Proof of One

Owning a copy of a paper does not necessarily translate to understanding it. I have a shelf of Einstein books; however, I learn something new every time I read them. I was alive in Einstein's and Feynman’s day. Were you? Most persons, unlike you, concede that Einstein contributed many original concepts to the human fount of knowledge. I for one believe this to the point where Einstein, as well as Feynman, are among my few true heroes. I did not say that Feynman would have backed Pulsoid Theory. I stated that I “suspected” Feynman would be on my side (implying: regardless of Pulsoid Theory). I doubt if Feynman ever knew of a formal Pulsoid Theory (Unified Concept in those days); though, he did spend most of his adult life pondering the concepts. You may well be correct. Do you consider Pulsoid Theory as “rubbish”? And, if so, exactly what specific premise of Pulsoid Theory’s mathematics or logic do you consider as said “rubbish”? This is your speculation, not mine. However at times, I do wonder about the motivations of those indiviual “scientists,” which I refer to as the Pomo, academic, theoretical physicist. I respect your expressed opinion. You would think, wouldn’t you? As your wisdom increases, you will learn to depend less on the opinions of others. Such should prevent much disappointment.

It appears that you did not read carefully. Did you miss the word “suspect”?; as in: “I suspect Feynman would take my side.” I was stating an opinion, which I should be entitled to. I have much respect for Feynman’s ideas; and, I’ve incorporated many of them in my total wisdom. It would be well if others did as much. I also was asking you to state a similar opinion, when I asked who you would select, which you seem to be avoiding with your equivocation. I can certainly agree with you on this point. However, opinions of respected third parties often offer some useful insight when discussing important issues. That opinion, I would not think, is shared by many other learned persons.

You have noted what amounts to a sad commentary concerning the status of academe's intellectual community and insular peer review. Particularly, when you consider that many of the world's greatest minds have been aware of the concepts and mathematics of Pulsoid Theory for as lomg as 50 years, or more . . . well before the dubious concepts of String Theory, the acceptance of the Big Bang standard model; or, even the first concept of a Black Hole. From the earliest, Pulsoid Theory predicted accelerating, galactic recession (for which Pulsoid Theory's concept were ridiculed from 1955 up until today, despite HST observation) and cleanly explained entanglement, Cosmic Inertia, the illusion of gravitational "attraction," the photon effect, etc. Consider that most concepts of Pulsoid Theory have been readily available on the world wide web for well over ten years; and, they have been openly discussed in the graduate lounges of many leading Universities in the United States. And, many of these intellectual leaders are acquaintances.

I interpret “differently” as weirdly; and, I interpret “weird” as metaphysical. I’m with Einstein, re: anything that has to do with quantum theory. On this point we can only agree to disagree; however, I suspect Feynman would take my side. Who do you select on your side? I am pleased that we may disagree concerning the fact that all Pomo, theoretical physics is firmly based on metaphysics; however, we do seem to share some admiration for RPF. Yes. Pulsoid Theory is firmly based on pure mathematics, philosophical logic, observation, and a universal Proof of One; as well as the Elliptical Constant, the Natural function, etc. Certainly, Pulsoid Theory has more going for it than String, Super String, or other such theories that thousands have received sizeable grants to research. None of Pulsoid Theory's logic or mathematics has been refuted by any world-class theoretical physicist for over 50 years. Do you care to challenge any of its many original premises? That is certainly your prerogative; I’m not sure if you can speak for “we”; however, it is difficult to become wise without a modicum of alternative effort. A closed mind is a dangerous threat to everyone; most of all, to . . . its possessor. A small mind seldom enlarges because it is not open to new ideas.

I understand electrons as a wave phenomenon that morphs at Critical Coalescence to demonstrate the properties of mass; primarily because of the internal resonance that is established at such point of coalescence. First you must understand that “quantized particles” are a metaphysical term in the mind of Pomo, theoretical physicists; and, that a “charge” is only the pulse of a wave; its “sign” is dependent upon whether it is a crest or trough within its system. I believe you have made my point regarding metaphysics.

I'm in agreement. However, you must define probability. I define probability as a resultant phenomenon from the illusion created by seminal motion's manifestation as ordained by the phenomenon of Triquametric motion.

