"Building Universes using Extreme Relativity" (TOE+)

[Eric_Brown]

A Theory of Everything (TOE) is proposed called Building Universes.

This well-defined effort related to controlling time was continuously disrupted by Darby, RMT, & Einstein; with Darby the only one providing any useful insight.

The continuous derailing of useful effort is wholly unproductive.

I was not a focus of your disruptive attacks. But you make the Time Travel Institute an environment which supports wasted effort, and discourages theoretical development into actual experimentation.


Now I'm looking again for a physics development forum.

With its present corporate culture, the Time Travel Institute will be the last place time travel will actively be explored.

 

[Darby]

it accounts for electromagnetism, gravity

Then it's only half a theory - not a theory of everything. It pretty much has to also include and explain the strong force so we have atomic nuclei and the weak force so we can have electric charge, quarks, quark spin flip, hadrons, beta decay...

 

[Einstein]

I think when everyone jumps off the theory bandwagon, we all can get back on the road to understanding using facts instead.

 

[Darby]

Yeah, yeah...I'm more of a philosopher than I am a physicist and not good at either.

Don't feel too bad about not being a physicist. James Dunn (the author) isn't a physicist himself.

Building Universes using Extreme Relativity [licensed for non-commercial use only] / QESdunn - Creating Space-Time (CST)

As you do more research into this there's one item on his site, his "physics" aside, that should give you pause to consider whether he's making sense or a typical Internet crank:

Reviewed by over 700 physicists and others interested in controlling space-time​

before being published as a book.​

​

​

"Reviewed by over 700 physicists and others". This is intended to leave one with the impression that the book was peer reviewed by 700 physicists. BS. Maybe he spammed 700 physicists with email touting the book but 700+ physicists didn't read the book. And his statement doesn't say 700 physicists reviewed it. Maybe 1 "physicist" (himself perhaps?) has read it and 699 "others" have read it.​

​

When the author has to stretch (and 700+ is a huge stretch) the truth to sell his book then he's a crank. When they are selling thair cranky science as a $59.95 paperback ($69.95 hardcover) watch your wallet.​

​

In 1998 Dr. John Baez, a physicist at UC Riverside, published a humorous and well known little paper online named "The Crackpot Index". It's a way to score possibly cranky statements and determine if the person is a crackpot. You start by giving him/her -5 points. If they end up scoring +50 points they are a kook.​

​

Right off the bat he scores a +20 for naming his theory after himself (QESdunn) - #25 on the index.​

​

Up to +7,000! points if he actually, without solicitation, emailed this information to 700+ physicists. +10 points for each one. #12 on the Index. (And he's still get the +7000 if the 700+ "physicists" are actually posters on any of the alt-sci several forums he posts on. That actually takes it from cranky to outright planned, intentional deception.)​

​

At least +10 points for inventing new terms without adequate definition (Extreme Relativity is one example). #14 on the Index.​

​

And last, +2 points for every clearly vaccuous statement...and there are a poop-load of them. One such statement is that his "theory" is ready for commercial implimentation. Another is the cry for gov'mit control to make sure the bad and evil capitalists can't control entire universes. Well, it's technically true that it's ready for commercial implimentation if you consider the commercial implimentation of the "theory" to be the $59.95 he rakes in every time someone goes onto Lulu and buys his book. But that's really not the message he's sending to the poor book buyers, correct? They're supposed to assume that he means commercial implimentation of time travel, weather control, etc. #2 on the Index.​

​

I implore you, when reading this sort of thing on the Internet (elsewhere as well, but specifically the Internet) to look deeply into what is written; judge it - no silly New Agey open mind required - for what it appears to be. Doubly so if the potential crank is asking for your money. Not every Internet crank is an otherwise anonymous mental case. Some want you and your money to occupy different spacetime coordinates in our universe (or at least different spacetime coordinates on our planet).​

​

​

​

​

 

[RainmanTime]

Is there a plausible explanation for time in another form that is plausible? I'll take whatever shortcuts I can get to find related information.

