Travelling faster than light...

[Proof of One]

Pointing out that you don't understand something is not ad hominem, and when I click on your link, there's no math there. Lots of new buzzwords, though. It may sound impressive, but there's no substance that I can find.

I understand ad hominem as:

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:

Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

 

The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case:

Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak.

 

Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument….

Should you, or Tom, have a better definition, I will consider altering my use of the term.

 

See below for math and substance of Pulsoid Theory.

 

If you want to discuss, then discuss. Quit dancing around the issue. What predictions does your theory make that are not made by the current models, so that we may test it?

Thank you, sincerely, very much!!! Let’s move this discussion from this thread. You may pick the location.

 

I don’t want to labor too much on this Thread; but, for the Viewers, that may not move with us, in response to your queries, I include the following::

 

Predictions and observations of Pulsoid Theory.

 

Some good tests would be the high energy background radiation as discussed by Krauss; and, the Pioneer Anomaly, which has been given so much press recently. Of course, almost every enigma raised by current Pomo, theoretical physics is addressed. I particularly like the mathematical and logical explanations of gravity and the photon effect that Pulsoid Theory provides. There is also a a universal Proof of One, which answers Gödel's quest.

 

There is math on most pages: The Elliptical Constant is groundbreaking; as is much that can be found in The Mystique of the Ellipse, and Tini Circle Groups (Tangent Infinity Integer Circles). I also have revised the Fibonacci sequence, which is certainly quite startling, while explaining why it is ubiquitous in Nature; and the real reason it relates to the Golden Ratio.

 

There is much more that we can discuss; wherever you please. You may even bring Tom along. There is much original thought that impacts Pure Math and Cosmogony, as well, as theoretical physics.

 

I apologize for the “new buzzwords.” I have tried to make them descriptive. There are over 60 original ideas; without the acronyms and neologisms, any discussion would be much more tedious.

 

I write for advanced pure mathematicians and advanced theoretical physicists (primarily ST and SST); however, I make every effort to write in the vernacular at a High School level. Please critique the effort.

[Proof of One]

that was after you repeatedly accused him.

Thank you for participating.

 

Yes, you are correct in noting that I have repeatedly accused Tom of ad hominem argument. That is because he, apparently, doesn’t know the meaning of the word. He has never posted a reply to myself in any forum without using ad hominem argument; and, he always neglects any specific point of contention concerning anything mathematical or philosophically logical.

 

that would be you

Your vote is noted.

 

sounds like you got banned. with your posts here, it wouldn't surprise me.

I find the atmosphere much less repressive here than where there are Super Mentors that are judging in fields that they are not trained for; then ask direct questions; then lock your replies, edit them, or delete them; if they can not respond.

 

ever think there may be a reason for that?

If you are referring to why I am edited, deleted, and banned; Yes, I think of it quite often.

 

Censorship is never a good thing without being clear as to the error of logic. It usually is an indication of weak ideas.

 

Many persons are so trained that they are impressed with a catechism of rote, which they cannot escape from. Often opening an impressed mind to alternative thought can be quite difficult. Note the morass of academic, Pomo, theoretical physics. Every "breakthrough" creates more enigmas. Steven Weinberg has indicated that a "new physics" may be required in his 1992 book, "Dreams of a Final Theory."

[Proof of One]

Once again: That is not an ad hominem[/i'] statement. Go look the term up if you don't know what it means.

When you use terms such as “at least a pair of brain cells to rub together can see”; I consider the post ad hominem.

 

Earlier in this Thread, you commented, regarding myself:

"You have the scientific understanding of a middle school student, and you are going to have to assume the role of the learner if you expect to make any progress."

Now if this isn't ad hominem from you, then, I don't understand the term.

 

I understand ad hominem as:

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:

Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

 

The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case:

Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak.

 

Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument….

Should you have a better definition, I will consider altering my use of the term.

 

Well, that's what I've been saying all along!

We are in agreement.

 

Try reading it as a guest, without logging in.

