THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

IS CONTRADICTED BY THE SPECIAL THEORY

by Adershir Mehta

ardeshirmehta@mywself.com

July 2001
The General Theory of Relativity is based upon Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence.

Imagine, says Einstein, a person being accelerated upwards in a completely enclosed elevator at a rate of 9.80665 m/s2. This being exactly equal to the acceleration due to the earth’s gravity, which is to say 1-g, the person would never know -- or so argued Einstein -- by any experiment performed purely inside the elevator, whether the elevator was stationary on earth, or was being accelerated upward in empty space.

And so, argued Einstein further, if a tiny hole were made in one wall of the elevator which is being accelerated upward, and a beam of light introduced thereby into the elevator in a horizontal direction, the beam of light would appear to bend downward a bit, and hit the opposite wall at a spot a little lower than the hole. That’s because in the brief time it would take the light to go from the hole in the wall to the opposite wall, the elevator which is being accelerated upward would have travelled upward at an increasing velocity.

And since there is no way to tell whether an elevator is being accelerated upward in empty space or standing stationary on the earth, this must be the case -- argued Einstein -- whether the elevator is being accelerated upward in empty space, or is stationary in the earth’s gravitational field. And this would prove that light is affected by gravity.

After that the way was open for Einstein to suggest that light is attracted by gravity because space itself is curved, and time too, and all the rest with the Minkowski world-lines and light-cones and what-not. In other words, the General Theory of Relativity was developed from this simple argument.

However, the Special Theory of Relativity blatantly and shamelessly contradicts the Principle of Equivalence. If an elevator were being accelerated upward at an acceleration of 9.80665 m/s2, within a few months it would attain a speed very close to the speed of light, and in a few decades it would have attained a speed of 99.999 ... 9 % that of light -- the number of 9’s in the above figure being limited only by the number of decades. Check out the mathematics yourself -- use the formula v=at.

And according to the Special Theory of Relativity, any elevator -- and any person in it -- travelling at speeds approaching that of light would increase in mass, the increase being given by the Lorentz <gamma> factor, namely (1-v2/c2)-0.5.

So if v is, let’s say, 99.999999999999 % of the speed of light, the <gamma> factor would be 7,073,895 -- in other words, a little over seven million! Work it out: it’s a simple formula.

So what the Special Theory of Relativity predicts is, that a man in the elevator having a rest mass of, say, 100 kg would eventually have a mass of more than 700 million kg, or more than 700,000 tonnes -- and his mass would be growing daily! And because of the elevator’s 1-g acceleration, he would weigh that much too.

(This, of course, provided that there was enough life support stuff for him in the elevator. Let’s just assume that there is, without wondering exactly how that would be accomplished. Hey: even Einstein didn’t explain how the elevator was supposed to be accelerated.)

In other words, such a man -- or his descendants -- in a well-stocked elevator accelerating at 1-g in empty space would eventually be squooshed flatter than a pancake, due to his/their having increased in weight far too much. Indeed they should all turn into black holes eventually, and be swallowed up by themselves!

But if the elevator were stationary on the earth, the Special Theory of Relativity predicts -- and common sense also confirms -- that the man and his descendants could live out their lives very comfortably unto the umpteenth, and even the umpteen-plus-oneth, generation, putting on weight only if they ate too much, or had some glandular or hormonal problem in that regard. (And even then they couldn’t possibly put on that much weight.)

So the Special Theory of Relativity predicts that the man would eventually know, even without conducting an experiment, whether he was being accelerated upward at 1-g or whether he was stationary in a 1-g gravitational field -- directly contradicting the Principle of Equivalence, which argues that there would be no way for him to know that. 8-[

(Now let me ask you: what sort of genius doesn’t see this elementary contradiction between two of his own theories -- a contradiction that even ordinary guys like you and me can see? Was Israel lucky, or what, that Einstein declined David Ben-Gurion’s offer to make him the first President of the Jewish State. It would have been the laughing-stock of the world, had he accepted!) :roll:

Comments? E-mail me.
ardeshirmehta@myself.com

*************************

+From K. B. Robertson to *Ardeshir Mehta
(+Amplified response)

*via URL http://ardeshirmehta@myself.com

*( http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/education.html )

Dear Sir, Mr Mehta: :-?