There is, but first there are no shortcuts, and second it does not fit well with how the lay person conceives time. Our human perceptions tell untruths to us that time is independent of mass and space. But what Einstein showed us (the real one, not the one on this forum) is that space and time are integrated. Space-time. To think of them separately is merely an approximation for convenience, and leads to incorrect conclusions. The human being loves linear, decoupled solutions for describing the universe around them, because it makes it easy to understand. But the universe is complex, and its realities do not yield to our desires for simple explanations.

In many of my posts here, stretching back thru the years to 2003, I have pointed out that not only is the concept of time (as an independent measure) misleading, and the facts of Relativity when it comes to space-time correct, but we must take it even further and understand that mass is also not independent of space-time. They must all three be taken together to arrive at an accurate representation of reality.

One clue to this are the conservation laws (e.g conservation of energy, conservation of momentum). When you look at some of the various ways of representing momentum and energy in kinematic equation form, you quickly see that these are integrated metrics of mass, space, and time:

Momentum = mass*velocity which has units of [Mass]*[Space]/[Time]
Energy = mass*velocity^2 which has units of [Mass]*[Space]^2/[Time]^2

The fact that ONLY integrated metrics (I call them Massive SpaceTime metrics) can be shown to be conserved is the clue that the universe can only be understood in an integrated manner. Our quest in the domain of knowledge as humans has always been to achieve more and more accuracy in our description of the universe. To do that, we must stop treating Mas, Time, and Space as if they are independent quantities. They are not. And the more accuracy and precision we need to make larger scientific breakthroughs, the less we can rely on the approximations which assume Mass, Time, and Space are separate.

You need to stop thinking of "Time" as an independent variable. It is not. Once you do this, your quest for knowledge will accelerate.

RMT

 

[Darby]

I don't know where to go with this, but its interesting that the units are not so different.

You don't have to go much further, actually. The units really are not so different.

The speed of light, c, in the equation is the constant of proportionality which in general terms can be expressed as x = ky. You can use it as the factor by which you are able to state space or time in the same units by using c to convert units of length (space) to units of time and vice versa...because it contains both terms. Thus 1 sec (time) = 300,000 km (space); 1 km (space) = 1/300,000 sec (time). It sure makes doing the math a lot easier when you don't have to multiply or divide apples by oranges. You convert everything to the same unit of measurement and do the math.

Oh - be careful using * when we're talking math. I saw k* and at first thought you were referring to the complex conjugate of k. It stalled me out for a moment. Then I saw the other * and realized you were highlighting the phrase.

 

[RainmanTime]

Eric,

I am having a few problems here. One is that I am not sure which words are the author's and which are yours. So I would ask you try to clearly offset the author's words from yours. Maybe using the {quote}{/quote} html tags (turn those curly brackets into straight ones when you use them) would help?

My second problem is more fundamental. As an engineer I use precise language and as such I do not read-into or presume things when I am confronted with language that is not precise nor clear. And just from the excerpts from this book you have offered so far, this author uses language in a vague manner, and that causes trouble for us engineers.

Here is the first problem:

"recursive/scalar causality (space) is predictable given an interleave of evolutionary/scalar causality (time)"

I am not really sure what this sentence means, for several reasons. First is his use of "/". I am not sure what it means to say "recursive/scalar". Is this recursive or scalar"? Is he saying recursive causality is the same as space? If so, he needs to substantiate it just as he would have to substantiate if the second "/" phrase means that evolutionary causality is the same as time. But more troubling is he seems to be making a claim that the former is predictable given an "interleave" of the latter, but I would need to know what context he is using for "interleave". To put it a bit more simply, and bluntly, that sentence does not say much of anything to me from a technical nature. Sometimes I refer to such sentences as "word salad." If you are reading specific meaning into it, perhaps you can tell me what you think it says, precisely?

Later on page 38.