Doesn’t work. Possibly you can lift the ban. Sorta like the procedure at this forum. After all, I had garnered “no points” to my knowledge before being banned in the middle of a requested reply from a Super Mentor.

 

And if you can't do that then try reading it from another computer.

Good idea. I’ll try. If successful, I’ll post the arguments on the internet in a day or two for all to judge.

 

Even so, you were a participant in the discussion and you read the posts in question. I did address your points, and at no point did I ever engage in ad hominem[/i'] argumentation.

I can not remember you, in any forum, specifically questioning my math or logic. I do remember much pejorative, nastiness without specific citations, as evidenced throughout this Thread.

 

There's no "may be" about it. You're mistaken.

No sense arguing the point, until I can access the info and post it on the internet. You could make the job much easier, in our quest for the facts.

 

It's all well and good that you are eager to discuss Pulsoid Theory, but the way you are going about it is positively obnoxious. You hijacked this thread, and for the last several posts you have been baiting me to discuss it with you, when all I did in this thread was address your comment about Einstein.

Sorry. Obnoxious is certainly not my intent; however, I cannot question your feelings.

 

Regarding your comment, “hijacked this thread,” everyone that cares can go back to the beginning on Page three. I don’t think the total of my posts on said page will support your position or indicate anything but polite helpfulness.

 

How about checking with the Staff of a forum to see if they host non-peer-reviewed work?

Done that. Been there. See: http://www.PulsoidTheory.com.

 

How about heeding the warnings that are issued to you when you by the people who own and/or run the site?

I always try to carefully abide by the rules. Occasionally, I am pulled off topic by the queries or attacks of ill-informed members that often mislead others. I am painfully aware of the privilege to post; and, take all warnings quite seriously. Too bad there are not warnings that are enforced for specious and ad hominem posts from senior members.

 

How about waking up and moving on once it becomes painfully obvious that your posts are not welcome at a particular site? How about sticking to the sites that do[/b'] welcome your ideas?

Not much can be accomplished by “preaching to the choir.” As long as I am tolerated, when the readership or attacks wane, I will move on.

 

The effort to respond to drivel is quite taxing.

 

I did advise you, via a link.

I have no idea what you are referring to. Please be more clear and I will respond as quickly as possible.

 

Don't assume too much. Just because I have no opinion on Pulsoid Theory, it doesn't mean that I consider it viable. And yes, I do fall in the category of a theoretical physicist, in training at least.

Have you learned much about being a theoretical physicist. When I discuss with world-class theoretical physicists; they admit to having very few answers; and are always on the lookout for new alternative viewpoints to stimulate their research.

 

Then why did you attempt to engage in it just there?

You seem to be referring to ad hominem argument. If I should ever use ad hominem argument, I certainly regret it, as it is a sure mark of poor intellect.

 

It's also a serious offense

Agreed.

 

so you would be well advised to stop doing it.

You are again correct. There is no better way to lose one’s point.

 

But you did make the call, when you unjustifiably dubbed my comments ad hominem[/i'].

What other conclusion can be reached if my definition at the top of this post is correct?

 

If all you really wanted was for the readers to look at the evidence and make up their minds on it, then you would simply have highlighted my comments without coloring them with your personal judgment (which is obviously wrong).

As a practice, I try to never tamper with another’s comments. I suppose the “coloring” that you refer to depends upon one’s personal bias, which is very difficult to account for.

 

It's a state of affairs created by you[/b'].

I wasn’t questioning the responsibility; only making an observation.

 

Correction: You did your best to turn this thread into a discussion about Pulsoid Theory when you began.

Not so as a perusal of all my original posts should indicate.

 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point; however, if I had so intended, I certainly succeeded with your help.

 

Again: This is argumentum ad populum[/i'], an informal fallacy.

Yes, though, I was not using it to further my argument re: math and logic. Often such a “fallacy” can be very powerful.

 

People are also more likely to view a fatal car wreck than someone changing a flat tire. It doesn't mean that fatal car wrecks are a good thing.

Good observation; but a poor analogy.