Referencing the unprecedented, documentary non-mathematical identification of the 4-D space-time continuum, and its consequences ('the <previously unrecognized cause of what Einstein called the>'gravitational curvature of space') in the theoretical physics file on the menu at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ - resolves an ensemble of previous dissolute, misunderstood issues, certainly including your conclusion that 'The General Theory is Contradicted by The Special Theory', due to - what you conclude - would be a crushing ('Squooshing'/'pancake flattening') of any passenger(s) against the ever ascending, ever increasing speed - accleration - of the floor on Einstein's proffered, accelerating elevator(s).

This would indeed be the fate of the subjected passengers, were it not for the over-all 4-Dimensional uniform enlargement - accelerating expansion - of the entire frame of reference (the entire physical universe, certainly including the passenger<s>), as Einstein proved it to be: ubiquitously 4-Dimensional (i.e.. moving ar right angles - growing ever larger - from and out of the recognized 3-D universe of matter and space).

Your notably astute but incorrrect conclusion: altogether excludes the universal 4-D space-time continuum and the consequent fact that the issued passengers along with the entire universal frame of reference are acclerating - 4-Dimensionally expanding, along with the issued accelerating - ever-increasing speed - of the subjected, ever-ascending and accelerating floor of the elevator...
A perusal of the 4-D gravitational issues proffered on the menu at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ dilates and clarifies the otherwise characteristically missed, all important issue at point, here - a physically, as well as spatially - expanding universe; within which:

One square mile in the present, is much larger than it was yesterday, and much smaller than it will be, tomorrow. While at any given moment in the constantly accelerating, uniform enlargement of universal matter (space-time) an observer attributes the curved parabola of a thrown baseball, stone or football to the 'curve' of the trajectoried test object ' toward earth', rather than perceiving the entire frame of reference as rising - ever faster; accelerating - up to meet the straight line (geodesically) moving object...
Moreover, in the described 4-Dimensionally ever-enlarging physically (as well as spatially) expanding universe: 60 mph yesterday (earlier Moment 'A'), is not as fast, when compared with 60 mph today (present Moment 'B'); neither is 60 mph today, as fast, when compared with 60 of tomorrow's (later Moment 'C') miles per hour.

"The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in."
- Kent Benjamin Robertson, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION

Moreover, and moving right along...
The velocity of light was slower yesterday, than it is today, will be faster tomorrow, relative to today, ad infinitum, at any given moment; whereas:


the velocity of light is constant - at any given moment - relative to the coordinate system (space-time moment) from which it originates in (multi-moment) 4-D space-time.

The value of time - and velocity - are determined by the earlier, present or future moment in space-time any event occurs in.
- K.B. Robertson, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION.

Your argument is thoughtful and well presented, but omits the (obscurely recognized) existence, meaning and ongoing consequences of the General Theory’s 4-D space-time continuum - how it nullifies your otherwise well made point.

The Big Bang Theory (is a self disproven hypothesis) asserts similar equivocations, due also to the exclusion of the ongoing (obscurely recognized) consequences of the 4-D space-time continuum.


Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions. Einstein's Unified Field reinstated, without mathematics.


You write well.

Indeed, I have studied and written of Einstein’‘s works for 49 years and not previously seen or heard of an argument such as that presented by yourself.

Whereas, in this case, your - +otherwise correct - conclusions regarding what would be an inherent, non-sequiturial contradiction, in situ; +as you astutely describe it :

whereas: your interpretation of the contradiction between Special & General Theory, omits, rather than contradicts (allegedly ‘acknowledged’, yet functionally unrecognized effects of) the 4th D within the General Theory of Relativity (Gravity Is The 4th Dimension).


"Limitless are the number of apparently right conclusions that are otherwise based on a false premise." - Anon



Post script: By standards familiar to most everyone, your *closing statements - *the last four paragraphs of your post - are in self berating contrast to your otherwise outstanding however equivocated - presentation. *Having the potential of making yourself the laughing stock of the world.

Sincerely,

- Kent Benjamin Robertson


http://einstein.periphery.cc/

Universal gravitation (including time) is the 4th Dimension.


http://forums.delphiforums.com/ 'Albert "The Axe" - Einstein'
REPORT FROM VFW - 'Bill Motto'/ 'Wage Peace' - POST 5888
THE (dang near) EVERYTHING THEORY (KaiduOrkhon's Forums)



************************

Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:03:55 -0800 (PST)
From: "Ben MacColley" <kraziequus@yahoo.com> View Contact Details
Subject: Defiinitions of dimensions (4- Dimensional Dimentia)
To: ardeshir@myself.com
CC: madprof21@optonline.com

(In self-explanatory response to Mr. Ardeshir Mehta's reply to the above.)

