The Standard Imaginary Unit

As mentioned earlier,
the relativistic mass M of an ordinary particle in motion can be
related to the same particle's rest-mass, m, by the equation;

M = Rm = m/[(1 - [(v/c)^2])^(1/2)] .

Consider again a tachyon of mass tM, with correspondingly the same
amount of moving mass. The tachyonic mass, tM, can be represented by
describing it as an imaginary analog of M, written;
tM = -iM ,
where i is the standard imaginary-unit, defined;
i = (-1)^(1/2) , so that i^2 = -1 .

Note that the minus-sign accompanying i, in this definition of tM, is
absolutely mandatory for presenting a rigorous definition of tM.

In such cases, the imaginary-unit (i) is used in a purely algebraic
sense, as an operator that, when multiplied to a real number, is
understood - by convention - to imply that the given real number
is to be viewed as an imaginary number. To go any further on this
topic, however, it is necessary to lay some groundwork, so that later
statemements will be readily understood. [Readers sufficiently
familiar with the theory behind complex and imaginary numbers, as
presented below, may wish to proceed to the next subheading.]

The imaginary-unit comes about as a natural consequence of
considering certain numbers that cannot be categorized as "real".
For instance, no real number x is such that x^2 = -1.

We can, however, imagine another kind of number, i, defined
specifically as the square-root of -1, so that i^2 = -1.
Thus, if X is a positive real number, and we want to find the square-
root of its negative, then we can always write;
(-X)^(1/2) = [(-1)X]^(1/2) = ... = i[X^(1/2)] .
For example,
(-25)^(1/2) = [(-1)(25)]^(1/2) = ... = i5 .

Now, all of the sums of real and imaginary numbers form a set called
the "complex numbers", which, obviously, includes the set of all real
numbers and the set of all imaginary numbers.

To explain how complex numbers work, let x and y denote real
numbers. Then let iy denote an imaginary number, and let z denote
the sum of x and iy, according to the equation;
z = x + iy .

Here, z is a complex number, while x is referred to as the "real-
number part" or "real component" of z, and y is referred to as
the "imaginary-number part" or "imaginary component" of z.

We can also represent this using function notation, where Re is a
function of z that gives a real number, Re(z), and Im is a function
of z that gives an imaginary number, Im(z), defined;
z = x + iy = Re(z) + Im(z) ,
where Re(z) = x , and Im(z) = iy .

Consequently, if x is nonzero but iy = 0, then z is real.
On the other hand, if iy is nonzero but x = 0, then z is referred to
as a "pure imaginary".
Of course, whenever z = 0, then one of the following mutually
exclusive cases must be true;
Case 1: x = 0 and y = 0 simultaneously, or
Case 2: iy = -x , where x and y are each nonzero.

Interestingly, because complex numbers are essentially the same as
ordered pairs of numbers, then the following definitions hold for
almost all complex numbers.

The absolute-value |z| of a standard complex number z, and which
absolute-value is called the "modulus" of z, is a real number that
can be obtained using the Pythagorean theorem;
|z| = |x + iy| = [(x^2) + (y^2)]^(1/2) .
Letting z denote a complex number defined as a sum, so that
z = x + iy ,
and letting z* denote another complex number defined as the
corresponding difference, so that
z* = x - iy ,
where z* employs the same values of x and y as does z,
we say that z* is the "conjugate" of z.
The product of z and z* is the square of the modulus of z, according
to the following proof;
z*z = (x - iy)(x + iy) = (x^2) - xiy + xiy - [(iy)^2]
= (x^2) - [(-1)(y^2)] = (x^2) + (y^2) = |z|^2 .
The ratio, z/Z, of two complex numbers, z and Z, is a real number
obtained by multiplying the numerator and denominator by the
conjugate of the denominator, which is the same as dividing the
product Z*z by the squared modulus of Z, denoted;
z/Z = (Z*z)/(Z*Z) = (Z*z)/(|Z|^2) .

One tremendously useful application of complex numbers is their
appearance in the solutions to certain very important equations,
which should be covered briefly as follows.

An equation of the form
a(x^2) + bx + c = 0
is referred to as a "quadratic equation", in standard form, where x
is a variable, and a, b, and c are arbitrary constants.
Equations of this form are used to solve so many real-world problems
that a full accounting of them would fill an encyclopedia. So, we
need not go into numerous examples here, although at least one
example would perhaps be appropriate.

If, in the given equation, the constant "a" is half the acceleration
g due to gravity near the surface of the Earth, and "x" is changed to
time t, with "b" as the initial velocity v of a falling object,
dropped from an initial height H, reaching a lower height h in the
time t, and we let c = h - H (because we will need a negative
value for this difference, arrising from the fact that the height of
the object is decreasing), then we can write a quadratic equation in
standard form, as follows;
(1/2)g(t^2) + vt + (h - H) = 0 .
When rearranged to isolate h, this equation gives us the height, h,
after the time t has elapsed;
h = -(1/2)g(t^2) - vt + H .
This, then, is an excellent example of how quadratic equations crop
up in real-life situations; in this case, should we need to know the
height of a falling object at some time during its fall.

We move on to point out how complex numbers come into play in the
context of quadratics.

Again, let us assume that there is a quadratic equation in standard
form, denoted;
a(x^2) + bx + c = 0 ,
as described above.
Here, let
s = d^(1/2) ,
where
d = (b^2) - 4ac ,
to establish a convenient abbreviation.
Such an equation has a solution x that can be obtained as follows.
Possibility 1 is; x = (-b + s)/(2a) ,
Possibility 2 is; x = (-b - s)/(2a) ,
where s = d^(1/2) = [(b^2) - 4ac]^(1/2) .
The difference d, in the term s, is called the "discriminant" of the
quadratic equation, and, due simply to the fact that s is the square-
root of a difference, then it is sometimes allowed that s could be
the square-root of a negative number (i.e., the term s could be an
imaginary number).
In particular, if d is positive, then s is real, and therefore x
comes in two distinct and real versions, called the "roots" of the
quadratic equation, corresponding to "-b + s" and "-b - s" .
That is, if d is positive, then it is said that the quadratic
equation has "two distinct real roots".
However, if d = 0, then s = 0, so that
-b + s = -b - s = -b ,
and there is only one real root, called a "double root", because it
satisfies both possibilities given for x above.
Such a root is readily obtained by writing;
x = -b/(2a) .
Alternatively, if d is negative, then s is an imaginary number, and
the given quadratic equation has no real roots. In such cases, the
quadratic equation can be referred to as "irreducible", in venues
where only distinct real roots and/or double roots are considered.
Otherwise, for negative determinants, the possiblities for x can be
denoted as follows.
Possiblity 1 is; x = (-b + si)^(1/2) ,
Possibility 2 is; x = (-b - si)^(1/2) ,
where
si = [d^(1/2)][(-1)^(1/2)] = [(-1)d]^(1/2) = (-d)^(1/2) .
This shows how the imaginary-unit, i, can be introduced in the
context of quadratic equations.

The invention of complex numbers, which hinge on the notion of
imaginary numbers, the basic understanding of which, in turn, is made
clear by the definition and applications of the standard imaginary-
unit, i, has provided us with very useful mathematical tools; for
example, in providing various means of solving quadratic equations
that have negative determinants.

Algebraically, of course, complex numbers obey a special set of
rules, as follows.
Let A, B, C, and D denote real numbers.
Then the following realtionships hold true.

A + Bi = C + Di if and only if A = C and D = B .

(A + Bi) + (C + Di) = (A + C) + (B + D)i .

(A + Bi) - (C + Di) = (A - C) + (B - D)i .

(A + Bi)(C + Di) = (AC - BD) + (AD + BC)i .

(A + Bi)/(C + Di) = [(AC + BD)/[(C^2) + (D^2)]]
+ [(BC - AD)/[(C^2) + (D^2)]]i .

Graphically, we have yet another set of rules; as follows.

Consider the standard x,y-plane, and let an ordinary point P be
plotted on the plane;
P = (x,y) .
If we change y to yi, so that the y-axis becomes an imaginary axis,
then P becomes the point indicated by plotting the complex number z
as a point in this plane, so that
z = (x,yi) .
That is, a complex number z, defined by the formula denoted;
z = x + yi = (x,yi) ,
can be represented by a point in a plane that is formed by using the
real and imaginary number-lines as the coordinate axes for the plane.
Such a plane is called the "complex plane", and, with respect to this
plane, the complex number z can always be denoted by the ordered-pair
(x,yi).

Now, because complex numbers are actually ordered-pairs of numbers,
then they can also be used to represent vectors in the plane.
And here is how that is done.
If we stipulate that the point z is at the location indicated by the
arrow of a directed line-segment from the origin O to z, within the
complex plane, then the modulus |z| of z can be interpreted as the
magnitude of a vector represented by this directed line-segment;
explained as follows.

Let "r" denote the magnitude (length) of the vector, and let "a"
indicate the angle the vector makes with the x-axis. Then r is
defined formally;
r = |z| = ((x^2) + [(yi)^2])^(1/2)
= [(x^2) + (-1)(y^2)]^(1/2) = [(x^2) - (y^2)]^(1/2) ,
and we can specify z using the two variables, r and a, called "polar
coordinates", so that
z = x + yi = (x,yi) = (r,a) .
In that case, knowing (from trigonometry) that "r" and "a" are
related to x and y in the standard plane by the identities;
x = r(cosa) and y = r(sina) ,
we can, by substitution, determine a trigonometric representation of
z, with respect to the complex plane, and write;
z = r[(cosa) + i(sina)] ,
which is called the "polar form" of the complex number z.

We must remember, of course, that r is also the modulus of z.

Further, angle "a" is commonly referred to as the "amplitude" of z.

Another useful application of the imaginary-unit is in the
representation of sinusoidal waves; explained as follows.

Consider the graph of a sine-wave in the x,y-plane, with a period T
and wavelength L, and where the sine-wave is pictured as propagating
along the x-axis to the right, so that y is the amplitude of the wave
(its distance above or below the x-axis) at a given instant of time
t, making "y" a function f both of x and of t, denoted;
y = f(x,t) .
If v is the speed of the wave, then the frequency F, period T, and
wavelength L are related using the following formula;
F = 1/T = v/L .

Here, let A be a constant, called the "central maximum", which is the
maximum value of y.
Since a sine-wave can be used to represent a steady oscillation, a
perfect circular orbit, or other such harmonic motion, then we can
introduce another constant K of the motion, called the "wave number",
and relate it to the value of Pi (approximated as 3.14), so that
2(Pi) corresponds exactly to one cycle, according to the formula;
K = 2(Pi)L = 2(Pi)/(Tv) .

Now, any central maximum A approaching the y-axis from the left will
be located a distance D (on the x-axis) from the y-axis, at time t.
However, since the values of K and of D always vary proportionally
with respect to each other, then D can be obtained by introducing a
quantity k, referred to as the "phase constant", the "phase delay",
or simply the "phase", and by defining D as the ratio of k over K,
denoted;
D = k/K .
Then the sine-wave can be represented "on paper" by plotting the
following formula graphically;
y = f(x,t) = A cos[K(x - vt) + k] .

On the other hand, since uniform circular motion can be represented
as the number of radians swept-out per unit time, using the angular
frequency w, defined;
w = 2(pi)F = Kv ,
so that
K(x - vt) = Kx - Kvt = Kx - wt ,
then, alternatively, we can also write;
y = A cos(Kx - wt + k) .

Unfortunately, dealing with sinusoidal waves using trigonometric
functions can get tedious. The more efficient way to do the same
thing is to convert to complex notation, as follows.

From trigonometry, we have the following relationship, using the base
e of natural logarithms;
e^(iV) = cos(V) + i[sin(V)] ,
for any arbitrary or "dummy" variable V.
Thus, letting
V = Kx - wt + k ,
we can write;
e^[i(Kx - wt + k)] = cos(Kx - wt + k) + i[sin(Kx - wt + k)]
where the real (Re) and imaginary (Im) components can be defined;
cos(Kx - wt + k) = Re(e^[i(Kx - wt + k)]) , and
i[sin(Kx - wt + k)] = Im(e^[i(Kx - wt + k)]) .
Suppose, however, that only the real component is needed, or,
otherwise, the imaginary component is zero. Then we can define y
using only the real component, as follows;
y = A cos(Kx - wt + k) = Re(Ae^[i(Kx - wt + k)]) .
Next, we can introduce a new funtion y', defined;
y' = A[e^(ik)]e^[i(Kx - wt)] = A'e^[i(Kx - wt)] ,
where
A' = Ae^(ik) ,
so that the phase k can be temporarily "absorbed" into a more compact
representation, wherein the real component is denoted;
y = Re(y') .
This sort of representation makes for a much faster form of notation
when many waves are to be handled (which is a common task in physics
and engineering). It is referred to as "complex notation", and is
used primarily because it is quicker and easier to deal with
exponents than to manipulate sine and cosine functions. And it has
been explained here as another example of how the standard imaginary-
unit, i, has practical applications in real-world situations.

Having learned something about imaginary numbers, we can proceed to
the introduction of a new imaginary-unit; one that implies a wholly
new kind of operation.

The Imagination Unit

or

How to Describe Things Made of Tachyons



A Representations Theory by H. Kurt Richter



Part 1


About Tachyons

Because of certain implications of Einstein's theory of Special
Relativity, some physicists have predicted the existence of particles
that always travel faster-than-light (FTL).
Here is one way that this prediction comes about.
Consider an ordinary object at rest; for example, a basketball at
rest on a basketball court.
It has a rest-energy E and a rest-mass m, related by the well-known
equation  E = m(c^2)  ,
where c is the lightspeed constant (approximately 3 x 10^8
meters/second).

Suppose now that we roll the basketball across the court; setting it
in motion with respect to the the stationary floor of the court.  It
can then be viewed as existing in a different frame of reference,
local to itself; one that is moving relative to the stationary frame
of the floor.

To relate these frames, we apply certain transformation equations;
explained as follows.

Orient a set of Cartesian coordinate axes so that the ball's center-
of-gravity starts at the origin O, fixed relative to the floor, where
we will begin counting the time t at t = 0, and the ball's center-of-
gravity, with a mere push, can be made to move in the positive x-
direction at a constant velocity v, without obstruction, so that the
values of y and z are always zero.

Next, let x, y, and z denote the spatial parameters, and t the time
parameter, for the stationary reference-frame, but let x', y', z',
and t' denote the corresponding respective parameters for the moving
reference-frame (the one moving with the ball), and where the x-axis
and the x'-axis lie on the same infinitely-long line in space.  Then
the two reference-frames will be related according to the following
formulas, referred to as the "Lorentz transformations";
x'  =  R(x - vt)  ,
x  =  R(x' + vt')  ,
y'  =  y  ,
z'  =  z  ,
t'  =  R(t - [vx/(c^2)])  ,
t  =  R(t' + [vx'/(c^2)]  ,
where R is an operator that allows us to calculate the relative value
of a quantity for a moving object from the corrresponding value taken
while the object is at rest.  To explain rather briefly, the operator
R is a multiplicative operator that involves the ratio of velocity v
over the lightspeed constant c, and it can be defined;
R  =  1/[(1 - [(v/c)^2])^(1/2)]  =  (1 - [(v/c)^2])^(-1/2)  .

Since Einstein made extensive use of the Lorentz transformations in
his theory of Special Relativity, involving the operator R, then R
can be called the "Relativity Operator".

