The Rise, Decline, Fall & Bounce of Gravity

[KaiduOrkhon]

Miles Mathis: A Redefinition of Gravity

 

Enter in google:

 

The Third Wave

 

A Redefinition of Gravity (‘All works on this site are copyright Miles Mathis and may be reproduced for educational and non commercial purposes only’.)

 

Miles Mathis

 

(*K. B. Robertson - K. B. R. - is the narrator of this report).

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/mileswmathis

 

Miles Mathis, continued:

 

[Preface added August 11, 2005] This week I became aware of the theories of Mark McCutcheon and his book The Final Theory. I haven't read it, but I have read all the material on his website and the long discussion he has with Dave Ruske (who uses the word 'cheat' in referring to McCutcheon's The Final Theory) that is linked from Wikipedia. Readers of part 1 of my Third Wave paper who know of The Final Theory (Copyright 2003, by Mark McCutcheon) will no doubt immediately equate my theory with his. And I admit that it appears to be very similar at first. We are both hypothesizing universal expansion of matter as an explanation of mass (*Four + decades after K. B. Robertson preceded each and both of you). I therefore rush to explain the differences. McCutcheon has proposed his theory as a replacement not only for the current concepts of mass and gravity and inertia, but also for all other physical fields. The charge on the proton is explained by expansion, which also negates the electromagnetic field. In fact, McCutcheon summarily throws out all atomic forces, all Relativity, and all the findings of QED and QCD. This is why he calls his theory the final theory. He tells us that it explains everything.

 

My theory is very different. It is not a theory of everything, although it does resolve several physical concepts, giving us a partial simplification of theory. I would never call my theory a final theory, since I don't believe in final theories or theories of everything. We are so far from knowing how things work in the universe that any talk of a final theory or a unification theory is pure hubris, whether it comes from inside academia or outside. We don't have enough knowledge to unify, at this point. You cannot unify near chaos. You can only make your contribution to order. - Miles Mathis

 

_____________________________

 

 

Excerpt from Part I The Third Wave: A Redefinition of Gravity:

 

 

The Third Wave solves all these problems with one postulate. For there is one final change that would explain the decreasing distance between the spheres. The distance would decrease if each sphere were getting larger. In this case, space is just a grid. It is nothing but a concept. It is a three-dimensional Cartesian graph that we superimpose over the two spheres for our own benefit, and that is all it is. This grid does not expand. Space does not expand. It is the still reference frame in regard to which the spheres expand. To postulate material expansion, we must provide a background for this expansion. If both the spheres and the space expanded, then the expansion would be meaningless. It would be unmeasurable. In the final analysis, space is a mathematical field that we freely create in order to measure the expansion. We then suppose that the centers of each of our two spheres do not move as time passes. But the two spheres get larger. This would cause the distance between them to decrease, and would create a situation that one might call gravitational.

 

You will say, "Yes, that explains a decreasing distance between spheres, but it does not explain gravity in the real world, since we do not see spheres expanding."

 

To answer that, let us imagine that our two spheres are expanding at the same rate. By that I mean that if sphere A is initially half the size of sphere B, then it remains half the size as the two expand. No matter how big they get, sphere A is always half the size of sphere B. Is it possible to imagine that? Of course. It is quite simple. It gives us small problems when we start thinking about mass and density, but structural spheres give us no trouble at all. It is no problem, mathematically, to postulate such expansions.

 

Notice that if we now make sphere A aware of itself and its surroundings, like a baby being born, it will have no way of knowing from its incoming data that it is getting bigger. It will assume that it is staying the same size, and that its companion sphere is staying the same size; and if it does so, then it will assume that there must be some force of attraction between it and the companion sphere. For this would be the easiest way of explaining why they were coming together. If it were a very precocious baby sphere, it might even invoke Occam’s razor to explain gravity as a force. But it would be wrong.

 

Not only gravity, but also inertia, is explained by the Third Wave. You can see that expanding spheres would resist any forces from any direction, since no matter which way you apply a force, the sphere is already moving against your force. This is why gravitational mass and inertial mass are always equal. Gravity and inertia are two names for the same motion. The expansion of the sphere causes both gravity and inertia.

 

Exerpts from Part I The Third Wave: A Redefinition of Gravity, by Miles Mathis. (continued)

 

My critique of Relativity was begun to solve a problem—that of the Pioneer Anomaly (*A mistake or mistakes from the origin - at the foundations - of a given subject. K.B.R.). I therefore approached the problem as both mathematician and physicist. I saw the final equations of Einstein as applied mathematics. Not esoteric theory, but physical equations. They therefore must be made to make sense not only as abstractions but as predictors of motion. In this they were failing. The physical community had finally been forced to admit this in 1999, when, after almost 30 years of fiddling, they had still been unable to solve the Pioneer Anomaly. So the Jet Propulsion Lab allowed Newsweek to report on the anomaly. Unfortunately, from the point of view of theoretical physics, this only brought the final cranks out of the closet. Physicists were inundated with new theories but none of them were seen to be at all promising. A good percentage were apparently written on the back of paper napkins, if the horror stories we hear are to be believed. So the walls went back up, and this time they were forbiddingly high and reinforced. The physical community wanted to waste no more time with paper napkins.

 

In some ways this was understandable. In other ways it was tragic. It has become a common feature of modern life in almost all fields—publishing, art, science, airport security, etc. The presumptions and unmannerly behavior and outright sociopathy of some have restricted the communications and movements of all. We all of us have had so many bad experiences that we begin to doubt the possibility of a good one. And there are other factors, ones which the physical community must take responsibility for. Closed doors and closed minds are not found only in town councils and corporate meetings.

 

For this reason and many others, Relativity is now the strangest sub-field in all of physics. In the universities, it barely exists. As a living field, it does not exist at all. What I mean by that is there is no sub-department of Relativity at most universities. It is not taught as a sub-field that you can enter and hope to make a contribution to, like all other sub-fields in physics. Relativity is taught as dogma—as a finished field. You learn it only to use in other fields. At the university and research level, Relativity is only a defensive field. Most of the work now done in the field is in keeping away pests. Look at Physical Review Letters or ArXiv, and their positions regarding Relativity. No research papers are published. None.

