory of Everything
> vanished, replaced by a large print message "Temporarily
> Unavailable". When I click on the first missing space, I am accessed to
> Photobucket, where I clicked on 'Help' and was instructed that If I logged in,
> the images would return. I followed the re log in instructions and the missing
> images did not return. The URL to the issued Theory of Everything 'Article'
> (it is a large book, with many missing illustrations) is:
>
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toetheory-articles/2516-total-field-theory-reinstatement-cosmological-constant-steady-state-theories.html
> I respectfully request that the missing images be returned to the provided
> URL.
> Sincerely, Kaiduorkhon
>
> username: Kaiduorkhon
> email:
kraziequus@yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------
Respectfully requesting your advise and instruction in this quandary, I am sincerely,
- Kaiduorkhon (aka, RascalPuff - K. B. Robertson)
Gordie
Delphi Forums staff
Options
------------------------------
Dear Webshots staff:
After using a free photobucket service to transmit 3 C.I.A. declassification documents
to my computer, all of the illustrations disappeared from four books and essays I have
posted on several different forums on the net. Back up illustrations are not displacing
the 'Temporarily Unavailable' blanks that now occupy the space the subjected missing
illustrations used to be.
I have been advised by your affiliate (photoshots - 'Robert', at 1-800-746-8696), that in
order to speak to you on the phone I am required to buy a 'Premium' account. I have
been repeatedly asked if I 'uploaded' anything to you or 'photo-shots', whereas, I have
not uploaded any information, neither have I done any business whatsover with
webshots or photoshots, nor do I have any intention of buying a 'Premium' account so
that I may talk to you on the phone about this unexpected, uncalled for imbroglio.
Your affiliate at photoshots says that you have my illustrations 'stored'. I request that
they be replaced by the same means that they were initially displaced.
All of this impostion on my posted books and essays (disappearance of the
illustrations therein) originated with a free photobucket transmission of the
described (3) documents. I do not have any use for the offered services that have
since then been brought to my attention, tantamount to requiring me to pay for your
services.
I respecfully request that all of the missing illustrations be returned to
their proper places on my websites, at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
K. B. Robertson (aka Kaiduorkhone/Kaidu41).
TOTAL FIELD THEORY - No Space Empty Of Field.
(The statement 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension', includes time & motion)
The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field (Steady State) Theory.
by K. B. Robertson
"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended." - Einstein
"There is no space empty of field." - Einstein
"In his novel, THE SEARCH, C.P. Snow describes the reaction of a student in class on hearing the physics professor say he is not sure whether some of of the subject matter in the course is right. This indication of disagreement of those inside physics comes as a surprise to the student; he has heard of past scientific controversies, but the current science which he is studying seemed to lack them altogether, as if scientist-authorities backed it up by unanimous vote. 'Science', writes Snow, 'had seemed to be without people or contradictions.'
"The knowledge that physics is not as unanimous or bloodless as it may appear from the outside came as a surprise to me also. I wanted to know more..."
- Barbara Lovett Cline, THE MEN WHO MADE A NEW PHYSICS, Preface
Speaking at the 2005 Solvay conference David Gross (Nobel laureate) said:
"We are in a period of utter confusion...These equations tell us nothing about where space and time come from and describe nothing we would recognise. At best, string theory depicts the way particles might interact in a collection of hypothetical universes...we are missing something fundamental."
Exerpts from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas S. Kuhn, from paragraph 1:
"Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".
"In the history of physical science, no published and allegedly 'recognized and acknowledged' scientific theory has been so misinterpreted, and consequently so misunderstood and underestimated as the Special and General Theories of Relativity (1905 - 1916) by Albert Einstein." - Kent B. Robertson (KBR)
...........................
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 Stephen Halfon, Ph.D., Philosophy (*Nassau University), Brooklyn, New York. (*1977 - 2007)
"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'. Overwhelming. 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 proved 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 informal narrative is a social liberation. The conservative 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 fifty years 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 space-time 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
"KBR, I have read all of your posts and the entire many posts on the cosmological constant. I agree, much of what you have written, is how I also see one interpretation of Einstein's thinking. You have probably described most of it better than anyone before you, including Einstein himself, yet you have offered little new, to someone like myself, who long ago figured out Einstein's thinking, most the same as you."
- Lloyd Gillespie, THEORY OF EVERYTHING Forum, 2007
'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
________________________
From: Associate Professor BenTheMan To RascalPuff, 4/18/07
Rascal ---
It is not clear to me that you have done anything but quote outdated references.
And, to be clear, Newton NEVER based ANYTHING on a graviton. One of the biggest problems Newton had with his own work was that he had no idea concerning what gravity actually WAS.
Sometimes you eat the bahr, and, well, sometimes he eats you. ---Anon
From RascalPuff to BenTheMan:
Dear BenTheMan:
The point of the 'outdated' references is they're retrieved from the trashcan and being put back on the slate. The increasingly desperate big bangers are plundering key features of what was previously abandoned; while continuing on with their bankrupt (originally presented) 'big bang' , which now only vaguely resembles it's initial inception and presentation.
Enter (collectively) in google: Cosmological Constant Lambda Expanding universe big bang acceleration red shift dark energy Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker.
Enter in google: 'Einstein was right after all - maybe'.
I am fully aware of :
'The idea that matter can act at a distance across space to influence other matter is to me so great an absurdity that no man with a competent facility for thinking could ever fall into it'. - Newton, Paraphrased.
The animus mundi.
A complete mystery to Newton, who repeatedly, deliberately and emphatically clarified that 'gravity' was a complete mystery to him.
It is clear that your only respite is the statement of the obvious that you've extended. Thank you for your seasoned views.
-------------
"There was a young lady named Bright. Who moved much faster than light. She departed one day, in a relative way, and returned on the previous night." - Eric Buller, 1923
*******************
San Francisco City College, Small Theater Auditorium.
Greenpeace Benefit
(Expanded edition)
* * * * * * * * *
October 1976
"Not long ago I was kindly admonished that the subject of this evenings' discussion - which is Einstein's 4-Dimensional Space-Time Continuum - is far too technically specialized and complicated for the majority of most otherwise knowledgeable persons. That, if I ever attempted to lecture it to an open audience, any such attempt would inevitably fail and moreover, quite possibly bore people to sleep. Such talk does not discourage me however; permit me to tell you why.
There's bound to be a few people here tonight, who need to catch up on some sleep. Of the few well intended critics who have made these heavy lidded predictions, none have read my book or attended my lectures. It's their jobs they sleep on. Such relaxed and yawning, recreationally preoccupied forecasts faithfully represent the fashionable response to any proposal that the 4-D space-time continuum can be identified or substantially communicated: without mathematics. Like gravity, the 4th Dimension is formally assigned to non-mathematical incomprehensibility. Hence, any suggestion that the fourth dimension is non-mathematically approachable is immediately evaluated by the knowing as the mark of a rank scientific novice. Someone who does not know enough mathematics to understand that the 4th dimension is comprehensively accessible, only to those who do (know enough mathematics). These foregone determinations stem from the fact that there is not even the slightest history of any unsuccessful attempts to non-mathematically identify the 4th Dimension - let alone any successful one. No such accomplishments are anticipated.
The 4th Dimension is correctly equated with time and motion, while formally and consistently relegated to be non-mathematically incomprehensible and even unimaginable. An abstraction on the face of a speculative wrist watch - in those 3-dimensionally timeless words (George Gamow, GRAVITY)...
The reason why none of my somnambulant critics - most of them confidentially vanquished physicists and/or Big Bang advocates- (explosive beginners and entropic enders) have troubled themselves with reading or attending my lectures. Hopefully, this accounts for all of the more serious and important matters; so that we may address ourselves, if you will, to all of this allegory insensibility, idle chatter, inane scrawl and/or ranting bombast about gravity being the 4th Dimension.
Gravity Is The 4th Dimension
"That is an unprecedented statement. The only thing gravity and the 4th Dimension are presently recognized to have in common as far as academic physics is concerned, is what is not known about them. Specifically: neither gravity nor the 4th Dimension has ever been non mathematically identified. It is acknowledged that they exist, it is mathematically and elaborately described what they do, but it is not and it has never been comprehended what they are.
On the other hand, it is my intention to generate and popularize only one particularly prominent and inevitable question around the unprecedented statement that Gravity Is The 4th Dimension, and that question is:
Didn't we know that before? And, if not: why not?
If the statement, 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension' is incorrect, why has it never been disqualified? No one is being asked, neither of course is anyone obliged to accept or believe that gravity is the 4th Dimension. When any one at any time finds this statement seriously credible it is not because I said so, or due to the introduction of a lot of new or ponderous ideas.
The statement is found credible when it is revealed and recognized as the inevitable and quite overwhelming import of a wealth of simple, fundamental and familiar facts. Well known but hitherto unrelated facts, which, when related, reveal quite unexpected but equally unavoidable, imminent and overdue; still remarkably unrecognized (and as we shall see, stubbornly and apocryphally denied) conclusions.
Terra Incognita, revisited and Re-Cognized
(Here be unslayable Old World dragons):
As a place to start, I will cite three facts; the first of which is an excerpt concerning gravity, which is extracted verbatim from the 2nd and 3rd pages of Isaac Newton's three page (non-mathematical) Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.
Then, we will review Albert Einstein's' definition of gravity from his GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY.
Thirdly, we will review the mathematical-geometric definition of dimensions, to determine if and how the definition for physical dimensions relates to Einstein's' renowned 4th Dimension. We will summarily consider if and how the 4th Dimension relates to what Newton and Einstein have independently and formally offered, in the PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA and the GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY respectively, as their two centuries divided considerations of the identity of gravity. Respectfully submitted here, that if you will simply permit presentation of the above subjects, the non-mathematical identity of gravity, and the non-mathematical identity of the 4th Dimension, will be revealed and proven to fulfill the engagement, comprehension and agreement of 85% or more of the intellectual facilities present here this evening. I submit furthermore that this proof will self-explicitly and irrevocably include the statements:
GRAVITY IS THE 4TH DIMENSION. ELECTRICITY IS THE 5th DIMENSION. MAGNETISM IS THE 6th DIMENSION. Proceeding from there, to find the Big Bang Theory an assemblage of pilfered principles alleged to be abandoned and of no further use to the advancement of science.
Finally, I respectfully submit that the unfolding all of the above proposals will be accomplished in the next approximately seventy minutes (discourse time actual) or less (This dissertation is amplified from the original presentation).
The forthcoming excerpt from Newton's Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA is precluded here with the clarification that, even today, gravity is colloquially thought-of and popularly accepted definitively as a pulling force of attraction; originating at the centers of individual material objects (particles - charges; systems of same); the force of which increases proportionately with increasing mass values. This definition has always been a categorical presumption applied to the unknown identity of gravity, for the sake of convenience and for apparent lack of any other alternative definition.
Newton himself, understandably had difficulty accepting the existence of an 'invisible force' which he describes as 'occult', having the power to move apples and planets. Above all, he (very specifically) found - proved - the large force of the orbiting moon directly linked to the same mysterious force applying to the apple's inspiration for falling, above and upon the earth's surface. The aquatic, atomospheric and terrestrial tides. The planets orbiting the sun.
It was formerly thought that gravitational forces acting on earth were much different than forces acting elsewhere in the larger realm of solar system and universe. Newton, established for the first time, that it - the universal realms of the large and small - is all connected by a singular, commonly acting, unidentified invisible force. That is the gist of Newton's proven discovery - the proven extrapolation of the same force that causes relatively miniscule apples to fall, also causing the orbiting of the relatively enormous planets.
('The thump of a great apple in the stillness of a crisp October morn. Motivated only by the mere necessity of perfect ripeness.' - Hawthorne.)
Newton, finally acknowledged the conditional existence of gravity; only because his own newly invented calculus confirmed that, indeed the same force that motivationally generates falling apples, does likewise generate and sustain the orbits of planets. Yet, as we are about to be reminded, Newton took great care to point out that he did not know or purport to know the identity of gravity, and that his mathematical address to gravity is not concerned with or dependent upon its causal identity, or, its direction...
Newton’s thoughts on ‘the occult (pre ‘Field Physics' recognized) force (Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Field, omnidirectionally projecting <in the pattern of a spider-web> at light speed out of all material entities)’:
“It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact. “And this is one reason why I desired that you would not ascribe inanimate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter , so that one body may act upon another, at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty for thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.” - Isaac Newton, On Gravity.
As we shall see, the popular term 'Newtonian concept of attraction (a pulling force)', as applied to gravity, was never unconditionally endorsed by Newton. The concept of gravity as 'a pulling force of attraction' remains a speculative though understandably popular term, coined by Newton's beneficiaries. All of this is to say that the conceptualization of gravity as any sort of pulling force of attraction was not Newton's resolute conceptual or by any means exclusive definition of gravity. Allow the derivation of this last statement to be further qualified:
I wish to cite at this time what is to say the least, a most interesting alternative concept concerning the identity of (what Newton was always careful to call 'universal') gravity. An otherwise completely ignored statement which might even be correctly categorized as 'obscure', or 'inconsequential'. Were it not for the fact that this statement is made by Sir Isaac Newton. And, were it not for the fact that this statement is included in the very (3 page, non-mathematical) Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
From: Gordie (BIBLINSKI) 
1:05 am To: Kai (Kaiduorkhon) (2 of 2) 14288.2 in reply to 14288.1 The images that have been replaced by Temporarily Unavailable are sourced at webshots.com, not Photobucket. You'll need to contact webshots.com about restoring the use of those images.
Gordie
Delphi Forums staff
Options
------------------------------
Dear Webshots staff:
After using a free photobucket service to transmit 3 C.I.A. declassification documents
to my computer, all of the illustrations disappeared from four books and essays I have
posted on several different forums on the net. Back up illustrations are not displacing
the 'Temporarily Unavailable' blanks that now occupy the space the subjected missing
illustrations used to be.
I have been advised by your affiliate (photoshots - 'Robert', at 1-800-746-8696), that in
order to speak to you on the phone I am required to buy a 'Premium' account. I have
been repeatedly asked if I 'uploaded' anything to you or 'photo-shots', whereas, I have
not uploaded any information, neither have I done any business whatsover with
webshots or photoshots, nor do I have any intention of buying a 'Premium' account so
that I may talk to you on the phone about this unexpected, uncalled for imbroglio.
Your affiliate at photoshots says that you have my illustrations 'stored'. I request that
they be replaced by the same means that they were initially displaced.
All of this impostion on my posted books and essays (disappearance of the
illustrations therein) originated with a free photobucket transmission of the
described (3) documents. I do not have any use for the offered services that have
since then been brought to my attention, tantamount to requiring me to pay for your
services.
I respecfully request that all of the missing illustrations be returned to
their proper places on my websites, at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
K. B. Robertson (aka Kaiduorkhone/Kaidu41).
From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting planets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following statement about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of planets & apples, quote:
Last sentence of first paragraph, verbatim, translated to English from the Latin:
“For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain."
That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact. I repeat the quote (of particles and systems-of-particles: of matter), 'are either mutually impelled towards each other and cohere in regular figures (orbits; juxtapositions), or, are mutually repelled and recede from each other .'
It implies directly and categorically, that gravity may in fact be the opposite of the universally considered impelling or 'pulling force of attraction'; that is to say, Isaac Newton and his formal definitions, directly and resolutely suggest that gravity may in fact be a repelling or pushing force.
It is difficult to over dramatize the very existence of this statement, its author, and especially its contextual implications. It categorically allows that everything Newton mathematically confirms and describes in The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA - from orbiting planets, falling apples, aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric tides - all the large and small phenomena of gravity - is caused by one of two kinds of forces: the conventionally considered impelling or pulling force of attraction, or, its exact opposite, a repelling/ pushing force. That is fact #1.
Fact #1 evokes at least one question: Allowing possible advantage in Newton's Gravitational Alternative that gravity may in fact be a repelling (pushing) force rather than an impelling (pulling) force, how might any such advantage be experienced and applied? That question and its derivation might still be deemed obscure and inconsequential, if its direct unequivocal answer did not exist, most profoundly, at the heart-foundation of the latest and most advanced generalized theory of gravity in the history of Physical Science. That being Albert Einstein's GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.
In the first quarter of this century, Albert Einstein, in observing the already well known inversely proportional equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values (which will be explained, shortly), described this equivalence as: 'an astonishing coincidence', and then applied the cause of his astonishment to the monumental task of formulating an unprecedented theoretical generalization concerning the identity of gravity. That, being none other than the General Principle Of Relativity; which principle is quite literally the foundation upon which rests Einstein's entire General Theory of Relativity. The most advanced statement about gravity, to date.
The General Principle is also misnomered as the 'Equivalence Hypothesis', or, more appropriately, 'The Principle Of Equivalence', which states: 'There is no way to distinguish the effects produced by the inertial force of acceleration (a pushing/repelling force) from the effects produced by gravitational force (assumed to be a 'pulling/impelling force: identity unknown').
For those already familiar with the General Principle of Relativity that is clear enough. But, to the uninitiated it may sound a bit complicated. Fortunately, there is a simple and excellent demonstration which clarifies the import of this statement. The explanation originally used by Einstein to point out the meaning and implications of the GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY, is since then often utilized by relativist writers and physicists for the same reason. The explanation spoken of here is popularly termed 'the elevator analogy'.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
---------------------------------
Dear Dennis R.
Webshot Support Representative
http://www.webshot.com
I have not 'uploaded' any illustrations or photos to you, or 'photoshots'. Upon doing 'free' business with photobucket, I find that my full length book and essay sites have been raided and deleted of their illustrations. I want them returned. I do not wish to run any gauntlets from photoshots to webshots to retrieve what webshots pilfered from me. Thousands of people are being deprived of my hand drawn and professionally enhanced illustrations that you have 'stored'. Are you extorting me to do business with you sir? Holding my illustrations as ransom? (Note: Webshots requires the purchase of a Premium account before they will talk to you on the phone; though you may talk to their fractious affiliates at photoshots.com listed ph. # 1-800-746-8696.)
Webshots: A.G. Interactive Inc. One American Road, Cleaveland Ohio 44144
Better Business Bureau Foundation, 1169 Dublin Road, Columbus, Ohio 43215
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 80 E. Broad St. 17th Flr. Columbus, Ohio 43215
-------------------------------------
Drawing 1 Illustrations A, B:
An elevator car is depicted as falling down the shaft of a very high building after having parted its restraining cables. A group of human passengers perform experiments. They hold out objects and release their grip on them - the objects (cannonballs, bb-shots, pound of butter, wristwatch, etc.) remain suspended in midair; they do not accelerate downward. Because, all of the released objects are falling within and along-with the elevator and its passengers at 32 ft. per-second-per-second (16 ft per second, squared); in accordance with Newton's laws of gravitation (on or of, earth).
The observers in the elevator are unaware of their predicament. They understand and explain the suspension of objects and themselves in mid-air, by presuming they are outside the gravitational influence of the earth, and logically conclude that they are 'free-floating' in deep outer space where there is no significantly measurable force of gravity at all (a *macrocosmic weak force - the opposite of *microcosmic strong nuclear binding force; * generally misperceived as being unrelated; two different kinds of forces. The record proves they are qualitatively the same force, quantitatively occurring in two different - large and small/ tenuously thin and densely compacted - places/coordinate systems)...
Refer Illustration A
It is an apparently sensible conclusion - that they are in a coordinate system which is free-floating in deep space. In leaping from the floor, they float smoothly toward the ceiling with a velocity directly proportional to the vigor of their individual leaps. If/when they push a suspended/floating object in any direction, that object continues to move in a straight line with uniform velocity, until it strikes the wall of the elevator car. Galileo's and Newton's Laws Of Inertia prevail exclusive of gravity, and are obeyed.
Newton's Laws of Gravity are pointless to consider in the elevator at this time. Because there are no significantly measurable gravitational effects in it, to influence its passengers and their experiments. The environment of the interior elevator is therefore purely and exclusively an inertial system, destitute of gravity and gravitational effects.
THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE OBSERVERS INSIDE THE ELEVATOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE FALLING IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD (as they actually are), OR SIMPLY 'FREE-FLOATING' IN THE VOID OF DEEP SPACE, FREE OF ANY GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER.
Then Einstein alters the situation of the elevator and its passengers. (Refer Illustration B) This time the experimenting passengers are still in the elevator, but they actually are in the void of deep space, far away from any appreciable gravitational influence. A cable is attached to the roof of the elevator car and an arbitrary force winches-in the cable at 32 feet per-second squared (the descent rate of free falling objects on earth). The elevator is therefore accelerating 'upward' through space (any direction in which the elevator car happens to be pulled by the cable, is 'upward' relative to the passengers within it). Again, the observers within the elevator have no idea where they are, and again they evaluate their situation by performing experiments. Their feet now rest firmly on the floor; they now have their 'normal' (as experienced on earth) body weight to support. Confirmed by scaled weight measurement. (The observers are actually measuring and obtaining inert mass values; not realizing they are not measuring gravitational mass values: their coordinate system having found the two values identical under the accelerating circumstances; indistinguishable from each other.
Inertial & Gravitational Mass Values; which are not supposed to have anything to do with each other, are likewise indistinguishable at this *juncture. Which Einstein called *astonishing. The *coincidental confluence of two different methods of measuring and defining mass value; arriving at exactly the same - unrelated coordinates. *A pound of butter offers exactly a pound of resistance to acceleration: when the acceleration exactly - and 'coincidentally' - equals the descent rate of objects in free-fall @ 32' per second squared., on earth.
When the passenger’s in Einstein’s elevator jump, they do not float to the ceiling because the floor is constantly accelerating upward beneath them at the descent-rate for free-falling objects on earth.When the observers and various objects are weighed on a standard scale within the elevator at this time, they all have their 'normal' earth-weight (heavy mass value ). Due to their resistance - generated by physical matter - negative inertia: the tendency of all bodies at rest to remain at rest and offer resistance to outside forces acting upon them, including non-uniform motion. That is to say: inert mass value , opposing the acceleration (non-uniform motion) of the elevator floor.
If the elevator were accelerating at less than 32 ft. per-second, the objects and observers would weigh correspondingly less than their normal earth weight. If the elevator were accelerating at more than 32 ft. per-second, the objects and observers would weigh correspondingly more than their normal earth weight. When the observers in the test elevator release objects from their grip, the objects appear to descend vertically - 'fall'/accelerate-'downward' @ 32 ft. per-second (per second). When objects are tossed or pushed in a horizontal direction, those objects do not move in a straight line in accordance with the laws of inertia; instead the paths of the tossed objects - due to the acceleration of the elevator car - describe a parabolic curve; descending vertically at 32 feet per second squared, relative to the floor; in accordance with the laws of gravitation.
The observers remain unaware that their room is accelerating (ascending ever-faster) through deep space. They understandably conclude from direct experience and experimentation, that they are situated in quite ordinary circumstances in a windowless room on earth, influenced by conventional gravity.
THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE OBSERVERS TO DETERMINE FROM WITHIN THE ELEVATOR (coordinate system) WHETHER THEY ARE AT REST IN THE EARTH'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD; WHERE ALL OBJECTS ARE 'PULLED' DOWNWARD @ 32 ft. per-second BY GRAVITY, or: WHETHER THEY ARE ACCELERATING IN AN INERTIAL SYSTEM (which they are in this case, @ 32 ft. per-second squared): WHERE THERE IS NO GRAVITY WHATSOEVER.
From his imaginative and now renowned 'elevator analogy', Einstein formulated a conclusion of unprecedented theoretical importance; that being: The General Principle Of Relativity: THERE IS NO WAY TO DISTINGUISH THE MOTION PRODUCED BY INERTIAL FORCES (acceleration/ centrifugal and centripetal force), FROM MOTION PRODUCED BY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE. This is the General Principle Of Relativity. Fact #2.
It borders on being a statement of the obvious, but we are about to see that sometimes it isn't so obvious at all. That people in general everywhere, actively refuse to recognize it, altogether. The greatest problem - and the most importantly unrecognized solution - in science, since 1916.
It is particularly noteworthy, because the Classical and Contemporary popular concept of UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION remains, that is to say, continues to be, a 'pulling force of attraction'. Yet, here we find Contemporary Theoretical Physics - specifically Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity - equating gravity with acceleration as - and which is - a 'pushing or repelling force'.
That is to say, in 1686, Newton categorically and formally allowed that gravity 'may be' in fact, a repelling force. Then, in 1916, we have Einstein's General Principle Of Relativity equating gravity with acceleration, which is, once again, a repelling force. What I call: Newton's Gravitational Alternative - and Einstein's General Theory; on the same table. Historically 220 years apart. Lightning struck in the same place. Ominously joined, since the resiliently unrecognized and stubbornly unattended opportunity afforded, in The (Einstein's) General Theory, of 1916.
Isaac's apple in Albert's elevator
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
Again, this elicits a question: If we are to seriously consider gravity as a repelling force, how might it be meaningfully construed as such? That is to say, how do we apply Newton's Gravitational Alternative, combined with Einstein's General Principle, to correspond with the anthropomorphic Gravitational Experience?
We will return to this question and its answer by way of a brief comparative investigation of what relationship if any exists between Einstein's concept of gravity, derived from the General Theory Of Relativity, and Einstein's concept of the 4th Dimension, which is also, as we shall see, more than coincidentally derived from the General Theory Of Relativity.
A brief review the definition of dimensions as applied to the Three recognized Dimensions of Space, follows. Let it be qualified firstly that, in colloquial language, the term 'dimensions' may be correctly applied to any number of descriptions, such as 'dimensions' of music or thought or color for example. But, in physics there is only one definition for dimensions. Which we will reconsider, immediately after the following statement concerning contemporary academic physics and its representative posturing toward the subject of the (Einstein's) allegedly 'acknowledged' *4th Dimension (*of 'time and motion'). Mathematicians and physicists are of the consensus agreement that, when the definition of the 4th Dimension is applied to Reality-At-Large as Einstein proved it is in fact, then one automatically departs the realm of conscious experience and comprehensibility. This is the reason for example, that in one renowned case the reputedly omniscient, ever-present yet conceptually elusive 4th Dimension was professionally referenced as, 'a mathematical abstraction on anyone's wrist-watch'.