"Consider the "recursive" nature of our formulation of Joule where mass, length, and time are mass as a large collection of length and time elements (space and time) and a Higgs-Boson moderator [a described type of singularity, a scalar constant]."

This is also confusing language. Why does he use quotes with "recursive"? Does he not mean recursive in its literal sense? It would seem so, and then I would want to know in what sense he is using "recursive" as a metaphor. And I have no clue why he would say the formulation of Joule (an SI measure of energy) is recursive. It is not. A Joule is equal to a kilogram (a unit of mass) multiplied by meters^2/second^2 (a velocity squared). Why he says "mass as a large collection of length and time elements" boggles my mind. A Joule is just the mass of an object expressed in kilograms multiplied by its velocity, squared. What is "recursive" about this? And I am totally lost as to why he brings up "a Higgs-Boson moderator" (whatever that is). He does not clearly relate this "moderator" to his discusion of the Joule. Not meaning to be nasty, but again I must call this "world salad." No precise meaning comes to my mind as a result of reading it.

E is a recursive relationship of k*space/time * space/time (joules for instance)
m is a recursive relationship of k* space/time

I presume these are your words, but I am confused again as to what you are expressing in these two lines. Please explain why you think it is recursive. Is it because velocity (space/time) appears twice? If so, that is not recursive. It is merely a squared quantity. Help me understand precisely what you are saying here. I also do not understand why you would say "m" (mass?) is a recursive relationship of "k*space/time". Are you really talking about momentum here? (mass*velocity = mass*space/time)

Sorry if I am not picking up on what you are saying, but again as an engineer I do not assume or read into things I do not understand when people communicate with me. I need you to be more precise about exactly what you are trying to get across to me.

Otherwise, why would there be a constant relationship between these sets of relationships?

OK now THAT was recursive! "Constant relationship between these sets of relationships"... I am terribly confused about what you are trying to say. Help?

Thanks,
RMT

 

[Darby]

Ray,

Thanks for the last post. I had similar questions about the "recursive/scalar" sentence.

Because Dunn seems to be mixing physics terms with engineering and computer science terms I was having a hard time figuring out what he meant. It's further confounding when he states he wrote the book with scientists in mind (among other professionals). They'd have less difficulty reading it because it would probably be tossed aside after reading the "abstract"

Preaching to the Choir Here: Another clue - the "abstract" certainly does not follow the APA Guideline for research papers; 625 words where the guideline is 150 to 250 max words in the abstract. The entire reason for strictly limiting the length of the abstract is to allow other researchers to quickly get his point without becoming bored. Science professionals who are scanning abstracts looking for something in their field don't have time to read 600 word abstracts. I have to believe that you may have marked down a research paper or two submitted by your engineering students due to "ill conceived" abstracts.

I even considered, because he was referring to math, that he was indicating division of the recursive term by the scalar term - which didn't make much sense (not that any of it does make sense - it seems to be a rambling missive with techno-babble tossed in). In any case, the book is not something that was written by a professional for the consumption of professionals.

Eric,

Honestly, did you actually buy this book? You seem to be able to quote from internal pages not listed on his site(s) so you must have a copy of it.

And another honest answer - and please don't be offended if the answer is "no". This is a logical question:

Are you Mr. Dunn and if not, do you have any sort of personal and/or business relationship with him that would cause you to promote his publication?

Note: We have to ask these questions because if the honest answer is "no" you should know that in the past there have been events where similar situations arose and after doing our own research here, the honest answer should have been "yes".

If the honest answer is "yes" just say so and none's the harm. We can still discuss the book.

 

[Darby]

Eric & Ray,

Just a follow-up to the "abstract" portion of my previous post:

In all honesty, because this concerns a book rather than an actual research paper, I have a suspicion that his use of the term abstract instead of foreword (which it properly seems to be) is just another instance of techno-babble intended to lend an aire of "scientific research paper" to an otherwise alt-sci/New Agey Sci popular consumption book.

