Counter Responses, Section 5

Merlin Wrote:
As for the "think-tank" - well, I encourage you to engage more "real
physicists" in your tank.

My Counter-Response:
OK.  But how many would Merlin suggest?  There are several who are
involved on an ongoing basis, and there has been some interest,
including a great deal of encouragement, by many others in the past
two years (since I started it).
Yet, in this case, I doubt the number of supportive scientists really
makes much difference to Merlin.  If it is any number short of a
plurality of all mainstream physicists in the world, I imagine Merlin
would say that we are all just a bunch of crackpots anyway, because
he obviously does not want to entertain even the hypothesis that
gravity could be faster-than-light.

Merlin Wrote:
... my favorite comment of all:
Kurt said, "As for the dispute between Merlin and myself, I believe I
have demonstrated in this thread that I am owed a sincere apology. "
I cannot even begin to comment on why anyone would think that an
apology would be warranted by the rebuttal above. No cogent argument
was achieved, and, after having read the entirety of the rebuttal -
my opinion remains unchanged. Wait a sec. - was that another bit of
shenanigans from you Kurt? I think it might have been... You
intimated that you managed to foil my critical dissection of your
theory by insinuating that an apology was warranted. By using your
logic, I could easily demand such an apology from you seeing as how
your rebuttal was even less compelling than your original argument.
Oh well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Good luck on
your quest for tachyonic gravity.

My Counter-Response:
What a conceited blow-hard!  My argument was quite "cogent".  And
his "critical dissection" of my theory on gravity (which is not a
theory, but a thesis; as I have, by now, pointed out far too many
times) was given not in the least in the form of constructive
criticism, but was plainly nothing short of a rather vehement and
extensive exercise in negative, even abusive, criticism.
And why, if I am such a nobody, so ignorant, lacking in sufficient
knowledge, with no compelling argument, does such a highly
experienced and impeccably-credentialed university professor, a
Fellow with honors of the American Institute of Physics, take the
time and trouble to offer such long-winded rebuttals to the ideas I
have published on the Internet?
Is it for my own good, as he suggests?  Or is it to prevent
unsuspecting readers from falling victim to my con, if that's what it
is?  Or is it rather to defend the integrity of the "scientific
method"?
Please.  Spare me the false heroism.
I am still owed an apology.
Yet, I will never get it, for there is something else at work here;
something unspoken, which I have only lately come to realize.  It is
something that Merlin has revealed about his motives in a number of
the Freudian slips that can be detected in his words.
From such hints I have finally concluded that it is not me personally
that Merlin disapproves of, nor does he really care how much or how
little I know.  It can only be the potential popularity of my ideas
that he fears.  And that fear has caused him to act out of all
proportion to the frivolity he attaches to the ideas.

Subsequently, Merlin Wrote:
... your "website's math" is not at all PROOF. For someone who claims
to be a "physicist", you should know that mathematical proofs look
absolutely nothing like what you are proposing at the tachyonics
website (yes - I did visit). I particularly liked the section where
you linked the readers to a different page due to the" limited
capabilities of the word processor used to write and publish this
article on the Internet, such symbols cannot be represented in a very
accurate way here."
... the fact that your entire 7-page thesis posted on AOL Hometown
display no "higher math" speaks volumes. Given that we are talking
about the interaction of theoretical particles outside of
relativistic bounds, I would have at least expected to see some math
similar to that of, something such as this.
<http://merlinsscience.0catch.com/YI.html>

My Response:
Here, once more, Merlin is attributing a position to me that I have
never taken.  Then he becomes derisive because I have not produced
what he already knew I have not produced before.  He seeks proof.
But I have never offered him or anyone else empirical proof of my
ideas.  There is what could be referred to as "circumstantial
evidence", for instance, for the existence of tachyons, and
convincing mathematical implications that gravity is tachyonic, but
there is no hard proof, much less any sort of evidence that someone
like Merlin will take as indisputable at this time; because, like the
vast majority of today's mainstream physicists, he seemingly does not
want tachyonic gravity to be true, no matter what!
And, due to the fact that he has already embraced a certain
conceptualization of how gravity works, sufficient to support his own
view of the way things are, I suspect that he will never acknowledge
the possibility that tachyonic gravity may be proven someday (despite
his preferences), and he will probably continue to deny even the
suggestion that gravity could be faster-than-light until some group
of physicists he cannot belittle comes along with the kind of proof
that he is demanding; at which, I further suspect, instead of
changing his mind, dismissing his previous views and taking as
scientific fact the proven case, he will, I now bet, experience
something like a nervous breakdown  -  because his world view, the
one he as been staking his reputation on, and teaching/preaching all
these years, along with that of many of his peers, will thereby have
been completely shattered!
There are, to be sure, ongoing experiments, and others which are
planned, that are recognized as the most advanced efforts at
determining the most accurate form of the quantum theory of gravity.
The top few were discussed recently in the article "Quantum Gravity
Faces Reality", by Lee Smolin, [of the Perimeter Institute for
Theoretical Physics (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada)], in Physics Today
magazine, the November 2006 issue, pages 44 - 48.
The blurb for the article reads:
"String theory is only one of many approaches to quantizing general
relativity.  Increasingly, all of those approaches will be judged by
how well they accord with experimental data."
I take such information very seriously, and try to keep abreast of
the latest developments.  Note too that several of the coming
experiments Smolin mentions could result in a re-examination of how
we represent quantum gravity, and I would go so far as to suggest
that this may very-well result in the conclusion that gravity is
superluminal in nature, and that its quanta could even be described
by the kind of tachyons I propose in my thesis.
I shall therefore go out on a limb here, and make the following
prediction, which Merlin can take as someday bringing to a close our
debate on whether or not my ideas are valid.  I predict that more
than one of these experiments (and others besides) will soon prove
beyond doubt that gravity is indeed tachyonic, and that this proof
will become undisputed no later than 50 years from now, but will be
embraced by the vast majority of physicists world-wide within the
next 5 years.  Yet, I am willing also to say that I believe these
experiments will start to be recognized by the experimentors as
leading them in that direction within the next few months!  [Some few
of which may even begin publishing their findings, in that regard, if
they are brave enough to do so.]
That should be soon enough for Merlin.
If, within the next few years, therefore, reports from the
researchers involved in at least two of the experiments mentioned in
Smolin's article do not state that the data being collected could be
interpreted as indicating a tachyonic representation format for the
most empirical quantum theory of gravity (even if my version of the
representation is not embraced), then I admit now that I have been
wrong about it all along.  But if those reports confirm instead that
what I have been saying is probably true (that gravity is tachyonic),
then that will prove that it was Merlin who was wrong, and that he
will indeed owe me a sincere apology.
But I conjecture on future events.  Let us return to the present.
To be as facetious as he, I am glad he "liked" it when I directed
readers at my site to another online source, due to the limits of my
software.  As I said before, I am not a wealthy man, and I do not
have unlimited resources with which to buy equipment.  I am a
moderate-income working-man, and devote my spare time to this
research as a hobby.  So, I can only afford to direct so much time
and money to it.  Thus, I simply have to do what I can with what I've
got, until I can afford to get something better.
And if that is not good enough for Merlin, well then all I can think
of to say to that is something politically incorrect.


