A Challenge to Academe

[Epsilon=One]

A Challenge to Academe

A challenge is issued to academe to: 1.) Offer a better explanation than Pulsoid Theory (www.101123.com/PTis) for the current enigmas that result from the irreconcilability of the current Standard Models of physics; 2.) Find an error in the mathematics or logic of Pulsoid Theory (www.101123.com/PT), as presented, that would disqualify it as a leading candidate for a Theory of Everything; 3.) Debate that current theoretical physics is based upon other than: a.) Forces/interactions that, as defined by Standard Models, are entirely metaphysical; b.) Time that is undefined; and, c.) mathematics that is "incomplete"; 4.) Debate that the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) does not underlie: a.) the definition of fundamental, intrinsic time (www.101123.com/FIT) (FIT); b.) The ellipsoidal form of fundamental quanta; c.) The Natural geometric source of numbers . . . including a Proof of One (www.101123.com/PoO) within any given Natural system.Or, more simply, disprove that there is not an Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC), for any elliptical shape, that is not related to, or analogous to, the Planck Constants (www.101123.com/QC). That is: more simply, demonstrate that the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC) is not the Rosetta Stone that underlies a rationalization for all the phenomena of everything that exists; as well as, the radius of Infinity. (www.101123.com/ROI)For over 50 years no physicist "of stature" from academe has accepted a public debate, or a private debate with an eclectic group of scholars, concerning the mathematical, philosophical, or scientific premises of Pulsoid Theory (www.101123.com/PTis). During the intervening years, since 1955, many of the contentious arguments that have been offered as provocations for such debate have, themselves, become part of mainstream, intellectual, academic, theoretical acceptance.

To avoid conceding a point made concerning the mass of neutrinos, long argued with Fred Reines, the standard definition of the ephemeral "particle" was quietly changed by academe. In similar manner, the ludicrous definition of black holes, also, appears to be morphing. No longer do astronomers dismiss accelerating, galactic recession; nor, cosmologists refute the possibility of "dark" energy and "dark" matter.

Despite observation and logic to the contrary, the mass media, trade media, scientific journals, and many world-class scientists still speak of massive black holes at the center of galaxies as fact without disclaimers to the contrary stating that: black holes are theoretical. The impression that infinitesimal black holes abound is about as common an accepted understanding as are the tenets of Christianity.

Theoretical physics is constrained with its acceptance of the Big Bang as a Standard Model. Cosmology, if not all of physics, is irreconcilable until an alternative, structural force that opposes gravity's illusion of "attraction-at-a-distance" replaces the Big Bang concept of centripetal forces; thus as it is, the force of Cosmic Inertia (www.101123.com/CI) must be a requirement as the reactive force to the "compression" of "common gravity."

Recently, the Nobel Prize was shared (October 3, 2006) for strong verification of the Big Bang; yet, no academic astrophysicist can explain how one "bang" created the acceleration that was observed by the Hubble Space Telescope more than a decade earlier, concerning galactic recession.

Pulsoid Theory is (www.101123.com/PTis) a philosophy of ultimate reduction that depends upon rigorous logic and definitions; reconciliation with both scientific observation and prior physical theory; and, most importantly, Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus101123.com/OV) is understandable by most laypersons. As such, Pulsoid Theory (www.101123.com/Sum) is truly . . . a Paradigm Shift!ADDENDUM

A response to “A Challenge to Academe” could take the form of disproving the following argument:

The mathematical descriptions, of the harmonies and resonances of motion, described by Pulsoid Theory, that heuristically describe the ellipsoidal geometry of “string-like” phenomena, are applicable to establishing fundamental concepts that can resurrect the much maligned string theory and its derivations; as well as, reinforcing the concepts of loop quantum gravity theories of “space.”If there is an immediate need for information,
please e-mail directly at the below "Click" link.

Please note that any private correspondence
may be edited and anonymously posted unless
requested otherwise.