I make of that, that an erroneous impression has been loosed on the impressionable minds of many.

Tom Mattson is quite correct. First and foremost the mathematics and logic of any new theory must be carefully examined. Obviously, as most world-class theoretical physicists have publicly acknowledged: a "new physics" may well be a requirement for a Paradigm Shift that can address the many enigmas that arise with each new "breakthrough" of Pomo, theoretical physics. Such a paradigm shift would likely never get to peer review let alone survive it. Could Einstein have succeeded without Max Planck? Could Einstein have passed today's insular peer review?

Light is a wave. That wave has an internal structure/geometry that is composed of hyper-relativistic oscillations that account for the nonlocal photon effect.

The duality “illusion” does “exist.” It is the interpretation of the observation and scientific method that is metaphysical. There is no such thing as a “particle of light” when the usual definition of a particle is understood. Nothing personal taken. Your insight has been enjoyable. And, your willingness to participate, is quite commendable.

Of course, you would be correct if physics did not rely, so heavily, upon mathematics to establish its major premises. Also, physics, often, uses said mathematics, that is affected by Gödel’s Theorem, to interpret the data that is observed. I wonder if physics wouldn't still be at the stage it was at in Democritus' day if it were not for the development of calculus . . . which to this day, has great difficulty with "proof."

It is this “accepted science” that I question; and, which I often find ludicrous. Your assumption is correct. My dictionary defines Pomo, thus: adj. 1. Postmodern. 2. Postmodernist. In physics, I consider the Pomo era as roughly from Einstein’s death to the advent of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). Agreed. You comment, “It doesn't mean that the mathematical statements that make up SR can't be proven.” Such is the exact meaning that I am implying, as I derive such meaning from Gödel's Theorem. I am questioning the logic of SR; not setting a standard for it to “overcome.”

I must carefully limit my responses to your questions; as, there is a fine line when responding to direct questions that concerns remaining on the original topic. Often, it is difficult not to veer into “no man’s land,” as judged by forum admin/moderators, while trying to make an "on-topic” point. After which, the responses, that require responses, continually lead “off-topic” with direct questions, or misstatements; for which, I am acquiring “warning points.” Please, send private messages, until I can determine how, or where, to avoid upsetting the sensibilities of this forum’s admin/moderators. Regarding your requested definition, I use metaphysics in the formal, general context as defined below: “(used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are nanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.” Informally, I consider that metaphysics indicates that: a large amount of either religious or secular faith is required to believe a specified proposition.

The “significant evidence” is not the concern of my post. I stated that: “the ludicrous Big Bang and other Standard Models… are entirely founded on the metaphysical forces that constitute the foundation of academic, Pomo Theoretical Physics?” The metaphysics that I am concerned with is the definition of the “forces that constitute the foundation of academic, Pomo Theoretical Physics?” Usually four forces are considered. Occasionally, three or five, depending on the cited source. Regardless, concerning gravity, Feynman stated: The theory of gravitation...(is) not understandable from the laws of motion...it stands isolated from... other theories. Gravitation is...not understandable in terms of other phenomena. Richard P. Feynman [1918-1988] "QED" Light is described as either a particle or a wave, No description could possible be more dichotomous; the nonlocal photon effect is logically inexplicable, as is all nonlocal phenomena; thus, light qualifies as metaphysical. The strong and weak forces are, admittedly, contrived with no theory other than their metaphysical aura. Some consider Cosmic Inertia as a force that is opposite that of gravity. Cosmic Inertia replaces the Big Bang as the structural force that counters gravity rather than the Big Bang. The Big Bang, which banged only once, cannot explain the observed accelerating, galactic recession. Concerning Standard Models: Where is the logic that explains how “all that energy” got into the atom?; or, What holds said energy within the atom? To conclude that Pomo Theoretical Physics is other than metaphysics would seem the only logical conclusion that a learned person could arrive at. Something like: "The emperor has no clothes . . ." The Big Bang paradigm was roundly ridiculed by Einstein and Sir Fred Hoyle, among many others. The paradigm was adopted, about eight years after Einstein’s death and about 33 years after its introduction, with less supporting evidence than any other Standard Model.