More to come.

--- In TheAoISCT@yahoogroups.com, "captjim" <Jonesalonzo1@...> wrote:
>
> --- In TheAoISCT@yahoogroups.com, "HKurtRichter" <hkurtrichter@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Counter-Responses, Section 4
> >
> > I Previously Wrote:
> > "In point of fact, I have been doing research on the idea of
> tachyons
> > for nearly 30 years.
> > And, with respect to the meagre list of college courses Merlin
> cited,
> > I can say: "Been there. Done that." "
> > Merlin Responded:
> > I'm surprised to hear that you have been "researching them" for
30
> > years considering they first arrived on the scene in '67
(Feinberg,
> > Phys, Reveiw) and were barely discussed until the late-70's
(North-
> > Holland, Amsterdam, 1978). But hey, I'll give you the benefit of
> the
> > doubt. As for having, "Been there - done that," I'm stunned...
> > Speechless (almost). I find no proof that this is anything other
> than
> > an assertion.
>
> Why can't he believe your simple statement? You said nearly
> 30 years, that means you started you're research in the late
> 70's...  Just when he admits that the discussions about tachyons
> started to pick up.  It seems to me that his attempt to cast doubt
> on your credentials is having the opposite effect.  It is instead
> proving - that what you say - can be relied on to be true.
>


Thanks, Jim.  I appreciate your interest in this debate.
And if you keep reading, you will perhaps recognize what I did after
a while.  Professor Merlin seems to be grasping at any straw he can
to discredit my ideas, even to the point of behaving unethically.
Sad, it seems to me, that he is an actual professor, and has students
lives in his hands.  It makes me wonder how many inaccurate concepts,
personal opinions, and outright fallacies he is requiring them to
accept as "scientific facts" just to pass his courses.
But please, read on!

--- In TheAoISCT@yahoogroups.com, "HKurtRichter" <hkurtrichter@...>
wrote:
>
> Counter-Responses, Section 4
>
> I Previously Wrote:
> "In point of fact, I have been doing research on the idea of
tachyons
> for nearly 30 years.
> And, with respect to the meagre list of college courses Merlin
cited,
> I can say: "Been there. Done that." "
> Merlin Responded:
> I'm surprised to hear that you have been "researching them" for 30
> years considering they first arrived on the scene in '67 (Feinberg,
> Phys, Reveiw) and were barely discussed until the late-70's (North-
> Holland, Amsterdam, 1978). But hey, I'll give you the benefit of
the
> doubt. As for having, "Been there - done that," I'm stunned...
> Speechless (almost). I find no proof that this is anything other
than
> an assertion.

Why can't he believe your simple statement? You said nearly
30 years, that means you started you're research in the late
70's...  Just when he admits that the discussions about tachyons
started to pick up.  It seems to me that his attempt to cast doubt
on your credentials is having the opposite effect.  It is instead
proving - that what you say - can be relied on to be true.

Counter-Responses, Section 4

I Previously Wrote:
"In point of fact, I have been doing research on the idea of tachyons
for nearly 30 years.
And, with respect to the meagre list of college courses Merlin cited,
I can say: "Been there. Done that." "
Merlin Responded:
I'm surprised to hear that you have been "researching them" for 30
years considering they first arrived on the scene in '67 (Feinberg,
Phys, Reveiw) and were barely discussed until the late-70's (North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1978). But hey, I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt. As for having, "Been there - done that," I'm stunned...
Speechless (almost). I find no proof that this is anything other than
an assertion.