Every effort will be made to expedite a reply
with the requested information.Please ask questions. :)With questions it’s possible to know if
comments are logical and convincing;
or whether clarification is required.

http://1.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://2.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://3.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://4.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://5.g2d.us/e.gif
http://6.g2d.us/e.gif
If images don’t display, "click" the Refresh Icon.

[Albers]

My friend Piotr Todorov put it thusly: think of a male dancer in black, whirling with a partner in white. On a dimly lit stage you will not see him, yet whatever rotation you witness speaks of their relative mass. You can imply his mass, seeing hers and the orbit in which she flies.

[Epsilon=One]

My friend Piotr Todorov put it thusly: think of a male dancer in black, whirling with a partner in white. On a dimly lit stage you will not see him, yet whatever rotation you witness speaks of their relative mass. You can imply his mass, seeing hers and the orbit in which she flies.And, thus: There should be no mystery when we see accelerating, galactic recession!!!

Or observe, the Pioneer anomoly (http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~foot/pioneer.html).

[Albers]

I cannot get to your last statement. Do you see it all whirling with an expanding background source?

[Epsilon=One]

I cannot get to your last statement. Do you see it all whirling with an expanding background source?Yes. That's kinda it; but, a bit more.

The following is heuristic.

Look at Tini Circle Groups. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=159)

Imagine each circle as an enlarging, spinning, interrupted, pulsing (at integer/Conceptual Unit (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=322)increments) Emergent Ellipsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=479).

New spinning, etc. Emergent Ellipsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=479) begin at the infinitesimal spaces between the smallest Emergent Ellipsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=479). There is an equilibrium point where this dark matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155) ceases to expand and begins to compress. The compression results in quasars, Gamma-ray bursts, and high energy background radiation (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=195), and one of gravity’s effects (Relative, Hierarchic Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=124)).

The compression towards the center of the Universe forces "ordinary" matter to the outside. Thus, Cosmic Inertia (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=139). The ordinary matter that is formed at Critical Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=205) is continually lossing mass (getting lighter) while it is dissipating because having lost Resoloids (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Resoloids)/photons from its inner, obtuse ellipsoid, it is continually out of equilibrium.

As it gets lighter, the heavier compressed dark matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155) displaces it further from the center of the Universe.

Piotr's dancers so reminded me.

[Mr. B]

I recon the lack of Scientists "of standing" being prepared to enter into the debate is easily explained by the fact that Science doesn't yet, and probably never will, have "all the answers". When we have a comprehensive theory of everthing which is successfully, and accurately, applied to the Macro and Micro worlds and all scientific research has ceased because we've worked everything out, newly redundant Scientists will be queing up for chat shows and debates, freshly equipped with the answers to all of your questions. They'll need to, to find a source of income.

Sadly, so may all of the priests and preachers (viz - "Gosh, a weeping Madonna - a miriacle! Praise him above! Oh, wait a minute, if I apply ***insert formula behind theory of everything*** then that can be readily explained as can everything else". A tragedy for Humanities assorted moral codes, most of which strive for the greater good, without which "the selfish gene" would quickly tear societhy apart.

Just a thaught on a freakishly hot Tuesday morning.

[Epsilon=One]

I have no real argument with any of your comments in your post "on a freakishly hot" 4th of July in the USA. Only a few thoughts . . .

I recon the lack of Scientists "of standing" being prepared to enter into the debate is easily explained by the fact that Science doesn't yet, and probably never will, have "all the answers".Agreed. But, I contend that academic integrity demands the quest for "all the answers." Winning or losing a debate is not the issue. An exchange of alternative concepts and the exposure of "weak links" can do more than most anything else to inspire a "layman's" interest and a philosophy that is better than what now exists.

It has become more apparent to me, over the past fifty years, that academia no longer places a proper emphasis on the pursuit of truth over mundane concerns. That world-class physicists, who know their Standard Models are inadequate, are afraid to confront alternative ideas in an open marketplace, while society faces today's turmoils, is unconscionable.

