A Challenge to Academe

[Epsilon=One]

A Challenge to Academe

A challenge is issued to academe to: 1.) Offer a better explanation than Pulsoid Theory for the current enigmas that result from the irreconcilability of the current Standard Models of physics; 2.) Find an error in the mathematics or logic of Pulsoid Theory, as presented, that would disqualify it as a leading candidate for a Theory of Everything; 3.) Debate that current theoretical physics is based upon other than: a.) Forces/interactions that, as defined by Standard Models, are entirely metaphysical; b.) Time that is undefined; and, c.) mathematics that is "incomplete"; 4.) Debate that the Elliptical Constant does not underlie: a.) the definition of fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT); b.) The ellipsoidal form of fundamental quanta; c.) The Natural geometric source of numbers . . . including a Proof of One within any given Natural system.

Or, more simply, disprove that there is not an Elliptical Constant, for any elliptical shape, that is not related to, or analogous to, the Planck Constants. That is: more simply, demonstrate that the Elliptical Constant is not the Rosetta Stone that underlies a rationalization for all the phenomena of everything that exists; as well as, the radius of Infinity.

For over 50 years no physicist "of stature" from academe has accepted a public debate, or a private debate with an eclectic group of scholars, concerning the mathematical, philosophical, or scientific premises of Pulsoid Theory. During the intervening years, since 1955, many of the contentious arguments that have been offered as provocations for such debate have, themselves, become part of mainstream, intellectual, academic, theoretical acceptance.

To avoid conceding a point made concerning the mass of neutrinos, long argued with Fred Reines, the standard definition of the ephemeral "particle" was quietly changed by academe. In similar manner, the ludicrous definition of black holes, also, appears to be morphing. No longer do astronomers dismiss accelerating, galactic recession; nor, cosmologists refute the possibility of "dark" energy and "dark" matter.

Despite observation and logic to the contrary, the mass media, trade media, scientific journals, and many world-class scientists still speak of massive black holes at the center of galaxies as fact without disclaimers to the contrary stating that: black holes are theoretical. The impression that infinitesimal black holes abound is about as common an accepted understanding as are the tenets of Christianity.

Theoretical physics is constrained with its acceptance of the Big Bang as a Standard Model. Cosmology, if not all of physics, is irreconcilable until an alternative, structural force that opposes gravity's illusion of "attraction-at-a-distance" replaces the Big Bang concept of centripetal forces; thus as it is, the force of Cosmic Inertia must be a requirement as the reactive force to the "compression" of "common gravity."

Recently, the Nobel Prize was shared (October 3, 2006) for strong verification of the Big Bang; yet, no academic astrophysicist can explain how one "bang" created the acceleration that was observed by the Hubble Space Telescope more than a decade earlier, concerning galactic recession.

Pulsoid Theory is a philosophy of ultimate reduction that depends upon rigorous logic and definitions; reconciliation with both scientific observation and prior physical theory; and, most importantly, Pulsoid Theory is understandable by most laypersons. As such, Pulsoid Theory is truly . . . a Paradigm Shift!

ADDENDUM

A response to “A Challenge to Academe” could take the form of disproving the following argument:

The mathematical descriptions, of the harmonies and resonances of motion, described by Pulsoid Theory, that heuristically describe the ellipsoidal geometry of “string-like” phenomena, are applicable to establishing fundamental concepts that can resurrect the much maligned string theory and its derivations; as well as, reinforcing the concepts of loop quantum gravity theories of “space.”

If there is an immediate need for information,
please e-mail directly at the below "Click" link.

Please note that any private correspondence
may be edited and anonymously posted unless
requested otherwise.

Every effort will be made to expedite a reply
with the requested information.

Please ask questions.

With questions it’s possible to know if
comments are logical and convincing;
or whether clarification is required.



If images don’t display, "click" the Refresh Icon.