 

[Darby]

Darby:
Regarding the speed of light as a constant, what I was trying to get at is the idea of: what is left over if you isolate velocity(space/time) out of Einstein's equation?

It's done all the time in physics. You'll see equations where the author notes that (s)he has used "normalized units". That means that the following universal (Planck) constants have been set to "1" in the equation: G (Gravitational Constant), h-bar (reduced Planck Constant), k _e(Coulomb Constant), K_b (Boltzmann's Constant) and c (Speed of light in a vacuum).

By setting them to 1 they have no effect on the equation other than to keep the units straight. So, in E=mc^2, if you set c = 1 what you have left is E = m. And that is what is meant by energy is equivalent to mass.

Using normalized units is not always appropriate, however. Imagine that you were working on the Manhattan Project during 1942-1944 and E=mc^2 was stated in normalized units in each and every equation used for the project (and each and every physicist and engineer was an idiot for not realizing it). You would have underestimated the energy released in a nuclear detonation by a factor of 90 billion.

Energy may be the equivalent of mass but energy is not the same physical thing as mass. The mass has to be multiplied by 90 billion (c^2) in order to see the relationship between mass and energy: 1 unit of mass is equal to 90 billion units of energy.

 

[John Thomas]

You can't solve for Gravity if you don't know what Gravity is. And if Gravity is part of your equation, then your equation is incorrect.

Time, space, gravity and mass are all interconnected.

 

[Darby]

You can't solve for Gravity if you don't know what Gravity is. And if Gravity is part of your equation, then your equation is incorrect.

What? You don't need to "know what gravity is" to correctly solve an equation that correctly describes a physical system.

Where do people come up with these silly notions? Public school?

1. +1 - for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2. +2 - for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3. +3 - for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
4. +10 – for arguing that while a well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn’t explain “why” they occur or fails to provide a “mechanism”

 

[John Thomas]

You can describe a physical system enough to implement technology that masters the system to a lesser degree. But gravity affects every physical system. Therefore every formula is incorrect to a certain degree because we do not understand the mathematical impact of gravity on the system.

 

[RainmanTime]

Therefore every formula is incorrect to a certain degree

You can end your sentence right there, and there is no need for the conditional that follows. This is because EVERY formula is but an approximation. You cannot show me a single formula that is exact. Each new breakthrough in physics is an improvement upon past approximations, but yet each new equation in physics is still an approximation.

because we do not understand the mathematical impact of gravity on the system.

This is untrue, as stated. Were it true we could have never landed a probe so precisely on Mars as we did with Curiosity, Spirit, Opportunity, the Vikings, etc.

I get the distinct feeling you enjoy throwing out BS just to see if someone might let it stick to the wall and stink up the place. I guess that would make Darby and myself the janitors of this place. Dirty job, but someone has to do it.
RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

But my brief interpretation is that he cites three forms of quantum causality systems that due to their innate nature, form aliased relationships. Simple and Evolutionary are fundemental, and Recursive is potentially formed from the prior two or may be a fundemental entity of its own. Therefore Recursive/Scalar refers to recursive systems of causality that are attached to scalar systems of simple causality (Higgs Field? Though the author says otherwise.). The common scalar base provides a connected nature of systems to form a perspective to see how relativity can be considered.

At some point in the book he talked about computer modeling of causal relationships, something about Chaos Theory.

Unfortunately, Eric, the language is all just too vague for me to be of any help here. It sounds to me like this author likes to throw out the terms "quantum" and "causality" and "system" in an attempt to get his readers to believe he knows what he is talking about. And I would submit that many readers (not necessarily implying you) may read these vague terms and assign some sort of internal meaning to them that may or may not conform to whatever the author's intended meaning may have been (if he even had a real meaning in the first place).