When we have a comprehensive theory of everthing which is successfully, and accurately, applied to the Macro and Micro worlds and all scientific research has ceased because we've worked everything out, newly redundant Scientists will be queing up for chat shows and debates, freshly equipped with the answers to all of your questions. They'll need to, to find a source of income.It seems quite apparent to me that the source of income, status quo, and idolatry of the elite is currently of primary importance for most academic, theoretical physicists.

I have no faith that one educated as a world-class physicist has the understanding to ever achieve "a comprehensive theory of everthing (sic)."

[ste]

Loosely linking together the concepts that you have introduced is not the way to win over even an intelligent person's heart. Regardless of how "unique", "revolutionary" or "groundbreaking" any one of these concepts may be, they are new to the reader, who you must assume to be incredulous.

I, for example, have tried to weed through and make sense of the numerous posts you've consistently added. I've tried to make sense of your definitions and your explanations, but I have failed to understand what you are trying to say. I can't intelligently argue with a statement whose conditions I cannot understand in the first place.

If your intentional incompleteness and fragmented nature of your presentation of the theory was intended to gain academic interest, it does not seem to have worked.

I suggest, as I may have before, that you start from the ground up. Make a concept map. Write out a summary. Explain the problem with current models, and illustrate how your theory overcomes logical breakdowns that you wish to be challenged. Make clear statements that CAN be challenged in the first place, let alone be understood. Don't leave out crucial details. Just give us something that we can work with.

Anybody can enjoy a challenge. Nobody likes tedium.

[Epsilon=One]

Loosely linking together the concepts that you have introduced is not the way to win over even an intelligent person's heart.I agree. However, such is not my purpose.

I, for example, have tried to weed through and make sense of the numerous posts you've consistently added. I've tried to make sense of your definitions and your explanations, but I have failed to understand what you are trying to say. I can't intelligently argue with a statement whose conditions I cannot understand in the first place.Such is not unexpected. That is why I request questions . . . that are specific as to what is not understood.

If your intentional incompleteness and fragmented nature of your presentation of the theory was intended to gain academic interest, it does not seem to have worked.Academic interest is my last concern. That you can understand it is my concern. Apparently, I’ve had some success if only because you have made such an effort.

My concern is that a person think concerning each "stand-alone" concept. I do not expect an understanding of the overall concept of Pulsoid Theory by “super” intelligent persons until they have grasped the individual salient aspects that are counter to what theory has been impressed.

The masses will, hopefully, begin to doubt Standard Model theory if only because pomo theorists have chosen not to attack Pulsoid Theory. I have made such an attack much easier by breaking the theory into individual, counter concepts.

I suggest, as I may have before, that you start from the ground up. Make a concept map. Write out a summary. Explain the problem with current models, and illustrate how your theory overcomes logical breakdowns that you wish to be challenged.I agree. However, my time is currently very limited; and, there are other goals that are more important. Those goals are near completion. You should start to see the beginning of what you suggest within days.

Make clear statements that CAN be challenged in the first place…I don’t know how I can be any clearer with my statements. Where this clarity may be obscure to you, point it out; regardless, of how minute the obfuscation may be.

You cannot expect me to address encyclopedic generalities. For some reason, all specific questions are "back-channel" where I devot much time to addressing them.

Don't leave out crucial details. Just give us something that we can work with.What more can you expect. I have given literally hundreds of original concepts. Pick any one of them . . . then, attack it!

Anybody can enjoy a challenge. Nobody likes tedium.My concepts have been called many things in a long, eclectic life; but, never before have they been alluded to as dull and prosaic. Just note the affect they have with a certain persistent poster herein.

[Mr. B]

I'm a reasonably intelligent chap, and i've spent some time ploughing through your different sources of information, including your website, but a year on I really don't "get" what your theory says, other than it doesn't fit with big bang theory, expanding Universe, or black holes. What does it tell us that is new?

What predictions can you make from pulsoid theory?
What "problems" does it resolve?
What is the source of the immense gravitational fields that orthodoxy suggests are black holes?

