Garden Variety Theoretical Physics for Talented Truckdrivers

[RascalPuff]

Making Near That Which Was Distant & Making Easy That Which Was Difficult. Pt I

Theoretical Physics for Talented Truck Drivers:
Garden Variety Unified Field

Copyright 2008
by K. B. Robertson
May be reproduced for educational and non commercial purposes, with proper accreditation for authorship:
A Brief History of a Series of Discoveries

In the experience of this author there are two histories of the evolution of physics. The objective history that was established by the men and women who contributed to it’s progressive evolution, and the subjective history of this author’s learning of that evolution and then recognizing and authenticating an unprecedented statement - previously proven but continuingly unrecognized on the foundations of physical science.

Discovering that Newton’s gravity is Einstein’s 4-dimensional space time continuum did not happen in premeditation, or all at once, or in any given flash of insight, but rather through a process of learning, motivated by what at first was no more than mild curiosity.

‘What is gravity?’ I was fourteen years old and had no idea that, in pursuing the answer to this question, I was about to embark on what would become the main course in my life’s work.

Confident that I could learn the answer in a fairly short period of time, through research of standard information sources.

In referencing several encyclopedias and other resource materials I slowly became aware that there was no comprehensive answer to that question (‘What is gravity?’). There is voluminous and impressive information on the effects of gravity (‘the unidentified Force’ - ‘F’) - what it does... But the question of what gravity is - what causes it - remains a popularly pursued - until now, unresolved - mystery.

Newton literally invented The Calculus, to enable him to measure acceleration, parabolic arcs and many other effects of gravity, but, there is only a gathering data base of speculations (some of which in the past 30 or so years have evolved into a trend of unscientific inquiry and unscientific representation) of it’s causal identity.

The causal identity of gravity is no less mysterious now than it has been through the ages of scientific inquiry.

My first discovery about gravity was that no one has ever known what it is; only what it does...

That was of itself interesting, and in the words of Barbara Lovett Cline (THE MEN WHO MADE A NEW PHYSICS), ‘I wanted to know more.’ The recently learned fact that no one knows or has ever known what gravity is, allowed me to think that even an amateur such as myself might have as much business researching it as anyone else.

Curiosity about gravity was further refurbished when I learned of Galileo’s experiments with descending objects, released from the same height at the same time - when he found the unexpected result that, regardless of the mass values (size, density, weight) of objects, they all descend at the same rate of acceleration and strike the ground, when dropped from the same height at the same time. Before Galileo’s findings, it had been presumed since Aristotle and before, that the heavier a given object, the faster it descends in free fall. Not true.

The record already had some knowledge of Newton’s Laws of gravity, one of which states that the greater mass value - the heavier - a given object, the more gravitational impelling force (presumed to be a force of ‘attraction’ ; unidentified, but said ‘not’ to be ‘magnetism’ or ‘electricity’) it possesses.

It follows by this law that when a small stone is dropped alongside of a boulder sized stone, the latter should fall faster and strike the ground sooner than the smaller stone (released from the same height at the same time - esp. in the absence of air resistance <a feather and a cannon ball, in the absence of air resistance, descend at exactly the same rate, measured to concurrence beyond a billionth of a second; in scientifically documented searches for the anticipated difference in descent rates - not finding it, down to and beyond the measure of a nanosecond>...).

According to Newton’s law as applied to this consideration, there ‘should’ be a greater mutual attraction between the larger stone and the earth, than between the smaller stone and the earth, and therefore the larger - heavier - stone ‘should’ fall faster. It doesn’t.

(The popular but incorrect ‘explanation’ that ‘negative inertial resistance’ inversely corresponds to the ‘pull’ of gravity and exactly cancels out what would otherwise be an increased descent rate for the heavier object, is well marked, by Einstein and many others, as an inadequate, false explanation.)

That fact intrigued me and led me to pursue further studies. I was aware that much of Einstein’s work was about Newton’s gravity; did not pursue Newton’s or Einstein’s mathematical work on gravity because my knowledge of that subject (mathematics) was (and remains) extremely limited.

At age seventeen I conjured up what seemed to be a radical and unlikely explanation for why all objects descend at the same rate of acceleration. It did explain why this happened, but the explanation required that the entire earth’s surface be constantly rising up, creating the illusion of falling objects; causing them to appear to fall: at the same rate of acceleration.

In this apparently ‘unlikely’ scenario, the unexplained identical rates of descent for the test objects was ‘explained’, ‘because’ the earth’s surface was rising up and overtaking the apparently falling objects...

I had no good reason at that time for attributing the required expansion to the earth. Had very limited knowledge (of what is scientifically known) of the ‘building blocks of the universe’ - electrons, neutrons and protons; that they are called ‘particles’, which are in fact unexpectedly found and consistently proved to be 'charges of electricity, without distinct surfaces.'

