TOTAL FIELD THEORY (Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions)

(Is the entire physical-spatial universe a Total Field and Is Gravity
really the 4-D space-time continuum, or, has the author only cleverly
built his theory around reality, so that no one can tell the
difference?)

Would it be adequately brief and readable of That Rascal Puff to
suggest that Sir Arthur Eddington's 'waveicles' are being
re-encountered here?
Weren't DeBroglie & Schroedinger on or near the very same wave
length(s)?

Didn't Einstein say, 'There is no space empty of field'? And that 'the
notion of discrete, discontinuous ('billiard-ball like') particles with
distinct surfaces separating them from surrounding space, is based on
prejudice'? (Paraphrased. IDEAS & OPINIONS, Pt. II: Contributions to
Science.)

When a circle representing a particle is divided into four 90o
quadrants, and that circle is called a 4-D particle, and that particle
has never been found (- even 'Particle Physics' has become a Standard
of Reality that doesn't realistically qualify as anything more than an
hypothesis)...

Isn't this an a priori standardization (based on subjective
anthropomorphic senses) overruling emperically resolved experimental
resolution, scientific heresy?

Don't the four 90o quadrants composing a consummate 'circle' represent
the four dimensions Einstein discovered in everything that was
previously considered three dimensional? Isn't the definition for
physical dimensions the right angle motion (of whatever) out of the
dimension preceding it?

A=geometric point. B=geometric point moving in (and thereby generating)
a one dimensional straight line? When that one dimensional straight
line A to B, moves at right angles to itself, B to C, does that not
constitute the geometric progression from a dimensionless geometric
point (A), to a one dimensional straight line (A-B), and does not that
straight line B - C become a two dimensional Plane, when it moves at
right angles (90o) to itself?

The resulting two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles
(90o) to itself, doesn't that generate a three dimensional space,
occupied or unoccupied by matter?

Does not every expedition in search of a 'particle', so far, return
only with increasing evidence that there are only charges of
electricity, emitting longer or shorter frequencies of electricity and
magnetism, *always having the same value?

*The shorter (ultraviolet related) waves being more dense, and the
longer (infrared related) waves being more tenuous - and that 'there is
no contact between physical systems', since such event requires the
interaction of two or more discontinuous 'surfaces', and that such
discrete, discontinuous boundaries continue to elude our - post hoc
ergo prompter hoc - perception of what consistently proves to be
('surfaceless') 'contact' and 'collision': confined to an a priori
subjective interpretation; without an objective leg, stool or platform
to stand, sit or enjoy an encore upon?

(Ph.D 'particle physicists': Quo Vadis?)

'No two particles ever come into contact. When they get 'too close',
they move off'.
- Bertrand Russell, THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

Charges of electricity that fulfill the formal definition for 'material
particle'; that is, microcosmic entities that occupationally demand
three or more dimensions of space, disallow the simultaneous occupation
of it's space by any other 'particle' (surfaceless charge of
electricity), and possesses negative and positive inertia... (Heavy and
Inert Mass)...

Didn't Einstein prove that 'three dimensional matter is actually four
dimensional', and that the previously unrecognized (so called,
'incomprehensible', 'unimaginable') 4th dimension is somehow closely
related to time and motion?
Are not the above described progressions of dimensions generated by
moving at right angles - ninety degrees - from the preceding dimension?


Doesn't this geometric law of right angle moving, progressively
generated dimensions, require all three dimensional entities to be
moving at right angles to themselves: in one of two possible
directions, either constantly growing smaller, or constantly growing
larger (in either case, at right angles to the three recognized
dimensions constituting any such entity) - in order to fulfill their
Einsteinian and geometric proved identity as four dimensional entities?


Is not the physical universe consistently found - while remaining
unrecognized: as constantly growing larger - moving at right angles to
all three of it's dimensions, fulfilling it's obligation to be four
dimensional, or, constantly growing smaller - moving at right angles to
all three of it's recognized dimensions. in either case, fulfilling its
established(if 'incomprehensible' and 'unimaginable') identity as
4-dimensional?

Doesn't this correspond to the four ninety degree quadrants making up a
circle? And, if and when anything moves at right angles out of that
four dimensional circle, isn't whatever that may be, obliged to be
identified as the 5th dimension (moving at right angles out of four
dimensional matter)?