I'm uneasy about your requirement that pulsoid theory must be "Intellectually" correct (please pardon the paraphrase) as there is a risk that potentially valuable work may be thrown out as is may seem counter intuitive.

[Epsilon=One]

I'm a reasonably intelligent chap, and i've spent some time ploughing through your different sources of information, including your website...Thank you for the effort. I acknowledge and greatly appreciate your wit and wisdom. Though, I’m certain that the effort that you have expended concerning my thoughts would bring that wisdom into much question with many others.

…a year on I really don't "get" what your theory says, other than it doesn't fit with big bang theory, expanding Universe, or black holes. What does it tell us that is new?I am mostly interested in the philosophical relevance of Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) (PT); however, the most salient “new” concept of PT that underlies a true Paradigm Shift in ultimately unifying Science, Theology, and Philosophy (www.CQthus.com/PT/STP) (STP) is the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) (EC).

I firmly believe that Theology and Philosophy must be soundly based upon an understanding of the totality of the environment in which we find ourselves, which requires rationalizing the enigmas of Science.

The Universe is not expanding. There is one Universe; and, it is finite. The galaxies are receding from one another at an accelerating rate within a finite Universe. Galactic recession is a different issue than the expansion of the Universe.

What predictions can you make from pulsoid theory?The predictions of PT are near unlimited.

The more important are the rationalization of the enigmas that bedevil pomo theoretical physicists.

Over 50 years ago I predicted many of the following: accelerating, galactic recession; high-energy, isotropic, background radiation; hyper-relativistic speeds as the speed of gravitational effects; micro and macro entanglement; emergent “dark” energy and matter; space quanta; the etiology and definition of dimensions and the Inverse Square Law; the internal geometry of Light and "half" spin, etc., etc.

I might add that for all of those 50 some years I have met with little more than derisive dismissal from the halls of academia’s diverse disciplines.

Laypersons can often more easily understand PT because they are not burdened with myopic, preconceived bias of Standard Model theory.

I have proposed the “challenge” not to embarra ss the elite, but to explore overlooked lapses in conventional logic. How many physicists understand philosophy?; or, philosophers understand physics?; or, religious leaders (theologians are purposely omitted) that understand either?

What "problems" does it resolve?Most importantly, PT reduces the enervating secular and religious faith required in day-to-day survival within the environment in which all life has evolved.

What is the source of the immense gravitational fields that orthodoxy suggests are black holes?There are many types of theoretical black holes; those which seem the most believable are “the immense gravitational fields” that you mention. My quibble is that the definition of a black hole is usually somewhat analogous to the reverse of the Big Bang where all phenomena “disappear.” Such disappearance only occurs with the outward dissipation of ma ss and Light with time under the influence of Cosmic Inertia (www.CQthus.com/PT/CI).

At the center of galaxies is the enormous ma ss of compressed “dark” matter that has reached Critical Compression (www.CQthus.com/PT/CrC); such that it has an outward projection not inward as a black hole would require.

Most world-cla ss cosmologists that have studied star motion are aware that the stars are held within there orbits by a compressive force from the “outside” rather than a ludicrous, mythical attractive-action-at-distance force.

Even Hawking has disavowed his black hole theory, which was based upon unproven mathematics that manipulated, simplistic, incomplete gravitational theory of "two-body" general relativity (GR).

Collapsed stars, or other mas sive aggregates, are associated with forces of Confluent Congruence (www.CQthus.com/PT/CC) that is misunderstood as black holes.

I'm uneasy about your requirement that pulsoid theory must be "Intellectually" correct (please pardon the paraphrase) as there is a risk that potentially valuable work may be thrown out as is may seem counter intuitive.Not sure what you are alluding to. Requirements of Conceptualism (www.CQthus.com/PT/C) are IPSO (www.CQthus.com/PT/IPSO) and Intelligent Inquiry (II), which insist that theory is continually reassessed.