Since the sub-atomic ‘electric charge’ has a mass value (opposes resistance to acceleration proportionate to its mass value <‘weight’>), and, demands three dimensions of space to its <perceived> finitely located self): it is called a ‘particle’; rigidly conceptualized as ‘billiard ball’ like, having a distinct surface, separating its perceived finite boundaries, making it ‘discontinuous’ - from the space surrounding it - like any and all other material entities; as they are colloquially experienced and consequently conceptualized. Refer: ‘particle theory’ (is not really a theory, but rather an ‘hypothesis’, since the so called particle has yet to be confirmed on the foundations of modern physical science).

Had only heard of the 4th Dimension as Einstein introduced and then others described it - had no knowledge of it. Did not know of or associate any of those realities with the absurd explanation I had for the descent of free falling objects.


It was more a lark than a serious consideration: OBVIOUSLY THE EARTH IS NOT - AND ALL OTHER PHYSICAL ENTITIES IN THE UNIVERSE ARE NOT - EXPANDING. I had arrived at what I did not recognize then as being a historically crowded metaphorical precipice, and I had made the same rejection everyone else had, who had arrived there - unbeknownst to me at that time.

There was a perfectly functional if metaphorical DaVinci donated hang-glider waiting for anyone who cared to fly with it (the elaborately proven, consistently rejected and denied fact that universal matter at large is a constantly expanding four dimensional field), and for quite some time I stood there at that crowded precipice, looking at the new fangled, completely untested solution, and then glanced down the cliff that everyone there had pulled up short on...

I went about the objective of disproving this incredible (even ‘ridiculous’) idea that all of the material earth - and consequently, the thereby obliged physical universe of space and matter - was constantly expanding.

I was sure it was wrong. Had to be wrong. I would not fly off that cliff, even though I knew, that new fangled thing just might after all fly. I didn’t ‘believe’ it (Yet).

Continued in Parts II, III & IV, in the foregoing posts. Including links to other sources.

[RascalPuff]

Making Near That Which Was Distant & Making Easy That Which Was Difficult. Pt II

How, after all, for example, could something like this be ‘going on’, (the entire physical universe as well as the spaces between the ‘particles’, is constantly expanding, ever faster..). without it having been previously observed and proven - by people much more talented and skilled than myself?

There is the apparently patent fact that anyone can see for themselves at any time and in any place, that the physical environment - everything - at issue here: (‘Obviously’)‘isn’t expanding’...

("Avoid the hazard of thinking you understand something, that you don’t really understand" - Robert Pursig, Paraphrased,

ZEN & THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE.)

Such misunderstandings result in ‘gridlock’, disallowing any possibility of resolution, since whatever the problem or misunderstanding may be, it is not recognized as such, and is therefore not dealt with. ‘Gridlock’.

The ‘incredible’ premise (that all of physical reality is constantly expanding ever faster) did ‘solve’ the problem of the universal descent rate of all free falling objects. But it certainly appeared to present a lot more problems than it did solutions.

The more Yours Truly circumspected the problem and the more widened the contingent issues became, the more I began to realize that for all of its ‘incredible’ contingencies, the idea that the entire physical - as well as spatial - universe was expanding, was supported - generously - on the foundations of contemporary and historical physics. But the glitch was: when the prevailing reality emerged in the experimental laboratory; often with mathematical confirmations, it seemed, I was learning, to be consistently rejected out of hand; always on the misguided (though certainly understandable) premise that ‘obviously, universal matter - every physical entity in your environment including yourself - is not in a perpetual state of constant expansion... ‘Anyone can see, after all, that no such expansion prevails.'

However stubbornly it may appear, in however many differently proven ways, in the internationally recorded laboratory...

I continued to refuse to test the new fangled (certified ‘untested’ and ‘disqualified’) thing-a-ma-jigee (with wings), and jump off the metaphorical precipice, and fly. Sure would look foolish going splash in the imagined, forgiving ocean down there and flightlessly swimming ashore. Of course it wouldn’t fly.

If it was meant to fly, someone much more knowledgeable than myself, surely would have gotten off the ground with it by now... 'Obviously matter is not a constantly expanding field, because, if it was, by now everything would have spread out indefinitely... '

If everything in the physical universe is expanding , caused by the ever expanding neutrons, protons, electrons, mesons, charms, strangeness and quarks, etceteras (atomic and subatomic particles large and small): then I can fly.

So of course I couldn’t fly.


Just wanted to make sure that I really couldn’t fly, so I delved further into the stubbornly ascending matter, as it were...

(An airborne gliding swan - formerly an ugly duckling - dipped it’s wings over my head, approximately. That is to say, there were benevolent counter signs, discouraging abandonment of the ugly duckling and White Elephant apparent... I had already read that a host of internationally distinguished mathematicians had 'proven', repeatedly and diversely, that 'it is impossible for a bumblebee to fly.' It was before the great Ken Kesey wrote, SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION.)

I began to discover more about this ‘incredible notion’ (Including the ocean motion?) It also resolved other dissolute and importantly unresolved issues in physical science. The relativistic contraction of physical masses in the direction of their motion at increasing rates of contraction proportional to their velocity, could be attributed to ‘Doppler effect’: if matter was an expanding field... Since Einstein proved that matter does in fact behave that way, doesn't that also prove that matter is an expanding field? But that was, once again, against the well established rules of rejection on this very ('obscure') issue... 'Anyone can see, after all, that universal matter is not expanding...'