[Albers]

My friend Piotr Todorov put it thusly: think of a male dancer in black, whirling with a partner in white. On a dimly lit stage you will not see him, yet whatever rotation you witness speaks of their relative mass. You can imply his mass, seeing hers and the orbit in which she flies.

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by Albers

My friend Piotr Todorov put it thusly: think of a male dancer in black, whirling with a partner in white. On a dimly lit stage you will not see him, yet whatever rotation you witness speaks of their relative mass. You can imply his mass, seeing hers and the orbit in which she flies.

And, thus: There should be no mystery when we see accelerating, galactic recession!!!

Or observe, the Pioneer anomoly.

[Albers]

I cannot get to your last statement. Do you see it all whirling with an expanding background source?

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by Albers

I cannot get to your last statement. Do you see it all whirling with an expanding background source?

Yes. That's kinda it; but, a bit more.

The following is heuristic.

Look at Tini Circle Groups.

Imagine each circle as an enlarging, spinning, interrupted, pulsing (at integer/Conceptual Unit increments) Emergent Ellipsoids.

New spinning, etc. Emergent Ellipsoids begin at the infinitesimal spaces between the smallest Emergent Ellipsoids. There is an equilibrium point where this dark matter ceases to expand and begins to compress. The compression results in quasars, Gamma-ray bursts, and high energy background radiation, and one of gravity’s effects (Relative, Hierarchic Compression).

The compression towards the center of the Universe forces "ordinary" matter to the outside. Thus, Cosmic Inertia. The ordinary matter that is formed at Critical Compression is continually lossing mass (getting lighter) while it is dissipating because having lost Resoloids/photons from its inner, obtuse ellipsoid, it is continually out of equilibrium.

As it gets lighter, the heavier compressed dark matter displaces it further from the center of the Universe.

Piotr's dancers so reminded me.

[Mr. B]

I recon the lack of Scientists "of standing" being prepared to enter into the debate is easily explained by the fact that Science doesn't yet, and probably never will, have "all the answers". When we have a comprehensive theory of everthing which is successfully, and accurately, applied to the Macro and Micro worlds and all scientific research has ceased because we've worked everything out, newly redundant Scientists will be queing up for chat shows and debates, freshly equipped with the answers to all of your questions. They'll need to, to find a source of income.

Sadly, so may all of the priests and preachers (viz - "Gosh, a weeping Madonna - a miriacle! Praise him above! Oh, wait a minute, if I apply ***insert formula behind theory of everything*** then that can be readily explained as can everything else". A tragedy for Humanities assorted moral codes, most of which strive for the greater good, without which "the selfish gene" would quickly tear societhy apart.

Just a thaught on a freakishly hot Tuesday morning.

[Epsilon=One]

I have no real argument with any of your comments in your post "on a freakishly hot" 4th of July in the USA. Only a few thoughts . . .

Originally Posted by Mr. B

I recon the lack of Scientists "of standing" being prepared to enter into the debate is easily explained by the fact that Science doesn't yet, and probably never will, have "all the answers".

Agreed. But, I contend that academic integrity demands the quest for "all the answers." Winning or losing a debate is not the issue. An exchange of alternative concepts and the exposure of "weak links" can do more than most anything else to inspire a "layman's" interest and a philosophy that is better than what now exists.

It has become more apparent to me, over the past fifty years, that academia no longer places a proper emphasis on the pursuit of truth over mundane concerns. That world-class physicists, who know their Standard Models are inadequate, are afraid to confront alternative ideas in an open marketplace, while society faces today's turmoils, is unconscionable.

Originally Posted by Mr. B

When we have a comprehensive theory of everthing which is successfully, and accurately, applied to the Macro and Micro worlds and all scientific research has ceased because we've worked everything out, newly redundant Scientists will be queing up for chat shows and debates, freshly equipped with the answers to all of your questions. They'll need to, to find a source of income.

It seems quite apparent to me that the source of income, status quo, and idolatry of the elite is currently of primary importance for most academic, theoretical physicists.