Obviously, I have not written clearly or in requisite detail to facilitate your understanding. This is my fault; and, I thank you for making me aware of my lapses and pitfalls.

A deep understanding of PT (and more importantly Conceptualism (www.CQthus.com/PT/C)) requires a thorough comprehension of its fundamental concepts. I suggest you consider beginning with the PT's definition of Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I) and the mathematics of the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) (EC).

You are certainly not alone in your skepticism and confusion regarding PT. However, you are among the very few who are trying to understand Conceptualism’s (www.CQthus.com/PT/C) philosophical rationalization of the environment that we find ourselves within through the observed concepts of PT.

Thanks again for your time. I hope it will continue . . . regardless of your ultimate conclusions.

[ste]

The most salient feature of the EC is that it is the only constant in Nature.

If it is a natural constant, where else can it be found in nature, other than in geometric symbolism?

The EC is quintessential beauty, elegance, ubiquity, and . . . counterintuitive to most all logic.


Logic is nothing that one should casually put "aside"; as is so commonly done with Standard Model theory.

You must find a balance of observational data and logic, which is what I am getting at. Now, it seems that you have indeed observed much of what you describe, yet are either unwilling or unready to share your results. It would greatly strengthen your case if you did, because logic is not enough to convince most people. Certainly, the importance of logic should not be belittled, yet direct observational reconciling with what is predicted in a theory is essential for establishing a change in direction (this is what seperates the crackpot from the prodigy).

Within the realm of an explanation, a concept could be found to be completely and without a doubt logical, but with no means of connecting it to any form of system or outside picture, little can be said about its truth or closeness to reality. The stage can be set, to make very convincing arguments that would be otherwise bunk if important information had not been omitted.

Now, I understand that you want us to ask questions so that we can understand WHY something works before you show us anything too pointed, as you want to preserve logic and critical thinking so as not to win people over by merely looking at data. This is fine. However I have yet to find a single fact or connection with what I can see (nature) and what you state (theory). I cannot be entirely lean on trusting any one of the sides too much (logic or observation), but I need a sufficient amount of both. But coming at your theory as a complete outsider, I can accurately say that from my standpoint either not enough information is present to make a conclusion of the theory's validity, or it is arranged in such a way that it's arguments are not strong enough to be taken seriously by most (be it academia, the modern theoretical physicist, or any curious layman).

My concepts have been called many things in a long, eclectic life; but, never before have they been alluded to as dull and prosaic. Just note the affect they have with a certain persistent poster herein.

I never meant this as an insult, and I hope you never took it as one. When I said tedium I meant the challenge of weeding through hundreds of groundbreaking (most deserving a paradigm shift of its own to be truly acknowledged) concepts and neologisms. The time required for such a feat is a turnoff to most. I know that its already occupied much of my own time in which I would normally be doing something else. This is certainly not a complaint, just an explanation of my position. Merely pointing out that you are not the only one who is short on time.


Academic interest is my last concern. That you can understand it is my concern. Apparently, I’ve had some success if only because you have made such an effort.

I will keep asking questions because of prevailing interest and curiosity, but I will not be satisfied until I see both sides of the story. I am the most curious person I know, but there's another reason I keep asking questions. I know some very intelligent people, yet they fail on occasion to accept (or even the possibility) that the unlikely option just may be true. I say unlikely because it is unexpected, and they credit much of their own intelligence towards what they can predict based on probability and what they cannot.

I admire you for trying to change this tendency, and for continuing to challenge establishment in favor of logically reconcilable alternatives.

[Epsilon=One]

If it is a natural constant, where else can it be found in nature, other than in geometric symbolism?The Conceptual Unit (www.CQthus.com/PT/CU) (CU) that is heuristically described by the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) (EC) establishes the unit/"tick" of fundamental, intrinsic time (www.CQthus.com/PT/Clock) (FIT); and, the CU is found within the geometry of every quanta that constitutes every Natural phenomena.