My Counter-Response:
Please note that I said I have been researching the "idea" of
tachyons for "nearly" 30 years.
I am 51 years old at this time.  When I was 18, I had some ideas for
a sci-fi story and started to write them down (I have since written
three sci-fi novels; not published), and I began studying physics and
astronomy so that I could make my sci-fi more realistic.  I also had
the desire  to come up with my own design for a faster-than-light
(FTL) spaceship; the concept of which was nothing new to sci-fi, of
course  -  I just wanted my own version.  That brought on the notion
that advanced aliens with FTL spaceships must certainly know
about "things" that possibly exist in an FTL universe, which included
other aliens, and the substances from which they are made.
Even the writers of the original Star Trek TV show delved into the
area of alternate-dimensional life.  It occurred to me then that such
substances had to be composed of subatomic FTL particles.
I had therefore thought up the idea of FTL particles independently,
as a sci-fi idea, in the year 1973, although I had yet to learn about
the particle that had been dubbed the "tachyon" by the physicist
Gerald Feinberg.  I later encountered tachyons, by that name, in the
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, and subsequently
(during a visit at the library at the University of Texas in Tyler),
among other sources of information on tachyons, I looked-up
Feinberg's article "Particles That Go Faster Than Light", which had
appeared in Scientific American magazine in February of 1970.  That
was early in the year of 1977.
Thus, since I had contemplated particles that travel faster-than-
light about 33 years ago, and soon after learned that they were
called "tachyons", and I have been interested in them ever since,
then I have been thinking about such particles for a good deal more
than 30 years.  Also, because we are less than a month away from the
year 2007 as of this writing (Dec. 8, 2006), and I have spent much of
my spare time doing actual reasearch on tachyons since 1977, all in
peer-reviewed journals and other respectable sources (it has been a
hobby of mine for a very long time), then I can truthfully say that I
have been "researching" tachyons for around 29 years  -  or "nearly"
30 years.
And if Merlin still does not believe me, then I will provide a way to
determine the truth.  I give my real name online, and I would be
willing to send (to a secure PO box) the list of towns I have lived
in for the past 30+ years.  A search of the library records for each
of the public, college, and university libraries in those towns,
along with the records of the books I have checked out, will prove
that I have at-least been keeping myself informed on this subject
within the past 33-year timeframe.
Except that I have not just been reading.  My "hobby" has been to
actually do library-research in physics, and any/all subjects in
which I am interested (especially tachyons), and that did not stop
when I went to college.  Indeed, because I had already spent 20 years
pursuing my hobby before I got the chance to go to college (I was a
non-traditional student), that is how I was able to ace so many of my
math and physics courses (as my transcripts will also prove).  The
only difference was that some courses happened to coincide with the
knowledge I was seeking privately.  [But, even when they did not, I
still spent huge amounts of spare time doing research on tachyons.]
Oh, and just so readers will know, the idea of the possible existence
of FTL particles (which had not yet been named "tachyons") was first
seriously suggested to the physics community by O.M.P. Bilaniuk, V.K.
Deshpande, and E.C.G. Shardushan in an article entitled "Meta
Relativity", which appeared in the American Journal of Physics in
1962 (30:718-723, 1962).  And it was those very FTL particles which
Feinberg christened "tachyons" a few years later.  [So, it is an
historical fact that the "idea" of tachyons "first arrived" on the
physics scene in 1962, not 1967.]
Yet, since Merlin is a professor of physics, and allegedly knows so
much more about tachyons (and everything else) than I do, then it
seems to me he should have stated that fact too (although, perhaps he
just did not consider it important enough to mention, because the
name "tachyon" was not assigned to such particles in the 1962
article).

I Previously Wrote:
"...  I have a degree in mathematics (with a second major in computer
science), and I am close to getting another degree, specifically in
theoretical physics."
Merlin Responded:
Is this meant to be a comparison? Let's not do that Kurt; my intent
was not to embarass you, just disparage your theory of gravity. Might
I suggest that you should spend more time increasing your education
in physics and math before moving along to the theoretical aspects? I
believe that comment was a little more nurturing and less
discouraging than the one I made the other night; regarding your
educational level.

My Counter-Response:
Let's see.  Merlin says he intends only to disparage my "theory of
gravity", yet repeatedly insults me with allegations of dishonesty,
and with insults to my intelligence, by implying, over and over, that
I am ignorant of the math and physics I have been studying for the
past 33 years!!!
Oh, but he is being "more nurturing" than before.  A prince of a man,
he is.

I Previously Wrote:
"I have also been an at-large member of the American Institute of
Physics for over 6 years, and I am the founder of the online think-
tank I call "The Tachyonics Society of America", whose members and
other supporters include "real" physicists, government researchers,
university professors, and other knowledgeable individuals, and which
is actually dedicated to the study of the tachyon, to finding
whatever applications of Tachyonics there may be now or in the
future, and to understanding all superluminal phenomena."
Merlin Responded:
Stunned again... As a member of AIP myself, I am curious to know
which affiliate? I myself am a Fellow with honors (in good standing)
of the affiliates: APS (15 years), AAPT (17 years), AGU (8 years),
AVS (9 years) & AAS (12 years). I also happen to know that this lends
absolutely nothing to your credentials; unless you too are a Fellow
w/honors. You see, I do fall into most of the categories that you
listed: Government researcher (former), University Professor
(currently) and Physicist (last 20 years), and yet, I'm more than
happy to listen to those who would be "heirs to the throne" of
knowledge. I love to learn, and I love new (and radical) theories;
however, I am a bit of a stickler for facts & proof. Silly me...