I have no faith that one educated as a world-class physicist has the understanding to ever achieve "a comprehensive theory of everthing (sic)."

[ste]

Loosely linking together the concepts that you have introduced is not the way to win over even an intelligent person's heart. Regardless of how "unique", "revolutionary" or "groundbreaking" any one of these concepts may be, they are new to the reader, who you must assume to be incredulous.

I, for example, have tried to weed through and make sense of the numerous posts you've consistently added. I've tried to make sense of your definitions and your explanations, but I have failed to understand what you are trying to say. I can't intelligently argue with a statement whose conditions I cannot understand in the first place.

If your intentional incompleteness and fragmented nature of your presentation of the theory was intended to gain academic interest, it does not seem to have worked.

I suggest, as I may have before, that you start from the ground up. Make a concept map. Write out a summary. Explain the problem with current models, and illustrate how your theory overcomes logical breakdowns that you wish to be challenged. Make clear statements that CAN be challenged in the first place, let alone be understood. Don't leave out crucial details. Just give us something that we can work with.

Anybody can enjoy a challenge. Nobody likes tedium.

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by ste

Loosely linking together the concepts that you have introduced is not the way to win over even an intelligent person's heart.

I agree. However, such is not my purpose.

Originally Posted by ste

I, for example, have tried to weed through and make sense of the numerous posts you've consistently added. I've tried to make sense of your definitions and your explanations, but I have failed to understand what you are trying to say. I can't intelligently argue with a statement whose conditions I cannot understand in the first place.

Such is not unexpected. That is why I request questions . . . that are specific as to what is not understood.

Originally Posted by ste

If your intentional incompleteness and fragmented nature of your presentation of the theory was intended to gain academic interest, it does not seem to have worked.

Academic interest is my last concern. That you can understand it is my concern. Apparently, I’ve had some success if only because you have made such an effort.

My concern is that a person think concerning each "stand-alone" concept. I do not expect an understanding of the overall concept of Pulsoid Theory by “super” intelligent persons until they have grasped the individual salient aspects that are counter to what theory has been impressed.

The masses will, hopefully, begin to doubt Standard Model theory if only because pomo theorists have chosen not to attack Pulsoid Theory. I have made such an attack much easier by breaking the theory into individual, counter concepts.

Originally Posted by ste

I suggest, as I may have before, that you start from the ground up. Make a concept map. Write out a summary. Explain the problem with current models, and illustrate how your theory overcomes logical breakdowns that you wish to be challenged.

I agree. However, my time is currently very limited; and, there are other goals that are more important. Those goals are near completion. You should start to see the beginning of what you suggest within days.

Originally Posted by ste

Make clear statements that CAN be challenged in the first place…

I don’t know how I can be any clearer with my statements. Where this clarity may be obscure to you, point it out; regardless, of how minute the obfuscation may be.

You cannot expect me to address encyclopedic generalities. For some reason, all specific questions are "back-channel" where I devot much time to addressing them.

Originally Posted by ste

Don't leave out crucial details. Just give us something that we can work with.

What more can you expect. I have given literally hundreds of original concepts. Pick any one of them . . . then, attack it!

Originally Posted by ste

Anybody can enjoy a challenge. Nobody likes tedium.

My concepts have been called many things in a long, eclectic life; but, never before have they been alluded to as dull and prosaic. Just note the affect they have with a certain persistent poster herein.

[Mr. B]

I'm a reasonably intelligent chap, and i've spent some time ploughing through your different sources of information, including your website, but a year on I really don't "get" what your theory says, other than it doesn't fit with big bang theory, expanding Universe, or black holes. What does it tell us that is new?

What predictions can you make from pulsoid theory?
What "problems" does it resolve?
What is the source of the immense gravitational fields that orthodoxy suggests are black holes?

I'm uneasy about your requirement that pulsoid theory must be "Intellectually" correct (please pardon the paraphrase) as there is a risk that potentially valuable work may be thrown out as is may seem counter intuitive.