Yes. And, I understand that there is little difference in Philosophy and Science. You may have noticed that I, also, state: “Conceptualism's foundation is Pulsoid Theory. There is one Universe. It is perpetual, in equilibrium; and, a manifestation of the . . . Unified Concept; also, Science, Theology, and Philosophy are a single discipline, which proclaims the perpetuity and nexus of Life; such is . . . Conceptualism.” Your logic is difficult to follow. The title of this Thread, which I was discussing until the pejorative comments arose, is: “Travelling faster than light…”; Said Thread topic would seem, conventionally, as borderline metaphysics . . . pseudoscience.. As far as “pseudoscience” is concerned, what would more qualify than the ludicrous Big Bang and other Standard Models, all of which are entirely founded on the metaphysical forces that constitute the foundation of academic, Pomo Theoretical Physics? The logic of your comment escape me. Are you equating “true” and “can’t prove”? It would seem that mathematical provability would have everything to do with SR; particularly, when the theory itself lacks prima facie logic.

Your original argument concerning SR is flawed. Among, other reasons, I cited that SR, as with all Standard Models (SMs), is internally inconsistent; and, it does not reconcile with other SMs. SR, also, fundamentally, as with all of theoretical physics, depends upon mathematics to demonstrate its powers. I cited Gödel to indicate that such dependence is murky or evapaporates at fundamental levels. Einstein was well aware of the limitations and irreconcilability of SR, as well as GR, for most of his adult life. I might add that Kurt Gödel was Einstein’s closest, learned confidant for most of Einstein’s last 16 years.

No it should not be. One must have an open mind, when considering how frought Pomo theoretical physics is with error. All reality is based upon speeds faster than light (FTL). If such were not the case, there would be no enigmatic phenomena including the photon effect and all other non-local phenomena. The "clock-work" of the Universe and universal entanglement depends upon such speeds: FTL. It is ludicrous to think that "motion" arbitrarily stops at the speed of light; or, for that matter, that said speed is constant other than as an illusion at the anthropic scale, much like the constancy of ..... Cosmic Inertia is illusional at said scale. To assume otherwise is not only ludicrous, but it flies in the face of philosophic logic and observation. Pulsoid Theory (An overview) is a fine example of an alternative theory to replace the irreconcilable Standard Models (SM). Pulsoid Theory (topic) is based upon hyper-relativistic speeds.

I have reproduced the original discussion, below, back through several posts. Best that I can determine you have taken a snippet of mine (“rather than quibbling over intent in such a limited environment as a forum”) out of context (see last quote of this post that is now emphasized in bold.); or, your logic is beyond me. Maybe, you can explain? I asked a direct question (“What is it about my definition (of a vacuum) that you consider absurd?”) that you ignored. I considered your quibbling to be over the definition of said vacuum, after I had conceded that we seemed to be somewhat in agreement. Where have I misinterpreted and misrepresented? I don’t believe that I took anything out of context. Original Discussion through several posts .

Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments. I was addressing velocity in excess of the speed of light; my contention is that the speed of the gravitational effect is just such a speed. Again, if I was not clear, I am sorry. I certainly did not intend to imply what you can conceive of; I was referring to what “I” found to be inconceivable, not what you might find inconceivable. It appears we are somewhat in agreement as to the concept “vacuum.” This being a forum, my assumption was that the post was a manner of “checking with” you as to your meaning. What is it about my definition that you consider absurd? This would seem to be a legitimate discussion; rather than quibbling over intent in such a limited environment as a forum.

I can not imagine that universal gravitational attraction can be as smoothly effective (your instantaneous velocity) as observation demonstrates, throughout the vastness of the Cosmos, if the effects of this illusional “attraction” were limited to the speed of light. It is just as inconceivable that when such distances, those across the entire Cosmos, are considered, that the speed of light can be constant; more likely, the variation in light’s speed, like Cosmic Inertia, is minuscule, from the anthropic locus; while, quite noticeable from the perspective of super-galactic clusters. As far as discussing “greater than c in a vacuum,” the concept of a vacuum is only in the minds of physicists; as there is nowhere, within the Universe, that exotic “dark” energy is not present; nor, where this energy would not have an effect on light in any of its four states.