My Counter-Response:
Merlin is asking for "proof" of my "assertion" about my at-large
membership in the AIP.
Well first, I use my real name, and freely provide my PO box and
personal e-mail.  I am willing to send documentation of my work and
educational history (but not at my expense) to anyone that I can
confirm means me no harm; who would not use such information
improperly; and who is also willing to correspond by snail-mail,
using a secure PO box for return mail.
But I have so-far not seen an admission from Merlin that he is using
his real name, and he only provides readers an e-mail address for
contact information (no PO box, for instance), nor has he mentioned
during our debate the university where he teaches.  So there is no
way to confirm, from the information he has posted in our debate,
that he is what he says he is (though I have no reason to discount
the assertion).  Neither does the web-site he touts provide any means
to confirm whether or not "Merlin" is his real name.
What is more, to be vouched-for by other participants in this forum
is not "proof" that Merlin is a professor, because there is no way
that I have been given to confirm their statements either!
Thus, with respect to Merlin's claim to being a "University
Professor", a former "Government researcher", and a "Fellow with
honors" in no less than five different AIP Affiliates, it is my turn
to say:  "I find no proof that this is anything other than an
assertion."
I was able, however (by doing a Google search), to locate a
university professor named "Merlin" who  teaches physics at a
university in the Northeast U.S.A., and whose credentials are similar
to those noted above.  But that individual's profile says nothing
about the web-site my antagonist refers to, and the e-mail contact
information is not the same.  Thus, it is not possible to determine
from the information supplied by the "Merlin" with whom I am
debating, using information posted by him in our debate so far, that
he is, in fact, what he claims to be.
I do not doubt that he is a university professor, but I can find no
real "proof" of it.
As for confirming my own claim to membership in the AIP, I have
already submitted the details on the PhysOrg.com Forum for everyone
to see, including Merlin (who has even mentioned the fact that I once
participated there), so I do not object to revealing them again,
here, as follows.
I am currently a student-member at-large of the American Institute
Physics (AIP), by virtue of long-standing membership in the Society
of Physics Students (SPS)  [the UNC-Asheville Chapter], and I was,
for many years, also a member of the American Vacuum Society (AVS)
[but have allowed that membership to lapse].  Thus, because I use my
real name, this information can easily be verified by any "University
Professor" with membership to as long a list of AIP Affiliates to his
credit as Merlin has laid claim to; most especially for a "Fellow
w/honors".
I was dubious of the claims Merlin made of himself, since there was
no "proof" in our debate that what he asserted about himself was not
itself pure fiction (even after visiting the web-site he cites as his
own), until I found out about the professor whose name really
is "Merlin" (but of whom it would be improper to reveal more).  So,
assuming that my antagonist is truly a physics professor (even if he
is not the same individual), his treatment of me during this debate
must stand as an example of just another egotistical self-agrandizing
university professor picking on a student whose original ideas the
professor dislikes, and who chastizes the student not to help the
student (by applying what I like to refer to as an "intimidation
method" of teaching, so common among physics professors), but to
belittle the student, along with the student's ideas (no matter their
potential), in order to make for a trumpeted display of how much
smarter the professor is than his student.
That, of course, suggests a profound but deeply submerged inferiority-
related psychosis.
[He will probably, in response to this, desire to accuse me of
engaging in psycho-babble.]
Merlin's words have several times reminded me of a certain physics
professor whose teachings I was subjected to during my undergraduate
days.  He had an obvious god-complex, as big as the sky, and he used
his classroom as an excuse not to teach, but to pontificate.  And you
had better not question him, in class or out of class, even about
material he assigned you to study, without risking his taking it as a
sign that you were questioning his divine pronouncements!  [Unless,
of course, you were a young, pretty, twenty-something female student,
with a rich daddy.  In which case, why, you would get all the
extra "tutoring" you could possible need.]  [And, by the way, this is
a true story.  And here is how you can determine the truth of it.]
So that Merlin could not claim that I am lying about this too, I
thought about posting the real name of my old professor, so that my
story could be checked-out  -  but that would not be proper either.
Suffice it to say that he was one of my instructors at the University
of North Carolina at Asheville (UNCA), where I was in the physics
program, as a transfer student, starting in the Fall of 1996.
That, of course, can be confirmed quite easily.
I have no doubt that, should the instructor I am referring to be
asked about me, if he was willing to respond (though, like Merlin, he
would probably try to couch it in such a way as to make himself look
kind), and if he were to admit remembering me at all (I was a non-
traditional student with a beard and long hair), he too would have
only deragatory remarks of his own about me  -  for it became
painfully clear, before the end, that he hated me, and all of my
ideas, but most especially my social standing (because he is a
snob).  And when an opportunity came that he could use to get rid of
me, he siezed it, and is thus responsible for ensuring that I would
get no diploma there.
[He caused the student-loan representative on campus to deny me an
extension of my student loans, although I was fully qualified for the
extension, having very good grades, and no attendance, disciplinary,
or any other formal strikes against me.  And the extension would have
allowed me to complete my degree program within just two more
semesters (well within the maximum timeframe for extended loans).
But that did not matter to him.  He wanted me gone, and that was it.]
The man therefore ruined my life (because becoming a "real" physicist
had been, up to that point, my entire life's ambition).
I wonder, knowing that Merlin is a university professor too, exactly
how many student's lives he has ruined in such or another fashion?

Counter-Responses, Section 3

Merlin posted more commentary, as given below.
I have edited some of the original posts, to remove irrelevant parts,
but Merlin's most significant points are unaltered.

Merlin Wrote:
YOUR WORDS MAKE NO SENSE.
...  your pseudo-scientific babble where you string "scientific-
sounding" words together make no cogent point.
...  the offending text once again:
"Thus, these special tachyons can be described as constituting a
monopole field macroscopically, in accord with a Classical Newtonian
vector-field, applied locally; as causing the overall warping of
spacetime described by the Riemannian geometry of Einstein's theory
of General Relativity (which is equivalent to Newtonian gavity at its
weak-field limit); and as compatible with M-Theory..."
I find no meaning in those words, but I am willing to listen to a
better explanation - preferably one that shows the math not just
talks about it.'

