Essay Abstract

I walk into my Princeton advisor John Archibald Wheeler's third-floor Jadwin Hall office one fine autumn afternoon to find him gazing out the window at October's burning leaves. Wheeler senses my presence and slowly turns towards me, dressed in his crisp signature suit and tie, his fist lightly clenched. He solemnly states, "Today's physics lacks the Noble," his blue eyes smiling, "And it's your generation's duty to bring it back." The following year (1990) Wheeler would hand me the booklet he had printed, called "It from Bit," engraved with the quantum black hole on the cover. The book would inspire the "physics as information movement," while Wheeler's far greater call to adventure--to return honor to physics--would be lost in time, as it wasn't quite as profitable as pursuits in the fiat-debt funded, dishonorable, ignoble realms of untestable, failed groupthink "physics." The classical, exalted Spirit of physics, embodied by Wheeler and his teacher Bohr, his colleague Einstein, and his student Feynman, was sacrificed on the altar of fiat misinformation, as hundreds of millions of dollars disappeared down the black hole of the postmodern soul and progress in physics ground to a halt. Tragic as it might seem, the pseudo-physicists had to deny the heroic Spirit of Einstein, Bohr, Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus--of Wheeler and Feynam--and thus of Moving Dimensions Theory . And just as MDT first appeared in Dr. E's artificial retina physics Ph.D. dissertation which is now helping the blind see, so too am I devoting myself to helping the world see the banished beauty and wisdom of Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Feynman, et al. The great J.A. Wheeler had called me to adventure with, "Today's physics lacks the Noble, and it's your generation's duty to bring it back," as wisdom--as philo-sophy--the love of wisdom--trumps mere information.

Author Bio

In high school, theoretical physicist Dr. Elliot McGucken received the Bausch & Lomb Science Award, the William Tenney Scholar-Athlete Award, and the Judith Resnik Memorial Scholarship which helped him attend Princeton University. Dr. E's Ph.D. research titled "Multiple unit artificial retina chipset to aid the visually impaired and enhanced holed-emitter CMOS phototransistors" received several Fight for Sight and NSF grants, as well as a Merrill Lynch Innovations award. The late J.A. Wheeler wrote, "More intellectual curiosity, versatility and yen for physics than Elliot McGucken's I have never seen in any senior or graduate student."

Greetings Professor McGucken,

It's good to see that you have an entry in this year's contest, especially as a distinguished student of John Wheeler. I've not read a word yet of this essay, but your abstract puts it at the top of my reading list. If I don't miss my guess, this paper is a follow up of some of the comments you made on last year's essay page, about how Physics is done, and I look forward to reading it - while waiting for my own essay to appear.

I am actively engaged in a research project now, where it is proposed that playful exploration is essential for learning at all levels, and makes a good general metaphor for learning. Because it is geometrically constructivist, I theorize it can be generalized into a mathematical description of the process of abstraction, which appears to have natural connections with the deep inner structure of Math.

After seeing your many comments and quotes last year, about the value of play, I imagine this essay thread will be a good place to talk about that. I hear the same story from Cog Sci folks, Neuroscientists, Educators, and Physics researchers at the frontiers. Notably; Nobel laureates and top Physics experts are the most emphatic about the need to allow researchers to play. Would you care to comment about this, while I begin reading your essay?

Have Fun!

Jonathan

    Dr. Elliot,

    If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

    Jim

    An interesting essay sir.

    I think you proved your point, by the end, but portions of the opening took on the flavor of a rant that does not compel the reader to read further. But assuming you did have a point besides railing at the sorry state of modern Physics, and being a cheerleader of your own work, I kept going. I'm glad I did read to the end, as you do demonstrate that MDT can aptly explain what we observe.

    Everything you say appears reasonable, except that you seem to believe the superiority of your approach should be intuitively obvious. The problem is rather that one must be able to suspend judgment and look at things with child-like eyes, to consider a possibility such as the one you have offered, given what the orthodoxy says or the consensus is compelled to believe.

    Unfortunately; rejecting the orthodoxy does not get the job done. Instead; you must encourage people to think for themselves, or to have a child-like openness for a radically simpler model like the one you propose. You have failed to deliver on that promise in this essay, in large measure because the bashing of the opposition took center stage.

    I may comment further later, as I am not fan of String theory, et al.

    Regards,

    Jonathan

    Taking the liberty to say more..

    I heartily agree that some edgy pursuits within Physics, like String Theory, have garnered a large share of the funding - despite producing minimal results for maximal effort. It might have been better, had the ST folks not been so convincing that theirs was the ultimate theory, but there is too much appeal for those with the reductionist mindset. I guess some things will never be explained, like the Einstellung effect that renders theories like yours invisible.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Dear Professor McGucken,

    My spirits were uplifted by your abstract alone and even more so by your essay. Thank you. I can't say there was one comment or emotion I disagreed with. It was clearly and confidently written too, both qualities also often sacrificed to the falsities you describe. I've felt quite unsupported working bottom up from quantum optics and using a highly empirical basis for ontological construction. I feel I've escaped from dishonesty and falsity and made great progress, but am exploring the new clearer territory quite alone.

    Your theory itself reminds me a little of an old concept of mine that time is non-linear. Far less provable than your model, though of course 'proof' is a relative concept. I'd like to see your essay in the van as it deserves to be.

    In particular as an authority on the mechanism of the lens and also the EPR paradox I hope I can prevail on you to read my essay, which I think proposes important conceptual advances, emergent from a new more consistent underlying interpretation of nature. Please be aware the essay builds a working model from an apparently slightly disparate assembly of components, including many anomalies found 'under the carpet' as inconsistent with old physics and astronomy doctrines. I really feel and hope you could help develop my thesis and look forward to your views. ("The Intelligent Bit").

    I also look forward to a better understanding of your own unique model, and discovering how it can explain the things you refer. You'll be aware Smoot proposed a similar but very localised variable expansion approach to the CMB anisotropies, though that ultimately hit constraints I've been able to remove.

    I'd appreciate it you can provide any links to your key papers.

    Many thanks and best wishes.

    Peter

      Dear Prof Elliot,

      Thank you very much for a nice essay presented us. Your association with Wheeler is overwhelming.

      So sir do you think just information is sufficient to create matter from nothing......?

      And...

      I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

      I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

      Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

      Best

      =snp

      snp.gupta@gmail.com

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

      Pdf download:

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

      Part of abstract:

      - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

      Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

      A

      Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

      ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

      . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

      B.

      Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

      Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

      C

      Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

      "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

      1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

      2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

      3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

      4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

      D

      Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

      It from bit - where are bit come from?

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

      ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

      Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

      E

      Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

      .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

      I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

        Dear Jonathan,

        A fuller treatment of Moving Dimensions Theory--the definitive *physical* theory of our era--is offered in numerous papers/threads:

        http://herosjourneyphysics.wordpress.com/

        PAPERS/RESEARCH ON TIME:

        E. McGucken, MDT's dx4/dt=ic Triumphs Over the Wrong Physical Assumption That Time Is a Dimension, http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1429

        E. McGucken, On the Emergence of QM, Relativity, Entropy, Time, iħ, and ic from the Foundational, Physical Reality of a Fourth Dimension x4 Expanding with a Discrete (Digital) Wavelength lp at c Relative to Three Continuous (Analog) Spatial Dimensions,

        http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/873 , February 2011

        E. McGucken, What is Ultimately Possible in Physics? Physics! A Hero's Journey with Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, and the Greats towards Moving Dimensions Theory. E pur si muove! http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/511, September 16th, 2009

        E. McGucken, Time as an Emergent Phenomenon:Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238, August 2008

        http://herosjourneyphysics.wordpress.com/three-foundational-papers-on-moving-dimensions-theory-time-as-an-emergent-phenomenon-traveling-back-to-the-heroic-age-of-physics-by-dr-elliot-mcgucken/

        Three Foundational Papers on Moving Dimensions Theory: Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by Dr. Elliot McGucken

        Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics In Memory of John Archibald Wheeler by Dr. Elliot McGucken

        What is Ultimately Possible in Physics? Physics! A Hero's Journey with Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, and the Greats towards Moving Dimensions Theory. E pur si muove!

        On the Emergence of QM, Relativity, Entropy, Time, iħ, and ic from the Foundational, Physical Reality of a Fourth Dimension x4 Expanding with a Discrete (Digital) Wavelength lp at c Relative to Three Continuous (Analog) Spatial Dimensions

        Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by Dr. Elliot McGucken

        Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Aug. 25, 2008 @ 18:38 GMT

        Essay Abstract

        In his 1912 Manuscript on Relativity, Einstein never stated that time

        is the fourth dimension, but rather he wrote x4 = ict. The fourth

        dimension is not time, but ict. Despite this, prominent physicists

        have oft equated time and the fourth dimension, leading to un-

        resolvable paradoxes and confusion regarding time's physical nature,

        as physicists mistakenly projected properties of the three spatial

        dimensions onto a time dimension, resulting in curious concepts

        including frozen time and block universes in which the past and future

        are omni-present, thusly denying free will, while implying the

        possibility of time travel into the past, which visitors from the

        future have yet to verify. Beginning with the postulate that time is

        an emergent phenomenon resulting from a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, diverse phenomena from relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical

        mechanics are accounted for. Time dilation, the equivalence of mass

        and energy, nonlocality, wave-particle duality, and entropy are shown

        to arise from a common, deeper physical reality expressed with dx4/

        dt=ic. This postulate and equation, from which Einstein's relativity

        is derived, presents a fundamental model accounting for the emergence

        of time, the constant velocity of light, the fact that the maximum

        velocity is c, and the fact that c is independent of the velocity of

        the source, as photons are but matter surfing a fourth expanding

        dimension. In general relativity, Einstein showed that the dimensions

        themselves could bend, curve, and move. The present theory extends

        this principle, postulating that the fourth dimension is moving

        independently of the three spatial dimensions, distributing locality

        and fathering time. This physical model underlies and accounts for

        time in quantum mechanics, relativity, and statistical mechanics, as

        well as entropy, the universe's expansion, and time's arrows.

        http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/873

        http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/511

        http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

        Author Bio

        "Dr. E" received a B.A. in physics from Princeton University and a

        Ph.D. in physics from UNC Chapel Hill, where his research on an

        artificial retina, which is now helping the blind see, appeared in

        Business Week and Popular Science and was awarded a Merrill Lynch

        Innovations Grant. While at Princeton, McGucken worked on projects

        concerning quantum mechanics and general relativity with the late John Wheeler, and the projects combined to form an appendix treating time as an emergent phenomenon in his dissertation. McGucken is writing a book for the Artistic Entrepreneurship & Technology

        (artsentrepreneurship.com) curriculum he created.