 

None are even considered. In the past two decades, the editors of most journals have fortified all means of approach, in order to fend off invaders. These invaders, rather than give up, have instead multiplied. The internet has allowed for the mutual support of a vast sub-culture of doubters, nay-sayers and theorists. As would be expected of any large group, most are deluded. But the sheer size and persistence of this group has forced the status quo to extreme measures, including blacklisting. The major journals have blacklisted not only pesky outsiders, but also marginal characters from within the field. As part of this blacklisting, the field of physics has quite simply shut the sub-field of Relativity.

 

 

This all goes to say that it is a very different world intellectually than the world Einstein entered when he began publishing with Annalen der Physik in 1901. The field of physics had not yet closed itself off from "amateurs." It was remembered then that Newton was an amateur—a self-taught mathematician and physicist—as were many of the greatest scientists and mathematicians of history. Einstein was a bit of an amateur himself, as the stories of his patent office imaginings confirm. The "university professional" was still a thing of the future. Forty years later amateurs still existed, though in fewer numbers. Karl Popper (*Sir Karl Popper - regarded as one of the greatest philosphers of physical science in the 20th century. - KBR) was resented maybe, but he was respected by most. Einstein himself understood the necessity of philosophy in the intellectual sciences, and he tied his theory early on to various epistemologies and metaphysics. He found it just as important to learn to speak of Kant and Hume as to learn the equations of Riemann. He was the last to do so.

 

The next two generations of physicists would lose all respect for the past. First Relativity and then Quantum Mechanics were seen to supercede all the theories of the past, and history became a clean slate. Richard Feynman could speak of philosophers with open disdain, and even Einstein was given only lip service. Einstein’s "regression" into philosophy and his quarrel with the Copenhagen interpretation of QED (*Quantum ElectroDynamics) made him a dinosaur in his own lifetime. TIME magazine may have voted him the most important person of the 20th century, but physicists considered him a befuddled old classicist by the 1940’s.

 

My mathematical critique of Special Relativity therefore arrives at a rather inauspicious time. It could not be less welcome. This is ironic considering the mixed respect that Einstein has in the field of physics. He is believed to have been mistaken about almost everything important, in the grand scheme of things; and yet the equations of Relativity are sacrosanct. They are sacrosanct not because they are understood and admired—they are sacrosanct because they are the foundation of so much current research. Relativity theory is a miniscule part of modern physics. Very few people know anything about it. The few that do are working on billion-dollar projects—to discover the graviton or launch the next satellite. The last thing they want is some theoretical controversy to get in the way of funding. Even these scientists know very little about the theory. Most are glorified engineers. Theoretical physicists do not work in Relativity, since there is believed to be nothing left to do. The big names are in QED, especially in string theory and other esoteric modeling. They are also not interested in Relativity. It is no longer sexy. It is a settled question. It is not up for discussion.

 

So you can see that the field, despite seeming to be at a very creative time historically—due to the theoretical freedom that the top physicists would seem to have—is actually quite rigid and dogmatic.

 

There are certain things you do and certain things you do not do. Superstring theory is prestigious. Looking at basic algebra is not. Looking into the distant future is progressive. Looking at old dusty papers is not. Tying esoteric theory to time travel and science fiction and Star Trek and the Dalai Lama is au courant and cool. Tinkering with ancient history is not. Stephen Hawking can claim that physics will be over in ten years, since ten years is still in the future (and apparently always will be, by some paradox), and not break any unstated laws. But a scientist who claims that Einstein or Newton or Feynman may have made a verifiable mathematical error is seen as monomaniacal and anti-social.

 

Despite all that, I am confident that my math will speak for itself with those who have eyes to read. It is to be hoped that I have left very little room for argument in my equations. Metaphysics may allow for endless bickering, but algebra was invented to finalize the argument. Even the tensor calculus may allow for some movement: there are places to hide amongst the matrices. With algebra there is no shelter as large as a shrub to huddle beneath.

 

Concerning my critique of the calculus itself, my argument there is likewise unobstructed. A chart that lists differentials is not open to much interpretation or misinterpretation. I do not open myself up to deconstuction. Even if you don’t like my comments regarding the historical method, or my explanation of graphing, it is hard to deny that I have solved the calculus "without the calculus". This, by itself, is news on a grand scale.

 

I began this book when I stumbled across the first great error many years ago, in reading Einstein’s Relativity. Although it soon became apparent that the error was both elementary and profound, I thought at the time that it was an isolated error. But my naivete evaporated as I subsequently reread other important theoretical papers, and my awe of the past evaporated with it. What I came to realize, with rising disbelief (as well as some excitement), is that my faith—the faith of all scientists—in the basic theory and math of physics has been unfounded. It became apparent that the theory and math of many famous and influential papers, both classical and modern, had never been checked closely—or not closely enough for my taste at any rate. Buried in these papers were algebraic and geometric errors of the most basic kind. Suffocating beneath dense, often impenetrable theories and unnecessarily difficult equations of so-called higher math were errors that a high school student could understand, were he or she presented with them in a straightforward manner.

 

My goal became to do just that. To strip physics of its mystifying math, its unnecessary proliferation of variables and abstract concepts, its stilted language and dry jargon, and to speak in clear everyday sentences and simple equations. Einstein is famous for stating that a theorist should be able to explain his theory to an eighth grader, but he did not practice what he preached. Like his precursors, he could not explain his theory even to his peers. Relativity has remained uncorrected for a century not because it is flawless but because, as written, it has been impervious to understanding.

 

_______________________________________________________

 

A Public Notice. To whom it may concern:

 

CAVEAT (Aviso)

 

In 1998 google search did not find a single reference to the statement/title 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension' or, any references to the acclerating expansion of physical matter (of course that statement is by definition a matter of google - and other net crawler confirmed - archived history).

 

Since December 1999 the statement began to appear, excerpted from a book by the same title, authored, printed in hard copy, distributed and sold out by myself, K.B.Robertson - in nine small press editions since 1959 thru 1999 and placed in several locations on the internet (especially the astronomy net) in 1999, by one Brian Kirk Parquette (Bkparque), who, upon reading the book and introducing himself to this author, requested what he called 'the honor', of posting it on the net (beginning with the Astronomy net departments), since, at that time, this author did not use or know how to employ the internet.