Advancing plateaus of recognition and realization, celebrating the learning of the hard work of dedicated scientists when they compulsively dismissed the results of what they called ‘null experiments’ - the first such celebration on my part being when I learned that Roland Von Eotvos went meticulously looking for a difference in descent rates between heavier and lighter objects in descent and couldn’t find any difference at all, down to a billionth part of a second. That is somber (though incomplete) evidence that the earth is rising up to meet the apparently falling objects.

Einstein's ‘time dilation’ could likewise be explained for the same reason. Relativistic ‘non-absolute space and time’ - ‘space-time’, could likewise be accounted for (An enlarging hierarchy of multi-moment space-times interminably arriving from the past into the present and projecting toward the future).

All these unprecedented functionally founded concepts - and previously unexplained phenomena - were being imaginatively accommodated, and explained, on the basis of the same singular premise - that physical matter itself is a constantly (ever faster) expanding; accelerating field: ’the mass field’, I began to call it. Though I was still sure that there must be something about it I didn’t understand - that others did - that disqualified it.

Looking at the implied, metaphorically winged flying machine a little more seriously now, still afraid of being embarrassed in front of all those people who had for so long made camp on that cliff and Knew Better than to try to fly (with the provided resources as they understood them).

Oh yes. I knew the story of Icarus flying too close to the sun - the wax binding keeping his home made feathered wings together, being melted by the sun, because Icarus tried to fly too high.

Bitter-sweetly marooned with the idea that I may have happened into a major discovery of literally astronomical proportions. Certainly an inspiring thought, but I dared not take it - or myself - too seriously.

Yet, the more I researched to disqualify it (this graduated at times into frantic searches, desperate hunts for disqualification, because I wanted this White Elephant off my back), the more information gathered tended to support rather than disqualify - I did not fear any disqualification I was hoping to find; it would put away the otherwise increasingly accumulating evidence that I was on to something very important.

With regard to 'belief systems', it was very difficult for me to believe that no one else had come up with this before, and that there must be a very good reason or series of good reasons for why it was just as untenable as it appeared to be at first consideration... Future research would reveal that others had indeed preceded myself (as documented herein), but not by the same avenues and invariably abandoning their incomplete research on the understandable but incorrect premise that, 'obviously, the physical universe is not constantly expanding (also as documented herein).'

At age seventeen, in mid 1958, I joined the military while continuing my research.

The EuroAmerican, transcultural CRACKERJACK

(And precipitous Morton salt)

GrecoRoman Odyssey

It was not scientific or inspiring (at first) to be sitting in a Neapolitan restaurant thousands of miles from the North American continent seeing a ‘foreigner’ who didn’t speak much English enjoying a box of Yankee Crackerjack. Anyone could easily wonder at the incongruity of it, after all.

As I was saying it was not the usual stuff of conventional or even metaphysical science, to see the answer I was looking for, in or upon a box of Crackerjack, in the lovely hands of a Neapolitan native in a restaurant full of Italian people and Italian made everything, especially food.

But this did happen, under those circumstances. Of course my most logical and reasonable facilities told me I might have been pushing this projected hobby horse, as it were, a little too far into the parameters of - perhaps even laughable - improbability. Spending too many late hours at the emerged, ad hoc, amateur’s (he or she who loves his or her work) office.

More about alternately losing and finding myself in the (ho hum) artwork on a box of gringo Crackerjack in Italy, in a moment...

Disqualification would resolve the increasingly unresolved issue and would have been (and still would be) an unburdening... As it was going, I dwelled in the shifting nether-realm of alternately thinking myself a vain imbecile and maybe a major contributor to the evolution of physical science.

[RascalPuff]

Making Near That Which Was Distant & Making Easy That Which Was Difficult. Pt III

Just before age eighteen I was gifted a copy of Einstein’s IDEAS & OPINIONS. I nearly - politely - balked the offering, because although I was aware that Einstein’s work dealt with gravity and light - the subjects I was interested and pursuing studies in, I was intimidated by and impotent in mathematics, especially the high order mathematics that I knew Einstein, and Newton, and many others worked in.

As things developed it is likely that, had I been skilled in mathematics I may never have carried through with this unprecedented non-mathematical interpretation of what is for the most part well accounted for in mathematical formulations which have distanced the mathematical innovators from a conceptually comprehensive understanding of what their (metric) mathematics are describing and/or confirming. There is not so much a need for more mathematics here, as there is a need to understand what the mathematics, mean (Exactly what are the qualified mathematical formulae correctly and accurately describing? Segue to my unforeseen appearance upon the well lighted proscenium?)...

But as I read Einstein’s work as it was presented in the second half of that book (IDEAS & OPINIONS: Contributions To Science), I recognized that the issues he was dealing with in that particular book, were not so much presented mathematically, and what was being explained non-mathematically (by Einstein), seemed to remarkably parallel the ideas I had been independently developing, or, I should say that my ideas remarkably paralleled his.