This is also the reason the 4th Dimension is a favorite conscript among science fiction writers and metaphysicists. There is unflappable security in speculations and improvisations of a subject, about which there is no recognized non-mathematical comprehension; no recognized absolutes or authorities (when the allegory expert falsely emerges everywhere, waxing of discovery, while claiming his subject is functionally unfindable). A haven for befuddled academic refugees. A jingoistic proving ground that endorses (and/or ambivalently disqualifies) everything and/or anything; according to the needs of the sometimes desperately ignorant, pretentious, scientifically name-saked 'authorities' and historical revisionists. Innocent ignorance is exonerated in this consideration.
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').
Yet, it is agreed that the 4th Dimension is 'time & motion'; somehow integrally combined with the 3 recognized Dimensions of Space; existing always and everywhere. Therefore we need very little imagination or faith in Einstein, to know that we are perpetually witnessing and experiencing the 4th Dimension, in simply being conscious of the reality we are part of; by which we are constantly surrounded. We can correctly go one step further. We can be confident that the 4th Dimension has been, and continues to be overlooked. That is, we can know that some very fundamental constituent or phenomenon of reality - with which we are all familiar, but which has yet to be recognized, is the 4th Dimension. The 4-Dimensional space-time continuum to be exact.
Today's physical scientists tell us that 'the 4th Dimension is time and motion'. They say this because they know Einstein proved it mathematically. But it is not a non-mathematically satisfactory answer; because it does not contribute to any further comprehension of what the 4th Dimension is, relative to The colloquial 3-Dimensional Experience. Time and Motion are measurable and comprehensible in Three Dimensions. Why not in 4? What is it about proven and measured 4-dimensional reality, that has not been recognized? Why has it not been recognized?
[BREAK=Chapter 2]
The mathematical definition for the 4th Dimension is also the geometric definition. In order to consider the geometric definition for the 4th Dimension we will first review the singularly scientific and formal definition for the Three recognized Dimensions of Space. Then we will consider the 4th Dimension's relationship if any, to Einstein's General Principle of Relativity and/or Newton's Gravitational Alternative. ( Illustrations 1 & 2)
The (only known; geometric; metrically spatial) definition for physical dimensions, begins with no dimensions whatsoever - specifically a geometric point. We will call it 'point zero ('0'). Any motion of point '0' will inevitably be at right angles from itself, and, any motion, at any speed, for any length of time, generates a One Dimensional Straight Line 'O' - 'A', of arbitrary length.
It cannot be a curved line yet, because it has no dimension(s) to curve into. It may become a longer or shorter One Dimensional Straight Line, but it cannot change its dimensional quality until it moves at right angles (90 degrees, perpendicular) from itself (again). Then it generates a Two Dimensional Plane 'A'- 'B'. When a Two Dimensional Plane ('A'-'B') moves at right angles to itself (yet a third time), it generates a Space and/or Solid 'B'-'C' of Three Dimensions. (Picture a line-drawn cube; progressively generated from 0 dimensions to 3-Dimensions: by the right angle extrapolation of the geometric point 0, to 0-A, generating a One Dimensional Straight Line <0------->A>. The Straight Line 0-A then moving at right angles to itself, generating A-B Two Dimensional Plane. The Two Dimensional Plane A-B moving at right angles to itself B-C; generating a Three Dimensional Solid, occupied or occupiable-by 3-dimensional matter).
The rule here is the right angle/perpendicular projection of each dimension from out of the preceding dimension. This is how physical dimensions are generated, hence, this is their singular physical and philological definition.
That leaves us here and now with the conceptual-geometric credentials to contemplate the Three recognizable Dimensions of Space occupied - or occupiable - by matter. A familiar enough concept; by-way of its Universal physical-conditional manifestation in the entire reception of physical-sensory, instrumental and therefore psychological-conceptual human experience (at large). Knowing; not speculating, that we are obliged by the laws of geometry, combined with Einstein's (allegedly 'acknowledged') proof that the entire physical Universe is 4-Dimensional: not merely to 'consider', but to find, observe and experience the physical as well as spatial Three Dimensions of Space moving at right angles from themselves. This is not a mere idea, or consideration, or project; it is an ultimatum. THE 4-DIMENSIONAL ULTIMATUM. Because, it demands without ambiguity or equivocation, that the entire recognized physical 3-Dimensional Universe of Space and Matter, must be and is moving at right angles from itself in one of two possible 4-Dimensional directions: that of overall 4-Dimensional contraction, where everything recognizable as 3-Dimensional, is constantly growing smaller (moving at right angles from all three of it's recognized dimensions)...
Or, the direction of overall 4-Dimensional expansion, where everything recognizable as 3-Dimensional, is constantly growing larger (moving at right angles, constantly, to all three of its recognized dimensional coordinates).
Do we see or measure - do we recognize - 3-Dimensional reality as moving at right angles from itself; shrinking ever-smaller with 4-Dimensional contraction, or, growing ever-larger with 4-Dimensional expansion?
The unanimous and seemingly inevitable answer to this (apparently absurd and pointless) question, since Einstein required it, has uniformly been (as will be *documented, shortly), *“No, we do not observe or measure 3-Dimensional reality as 4-Dimensional. Obviously matter is not expanding. If the universe is made up of a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely."
Furthermore, it is uniformly agreed, We cannot measure, comprehend, or even imagine the 4th Dimension; nor will we ever. The 4th Dimension is declared to be non-mathematically incomprehensible; descriptively inaccessible without a mathematically encrypted frame of reference. (Refer, the half dozen mistaken quotes from authorities, at the progression of this book.) The Three recognized Dimensions Of Space must move at right angles from themselves - that is to say, expand, or, contract, in order to fulfill the only definition there is for any geometric or mathematical consideration of - or address to - a physically prevailing 4th Dimension...
by
Of which, in the meantime, prevails ubiquitously: we are abundantly reassured that *Einstein left no doubt (*the dimensionless TIME magazine-appointed, 'Man Of The Century').
Probably safe to presume that some of you who are not snoozing, already have more than a vague idea of what's next, and if so - you're quite right of course. The formula is exactly as simple as it is inescapable. Einstein's GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY equates gravity with acceleration. Einstein's 4th Dimension demands overall right-angle motion of the Three recognized Dimensions Of Space: in one of two possible 4-Dimensional directions (Overall expansion or overall contraction). Since objects do not fall 'upward' and away from 3-D Matter, this rules out overall 4-Dimensional contraction. Objects do fall 'downward' toward the center of 3-D Matter; therefore confirming by demonstration, in situ (as is): a physically (materially) expanding Universe. The unrecognized causal identity (the source) of the observed, measured, acknowledged, recognized spatially expanding universe.
The conclusion is without precedent - although it has many historically noted revolutionary counterparts and parallels, in the history of Western Science. Recognizing the four dimensional space time continuum as being gravity, and conversely, is and has been patently unavoidable since its remarkably progressive advent; for the reasons provided herein (Refer Illustrations 3 & 4)
The material as well as spatial Universe is 4-Dimensionally expanding; it is this 4-Dimensional accelerating expansion that generates the force experienced and recognized as gravity. Hence objects do not fall to earth; the earth - instead - accelerates upwardly and overtakes them (just as the floor does in Einstein's elevator).
Gravity is the 4-D space-time Dimension.
If anyone asks or demands from this point onward, that this statement must or need be proven, they are reminded that this has already been accomplished. By Einstein. And Newton. And the laws of mathematics and geometry at - by definition - their most fundamental, physically definitive level. We have simply taken Einstein's renowned accomplishments and recommendations seriously enough to actually apply-them-to and recognize-them-within, the human Gravitational Experience. The Question is no longer, 'What & Where is the 4th Dimension in my own experience?' Einstein proved that it is time and motion; applicable to: Everything; Everywhere. The Question regarding the 4th D. is: 'What & Where is it not?'
"I feel sure we have to return to the program which may be described properly as the Maxwellian - namely the description of physical reality in terms of fields without particles." - Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 270
The challenge is no longer to prove that matter is an ever expanding field and that gravity is consequently the 4-D space-time dimension. The challenge is to prove that this is not the ongoing universal reality as we perpetually experience and witness it - all of the observed, experienced and audible effects of gravity as we know it... (Without previous recognition).
Approximately forty-five minutes remain of the allotted time to prove that gravity is the 4-D space-time Dimension. I respectfully submit, that; if you will permit me to do so, I will prove that gravity is the 4th Dimension, nine more times in the remainder of the allotted seventy minutes.
Past Is Prologue (Study History).
Gravity is the 4th space-time Dimension because physical matter itself is 4-Dimensional. As Einstein proved and the institution of academic physics (presently insists - while simultaneously refusing to recognize it) acknowledged sixty-five years and five months ago (as of 10/'76 when this discourse was publicly delivered). This means literally, that we are able to make a seemingly absurd prediction with complete confidence that it is not absurd - or even a prediction - at all, but rather an inevitability. That inevitability being that the fundamental material constituents of all apparently solid Universal Matter, i.e., neutrons, protons electrons and all other so-called 'sub-atomic particles', are not 3-Dimensionally static solids - billiard ball like 'particles' - at all, but rather, surfaceless electromagnetic charges without distinct boundaries: 4-Dimensionally accelerating fields. Projecting/extending the previously unidentified 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism respectively, as we shall soon discover; forthwith.
Presently, we will consider further proof that physical, corporeal matter is a perpetually expanding, accelerating field...
Introducing an abbreviated but entirely accurate description of yet another proven and still unrecognized fact which furthermore categorically confirms that Matter is 4-Dimensionally expanding. The most popular sources include a renowned book on physics written by the late and eminent journalist-mathematician, J.W.N. Sullivan. It is very appropriately entitled, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE. On pages 100 and 101 of the hard cover edition of that title, the author is describing an experiment and discovery (entailing the controlled *bombardment of singular-atomic-thickness Gold plates/ filaments; *with subatomic particles); originally fulfilled by physicist, G.P. Thompson (Incidentally, G.P. Thompson is not to be confused with his father, J. J. Thompson who was the discoverer of the electron some decades earlier).
What G.P. Thompson did in 1937, when technology finally permitted him to be the first to access and measurably record the sub atomic/microcosmic realm of so-called 'particles (electrons, protons, neutrons; et al - sub-atomic particles)', was to overtly and experimentally discover and mathematically and repeatedly re-confirm that the ultimate physical constituents of matter - that is, neutrons, protons, and electrons - are not reducible to the anticipated microcosmic, 3-dimensional ‘particles’ having specifically defined boundary-surfaces; discontinuous from surrounding space. Instead, G.P. Thompson, discovered that neutrons, protons and electrons are microcosmic charges of undulating electric field energy - 'charges' ('disturbed areas'), having no definite boundary surfaces whatsoever separating them from their surrounding space.
Because of the outcome of G.P. Thompson's original experiment and many other related experiments since then, physical science today formally recognizes, acknowledges, and categorically states, that two or more physical entities - be they individual neutrons, protons or electrons, or billiard balls in collision, or juggernauts moving in opposite directions at 90 miles per hour and colliding head-on: do not actually touch or contact one another.
The subjective term touch', and even the objective term 'contact' directly imply and require one surface meeting another surface. Of course, for all subjective purposes in the human experience, the terms 'touch' and 'contact' are entirely acceptable. We observe that apparently solid 3-Dimensional substance has apparently discontinuous surfaces, therefore we intelligently - but in this case incorrectly - assume that all solid material substance including that of our own bodies, is ultimately constituted-of and reducible-to solid 3-D particles; also having specifically defined surface-boundaries, discontinuous from surrounding space. G.P. Thompson's original discovery that there are only charges of electricity which somehow influence each other at-a-distance-across space, evoked the following commentary from Lord Bertrand Russell:
"No two particles of matter ever come into *contact.
When they get too close, they move off".
- p.126 THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.
(Refer Illustration 7 Two charges/particles; in mutually oppositional collision.)
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
All of this is to review and clarify the context in which it is an observed and acknowledged physical fact that no two or more physical entities ever actually touch or contact each other. The conclusion of 'touching', or 'contacting' is reached by way of the field produced by atomic and sub-atomic structures - which Thompson refers to as 'disturbed areas' - a physical constituent of those structures. Although it is proven that any two or more material systems never actually contact each other, it is invariably observed and agreed that they do have, to say the least, an 'influence' on one another. Which influence must, because they do not touch or contact, be attributed to conflicting field forces.
"There is no such thing as space 'empty of field'. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field". - Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 375
For this reason, any answer to any question or consideration of whether or not two or more bodies touch, is entirely dependent upon the popular as well as literal interpretation of what is actually meant or circumspectly intended - in what qualified context - by and in the practiced; applied terms: 'Matter' and/or 'physicality'. Discontinuity is, as a concept, displacing continuity; where the latter manifests in patently measured reality. A political coup in theoretical physics. Nobel Prize material in the Quick-Fix department of hasty discoveries. A series of historically obscure quick fixes (little denials), culminating into what only now emerges as a major cover-up. A Real Sign Of The Virtually Artificial ('L.H. Oswald acted alone') Times ('JFK shot himself').
Ostensibly, contemporary physics refuses to acknowledge or term an energetic field entity, Matter (instead, grotesquely calling it an 'unstable; disturbed area'), even though that field entity disallows the simultaneous occupation of its space by any other field entity. That is to say summarily, two qualities observed of field entities are quite literally the formal definition of matter. That definition being: 'That which possesses inertia and occupationally demands 3-Dimensions of Space'.
That is Fact #3.
There is still more to this.
Sullivan comments furthermore on pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE: "These disturbed areas which are discovered to demand 3-Dimensions of Space indicate the position of the electron; yet we cannot state that the disturbed area is the electron. Because any such locality has a tendency to spread, and if the matter of the universe were a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely."
Holy Smokes! The church is on fire?
Thompson (as described by Sullivan, Ibid.), repeatedly checks the experiment and its mathematical confirmation; repeatedly gets the same results, and then dismisses the entire finding.
Perished the disturbing thought. Before it spread indefinitely Along with everything else that couldn't possibly be expanding. Even though he just proved otherwise. Rescued the physical universe from 4 dimensional expansion. Been keeping General Relativity's most famous dimension, motionlessly suspended in three static, tenaciously non-expanding, glazed & permafrosted dimensions, ever since.
[BREAK=Chapter 3]
3.1 'TIME Magazine’s Man Of The Century':
Einstein's 4-D universe is not an option in today's academia. Ostracized - banned; anathematized - from the classroom.
Why? Because it can't - mustn't - be where it is: everywhere .
The entire (perpetually ignored or actively dismissed) finding is Albert Einstein's allegedly 'immeasurable' and 'incomprehensible' 4-Dimensional Space-Time Continuum. The physically (spatially and materially) expanding universe...
What is happening here and ever since, is, G.P. Thompson, with J.W.N. Sullivan and the entire scientific community looking over his shoulder, is opting to subjectively over-rule and contradict the objectively proven and demonstrated, prevailing conditional reality, on the now very familiar and equally over-employed and foregone premise that it subjectively appears 'blatantly obvious' that Physical Reality-At-Large 'is not' (4-Dimensionally) expanding.
That is to say, Thompson did not simply fail to recognize and acknowledge the direct implications of his discovery. He, and J.W.N. Sullivan refused, and all physicists since then complicitly continue to refuse to recognize and acknowledge its meaning and its abundantly measurable, observable, even prosaically *audible manifestations. (The very *sound of 4-D gravity is revealed, before this dissertation closes.) This is contrary to scientific method. And, Sullivan, is not through, yet...
I won't blame any who may not believe this next quote. I don't believe it either, and it's on pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE. Author, J.W.N. Sullivan, summarily endorses and punctuates Thompson's dismissal of the experimental results (2+2 must equal 5).
"As long as we are considering an individual electron, we could be mislead into thinking that its waves are physical realities. Each electron in fact demands a 3-Dimensional Space to itself. This makes it obvious that these waves are merely a mathematical phantom; consequently it is profoundly disconcerting to find that experiment confirms their existence. The apparent congruity between calculation and experiment must be in some sense illusory. It is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the experiments and their results have yet to receive their proper interpretation."
- Pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE, by J.W.N. Sullivan (again): “These disturbed areas which are discovered to demand 3-Dimensions of Space indicate the position of the electron; yet we cannot state that the disturbed area is the electron. Because any such locality has a tendency to spread, and if the matter of the universe were a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely."
(Indeed it has, and so it will continue, maintaining the same relatively uniform density, from one moment to the next, ad infinitum - 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. All frames of reference remaining relatively equal; the infinitely small being no less endless and dense than the infinitely large is endlessly more thin and tenuous... Electromagnetic gravity is relatively stronger in the comparative earlier moments and relatively weaker in the comparative later moments of the continuous universal expansion. The value of time also changes, corresponding with the value of space it occurs in. More will be said about this, later.)
That is fact #4.
(How they do carry on.)
‘Extremely Difficult To Avoid Unstable Disturbed Areas In The Recent, Profoundly Disconcerting History Of Science, Which Have Yet To Receive Their Proper Interpretation.’
Continued:
P.D. Ouspensky, has the same kind of trouble in his 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.)
“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” - Albert Einstein, IN SCHLIPP (1949) p. 112
For an even more detailed documentary of the remarkably employed Art Of Missing The 4-Dimensional Point, refer pages 69 thru 97 in P.D. Ouspensky’s A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE. This is a very well written and illustrated book and chapter (The 4th Dimension), by a deservedly esteemed and dedicated author - well worth reading. Ouspensky exemplifies and dramatizes the standard refusal to recognize what is proven - over-ruling results of objective experiment and mathematics with subjective misunderstandings.
How 'misled we can be into thinking that waves are physical realities.' Whereas, physical reality at large is ‘obviously not expanding.’ 'Clarifying' that all experimental proofs of the expansion of the physical universe at large - what is unanimously encountered and uniformly denied here - are merely 'mathematical phantoms.' The 'profound disconcertion' being that there's something here that isn't being recognized, and we (formally recognized scientists) are afraid someone is going to run into it (provide the illusory ‘phantom’ with its so far unoffered and actively denied, long belated 'proper interpretation', and non-mathematically make it conceptually accessible to everyone,), before we do. (Boo?). ‘We could be misled into thinking’...
Readers may draw their own conclusions, regarding the meaning and import of Buckminster Fuller's below quoted statement, regarding the geometrically considered 4th dimension (which is usually represented by a graphic illustration of a cube, or 'super/hyper-cube', and which in fact, as Fuller clarifies, may be represented by any shape whatsoever...).
"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.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
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
Apparently, 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'.
Fuller seems to be reminding us that the perpendicular - right angle - Euclidien law of (the extrapolation of) dimensions, can and does proceed from any shape at all; the three recognized dimensions of space being 4 dimensional and of a quasi infinite number of shapes and sizes.
The reader is encouraged to look 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.
How ‘Indefinitely Spreadable’ It Is...
George Gamow, in one mighty peculiar sentence, shows us what's wrong with Einstein's Cosmological contribution.
"Einstein's Cosmological Constant is unstable, and might *start expanding or contracting at the slightest provocation." - George Gamow, GRAVITY.
(((Say When?)))
Refer: As You (Squarely) Like It. By William Shakespeare.
Dear George Gamow:
Please do let us know when and where it *stops.
( Here it comes again.)
4-D MassField Doppler Effect
Consider the physical definition of an expanding field. The singular definition for all expanding field systems is: 'A measurable and definable area or system of or within space, which is inherently and constantly growing larger (or smaller). Such definable field areas of space may have any number of dissimilarities. But all manifestations of expanding field energy have in common one inevitable characteristic.
Consider the comparative relationship of two otherwise totally unrelated fields. Specifically, we will compare the qualities of an expanding field of sound with that of an expanding field of electromagnetism - which is light. (Refer to Drawing 1 Illustrations 5 & 6)
If these sound waves were light, it would be shifted toward red, from a receding source, and shifted toward blue, with an approaching source.
In the example of a field of sound, consider a simple mechanical alarm clock which is ringing, but not otherwise moving relative to an observer. The innermost circle represents the outside diameter of the alarm clock itself; of course the concentricity's emanating from center - the ringing alarm clock - represent the systematic structure of sound waves projecting omnidirectionally from it. In the case of sound, the field is expanding from the alarm clock @ slightly less than 1,100 ft. per-second. Note, that the sound-Field system which is circumscribed by and contained within the area encompassed by the outermost (largest; oldest) sound wave is completely symmetrical (illustration 5); that is to say, it has the same uniform structure in any direction from the center-source and throughout all of its parts.
Now consider the above diagram of a ringing alarm clock as a source of light, rather than sound. Whereas, light does not require a conducting medium to support its motion through space from its source, and sound does, and, whereas light moves at 186,282 miles-per-second as compared to the 1,100 foot seconds of sound. Nevertheless, what these two comparatively considered fields do have in common becomes graphically evident when either or both of them are in motion relative to an observer. That commonalty is a well known phenomenon, originally discovered in the mid-1800's by the Austrian physicist, Christian J. Doppler. This phenomenon is acknowledged to be invariably characteristic of all expanding fields. It is called 'Doppler effect', or sometimes 'Doppler shift/ contraction'. The definition of which is: 'The contraction of any field system in the direction of its motion at a rate increasingly proportional to the velocity of its (center) source'.
When we consider the field source to be a ringing alarm clock, we observe in that case the indicated left-to-right motion of the alarm clock - or the right-to-left motion of the observer - to be approximately one half the speed of sound. When we consider the moving source of the field to be a light-field source rather than a sound-field source; we then consider the left-to-right moving source or the right-to-left moving observer to be moving at approximately 4/5ths the speed of light.
Under these circumstances, the field is no longer symmetrical. The structure is not uniform in all directions from the source and throughout all of its parts. It is instead contracted in the direction of its motion; the contraction ratio corroborates to relative speed; forming a non-symmetrical field system; reasonably approximated in the referenced illustration.
Let it be emphasized here that Doppler contraction is not and has never been applied to, or recognized as, applicable to Matter (Matter is stringently relegated as a static, non-expanding 'particle', not a field).
I have said that Einstein proved that matter is 4-Dimensional. Yet, I have also said that Doppler effect has never been applied to matter.
This can only mean that Doppler effect is not applicable to matter; for the inevitable reason that matter is not an accelerating 4-Dimensional field after all. Or, that Doppler field contraction is actually applicable-to and exhibited-by matter, but that this application - like the 4th Dimension itself - has yet to be recognized. Another 4-DIMENSIONAL ULTIMATUM. (There is nothing to negotiate.)
Pivot Or Divot, Continued:
Either, matter is found to exhibit Doppler shift and is therefore reconfirmed to be 4-Dimensional. Or, matter does not exhibit any evidence of Doppler shift, and, therefore, cannot possibly be a 4-Dimensionally expanding; accelerating field. Presently introducing for review one of the several unexpectedly discovered prevailing conditions of reality; derived yet once again directly from Einstein's combined Theories of Relativity. Its original technical derivations are the mathematical equations of the Dutch physicist, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz. Einstein's functional incorporation of the Lorentz equations within Relativity Theory, are, for this reason now totally acknowledged among and familiar-to the 'physical science community' at large.
Specifically these equations are termed, 'the
Lorentz/Lorentzian Electromagnetic Equations'. Successfully and covariantly employed by Einstein, combined with Maxwell's electromagnetic equations, to describe the behavior of sub-atomic particles (charges of electricity).
Although H. A. Lorentz originally intended their application exclusively to moving sources (particles/charges) of electromagnetism or light, Einstein, very interestingly found another and quite unexpected application for them. Specifically, Einstein discovered that Lorentzian Electromagnetic Field Transformations are descriptively applicable to matter (in motion) itself. (The term, 'Lorentz Transformations' may sound somewhat formidable. What is mathematically and faithfully described here is still - non-mathematically - already familiar. To quote non-mathematically, what Lorentz Transformations describe, by way of what Einstein categorically proved: 'Matter: contracts in the direction of its motion at a rate increasingly proportional to its velocity'.
That is to say, matter, be it rocket or rhinoceros, and all of its contents, contracts in the direction of its motion at a Lorentzian measured rate increasingly proportional to its velocity. A brief but excellent non-mathematical elaboration of this fact can be found on page 190 of THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS, by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld. More elaborate documentation of this fact is available in any advanced physics text on Relativity. Fact #5.
I call this Einsteinian phenomenon of the Lorentzian contraction of Matter, 'MassField Doppler Effect'. It not only re-confirms that Matter is a 4-dimensionally expanding field, it also proves once again that gravity is the 4th Dimension.
One may quite reasonably ask why Einstein's successful and renowned applications of Lorentzian electromagnetic Field Transformations to Matter: have never been recognized as MassField Doppler Effect.
That is an extremely relevant question, and it has an equally fascinating and yet familiar 'answer' - that being that anyone and everyone can 'see' and therefore 'knows' that Matter, that is to say, physical reality at large 'is not' expanding.
The contemporary 4-Dimensional dilemma unmistakably resembles the pre-heliocentric era (before Copernicus - 1473 - 1543), where everyone and anyone could 'see' and therefore 'knew' that the entire cosmological universe - the entire heavenly celestial vault - revolved around the earth, east to west; every 24 hours (rather than the earth revolving on its own axis, west to east; creating the illusion that the universe is revolving around it).