 

Since 1999 a passel of google findings emerge with references to 'expansion theory' and 'gravity is the 4th dimension (electricity & magnetism are the 5th & 6th dimensions’).' Including a series of early placements "Posted by Brian Kirk Parquette" - verbatim and extensive excerpts of the issued book; without reference to the authorship of myself, K.B.Robertson, directly implying - and in some cases proclaiming B.K. Parquette’s authorship of my work, which has since emerged in several forms under several allegory authorships ...

 

Including the beginning - first two - chapters of Mark McCutcheon's 2003 - 2004 release of The Final Theory.

 

Refer google: 'Discussing the Final Theory with Mark McCutcheon, by *David Ruske', excerpts follow:

 

Mr. David Ruske addresses his readers:

 

"In July of 2003 I stumbled across an Internet advertisement for a book by Mark McCutcheon titled "The Final Theory." After reading through his website (http://www.thefinaltheory.com I felt that the author had either formulated a very different physics, or had crafted some very fine snake oil. I was curious, but couldn't find anything on the web telling me whether the book was really worth US$30.

 

"Well, now I know. The book is another take on an expansion theory. In a nutshell, expansion theory says that the reason gravity is so indistinguishable from an acceleration is because it is acceleration, caused by matter expanding at an ever accelerating rate. There is no gravitational force in expansion theory; it's Einstein's equivalence priniciple taken literally. "The Final Theory" starts there, and doesn't end until it tries to rethink much of modern physics."

 

Mr. David Ruske addresses Mr. Mark McCutcheon

 

*"I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I fear I have to wonder about the sincerity of this effort. Nowhere on your website is "expansion theory" mentioned, instead the basis of this "final theory" is kept vague. You're not the first to try to take Einstein's equivalence principle literally, as a quick search on Google <Since December 1999> will reveal. The only open question is whether or not you're aware of the fact."...

 

Discussing "The Final Theory" with Mark McCutcheon

 

Mr. Mark McCutcheon responds to Mr. David Ruske:

 

"In answer first to your suspicions of my sincerity, I feel very strongly that it would be a mistake to discuss my core concepts on my website. There are many others who have tried their hand at alternate theories, as you know, and, frankly, their ideas are quite kooky and half-baked, either because they have the wrong inspiriation initially, or because they are unable to follow it through to any depth. But this doesn't stop them. They go on and on making less and less sense, and ultimately end up just chatting quite irrationally in their own websites about all their ideas. I realize that some may still put me in that boat with my theory, but I see a clear difference with my book, and I will not diminish it in that manner. This truly is the answer to how our universe operates -- not just in my opinion or pet theory .. examine the evidence as you read, even solid mathematical proof as on page 190, which it seems you may not have reached. Taken out of context, my ideas would probably be laughed off the stage, but in context, I hope you can see it is a serious, viable, scientific theory that puts standard theory to rest. Also, yes I am now aware that at least one other person has tried to pursue discussion of expanding matter on Google groups .. one of the other readers who responded (and who has volunteered a review on my site and is now part of the discussion group) informed me of that the other day (*Not three or four years ago?). I assure you, I'm not that person and I have nothing to do with any such physics discussion groups. I have been well aware of the existence of these groups for well over a decade -- perhaps two? -- (*Mr. McCutcheon is vague on whether it’s ten, or perhaps twenty years he’s been well aware of what he was just informed of ‘the other day’...) and have always been horrified by them, partly because they are so abusive, and partly because most people there claim to be scientifically educated and intelligent (and I'm sure they are), yet they banter on endlessly day after day and even year after year about who understands one aspect of our science better than another. In the end, no one really has any solid answers, which is why they're all there, typing away endlessly, hoping to convince themselves or others of their current understanding, or hoping for answers from others, which never com. I hope you can see that that is all you're left with, without my book. I have never joined these groups, and have had no desire to even scan them for over a decade, since I already know what they're all about. This is the legacy that today's science paradigm leaves for even our most intelligent, educated, scientifically enthusiastic people."

 

- Mr. Mark McCutcheon, in response to Mr. David Ruske's previously stated questions, doubts and 'suspicions'...

 

<The chapters following 1 and 2 - of McCutcheon's 'Final Theory' - form a slapstick trend of Mr. McCutcheon alternately dismissing reality for lack of evidence or further paralleling the work of Truly Yours> ).

_________________________________

 

I (K. B. Robertson) have been made aware of the recent publications entitled ‘The Third Wave: A Redefinition of Gravity’, and, ‘The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific Legacy’, by Miles Mathis and Mark McCutcheon, respectively.

 

Mr. McCutcheon published in 2002 -2003, Mr. Mathis published in 2004.

 

The selective works of both authors parallel the key ingredients of my 48 yr old publications (An Hypothesis on Gravity, copyright 1959, ‘60, ‘66. The New Gravity, copyright ‘70, ‘71, ‘72, The New Gravity is the 4th Dimension, copyright ‘79, ‘85, ‘99, 2006, 2007 ) - namely the accelerating expansion of corporeal matter (not merely ‘empty space’) itself. Both Mr. McCutcheon and Mr. Mathis refer to the issued, key copyright material as ‘expansion theory’.

 

 

This author’s first (1959) edition of the subjected work, is a small press hard copy fifteen page essay (in four languages), distributed throughout western Europe (in 5,000 copies) out of Naples, Italy. The hard copy essay format was converted to a saddle stitched hard copy edition (in a ‘comic book’ format, by the San Francisco Comic Book Co.; printed and published by Don Donahue, the original printer and publisher of Robert Crumb’s ‘Zap Comix’), February 1970. Three thousand copies of which were distributed and sold out on consignment in book stores all over the San Francisco Bay Area, including, Moe’s, Shambala, Cody’s and the University of California bookstore, in Berkeley, CA. This staple back edition was also reviewed in and internationally sold out, by the Portola Institute’s 1970 vintage Whole Earth Catalogue.

 

Ensuing small press editions evolved to a flat back (‘perfect bound’) paper back series of publications that were distributed and sold out in 41 bookstores all over California state; the 6th - 1979 - edition of which is 627 pages duration. Later editions of which are condensations of the larger book. Culminating to it’s internet publication in December of 1999, by one B. K. Parquette, who introduced himself to this author (K. B. Robertson), read the book and volunteered for ‘the honor’ of posting it on the net; at no cost to the reader’s who were given free access to read it on computer moniters. It is still posted on the net, at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie - ‘The Reinstatement of Einstein’s Presently Abandoned Unified Field (Steady State) Theory. (Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions, The Big Bang Theory is Wrong, Entropic ‘Heat Death’ is a Myth)’ Copyright 1959 - 1999 - 2007, by K. B. Robertson. All rights reserved.