This instilled more confidence that the apparently absurd notion that the entire physical universe is expanding, was not absurd or ridiculous at all. On the contrary, it seemed - with some exceptions - to be exactly what Einstein was describing, though he didn’t quite specifically and non-mathematically proclaim the physical universe to be expanding, he certainly - characteristically and elaborately - allowed for that possibility, and from what I’ve since been told and learned of his mathematics, they seem to patently prove a physically as well as spatially expanding universe.

This was an extremely humbling, and equally encouraging, uplifting experience... (On more escalating elevators than one?)

By age twenty I had gone through a series of cycles where it appeared to be an untenable idea and then was redeemed by further thought and research, until I was obliged to realize that until if and when someone or authority could show me what was wrong with this system of thinking, it was not only as good as the existing status quo in physics - it was better. It explained more otherwise unexplained major mysteries - not piecemeal, but rather consistently, with the same over all generalization: physical matter is a constantly - ever faster - expanding field.

I eventually realized that it was not any contradiction of the Law of Conservation of Mass Energy. It was the same amount of energy, increasingly distributed over a greater area, in accordance with the law of the inverse square. Could not explain ‘why’ universal matter was expanding, but I was gathering more and more sobering reasons to consider that it was in fact doing so, and that the collective mass of the earth was expanding at 32 feet per second, per second... The descent rate of free-falling objects on earth (descent rates vary correspondingly, in accordance for the most part with Newton's revelations.

Einstein makes a very big deal out of it (the coincidental' equivalence of Heavy and Inertial mass values - observed in the 'universal rate of descent'). Calls it ‘an astonishing coincidence’. The whole world has been talking and wondering about it - the ensuing General Principle Of Relativity, equating the unidentified force of gravity with acceleration - ever since...

Much important help was gifted to this author - by a certain Neapolitan Guppy and her friends - in the early and critical stages of researching and developing this superlative and unprecedented non mathematical translation of Einstein’s greatest achievements - The Special & General Theories of Relativity; leading to the Unified Field Theory.

This work probably would never have been completed, were it not for a reclused woman and her friends. This woman’s name is Mara Benevida; she and many of her friends are as responsible for the initial rough draft writing of Gravity Is The 4th Dimension (Einstein’s abandoned U.F. reinstated w’out mathematics) as this author.

Speaking of retrieval, 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 seemed 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 heirarchically parallel and orthogonal Crackerjack containers and icons, out of infinite smallness proceeding to infinite largeness. Si. Nirvana in the guise of 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'. She started it.

Seahorse spots the ‘displaced’ box of Crackerjack and begins to see in it’s 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 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 by-word 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 backgrounded - 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 heirarchy as the multi-moment 4-D MORTON salt icon - 'When it rains (water) it (Morton salt, still) pours', and, the CrackerJack Sailor - squared.)

There were too many truly fantastic coincidences, Einstein was caught up in a similar imbroglio, only it was in Switzerland, just northwest of where all this cartoon compounded dilemma was unfolding and back in the early 20th century. Too many (large and small?) coincidences, as said by some critics of Leo Tolstoy’s WAR & PEACE. Even Mara Mare was too much like Natasha in that same eloquent but redoubtable story (though there were differences?)

You know, optionally salted peanuts, popcorn, and that sort of thing... Way too catering to all things theatrical if not thespian. Even that rhymes too much. It was all too aerodynamically flocking much.

How could anyone tell someone else about a thing like this...?

The scientific status quo has an understandable resistance to any alternative interpretations of what is - as well as what is not - known. On the other hand, some anonymous mathematicians have proved, several times, that a bumblebee cannot fly. Oh my. Fortunately, bumblebees don't do math. Otherwise a lot of pollinated flowers wouldn't get pollinated.

[RascalPuff]

Making Near That Which Was Distant & Making Easy That Which Was Difficult. Pt IV

Theoretical Physics for Talented Truck Drivers: Garden Variety Unified Field Theory.

By K. B. Robertson

The Crackerjack box as gift to a friend was a conscious and well humored philosophical wink and salute to and/or about her new sailor boy friend.

Mare didn’t anticipate the 4-dimensional dynamic that went with the sweet offering to her (nameless Mirage) friend, any more than had the foil for her lark, but the joined pair of bon vivants crisply caught and went on to field the expansive idea splendidly, with a lot of help from their friends. Certainly and emphatically including Caryn H. Robertson (who consistently underestimates and understates the importance of her inspirational and pragmatic contributions to the better and best portions of this work), without whom this author would never have found the inspiration or encouragement to pursue and write this narrative documentary.

Other names were added to the originally dubbed ‘seahorse’, including ‘Americano Marino Maverick’. Mare eventually got around to calling her seahorse, ‘bumblebee’ also, as though the prevailing ambiance (Disneyland?) wasn't ethereally complicated enough...