"It is all right to consider, but not to believe (they say): none of what you hear second hand, and half of what you see first hand." - A Persian parable, paraphrased (Author unknown). The only distinction in this presently subjected case, being of course, that everyone and anyone can 'see' and therefore 'knows' that universal matter is not - certainly including people are not ('...obviously not'.) - expanding (4-Dimensional) field(s).
"In physics, particularly modern physics, the mathematical expression is apt to come first, its full implications only being understood afterward." - Barbara Lovettt Cline, THE MEN WHO MADE A NEW PHYSICS
Such a 'disturbing dynamic' would indeed have a dramatically endless, prohibitively incredible tendency to 'expansively spread'.
The very thought is perilously perishable. Ostensibly, *everything is not +expanding. The 4 dimensionally proven experimental results with its subjectively unprecedented - yet all along - conclusory *object: is discarded the moment +it is 3 dimensionally +subjected.
“History shows clearly that the advances of Science have always been frustrated by the tyrannical influences of certain preconceived notions which were turned into unassailable dogmas. For that reason alone, every serious scientist should periodically make a profound re-examination of his or her basic principles.” - H. Louis DeBroglie, NEW PERSPECTIVES IN PHYSICS, Basic Books, New York, 1962
(Worthy of repeating) "It is evident that the popular conviction that a generalized field theory is unable to explain the problems of the discontinuous structure of matter and quantum mechanics rests upon prejudice." - Albert Einstein, PHYSICS & REALITY
“We no longer think that physical action is explainable in terms of little hard balls which are the centers of all kinds of forces. A much more abstract kind of concept is demanded in which the particle is no longer something that can be considered in isolation but rather as a part of an all-embracing entity called a ‘field’. In this development Einstein’s thought construction played a vital role.
“When Minkowski in 1908 demonstrated that Einstein’s new theory was equivalent to a geometrical approach uniting space and time in one single entity (4-D space-time), the voices for a ‘physical’ explanation of relativity fell silent, since it now became obvious that an explanation in physical terms cannot be given.”
- Cornelius Lanczos, ALBERT EINSTEIN and the COSMIC ORDER
Electrons, protons and neutrons invariably generate and project electromagnetic fields. In Newton's era and long afterwards, the phenomenon of electromagnetism generated by alleged 3-D 'particles' was completely mysterious. Newton specifically addresses that mystery. Matter, be it what Newton called 'particle', or systems of particles such as a planet or star, is simply represented here (Refer Illustration 8) by and within this solid circle suspended in the center of an otherwise blank page (orbited by question marks suspended in statically suspended - non-expanding - structureless space). These Newtonian question marks were before the advent of Field Physics, established by Maxwell (refer illustration 9).
The existence, structure and dynamics of the electromagnetic field was firstly and most successfully recognized and described in relation to Space and Time by the differential equations of the Scot, James Clerk Maxwell, in 1873. The matter (particle, electron, neutron, proton, mass-point) at the center, generates the apparent and familiar 'spider-web pattern' of radiating electromagnetic field energy projecting omnidirectionally from its center source (matter generates electricity and gravity proportionate to its - the measured source's - given mass value; size, density).
(Refer to illustration 9, above and below...)
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
With the 'spider' at the center representing the field-generating particle (charge of electricity having no distinct boundaries, growing increasingly dense as you approach its center; having no surface, separating it from <but rather diffusing into> surrounding space) at the source of Maxwell's omnidirectionally projecting electromagnetic field.
Incidentally, it was presumed in the Newtonian Classical Mechanical era, that gravity (F - the unidentified Force in the since adopted universal Newtonian formula for gravity: F=GMM over R2: Force = Gravity x Mass x Motion; squared) propagated across Space instantaneously. Out of said particles and /or combinant systems of particles. It is since then proven and acknowledged that whatever gravity is (it is politically prohibited from being electricity, or electromagnetism): also moves at the same omnidirectional velocity from Matter, as does electromagnetic or light energy. Newton unarguably mastered the description of gravitational effects, while he did not pretend to know, and was careful about specifying that he did not know the causal identity - or even the directional vector - of F (Force=Universal Gravitation).
No one else besides this record and those influenced by its international distribution in the past 48 years, seems to have allowed for the offered gravitational alternative (that gravity might actually be a repelling force. That Newton's famous findings allow for that unknown, unpursued possibility; from the preface to the PRINCIPIA); since Newton made a noteworthy point of offering it. No one on campus is allowed to sharpen a pencil on this dull note. It might awaken the big eared - light blinded - snoozing Physics teacher.
Mr. Spock has not left the Berkeley or Lawrence Livermore building or black hole engulfed holodeck? Obviously the earth is not moving rotationally on its own axis; generating the illusion imparted on all of its inhabitants that the universal celestial vault is rotating around the earth; rather than conversely. The archaic, pre Copernican era resides with us ever since, as a place to start realizing that sometimes we misunderstand things as being the other way around, from the way things really are.
"According to the General Theory of Relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field."
- Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348
Gravity on or near a major gravitational mass, acting as a repelling force, rather than an impelling force. An alternative directional vector. Newton allows for it. Einstein requires it. But Carl Sagen and his friends don't allow for or require it. On the contrary, they reject it altogether.
Please review this alternative perspective:
The false enigma is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging (ever faster - accelerating), pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accomodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object.
[BREAK=Chapter 4]
"Since the General Theory of Relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density is particularly high."
- Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348
Having One's Tea While Spilling It Also, continued:
'Obviously the universe is not made up of a bunch of disturbed areas. Because, if it was, by now it would have *spread indefinitely.' - J.W.N Sullivan (THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE) and G.P. Thompson
(A *tensor equation - *4th coordinate; of time and motion - applicable where only three coordinates were previously perceived.) Note: the ‘obvious’ is not put into words here. The obvious, being that the physical - as well as spatial - universe is found to be *expanding. Whereas, that inevitably *descriptive word - expanding - is displaced with 'spread indefinitely'.
Note also, J.W.N. Sullivan's (LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE) and George Gamow's (GRAVITY) reference to expanding charges of electricity (particles): they are not called that. Instead, they are obliquely referred to as 'unstable', and 'disturbed areas' (On medical hold?) New Age Verbal Judoists.
*Conversely: becoming exactly as three dimensionally small, as the universe becomes four dimensionally larger around a given 3-D entity (Refer Schwartzchild radius). Squared. (Refer: Black holes: Where Mr. Flatlander & Co. do bullish business and bearish residence without the 4th dimension.) The so called 'indefinite spread' is in fact very well defined. Refer, Sir Isaac Newton's gravitational alternative, and Albert Einstein's four dimensional, acceleration, and so forth, squared. Proving a steady state universe; discovering the 5th & 6th dimensions, allowing a causal explanation for black hole singularities, etceteras.
Having to do, for example, with anytime anyone drops - or in any way projects, or hurls - anything at all at any time, anywhere on/near this planet. "Physics is what physicists do". - Dr. Peter Bergmann, GRAVITATION. Every time the impatient mathematician at the blackboard drops his chalk, the reputed, immeasurable and incomprehensible answer continues to elude his precipitating powers of observation. Outfinding Dr. Livingston, patrolling vigilantly on the popularly presumptuous river of denial.
Another Statically Overlooked, Expanding Ultimatum:
Thereby and thence, it was Maxwell from whom we learned that the presumed static field, already known to originate-with and project-from Matter, is actually expanding, Thereby generating a perfect Natural expression of the geometric LAW OF THE INVERSE SQUARE. Projecting and distributing the same amount of energy, omnidirectionally from matter sources; over an increasingly greater area, at the speed of light.
An outwardly unfolding field in time, inversely squared in space, per light wave and/or system of light waves, without end... Finite (at any given moment in space) but unbounded (in Past microcosmic and Future Macrocosmic time).
"An electromagnetic wave is a double wave: electric and magnetic field strengths travel together at right angles each to the other and are intimately interwoven (*inseperable). Thus light is electromagnetic field : traveling through space from out of electromagnetic charges (*called 'particles') which have produced (*generated) them... these two sets of force lines are respectively analogous in familiar gravitational terms, to the lines down which falling objects drop perpendicular to a surface (as of the earth) and contrariwise to the path lines of moons or satellites orbiting parallel to the same surface." - Guy Murchie, MUSIC OF THE SPHERES (including illustation - electricity and magnetism as the 5th & 6th dimensions will be further issued with the progression of this missive. Please take note that the fields generated by the center source charges prevent those charges from ever contacting each other - there is no surface to surface 'touch', because there are no specific surfaces. The charges become infinitely more dense as their centers are approached).
It is noteworthy also that the Inverse Square Law of ElectroMagnetism, like its velocity (that of light), is likewise, equally applicable to gravity; whatever else gravity may be. It is emphasized here that gravity is not acknowledged or recognized to be electromagnetism. We will return shortly to further consider this vainly grid-locked, conceptually superstitious, Ivy League mesmerizing bogey.
The question arises, 'if' everything is actually expanding constantly, than how can this uniform expansion be observed, comprehended and/or non-mathematically measured? Are we not returned to not knowing and not being able to know whether or not all of MACDONALD'S pan fried BIG MAC's are expanding? Doesn't the consumer have a right to know (a meaty need to lean upon)? One way or the other, about a rare consideration like this? If it is knowable, how may it be recognized? We will return to this beefy question and its unprecedented answers shortly, by way of the following, brief, introductory considerations.
"Why could it not be as true to say that the earth falls up to meet things in the sky, as that things in the sky fall down to the earth? Is not that simple relativity? Or am I too full of apple juice? (*Not cider?). It is relativity, but perhaps it is not so very simple. For, although the apple is regarded as moving downward, can one... could one possibly justify a claim that the earth is accelerating upward just as much?"
On the face of it, upward terrestrial acceleration would seem quite impossible for more than a very small portion of the earth, since upward, globally speaking, is not one direction, but every direction. In fact, if the earth's surface is accelerating upward all around the earth, the earth as a whole must be exploding. Which it obviously is not." - Guy Murchie, MUSIC OF THE SPHERES (*= author's parentheses.)
Murchie's work is a voluminous, superb labor of scientific love; this author has learned much from him, yet he suffers, like all the rest, not from being 'too full of apple juice', but rather, from not enough of it.
Without exception, every single approach to and encounter with this problem is dismissed, upside down and backwards - even the questions and attitudes addressing it. Without allusion to Guy Murchie, the mathematically mesmerized monkey has located, palmed and fisted his 4-D prize inside the narrow necked jar, but adamently refuses to open his hand in the required effort to remove same. The unrecognized solution is mathematically proven and located; whereas the numbers-fixated primate deigns not to liberate the discovered genie; he insists that he cannot. All the while refusing to open his hand, let go of his subjectively incapacitating instincts (*to have and to hold?), so that he may then non-mathematically remove his hand, invert the jar, and let gravity do the rest...
In the history of particle expeditions, each one adventures into and returns with electromagnetic charges - 'matter-fields' - fulfilling all of the formal qualities of particular ('discontinuous, 3-D surface-boundaried, 'static' <*'standing field' perceived>) 'matter': which has never been found. An entire, academically massive discipline of particle physics, abundant with Ph.D's, is 'based' on a so far mythologically subjective presumption - 'the particle' - that remains in suspension to be empirically established. 'Particle Physics', has yet to present itself as a tractable hypothesis, let alone any kind of tenable 'Theory'. Yet 'the particle' remains the dominant paradigm over the universally emerged, manifestly ubiquitous 'field', or 'charge'. If 'physics is what physicists do', as Dr. Bergmann proclaims, they are collectively residing in (Einstein's tentatively proposed) house of cards, a sky castle of sand; applauding and paying homage to a hoax that makes the Piltdown Man a nominated candidate for the Nobel Prize.
The formula with which Maxwell successfully described and predicted the structure and dynamics of the previously unknown (presumed static) ElectroMagnetic Field are now of course very well renowned as, 'Maxwell's ElectroMagnetic Equations'; describing the much controversied, newly recognized and acknowledged field forces.
In consideration of what Einstein called a 'TOTAL FIELD THEORY', it is consistently said that Maxwell's ElectroMagnetic Equations are not (POST-FIELD PHYSICS) applicable to the alleged 3-D static 'particles', because Maxwell's Equations describe expanding energy exclusively, and, 'therefore break-down at the non-expanding surface of the particle'. The in-place, 4th dimension-excluding, 3-dimensional filibuster.
“The unsatisfactory part of the total field theory showed up externally by the necessity of assuming finite dimensions for the particles in order to prevent the electromagnetic field existing at their surfaces from becoming infinitely large." - Albert Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS, p. 77
Yet, since Maxwell, we long ago unexpectedly discovered that the alleged 3-D ‘particle’ does not have a surface, and in fact is not a particle at all, but an electrical charge of energy which simply becomes increasingly more dense towards its center. A charge of electricity fulfilling the formal *definition of particular matter (*that which occupies 3 or more dimensions of space and inertially opposes a resistance to non-uniform motion). Ostensibly, having been doing this, all along, as it were. That is Fact #6.
Cogent quotes, worthy of repeating:
"What appears certain to me in the foundations of any consistent field theory, the particle concept must not appear in addition to the field concept. The whole theory must be based solely on partial differential equations and their *singularity free solutions (*no discontinuous, 3-dimensionally static particles)." - A. Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 306.
"It is evident that the popular conviction that a generalized field theory is unable to explain the problems of the discontinuous structure of matter and quantum mechanics rests upon prejudice." - A. Einstein, PHYSICS & REALITY
As you can see, we keep finding new ways to make the same mistake. Sternly defining the universe for Mother Nature. Informing her of her ways. Her limitations. What is natural to, and expected of her.
Here's how it happens all the time:
The non-mathematical identification of the 4th space-time Dimension enables among other things, the unprecedented discovery and identification of two previously unrecognized Dimensions of Reality - the 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism - physically extending beyond the 4th dimension of corporeal ('apparently 3-D') matter.
Again, these two 'new' Dimensions are not really 'unknown' or 'inexperienced' at all; merely unrecognized. In compliance with the geometric definition for dimensions, if anything moves at right angles to; perpendicular from the 4th Dimension (of matter), then whatever that something is, is also the 5th Dimension. Indeed, something does move at right angles out of 4-D matter - that something being electricity, therefore, electricity is the 5th dimension. In turn, whatever may move at right angles to the 5th dimension of electricity, is the 6th dimension - that being magnetism. That is to say, electromagetism moving out of 4-D matter, is 5 and 6 dimensional.
After Maxwell we learned of the existence and especially the structural quality and dynamics of the electromagnetic field. The matter (particle, electron, neutron, proton, mass-point) at the center, generates the apparent and familiar spider-web pattern of radiating electromagnetic field energy projecting omnidirectionally from its center source (matter generates electricity and gravity proportionate to its - the measured source's - given mass value; size, density).
Prior to this time, Michael Faraday had already recognized the existence of some force originating in material bodies and projecting out of them across Space - but he had also considered this ' force' to be static; that is to say, 'non-expanding' (pre Field Physics).
Moreover, Faraday had no idea of the structure and/or shape/ pattern of the electromagnetic field. Maxwell, on the other hand, proved that electromagnetic fields possess a characteristic and predictable shape and intensity ('field density') in (Classical) Space & Time, and are projected continuously and omni-directionally outward from their alleged 3-D 'particle' sources at a finite velocity; that being 186,282 m.p.s... Along Came The Untangled Weave, Warp & Woof. Creating an interestingly similar pattern; as that structural transverse projection, so characteristically like a spider-spun web (A natural expression of the inverse square law; projected omnidirectionally from its source; uniformly more dispersed with distance)...
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
[BREAK=Chapter 5]
With the spider at the center representing the field-generating particle (charge of electricity having no distinct boundaries, growing increasingly dense as you approach its center; having no surface, separating it from <but rather diffusing into> surrounding space) at the source of Maxwell's omnidirectionally projecting electromagnetic field.
Specifically, we learned from Maxwell that something does in fact move at right angles out of (4-D) matter, and that 'something' is electricity. Therefore Electricity Is The 5th Dimension. Again, in compliance with the geometric definition for Dimensions, if any measurable entity moves at right angles from/to the 5th - whatever else it may be: it is also the 6th dimension. Indeed. Something does (*invariably) move at right angles to/perpendicular from 5 dimensional electricity, and that something is magnetism. Therefore, magnetism Is The 6th Dimension. (*Electricity and magnetism - until further notice - always accompany one another; at right angles. Bumper to bumper and side by side.)
Of course, in order to recognize and identify The 5th & 6th Dimensions Of Electricity & Magnetism, one must first of all acknowledge and recognize The 4th Dimension of expanding Matter & accelerating Gravity.
From which is projected the 5th and 6th physical dimensions of electromagnetic reality: Acting at a distance across space; projecting the law of the inverse square; at the speed of light; 'just like gravity.' In fact, finding gravity and electromagnetism to be, in every sense of the word, one and the same: a unified field.
We may - presently opportune to - know, gravity on earth is caused by the electromagnetic 4-Dimensional acceleration of Matter. This generates a mechanical pushing or repelling force on or near the surface of major gravitational masses (such as planets); as clarified within Einstein's elevators of The General Principle.
But, how does this account for action-at-a-distance across Space; generating atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial tidal effects for example, and sustaining the orbiting of the planets? *Why don't their orbits collapse? Why don't they all (stellar objects, galaxies, stars, et al) collapse upon and/or collide with each other, through mutual gravitational attraction? As Isaac Newton himself asked, and openly considered to be the major unresolved flaw in his own revolutionary system...
*Two and a quarter centuries later, Einstein resolved Newton's problem with the Cosmological Constant - a repelling force paralleling conventionally perceived gravity, but acting in the opposite direction... Paralleling the vector of a positive charge; in contrast to the impelling force generated by a negative charge.
The answer to Newton's question is not in the 4-dimensional MassField gravity, on or near the surface of expansively accelerating material systems - but rather the 5 & 6 dimensional ElectroMagnetic field generated by and projecting at right angles from material - 4 dimensional - sources (particles, charges; systems of same).
That is to say, material bodies on or near the apparent surface of matter are gravitationally influenced to 'fall', or remain (mechanically-inertially / direct-contact/surface-to-surface) pinned against the earth's 4-Dimensionally accelerating surface. On the other hand, action-at-a-distance - specifically tidal effects and the orbiting of planets & moons - is gravitationally motivated by the 5th & 6th Dimensions of electricity and magnetism, respectively.
Another way of realizing this is, when you are near and above a large 4-dimensional MassField, you fall, until your orbital vector 'outweighs' (transcends) the influence of gravity. Then your orbit is permanent; that is to say, you do not fall back to earth, but rather, around it. Having gone ballistically orbital.
Wikipedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Newton's cannonball was a thought experimentIsaac Newton used to hypothesize that the force of gravity was universal, and it was the key force for planetary motion.
[edit] The experiment
In this experiment Newton visualizes a cannon on top of a very high mountain.
If there were no force of gravitation the cannonball should follow a straight line away from Earth.
So long as there is a gravitational force acting on the cannon ball, it will follow different paths depending on its initial velocity.
- If the speed is low, it will simply fall back on Earth. (A and B)
- If the speed equals some threshold orbital velocity it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit just like the moon. (C)
- If the speed is higher than the orbital velocity, but not high enough to leave Earth altogether (lower than the escape velocity) it will continue rotating around Earth along an elliptical orbit. (D)
- If the speed is very high, it will indeed leave Earth. (E)
Summarily, in the case of permanent orbit you are repelled away from 4-D MassField Earth and kept in (ever enlarging, spiral shaped) orbit by the 5th & 6th Dimensions of ElectroMagnetism. The ElectroMagnetic fields of the planets (for example) are reciprocally conflicting with the electromagnetic field of the Sun (emits about one billion tons of radiantly transitory energy every four minutes). Hence, planets cannot fall into the Sun; due to their mutual opposition from (and toward) it - and they cannot escape it either.
Wikipedia
The magnetosphere shields the surface of the Earth from the charged particles of the solar wind. It is compressed on the day (Sun) side due to the force of the arriving particles, and extended on the night side. (Image not to scale.)
The retinue of planets arranged exactly about the sun in the orders and orbits of Newton's indomitably calculated, universally gravitating retainer. Unarguably caused by a pulling force or a pushing force. Or, a combined pulling and pushing force. Mechanically pushing at near distances and electromagnetically pulling and/or pushing at far distances... (In Nature we find a positive charge projecting a repelling force, and a negative charge generating an impelling force).
Newton’s 3rd Law: “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual action of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.”
(In Nature we find a positive charge projecting a repelling force and a negative charge generating an impelling force. Gravitational impelling forces are actively present on, near and within the surface of the earth – a test object suspended from a plumb-bob does in fact gravitate toward a mountain range, for example, and there certainly seems to be an impelling force involved in aquatic, atmospheric and terrestrial tides; but the repelling force of 4-D expansion is dominant).
The fields from isolated, individual charges look like this:
When there is more than one charge in a region, the electric field lines will not be straight lines; they will curve in response to the different charges. In every case, though, the field is highest where the field lines are close together, and decreases as the lines get further apart. physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Electricfield.html
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
_________________________
Hypothetical dark energy is imo, another word for the formerly abandoned Lambda Cosmological Constant (/\), which is functionally back in service, as I have previously noted, unabashedly retrieved from obscurity and now referred to along side 'quintessence' and activated as 'LCDM' - Lambda Cold Dark Matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19419
Please observe the fait accompli reinstatement of Einstein's 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant, as this work predicted - along with an accelerating universe - since 1959.
Due to their reciprocal acceleration against each and other's electromagnetic and/or radiation fields, extending beyond four dimensional matter; across space (acting at a distance): fulfilling the definition for the fifth and sixth dimensions; as electromagnetism acting at a distance; commensurate with Newtonian-Einsteinian - and other formally proven and recognized and/or recognizable - definition(s) of universal gravity; including the presently abandoned now reinstated Cosmological Constant.
Regarding the tenability of gravitation as an impelling force, paralleled by the Cosmological Constant as a repelling force, a natural and complementary occurrence of this apparently incongruous ambiguity exists and prevails in the fact that omnidirectional electric field lines around a positive charge are directed away from the center of the charge; whereas, the field lines around a negative charge move inward, toward the center of the charge
A characteristic of the (reinstated) Cosmological Constant is that it's effect increases with distance. It's application to the accelerating expansion of the spatial universe, corroborates this characteristic.
The increase of speed with distance can be demonstrated with an expanding yardstick, the more it expands, the faster its ends move away from each other.
This principle of accelerating expansion is also applicable to the expansion of matter - why gravity is acceleration.
------------
Another look at the structure of a snail or nautilus shell, and/or the arms of spiral galaxies (What an @ sign geometrically describes the structural shape of): A consequence of this is the realization of the actual 4-D path of any orbiting body - electron, moon, planet - as compared to what we perceive in 3 presumably static Dimensions of Space. That is to say, because of the unrecognized 4-Dimensional acceleration of Matter, and the extensionally functional 5 & 6 Dimensional space separating it from other matter, the path of any orbiting body is not characteristically circular - O - or ellipsoidal - 0 - as it is 3-Dimensionally observed or understood to be. Instead, the MassField Concept recognizes that the path in Space-Time of every orbiting body exists 4-Dimensionally as an accelerating - ever enlarging - spiral (@ - see immediate below illustration). Where the distance of space opening up between the orbiting body and its point of orbit, is no more recognized and accounted for, than the ever ongoing physical enlargement of the orbiting body and its point of orbit (the dominant mass of two considered gravitational masses; each actually orbiting a common center of gravity between the two - or more - centers).
4-D HyperOrbital path.
Google: 'The ultimate logarithmic Spiral page (England)'
It is important to recognize that a spiral that does not exponentially enlarge, such as the 'Archimedes spiral', illustrated below (Google: 'Archimede's spiral') is not to be confused with the accelerating - exponentially enlarging/extrapolating - spiral illustrated here, above. It is the difference between uniform enlargement and non-uniform, accelerating enlargement - both of which are expanding, but only the above of which is accelerating - ever faster - in it's expansion.
Polar equation: r = a
SPECULATIVE NOTE:
The loss of 43° of arc per century in the elliptical extreme orbit of Mercury (the shortest of planetary years in the solar system) - and correspondingly more reduced losses for the planets correspondingly further from the Sun - appears resolvable in the (illustrated, uncompensated for) 4-D HyperOrbitalPath.
Likewise, the accelerating (equiangular) spiral - @ - as applied to Mendelyev's Periodic Table Of Elements exhibits this structure. Very comparable to the shape of a spiraling snail shell, and/or internal structure of the mature chambered nautilus (pompileus linnae)- apparent natural manifestations of 4-D space-time.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
Expansively accelerating commonalty.
Accelerating spirals commonly occur in biologically growing, 4-dimensionally expressed nature. This example of planetary field reciprocally and physically conflicting with solar field, and lunar mass reciprocally and physically conflicting with hosting planetary field, is already directly experienced in the proven, acknowledged fact that two or more physical bodies never (surficially) contact each other. Due to conflicting field forces of surfaceless electrical charges: disallowing the simultaneous occupation of their space by any other field-charge.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
An Expansive 4-D Thought Problem With a Dilatory Solution:
The realm of the very small - microcosms - is said to host strong forces acting at very short distances; that are not considered to be related to large, 'weak forces of gravity', said to exist only in very large spaces and act at large distances in the very large - macrocosmic - spaces and times. So it is presently and dominantly considered, in the macrocosmic realm of the very large, exemplary, planetary-generated forces.
Gravity is thought not to occur - significantly - in the microcosmic realm of the very small. Whereas, gravity, like Gold, is actually where you find it, and how much of it you find; in large and *small, tenuous and *compact electromagnetic densities (*refer, nuclear binding forces). Moving in one of two possible - direction(s). Toward and/or away (impelling or repelling) from its material (4-D particle/charge) source.
Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’
Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.
Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.
In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...
It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1041 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.
The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1041 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...
Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes>).