Here, if M denotes the basketball's moving mass, and m is its rest-
mass, then we have;
M  =  mR  =  m[(1 - [(v/c)^2])^(-1/2)]    .
Notice therefore that, because the ratio v/c is under a square-root
symbol, then there is only one relationship between v and c that
makes sense for a real basketball;  v must be less than c.

Suppose now, however, that we let M denote the mass of a real or a
virtual subatomic particle instead of a basketball.  Then there are
three fundamental cases for M:
(1)  v < c makes R real, which means that M is a real-valued non-zero
quantity.
This is the case for all subatomic particles with positive rest-mass
(electrons, protons, etc.).
(2)  v = c makes R undefined, because, by convention, the square-root
of zero is zero, but the inverse of zero is undefined (or else it is
infinity).  This is the case for massless photons.
(3)  v > c makes R imaginary, which means that M is an imaginary
quantity.
This is the case for particles with negative rest-mass (particles
that travel FTL).

All of the subatomic particles cataloged by physicists as having
mass, as far as we can tell, have positive rest-mass, including real
and virtual paticles with measureable or calculable rest-mass.  The
scalar energy E and vectorial momentum P are both defiined using the
rest-mass m;
E = R[m(c^2)]  and  P = R(mV)  ,
where V is vectorial velocity, defined;   | V |  =  v   .

Of note is the fact that the second case, for massless photons,
actually works-out to make R an infinity if we embrace the
mathematical convention that the inverse of 0 is infinity;
1/0 = infinity .
This occurs because, here v = c, so that
R  =  1/[(1 - [(v/c)^2])^(1/2)]  =  1/ [(1 - (1^2))^(1/2))]
=  1/[(1 - 1)^(1/2)]  =  1/[0^(1/2)]  =  1/0  .
Alternatively, yet remaining mathematically rigorous, we can say
instead that the inverse of 0 is undefined, and maintain that the
rest-mass of a photon is 0; which means that all photons are massless
particles, made entirely of energy.

Particles with negative rest-mass that always travel FTL are
called "tachyons".  They will have reversed causality (negative
time), as compared to that of ordinary massive particles and/or
massless photons, and their rest-mass is both imaginary and
negative.  But we will delve into this case in Part 3, and in much
greater detail than has been provided for the other two cases
above.

Notice, as well, that the relativity operator, R, dictates what
happens when you try to accelerate a real mass up to lightspeed.  It
works-out that M approaches infinity as v approaches c.
In other words, it would take an infinite amount of energy to
accelerate a real mass to lightspeed.
And because we do not have access to infinite amounts of energy, and
we do not observe infinite energy expended anywhere in the universe
at large, then the lightspeed constant represents a kind of universal
speed-limit.  It is, by all accounts, a spacetime barrier.

Thus, many physicists have assumed (logically) that nothing "real"
exists on the other side of c.
Unfortunately, this has also caused some to conclude that tachyons
cannot be created, not even by a Big Bang like the one that initiated
our universe.  Hence, some of these scientists insist that tachyons
do not exist, although that claim has yet to be proven conclusively.

To be clear, the relativity operator, R, does not suggest that
nothing FTL can exist at all.  It does indicate that it would take
infinite amount of energy to accelarate a real mass up to c (because
of the ratio v/c), but it does not forbid objects that already travel
at FTL speeds from existing on the other side of c.  Nor is it
necessary to get tachyons by accelerating real masses to and beyond
c. In the cosmological Big Bang idea called "Inflation Theory", it is
proposed that there was a brief period of superluminal expansion of
all the energy associated with the first moments of the Big Bang, and
it is therefore entirely possible that many particles of various kind
were created that retained the superluminal velocities of the
energies out of which they were formed. at that time.  Furthermore,
because of its reversed causality, a tachyon's energy decreases as
its velocity increases, with its zero-energy state at infinite speed,
so it is reasonable to think that higher-speed tachyons were easily
created, because the required energy would be lowered.

Also, while we depict tachyons as having imaginary mass
mathematically, we must remember that words
like "imaginary", "abstract", and other terms employed by
mathematicians, in math contexts, are labels for different types of
numbers, chosen to distinguish between those numbers.  But such
labels do not necessarily imply that the numbers do not exist.  So,
to label a tachyon's mass as "imaginary" does not imply non-
existence  -  because we are using the mathematical meaning of the
word "imaginary", not its common literary meaning.

Interestingly, the standard imaginary-unit, i, can be defined in
terms of two well-known irrational transcendental numbers. One of
these is the value of Pi, which is the ratio of the circumference
over the diameter of any size perfect circle, and is often given the
approximate value of 3.14.  The other is the base e of natural
logarithms, defined as the limit as n approaches infinity of the n-th
power of the sum of 1 and 1/n, for any integer n.  It is also defined
as the following expansion;
e  =  1 + 1/n! + 1/2! + 1/3! + ... + 1/n! + ...  ,
which is commonly approximated as 2.72.
The relationship between i, Pi, and e is that i equals ln(-1) divided
by Pi, denoted;
i  =  (-1)^(1/2)  =  [ln(-1)]/(Pi)  ,
where ln(-1) is the logarithm, to base e, of negative unity.

Now, Pi is referred to as "irrational" and "transcendental" because
its decimal expansion is non-recurring and infinite.  In fact, to
date, though computers have been used to calculate its value to
several million decimal places, we have yet to find its final digit.
And likewise, the base e of natural logarithms is labeled using the
same terminology, for the very same reasons.

Thus, because an imaginary number can always be represented as the
product of i and any real number, we can state that all imaginary
numbers can be defined in terms of these two irrational
transcendental numbers  -  although no-one would insist that Pi or e
do not actually exist.

Consequently, just because we think of tachyons as imaginary
particles, theoretically speaking, this does not mean that they
cannot or do not exist, somewhere.

To understand how tachyons work, be aware that it would take an
infinite amount of energy to slow a tachyon down to c, just as it
would take an infinite amount of energy to speed a tardyon (slower-
than-light particle) up to c.  And if we could see the emission of a
tachyon from some composite body, as viewed from our tardyonic frame
of reference, it would look as if the tachyon came from infinity and
was completely absorbed by that body.

To illustrate more thoroughly, suppose we have a video of ordinary
particles that are ejected from a sample of target material that had
been bombarded by protons.  Correspondingly, a video of the ejection
of tachyonic analogs of such particles would practically look as if
we merely ran the video of the ordinary process in reverse.

For a more in-depth explanation of tachyons, click "Tachyons" at
www.TachyonicsSociety.com, or, for a long list of sources, do a
Google search using the keyword "tachyon".

In what follows, a non-standard method of representing tachyons is
provided, where yet another operator  -  a new kind of imaginary-
unit, inspired by the standard imaginary-unit, i  -  will be used to
imply a transformation across the lightspeed barrier.  However,
because this operator is based on the standard imaginary-unit, it is
best, for the broadest understanding of this new operator, to explain
in sufficient detail the standard imaginary-unit first.


More to come.

The Tachyonics Society is now accepting submissions for research papers
in mathematics and physics on the topics of tachyons and superluminal
phenomena.  Get free publicaion on our web site.  You need no special
credentials, and you retain all rights to your work.

Send inquiries by e-mail to
HKurtRichter@....

--- In TheAoISCT@yahoogroups.com, "HKurtRichter" <hkurtrichter@...>
wrote:
>
> Stay tuned for a new article on my mathematical invention, The
> Imagination Unit, also referred to as Richter's Tachyon Operator.
>
> I intend to provide a formal representations theory that explains
how
> the imagination-unit can be used to represent tachyonic variables.
>
> The purpose for employing such an operator is as follows.
>
> Given a particle of mass m, moving at velocity v, which may or may
> not equal lightspeed c, there are three relativistic cases;
> (1) v < c, so that m is real (such as for electrons, protons, etc.),
> (2) v = c, so that m is zero (such as for massless photons), and
> (3) v > c, so that m is imaginary (such as for tachyons).
>
> This above a commonly-used introduction to the idea of tachyons.
>
> The standard representation of a tachyon, therefore, is obtained by
> multiplying the mass m by the standard imaginary-unit, i, to make it
> a pure imaginary, im, where i = (-1)^(1/2) ; i^2 = -1 .
>
> One problem with the standard representation, however, is that we
> have no way to distinguish between different types of tachyons.
> All such tachyons are essentially the same, and could travel at any
> velocity above lightspeed, up to, and including, infinite speed.
>
> Also, the standard imaginary-unit, i, is used in other ways that are
> not associated with tachyons. For instance, due to the manner in
> which the imaginary-unit comes about in the representations of
waves,
> it appears as an operator in the Schroedinger equation of Quantum
> Mechanics, which is used to describe the behavior of a particle with
> wavelike characteristics, which are themselves represented, in turn,
> by a wavefunction. But the use of i in the Schroedinger equation
> does not imply that the particle is a tachyon. So, if we have a
> particle of mass m, described using the Schroedinger equation, but
we
> also wish to discuss a tachyon of mass im in the same context, then
> how are we to know that the i in the Schroedinger equation is used
> differently than the i in the definition of the tachyonic mass, im?
>
> We could use two different symbols for i, but that does not solve
the
> problem of the confusion caused by using two different applications
> of the same operator, (-1)^(1/2), in the same context.
>
> To solve this problem, we need an entirely new imaginary-unit; one
> with a different definition than the standard imaginary-unit, i.
>
> To the point, we can use an operator i^i that is defined as causing
> the mass m to be transformed into its tachyonic analog. Thus, if m
> denotes the mass of a standard particle, then (i^i)m is its
tachyonic
> analog, so that im no longer indicates a tachyon, but is simply the
> pure imaginary obtained from m, by multiplying m by i.
>
> To illustrate the significance of this representation, consider the
> complex mass M obtained as the sum of a real mass m and an imaginary
> mass im, defined according to the equation denoted;
> M = m + im.
> Here, m is the real component of M, and im is the imaginary
component
> of M, but im is not tachyonic.
> A corresponding tachyonic version of M is defined;
> (i^i)M = (i^i)(m + im) = (i^i)m + (i^i)im .
>
> Now, the sum M + (i^i)M is a special case, called a "supercomplex"
> mass. It is the sum of the standard complex mass and the tachyonic
> complex mass. The concept of such a supercomplex mass would not be
> possible without the use of a tachyonic transformation operator,
such
> as the new imaginary-unit, i^i, which I call the "imagination-unit".
>
> Now, in Quantum Mechanics, all particles are described using complex
> variables. Employing the imagination-unit to define tachyons allows
> us to discuss ordinary particles and tachyons in the same
theoretical
> context without changing the meaning of the standard imaginary-unit.
>


I have, of course, already made use of the imagination-unit in my
thesis on tachyonic gravity, where I suggest that the quantum of
gravity is a special kind of waveless tachyon.  There, I employ my
new imagination-unit to describe this tachyon, which I refer to as
an "imaginary gravitational exchange tachyon", or "IGET".

For a short version of the thesis, click-on "Tachyonic Gravity" at
www.TachyonicsSociety.com.
Or, for the extended version, go to
http:hometown.aol.com/TachyonicGravity/TLQTtGR01.html.

The imagination-unit can also be used for other purposes; in any
situation requiring a description of tachyons that does not depend on
defining them by applying the standard imaginary-unit, so that
tachyonic quantities are not easily confused with other imaginary but
non-tachyonic quantities discussed in the same contexts.

How this information applies to the effort of constructing a Proto-
Core of data for an Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology, ISC, is that
the first fundamental assumption on which to justify ISC is that the
new endeavor of Tachyonics (the study of the tachyon) is required for
an accurate understanding of reality.  And, therefore, some means of
representing tachyonic quantities is necessary.  But the standard
representation causes problems when both tachyonic and tardyonic
(slower-than-light) complex quantities are discussed in the same
mathematical context.  Hence, knowledge of the best way to represent
tachyons is necessary for acquiring a complete ISC.

Stay tuned for a new article on my mathematical invention, The
Imagination Unit, also referred to as Richter's Tachyon Operator.

I intend to provide a formal representations theory that explains how
the imagination-unit can be used to represent tachyonic variables.

The purpose for employing such an operator is as follows.

Given a particle of mass m, moving at velocity v, which may or may
not equal lightspeed c, there are three relativistic cases;
(1) v < c, so that m is real (such as for electrons, protons, etc.),
(2) v = c, so that m is zero (such as for massless photons), and
(3) v > c, so that m is imaginary (such as for tachyons).

This above a commonly-used introduction to the idea of tachyons.

The standard representation of a tachyon, therefore, is obtained by
multiplying the mass m by the standard imaginary-unit, i, to make it
a pure imaginary, im, where i = (-1)^(1/2) ; i^2 = -1 .

One problem with the standard representation, however, is that we
have no way to distinguish between different types of tachyons.
All such tachyons are essentially the same, and could travel at any
velocity above lightspeed, up to, and including, infinite speed.

Also, the standard imaginary-unit, i, is used in other ways that are
not associated with tachyons. For instance, due to the manner in
which the imaginary-unit comes about in the representations of waves,
it appears as an operator in the Schroedinger equation of Quantum
Mechanics, which is used to describe the behavior of a particle with
wavelike characteristics, which are themselves represented, in turn,
by a wavefunction. But the use of i in the Schroedinger equation
does not imply that the particle is a tachyon. So, if we have a
particle of mass m, described using the Schroedinger equation, but we
also wish to discuss a tachyon of mass im in the same context, then
how are we to know that the i in the Schroedinger equation is used
differently than the i in the definition of the tachyonic mass, im?

We could use two different symbols for i, but that does not solve the
problem of the confusion caused by using two different applications
of the same operator, (-1)^(1/2), in the same context.

To solve this problem, we need an entirely new imaginary-unit; one
with a different definition than the standard imaginary-unit, i.

To the point, we can use an operator i^i that is defined as causing
the mass m to be transformed into its tachyonic analog. Thus, if m
denotes the mass of a standard particle, then (i^i)m is its tachyonic
analog, so that im no longer indicates a tachyon, but is simply the
pure imaginary obtained from m, by multiplying m by i.

To illustrate the significance of this representation, consider the
complex mass M obtained as the sum of a real mass m and an imaginary
mass im, defined according to the equation denoted;
M = m + im.
Here, m is the real component of M, and im is the imaginary component
of M, but im is not tachyonic.
A corresponding tachyonic version of M is defined;
(i^i)M = (i^i)(m + im) = (i^i)m + (i^i)im .

Now, the sum M + (i^i)M is a special case, called a "supercomplex"
mass. It is the sum of the standard complex mass and the tachyonic
complex mass. The concept of such a supercomplex mass would not be
possible without the use of a tachyonic transformation operator, such
as the new imaginary-unit, i^i, which I call the "imagination-unit".

Now, in Quantum Mechanics, all particles are described using complex
variables. Employing the imagination-unit to define tachyons allows
us to discuss ordinary particles and tachyons in the same theoretical
context without changing the meaning of the standard imaginary-unit.

How am I to prove the notion that tachyonic magnetic monopoles
account for the Dark Matter and Dark Energy of recent cosmological
thought?

I cannot, although the explanation is consistent with the collected
data.

Empirical symmetry is obtained in Maxwell's equations as follows.

The standard representations in differential form (Gaussian) can be
denoted;

div E = 4(pi)p ,

curl E = -(1/c)dB/dt ,

div B = 0 ,

curl B = (1/c)dE/dt + (4(pi)/c)j ,

where
the "d/dt" indicate partial deriviatives, with respect to time t,
E is the vector-valued function for an electric field,
p is the associated electric charge-density,
B is the vector-valued function for the associated magnetic field,
c is the lightspeed constant (approximately 3 x 10^8 meters/second),
the dimensionless pi can be approximated as the number 3.14, and
j is the vector-valued function for the electric current-density.