 

Since you are so keen on talking about Einstein, maybe you can finally address my initial point in this thread, which was about Einstein's work. Is it too much to hope for that your next post will actually say something about that?

I have answered this several times in the above posts. The argument is subjective; I can only see it settled by historians. I see the context much larger than you do. I don’t see how either of us can settle this as it has entirely different interpretation whether the context is narrow or broad. To my mind either is valid. You certainly may disagree.

 

Again: You are baiting me into a discussion of Pulsoid Theory, which is something I could not care less about.

Whether your opinion is correct or not; it is your opinion to express as you like. I would think for a theoretical physicist in training, that you would find much of interest. What area of theoretical physics are you studying?

 

Hey, you're the one who's grandstanding. You can end this any time you want.

Yes, I can.

[swansont]

Predictions and observations[/url'] of Pulsoid Theory.

 

Predictions need to be quantitative, and you need to show your work. i.e. there needs to be an equation tha tcan be solved. Also, the speed of gravity has been measured to be consistent with c, so it's not "near infinite"

 

There is math on most pages: The Elliptical Constant[/url'] is groundbreaking;

 

No math here...

[Proof of One]

Predictions need to be quantitative...

Using the theory, most predictions that are given are easily quantitative by reaearchers; such as the Pioneer Anomaly, the high energy background radiation, etc. There is no other explanation for most of the enigmatic phenomena that is listed. I am a theoretical physicist; not a research physicist. The vision must be provided before there is research.

 

Einstein's theoretical work progressed from gedunkens.

 

The theoretical physicist leads the way for the researcher.

 

When there is a Paradigm Shift! in knowledge, those that have vision; and, those who propose theory must lead.

 

Are you possibly unaware of the methods of String Theory and its offshoots as literally 1000s of physicists are working on with quite large grants?

 

and you need to show your work. i.e. there needs to be an equation tha tcan be solved.

There are many equations that can be verified. At the post of the

Mystique of the Ellipse

the more significant equation is

:

Tr = Vr + 1

.

Do you consider the formulae for Pyhagorean Triangles and Circles as "math"?

 

And, how about the formula given re: Tangent Circles:

 

a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + d^2 = (a + b + c + d)^2 / 2

 

Or, the formula given for the Natural function:

 

NF = x^2 - x

 

Have you seen before the formula for an ellipse given as:

 

C^2 = 2v^2 - s^2

 

Do you know that the hypotenuse of any elliptical shape is a simple function of the distance between the foci? The function is clearly stated.

 

Were you able to solve the mathematics of the arrays used with the Tangent Circle groups? All integers given are in accordance with thw tangent circle formula given above.

 

Of course, I may have been a good guesser with these and the Ultron Ellipse arrays?

 

Also, the speed of gravity has been measured to be consistent with c, so it's not "near infinite"

You are very mistaken on this point. GR gives three solutions for the "speed of gravity"; one of which is infinite However, GR is well known to be flawed beyond certain very limited, contrived parameters.

 

Caltech ran an experiment earlier this year in an attempt to locate gravity waves at a cost of near 500 million dollars. The experiment failed. They are in the process of increasing the sensitivity for another 500 million dollars to accomplish what you say has been done. I suggest that you give your measurements to Caltech. A billion dollars is a lot of money to be wasting.

 

No math here...

No math where? The revised Fibonacci sequence is quire salient as it contains the Natural function. The universal Proof of one contains math if you so define algebra and geometry.

 

Let's move this Thread before you lead me into more warning points. I'm on probation for about a month.

[insane_alien]

by quantative predictions i believe swansont means actual numbers. on your website you have merely made statements.

[Proof of One]

by quantative predictions i believe swansont means actual numbers. on your website you have merely made statements.

See the above reply to swansont

 

In a forum such as this, it is difficult to extend beyond what I have.

 

For those that are interested, their are manuscripts available, upon request.

 

I, certainly, do intend to be transparent in this forum with regard to any specific requests. I particularly welcome inquiry regarding the mathematics, which is quite revolutionary.

 

I'm sure until swansont moves this Thread that the monitors would prefer you stay "on topic."

