--- In TheAoISCT@yahoogroups.com, "captjim" <Jonesalonzo1@...> wrote:
>
> Well, I've seen nothing so far that contradicts your superluminal
> gravity ideas. I've just recently started reading this thread but
> all I could see is that Merlin thinks you don't have the credentials
> to be credible. I say, that that your titles have nothing to do
> with whether your ideas are true or not. I say, stick to the ideas.
> Comment on those. The closest he's come to addressing the real issues
> in the few posts I've read is to say that you don't have a good
> enough mathematical formulation for him to take the ideas seriously.
> He references a website which shows the type of math he expects to
> see. This would be great if, like the theories on the site, a
> number of mathematicians from a number of disciplines had worked on
> the problem over a number of years. Unfortunately, you are
> pretty much working alone and have only so far just scratched the
> surface of what potential there is in this theory. Merlin might
> have a valid point though, that you need better math attached to your
> theory but you never claimed otherwise.
>

Thank you for your encouragement. The only thing I would rephrase, and
it is a minor point, is in your last sentence. I would say that the
term "better math" is a little too subjective.

What is better math? I take it you meant "more elaborate math".

Merlin's notion of "better math" would be more advanced math, I guess,
but he failed to notice that no more advanced math is needed for my
thesis on tachyonic gravity. In fact, although I did not state it in
my thesis, I have spent many years studying all of the most advanced
math on gravity and tachyons around, and I have, on paper, many more
elaborate schemes that could be published. But they are redundant,
because they are all based on the math that I presented in my thesis.

There is indeed much more that can and should be done, but there must
also be a fundamental set of initial assumptions and an elementary
foundation for the concept that I presented. And that was the overall
purpose of the way in which the thesis was written - for without such
a foundation we have nothing to build on for more advanced work.

My goal, then, was to get the ball rolling on the idea of tachyonic
gravity, the way I have described it. So, my feeling is that, because
I have only a limited amount of time and resources to spend on it, I
need HELP with it, not condemnation FOR it.

I would much rather that someone at Merlin's level of accademic success
take hold of my ideas and turn them into something more significant
than I can do on my own. And there are such scientists out there, who
are actually doing similar things in their own way. A particularly
good example is Dr. S.C. Tiwari, who wrote the book Superluminal
Phenomenon in Modern Perspective (from Rinton Press), and with whom I
correspond with by e-mail on a semi-regular basis. He has his books to
pursue, and therefore has told me he does not have time to work on my
ideas (although he does review my work), he gives me helpful advice,
instead of insulting remarks about my level of formal training.

Guys like Merlin have advanced math to work with in M-Theory and other
theoretical endeavors because, as you alluded to, those theories make
use of concepts that have been around for decades, and a great deal of
work has gone into the math and the science involved. It is not fair,
therefore, that Merlin and his kind condemn new ideas like mine simply
because of vested interests in promoting some older ideas that the new
ideas may perhaps replace as the "next big thing" or important trend or
other popular movement in physics.

Notice that the String Theories, the forerunners of M-Theory, were once
held as outside the scope of "real" physics. But that has changed, and
M-Theory, along with special applications of the several String Theory
concepts, are by far the areas of theoretical research concentrated on
by the vast majority of physics students and physics teachers today,
and serve as the primary motivation behind many experimental efforts
overseen by a number of highly-regarded and highly-paid physicists.

Hence the vested interests in such theories, and hence the tendency to
downplay alternative and/or competing theoretical ideas.

But there is growing interest in the investigation of superluminal
phenomenon in physics, and that will not go away, because it is most
certainly, more than anything else, the ultimate future of physics.

Some will doubtless continue to call studies in superluminality and
Tachyonics useless exercises in science-fiction, even after empirical
evidence for the existence of tachyons starts coming in. Indeed, that
will only reinforce the need for the new ideas to become more and more
popular, and thus more widely acknowledged, because the opposition will
come from people who will, as a consequence of their opposition, prove
themselves only the defenders of obsolete perceptions of reality.

What is more, it appears that such a day is coming sooner than I had
anticipated, even as late as two years ago, when I first setup my web
site; www.TachyonicsSociety.com. I believe, in truth, that evidence
for the suggestion that gravity is faster-than-light will be announced
by experimentors whose credentials cannot be questioned within the next
few months. Let's see if that actually happens, and discuss it here,
say about May or June of 2007. What do you say?