In the words of Galileo's proclamation against the inquisitional orders to disregard what was proven about the movement of the earth... "... still, it moves'. Say what you will mathematically of the flightless bumblebee - like Albert 'The Axe' Einstein's double bit Lambda: 'Still, it flies'.
For a book length elaboration of this abbreviation please access this url:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-theory-articles/2516-total-field-theory-reinstatement-cosmological-constant-steady-state-theories.html?ltr=T

---------------------
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
-------------------------
There’s more to this 4, 5 & 6 dimensionally extended adventure, approximately replicated in BUTTERFLY, OWL & EAGLE: Athena Marie Prima (A Novel-Journal) - at http://forums.delphiforums.com/Waboose2; and http://forums.delphiforums.com/AegisofDragons on the menu of this forum.


_________________

Epilogue


******************

“Man began speculating about atoms long before science became an organized activity Even to the ancient Greeks it appeared sensible to assume that there might be some kind of ultimate building blocks of matter...
“Then, many centuries later, the great Isaac Newton concluded that matter was formed in ‘solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles’ - in other words, the atom was something like a billiard ball. Newton’s idea (*of the described ‘particle’) was pure speculation.” - MATTER, p. 119, Life Science Library.

The ‘billiard ball’ concept of ‘particle’ was more readily reinforced by direct, subjective experience, than was any objective concept of mysterious continuous forces generated by and emanating - action at a distance across space - from discontinuous particles and combined systems of particles; to influence other particles and systems of particles. - KBR


"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 which 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..." - Ibid



"When events occur in 3-Dimensional Space it is not possible to draw an actual graph of 4-Dimensional space-time, but mathematicians have ways of handling such graphs without actually drawing them."
- Martin Gardner, RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLION, p. 98

"The 4-Dimensional world of relativistic physics is the world where force and matter are unified; where matter can appear as discontinuous particles or as a continuous field. In these cases, however, we can no longer visualize the unity very well. Physicists can 'experience' the 4-Dimensional space-time world throughout the abstract mathematical formalism of their theories, but their visual imaginations - like everybody else's - is limited to the 3-Dimensional world of the senses. Our language and thought patterns have evolved in this 3-Dimensional world and therefore we find it extremely hard to deal with the 4-Dimensional reality of Relativistic Physics."
- Fritjov Capra, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, P 150

"This concept is very difficult to visualize. It is a consequence of the 4-Dimensional space-time character of the sub-atomic world and neither our intuition nor our language can deal with this image very well."
- Capra, THE TAO OF PHYSICS, p. 80

"In the General Theory of Relativity, the framework of the Special Theory is extended to include gravity. The effect of gravity, according to General Relativity, is to make space-time curved. This, again, is extremely hard to imagine. We can easily imagine a 3-Dimensionally curved surface, such as the surface of an egg. The meaning of the word 'curvature' for 2-Dimensional curved surfaces is thus quite clear; but when it comes to 3-Dimensional space - let alone 4-Dimensional space-time - our imagination abandons us. Since we cannot look at 3-Dimensional space 'from outside', we cannot imagine how it could be 'bent' in some direction." - Ibid, p. 173

"The reader is cautioned against concluding that time is an additional physical dimension in the sense that it can be seen and felt like a material object. No one in our universe can see in 4 Dimensions or more because of the way our universe is constructed."
- James A. Coleman, RELATIVITY FOR THE LAYMAN, p. 69

"In 1916, Albert Einstein published his General Relativity, a mathematical theory of gravitation which replaced Newtonian concepts with abstractions so difficult that it took a decade even for most mathematicians to grasp them. The essence of Einstein's theory was that the presence of matter distorts space and makes it curve. The concept of space curvature stemmed from many dimensional, non-straight-line geometry created abstractly through equations. Just as a surface can curve in ordinary 3-Dimensional space, so in non-Euclidean geometry a 3-Dimensional space can itself curve in 4-dimensional space. No one can visualize such a curved space because humanity is not 4-Dimensional..."
- LIFE Science Library, THE UNIVERSE, p. 179 ____________________________________________
"When Minkowski in 1908 demonstrated that Einstein's new theory was equivalent to a new geometrical approach uniting space and time in one singular entity (*4-D space-time), the voices for a 'physical' explanation for relativity fell silent, since it now became obvious that an explanation in physical (*Classical Newtonian Mechanical) terms cannot be given." - Cornelius Lanczos, ALBERT EINSTEIN & THE COSMIC WORLD ORDER

DEVOTION:

This work is dedicated to all who may constructively benefit from, add to, or (inevitably) improve upon it. Given the previously unrecognized academic foundations upon which it is based, disqualification is unlikely. Whereas, such event will inevitably contribute all the more to an improved understanding of the Universe At Large. A host of distinguished readers of nine previous editions have variously volunteered that even in the questionable consideration that the central and unprecedented conclusions herein are proved dissolute, the presentation of the history and evolution of the paramount problems in theoretical physics today, and the perspectives of them as provided herein, is an educationally important redemption of itself.