 

Though, this Thread was moved once. It is difficult to undertand getting "off topic" when the topic is: "Other Topics, Pseudoscience and Metaphysics"; however, you should frame your questions about "Travelling faster than light...", which is what I originally proposed that Pulsoid Theory could neatly explain with its hyper-relativistic (superluminal) concept of Triquametric motion, when I was drawn into the morass that has resulted from trying to be helpful.

[swansont]

Do you consider the formulae for Pyhagorean Triangles and Circles as "math"?

 

Yes; I consider them part of geometry, and I hate to break it to you, but geometry predates 1950.

 

There's nothing here to be physically tested. Einstein had gedanken experiments, but he also provided equations describing the behavior of nature that could then be tested. All you appear to have done is redefined some math terminology and attempted to improve the employment statistics of lexicographers.

 

Work out how your model e.g. predicts the energy levels of hydrogen or something. If your theory can't explain stuff we already know, it's useless. The maybe work toward something that is as yet unmeasured.

[YT2095]

See the above reply to swansont

 

In a forum such as this' date=' it is difficult to extend beyond what I have.

 

For those that are interested, their are manuscripts available, upon request.

[/quote']

 

we did see it.

 

why is it "Difficult" to extend beyond what you "have"? in Here, is there something perculiar to this forum that any other text based medium can accomodate? (dave went to great lengths to get the latex sorted out).

 

if as in your 1`st point outlined above YOU`DE actualy READ his post, you`de see that he DID ASK for, or as you say (Request) information about this.

Information that YOU have failed to supply, How therefore can this be Our fault?

 

it`s all well and good talking complete and utter Fluff to less learned people and expect to get away with it, but you`re on a Science Forum here with REAL SCIENTISTS!

 

kinda scary aint it when you look at it THAT way

[Proof of One]

Yes; I consider them part of geometry, and I hate to break it to you, but geometry predates 1950.

No need to be concerned when you are advising me regarding fact; though, I cannot understand the relevancy of your advising me that geometry predates 1950. Have I missed your point?

 

There's nothing here to be physically tested.

Not sure where you are referring to. If you are referring to Pulsoid Theory in general, there are many possible tests; For example, a few could be:

 

1.) test for the photon effect;

2.) test for the

Pioneer Anomaly

; Also, See:

Pioneer Anomaly

3.) test for

Cosmic Inertia

;

4.) test for the existence of twelve quarks, each with a full,

.....

unitary “charge”;

5.) test the variance of elliptical bonds at subatomic levels;

6.) test the speed of light for variation at great distances;

7.) test galactic cohesion as being the result of compression

.....

from without, rather than internal attraction;

8.) test light waves for correlation with the oscillations of

.....

Triquametric motion

;

9.) the list can be near endless, only limited by the imagination

.....

of research engineers and physicists.

 

Einstein had gedanken experiments, but he also provided equations describing the behavior of nature that could then be tested.

See above. And, why are not Pulsoid Theory's gedunkens as relative, in the same manner, as Einstein's gedunkens?

 

All you appear to have done is redefined some math terminology and attempted to improve the employment statistics of lexicographers.

As for the math terminology, I will let scientific historians and the pure mathematicians judge. Do you have training as either?

 

Your comment concerning lexicographers probably relates to neologisms and acronyms? My concern was not with the lexicographers.

 

My concern was the easy connotation of a precise definition for complex phenomena, in a descriptive form; so as to release the layman from the obfuscating argot of the elite concerning bosons, fermions, gluons, the amalgam of forces described as gravity, etc., etc.

 

Work out how your model e.g. predicts the energy levels of hydrogen or something. If your theory can't explain stuff we already know, it's useless. The maybe work toward something that is as yet unmeasured.

One should be able to accurately predict the number of salient, subatomic manifestations, their mass ratios, their spin energy, their “charge,” etc. using the mathematical techniques of the elliptical Cycle-Time arrays when computed in 3D after setting the Elliptical Constant.