        TOPIC: What is Ultimately Possible in Physics? Physics! A Hero's

        Journey with Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein,

        Schrodinger, Bohr, and the Greats towards Moving Dimensions Theory. E pur si muove! by Dr. Elliot McGucken [refresh]

        Author Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 14:14 GMT

        Essay Abstract

        Over the past few decades prominent physicists have noted that physics has diverged away from its heroic journey defined by boldly

        describing, fathoming, and characterizing foundational truths of

        physical reality via simple, elegant, logically-consistent postulates

        and equations humbling themselves before empirical reality. Herein the spirit of physics is again exalted by the heroic words of the Greats--

        by Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, and

        Schrodinger--the Founding Fathers upon whose shoulders physics stands.

        And from that pinnacle, a novel physical theory is proposed, complete

        with a novel physical model celebrating a hitherto unsung universal

        invariant and an equation reflecting the foundational physical reality

        of a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial

        dimensions at the rate of c, or dx4/dt=ic, providing both the

        "elementary foundations" for relativity and QM's "characteristic

        trait"--entanglement, and its nonlocal, probabilistic nature. From

        MDT's experimentally-verified equation relativity is derived while

        time is unfrozen and free will exalted, while a physical model

        accounting for quantum nonlocality is presented. Entropy, Huygens'

        Principle; the wave/particle, energy/mass, space/time, and E/B

        dualities; and time and all its arrows and asymmetries emerge from a

        common, foundational physical model. MDT exalts Einstein's "empirical facts," "naturalness," and "logical simplicity." For the first time in the history of relativity, change is woven into the fabric of space-time, and the timeless, ageless, nonlocal photon of Galileo's/

        Einstein's "empirical world" is explained via a foundational physical

        model, alongside the fact that c is both constant and the maximum

        velocity in the universe. The empirical GPS clocks' time dilation/

        twins paradox is resolved by proposing a frame of absolute rest--the

        three spatial dimensions, and a frame of absolute motion--the fourth

        expanding dimension upon which ageless photons of zero rest mass surf; which underlie and give rise to Einstein's Principle of Relativity.

        Author Bio

        "Dr. E" received a B.A. in physics from Princeton University and a

        Ph.D. in physics from UNC Chapel Hill, where his research on an

        artificial retina, which is now helping the blind see, appeared in

        NSF's Frontiers and Popular Science and was awarded a Merrill Lynch

        Innovations Grant. While at Princeton, McGucken worked on projects

        concerning quantum mechanics and general relativity with the late John A. Wheeler, and the projects combined to form an appendix treating time as an emergent phenomenon in his dissertation. McGucken is writing a book artsentrepreneurship.com curriculum he created: The Gold 45 Revolver: The Hero's Journey.

        On the Emergence of QM, Relativity, Entropy, Time, iħ, and ic... by

        Elliot McGucken [refresh]

        This essay's rating: Community = 2.2; Public = 3.4

        Would you like to rate this essay?

        Author Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 16:08 GMT

        Essay Abstract

        The photon is used to physically probe and trace the discrete,

        digital, dynamic nature of x4 as the quantum nature of physical

        measurement is examined, while the foundational papers of Planck,

        Bohr, Heisenberg, et al. are exalted, lead by Einstein's statement

        that physics "starts from experience and ends in it." In its simplest

        case, a photon oscillates while propagating at c as a probabilistic

        wave-front expanding through the three spatial dimensions in a

        spherically-symmetric manner, as demonstrated by the classic double-

        slit experiment, leading to the natural conclusion that x4, in which

        the photon remains stationary according to relativity, must thusly be

        oscillating and propagating at c as a spherically-symmetric expanding

        wavefront. Relativity informs us that all of a photon's motion is

        through the three spatial dimensions, thusly dictating that the

        timeless, ageless photon remains stationary in the fourth dimension

        x4. As electromagnetic radiation (the photon) is quantized, while

        there is no evidence for quantum gravity, we may conclude that x4 is

        quantized and digital in nature, while the three spatial dimensions

        are continuous and analog in nature. qp-pq=iħ (Born & Heisenberg) and

        x4=ict or dx4/dt=ic (Einstein & Minkowski) are fundamental

        relationships of QM and relativity. Both equations have differentials

        on the left and an i on the right, as Bohr noted, suggesting that a

        foundational change is occurring in a "perpendicular" manner, implying

        a fourth moving dimension. qp-pq = iħ reflects the discrete increment

        and quantum action--ħ --that emerges from the dynamic, discretely

        parceled space-time geometry born by the discrete wavelength of x4's

        expansion; while dx4/dt=ic, from which relativity and its postulates

        derive, sets the velocity of the expansion of x4 to c. A physical

        model encompassing both Einstein's "elementary foundations" of

        relativity and Schrodinger's "characteristic trait" of QM--entanglement--

        is presented.

        HERO'S JOURNEY PHYSICS

        Riding with Einstein, Galileo, Copernicus, Planck, Bohr, Newton, and

        Feynman beyond the String Theory Multiverse Landscape, and on towards

        the Holy Grail of Physics--Moving Dimensions' Theory's dx4/dt=ic.

        by Dr. Elliot McGucken

        Time as an Emergent Phenomenon & Deriving Einstein's Relativity from

        Moving Dimensions Theory's dx4/dt=ic: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age

        of Physics

        In Memory of John Archibald Wheeler

        by Dr. Elliot McGucken

        MDT's postulate: The fourth dimensions is expanding relative to the

        three spatial dimensions at c. MDT's equation: dx4/dt=ic.

        Simple, logical proofs of MDT:

        MDT PROOF#1: Relativity tells us that a timeless, ageless photon

        remains in one place in the fourth dimension. Quantum mechanics tells

        us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding

        wavefront at the velocity of c. Ergo, the fourth dimension must be

        expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c,

        in a spherically-symmetric manner. The expansion of the fourth

        dimension is the source of nonlocality, entanglement, time and all its

        arrows and asymmetries, c, relativity, entropy, free will, and all

        motion, change, and measurement, for no measurement can be made

        without change. For the first time in the history of relativity,

        change has been wedded to the fundamental fabric of spacetime in MDT.

        MDT PROOF#2: Einstein (1912 Man. on Rel.) and Minkowski wrote

        x4=ict. Ergo dx4/dt=ic.

        MDT PROOF#3: The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial

        dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way

        to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the

        three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at c

        relative to the three spatial dimensions.

        MDT twitter proof (limited to 140 characters): SR: photon is

        stationary in 4th dimension. QM: photon is probability wave expanding

        @ c. Ergo: 4th dimension expands @ c & MDT: dx4/dt=ic -from

        http://twitter.com/45surf

        ABSTRACT

        In his 1912 Manuscript on Relativity, Einstein never stated that time

        is the fourth dimension, but rather he wrote x4 = ict. The fourth

        dimension is not time, but ict. Despite this, prominent physicists

        have oft equated time and the fourth dimension, leading to un-

        resolvable paradoxes and confusion regarding time's physical nature,

        as physicists mistakenly projected properties of the three spatial

        dimensions onto a time dimension, resulting in curious concepts

        including frozen time and block universes in which the past and future

        are omni-present, thusly denying free will, while implying the

        possibility of time travel into the past, which visitors from the

        future have yet to verify. Beginning with the postulate that time is

        an emergent phenomenon resulting from a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, diverse phenomena from relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical

        mechanics are accounted for and unified with a hitherto unsung

        universal invariant dx4/dt=ic. Time dilation, the equivalence of mass

        and energy, quantum entanglement, nonlocality, wave-particle duality,

        and entropy are shown to arise from a common, deeper physical reality

        expressed with dx4/dt=ic. This postulate and equation, from which

        Einstein's relativity is derived, presents a fundamental model

        accounting for the emergence of time, the constant velocity of light,

        the fact that the maximum velocity is c, and the fact that c is

        independent of the velocity of the source, as photons are but matter

        surfing a fourth expanding dimension. In general relativity, Einstein

        showed that the dimensions themselves could bend, curve, and move.

        The present theory extends this principle, postulating that the fourth

        dimension is moving independently of the three spatial dimensions,

        distributing locality and fathering time. This physical model

        underlies and accounts for time in quantum mechanics, relativity, and

        statistical mechanics, as well as entropy, the universe's expansion,

        and time's arrows and asymmetries in all arenas.

        "More intellectual curiosity, versatility and yen for physics than

        Elliot McGucken's I have never seen in any senior or graduate

        student. . . Originality, powerful motivation, and a can-do spirit

        make me think that McGucken is a top bet for graduate school in

        physics. . . I say this on the basis of close contacts with him over

        the past year and a half. . . I gave him as an independent task to

        figure out the time factor in the standard Schwarzchild expression

        around a spherically- symmetric center of attraction. I gave him the

        proofs of my new general-audience, calculus-free book on general

        relativity, A Journey Into Gravity and Space Time. There the space

        part of the Schwarzchild geometric is worked out by purely geometric

        methods. "Can you, by poor-man's reasoning, derive what I never have,

        the time part?" He could and did, and wrote it all up in a

        beautifully clear account. . . .his second junior paper . . .entitled

        Within a Context, was done with another advisor, and dealt with an

        entirely different part of physics, the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky

        experiment and delayed choice experiments in general. . . this paper

        was so outstanding. . . I am absolutely delighted that this semester

        McGucken is doing a project with the cyclotron group on time reversal

        asymmetry. Electronics, machine-shop work and making equipment

        function are things in which he now revels. But he revels in

        Shakespeare, too. Acting the part of Prospero in the Tempest. . . "

        -John Archibald Wheeler, Princeton University, Recommendation for

        Elliot McGucken for Admission to Graduate School of Physics

        Best,

        Dr. EAttachment #1: 1_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpgAttachment #2: 2_figure9.jpg

        Thanks Peter--glad you enjoyed the spirit of the Homerica, heroic poetry! :) After all, Socrates cited the Noble Courage of Homer's Achilles when Socrates chose death for his Truth rather than the dishonor of changing the Truth he taught.

        Yes the modern fiat-debt-funded "physicists" have banished Honor and Nobility from Physics. That has been their greatest single innovation.

