K. B. Robertson

Dear J'Dona (and whomever else it may concern): Only very recently did I learn of and realize the limited but venerably astute and sincere membership of this distinquished forum and what I expect includes it's founders. That it is a relatively new forum on the net; the (sometimes unwritten) rules, etiquette and subtle skills (including computer operation, and internet procedures), of which I have only begun to appreciate and practice. I may only be grateful for the time you, and - in this regard - several others like you, have taken, to accomodate the general format styles preferred here, and to - in some cases with remarkable patience - encourage me to learn from the generally ongoing examples. It is a privilege to communicate (however marginally?) with the membership, and, at least theoretically, the world, here. (Although I am handicapped by 'artillery ears', as well as childhood and military acquired PTSD <which for decades I had no vocabulary for, and upon learning of it {re: DSM - Disorder Symptoms Manuals I thru IIII, progressively copyrighted 1980 thru '94}; denied it for another decade or so> ). Whereas, I have since and recently *learned to wear these formerly stigmatic burdens as badges of honor (because I acquired them the old fashioned way: I earned them), *as anyone may see in these here and now written expressions. May it moreover be considered by any readers here, that I am in fact, clinically diagnosed as 'psychologically stable and intact', and functionally responsible for my actions; neither a threat to self or others.' That I have never been legally accused, let alone convicted, of any crime beyond a misdemeanor. On the other hand, there are those who have compelled themselves to extra judicially pronounce me as a threat and a danger to others; lest they be found responsible for being what is projected on Yours Truly. A real kind of ('Invisible - 'What?') war has been imposed on myself - by many identified and anonymous others - in the interest of projecting their responsibilities on Yours Truly.... Having nothing to do with anyone - that I know of (so far) - who readably contributes to this Science Forum website (in criticism or compliment). I will do my best to corroborate reason, with reason, benevolent intent with benevolent intent, equity with equity; etceteras. I have been told by well intended as well as malevolently motivated persons that I reveal too much of myself... That might be true, were it not for the documented fact that no small number of collusion bonded, collaborating antagonists have ineradicably defined themselves in criminal and sinister opposition to me - methodologically attempting to transfer their grievous (2nd generation practicing) responsibilities on to myself, publicly (while carefully avoiding and deterring formal and legal confrontation; by means which need be documented, published and witnessed, to be 'believed'). This communications black-out, filibuster and freelance smear campaign has recently been overtaken, and will soon unfold in a *court of law (in a series of three formal confrontations, for which there is no historical counterpart, in over four decades of unresolved mayhem imposed upon the uninvolved, unalerted public, as well as myself)... The *subjections and *decisive results of which will certainly be made known to a larger public than that which has appointed itself as described (the reason I am obliged to document and publicize, thereby surrounding those who surround me, with a larger circle of irrevocably informed, unbiased and uninvolved persons), *lest the (voluntarily accumulated, actively engaged) *wrongdoers be found responsible for what is in fact endemically, feloniously and exclusively their unretractable, irreconcilable actions - upon which there is no statute of limitations. The 'nature' of this socio-politically vehicularized felonious dynamic is already accessible to anyone who wishes to apply themselves to tracking, as it were, as it has already been committed to the net, by those who are able to do just about anything, except cover up or successfully deny what they are responsible for, in context of this public notice, and caveat... Many uninvolved persons are already aware of it. As I have recently posted elsewhere, the time for the issued adversarial element's (however guardedly) celebrated successes and honoring of themselves, is imminently drawing to a publicly revealed, legally resolved (forcefully and desperately resisted) closure... There is, for relatively recent example, an unconcealable, electronically vehicularized and ineradicable 'paper trail' establishing the veracity - and the historical origins and details - of what I speak of, here. The website at einstein.periphery.cc/ and einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 thru 4, may be transferred to a less obscure - more cyberspatially trafficked - location. It will be augmented with further information, certainly including documentary and forensic evidence that far transcends credible argument and/or denial. I am gratefully, respectfully and sincerely, Kent Benjamin Robertson (Aka, The White Mongol, KaiduOrkhon, Mystic Horse, Etceteras.)

Dear Singular Leader of the People (for keebs?): Your (Award winning Brief and Readable) response is a two fold encore, worthy of a corroborately tandem review. (Refer: 'What happened to my lunch break?') The first portion of it ('reverberating Kant') is pretty much the equivalent to a statement put forth by a reader of one of the issues on the menu at my website - having to do with an anthological collection of verbatim quoted excerpts from the books of a series of authors, writing on the subject of violence, the abuse of power, and warfare (causes, effects and possible remedies); wherein the book titles, authors and page numbers were (obligatorily) provided... A Guest Book Commentary response (at my site) alluded to that specific portion of the menu, which categorically identifies and elaborately proves itself to be an anthological collection of the work of others... The Guest Entry Commentary proclaimed that the above described work had been 'plagiarized' from Thomas More's UTOPIA and Karl Marx' COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, and that I 'shamelessly' did not accredit them for 'my work'... I replied then and there, what I just explained here, above - that the work he was chastizing me for having 'plagiarized', was in fact a variety of verbatim quoted works from as many authors; that I supposed it was possible that those authors pilfered the work of More and Marx (that he might consider taking his steeply corned beef up with them?), but that I found it more likely that he - the cited, would be critic and self appointed highly seasoned literature dilletante and guardian of truth and justice - had simply employed a variation on the old carnival shell game, wherein, in this case he created a false premise, upon which he could base what appeared to be a sophisticated decryptification of a would-be failed effort on my part, to snow under my readers; whereas, that was clearly the intended and failed effort of my would be (gravity fighting) nemesis. The cited literature referee went on to hack his entire attack, with it's vanquishment, completely out of my Guest List Entry Commentaries, along with an ensemble of similar contretemps by himself and several other literati of the same equivocationally blushing lineage... The first portion of your above quoted reverberation of the lastly described (acerbically bombastic) Guest Entry Commentary, is also of the same genre as a misguided, would-be barb by a reader - 'Alexander'; responding to a post I made in a thematic Science