 

It should be possible to predict, accurately, the paths of intra- and extragalactic probes, that currently cannot be done with GR (actually most calculations are done with Newtonian formulae).

[insane_alien]

1.) test for the photon effect;

2.) test for the Pioneer Anomaly; Also, See: Pioneer Anomaly

3.) test for Cosmic Inertia;

4.) test for the existence of twelve quarks, each with a full,

.....unitary “charge”;

5.) test the variance of elliptical bonds at subatomic levels;

6.) test the speed of light for variation at great distances;

7.) test galactic cohesion as being the result of compression

.....from without, rather than internal attraction;

8.) test light waves for correlation with the oscillations of

.....Triquametric motion;

 

alright tell us how these tests could be done then. I have seen nothing on your site that gives any methods and equations are few and far between. most of it is just handwaving

[Proof of One]

alright tell us how these tests could be done then. I have seen nothing on your site that gives any methods and equations are few and far between. most of it is just handwaving

Most of these tests are now underway at considerable expense at major research centers around the world. Any competent physics researcher should have little trouble devising the experiments; implementing them is mostly limited to facilities beyond the reach of many.

 

I am not a researcher, you will have to contact them at any major university. I might recommend Caltech or UCLA; however, there are many more.

 

As far as the math, apparently, you have read little of Pulsoid Theory. I have made more extensive mention in prior posts; however I will note here that you should first understand the Mystique of the Ellipse; look at the Cycle-Time Arrays; and study the Tini Circle Groups.

 

You may find the revised Fibonacci sequence of interest; particularly, the explanation of why it and the Golden Ratio are directly related to all physical phenomena.

 

Soon after school begins there will be a seminar at a major university with many laureates that will cover the details of the universal Proof of One, the Elliptical Constant, and Triquametric motion.

 

I will attempt to keep you posted.

[insane_alien]

how come the only information on "pulsoid theory" i can find is written be you? i see nothing about it in research journals, or scientific journals of any kind. i also can't even find proposals for it. the "theory" does not exist except in your head.

 

<edit> i have actually just finished reading through every link you have give regarding "pulsoid theory" it was a tedious task and i'm glad i have finished. there isn't a lot of meaning to most of it and when you take out the stuff that is meaningless there is a handful of pages which have no proofs, about 3 equations

and the "revised fibonacci sequence" looks like the brunardot sequence.

 

there is absolutely NO real science.

 

conclusion: load of words strung together randomly by an orange chimpanze called bob.

[swansont]

No need to be concerned when you are advising me regarding fact; though' date=' I cannot understand the relevancy of your advising me that geometry predates 1950. Have I missed your point?

[/quote']

 

Quite obviously.

[Proof of One]

Quite obviously.

And, what would the point be?

 

I didn't realize that you would miss my implied question.

[insane_alien]

since you need it spelled out: you wrote that you did not consider pythagorean triangles as math

Do you consider the formulae for Pyhagorean Triangles and Circles as "math"?

[Proof of One]

how come the only information on "pulsoid theory" i can find is written be you?

If you weren’t aware, I am the author.

 

i see nothing about it in research journals, or scientific journals of any kind.

I have no control over these pulications. You will have to discuss the oversight with them.

 

In the meantime, is there any logic or mathematics concerning the Pulsoid Theory with which you disagree?

 

i also can't even find proposals for it. the "theory" does not exist except in your head.

Most likely because that is where all the original thought was conceived, some fifty years ago.

 

Do you have any concept as to what an original thought is that can withstand the scrutiny of philosophical logic, mathematics, and enigmatic observation?

 

i have actually just finished reading through every link you have give regarding "pulsoid theory" it was a tedious task and i'm glad i have finished. there isn't a lot of meaning to most of it and when you take out the stuff that is meaningless there is a handful of pages which have no proofs, about 3 equations

If that is the best that you can do, not finding a lot of meaning, I certainly have no control over your ability to find meaning and understanding.

 

If you think so little, of what you put so much effort into "reading," certainly, there must be some logic or mathematics to which you disagree.