The Lorentz force F of an electric field of strength |E| on an
electron of unit-charge e, moving at velocity v, is defined;

electric F = e[E + (1/c)(v x B)] ,

where e is approximately 1.6 x 10^-19 Coulomb,
and the "x" in the right-hand term indicates a cross-product.

However, since there are no real magnetic charges, then there is no
real force for the magnetic field corresponding to the electric F.

If magnetic monopoles existed in real spacetime, then the above
equations for the magnetic field would be of the same form as those
for the electric field, and the given equations could be changed so
that;

div B = 4(pi)q ,
and
curl E = -(1/c)dB/dt + (4(pi)/c)k ,

where
q is the magnetic-charge density, and
k is the the vector function for magnetic current-density.

In that case, a magnetic field of strength |B| would impose a Lorentz
force F on a magnetic charge g, moving at velocity v, as follows;

magnetic F = g[B - (1/c)(v x E)] .

This, of course, is not empirical, because magnetic monopoles have
never been detected in real spacetime.

If, however, magnetic monopoles do exist in tachyonic spactime
(having been created as tachyonic particles during the superluminal
Inflation Phase of the first few moments after the Big Bang, and
remaining in superluminal states ever since), then we can make a
simple revision of certain of the terms above, so as to obtain the
desired symmetry, by writing;

div B = (i^i) 4(pi)q ,
and
curl E = - (i^i) (1/c)dB/dt - (4(pi)/c)k ,

where
i^i is not the imaginary unit raised to an imaginary power, but is an
operator that transforms any variable into its tachyonic analog,
evaluated excusively at speeds between lightspeed and infinite speed.

This operator was inspired by the standard imaginary unit, defined;
i = (-1)^(1/2),
and is treated similarly algebraically, but has a totally new
meaning; it is used for converting quantities/symbols to their
tachyonic analogs, but with restricted superluminal velocity.

Consequently, we can also write;

magnetic F = (i^i) g[B - (1/c)(v x E) .

This, then, completes my idea on providing the empirical symmetric
representations of Maxwell's equations.


References:
(1) Maxwell's Equations; article "Search for Magnetic Monopoles ...",
by Bertram Schwarzschild, Physics Today magazine, July 2006, page 16.
(3) Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Inflation; article "Analysis
and ...", by Frank Wilczek, Physics Today magazine, Oct. 2003, page
10.
(2) Tachyon Operator; online article "Tachyon Math", written by
myself, at
http://hometown.aol.com/HKurtRichter/TachyonMath.html




Previously  -

--- In TheAoISCT@yahoogroups.com, "HKurtRichter" <hkurtrichter@...>
wrote:
>
> An article in the latest issue of Physics Today magazine (July
2006,
> page 16) reminded me of something I had contemplated some time ago,
> and I have decided to post the notion below.
>
> The article was entitled:  "Search for Magnetic Monopoles at the
> Tevatron Sets New Upper Limit On Their Production".
> It was written by Bertram Schwarzschild, who metioned therein that
> detection of a magnetic monopole, anywhere, would allow us to write
> Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism in a fashion that would
have
> the equations describing the electric field in exactly the same
form,
> symmetrically, as the equations describing the magnetic field.
>
> At present, since we have yet to actually detect magnetic
monopoles,
> we must assume that they do not exist within the "visible"
universe.
> For that reason, in Maxwell's equations the magnetic equivalent of
> the equation for the force F of an electric field on a particle of
> electric charge e is not meaningful (i.e., there is no
corresponding
> magnetic charge), the term for the magnetic current-density in the
> formula for the divergence of the electric field is missing (while
> there is a term for the electric current-density in the formula for
> the magnetic field's divergence), and the curl of the magnetic
field
> is, by convention, made equal to zero, which is the condition that
> establishes the "non-existence" of magnetic monopoles (with curl of
> the electric field a non-zero function of electric-charge density).
>
> Furthermore, as noted in the article, the mass of a magnetic
monopole
> would be nearly 70 times that of the electron, according to the
most
> optimistic interpretation of the situation.  That puts it far
outside
> the detection range of all existing colliders, and even beyond the
> capabilities of the coming largest Tevatron ever built (scheduled
to
> go online sometime next year).
>
> In any case, it was largely to explain the lack of magnetic
monopoles
> in the visible universe that some astrophysicists proposed the
theory
> referred to as "Inflation"; a superluminal phase of outward motion
in
> the first moments of the Big Bang, in which, it is said, the
density
> of magnetic monopoles (and, therefore, magnetic "charges") shrunk
to
> nothing (though electrical charges, poles, and currents, and their
> counterparts in the weak-nuclear and strong-nuclear fields, are
still
> very much with us, in large numbers).
>
> So, we have a proposal from respected scientists which implies that
> all magnetic monopoles remained in superluminal states of
existence,
> and that this fact is why we cannot detect them.
>
> In other words, it is suggested that actual magnetic monoples are
> tachyonic in nature.  Thus, they can be depicted, theoretically,
> using the tachyonic analogs of their standard representations.
>
> Now, while I noted elsewhere that using the tachyonic analog of a
> magnetic monopole to explain gravitation is not as empirical as the
> tachyonic-gravity model I propose in my thesis, the tachyonic
analog
> of a magnetic monopole does explain the so-called Dark Matter and
> Dark Energy that cosmologists are looking for, to account for the
> extra amount of gravity they have determined must be present in the
> universe (i.e., because there is more gravity than is coming from
the
> detectable mass in the universe), and to account for the
acceleration
> in the rate of expansion of the universe (for which they have
offered
> very few explanations, with none of them satisfactory),
respectively.
>
> So, there you have it.  The Dark Matter they seek is the tachyonic
> mass of superluminal magnetic monopoles, and the Dark Energy is the
> virtual quanta of the associated superluminal magnetic fields.
>
> To represent this situation mathematically, then, we can simply
write
> Maxwell's equations for the elecric field as usual, with the
magnetic
> field representations modified to be of the same form as those for
> the electric field (as shown in Schwarzschild's article), except
that
> magnetic charge-density, magnetic current-density, and magnetic
force
> are tachyonic; written as actual imaginary quantities, defined by
> applying a suitable representations theory, such as using an
operator
> (like the imagination-unit I present in my thesis) which transforms
> the standard terms into their respective tachyonic analogs.
>
> In short, we can hold that Tachyonics explains Dark Matter/Energy
in
> a manner that is consistent with the observational data on which
the
> prediction of the existence of Dark Matter/Energy is based.
>
> Of course, the implications for the revision of cosmology theories
> can only be guessed, at this time, but such an explantion, if it
> proves true, is sure to cause a revolution in our understanding of
> the creation, evolution, and present condition of the universe.
>
> EOF
>

An article in the latest issue of Physics Today magazine (July 2006,
page 16) reminded me of something I had contemplated some time ago,
and I have decided to post the notion below.

The article was entitled:  "Search for Magnetic Monopoles at the
Tevatron Sets New Upper Limit On Their Production".
It was written by Bertram Schwarzschild, who metioned therein that
detection of a magnetic monopole, anywhere, would allow us to write
Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism in a fashion that would have
the equations describing the electric field in exactly the same form,
symmetrically, as the equations describing the magnetic field.

At present, since we have yet to actually detect magnetic monopoles,
we must assume that they do not exist within the "visible" universe.
For that reason, in Maxwell's equations the magnetic equivalent of
the equation for the force F of an electric field on a particle of
electric charge e is not meaningful (i.e., there is no corresponding
magnetic charge), the term for the magnetic current-density in the
formula for the divergence of the electric field is missing (while
there is a term for the electric current-density in the formula for
the magnetic field's divergence), and the curl of the magnetic field
is, by convention, made equal to zero, which is the condition that
establishes the "non-existence" of magnetic monopoles (with curl of
the electric field a non-zero function of electric-charge density).

Furthermore, as noted in the article, the mass of a magnetic monopole
would be nearly 70 times that of the electron, according to the most
optimistic interpretation of the situation.  That puts it far outside
the detection range of all existing colliders, and even beyond the
capabilities of the coming largest Tevatron ever built (scheduled to
go online sometime next year).

In any case, it was largely to explain the lack of magnetic monopoles
in the visible universe that some astrophysicists proposed the theory
referred to as "Inflation"; a superluminal phase of outward motion in
the first moments of the Big Bang, in which, it is said, the density
of magnetic monopoles (and, therefore, magnetic "charges") shrunk to
nothing (though electrical charges, poles, and currents, and their
counterparts in the weak-nuclear and strong-nuclear fields, are still
very much with us, in large numbers).

So, we have a proposal from respected scientists which implies that
all magnetic monopoles remained in superluminal states of existence,
and that this fact is why we cannot detect them.

In other words, it is suggested that actual magnetic monoples are
tachyonic in nature.  Thus, they can be depicted, theoretically,
using the tachyonic analogs of their standard representations.

Now, while I noted elsewhere that using the tachyonic analog of a
magnetic monopole to explain gravitation is not as empirical as the
tachyonic-gravity model I propose in my thesis, the tachyonic analog
of a magnetic monopole does explain the so-called Dark Matter and
Dark Energy that cosmologists are looking for, to account for the
extra amount of gravity they have determined must be present in the
universe (i.e., because there is more gravity than is coming from the
detectable mass in the universe), and to account for the acceleration
in the rate of expansion of the universe (for which they have offered
very few explanations, with none of them satisfactory), respectively.

So, there you have it.  The Dark Matter they seek is the tachyonic
mass of superluminal magnetic monopoles, and the Dark Energy is the
virtual quanta of the associated superluminal magnetic fields.

To represent this situation mathematically, then, we can simply write
Maxwell's equations for the elecric field as usual, with the magnetic
field representations modified to be of the same form as those for
the electric field (as shown in Schwarzschild's article), except that
magnetic charge-density, magnetic current-density, and magnetic force
are tachyonic; written as actual imaginary quantities, defined by
applying a suitable representations theory, such as using an operator
(like the imagination-unit I present in my thesis) which transforms
the standard terms into their respective tachyonic analogs.

In short, we can hold that Tachyonics explains Dark Matter/Energy in
a manner that is consistent with the observational data on which the
prediction of the existence of Dark Matter/Energy is based.

Of course, the implications for the revision of cosmology theories
can only be guessed, at this time, but such an explantion, if it
proves true, is sure to cause a revolution in our understanding of
the creation, evolution, and present condition of the universe.

EOF

Naturally, as anyone who does research on gravity can tell you, a
rather high-profile effort these days is the search for gravitational
waves at a number of well-respected institutions, including Caltech,
MIT, and other facilities around the world, using detectors based on
special Michelson-Morley interferometers; special in the sense that
they are extremely large (several miles in length, along each arm of
any given interferometer), with state-of-the-art equipment, boasting
of cutting-edge sensativity.  [For details, do a Google search using
the following key words; LIGO, IGEC, GEO, and/or TAMA.]

Unfortunately, while billions of dollars are being spent in various
countries, and despite the fact that the first interferometer-type
gravitational-wave detector has been in operation for almost 12 years
now (with many others having been built and used continuously since
then), no gravitational waves have been detected as of this writing;
July, 2006.

The researchers directly engaged in the effort, and others who have
vested interests in detecting gravitational waves, of course, keep
predicting that the waves will be detected someday soon [where the
soonest estimate to-date claims that it will be within the next 18
months, or thereabouts (while others are saying it will be no sooner
than 4 years away)].  And with so much money and so many reputations
at stake, you can't blame them for leaning on, let us say, the
optimistic side of at least one paramount issue; whether or not they
have adopted the correct theoretical conceptualization on which to
base the design and calibration of the said equipment.

For my part, I expect that they may indeed eventually detect the
waves, but that they will not find them where (in the frequency or
wavelength ranges) nor maybe even in the manner (at the velocity) in
which they thought, based on the premise that they are calibrating
their instruments in accordance with implications of the standard
model of gravity; i.e., Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR)
in its Riemannian geometric formulation, to which is added a quantum
mechanical model in the form of a quadrupole field of spin-2 massless
bosons, the well-known "gravitons" (taken in analogy to the photons
of electromagnetism).

According to my thesis on tachyonic gravity, in which the Riemannian
formulation is retained, but the spin-2 graviton model is replaced by
a spin-0 tachyon model, I predict that gravitational waves will be
detected only if the searchers recalibrate their instruments to start
looking for the waves predicted by the Riemannian formulation at
speeds other than lightspeed, both slower and faster  -  because the
Riemannian formulation does not need the spin-2 graviton model to
account for the production of gravitational waves [since the waves
are associated with distortions of the fabric of space, not with the
propagation through space of photons or of any other massless quanta
(restricted to traveling only at lightspeed)].

[To review my thesis, click-on "Tachyonic Gravity" at
www.TachyonicsSociety.com.]

Now, notice that certain astronomers would have us believe that the
speed of gravitational waves must be lightspeed, because this fits
with certain "calculations" they perform using the data collected
from the detection of electomagnetic radiation from one of the same
sources of gravitational waves at which the above researchers are
focusing their attention; the binary pulsar systems that appear to be
losing rotational energy, and for which, it is said, the energy is
lost in the form of gravitational radiation.

A famous example is the binary system named PSR 1913+16, discovered
by astronomers Russel Hulse and Joseph Taylor in 1974, and for which
discovery they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993.

So, you would think that these guys are thrilled at the prospect of
the detection of gravitational waves, if detection is accomplished
using the parameters obtained from applying the spin-2 graviton
model, since that will reinforce their long-standing assertion that
their own research has already proven that the spin-2 graviton model
is experimentally correct (in which case, gravity is not tachyonic).

However, if gravitational wave detectors indicate parameters other
than those obtained from the spin-2 graviton model, then yet other
quantum mechanical models, such as the tachyon model I have proposed,
must be considered.  And, in that case, decades of claims that have
been made by otherwise well-respected researchers, and thus accepted
as "scientific fact" by many others, will suddenly be proven wrong.

It remains to be seen, therefore, what the researchers engaged in the
direct search for gravitational waves are going to do, if they find
eventually that their instruments are providing them with data that
is not in conformity with the mainstream view of gravity (i.e., that
which involves, as sacrosanct, the spin-2 graviton model).

For many years now, I have been saying that gravity is faster than
light, and is therefore a tachyonic force.  I expect, then, that the
search for gravitational waves will someday prove it.

Indeed, I am so confident in such an outcome that I would suggest
that the search for gravitational waves will bear fruit much sooner
[though in favor of the tachyon model (and necessarily in opposition
to the graviton model)] if the said researchers recalibrate their
instruments (even only temporarily) so as to test this possibility
(and as long as the test is conducted in an open and honest fashion).

Otherwise, and ironically, I am of the opinion that the scientific
community will be quilty of perpetrating a fraud upon itself.

Since one of the goals of this group is to create an Interdiscipline
Synthesis Cosmology (ISC), where acceptance of Tachyonics as valid is
the fundamental initial assumption, and I have declared that the
search for the tachyon and the search for the quanta of gravity are
one and the same search, then we have come to a point at which
something must be done to substantiate that assertion experimentally,
which would rightly be viewed as an issue for our sister group, The
TEPG.  Yet, help is needed to accomplish this feat.

I shall explain, as follows.

The overall goal of The TEPG is to find ways to detect and use
tachyons. And one area of research that has been proposed as a
possible fruitful field is gravitation detection, because it is
possible that the quanta of gravity are tachyonic.