 

(With acknowledgement, may be reproduced and distributed for non commercial educational purposes.)

 

The first two chapters of Mr. Mark McCutcheon’s book - ‘The Final Theory’ - are direct and conspicuous parallels of K. B. Robertson’s ‘Gravity Is The 4th Dimension’. McCutcheon’s production is ‘Copyright 2002 - 2004' (several years after Gravity Is The 4th Dimension appeared on the net). All rights reserved. Universal Publishers/uPUBLISH.com Boca Raton . 1st revised edition

 

ISBN: 1-58112-601-8 http://www.universal-publishers.com

 

Mr. McCutcheon’s book is available exclusively through purchase. It is profusely advertised in science forums on the net (‘The Final Theory - Gravity explained’), and can be acquired via Amazon book sellers, on the net.

 

Whereas, all of Mr. Miles Mathis’ - The Third Wave - book is freely accessible on the net, Copyright Miles Mathis, with the allotment that, with acknowledgements (of its origin) it may be reproduced for educational and non commercial purposes. Enter in Google: Miles Mathis, The Third Wave: A Redefinition of Gravity, and find immediate access to the author’s remarkably prolific and astutely documented works in their entirety. That is to say, Mathis freely gives his - 2004 - 2007 dated, ongoing work-in-progress, 19 chapter - book to the public, while McCutcheon exclusively sells his (‘Beyond Newton and Einstein’) six chapter, 417 page book via the net; at $30.00 per copy.

 

Enter in google:

 

The Third Wave

 

A Redefinition of Gravity (‘All works on this site are copyright Miles Mathis and may be reproduced for educational and non commercial purposes only’.)

 

Miles Mathis (*parenthesized statements with asterisks - * - are inclusions by K. B. Robertson)

 

http://www.geocities.com/mileswmathis

 

[Preface added August 11, 2005] This week I became aware of the theories of Mark McCutcheon and his book The Final Theory. I haven't read it, but I have read all the material on his website and the long discussion he has with Dave Ruske (who uses the word 'cheat' in referring to McCutcheon's The Final Theory) that is linked from Wikipedia. Readers of part 1 of my Third Wave paper who know of The Final Theory (Copyright 2003, by Mark McCutcheon) will no doubt immediately equate my theory with his. And I admit that it appears to be very similar at first. We are both hypothesizing universal expansion of matter as an explanation of mass (*Four + decades after K. B. Robertson preceded each and both of the subjected authors). I therefore rush to explain the differences. McCutcheon has proposed his theory as a replacement not only for the current concepts of mass and gravity and inertia, but also for all other physical fields. The charge on the proton is explained by expansion, which also negates the electromagnetic field. In fact, McCutcheon summarily throws out all atomic forces, all Relativity, and all the findings of QED and QCD. This is why he calls his theory the final theory. He tells us that it explains everything.

 

My theory is very different. It is not a theory of everything, although it does resolve several physical concepts, giving us a partial simplification of theory. I would never call my theory a final theory, since I don't believe in final theories or theories of everything. We are so far from knowing how things work in the universe that any talk of a final theory or a unification theory is pure hubris, whether it comes from inside academia or outside. We don't have enough knowledge to unify, at this point. You cannot unify near chaos. You can only make your contribution to order.

 

__________________________

 

 

While Miles Mathis releases all of his book to the public, freely, Mark McCutcheon explains his commercial posturing and scientific interests to Mr. David Ruske in a series of emails published by Mr Ruske (Enter in google: Mark McCutcheon Final Theory David Ruske <a portion of the conversation follows>

 

Discussing "The Final Theory" with Mark McCutcheon

 

In July of 2003

 

I stumbled across an Internet advertisement for a book by Mark McCutcheon titled "The Final Theory." After reading through his website (http://www.thefinaltheory.com), I felt that the author had either formulated a very different physics, or had crafted some very fine snake oil. I was curious, but couldn't find anything on the web telling me whether the book was really worth US$30.

 

Well, now I know. The book is another take on an expansion theory. In a nutshell, expansion theory says that the reason gravity is so indistinguishable from an acceleration is because it is acceleration, caused by matter expanding at an ever accelerating rate. There is no gravitational force in expansion theory; it's Einstein's equivalence priniciple taken literally. "The Final Theory" starts there, and doesn't end until it tries to rethink much of modern physics.

 

I won't attempt a full review of the book here. It wouldn't be justified, because I haven't read the thing in its entirety. I gave it up after chapter 3, which attempted to explain orbits in terms of geometric expansion alone (no gravitational force, no curved space, just objects getting bigger and moving past one another at some mystical velocity). I tried to get past chapter 3, and that prompted the lengthy email exchange reproduced below. The exchange was interesting, if not illuminating.

 

In my opinion, "The Final Theory" is broken at its foundation, and demonstrates some curious misunderstandings of standard theory. But Mark McCutcheon's opinion is different, and the other two people on his mailing list seem to agree with him for the most part. So maybe it's just me.

 

The great advantage of a wildly unconventional theory is that critics can be dismissed as being narrow minded or too infected by conventional thinking. I'm sure those traps do exist, to some extent. It's important to remember, though, that the novelty of an idea does not in itself make it any more correct.

 

I hope you enjoy the conversation reproduced below, and that it's the sort of information you're looking for. I wish I'd have been able to read this before purchasing the book...

 

[update: Many people write and ask me for Mark McCutcheon's email address. While I don't give out the address as such, I will point out that there is an "email the author" link on the website of his on-demand publisher; see http://www.upublish.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126018. Discussion of this book may be found in this thread of the Universe Today forums. And no, I can't sell you my copy of the book, I already gave it away.]

 

Discussing the Final Theory with Mark McCutcheon

 

From: Dave Ruske

 

To: Mark McCutcheon

 

Date: Thu July 3, 2003

 

Subject: Final Theory Website & Book

 

Mark, I came across your website on your "Final Theory" book, and I'd like to offer what I hope is a constructive outside opinion. As an engineer who's always had an interest in physics, but lacks the in-depth mathmatical knowledge to follow it at more advanced levels, I'm attracted to the premise that the universe may be more intuitively explained by an alternative framework. It wouldn't be the first time in history where we've been forced to re-examine long-held beliefs, so I entertain the possibility.