        Most do not know this, but it was not always thus. I was lucky to have known the Great Wheeler, to have glimpsed the "heroic age of physics." :)

        You'll enjoy "Hero's Journey Physics:"

        http://herosjourneyphysics.wordpress.com/

        MDT Honors the Greats' Definition of Science

        Einstein and Galileo embodied and exalted the heroic spirit in which Moving Dimensions Theory was conceived:

        "But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. (Yes! Moving dimensions theory begins in experience-the double slit experiment, entropy, relativity, nonlocality, time and all it arrows and asymmetries, and it ends in experience, by providing a physical model predicting all these entities!) Propositions arrived at by purely logical means (String theory, loop quantum gravity (which might not even use logic)) are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics--indeed, of modern science altogether. -Einstein, Ideas and Opinions

        Einstein's above quote is quite prominent in its complete absence from today's leading "physics" books and blogs, as are many of the Greats' quotes below, wherein the Greats define what science is and ought to be-wherein they define what science has ever been. Einstein states that, "all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it," and a glaring problem with string theory is that nobody has ever seen a tiny little string (and thus ST does not begin in experience), nor measured one, nor conceived of an experiment that would allow us to see strings (and thus ST does not, and cannot end in experience either). Nor has anyone ever seen a multiverse, nor come up with a way of measuring or detecting multiverses. Nor has anyone ever come across any of the tiny, little loops of loop quantum gravity, nor any way to detect nor measure tiny little loops. So it is that all these non-theories begin in the imagination, and end in it. One will hear their proponents singing of the great beauty of their theories, but then, when one asks them for the fundamental equation, they are unable to produce any. Indeed, it turns out there are millions of equivalent non-theories with various amounts of dimensions, with ever-changing math which never adds up to predict anything we see in physical reality. In that sense, the theories are actually quite ugly. Especially when compared to the simple beauty of Moving Dimensions Theory's simple, fundamental, far-ranging equation, dx4/dt=ic, which predicts nonlocality, entanglement (the fundamental characteristic of QM according to Schrodenger), entropy, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, and from which all of relativity is derived. dx4/dt=ic is more fundamental than relativity's two physical postualtes, as both of relativity's postulates arise from it.

        Karl Popper: Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again.

        Karl Popper: Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.

        Karl Popper: In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.

        If we are to write a scientific book, we must first of all define what science is and ought be. In order to do this, I turn towards the greatest scientists and philosophers of all time--those Founding Fathers who are never quoted, nor mentioned, nor exalted in the myriad of books devoted to string theory, multiverses, loop quantum gravity, and other mathematical farses, failures, and frauds perpetuated for fleeting fortune and fame, of funded by the very same fiat-debt regimes which fail on moral and spiritual levels by privatizing profits and socializing risks. Below are the scientsists I boldly ride forth with--many were persecuted in their own day and age by the cruelty and ignorance of their peers, as I am today by the proud imposters gaining tenure for treatises on space aliens, multiverses, parallel universes, strings, loops, and countless other imaginary conjectures with absolutely no physical reality, but only fiat realties. But just as S=klogw is engraved on Ludwig von Boltzman's tombstone, after his theory of entropy was derided, castigated, ignored, and impugned by his peers, contributing to his suicide, so too shall dx4/dt=ic be engraved on my tombstone, as sure ax xp-px=ih is engraved on Max Born's tombstone. Here is how the Greats define science:

        When the solution is simple, God is answering.[ii] -Einstein

        A physical theory can be satisfactory only if its structures are composed of elementary foundations. The theory of relativity is ultimately as little satisfactory as, for example, classical thermodynamics was before Boltzmann had interpreted the entropy as probability.[iii] -Einstein

        Max Born wrote, "All great discoveries in experimental physics have been made due to the intuition of men who made free use of models which for them were not products of the imagination but representations of real things."

        Albert Einstein: Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial.

        Isaac Newton: No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.

        Sir Isaac Newton: "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."

        Isaac Newton: I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

        Isaac Newton: If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.

        Isaac Newton: We build too many walls and not enough bridges.

        Richard Feynman: Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. . . . Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

        Isaac Newton: As the ocean is never full of water, so is the heart never full of love."

        Sir Isaac Newton: This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

        Einstein: Play Is The Highest Form Of Research.

        Albert Einstein: Once it was recognised that the earth was not the center of the world, but only one of the smaller planets, the illusion of the central significance of man himself became untenable. Hence, Nicolaus Copernicus, through his work and the greatness of his personality, taught man to be honest. (Albert Einstein, Message on the 410th Anniversary of the Death of Copernicus, 1953)

        To me there has never been a higher source of earthly honor or distinction than that connected with advances in science.[iv] -Newton

        The only real valuable thing is intuition. -Einstein

        A person starts to live when he can live outside himself. -Einstein

        The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education. -Einstein

        Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. -Einstein

        No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.[v] -Newton

        For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.[vi] - Einstein

        If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.[vii] -Newton

        In questions of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual.[viii] -Galileo

        Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But thought and ideas (the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c), not formulae (dx4/dt=ic), are the beginning of every physical theory.[ix] --Einstein/Infeld, The Evolution of Physics

        But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics--indeed, of modern science altogether. -Einstein[x], Ideas and Opinions

        Epur si muove - (And yet it does move.)[xi] -Galileo

        .. my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope.[xii] -Galileo

        A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up with it.[xiii] -Planck

        Planck: Let us get down to bedrock facts. The beginning of every act of knowing, and therefore the starting-point of every science, must be our own personal experience.[xiv] (All physicists have personally experienced the double-slit experiment, and as relativity tells us that photons remain stationary in x4, x4 must thus be propagating at c with both a wavelike and quantum nature!)

        Einstein: Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.[xv]

        Einstein: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis. [xvi]

        Planck: That we do not construct the external world to suit our own ends in the pursuit of science, but that vice versa the external world forces itself upon our recognition with its own elemental power, is a point which ought to be categorically asserted again and again . . . From the fact that in studying the happenings of nature . . . it is clear that we always look for the basic thing behind the dependent thing, for what is absolute behind what is relative, for the reality behind the appearance and for what abides behind what is transitory. . this is characteristic not only of physical science but of all science.[xvii] (dx4/dt=ic is the "basic, abiding thing" behind all relativity, entropy, and QM!)

        Einstein: Truth is what stands the test of experience.[xviii]

        Heisenberg: Science. . . is based on personal experience, or on the experience of others, reliably reported. . . Even today we can still learn from Goethe . . . trusting that this reality will then also reflect the essence of things, the 'one, the good, and the true.[xix]

        Since we experience both particles and waves, and since the Greats agree that physics begins and ends in experience, MDT follows the Greats in providing a foundational model underlying the physical, experiential reality of waves and particles--of the analog and digital--of relativity, QM, and entropy, as well as time and all its arrows and asymmetries. MDT agrees with the Greats:

        Schrodinger: The world is given but once. . . The world extended in space and time is but our representation. Experience does not give us the slightest clue of its being anything besides that. [xx]

        Bohr: The classical concepts, i.e., "wave" and "corpuscle" do not fully describe the real world and are, moreover, complementary in part, and hence contradictory. . . . Nor can we avoid occasional contradictions; nevertheless, the images help us to draw nearer to the real facts. Their existence no one should deny. "Truth dwells in the deeps." [xxi]

        Schrodinger: Everything--anything at all--is at the same time particle and field.[xxii] (This is because MDT's expanding x4 is continually spreading and distributing locality.)

        Einstein: Time and again the passion for understanding has led to the illusion that man is able to comprehend the objective world rationally by pure thought without any empirical foundations--in short, by metaphysics.[xxiii] (MDT begins and ends with empirical foundations!)

        Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius--and a lot of courage--to move in the opposite direction.[xxiv] -Einstein

        Mathematicians may flatter themselves that they possess new ideas which mere human language is as yet unable to express. Let them make the effort to express these ideas in appropriate words without the aid of symbols, and if they succeed they will not only lay us laymen under a lasting obligation, but, we venture to say, they will find themselves very much enlightened during the process, and will even be doubtful whether the ideas as expressed in symbols had ever quite found their way out of the equations into their minds.[xxv] -Maxwell

        I don't believe in mathematics.[xxvi] -Einstein

        Sir Francis Bacon: And all depends on keeping the eye steadily fixed upon the facts of nature and so receiving their images simply as they are. For God forbid that we should give out a dream of our own imagination for a pattern of the world; rather may he graciously grant to us to write an apocalypse or true vision of the footsteps of the Creator imprinted on his creatures.

        Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that mine are greater.[xxvii] -Einstein

        Geometry is not true, it is advantageous.[xxviii] -Poincare

        John Wilkins: I shall most insist on the observation of Galilæus, the inventor of that famous perspective, whereby we may discern the heavens har by us; whereby those things others have formerly guessed at, are manifested to the eye, and plainly discovered beyond exception of a doubt. -1638

        Science's heroic spirit comes from the scientists, philosophers, and poets of yore. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote, "Science arose from poetry--when times change the two can meet again on a higher level as friends," and Socrates who mentored Plato who mentored Aristotle who inspired Copernicus, Newton, and Galileo, cited the heroic acts of Achilles as his epic inspiration.Attachment #1: 2_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpgAttachment #2: 3_figure9.jpg

        Thanks Satyavarapu,

        Yes! Glad you enjoyed the heroic poetry. :) Yes as you say: "The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology."

        Never before in the history of physics has there been such a massively well-funded group of failed, arrogant, snakry, preening, covetous, talentless, handwaving sophists whose gargantuan ambitions and massive egos far, far outstrip their meager abilities. Never before has their been such a cruel, cowardly, fallen, ignoble, dishonorable regime of utter, complete, and repeat failure.

        Well, as Wheeler called us to adventure, I'm on a hero's journey to change all that: http://herosjourneyphysics.wordpress.com/

        Join us as we return Nobility and Honor to Physics! The Nobility and Honor of Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, Wheeler, Born, Planck, Feynman et al.!

        Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT) Honors the Greats' Definition of Science •July 10, 2011 • Leave a Comment

        MDT Honors the Greats' Definition of Science

        Karl Popper: Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again.

        Karl Popper: Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.

        But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics--indeed, of modern science altogether. -Einstein, Ideas and Opinions

        Karl Popper: In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.