And, of course the EC establishes every system of mathematics that is a provable theory that can be used to symbolically describe Nature.

You must find a balance of observational data and logic, which is what I am getting at.No balance is required; such balance/extrapolation is why all the Standard Models are internally inconsistent and irreconcilable with one another; thus, unable to explain "Why?"; Standard Models are contrived extrapolations of observed data . . . and much faulty logic and unproven mathematics.

Now, it seems that you have indeed observed much of what you describe, yet are either unwilling or unready to share your results.Not true at all. I have been posting my thoughts on the internet for nearly twenty years. It is not my fault that readers are unable to shed their biases.

I don't know a single person that has every lived that has a clue as to "why" the Sun and Moon "hang" in the sky apparently unsupported; yet, almost everyone flippantly accepts the mythical attraction-at-a-distance, that operates from the the undefined/ill-defined infinitesimal, of the phenomenon of gravity . . . which no one has ever been able to explain.

Every one seems to think physicists understand time and mathematics, which they use every day with their hocus-pocus theories. They little understand and . . . can prove neither.

It would greatly strengthen your case if you did, because logic is not enough to convince most people. Nothing will ever convince most people that are alive today. They are too immersed in secular and religious faith and follow the elite that arrogantly and knowingly mislead so as to further their agendas.

Certainly, the importance of logic should not be belittled, yet direct observational reconciling with what is predicted in a theory is essential for establishing a change in direction (this is what seperates the crackpot from the prodigy).So you would think. History teaches otherwise. Einstein knew the truth concerning "incompleteness"; yet, he wasn't above concealing, with lack of caveat, what he knew was "incomplete."

Within the realm of an explanation, a concept could be found to be completely and without a doubt logical, but with no means of connecting it to any form of system or outside picture, little can be said about its truth or closeness to reality.This is far from true.

Then, on the other hand, how do you explain the belief in gravitational attraction which lacks all logic and violates all the principles of physics; yet, because it is observed it is believed as a given fact. Is the proof because Newton said so???

The stage can be set, to make very convincing arguments that would be otherwise bunk if important information had not been omitted.Very convincing arguments have been made; I know of no information that has been left out. Can you find one person who believes what most junior high school children should be able to understand???

Now, I understand that you want us to ask questions so that we can understand WHY something works before you show us anything too pointed...Not so. I want you to ask questions so that I can tell what logic is escaping from your process of reasoning.

...as you want to preserve logic and critical thinking so as not to win people over by merely looking at data.Not so. For many years I thought the concepts were dangerous. Karl Mar x (Spam filter does not allow Karl's last name; but Bush is OK???) was basically correct; look at what happened to his ideas in the hands of the wrong people. Look what Joseph McCarthy and the handlers of George Bush, the younger, have been able to do with misapplied concepts.

...I have yet to find a single fact or connection with what I can see (nature) and what you state (theory). I cannot be entirely lean on trusting any one of the sides too much (logic or observation), but I need a sufficient amount of both.The fault is certainly not mine.

But coming at your theory as a complete outsider, I can accurately say that from my standpoint either not enough information is present to make a conclusion of the theory's validity, or it is arranged in such a way that it's arguments are not strong enough to be taken seriously by most (be it academia, the modern theoretical physicist, or any curious layman).I have told you many times, publicly and otherwise, that if you insist on understanding the fundamentals that you must first understand the mathematics of the Elliptical Constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) and the concept of Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I). Your questions indicate that you understand neither; yet, you forge ahead without the grasping of basics . . . which you never ask questions about.

You needn't understand the basics of the internal combustion engine to drive a car; but if you insist on being able to understand the "why" of the car, you must first understand the basic fundamentals.

I never meant this as an insult, and I hope you never took it as one.In matters of physics and mathematics, I can not be insulted.

What does hurt, though, is being censored, deleted, and banned for concepts that have never been asked to be proved, while all the time being barraged with ad hominem arguement. Read this exchange with ZapperZ and other moderators (www.CQthus.com/PT/ZapperZ2.htm) which got me banned on another forum. The View count skyrocketed and all the replies left standing were from moderators. Many members who agreed with me were deleted on this forum. The line through "Brunardot" indicates a permanent ban which extends to my IP address.