 

Unfortunately, your website falls a little short of convincing me to spend US$30 on the book, because although many interesting observations are made, there is no resolution for any one of them --- just repeated assertions that the issues you bring up are indeed resolved. The problem here is that, for all a visitor to your site knows, the remainder of the book could be an appeal to faith in invisible little men who manipulate matter with ethereal tweezers. Or, alternatively, your theory may be dead-solid, testable, and ultimately correct.

 

I just thought I'd write and give you the perspective of a visitor to your website, one who's intrigued, but not yet convinced there's anything beyond the usual junk science between the covers.

 

I'll be watching for the reviews to start showing up on Amazon.com and elsewhere, and make my buying decision at that point.

 

Best wishes, and for what it's worth, I seriously hope you've hit the mother lode.

 

Dave Ruske

 

 

From: Mark McCutcheon

 

To: Dave Ruske

 

Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003

 

Subject: Re: Final Theory Website & Book

 

Hi Dave .. thanks for your comments. I agree completely, of course. That is my dilemma precisely ... how do I get the word out about this new book and theory in a convincing manner without basically rewriting the book on my website or in emails. I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives. However, I also realize that once I start discussing the new theory in any detail I open up a whole can of worms. As simple, rational, and commonsense as this new theory is, it is impossible to do justice to it on a website. If I mentioned what I believe gravity actually is (and I could easily state it in one sentence), I'd have to follow it up with exactly the further discussions that I already wrote out very clearly in the book. People would have all the same questions that I have already anticipated (and heard from close family and friends during development) and answered in the book. I would have endless email exchanges, or people immediately assuming it is a flawed theory because they superficially think it through and think they see a flaw and just dismiss it without any further thought or discussion.

 

That is my dilemma, at the moment. I don't feel I can do justice to the theory in any less than the 400-page book -- to just blurt out any part of it would be self-defeating out of context. In fact, now that radio station hosts are beginning to show an interest, I am facing the same dilemma about how much I should discuss the core theory on air soon as well (still haven't worked that one out yet). But I certainly see your point -- how do you know I'm not a nutter with another theory about aliens or gods or little green men? My answer to this problem was to put as much of my thought processes, insights, and even book content on my website as possible without actually discussing the new theory itself. Hopefully after reading all my website material -- and even my entire first chapter (available upon request from the site) -- people will see many new, solid, rational ideas about our science and its problems, and will see a solid first chapter that shows I don't have a a little-green-man type of mentality. (*The first and second chapters of Mr. McCutcheon’s book directly parallel the key points in my book. - K. B. Robertson)

 

So far, it is very early in the promotion process, so it is impossible for me to know if my current approach is enough. I appreciate and fully understand your perspective, and I welcome any suggestions you may have. What would it take to convince someone such as yourself to buy a copy, short of opening a whole can of worms by starting to discuss the new theory itself, which would probably be a nightmare of endless emails justifying one point or another or anwering one question after another, which is already fully expained in the book?

 

Thanks for your comment,

 

Mark

 

 

From: Dave Ruske

 

To: Mark McCutcheon

 

Date: Fri July 04, 2003

 

Subject: Re: Final Theory Website & Book

 

Once there are some reviews to read, you get the credibility of referrals --- no exposition of the theory itself is really needed once there are people with some knowledge of physics saying that your theory deserves consideration. Those first reviews will be key, I think.

 

Thanks for your response, and good luck with it!

 

Dave Ruske

 

 

From: Mark McCutcheon

 

To: Dave Ruske

 

Date: Mon Jul 21, 2003

 

Subject: Reviews are in ...

 

Hi Dave, just a FYI to inform you that several people have now read the book and offered to write reviews. You may want to check out the site again (see Reader Review page). I realize you have to take my word for it that I didn't make them up and/or suppress horrible responses. All I can say is that these are real reviews from real people who do not know me, and are the first two responses so far.

 

Best,

 

Mark

 

 

 

From: David RuskeTo: Mark McCutcheon

 

Date: Mon Jul 28, 2003 Subject: Theory Problems?

 

Ok, Mark, I'm an optimist, so I bought the book. Maybe it's me, but I can't make it through the first few chapters without seeing some real showstopper-type problems. I've outlined a few below, maybe you can point out where I went wrong.

 

Velocity is defined as distance over time. If we throw a ball in empty space, we know it keeps going at what we perceive at a constant velocity. If we accelerate it to 10km per hour, then in one hour's time the ball will be 10km away after one hour, 20km at two hours, etc. We could determine this by looking at the ball and applying simple trigonometry, or by having a very long, physical ruler parallel to the ball's path.

 

 

So far, so good. But according to expansion theory, the ruler along the ball's path will be continuously expanding, as will the ball and everything else. By your math, in fact, after about 19 minutes the distances in the equations will have doubled in size. After an hour, the ruler will be roughly 8 times larger than it was originally, though it would seem we have no way of detecting this.

 

 

Wait a minute, though, that ball is still traveling parallel to the ruler. In order to cover the length of our expanding 10km ruler in one hour's time, one of two things needs to be going on: either our ball in vacuum is accelerating to keep up with the growing ruler, or time isn't the linear quantity we've been assuming.

 

 

Such acceleration would also be necessary to keep the moon in orbit. If the earth and moon were really passing each other at a constant relative velocity similar figure 3-5, they'd collide rather quickly, as both bodies would be increasing in size at an accelerating rate. If matter alone expands, and not the space between, this accelerating growth will overtake a simple velocity of any magnitude.

 

 

Moving on to figure 3-6, I fail to see how the objects would ever appear to completely encircle one another. The right-hand side of that diagram does show an effect similar to what would be seen, I believe, but continue the diagram a little bit further and you'd eventually end up with two objects almost stationary (along the Y axis) side-by-side, finally expanding in to one another. The relative motion along the Y axis (as you look at figure 3-6) would be little different from what you propose with the dropped object in figure 2-8.

 

 

Two more problems I see is that the non-gravity of expansion theory doesn't drop off with distance (since two objects will expand towards each other at the same rate no matter where they are), and our orbital observations do not seem to be consistent solely with the radius of orbiting bodies. How does expansion theory account for these inconsistencies with the observed universe?