        Firstoff, if we are to write a scientific book, we must first of all define what science is and ought be. In order to do this, I turn towards the greatest scientists and philosophers of all time--those Founding Fathers who are never quoted, nor mentioned, nor exalted in the myriad of books devoted to string theory, multiverses, loop quantum gravity, and other mathematical farses, failures, and frauds perpetuated for fleeting fortune and fame, of funded by the very same fiat-debt regimes which fail on moral and spiritual levels by privatizing profits and socializing risks. Below are the scientsists I boldly ride forth with--many were persecuted in their own day and age by the cruelty and ignorance of their peers, as I am today by the proud imposters gaining tenure for treatises on space aliens, multiverses, parallel universes, strings, loops, and countless other conjectures with absolutely no physical reality, but only fiat realties. But just as S=klogw is engraved on Ludwig von Boltzman's tombstone, after his theory of entropy was derided, castigated, ignored, and impugned by his peers, contributing to his suicide, so too shall dx4/dt=ic be engraved on my tombstone, as sure ax xp-px=ih is engraved on Max Born's tombstone. Here is how the Greats define science:

        When the solution is simple, God is answering.[ii] -Einstein

        A physical theory can be satisfactory only if its structures are composed of elementary foundations. The theory of relativity is ultimately as little satisfactory as, for example, classical thermodynamics was before Boltzmann had interpreted the entropy as probability.[iii] -Einstein

        Max Born wrote, "All great discoveries in experimental physics have been made due to the intuition of men who made free use of models which for them were not products of the imagination but representations of real things."

        Albert Einstein: Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial.

        Isaac Newton: No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.

        Sir Isaac Newton: "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."

        Isaac Newton: I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

        Isaac Newton: If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.

        Isaac Newton: We build too many walls and not enough bridges.

        Richard Feynman: Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. . . . Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

        Isaac Newton: As the ocean is never full of water, so is the heart never full of love."

        Sir Isaac Newton: This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

        Einstein: Play Is The Highest Form Of Research.

        Albert Einstein: Once it was recognised that the earth was not the center of the world, but only one of the smaller planets, the illusion of the central significance of man himself became untenable. Hence, Nicolaus Copernicus, through his work and the greatness of his personality, taught man to be honest. (Albert Einstein, Message on the 410th Anniversary of the Death of Copernicus, 1953)

        To me there has never been a higher source of earthly honor or distinction than that connected with advances in science.[iv] -Newton

        The only real valuable thing is intuition. -Einstein

        A person starts to live when he can live outside himself. -Einstein

        The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education. -Einstein

        Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. -Einstein

        No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.[v] -Newton

        For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.[vi] - Einstein

        If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.[vii] -Newton

        In questions of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual.[viii] -Galileo

        Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But thought and ideas (the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c), not formulae (dx4/dt=ic), are the beginning of every physical theory.[ix] --Einstein/Infeld, The Evolution of Physics

        But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics--indeed, of modern science altogether. -Einstein[x], Ideas and Opinions

        Epur si muove - (And yet it does move.)[xi] -Galileo

        .. my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope.[xii] -Galileo

        A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up with it.[xiii] -Planck

        Planck: Let us get down to bedrock facts. The beginning of every act of knowing, and therefore the starting-point of every science, must be our own personal experience.[xiv] (All physicists have personally experienced the double-slit experiment, and as relativity tells us that photons remain stationary in x4, x4 must thus be propagating at c with both a wavelike and quantum nature!)

        Einstein: Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.[xv]

        Einstein: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis. [xvi]

        Planck: That we do not construct the external world to suit our own ends in the pursuit of science, but that vice versa the external world forces itself upon our recognition with its own elemental power, is a point which ought to be categorically asserted again and again . . . From the fact that in studying the happenings of nature . . . it is clear that we always look for the basic thing behind the dependent thing, for what is absolute behind what is relative, for the reality behind the appearance and for what abides behind what is transitory. . this is characteristic not only of physical science but of all science.[xvii] (dx4/dt=ic is the "basic, abiding thing" behind all relativity, entropy, and QM!)

        Einstein: Truth is what stands the test of experience.[xviii]

        Heisenberg: Science. . . is based on personal experience, or on the experience of others, reliably reported. . . Even today we can still learn from Goethe . . . trusting that this reality will then also reflect the essence of things, the 'one, the good, and the true.[xix]

        Since we experience both particles and waves, and since the Greats agree that physics begins and ends in experience, MDT follows the Greats in providing a foundational model underlying the physical, experiential reality of waves and particles--of the analog and digital--of relativity, QM, and entropy, as well as time and all its arrows and asymmetries. MDT agrees with the Greats:

        Schrodinger: The world is given but once. . . The world extended in space and time is but our representation. Experience does not give us the slightest clue of its being anything besides that. [xx]

        Bohr: The classical concepts, i.e., "wave" and "corpuscle" do not fully describe the real world and are, moreover, complementary in part, and hence contradictory. . . . Nor can we avoid occasional contradictions; nevertheless, the images help us to draw nearer to the real facts. Their existence no one should deny. "Truth dwells in the deeps." [xxi]

        Schrodinger: Everything--anything at all--is at the same time particle and field.[xxii] (This is because MDT's expanding x4 is continually spreading and distributing locality.)

        Einstein: Time and again the passion for understanding has led to the illusion that man is able to comprehend the objective world rationally by pure thought without any empirical foundations--in short, by metaphysics.[xxiii] (MDT begins and ends with empirical foundations!)

        Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius--and a lot of courage--to move in the opposite direction.[xxiv] -Einstein

        Mathematicians may flatter themselves that they possess new ideas which mere human language is as yet unable to express. Let them make the effort to express these ideas in appropriate words without the aid of symbols, and if they succeed they will not only lay us laymen under a lasting obligation, but, we venture to say, they will find themselves very much enlightened during the process, and will even be doubtful whether the ideas as expressed in symbols had ever quite found their way out of the equations into their minds.[xxv] -Maxwell

        I don't believe in mathematics.[xxvi] -Einstein

        Sir Francis Bacon: And all depends on keeping the eye steadily fixed upon the facts of nature and so receiving their images simply as they are. For God forbid that we should give out a dream of our own imagination for a pattern of the world; rather may he graciously grant to us to write an apocalypse or true vision of the footsteps of the Creator imprinted on his creatures.

        Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that mine are greater.[xxvii] -Einstein

        Geometry is not true, it is advantageous.[xxviii] -Poincare

        John Wilkins: I shall most insist on the observation of Galilæus, the inventor of that famous perspective, whereby we may discern the heavens har by us; whereby those things others have formerly guessed at, are manifested to the eye, and plainly discovered beyond exception of a doubt. -1638

        Science's heroic spirit comes from the scientists, philosophers, and poets of yore. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

        Wrote, "Science arose from poetry--when times change the two can meet again on a higher level as friends," and Socrates who mentored Plato who mentored Aristotle who inspired Copernicus, Newton, and Galileo, cited the heroic acts of Achilles as his epic inspiration.

        In Einstein's Mistakes, Dr. Hans Ohanian reports on how physics advances via the emphasis not on math, but on physical reality, "(Max) Born described the weak point in Einstein's work in those final years: ". . . now he tried to do without any empirical facts, by pure thinking. He believed in the power of reason to guess the laws according to which God built the world.""[xxix] MDT exalts nature and the physical reality of a timeless, ageless photon, providing a simple, unifying physical model for entropy, statistical mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics.

        A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.[xxx] -Plato

        Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.[xxxi] -Einstein

        Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.[xxxii] -Einstein

        In Disturbing the Universe, Freeman Dyson writes, "Dick [Feynman] fought back against my skepticism, arguing that Einstein had failed because he stopped thinking in concrete physical images (as MDT does!) and became a manipulator of equations. I had to admit that was true. The great discoveries of Einstein's earlier years were all based on direct physical intuition. Einstein's later unified theories failed because they were only sets of equations without physical meaning. Dick's sum-over-histories theory was in the spirit of the young Einstein, not of the old Einstein. It was solidly rooted in physical reality."[xxxiii] In The Trouble With Physics, Lee Smolin writes that Bohr was not a Feynman "shut up and calculate" physicist, and from the above Dyson quote, it appears that Feynman wasn't either. Lee writes, "Mara Beller, a historian who has studied his [Bohr's] work in detail, points out that there was not a single calculation in his research notebooks, which were all verbal arguments and pictures."[xxxiv] Please see MDT's Fig. 1, presenting a physical model, at the end of this document. (Many more to come!)

        In Dark Matters, Dr. Percy Seymour writes, "Albert Einstein was a great admirer of Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell. In his office he had framed copies of portraits of these scientists. He had this to say about Faraday and Maxwell: "The greatest change in the axiomatic basis of physics--in other words, of our conception of the structure--since Newton laid the foundation of theoretical physics was brought about by Faraday's and Maxwell's work on electromagnetic phenomena."[xxxv]

        In his book Einstein, Banesh Hoffman and the great Michael Faraday exalt physical reality over mere math:

        Meanwhile, however, the English experimenter Michael Farady was making outstanding experimental discoveries in electricity and magnetism. Being largely self-taught and lacking mathematical facility, he could not interpret his results in the manner of Ampere. And this was fortunate, since it led to a revolution in science. . . most physicists adept at mathematics thought his concepts mathematically naïve.[xxxvi]

        Bohr and Einstein debating the nature of quantum mechanics.

        Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe.

        Neils Bohr: Einstein, stop telling God what to.

        Had Einstein wholeheartedly accepted the physical reality of quantum mechanics and the natural nonlocality and entanglement of photons it implied, perhaps he would have seen that not only were light and time connected in relativity, but that relativity and quantum mechanics were connected by a deeper physical reality of a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. After all, Einstein did write x1=x, x2=y, x3=z, and x4 = ict (implying dx4/dt=ic to those bold enough to see it), only he arrived at this years after he set forth the principle of relativity and its two postulates. MDT starts with a more fundamental physical principle and equation--dx4/dt=ic--and it derives all of relativity while also providing a physical model for quantum entanglement and nonlocality, and thus its probabilistic nature. MDT exalts the beauty of wonderment, asking: "Why Relativity, Entanglement, Entropy, Nonlocality & Time?"

        The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. -Einstein

        The important thing is not to stop questioning.[xxxvii] -Einstein

        And now that the Greats have defined what science is and ought to be, we might also let them define what science isn't. And in doing so, we can contrast MDT's elegant, unifying successes with String Theory's "not even wrongishness" and now entrenched religion of failure. The first page of String Theory in a Nutshell states in a footnoted sentence:

        String Theory has been the leading candidate ... for a theory that consistently unifies all the fundamental forces of nature, including gravity. It gained popularity because it provides a theory that is UV finite.(1) . . . The footnote (1) reads: "Although there is no rigorous proof to all orders that the theory is UV finite..."[xxxviii] -STRING THEORY IN A NUTSHELL

        So you see, string theory is not a finite theory, but this is generally kept to the footnotes, when mentioned at all. Many Nobel Laureate physicists harbor reservations regarding strings:

        We don't know what we are talking about[xxxix]. -Nobel Laureate David Gross on string theory

        It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does not manifest itself. -Einstein to Ehrenfest (Imagine doing this for 10-30+ dimensions!)