When I said tedium I meant the challenge of weeding through hundreds of groundbreaking (most deserving a paradigm shift of its own to be truly acknowledged) concepts and neologisms.I agree concerning the statement about the many "paradigm shifts"; I do not consider such as tedium though . . . when I study, I tingle with enthusiasm every time I come across an original thought . . . there are damn few.

The time required for such a feat is a turnoff to most.I would contend that, that is a most salient reason that human beings can be considered as a faith based species . . . to their detriment.

I know that its already occupied much of my own time in which I would normally be doing something else. This is certainly not a complaint, just an explanation of my position. Merely pointing out that you are not the only one who is short on time.Sure wish I could replace the time left that you have with the time left that I have.

I will keep asking questions because of prevailing interest and curiosity, but I will not be satisfied until I see both sides of the story.You most likely will never be satisfied until you can understand the mathematics of a Pulsoid (www.CQthus.com/PT/P) and the EC.

I am the most curious person I know, but there's another reason I keep asking questions. I know some very intelligent people, yet they fail on occasion to accept (or even the possibility) that the unlikely option just may be true. I say unlikely because it is unexpected, and they credit much of their own intelligence towards what they can predict based on probability and what they cannot.Yet, to the best of my knowledge, none of these "intelligent people" that you "know"; as with the most eminent philosophers, theologians, and theoretical physicists; can even understand the "why" of the most simple, observable physical phenomena of our environment. As an example: who understands "Why" as opposed to "How" that you are able to read what I have just composed???

I admire you for trying to change this tendency, and for continuing to challenge establishment in favor of logically reconcilable alternatives.Thanks. You are in a small minority that certainly does not include academia, the supposed bastion of intellectual inquiry.

[RascalPuff]

Dear Epsilon:
_______________________


Your 'spam filter' mysteriously disallows the sending of a message of import to you. Will not allow addresses of any kind and will not allow message about time dilation, or quantum mechanics, or SR or GR, when all forms of return address are removed. I'm surprised I'm being allowed to send this message. I do not know what to do about this 'failure to communicate'.

[Epsilon=One]

Your 'spam filter' mysteriously disallows the sending of a message of import to you. Will not allow addresses of any kind and will not allow message about time dilation, or quantum mechanics, or SR or GR, when all forms of return address are removed. I'm surprised I'm being allowed to send this message. I do not know what to do about this 'failure to communicate'.I have little difficulty with the "spam filter."

If you like, you can e-mail your message to me and I will post it, attributed to you.

[RascalPuff]

The 'Outlook Express' email does not work for me either. I have never been able to successfully send anyone anything via 'Outlook Express'. My email address is kraziequus@yahoo.com , perhaps we can innovate another avenue of communications. Do you have any other email addresses beside those via Outlook Express?

[RascalPuff]

COMPREHENDING THE PHYSICAL EXPANSION OF MATTER, NON-ABSOLUTE SPACE-TIME DILATION & THE TWIN PARADOX.
The Consequences of a materially expanding Universe,
Copyright K B Robertson

PART I

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 formerly 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 1039 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 1039 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 <[/size] to represent (from left to right) 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, ongoing, 4-D space-time 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 and causes an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example. (Epsilon. It seems the transmission works when cut in half and sent in sections... Please stand by for PT II )

[RascalPuff]

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 - future - moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller - past - moments of 4-D space.

[RascalPuff]

No further transmissions permitted.

[Epsilon=One]

The 'Outlook Express' email does not work for me either. I have never been able to successfully send anyone anything via 'Outlook Express'. My email address is kraziequus@yahoo.com , perhaps we can innovate another avenue of communications. Do you have any other email addresses beside those via Outlook Express?I have no "Outlook Express" e-mail address; and most of my e-mail addresses go thru web mail on their way to my computer.