The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.
When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...
Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...
Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit around the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).
The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant, relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.
When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.
There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.
Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A.
The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time.
Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of space and time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.
The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.
The acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.
This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
Space-Time.
This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'.
It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.
The Twin Paradox Re-visited:
A popular example of relativistic non-absolute time (time dilation phenomenon) is known as the 'twin paradox'. One of two twin brothers remains on coordinate system earth, while the other twin departs the earth in a spacecraft vehicle, approaches the velocity of light; remains in deep space sustaining high velocity for what his senses and instruments measure as 30 days; then returns to earth to learn that his earthbound twin brother and everyone else on earth (who was his age upon his departure) is considerably more aged than himself.
There is no conceptual explanation for this, however, the mathematics of relativity indicate that time dilation is a true effect of greatly increased velocities. The twin paradox becomes conceptually comprehensible with the application of the issued , expanding mass-field concept:
When an object - a space-craft and its contents accelerates faster than the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is normally associated, the earth, the mass-field constructed spacecraft and its contents are distributed over a greater area, in accordance with the inverse square law (a system of relatively uniform space and time; in this case, as applicable to light). Consequently it becomes an independent coordinate system, having relatively larger values of space and proportionately slower experiences of time than its original coordinate system, earth.
In a spacecraft nearing the velocity of light the individual hairs on the heads of it's astronauts may (for example) be dilated (enlarged) to the diameter of a large radar dish (relative to the dimensions of space recognized on coordinate system earth). Yet, the astronauts detect no change of spatial values relative to themselves or their ship and its contents, including all of its time measuring instruments, because everything on board is proportionately dilated in 4-D space-time (much larger than that on cooridinate system, earth). For example: It takes these mass field dilated astronauts several of earth's relatively micro-spatial hours - and one of their relatively macro-spatial seconds - to sneeze. Upon returning to coordinate system earth, they must slow their speed, and in so doing they proportionately decrease their former - field expanded - size.
Upon disembarking the now 'normal sized' spacecraft, they learn that years have passed on earth, while they and their instruments have experienced, recorded, and can account for only a month of time in space.
Up to the time of this writing, there are not even any failed efforts to conceptually account for 'time dilation' and the 'twin paradox' that popularly accompanies it.
The (stubbornly unrecognized and denied) ever enlarging value of space is a ‘non absolute space’, which causes ‘non-absolute time’. The fundamental import of this discussion is that THE VALUE OF GIVEN UNITS OF TIME (seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years) IS ENTIRELY DETERMINED BY THE 3-D VALUE (size) OF THE SPATIAL MOMENT (coordinate system) IT (time / motion ) OCCURS IN.
.................................................. ..................
Einstein authored three major works on Relativity. Two are very well renowned academically as well as socio-politically. Einstein's two renowned theories are of course, the Special Theory of 1906 - which is all about light - ElectroMagnetism - and uniform motion (the C, of E=MC 2). And, the General Theory of 1916, which is all about Matter, Gravity and non-uniform motion (acceleration).
In 1919, Einstein authored a third work which is not so well known; primarily because it was only temporarily accepted by the scientific community; then abandoned eight years later.
Alloted time does not permit me to elaborate the details of Einstein's third and least known work, but I am sure you will find its title very familiar. It is the Unified Field Theory. The conceptual objective of which was to find electromagnetism and gravity one and the same force.
It would take at least thirty minutes to cursorily begin to do it justice here; in the allotted time we cannot afford to go into that detail.
On the other hand, in a matter of one minute or less we may recapitulate the fact that the primary objective of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field Theory was to unify the Special & General Theories into one singular statement, The Unified Field. Specifically the unification of what are otherwise academically considered to be separate and unrelated forces. Forces, which The Unified Field proves as actually having the same causal identity - ElectroMagnetism & Gravity. Repeat: The Unified Field is abandoned; its cardinal objective was to find ElectroMagnetism and Gravity as two apparently unrelated forces which actually have the same causal identity.
Presently summarizing that gravity is the space-time 4th Dimension because Physical Matter is found to be an expanding ElectroMagnetic Field. And conversely.
“Relativity theory furnishes a new way of looking at gravity and describing it, but it still remains a mysterious, little-understood phenomenon. No one knows what connection it has, if any, with electromagnetism. Einstein and others have tried to develop a unified field theory that will unite gravity and electromagnetism in one set of mathematical equations. The results have been disappointing. Perhaps some young reader of these words. will someday see how to formulate such a theory." - p. 108, Relativity For The Million, Martin Gardner.
Summarizing that the cause of gravitational action-at-a-distance is the 5th & 6th Dimensions, which are also (each and both), categorically, an expanding electromagnetic field. Fact #7.
We have, among other things in the past 65 minutes, overseen the reinstatement and confirmation of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field Theory. Matter as well as electromagnetism is found to be constantly expanding. Past is measured prologue...
"There is no sense in regarding matter and field as two qualities quite different from each other. We cannot imagine (or find) a definite surface separating distinctly field and matter. The division of matter and field is, after the recognition of the equivalence of mass and energy, something artificial and not clearly defined. Could we not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics? What impresses our senses as matter is really a great concentration of energy into a comparatively small place. We could regard matter as the region in space where the field is extremely strong. In this way a new philosophical background could be created. Its final aim would be the explanation of all events in nature by structure laws valid always and everywhere. A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone. There would be no place, in our new physics, for both field and matter, field being the only reality. This new view is suggested by the great achievements of field physics, by our success in expressing the laws of electricity, magnetism, and gravitation in the form of structure laws, and finally, by the equivalence of mass and energy (E=MC2). Our ultimate problem would be to modify our field laws in such a way that they would not break down for regions in which the energy is enormously concentrated."
- Albert Einstein & Leopold Infeld, THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS, pp. 242-3
"The electromagnetic field is, for the modern physicist, as real as the chair on which he sits." - Page 151, Ibid
Suppose we pursue, find and reflect this 'new physics' (not furniture?), referenced above by Einstein... What happens when we take his 'new philosophical background' as it is applied to a thrown stone (for example), and observe "the greatest state of field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone': beneath that thrown stone's apparently curved trajectory? What shall this pursuit and the proper - 'new view' - reflection of Einstein's proposed 'new physics' be called? Why not call it, 'the new gravity'? And how shall it be recognized and perceived? Why not exactly as we find it; in accordance with the best information; opening with that (deliberately and inadvertantly) provided by the most highly respected authorities on the subject?
"The comparative smallness of what we know today as gravitational effects is not a conclusive reason for ignoring the General Principle of Relativity in theoretical investigations of a fundamental character. In other words, I do not believe it is justifiable to ask: 'What would physics look like without gravitation (the General Principle)?'
- Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, pp. 352-3
[BREAK=Chapter 6]
This is Dave. / Dave's not here!; etc.
- Cheech & Chong. CATCH 22, continued:
Moreover, the attending or reading audience not sleeping, is witness to the unprecedented identification and hence the qualified recognition and discovery of the 5th dimension of electricity, and, the 6th dimension of magnetism:
The heart-foundation of Einstein's Unified Field Theory is a (previously unknown repelling) force which Einstein discovered within and extracted from his General Theory Of Relativity. That is the same theory that revealed and introduced us to the 4th Dimension.
Einstein called this previously unknown force 'the Cosmological Constant'. When he spoke of it in his Unified Field equations he designated it with the Greek sign 'Lambda', which resembles an inverted capital 'V', like this: /\ .The non-mathematical definition of Einstein's 'Lambda' or 'Cosmological Constant':
'A previously unrecognized Universal Repelling Force, originating in all Matter and projecting across space at the velocity of light'.
Einstein's cosmological constant force does not eliminate or ignore the concept of gravitational attraction (the concept of a pulling force), but rather joins it. The repelling force and the impelling force are found co-existentially, side by side. The impelling force of gravity binds the universe together. The cosmologically constant repelling force of Lambda is Einstein's answer to Newton's candidly asked, previously unanswered question of why a universe full of impelling bodies doesn't collapse on itself. Fact#8
Lambda. /\ The Cosmological Constant.
A repelling force acting across space out of material bodies; proportionate in strength and intensity to the mass value of its material source (particle/charge).
At a personal meeting with Hubble and others, Einstein was persuaded by the prevailing purveyors of what came to be universally considered - and mirthfully called - the big bang theory; to consider the *Cosmological Constant a mistake on his part; *said to be a repelling force acting exactly like and with gravity; except in the opposite direction; the strength of which increases instead of decreasing with distance. Preventing the collapse of a universe of impelling (mutually attracting) bodies.
At the unexpected discovery that the spatial universe is expanding (Silpher's discovery, 1927; Hubble's law, 1931). Einstein's Cosmological Constant Force was dismissed as superfluous. It was 'resolved' the the (spatial) universe did not collapse on itself because it was expanding.
Einstein was thereafter persuaded to call it 'the biggest blunder of my life'; as indeed this record takes accented note of agreement.
It's Still The Same Old Story, continued:
The record can only very respectfully agree with Dr. Einstein's theory; as usual; while all others have grown weary. Abandoning the Cosmological Constant to the Friedman-Lemaitre-Hubble-Robertson (no relation to this author) -Walker model of an expanding - Big Bang originated-universe was indeed the biggest blunder of Einstein's life.
We will return to that redoubtably pensive consideration in a moment, but now this (I thought I told you never to play that song again, Sam.?) :
While a follow-through of reinstatement awaits anyone who pursues documentation of what happens when one objectively over-rules the subjective dismissal of the abundantly proven, objective concept of expanding matter: On the *chronically myopic premise that it is 'self-apparently' not happening.
Einstein's abandonment of his own Cosmological Constant - Unified Field - Theory is much controversied. On the other hand, they aren't talking about how Einstein was back to and working on his abandoned Unified Field; to the time of his death, in May, of '55.
“It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation’)...
“In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein’s proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.
“Thus Einstein’s original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder’, rejected by Einstein, and the cosmological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again.”
- George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270
The so called ‘ugly head’ Of The Outlawed Truth:
“The cosmological constant has now a secure position... Not only does it unify the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, but it renders the theory of gravitation and its relation to space-time measurement so much more illuminating and indeed self evident, that return to the earlier view is unthinkable. I would as soon think of reverting to Newtonian Theory as of dropping the cosmological constant.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE, p. 24
“I can see no reason to doubt that the observed recession of the spiral nebulae is due to cosmic repulsion, and it is the effect predicted (in 1919) by Relativity Theory which we were hoping to find. Many other explanations have been proposed - some of them rather fantastic (* ‘tired light’, ‘the big bang’,’dark matter’, ‘gravitons’, ‘super strings’ ‘anti-matter’) - and there has been a great deal of discussion which seems to me rather pointless. In this, as in other developments of scientific exploration, we must recognise the limitations of our present knowledge and be prepared to consider revolutionary changes.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, pp. 89 - 90, A TREASURY OF SCIENCE (Harlow Shapley publishers)
Long ago, this author noted that Einstein's designation for the repelling force inherent to universal gravitation is Lambda (Also, by apparent coincidence, the Aztec calendar's key symbol: /\ <repeated 9 times in a circle around the Aztec calendar>. Translating to: "4-motion").
Shaped, not unlike a kind of transversely considered axe. Also the shape of a pizza-pie-charted slice. So designated; so named. Godfathered by Albert - 'the Axe' - Einstein. An affectionate if levititious term for the Maestro of gravity.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
Four photostatatic copies of a quarter for every counterfeit dollar in change-seeker. A 4-D chicken in every pot. An improved world, beyond Shake'n Bake. (Old Mack. He's back?)
A rash, sleep-disturbing look (in black & white) at Einstein's 4-Dimensional Geodesics.
This discussion is rapidly approaching its close. Before it closes, I wish to cite another accordance of the General Theory; which states that a thrown baseball or a fired bullet does not actually describe a curved or parabolic path to the earth, when projected horizontally above its surface. Instead, they actually move in straight lines which only appear to be curves and parabolas.
The reason for this says Einstein, is that, 'What is 4-Dimensionally straight gives the illusion of being curved or parabolic when projected on the 3 recognized Dimensions Of Space'.
These quasi 3-D parabolas and curves which are not really parabolas and curves, but instead are 4-D straight lines, are called 'geodesics'.
Einstein's geodesic account of gravity is that, 'Matter causes the 4-D Space-Time continuum to curve in the area surrounding it'. This fact is formally referred to as, 'Einstein's postulate of the 4-D Space-Time metric'.
If we find this Einsteinian description of gravitation vague, it is simply because it is indeed a vague description, yielding small conceptual compromise when compared with the familiar if mysterious 'tug' of Classical Newtonian gravity.
One may question, What does Relativity mean when it accounts for gravity by referencing the 4-D Space-Time metric and the curving of the 4-D Space-Time Continuum? And how does this 4-D Space-Time Continuum cause bodies to descend, or geodesically appear to descend?
The 'answer' is that physicists do not understand the identity of Einstein's 4th Dimension; since space-time is one of the many effects of the 4th Dimension, it is not understood or recognized what the geodesic gravitational curvature of space-time is either. (The lastest popular interpretation of this enigma is that 'there is no gravity' - only the 'curvature of the 4-D space time continuum'; the explanation for which remains as mysterious now as it was when it was perceived as gravity.)
“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance. These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE
The false enigma is resolved in recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - enlarging, pinning the fans to the bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accomodating the ball park, and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory - which is actually moving in a straight line ('geodesic') - appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object.
Here's what false authority says of Einstein's 4-D geodesic:
"We cannot visualize such a curved space. Because humanity is not four dimensional." - The LIFE Science Library's UNIVERSE, p. 179
“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. "As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance." These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE
Neither will it ever be visualized, until Matter is recognized to be 4-Dimensionally expanding. As simply illustrated here and affluently verified throughout this mere historical - previously unrecognized - review.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
“Impact and apparent ‘return’ of projectile, after being fired at MOMENT ‘A’.
Acceleration of earth generates illusion of ‘curved’ parabola and ‘descending’ projectile.”
4-D MASS-FIELD STRAIGHT-LINE GEODESIC
(Back to Euclidean geometry.) Fact#9.
Scan & transmission by Austin P. Torney
-----------------------
The Father Of Experimental Science, Galileo, proved that Aristotle was wrong when the latter surmised that heavier objects, fall faster in descent, than lighter objects, when dropped from the same height at the same time, above the earth's surface.
It does seem logical. It just doesn't happen to be true. Everyone who is anyone in physics today, falls on hocus pocus, to make this annoying fact go away. Reduce it to a trivial matter of no - ho hum - importance. Whereas, it is a major, unresolved enigma in theoretical physics. It is often falsely held up, either as a non-issue, or as a (falsely) resolved issue.
Galileo is said to be the first to make and note proof of that unexpected - ever since, bitterly disappointing - fact of reality. Being the universal rate of descent of all objects in free fall, regardless of their mass values (in the absence of air resistance). 16 (32) feet per second squared, for bodies descending on or near the surface of the earth.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
Much (low key, back stage) concern has been given to Galileo's unarguable fact of descending bodies in a gravitational field; ever since it was proven. Especially after Newton made a law of gravity that does indeed dictate: the heavier object should indeed descend faster than the lighter - less massive - object...
Because, according to Newton's laws, there should inevitably be a greater mutual attraction between, say, a descending cannonball and the earth, than between a descending bb shot and the earth.
The (ironic) mystery is frequently and glibly said to be resolved in the fact of the coincidence of inertial and gravitational mass values intersecting at the same qualitatively accelerating coordinates.
An obligatory description of the unanticipated and astonishing coincidence is not any explanation of the still completely unexplained *coincidence...
By definition - like gravity and for exactly the same reason - *not understood (and stonewalled) by the scientific- academic status quo. Representatives of which all too often are found pretending an understanding of that which they do not understand. Furthermore, falsely representing what they (often capriciously - with all authoritative gravity) tragicomically misrepresent.
That is to say, a cannonball, according to Newton's Law, should (is supposed to) fall faster than a descending bb shot. The cannonball does not fall faster than descending bb shots or grains of sand or a leaping pod of airborne Blue whales. Everything falls at the same rate of acceleration, regardless of its mass value: *in the absence of air resistance...
[BREAK=Chapter 7]
*This last qualification is important; there are many novice critics who aggressively introduce 'terminal velocity' of descending object in free fall above the earth's surface as being 120 m.p.h., which is true, the critic sums up the argument by adding that if the earth is truly accelerating - expanding ever faster to rise up and meet apparently descending objects, then there wouldn't be a terminal velocity, and free falling objects 'would accelerate', instead of reaching 'TV' - terminal velocity - a free falling parachutist before the chute is deployed, for example. All of this is to remind any such critic that terminal velocity limits the free falling object, due to air resistance: in the absence of air resistance the descent rate does in fact accelerate in corroboration with the 'proposed' (abundantly proved) accelerating expansion of the earth.
Proclaiming that inertial mass resistance (in allegedly unmoving space) to gravity (in descent time) exactly cancels out the gravity: does not explain why the allegedly unrelated (space and time) values are equal. Inertial values always (without explanation) proportionately canceling out what would be the difference between inertial and gravitational mass values...
Einstein's *General Principle is the only functional solution to this (The descending objects are not really falling at all.) It continues: *unemployed.
“It was Einstein’s feeling about the form which the laws of nature should take that guided him. It led him to question a certain coincidence in Newtonian Law which, all too conveniently in his opinion, made everything come out right. This was the perfect balance between the mass of a body, considered as a source of gravity in Newton’s Gravitation Law, and the mass of a body as a measure of inertia in Newton’s Laws of Motion.
“According to the last, the amount of force necessary to change the motion of a body depends on its mass; a heavy object has a greater inertia than a lighter one and therefore is harder to move, or to slow down. To this law there was, apparently, an exception: the case of falling. Instead of falling more slowly, a heavy object reaches the same acceleration as a lighter one. Newton (*allegedly) accounted for this with his Law of Gravitation, which states that the attractive force exerted on one body by another increases with the mass of the attracted body. Thus, most conveniently, the force of gravitation always is exactly sufficient to overcome the inertia of a body so that all bodies fall at the same speed.
“This perfect balance, this same mass constant which appeared in two different roles, looked to Einstein a bit suspicious, a bit forced. It should not be necessary to bring in a coincidence of this sort in order to explain the universe; God did not present such malicious complexities.
“He began to wonder whether the (*popularly perceived) distinction between inertial and gravitational forces might not be artificial. Could motion which was due to what Newton called ‘gravity’, in fact be distinguished from motion due to what he called ‘inertia’? It could not be, Einstein found, after he had made an analysis of experiments which might be done in answer to the question, the distinction was artificial. It had no experimental support and therefore - according to the rule: ‘If you cannot relate it to measurement, you do not know it’ - the distinction had (has) no place in a physical theory.”
- Barbara Lovett Cline, THE MEN WHO MADE A NEW PHYSICS, p.p. 184 - 5
“A defect (of Newtonian Classical Mechanics) also eliminated (resolved) only by the General Theory of Relativity, lies in the fact that there is no reason given by the mechanics itself for the equality of the gravitational and inertial mass of the material point.” - Albert Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS.
Newton was fully aware of the unexplained, hauntingly unresolved problem: the functional intersection of inert and heavy mass values. Describing this coincidence too often passes as explanation for this coincidence; which falsely currencied description is no explanation at all.
According to Aristotelian intuition and Newton's laws, heavier objects should indeed, fall faster. They don't.
Instead: Everything in free fall on or near earth invariably descends at exactly the same rate (in a vacuum. Sans air resistance).
Repeat: Einstein's General Principle:
is the only recognizable explanation for this.
At the turn of the 19th century, a Russian scientist, Roland Von Eotvos, pursued finding a difference in descent rates of heavier and lighter objects. A difference which is supposed to be there, and isn't.
Eotvos, was inspired to achieve technological measurement of differences in descent time for variously light and heavy falling objects, down to a billionth of a second (A nanosecond).
He could find no variants in rates of descent (in time) for variously massed test objects (in space)..
No difference in descent rates - gravitational time from inertial space; uniformly perceived as unrelated - of comparatively lighter and heavier objects has ever been measured; to date.
The author (Truly Yours) submits that no difference will ever be found. Due to the more than coincidence - but rather the identity - of the fact that apparently descending objects are not really falling at all. The ever-expanding earth, matter of factly rising up to 4 dimensionally overtake and meet - make contact with - apparently falling bodies/objects.
(Upon occasions of free falling objects being overtaken and struck by, then to be inertially pinned down upon the earth's surface, present day science does not recognise the consequent gravitational fulfillment of the scientific definition for 'work'. May it suffice to clarify for the moment, that contemporary theoretical physics does not acknowledge and consequently does not employ the advantage of comprehending and accounting for a proper understanding of 'objects at rest', while constantly acted upon by gravity: the unidentified 'force' - F; on the earth's surface. That is, such objects are perceived and conceptualized as 'not moving'. Whereas, the scientific definition for 'work' requires motion, which, in the case of the ever-accelerating 4-D space-time continuum and the - en perpetuatem - prevailing dynamics of the General <and Special> Theory of Relativity, is not recognised or acknowledged. Meanwhile 'force' is defined in several categories of motion, none of which are attributed to 'objects at rest' on the earth's surface <for example> in a gravitational field; all of which definitions are fulfilled. Not only in the inertial resistance to the acceleration of earth's suface upon the 'object at rest', but also and importantly, the - en perpetuatem - omnidirectional, accelerating enlargement of the - whatever - test object, itself...)
The ('Impossible') reason all objects (appear to) descend at the same rate of acceleration. Fact #10.
“Objects of such different nuclear constitution as aluminum and gold fall with accelerations that agree to better than one part in 10-11, according to Roll, Krotkov, and Di#k (1964), one of the most important null experiments in all physics. Individual molecues fall in step, too, with macroscopic objects (Estermann, Simpson and Stern - 1935; and so do individual neutrons (Dabbs, Harvey, Paya and Horstmann - 1965), individual electrons (Wittborn and Fairbank - 1967), and individual mu mesons (Beall - 1970).”
- GRAVITATION, pp 13 - 16, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.
"A defect (*in the Newtonian Classical system of 3-D mechanics) eliminated only by the introduction of the General Theory of Relativity, lies in the fact that there is no reason given by mechanics (*The Newtonian system) itself for the equality of the gravitational and inertial mass of the material point." - Albert Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS, p.71
"*In a neutron (cyclotron) experiment, a beam of fast neutrons close to that of the speed of light was shot into a moderator block, the emerging neutrons were observed to rain down from the block with about the same speed as rain droplets fall". - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 145
“The most dramatic of all early tests of the general theory took place in 1919 during a total eclipse of the sun. Einstein had reasoned as follows: if an elevator in interstellar space were pulled upward with an accelerating velocity, a light beam traveling from side to side inside the elevator would bend down in a parabolic path. This would be regarded as an inertial effect, but according to the general theory, one can make the elevator a fixed frame of reference and view the curving of the beam as a gravitational effect. Gravity, then, is capable of curving light beams.”
- Martin Gardner, RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLION
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
"A beam of light projected horizonally over the earth's surface 'falls' at the same rate as any other test object. Only the hyper-speed of light sustains an apparently straight line, which is actually slightly parabolic, in accordance with slower moving - horizontally projected test objects with more easily measured arcs."
- KBR, TOTAL FIELD THEORY
Proving yet once again, gravity is the 4th dimension.
Reality Check, continued:
As regards any question of, 'Why didn't Einstein say gravity is the 4th Dimension'? He did. And categorically. Einstein may have said and proved that gravity is the 4th Dimension much more eloquently and elaborately; much more absolutely than I or anyone else ever will.
We could reference an abundance of Einsteinian non-mathematical quotes at this time, quotes (many of which are included in this TOTAL FIELD THEORY presentation) - in other words - finding gravity the 4th Dimension. Instead, at this time and in the name of abbreviation, we'll reference what is literally the best-known mathematical formula in the world. The direct, non-mathematical translation of which irrevocably proves - as it always has - that gravity is the 4th Dimension.
The formula is E=MC2. The direct non-mathematical translation of which is: 'Energy equals Matter times the speed of light, squared'.
In grade school, I began to hear other students ask a question which I have since then learned is also familiar to many others; that question being: "In the formula 'E=MC2', why is C (light; field energy) squared (Out of M < Mass/Matter/ Particle>; which is perceived as a static, non-expanding, non-field)?"
I may have asked the question myself, but I knew less of mathematics than I do now. But others did ask that question, and that is understandable enough. The teacher's (ubiquitous) answer, which I have also learned since then is familiar to many others, was not so understandable. That (alleged) 'answer' being: 'It (C squared) actually isn't necessary'.
This answer, it will not surprise some of you to know, is quite standardized as a response to the question, 'Why is C squared, in the formula E=MC2?'
All are implored not to take my word for this. Simply ask the next physicist or mathematician you happen in to. If you pursue this question, you're apt to get that answer or its equivalent. I had no understanding of mathematics whatsoever, and yet it still left me and many others wondering:
'If in fact it isn't necessary, then why did Einstein include it in the formula?'
One may again reasonably ask, 'What is the speed of light squared from?' Of course the only answer is, 'The speed of light (C - celeritas constant) is squared from (out of) Matter'.
Smoke On The Perrier:
Affixed to that familiar explicit statement made by Einstein, is the familiar implicit statement - 'but it isn't necessary'.
Light energy is acknowledged to be, to say the least, expanding. Specifically, it is very accurately measured, originally in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, to do so at 186,282 miles-per-second.
*Light energy is also acknowledged to be qualitatively identical to *Matter energy; *their differences being only their densities. Light being much more thinly distributed and tenuous than matter. This is proven in the statement 'E=M' of the formula 'E=MC2. Originally published by Einstein in 1906. Light energy or electromagnetism is furthermore acknowledged to invariably originate within and expand-out-of *MatterEnergy - *generator of all spaces and times.