forum, indignantly questioning what my 'foggy philosophy' was doing in a (hard) Science themed forum, where math was stolidly practiced to substantiate entries... That my philosophical entry was non-mthematical, and for that reason had no place in a Science forum... ('...use math to support your philosophically foggy ideas' (paraphrased). I was obliged to remind 'Alexander' that (what he chose to stringently identify as) Philosophy has every business in any Science forum, since, for example, every Ph.D - be they mathematicians, biologists, electrical engineers, et al, were in fact 'Philosophical Doctors' - Doctors of Philosophy: Ph.D's. This aged triple AAA flashlight capacitor may have struck him like a bolt; given the difference in potential between himself and the ground he was standing on, for example... Assuring your electric inspiration that the works of Immanuel Kant's (absolutism) had little or nothing to do with my clarification of the often foggy interpretations, concepts and popularly false misconceptions of the meaning of time... Whereas, my response ( A SIGN OF THE SPACED OUT TYMES: 'Is There Really Time?' What is it?') was indeed influenced by the collective works of (I dare say) hundreds (if not thousands) of authors (possibly if remotely including Immanuel Kant)... Particularly: Einstein, Russell, Maxwell, Hertz, Faraday, Prince de Broglie, E. Shroedinger, Marie Curie, Neils Bohr, Sir James Jeans, Emily Post, Sir Arthur Eddington, A.C. Clarke, H.G. Wells, Barbara Lovett Cline, Tycho Brahe, Giovanni Bruno, Nicholaus Copernicus, Julia Childs, Galileo Galilei, Socrates, Aristothenes, Abby, Spinoza, Johanne Kepler, Xeno, Edward Gibbon, Eldridge Cleaver, Aristotle, Plato, Gloria Vanderbuilt, Hegel, Muhammed Ali, James Michener, Bronowski, Louis L'Amour, Roy Rogers, George Foreman, Abbot & Costello, Wehrner Von Braun, The Attack of the Mole People, Pinky Lee, Buffalo Bob, Clavelle, Howdy Doody, Leo Tolstoy, Anita Eckberg, Katherine & Audrey Hepburn, Malcolm X (and my Mother - and Her's). On the other hand, you were more near to resonantly reading my mind (if not my BALL PARK FRANKS and JOHNSON & JOHNSON) dissertation on the real (- frequently misunderstood) - meaning of time, 'pretty much with a Thesaurus in your hand'... Insofar as I do own and frequently refer to a Seiko Instruments, Model SII Word Power Personal Tutor, that I bought (for a frugal $20.00) at RADIO SHACK (About the size of a half divided deck of cards, side by side). Hoping the venerably honorable guardians of this deifically inspirational website allow this (characteristically humble?) response to be posted... I remain, respectfully (if dissonantly?) yours, K. B. Robertson

Would it be adequately brief and readable of Equus to suggest that Sir Arthur Eddington's 'waveicles' are being re-encountered here? Weren't DeBroglie & Schroedinger on or near the very same wave length(s)? Didn't Einstein say, 'There is no space empty of field'? And that 'the notion of discrete, discontinuous ('billiard ball like') particles with distinct surfaces separating them from surrounding space, is based on prejudice'? (Paraphrased. IDEAS & OPINIONS, Pt. II: Contributions to Science.) When a circle representing a particle is divided into four 90 dg quadrants, and that circle is called a 4-D particle, and that particle has never been found (- even 'Particle Physics' has become a Standard of Reality that doesn't realistically qualify as anything more than an hypothesis)... Isn't this an a priori standardization (based on subjective anthropomorphic senses) overruling emperically resolved experimental resolution, scientific heresy? Don't the four 90 dg quadrants composing a consummate 'circle' represent the four dimensions Einstein discovered in everything that was previously considered three dimensional? Isn't the definition for physical dimensions the right angle motion (of whatever) out of the dimension preceding it? A= geometric point. B=geometric point moving in (and thereby generating) a one dimensional straight line? When that one dimensional straight line A to B, moves at right angles to itself, B to C, does that not constitute the geometric progression from a dimensionless geometric point (A), to a one dimensional straight line (A-B), and does not that straight line B - C become a two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles (90dg) to itself? The resulting two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles (90 dg) to itself, doesn't that generate a three dimensional space, occupied or unoccupied by matter? Does not every expedition in search of a 'particle', so far, return only with increasing evidence that there are only charges of electricity, emitting longer or shorter frequencies of electricity and magnetism, always having the same value? The shorter (ultraviolet related) waves being more dense, and the longer (infrared related) waves being more tenuous - and that 'there is no contact between physical systems', since such event requires the interaction of two or more discontinuous 'surfaces', and that such discrete, discontinuous boundaries continue to elude our - post hoc ergo prompter hoc - perception of what cnsistently proves to be ('surfaceless') 'contact' and 'collision': confined to an a priori subjective interpretation; without an objective leg, stool or platform to stand, sit or enjoy an encore upon? (Ph.D 'particle physicists': Quo Vadis?) 'No two particles ever come into contact. When they get 'too close', they move off'. - Bertrand Russell, THE ABC OF RELATIVITY. Charges of electricity that fulfill the formal definition for 'material particle'; that is, microcosmic entities that occupationally demand three or more dimensions of space, disallow the simultaneous occupation of it's space by any other 'particle' (surfaceless charge of electricity), and possesses negative and positive inertia... (Heavy and Inert Mass)... Didn't Einstein prove that 'three dimensional matter is actually four dimensional', and that the previously unrecognized (so called, 'incomprehensible', 'unimaginable') 4th dimension is somehow closely related to time and motion? Are not the above described progressions of dimensions generated by moving at right angles - ninety degrees - from the preceding dimension? Doesn't this geometric law of right angle moving, progressively generated dimensions, require all three dimensional entities to be moving at right angles to themselves: in one of two possible directions, either constantly growing smaller, or constantly growing larger (in either case, at right angles to the three recognized dimensions constituting any such entity) - in order to fulfill their Einsteinien and geometric proved identity as four dimensional entities? Is not the physical universe consistently found - while remaining unrecognized: as constantly growing larger - moving at right angles to all three of it's dimensions, fulfilling it's obligation to be four dimensional, or, constantly growing smaller - moving at right angles to all three of it's recognized dimensions. in either case, fulfilling its established (if 'incomprehensible' and 'unimaginable') identity as four dimensional...? Doesn't this correspond to the four ninety degree quadrants making up a circle? And, if and when anything moves at right angles out of that four dimensional circle, isn't whatever that may be, obliged to be identified as the 5th dimension (moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter)? Isn't electricity in fact generated by four dimensional matter, and isn't it observed to be constantly moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter, and, doesn't that require the arbiters of scientific definitions and nomenclature