Dear Mr. Mehta:

Noteworthy vigilance sir:
Would have responded earlier but busy as you're likely also to be.
It's 1.1.2005 0200 hrs. Saturday 2005. May it be a Happy & Prosperous New Year for You & Yours. Proffering Best Regards.
P.S. Please address any further email to kraziequus@yahoo.com)


Wish to proceed to hopeful resolution with our progressing debate.
(Please excuse the delay. It certainly wasn't out of disinterest or indifference.)
.......................................

Considered definitions, similarities and differences between Euclidean & Pythagorean, Plane & Solid, Metric & Non-metric geometry (geometries)...
Firstly presented in my own words; as cogent to our debate; then presented in excerpts from (provided) academic sources
.........................................

There is a strong school of thought proclaiming eleven dimensions. Perhaps there are.
Another plateau of education states there are between 26 and 37 dimensions. Maybe so.
Yet, no small number of pre and post graduate students in all subjects say the the number of dimensions in the universe is infinite. Stating their case by defining the intersectionof two (acknowledged, non existent, exclusively geometric, location determining) Straight Lines, representing
a location in space called a 'geometric point', which, of course, really doe not exist... While each such defined Point is numberless (Ten Four.)

You emphasize the issue of the non existence of a geometric point.

I agree entirely. A geometric point - A - doesn't exist.

For this reason and on this premise, you reasonably assert that when non existent geometric point A, moves, it doesn't 'move at right angles to itself' (as I say it does); because it doesn't spatially exist (we agree on that), and therefore cannot be properly described as moving at right angles, 90 dgs, perpendicular) to itself.

Whereas, Mr. Mehta. This is true of non-metric (as opposed to metric), non functionally spatial (As opposed to functionally spatial), plane (as opposed to solid) geometric expressions, values and definitions...

Are you not tenaciously adhering to, while excluding, alternative forms of geometry and geometric translations? Employing only non-metric, non-functional, Plane geometry to support your conclusions (by way of exclusions of alternative geometric translations you notably <deliberately or inadvertantly>, digress, divert from and/or ignore?)

As soon as the non existent 2-D plane (B---->C) moves at right angles from itself (C--->D): generating an existentially real or imaginary impalpable 3-D entity - or image - of whatever shape or size: depending entirely upon whether non-metric or metric, plane or solid, non-functional spatial, or functional spatial alues are applied (to whatever given circumstance and condition).

Repeat: (In agreement with you, up to but not including the extrapolation from 2 to 3 - and more - dmensiions: in metric, functional, solid geometric defined values...

Neither a 1-D straight Line (A -->B), nor a 2-D Plane (B---->C), exists.

Whereas, a 3-D square or rectangle (C----->D) may or not be an existential, functionally manifest entity, depending on whether or not it's qualified as metric or non-metric, plane or solid. Empty (until further notice perfect vaccuum doesn't exist anywhere), or occupied...

When the right angle progression of dimensions proceeds as an extrapolating sequence of physical dimensions, as I have employed it: you engage a series of other means, translations and alternative definitions for dimensions.

Those aren't the definitions at issue here.

The engagement of any number of definitions for dimensions is often employed by well intended critics to gainsay the definitions applied in 'my' (the) employed expression(s) of the geometric point, extrapolating to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions..

Whereas, the reason the better known - of perhaps countless colloquial and scientific examples of Martin Gardner's, RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLION, and P.D. Ouspensky's, A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - Chapter entitled: The 4th Dimension - employ a 'SuperCube' to express the 4th dimension (of time & motion <the 'two' being synonymous>, all the while previously unrecognized as inherent to and prevailing within the three recognized physical dimensions of functional, metric space):

... is because (although I vigorously acknowledge that science is not a 'majority rules' democratic - institution, the findings of which are accurately validated or invalidated by process of 'the polls', etc - without application and passage of requirements, i.e. substantial - repeat, substantial - proof<s>; with or w'out the majority ('We can't all be wrong' lemming, herd, lynch-mob & Inquisitional mentality):

Notwithstanding...