 

 

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I fear I have to wonder about the sincerity of this effort. Nowhere on your website is "expansion theory" mentioned, instead the basis of this "final theory" is kept vague. You're not the first to try to take Einstein's equivalence principle literally, as a quick search on Google will reveal. The only open question is whether or not you're aware of the fact.

 

I agree with you that something seems amiss in our current understanding of the universe, and I wouldn't be shocked if some portion of expansion theory might even provide valuable clues. But if I've reasoned incorrectly above, I'd appreciate knowing where I went wrong.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

 

 

 

From: Mark McCutcheon

 

To: David Ruske

 

Date: Mon Jul 28, 2003

 

Subject: Re: Theory Problems?

 

Hi David,

 

Thanks for your email. I hope all my readers do email me, since questions like this are bound to arise in a book full of completely alternate views of everything in physics. I won't always have the time for detailed individual responses, but at this early stage I try as much as possible. Soon I'll set up a FAQ to help new readers who email me, so that I don't have to keep retyping much the same emails, but so far you are only the third reader to respond, so I'll give it a go personally. Oh, and at the request of the others who have responded, I have set up an informal email discussion group. At this point we have just exchanged email addresses which we include in our exchanges, with me as moderator. If you're interested in joining, just say the word. But first, I'm sure you want some answers.

 

In answer first to your suspicions of my sincerity, I feel very strongly that it would be a mistake to discuss my core concepts on my website. There are many others who have tried their hand at alternate theories, as you know, and, frankly, their ideas are quite kooky and half-baked, either because they have the wrong inspiriation initially, or because they are unable to follow it through to any depth. But this doesn't stop them. They go on and on making less and less sense, and ultimately end up just chatting quite irrationally in their own websites about all their ideas. I realize that some may still put me in that boat with my theory, but I see a clear difference with my book, and I will not diminish it in that manner. This truly is the answer to how our universe operates -- not just in my opinion or pet theory .. examine the evidence as you read, even solid mathematical proof as on page 190, which it seems you may not have reached. Taken out of context, my ideas would probably be laughed off the stage, but in context, I hope you can see it is a serious, viable, scientific theory that puts standard theory to rest. Also, yes I am now aware that at least one other person has tried to pursue discussion of expanding matter on Google groups .. one of the other readers who responded (and who has volunteered a review on my site and is now part of the discussion group) informed me of that the other day. I assure you, I'm not that person and I have nothing to do with any such physics discussion groups. I have been well aware of the existence of these groups for well over a decade -- perhaps two? – (*Mr. McCutcheon is confused about whether it’s ten, or twenty years that he’s been aware of ‘these discussion groups’) and have always been horrified by them, partly because they are so abusive, and partly because most people there claim to be scientifically educated and intelligent (and I'm sure they are), yet they banter on endlessly day after day and even year after year about who understands one aspect of our science better than another. In the end, no one really has any solid answers, which is why they're all there, typing away endlessly, hoping to convince themselves or others of their current understanding, or hoping for answers from others, which never com. I hope you can see that that is all you're left with, without my book. I have never joined these groups, and have had no desire to even scan them for over a decade, since I already know what they're all about (*indeed). This is the legacy that today's science paradigm leaves for even our most intelligent, educated, scientifically enthusiastic people.

 

Ok, off my soap box and on to your core question:

 

I find that no one, so far, gets every point that I make in the book initially .. some are completely fine with points that others struggle with initially, and vice versa. The issue you struggle with in this email is a very common one for readers initially, and the reason is because you are open-minded enough to consider Expansion Theory, but you cannot help but still be ruled by Newton's view of our universe. Even though you are willing to give Expansion Theory a good shot, your mind must latch onto *something* as its core "reality simulator" when you imagine and think about object motion, and yours is still half with Newton as you consider Expansion Theory. I struggled with this too, initially, and until I got over it I couldn't move beyond *writing* the first few chapters, which you're struggling to read. Let me explain ...

 

Whether you realize it or not, you are still thinking of objects possessing absolute, straight-line momentum, as Newton stated. You have not yet reached the breakthrough that allows you to see that this is a fallacy that has corrupted our understanding of the universe we inhabit. As I show in the pages you refer to (p 119 -), all object motion is *relative*. Objects *never* travel in straight-lines with absolute speed and momentum -- never. Even Newton realized this, but he invented a magical gravitational force to justify why his straight-line ideal never actually occurs --- I mean this quite literally -- never. Think about it. Objects *always* travel in curved trajectories past each other (even a ball rolling in a straight line rolls *around* the planet, as I state in the book). So, your struggle with orbits has one foot in with Expansion Theory and one foot in with Newton. You see the Natural Orbit Effect concept, but you force the orbiting object to still continue with Newton's invented absolute straight-line momentum. In actuality, the object has a natural *orbital* momentum. That's what objects *do* in our universe. Your mental machinery is currently *Newtonian*, and so you imagine this conflict of how an object could possibly turn corners all on its own. I hope you can see my point, upon deeper reflection. It is *very* difficult to make this breakthrough, but crucial.

 

 

Similarly, on the object coasting along by the ruler, you also have one foot in Expansion Theory and one foot out. You are willing to consider that atoms all expand within the *subatomic* realm, resulting in the effective constant sizes and other familiar physical laws that we all know and experience, but then you imagine objects expanding in *atomic* space, as if the subatomic expansion of Expansion Theory wasn't there. Tough new concepts, I know, but crucial to grasp. The coasting object is not somehow accelerating in regular space here outside the atom. Objects, likewise, aren't doubling every 19 minutes here on the outside. This is the underlying *subatomic* reality, which is not occuring on our atomic dimension but in the subatomic realm, *resulting* in effective *non* expanding objects that are drawn to each other by some apparent mysterious force. You are picturing the coasting object as if there is only *one* spatial reality -- here on the outside of the atom -- and forcing the *atomic* object, which is a product of the underlying subatomic realm, to behave as if it resided in the subatomic realm. It doesn't. Again, as in the book, these are two sides of the same coin, where our reality is one side, supported by the unseen other.

 

Hope something here helps. I'm now getting quite motivated to write that FAQ I mentioned!

 

Best.