        String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses[xl]. - Feynman, Nobel Laureate

        String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick.[xli] -Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate

        Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a "theory" rather a "model" or not even that: just a hunch. After all, a theory should come together with instructions on how to deal with it to identify the things one wishes to describe, in our case the elementary particles, and one should, at least in principle, be able to formulate the rules for calculating the properties of these particles, and how to make new predictions for them. Imagine that I give you a chair, while explaining that the legs are still missing, and that the seat, back and armrest will perhaps be delivered soon; whatever I did give you, can I still call it a chair?[xlii] -'t Hooft, Nobel Laureate

        It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when one person spends 30 years, it's a waste, but when thousands waste 20 years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that curious.[xliii] -Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate

        Richard Feynman, a man about as difficult to bamboozle on scientific topics as any who ever lived, remarked in an interview (p. 180) in 1987, a year before his death:

        ...I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and it is in the wrong direction. ... I don't like that they're not calculating anything. I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation--a fix-up to say "Well, it still might be true."

        Feynman was careful to hedge his remark as being that of an elder statesman of science, who collectively have a history of foolishly considering the speculations of younger researchers to be nonsense, and he would have almost certainly have opposed any effort to cut off funding for superstring research, as it might be right, after all, and should be pursued in parallel with other promising avenues until they make predictions which can be tested by experiment, falsifying and leading to the exclusion of those candidate theories whose predictions are incorrect.

        One wonders, however, what Feynman's reaction would have been had he lived to contemplate the contemporary scene in high energy theoretical physics almost twenty years later. String theory and its progeny still have yet to make a single, falsifiable prediction which can be tested by a physically plausible experiment. This isn't surprising, because after decades of work and tens of thousands of scientific publications, nobody really knows, precisely, what superstring (or M, or whatever) theory really is; there is no equation, or set of equations from which one can draw physical predictions. Leonard Susskind, a co-founder of string theory, observes ironically in his book The Cosmic Landscape (March 2006), "On this score, one might facetiously say that String Theory is the ultimate epitome of elegance. With all the years that String Theory has been studied, no one has ever found a single defining equation! The number at present count is zero. We know neither what the fundamental equations of the theory are or even if it has any." (p. 204). String theory might best be described as the belief that a physically correct theory exists and may eventually be discovered by the research programme conducted under that name. - http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_502.html reviewing Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong

        The problem, to state it in a manner more inflammatory than the measured tone of the author, and in a word of my choosing which I do not believe appears at all in his book, is that contemporary academic research in high energy particle theory is corrupt. As is usually the case with such corruption, the root cause is socialism, although the look-only-left blinders almost universally worn in academia today hides this from most observers there. Dwight D. Eisenhower, however, twigged to it quite early. In his farewell address of January 17th, 1961, which academic collectivists endlessly cite for its (prescient) warning about the "military-industrial complex", he went on to say, although this is rarely quoted,

        In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

        Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

        The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

        And there, of course, is precisely the source of the corruption. This enterprise of theoretical elaboration is funded by taxpayers, who have no say in how their money, taken under threat of coercion, is spent. Which researchers receive funds for what work is largely decided by the researchers themselves, acting as peer review panels. While peer review may work to vet scientific publications, as soon as money becomes involved, the disposition of which can make or break careers, all the venality and naked self- and group-interest which has undone every well-intentioned experiment in collectivism since Robert Owen comes into play, with the completely predictable and tediously repeated results. What began as an altruistic quest driven by intellectual curiosity to discover answers to the deepest questions posed by nature ends up, after a generation of grey collectivism, as a jobs program. In a sense, string theory can be thought of like that other taxpayer-funded and highly hyped program, the space shuttle, which is hideously expensive, dangerous to the careers of those involved with it (albeit in a more direct manner), supported by a standing army composed of some exceptional people and a mass of the mediocre, difficult to close down because it has carefully cultivated a constituency whose own self-interest is invested in continuation of the program, and almost completely unproductive of genuine science.

        - http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_502.html

        I don't like that they're not calculating anything. I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation-a fix-up to say, "Well, it might be true." For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there's a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that's all possible mathematically, but why not seven? . . . So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn't produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn't look right.[xliv] -Nobel Lareate R.P. Feynman

        But superstring physicists have not yet shown that theory really works. They cannot demonstrate that the standard theory is a logical outcome of string theory. They cannot even be sure that their formalism includes a description of such things as protons and electrons. And they have not yet made even one teeny-tiny experimental prediction. Worst of all, superstring theory does not follow as a logical consequence of some appealing set of hypotheses about nature.[xlv] --Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow

        "... There have always been kookie fanatics following strange visions. One of the most kookie, and of course most brilliant, was Einstein himself. It has often been said by my string theory friends that superstrings are going to dominate physics for the next half of a century. Ed Witten has said that. I would like to modify that remark. I would say that string theory will dominate the next fifty years of physics in the same way that Kaluza-Klein theory, another kookie theory upon which string theory is based, has dominated particle physics in the past fifty years. Which is to say, not at all." -Sheldon Glashow

        Burton Richter: The anthropic principle, I think, is one of the most stupid ideas ever to infect the scientific community. Look, the anthropic principle is an observation not an explanation. It is perfectly true that if the electromagnetic force had a significantly different strength, then atoms as we know them and molecules as we know them couldn't exist and we couldn't exist. This is an observation, it doesn't tell you anything about how the electromagnetic force got to be that way. Sure we're here, we're having an interview, that means the electromagnetic force is constrained to be within a certain narrow boundary but the physics is; why is it in that narrow boundary? Now, you can beg that and you can go back to the scholastics in the Middle Ages and their answer would be 'God made it so'. That may turn out to be the only thing...we may never find an explanation. If we don't find an explanation then it's just an arbitrary constant. -Former Director of Stanford Linear Accelerator, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1861083.htm (Burton Richter, Director Emeritus, SLAC)

        Robyn Williams: So the new accelerators could well change our view of the universe, but what Burton Richter isn't so keen on is what he calls the theology that so many theoreticians like Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies goes in for. He wants his physics hard.

        Burton Richter: I called it theological speculation. They seem to have forgotten they have to be connected to physical reality.

        http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1861083.htm (Burton Richter, Director Emeritus, SLAC)

        To me, some of what passes for the most advanced theory in particle physics these days is not really science. When I found myself on a panel recently with three distinguished theorists, I could not resist the opportunity to discuss what I see as major problems in the philosophy behind theory, which seems to have gone off into a kind of metaphysical wonderland. Simply put, much of what currently passes as the most advanced theory looks to be more theological speculation, the development of models with no testable consequences, than it is the development of practical knowledge, the development of models with testable and falsifiable consequences (Karl Popper's definition of science)...

        The anthropic principle is an observation, not an explanation... I have a very hard time accepting the fact that some of our distinguished theorists do not understand the difference between observation and explanation, but it seems to be so... -http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-10/p8.html, Burton Richter, Director Emeritus, SLAC

        String theory has no credibility as a candidate theory of physics. Recognizing failure is a userful part of the scientific strategy. Only when failure is recognized can dead ends be abandoned and useable

        pieces of failed programs be recycled. Aside from possible utility, there is a responsibility to recognize failure. Recognizing failure is an essential part of the scientific ethos. Complete scientific failure must be recognized eventually." -Dan Friedan, early Rutgers String Theorist

        "Likewise, the fact that certain beautiful mathematical forms were used in the period 1905-1974 to make the presently successful theory of physics does not imply that any particular standard of mathematical beauty is fundamental to nature. The evidence is for certain specific mathematical forms, of group theory, di®erential geometry and operator theory. The evidence comes from a limited range of spacetime distances. That range of distances grew so large by historical standards, and the successes of certain specific mathematical forms were so impressive, that there has been an understandable psychological impulse in physicists responsible for the triumph, and in their successors, to believe in a certain standard of mathematical beauty. But history suggests that it is unwise to extrapolate to fundamental principles of nature from the mathematical forms used by theoretical physics in any particular epoch of its history, no matter how impressive their success. Mathematical beauty in physics cannot be separated from usefulness in the real world. The historical exemplars of mathematical beauty in physics, the theory of general relativity and the Dirac equation, obtained their credibility first by explaining prior knowledge. . . General relativity explained Newtonian gravity and special relativity. The Dirac equation explained the non-relativistic, quantum mechanical spinning electron. Both theories then made definite predictions that could be checked. Mathematical beauty in physics cannot be appreciated until after it has proved useful. Past programs in theoretical physics that have attempted to follow a particular standard of mathematical beauty, detached from the requirement of correspondence with existing knowledge, have failed. The evidence for beautiful mathematical forms in nature requires only that a candidate theory of physics explain those specifc mathematical forms that have actually been found, within the range of distances where they have been seen, to an approximation consistent with the accuracy of their observation." -{ 11 {JHEP10(2003)063, Dan Friedan

        This book is about physics, and this implies that theoretical ideas must be supported by experimental facts. Neither supersymmtry nor string theory satisfy this crieterion. They are figments of the theoretical mind. nothing more than an interesting

        The great irony of string theory, however, is that the theory itself is not unified. . . For a theory that makes the claim of providing a unifying framework for all physical laws, it is the supreme irony that the theory itself appears so disunited!![xlvi] Introduction to Superstrings & M-Theory -Kaku

        Is string theory a futile exercise as physics, as I believe it to be? It is an interesting mathematical specialty and has produced and will produce mathematics useful in other contexts, but it seems no more vital as mathematics than other areas of very abstract or specialized math, and doesn't on that basis justify the incredible amount of effort expended on it.

        My belief is based on the fact that string theory is the first science in hundreds of years to be pursued in pre-Baconian fashion, without any adequate experimental guidance. It proposes that Nature is the way we would like it to be rather than the way we see it to be; and it is improbable that Nature thinks the same way we do.

        The sad thing is that, as several young would-be theorists have explained to me, it is so highly developed that it is a full-time job just to keep up with it. That means that other avenues are not being explored by the bright, imaginative young people, and that alternative career paths are blocked.