My Counter-Response:
I put the quoted statement in as plain a language as I could, for
such a complicated subject, although I used easily-verified
terminology  -  which Merlin should know perfectly well, if he really
is a physics professor.  [Here, I am calling into question his
motives for posting what he did, not his claim to being a physics
professor (which I have confirmed).]
I was, I admit, being somewhat concise, because the quoted passage
was a summary.  But, as anyone willing to look into these topics
deeply-enough will know, what I said makes plenty of sense, and
establishes a rather significantly-cogent point; that, as far as I am
concerned, and according to the results of my research, the kinds of
tachyons I describe in my thesis can be used to explain quantum
gravity in a way that is compatible both with General Relativity and
with Newton's law of universal gravitation (and, additionally, with M-
Theory).
However, admittedly, I did not show the math in my post, and the math
I provide in the version of the thesis I published online is not as
comprehensive as I would have liked.  I have placed an abbreviated
version of that work on my main web-site, but even the 7-page
treatment on my AOL homepage is necessarily greatly condensed from
the hand-written contents of the several tall stacks of completely-
filled notebooks that I have accumulated over the past 30 years.
That collection is slowly being turned into a 300-page book (as I
have time to work on it), but publishing the contents of such a book
on the Internet  -  or even portions of it, bit by bit  -  would
require more time and effort than I have to devote to it (despite how
much I want to).
I am not wealthy.  I work for a living (putting-in long hours in the
standby-generator business, to support my household).  So the time I
have to devote to this research is limited to whatever time I can
spare on evenings and weekends.  And I do not have access to
unlimited research funds with which to buy scientific equipment for
experiments (which I would love to do), nor do I have ready access to
a university library (to do library research; my primary endeavor).
I frequent the local university and college libraries, and have done
so in every town I have ever lived in (all my adult life), and I have
also acquired a small library of my own, containing a few dozen
physics books (mostly textbooks), other science books (textbooks,
reference works, popularizations, etc.), engineering manuals,
technological materials by the score (mostly in electronics), and so
on.
Additionally, I have been getting Physics Today magazine in the mail
for the past 8 years, and I have read and saved every issue.  [I
often refer back to them in my research.]  But whenever I have the
time, I visit a college or university library and read-up in the
standard physics journals, including Physical Review (mostly D, but
also A, B, and C), Physical Review Letters, Physical Review Focus,
the Journal of Applied Physics, Applied Physics Letters, and the
Journal of Mathmatical Physics.  I also enjoy reading Science News
and Scientific American magazine, and I long subscribed to The
Industrial Physicist and LazerFocus World magazines, as well (though
I let them lapse), but I still subscribe to Popular Science magazine.
[In addition, I currently get a number of technical journals,
associated with electrical, electronics, and other engineering
fields, but those bear little on this topic.]
The point is, I have published and posted as much of the math (or
links to the work of others) as it seems to me anyone who is
genuinely interested in my work may need to go deeper, and thus to
determine the feasibility of my primary hypothesis, that gravity
could be faster-than-light, and of my thesis on the type of tachyon
that supports this hypothesis.
What is more, anyone is welcome, and invited, to request hard-copies
of the contents of my hand-written notebooks (if they want),
including Merlin  -  although I would, of course, have to be paid for
the copying effort (on several thousand notebook pages), plus
shipping and handling.  Yet, what I have published online, although
couched in as simplified but accurate terminology as I could manage,
I consider quite sufficient to put the most essential points across.
Readers are free to take my ideas seriously or reject them
altogether, as they will.  But Merlin, it seems, was (for some
reason) compelled to go far out of his way not just to reject them,
in some wierd defense of the "scientific method", but to publically
piss on them (figuratively speaking).
Readers interested in understanding more fully the quoted passage,
then (so as to remove the confusion Merlin is here attempting to
install in your mind), are invited to visit (if you have not already
done so) the "Tachyonic Gravity" page at www.TachyonicsSociety.com.

I Previously Wrote:
"I am, myself, drawn to the impression that Merlin is dishonest, and
is here attempting to misinform readers who do not feel the need to
confirm for themselves that what I wrote is "mathematically,
logically, or observational(l)y" feasible."
Merlin Responded:
Of course you would say that! I would have been surprised if you
would have chosen the option of "erroneous". This way, you get to
insinuate that you are correct by merely intimating that I am
dishonest. You're such a sly fox, hardly anyone will notice your
little "sleight of hand trick"

My Counter-Response:
To reiterate, I invite those readers who are willing to do so to
check further into what I have posted and published online, and to
decide for themselves if my ideas are logical.
The abbreviated version of my thesis is at the "Tachyonic Gravity"
page of my main site, where you can also read my representations
theory on tachyons, listed as "Feature Article #2".
My main site is www.TachyonicsSociety.com.
The full 7-page treatment I have published on my thesis is at
http://hometown.aol.com/TachyonicGravity/TLQTtGR01.html.

I Previously Wrote:
"Once more, Merlin is confusing my description of a gravity-inducing
tachyon with a graviton, which I have never said were the same, and
he appears to be implying himself that a graviton is indeed
a "special" tachyon, if his wording is to be taken as-is."
Merlin Responded:
That is a leap of pseudo-scientifc proportions...
If my wording is taken "as-is" the tachyon you are describing doesn't
exist. I do not theorize that "any" tachyon is impossible - only the
one you theorize. My whole "This guy has no idea of what a tachyon
is..." comment was based upon your comment: "Gravity is faster-than-
light, and is therefore a tachyonic force" I was assasinating your
logic. First, you began the logical argument with an assertion
(Gravity is faster than light), which is a major "scientific method"
no-no. Then you "associated" the conclusion by saying "therefore",
and included the word tachyonic. Since you had never proven that
gravity is faster than light, nor proven that "tachyonic" means
anything, "associating" them is a hapless attempt to conclude your
posting by assertion.
This is another "sleight-of-hand". People only do this when they
cannot otherwise make their case, so I simply pointed out that
studying math and science would be a great place to start if you ever
hoped to make your case logically, scientifically and successfully.
I was being helpful.