Any errors herein are those of this author, whereas, the attributes of this work (besides the self apparent rank and file of scientific giants from whom this record inherited priceless knowledge and invaluable insights) would not have been written or published, were it not for the early support, information, encouragement and 1959 - 1962 dated, inspirational guidance of over a score of individuals - mostly Neapolitans. Most emphatically including a very American woman, the love of my life, this humbled record's overly modest wife. There are many other contributors, most of whom circumstance averted the identities of, all of whom will always have the ineffable gratitude of this record.

- K. B. Robertson (Aka, Kaidu, TheWhiteMongol)



The Following User Says Thank You to RascalPuff For This Useful Post:

leskey (Yesterday)

[RascalPuff]

Yesterday 10:32 PM #8
leskey
In Modus Vivendi Join Date Mar 2008 Posts 1,065 Thanks Given 248 Thanked 93x in 53 Posts Rep Power 30

Originally Posted by leskey
Rascal, this is very interesting...I'm not particularly scientifically-minded, just interested in science and where it's leading us. This is a little formula I've been building on:

Aether = pixels.
Aether + light > gravity
Gravity > time or space/time = virtuality (essense, potential existence)

It may be nonsense...I can handle it - lol! What are your thoughts?




Originally Posted by RascalPuff
Hi Leskey:
It appears you're leaning toward simplifying what is otherwise presented as more complex. Can't evaluate what you're saying so far but I do like the direction you're moving in.
Curious to learn what your reaction might be if you read the book - Total Field Theory - at the first url provided in the above post by Truly Yours. Please get back to me on this.
Thank you for your interest, and, I'd like to see what you may do to augment your ideas with what may inspire you from the Total Field Theory url, above. : )
- RP



Hi, RP.

I'm playing with the notion that, as information is stored in memory, perhaps aether is memory storage...ie it's comprised of pixels of information.

Reiterating my PM:

I've been contemplating whether gravity and time are some how differing vectors (if that is the correct term) of the same phenomena (light?)...that perhaps gravity is related to memory storage and time is the probability of enacting (motion) upon this memory storage...way out, I know . I like to come up with ideas and then see if they have any scientific validity...this often leads to obscure papers (which are accessible only if one subscribes to the online publisher - lol!).

But nothing's lost. Or else: all is translation And every bit of us is lost in it... - James Merrill

The Following User Says Thank You to leskey For This Useful Post:

Graybeard (Today)

Today 12:35 AM #9
Graybeard Moderator Join Date Aug 2005 Posts 2,471 Blog Entries 24 Thanks Given 184 Thanked 130x in 80 Posts Rep Power 56

Re: Making Near That Which Was Distant & Making Easy That Which Was Difficult. Pt IV

Originally Posted by RascalPuff
According to Newton’s law as applied to this consideration, there ‘should’ be a greater mutual attraction between the larger stone and the earth, than between the smaller stone and the earth, and therefore the larger - heavier - stone ‘should’ fall faster. It doesn’t.

Continued in next post...

[RascalPuff]

(The popular but incorrect ‘explanation’ that ‘negative inertial resistance’ inversely corresponds to the ‘pull’ of gravity and exactly cancels out what would otherwise be an increased descent rate for the heavier object, is well marked, by Einstein and many others, as an inadequate, false explanation.)




Dear Rascal ....... this doesn't really make sense.

If the larger stone is made of Marbles, and the smaller stone is made of Marbles, and the Earth is made of Marbles .... then ALL exert an equal attraction upon each other in the ratio of the amount of marbles each one contains.

The large stone is attracted to the Earth, but the Earth is also attracted to the large stone, and so it is with the small stone .... and so it is between all three. This is the reason why they are ALL attracted to each other at the same rate !!

This is the reason for Calculus ... Newton hypothesised that the Universe was 'particle like' or 'atomic' in composition ... (Marbles) ??

So a larger group of marbles (held together by the EM Force) exerts a stronger attraction, but it also has a greater Mass to mobilise.

This is the difference between Mass (big M) and mass (little m). This is not 'a popular but incorrect explanation'

Definitions of mass often seem circular because it is such a fundamental quantity that it is hard to define in terms of something else. It is a fundamental measure of the amount of matter in the object (Marbles or Atoms).

cool bananas ... greg

'Blondie says I must hate all Brunettes. I'll try, but if I can't ... I'll love them both'
... graffiti on Tavern wall, Pompeii, circa AD 70.

Today 01:19 AM #10




RascalPuff

9th degree Black Belt Join Date Apr 2007 Posts 1,513 Blog Entries 131 Thanks Given 8 Thanked 19x in 16 Posts Rep Power 27

Re: Making Near That Which Was Distant & Making Easy That Which Was Difficult. Pt IV

Originally Posted by Graybeard
Dear Rascal ....... this doesn't really make sense.

If the larger stone is made of Marbles, and the smaller stone is made of Marbles, and the Earth is made of Marbles .... then ALL exert an equal attraction upon each other in the ratio of the amount of marbles each one contains.

The large stone is attracted to the Earth, but the Earth is also attracted to the large stone, and so it is with the small stone .... and so it is between all three. This is the reason why they are ALL attracted to each other at the same rate !!