to recognize and identify electricity as the 5th dimension: moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter? Wouldn't that 5th ninety degree quadrant be obliged to occur outside the four quadrants that fulfill and complete a circle? Might not the transition of a fifth ninety degree quadrant exponentially constitute what is otherwise the unexplained 'quantum leap', furthermore explaining why each such 5th ninety degree quadrant generated by and projected from the 4 ninety degree quad circle of 4-D matter it is an extension of, always has the same value - 'just like photons', i.e., Planck's Constant h factor? (Which is considered a contradiction of field physics, rather than an extensional consequence of it...) Could not that so called 3-D 'particle' in this way be recognized as a 4-D charge of expanding electricity, emitting 'quantum leaps'; invariably having the same uniform values - the issued 5th ninety degree quadrant (obliged to occur outside of and be projected by the 4-D matter that emits it)? Moreover, doesn't magnetism invariably accompany electricity, and doesn't it invariably move at right angles to electricity, and isn't that a requirement for those 'professionals' in charge of paying attention to and interpreting such dynamics, to recognize and identify magnetism as the 6th dimension...? Since Einstein proved formerly perceived '3-D matter' is actually 4-Dimensional, and that the 4th dimension is somehow closely related to time and motion (modifying 'space and time', to 'space-time', because the 'two' were then recognized as being inseparable), and the laws of geometric progression require 3-D entities to be moving at right angles to all three of their recognized dimensions, having one of two alternatives therefore, of constantly moving at right angles from themselves, growing ever smaller, as the '4-D space-time continuum', or, growing ever larger, as the 4-D space-time continuum. If: Einstein and the laws of the progression of dimensions are correct, and since objects released above the earth's surface don't 'fall upward' (which would prove a constantly contracting physical universe made up of ever shrinking charges of electricity), but instead, objects released above the earth's surface are observed to 'fall down'.... Doesn't this mean that the object (Newton's apple, for example) doesn't really move from A to B, but rather that the entire coordinate system - the physically expanding earth (and universe), in it's constantly ongoing enlargement, including the uniformly expanding observer and all of his instruments of measurement, are moving from B to A, creating the illusion of the (whatever) 'falling' object, by way of the ever expanding acceleration of the entire coordinate system earth, beneath the 'falling' object, creating the illusion that the object is moving 'downward', rather than that the earth (entire frame of reference) is rising up to meet it....? Wouldn't this explain what Einstein meant when he said that the apparent parabolically curved trajectory of a thrown baseball or fired cannonball for example, is not actually curved, but is actually straight - a 'geodesic' - because 'space-time curves' around the apparently descending object and generates the illusion of a parabolically trajectoried object...? Is not the explanation herein, why all objects, regardless of their mass value, 'descend' at the same rate of acceleration and strike the earth at the same time, when simultaneously released from the same height? Since, cannon ball and bb shot are not actually falling at all, but only appearing to do so due to the ubiquitous uniform expansion of the entire frame of reference, including any and all observers and test objects? Which scenario reveals the illusion of an apparently falling object; with the earth instead rising up to overtake, meet and strike it, rather than conversely? Non mathematically and comprehensively explaining why inert and heavy mass 'coincidentally, cancel each other out', anomalously said to account for what Einstein called 'an astonishing coincidence', and based his entire General Theory of Relativity upon) - otherwise a blatent contradiction of Newton's Laws of Gravity, which clearly require a proportionately increasing gravity generated by a correspondingly larger mass; therefore dictating a scenario of a greater mutual attraction between a falling cannon ball and the earth, than between a falling bb shot and the earth, resulting in what is certainly 'supposed to be' the inevitably faster rate of descent for correspondingly 'heavier' objects (Re: Aristotelian thought - which is reasonable enough, but in this case is - remarkably - inapplicable)... In this universal status quo, would not a so called 'black hole singularity' actually be a 3-D static object in a 4-D expanding universe; with the 3-D object becoming as small and dense as the 4-D universe became large and uniformly tenous around it, forever (squared)? Would this not leave the Law of Conservation of MassEnergy intact, since we are considering the same amount of uniformly expanding energy increasingly distributing itself over ever larger volumes of (metric functional, rather than non-metric absolute) space, where all constantly expanding physical charges (neutrons, protons, electrons, mu mesons, et al) remain relatively the same size and density, without the requirement of 'the spontaneous creation of hydrogen' which caused Bondi and Hoyle to abandon the othewise entirely tenable 'Steady State Theory' (Now foregrounding a so called 'Big Bang' to 'explain' the - unexpectedly discovered, 1927 thru '32 (Sylpher-Hubble) spatially expanding universe. Whereas, the astrophysical consensus on the structural dynamics of the observed spatially expanding ('beginning') universe proves out that there is no common ('big bang', 'ylem', 'cosmic egg') center from which the ('red shift') expanding universe, expands... That is, no matter where the observer is located in universal space, the expanding universe exhibits celestial systems, light sources, stars, galaxies, etceteras, to be moving in direct line of sight... Indicative of a repelling force (What Einstein called the 'Cosmological Constant', symbolizing it in his equations with the Greek letter Lambda - ^) acting out of individual material systems, macrocosmically affirming Bertrand Russell's observation about microcosmic 'particles' (charges of electrictiy having no distinct boundaries, becoming increasingly more dense toward their centers): 'No two particles (macrocosmic systemic material celestial entitities) ever come into contact, when they get too close, they move off'. - Bertrand Russell THE ABC OF RELATIVITY. Is not the unexpected and 'unexplained' Relativistic discovery that physical matter contracts in the direction of its motion at a rate proportional to its velocity: because matter is an ever expanding-accelerating field, and that the successful *application by Einstein of the transformations of H.A. Lorentz (who developed the conversions exclusively for the description of field energy) *to so called 'particles', proves that the issued contraction of physical matter is actually 'Doppler effect', as exclusively applicable to field energy...? If so called falling objects are actually being overtaken and struck by the ever ongoing rising up of the entire coordinate system, creating the illusion of 'falling objects' (much as the axial spinning motion of the earth at 24,000 mph, generates the illusion that the sun and celestial vault revolve around it every 24 hours); doesn't this mean that the so called 'impelling (attractive) force' (F) of gravity is actually 'a repelling force' (as Newton offers that gravity may in fact be, *in those words, in his three page Preface to the PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA?) 