Isn't electricity in fact generated by four dimensional matter, and
isn't it observed to be constantly moving at right angles out of four
dimensional matter, and, doesn't that require the arbiters of
scientific definitions and nomenclature to recognize and identify
electricity as the 5th dimension: moving at right angles out of four
dimensional matter? Wouldn't that 5th ninety degree quadrant be obliged
to occur outside the four quadrants that fulfill and complete a circle?


Might not the transition of a fifth ninety degree quadrant
exponentially constitute what is otherwise the unexplained 'quantum
leap', furthermore explaining why each such 5th ninety degree quadrant
generated by and projected from the 4 ninety degree quad circle of 4-D
matter it is an extension of, always has the same value - 'just like
photons', i.e., Planck's Constant h factor? (Which is considered a
contradiction of field physics, rather than an extensional consequence
of it... )

Could not that so called 3-D 'particle' in this way be recognized as a
4-D charge of expanding electricity, emitting 'quantum leaps';
invariably having the same uniform values - the issued 5th ninety
degree quadrant (obliged to occur outside of and be projected by the
4-D matter that emits it)?

Moreover, doesn't magnetism invariably accompany electricity, and
doesn't it invariably move at right angles to electricity, and isn't
that a requirement for those 'professionals' in charge of paying
attention to and interpreting such dynamics, to recognize and identify
magnetism as the 6th dimension...?

Since Einstein proved formerly perceived '3-D matter' is actually
4-Dimensional, and that the 4th dimension is somehow closely related to
time and motion (modifying 'space and time', to 'space-time', because
the 'two' were then recognized as being inseparable), and the laws of
geometric progression require 3-D entities to be moving at right angles
to all three of their recognized dimensions, having one of two
alternatives therefore, of constantly moving at right angles from
themselves, growing ever smaller, as the '4-D space-time continuum',
or, growing ever larger, as the 4-D space-time continuum.

If: Einstein and the laws of the progression of dimensions are correct,
and since objects released above the earth's surface don't 'fall
upward' (which would prove a constantly contracting physical universe
made up of ever shrinking charges of electricity), but instead, objects
released above the earth's surface are observed to 'fall down'....

Doesn't this mean that the object (Newton's apple, for example) doesn't
really move from A to B, but rather that the entire coordinate system -
the physically expanding earth (and universe), in it's constantly
ongoing enlargement, including the uniformly expanding observer and all
of his instruments of measurement, are moving from B to A, creating the
illusion of the (whatever) 'falling' object, by way of the ever
expanding acceleration of the entire coordinate system earth, beneath
the 'falling' object, creating the illusion that the object is moving
'downward', rather than that the earth (entire frame of reference) is
rising up to meet it....?

Wouldn't this explain what Einstein meant when he said that the
apparent parabolically curved trajectory of a thrown baseball or fired
cannonball for example, is not actually curved, but is actually
straight - a 'geodesic' - because 'space-time curves' around the
apparently descending object and generates the illusion of a
parabolically trajectoried object...?

Is not the explanation herein, why all objects, regardless of their
mass value, 'descend' at the same rate of acceleration and strike the
earth at the same time, when simultaneously released from the same
height? Since, cannon ball and bb shot are not actually falling at all,
but only appearing to do so, due to the ubiquitous uniform expansion of
the entire frame of reference, including any and all observers and test
object(s)? Revealing the illusion of an apparently falling object; with
the earth instead rising-up to overtake, meet and strike it, rather
than conversely?
(Re: "Non-absolute space". And, "The universe is finite (*at any given
moment in space), but unbounded." - Einstein
(*KBR)

Non mathematically and comprehensively explaining why inert and heavy
mass 'coincidentally, cancel each other out', anomalously said to
account for what Einstein called 'an astonishing coincidence'.. (and
based his entire General Theory of Relativity upon) - otherwise a
blatant contradiction of Newton's Laws of Gravity, which clearly
require a proportionately increasing gravity generated by a
correspondingly larger mass; therefore dictating a scenario of a
greater mutual attraction between a falling cannon ball and the earth,
than between a falling bb shot and the earth, resulting in what is
certainly 'supposed to be' the inevitably faster rate of descent for
correspondingly 'heavier' objects (Re: Aristotelian thought - which is
reasonable enough, but in this case is - remarkably - inapplicable)...

In this universal status quo, would not a so called 'black hole
singularity' actually be a 3-D static object in a 4-D expanding
universe; with the 3-D object becoming as small and dense as the 4-D
universe became large and uniformly tenuous around it, forever
(squared)?