This is the reason for Calculus ... Newton hypothesised that the Universe was 'particle like' or 'atomic' in composition ... (Marbles) ??

So a larger group of marbles (held together by the EM Force) exerts a stronger attraction, but it also has a greater Mass to mobilise.

This is the difference between Mass (big M) and mass (little m). This is not 'a popular but incorrect explanation'

Definitions of mass often seem circular because it is such a fundamental quantity that it is hard to define in terms of something else. It is a fundamental measure of the amount of matter in the object (Marbles or Atoms).

cool bananas ... greg



Dear Greg (Good to hear from you):

You're right, up to a point, about the uniform size of the 'marbles' (charges of electricity), and the corresponding uniformity of the expansion rate of each individual marble...
On the other hand, the earth is a collective system of uniformly sized 'marbles', accumulatively culminating into 25,000 miles in circumference, so that, in a given unit of time, although each individual marble is expanding (accelerating ominidirectionally) at the same rate - the larger the collective system of marbles, the faster it's rate of acceleration. Although the singular marble does indeed impart a 'gravitational effect' on the earth, it is negligible (down to a billionth of a second and less), compared to that of the 25,000 mile circumference and it's rate of acceleration, in a given unit of time. (Are we on the same page?)

I learned from a certain Australian bloke - Kewl Kukumbers... : )
-RP

The Following User Says Thank You to RascalPuff For This Useful Post:

Graybeard (Today)
----------------------------
A comprehensive non mathematical concept of 4-Dimensional humanity is presented in the following diagrams & illustrations:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/help/introduction-physics-philosophy-metaphysics-space.htm

4-D accelerating expansion to macrocosmic infinity.

Copyright 1968 by Masao Komura Special Effects Copyright 2007 by Austin 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)

[Graybeard]

Dear Greg (Good to hear from you):

You're right, up to a point, about the uniform size of the 'marbles' (charges of electricity), and the corresponding uniformity of the expansion rate of each individual marble...
On the other hand, the earth is a collective system of uniformly sized 'marbles', accumulatively culminating into 25,000 miles in circumference, so that, in a given unit of time, although each individual marble is expanding (accelerating ominidirectionally) at the same rate - the larger the collective system of marbles, the faster it's rate of acceleration. Although the singular marble does indeed impart a 'gravitational effect' on the earth, it is negligible (down to a billionth of a second and less), compared to that of the 25,000 mile circumference and it's rate of acceleration, in a given unit of time. (Are we on the same page?)

I don't know what your talking about ..... it is not understandable ??

Are you referring to this phenomena ????

~~ My definition of our Cosmic Horizon ~~

As Universal expansion continues the separation between objects grows at an exponential rate.

If you line up two people to the left of where you are standing, each one of you separated by 1 metre and then issue a command that each person must separate by 2 metres then the person immediately to your left must move 1 metre further away. He is now 2 metres from you, but the person to the left of him must now step 2 metres away to maintain separation. This person is now 4 metres from you. He has gone from 2 metres to 4 metres in a 1 metre increase between all objects in the line !!

The further an object is down the line the greater the distance it must travel with each 1 metre step of separation.

If an object is far enough away a point will be reached where its separation rate is greater than the distance light can travel, in the time allowed, to bridge the gap. This point is called the Cosmic Horizon.

The Laws of Physics forbid light, or anything that began its journey at less than the speed of light from ever passing across this gap. This is the part of our Universe that is unknowable. No word or information package has ever reached us from across this abyss. Nor could it have, nor ever will.

Our Cosmic Horizon has been likened in comparison to the Universe as less than a grain of sand compared to all the oceans and beaches of the world. (altho I don't have a reference). So it turns out that the vast majority of our Universe is totally unknowable, in fact nearly ALL of it.

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Are you referring to this phenomena ????



Originally Posted by Graybeard
~~ My definition of our Cosmic Horizon ~~

As Universal expansion continues the separation between objects grows at an exponential rate.

If you line up two people to the left of where you are standing, each one of you separated by 1 metre and then issue a command that each person must separate by 2 metres then the person immediately to your left must move 1 metre further away. He is now 2 metres from you, but the person to the left of him must now step 2 metres away to maintain separation. This person is now 4 metres from you. He has gone from 2 metres to 4 metres in a 1 metre increase between all objects in the line !!

The further an object is down the line the greater the distance it must travel with each 1 metre step of separation.

If an object is far enough away a point will be reached where its separation rate is greater than the distance light can travel, in the time allowed, to bridge the gap. This point is called the Cosmic Horizon.

The Laws of Physics forbid light, or anything that began its journey at less than the speed of light from ever passing across this gap. This is the part of our Universe that is unknowable. No word or information package has ever reached us from across this abyss. Nor could it have, nor ever will.