 

and the "revised fibonacci sequence" looks like the brunardot sequence.

You are correct; therein, lies the power of said Brunardot Series (It is a series, more than a sequence), which is original to the literature of mathematics.

 

If you don’t understand the significance of revising the Fibonacci sequence after 800 years (possibly, more than a millennium)), you do not understand very much about mathematical history.

 

there is absolutely NO real science.

Certainly, you are entitled to an opinion.

 

conclusion: load of words strung together randomly by an orange chimpanze called bob.

I’m not sure that I can agree about the randomness; and, I’ve been called many things, for many years, but never before “an orange chimpanze (sic.) called bob.”

[CPL.Luke]

You have to submit your work to the journal in order for it to be considered....

 

if in 50 years you have not done this.... then you either have no formal physics education or..... you have no theory.

 

 

can you also provide a date and location for this "talk" that is being given? Possibly with the professors or other respected physicists who are attending?

[Proof of One]

since you need it spelled out: you wrote that you did not consider pythagorean triangles as math

Thank you for your clarification.

 

You apparently misunderstood prior posts. Swansont found "no math"; and, I replied, “Do you consider the formulae for Pythagorean Triangles and Circles as "math"?”

 

It would clearly seem, in context, that I did consider the formulae as “math,” as any reasonable person would.

 

How you could misconstrue this dialogue into stating that I thought otherwise is truly amazing.

[swansont]

You are correct; therein' date=' lies the power of said Brunardot Series (It is a series, more than a sequence), which is original to the literature of mathematics.

[/quote']

 

As an aside, I find this interesting. You go/have gone by this name, and so apparently named it after yourself. I had the privelege of a discussion with an eminent physicist at a conference last week, and that very topic came up - he has experimental methods that bear his name, but he never refers to them that way, preferring to use a longer descriptive term. He also agreed that most scientists, even ones acknowledged to have large egos, don't presume to do this. They let others name the methods, terms and equations after them. He used Feynman diagrams as an example - Feynman didn't call them that when he came up with them.

 

I probably wouldn't have noticed this had it not been for that conversation. Just thought it was interesting. Maybe only to me, but what the heck.

[Proof of One]

You have to submit your work to the journal in order for it to be considered....

 

if in 50 years you have not done this.... then you either have no formal physics education or..... you have no theory.

Obviously' date=' I have a theory. You might see: http://www.PulsoidTheory.com.

 

Many submissions have been turned down because of my standing. I also find that peer revue is a considerable obstacle for a Paradigm Shift !

 

I was forcibly ostracized from academia after a flare-up with Oppenheimer that involved J. E. Hoover in the mid-‘50s. At the time, I was in an environment of many laureates, and classmates that so became. The person I consider my mentor, who very recently died, is one of the most honored non-theoretical physicists in the world.

 

can you also provide a date and location for this "talk" that is being given?

I think that I mentioned, at wherever you picked up this knowledge from, that I will keep this forum posted.

 

If because of circumstances beyond my control that I cannot notify you, there will be info posted at the above link as soon as possible. I am quibbling on details, actually, from the east to west coasts; I prefer staying local because of physical problems.

 

Possibly with the professors or other respected physicists who are attending?

Attendance is beyond my control. Obviously, I will be quite flattered if any notable persons are in attendance. I do hope some long time friends and acquaintances (Who do not necessarily agree with my concepts) will attend.

[swansont]

And' date=' what would the point be?

 

I didn't realize that you would miss my implied question.[/quote']

 

I thought maybe you wanted to go back and figure it out for yourself.

 

You've reinvented geometry. Big deal. There's nothing new in those statements, and you haven't done any physics so far as I can tell.

[Proof of One]

As an aside' date=' I find this interesting. You go/have gone by this name, and so apparently named it after yourself. I had the privelege of a discussion with an eminent physicist at a conference last week, and that very topic came up - he has experimental methods that bear his name, but he never refers to them that way, preferring to use a longer descriptive term. He also agreed that most scientists, even ones acknowledged to have large egos, don't presume to do this. They let others name the methods, terms and equations after them. He used Feynman diagrams as an example - Feynman didn't call them that when he came up with them.