Would this not leave the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy intact,
since we are considering the same amount of uniformly expanding energy
increasingly distributing itself over ever larger volumes of (metric
functional, rather than non-metric absolute) space, where all
constantly expanding physical charges (neutrons, protons, electrons, mu
mesons, et al) remain relatively the same size and density, without the
requirement of 'the spontaneous creation of hydrogen' which caused
Bondi, Gold and Hoyle to abandon the otherwise entirely tenable 'Steady
State Theory' (Now foregrounding a so called 'Big Bang' to 'explain'
the - unexpectedly discovered, 1927 thru '32 spatially expanding
universe.)

Whereas, the astrophysical consensus on the structural dynamics of the
observed spatially expanding ('beginning') universe proves out that
there is no common ('big bang', 'ylem', 'cosmic egg') center from which
the ('red shift') expanding universe, expands...

That is, no matter where the observer is located in universal space,
the expanding universe exhibits celestial systems, light sources,
stars, galaxies, etceteras, to be moving in direct line of sight...

Indicative of a repelling force (What Einstein called the 'Cosmological
Constant', symbolizing it in his equations with the Greek letter Lambda
- ^) acting out of individual material systems, macrocosmically
affirming Bertrand Russell's observation about
microcosmic 'particles' (charges of electricity having no distinct
boundaries, becoming increasingly more dense toward their centers):
'No two particles (macrocosmic systemic material celestial entitities)
ever come into contact, when they get too close, they move off'.
- Bertrand Russell THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

Is not the unexpected and 'unexplained' Relativistic discovery that
physical matter contracts in the direction of its motion at a rate
proportional to its velocity: because matter is an ever
expanding-accelerating field, and that the successful *application by
Einstein of the transformations of H.A. Lorentz (who developed the
conversions exclusively for the description of field energy) *to so
called 'particles', proves that the issued contraction of physical
matter is actually 'Doppler effect', as exclusively applicable to field
energy...?

If so called falling objects are actually being overtaken and struck by
the ever ongoing rising up (acceration @ 32' per " per ") of the entire
coordinate system, creating the illusion of 'falling objects' (much as
the axial spinning motion of the earth at 24,000 mph, generates the
illusion that the sun and celestial vault revolve around it every 24
hours); doesn't this mean that the so called 'impelling (attractive)
force' (F) of gravity is actually 'a repelling force' (as Newton offers
that gravity may in fact be, *in those words, in his three page Preface
to the PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA?)

'The idea that brute, inanimate matter can inexplicably act at a
distance across space to influence other matter, is to me so great an
absurdity that no man with a competent faculty for thinking could ever
fall into it.'
- Isaac Newton, On Universal Gravity


Please keep in mind that J.C. Maxwell had yet to discover and
mathematically describe electromagnetic fields generated by mass and
projecting through space (gravity was once thought to act at a distance
instantaneously, when in fact it - non-coincidentally - is found to
propogate at exactly the same speed as light, since that's what it is).


Whereas, it was and is the cardinal objective of Einstein's (presently
abandoned) Unified Field, to find gravity and electromagnetism two
apparently unrelated phenomena, actually having the same causal
identity...
(Einstein was persuaded to abandon the Cosmological Constant, with
which he predicted an expanding - not a big bang - universe: eight
years before it was discovered.)

He called it 'the biggest blunder I ever made in my life'; which
indeed this author humbly submits it was, insofar as it was a mistake
for him to have allowed 'the (non-sequiturial) scientific community',
to persuade him that what he had predicted - a spatially expanding
universe - was caused by a 'big bang beginning' (perceived as being
'inevitable', when the observed expansion was 'back-tracked' to an
assumed point of origin, where all of the receding light sources and
celestial systems were assumed to converge on one point in space from
which the expansion 'began').

Whereas, that is an archaic three dimensional restriction imposed on an
allegedly 'acknowledged' 4-D universe; wherein the back tracking does
not recede to a point of intersection, but rather where that would-be
finite beginning intersection which is said to have contained all of
the matter of the universe, generating pressures and temperatures
resulting in an explosion, causing the observed spatial expansion as it
is presently seen; moreover perceived as destined to result in a
'universal heat death', where the expansion will dissipate all of
matter to a point of 'non-motion'.