My Counter-Response:
How magnanimous!  Merlin is being kind to me by insulting me with
disparaging remarks about my knowledge of math and science; a form
of "tough love", I guess.  What a pal.
Here, he says something to the effect that he does not object to the
idea of tachyons in general, but only to the type of tachyon I
describe in my thesis.  Yet, his characterization of the description
I give of this tachyon is entirely incorrect!
So, one of two cases (or both) must be true;
(1) he is deliberately misrepresenting my work, or
(2) he is laboring under an erroneous understanding of it.
He is also misreading (or, once again, misrepresenting) the saying
that I came up with, which is;  "Gravity is faster than light, and is
therefore a tachyonic force."  I repeat it often in my writing.
Now, I could put my little saying in the form of an if-then
statement, and ask, then answer, as follows:  "If gravity is faster-
than-light, then it is a tachyonic force."  But I doubt Merlin would
accept the statement in that form either, because, apparently,
(1) he has confused himself about the meanings of my words, or
(2) he is misleading the reader about the meanings of my words.
Here, there is a difference between the words "superluminal"
and "tachyonic", as any objective reader of my work would know.
In particular, in my saying, I suggest that gravity is superluminal
macrocosmically, and then that it is tachyonic at the quantum level,
because gravity could be superluminal at large scales, but still not
necessarily be due to tachyonic subatomic quanta.
So, I prefer to remove all doubt about my position on this issue, and
I have devised this saying to make my conclusion clear.
To explain, note that classical Newtonian gravity, for instance,
assumes instantaneous "action at a distance" for the effect of
gravity, regardless of the distance.  And that implies infinite
interaction speed.  But it specifies no superluminal quanta as the
cause of a gravitational attraction between massive bodies.  In that
case, it acts faster-than-light, but is not a tachyonic force.
However,  if gravity is the result of interaction between ordinary
matter (at subatomic distances) and the kinds of mathematically-
imaginary tachyons I describe in my thesis, then it is superluminal,
by definition, but does not act instantaneously.  It is faster-than-
light and also tachyonic.
I am so convinced of this that, instead of expressing the possibility
as an if-then statement, I have decided to declare my opinion
succinctly, using a saying that I routinely repeat in my writing.
The reason is simply to be rhetorical  -  the common literary
technique of emphasizing a point.
My position on this subject is thereby rendered in unambiguous
language, and the statement itself is perfectly logical.  I hold that
gravity is faster-than-light (as measured at macrocosmic distances),
and is therefore a tachyonic force (quantum mechanically speaking; as
explained using the unique species of tachyon which I have described
in my thesis).
Merlin, obviously, did not care to ask if there could indeed be a
difference between the words "superluminal" and "tachyonic", as I use
them in my saying, although he will no doubt bring up the fact that
the words are often considered to be interchangeable.  But that does
not excuse the added fact that he is attempting here primarily to
demean my ideas, and, as this situation shows, will jump at even the
slightest hint of a flaw in my logic.
Even so, as I have just explained (and as the reader can now see for
themselves, by reviewing his words above), it is Merlin whose lagic
is flawed, in this case.

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

More to come.

Counter-Responses, Section 2

Previously, Merlin Posted a quote:
Kurt's words: By plugging-in arbitrary values of velocity "v", we see
that, while the case in which E = 0 corresponds to v = 0 for an
ordinary particle, the case in which E = 0 corresponds to v =
infinity is reserved for tachyons (because of the reversed causality
imposed by the RO). It would therefore take an infinite amount of
energy to slow a tachyon down to lightspeed, and, in words, infinite
speed for a tachyon coincides with the tachyon's zero-energy level.

He then responded:
You failed to account for mass & momentum. Sure, we could
throw 'arbitrary' numbers in there all day long, but 'arbitrary'
doesn't equate to actual. You see, mass and energy are relative, as
is momentum and velocity.
The "REALITY IS" -- E = m*[1-(v/c)^2]^-1/2. Tachyons (if they exist)
have v > c, and, this means that E is imaginary (not arbitrary). So,
if we take the rest mass m, and calculate it to be imaginary, then E
is negative real, and the following calculations persist: E^2 - p^2 =
m^2 < 0... Or, p^2 - E^2 = M^2, where M is real. This graphs as a
hyperbola with branches in a "space-like region" of spacetime. E & P
for the tachyon therefore must satisfy this relation. Here is
the "REALITY PART": They accelerate (p increases) as they lose energy
(E decreases). A zero-energy tachyon is therefore, mathematically,
infinitely fast, and this would have distinct consequences.
Since "charge-less" tachyons would move faster than the speed of
light in a vacuum, they must produce Cherenkov radiation, and this
would lower their energy, causing them to accelerate more. So charged
tachyons would mathematically lead to a self-sustaining runaway
reaction releasing an incredibly large amount of energy. This means
that they would self-destruct shortly after creation (time base =
Planck*mass), and given that they are massless, their destruction
would be instantaneous. Heuristically, we can get spontaneous
creation of tachyon/antitachyon duality, then they "runaway" reacting
to one another and finally, the vacuum becomes unstable to the point
of uninhabitability.
According to all of our observations, you cannot have a "massive"
particle moving at the speed of light, particularly with no momentum.
Your explanation intimates that this is not the case -
however, "infinite speed" equates to infintie mass - not ZERO mass.
Throw the (incorrectly defined) words "negative causality" around all
you like - it won't make E=Mc^2 add up. I won't bother pointing out
the fact that massless, energyless infinite speed objects are
ridiculous. The idea that something can have ZERO energy and ZERO
mass, but be moving is just crazy-talk.