        --Philip W. Anderson Physicist and Nobel laureate, Princeton

        If Einstein were alive today, he would be horrified at this state of affairs. He would upbraid the profession for allowing this mess to develop and fly into a blind rage over the transformation of his beautiful creations into ideologies and the resulting proliferation of logical inconsistencies. Einstein was an artist and a scholar but above all he was a revolutionary. His approach to physics might be summarized as hypothesizing minimally. Never arguing with experiment, demanding total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated beliefs. The unsubstantial belief of his day was ether, or more precisely the naïve version of ether that preceded relativity. The unsubstantiated belief of our day is relativity itself. It would be perfectly in character for him to reexamine the facts, toss them over in his mind, and conclude that his beloved principle of relativity was not fundamental at all but emergent (emergent from MDT!) . . . It would mean that the fabric of space-time was not simply the stage on which life played out but an organizational phenomenon, and that there might be something beyond.[xlvii] (MDT!) -A Different Universe, Laughlin, Nobel Laureate

        [String Theory] has no practical utility, however, other than to sustain the myth of the ultimate theory. There is no experimental evidence for the existence of strings in nature, nor does the special mathematics of string theory enable known experimental behavior to be calculated or predicted more easily. . . String theory is, in fact, a textbook case of Deceitful Turkey, a beautiful set of ideas that will always remain just barely out of reach. Far from a wonderful technological hope for a greater tomorrow, it is instead the tragic consequence of an obsolete belief system-in which emergence plays no role and dark law does not exist.[xlviii] --A Different Universe, LaughlinAttachment #1: 3_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpgAttachment #2: 4_figure9.jpg

        Dear Jonathan,

        Might you be able to write Stirng Theory's or LQG's equation?

        While MDT has an equation, neither String Theory nor LQG have equations, nor postualtes.

        MDT's postulate: The fourth dimensions is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c.

        MDT's equation: dx4/dt=ic.

        The questions asked and answered by MDT are far-ranging, as MDT is a powerful unifier based upon a simple equation.

        http://herosjourneyphysics.wordpress.com/questions-asked-and-answered-by-moving-dimensions-theory/

        6. Curiosity lead to MDT's Unifying, Foundational Model Underlying QM, Relativity, Entropy, & Time

        Millions saw the apple fall, but Newton was the one who asked why. -Baruch

        Einstein wrote, "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. . . Never lose a holy curiosity."[ii] Wheeler was fond of saying, "No question, no answer,"[iii] and MDT asks and answers the following questions with a simple, unifying, novel physical model: dx4/dt=ic.

        From what foundational reality does relativity emerge? Why the quantum? Why entropy? Why the double slit experiment results? Why no graviton? Why the discrete, digital nature of energy? What foundational model can provide the "elementary foundations" for Einstein's relativity & Schrodinger's "characteristic trait" of QM--entanglement? What foundational model can unfreeze time & liberate us from the block universe, exalting free will? How can we weave change into the fundamental fabric of space-time for the first time in the history of relativity? Why quantum entanglement (QM's characteristic trait) and nonlocality? Why the dualities--space/time, energy/mass, wave/particle, E/B, analog/digital? Why is c invariant--both independent of the source and the observer? Why is a photon defined by a spherically-symmetric expanding wave-front of probability? What single model resolves the EPR & Twin Paradoxes? How do we resurrect time/change after Godel ended time/change? Why can nothing can move faster than c? Why does length-contraction accompany motion? Why is a photon ageless (in relativity--nonlocality in time) and nonlocal in space (in QM)? Why the gravitational slowing of time and the gravitational redshift? What common, foundational physical model underlies QM, relativity, entropy, and time and all its arrows and asymmetries?

        The physical "why?" leads the way as we seek the foundational character of physical reality, with Heisenberg writing[iv], "When a definite mass m is given, in our everyday physics it is perfectly understandable to speak of the position and the velocity of the center of gravity of this mass. In QM, however, the relation pq-qp=-iħ between mass, position, and velocity is believed to hold. Therefore we have good reason to become suspicious every time uncritical use is made of the words "position" and "velocity." . . . The question therefore arises whether, through a more precise analysis of these kinematic and mechanical concepts, it might be possible to clear up the contradictions evident up to now in the physical interpretations of QM and to arrive at a physical understanding of the quantum-mechanical formulas. (bold italics added by author)." MDT provides a physical understanding of the foundational formulas of relativity and QM by presenting a deeper physical model underlying both, which shows that x4 is expanding in a discrete manner proportional to ħ at the rate of c, leading to the quantum and thus the discrete, digital nature of all energy and measurement, as well as to relativity, entropy, nonlocality, entanglement, and time and all its arrows and asymmetries.

        "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." -Albert Einstein

        Yes-entanglement, entropy, time, nonlocality, Huygens' Principle, relativity-how mysterious are all these! And yet if you ask foundational questions such as *why* entanglement, *why* entropy, *why* time, *why* nonlocality, *why* Huygens' Principle, *why* relativity, the richest, wealthiest establishment in the history of physics, which also happens to be the establishment which has contributed the least (perhaps money cannot buy physics and philosophy?), sends forth anonymous postdocs and grad students to launch the snarky, ad-hominem attacks they perfect under the guidance of their pseudo-physicist political mentors.

        So it is that in asking my own questions, I had to find my own way through the woods. And in Arthurian Legend, which Joseph Campbell oft talks about, it is dishonorable to follow someone else's path through the forest, but instead, one must blaze one's own trail. Dante starts off alone in this dark woods in the Divine Comedy, and Morpheus tells Neo, "there is a difference between knowing the path and walking it." "I can tell you of the way, but you must find it and walk it on your own."

        Could you ever imagine Eisenstein working on something he wasn't naturally curious about?

        Here are some of the questions that are answered with Moving Dimensions Theory's simple postulate and equation: "because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic."

        0. Why time? Why time's arrows and asymmetries?

        0.1 Why relativity? Why the principle of relativity? What deeper physical reality underlies relativity?

        0.2 Why entanglement and nonlocality?

        1. Why is light's velocity a constant c? Why relativity's postulates?

        2. Why is light's velocity c independent of its source?

        3. Why is it that nothing can travel faster than c?

        4. Why does a photon, which travels at c, not age?

        5. Why does a photon's spherically-symmetric probablistic wavefront define simultaneity--a locality in the fourth dimension?

        6. Why are energy and mass equivalent? Why E=mc^2?

        7. Why do all of time's arrows point in the same direction--towards dissipation, decoherence, and entropy?

        8. Why do so many physicists say time is the fourth dimension, when Einstein never said x4 is time, but instead said x4 = ict?

        9. Why can matter can appear as energy or mass?

        10. Why is it that when matter appears as pure energy, it propagates at c through space?

        11. Why does all matter have particle--local--and wave--nonlocal--properties?

        12. Why does all energy have particle--local--and wave--nonlocal--properties?

        13. Why is it that when matter appears as stationary mass it propagates at c through the fourth dimension?

        14. Why is it that when matter appears as energy, it propagates at c through the three spatial dimensions?

        15. Why is it that to move at c through space is to stand still in the fourth dimension?

        16. Why is it that to move at c through the fourth dimension is to stand still in space?

        17. Why is it that all objects move at but one speed through space-time--c?

        18. Why is the universe expanding?

        19. Why does radiation expand outwards, but not inwards?

        20. Why do we see retarded waves, but not advanced?

        21. Why is it that entropy imitates the general motion of all radiation and the universe's expansion--a spherically-symmetric expanding wave?

        22. Why is it that Huygens' Principle, which underlies all reality ranging from QED to Feynman's many-paths, to classical physics, state that every point of a spherically-expanding wavefront is in turn a spherically-expanding wavefront?

        23. Why are all photons described by a spherically-expanding wavefront propagating at c?

        24. Why is it that two initially-interacting photons remain entangled, no matter how far they travel apart?

        25. Why is it that two initially-interacting photons remain the exact same age, no matter how far they travel apart?

        26. Why is it that Young's double-slit experiments show that both mass and energy have nonlocal wave properties?

        27. Why is it that the collapse of the wave function is immediate in the photoelectric effect, and all other experiments?

        28. Why is there no way for an object to gain velocity without being reduced in length via relativistic length contraction?

        29. Why does a photon trace out a null vector through space-time? How can movement across the universe describe a path of zero length?

        30. Why does time's arrow point in a definitive direction?

        21. Why does entropy increase?

        32. Why do moving clocks run slow?

        33. Why is time travel into the past impossible?

        34. Why does free will exist?

        35. Why is it that time is not frozen---how come the block universe does not exist? Why do we have free will?

        36. Why does a photon's probabilistic wavefront travel at c?

        37. Why is the velocity of quantum entanglement c? Why is it that only initially interacting particles can yet be entangled? Why is it that they must first share a common locality or origin, in order to share an entangled nonlocality when they are separated?

        38. Why is it that in Schrodenger's equation, the first derivative with respect to the fourth dimension is proportional to the second derivative with the respect to the three spatial dimensions? Any change in position in the fourth expanding dimension is an acceleration in the three spatial dimensions.

        39. Why is it that a photon emitted from the sun is red-shifted as it travels away? It's wavelength appears longer as it is measured against space that is less-stretched. A photon inherits the local geometry of the space-time where it was emitted.

        40. Why do clocks in gravitational fields run slow?

        41. Why are photons red-shifted as they move away from massive objects, and blue-shifted as they move towards them?

        42. Why the conservation laws? Why does an object maintain its rotation in space-time, unless acted upon by an exterior force?

        43. Why is the velocity of every object through space-time c?

        44. Why is it that the only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions?

        45. Why is it that the only way to remain stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c relative to the fourth dimension?

        46. Why does a photon have zero rest mass, and how does zero rest mass imply the velocity of light? None of the object's matter exists in the three spatial dimensions, but only in the fourth expanding dimension.

        47. Why time's arrows?

        48. Why time's asymmetries?

        49. Why entropy?

        50. Why is there an i in x4=ict?

        51. Why is the velocity of light both independent of the velocity of the source and the velocity of the observer?

        52. Why are light, time, and measurement so fundamentally related?

        53. Why the - sign in-front of x4 in the space-time metric? What is different about x4?

        Well, MDT answers all theses questions, and more, with a simple physical postulate and equation: "The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions or dx4/dt = ic."

        Over the years, MDT has provided a *physical* model that answered these and other questions, unifying diverse fields and physical phenomena in a common, simple principle.

        J. Telushkin, Uncommon sense: the world's fullest compendium of wisdom, (S.P.I. Books; 1st edition 1987), p. 230

        [ii] A. Einstein quoted in, The Death of a Genius, LIFE May 2, 1955

        [iii] J.A. Wheeler quoted in Quantum Profiles by Jeremy Bernstein, Princeton University Press, 1990

        [iv] W. Heisenberg, On the Physical Content of Quantum Kinematics and Mechanics, Zeitschrift fur Physik (1927)Attachment #1: 4_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpgAttachment #2: 5_figure9.jpg

        Thank you Dr. E.