Yet, such a concept, currently only an hypothesis, must eventually be
substantiated with experimental evidence, in order to be accepted by
the physics community as maturing from a mere science-fiction idea to
growing into a genuine testable "theory" of gravity.

As you will have noticed if you do a lot of research into gravity
theory, the mainstream position on the most advanced astronomical
research going on gravitation these days is associated with the
measurement of electromagnetic radiation from binary pulsar systems -
such as PSR 1913+16, discovered by Russel Hulse and Joseph Taylor in
the 1974, and for which discovery these men later won the Nobel Prize.

How the detection of such radiation is connected to gravity theory is
that there seems to be a reduction in the rotational energy of some of
these systems, and the energy that is lost is said to be carried off
by gravitational radiation, in the form of gravitational waves
propagating outward into the universe at large.

The search is on, therefore, for gravitational waves. However, many
astronomers and other scientists insist that the data collected in the
observations of such binary pulsar systems can be used to calculate
the speed of these waves, and what is more, some physicists claim the
speed of the gravitational waves is also the speed of the quanta of
gravity; usually referencing the standard quadrupole model, in which
the quantum is the graviton (a spin-2, massless, intermediate vector
boson), which is assumed to travel at lightspeed.

Consequently, since certain "predictions" that have been made using
the data collected in binary pulsar observations have been tested,
and are said to confirm the mainstream position, then it is asserted
that any other gravity theory must conform to that position, or it
must also be able to make other predictions that can likewise be
confirmed using the same data. That is, they link their calculations
using the data to the standard model of gravity (General Relativity
combined with the spin-2 graviton model), and say that any
alternative theory of gravity must be compared to that theory, if it
is to be viewed as valid experimentally.

Put bluntly, they demand that any challenge to the graviton model must
be able to explain the energy loss in the said binary pulsar systems.

I personally consider this demand unqualified, for a number of good
and logical reasons (which I have explained elsewhere). But I find
that so many physicists throw up the binary pulsar data as proof
against my ideas on tachyonic gravity that it must be confronted head-
on, if the graviton model is to be rejected in favor of the tachyonic
model that I explain in my thesis. [To review the thesis, click-
on "Tachyonic Gravity" at www.TachyonicsSociety.com.]

In a recent discussion at the Advanced Physics Forum, an opponent of
my thesis has declared that I must present equations by which numbers
can be calculated that explain or correlate with the data, or from
which predictions can be made that will be confirmed by the data,
before he will take my ideas seriously.  And since, as I have found,
his stance is representative of that of most mainstream physicists,
then I have taken it as a mandate to address the challenge that he
has presented to me; to produce numbers that can be used to plot a
line that fits with the binary pulsar data; which means that I must
thereby "prove" that the currently prevailing interpretations of the
data, as supporting the graviton model, is mostly wrong.

So, while I have already confirmed for myself that my thesis is quite
consistent with the data, though it does not directly contradict the
graviton model, as I see the situation, it has now been put upon me to
discredit the graviton model before I will even be allowed, in the
mainstream view, to demonstrate that my version of tachyonic gravity
is a more accurate interpretation of the data.

Thus, I seek numerical calculations from my tachyonic gravity model
that result in values that can be checked against the said data, and,
at the same time, I must be able to disprove the graviton model.

Now, I have already uncovered a number of serious defects in the said
graviton model, and in the "calculations" using the binary pulsar data
that are said to support that model. Enough, indeed, to discredit the
claim that the data "prove" that the graviton model is correct. But I
do not have alternative calculations to propose.

I am, of course, working on it, but have only spare time to spend;
having to earn a living at a job that is not related to this project.
So, any help on this particular challenge would be greatly
appreciated.

Thanks

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.
>

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.

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.]
>

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.]

I have just published a new article on the main site.

It is entitled "Imaginary Gravitational Exchange Tachyons", but is
basically a condensed version of my thesis on gravity.

If interested, click the "Tachyonic Gravity" link on the upper-left
side of the homepage, at www.TachyonicsSociety.com.

Review of Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology


      Introduction
      Suppose you could:  describe spirit creatures using physics;
resolve the dispute between evolutionists and creationists; introduce
a revolutionary new natural philosophy with universal applications;
explain numerous previously unexplained natural phenomena;
investigate the nature of the unseen realms of existence; and fully
define the Grand Unified Field Theory.
      These possibilities will be allowed, someday, because the
potential for human accomplishment is boundless.
      Imagine a religious leader who uses empirical physics to
describe the substance of spirit creatures, or a professional
scientist explaining supernatural events in a quantitative manner,
complete with repeatable experiments.  Then consider the possibility
that the debate between evolutionists and creationists will be
rendered moot by the coming discovery of a subatomic particle whose
proven existence implies that non-physical entities do exist, for
they are simply aliens residing in alternate-dimensional spacetimes,
and that the deity-like alien we call God actually used evolution as
his means of creation.
      "Impossible!  Unthinkable!  Outrageous!"  many will say.  Yet,
these and many related prospects, which seem the most ludicrous and
contradictory of suggestions today, are not only possible, but are,
in fact, inevitable.
      It is becoming increasingly clear to seekers of truth that both
the scientific and spiritual leaders of the day are espousing
incomplete descriptions of reality.  Far too many of those who
profess to know most of what must be known about something are guilty
of picking and choosing arbitrarily what are acceptable or
unacceptable notions in their discipline, which results in
conclusions, hypotheses, theories, philosophies, etc., based on
personal preferences rather than detached scholarship, including
expositions that cite physical evidence, pure mathematics, science
and technology, contemporary philosophy, metaphysical and psychic
phenomena, or ancient religious texts.  Consequently, we genuine
seekers of truth are forced to go from one source to another in
search of the combination of ideas that results in a synthesis that
represents our own personal view of reality, which is then,
necessarily, an individual thing.  But a single source for all of the
information we need is had only at the expense of brevity, such as
all the books in the public library, or all the web sites that can be
accessed on the Internet.
      Since there is such an overwhelming amount of information in
each of the disciplines that people engage in, then how can normal
people absorb enough of all that is out there to enable one to devise
a complete understanding of reality that results from considering all
of human knowledge?
      Fortunately, there is a philosophical movement that promises to
solve this dilemma; one which provides the individual with the
freedom to sculpt their own version of reality, yet is, essentially,
based on all of the information in the world.  This natural
philosophy, whose main principle is interdiscipline synthesis, also
promises to produce the most correct view of the universe at-large,
which view, for lack of a more concise term, can be
called "Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology", or "ISC".


      Defining ISC
      The prefix "inter" can mean "mutual," in the sense of viewing
two or more things equally, while the word "discipline" can mean "a
branch of knowledge," so that the term "interdiscipline" can be
interpreted to be  "the viewing of two or more bodies of knowledge
equally", which is a general definition, as opposed to that for the
more specific "interdisciplinary," which means "of, relating to, or
involving two or more academic disciplines," and is reserved for use
in University settings.  Here, though, we choose to define the
title "Interdiscipline" to be "the act of considering equally more
than one body of knowledge at a time," or simply "multiple bodies of
knowledge."
      The term "synthesis" can mean "the combining of separate
elements to form a coherent whole," or "the complex whole so formed,"
and implies the mixing of different types of elements.  Here, we
define the title "Synthesis" to be "the single though complex whole
formed by combining separate fundamental elements," or, more
compactly, "the combination of."
      The term "cosmology" can mean "an explanation of the universe,"
and we shall take the title "Cosmology" to be the same, and imply
that the explanation must provide for a presentation of some kind of
physical model.
      Altogether, therefore, the term "Interdiscipline Synthesis
Cosmology", or ISC, can be taken to mean "the concept of the universe
obtained from combining bodies of knowledge from several human
intellectual endeavors."  That is, the term is self-explanatory.  ISC
denotes a description of the universe obtained by synthesizing data
from different disciplines.
      Because such a view depends on a number of diverse areas of
investigation, then it is properly considered a natural philosophy,
as opposed to a scientific theory, religious doctrine, secular
philosophy, …, although it will necessarily include many theories,
doctrines, and other philosophies.  Thus, the complete ISC purports
to summarize much of human knowledge, with the stated goal of
determining the most comprehensive and accurate description of the
universe.  Consequently, ISC must include all scientific concepts and
scenarios relating to cosmology, numerous religious notions, many
metaphysical concepts, and so on, and can leave no pertinant precepts
out of the whole, even if ideas within one discipline are in conflict
with ideas in another.  This is done by requiring that the statements
comprising the elements that make up the whole of ISC are chosen as
empiricisms from each discipline, determined by consensus among
scholars in each discipline.  The first criteria, therefore, is that
a given statement of fact is considered empirical in any discipline
within which it is largely held a fundamental concept.  For instance,
in most Christian religions, the statement "murder is bad" would be
viewed as an empirical statement.  Likewise, in most scientific
circles, the statement "gravity is one of the fundamental forces of
nature" would also be considered an empiricism.  The reader can, no
doubt, imagine a host of other examples, from these or other
disciplines.
      Empiricisms from all disciplines can then be compared to each
other, and those which are in conflict are separated, though not
disregarded, and distinguished as the set of all Contradictions.
What is left over after all these Contradictions are removed becomes
the basic collection of empirical statements that form the Core of
ISC.  With that, some method can be used to solve conflicts among
the  Contradictions, so that the number of statements in the Core can
be maximized.
      The result of this writer's efforts in such respects is the
conclusion that the arts are the natural synthesis of physics and
spirituality.  There is something all-inclusive about our artist's
ability to express themselves; to imagine complicated subjects; to
create new things, and to tap into those metaphysical aspects of our
humanity that cannot currently be explained by even the most advanced
of scientific theories, and which theologians are still struggling to
fully comprehend.
      The arts can thus be viewed as a key to understanding how we may
synthesize all of the seemingly contrary information in the set of
Contradictions, such as the huge differences between evolutionists
and creationists.  And it is the philosophy behind ISC that provides
the format which produces a synthesis of physics, spirituality, the
arts, and other disciplines.
      Ideally, given involvement by honest and open-minded
contributors, and allowing for a sufficient timeframe, it is
foreseeable that ISC can be used to establish a "Theory of
Existence", or ISCTE; a theory capable of describing all of nature in
physical and theological terms, as well as other aspects of reality.
The holy grail of physics, the Grand Unified Field Theory, would have
to be covered in such a theory, as would numerous other natural
philosophies, religious notions, and the like.
      "But physics already involves in-depth explanations of reality,"
a scientist may complain, "because it is based primarily on
experimental evidence and actual, real-world observations of natural
phenomena, while spirituality and the theologies of the world are
based on mysticism and superstition, and are not provable."  Yet,
while such assertions may be considered empirical statements in many
scientific fields, this particular observation is unqualified, or non-
empirical, because much of what passes for truth in physics is really
someone's interpretation of an experimental result, or the experiment
is established according to initial assumptions that boil down to the
experimenter's arbitrary choice of conditions, or a common perception
among researchers is founded on some historical precedent, rather
than impartial investigation.
      In other words, there are many statements in science that do not
qualify as genuine empiricisms, since some doubt or question about
the particulars exists, or a statement is viewed as true even when
there is no experimental evidence to prove it, or the statement has
been handed down by some figure of high regard, so that everyone
feels compelled to agree.
      It all reduces to a matter of consensus, of course.  Yet, in
many cases, the consensus is that what some person says, not what
some experiment reveals, is held as the empiricism, regardless of the
so-called "scientific method".
      What we humans need to break away from the past and develop new
concepts about our existence is no less than the next intellectual
step-up in our development as sentient creatures; a method of finding
the most truthful view of our overall reality; for, without that, we
are little more than a many-minded collective, groping as if blind in
the midst of a terrible data maelstrom.
      ISC promises to give us that method, which will then gives us
valid ISC theories.
      For an ISC Theory of Existence, for instance, no fundamental
information set should be ignored, so that the ISCTE provides us with
the ability to describe anything that can be detected by our senses,
anything detectable with instrumentation, and anything else we may
conceptualize, real or imaginary, having something to do with our
existence.
      There is also the possible benefit that other ISC theories can
be devised which offer ways out of a rather large number of
intellectual quagmires, since such theories, theoretically, would be
capable of giving truth seekers the tools needed to solve otherwise
unsolvable problems.  Suppose that physicists will be given the means
to delve into all of the unseen places in both the microcosm and the
macrocosm that they presently cannot access.  What, indeed, may exist
within the smallest known distance, or beyond the farthest detectable
object from Earth?  And think of what wonders theologians could
contemplate should they be given a reputable means by which they may
extrapolate upon the nature of spirit energies, the substance of
alternate-dimensional beings, the actual form of a deity, and the
ultimate vision of heaven.
      Have no doubt about it.  ISC offers to us an entirely new
intellectual plateau.

I herewith begin a series on what I see as problems with the physics
community in the United States, and, as a starting position, I would
like to give the story of how my life-long desire to become a
physicist was squashed by the head of the physics department at the
university where I did my undergraduate work, and by which sad tale
readers will know the reasons for my dissapointment with the physics
community, and, by extension, the entire scientific establishment in
the U.S.

First, I was a non-traditional student, having spent over 20 years in
the workforce before finally qualifying for a Pell Grant to go to
college [after, having moved back to my home state after 15 years
living elsewhere, I went a year earning lower-than-normal wages (I
had previously made too much money at my "day job" to qualify, but
not enough to send myself to school)].  I did, however, previously
manage to earn a GED (after quiting high-school at age 17), and soon
afterward I obtained a certificate in electronics repair.

My jobs were usually as a repairman, in facilities maintenance, where
I learned a lot about electrical, air-conditioning, plumbing, etc.
But since the age of 18, I also study math and physics as a hobby
(besides many years playing guitar in rock bands, on the weekends).

Anyway, once I got the chance to go to college full-time, I took it;
quitting a good job I had just landed, because they did not use part-
time help.  But I did not care about that.  My mother had agreed to
support me while I went to college, as long as I could pay my own way
to school.  So, I got the grant, started classes at my local junior
college, worked part-time for the school as a video technician, math
tutor, gameroom attendant, and guitar teacher (not all at the same
time), and, after three years, full-time, earned for myself an A.S.
Degree, with a dual major in Mathematics and Computer Science.

The problem I had at that time was that the nearest 4-year university
was too far away for me to continue unless we moved.  So my mother, a
retail store manager, got a transfer with her company to run a store
in that town; we moved there, and I started attending classes as a
transfer student, majoring in physics, at which time I was counted as
a Junior for my first semester, but as a Senior from then on.

I must say that, while my experience with my junior college was
great, it was a whole different story with the university.  It was
terrible from day one, and stayed that way.

The staff was incompetent, the administration corrupt, the teachers,
by and large, completely self-involved, and many of them were not
very good teachers, and, perhaps most importantly, the cost was on
the order of outrageous  -  and that for a rather mundane, outdated,
and very often useless collection of required courses.

But to make a long story short, I found that my department head, who
was also my advisor (and often advised me to do things I did not want
or need to do), and who had a degree in theoretical physics, turned
out to harbor a big grudge against all mathematicians (and therefore,
as I look back, must have hated me before he even met me).  And, as
he had the power to impose whatever extra course requirements he had
a mind to, he decided to impose an extra 20 semester-hours onto mine,
though, for the entire 1.5 years I was at that school I never met or
heard of any other students with that much of an extra required load
(most extra requirements amounted to about 8 or 10 semesters hours).
This was despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that I transferred
in 85 available semester hours of transfer credit (to a school that
only required a minimum of 120 semester hours for a B.S. Degree).