My Counter Response:
Merlin accused me of failing to account for mass and momentum.
However, I already did so in a previous post, and therefore felt no
need to repeat myself.
As I recall, Merlin and I had the following exchange.
Merlin wrote;
'The formula for relativistic particle properties & motion is pretty
simple.
E^2 = (m^2 ·c4) + (p^2 · c^2).
Do the math.'
My Response, at the time, was;
'OK. Let's do the math.
Here, "E" is a massive particle's energy, "m" is its rest-mass, "p"
is its momentum, and "c" is the lightspeed constant.  ...  The
momentum is defined;  p = mv/([1 - [(v/c)^2]^(1/2))  , where "v" is
the particle's velocity.'
The reader may also recall that Merlin chided me on the label "energy-
momemtum relation", although I did not invent that label.  I found it
in some of my old textbooks, along with the similar label "momentum-
energy relation", although both labels are used to indicate the same
equation.
I should make one correction, however.  There, I originally gave an
erroneous version of the total-energy equation.  It should have
been;
E = [m(c^2)]/([1 - [(v/c)^2]^(1/2))  ,
and I have since edited that entry at the AtlantisRising.com
Forum.
For the record, the references I consulted which employ that label
are;
(a) The textbook "Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers", by
S.T. Thornton and A.R. Rex, from Saunders College Publishing, 1993;
page 70.
(b) The textbook "Physics for Scientists and Engineers", by R.A.
Serway, also from Saunders College Publishing, 1992; page 1127.
(c) The Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd Edition, by R.G. Lerner and G.L.
Trigg, from VCH Publishers, 1991; page 1056.
[Merlin too seems to have mis-typed the equation, writing;
E = m*[1-(v/c)^2]^-1/2  .
But I will allow that Merlin's version contains a typographical
error, as did mine.  He must simply (like me, with the missing "^
(1/2)") have forgotten, accidentally, to include the "c^2" factor in
the numerator on the right-hand side of the equation; using an
asterisk instead.  Perhaps he was just in a hurry (again, like me) to
get typed what he was thinking.
To an editor or journalist, typos are important, but it should be
overlooked for people who post messages on Internet forums.]
In any event, clearly, Merlin's accusation is false.  And he seems to
be suggesting that I have stated that E is arbitrary.  But that is
not true either.  I was refering to arbitrary values of velocity, v,
not of energy, E.  [If E is calculated using v, then E is not itself
arbitrary, even if v is, because the value of E is a calculated
quantity, not an arbitrarily-inserted value.]
When enough arbitrary values of "v" are considered, it becomes
evident that there are three very distinct cases;  one in which v <
c, one in which v = c, and one in which v > c, corresponding to the
cases for real, massless, and imaginary particles, respectively
(mathematically speaking).
What is more, there appears to be something wrong with Merlin's
understanding of the math when he says that "if we take the rest mass
m, and calculate it to be imaginary, then E is negative real".  Let's
see.  We should start with the correct total-energy relation;
E = [m(c^2)]/([1 - [(v/c)^2]^(1/2))  .
If v > c, the case for tachyons, then v/c > 1, so that (v/c)^2 > 1,
and thus 1 - (v/c)^2 is negative.
Now, as short-hand, let
n = [(v/c)^2 - 1]  ,
so that
-n = [1 - (v/c)^2]  ,
where v > c.
Then we can write;
E =  [m(c^2)]/([1 - [(v/c)^2]^(1/2))  =  m(c^2)/[(-n)^(1/2)]  ,
for tachyons.
However, by the laws of algebra for the square-roots of negative
numbers, we can also write;
(-n)^(1/2)  =  [(-1)(n)]^(1/2)  =  i[n^(1/2)]  ,
where "i" is the imaginary-unit, defined;
i  =  (-1)^(1/2)  ;  i^2  =  -1  .
Thus,  we can express the total-energy relation for a tachyon as
follows;
E  =  m(c^2)/(i[n^(1/2)])  ,
where the imaginary-unit is in the denominator, on the right-hand
side of the equation.
It happens, however, that  1/i  =  -i  , according to the following
proof;
1/i  =  1/[(-1)^(1/2)]  =  (-1)^(-1/2)  =  (-1)^(1/2 - 1)  =  [(-1)^
(1/2)][(-1)^(-1)]  =  i/(-1)  =  -i  ,
because,
1/(-1) = [(-1)/(-1)][(1/(-1)] = (-1)/1 = -1,
so that
i/(-1) = i[1/(-1)] = i(-1) = -i  .
Consequently, we can write;
E  =  m(c^2)/(i[n^(1/2)])  =  m(c^2)(-i)[n^(-1/2)]
=  -im(c^2)[n^(-1/2)]  ,
for a tachyon.
Note too, the letter "E" is just a symbol for the total energy of a
particle.  Its value can either be positive or negative, depending on
the sign that occurs on the right-hand side of the equation, and it
can be interpreted as either imaginary or real, depending on whether
or not the imaginary-unit, "i", appears on the right-hand side of the
equation.  That is, if "i" appears on the right, then E is an
imaginary quantity, but if not, then E is real.
It is possible, of course, to have a negative and real E, but that
case is not for tachyons.
In the case for tachyons, "E" is defined as both negative and
imaginary, simultaneously;
E  =  -im(c^2)[n^(-1/2)]  .
For tachyons, E cannot be negative and real.  It must be negative and
imaginary, as viewed from a standard frame of reference (where E is
positive and real).
In fact, tachyons, by definition, are imaginary particles, in the
mathematical sense of the word "imaginary" (as contrasted with the
mathematical sense of the word "real").
So, I am not sure what Merlin was trying to demonstrate when he said
that "if we take the rest mass m, and calculate it to be imaginary,
then E is negative real".  Whatever it was, I find it difficult to
connect this statement to the actual characteristics of tachyons.
Particles with Imaginary mass and real energy do exist, however.
They includde the "virtual" particles of gauge-field theory, such as
the W and Z particles of the weak-nuclear field, but they do not
include tachyons in general, nor even the tachyonic analogs of such
particles.
One thing Merlin said here is correct, though.  He stated that
tachyons "accelerate (p increases) as they lose energy (E decreases).
A zero-energy tachyon is therefore, mathematically, infinitely
fast ...".  Unfortunately, in a previous post (the one that got us
involved with these equations in the first place), responding to my
statement that "infinite speed corresponds to a tachyon's zero-energy
level", the reader may likewise recall that Merlin wrote:  "Uh - no.
Again, your lack of physical understanding is showing. The formula
for relativistic particle properties & motion is pretty simple. E^2 =
(m^2 ·c4) + (p^2 · c^2). Do the math."
Well, we have now done some of the math.  And we have determined that
Merlin is being both dishonest (by misrepresenting what I have
written) and hypocritical (as proven here).
And I must take issue with his comments:  'Since "charge-less"
tachyons would move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, they