        Your reply to my post above was impressive, and later replies to other authors were also informative. My friend Andy recently attended the String Math conference at Stony Brook, and saw how a lot of String Theory folks ended up with egg on their faces, and how some of the Math folks offered concrete ways to fix the flaws and salvage something useful - but encountered roadblocks to a common understanding. He surmised that the reason Witten did not come (though he was the keynote speaker) was that it would have been embarrassing.

        When I first became aware of your work, it was largely because of its resemblance to that of Dr. Johan Masreliez - which I had learned of several years before discovering MDT, on a bulletin board maintained by Phil Gibbs with links to Alternative Theories in Physics and Cosmology. After meeting Dr. M a few years back at CCC-2, and hearing his lecture on a theory eerily similar to yours, I can reasonably assume that you and he arrived at the same result independently. Of course; he asserts that the fourth dimension IS time, but that it expands just like the spatial dimensions - except in discrete steps.

        I must admit, at this point, that I was impressed with Masreliez' work when I first learned of it. So I would be a jerk not to find value in your theory - as it has virtually the same advantages as his construction. But so far as I can tell, he came up with it on his own. So it may be that you and he have a slightly different framing of the same great idea. But perhaps my failure to be more impressed with YOUR accomplishment is that fact that Johan was so emphatic that HE was in possession of what MUST be the ultimate theory, and his evangelism was off-putting, after a while - souring the milk for you.

        Regards,

        Jonathan

          I should add this..

          After the 2nd Crisis in Cosmology conference (CCC-2), there was a lot of e-mail discussion about how to continue the momentum of the conference, and the atmosphere of open inquiry which was prevalent throughout. As I detailed in last year's essay, there were any number of realistic alternatives to the consensus or concordance cosmology (lambda CDM...) offered in lectures. The essay by Vishwakarma details one of the models presented there (or extensions thereof).

          Anyhow; when Johan sent an e-mail to the participants, suggesting that since his theory best explained all the available evidence, the Alternative Cosmology Group should adopt it as their official replacement for Big Bang theory, there were some abrasive replies. It seems the only thing we could agree on is that we did not want a new Canon, but instead needed to honor the individual freedom to explore. In short; nobody wanted a plug-in replacement for the current failed model.

          Rock On!

          Jonathan

          Also,

          The essay by Royce Haynes, talking about the Zero K Big Bang model, is another offering by a CCC-2 participant (expanding on work presented there).

          Jonathan

          Dear Jonathan,

          Does Dr. Johan Masreliez's theory have a postulate or equation? fF so, what is the postulate or equation?

          MDT's postulate: The fourth dimensions is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c.

          MDT's equation: dx4/dt=ic.

          Simple proofs of MDT:

          MDT PROOF#1: Relativity tells us that a timeless, ageless photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension. Quantum mechanics tells us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront at the velocity of c. Ergo, the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, in a spherically-symmetric manner. The expansion of the fourth dimension is the source of nonlocality, entanglement, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, c, relativity, entropy, free will, and all motion, change, and measurement, for no measurement can be made without change. For the first time in the history of relativity, change has been wedded to the fundamental fabric of spacetime in MDT.

          MDT PROOF#2: Einstein (1912 Man. on Rel.) and Minkowski wrote x4=ict. Ergo dx4/dt=ic.

          MDT PROOF#3: The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at c relative to the three spatial dimensions.

          MDT twitter proof (limited to 140 characters): SR: photon is stationary in 4th dimension. QM: photon is probability wave expanding @ c. Ergo: 4th dimension expands @ c & MDT: dx4/dt=ic -from http://twitter.com/45surf

          While Moving Dimensions Theory honors the greats' traditional definitions of science, String Theory, M-Theory, and Multiverse Mania all deny the wisdom of the Greats, as well as physics and physical reality.

          MDT Honors the Greats' Definition of Science

          Einstein and Galileo embodied and exalted the heroic spirit in which Moving Dimensions Theory was conceived:

          "But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. (Yes! Moving dimensions theory begins in experience-the double slit experiment, entropy, relativity, nonlocality, time and all it arrows and asymmetries, and it ends in experience, by providing a physical model predicting all these entities!) Propositions arrived at by purely logical means (String theory, loop quantum gravity (which might not even use logic)) are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics--indeed, of modern science altogether. -Einstein, Ideas and Opinions

          Einstein's above quote is quite prominent in its complete absence from today's leading "physics" books and blogs, as are many of the Greats' quotes below, wherein the Greats define what science is and ought to be-wherein they define what science has ever been. Einstein states that, "all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it," and a glaring problem with string theory is that nobody has ever seen a tiny little string (and thus ST does not begin in experience), nor measured one, nor conceived of an experiment that would allow us to see strings (and thus ST does not, and cannot end in experience either). Nor has anyone ever seen a multiverse, nor come up with a way of measuring or detecting multiverses. Nor has anyone ever come across any of the tiny, little loops of loop quantum gravity, nor any way to detect nor measure tiny little loops. So it is that all these non-theories begin in the imagination, and end in it. One will hear their proponents singing of the great beauty of their theories, but then, when one asks them for the fundamental equation, they are unable to produce any. Indeed, it turns out there are millions of equivalent non-theories with various amounts of dimensions, with ever-changing math which never adds up to predict anything we see in physical reality. In that sense, the theories are actually quite ugly. Especially when compared to the simple beauty of Moving Dimensions Theory's simple, fundamental, far-ranging equation, dx4/dt=ic, which predicts nonlocality, entanglement (the fundamental characteristic of QM according to Schrodenger), entropy, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, and from which all of relativity is derived. dx4/dt=ic is more fundamental than relativity's two physical postualtes, as both of relativity's postulates arise from it.

          Karl Popper: Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again.

          Karl Popper: Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.

          Karl Popper: In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.

          If we are to write a scientific book, we must first of all define what science is and ought be. In order to do this, I turn towards the greatest scientists and philosophers of all time--those Founding Fathers who are never quoted, nor mentioned, nor exalted in the myriad of books devoted to string theory, multiverses, loop quantum gravity, and other mathematical farses, failures, and frauds perpetuated for fleeting fortune and fame, of funded by the very same fiat-debt regimes which fail on moral and spiritual levels by privatizing profits and socializing risks. Below are the scientsists I boldly ride forth with--many were persecuted in their own day and age by the cruelty and ignorance of their peers, as I am today by the proud imposters gaining tenure for treatises on space aliens, multiverses, parallel universes, strings, loops, and countless other imaginary conjectures with absolutely no physical reality, but only fiat realties. But just as S=klogw is engraved on Ludwig von Boltzman's tombstone, after his theory of entropy was derided, castigated, ignored, and impugned by his peers, contributing to his suicide, so too shall dx4/dt=ic be engraved on my tombstone, as sure ax xp-px=ih is engraved on Max Born's tombstone. Here is how the Greats define science:

          When the solution is simple, God is answering.[ii] -Einstein

          A physical theory can be satisfactory only if its structures are composed of elementary foundations. The theory of relativity is ultimately as little satisfactory as, for example, classical thermodynamics was before Boltzmann had interpreted the entropy as probability.[iii] -Einstein

          Max Born wrote, "All great discoveries in experimental physics have been made due to the intuition of men who made free use of models which for them were not products of the imagination but representations of real things."

          Albert Einstein: Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial.

          Isaac Newton: No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.

          Sir Isaac Newton: "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."

          Isaac Newton: I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

          Isaac Newton: If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.

          Isaac Newton: We build too many walls and not enough bridges.

          Richard Feynman: Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. . . . Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

          Isaac Newton: As the ocean is never full of water, so is the heart never full of love."

          Sir Isaac Newton: This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

          Einstein: Play Is The Highest Form Of Research.

          Albert Einstein: Once it was recognised that the earth was not the center of the world, but only one of the smaller planets, the illusion of the central significance of man himself became untenable. Hence, Nicolaus Copernicus, through his work and the greatness of his personality, taught man to be honest. (Albert Einstein, Message on the 410th Anniversary of the Death of Copernicus, 1953)

          To me there has never been a higher source of earthly honor or distinction than that connected with advances in science.[iv] -Newton

          The only real valuable thing is intuition. -Einstein

          A person starts to live when he can live outside himself. -Einstein

          The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education. -Einstein

          Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. -Einstein

          No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.[v] -Newton

          For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.[vi] - Einstein

          If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.[vii] -Newton

          In questions of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual.[viii] -Galileo

          Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But thought and ideas (the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c), not formulae (dx4/dt=ic), are the beginning of every physical theory.[ix] --Einstein/Infeld, The Evolution of Physics

          But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics--indeed, of modern science altogether. -Einstein[x], Ideas and Opinions

          Epur si muove - (And yet it does move.)[xi] -Galileo

          .. my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope.[xii] -Galileo

          A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up with it.[xiii] -Planck

          Planck: Let us get down to bedrock facts. The beginning of every act of knowing, and therefore the starting-point of every science, must be our own personal experience.[xiv] (All physicists have personally experienced the double-slit experiment, and as relativity tells us that photons remain stationary in x4, x4 must thus be propagating at c with both a wavelike and quantum nature!)

          Einstein: Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.[xv]

          Einstein: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis. [xvi]

          Planck: That we do not construct the external world to suit our own ends in the pursuit of science, but that vice versa the external world forces itself upon our recognition with its own elemental power, is a point which ought to be categorically asserted again and again . . . From the fact that in studying the happenings of nature . . . it is clear that we always look for the basic thing behind the dependent thing, for what is absolute behind what is relative, for the reality behind the appearance and for what abides behind what is transitory. . this is characteristic not only of physical science but of all science.[xvii] (dx4/dt=ic is the "basic, abiding thing" behind all relativity, entropy, and QM!)

          Einstein: Truth is what stands the test of experience.[xviii]

          Heisenberg: Science. . . is based on personal experience, or on the experience of others, reliably reported. . . Even today we can still learn from Goethe . . . trusting that this reality will then also reflect the essence of things, the 'one, the good, and the true.[xix]

          Since we experience both particles and waves, and since the Greats agree that physics begins and ends in experience, MDT follows the Greats in providing a foundational model underlying the physical, experiential reality of waves and particles--of the analog and digital--of relativity, QM, and entropy, as well as time and all its arrows and asymmetries. MDT agrees with the Greats:

          Schrodinger: The world is given but once. . . The world extended in space and time is but our representation. Experience does not give us the slightest clue of its being anything besides that. [xx]

          Bohr: The classical concepts, i.e., "wave" and "corpuscle" do not fully describe the real world and are, moreover, complementary in part, and hence contradictory. . . . Nor can we avoid occasional contradictions; nevertheless, the images help us to draw nearer to the real facts. Their existence no one should deny. "Truth dwells in the deeps." [xxi]

          Schrodinger: Everything--anything at all--is at the same time particle and field.[xxii] (This is because MDT's expanding x4 is continually spreading and distributing locality.)