I believe now that, looking at my transcript before I had even to
take one class at the university, and naturally having access to all
of my financial data as well, he intended to make sure that I was not
going to be able to get a B.S. Degree from him, no matter what.

Now, I did know this, at first.  But, after two semesters, in the
second of which I took one of his classes (in modern physics), it
became clear that he had it in for me, for a number of reasons.
I even caught him marking test answers wrong for me, though he
counted the same answers from other students correct (usually these
were essay type questions, or he would say something derogatory about
the "way" I got my answer, or give another excuse; though, when I did
confront him on some of them, he had to correct my score).

He actually established an easily discernable pattern, and had at
least two of his collegues in the department do the same.  Their
intent was to make sure I never received better than a final grade of
C their classes (not matter how well I actually did), so that I would
not qualify for a scholarship, and I would eventuall use up my
funding (because Pell Grants and student loans only last so long).

After I had spent three semesters at the university, I filed a formal
complaint about the unfair manipulation of my grades (for which I had
actual proof, and eyewitness testimony).  But nothing came of it.

Then, during my fourth semester under these conditions, I realized
something unsettling about this department head as a person.

To put it bluntly, he was a snob.  A complete snob, who hated the
very thought of a poor person becoming a pysicist  -  not to mention
doing so on Pell Grants and student loans.  What is more, I was a non-
traditional student; an older guy (in my early forties), instead of
the bright and young (but also more brainwashable) traditional types
that he so obviously (even blatantly) preferred.

What is more, he was unnaturally concieted, and not just with the
kind of conciet that is common among sciences, and other learned
professionals, but so concieted that it clearly passed over into some
kind of psychosis.  He openly displayed an obsessive compulsion to
claim and/or demonstrate how much smarter he was than anybody else.
He would even declare outright the he was a better mathematician than
the mathematicians, though his own training was in physics.

Now, I have read where, once you get advanced enough, the only real
difference between theoretical physics and pure mathematics is one of
concentration.  In other words, it mainly depends on wheter the
person presenting an idea at such a high level of achievement says
he/she is making a contribution to math or to physics.  So, for this
guy to claim to be a better mathematician than the mathematicians
was, it seems to me, taking the notion of self-agrandizement to an
extreme, to say the least.

However, it would not have mattered to me except that it caused him
to have such a huge opinion of himself that he would not answer any
questions in class.  Not any.  He would always say:  "See me during
office hours."  This referred to the office hours that all teachers
were to keep for students to come by with questions; a requirement of
all instructors at the school, except, I guess, for him  -  because
he was never in his office at the posted times.  And if you happened
to find him in his office at any other times, he would not see you
[unless, of course, you were one of his pet students, which, when I
was there, just happened to be a smart, pretty, young, 20-something
female out-of-state student, with a rich father (and who, I could not
help but notice, he bent over backwards to help whenever possible)].

Consequently, this was another strike against me, because I am the
kind of person who likes to ask questions.  I want clarity.  And I
want to make sure what I am being told is accurate.  But my favorite
question of all is:  "Why?"

And that was exactly the kind of question that made this guy angry,
because he did not take it as genuine inquiry (which it was), but as
questioning his authority.  Indeed, he made it perfectly clear, in
nearly every instance (with anybody in his classes) that he brooked
no dissent on his pronouncements; even when it was just an opinion.
He would actually take almost any question about the validity of
currently accepted concepts in physics as personal attacks, because,
quite obviously (and he even admitted to it, in private), he was a
staunch defender of the status quo in science (i.e., moslty with
respect to the mainstream positions of the physics establishment).

As a result of all of this, when it came time for me to get an
extension on my grants and loans, so I could complete my degree
program, he took steps to ensure that I was denied  -  though I
actually qualified for the extensions, had a more than high-enough
grade-point average, perfect attendance, and no discipline problems.

When the financial-aid officer told me I was denied, I asked why,
and, though she was reluctant to say, I finally managed to get her to
admit that the department head had told her turn me down.  And she
said that she was denying me only because final decisions on such
issues are not hers to make, but are up to the department heads.

With only 9 semester hours worth of major courses to take, plus any
ohter courses at the school I needed to get a total of 140 semester
hours (though the norm is a little over 120), I was drummed out of
the university; forced to re-enter the workforce, very deep in debt
with student loans  -  with more than 4.5 years of college under my
belt, but no B.S. Degree to show for all that hard work.

My dream of becoming a professional physicist (instead of merely a
hobbyist), had been snuffed out of existence by a man with the power
to do so, and who decided that I was not worthy.

Well, I do not have a rich daddy.  I have no patron, nor financial
backer, nor even a wealthy friend.  So, I cannot afford to send
myself back to school.  Everything I pay for now is fully out-of-
pocket, including payments on my student loans, supporting myself and
my family, buying books, joining professional societies, purchasing
computers, paying for an internet connection, and maintaining a web
site, so I can still keep learning what I want to know, and publish
the results of my research  -  despite being denied a degree.

I have calculated that, when I include all of the personal study I
have done, the on-the-job training I have obtained, and technological
certifications I have acquired (one each in electronics, electrical,
and refrigeration), I find that I have approximately the educational
equivalent of a person with a Doctorate in Applied Technology.

But, of course, the academic community is not going to accept that,
because I cannot prove, with a piece of paper, that I was willing to
kiss some stuck-up professor's ass for 8 years.

Fuck them.

They may be able to stop me from becoming a professional physicist,
but, as long as their are public libraries in this country, then they
cannot stop me from learning what I want to know.  And as long as I
can support myself well enough to maintain a web presence in my spare
time, then they connot stop me from publishing my work for anyone
else to read, for free, on the Internet.

And there you have it.  My story.

And now you know why I have a grudge against academia, and feel no
constraints about mentioning the many problems I see plaguing the
scientific establishment; especially the insistance on conformity
that pervades the physics community.

Physics, it seems to me, should be about exploring the unknown;
asking questions; questioning existing assumptions; and so on  -
not the imposition of dogma, the unquestioning obedience to the
supporters of the dogma, and the ostricism of people who happen to be
warry of the assertion that the dogma is essentially correct.

Comments are welcome.

Noticing that I am getting no response from readers on this message
board, I have decided to make use of it to post personal comments on
the current problem with a lack of professional ethics that seems to
have become a well-entrenched feature of the scientific establishment
these days, and how this is affecting the physics community.

The problem is complicated, and it is unclear as to what can be done to
solve it, but the situation seems to be most especially exacerbated by
the influence of the corporate greed that is having such an adverse
impact on practically every aspect of our lives in modern times, not
just a terribly corrupting influence on the sciences.

The reason this applies to the effort of establishing a Data Proto-Core
on which we can base a valid Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology (ISC)
is that it is hampering the kind of new and innovative thinking, and
limiting the research time, that is needed to get the job done.

There is a real need for speed, in this respect, but the scientific
community is dominated by efforts that revolve around chasing money,
which requirement our government and corporate interests have imposed
upon us because they tend only to be interested in supporting research
and development projects that promise huge financial rewards, while the
creation of an ISC offers only intellectual rewards.

And, make no mistake, taxpayer-supplied but bureaucratcially controlled
funding dollars and coroporate inspired monetary gain is what matters
most in this climate  -   not the humanitarian quest for increasing our
understanding of the natural world (unless there is profit in it).

So, for readers interested in such subjects, I will be posting opinions
as to what is wrong with the current state of affairs in the sciences
in general, and with the physics community in particular, along with
suggestions on what can be done with only unfunded research (i.e.,
thinkers working on ideas in their spare time, at their own expense).

Readers are invited to post their own opinions at will.

I have decided to start posting a new thread on The TSoA Main Fourm
containing selected excerpts from my recent jaunt into the
unaffiliated forum at PhysOrg.com, but which forum I no longer
endorse.

Previously, I postrf an apology for directing readers to that site.

However, a number of issues were raised in the debates that occurred
on that forum, and I felt the need to bring them up, and to address
them properly, but without having to deal with all the disrespectful
responses, and off-topic posts, that were sure to crop up there.

Consider this an addendum to the Issues and Questions about tachyons
that I published last year, except that these new posts will focus on
the topic of superluminal gravitation (tachyonic gravity).
That article likewise resulted from encounters with critics at
another unaffiliated forum (on AOL).
You can find the original Issues and Questions article at
http://hometown.aol.com/HKurtRichter/questions.html
and tentative answers at
http://hometown.aol.com/HKurtRichter/answerw1.html
http://hometown.aol.com/HKurtRichter/answers2.html

Readers here are invited to look into what will be posted on the Main
Forum board in the next few weeks, and respond, if you like.  [But I
must ask that all responses are civilized in character.]

To access The TSoA Main Forum, simply go to www.TachyonicsSociety.com
click-on the "Fourms" button at the upper left of the homepage, then
click-on the "Main Forum" link on the Forums page.

To access the posts on the PhysOrg.com forum, go to www.PhysOrg.com,
click-on the "New Theories" heading, and choose the thread
labeled "Superluminal Gravitation".  [That thread, as of today's
date, is on page 6 of the New Theories list, but, due to new topics
being added on a continuous basis, will move farther back into the
archive as time goes on.  Also, there a large number of off-topic
posts from several unprincipled participants on that thread, and
which effectivley contaminate the thread. So, I will not be re-
posting those on The TSoA Main Forum. Only selected PhysOrg posts
with on-topic content will be mirrored for discussion on my forum.]

And thank you for your interest in my ideas.

Notice:  New Forum Thread on Superluminal Gravitation

I recently started a new forum thread under the topic of
"Superluminal Gravitation",
at the Advanced Physics Forum web-site.

If interested, go to
www.advancedphysics.org/forum ,
look under the "General Discussion" heading,
click-on the "Speculations" category,
select the "Superluminal Gravitation" topic.

Your participation in the new discussion will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Updated Online Information on Tachyons and Superluminal Phenomena

New Google Search Results  		 Date:  3-26-06

Search Phrases Used:  "Evidence of/for Tachyons" and "Superluminal
Behavior"



Information from NASA on FTL Space Travel Research
www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/ipspaper.html

NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop
Quote:  Photons have been measured to tunnel across a photonic band-
gap barrier at 1.7 times the speed of light ... . ... In addition,
recent experiments of the rest mass of the electron antineutrino have
measured an imaginary value (Stoeffl 1995). Even though this result
is attributed to possible errors, an imaginary mass value is a
signature characteristic of a tachyon. ... In the workshop it was
suggested to revisit this and other similar data to determine if this
can be credibly interpreted as evidence of tachyons. It was also
pointed out that other experiments have been suggested to search for
evidence of tachyons ... .
www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-97-206241.htm

Physicist Uses Electrical Pulse to Surpass Speed of Light
[ CBC News, Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:48:09 EST ]
http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003/01/16/speed_light030116.htm
l
Question:  This was reported in the Canadian press in 2003, but I
don't remember hearing about it in the US.   I first heard of this on
educational TV a year after the story boke in Canada.  Why did we not
hear about it from the major news outlets in the US?
Discussion-group homepage for the above;
www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-43703.html

Time's Arrows, Quantum Measurement and Superluminal Behavior
Quote:  More recently, superluminal behavior has beenfound in
connection with non-evanescent waves ...
www.cnr.it/sitocnr/Iservizi/Pubblicazioni/
Monografie/IngeArch_MatFis/MatematicaFisica/Time/Time_prefaz.html

Observation of Superluminal Behavior in Wave Propagation
The possibility of observing superluminal behavior in the propagation
of localized microwaves over distances of tens of wavelengths is
experimentally demonstrated.
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.4830

Superluminal Photon Propagation
Quote:  This superluminal behavior does not contradict the principles
of Einstein's relativity theory,  ...
www.aip.org/pnu/2000/split/pnu495-2.htm
Additional Reference  -  Quote:  According to the NEC
researchers, "the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before
entering it."
killdevilhill.com/physicschat/messages2/3877.html

Anomalous Pulse Delay in Microwave Propagation
Quote:  Measures of pulse delay in microwave propagation, in open air
and for short distances (not much greater than 1 m), were made by
using launcher and receiver horns. When these are facing each other
we observe a delay time corresponding to a speed equal to c while, if
the receiver horn is shifted or tilted with respect to the launcher
horn, the delay time decreases showing a superluminal behavior. ...
from the obtained results a superluminal behavior clearly emerges ...
dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.48.1453

Optical Tachyons in Parametric Amplifiers
Quote:  We show that optical tachyonic dispersion corresponding to
superluminal (faster than-light) group velocities characterizes
parametrically amplifying media. The turn-on of parametric
amplification in finite media, followed by illumination by spectrally
narrow probe wavepackets, can give rise to transient tachyonic
wavepackets. In the stable (sub-threshold) operating regime of an
optical phase conjugator it is possible to transmit probe pulses with
a superluminally advanced peak, whereas conjugate reflection is
always subluminal. In the unstable (above-threshold) regime,
superluminal response occurs both in reflection and in transmission,
at times preceding the onset of exponential growth due to the
instability. Remarkably, the quantum information transmitted by probe
or conjugate pulses, albeit causal, is confined to times
corresponding to superluminal velocities.  ...  Thus, for the first
time a connection is laid between optical phase conjugation and
superluminal behavior.
www.weizmann.ac.il/chemphys/kozh/my_ref.html

Superluminal Photon Propagation in Inverted Media
Quote:  Primary issue under investigation:  Addresses the faster-than-
light hypotheses of quantum tunneling, particularly in the case of
amplification in the tunnel barrier.  ...  In principal, a rather
more striking superluminal behavior can be exhibited in the case of
inverted medium.
www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/summ.htm

Military Applications of Post-Quantum Physics
Quote:  There is now experimental evidence for post-quantum
physics.  ...  Remote-viewing as observed in actual U.S. military-
intelligence field operations is explained ... . ... standard quantum
theory predicts, and experiments demonstrate, that certain
counterintuitive superluminal effects exist ... .
www.qedcorp.com/Q/ChiaoBell.html

Structures in the Afterglow Peak Emission of Gamma-Ray Bursts
Quote:  The crossing of ISM inhomogeneities of sizes R~10^15 cm
occurs in a detector arrival time interval of ~0.4 s, implying an
apparent superluminal behavior ...
www.ifa.hawaii.edu/colloquia/abstracts/ruffini.txt


EOF

To Whom It May Concern,

I had previously posted a reference to topics I started in a couple
of non-affiliated online forums.  One of these is at PhysOrg.com.

I apologize for directing readers to that site.

There you will find a category labeled "New Theories",
under which I started a thread under the topic of
"Superluminal Gravitation"
-  hoping to get some feedback on my ideas on the hypothesis that
gravity is faster-than-light,
[primarily related to the overview I publish at
http://hometown.aol.com/TachyonicGravity/SuperluminalGravitation.html,
and to my thesis about tachyonic gravity at
http://hometown.aol.com/TachhonicGravity/TLQTtGR01.html].

I was prepared for some opposition, naturally, but I was hoping that
it would at-least be relatively cordial in nature; not quite as
vehement as the last time I ventured into unaffiliated territory.

But that was not to be.

Despite the rapidly growing interest in the investigation of
superluminal phenomena in the physics community, there are still a
large number of defenders of the old status-quo who are openly
hostile to the idea of tachyons altogether, much less any suggestion
that gravity, of all things, could be tachyonic!

The topic immediately garnered off-topic posts from people interested
in opening the discussion by demeaning any other ideas but their own,
then turning around and praising themselves to no end.  But this was
soon followed by people clearly opposed to the idea of tachyonic
gravity  -  not just offering criticism, but posting vile attacks on
me in the most insulting, derogatory, and angry language you could
imagine.  And among the half-a-dozen or so individuals taking the
time to post comments under the topic, only one was even willing to
express a vague interest in discussing the subject politely.