'The idea that brute, inanimate matter can inexplicably act at a distance across space to influence other matter, is to me so great an absurdity that no man with a competent faculty for thinking could ever fall into it.' - Isaac Newton, on universal gravity <Paraphrased>). Please keep in mind that J.C. Maxwell had yet to discover and mathematically describe electromagnetic fields generated by mass and projecting through space (gravity was once thought to act at a distance instantaneously, when in fact it - non-coincidentally - has been found to move at exactly the same speed as light, since that's what it is). Whereas, it was and is the cardinal objective of Einstein's (presently abandoned) Unified Field, to find gravity and electromagnetism two apparently unrelated phenomena, actually having the same identity... (Einstein was persuaded to abandon the Cosmological Constant, with which (in 1919) he predicted an expanding - not a big bang - universe, eight years before it was discovered. He called it the biggest mistake he ever made in his life; which indeed it was, insofar as it was a mistake for him to have allowed 'the (non-sequiturial) scientific community', to persuade him that what he had predicted - a spatially expanding universe - was caused by a 'big bang beginning' (perceived as being 'inevitable', when the observed expansion was 'back-tracked' to an assumed point of origin, where all of the receding light sources and celestial systems were assumed to converge on one point in space from which the expansion 'began'. Whereas, that is a three dimensional restriction imposed on an allegedly 'acknowledged' 4-D universe; wherein the back tracking does not recede to a point of intersection, but rather where that would-be finite beginning intersection which is said to have contained all of the matter of the universe, generating pressures and temperatures resulting in an explosion, causing the observed spatial expansion as it is presently seen; moreover perceived as destined to result in a 'universal heat death', where the expansion will dissapate all of matter to a point of 'non-motion'. There are variations on the so called big bang theory, one of which purports a 'pulsating universe', that endlessly 'big bangs', spreads out to a point of stoppage, collapses on itself, big bangs, spreads out to 'heat death', collapses on itself, ad infinitum. The big bang 'theory' is not a theory at all, but rather (like 'particle theory') only a hypothesis, and a very poorly founded one, for which there has yet to emerge any tractable proof at all. Lemaitre and many others since, upon being surprised to discover the spatial universe was expanding, were put upon to conjure an explanation for it; resulting in the ad hoc, ex parte jiffyfix of the so called big bang. Hawkings has the moment of intersection and the 'resulting explosion' - the moment of 'beginning'- down to a nano-gnat's caboose: chronologically and spatially applied to an event that did not happen. As this record has previously observed, Stephan Hawking's personal and political courage is not in question, here; whereas his 'refinement' of the big bang: fine tuning what is among the most grandiosely celebrated faux pax's in the history and evolution of science - which today insists it 'acknowledges' the 4-D space-time continuum, while simultaneously excluding it from the big bang theory - which is intractable in a 4-D universe, where the so called limiting point of convergence and intersection of all universal matter, 'runs out of space', only in three dimensions... Whereas, in four dimensions, the back-tracked spatially expanding universe only becomes infinitely smaller, squared. The 4th D proves that smallness is just as endless as largeness. Whereas, the 3-D restricted big bang is about as tenable (in the words of K. Kostner playing Jim Garrison in JFK) as an elephant hanging over a cliff, with its tail tied to a daisy... On the other hand, it seems that gravitational force on or near a massive coordinate system is a repelling force, whereas, it likewise seems to be an impelling force at great distances (refer, aquatic, terrestrial and aquatic tides). Einstein reasoned that the Cosmological Constant was a parallel but opposite vector in tandem with and counteracting Newton's (ever causally unidentified) gravitational force of attraction; which even Newton himself candidly critisized - in the spirit of a true scientist - because he could not explain why a universe full of mutually attracting bodies did not collapse on itself. When it was learned that the spatial universe was expanding, Einstein's prediction was poo-pawd, superimposed with the ad hominem hustle of the big bang gang, all advocates of which schizophrenically 'acknowledge' the 4th D, while ignoring it as a disqualification of their elaborately pampered, groomed and well scrubbed 'democratic' dismissal of reality, for lack of evidence... Is not a good title for a series of observations like this: GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION (Electricity is the 5th dimension. Magnetism is the 6th dimension)? The Non-Mathematical Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field... The question is not: 'Where, what and when is the 4th dimension?' The question is: 'Where, what and when is it not?' The challenge is not in the proving of it. The challenge is in the disproving of it. Everyone and anyone can see that the universe revolves around the earth every 24 hours; just as they can see that home run base-balls and spiral pigskin passes travel in parabolic trajectories, and that precipitating objects descend from A to B, rather than the entire systemic coordinate frame of reference ascending from B to A... The Inquisition is alive and well; only its methods have changed.

The question of whether or not anything or consideration really exists is an endemically popular but hardly stimulating tonic for cynically industrious ennui. A lot of seriously proffered equivocation occurs in glib denouncements of the existence of anything, particularly with regard to whatever spatial issue of 'truth': and/or time. As though Plato was not a student of Socrates, and that each and both of them did not long ago put to rest, the rasberry dispirited vanity of such allegedly 'unanswerable questions & unresolvable riddles'. The discarding of 'reality' has long been a ploy for those who disdain the responsibility of recognizing and acknowledging it. Pythagorean geometry and pi r as well as E= MC squared would and do exist in fact, with or without anthropomorphic existence or realization. The physical universe is as indifferent to humanity as the mathematics and philosophy that irrevocably and eternally prove 'truth', whether or not idle individuals deign to acknowledge such realities - such eternal trutns, or not... The following may not be the last word on the superfluous question of whether or not there is anything at all - perhaps most popularly riddled and fiddled with regarding the issue of time (the interval in space between two or more events), otherwise accounted for in the following, however unfortunately necessary qualification, evoking the placement of same in two different locations on the Science Forum. Justifying its redundancy, by popular demand from either - and both pro and con - schools of being and nothingness, for which many other sincere amateur and professional scientists and philosophers may only be grateful, if not occasionally humbled. Whereas, those who are immune to humility in solemn and joyous issues of reality at large: may they find facts transcending