          Einstein: Time and again the passion for understanding has led to the illusion that man is able to comprehend the objective world rationally by pure thought without any empirical foundations--in short, by metaphysics.[xxiii] (MDT begins and ends with empirical foundations!)

          Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius--and a lot of courage--to move in the opposite direction.[xxiv] -Einstein

          Mathematicians may flatter themselves that they possess new ideas which mere human language is as yet unable to express. Let them make the effort to express these ideas in appropriate words without the aid of symbols, and if they succeed they will not only lay us laymen under a lasting obligation, but, we venture to say, they will find themselves very much enlightened during the process, and will even be doubtful whether the ideas as expressed in symbols had ever quite found their way out of the equations into their minds.[xxv] -Maxwell

          I don't believe in mathematics.[xxvi] -Einstein

          Sir Francis Bacon: And all depends on keeping the eye steadily fixed upon the facts of nature and so receiving their images simply as they are. For God forbid that we should give out a dream of our own imagination for a pattern of the world; rather may he graciously grant to us to write an apocalypse or true vision of the footsteps of the Creator imprinted on his creatures.

          Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that mine are greater.[xxvii] -Einstein

          Geometry is not true, it is advantageous.[xxviii] -Poincare

          John Wilkins: I shall most insist on the observation of Galilæus, the inventor of that famous perspective, whereby we may discern the heavens har by us; whereby those things others have formerly guessed at, are manifested to the eye, and plainly discovered beyond exception of a doubt. -1638

          Science's heroic spirit comes from the scientists, philosophers, and poets of yore. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote, "Science arose from poetry--when times change the two can meet again on a higher level as friends," and Socrates who mentored Plato who mentored Aristotle who inspired Copernicus, Newton, and Galileo, cited the heroic acts of Achilles as his epic inspiration.

          In Einstein's Mistakes, Dr. Hans Ohanian reports on how physics advances via the emphasis not on math, but on physical reality, "(Max) Born described the weak point in Einstein's work in those final years: ". . . now he tried to do without any empirical facts, by pure thinking. He believed in the power of reason to guess the laws according to which God built the world.""[xxix] MDT exalts nature and the physical reality of a timeless, ageless photon, providing a simple, unifying physical model for entropy, statistical mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics.

          A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.[xxx] -Plato

          Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.[xxxi] -Einstein

          Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.[xxxii] -Einstein

          In Disturbing the Universe, Freeman Dyson writes, "Dick [Feynman] fought back against my skepticism, arguing that Einstein had failed because he stopped thinking in concrete physical images (as MDT does!) and became a manipulator of equations. I had to admit that was true. The great discoveries of Einstein's earlier years were all based on direct physical intuition. Einstein's later unified theories failed because they were only sets of equations without physical meaning. Dick's sum-over-histories theory was in the spirit of the young Einstein, not of the old Einstein. It was solidly rooted in physical reality."[xxxiii] In The Trouble With Physics, Lee Smolin writes that Bohr was not a Feynman "shut up and calculate" physicist, and from the above Dyson quote, it appears that Feynman wasn't either. Lee writes, "Mara Beller, a historian who has studied his [Bohr's] work in detail, points out that there was not a single calculation in his research notebooks, which were all verbal arguments and pictures."[xxxiv] Please see MDT's Fig. 1, presenting a physical model, at the end of this document. (Many more to come!)

          In Dark Matters, Dr. Percy Seymour writes, "Albert Einstein was a great admirer of Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell. In his office he had framed copies of portraits of these scientists. He had this to say about Faraday and Maxwell: "The greatest change in the axiomatic basis of physics--in other words, of our conception of the structure--since Newton laid the foundation of theoretical physics was brought about by Faraday's and Maxwell's work on electromagnetic phenomena."[xxxv]

          In his book Einstein, Banesh Hoffman and the great Michael Faraday exalt physical reality over mere math:

          Meanwhile, however, the English experimenter Michael Farady was making outstanding experimental discoveries in electricity and magnetism. Being largely self-taught and lacking mathematical facility, he could not interpret his results in the manner of Ampere. And this was fortunate, since it led to a revolution in science. . . most physicists adept at mathematics thought his concepts mathematically naïve.[xxxvi]

          Bohr and Einstein debating the nature of quantum mechanics.

          Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe.

          Neils Bohr: Einstein, stop telling God what to.

          Had Einstein wholeheartedly accepted the physical reality of quantum mechanics and the natural nonlocality and entanglement of photons it implied, perhaps he would have seen that not only were light and time connected in relativity, but that relativity and quantum mechanics were connected by a deeper physical reality of a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. After all, Einstein did write x1=x, x2=y, x3=z, and x4 = ict (implying dx4/dt=ic to those bold enough to see it), only he arrived at this years after he set forth the principle of relativity and its two postulates. MDT starts with a more fundamental physical principle of a fourth expanding dimension and its equation--dx4/dt=ic--and it derives all of relativity while also providing a physical model for quantum entanglement and nonlocality, and thus its probabilistic nature. MDT exalts the beauty of wonderment, asking: "Why Relativity, Entanglement, Entropy, Nonlocality & Time?"

          The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. -Einstein

          The important thing is not to stop questioning.[xxxvii] -Einstein (Why Relativity, Entanglement, Entropy, Nonlocality & Time? because dx4/dt=ic!)

          And now that the Greats have defined what science is and ought to be, we might also let them define what science isn't. And in doing so, we can contrast MDT's simple, beautiful, elegant, unifying successes with String Theory's "not even wrongishness" and now entrenched religion of failure. The first page of String Theory in a Nutshell states in a footnoted sentence:

          String Theory has been the leading candidate ... for a theory that consistently unifies all the fundamental forces of nature, including gravity. It gained popularity because it provides a theory that is UV finite.(1) . . . The footnote (1) reads: "Although there is no rigorous proof to all orders that the theory is UV finite..."[xxxviii] -STRING THEORY IN A NUTSHELL

          So you see, string theory is not a finite theory, but this is generally kept to the footnotes, when mentioned at all. Many esteemed, famous, and Nobel Laureate physicists harbor reservations regarding strings:

          We don't know what we are talking about[xxxix]. -Nobel Laureate David Gross on string theory

          It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does not manifest itself. -Einstein to Ehrenfest (Imagine doing this for 10-30+ dimensions!)

          String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses[xl]. - Feynman, Nobel Laureate

          String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick.[xli] -Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate

          Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a "theory" rather a "model" or not even that: just a hunch. After all, a theory should come together with instructions on how to deal with it to identify the things one wishes to describe, in our case the elementary particles, and one should, at least in principle, be able to formulate the rules for calculating the properties of these particles, and how to make new predictions for them. Imagine that I give you a chair, while explaining that the legs are still missing, and that the seat, back and armrest will perhaps be delivered soon; whatever I did give you, can I still call it a chair?[xlii] -'t Hooft, Nobel Laureate

          It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when one person spends 30 years, it's a waste, but when thousands waste 20 years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that curious.[xliii] -Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate

          Nobel prize winner Martinus Veltman concludes his 2003 book

          facts and mysteries in elementary particle physics

          with:

          The fact is that this book is about physics, and this implies that the

          theoretical ideas must be supported by experimental facts. Neither

          supersymmetry nor string theory satisfy this criterion. They are

          figments of the theoretical mind. To quote Pauli:

          They are not even wrong. They have no place here. -Nobel Laureate Martinus VeltmanAttachment #1: 5_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpgAttachment #2: 6_figure9.jpg

          Thanks (I think) for your somewhat voluminous reply..

          It is probably best for me to step back from this discussion for now, but I have noted there are a few gems (at least) in what you had to say, so I may benefit from later review. Meaning no disrespect; the CCC-2 conference in Port Angeles was back in 2008, and by that point Johan M had a fairly well-developed theory, that I had known about for 8-10 years (prior to that). I can e-mail or post his paper from the conference proceedings, but I'll not do more of your homework for you, and I am sure you are a better judge of the quality of his work than I.

          It is good of you to take the time to educate me and others who might wander here. I shall hold you in high regard, but remain in the realm of the unconvinced but willing to learn - regarding your theory. As with some of the other authors; I think you and I will have many points of agreement, and some sincere differences of opinion or insight. I respect you and the road that brought you here, but my road was different.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

          Dear Jonathan,

          Can you please answer my simple question?

          Does Dr. Johan Masreliez's theory have a postulate or equation? Yes or no?

          IF yes, what is the postulate or equation?

          MDT's postulate: The fourth dimensions is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c.

          MDT's equation: dx4/dt=ic.

          Dear Jonathan,

          Can you please answer my simple question?

          Does Dr. Johan Masreliez's theory have a postulate or equation? IF so, what is the postulate or equation?

          Do you know what equations look like? For instance Newton wrote F=ma and Einstein wrote E=mc^2.

          Does Dr. Johan Masreliez's theory have a postulate or equation?

          Yes or no?

          IF so, what is the postulate or equation?

          Thanks!Attachment #1: 6_1_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpgAttachment #2: 7_figure9.jpg

          Please see below, for full details..

          As I noted above his postulate is that both space and time expand, but time expands in discrete steps. There is more to it. I think he also has time growing at the speed of light, as you do. I have not made a study of his theory, and have been focused on other areas since learning of it years ago, but I figured you would have learned of it by now - given its outward similarity to your work. I provide the file below as a courtesy, so that you may know what the heck I am talking about, not because I feel that Masreliez or his theory is especially worthy of note.

          But you can't make this stuff up.

          Regards,

          Jonathan

          Greetings Professor McGucken,

          (google translation)

          Try to do the opposite of what is being proposed by supporters of string theory, and you're on the right track. Instead of wasting time adding the number of dimensions, you reduce their numbers. Famous Milankovich noticed the contradiction in presenting the movement of light, and movement in general, both in the Cartesian system and in Minkowski's system, 90th years ago. By the way, The words in first sentence in your essay ( The endless cycle of idea and action) are the key words in my essay.

          Reagards Branko