 

Mark

 

 

 

For a continuation of this discussion, enter in Google: "Mark McCutcheon David Ruske discuss Final Theory", or, click on:

 

htttp://homepage.mac.com/ruske/finaltheory.html

 

 

Mr. David Ruske comments, in an email conversation with Mr. Mark McCutcheon (author of ‘The Final Theory’):

 

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I fear I have to wonder about the sincerity of this effort. Nowhere on your website is "expansion theory" mentioned, instead the basis of this "final theory" is kept vague. You're not the first to try to take Einstein's equivalence principle literally, as a quick search on Google will reveal. The only open question is whether or not you're aware of the fact.

 

Indeed, an effort to take Einstein’s equivalence principle literally, was first published on the internet in December of 1999 (followed on the internet by a series of notably similar theories), and first published in hard copy - under the title ‘An Hypothesis On Gravity’ in May of 1959, evolving into a series of hard copy small press editions, under the titles ‘The New Gravity’, ‘Gravity Is The 4th Dimension’, and most recently ‘Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions - A Non mathematical Reinstatement of Einstein’s Presently Abandoned Unified Field - Steady State - Theory; The Big Bang Theory Is Wrong.’

 

(To be continued)

 

_____________________________________

 

Below are verbatim excerpts (and asterisk - * - marked, parenthesized editorial comments by K. B. Robertson) derived from a review of McCutcheon’s ‘The Final Theory’, by ‘Austin’ on Hypography, 3.14.2005

 

Re: The Final Theory - 03-14-2005, 06:43 PM

 

 

McCutcheon is certainly persistent and ambitious. Moreover, the concept of Expansion Theory is bold. And we all like 'bold'.

 

But in the final analysis, his whole book is founded upon the not-terribly-insightful observation that modern theories regarding gravity are clearly missing a grand underlying truth. Beyond that, the book clearly has major flaws in it.

 

My background: an honors graduate in computer science about 100 years ago at a major university (USC), I aced all the calculus based courses in physics. This is probably what led to my becoming, eventually, the chief engineer on a nuclear-powered attack submarine. Days gone-by now...but all true.

 

My overall take on McCutcheon's book: at almost $30/copy it is fundamentally dishonest.

 

Yes, he has one good idea in the form of Expansion Theory regarding its application to gravity -- but it's not even his idea. Moreover, he tries to coast the rest of the way by shucking and jiving, using hand-waving arguments instead of rigorous or complete thinking.

 

Note that there is not a single reference in the book to who originated Expansion Theory (or any other references, for that matter). McCutcheon isn't honest enough to state that an originator of Expansion Theory -- well before McCutcheon's implied origination of it -- is Peter Bros, whose ideas were published in a series of books about Copernican concepts of the universe.

 

(*Mr. Austin cites a precedent for McCutcheon’s presentation of ‘Expansion Theory’, naming one Peter Bros as ‘an originator’ - rather than ‘the originator’ - predecessor, referencing the reader to Bro’s "ideas - published in a series of books about Copernican concepts of the universe". Mr. Austin does not offer any book title or further reference to his important criticism of Mr. McCutcheon - as not having originated the "Expansion Theory". Mr. Austin continues his critique...)

 

Frankly, I still like the boldness of the approach, even if it is wrong. Failing is a good thing -- it is the fastest and most courageous way to learn -- and we need to do it more often if we are to ever come up with a complete Theory of Everything that actually works.

 

So, I really don't have the desire for a complete skewering of McCutcheon's book. Courage is as courage does. But I will point out some of the most commendable ideas, blatant falsehoods and (intentional?) oversights:

 

(1) The Good -- The best and brightest in this book is captured in the first two chapters on Expansion Theory (*The chapters that parallel the key points of my book) as it pertains to gravity and orbital mechanics in the form of (though he doesn't use this term) non-linear dynamics. This is good stuff, and should be followed up by a modern-day von Neumann to give it the mathematical rigor that it clearly needs.

 

(2) The Bad -- The author has a pedantic, petulant writing style at times that can mask or obliterate his own circular arguments, even if they were true...and often they are not. He gets lost in the minutiae at times and sometimes just plain "loses it" both emotionally and factually. For example, he goes completely aground in his discussion as to how (by his misperception) a horizontally fired object can't _ever_ go into a circular orbit by Newtonian theory ("Gravity based circular orbits are impossible"). This is stuff and rubbish -- a horizontally fired projectile can clearly go into a circular orbit when fired with sufficient velocity provided that there isn't a looming mountaintop somewhere in the projectile's future. But he doesn't stop there with that one mistake -- he goes on and on and on about it (his mistake, that is) until the reader can only continue slogging through the reading by taking an interlude to write "stupid!" in the margin...e.g., as I resorted to on page 116. Seriously folks, this is blatantly stupid stuff. At a bare minimum, as this paragraph points out, it is at least nothing more than one of McCutcheon's emotional rants about his own misinterpretations. Either way, it's more than a little bit sad.

 

(3) The Ugly -- Many, many instances of exculpatory evidence exist against 'The Final Theory'. McCutcheon is clearly overreaching with respect to Expansion Theory. Notably, the author either does not bring these disproofs of his ideas up or glosses over them. Examples include:

 

(a) Energy consumption: The energy required for expansion is just another form of 'magic' (as McCutcheon calls it) to replace existing, magical matter-attraction theories of gravity. This was a gloss-over; the author asserts that he'll prove this isn't the case, then fails to do so.

 

(b) Laws of Life: While he was apparently awake during high school discussions on Laws of Thermodynamics including 'entropy', McCutcheon does not discuss 'consciousness' at all. As this is core to understanding probability waves and modern quantum theory & mechanics, I can only presume that he doesn't have much of a grasp on these subjects.

 

© Electron diffraction: The author blatantly ignores the experimentally observed effect that a *single* photon put through a diffraction process will exhibit wave diffraction. This is profound -- and widely available -- knowledge. That the author would ignore it does not speak well for his arguments. (Ref.: "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert)

 

(d) Wave/Particle Nature: As with the parabolic descent nonsense, the author's style is to misconstrue or obfuscate the current thinking regarding the observed wave/particle nature of photons. It's simple: non-observed 'matter' is a probability/possibility wave. Observed matter exhibits its particle nature. Yet the author conspires to confuse the reader (or himself) on this foundatational point. "Quantum Reality" is a must-read in this regard...it is truly not to be missed, and is a highly pleasurable read.

