To continue; what all this has to do with Interdiscipline Synthesis
Cosmology (ISC) is just that an ISC Database does not yet exist, so a
valid ISC does not yet exist, and even the very beginning, the Proto-
Core of the Database, has not been started, and will not begin, nor
will it ever acquire something on the order of substantive content,
until large numbers of scientists, philosophers, interested scholars,
and other contributors start getting together to put content in it.

And, according to my experience, that is not likely to happen anytime
soon, because most potential contributors are too caught up in the
money-chase, or otherwise have their own agendas to pursue, or simply
have to spend all of their time making a living. So, despite the
fact that I have gotten the ball rolling (recoginzing the importance
of the tachyon; using it to solve the riddle of gravity; setting-up
and maintaining a web site; and so on), there is meagre interest.

I have set out some preliminary rules of the game, with respect to
the overall procedures for creating the Proto-Core, and even this
message board could serve as the first online depository. But little
hope do I have that it will go very far.

On the other hand, perhaps what was needed was a rallying point, like
the unification of gravity with the other forces of nature.

I am convinced that I have solved the riddle of gravity, making the
unification possible, and that could be the initial assumption on
which the data in the Proto-Core builds on. Thus I leave it for the
reader to decide if my ideas are worth considering, and/or discussing
any further, and to make their own contribution on this board.



--- In TheAoISCT@yahoogroups.com, "HKurtRichter" <hkurtrichter@...>
wrote:
>
> To restate: Yes, I believe that I have solved the riddle of
gravity,
> and discovered the correct unification of gravity with the other
> three fundamental forces of nature in a proper gauge-field format.
>
> Yet, I do not have the "credentials" that mainstream science would
> accept as qualifying me to make such a claim. So, my thesis is
> likely never to be accepted by modern physicists.
>
> In the future, perhaps, things will be different. But I expect
that
> the ideas I have come up with will not be appreciated for what they
> can do for our overall understanding of reality until our
technology
> advances to the point at which the ideas can be tested in such as
way
> as to be proven beyond doubt.
>
> Reminder: I suggest that gravity is faster than light, and is
> therefore a tachyonic force. And, while this suggestion is not
> original to me, I have devised an original method of describing
> tachyonic quantities, and that is what has allowed me to explain
> gravity in an empirical fashion (at least to my own satisfaction).
>
> [For an abbreviated version of my thesis, click the "Tachyonic
> Gravity" link at www.TachyonicsSociety.com.]
>
> Unfortunately, in my opinion, today's physics community has become
> much like the medieval Cathholic church, complete with its own
> versions of God (nature), angelic beings (famous dead scientists),
> priests (famous living scientists), followers (non-famous
scientists,
> science students, and suppportive laymen), dogma (the "prevailing
> wisdom", or "consensus", among "established" scientists), and, let
us
> not forget, heretics (guys like me).
>
> As for the followers, note that there are many "believers" in
science
> who are not themselves working scientists. I am, in a way, simply
> one of these (because I consider myself a scientific thinker, in
the
> sense of the traditional image of the scientist as a detached
seeker
> of truth, and also because, formally, I have had some undergraduate
> training in physics). But I am generally accused by most
mainstream
> scientists as promoting "pseudo-science" (in the sense of
falsehood),
> because my ideas stray so far from the mainstream view (i.e., "peer-
> reviewed" dogma concerning the basic nature of the physical
world).
>
> On the other hand, I do not object to the term "pseudo-science" as
it
> applies to my ideas when the prefix "pseudo" is understood in the
way
> chemists use it; to imply similarity, rather than falsehood. And
it
> is in that sense that I have used the term myself, for example, in
my
> online article "Physics of the Gods", at the following URL -
> http://hometown.aol.com/PhysicsOfTheGods/PseudoScience.html
>
> In any case, despite the fact that I have no real credentials to
> speak of, I think I have some good ideas, and I would like to think
> that the scientific commuinity (and physicists in particular) would
> be entirely open to, and eager to consider, new and innovative
ideas,
> regardless of where they come from (even from someone like me), if
> the ideas have merit, and stimulate the search for breakthroughs in
> our understanding of natural processes. However, clearly, the
focus
> of modern science, these days (like most institutions), is on
money.
> And, since my ideas do not involve the pursuit of some marketable
> product, or sensational book sales, or other money-making effort,
> then there is not going to be much interest - and, consequently,
> little to no chance of funding for such a line of research, even
> should it be requested by a highly-credentialed physicist.
>
> Sadly, the chasing of money (research grants, big salaries,
lucrative
> patents, etc.) has had a profound retardation effect on innovation
in
> scientific thinking, because, like Hollywood beating a movie theme
to
> death with copycat films after the realease of a big "hit" movie,
it
> tends to channel research efforts into already proven money-making
> endeavors, such as the development of communications equipment, new
> consumer electronics products, and weapons for the military. And
> that, in its turn, increases the importance of conformity.
>
> Notice that the status-quo in physics is dictated by members of the
> rather exclusive club known as "peers", who, upon submission of a
> paper for publication in some peer-reviewed journal, pick over each
> others work so as to make sure it conforms with their own views, or
> does not, at least, propose or prove something that would bring
down
> theories in which they have vested interests.
>
> Even degreed physicists with outstanding credentials have
complained
> that they find it hard to come across new ideas in the literature
> associated with their field because new ideas will not get
published
> if they cannot be couched in conformist language.
>
> I would greatly appreciate, for instance, some college professor
> taking my ideas and running with them, but I am afraid that is not
> going to happen in my lifetime. So, I post vainly on message
boards
> like this one, and maintain my web site
(www.TachyonicsSociety.com),
> merely to present my ideas to the public.
>
>
> *******************
>
> More to come.
>