As a systems engineering architect who also teaches systems engineering, I can say that many people use the word "system" as a cover-all. But a system has a very precise definition in my business. A system is a collection of physical components and interfaces, that perform transformative functions which involve exchanges of power and energy, to achieve some operational result. Whenever someone uses the term "system" when I supect they are using it as a vague catch-all, I question them on it and ask them to specifically describe what "system" they are referring to by describing, at least any one of the three "dimensions" of a system I outline above. Can you describe its operational intent? What the system is trying to achieve? Can you describe is functional transformations? How does it take in power and energy and transform it to achieve that operational result? Can you describe the physical components and their physical means of transferring power and energy (interfaces)? If they cannot, then they are not describing a system, but merely using the word to sound scientific.

Same with "quantum" and same with "causality". So, I am afraid I have to bow out of this discussion.
RMT

 

[Darby]

You can describe a physical system enough to implement technology that masters the system to a lesser degree. But gravity affects every physical system. Therefore every formula is incorrect to a certain degree because we do not understand the mathematical impact of gravity on the system.

Every scientific theory is correct to an approximation. That's why we state physical phenomena in terms of domains and limits in the math. This is not new news and it is not a surprise to anyone. However, we can mathematically state the final velocity, instantaneous velocity, acceleration, jerk, etc. to many decimal places of accuracy when given the initial state of the system.

You changed your statement only after I pointed out the fallacy of the original.

+5 for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
Running total: 21

 

[John Thomas]

Every scientific theory is correct to an approximation. That's why we state physical phenomena in terms of domains and limits in the math. This is not new news and it is not a surprise to anyone. However, we can mathematically state the final velocity, instantaneous velocity, acceleration, jerk, etc. to many decimal places of accuracy when given the initial state of the system.

You changed your statement only after I pointed out the fallacy of the original.

+5 for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
Running total: 21

How are you going to describe a physical phenomena you've never seen? You've got to observe it before you can state something about it.

 

[John Thomas]

This is untrue, as stated. Were it true we could have never landed a probe so precisely on Mars as we did with Curiosity, Spirit, Opportunity, the Vikings, etc.

I get the distinct feeling you enjoy throwing out BS just to see if someone might let it stick to the wall and stink up the place. I guess that would make Darby and myself the janitors of this place. Dirty job, but someone has to do it.
RMT

Are we talking about landing a probe on the face of Mars or are we talking about time travel? This is a discussion about the theory of everything. That means every model. We don't understand every model or the impact of gravity on every model.

 

[Darby]

How are you going to describe a physical phenomena you've never seen? You've got to observe it before you can state something about it.

I've never seen energy, nor has anyone else present or past. But given the initial state of a system we can describe, mathematically, what will occur and what energy was involed if we take some action on the system. We can then experimentally verify, or refute, the prediction.

No one has nor ever will "see" an electron. But we can make predictions about electrons and verify the predictions experimentally. We will never see one because it takes some form of electromagnetic energy - photons for example - to light them up. Electrons are so small that in order to see one the wavelength of the photons would have to be many orders of magnitude smaller than the "diameter" of an electron. Shorter wavelength equals larger energy. In this case hard gamma rays. It's using a 155 mm howitzer projectile to detect a flea.

A serious question. Did you take any physical science courses in high school or college?

 

[John Thomas]

I've never seen energy, nor has anyone else present or past. But given the initial state of a system we can describe, mathematically, what will occur and what energy was involed if we take some action on the system. We can then experimentally verify, or refute, the prediction.

No one has nor ever will "see" an electron. But we can make predictions about electrons and verify the predictions experimentally. We will never see one because it takes some form of electromagnetic energy - photons for example - to light them up. Electrons are so small that in order to see one the wavelength of the photons would have to be many orders of magnitude smaller than the "diameter" of an electron. Shorter wavelength equals larger energy. In this case hard gamma rays. It's using a 155 mm howitzer projectile to detect a flea.

A serious question. Did you take any physical science courses in high school or college?

Serious question? Are you a fortune teller? No? Then how do you know no one will ever see an electron? You're making assumptions based on current technology.