... since 1916. the super-cube' is the applied standard of the right angle progression of a three dimensional entity ( of whatever morphology - the square or rectangular shape being the most popular exemplary models, for clarity, whereas, a Volkswagen or platypus is likewise), projecting itself at right angles to the three recognized dimensions, along with quite all the rest of the '3-D universe'....

4-D omini-directional motion goes generally unrecognized and undetected ('non-mathematically *Immeasurable, *
unimaginable, *incomprehensible' - as long as the acclelerating expansion of the entire frame of reference is not recognized as constantly expanding - ever-faster, fulfilling the 'curvature of space-time': * as long as the basketball, baseball, tennis or football player fails to recognize the 4-D space time continuum every time she, he (or the frustrated theoretical physicist at the black board) drops the ball (or chalk).

This so called 'incomprehensible, imeasurable, unimaginable 4th D is inescapably manifest, measurable, comprehensible; constantly, in all the - 'everyday (ho hum) effects of 'gravity' - the fact that all objects on or near the surface of a major gravitational mass - such as earth, are pinned to - or 'fall' - to the ever expanding, accelerating surface:
without infringement of the law of Conservation of Mass Energy: wherereas, it's the same amount of energy, distributing itself over and increasingly greater area, in the law of the inverse square: squared :
A (Past) B (Present) and C (Future)...

Where the continuous accleration can be diagrammed with a V shape. the converging of the two lines to an 'ending point', representing the infinite past:

the widest separation representing the macrocosmic future:

with 'us' - in the Present - 'Eternal Now' - directly between the microcosmic Past and the Macrocosmic Future, at any given moment (of endlessly unfolding, chronologically given, space-time moments...)

Yesterday's mile - in the prevailing 4-D space time continuum, is (comparatively) smaller and more dense than today's mile. Tomorrow's mile will be (comparatively) larger and less dense than today's mile...

Moreover (REPEAT): Yesterday's 60 mph, is slower - when compared to - today's 60 mph, and tomorrows will be faster than (when compared to) todays. While, at any given moment, the measured motion at issue here remains steady at 60 mph, since the past (until further notice) cannot be directly compared with the present, or the present, directly compared with the future.

On the other hand, via recognition and acknowledgement of the 4-D space time continuum (and 'how we can relate to it in our own experience'), we may with assurance know and understand all of this... (It remains to be seen, how much more - and what - will be realized via this knowledge and insight).

Summarily (REPEAT): Yesterday's speed of light is less than today's, and today's is lesser than tomorrows. Exactly why C (Celeritas Constant) remians unchanging, relative to the source (moment in space-time) from which it originated. The apparent 'enigma', is actually a complementary, reciprocal solution, to what is otherwise generally considered 'mysterious'.
(Why is the speed of light constant? Is it constant? Can it be surpassed? )

Those perennial questions are answered in the omnisciently unrecognized, consistently over-looked, denied and rejected resolution(s) - how & why the speed of light is constant: while at the same time, the velocity of light is constantly increasing, relative to the coordinate system - past, present or future, from which it originates.

The constant accleration of all physical matter (at right angles to itself - neutrons, protons electrons, undulating charges of electricity having no distinct boundaries, becoming increasingly more dense toward their centers, fulfilling the identity of the (ever unfound, unproved: h-y-p--o-t-he-ti-c-a-l 'particle' :

Newtonian Classical Mechanics-conceptualized 'billiard ball llike particle'; which even Newton questioned the existence of, just as he seriously made a point of qualifying that the concept of a force of 'attraction', as applied to universal gravitation, was not 'The Answer' to F (Force) - universal gravitation -, but rather 'The Guess' - which electrical charge is measured and found constantly and omnidirectionally in a state of accelerating expansion, as all forms of electricity (electromagnietism) are known to behave.

Asking where it came from is an empty question. It's here and it's proved to be constantly and ominidirectionally growing ever larger, ever faster. On earth, at the rate of 32" per" Per ".

The so called 'rate of descent' actually being the rate of ascent, of the ever enlarging earth's surface, i.e., the (possibly apocryphal) apple did not fall from A to B, to strike Newton on the head, but rather, Newton's head ascended to strike the apple...