Yet, the topic has so-far been on the boards only a few weeks!

For a forum boasing of presenting New Theories, I found that the vast
majority of individuals engaged in the forum were concerned mainly
with promoting unimaginative theories of their own, or theories of
others which they have embraced, which support old, out-dated, and
rehashed mainstream concepts that have long-ago outlived their
usefullness in helping genuine seekers-of-truth obtain a deeper
understanding of reality than we had 100 years ago.

I have therefore decided to withdraw my support for PhysOrg.com.

Readers can go there and see what has been posted.  I do not, in
fact, object even to members continuing to engage in discussions at
the site (if you want only to be argumentative).  But I will no
longer be participating in discussions thereabouts.

Rest assured, individuals who post messages in forums that I sponsor
will never be subjected to that kind of abuse.  I allow for people to
post opposing views, but they must do so in a civilized manner, or I
delete their posts, and will, if necessary, ban them from my sites.

There are plenty of sites on the Internet at which opposition to the
idea of tachyons can be found.  I therefore do not feel the need to
allow my sites to be contaminated by unruly contributors, and prefer
that criticism posted on forums that I moderate, though they do not
have to be helpful, must be minimally respectful of the fact that
people should be allowed to express their own opinion without having
to constantly be exposed to abusive treatment.

No one should be spoken of harshly because their ideas differ from
the dogma that is being imposed on our minds by the old-school but
ever-shrinking priesthood of the scientific establishment, scrambling
to hold onto the last vestige of their vested interests in erroneous
concepts in the wake of the ever-growing flood of all the newer (and
better) ideas currently sweeping the scientific community, coming
mostly from the "lower" ranks  -  who, by shear number, can no longer
be dismissed as fringe elements, quacks, or as promoting pseudo-
scientific theories.  The tide is turning on the closed-minded.

Tachyons exist, whether the nay-sayers want to admit it or not.  And
this fact will soon be demonstrated experimentally, and beyond all
possible doubt.  Better it is, I say, to be leading the pack, than to
find oneself trying forever thereafter merely to catch up, or worse,
to have to explain why you had been so wrong for so long.

______________

Sincerely,
H Kurt Richter
founder, The Tachyonics Society of America

EOF

Here is some of the most relavent online information under the
subject of Superluminal Gravitation to be displayed with a Google
search, and which has appeared or been revised only within the last
year or so.  Some are in favor of the hypothesis that gravity is
faster than light, but others against, and some are neutral or on
related topics.  I recommend at least a cursory reading of them all.


Discussion on question:  Is gravity superluminal?
www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-3257.html

Online article on Gravity and Aether Fluxes
www.rialian.com/rnboyd/phantom2.htm

Online article on Gravitation Theory for the MOND Paradigm
www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403694

Online encyclopdia entry/overview on the Speed of Gravity
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Book:  Superluminal Pheonmena in Modern Perspective
www.rintonpress.com/books/tiwari.html

Standard Math for Superluminal Velocities
www.xz.vip.sina.com/ebds4.htm

Online article on Hidden Variables and Relativistic Tachyons
www.objectivescience.com/articles/ed_tachy.htm

Book of Essays on LeSage's Theory of Gravitational Shielding
www.redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm

Online overview of Mainstream Theories on Quantum Gravity
www.answers.com/topic/quantum-gravity

Online article on Aether Theory that predicts Superluminal Speed for
Gravity
www.gyrons.net/page11.html


EOF

To all interested members and guests,

I have started topics about tachyons in two unaffiliated forums.
You are invited to look into these forums, and join in, if you like.
Here are the topics of concern, descriptions of the host sites, and
the URLs for the web sites at which you can access the forums.

(1) Topic:  Tachyonic Metaphysics
See "Discussions" link at the site for Atlantis Rising magazine;
an online and print periodical which publishes news and information
on ancient mysteries, unexplained anomalies, and future science.
www.AtlantisRising.com

(2) Topic:  Superluminal Gravitation
See "...New Theories" link at the site for PhysOrg;
an online source for news and discussions in theoretical physics.
[They also post a very good engineering-oriented search-engine.]
www.PhysOrg.com

I mention these here because the discussions touch both on the
physical, philosophical, and metaphysical aspects of Tachyonics.


EOF

What It Will Take

The idea of creating an Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology (ISC)
capable of providing a more complete understanding of the universe
than is possible by relying only on a single discipline of human
endeavor (such as astrophysics) will not be appealing to mainstream
scientists (perhaps especially to astrophysicists who insist on
clinging to old-school dogma) because of the assertion that the
philosophy behind it depends on the acceptance of the existence of
tachyons  -  which have yet to be detected experimentally in such a
way as to convince the particle physicists that particles moving
faster-than-light do not belong only in science-fiction stories, but
should be included in serious theoretical discussions and in
experiments in the field of subatomic particle research.

Fortunately, however, there is an obvious trend, and growing
interest, even in the mainstream physics community, towards
experimental testing of explanations for superluminal phenomena, and
this trend should (as I see it) result very soon in the widespread
realization that a wholly new way of understanding reality will be
needed in order for experimentation along those lines to continue  -
because the very concept of tachyons implies the existence of an
underlying superluminal foundation to our existence, and the pure
mathematics used to describe such things lies far outside the current
establishment status-quo in particle research; not because it will
not be the kind of experimentation that some in the community desire
(for there is the said interest in such issues), but because of the
limitations of technology.

We are still dealing with instruments that depend in some way on the
detection, manipulation, and/or other direct or indirect use of the
photons of the electromagnetic spectrum  -  even when we are focused
only on collecting information about other particles (electrons,
protons, ...).  Furthermore, almost all detection means today rely on
sensors that are affected by a motion or change in energy or some
other event with vibration rates at or below lightspeed, and designed
to convert what is sensed into an electronic signal that can be
rendered into a numeric, graphical, or other form that can be easily
interpreted.  So, when we seek to know about things with vibration
rates, or other velocity-related variables, quite beyond the
electromagnetic spectrum, we are essentially blind.

Unfortunately, the way things stand, progress on this front will
probably come from unfunded research, for the most part, because the
potential for financial rewards, even for the confirmed detection of
tachyons, are tentative at best in the short term, and not guaranteed
in the long run.  Indeed, unless some unexpected and rather amazing
breakthrough occurs within the next few years, then our technology
simply does not offer to us any foreseeable means of employing
tachyons in a way that allows for the invention of devices that can
be used to assemble some set of marketable products (such as
equipment associated with communications systems).

Thus, advancement in the detection of tachyons will probably come
from thinkers who do the relevant research in their spare time, and
come up with experiments at their own expense  -  at least for the
time being.

On the other hand, confirmed detection of tachyons in repeatable
experiments will allow the "discoverer(s)" of the tachyon to publish
research papers and books on the subject that can certainly be
sensationalized (bringing fame, and some enhanced income from book
sales), due to the fact that the proven existence of tachyons will
cause a serious revolution in the way everyone must view their place
in the universe.

It is an inevitable aspect of the implications of Tachyonics (and the
reason why scientists with vested interests in out-dated "scientific
facts" which Tachyonics would overthrow are so vehemently opposed to
the idea of the tachyons) that there is an alternate-dimensional
spacetime on the other side of lightspeed, and that it could very
well be inhabited by aliens which resemble the entities that ancient
people named for us as angels, demons, fairies, and so on.

What it will take, therefore, to convince the scientific community,
is for the evidence to be so overwhelming, and the interpretation of
the experimental results so explicitly clear in favor of the
existence of tachyons, that no scientist in their right mind will be
able to object to the research any longer.

To that end, I started The TEPG, in hopes that the group will be the
first to produce (or at least recognize) the person(s) credited with
the discovery of tachyons (i.e., proving the particle's existence).
And I started The AoISCT Group with a view, at first (by way of
providing the theoretical conceptualization), towards assisting the
individual(s) so credited with the achievement, and, later on,
realizing that the group's goal of creating an ISC will be needed to
keep the revolution from turning into a chaotic scramble to
understand what the detection of tachyons really means to humanity
(because, knowing for sure that tachyons exist will imply that many
scientific theories, religious doctrines, philosophical positions,
and other long-held ideas about reality will have to be revised, due
to obvious inaccuracies in the basic initial assumptions rooted in
the perceptions upon which we formerly relied).

It is therefore imperative that some group (such as The AoISCT Group)
has ready a new natural philosophy (or the makings of such) to which
everyone can turn when their previous out-dated views are called into
question, but where the new philosophy will allow them to maintain
some grip on dearly-held perceived views (i.e., does not require them
to totally abandon their previous understanding of life, the
universe, and everything).

ISC, once it is fully realized, will by design result in just such a
new natural philosophy, because it holds as a necessary condition the
acceptance of all points of view on cosmology.  The only practical
requirement upon individuals will be that they must stop arguing
about who is right or wrong with respect to what they previously
thought was the best way to view our existence.  All of science,
every religion, epistemology in-total will have to be reconsidered in
light of the proven existence of tachyons, because people will all be
right and all be wrong simultaneously, in the ways that they had been
thinking about the world around them  -  for the very most accurate
overall view will be shown to depend upon entirely new concepts,
gleaned from the old, but forming not a compromise position or an in-
between insight but a synthesis that stands as a separate, uniquely
comprehensive understanding of reality.

And it was partly for this reason that I earlier posted the article
entitled "Why We Need ISC"  -  to explain why it is that the next
leap in our intellectual development will require that the philosophy
of science must be more inclusive of ideas that are not now part of
mainstream thinking.

Consider, in addition, the following.

That it is evident that tachyons, though considered interesting
theoretically, are not viewed with enthusiasm by physicists engaged
in particle research [including by scientists already dealing with
untestable notions (such as M-Theory) which are outside the scope of
experimental confirmation] was reiterated by one of the most widely
respected physicists of today, Brian Greene, a noted Superstring
theorist, who, in his book "The Fabric of the Cosmos", expressed the
following sentiment:
"Most physicists believe tachyons don't exist, but others enjoy
tinkering with the possibility that they do.  So far, though, largely
because of the strange features that such a faster-than-light
particle would have according to the equations of special relativity,
no one has found any particular use for them  -  even hypothetically
speaking.  In modern studies, a theory that gives rise to tachyons is
generally viewed as suffering from an instability."  (Greene, 502)

If you are reading this post, then I hope you recognize the wonderful
opportunity being held open to you here; to make your contribution to
building the ISC Proto-Core, and from there fashioning a complete
ISC.  The future awaits us.  Let us be prepared for it, and maybe our
names will go down in history as the thinkers who lifted the human
mind from the confusion caused by the data maelstrom in which we find
ourselves in this so-called "information age", and gave to us all the
most accurate and comprehensive understanding of reality that has
ever been possible, or will ever be needed henceforth.

Reference:
Greene, Brian.  "Fabric of the Cosmos".  Alfred A. Knopf, NY, 2004.

EOF

Recommended Reading

Print Article:
"Albert Einstein as a Philosopher of Science",
by Don A. Howard.
Physics Today magazine, Dec. 2005, page 34.
[Mr. Howard is Professor of Philosophy, and Director of a graduate
program in the History and Philosophy of Science, at Notre Dame
University in South Bend, Indiana.]

The blurb for this article says:
"Einstein's philosophical habit of mind, cultivated by undergraduate
training and lifelong dialogue, had a profound effect on the way he
did physics."

Overview:
The author elaborates on how Einstein viewed the philosophy of
science as an important aspect of being a good scientist.  Of note is
how, as the article points out, Einstein embraced the specialty
within philosophy referred to as "epistemology", which, by way of
definition, deals with the origin, nature, and limits of knowledge.

Howard quotes Einstein as follows:
'So many people today  -  even professional scientists  -  seem to me
like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a
forest.  A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background
gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation
from which most scientists are suffering.  This independence created
by philosophical insight is  -  in my opinion  -  the mark of
distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker
after truth.'  ...  'It has often been said, and certainly not
without justification, that the man of science is a poor
philosopher.  Why then should it not be the right thing for the
physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing?  Such might
indeed be the right thing to do at a time when the physicist believes
he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and
fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt
can't reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very
foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are
now.  [This was written in 1936, but the statement applies just as
well today.]  At a time like the present, when experience forces us
to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot
simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of
theoretical foundations; ... .  In looking for a new foundation, he
must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the conepts which
he uses are justified, and are necessities.'  ...  'Concepts that
have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority
over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as
unalterable givens.  Thus they come to be stamped as "necessities of
thought," "a priori givens," etc.  The path of scientific progress is
often made impassable for a long time by such errors.  Therefore it
is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing long-
held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which
their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown
up, individually, out of the givens of experience.  Thus, their
excessive authority will be broken.  They will be removed if they
cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with
given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can
be established that we prefer for whatever reason.'

My Comment:
I contend that, just as Einstein stood at a sort of crossroads in
scientific thought around the turn of the last century, we who seek
after truth in the U.S. face crossroads of our own.  At a time when
scandals about ethics problems are shaking the foundations of the
scientific establishment, federal funding for basic research in the
sciences is falling off and student loans are being threatened, the
publish-or-perish mentality and blatant money-chasing in science is
undermining the very purpose of scientific research (and compromising
the scientific method itself), and we are losing ground in innovation
to foreign countries, it is clear that a new way of thinking about
science is needed to bolster creative thinking in science, and too
reinstate the science prowess that the U.S. once possessed.
We need an infusion of ideas from a wholly new avenue in
epistemology; a new direction in the philosophy of science.
We need an Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology (ISC); by design the
most accurate and comprehensive understanding of life, the universe,
and everything.  Indeed, ISC promises to direct us into those areas
of human endeavor that stand to produce the next great turning-points
in our spiritual, intellectual, and even technological development.
It is long past due for the people who claim to be the most
enlightened indivuduals among us to put up or shut up!  No more
will the old ways of thinking suffice.  We require a new direction.
I started this message-board to provide thinkers who recognize this
necessity to have a place to freely disucss their ideas, opinions,
likes, dislikes, and anything else they wish to talk about online (on-
topic, of course), without fear of censorship from those who see new
ideas as a threat to establishment dogma in which they have a vested
interest in supporting (and therefore dismissing out of hand, or else
disdainly downplaying, or even going to the very trouble of actively
opposing any/all genuinely promising alternative concepts).
I encourage those of you who understand the need for creating an ISC
(with its foundation in Tachyonics) to start taking the initiative
and publish your ideas in all possible ways, including by posting to
this message board, and, with enough input, we will eventually be
able to say that we had part in overturning the old-school way of
thinking that was holding us back.
The posts on this message-board, consequently, will become part of
the dataset from which springs the Core of Empiricisms that must
serve as the empirical statements from which ISC will be formulated.
I therefore invite you to join us, The Association of ISC Theorists
(The AoISCT Group), and start posting your contributions today.

EOF

Why We Need ISC 		 Article by H.K. Richter

I coined the label "Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology" (ISC) to
indicate an understanding of the universe involving the combination
of as many views of reality as possible, based on the finding that
Tachyonics (the study of the tachyon) allowed me to explain enough
previously unexplained natural and supernatural phenomena that, by
its application, I was able to bring together many formerly
dichotomous intellectual positions for which their was little or no
generally accepted common ground.