On the other hand, MatterEnergy is not acknowledged to be expanding.
Quite the contrary. Matter is unanimously agreed to be static and non-expanding.
Digressing To Reality, Geometric & Algebraic Law:
In the formula E=MC2 we have the acknowledged dynamical omni-directional expansion of electromagnetic or light energy, squared from presumably static/non-expanding MatterEnergy.
As long as there are those who demand and deny proof of the 4-Dimensional MassField, there will also be those who fail or refuse to recognize the accumulative achievements of historical and contemporary Academic Physical Science - and, the lessons of Algebra 101. If all the Nobel laureates in the world gather together to agree that any entity acknowledged and agreed to be dynamically expanding, can be algebraically squared from any other entity which is agreed to be static and non-expanding (exactly such a gathering exists, and has existed since 1906):
what is established in such an assemblage of authority is that, none among these mortar-boarded multitudes has possession of the mathematical ability required to pass the seventh grade.
Fact # 11.
[BREAK=Chapter 8]
Einstein's 'renowned formula' E=MC2 proves again that Universal Matter is literally, constantly and dramatically expanding.
Clipping right along on this planet at 32 feet per second squared. The Causative Source of the 4-Dimensional Space-Time Continuum: a dimension of time, and motion (are synonymous - time being the interval between two or more events <in space>).
An interim of levity about 4-D gravity:
The bespectacled scientific malrepresentatives proclaim with all professionalism, that their 4-D spectacles are unfindable. That their sensory optical prescription is immeasurable. Unrefractionable. Even unimaginably out of sight. The 4th dimension: officially proclaimed to be nowhere in the measurable light, or the sensual realm of touch, taste, hearing or sight. In or out of italics and/or parentheses.
Big Brother can't find the 4th dimension anywhere, 'because humanity is not four dimensional'.
Mr. Science is out to isolate gravity waves. Dr. Graviton Livingston is attempting to locate someone who presumes enough to find himself, and what he emptily purports to be in search of. Lost on the North African river of denial. The Star Optometrist has contracted a posse with Warner Brothers to polish-off both lenses on his misplaced spectacles.
Disregarding the descent of free falling objects, the weight (and inert mass value) of everything; the orbiting of the planets - and all other orbits with and without punctuation. ('The 4th D cannot be seen, felt, or imagined'. - The 'scientific consensus'...
'If science was a democracy, the world would still be flat or square with the universe revolving around it every 24 hours' - Anon)
The inescapable sounds of gravity. Rhythm songs of the 4-D space-time continuum. Anything round and rolling, especially metal coins and platters, glass and/or stone, that's allowed to slow down, fall over, and settle, audibly rocking, oscillating, rolling and rotating downwardly, audibly accelerating ever-faster toward a quick stop on a hard surface.
THE EVERYDAY SOUND and SIGHT of 4-D ACCELERATION
(Is The Audio-Visual music & rhythm of Gravity)
A tabled or floored coin, dinner plate or serving tray on a roll, slowing down to a coil of orbitally circling around its own accelerating drum roll, finally and abruptly settling down to a quick-stop, in the making of a gravitationally resounding, perfectly spiral shaped nest. Physically rolling and sounding out an accelerating spiral, while roundly resonating the rhythmically accelerating part. (What?)
The same harmonious polka may be harkened in a characteristically accelerating rocking motion, from any number of utensils, tools or spherical objects, rocking (to & fro) on solid hard kitchen sink or floored surfaces. The commonplace sight and sound of that which is adamently pontificated as 'immeasurable', 'invisible', 'non-mathematically inaccessible, and 'unimaginable' (What?). The song of an errant hubcap settling down on the asphalt all by its rolling and rotating self.
Where (By and by; sooner or later) everything in present tense, continuously and collectively arrives from the past. Squared.
The sound, shape - and measurable sight - of materially manifest gravity. An everyday, globally ubiquitous occurrence. (You dropped something?) The reputedly 'immeasurable, unimaginable' 4-D space-time continuum.
Heat flows downhill; ever smaller.
Whereas, events flow uphill; ever larger.
Entropic universal heat death is not as a conceptual dogma and/or social obsession, meaningfully derived from the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics. Any more than the 4-D space-time continuum can be excluded as the explanation for a steady state theory and the long withheld improvement over the incumbent, 4th dimension abolishing big bang advocates.
Are you seated comfortably?
A WORD ABOUT SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A Disinformational Time Of The Signs: 'Time is a hallucination purveyed by the inventors of space.'
- A popular bumpersticker mentality.
Actually: terrestrial time standards are based on astronomical motions of the planet(s) around the sun. A planetary year equals its completion of a 360 degree arc - round trip - about the sun (Which, itself is bound toward Vega). A 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. Therefore, a second of time, for example is also 18 1/2 miles of space: traveled by the earth in its annual orbit around the sun.
Sums up the bumper-stickered inspired hallucination. Its about time.
Non-Absolute Relativistic 4-D space-time. What it is:
Time, furthermore, in 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. 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 space.
Neither therefore, is 60 miles per hour (or 186,282 m.p.s.) always the same speed. Or a year, month, week, day, hour - or a second, always the same comparative duration.
Proving that the value of time varies with the value of space it occurs in.
Refer relativistic time dilation. Slow time (Macrocosmic 'weak forces') occurring in relatively larger spaces; fast time (Microcosmically 'strong forces') occurring in relatively smaller and larger (earlier and later) spaces. The relativity of time values. The value of time ostensibly varies with the value of space it occurs in.
Refer: Einstein's 'non-absolute relative space', and 'non-absolute relative time'. For which, until here and now, there are not even any failed explanations.
Of course, in a 4-D universe, the value of time and space (4-D space-time) quite 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 from which it originates and in 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. Fact #12.
Now, to close with two brief considerations. At irregular intervals, the world press and scientific journals at large will report on contradictions and disqualifications of Einstein's theories. Modifications of the works of Newton and Einstein, for example, do correctly occur. Whereas, until the foundations of physical science represented by Newton and Einstein, for example, are replaced with some more improved system, the displacement of the work of the issued giants of science is confined to whatever slight adjustment, accompanied by whatever hype dissertation.
Then, there are the ambitions of physicists attempting to discover, isolate or insulate gravity waves (Refer 'gravitons').
And yet, like the 4th Dimension, the only appropriate question regarding phenomenological gravity, is, 'Where is it not?'.
Yet still, Contemporary Physics and its mentors continue to brush aside electromagnetism (in the micro and macrocosms) in - high and low, large and small - probes, hunts, expeditions and searches for gravity waves (Where are they not? The bespectacled adventurers are wearing the corrective lenses they're frantically looking for).
"Although relativity theory replaces gravity by a geometrical warping of space-time, it leaves many basic questions unanswered. Does this warping take place instantaneously through space or does it propagate like a wave motion? Almost all physicists agree that the warping moves like a wave and that these waves travel with the speed of light. There is also good reason (sic) to believe that gravity waves consist of tiny indivisible particles of energy called "gravitons." In 1969, Joseph Weber, at the University of Maryland, announced that his equipment, consisting of huge aluminum cylinders, had detected gravity radiation. It seemed to be coming from cataclysmic events at the center of the Milky Way. Since then, dozens of attempts have been made to confirm Weber's claim, some by physicists with detecting equipment more sensitive than Weber's. The results have been negative. The present consensus is that Weber misinterpreted his readings, and that gravity waves have not yet been observed (Have not yet been proven)...
“As for gravitons, no one has any knowledge of what a graviton is like, although many physicists are trying to invent theories that will predict some of its properties. Presumably it contains a tiny bit of space-time curvature, otherwise large numbers of gravitons would be unable to transmit curvature through space. At the moment the graviton, like the particle physicists' quark,' remains a hypothetical beast that physicists hope someday to capture."
- p. 106, THE RELATIVITY EXPLOSION, by Martin Gardner
Speaking of ‘hypothetical beasts’:
(Why the opposition is out of 3-D time & space, continued:
WHY: THE BIG BANG THEORY IS WRONG
The Big Bang Universe has a (speculatively presumed super split second) beginning and a speculatively presumed (entropic heat death) ending.
Unlike the Steady State Theory; which for many substantial and eloquent reasons does not proffer a beginning or ending; which (Steady State Theory) was abandoned, because the (recently and unexpectedly discovered) proven expansion of the spatial universe must result; inevitably in the dissipation of occurrent numbers (density) of objects occupying given units of space over extensively progressive periods of time.
A Steady State Theory projects a general uniform density of space, rather than a dissipating space projected in a *Big Bang translation of Universal History.
From the more dense - relatively smaller - past; into the increasingly less dense and ever-enlarging future. *Big Bang dictated Space always becoming more dissipated, 'thinning out' with ('big rip') increased passage of time in the spatially expanding, 'Big Bang'. Which is what is said to inevitably result when the dissipating universe of the present and future, is back-tracked into the conceptualized universal (consequently ever smaller and more dense) 3-D past...
Eventually intersecting very densely, when and where, due to tremendous gravitational pressures and resulting high temperatures: an explosion (*Big Bang) is said to have occurred. Proclaimed by the big bang gang to be the cause of the recently (and quite unexpectedly) discovered, spatially expanding universe - *therefore 'inevitably' thinning out with the passage of time (often said to be enroute a conceptually accompanying, imminent forthcoming, 'entropic heat death' - more recently termed, 'the big rip').
Big Bang Cosmology. Product of a desperately concocted (1927 emerged, Henry Silpher discovered, Edwin Hubble refined, Friedmann/Lemaitre/La Place generalized), ad hocly makeshift history. The big bang theory is ad hoc, in the sense that it was conjured up in hurried response to the unexpected discovery that the entire spatial universe is expanding (1927- '1931, Silpher-Hubble).
Back tracking the observed expansion through past time seems to find the observed expanding universe at a point of convergence - an intersecting point where all the matter of the universe was presumably joined in one singular 'cosmic egg.' What seems inevitably, to be ('therefore') an ending of space. Ergo, 'beginning of space and time.' A 3-D space-monopolising universal beginning.
"Our sun at the center of our solar system is just one star among billions in the Milky Way galaxy. Around us are billions and billions of galaxies. Where could this entire universe come from? Was it always this way or did the universe have a beginning? The church has always believed that the universe came from a moment of creation - a time when the universe began. Meanwhile, scientists developed two theories: the Big Bang and the Steady State theories. In this century, science has come to understand how the universe began from a tiny point, fifteen billion years ago. No matter how incredible it sounds, it seems that the church's ideas of a moment of creation were right from the beginning."
- STEPHEN HAWKING'S UNIVERSE,
Volume I, Program II: The Big Bang
Copyright 1997
Yet, there is, in astrophysical proven and agreed upon fact: no common center from which the spatially expanding universe recedes. Combined with the 1998 observed dynamic that the expanding universe is accelerating (*issued as early as 1975-6) - not a quality of any kind of beginning explosion; but more a feature of a repelling force ('Cosmological Constant'), acting across space out of material bodies, becoming more dynamic with distance. Fact #13.
The Editors, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,
415 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
*14 May 1976
"An Accelerating Universe?" "...that most reasonable observational data.... fit closely all models to which the expansion is accelerating. "The prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... "something must be terribly wrong."..."The net forces between (receding) glaxies really are repulsive (Re: 'Hubble's Law - the more distant a given stellar or galactic light source the faster it's rate of recession from the point of observation". Re: Einstein's Cosmological Constant <repelling force acting parallel to and in the opposite direction as the popular concept of 'Newtonian impelling force>, a force different from others in that its velocity increases - rather than decreases, with distance.)
- SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 'Science and the Citizen', December 1975, James E. Gunn and Beatrice M. Tinsley.
'I point out this apparent conflict with the understanding that Gunn and Tinsley concluded "...the prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... and that something must be terribly wrong."
Especially so if "...the net forces between (receding) galaxies... really are repulsive... and if gravitational values really are "equivalent to and synchronous with inertial acceleration values beyond a billionth of a second and the technical ability to measure any difference" (THE NEW GRAVITY <Is The 4th Dimension>, April 1976, Kent B. Robertson).
'Is it possible we are overlooking a rather obvious consideration, concerning the real nature of 'gravity?'
Very Truly Yours,
David F. Sicks, Anchorage, Alaska cc - Mr. Kent Robertson
( Mr. David F. Sicks received no response.)
Revisionary BB Politics - 11-11-2007, 05:22 PM (Posted by K. B. Robertson <RascalPuff – ‘RP’>, on ToeQuest)
Recently in this Theory of Everything internet enclave, the following - exemplary - excerpt was included – in bold red lettering - in a post by the unarguably venerable neutralino:
"Note that nowhere in the BB theory does it state 'the universe exploded into existence', or in fact anything to do with explosions!!"
This conceptual posturing is merely an example of the fact that the big bang theory has evolved from it's inception as a 'beginning explosion', into a Standard Theorist bunker of denials that any 'original explosion' commenced what is now popularly referenced as 'The Expanding Universe'.
Proclamations that there is no original explosion associated with the big bang theory have become the status quo. When someone proclaims or implies otherwise, they are promptly described as a 'novice', and 'corrected', as exemplified by the above quoted statement by neutralino.
This controversy leads to the question of where the big bang theory originated, and, how it was described.
Here is the google acquired answer to that question…
http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ce/sc0022.html
“In the winter of 1998, two separate teams of astronomers in Berkeley, California, made a similar, startling discovery. They were both observing supernovae — exploding stars visible over great distances — to see how fast the universe is expanding. In accordance with prevailing scientific wisdom, the astronomers expected to find the rate of expansion to be decreasing, Instead they found it to be increasing — a discovery which has since “shaken astronomy to its core” (Astronomy, October 1999).“This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on “a day without yesterday. “After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big Bang as fact. But while most scientists — including the mathematician Stephen Hawking — predicted that gravity would eventually slow down the expansion of the universe and make the universe fall back toward its center, Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding. He argued that the Big Bang was a unique event, while other scientists believed that the universe would shrink to the point of another Big Bang, and so on. The observations made in Berkeley supported Lemaitre’s contention that the Big Bang was in fact “a day without yesterday.” When Georges Lemaitre was born in Charleroi, Belgium, most scientists thought that the universe was infinite in age and constant in its general appearance. The work of Isaac Newton and James C. Maxwell suggested an eternal universe. When Albert Einstein first published his theory of relativity in 1916, it seemed to confirm that the universe had gone on forever, stable and unchanging.”
Neutralino’s response:
Re: Revisionary BB Politics - 11-11-2007, 06:38 PM
“Ok I'm ready to eat a tiny slice of humble pie now, RP. My response that you've quoted in red is not correct. I can't remember saying that last night, and have no idea why I would do, but I did (I checked).
So here's my stance on the big bang. Many people say that there was an "explosion" at some point in space, or that the universe was created from a single point in space. This, clearly, is incorrect (since the universe consists of the spacetime of the universe).
However, one can say that there was an explosion that created spacetime and that is why the universe is expanding in the way we see today. The important things to notice are that firstly, this explosion did not take place in a specific point in spacetime, since this would imply a centre, which contradicts the cosmological principle. Secondly, we note that we cannot run the clock back to time zero and see an infinitely dense point of matter. Thirdly, this explosion is not like any explosion that we would imagine. When we think of explosions, we think of fragments of something being thrown further into space. However, this explosion was an explosion on the universe itself which created the universe (if that makes sense.)
Anyway, talking about explosions, whilst technically not incorrect, gets confusing. I would much rather take the stance that the big bang theory states that the universe was once far more dense than it is today.
So, I apologise to you, RascalPuff, and to anyone else who read my incorrect views.
[As an aside, in future it may be better to get a reference from a non-catholic source if discussing workings and successes of a catholic priest!]”
The reversionary transition came about, because there is no common center from which the expanding universe, recedes. The dynamic structure of the expanding universe is such, that the recession of light sources is moving directly away from the observer, in direct line of sight, no matter what location the expansion is observed. 'The center is everywhere'. This is not the dynamic signature of an explosion - especially when it is learned that the expansion is proceeding ever faster: accelerating.
On the other hand the described dynamics are the signature of a repelling force acting out of all material bodies, 'just like gravity', except, in the opposite direction. Refer, 'the Cosmological Constant'.
The Unabashed Reinstatement of the
Cosmological Constant (Lambda), continued
Before and since the latest writing of this condensed (originally, 1959) presentation of Total Field Theory: Gravity is the 4th Dimension, the 'big bang' "theory" has been ambitiously renovated - unflinchingly retrieving the 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant from the round file - putting it back on the slate (refer 'LCDM' - Lambda Cold Dark Matter, and the regularly employed big bang employment of the term, 'cosmological constant', in those words...). Moreover, the ex parte big bang gang has nonchalantly declared that it doesn't - after all - need a common center from which it originates. Under these rearrangements, the covertly bewildered, usurped, big bang gangologists carry on with 'business as usual'...
Enter in google: 'Einstein was right after all - maybe'. Then <collectively> enter in google: cosmological constant lambda expanding universe big bang acceleration red shift dark energy dark matter Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker, and draw your own conclusions about what's happened to astrophysics and the big bang theory, especially since 1976 thru ‘98 and continuing.
- K. B. Robertson 4/21/2007
The expansion is proven, dynamically structured as though the center (alleged origin of the big bang - said to be the beginning cause of the observed spatial expansion of the universe) is everywhere. No matter the location of any given observation point: the structural dynamics of the observed expanding universe are such that always the red-shift recession of the measurable surrounding universe (of receding objects) is: in direct line of sight; moving directly away from points of observation; wherever they are located.
This is not a 3-dimensional signature.
It is the 4-dimensionally prevailing status quo;establishing a structural expansion corroborating a physically and spatially expanding - steady state – universe, where the center is everywhere; as it is in fact observed to be. Proving every point of mass (charge/ disturbance; systems of combined particles) and its (their) generation of omni-directionally expanding electromagnetism and gravity: as the collective cause and origin of the observed, red-shift measured expanding universe.
The Big Bang is categorically founded on a 3-D premise. In what is insisted to be an ‘acknowledged’ 4-D Universe.
Refer, George Orwell's 1984 *DOUBLE-THINK & *NEWSPEAK (*two mutually conflicting parallel lines to infinity): endless gridlock.
The Big Bang imposed retroactive progression to the bygone past's intersection of three dimensions to a point of origin (the anticipated end of retroactively expanding space - traced backwards in time to an inevitable intersection and consequent point of beginning), does not apply to a four dimensional space-time continuum...
The past of which is progressively smaller, to endless 4-D infinity, when the observed, spatially expanding (Big Bang originated; 3-Dimensionally fixated) universe is traced backwards through past time, from the present.
Back tracking the observed spatially expanding universe is popularly said by Big Bang advocates, to eventually arrive at an intersection where space ends: in three dimensions.
There is no open argument against the omniscience of the four dimensional space time continuum here. It is simply and altogether excluded as a solution (refer option/ aka, ultimatum).
The Big Bang Theory denies/excludes/ignores altogether here, what its double-talking perpetrators say they acknowledge (the 4th dimension)...
Meanwhile, the Big Bang Theory becomes dissolute, when it comes in a functionally applied contact with the (Invisible, What?) four dimensional space-time continuum.
"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their worldly origin and take them as immutably given.
They are then rather rubber-stamped as a ‘sine-qua-non of thinking’ and an ‘a priori given’, etc.
“Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times.
Therefore, it is not at all idle play when we are trained to analyze the entrenched concepts, and point out the circumstances that promoted their justification and usefulness and how they evolved from the experience at hand.
“This breaks their all too powerful authority.
They are removed when they cannot properly legitimize themselves; they are corrected when their association with given things was too sloppy; they are replaced by others when a new system can be established that, for various reasons, we prefer."
- Einstein, "Ernst Mach", Physikalishe Zeitschrift 17 (1916), 102; Collected Papers vol. 6, Doc. 29
(P.S. Consider the Big Bang adoption of the formerly orphaned & ostracized Cosmological Constant & Steady theories, in order to 'maintain' the desperately stricken, anemically perished 'big bang beginning', ok? Maybe no one will be watching them, while they deign to do it in the road... <'What big bang makeover?'> Oh yes. They've gone through the line w'out paying for the abducted CC ( /\ Lambda) and Steady State; so far, it - 'the normal adjustment' - continues to be no big shakes...)
Whereas, in four dimensions (when space-time is not excluded from the universe, as the Big Bang Theory - while alleging to acknowledge the 4-D space-time continuum - excludes the 4th dimension altogether), past space goes on ever-smaller forever; smallness proceeding as endlessly as largeness: with the relativistic center (source of expansion) located everywhere in the occurrence of matter-field particles (without a spatial limitation at the falsely assumed and foreseen intersection of all matter, culminating in the alleged explosive <Big Bang> beginning); in the increasingly distant, ever smaller past to infinity, and growing ever larger forever in the increasingly distant future; to infinity.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
(Refer <the herein reinstated>: steady state theory.)
[BREAK=Chapter 9]
Diving Into The Wreck, Dig & Tell,
continued:
"As long as we are considering an individual electron, we could be mislead into thinking that its waves are physical realities. Each electron ('disturbed area') in fact demands a 3-Dimensional Space to itself. This makes it obvious that these waves are merely a mathematical phantom; consequently it is profoundly disconcerting to find that experiment confirms their existence. The apparent congruity between calculation and experiment must be in some sense illusory. It is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the experiments and their results have yet to receive their proper interpretation." - JWN Sullivan, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE.
"Obviously matter is not expanding".
The Steady State Theory was abandoned because it was unable to explain how the universe would remain at a generally uniform density while at the same time becoming ever larger, spatially.
Hoyle-Bondi & Gold, at first (desperately; because everything else about the Steady State theory is an eloquently strong account of the observed, universal status quo) proposed the *'spontaneous creation of hydrogen' to maintain the required uniform density of their Steady State universe. This reparative course was later abandoned, mainly because it contradicts the law of Conservation of MassEnergy.
Whereas, the four dimensional space time continuum requires no such *adjustment - an adjustment that does indeed (prohibitively) contradict the Law of Conservation of Mass Energy.
Whereas:'These disturbed areas which are discovered to demand 3-Dimensions of Space indicate the position of the electron; yet we cannot state that the disturbed area is the electron. Because any such locality has a tendency to spread, and if the matter of the universe were a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely'.
- J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science, pp. 103 & 104
(Hold that non-expansive - standing field of static - thought?
Exactly what the present day - indefinitely spreading - universe looks like: without the Big Bang. (By now it would have spread indefinitely: squared...)
Scan & transmission by Austin P. Torney
----------------------------
The below quote is extracted from
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/univ_steady.html
"Proposed in 1948 by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle, the steady-state theory was based on an extension of something called the perfect cosmological principle. This holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s. How could the universe continue to look the same when observations show it to be expanding, which would tend to thin out its contents? Supporters of this cosmology balanced the ever-decreasing density that results from the expansion by hypothesizing that matter was continuously created out of nothing. The amount required was undetectably small—about a few atoms for every cubic mile each year.
The steady-state theory began to wither in the 1960s. First, astronomers discovered quasars, the highly luminous cores of very distant galaxies. Because the vast majority of quasars lie exceedingly far away, their existence proves that the perfect cosmological principle cannot be true—the distant and therefore ancient universe is not the same as the younger universe nearby. The death knell for the theory sounded when radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background, the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. *The steady-staters had no reasonable way to explain this radiation, and their theory slowly faded away as so many of its predecessors had."
*Whereas, in the 4-D matter-field universe, background radiation is simply understood as signals from an earlier, more dense epoch in the physically and spatially expanding universe.
CalTech's Dr. H. P. Robertson's 'spotted balloon' analogy. Where he specifically explains that the expanding baloon's surface represents the expansion of space and that the spots represent matter in space, but the spots on the balloon are not to be thought of as painted on the balloons surface, because then the spots themselves would expand with the surface of the balloon, so Dr. H.P. Robertson clarifies that the spots representing matter are to be thought of as 'raisins glued to the balloon's surface', so that the raisins do not expand with the space, since matter is not to be thought of as expanding.
Meanwhile, the Steady State universe remains steady state because physical (4-D) matter is expanding along with expanding space; consequently space does not 'thin out' of material systems with the ongoing expansion of space. Ergo, the abandoned Steady State theory is reinstated; due to the expansion of corporeal matter itself - excluding any need for the (unacceptable) 'spontaneous creation of hydrogen'.
Moreover, the recent observations that the expanding universe (including matter itself) is accelerating, corroborates acceleration as found in nature. Summarily, the - earlier, relatively more dense - Steady State theory is as much an explanation for the controversied background radiation, formerly thought to be exclusively explained by the big bang.
Manifest Natural Precedents For Accelerating Expansion:
Very much on the order of 360 degree arcs of ripples (or pie-plate charted portions thereof) emanating from the center disturbance point on the surface of a pool of water. The newer, earlier ripples not only expanding, but also accelerating. Moving ever more swiftly; with the aging development of distance from center source of disturbance. Not only is qualified continuous expansion, colloquially and precisely found here (on the surface of water), but also acceleration. A ubiquitous, natural emergence of an expanding; accelerating system.
Some observers often flatly deny acceleration of expanding water ripples: they are mistaken...
It is traditionally verified in ripple tank studies that the further water-waves move from their geometric origin (center source of disturbance), the faster they expand, etcetera, ad dynamic infinitum. The expanding water ripples are accelerating - moving ever-faster - and the structure of the concentric acceleration is accountable in the law of the inverse square.
The difference between expanding water ripples and expanding electromagnetism is that water ripples are expanding (accelerating) much more slowly than light (electromagnetism) and water ripples require a conducting medium, whereas light (apparently) does not (Refer Michelson & Morley’s interferometer experiments and Einstein’s conclusion that there is no ‘aether’ <conducting medium previously thought to vehicularize light waves>).
