Here, and in subsequent posts, in replies to myself, I deign to rant
somewhat on the way I view the physics community, and how the present
situation therein, and in the sciences at large, are related to my
thesis on tachyonic gravity (as outlined in the previous post).

The reader is free, of course, to post your own comments, regardless
of whether or not your thoughts are related to my comments. This is
an open forum, and I encourage people to speak their minds, as long
as they remain polite.

This group is about discussing the philosophical implications of the
concept of tachyons, and, as a founding premise, the notion that the
endeavor of Tachyonics serves as the cornerstone for the development
of an Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology (ISC) capable of describing
the universe more accurately than has ever been possible before now.

And among the ideas associated with Tachyonics is that of tachyonic
gravity, about which I have written the said thesis.

But if my ideas on tachyons, quantum gravity, and other superluminal
phenomena are to be summarily rejected by science, then I fear that a
number of concepts of profound benefit to humanity could be lost.

It is for that reason that the rejection of my thesis on gravity has
come to the fore in the effort to establish a valid ISC.

Yes, I am one of those "crackpots" you hear about who thinks he has
discovered the answer that no-one else could see, but who contends
that it is not being adopted by mainstream science because it poses a
threat to the status-quo. In particular, it would overturn many a
rather cherished theory; call into question highly-regarded men and
certain of the erroneous notions they have been promoting (preaching)
as "scientific fact" for decades; and wholly revolutionize our way of
thinking about life, the universe, and everything.

Yet, there is no need for them to intimate that my ideas are non-
conformist, and therefore not correct, because they have a much more
potent objection to what I have to say. I have no credentials.
At least, not the kind of credentials they would approve of, for
someone to speak authoritatively on the subject of quantum gravity.

So, I will remain like a voice in the wilderness (a small voice at
that); contenting myself with posting my ideas on the Internet in
hopes of occasionally coming across people who are not opposed to
contemplating new ways of understanding our existence, and who may
enjoy engaging in a discussion or two in a non-derogatory fashion.

More to come.