Newton himself, in his 3 page Preface to the Principia Mathematica, offers that gravity 'may be an impelling or a repelling force', in those - ultimatum haunted - words (the record, truly yours, calls this Newtonian originated qualification: 'the gravitational alternative', and 'the gravitational 'ultimatum').
Newton carefully qualifies that he does not know the causal identity of gravity; whereas, his work patently establishes it's ubiquitous effects.

Unnecessary misunderstanding prevail, as long as the spiralling pig-skin, basket & baseball-ball passing - parabolic trajectory is not recognized as a straight line (geodesic); only appearing to be a curved line, relative to the underway, continuous expansion of the entire frame of reference (4-D 'curvature of space' ) - including observers & measuring instruments - surrounding it.

(FlashBack, DejaVuVu: everyone can see that the sun, moon, and Constellations of the stellar studded celestial vault all rise in the east and set in the west.

It is clearly apparent that the universe revolves around the earth...

Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc (After this, therefore, because of this): It is clearly apparent that the entire physical frame of refererence - any portion of same you wish to focus scrutiny upon: is not in a constant state of accelerating expansion.... Same same....

(Two wrongs don't make a right, but three or more do?)

Whatever sort of alternative geometry you may be offering, Mr. Mehta - Euclidean, Pythagorean, Plane, Solid, Non-Euclidean, Spatially Functional, metric, Cartesian, Analytic, Riemannean, Algebraic, Spatially Functional, non- metric, Descriptive, Differential, linear transformable affine collineations, or Projective.

The generally affine geometry (which I do not and never have pretended to understand, along with higher mathematics; has always been perplexing to me, though I highly respect metric mathematics and have some understanding of calculus, algebra, plane and solid geometry) proving the translation of right angle motion from preceding dimensions, is the geometry upon which the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions of gravity, electricity and magnetism (my unprecedented work, arranged and authenticated by the - previously unrecognized, 'unrelated' works of many others) is based.

In metric, functionally spatial, solid geometry: although neither geometric point A, nor geometric 1-D Straight Line ( A--->B), nor the geometric 2-D Plane generated by the right angle motion (B----->C), occurs in or generates functional, metric (real, existential), space: whereas, when Plane B------>C moves at right angles to itself, C-->D,
it generates a three dimensional,. existentially manifest, functional - metric (measurable) space.

Respectfully remind you, Mr. Mehta, that yourself
and many others like you: challenge the viability of my statement (which is not 'my statement' at all) - that when a geometric point moves, no matter which way:
it moves at right angles to itself - commencing a series of right angle extrapolations, progressively generating dimensions - at right angles/ 90 dgs. out of what ever preceding dimension.

Moreover and at the locus of the ongoing debate:
Such metric, functionally spatial, solid geometry: begins with a non-existent Geometric Point A:
that is (also, furthermore) circular
(- morphologically: round - O - of shape...

No matter which way Geometric Point A may move, at whatever speed for whatever distance, it moves at right angles from it's self (A------->B) generating a (non existent) geometric Straight Line.

Repeat: In metric, solid, spatially functional geometry, when the 2-D plane moves at right angles to itself, it generates existential, 3-D spatial reality, occupied or unoccupied by matter.

When any 3-Dimensionally manifest entity moves at right angles to itself, it is 4- Dimensional.

Einstein proved everything is 4 Dimensional, and, that the 4th dimension, inherent within 3-Dimensionally manifest entities is closely related to time & motion (are synonymous).

The afore-reviewed, highly qualified laws of geometry demand therefore, of all three dimensional entitites, a sequential, progressive right angle motion to (arriving upon) all three manifest dimensions: recently proven and 'acknowledged' as inherent to and with the three recognized dimensions of space, having to do with time and motion: causing any and all such 4-Dimensional entities to be, either constantly contracting - fulfilling it's assigned obligation be conform to Einstein's 4th D. Or: to be constantly expanding, fulfilling Einstein's (alleged 'acknowledged') 4-D space-time continuum.

Since test objects released near and above the earth's surface do not 'fall up', continuous contraction is ruled out as a functional 4-D vector.

Whereas, test objects released near and above the earth's surface do 'fall down', establishing - in the two possibilities of what this author calls 'the 4-D ultimatum' - that the 4-D quality Einstein proved applicable to universal matter, is one of continuous enlargement, exapanding acceleration.