Consider the following quotes from Guy Murchie’s (excellent reference book) Music Of The Spheres:
"... the famous Krakatoa (South Pacific island volcanic eruption generated) swells of 1883 were credited with heights well above one hundred feet, combined with length that grew to hundreds of miles and a speed no less than that of sound in air (approx. 720 miles per hour)."
- p. 373, Guy Murchie, Music of the Spheres.
"Another curious characteristic of the (ship or boat) bow wave... is that, taken in the singular, it becomes concave forward, due to acceleration." - Guy Murchie, Ibid, p. 374
"... stern waves (on/of water, as from a ship or boat) accelerate in concave backward form..." - Ibid, p. 375
"... liquid waves possess acceleration..." - Ibid p. 376
.............................................
"The Accelerating Expansion of the Universe
I’ve read in Scientific American and other places that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is increasing, (possibly due to dark energy), first postulated by Einstein as the cosmological constant.
This is the beginning of the end of all knowledge about what was and is. As space empties out, our galaxy-to-be will come to be surrounded by a total void, past which we can never see. It will be as in 1908, when scientists thought our galaxy constituted the entire universe, for the quickening expansion will pull galaxies apart faster than light, causing them to drop out of view. Beyond a certain event horizon, no matter or radiation will be able to reach us.
In five billion years, although our sun will be a red giant, the Andromeda galaxy will loom large in the night sky for those who remain in our solar system, for our Local Group of galaxies will collapse into a single enormous SuperCluster of stars, but all the other billions of galaxies will disappear into an oblivion beyond the event horizon. We will once again live in a supposed island universe. Even the CMBR will be so faint as to be undetectable.
Even now, the view of the early universe has pretty much vanished." - Austin P. Torney 3/7/'08
-------------
"On the other hand, Austin, when the acceleration of the spatial expansion of the universe is viewed in conjunction with - and as a result of - the accelerating material expansion, then we may have a 'steady state' universe.
('Return of the Steady State' www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718622.300-science-return-of-the-steady-state-universe )
Whaddaya think?" - K. B. Robertson, Ibid
-------------
"Is it fair to say that the accelerated expansion of the space between me, you and Austin is responsible for proportionately retaining our bodies' density, or is it the accelerated expansion of the space within our bodies that is responsible for creating its mass?
I just wanted to be clear on whether or not the relationship between mass and gravity is the same for mass and acceleration.
Thanks." - Raven Knight (Aka, 'Nobody') Ibid
--------------------
"Very comprehensive question.
I think they're synonymous, Nobody.
It has to do with the electromagnetic field surrounding sub atomic charges.
The 'loop' of magnetism - exiting the northerly core and swinging around to enter the southerly core constitutes expansion from the north and contraction to the south, within and sustaining the same system.
Refer, 'conspansion'.
'Tao', 'YinYang'.
It may have to do with Dirac's 'particle' and 'anti-particle' - where the northern (exit/outward) hemisphere constitutes one, and the southern (entrance/inward) hemisphere constitutes the other (particle, and anti particle).
The result may be what causes the explosion Dirac predicted; in turn, perhaps being the cause (if not the identity) of the 4-D expansion of the subjected system, en toto."
- K. B. Robertson (Aka, 'RascalPuff'), Ibid
----------------------
"Perfectly clear answer, Rascal. Thank you.
I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like your discovery way back when (50's?) has influenced many folks. You've given me many missing pieces of the master puzzle."
- Raven Knight, Ibid
-----------------------
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In physics, the Dirac equation is a relativisticquantum mechanical wave equation formulated by Paul Dirac in 1928 and provides a description of elementaryspin-˝ particles, such as electrons, consistent with both the principles of quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. The equation demands the existence of antiparticles and actually predated their experimental discovery, making the discovery of the positron, the antiparticle of the electron, one of the greatest triumphs of modern theoretical physics. ...the Dirac equation was originally invented to describe the electron...
***
The Cause of 4-D Expansion, QM & Negative Inertia?
Professor Paul Dirac's proposed anti-particle (electric charge, referred to as a 'particle') and its proposed explosion upon contact with a conventional 'particle' (electric charge), may be an ongoing event constituting the status quo of (4-D) reality as we experience it...
Consider a sphere such as a macrocosmic planet, the sun, or a microcosmic system such as an electron 'particle' (electromagnetic charge). Each generates a familiar, spiderweb shaped electromagnetic field, wherein the magnetic portion of that field emanates in a 'northerly' direction from the north pole of the issued sphere, loops around it in a circular motion which suddenly is traveling in a southerly direction upon reaching and passing the ecliptic middle of the sphere.
The continuing loop completes a full (torus structured) circle around the planet, sun or electron that generates, maintains and sustains it; the magnetic field then entering the southern pole of it's given system of origin (planet, star, electron) to resume a northerly direction through the axial center of and relative to the polar system at issue. This described dynamic represents an ongoing cyle of magnetism generated by and emanating from, around, and back into the system that generates, maintains and sustains it. The sphere itself, en toto, is stabilized by a magnetic field which is constantly moving in opposite directions - northerly out of, then looping around to a southerly course, and back into and through the core of the issued spherical entity in a northerly direction, ad infinitum.
(Download PalTalk for free)
Expansion and contraction within and sustaining the same system - refer 'conspansion'.
The reverse of directions - from north to south - occurs at the ecliptic (equatorial bisection) of the issued, spherical electron, planet or star Each given system is also emitting electrical energy in straight lines at right angles from the ('particle') system that the circular magnetic field is parallel to.
In accordance with Dirac’s findings in 1960, these magnetic directional reversals and electric discharges correspond to the occurrence of observed - right angle emitted - quantum emissions. In the four dimensional (tensor) setting that Einstein has assigned to all material systems; these two (northern and southern) hemispheres are oppositely interacting with each other ('as anti-particles'), apparently resulting in the Dirac-predicted explosion, evidently constituting the omnidirectional expansion of 4-D systems. The omnidirectional motion of electromagnetism may also account for the generation of negative inertia (the tendency to oppose force applied to it; in reference to Mach's principle) in every such individual system.
*Mach's principle submits that in an isolated space (bereft of any but one entity) an object would have no negative inertia.
The fields from isolated, individual charges:
physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Electricfield.htmlWhereas, in context of Matter in 4-D expansion, the apparent defect in Mach's principle is that an isolated positive charge is confined to it's location - exhibiting negative inertia (a tendency to remain at rest; resisting outside forces) - by the recoil of - it's own, inherent - omnidirectionally expanding electrical energy.
The isolated negative charge is confined to its location - also exhibiting negative inertia (a resistance to outside forces) by the omnidirectional influx of electrical energy. These are the causes of negative inertia. - KBR
*The upshot of "Mach's Principle" is approximately, that the inertia of a body is determined in relation to all other bodies in the universe (in short, "matter there governs inertia here"). Mach's principle apparently does not compensate for the consequence of omnidirectional expansion of all matter from it's center.
[BREAK=Chapter 10]
A positive charge omnidirectionally emits an outgoing electric force, and, a negative charge omnidirectionally absorbs an incoming electric force.
Sometimes opposites do attract, and sometimes they repel. Newton says gravity may be an impelling - or a repelling - force (What this record calls, 'The gravitational alternative'). Einstein says gravity is - at least sometimes - a repelling force; adding furthermore that gravity may be both a repelling and an impelling force (refer, the 'cosmological constant').
Truly Yours tends to observe that gravity is usually a repelling force, on or near major gravitational masses (GR), and an impelling (aquatic, terrestrial and atomospheric) tidal force (for example) at greater distances (SR). Summarizing that, since Newton introduced what he fully acknowledged as a mysterious, occult force of gravitation, usually - but not militantly - to be thought of as an impelling force, this record sees no reason why Einstein is disallowed from introducing a repelling force acting parallel to Newton's impelling force... Summing up a tandem repelling and impelling force, with each man offering major contributions to understanding the universe; neither of which men - or forces - are mutually exclusive.
The Albert-Isaac Electromagnetic apple
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
The dilemma of microcosmic and macrocosmic forces:
The superfluously conflicting schools of thought (Circa 1900 thru 1930 and ever since) on Max Planck's - Helmholtz inspired, Rubens confirmed - Quantum Mechanics'...
The 1897 dated observation of black body radiation led Planck to attempt to observe an invariable increase in entropy, which resulted in null thought and laboratory experiments; leading to Planck's 1900 revision of Boltzmann's alternately continuous and discontinuous statistical interpretaton of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (later paralleled by Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy).
It is only obscurely known or recognized that, although there are indeed opposing - J.J. Thompson-electron-launched - arguments on this subject, Einstein and Planck were in the same camp, along with Schrodinger, regarding the much misunderstood 'problem' of microcosmic 'continuity' of dualistic wave-field theory, and 'discontinuity' of so called 'particles'.
Leading to an undrained, ever rising swamp of determinacy and indeterminacy, entanglement, water ripple and shotgun pellets rolling sideways and speeding linearly through vertical and horizontal slits, in the ever imposing shadow of assumptive continuous wave eclipsed by the non-prevailing 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and the newly incumbent black body radiation - vocabularized in electrical theory and thermodynamics - introducing the circle of broken lines forming a sought-after curve but still leading to an apparently non discardable discontinuous 'quantum leap', because energy in discontinuous portions cannot be infinitely divided. Establishing that radiant energy is not quantitatively infinite - in unequal units, Planck resolved that the frequency of the considered discontinuous wave is directly related to its duration, or more specifically, its length.
This was unexpected because it defined a seemingly antithetical, self contradicting equality in discontinuous and continuous energy packets - 'quantum', which, literally translated from Latin equals 'what quantity'. It came to pass that, depending on how these units are measured and otherwise evaluated, they alternately manifestat as 'waves', and, as 'particles' - continuity, and discontinuity.
From this arose a further quandary of defining the dynamics of what was projected, compared to the method or conditions of projection.
Quantum Mechanics (perhaps better understood as 'quantum dynamics') was not altogether contradictory to the - at that time, much established continuous wave theory - which was often confirmed in delicate laboratory observations as well as more pedestrian observations such as the often exemplified fact that a swinging pendulum loses its momentum in a continuous declination of kinetic energy. Quantum Mechanics contests this.
Black body radiation occurs in discontinuous packages of microcosmically indivisible energy units of erg seconds, where the individual, indivisible unit is designated as 'h', for the numerically expressed value of:
.0000000000000000000000000066, or, 6,6 x 1027
Establishing that ordinary sizes as perceived by human observers were not the end measure of what was occuring in the much smaller realms of physicality and dynamics.
Max Planck had not excluded the previous standards of observation and measurement, whereas, he certainly had established that the characteristics of the larger physical world were not aligned with those of the smaller physical world, and that the Latin statement, ut infra, ut supra and conversely ('as above, so below'), was a generalisation but not a law.
Atomic (microcosmic) physics was understood to be in its early stages and the Planck dynamics were a portention that many other unexpected discoveries were due, as the science of observing and measuring microcosmic reality progressed - the evolutions of which were alternately championed and challenged, by Planck, Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr, Shroedinger and a lot of others time and space does not allot for - as it was and is - in the format of this dissertation...
------------------------
There are two kinds of math. Metric, and, non-metric. The first is obliged to be responsive to and directly determined by measurably real conditions; with or without mathematical descriptions of them.
Non-metric math is, for example, not obliged to conform to any existentially (conditionally, physically, spatially, dynamically, phenomenologically) manifest state or process of observed, measurable reality. An exemplary pair of non-metric mathematical formulas can be equally correct, while reciprocally and mutually disproving each other. Numbers only. Who needs reality to do non-metric mathematics? Has little or nothing to do with 'science'.
(Meanwhile, Truly Yours has been banned from several 'science forums' for providing the <what was then the free access> URL address to this work - they call it 'spamming'...)
____________________________________
Einstein's Unified Field. The most evolved understanding of the large and small force dominated, macro and microcosmic universe. A comprehensive unification of large and small forces with their correspondingly relative space-time coordinated values, manifest in electromagnetism and gravity, discovered as having the same causal identity; manifestly being the same entity. The Rosetta Stone of theoretical physics.
(Yet to be rubber-stamped by the Hollywood Guild?)
[BREAK=Chapter 11]
A proposed Resolution of the Comparative Disparity between discontinuous Quantum Mechanics and continuous Field Theory, follows, after a brief review of the issued, dissolute problem.
The term ‘Force’ (‘F’), as it relates to and represents gravity, has never been comprehensively defined or understood in physics, until now. This is because ultimately, contrary to popular dogma proclaiming four: there are only two forces in the Universe - gravity and electromagnetism (including large and small, weak and strong forces) - What Fritjov Capra correctly calls ‘Tao’; neither of which has previously been identified. They are unified herein as results of the 4, 5 and 6 dimensional space-time continuum of gravity, electricity and magnetism. - K.B.R.
THE CONFLUENCE OF CONTINUITY & DISCONTINUITY
THE SOLUTION FOR TOTAL Continuous FIELD THEORY INCLUDING THE ILLUSORY 'CONTRADICTION' of DISCONTINUITY as perceived in QUANTUM MECHANICS:
CONTINUOUS FIELD CAUSES, COMPLEMENTS & RECIPROCATES DISCONTINUOUS 'quanta'/'photons' - Planck's QUANTUM 'h' FACTOR - WITHOUT CONTRADICTION.
Einstein was not awarded the Nobel Prize for his Special and General (continuous field) theories of relativity, but rather for his contributions to photon-discontinuity ('particle') theory, i.e. 'quantum mechanics'. This is the refuge of the Particle 'theory' school of thought, where quantum mechanics is adopted as the foundation of the 'theory' of Particle Physics and discontinuity; whereas, relativity is about continuous waves.
The two discussions, Quantum Mechanics/ Photoelectric Effect/Particle Theory, and the subject of relativity and field theory are generally considered antithetical/contrary-to each other. The perceived discontinuous fork in the formerly continuous road through theoretical physics.
In 1900, theoretical physics was near to recognizing and utilizing - pursuing continuous field theory to its fullest extents (*which the record humbly submits, is since accomplished herein); when Max Plank's discovery of the 'constant "h" factor' emerged - a discontinuous, invariably uniform value that the continuous field could be (and is in fact) reduced to. This discovery deterred/ diverted any further pursuit of the direction Maxwell's accumulating camp was proceeding in, with his continuous field theory...
Theoretical physics branched out, at Plank's introduced juncture of discontinuity; wherein and thenceforth, theoretical physics in general was dichotomized, brachiated; divided into two camps...
Field Theory is about continuous waves. Quantum Mechanics is about discontinuous units (of waves, called 'particles'). The record repeats, the two subjects are generally considered mutually exclusive. Continuous Field Physics apparently contradicted by Discontinuous 'Particle' physics... (Quanta - photons - are not so much perceived as discontinuously surface 'particles', as they are preceived as discontinuously unsurfaced waves/fields).
Whereas, the apparently inherent, so called 'contradiction', is a 3-dimensionally misunderstood illusion: projected on a 4-dimensional phenomenon. Starring, the usual, 3-Dimensionally spellbinding, culpable party animals? Standardizing a three dimensional concept of a spiral, there is nothing unrealistic about Archimede's spiral (It's just 3-Dimensionally expanding, in an allegedly 'acknowledged' 4-D universe)...
Continuous Field theory inherently begets Discontinuous Particles:
Note the accelerating transition of the four dimensional mass, consisting of four ninety degree quadrants. Any more energy generated by that system, has no more room to occur inside that spheroidal electromagnetic charge (of 360o 4-D mass/matter system); the 5th quadrant of ninety degrees - generated by and a result of the four dimensions constituting the material energy that generates it, moves - is emitted - at right angles out of 4-D matter, in a fifth ninety degree unit of electricity, the 5th dimension. 'Quantum Leaping' out of the four ninety degree quadrants of physical matter.
For this reason - of a 5th 90o unit, all quanta/photons have the same 'Quantum' value (plural - 'quanta'), though they may occur - always having the same value - in more extended units of or toward infra red, or more compact units of or toward ultra violet.
The following information is extracted from The Dictionary of SCIENCE, by E.B. Uvarov and D. R. Chapman, Penguin Publishers, copyright 1943 to 1975.
"Quantum - According to the quantum theory, energy exists in discrete units, only whole numbers of which can exist: each unit is called a 'quantum' <plural 'quanta'>. The quantum of electromagetic radiation is the photon; in certain contexts, the quantum of energy associated with nuclear forces may be taken as the meson.
Quantum Mechanics. The system of mechanics which, during the present century, has replaced Newtonian Mechanics as a method of measuring physical phenomena occurring on a very small scale (e.g., the motion of electrons and nuclei within atoms; see atom, structure of).
Quantum Theory originated with the discovery by Max Planck that the heat radiation from a black body (see black body radiation) is quantized, i.e., emitted in discrete quanta of energy, the magnitudes of which are given by the products of the frequency of the radiation and a universal constant, now known as Planck's constant. It was soon realized that all electromagnetic radiations are quantized (see photon) and the theory was developed by Niels Bohr, so that the spectrum of hydrogen could be accounted for quantitatively (see Bohr theory). This early version of quantum mechanics was refined by Sommerfield to take into account the elliptical orbits of electrons. More recently quantum mechanics has been developed in a speciaized form, known as wave mechanics, which is more versatile and involves fewer arbitrary assumptions than the original theory."
'Photo-electric effect'. In general, any effect arising from the result of a transfer of energy from light incident on a substance to electrons in the substance. The term is normally restricted to one type of the effect, namely the emission of electrons by substances when irradiated with light of a certain frequency greater than a minimum threshold frequency. Electrons emitted in this way are called photo-electrons and constitute a photo-electric current when the system is included in a suitable circuit."
(*Quanta may sometimes be collectively measured and/or otherwise improvisationally considered, in erg seconds <one erg = 10-7 joules> or Angstrom units <One AU=10-10 metre. A measurement of wavelengths of light & intra-molecular distances.> - KBR)
- The Dictionary of SCIENCE, by E.B. Uvarov and D.R. Chapman, Penguin Publishers.
And now, this:
May the Reader mark the above issued definition of 'Quantum Theory', and especially its closure quote, alluding to the evolved adaptation of 'wave mechanics':
"More recently quantum mechanics has been developed in a speciaized form, known as wave mechanics, which is more versatile and involves fewer arbitrary assumptions than the original theory."
The above information with its closing note is simply a reminder that the popular perception of quantum mechanics is that it contradicts 'field-wave' considerations, whereas, quantum mechanics has been addressed more manageably, in context of 'wave mechanics'.
An Offered Avenue of
Comprehension in the
Quantum Mechanical Field of
'Discontinuity' and
the 'Quantum Leap' (continued)...
The 5th dimension (5th ninety degree extension out of the four part, three hundred sixty degree quadrants) doesn't ‘mysteriously’ leap out of 4-D matter at all, but rather is an inevitably extrapolated, continuous - and accelerated - extension of it (the 4-D mass from which it originates and by which it - the 5th dimension, is generated), manifest in an apparently discontinuous unit - "Plank's constant 'h' factor"; photon - always having the same value, because it is consistently the 5th ninety degree unit extending out of the 4 physical dimensions that precede and generate it.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
Four 90o quadrants constituting an electromagnetic charge. The illustrated ‘platform’ of the 4th quadrant is perceived as its 3-D boundary. Photoelectric emissions extending beyond it are the 5th & 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism.
[BREAK=Chapter 12]
The 5th ninety degree units (photons; 'Planck's "constant 'h' factor") photons, or 'quanta' - the smallest unit of energy known to academia. The described dynamic does not actually contradict continuous field theory (as popular perceived and alleged), but rather, is a result of and generated by the 4-D space-time continuum.
The 5th and 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism respectively, are accelerating, just as the source from which they invariably originate (4-D matter), but the expansion of electricity and magnetism is exponentially extended from 4-D matter and therefore accelerating at a much faster - quantum leaping - rate. An illusion of 'contradiction' of continuous field theory, whereas the apparently 'discontinuous' particle is actually a 4-dimensionally and continuously expanding charge of electricity which generates 5 and 6 dimensional, 90o quadrants - photons - at right angles from it's 4-D boundaries.
(The record may be 'redundant' in the presentation of this
issue, whereas, the repetitive descriptions wish to approach the unprecedented solution from several different perspectives. Thank you.)
This record describes the above explained ephemerality (the dynamics of Planck's 'constant "h" factor' known as the 'quantum leap'): as the 'translatory moment' - when the 5th 90o unit of electricity 'quantum leaps' out of the 4-D quadrant of 90o that generates furthermore, 90o of electricity, followed by 90o of magnetism; i.e. - the 5th and 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism, respectively. Comprehensively and continuously emitted in discontinuous units, called 'quanta' and/or 'photons'; often referred to as 'photo-electric effect'. The 'translatory moment' is also when the apparently 'standing field' of actually expanding (ever acclerating) 4-D matter, projects the 5th and 6th dimensions of electromagnetism, abruptly accelerates beyond the accleration-rate of 4-D matter (an apparent 'standing field' <'obviously physical matter, corporeal reality at large, is not expanding'>, emitting the recognized electromagnetic field; in discrete - 90o units); 'quantum leaping' at light speed (relative to the apparently 'standing <'static'> field' from which it originates and by which it - electromagetism - is generated).
360o divided by 90o equals four, followed by a 5th 90o 'pie chart' shape, extrapolated at right angles out of and far exceeding the - collective - area of the four 90o quadrants preceding it.
Repeat: note that the 5th 90o component occurs beyond 360o, and that, by way of extrapolation - exponential acceleration - the 5th component, although identical in 90o shape, very abruptly transforms to a size much larger than than all four combined 90o quadrants preceding it.
When the four 'sliced pie quarters' are gathered together in an equilateral circle , they complete a 360 degree whole. This represents a so called 'particle', more appropriately described as a 4 dimensional 'charge' of field energy.
The 5th section of 90o occurs outside of and at right angles to the described quadrant of four 90o segments. This record offers the (above diagrammatic) geometric expression - of an extrapolating spiral - as an example of 4-Dimensional acceleration of matter, generating a fifth 90o segment, representing the 5th dimension of electricity, contiguously extending - quantum leaping - at right angles out of the 360o, 4-Dimensional system from which it originates and by which it is generated; while the *6th 90o segment of 4-D charge-generated magnetism, exponentially extends at right angles out of the 5th.
[BREAK=Chapter 13]
Addendum Part III
Notwithstanding, the herein proffered, geometric translation of the qualities of matter and space-time dynamics - provided by way of the recognition of matter (as an implicit 'standing <'static'> wave' system) and gravity, as the 4th D, generating the explicitly transient 5th and 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism.
The consideration of the exponential inclusion of logarithmic 90o segments, definable as physical dimensions, up to and beyond six, proceeding to infinity (in 90o quadrants), may allow for recognition of previously unidentified dimensions...
Wikipedia
The Golden Spiral
You could, if you wanted to, continue drawing the spiral into infinity. It never ends. Look at the picture and you will understand.
The golden spiral also resembles something in nature. A seashell of course! The Golden ratio is everywhere.
-----------------------
Wikipedia - Electric field, moving at right angles from originating charge.
Figure 1: Electric fields. (Left) Field of a positive electric charge; (right) field of a negative electric charge.
Courtesy of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University
------------------------------
Wikipedia - Magnetic field, moving at right angles to electric field, and parallel to charge.
The Earth's magnetic field, which is approximately a dipole. However, the "N" and "S" (north and south) poles are labeled here geographically, which is the opposite of the convention for labeling the poles of a magnetic dipole moment.
------------------------
Combined electric & magnetic fields
manifest as an electromagnetic field.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
....with *magnetism moving at right angles to electricity (moving at right angles out of the 4-D center point mass; fullfilling the definition for a 5th dimension), 'charge'/'particle' - magnetism thereby fullfilling the definition for a *6th dimension...
----------------------------
Photoelectric effect, i.e., 'quantum mechanics'.
Moreover, the 'quantum leap' is a sobriquet from the popular consideration that a given unit of microcosmic energy moves from one (Niels Bohr) 'orbit' (or, alternative 'shell' theorized station) to another, without ever occupying the space - interval - between the transposed orbit. There is no explanation for this perplexing enigma-apparent ('the quantum leap').
This record submits that the transposition of a given orbit, as it is perceived in 4 dimensions instead of three, offers the alternative interpretation of the so called 'leap', as occurring in a spiral shaped path - unanticipated; uncompensated-for, in the status quo 3-dimensional failures to comprehensively accomodate 'quantum leap', as comprehensively expressed in the above two illustrations of 4, 5 & 6 dimensionally equivalent geometric structures.
That is, the 4-dimensionally interpreted 'leap' is not per se, any kind of 3-D perceived vertical straight line ( ----> ) - up or down, to and from orbit A to orbit B, constituting the (short cut perceived) 'leap' (from one orbit or shell to another) - at all, but, rather, is a (lateral, long way around) coil shaped ( @ ) - spiral-spin-up (360o) transiency...
...which may be alternately and approximately perceived within the structure of the 'YinYang' or 'Tao' symbol, from center to outside parameters, from a lower orbit to a higher one, and conversely (*spiral spin-down, this perspective also includes the ambivalent dynamics of 'chemical valence').
Yin Yang ('Tao')
The symbol of apparent opposites with its connotations of antipodal contention is actually an icon of mutually supportive , complementary reciprocity, since about the 3rd century BC; accompanied by a philosophy proffering that its complete gestalt is beyond human comprehension (which it may well be, for all of its elegant - prescient implying - simplicity.)
(Refer Fritjov Capra's TAO OF PHYSICS, allows for *the illusion of apparent contradiction: actually mutually supportive; that being the central meaning of 'Tao'. In this case, vis a vis, the 'inexplicable enigma' of quantum mechanics and its perceived 'contradiction' of continuous field theory.)