 

(e) Bell's Theorem: Completely missing-in-action. The Quantum Fact that all reality is non-local is kind of a big deal. Again...see "Quantum Reality" if you prefer enlightenment over diatribe.

 

(f) Muon time-compression: Also readily available info the author ignores, the fact is that muon's at near light speeds decay more slowly than the ones that are not travelling that fast.

 

I could go on and on and on myself...but it all comes down to this: were Einstein, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, John Bell, David Bohm, Neils Bohr, von Neumann, Max Planck, etc., etc. all out to lunch...or is McCutcheon?

 

Sorry...I've done my homework, and it's not the former. McCutcheon overreaches...and misses the mark of Truth.

 

A much better book to read (and much more tolerable): "Einstein and Buddha". I recommend it highly. Especially to McCutcheon.

 

Last edited by Austin : 03-23-2005 at 04:34 PM.

 

_________________________________________

 

Another excerpt from another Hypography hosted critique:

 

Re: The Final Theory - 06-23-2005, 04:59 PM

 

 

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by leeroy

 

I'm about half way through the book and honestly I really like the concept. Even before reading this book, I've often thought of Einstein's space-elevator and gravity and wondered... What if gravity was just inertia?

 

 

I never really thought of atomic expansion, but it seems plausible. Although the way the author explains it, he doesn't seem to be very objective on the idea. It seems he backs up scientific models that he can explain with expansion and tries to debunk models and theory's that he can't make fit. That makes me feel like he's a salesman and not a scientist.

 

______________________________________

 

 

Reply to the final theory as recorded on Science AGOGO.com

 

posted October 10, 2005 06:48 PMOctober 10, 2005 06:48 PM http://www.scienceagogo.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=1;t=000466;replyto=00000

 

The Final Theory revisited.

 

It seems that Uncle Al may have the word on this book. I am now in pages seventies. I have been anxious to see what the author had to say as a substitute for Newton’s and Einstein’s conception of gravity. It looks like he sees the atom in a constant state of expansion thereby causing everything composed of atoms to be in a constant state of expansion. In his world this uniform atom expansion does not really have objects falling to the Earth it has the earth expanding outward to meet the object just as the object is expanding to meet the Earth. To accept this view we must concede that everything in our three dimensional universe and right here in our solar system, is in constant expansion. He rationalizes this on the basis that because all of this expansion is uniform and universal we do not see it – there is nothing to compare it with. His discussion so far deals only with the Earth and the most rudimentary examples. I will continue to read his effort but I wanted to post this to discourage any one being tempted to buy the book right now.

 

The author lost me on a very fundamental issue. We know that the acceleration of a falling object is directly related to the Mass of the object towards which it is falling. Earth’s "surface" gravity is stated to be 32.16 feet per second, per second. The suns are like 900 feet per second, per second. To apply his approach it seems to me the sun should be expanding about 28 times as fast as the Earth. That would apply to every other planet more massive than the Earth as well. As old as these objects are we should be in one big ball by now! I will continue to read the book to be sure I have not miss-judged it.

 

Jim Wood

 

Registered: Sep 2005 | IP: Logged

 

_________________________________

 

 

Reprise: A Note on Mr. Mark McCutcheon and the gathering multitude of other belated scribes of his <'google group'> generated genre:

 

Enter 'McCutcheon, physically accelerating universe' in google: A 2002 copyrighted book entitled The Final Theory emerges, the first two chapters of which conspicuously parallel the 48 year old published and copyrighted, small press hard cover history of the (previously unanticipated) *accelerating universe (*enter in google) proved to prevail within the following dissertation <herein: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie>. The Author of 'The Final Theory', one Mark McCutcheon, apparently alleges not to have heard of or been influenced by the featured dynamic of this near half century aged work, which was published on the net 12/'99. Within and after chapter two of The Final Theory, Mr. McCutcheon goes on to further proclaim that there is no gravity, that Newton and Einstein were wrong <they did make some well known mistakes, many of which they clarified awareness of>, and that 'his work' is 'The Final Theory'.

 

After re-writing the unprecedented nexus of my book in the first two chapters of his, Mr. McCutcheon plods waywardly on into what he calls the 'rethinking of our scientific legacy'... Readers may only draw their own conclusions. This author looks forward to a growing success for Mr. McCutcheon and 'his work' <or any like it>, the archived key ingredients of which will inevitably find their way back to their point of origin, under the widely distributed knowledge of tens of thousands of international and multilingual readers and the original authorship of Truly Yours, K.B.Robertson, and the title: 'Gravity Is The 4th (space-time) Dimension', 'The New Gravity'; etceteras...

 

Literally having been written on the subway walls of New York City in the early '70's, and all over the cities of San Francisco and Berkeley since the mid '70's)

 

The Exclusion of Politics from Science; of Ad Hominem from Empirical. Alternate title: Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism = 4th, 5th & 6th space-time Dimensions.

 

The 'Big Bang Theory' is wrong.

 

Original Extraterrestrial Physics 101.

 

Mark McCutcheon's so called 'Final Theory' isn't final, and, indeed it is repeated herein, that major portions of the first two chapters are conspicuously parallel to 'Gravity Is The 4th Dimension (The New Gravity)', by K.B. Robertson. Whether or not Mr. McCutcheon or the venerable Mr. Mathis drew their key themes from my work or not is a mere technicality. The point is that my copyright precedes either and both of theirs by over forty years.

 

Google access and evaluation of Miles Mathis’ book is readily available in referring to:

 

The Third Wave:

 

A Redefinition of Gravity

 

by

 

Miles Mathis

 

( http://www.geocities.com/mileswmathis )

 

________________________________________________

 

 

In closing, the reader is referenced to google: Brad Templeton’s ‘10 Big Myths About Copyright.'

 

Linking

 

Might it be a violation just to link to a web page? That's not a myth, it's undecided, but I have written some discussion of linking rights issues.

 

 

 

Permission is granted to freely print, unmodified, up to 100 copies of the most up to date version of this document from http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html , or to copy it in off-the-net electronic form. On the net/WWW, however, you must link here...

 

Thank you for reading this missive. Best regards,

 

- K. B. Robertson

 

"Reality is an illusion - albeit, a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

 

"There once was a Lady named Bright, who moved much faster than light. She departed one day in a relative way, and returned on the previous night." - Eric Buller 1923