Densities remaining uniform at any given moment, while continuously distributing themselves omnidirectionally in the law of the inverse square: squared. There is no infringement on the Law of Conservation of MassEnergy - it's the same amount of energy, distributed over an increasing volume of space, via the Law of the Inverse Square: squared.

All enlarging 4-D entities remain relatively the same size and density, at any given moment; while having been more dense and smaller in the Past (MOMENT 'A'), relative to the Present. MOMENT 'B' - always at the center of the representative geometry of expansion expressed in the convergence of two straight lines - V - representing infinite Past in time and density (microcosmic infinity - 'strong nuclear binding forces')...

While the two lines - 'the Arrow of Time' - moving upward and outward from their microcosmically inifinite confluence (which finitely 'ends', only in 3-Dimensions), proceeding as the same amount of energy, increasingly distributed over a greater amount of inverse squared structured macrocosomic space: squared. An ever enlarging universe of space and matter, Without beginning or ending.

Reinstatement of Bondi, Gold & Hoyle's presently abandoned Steady State Universe. Reinstatement of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field Theory.
Thousands of readers of this work have directly proclaimed or suggested it may result in: non-violent world revolution and a metaphorical 'quantum leap' in generalized, mainstream human consciousness.
Evolved perceptions not only in all branches of Physical Science, but also of and within Philosophy, the Arts, Architecture and reassuring confirmation of the ability of the average person to comprehend - without mathematics - what was otherwise considered non-mathematically incomprehensible.

Mr. Mehta (and like minded acolytes):
If you are not dissuaded from your present course; if you disagree with this qualified geometric definition, sir: you are advised to take your argument to Martin Gardner's (exemplary) RELATIVITY FOR THE MILLIONS, and P. D. Ouspensky's Chapter On The 4th Dimension, in A NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE, as well as every authority (and/or dilletante) on General Relativity's 4th dimension of time & motion - every applied example of the 4-D 'Super-Cube', known or heard of by this record.

The 4th dimension of accelerating expansion of matter constitutes the 'pushing' /'impelling/'/attractive' effects of gravity on or near a major gravitational mass.
Whereas, the 5th & 6th Dimensions of Electricity & Magnetism <invariably generated by, and constantly emitting from the 4th dimension of matter, re: Maxwell's discovery of the existence and spider-web sgaped, inverse square law structure>: causing 'action-at-a-distance' - terrestrial, aquatic and atmospheric tidal effects, for example.

Gravity - the 4-D space-time continuum - at earlier, microcosmic moments, is the controversial, enigmatic and equivocationally 'identified': 'strong, nuclear binding force'.

Gravity at larger, later moments (of chronologically sequential space-time - A, B, C acceleration <from the convergent bottom 'ending' of the considered 'V' shape of expansion; actually shaped more as structural 'dimple' - in the rubber sheet - of Riemannian Geometry, possibly generating what are presently and recently called chrono-spatial 'curls' and 'curlicues' - not unlike thin shavings of wood from a fine plane>, to the ) constituting the same 'weaker' force, at a later, larger moment, relative to observers, who are always exactly in the middle of the V (apple or pizza pie) shaped representation of Past - smaller more dense space-time (re: 'black hole singularities, if they exist).

That is to say, the microcosms are as infinitely endless as the macrocosms. If Dear Reader finds the points being made here, redundant, this record may only beg pardon, for the characteristically called upon 'adjustment' to these all time prevelant, but previously unrecognized, disconnected composites of reality at large.

There is no 'ending' of space at the small end of the diagrammatic V representing the ever enlarging arrow of 4-D space-time. Where the V shape formed by two lines, intersect with each other at the 'beginning', represent the '3-Dimensional' 'end' of space-time, whereas, in a 4-D universe - such as that within which we are proven to live and be part of, whether we recognize it or not - smallness (Moment A) - the microcosms - is just as endless and dense, as infinite largeness (Moment C); with 'us' always directly in the (Moment B) center of the eternally V shaped (approximently shaped) diagram of space-time.

(Perhaps better represented by the characteristic shape of Riemannian Geometry, where the transient structure approximately curves back toward itself - refer the north and south polarities of a given electron, planet or sun, where the electromagnetic field is generated by and projected from the 'upper' - north - pole, to curve back around the physical structure - electron, planet, sun or star - and return to and within the south pole of such electromagnetic field-generating elements, ad infinitum,: complementing the relativistic axiom that mass value increases with velocity; wherein such a bi-polar system may sustain, maintain and enlarge itself: the larger the faster the faster the larger: squared...)