personal nemesis, megalomania, control freakism and/or ego syntonic narcissim in the following inevitable, though notably rare - patently inescapable - existential, ontological and impersonal observation: "A WORD ABOUT SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A Disinformational Tyme Of The Signs: "Time is a hallucination purveyed by the inventors of space." - A (popularly deluded UNREALITY INDUSTRY Sponsored) unglued bumpersticker mentality. - By Kent Benjamin Robertson - URL http:// einstein.periphery.cc/ ) THE (Stubborn) MYTHOLOGY OF ARBITRARY SPACE & TIME: The present standard of measurement for space is said to have been determined by a King who extended his arm and hand and pronounced that the distance between the tip of his nose to the end of his index finger would henceforth be the definitional standard, now called a 'yard'. Divisible into three feet. Each foot divisible into 12 inches... This (unarguably) capricious determination of the value of space, unfortunately brought about a misunderstanding that the existence and/or value of time is likewise arbitrary (a 'human invention') - just as the - above described - value of space was determined by arbitrary means. Whereas, space (what we have only recently learned to be inseparable from time; philologically evolving from 'space and time', to 'space-time', would still in fact exist, whether humans existed, to observe, measure or ambivalently standardize it or not. (Moving Right Along. Racing & weaving through and between the spacing.) The formal definition of time is synonymous with motion, and conversely. Motion occurs in space; within which space-time is the interval between two or more events. The reason Einstein modified Newtonian Classic Mechanical translation of 'Time and Space', to the Relativistic expression of space-time. There cannot be time without space, nor conversely - much as there is no magnetism without electricity, or electriciy without magnetism: therefore equals electromagnetism. (Monopoles - electricity or magnetism independent of <non concurrent with> the other, have yet to be found or proven. The same is true of 'particles', 'black holes', the 'big bang theory', and bastardized thermodynamic interpretations lurching to the myth ofan 'inevitable', 'universal entropic heat death'...) "Time is a hallucination purveyed by the inventors of space." - A (popularly deluded) bubble gum sticker mentality. Part II Actually: terrestrial time standards (as a down-to-earth example) are based on astronomical motions of the planet(s) through space around the sun. A planetary year equals its completion of a 360 degree arc - round trip - about the sun (Which, itself is bound toward Vega). An earth month of 30 days is 1/12th of a year. A week is 1/4th of that month. A day is 1/7th of that week. An hour is 1/24th of a day. A minute is 1/60th of an hour. A second is 1/60th of a minute... Consequently, a second of time - for unavoidable (ho hum) example - is also 18 1/2 miles of space: traveled by the earth, in its annual orbit around the sun. A 24 hour day is based on the rotational motion of the earth on it's own axis. The circumference of the earth is just over 24,000 miles; that is how fast the earth is spinning - per hour. Proving very simply and elegantly that space, time and motion are synonymous - no singular facet of this triangular consideration existing without the 'other two'... Time has come today from the past to the present and future. ABC, Mometns 1, 2, 3; etceteras, squared... Einstein's 'Non-Absolute Relativistic 4-D space-time.' What it is: Time, furthermore, in 4 dimensions, is shorter and faster in smaller, past (microcosmic) spaces. and, slower (dilated) in future (macrocosmic) larger spaces; when compared to present time at any given moment of an observer in the eternal present: exactly between small-fast-space and large-slow- space. IN a 4-dimensional (physically expanding universe) a *square mile is not the same spatial size, when compared with itself; from the present: relative to (smaller, more dense) past or (larger, less dense) future 4-D expanding physical matter, and (causing the observed - non 'big bng' initiated - expansion of space (Hubbles expanding - 'red shift' -Universe.) Neither therefore, is 60 *miles per hour (or 186,282 m.p.s. - the speed of light; 'celeritas constant) always the same relative speed. Nor is a year, month, week, day, hour or second, always the same comparative duration in the Present ( when compared with itself) in the Past or Future. Proving that the value of time varies with the value of space it occurs in. Refer relativistic 'time dilation.' And relativistic 'non-absolute time'. Slow time occurring in relatively larger spaces; fast time occurring in relatively smaller spaces. The relativity of time values. For which, until here and now, there are not even any failed explanations. In a 4-D (physically as well as spatially expanding) universe, the value of time and space (4-D space-time) inevitably varies, from coordinate system to coordinate system. The speed of light for example, is ever-increasing, while remaining constant: relative to the coordinate system in which it originates and from which it is measured. The value of time being covariant with the smaller and larger - earlier and later - 4-D space-times it occurs and/or is measured in." - Updated Excerpt from, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION: Electricity Is The 5th Dimension, Magnetism is the 6th Dimension (The Reinstatement Of Einstein's Presently Abandoned <Steady State> Unified Field, w'out Mathematics. ) - by Kent Benjamin Robertson, Copyrights, '59, '60. '66, '70, '79, '85 & '99. (Website URL http:// einstein.periphery.cc/ Condensed from 627 pages.) Thank you for reading this missive. Vini Vici Entiendo (Hay Uno Dio Quien Es Alma Siempre) __________________ Equus

('Give me proof <of Einstein's works> or give me death!' - a recent, hopefully recovering contributor.) **************************** Rully don't recall if it was Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale or Frankie & Johnny. Whereas, in consideration of 'Give me proof, or give me death'. Well. It's sort of like the chicken soup - it may not only prolong, but even improve your life (and placate your boundless enthusiasm for, if not frightening adventure for confirmation) if you check out http://einstein.periphery.cc/ Cyber-spatial surfing veterans continue to variously harpoon, net, trawl and beach a wide variety of specimen quality responses to this site and it's *author (and his retinue of - mixed review - aliases: whereas, it is said that 'Imitation is the highest form of compliment', while plagiarisation is something else again.), varying from the profane to the proud, the ridiculous to the divine. You may or not get the theory or the why; but then again, this is Tao, and that was Zen. And now this hopefully bouyant array of gathering debris & flotsam: Greetings: I’m Equus, although accompanied by an ensemble of etceteras; including Kent Benjamin Robertson (KBR) - alternately complimented, impersonated, and pernicously recreated in conflagrated effigy, imitated, accused, abused and amused, and a lot of other upper and lower browed potpourri that can be accessed via entries in GOOGLE entries, such as: ‘Gravity Is The 4th Dimension (Electricity is the 5th dimension, Magnetism is the 6th dimension. Einstein’s Presently Abandoned Unified Field Reinstated w’out mathematics. Along with the now police extinctified website 'whykbrsucks.tripod.com', which still reveals itself in a paper trail of excrement stained residuals; along with the red hot, trail-blazing authors of them... (Certainly not to exclude Brian Kirk Parquette - the legendary fellow who is best known for his amazing ability to arrive at his self appointed destination, before leaving his point of departure. (B'light is faster than sound?) Accompanied by a rapidly rising flood of critics, curses and prodigiously profane name-calling that do indeed unarguably succeed in revealing the pits from which such reactions - and their thespian vehicles - originate. And now, back to Molly Keyboard MacColley's continuing, self orbiting introduction: Although I’ve penned a variety of poly-subjections, the most abbreviated and perhaps most lucid of all, is what approximately amounts to a Haiku in Japan, in India a Koan, and in Valley Crick a limerick: Q. What did the Non-sequitur, the Prevarication and the Oxymoron unanimously agree on? A. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three or more do. Then there is a series of commonly heard denials that my #2 Eberhardt managed to long-hand between the occasional two ton swamp gator and regularly syncopated breakers, while on a canoeing safari in North Africa: “There is no they. If there is a they, they aren’t doing it. If they are doing it, they aren’t doing it on purpose. If They are doing it on purpose, they’re only doing it for the money. If they’re doing it for the money, there’s nothing you can do about it. Nobody cares, and, it doesn’t make any difference. The people don’t want to know the truth. And, one more thing. I am not into denial.” Another potentially award winnning inspiration from general observation is: “If you can’t administrate, educate, elucidate or promulgate: *Entertain. (Four years of skunked ‘White Water’, culminating in a tenure of Four More Years of a front page reading nation, trading female denigrating ‘jokes’ about ‘a woman’s place under a man’s desk’. Lewinski cigars, et al... Refer. Appealing to. Maintaining and perpetuating the lower senses. Friendly Fascist behavior modification and operant conditioning - psywar - styles...) *P.S. Go for the crotch. P.P.S. My keyboard didn’t use to believe in conspiracy theorism, until it was surrounded by an entire cluster-flocking graduate school kamikaze squadron of them. (Just because you think the paranoids are ‘after you’, doesn’t mean the paranoids aren’t after you...) Moving right along: regarding previous - ‘Introduce yourself’ - comments on Administration in this sector. Those editorial edicts - however partially and tentatively known to Yours Truly, are Sayonara3 and JaKiri - who are neither idiots, dolts, nor any kind of bastard, as they have indeed called others - and/or themselves. Whereas, until further notice, this (perhaps arguably?) distinquished keyboard is at an unusual loss for letter sequences to venture even a conjecture of who they may ‘be’... (They seem to oscillate between tyranny & blasphemy, penance & philanthropy?) Adrift in a bevy of maternally deified Mae West flotation gear, sincerely wishing best regards to all; thanking the innovators of this commendably oblique approach to cyberspatial community bonding, - Equus

Please enter in Google: 'Gene Mallove: Science Censorship is Invisible Evil'. (Dear JaKari: All I know now and all I knew yesterday is that I (thought) I entered my statements and questions about cold fusion in: "FORUM: Suggestions/Comments Forum." Don't know if this one will get through either. Not blaming anyone, but I really don't understand basic things that computer seasoned internet people take for granted. Doing the best I can. I wish to initiate a discussion among contributors who know more than I of this crucially important subject, and/or those who may find and contribute other relevant informations from various locations on the net. Contributions are respectfully requested and invitationally welcomed. Sincerely, Kent Benjamin Robertson (Aka 'Equus', etceteras.) ********************************* (*Close of the information about Gene Mallove and his work in cold fusion follows: main body of text was excluded from this post in order not to be prohibitively extensive; whereas. the 'readability' of the material accessed via GOOGLE entry: 'Gene Mallove Science Censorship is Invisible Evil', may be determined by anyone who cares to ponder what he <Mr. Mallove> was working on, and, if it 'wasn't important' and/or was 'untenable', 'intractable', etceteras: why was he shot to death - allegedly over a 'property dispute' (apparently 'unrelated to his work')... ..................................... *With the untimely passing of Gene Mallove, we have truly lost one of the real pioneers and one of the great alternative energy researchers of all time. We shall not see his likes again for many a year. With deepest regret, Tom Bearden http://www.cheniere.org Posted at April 30, 2004 12:31 PM ******************************************** Comments I enjoyed your website. And if you and your viewers would like to read about scientific misconduct in planetary science please visit the scientific misconduct section of our website. http://www.bccmeteorites.com Thanks Posted by: Ray DeRusse on May 28, 2004 10:06 PM -------------------------------------- My friend told me about your web site and I really enjoyed it. Very nicely done. Very interesting! Posted by: David on June 9, 2004 03:33 AM thank you, i just wanted to give a greeting and tell you i like your blog very much. ----------------------------------------------- best online casinos tips Posted by: best online casinos tips on July 25, 2004 11:15 PM Post a comment ************************************ The following suggestions, statements, questions and speculations are authored and submitted by K. B. Robertson - hopefully inspiring others to equal or far surpass: Subject: ISSUEDTHERMAL PARAMETERS & FUSION POWER: A brief Solilioquy. In Search Of Answers: An important issue (about the ominously approaching, imminently perjorative*'energy problem' and what might be most effectively and securely done about it). My panelists are wondering if the so far insurmountable obstacles to the potential solution in the 'fusion' department, aren't deliberately being sat upon by the petroleum, nuclear fission, lumber and insurance industries. Please let me know your thoughts on this and do forward it to whomever you know that may have more time for it and/or have the answer and/or explanation, RSVP - Naggie (K.B. - Crazy Horse - Robertson, aka, etceteras.) ****************************************** EXCERPT OF 28 June 04 MESSAGE FOLLOWS: * Most readers of and contributors to posts like this have a basic if not intricate understanding of the destructive process of fission and it's accompanying hazards (the unstorable radioactive toxins accumulating at the 'back end of the cycle', in a 'normally' operating nuclear power plant, for example). Likewise, most persons surfing through a forum such as this are more or less familiar with the potential solution to the problems of (destructive) fission generated power, in the potential solution of (constructive) fusion generated power: A reaction in which atomic nuclei combine to form more massive nuculei; leaving some excess mass that is converted into energy. Fusion being a constructive process, unlike the destructive 'back end of the cycle' - radioactive residuals - of nuclear fission/fissile-material fueled (sometimes colloquially misnomered 'hot fusion') nuclear power plants... The drawback of 'hot fusion' being that it produces temperatures too high to be contained and controlled... There are other obstacles - with accompanying alternative solutions, but containing heat for fusion - instead of fission - is a key problem, whereas 'cold fusion' leans away from problems of extreme heat and 'unachievable containment'; while at the