The Quantization in Astrophysics Book is hereThe Energy Book is available for download here
It could be, but... said...
From an early post: "...but I will be glad to see anything relevant on my mailbox."Here goes 'anything'
A well-known (and sadly deceased) scientist once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I have taken the time to read your foundation papers and to skim your blog from the bottom up, getting only to the aptly-named August 14th, 2006 entry.
I then followed your suggestion to examine the yahoo group of the same name. One word from that group’s page jumped right out at me and confirmed my growing opinion of what I was reading: “Metaphysics”.
Since metaphysics is defined as a philosophical discipline, it is uninhibited by science’s burden of the requirement of verifiable, reproducible proof. Freed from that burden, anyone can create a theory of the universe that sounds reasonable and good – the penultimate requirement of metaphysics – and from there extrapolate a universe-view where all problems are solved, all questions are answered and – satisfying the ultimate requirement of metaphysics – can’t be proven by any scientific means. At this point, I wonder if you’re still reading.
Hopefully you are. It would be easy to dismiss my writings as the rant of another dogmatic scientific disbeliever stuck in his cave as it were. While easy and convenient, it would also evade the real-world issue of why so few people are paying attention to your work. Earlier I made what may have seemed like a sarcastic reference to your August 14th 2006 entry “Field of Dreams.”
Einstein had a dream too. But what set him on the path from philosopher/metaphysicist to become a true theoretician is that he created (or discovered if you’d rather) the mathematical equations to explain his universe-view. These equations made predictions that were put to the test and verified empirically and validated mathematically. This is indeed how “Science is done.” You present some interesting ideas that would turn the world science on its ear – just like Einstein did – if, and only if, your core assumptions are true. If you can prove this, you’ll be remembered for all time in the same breath as Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg and others. If not, your ideas carry no more weight than the (flat) Earth resting on the back of a gigantic turtle, which also sounded reasonable and good to a rather large group of people. Without any cynicism or contempt and with the best will in the world, I wish you good luck. And I’ll keep an eye out for your name in the science headlines just in case!
This is a well written and quasi-thoughful criticism which I, of course, welcome. I did the same in the past for Dr. Zaius and others. I agree with everything you say other than your conclusion...:)
Normally I don't publish meaningless comments. Since I don't see your prior comment and don't remember it, most likely it didn't have any substance. This one is also empty but I am hoping for a follow-up.
Needless to say, it is a strong claim to call a theory metaphysical. Of course, strong claims require strong evidence..>:) which, ironically, you did not provide any...
Quoting dead scientists or Einstein is always a crowd pleaser and a sure way to acquire unwarranted credibility. I would expect and normally demand that one obtain that credibility by providing a solid argument or a question. You didn't provide any one of those requirements.
This blog will remain for a few more days and after that I will delete it since I will conclude that you really didn't have anything to say other than a baseless opinion.
I would like to ask you the great favor of allowing me to dissect your argument for the methaphysical character of my theory...:)
By the way, if you read that Field of Dreams blog you should had realized that what I said is correct. In a purelly geometric theory, in an unconstrained space, there should be only traveling metric deformations with characteristic frequencies and a propagation velocity. This is the simple basis for my criticism to a pillar of science: The Concept of Field.
My "criticism" was directed towards the lack of understanding by all scientific community (and that includes your dead scientist) of the implicit hypothesis associated with the concept of field. In a geometrical universe, a working concept of field would imply the existence of a Cosmological Coherence and of my Quantum Lagrangian Principle.
I should not have to remind you that a geometrical representation of the Universe is a lofty goal of science and that General Relativity was only a partially successful attempt at that goal.
I wrote a prior blog aptdly named The Silence of the Lambs, with 25 or so claims that can be used as a guide for criticism. Let's chat about any one of them which might have raised your suspection of unsuported science.
If you prefer, we can start with the main paper.
By the way, the reason why I am confined to this little blog in the hyperspace is not because I take comfort in writing my "metaphysics" far from criticism. It is exactly the opposite. The theory has a revisionist character and it is broad and supported by fields ranging from particle physics to cosmology. It also has the claim of being the Theory of Everything while having no Strings, Branes or any other superior concepts...:) (superiorly complicated)...:)
The paper is more than 80 pages long and I cannot shrink it and still make sense. Thus it cannot be published in a standard journal (current chicken editors tremble at the sight of a paper with anything that resembles classical physics) and at last but not least, Paul Ginsparg censored its posting in the Cornel-Los Alamos Arxives.
By the way, your assumption that my science has not achieve a wider audience is not correct. First book reached 1000 scientists per week for some weeks. The second book is reaching 1000 scientists per day. A far wider audience than most papers.
Not unlike yourself, other scientists - including Paul Ginsparg - are shy and did not present a palpable argument of any kind.
I will be anxiously awaiting the continuation of your critique.
PS-The Yahoo Group associated site has not been updated for the longest time. The most reliable source of information about the theory are the papers, books and blogs. Some blogs (like the one about the Meaning of Existence) have not been updated for historical reasons. In the meaning of existence, I mentioned the example of the Amonia Maser as a model for a quantized existence. Later I realized that I could use Newton's Gravitational Law and the pseudo-time quantization to better explain the Quantization (Intemittence) of Existence.
The spinning fundamental dilator intersects the Fabric of Space at specific phases where its volume (3DMass) is maximum. Only on those phases matter interacts and thus only on those phases we de facto exist....:) I interact (here and there), therefore I exist (every so often).Share on Twitter Share on Facebook