There are variations on the so called big bang theory, one of which
purports a 'pulsating universe', that endlessly 'big bangs', spreads
out to a point of stoppage, collapses on itself, big bangs, spreads out
to 'heat death', collapses on itself, ad infinitum. In this law
breaking departure from allegedly acknowledge 4-D reality, Newton's law
that a body in motion remains in uniform motion, until acted upon by an
outside force... Leaving the question of what 'resistance' - opposing
action - is going to slow down the expanding universe; eventually
obliging it to 'stop' expanding; thenceforth obliging it's
(unidentified, so called) 'gravitational attraction' to pull it back
together (back track to the point from which it originated, then and
thereupon to reiterate the 'Big Bang', causing the spatial universe to
expand, 'slow down', 'stop', recollapse on itself: squared).

Such a 'scientific interpretation' also directly implies a 'theology'
of hopelessness, since any evolutionary or other constructive process
in the 'pulsating universe' is foreordained to be completely
obliterated; leaving any and all life forms, certainly including
humanity on earth; presciently committed to 'enlightened' philosophies
of endlessly predestined destruction, leaving animate, sentiently
evolving life forms, imparting artifacts, ironing the bugs out of DNA &
RNA, and playing volley ball on the beaches of the world; writing the
future and posterity in the sands of futility...

(Meanwhile, back at the handle bar mustachioed, tyrannical - post hoc,
ergo prompter hoc - land lord and bank president's place:)

The big bang 'theory' is not a theory at all, but rather (like
'particle theory') only a hypothesis, and a very poorly founded one,
for which there has yet to emerge any tractable proof at all.
Lemaitre and many others since, upon being surprised to discover the
spatial universe was expanding, were put upon to conjure an explanation
for it; resulting in the ad hoc, ex parte jiffyfix of the so called big
bang.

Hawking has the moment of intersection and the 'resulting explosion' -
the moment of 'beginning'- down to a nano-gnat's caboose:
chronologically and spatially applied to an event that did not happen.

As this record has previously observed, Stephan Hawking's personal and
political courage is not in question, here; whereas his 'refinement' of
the big bang: fine tuning what is among the most grandiosely celebrated
faux pax's in the history and evolution of science - which (oxymoronic,
non-sequitural, and yes, sometimes prevaricating) 'community' today
(schizophrenically) insists it 'acknowledges' the 4-D space-time
continuum, while simultaneously excluding it from the big bang theory -
which is intractable in a 4-D universe, where the so called 'inevitably
limiting point of convergence and intersection of all ('back-tracked'
spatially expanding matter, 'runs out of space', only in three
dimensions...

Whereas, in four dimensions, the back-tracked spatially expanding
universe only becomes infinitely smaller, squared.

The 4th D proves that smallness is just as endless as largeness.
Whereas, the 3-D restricted big bang is about as tenable (in the words
of K. Kostner playing Jim Garrison in JFK) as an elephant hanging over
a cliff, with its tail tied to a daisy...

On the other hand, it seems that gravitational force on or near a
massive coordinate system is a repelling force, whereas, it likewise
seems to be an impelling force at great distances (refer, aquatic,
terrestrial and aquatic tides).

Einstein reasoned that the Cosmological Constant was a parallel but
opposite vector in tandem with and counteracting Newton's (ever
causally unidentified) gravitational force of attraction; which even
Newton himself candidly critisized - in the spirit of a true scientist
- because he could not explain why a universe full of mutually
attracting bodies did not collapse on itself.

When it was learned that the spatial universe was expanding, Einstein's
prediction was poo-pawd, superimposed with the ad hominem hustle of the
big bang gang, all advocates of which schizophrenically 'acknowledge'
the 4th D, while ignoring it as a disqualification of their elaborately
pampered, groomed and well scrubbed 'democratic' dismissal of reality,
for lack of evidence...

Is not a good title for a series of observations like this: GRAVITY IS
THE 4th DIMENSION (Electricity is the 5th dimension. Magnetism is the
6th dimension)? The Non-Mathematical Reinstatement of Einstein's
Presently Abandoned Unified Field...?

The question is not:
'Where, what and when is the 4th dimension?'
The question is: 'Where, what and when is it not?'

The challenge is not in the proving of it.
The challenge is in the disproving of it.

Everyone and anyone can see that the universe revolves around the earth
every 24 hours; just as they can see that home run base-balls and
spiral pigskin passes travel in parabolic trajectories, and that
precipitating objects descend from A to B, rather than the entire
systemic coordinate frame of reference ascending from B to A...

The Inquisition is alive and well;
only its methods have changed.
__________________

Thank you for reading this missive.
Sincerely, Kent Benjamin Robertson
(That Rascal Poof, etceteras)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/kaiduorkhon
http://einstein.periphery.cc/

.

Relevant Pages