Orbiting satellites, natural and artificial, do not actually describe circular or elliptical orbits, but rather, spirals - @ .
Citing the example of a person running around an apparently 3-D circular track, likewise actually describing a 4-D - @ - spiral with each completion of whatever round or ecliptic track being jogged upon or raced over...

The planet Mercury is astrophysically observed to 'inexplicably' lose 46 seconds of arc per century. Whereas, this 'unexplainable' loss is probably due to the exclusion of calculating it's orbit to be 4 - Diimensionally spiral @ shaped, instead of 3- dimensionally circular or elliptical. All the other planets likewise, 'inexplicably' lose lesser but measurable amounts of seconds of arc per century; probably for the same reason...
(For further details and information on these issues, please honor this record with a study of - and perhaps a response to - the content and import ofthe theoretical physics file, on the multi-topic menu at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ )

Sincerely,
Thanking Mr. Ardeshir Mehta for his straightforward - if wayward - part in the inspiration of this (what started as an) E-mail letter.

Kent Benjamin Robertson
1/1/2005 0100 hrs Saturday
.................................................. .....................................

To whomever may belatedly assert - "Prove it'" - of the issued theoretical physics discussion herein, and it's expanded presentation at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ )

It is not for this record to 'prove' any of this work.
That is (abundantly) done.

( Fait accompli. Making near
that which was distant.
Making easy,
that which was difficult. )

It is for whomever may wish: to gainsay - to disprove it.

To those who would demand: 'Show me where the 4th Dimension is'.

The improved question is: 'Show me where it is not'.

---------------------------------------------

The quasi-world renowned 'skunk fight' associated with this work.

The countlessly colorful social dimensions...

Anonymous vituperations and curses will only further embroil trespassers.
Several of whom are cleverly camped out, and conferencing beneath ultraViolet moon - and other - lights:

on the precipice of (epiphanically) learning, 'Tracers work both ways'.

Featuring widely flung deluge of pithy one liners. A downpour of hysterically desperate, flop-flipping pages of off-topic, issue-diverting, self-diagnosed 'reversely confessing' volumes of vulgar grotesqueries have already been wretchedly employed - a matter of history, already self-documented, wrung out and hung out to cure, on the WWW internet.

Where it already has - however helter-skelterly - stationed itself in 'anonymous' fragments, as many (generally indifferent) net cyber surfers are well aware. (Enter 'Kent Benjamin Robertson', and/or <For a good time, call> 'Brian Kirk Parquette' in google.
Whereas, the issued offal (some of which proclaims to be posted by truly yours, including a remarkably well studied 'death threat' to 'kill you all' (somehow relayed out of Canada, rather than 'tracing back' to this record's IP#) - the record will keep this ongoing fascist behavior updated - much of which neither this record nor anyone else; including benevolent webmasters - and the 'taggers' themselves' - have yet been able - or cared to - remove
With clarity and perfection, the insatiably adversarial, quicksand treading and tide shoveling element, impeccably speaks for itself:
behooves, merits and beckons archiving & editing; for the constructive caveat - and education - of whomever may deign to learn, the rest of the <extensively brief, slap-happy, augered-in, smoking & flame-fanning> story...
Re: work in progress: http://einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 thru _4 ; which only very recently demanded a sequel - Part II - of it's 4 decade extended originators and notably registered - special circumstance enveloped - new ensemble of (undeniably stunning) confederate recruits.

A 'faction (fiction based on fact ) story.
Some of the criminally culpable contributors and accessorial participants in the story are <understandably> taking it personally.

May have something to do wth the culminating fact that there's no statute of <Arizona - originating> state, or federal <itle 18: conspiracy> limitations on what they're self proved to be individually and collectively responsible for <How they do carry on.
Presently working diligently to pass accesorial status to a third generation. Re: CHINATOWN: Starring Jack Nicholson and Sharon Stone <Fade Done-Away?>)

Post Script
(To Whomever it May - or Not - Concern):
Are gravity, electricity & magnetism really the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions?
Or, has the author only cleverly built his theory around reality, so that - until further notice - no one can tell the difference?):

P.P.S. Please address any email to
kraziequus@yahoo.com)
(The pewter is hiccupping on aol.)