Case in point, witness the continuing but tiresome debate between
atheistic evolutionists and fundamentalist creationists, whose
arguments can now be rendered moot when we use ISC to imply that
super-powerful god-like alternate-dimensional aliens can indeed exist
(and that such entities could very well have had a hand in our
evolutionary development), but that this in no way dismisses the
scientific fact of evolution as a natural, even demonstrable process
(as long as we are willing to admit the limitations of a strict
Darwinian interpretation of evolutionary mechanisms, and, by the same
token, revise Christian insistence that the first human pair were
made from dust by a vaguely-defined spirit being).

The proponents of the "intelligent design" concept (ID) seem to be
headed in a suitable direction, but they are encountering intense
opposition from the scientific establishment (which declares that ID
is just repackaged religious creationism).
I founded The Association of ISC Theorists (i.e., The AoISCT Group)
to advance debate in this area, but not to determine which side is
ultimately right or wrong in the ridiculous evolution-vs.-creationism
wars, but to find out how we can come up with a more accurate view of
reality than either side presently espouses.

I suggest that ISC, with its embrace of Tachyonics, will to be an aid
to supporters of ID, in that inclusion of certain empirical
statements of ISC will help make their arguments more palatable to
staunchly atheistic scientists.  I also suggest that ISC will help
die-hard evolutionists fill in some of the more embarrassing gaps in
their theories (so that they need not keep dismissing discrepancies
out of hand).  In other words, I am predicting that ISC is likely (by
design) to give both sides of the origins debate an excuse to agree
upon an entirely new perspective, without giving up territory,
because it will so obviously represent a more complete view of
reality than science or religion can provide for separately.

The AoISCT Group was thus established to function as the
philosophical arm of The Tachyonics Society of America, and, as such,
is tasked to focus on effects that ISC may have on the epistemology
of science, in general, and on cosmology in particular.   One very
obvious implication, for instance, is that we are urged (because of
the requirement to employ Tachyonics) to consider the possibility
that there is an underlying superluminal foundation to our entire
existence!

And how does that play out on the question of our origins?  Well, for
starters, it allows for an explanation of how various aspects of our
physical reality seem to be by design, when, in fact, they could just
as well be the result of undetected tachyonic forces giving rise to
patterns of unseen energy affecting our physical world in ways that
result in the observed actuality, but for which there need be no
intelligent guidance at all.  Yet (speaking of dichotomies), this
position requires recognition of a superluminal aspect to our
existence  -  which implies, in turn, that there is a tachyonic
universe adjacent to our own (with ours thus referred to
as "tardyonic"), and that the tachyonic universe could be inhabited
by alternate-dimensional aliens; some with intelligent minds, but
others with non-intelligent (animalistic) mental processes.  And,
because we allow the existence of these aliens (explaining the
entities that ancient humans referred to as gods, angels, and so on),
then we must also leave open the possibility that certain interested
aliens have interfered with our natural evolutionary development at
different points in the past (thus also explaining some of the more
puzzling findings of modern geneticists, biologists, geologists,
archaeologists, etc.).

What this understanding does, then, is render meaningless the
arguments that seek to establish dominance in the court of public
opinion (and at times even in courts of law) in the conflict between
evolutionists and creationists, and prompts us to start asking new
questions  -  questions we knew not to ask, until now.

These questions, of course, are best addressed not by one type of
researcher, but by all researchers, from all disciplines of human
endeavor; cooperating with each other to come up with the most
pressing and important questions.  Hence, the impetus for
constructing a Core of Empirical Statements (that can serve as the
heart of a database on which a comprehensive ISC can be based)
depends on intellectuals of all stripes joining the cause  -
especially scientists.

Unfortunately, in fielding my ideas about tachyons in various forums
(sometimes online, but also in person), I encountered a
disproportionate amount of opposition (including what can only be
described as insanely vehement anger) from people who profess
scientific proclivities (which was quite at odds with the impression
scientists like to give of being among the most honest, ethical, open-
minded, and intellectually advanced individuals around).  And, since
I desire approval for my ideas from the scientific community [its
members having (with government help) established themselves as Lords
over our minds], then I was, at first, confused by this state of
affairs  -  for I had expected more resistance to come from the
religious sector than from scientists.  However, further reading (and
recalling how many of my science instructors behaved when I was in
college) provided me with an explanation of how it is that the very
subgroup in our society claiming to be seekers of an ultimate
understanding of our world have allowed themselves to become
dominated by a relatively small, close-minded, dogmatic, egocentric,
and inconsiderate bunch of snobs, whose various agendas depend upon,
and revolve around, support and maintenance of an established status-
quo.

But don't take my word for it.  There are many scientists who decry
this situation, and some are brave enough to express their concerns
in print, though they risk losing their status, their funding, or
even their jobs.  Elaboration follows.

Physics Today magazine, one of the most widely read periodicals among
the nation's working scientists, is published by the American
Institute of Physics, which stands boldly and unwavering in its
support of mainstream science.  Yet, consider what some of its
readers had to say in response to recent articles on worries
unflattering news reports have raised about scientific ethics, the
outright suppression of new ideas in scientific circles, and other
serious scientific issues.  [Note too that the following are quotes
from respected physics professionals.]

   F. Morrison (Physics Today, Jan. 2006, p. 14, col. 1, par. 1):
Today's scientists are jet-setting, grant-swinging, favor-trading
hustlers looking for civil servants who will provide them with a
pipeline into the US Treasury.  Not only do they get peer pressure to
behave this way, they also get arm-twisting from the academic
bureaucracy that wants to get its 50% to pay for its bloated
overhead.

   B. Ritchie (Physics Today, Jan. 2006, p. 14, col. 2, par. 7):
Today we have the sorry situation that research must be funded either
internally by committee decision or externally.  ...  This state of
affairs is accompanied by strong propaganda, to which the young
researcher is likely to succumb, that unfunded research, to use the
language of sport or business, is not competitive.  Other language is
used to suggest the worthlessness of unfunded research:  It
is "personal," or a "hobbyhorse," or a "sandbox."  ... cost
accounting of a researcher's university training and intellectual
gift has paradoxically increased that researcher's level of idleness
as a scientist.

   T.J. Blasing (Physics Today, Jan. 2006, p. 13, col. 2, par. 4; col.
3, par. 1):
When I was young and idealistic, I applied to several universities
for a junior faculty position.  ...  I quickly discovered that
virtually all science department heads viewed teaching as a necessary
encumbrance, and wanted someone who would focus almost solely on
research with quick and sure payoffs in terms of funding.  ...
Basically, the quick dollar-payoff is what has been motivating
science departments, to the exclusion of anything "risky" such as
hiring the "independent and creative thinkers" ... .

   W.W. Carter (Physics Today, Jan 2006, p. 13, col. 3, par. 2):
Editors of the principal [physics] journals reject manuscripts that
challenge prevailing theories or fall outside mainstream research.
This practice eliminates new ideas in fundamental physics and
encourages routine articles in established fields.  The editors
protect themselves from many crackpot submissions, but also from the
few potentially great concepts.

Peter Foukal, a physicist with Heliophysics, Inc., in Nahant, Mass.,
expressed his trepidation about "the gradual transformation of pure
science into big business."  He writes:  "So far, the ethical impacts
of this transformation have been obscured by better-publicized
concern over corruption of science by the biotech and defense
industries.  But with physics departments dwindling in the US and
abroad, we need to gauge the effect of ethical issues on the health
of our field.  ...  The Pressure is intense to set aside ethics and
follow the lead of certain drug companies that, when they receive bad
news about adverse side effects, suppress or delay release of the
inconvenient evidence.  ...  In this interesting new research
environment, solution of an important scientific problem is more
likely to be greeted with consternation than enthusiasm.  ...  Even
the award structure of our professional societies increasingly
rewards acumen in preserving scientific problems to maintain stable
funding, rather than skill in solving them."  (Physics Today, July
2005, p. 12, col. 1, par. 1; col. 2, par 1)

I could go on indefinitely about the erosion of ethics, the corporate
dominance, and other systemic problems within the scientific
community, but the foregoing is sufficient to reveal several reasons
for the uncomfortable fact that far too many members of the
scientific establishment behave in ways that result in squelching
interest in new ideas that do not fit-in with "mainstream" views;
especially if any given new idea poses a threat to the standing,
income, or credibility of scientists of stature with vested interests
in holding onto out-dated or erroneous theories.

Clearly, one set of such theories are the evolution scenarios that
still depend on Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest and non-
catastrophic steady-state concepts as mandatory in biological
processes, the Earth's geological history, etc.

Douglas Kenyon, publisher of Atlantis Rising magazine, in his
commentary "The Politics of Intelligent Design", put the situation in
proper perspective, saying:
Heretofore, we have been told we must select either Biblical
Creationism or Evolution.  But, what is challenged in the current
debate is not Evolution, but 'Darwinism'  ...  Ironically, those who
'believe' the later are in actuality staking out a metaphysical
position and holding to it by faith without proof (i.e., adhering
to dogma) and are advancing a virtual religion of their own,
albeit, while claiming to reject the authority of any religion.  The
cult of Darwinism, it seems to us, has usurped the role of the
priesthood which it has ostensibly overthrown, suggesting that
it and only it can provide the answers the world is seeking.
(Atlantis Rising, Number 55, Jan/Feb 2006, page 4)
[ Recommended:  Atlantis Rising magazine publishes articles on
ancient mysteries, unexplained anomalies, and future science.  For
subscription information, write P.O. Box 441, Livingston, MT 59047,
or visit www.AtlantisRising.com ]

On the other hand, I do not contend that the proponents of ID have
provided us with a completely satisfying conceptualization of our
origins.  Their ideas are still too amorphous and disconnected.  As I
alluded to beforehand, I tend towards the conclusion that creation of
physical life can indeed occur through the actions of random forces,
but that there must have at least been some meddling into our lives
in both the distant and the not-so-distant past.  I am, in fact,
prone to take seriously, for instance, the work of Zecharia Sichin,
who suggests that humans could be the result of aliens genetically
tampering with apes.  So I would rather use the term "Intelligent
Interference" (initialized "II"), than Intelligent Design.  And I
therefore recommend to ID proponents, other creationists, the
Darwinists, other evolutionists, and all persons interested in
determining the truths about our existence, that they consider
turning their efforts to making contributions to ISC, from their
particular perspectives, so that they need no longer put things in
words that, intended or not, antagonize supporters of differing
points of view.

Though it does not yet exist, a complete ISC can be imagined as the
culmination of all our ideas on life, the universe, and everything we
can conceive; resulting in a more complete and comprehensive
understanding of our existence, our origins, and our possible future
than has ever been possible before.  This then is how we can benefit
from having a complete ISC.  It offers us ways to rise above our
petty differences; to transcend the mental tendency to limit our
focus too much; and to take the next great leap forward in our
overall intellectual progress.

We start by acquiring, voluntarily, a Proto-Core of the necessary set
of Empirical Statements that can be agreed upon by consensus among
the world's scholars, and other contributors, and from there build
upon it until the first Basic Core has been compiled.  That Core can
then, in its turn, be used to construct a model of the universe that
serves to substantiate the first complete ISC.  Subsequent versions
of ISC will thereafter be forthcoming as more information is added to
the data-set upon which the Core is based, due to inevitable advances
in technology; thereby bringing about unending expansions of the
Core, as time marches on.

Fortunately, no funding is required.  The infrastructure for storing,
maintaining, and retrieving information in the data-set already
exists as the Internet.  All the effort it will take is for a
sufficient number of the world's thinkers with Internet access to
begin (as a hobby, if you will) submitting contributions to the Proto-
Core, which can be in the form of letters, message-board posts,
commentaries, opinion pieces, articles, research papers, and any
other information they think should be included.  These can be
submitted to The AoISCT Group by sending them as e-mail (for works up
to a few pages long), and e-mailing or snail-mailing online or print
references to works already available as publishable documents in one
form or another (web-pages, magazine articles, bound books, etc.).

So, in answer to the question as to "Why We Need ISC", it is needed
to stop all the strife caused by people who, too often for the wrong
reasons, seek always to impose their view of reality upon everyone
else.  In fact, I suggest that ISC itself, even when complete, should
never be considered a finalized tome containing an  entirely
exhaustive understanding of our existence, because it should be
updated continuously as we forever increase our knowledge of the
world around us.

EOF

The Association of ISC Theorists (TheAoISCT) is a group of online
thinkers dedicated to constructing a valid Interdiscipline Synthesis
Cosmology (ISC), the newly-envisioned natural philosophy promising a
more comprehensive understanding of reality than can be had separately
from science, religion, or any other narrowly focused area of human
intellectual endeavor.  Our primary goal, at this time, therefore, is
the creation of a Core of Empiricisms from which the first complete ISC
can be fashioned.  With a truly complete ISC in hand, then, we hope to
establish, based on ISC, a fundamental Theory of Existence (or "ISCTE")
involving the most accurate possible model of the universe.

In-house, we pronounce the abbreviation TheAoISCT as "the a-oh-ist",
and we also refer to TheAoISCT Group simply as "the Association".

The AoISCT Group is a Coterie (division) of the Tachyonics Society of
America, and, as such, is partnered with the Society's other Coterie;
the Society proper (i.e., members with all-encompassing interests), the
Tachyonic Engineering-Physics Group (TheTEPG), and the Indpendent Order
of Esaerehn Wizardry (TheIOoEW).  Thus, while the Association draws on
information provided by members contributing to the other Coterie, we
are fromally the division of the Society that focuses on epistomology.

Readers interested in submitting interdisciplinary type literary,
philosophical, cosmological, and other such contributions (comments,
research, etc.), and which relate directly to the creation of a valid
ISC, are encouraged to participate in the disucssions going on here.

Remember, however, that our founding premise is that ISC cannot be
valid if it does not include Tachyonics as necessary for solving many
previously unexplained natural and supernatural phenomena.

Post freely, but please be polite, and stay on topic.

Thank you.

From The Tachyonics Society of America
Recommended Reading


Sites on Tachyons

____________


Non-Affiliated Sites


Here is a list of Internet sites about
tachyons, but which are not directly
affiliated with the Society.
The sites have been categorized
according to the following headings:
(1) Theoretical Understanding,
(2) Real-World Experiments, and
(3) Applications and Implications.
The sites on theory involve explanatory
information from theoretical physics.
The sites on experiments represent example
sources on experimental efforts and ideas.
The sites on applications delve into possible
physical and metaphysical uses of tachyons.