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


--- In TheAoISCT@yahoogroups.com, "HKurtRichter" <hkurtrichter@...>
wrote:
>
> I Have Found The "Holy Grail" !
>
> Weary of humbling myself any longer, I post the following.
>
> Yes, I have solved the riddle of gravity; successfully unifying
> gravity with the other forces of nature, and obtaining, thereby,
the
> theorist's long sought "Holy Grail" of physics - no less than the
> Grand Unified-Field Theory that Einstein himself was searching
for.
>
> And I am proud that I have done this, though I am considered so
> unqualified to do such a thing that my achievement has been, and
will
> likely continue to be, summarily denounced as "pseudo-science"
> and "nonsense" by many a mainstream physicist.
>
> Please note that I do not have a high-level degree in physics.
> I do library research as a hobby, and theoretical physics is my
> primary area of personal concentration.
> [I actually do have a 3-year AS degree, with a dual major in math
and
> computers, and I am 9 semester-hours from completing major course
> requirements for a BS in applied physics. I am also a very highly
> experienced industrial engineer, with three technical
certifications
> (in electrical, electronics, and refrigeration), but I have been
> doing library research in theoretical physics as a serious
avocation
> for more than 30 years. Nevertheless, I must admit that I do not
> formally have an "advanced" degree in anything.]
>
> So, if you are the kind of reader who would rather not consider the
> work of someone who cannot wave a big degree around, then you can
> discount what I have to say right now, go your merry way, and
assume
> that I have nothing important to reveal to you.
> [And, of course, few like-minded people would blame you.]
>
> But if you allow a person's work to stand on its own merit, and are
> willing to admit that sometimes even an amateur can discover
> something significant, then I invite you to read on.
>
> I have a thesis on quantum gravity, which amounts to my version of
> superluminal gravitation; i.e., the idea that gravity is faster
than
> light, and is therefore a tachyonic force.
> I do not call the thesis a "theory" yet, due to the present lack of
> experimental confirmation for it, but I am convinced of its
validity
> because of the power it has in explaining a large number of
> astronomical observations and laboratory experiments that focus on
> the many and varied aspects of gravity.
>
> The notion that gravity is faster-than-light is not original to me,
> but I have created an original method of representing gravity
> mathematically as due to a very special kind of tachyon which I
have
> named the "Imaginary Gravitational Exchange Tachyon", or "IGET".
>
> For an abbreviated version of my thesis, click the
> "Tachyonic Gravity" link at www.TachyonicsSociety.com.
> There you will see why I feel that I can boast of having solved the
> riddle of gravity.
>
> Indeed, if I may be so bold, it has become evident that I have
found
> a way to unify gravity with the other forces of nature, using gauge-
> field theory, and which has resulted in a surprisingly simple
> mathematical equation from which all of the laws of physics can be
> derived.
>
> To reiterate, I believe that I can now lay claim to having found
> the "Holy Grail" of theoretical physics; the correct formulation
for
> a Grand Unified Field Theory, in which all four of the fundamental
> forces of nature can be represented in a single algebraic
> expression - the word "correct" indicating that the formulation
is
> consistent with all unbiased experimental and observational
> information we have on gravity.
>
> [For the complete 7-page thesis, go to
> http://hometown.aol.com/TachyonicGravity/TLQTtGR01.html.]
>
> The eqation is so simple, in fact, that I can explain it quite
> briefly, as follows.
>
> First, let the letter z denote the full Grand Unified Field
> representation (the sum of the separate gauge-field
representations),
> and let x denote the Unified Field that has already been devised by
> physicists using gauge-field theory, in which the strong and the
weak
> nuclear forces are unified with electromagnetism.
>
> Next, let y denote the gravitational representation, but not
> involving the usuall spin-2 massless graviton. Rather, let y be
> viewed analogous to the imaginary-number part of a complex number,
> and in which gravity is tachyonic in nature; mediated by spinless,
> waveless, uncharged, nonmagnetic, infinitessimally small and
> pointlike tachyons, which travel absolute straight-line paths
through
> space (after being created), and which, by virtue of their reversed
> causality, impart an attraction (a pull) towards their source-mass
> while passing through other masses, and through massless photons
> (because tachyonic radiation pressure is negative).
>
> Then z can be defined; z = x + iy , where i is a new
> imaginary-unit, defined, as a matter of convention, as an operator
> which transforms y into a tachyonic analog of itself; the
> variable "y" representing the Klein-Gordon Lagrangian for a scalar
> spin-0 field, customized for this purpose, or, if you prefer, the
> standard Newtonian (Classical) vector-field function for gravity,
> which can be equated (as I show in my thesis) to the sum of small
> amounts of causally-reversed momenta given-up by the IGETs as they
> pass through objects in space while traveling along their Euclidean-
> straight paths to an infinite distance from their source.
>
> Another stipulation in the said convention, of course, is that the
> speed of the IGETs must stay between lightspeed and infinite speed,
> exclusively, so that infinities will not be introduced into the
> equations of motion.
>
> And there you have it; a concise summary of the main concepts
> presented in my thesis.
>
> Yes, this is an imaginary scenario. But it does fit reality.
> Specifically, if you write down all of the basic attributes that a
> quantum of gravity must have, along with all of the hypothetical
> particles that have been proposed to explain quantum gravity
> (including gravitons, the entities suggested by Loop-Space
theorists,
> string-like things, etc.) [assuming you do not demand that gravity
> requires no quanta at all], and then you make objective
comparisons,
> you will see (as I did, some time ago), that the type of tachyon
(the
> IGET) that I have described in my thesis fits with the requirements
> of modern quantum mechanics better than any other particle, because
> it is the only virtual particle that meets all of the criteria for
> the quanta of gravity that is needed by particle physicists to
unify
> gravity with the other forces in the preferred form - a complete
> and empirical gauge-field theory.
>
> Not convinced? Consider this. Since the acceptance of Einstein's
> theory of General Relativity (GR) [which uses Riemannian geometry
to
> describe the curvature of space due to the presence of mass], the
> standard model of gravity has been GR given along with an assumed
> (and imposed by hand, though not necessary) gauge-field theory for
> gravity taken as a quadrupole analog of dipole electromagnetism,
and
> in which the mediating quanta, instead of virtual photons, are spin-
2