same time, 'cold fusion' is considered unachievable There have been several highly publicized 'breakthroughs' that have resulted in misunderstandings and failures - ended in serious contretemps for several scientists (two in particular, as described in the information called up in the GOOGLE entry: 'Gene Mollave Science Censorship is Invisible Evil ').' Yet, perhaps the 'uncontainable heat' is containable... About five years ago it was international, mainstream featured news, that an insular paint called 'Starlite' had been successfully formulated and tested, and that one coat of it, for example, applied to any flammable material - say a common wooden grocery box, or a two by four - prevented a blowtorch, applied for hours, inches away from that wooden test object - with only one coat of Starlite paint between the forced-air torch and the wood, from even so much as scorching, let alone creating ignition temperature, upon the test object. The same treatment was applied to a raw egg, resulting in not the slightest bit of cooking. The public announcement, description demonstration and ensuing controversy emerged about five years ago; went on for about a year, whereas - to my knowledge - the entire issue, with its controversy, more or less faded (flamed) out (as it were)... It has occurred to myself and probably many others that such an insular material may revolutionize - by constructively displacing - many major - enviromentally perilous - industries, beginning with the most wealthy and powerful - the ('world strangle-holding') petroleum 'cartel'; including all the contingencies of causing formerly flammable structures, habitats, warehouses, etc, to be minimally threatened by impending fire hazards, for example, putting a lot of, petroleum, nuclear power, insurance - and lumber and construction - companies and corporations out of (multi-billion dollar annual profiting), posterity-threatening business... Perhaps most importantly, allowing - say, several feet or yards of thickness in the form of Starlite paint material, to serve as a containment vessel for Deuterium (H3O? 'Heavy Water'): quite possibly allowing the previously and reputedly unachievable containment of fusion reactors - with the unprecedented (formerly 'unachievable') advantage of displacing many presently dominant (air polluting and environment destroying) energy & power industries: fusion being a constructive process - producing no (unstorable) toxic radioactive substances, as do fission based nuclear power plants. If any reader of this described problem with it's accompanying, proposed solution (including what became of - or the recipe for, Starlite paint - which seems to have mysteriously disappeared) knows more about it, please enter it in this forum discussion. ********************************************* Evidently obscure is the (possibly 'covered up') question about Starlite paint as a possible; notably uncontroversied solution to the power/energy/fission vs fusion problem(s). Whatever individual or group effort may provide the singular or plural answers to the submitted question should certainly be duely accredited for partial or complete resolution, regarding this urgent, imminently pejorative, globally imperative issue. Dear Reader may consider including a relevant directional sign to http://einstein.periphery.cc/ (the MENU Home Page file, about Einstein's works) ? Thank you, - KBR

Yourdadonapogos astutely expresses another way to allude to what Einstein and others call, 'geodesics' - an apparently 'curved' line that is actually 'straight': the illusion that an object 'falls', or that the path (trajectory) of a horizontally fired misile or thrown baseball is 'curved', when in fact the entire coordinate system surrounding it 'warps' (is in a constant state of unrecognized 4-dimensional, physically accelerating expansion). Please refer Einstein's explanation of gravity, via his 'elevator analogy', as presented in many books about Einstein's General Principle of Relativity, including Martin Gardner's superbly illustrated RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLIONS. Demonstrating that the entire frame of reference (B) is moving up to overtake and meet 'point A', while creating the illusion that point A is 'descending' to meet (the apparently 'unmoving') point B. That is the axiomatic Principle of General Relativity: 'The inability to distinguish the known effects of acceleration, from the unknown cause of gravity' = F, an unidentified force that Einstein equated with 'accleration' and the 'warping of space-time': "A WORD ABOUT SIGNS OF THE TIMES. A Disinformational Tyme Of The Signs: "Time is a hallucination purveyed by the inventors of space." - A (popularly deluded UNREALITY INDUSTRY Sponsored) bumpersticker mentality. - By Kent Benjamin Robertson - URL http://einstein.periphery.cc/ ) THE (Stubborn) MYTHOLOGY OF ARBITRARY SPACE & TIME: The present standard of measurement for space is said to have been determined by a King who extended his arm and hand and pronounced that the distance between the tip of his nose to the end of his index finger would henceforth be the definitional standard, now called a 'yard'. Divisible into three feet. Each foot divisible into 12 inches... This (unarguably) capricious determination of the value of space, unfortunately brought about a misunderstanding that the existence and/or value of time is likewise arbitrary (a 'human invention') - just as the - above described - value of space was determined by arbitrary means. Whereas, space would still in fact exist, whether humans existed, to ambivalently standardize it or not. (Moving Right Along. Racing Through The Spacing.) The formal definition of time is synonymous with motion, and conversely. Motion occurs in space; within which space-time is the interval between two or more events. The reason Einstein modified Newtonian Classic Mechanical translation of 'Time and Space', to the Relativistic expression of space-time. There cannot be time without space, nor conversely - much as there is no magnetism without electricity, or electriciy without magnetism: therefore equals electromagnetism. (Monopoles - electricity or magnetism independent of <non concurrent with> the other, have yet to be found.) "Time is a hallucination purveyed by the inventors of space." - A (popularly deluded) bumpersticker mentality. Part II Actually: terrestrial time standards (as a down-to-earth example) are based on astronomical motions of the planet(s) through space around the sun. A planetary year equals its completion of a 360 degree arc - round trip - about the sun (Which, itself is bound toward Vega). An earth month of 30 days is 1/12th of a year. A week is 1/4th of that month. A day is 1/7th of that week. An hour is 1/24th of a day. A minute is 1/60th of an hour. A second is 1/60th of a minute... Consequently, a second of time - for inexorable example - is also 18 1/2 miles of space: traveled by the earth, in its annual orbit around the sun. A 24 hour day is based on the rotational motion of the earth on it's own axis. The circumference of the earth is just over 24,000 miles; that is how fast the earth is spinning - per hour. Proving very simply and elegantly that space, time and motion are synonymous - no singular facet of this triangular consideration existing without the 'other two'... Sums up the bumper-stickered, satanistically inspired hallucination. Its about time. Time has come today. Einstein's 'Non-Absolute Relativistic 4-D space-time.' What it is: Time, furthermore, in 4 dimensions, is shorter and faster in smaller, past (microcosmic) spaces. and, slower (dilated) in future (macrocosmic) larger spaces; when compared to present time at any given