In the Bohr modeled atom of planet-like, nucleus-sun orbiting electrons, the orbits are not circular or elliptical, but rather - as with any other orbiting entity's 4-D path : spiral shaped.
The 4-D space-time continuum is presently said to be 'acknowledged' in academic and experimental physics; yet, the effects of that continuum, continue to go unrecognized, denied, discarded and unaccounted for. The round - O and elliptical - 0 - 3-D structure - wherever it orbitally occurs - is not anticipated or perceived as spiral shaped - @ , as it is in fact, in the prevailing, four dimensional setting.
There is no precedent for this offered (4-D spiral 'translatory moment') explanation, regarding the cited 'incomprehensibility' of Quantum Mechanical Dynamics; including a solution applicable to the 'quantum leap'.
Any reminder that Einstein received the Nobel Prize for his contribution to Quantum Mechanics (Photon effect, discontinuity theory) is a reminder that the decision to withhold formally honoring him for relativity - continuous field - theory; is a benchmark of the politics of physical science and its careful avoidance of awarding the Nobel Prize for either or both of the theories of relativity, which is based on continuous ('field'), rather than discontinuous ('particle') field physics.
Subsequent to this conceptual departure in what had formerly been the generally agreed conceptualization of field physics, Eddington quipped, "We'll call matter 'particles' on Mondays, we'll call it 'waves' on Tuesdays, and we'll call it 'waveicles' the rest of the week." - Paraphrased.
Eddington's slap-stick ambivalence about the apparent dilemma, directly implies the ambiguous enigma as illusory.
This record submits that continuous field physics does not contradict discontinuous 'particle' physics, or conversely.
They symbiotically (and, until further notice, invariably) accompany one another, the latter being generated by the former. As gravity is generally a push (at short distances - GR) and a pull (at long distances - SR), so particles and fields are likewise non-contradictory and mutually reciprocal. Co-existing together.
The particles (5th 90o unit of four D matter is electricity <moving at right angles out of matter>, the 6th 90o unit is magnetism - moving at right angles to electricity) projected at right angles from and outside of the 4-D accelerating fields of matter. (Until further notice, electricity and magnetism invariably accompany one another and are apparently two different vectors expressing the same obvious transiency at right angles out of a 'particle' - electromagnetic charge, misunderstood as being a non-expanding, 3-D 'standing' <'static'> field).
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
[BREAK=Chapter 14]
Addendum Part IV
Epilogue Part I
When all else fails: read the instructions.
Good morning class. Today were going to wake up to sleep-inducing lectures on theoretical physics; from now on. From dawning spin-in to dusking spin-out. Opposition here may optionally augur-in and/or crash and burn spectacularly at the front of the class. Once you're in, you're augured in for the revolving binary duration. Condemned to keep adding up to the 3 Body Problem. Where 2 wrongs don't make a right. But, 3 or more do. (Carrying phi out to it's consummately last decimel poink?)
Please restrain any residual *applause?
(*All background noise, including hissing, booing and flatulence, will only be opportunistically interpreted as further proof of the Big Bang theory, and Big Brother's <'Gotta revolution!'> 'solution.' Refer the 13 billion year microwave background radiation hangover from the Big Bangologist's confetti and party throwing 'Beginning'. <Never mind the Steady State Theory's superior explanation for anything and everything that the Big Bang Gang is unconscionably plundering from lambda /\ to 'explain'>...)
__________________
Some of you may be familiar with the book title: ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE, by Robert Pirsig. There are two statements in that book which are appropriately applicable to the self inflicted demise of Contemporary Physics (representatives) and the prevailing gravitational and 4-Dimensional dilemma. On page 100, Pirsig writes:
'The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking that you know something you don't actually know'.
Again, on page 5, Pirsig writes, 'The truth knocks on the door and you say, 'go away, I'm looking for the truth', so it goes away'.
Pirsig's precautionary allows that you must also make sure Nature hasn't mislead you in to thinking that you don't know something that you do actually know.
The attempt to isolate and discover gravity waves is exactly comparable to standing or sitting in Einstein's General Relativity-demonstrating elevators and 'attempting to isolate and/or discover gravity waves'.
Very similar in its failure, to the refusal to recognize the 4th Dimension: as universal gravity on or near four dimensional matter; extended across space from four dimensional matter (acting at a distance), via the 5th and 6th dimensions of electricity and magnetism, respectively.
In attempting to isolate - and find an insulation from - gravity, we have succeeded in isolating - and finding an insulation from - the 4th Dimension. Isolating it from reality - and ourselves from an unprecedented understanding of the Gravitational ('How can I relate to it in my own?') Experience.
We keep asking the wrong questions. I have been repeatedly asked by sincere people - "What can we do with the statement 'GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION'?" Having a mind of its own, this operator must censor what Molly Keyboard MacColley has to say in response to those who ask 'What can we do with the 4th Dimension?'.
May it suffice to say for the moment, the question might be asked of Lief Erikson for a run-down on North American Civilization, or the Wright Bros. for a quick briefing on Air Force One - or a Boeing 747 crossed with a bumblebee or hummingbird. One must know that the unrecognized continent - or aerodynamic principle - is there; must recognize it, before anything can be ‘done’ with it.
THE DOMINANT ACADEMIC PARADIGM
Reminiscently comparable to the drunk who was crawling around the base of a street lamp one moonless night. A policeman happened by and watched him for a few minutes; finally asked him what he was doing. The drunk replied, 'I'm looking for my wine bottle, I lost a full bottle of wine'. The policeman queried, 'Are you quite sure you lost it around here - I don't see a sign of any wine bottle'. The drunk replied, 'Oh no officer, I didn't lose it here - I know that for sure. I heard it fall out of my pocket about forty or fifty feet from here'. The policeman exclaimed, 'Well then man, you'll never find it here!' The drunk looked up and said 'Yes, I know officer, but there's no street lamp over there'." (At least, there didn't use to be.)
- Kent B. Robertson, @ San Francisco City College GREENPEACE Gravity Premiere Benefit, October, '76
***********
THE (amazing) LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE (continued):
"There exists a profound similarity between Newton's Law 0f Universal Gravity, Coulomb's Law Of the Interaction Of Electric Charges, and Sir Humphrey Gilbert's Law for the interaction of magnetic poles. And, if one can shield electric and magnetic forces, why can it not also be done with gravitational forces?" - George Gamow GRAVITY pp. 143-4
"Einstein again broadened his theory to include the phenomena of electricity and magnetism. This does not mean that he has given an electromagnetic explanation of gravitation. Many attempts of this kind have been made, and all have failed in the same respect to recognize that there is no screen for (insulation from) gravitation. What Einstein has done is something deeper and broader than that. He has succeeded in finding a formula which may assume two special forms according as a constant which it contains is, or is not, zero. (May expand, or contract <be 4-D: growing ever larger at right angles to itself, or, growing ever smaller at right angles to itself> at the slightest provocation.)...
"In the latter case the formula gives us Maxwell's equations for an electromagnetic (repelling) field; in the former, Einstein's equations for a (an impelling) gravitational field." - SPACE, TIME & EINSTEIN
Today's representative physicists are on Einstein's Relativistic elevator, attempting to "screen", insulate from or "isolate" gravity waves.
It sounds like a joke of some kind...
The Book-Cooking Journalistic Questions:
"If gravity is caused by the acceleration of the earth's surface, why does a ball roll downhill?"
- * THE LA. FREE PRESS, 2/'71 (*A HALF VAST LOOK AT GRAVITY < IS THE 4TH DIMENSION>
- *A 'Book Review', under the smug pseudonym of 'Art Wand.' )
Had the record been confronted 40 years ago, with such a formidable enigma, he would have abandoned Einstein's abandoned Unified Field in the same masterfully perplexing stroke? Mr. Wand's proposed interrogative does establish he’s functionally illiterate or didn't read the book he 'reviewed'... A lot of that rolling around; with a growing number of ersatz 'Final Theory of Everything' - authors’. (Some of whom have literally torched less condensed hard copies of this book in a trashcan, en conversant with Truly Yours... <P.S. I laughed out loud and reminded the book burner that it's intractable to expel the universe from itself.>)
"Maxwell's (*expanding) field equations break down, at the (*alleged non-expanding) surface of the particle." - Ibid
(*Maxwell's equations do not 'break down' at any 'surface' <There is no 'surface'>, whereas, the recognized transient light energy 'shifts gears' (exhibits a 'translatory moment') as it moves out of, not as it moves in to a given source from which it originates and by which it is generated - converting upon exit from an apparently 'standing'/'static' field' of very dense 4-D mass energy, to dramatically accelerated, very tenuous 5 & 6-D energy - described by Maxwell's equations - moving at light speed. This transition ('shifting of gears'), is the ephemeral interim between the microcosmically very small, dense, surfaceless, apparently 'static' 'charge' (so called 'particle/'mass energy'), and its extension - quantum leap to - macrocosmic, very large, tenuous, ostensibly transitory electromagnetic field energy.
A 'vector' = direction and magnitude. In this case, the direction - from the center of the 'material charge' from which standing field and transitory energy co-variantly expands, remains omindirectional, while the rate at which the magnitude of a given expanding system, increases, at the transpositionally apparent 'surface', distinguishing the standing (4-D) field inside the originating system, from the measurably transitory (6-D) field outside of the ('particle'/'charge') system - KBR)
"If the universe was made up of (unstable) disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely." - Ibid.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
"Humanity is not 4 dimensional."
- LIFE Science Library's Universe, p. 179
(*The LIFE Science Library's editors and keepers have pronounced the <'acknowledged'> universal 4-D neutrons, protons and electrons as being 3-Dimensional: when they occur in the form of human beings. - KBR
Few in authority are found with any.
A time of the signs.
..................................
(‘When you’re lost in the rain in Juarez
And it’s Easter time too
And your gravity fails
And negativity don’t pull you through
Don’t put on any airs
When you’re down on Rue Morgue Avenue
They got some hungry women there
And they really make a mess outta you.’
- Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb’s Blues.)
_________________________
"The only new thing in this old world, is the history you didn't know about." - Harry Truman
"If it's original, it'll be copied." - H. L. Mencken
"An error doesn't have to become a mistake, unless you refuse to correct it." - J..F.K.
('Lee Harvery Oswald acted alone'. - The Warren Report.)
>>>>>> ......... <<<<<<<
NON MATHEMATICAL SOLUTIONS TO FORMERLY INVETERATE, RECIDIVIST PROBLEMS IN PHYSICS. (Continued)
- Kent Benjamin Robertson
Copyright © 2002, 1999, ‘85, ‘70.
[BREAK=Chapter 15]
Addendum Part V
Epilogue Part II
Absolute Zero. Zero degrees Kelvin, remains just as controversial, and just as elusive. Whereas, the Big Bang 'Theory' is comparable to a soda bottle rocket launched from a tilted box of proactive popcorn in an ad hoc museum of unnatural history.
The second law of thermodynamics has been politically correctionalized to 'prove' the alleged 'entropic heat death' of the universe. No such occurrence unfolds in a 4-D space time continuum; steady state prevails. Theoretical physics, since the turn of the last century, has become a political carnival.
If this can occur in the purest field of physical science, it can occur in any academic discipline, or social morality or law. Enter mind control, doublethink, newspeak and double-government, as Orwellian dominated, normalized policy.
This author has been described as having satanistically turned gravity upside down; whereas, under the authority of Newton and Einstein, this author has documented gravity right side up.
...................
Infinite Smallness - in 4 dimensions - is just as endless as infinite largeness, continued:
*‘Zeno’s paradox.’ (*’If you keep cutting the distance in half, between point A and point B, you never get from point A to point B’.)
Not really a paradox at all. Zeno may have been entirely aware of its flaw and introduced it as a riddle, the timely solution to which he may have been aware.
In any event: In reality, a person or thing can move from point A to point B.
Whereas, in a purely geometric, 3-D consideration, the advance of point A enroute point B (halfing the distance between the two points), never arrives at it’s destination, because the geometric 3-D consideration - conspicuously - leaves out the 4th coordinate of time (Sound familiar?).
O degrees Kelvin - Absolute Zero - is (so far) unachieved in the laboratory.
Word is, that laboratory experiments in cryogenics have come ‘very close’ to Absolute Zero (the cessation of all motion - molecular and atomic - in a given material system).
On the other hand, ‘very close’ to Absolute Zero, is indeed a relative term. A tenth, thousandth, hundred thousandth, or billionth of a degree (Kelvin or Fahrenheit) sounds impressively ‘very close’ to achievement of Absolute Zero: until the consideration of the relativity of infinite smallness in 4-Dimensional space-time is taken seriously into the allegory and deceptively apparent ‘very close’ approaches to Absolute Zero.
(Speculative note: If and when any physical object is successfully subjected to Absolute Zero, that object may appear to implode and disappear; due to the cessation of all molecular and atomic motions, causing it to be the only 3 dimensional entity, surrounded by a 4 dimensionally expanding universe, creating the illusion that it swiftly shrinks, when it is actually the only thing that isn’t expanding. Black hole singularities for example, may be three dimensional entities in a four dimensional universe - becoming as infinitely small and dense in three dimensions, as the 4-D universe becomes relatively larger and more tenuous around it.)
Yesterday’s 4-dimensionally considered mile is much smaller, when compared with today’s 4-dimensionally considered mile. The day before yesterday’s mile is even smaller than yesterday’s or today’s mile.
Yet, in context of the moment of time the measurement is made, in these A, B, C marked, ever enlarging-moment considered coordinate systems, they are all the same value, relative to the 4-D frame of time and space they are measured in.
In the 4-D space-time continuum, yesterday’s 60 miles per hour, is not today’s. Today’s mile is larger, and today’s miles per hour is faster, when compared with yesterday’s. The same is true of the speed of sound or light. These remain constant, yet are always increasing with the size of the coordinates system they are measured in. The value of time, varies, with the comparative and ever changing - physically expanding - value of the coordinate system it is measured in. Time is motion. Motion occurs in - requires - space.
This applies to all standards of space and time measurement. This same consideration is applicable to coming ‘very close’ to Absolute Zero. The reason Absolute Zero probably never will be achieved. That is to say, Absolute Zero, -273ş C. is yet to be observed or caused to happen in Coordinate System C. Whereas, relative to coordinate system C, Coordinate System A. may be that - Absolute Zero - relative to Coordinate system C...
Yesterday’s 72 degrees Fahrenheit, is not today’s; today’s is not tomorrow's. All three temperature measurements, occurring in moment’s A, B and C, are the same, relative to the coordinate system they are measured in, and different, only when compared to themselves: in different moments of space-time.
The values of time, space (including measured heat, which is motion in space; motion is exactly synonymous with time, and conversely) are constantly changing - yet remain relatively constant - in the 4-D space-time continuum. Just as the velocity of light is constant, yet always increasing, along with the acceleration of the mass field (4-D matter) from which light invariably originates and by which it (light, electromagnetism) is generated...
The past 4-D space-time continuum of the past, is ‘very small and dense’, when compared to the present. The present dimensional size of space and material objects at large in the present, is comparatively very small and dense, when compared with the future-projected physical dimensions of the universe or any four dimensionally expanding portion of it...
For the same reason that *'Zeno’s (alleged) paradox' suffers from leaving out the 4th coordinate of time. As does the ‘big bang theory’ - prempting the steady state theory on the premise that matter is 3-dimensionally static and that the universe is dissipating. (*'If you keep cutting the distance between A and B, in half, you never get from A to B.' This is true in space without time. But there is no space without time, and there is no time, without space. Refer 'space-time'. Time is motion, and motion requires space to move in. Zeno's Paradox excludes the factor or time. Therefore it is not a paradox at all. It's a misunderstanding... Caused by the exclusion of the element of time, and the 4-D space-time continuum.
The same misunderstanding is preventing the realization that the alleged ‘microcosmic (very small) nuclear binding forces’, are simply and inevitably a miniaturized manifestation of macrocosmic (very large) gravitational forces. Gravity is said to occur for the most part, only in the realm of the very large. Whereas, nuclear binding forces are simply 'very small' (very dense) gravitational forces. How wrong a 3-dimensionally stuck-fixated scientist (who says he 'acknowledges' Einstein’s 4-D space-time continuum) can be, and for what schizoid, transparently unscientific reasons.
"The whole evolution of our ideas about the processes of nature, with which we have been concerned so far, might be regarded as an organic development of Newton’s ideas. But while the process of perfecting the field theory was still in full swing, the facts of heat, radiation, the spectra, radioactivity, etc., revealed a limit to the serviceableness of the whole intellectual system which today still seems to us absolutely insuperable, in spite of immense success at certain points. Many physicists maintain - and there are weighty arguments in their favor - that in the face of these facts not merely the differential law but the law of causation itself - hitherto the fundamental postulate of all natural science, has collapsed. Even the possibility of a spatial-temporal construction, which can be unambiguously coordinated with physical events, is denied." - Albert Einstein, ESSAYS IN SCIENCE, 1934
______________
Total Field Theory, continued
[BREAK=Chapter 16]
Closing Addendum Part VI
Closing Epilogue Part III
***************
Transcendental number - the square root of minus one - pi.
Pi. 3.1416 followed by an infinite number of zeros. Refer: the interminable chore of carrying pi out to its last decimal point... And the transcendental growth of the number eleven when multiplied: 1x 11=11. 2x11=22. 3x11=33. 4x11=44; etceteras.
Buddhists have adopted it as an expression of expansion.
..............
The abstract definitive of and about physical reality is based on numbers.
If you wish to learn the circumference of a circle, you use pi.
If you want to know the area within a circular circumference, you use pi r squared.
There appears to be a four dimensional trout swimming in this acknowledged eloquent encryption. Cruising dorsal fins at the surface of our Tequila Sunrise?: the circle pi r squared is applied to, is evidently four dimensionally expanding; the reason it takes forever (and an appendage of endless tomorrows?) to carry pi out to its last decimal point.
The Golden Rectangle and the exponential extrapolation of four 90o quadrants completing a 360 degree whole is invoked, if not alternately identified, here. It is said that Euclid was the first to find - in about the year 300 BC - what, by many other since adopted descriptions, was originally described as the golden rectangle. It's direct relationship to the already issued subject of exponential extrapolation in this book is said to have deeply disturbed no small number of post Pythagorean Geometricians and Mathematicians, due, to the 'incommensurate' value. That is, most numerical and mathematical considerations lead to a conclusive outcome; a result, an ending closure; a logical consequence of a reasoning process...
An enigmatically intriguing fact of pi r squared is, that that there is no resolution in the formula. It's renown for taking whomever toils to carry it out to its last decimel point is subjectively synonymous with futile dissolution, and, among other more objective if mysterious considerations, infinity itself.
__________
INDUCTION, DEDUCTION, PRODUCTION, continued:
The Pythagorean philosophers place great stress on the first four positive numbers. In the numbers one through four, you have 1 as a point. 2 as a line. 3 as a plane. And, so say the ancient geometric founders, the base the above formed triangle rests upon, (Einstein teaches us to call it the motion of the three preceding coordinates). 4 is the 'abstract' grounding of the base of a tetrahedron.
In consideration of a triangle in three dimensions - a pyramid: 4 sides then rest upon a 5th coordinate (number), the base of the four sided pyramid; wherein the colloquially recognized pyramid forms a tetrahedron.
A square, plus B square equals C square.
"Particles give me a headache." - Einstein
Particles and qualities of the month: Quarks, Charms, Glue-0ns. Strangeness, Strings, foam, leprechauns, tachyeons, put-ons, take offs, and other Super unnaturally innovated (FILL IN HERE?) weird things.
A treatise on Nature, authored by Aristotle, entitled: ‘physics’; soon to be known as *metaphysics (*Nature beyond the knowledge of people), now specifically defined as ‘physics.’ Newton was not called a physicist, for example, he was called a philosopher, his PRINCIPIA was a philosophical dissertation. Academic physics would emerge from the more general roots of philosophy - a mode of inquiry. Refer the atomistic theory of of Democritus. Atoms (matter reduced to its smallest form, while remaining an element, rather than a - sub-atomic - electron, neutron and/or proton constituting an elemental atom) and the void (space - the interval between two or more points).
Ontology is the study of that which exists - reality at large. Often depending on the limitations of observation. Ontology is more than what is immediately apparent to the human senses.
Epistemology is the subdivision of ontology, in the sense of how he search for reality is conducted.
_________________
A Review Series of Timelessly Cogent Quotes, follows:
"...Descarte was not so far from the truth when he believed he must exclude the existence of an empty space. The notion indeed appears absurd as long as physical reality is seen exclusively in ponderable bodies. It requires the idea of the field as the representative of reality, in combination with the General Principle of Relativity, to show the true kernel of Descarte's idea, 'there exists no space empty of field'." - Einstein, p.p.375 - 6, IDEAS & OPINIONS
"Regarding the tenability of gravitation as an impelling force, paralleled by the Cosmological Constant as a repelling force, a natural and complementary occurrence of this apparently incongruous ambiguity exists and prevails in the fact that omnidirectional electric field lines around a positive charge are directed away from the center of the charge; whereas, the field lines around a negative charge move inward, toward the center of the charge." - K.B. Robertson, p. 221, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION, Copyright 1979.
"I do find gravity an attractive force at times."
- K.B.Robertson. Ibid.
"Matter and space are seen to be inseperable and interdependent parts of a single whole."
- Fritjov Capra, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, p. 208
"According to the physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach... material objects not only determine the structure of the surrounding space, but are in turn influenced by their environment in an essential way."
- Fritjov Capra, Ibid, p. 209
"In one of the most reckless and sweeping generalisations in the history of thought, Newton filled the entire space of the Universe with interacting forces of attraction, issuing from all particles of matter and acting upon all particles of matter across the boundless abysses of darkness."
- Arthur Koestler, THE SLEEPWALKERS
"... when a light ray is spreading from a point, the energy is not distributed continuously over ever increasing spaces, but consists of a finite number of energy quanta, that are localized in points in space, move without dividing and can be absorbed or generated as a whole". - Albert Einstein
"The above and below statements have been called the most revolutionary sentences ever written by physicists in the 20th Century. It signals the end of perceived continuity and endorses the beginning of duality. The wave is no longer exclusively continuous. The particle is no longer exclusively discontinuous. The two seem to join and share each other’s qualities together as one." - Wikipedia
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics and therein lies their strength. They are radical. 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." - Hermann Minkowski, 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists & Physicists, 1908.
End of condensed (internet) presentation of Total Field Theory: The Non-mathematical Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Cosmological Constant and Unified Field.
Thank you for reading this missive.
(Afterward Notes to follow)
(Special thanks to Robert & all
moderators, administrators and staff
of the science forum <T.O.E.>:
Theory of Everything)
- K. B. Robertson 4/21/07 1741 hrs EDT
"There once was a lady named Bright, who traveled much faster than light. She departed one day, in a relative way, and returned on the previous night". - Eric Buller 1923
[BREAK=Chapter 17]
AFTERWARD Part I of III Parts
TOTAL FIELD THEORY - No Space Empty Of Field.
The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field (Steady State) Theory.
by K. B. Robertson
******
Thank you for reading - hope you enjoyed - this missive. If you consider it worthy, please share it with a friend. There is nothing new about Newton's gravity or Einstein's 4th dimension of space-time, except, empirical proof that they are one and the same. Their causal identity is the physically accelerating expansion of the universe at large.
In this work at hand, Einstein's formerly abandoned Unified Field is reinstated (with the Steady State Theory); without mathematics.
New information keeps coming in that finds the 'Big Bang' universe not only to be expanding, but to be picking up speed. A 'Big Bang' originated universe isn't supposed to be doing that. Whereas, that's exactly what a physically accelerating 'Steady State' universe does.
This work is all about the reasons why. Like the Unified Field theory, the 'Steady State' theory is abandoned. The reasons for their reinstatement are accumulating...
____________________
Newton asserted ‘Hypothesis non fingo’. - ‘I make no hypothesis’. Yet, his entire, unarguably revolutionary Classical Mechanics was based on the hypothetical 'particle' that science has yet to assuredly accommodate. The ‘particle concept’ that dominates physics and the vast majority of colloquial human thought: has never been proven beyond hypothetical, quasi-scientific retainers. ‘The (rarely) indicted ‘particle’ Isn’t found ‘wrong’ here, but rather: resiliently incomplete; so as to aggressively exclude the incumbent role of the continuous field in the corporeal balance of material considerations. - K. B. Robertson
"In the laboratory of Michael Faraday (1791 - 1867), who made many important contributions to the knowledge of electricity and magnetism, there is an interesting entry in 1849. It reads:
'Gravity. Surely this force must be capable of an experimental relation to electricity, magnetism, and other forces, so as to build it up with them in reciprocal action and equivalent effect. Consider for a moment how to go about touching this matter by facts and trial.'
"But the numerous experiments this famous British physicist undertook to discover such a relation were fruitless, and he concluded this section of his diary with these words: 'Here end my trials for the present. The results are negative. They do not shake my strong feeling of the existence of a relation between gravity and electricity, though they give no proof that such a relation exists.' " - George Gamow, GRAVITY
"It is very odd that the theory of gravity, originated by Newton and completed by Einstein, should stand now in majestic isolation, a Taj Mahal of Science, having little of anything to do with the rapid developments in other branches of physics. Einstein's concept of the gravitational field grew from his Special Theory of Relativity, and the Special Theory was based on the Theory of the Electromagnetic Field formulated in the last century by the British physicist, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79). But in spite of many attempts, Einstein and those who have followed him have failed any (gravitational) contact with Maxwell's electrodynamics...