Our Cosmic Horizon has been likened in comparison to the Universe as less than a grain of sand compared to all the oceans and beaches of the world. (altho I don't have a reference). So it turns out that the vast majority of our Universe is totally unknowable, in fact nearly ALL of it.




cool bananas ... greg
-------------------------------
Dear Greg:
What you properly refer to as the 'Cosmic Horizon' is - as you likely know already - also sometimes called the 'event horizon', which is about 13.5 billion light years in radius, from the/whatever point of observation. And, yes, for the reasons which you have adeptly presented and described (namely, the dynamics of the standard Hubble - spatially red shifted - Expanding Universe), the exponential factor you specify is applicable as a parallel explanation of 'what I mean'. As you are apparently aware, the relative velocity of light is exceeded at the specified distance; without any contradiction of the Celeritas constant (C is constant relative to the velocity of it's source). That is to say, an entity may pass over that threshhold, but all we - from our center point of circumferentially surrounded reference - will see of it is an ever extended red shift.

Post Script: Of course, no matter what an observer's location is in the universal environment, the 'Cosmic Horizon' will apply to all coordinates from which observation is made.
Another perspective of the expansion of matter itself is, opposite ends of a measured metre, move away from one another faster than, say, a centimeter's opposite ends: yet, both the metre and the centimetre remain relatively the same size.

Thanks for your apropos example, Greg. Are we on parallel frequencies - bumper to bumper and side by side - now?
Incidentally, a post graduate med student recently told me that bananas are the ovaries of banana trees. Whaddya think?
- RP

[Graybeard]

Are we on parallel frequencies - bumper to bumper and side by side - now?

I don't know .... you seem to have shifted the topic ....

Incidentally, a post graduate med student recently told me that bananas are the ovaries of banana trees. Whaddya think?
- RP

They taste nice ..... their good for you ....

cool bananas ... greg

(will PM a ques)

[RascalPuff]

I don't know .... you seem to have shifted the topic ....

cool bananas ... greg

(will PM a ques)

Dear Greg:
You don't understand that in the proposed setting of a physical universe within which all matter is ominidirectionally accelerating (growing ever larger, ever faster), that the ends of a yard stick are moving faster away from each other than are the ends of a foot rule? And that the 36 inches of the yardstick remain the same, as does the 12 inches of the footrule? That the velocity of the expansion increases with distance, which is what is observed of the spatial universe, for the same reason.

Change of topic?
('I don't know.... you seem to have shifted the topic'.)
Not even you did that when you presented a different approach to the same consideration, and I simply followed *your lead, *which was not off topic in the first place.

Don't you find it kind of peculiar that we keep finding out that everything is expanding, ever faster - accelerating, except matter? What makes everyone so sure that the Cosmological Constant applies only to space and not to matter?

Just how many 'adjustments' do the Big Bang advocates feel they have license to pilfer?
Haven't heard squeak about what is - in LCDM - the functional reinstatement of Einstein's formerly abandoned Lambda /\ Cosmological Constant.

The Steady State theory has a 'hot' CBR also, because the physically and spatially expanding universe is increasingly smaller and more dense in past than in present: where the past universe is as small and dense as the present & future universe is comparatively larger and more tenuous around and ahead of it.

Can you explain the central theme of GR, which is the equivalence of Heavy and Inert mass values?
The 4th Dimension - applicable to the entire universe and everything in it?
Black holes?
Lorentz contraction?
Non-absolute space 'and' time? Time dilation?
How and why the Big Bang theory is wrong and the Steady State theory is reinstated?
The unification of 'space and time' into 'space-time'?

Contemporary physics maintains, in spite of all kinds of evidence to the contrary, that 'obviously matter is not expanding'.

It keeps repeating that 'obligatory' theme, because it encounters phenomena refelecting the accelerating expansion of matter - why everything - a feather and/or an elephant - falls at the same rate of descent.

Of course, anyone and everyone can see that matter isn't expanding, moreover, if it was, wouldn't it have expanded itself out of existence by now, and what about terrestrial, atmospheric and aquatic tidal effect?

It's a four reel movie and so far, most everyone who takes a seat to watch it, goes out for popcorn at the end of the first reel and doesn't come back to see the other three - they miss the surprise beginnings and endings, you see. Including the part where you find out it's Steady State - no beginning and no end, without contradiction of the law of Conservation of MassEnergy.

Regarding 'string theory': it is way overly dependent on mathematics. Excluding everyone and anyone who isn't deeply into exotic mathematics, and, ex parte licenses of same.

Physics is not mathematics.

Mathematics as applied to physics is subordinate to physical conditions which have nothing to do with mathematics, which is merely a man made tool of measurement and calculation - the inestimable value of which I certainly do not contend.
Near the smoothly honed closure of Dr. Brian Greene's 'The Elegant Universe', he comments that experimental physicists have always held the lead in the ascent up the mountain of what has yet to be learned and understood, and that the theoreticians follow... He suggests that perhaps more progress will be made if the theoreticians precede the experimentalists. It's a thought provoking proposed change of venue made by a talented mathematician, who plucks solutions, hither and skelter, out of the ethereal universal elegance.

But then, I'm ignorant of mathematics, so i can't possibly understand what Dr. Greene - and his mathematically elite entourage - is really about...


Kewel Kukumbers,
RP