moment of an observer in the eternal present: exactly between small-fast-space and large-slow- space. IN a 4-dimensional (physically expanding universe) a *square mile is not the same spatial size, when compared with itself; from the present: relative to (smaller, more dense) past or (larger, less dense) future 4-D expanding physical matter, and (causing the observed - non 'big bng' initiated - expansion of space (Hubbles expanding - 'red shift' -Universe.) Neither therefore, is 60 *miles per hour (or 186,282 m.p.s. - the speed of light; 'celeritas constant) always the same relative speed. Nor is a year, month, week, day, hour or second, always the same comparative duration in the Present ( when compared with itself) in the Past or Future. Proving that the value of time varies with the value of space it occurs in. Refer relativistic time dilation. Slow time occurring in relatively larger spaces; fast time occurring in relatively smaller spaces. The relativity of time values. For which, until here and now, there are not even any failed explanations. In a 4-D (physically as well as spatially expanding) universe, the value of time and space (4-D space-time) inevitably varies, from coordinate system to coordinate system. The speed of light for example, is ever-increasing, while remaining constant: relative to the coordinate system in which it originates and from which it is measured. The value of time being covariant with the smaller and larger - earlier and later - 4-D space-times it occurs and/or is measured in." - Updated Excerpt from, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION: Electricity Is The 5th Dimension, Magnetism is the 6th Dimension (The Reinstatement Of Einstein's Presently Abandoned <Steady State> Unified Field, w'out Mathematics. ) - by Kent Benjamin Robertson, Copyrights, '59, '60. '66, '70, '79, '85 & '99. (Website URL http://einstein.periphery.cc/ Condensed from 627 pages.) Vini Vici Entiendo (Hay Uno Dio Quien Es Alma Siempre)

As most subscriber's in this forum apparently know, there's considerable, relatively obscure but active controversy on the issue of the opposite ends of the 'temperature' (motion) spectrum. A limit on the 'high (maximal heat) end' (of the proposed 'motion spectrum') is unknown to this membership (Equus), whereas, Lord Kelvin and Clausius made important contributions to thermodynamic principles and general knowledge in that field. 'Absolute Zero' is, to the best of this record's knowledge, unattainable, as earlier and following membership posts here have astutely submitted. 'Absolute Zero' is - (minus) 400 something, Farenheit and - (minus) 200 something, Centigrade. Absolute Zero has yet to be achieved. (There may be 'unforeseen reasons' for this.), and may be unattainable. That's when all molecular and even atomic and subatomic motion stops ('would stop'). There is no physical condition known to science where any known entity exists at Absolute Zero. (Refer 'Lord Kelvin', 'Absolute Zero', on google). 'There is no space empty of field'. - Einstein. Whereas, a 'field', by definition is a moving proposition, and motion is heat. Ergo, until further notice, Absolute Zero is a universal 'non-event'... Which, notably, is exactly what Absolute Zero would achieve - a physical condition or space where 'nothing is moving'... It has been impressively implied that, should Absolute Zero ever be induced in a given physical test object, said object would promptly contract into the microcosms (It is already implied that some gases may already do that) - becoming ever smaller, and proportionately more dense and timeless with the passage of time (motion) surrounding it - whatever test object bereft of any (internal, molecular, atomic and/or sub-atomic) motion whatsover; motion being synonymous with time - for infinity. Inspiring the consideration that microcosmic smallness may be just as endless as macrocosmic largeness. Cryogenic experimentation has brought physical test objects to within near billionths of a of a (the) degree (thermodynamic threshhold) of Absolute Zero: ... but - how close is 'close', when the microcosmic test object tenaciously bustles with motion, as the cryogenic effort to abate it is obliged to pursue the ever smaller microcosms with their accompanying, apparently interminable motions progressing into apparently limitless microcosmic 'smallness'... Whereas, the 'center' of a given sub-atomic particle is, until further notice, unreachable - that is to say, the so called sub atomic 'particle' has no distinct, discontinuous 'surface', separating it from the space surrounding it... Instead, the so called 'particle' is an undulating charge of electricity, having no discontinuous boundaries (fullfilling the definition for mass/'particle' - that which 'posesses negative and positive inertia; disallows the simultaneous occupaton of it's space by any other 'particle'; Repeat: )- found in fact to be a charge of electriciy having no distinct boundaries; becoming increasingly more dense toward it's center. (The linear accelerator at Lawrence Livermore Lab, in Berkeley, CA., for example, continues to - so far, unsuccessfully - attempt to arrive at the center of a given sub-atomic particle. If that can be done, there may be a way to (access and/or otherwise) abate the otherwise inevitable motion <= heat>, therein.) Until if and when the - any sub-atomic 'particular' - center can actually be arrived upon, most likely via cyrogenic - usually liquid Oxygen/LOX - or whatever other molecular and/or atomic and/or sub atomic 'particle' motion stoppers may be employed, the effort to achieve Absolute Zero continues to be a notably unsuccessful but importantly thought provoking ('nul' - unsuccessful) experimental expedition. This - perhaps ubiquitously cogent; ironically obscure - issue of Absolute Zero is notably subjected in what may be a unique perspective, in the file on 'Gravity' and 'Einstein' on the menu at http:// einstein.periphery.cc/ , wherein a tenable, unprecedented premise for the cause and dynamics of 'singularities' - black holes (among many other important, previously irresolute issues), is comprehensively presented, along with what might be a -so far unrecognized - reversal, negation or interchangeability of standardized gravitational vector(s) and the identification of two dimensions (5th & 6th) beyond Einstein's 4-D space-time continuum... Along with an ensemble of resolutions for previously relegated 'intractable' enigmas, such as 'time dilation', 'black holes', 'mass contraction at a rate proportional to its velocity (refer Lorentz transformations as applied to matter)', and a potent addition to what is already accumulating as a series of sobering disqualifications of the so called 'Big Bang' theory. A well authenticated, previously unrecognized perspective is introduced in the above mentioned website, wherein, if and when any test object or physical system is subjected to Absolute Zero, it may inf fact implode (swiftly shrink) into the infinite microcosms - functionally 'disappear'; not going out of existence, but becoming ever smaller and more dense at a rate proportional to the expanding universe around it: squared to infinity... A consideration wherein 'microcosmic smallness' is as infinite as 'macrocosmic largeness'. There may also be a singular solution to the elusive 'Unified Field' here (http:// einstein.periphery.cc/), finding 'microcosmic, strong nuclear binding forces' and 'macrocosmic, weak gravitational forces', as being two apparently different - space-time multi-moment - manifestations of what prove to be the same <'earlier or later/smaller or larger'> electromagnetic - E=MCsquared invoking - force). Vini Vici Entiendo. - Equus