***************************

Excerpts from (referenced) formal discussions on geometric definitions, follow:

including a commonly misunderstood - quasi anarchistic interpretation of the multiple definitions for 'dimensions', and how they are mal-applied to Einstein's 4th.

Point (geometry)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A spatial point is an entity with a location in space but no extent (volume, area or length). In geometry, a point therefore captures the notion of location; no further information is captured. Points are used in the basic language of geometry, physics, vector graphics (both 2d and 3d), and many other fields. In mathematics generally, any form of space is considered as made up of points as basic elements.



Points in Euclidean geometry
A point in Euclidean geometry has no size, orientation, or any other feature except position. Euclid's axioms or postulates assert in some cases that points exist: for example, they assert that if two lines on a plane are not parallel, there is exactly one point that lies on both of them. Euclid sometimes implicitly assumed facts that did not follow from the axioms (for example about the ordering of points on lines, and occasionally about the existence of points distinct from a finite list of points). Therefore the traditional axiomatization of point was not entirely complete and definitive.



Points in Cartesian geometry
Intuitively one can understand a location in 3d space. This location could be described with three real number coordinates: for instance
P = (2,6,9). But one can also describe points in 1, 2 or more than 3 dimensions. The description of a point is quite similar to the description of a spatial vector, which also can exist in space with dimensions from one to many.

The conceptual difference between these notions is significant, though: a point indicates a location, while a vector indicates a direction and length. If a distinguished point (the origin) is given, one can describe a location by giving the direction and distance from the origin to that point."

(*Mr. Mehta, most of the excerpted material here is cogent to our debat,e whereas the following paragraph seems to include several contingent issues in our correspondence and posturing - you seem for example, to object to (my employment of) the application of 'Cartesian Coordinates.

Moreover, you may agree, an ensemble of contingencies applicable to our debate, emerges in this paragraph (from Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia. via google. To a point <no puns intended> it sounds like your point, and then again: not...)

Note your quasi- dismissal - w'out substantiation or explanation '- 'how would you describe the 4th dimension in spatial terms?'

The unprovided answer (apparently presumed to be 'unanswerable') being that the 3 dimensions at issue here are constantly moving at right angles, growing ever larger, ever faster, ever larger, faster, squared - refer the square of Pi r and E-MC. Refer the international recognition and status of the otherwise unrecognized proof<s> of the 'SuperCube'... Indeed:

A frequently considered issue, including the one you invoked, is:

"What do we mean - what is meant - by 'Space'?

'This is really a question about what we mean by "space-time."

Refer Einstein's 'space-time' (Time being synonymous with motion, and conversely. That is to say: space 'and' time <like electricity and magetism>: are inseparable).

Mr. Mehta. You will find the above quotes in the below - verbatim - paragraph, from the provided source:

"One could argue that in this world it makes no sense to say that a point is in a one or two dimensional space, because we experience space in 3 dimensions, where one or two dimensions exists within this space, thus forcing 1d and 2d points to actually be 3d points. This way one could say that the only real spatial points are 3d points. And one could also argue that by giving more than 3 coordinates one starts to describe features which are not related to space (how would you describe the fourth dimension in spatial terms?) This is really a question about what we mean by space."



Points in Differential Geometry
Here is where the difference between points and vector becomes obvious; here is where the atomic nature of points becomes clear.

See also:
point (topology)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_%28geometry%29"
Categories: Geometry

Thank you for reading this acknowledged extensive, hopefully self-explicitly redemptive, problem solving, issue resolving missive.

Best Regards

*****************
KaiduOrkhon. Aka The White Mongol. Mystic Horse

^That Rascal Puff

(Protege of Big 'Ol Aweful Earnie
& Lion-Dog <Wolverine Totem> Guardians of the Imperial Chinese DragonThrone)

A Subsidiary Aegis to the Ordu of
Great Continental EuroAsian Green Grass RiverDragon Productions.

^ Kent Benjamin Robertson.
kraziequus@yahoo.com

http://einstein.periphery.cc/

^ World's #1 Einstein Groupie
^ Apprentice of Albert ('The Axe') Einstein:
THE LAST MAN STANDING
Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

***************************************