I have never known anyone else in the world to have difficulty with e-mailing any of my numerous addresses.

Just place my e-mail address in your e-mail program. Most all the programs that I use have no bearing on what you may send.

[Epsilon=One]

COMPREHENDING THE PHYSICAL EXPANSION OF MATTER, NON-ABSOLUTE SPACE-TIME DILATION & THE TWIN PARADOX.
The Consequences of a materially expanding Universe,
Copyright K B RobertsonYour material has nothing to do with the thread where you have posted.

Gravity… Moving in one of two possible - direction(s). Toward and/or away (impelling or repelling) from its material (4-D particle/charge) source.This is true for one aspect of “gravity.” Your aspect of gravity is not a primary force; it's at least a secondary force, which you don’t seem to understand is other than “attraction-at-a-distance."

Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’I doubt (from your incorrect “Answer”) whether you are able to define the “physical” makeup of either bosons or fermions, without which you can hardly understand the nature of their expansion rates.

The expansion, of the most fundamental aspects, of matter does expand at a constant rate, which is equivalent to the same rate that Light decelerates. However, the expansion of matter is quickly suppressed because of the Pauli exclusion principle (hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/pauli.html). Whereas, Light continues to dissipate at a decelerating rate set by the Conceptual Unit (www.CQthus.com/PT/CU) (CU).

Light’s ellipsoidal minor diameter increases at the same rate as its wave front’s curvature; hence red-shift. The CU is so small that Light’s deceleration is only noticeable over long spans of time; its deceleration is almost imperceptible at the local level.

There is some merit to your thoughts and your questioning of Standard Model theory; however, because of much Standard Model bias, you seem to have no fundamental idea of what actually is occurring.

To strengthen your argument you should work on a precise definition of time and the orthogonal dimensions; and, explain why inertia is the force along with "gravity" that you refer to as "impelling or repelling."

To attract a greater number of Viewers, please start a new thread rather than posting new material inappropriately.

[Epsilon=One]

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.There is no variations in the “durations” of time. Time’s intervals are constant. Otherwise the “clockwork” of Reality (www.CQthus.com/PT/R) would be chaos. You don’t seem to have a fundamental understanding of the concept of “time.”

The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time…Does this mean that you understand “space” as a very complex quantum?

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.Why do you believe that Newton so contemplated? And, what did Newton understand about Cosmology . . . a twentieth century discipline?

The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging.Apparently, you little understand either the evolution of the space quantum or the physical evolution of dimensions.

The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuumIf you are referring to the Universe with the term “expanding continuum,” your concept is mistaken.

The Universe is not expanding; the Universe is constant; though the galaxies are receding within the Universe at an accelerating rate.

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. Your concepts of “space,” “dimensions,” and “time” are not reconcilable with observation.

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 - future - moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller - past - moments of 4-D space.Einstein was badly mistaken . . . and he knew it. You don’t seem to.

[chrisforbes]

Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

Albert Einstein



Good old Albert for a scientist he was not a bad philosopher.

[Epsilon=One]

Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.This may be so. However, reading should be much more than diversion; the more one reads, the more one should benefit from stimulated "thinking" and problem solving "reflection."

Thus, reading is probably the most important aspect of "creative pursuits" as opposed to recreational pursuits.

Good old Albert (Einstein) for a scientist he was not a bad philosopher.Einstein was a philosopher; probably, not a scientist.

Einstein theorized rather than observed, compiled, interpolated, and interpreted such observations, compilations, and interpolations.

[vactanan456]

I cannot get to your last statement. Do you see it all whirling with an expanding background source?

New spinning, etc. Emergent Ellipsoids begin at the infinitesimal spaces between the smallest Emergent Ellipsoids. There is an equilibrium point where this dark matter ceases to expand and begins to compress. The compression results in quasars, Gamma-ray bursts, and high energy background radiation, and one of gravity’s effects (Relative, Hierarchic Compression).