(1) Theoretical Understanding  -

Everything About Tachyons
http://www.physics.gmu/e~physics/bob/tachyons.htm

Explanation of Tachyons
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html


Localized Tachyons and Branes
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1126-6708/2004/11/086

Negative-Mass Tachyons
http://users.primushost.com/~ewall

Papers on Superluminal Physics
http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/superlum.html

Strings From Tachyons
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0304224

Superluminality in Physics
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-10/msg0028709.html

Tachyonic Gravity
http://www.geocities.com/tsaochang

Tachyonic Quasi-Particles
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000657D8-67D9-
1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7

Tachyons and Quantum Non-Locality
http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/ed_tachy.htm

Tachyons as Solitons
http://xz.vip.sina.com/edbe2.htm

Tachyon Theory
http://www.itsf.org/resources/factsheet.php?fsID=238

The Appropriate Spacetime Model for Tachyons
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:gr-
qc/9606026

The Tachyon Field
http://www.sumeria.net/phys/tachyon2.html


(2) Real-World Experiments -

Are Neutrinos Tachyons?
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-07/msg0034089.html

Electrogravitic References
http://www.earthquakewarning.org/RS_REF10.html

Quantum Electronics
http://www.nat.vu.nl/n_s_old/vakgroepen/theorie/english/research/quant
um.html

Quantum Entanglement and Superluminal Effects
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html

Quantum Tunneling
http://physica.org/xml/article.asp?article=t076a00061.xml

Superluminal Electromagnetism
http://www.ph2.uni-hoeln.de/Nimtz/pub/paper-list.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fab7.asp

Superluminal Phenomena
http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/42/3/13

Superluminal Photonic Tunneling
http://www.wsws.org/public_html/prioriss/lwb9-9/light.htm
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/BPPNASA.htm

Superluminal Signal Velocity
http://t.trafficmp.com/b.t/e48U803056850

Tachyons in Parametric Amplifiers
http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/epl/abs/1998/11/42504/42504.html

The Round Amplifier Detector
http://www.spots.ab.ca/~belfroy/tachyonDetector.html

The Speed of Gravity
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html

Ultra-Fast Particles
http://www.weeklyscientist.com/ws/articles/tachyons.htm

Universal Photonic Tunneling Time
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?
id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0102020


(3) Applications and Implications -

Beamed Propulsion
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:gr-
qc/0107073

Cosmic Evolution
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_
part_5.html

Cosmology, Philosophy, and Religion
http://www.personal.kent.edu/!jwattles/projects.htm

FTL Spacecraft
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/844807/posts

Military Applications
http://www.gedcorp.com/Q/chiaoBell.html

Superluminal Propagation
http://weizmann.ac.il/chemphys/gershon/resum_1995-.html

Tachyon Energy
http://www.kindredspirit.co.uk/articles/6044_tachyon.asp

Tachyons and the Divine
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tachyons.html

The Tachyon Drive
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw61.html

T-Ray Near-Field Imaging
http://dutch.phys.strath.ac.uk/FRC/research/GR-L91627.html

____________


Affiliated Sites

Here is a list of Internet sites directly affiliated with the
Tachyonics Society.
The sites are categorized as follows:
(1) Sites and Homepages, and
(2) The Founder's Works.
The Sites and Homepages include standard web sites and discussion-
group homepages.
The Founder's Works include online articles, essays, etc., authored
by H.K. Richter.
Note that these are selected lists (not all-inclusive) of the
Society's affiliated sites.

(1) Sites and Homepages -

The Tachyonics Society of America, MainPage
http://TachyonicsSociety.org

The Tachyonics Society of America (TheTSoA), Formal Site
http://TheTSoA.bravehost.com/TSoAWebSite.html

The Tachyonic Engineering-Physics Group (TheTEPG), Homepage
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheTEPG

The Association of ISC Theorists (TheAoISCT), Homepage
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheAoISCT

The Independent Order of Esaerehn Wizardry, Homepage
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheIOoEW

The Tachyonic Metaphysics Site, Hosted by AOL
http://hometown.aol.com/hkurtrich/TachyonicMetaphysics.html

The Tachyonic Metaphysics Site, Hosted by Geocities
http://geocities.com/TachyonicMagic/TachyonicMetaphysics.html


(2) The Founder's Works -

About the Author
http://hometown.aol.com/hkurtrichter/AboutTheAuthor.html

Basic Math for Tachyonics
http://hometown.aol.com/hkurtrichter/TachyonMath.html

Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology (ISC)
http://hometown.aol.com/hometown/hkurtrich/ISCpage1.html

Issues and Questions in Tachyonics
http://hometown.aol.com/hkurtrichter/questions.html

Issues and Questions in Tachyonics:  Answers, Part 1; Addressing the
Issues
http://hometown.aol.com/hkurtrichter/Answers1.html

Issues and Questions in Tachyonics:  Part 2; Tentative Answers to the
Questions
http://hometown.aol.com/hkurtrichter/Answers2.html

Magic and ISC
http://hometown.aol.com/MagicForces/MagicAndISC.html

Magic and the Unseen Forces of Existence
http://hometown.aol.com/MagicForces/TheUnseen.html

Overview of Lagrangian Functions
http://hometown.aol.com/hkurtrich/LagrangiansOverview.html

Overview of Tachyons
http://hometown.aol.com/hkurtrich/TachyonsOverview.html

Superluminal Quantum Gravitation
http://hometown.aol.com/TachyonicGravity/SuperluminalGravitation.html

Tachyonic Metaphysics
http://hometown.aol.com/hkurtrich/TachyonicMetaphysics.html

Tachyonics Links Quantum Theory to General Relativity
http://hometown.aol.com/TachyonicGravity/TLQTtGR01.html

Tachyons and ISC
http://hometown.aol.com/hkurtrichter/Tachyons.html

The Physics of the Gods
http://hometown.aol.com/PhysicsOfTheGods/PseudoScience.html

____________


Printouts and Floppies Available by Mail

The Founder's Works are available as hard-copy printouts, on plain
white
copier paper (unless you designate otherwise in your order request),
or on standard floppy-disks (3.25 inch, 1.44 MB diskettes only).
[ CD-ROM versions are not yet available. ]

Send order request by letter, specifying the title of the work(s),
the desired
format (i.e., hard-copy or floppy-disk), and how many copies of
each.
Include your name (a screen-name is allowed), a valid mailing address
(a P.O. Box is allowed), and check or money-order payable to H.K.
Richter.

Hard-copies are $35 per title (includes shipping & handling).
[ Hard-copies arrive as 1 package per set of copies. ]
Floppy-disks are $10 per title (includes shipping & handling).
[ Floppies may contain several titles per diskette, unless specified
otherwise
in your request (i.e., 1 title per floppy, selected titles per
floppy, etc.). ]

Send your request and payment-in-full within a single standard
envelope to:
H.K. Richter, P.O. Box 964, Candler, NC  28715

Allow 2 to 3 weeks for delivery.

Orders will be shipped using the US Postal Service, unless you
designate
otherwise in your order request.  You may designate other/special
shipping
arrangements, but may be billed for any positive difference in
shipping cost.
No returns will be accepted, and no refunds will be given, no matter
what.
Cash-on-delivery (C.O.D.) requests WILL NOT BE PROCESSED.
Credit card, debit card, and other electronic payments are not
allowed.
Send payment by check or money-order only.  [Never send cash in the
mail.]
All sales are considered finalized the moment respective orders are
shipped.

For more information, inquire by email to HKurtRichter@...,
or send a letter by snail-mail to the P.O. Box given above.

And thank you for your interest in The Tachyonics Society of America.

____________
____________


EOF

Interdicsipline Synthesis Cosmology


Introduction:

Suppose you could describe spirit creatures using physics; resolve
the dispute between evolutionists and creationists; introduce a
revolutionary new natural philosophy with universal applications;
explain numerous previously unexplained natural phenomena;
investigate the fundamental nature of the unseen realms of existence;
and fully define the Grand Unified Field Theory.

These possibilities will be allowed, someday, because the potential
for human accomplishment is quite literally boundless.

Imagine a religious leader who uses empirical physics to describe the
substance of spirit creatures, or a professional scientist explaining
supernatural events in a quantitative manner, complete with
repeatable experiments.  Then consider the possibility that the
debate between evolutionists and creationists will be rendered moot
by the discovery of a subatomic particle whose proven existence
implies that non-physical entities do exist, for they are simply
aliens residing in alternate-dimensional spacetimes, and that the
deity-like alien we call God actually used evolution as the means of
accomplishing creation.

Impossible!  Unthinkable!  Outrageous!  many will say.
Yet, these and many related prospects, which seem the most ludicrous
and contradictory of suggestions today, are not only possible, but
are soon, in fact, to be realized as inevitable.

It is becoming increasingly clear to seekers of truth that both the
scientific and spiritual leaders of the day are espousing incomplete
descriptions of reality.  Far too many of those who profess to know
most of what must be known about something are guilty of picking and
choosing arbitrarily what are acceptable or unacceptable notions in
their discipline, which results in conclusions, hypotheses, theories,
philosophies, etc., based on personal preferences rather than
detached scholarship, including expositins that cite physical
evidence, pure mathematics, science and technology, contemporary
philosophy, metaphysical and psychic phenomena, or ancient religious
texts.  Consequently, unfettered seekers of truth are forced to go
from one source to another in search of the combination of ideas that
results in a synthesis that represents our own personal view of
reality, which is then, necessarily, an individual thing.  But a
single source for all of the information we need is had only at the
expense of brevity, such as all the books in the public library, or
all the web sites that can be accessed on the Internet.

Since there is such an overwhelming amount of information in each of
the disciplines that people engage in, then how can normal people
absorb enough of all that is out there to enable one to devise a
complete understanding of reality that results from considering all
of human knowledge?

Fortunately, there is a philosophical movement that promises to solve
this dilemma; one which provides the individual with the freedom to
sculpt their own version of reality, yet is based on all of the
information in the world.

This philosophy, whose main principle is interdiscipline synthesis,
also promises to produce the most correct view of the universe at-
large, which view, for lack of a more concise term, can be called
Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology, and it is defined as follows.


Defining ISC:

The prefix inter can mean mutual, in the sense of viewing two or more
things equally, while the word discipline can mean a branch of
knowledge, so that the term interdiscipline can be interpreted to be
the viewing of two or more bodies of knowledge equally, which is a
general definition, as opposed to that for the more specific term
interdisciplinary, which means of, relating to, or involving two or
more academic disciplines, and is reserved for use in University
settings.  Here, though, we choose to define the generalized title
Interdiscipline to be the act of considering equally more than one
body of knowledge at a time, or "multiple bodies of knowledge."

The term synthesis can mean the combining of separate elements to
form a coherent whole, or the complex whole so formed, and implies
the mixing of different types of elements.  Here, we define the title
Synthesis to be the single though complex whole formed by combining
separate fundamental elements, or rather "the combination of."

The term cosmology can mean an explanation of the universe, and we
take the title Cosmology to be the same, and imply that the overall
explanation must provide for some kind of physical model.

Altogether, therefore, the term Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology,
or ISC, can be taken to mean the concept of the universe obtained
from combining bodies of knowledge from several human intellectual
endeavors.  That is, the term is self-explanatory.  ISC is a title
denoting a description of the universe resulting from synthesizing
data from a number of different disciplines.

Because such a view depends on a number of diverse areas of
investigation, then it is properly considered a natural philosophy,
as opposed to a scientific theory, religious doctrine, secular
philosophy, ..., although it will necessarily include many theories,
doctrines, and other philosophies.  Thus, the complete ISC purports
to summarize much of human knowledge, with the stated goal of
determining the most comprehensive and accurate description of the
universe.  Consequently, ISC could include all scientific concepts
and scenarios relating to cosmology, numerous religious notions, many
metaphysical concepts, and so on, and should leave no precepts out of
the whole, even if ideas within one discipline are in conflict with
ideas in another.  This is done by requiring that the statements
comprising the elements that make up the whole of ISC are chosen as
empiricisms from each discipline, determined by consensus among
scholars in each discipline.

The first criteria, therefore, is that a given statement of fact is
considered empirical in any discipline within which it is largely
held as a fundamental concept.  For instance, in most Christian
religions, the statement "murder is bad" would be viewed as an
empirical statement.  Likewise, in most scientific circles, the
statement "gravity is a fundamental force" would also be considered
an empiricism.  The reader can, no doubt, imagine a host of other
examples from these or other disciplines.

Empiricisms from all disciplines can then be compared to each other,
and those in conflict are separated, though not disregarded, and
distinguished as the set of all Contradictions.  What is left after
all the Contradictions are removed becomes the basic collection of
empirical statements that would form the Core of ISC.

With that, some method can be used to resolve the Contradictions, so
that the number of statements in the Core can be maximized.

The result of current efforts in such respects is the conclusion that
the arts are the natural synthesis of physics and spirituality.

There is something all-inclusive about our artists ability to express
themselves; to imagine complicated subjects; to create new things,
and to tap into those metaphysical aspects of our humanity that
cannot currently be detected by even the most advanced scientific
instruments, and which theologians are still struggling to explain.

The arts can thus be viewed as a key to understanding how we may
synthesize all of the seemingly contrary information in the set of
Contradictions, such as the huge differences between evolutionists
and creationists.  And it is the philosophy behind ISC which provides
the format/methodology that may reveal some ultimate synthesis of
physics, spirituality, the arts, and other disciplines.

Ideally, given involvement by honest and open-minded contributors,
and allowing for a  sufficient timeframe, it is foreseeable that ISC
can be used to establish a Theory of Existence, or ISCTE; a theory
capable of describing all of nature in both physical and theological
terms, as well as other aspects of physical reality. The holy grail
of physics, the Grand Unified Field Theory, would be covered in such
a theory, as would numberous natural philosophies, religious notions,
and even explanations for many myths and legends.

"But physics already involves in-depth explanations of reality," a
scientist may complain, "and is based on experimental evidence, while
the theologies of the world are based on mysticism and superstition,
and are thus not provable."  Yet, while such assertions may be
considered empirical statements in many scientific circles, this
particular observation is unqualified, i.e., it is non-empirical,
because  much of what passes for truth in physics is actually some
man-made interpretation of an experimental result, or the experiment
itself is established according to a set of initial assumptions that
boil down to the arbitrary choice of initial conditions, or a common
perception among researchers is founded on some historical precedent,
rather than impartial investigation.

In other words, there are a great many statements in science that do
not qualify as empiricisms, since some doubt or question about the
particulars exists, or a given statement is viewed as true even when
there is no experimental evidence to prove it, or the statement has
been handed down by some historical figure of high regard, so that
everyone has been taking his word for it ever since.

It all reduces to a matter of consensus.  And, in many cases, the
consensus is that what some person says (not what some experiment
actually reveals) is held as the empiricism, regardless of the so-
called "scientific method."

Consider the following.
Is not quantum physics predominantly an investigation into the unseen?
Is not science-fiction simply a collection of modern-day mythologies?
Is not theology essentially an exploration into metaphysics?

What we humans need to break away from the past and develop new
concepts about our existence is a breakthrough; no less than the next
intellectual step-up in our development as sentient creatures; a
method of finding the most comprehensive view of our reality; for,
without that, we are little more than a many-minded collective,
groping as if blind in the midst of a terrible data maelstrom.

ISC promises to give us that method, which will inevitably gives us
valid ISC theories unrestricted by arbitrary constraints.

In an ISC Theory of Existence, no fundamental information set should
be ignored, so that certain ISCTEs can provide us with the ability to
describe anything that can be detected senses, anything detectable
directly or indirectly with instrumentation, and anything else we may
conceptualize, real or imaginary, having something to do with our
existence; all perhaps in quantifiable terms  -  or at least in some
empirical, non-contradictory, non-disputable context.

There is also the possible benefit that other ISC theories can be
devised which offer ways out of a large number of intellectual
quagmires, since such theories, theoretically, would be capable of
giving truth seekers the tools needed to solve otherwise unsolvable
problems.  Suppose, for instance, that physicists will be given the
means to delve into all of the unseen places in both the microcosm
and the macrocosm that they presently cannot access.  What, indeed,
may exist within the smallest known distance, or beyond the farthest
detectable object?  And think of what wonders our theologians could
contemplate should they be given means by which they may extrapolate,
at last, upon the nature of spirit energies, the true substance of
alternate-dimensional beings, and the actual form of a deity.

Have no doubt.  ISC offers to us a new intellectual plateau.


EOF

From the Founder,

Thank you for your interest in the Association.  Feel free to post
messages on any topic related to theories, philosophies, or other
ideas concerning the understanding of our existence, with a view to
making a contribution to Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology (ISC).

For more on ISC, see next post.

Note:
Please respect the opinions of others, avoid using foul language, and
refrain from engaging in off-topic discussions.  Thanks.

EOF