"Einstein's theory of gravitation was more or less contemporary with quantum theory, but in the forty-five years since they appeared, the two theories have had quite different rates of development. Proposed by Max Planck and carried forward by the work of Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, and others, quantum theory has made colossal progress and evolved into a broad discipline that explains in detail the inner structures of atoms and their nuclei." - Gamow, GRAVITY
"On the other hand, Einstein's theory of gravity remains to this day essentially as it was when he formulated it half a century ago. While hundreds, even thousands, of scientists study the various branches of quantum theory and apply it in many, many fields of experimental research, only a few persist in devoting their time and passion to further development in the study of gravitation."
- George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 136.
"Magnetism, gravity, and action at-a-distance have not lost an iota of their baffling mystery since Gilbert (before Newton 1642 - 1726)" - Arthur Koestler, THE SLEEPWALKERS.
"Since the General Theory of Relativity implies the manifestation of physical reality as a continuous field, the concept of discontinuous particle cannot play a fundamental part, the ‘particle’ can only appear as a limited region of space in which the field strength and/or density of energy is particularly high." - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348
"The combination of the concept of continuous field with that of mass-points discontinuous from space appears inconsistent. A consistent (total) field theory requires continuity of all elements of the theory, not only in time but also in space, and in all points in space. Hence the material particle has no place as a fundamental concept in a field theory." - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 345
"It is very probable that there is a hidden relation between gravity on the one hand and the electromagnetic field and material particles on the other, but nobody is prepared today to say what kind of relation it is. And there is no way of foretelling how soon any further important progress will be made in this direction." - Excerpted from the Preface to GRAVITY, by George Gamow.
"According to General Relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field." - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348
___________________
The ('red shift') ‘expanding universe’ took the ‘scientific community’ by surprise in 1927 - 1929.
. An - ad hoc - explanation was hurriedly put together by Lemaitre, Hubble, Gamow, and others - if the expansion of space in the universe was back tracked, it was reasoned, it would eventually converge at a point of intersection (since estimated to have been some 13 billion years ago), where all the matter in the universe must have been compacted, causing intense pressures and heat which resulted in and caused the ‘big bang’ explosion, resulting in the spatially expanding universe, as it is spectroscopically (‘red shift’) observed today.
There are more recent variations on this theme, but the described dynamics are the origin of the ‘Big Bang’ perspective. When previously unknown phenomena emerges out of astronomy or experimental physics that is contrary to big bang theory, its proponents reply that there is no other cosmology on the slate beside the big bang; then go about the business of plundering required explanatory ingredients from the very sources they eschew.
The cosmological constant, lambda /\ , is not functionally abandoned, nor is the steady state theory or Einstein's Unified Field (finding gravity and electromagnetism as two apparently unrelated phenomena which actually have the same causal identity). These reparative elements have simply been transferred from their pastures of retirement and reemployed where needed by, of and for the big bang gang.
No big shakes.
('The big bang theory is all we've got.' The big bang is now artfully laced with elements of the cosmological constant and the steady state theories, the unremarkable presence of which is spearheaded by operative conditioning, double talk, neurolinguistic programming and psychomolecular restructuring <refer 'brainwashing'>...)
[BREAK=Chapter 18]
Please proceed to AFTERWARD Part II
AFTERWARD Part II of III Parts
Problem: There is no common - big bang - center from which the observed expanding universe expands. The expansion is astrophysically established as dynamically expanding in direct line of sight, away from a given observer, from any location. This is not the signature of an explosion from a common center.
It is the signature of a repelling force acting across space out of all material bodies, paralleling all the characteristics of conventional gravity, while acting in the opposite direction. Namely, what Einstein called ‘the cosmological constant’ - a force unlike any other known, because it increased - instead of decreased - with distance.
Einstein’s Unified Field theory of 1919 predicted an expanding universe - a prediction that Wilem de Sitter foresaw (in Einstein’s equations) as early as 1917. A decade before the expanding universe was spectroscopically discovered between 1912 and 1922, by, Dr. Vesto M. Silpher, and translated in 1927 by Friedmann & Lemaitre, and 1929 by Edwin Hubble as proof of a spatially expanding universe, observing (by way of spectroscopic ‘red shift’); that the speed of a receding galaxy increases with distance (‘Hubble’s "red shift").
Einstein - under much influence by Wilem de Sitter - had predicted an expanding universe, and that it is the result of a repelling force acting out of all material bodies, just like gravity, except, in the opposite direction. This is the force that Einstein proposed prevented the universe (full of mutually impelling bodies) from collapsing on itself - a problem that Newton himself called attention to, for which there was no previous explanation.
When the spatially expanding universe was discovered, it was resolved that this explained why the universe didn’t collapse on itself, and for this reason, under much ensuing controversy, Einstein was persuaded to abandon his previously submitted Cosmological Constant repelling force....
Recent data is accumulating, finding that the spatial universe is not only expanding, but that it is also picking up - increasing in - rate of speed of expansion. Again, this is not the signature of a big bang originated universe, whereas, it is the signature of the abandoned Cosmological Constant: a force which increases with distance...
It is well known that Einstein abandoned his Cosmological Constant repelling force (designated with the Greek sign ‘Lambda’ - an inverted V, like this /\ ; calling it his ‘biggest blunder’ ), due to the discovery of the spatially expanding universe. It is not so well known and no issue of controversy that Einstein went back to working on his formerly abandoned unified field - cosmological constant - theory, at Princeton, before he died in 1955...
Besides the ‘red shift’ established expanding universe, there is one other evidentiary phenomenon in particular, which is said to support (if not ‘prove’) the big bang ‘theory’, and that is the issue of cosmic microwave background radiation predicted in 1949 by George Gamow and (inadvertently) confirmed (via satellite) in 1963, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. Whereas, what is proven by the observed background radiation is that the universe as we know it was more dense and hotter in earlier moments that in the present. The 'Big Bang' interpretation does not have a monopoly on this translation. Any model of an expanding universe yields the same observation (That the universe was more dense and hotter in the past than in the present. This work - the reinstatement of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified <Steady State> Field theory - represents such an alternative explanation).
When Science is Popularly Displaced by Falsity
---------------------------------------------------
The much applauded and controversial 'Big Bang Theory' is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
The much applauded and controversial 'Super String Theory' is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
(Please refer, Webster's dictionary, or, any dictionary of scientific terms.)
These importantly expansive misunderstandings negatively influence and handicap the entire world of contemplation at the foundations of objective thinking. These endlessly repeated misnomers sustain themselves. Calling hypotheses 'theories' is unscientific and misleading, digressive and harmful. Is there no room for a cordial fireside chat about such - very important, fundamental, symptomatic - 'misunderstandings' (Resting comfortably in the center of 'Standard Theory'; expanding tolerance thresholds on the foundations of academia) ? Are they not plaintively germane to the influence of scientists on public acceptance, controversy and tolerance thresholds - perspective, science, art, fiction and culture?
___________________
"Big Bang', 'SuperStrings' & the 'out dated' Cosmological Constant.
The ‘ugly head’ Of The 'outdated' Truth:
“The cosmological constant has now a secure position... Not only does it unify the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, but it renders the theory of gravitation and its relation to space-time measurement so much more illuminating and indeed self evident, that return to the earlier view is unthinkable. I would as soon think of reverting to Newtonian Theory as of dropping the cosmological constant.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE, p. 24
“I can see no reason to doubt that the observed recession of the spiral nebulae is due to cosmic repulsion, and it is the effect predicted (in 1919) by Relativity Theory which we were hoping to find. Many other explanations have been proposed - some of them rather fantastic (* ‘tired light’, ‘the big bang’,’dark matter’, ‘gravitons’, ‘super strings’ ‘anti-matter’) - and there has been a great deal of discussion which seems to me rather pointless. In this, as in other developments of scientific exploration, we must recognise the limitations of our present knowledge and be prepared to consider revolutionary changes.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, pp. 89 - 90, A TREASURY OF SCIENCE (Harlow Shapley publishers)
______________________________________
From Jacobowski, to Rascal Puff 4/8/07
It seems you are putting words into Eddington's mouth without alerting us:
"Many other explanations have been proposed - some of them rather fantastic (* ‘tired light’, ‘the big bang’,’dark matter’, ‘gravitons’, ‘super strings’ ‘strangeness’, 'charms') - and there has been a great deal of discussion which seems to me rather pointless."
Eddington died in 1944, so he could not possibly have made a statement about superstrings.
_______________________
Dear Jacobowski:
The words you say I seem to be putting into Eddington's mouth without alerting you, are in parentheses and also marked with an asterisk * . Eddington speaks of 'some rather fantastic' explanations, but does not present any examples of his time, so I - ostensibly and markedly - presented some examples of our time. I believe this simple and obvious qualification is clear to any unbiased reader.
___________________________
There are other potent disagreements with the so called Big Bang theory:
"Astronomers have now generally accepted the fact of this expansion, and Einstein's 'field equations' of his General Theory of Relativity can be construed to fit an expanding universe." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49
"NEW CLUES ABOUT THE NATURE OF DARK MATTER: Einstein May Have Been Right After All:
... Energy: Einstein May Have Been Right After All View this image. The good news from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is that Einstein was right — maybe. ...
hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/12/text/ - 17k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
HubbleSite - NewsCenter - New Clues About the Nature of Dark ...
_______________
Please proceed to AFTERWARD's closing, Part III
[BREAK=Chapter 19]
Afterward Part III
From Buck Dharwin to *RascalPuff
4/9/07
"Problem: The expansion is astrophysically established as dynamically expanding in direct line of sight, away from a given observer, from any location. This is not the signature of an explosion from a common center."
That's not a problem for the Big Bang theory. It doesn't claim that there was anything like a conventional "explosion" (*It used to). Neither does it require there to have been a common center (*It used to). In BB cosmology, all points in space suffice equally for the center (That's one of the renovations that have been applied to the Big Bang since it's inception - absorbing the dynamics of the <abandoned> cosmological constant).
It's also inaccurate to claim that it's not a theory. It predicted the cosmic background radiation, and this was in fact found, supporting the theory.
From *RascalPuff to Buck Dharwin 4/9/07
The two mainstays of Big Bang are Hubbles 'red shift' expanding universe, and 'cosmic background radiation'.
Recent observations find the so called big bang universe to be increasing in its rate of expansion. This is the signature of a repelling force acting across space, 'just like conventional gravity', except, in the opposite direction (preventing the universe from collapsing on itself).
The big bang theory has evolved from having a common center, and a 'cause for the expansion' to elaborately sidestepping the formerly central - since, compliantly metamorphosed - issue of a common center, and apparently ignoring the accumulating observations that the spatially expanding universe is picking up speed.
Background radiation was predicted by George Gamow in 1949 and (accidentally) proved in 1963, Gamow proclaimed that such radiation would contribute to a big bang theory.
What background radiation indicates is a relatively more dense universe at earlier times, explicable in more ways than the proposed big bang. Specifically, the observed, controversied background radiation is as much 'proof' of a physically (as well as spatially) expanding universe, that was more dense and hotter at earlier moments than it is at later moments. It appears that the presently abandoned Steady State and Cosmological Constant theories are overdue for reinstatement. Especially since the big bang school is already employing the cosmological constant to prop itself up.
From Buck Dharwin to Rascal Puff
I merely pointed out that the theory made a prediction, which was verified, and so it qualifies as a theory.
As for geometric "sidestepping", I see this as the weakest argument in the anti-Banger arsenal. Perhaps you've got an algorithm that maps every existing point in space back to the interior of a singularity, but I'd dearly love to see how it assigns one of these existing points in space the role of "center".
This isn't to say that the universe doesn't have a geometric center. For all I know, it does. Wouldn't matter either way.
From Rascal Puff to Buck Dharwin
The Big Bang is undone by having no common center. Presently it is yet again undone by the observations that the spatially expanding universe is increasing its speed.
The background radiation is more likely the result of an earlier, more dense steady state universe than any big bang. A steady state (no beginning, no end) universe sustains itself without the spontaneous creation of hydrogen: when the physical universe is expanding, as well as being the cause of the spatially expanding universe, by way of the repelling force of the cosmological constant, originating out of all matter parallel to Newton's gravity, while acting in the opposite direction.
I am aware that Newton's gravity has been functionally abandoned, whereas 'the curvature of space' and 'geodesics' are explicable by way of the employment of the expansion of matter itself, corresponding with and the cause of the spatially expanding universe. As the status quo stands, Standard Theory is convinced that without the big bang, there is no explanation for the expanding universe.
There is an alternative explanation, and that is a physically expanding (physically 4-D) universe complimenting and causing the observed spatially expanding universe.
I submit that the 'curvature of space' will be reinterpreted, to accomodate a physically as well as spatially expanding universe. George Gamow's prediction of the finding of background radiation, along with the interpretation of what that means - desperate measures to explain Lemaitre's ad hoc innovative explanation for the unexpectedly discovered spatially expanding universe.
The reinstatement of the Cosmological Constant is literally gaining on the Big Bang, via the observed increasing rate of expansion (acceleration).
From PuzzledCow to RascalPuff
4/10/07
"The reinstatement of the Cosmological Constant is literally gaining on the Big Bang, via the observed increasing rate of expansion."
Not sure what your point is. The active process by which the expansion is supposed to accelerate is already a part of the big bang theory, be it under the name of "dark energy", "quintessence" or just "cosmological constant", or a combination of three different things - well, the state of the affair is unclear, but basically the big bang and the cosmological constant belongs to the same paradigm.
From RascalPuff to PuzzledCow
The big bang commenced as an hypothesis based on 'red shift'. In 1949 Gamow predicted that background radiation should exist as a residual hangover from the big bang. Background radiation was detected in 1963 - hastily promoting the big bang to a theory status. Whereas, any expanding universe will inevitably be more dense in its past, as compared to the present, the presently abandoned steady state theory yields the same conclusion while the accelerating expansion of physical matter (in four dimensions) reinstates the steady state theory.
The big bang hypothesis evolved into a theory by way of a conceptually polarized, prejudiced interpretation of the cause of the measured background radiation. Moreover and since then, the big bang premise has cavalierly disconnected itself from the requirement of a center source from which it originates.
Now, furthermore proclaiming that the recently and unexpectedly discovered acceleration of the (spatially) expanding universe is caused by the emphatically hypothetical impetus of 'dark energy', 'quintessence' or just (pilfers and tailors the) 'cosmological constant' (culminating in what you offer as a 'combination of three different things'); which you proclaim as 'already a part of the big bang theory'. Whereas, reiterating your own words, "...well, the state of the affair is unclear, but basically the big bang and the cosmological constant (steady state theory) belongs (sic) to the same paradigm."
The cosmological constant accompanies the steady state theory, and the steady state theory - including the accelerating expansion of (4-D) matter itself - is the rigidly ignored alternative to the big bang, which has embraced and displaced many of the characteristics of lambda and the steady state theory, while simultaneously rejecting them...
Is it your point to say that, if the expanding universe is accelerating, the (repeatedly razed and reconstructed) big bang has it accounted for; by way of hypothesis and/or your unexplained reactivation of the cosmological constant or steady state theory?
4/11/07
PuzzledCow wrote:
First, I'm NOT a proponent of the big poof theory. However, that theory is permanently evolving, much like Ptolemy's earth-centric theory was evolving into variants by adding epicycles and deferents.
One of these epicycles is the cosmological constant, an old hat that Einstein had postulated in his original theory in order to keep the universe both finite and static, later was discarded by Einstein, and was put in the circuit again by 2000 or so when cosmologists deduced an acceleration of expansion from observation of the redshifts - the redshifts are no more seen as the result of a Doppler effect but as the expansion of space itself, whatever that means.
My previous comments are from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
(the warning at the head of this page confirms that the whole story is unclear).
The above dialogue occurred in the 'About Physics' forum of the internet. 10-11/4/07
**************
End of Afterward (Subject to extension).
[BREAK=Chapter 20]
The Non-mathematical Reinstatement
of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field
Space-time Gravity Is The 4th Dimension:
Special effects & design by Austin P. Torney
For more cost free rhythm and reason, please consider a season that resonantly sings beyond theories of strings.
From Euclid's straight line shine to Isaac's golden apple and its geodesic grapple.
A catchy little tune that most anyone can croon, by the curved silvery light of Albert's expeditionary moon.
Dr. Einstein's waking inspiration may yet sweep the sleeping nation at the slightest provocation.
An unrecognized solution that could start a peaceful revolution. Big Bang Gangology’s further confirmation of their favorite libation - more denial and debate with the orphaned Steady State.
Behold Albert's resurrected smart bomb with enduring aplomb. Benevolent bomb leaves all the buildings and people intact; takes 4-D space-time to get them back on track .
Asked the teacher what gravity was, an' all he said is what gravity does. Said I wanna know why, not how things fall. Teacher said nobody knows that one at all.
Asked the people on the 6 O'Clock news; they said on that we have no views. Same thing happened in a physics lesson - a picture of Newton gave a puzzled expression.
Still wanted to know what gravity is, so I went outside and continued the quiz. Asked a mathematician and he took all day saying gravity is numbers. So I lit one up and, went into suspension, tintanambulating beyond the 3rd dimension. The answer appeared as a gentle kiss, so I wrote another poem and it goes like this...
4-D accelerating expansion to macrocosmic infinity. 
Copyright 1968 by Masao Komura Special Effects Copyright 2007 by Austin Torney
Poetry for all times and places, poetry for all rhymes and spaces. Where are the dimensions and where are they not, boundless dimensions of color and thought; infinite dimensions of cold and of hot. But countless dimensions of space there are not.
Dimensions of music, of wine and of thee, of these there are many, but of space only three.
A 3-D you anna 3-D me, munching 3-D apples from a 3-D tree. 3-D up an' 3-D down, 3-D apples to the 3-D ground. A 3-D fall anna 3-D 'thump'. 3-D sugar inna 3-D lump.
3-D east an' 3-D west, Sir Isaac Newton did his 3-D best. 3-D universe, 3-D math - 3-D projectiles onna 3-D path. 3-D smooth and 3-D rough; 4-D Einstein singin' "Three ain't enough."
4-D amplifier and 4-D gear, singin' 4-D lyrics into 3-D ears. 4-D guitar an' 4-D strings. Albert's 4-D song about 4-D things.
3-D professors onna 3-D jag, stuffin 4-D physics in a 3-D bag.
If yer lookin' for a message in here, it's of 4-D headaches from a 3-D beer. 3-D professors tellin' 3-D lies, gettin' 3-D money for the Nobel Prize.
3-D scientists onna 3-D pension, refusing to recognize, space-time gravity is the 4th dimension.
(Variations on this thought provoking vignette appear else-where on the net. Copyright 1979, by K. B. Robertson. All rights reserved. With acknowledgement for authorship, may be reproduced and distributed for educational, recreational and non commercial purposes.)
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
-----------------------------------
Image & text storage - pending transfers, follows:
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
4-D Salted Butter 'n Popcorn Cartoon Genesis
Crackerjack. Morton salt & Land O' Lakes butter. Squared.
-------------------------------------------------------
4-D Space-Time Continuum, continued:
It’s everywhere and especially represented in some places in particular.... there is a print-painting of a terrier looking dog with a sailor boy on a box of Crackerjack, holding an inevitably smaller box of Crackerjack, upon which is printed another image of what appears to be the same dog beside another - looks like the same - sailor, only smaller; holding yet another box of Crackerjack; with what would seem has a printed painting of another dog beside another sailor holding a yet smaller box of Crackerjack and so on...
It seems to go on forever, if the pictures could somehow be made ever smaller and still exist, as the visibly descending and/or ascending sequence of images certainly suggests... Geometrically squared rectangular boxes of hierarchically parallel and orthogonal Crackerjack containers and icons, out of infinite smallness proceeding to infinite largeness. Si. Nut city. (It took a while to learn the difference?)
Called me ‘Seahorse’ on the day we met. Gave me an English translated copy of Einstein's, 'Ideas & Opinions'. Mara Benevida Neapolis started it, in Naples, Italy, April of '59 (While Caryn H. Robertson has always underestimated her part in contributing to the evolution and publication of this work, since 1960).
Seahorse spots the ‘displaced’ box of Crackerjack and begins to see in its familiar artwork graphics what he will eventually recognize as an important representation of Einstein’s Unified Field without mathematics. Multi-moment space-time. An ensemble of constantly enlarging and diminishing systems...
Ready or not teleported to a place no different than and identical to all the places and times he’s ever known, a day like any other day, only Crackerjack boxes are now showing up in Italy with New World Icons of an ever enlarging - and ever diminishing - blue & white terrier dog with a blue and white sailor boy holding a red striped box of Crackerjack with the image of a Sailor with a Terrier dog, would never again be the same with or without punctuation... Pensive studies widened, more light was let in: wisdom and knowledge proving once again, like gold, to be where you find it.
Who said the ever-smaller sequenced pictures - smaller or larger, past, present & future - had to ‘end’, ever?
If the atoms of the universe of the past got ever smaller and the atoms of the universe of the present got ever larger and the painter or printer passed his job on from one generation to the next, where was the ‘end’ of the illustrated hierarchy of images - the multi-moment space-time ensemble of differently sized pictures of the same dog and sailor boy holding a box of Crackerjack with a picture of himself and his dog on it?
Same thing happens on a cylindrical container of MORTON salt, the byword of which is ‘When it rains, it pours." Meaning that humidity or dampness in the air does not prevent the salt from being smoothly dispensed from the container, or whatever shaker it may be contained by. The pictorial logo on this dark blue colored, cylindrically shaped package is a little girl in a yellow skirt, walking in the rain, holding an open umbrella over her head with her right hand; with a container of MORTON salt, pouring out of the metal spout cradled in and under her left hand and arm; upon which is the same pictorial; and so on; squared - same as the CRACKERJACK.
Since then we’ve noticed elsewhere, "Land O Lakes" butter and dairy products 'Where goodness begins'. It's an icon of a beautiful young Native American woman perched on a lake back grounded - presumably Minnesota - mound of grass, offering a sample of the product - in this case, a pound of butter upon which she is the labeled icon; squared. It doesn't look like the Land O Lakes anecdote of 'Where goodness begins' has any explanation of where it ends... Yes. The same thematically endless hierarchy as the multi-moment 4-D MORTON salt icon - 'When it rains (water) it (Morton salt, still) pours', and, the CrackerJack Sailor - squared.
Sort’a like getting a big box of something under the Christmas tree or for your birthday and when you go to open it, it turns into a hierarchy of empty boxes growing ever smaller or larger depending on whether you're wrapping or unwrapping the smallest or largest box... Depending on whether you're giving or receiving the container(s)...
There were too many coincidences, Einstein was caught up in a similar imbroglio, only it was in Bern, Switzerland, just northwest of where all this cartoon compounded dilemma was unfolding and back in the early 20th century.
Art & special effects by Austin P. Torney
--------------------------------
A Brief History of Rhyme (The dreaded thread)
Poetic science alliance.
Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field reinstated w'out mathematics.
The joining of Field with Quantum Mechanics.
The exclusion of politics from science.
A scientific paradigm shift in alliance.
Scientific panics at quantum mechanics
Democritus foresaw the invisible atom, but since then his discovery is found with substratrum. From antiquity, and ubiquity the continuous wave was the rave, the magnetic transparent field, all proved to be electrostatically real.
Faraday found the cathode ray. Thompson uncovered electrons one day. Rutherford discovered protons a different way. Temporally understood Maxwell's waves beneath the celestial hood, discovered electromagnetic fields as no one ever thought he would. The wave emitting electron could not be subdivided - at first it was whispered, then openly confided.
Yet along came smaller mysterious articles, of Max Planck’s curiously indivisible particles:
Transforming a known world of electrostatics into a truculent tangle of quantum mechanics. Conceptual doors were opened for the entrance of protons, but no comprehensive vacancy for the residential photons. Other atomic tenants varied in weight height and disguise, but the photon is always the same value and size. A deteriorating atom might change its balance or valence, while the unchanging photon showed no such talents. Vigils are kept to find it changing its station, while its stubborn identity confirms in black body radiation.
At dollar conventions where no change is invited, twenty nickels sit down to an audience excited. The quantum takes for granted inclusion, while greenbacks resent the currency of intrusion. To and from spherical shells the electron darts, while the unchanged quantum arrives before it departs.
If you’re looking for a message in here, it’s of Max Planck’s quanta and Niels Bohr’s spheres. Invincible in principle, Newton’s Mechanics are sure as shooting, while quantum mechanics are robbing and looting. Evolutionary experiments are eclectic, but the final conclusions are photoelectric. As though these convulusions are not enough, reality panned out some other stuff. The only certain universal permanancy, is Einstein’s constant light-speed and Heisenberg’s indeterminacy.
Einstein’s fort was special & general relativity, while his Nobel Prize was for photo-electricity. Uncle Albert having firstly proven to be right - ahead of Brownian motion and the speed of light. This century old issue of size is how Einstein won the Nobel Prize - how the peace loving master-blaster stayed alive in timely year of 1905.
Anaxgoras of pre biblical days took big and little to greater heights and stays, he said "There’s always something larger than large, and always something smaller than small." Perhaps the smallest large statement of all. May this admonition of illusion be this brief sonnet’s conclusion.
The 20th century path has been rough - to the point of surrendering enough of this stuff.
- K. B. Robertson, Copyright 1979 & 2007 All rights reserved. May be used for non commercial educational and recreational purposes with the stipulation that proper accreditation is extended to the author.
Though this ballad may be spiritual or mental, any semblance to education is purely coincidental.
Readers are invited to this paragon of camp, may the poetic winner be rewarded with writer's cramp?
Whoever may think that here is no thought, please feel free to continue and give yer best shot.
Special effects by Austin P. Torney
Special effects by Austin P. Torney Art by Richard J. Benish
Special effects by Austin P. Torney Art by Robert Crumb
------------------------------------------------------------
A refreshing and noteworthy change of topic (post traumatic stress disorder) is accessible at:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/Kaidupuppy
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Total Field Theory: Reinstatement of Cosmological Constant & Steady State Theories 
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by theunify 