> massless bosons named "gravitons". Yet, try as they might, for all
> of this time, theorists (including Einstein himself) have been
unable
> to satisfactorily unify gravity with the other forces in this way,
> because this particular model has several major shortcomings.
>
> For instance, the equations representing the graviton-based
> formulation of quantum gravity are not such that they can be
blended
> with GR. The two sets of equations are simply taken as coexisting,
> as it were, in the model, but cannot actually be unified (despite
> what String theorists say), because GR is a deterministic,
> macrocosmic, geometric theory that does not work at the subatomic
> distances (down to the Planck length) at which quantum mechanics
> works so very well (using probabilities). Also, the graviton-based
> quantum theory of gravity is not renormalizable (due to
divergencies
> that occur when applying the Feynman rules), and renormalization is
> considered an important requirement for unification, when using
gauge-
> field theory to describe particles and their interactions quantum-
> mechanically.
>
> The tachyonic-gravity hypothesis, however, using my IGET model,
> solves these problems, by (1) supplying a way for GR and quantum
> mechanics to be linked, theoretically, without having to modify
> either theory (so that it is even possible to derive one from the
> other), and (2) by removing the need for renormalization, since the
> IGET model (by means of the convention about the new imaginary-unit
> used to describe the IGETs) is, from its very inception,
represented
> using gauge-field theory (i.e., the Klein-Gordon Lagrangian for a
> spin-0 scalar field) in a formulation that is already compatible
with
> the existing renormalized theories of the other forces of nature
> (using electro-weak theory and quantum chromodynamics).
>
> Furthermore, the IGET model makes gravity a mathematical imaginary,
> compared to the other forces, which is more true to the way in
which
> we observe gravity behaving in reality.
>
> Of all the fundamental forces, though gravity was the first to be
> recognized and studied systematically, it remains the most
> inigmatic. Perhaps the reason is that it works in an alternate-
> dimensional frame; i.e., its quanta are faster-than-light.
>
> Still not convinced? Try this. Take the standard model of
gravity,
> involving GR with an assumed spin-2 graviton field, and where the
> graviton travels at lightspeed (c). Now, replace the standard
> graviton with its tachyonic analog (the same except that it travels
> at 1.00...001c, where the number of zeros to the right of the
decimal-
> point are unknown). In such a case, because the speeds of the
> graviton and its analog are so close, the mathematical form of the
> quadrupole model is preserved, but it is rendered imaginary with
> respect to the other forces of nature.
>
> And that would be quite reasonable, even more empirical, though the
> problem of renormalization remains. This requirement is
eliminated,
> however, if we change the field structure from that of a quadrupole
> to that of a monopole, in analogy to a standard magnetic monopole
> (which just happens to make the model renomalizable), though we
must
> still use tachyonic analogs of this field's virtual photons (or we
> would be saying that gravity is a magnetic monopole, which should
be
> verifiable experimentally, but, of course, since magnetic monopoles
> do not exist, there is no evidence for that particular case).
>
> So, the tachyonic analog of a magnetic monopole works great as a
> renormalizable model of quantum gravity, using gauge-field theory,
> because, as is well known, a tachyon's causality is reversed
> (relative to normal causality), so that all tachyonic magnetic
> monopoles of the same sign will attract each other (just as all
> normal magnetic monopoles of the same sign would repell each
other).
>
> But there are problems with this model too. For one thing, the
model
> compels us to predict that there is a sink at infinity for every
> source (each bit of mass), and, for another thing, we must
> correspondingly predict that a source emitting standard photons,
and
> of the sign opposite to that which is prevalent in our universe,
> exists in a tachyonic universe, for each of whose sources there
must
> exist a sink in our universe, though we somehow do not see them.
>
> Obviously, such predictions do not seem reasonable. And, to be
sure,
> it is usually true that Mother Nature prefers the simplest of the
> most effective among all possible ways of doing things.
>
> Yet, we know we are almost on the right track here, because we have
> finally found a gauge-field model that works better than the
standard
> graviton model. All we need is a way to eliminate the source-vs.-
> sink problem; or, more to the point, to get rid of the need for
> sources and sinks at infinity altogether.
>
> This is accomplished by taking the lightspeed restriction away, so
> that the quanta of gravity can travel at a speed somewhere between
c
> and infinite speed, which, necessarily, involves replacing the
> tachyonic analog of the massless quanta with a tachyon that will do
> the same job, but which needs no sink at infinity, and for which
> there does not have to be a corresponding source of opposite sign
in
> tachyonic spacetime.
>
> Enter the Imaginary Gravitational Exchange Tachyon; the IGET.
>
> In truth, the description of the IGET that I originally came up
with
> almost 20 years ago (and which has not changed very much in the
last
> 10 of those years) was based almost entirely on the properties
needed
> by a mediator of a gauge-field that is consistent with every aspect
> of gravity we know of that can be listed without reference to the
> assumptions about gravity that are common to the other quanta that
> have been suggested as causing gravitational attractions.
>
> Indeed, when I first compiled that list (which included Newtonian
> gravity locally, GR macrocosmically, and many easily verifiable
> natural observations, along with all of the relavent astronomical
> information I could find), I was not thinking of tachyons. I just
> studied them along with the other possible candidates; gravitons,
> photons, gluons, strings, loops, and so on. Yet, it became clear
> very quickly that a special kind of tachyon, which I had not yet
> named, was the only possible candidate for the quantum of gravity
> that fulfills all of the criteria on the list, without fail.
>
> And I have been working on my thesis since that very day;
eventually
> arriving at the representation that works best, after many years of
> struggle with the mathematics and the overall conceptualization, in
> which the difficulties forced me to realize that the mathematical
> tools I had to hand were not adequate. And that is how I came to
> invent the new imaginary-unit I mentioned above, which I call
> the "imagination unit", but which others have referred to
> as "Richter's tachyon operator".
>
> Whatever it is called, it worked. And it has allowed me to solve
the
> riddle of gravity, and to be confident enough in my accomplishment
to
> proudly proclaim that I Have Found The "Holy Grail" !
>
> [Again, a summary of my thesis is accessed under "Tachyonic
Gravity"
> at www.TachyonicsSociety.com.]
>