 

I probably wouldn't have noticed this had it not been for that conversation. Just thought it was interesting. Maybe only to me, but what the heck.[/quote']I am in complete agreement with the gist of all that you say.

 

There were some concepts that were difficult to clarify without a simple label.

 

When the original crux of something remarkable appeared, I did not want to leave the naming to others, as happened with the Big Bang, and in lesser situations.

 

Therefore I named them in honor of Bruno Giordano, Leonardo da Vinci/Leonardo Fibonacci, and Denis Diderot/Arturo Meuniot (Arturo is a most dear friend that has always believed in me; and, he's an acquaintance of Carlos Fuentes and Octavio Paz). All names mentioned I thought were apropos; and, I assume that you understand why.

 

My family is always carping that I should let someone else name the concepts, because they might select my name.

[swansont]

Obviously' date=' I have a theory. You might see: http://www.PulsoidTheory.com.

 

No, no theory sighted there. To be a theory, one must make testable predictions and it must alsobe falsifiable. What I've read is much too vague to be a theory.

 

Many submissions have been turned down because of my standing. I also find that peer revue is a considerable obstacle for a Paradigm Shift !

 

I was forcibly ostracized from academia after a flare-up with Oppenheimer that involved J. E. Hoover in the mid-‘50s. At the time' date=' I was in an environment of many laureates, and classmates that so became. The person I consider my mentor, who very recently died, is one of the most honored non-theoretical physicists in the world.

 

I think that I mentioned, at wherever you picked up this knowledge from, that I will keep this forum posted.

 

If because of circumstances beyond my control that I cannot notify you, there will be info posted at the above link as soon as possible. I am quibbling on details, actually, from the east to west coasts; I prefer staying local because of physical problems.

 

Attendance is beyond my control. Obviously, I will be quite flattered if any notable persons are in attendance. I do hope some long time friends and acquaintances (Who do not necessarily agree with my concepts) will attend.[/quote']

 

You'd think that with such an array of acquaintances, that someone (with "standing" in the physics community) would have agreed with you and agreed to be a co-author on a paper, such as your unnamed mentor. You say paradigm shifts are tough, and yet things like quantum theory and relativity - that upset the notions of classical physics - were published. Where have you tried to get papers published? Do you have drafts of those papers, and where might they available for viewing? What were the reviewers' comments, that kept the papers from being accepted?

[Proof of One]

No, no theory sighted there. To be a theory, one must make testable predictions and it must alsobe falsifiable. What I've read is much too vague to be a theory.

Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion. I hope that others will not share it. History will resolve this problem. Win or lose, I've had a good ride for fifty plus years.

 

You'd think that with such an array of acquaintances, that someone (with "standing" in the physics community) would have agreed with you and agreed to be a co-author on a paper, such as your unnamed mentor.

Yes, you would think so. You do not understand the vindictiveness of the insular community concerning those that step over the line of orthodoxy.

 

My considered mentor (as is common knowledge, was Philip Morrison) and a multiple laureate have wished me well publicly, and privately, in writing, have concurred with the merits of much of my work that they were familiar with.

 

You say paradigm shifts are tough, and yet things like quantum theory and relativity - that upset the notions of classical physics - were published.

Yes, by insiders. Even Einstein needed Planck. Remember, for almost 50 years Einstein never received a Nobel for SR; and, about 40 for GR. The Nobel that he did receive was derisive as it was related to the beginning of QM, to which he never believed in . . . to the day of his death.

 

 

Where have you tried to get papers published? Do you have drafts of those papers, and where might they available for viewing? What were the reviewers' comments, that kept the papers from being accepted?

Yes. I have complete records and voluminous notations; they literally fill a room of filing cabinets. All submissions are carefully documented as to their distribution. And top attorneys, with national firms, have represented me. Over the years, my costs are well into the mid-six figures.

 

The rewarding part of all of this is that while seeking co-authors I have met many of the finest persons that I have known.