must produce Cherenkov radiation, and this would lower their energy,
causing them to accelerate more. So charged tachyons would
mathematically lead to a self-sustaining runaway reaction ... '
The claim about charge-less tachyons having to emit Cherenkov
radiation in a vacuum is not valid, and is evidence of Merlins lack
of understanding of tachyons, and of Cherenkov radiation, because,
first, Cherenkov radiation is an electromagnetic phenomenon, which
means that some sort of electrical charge, somewhere, somehow, is
required to be present, or this kind of radiation simply does not
happen.  So, if a particle is charge-less (meaning, it does not
possess electrical charge), whether the particle is real or
imaginary, it cannot produce Cherenkov radiation at all, in any
medium of propagation whatsoever!  Second, it is not yet known if
there are any tachyons that possess the tachyonic version of electric
charge, or if there are any that are neutral relative to such charge,
but, since there are many different kinds of "real" charged and
neutral particles, then there are probably many kinds of "imaginary"
tachyonic particles, as well.  What is more, if there are tachyons
that possess something like electric charge, then their charge is not
actual electric charge, but it would be a superluminal analog of
electric charge.  Thus, in such cases, the type of Cherenkov
radiation that they would give rise to would not be the kind that we
detect in the same manner as we normally detect Cherenkov radiation,
because it too would be a superluminal in nature; a tachyonic version
of what we know as Cherenkov radiation.
The story Merlin tells following the flawed suggestion about tachyons
and Cherenkov radiation is therefore absurd on its face, and, as a
result, undeserving of the effort at a rebuttal.  But what he said
after that requires correction.
He wrote:  'According to all of our observations, you cannot have
a "massive" particle moving at the speed of light, particularly with
no momentum. Your explanation intimates that this is not the case -
however, "infinite speed" equates to infintie mass - not ZERO mass.
Throw the (incorrectly defined) words "negative causality" around all
you like - it won't make E=Mc^2 add up. I won't bother pointing out
the fact that massless, energyless infinite speed objects are
ridiculous. The idea that something can have ZERO energy and ZERO
mass, but be moving is just crazy-talk.'
OK.  I agree.  But apparently Merlin is saying this for the purpose,
once again, of misrepresenting my work  -  for I have never, in
anything I have ever written in private, or published and/or posted
on the Internet, or put forth anywhere else, suggested that there
could be massive particles moving at lightspeed, with or without
momentum, nor particles that simultaneously have zero energy and zero
mass (except, of course, in an alternate-dimensional fantasy land).
It is a mathematical fact that hypothetical tachyons with infinite
speed would have zero energy, but I have not suggested that such
tachyons actually exist in our universe.  Rather, my theory
constrains tachyons that could exist to remaining at velocities
between lightspeed and infinite speed exclusively (meaning, only in-
between those limits; never at those limits).
In these kinds of discussions, we have to realize that there are
several kinds of imaginaries.
In the language of mathematics, words
like "imaginary", "transcendental", "irrational", and so on, are
borrowed from the English language in order to label different kinds
of numbers (so that such numbers can be readily distinguished in the
communication of mathematical concepts).  But the mathematical
definitions of such numbers is not the same as the literary
definitions of the words used to label them.  To call a number
an "imaginary number" in mathematics, for example,  does not imply
that it does not exist.  By extension, then, to refer to an imaginary
object in the same mathematical sense (such as the mass of a tachyon)
does not mean that it cannot exist.
An imaginary number by itself, or the imaginary component of a
complex number, is called a "pure imaginary" in mathematics.  Thus,
for example, we could, if we wish, label a massive virtual particle
as a "pure-imaginary particle", in order to distinguish such
particles from all other kinds of imaginary particles.  Then we could
label a standard tachyon, or the tachyonic analog of a known real
particle (with its own version of imaginary mass), as an "actual-
imaginary particle".
Call these labels "Kurtisms", if you like.  I would be quite
flattered.
And consider this.  While we can specify a zero velocity for the
starting or ending point of a moving object, such a specification is
only a zero-reference.  It is relative (as Merlin has stated in
another context).  It must be given with respect to some location in
a given frame of reference, and is therefore not an absolute zero
velocity.  Indeed, in the real universe, there is no such thing as an
absolute zero velocity, even with respect to the center of the
universe (because we have no way of knowing whether or not the center
of the universe is itself moving with respect to the overall fabric
of spacetime).
So, we could label the hypothetical absolute zero velocity
an "absolute-imaginary velocity", and refer to a theoretical particle
with an absolute zero velocity as an "absolute-imaginary particle".
Obviously, such particles do not exist, anywhere.  But we can still
conceptualize the idea of them, and put labels on the concept, to
distinquish them from particles that do, and others that could.
The label "absolute" could also be applied to particles on the
opposite extreme of the spectrum of all possible velocities; to a
tachyon with a theoretically absolute infinite velocity.
In particular, such an infinite-velocity tachyon can be labeled as
an "absolute-imaginary tachyon"; meaning that it does not and cannot
exist in any frame of reference that we may ever need to consider.
We can thus, alternatively, conceptualize a relative infinite-
velocity tachyon (a tachyon at rest in a tachyonic reference-frame),
in analogy to a relative zero-velocity particle (at rest in a real
reference-frame), as opposed to the absolutes in both cases.
One thing that such labeling schemes do for us is to reinforce the
boundary conditions we specify for the velocity spectrum of all
velocities of particles that do and/or could exist.
Here is a particle-velocity spectrum (with antiparticle velocities
not shown), where V is velocity:
(0,abs)[[(V=0,rel)<(Vreal)<(V=c)<(Vtach,fin)<(V=inf,rel)]](inf,abs),
where abs = "absolute", rel = "relative", tach = "tachyonic", fin
= "finite", and inf = "infinite".
[The corresponding spectrum for antiparticles could be given as the
mirror image of this spectrum, with over-bars above "0", "V",
and "c", and displayed to the left of "0 abs".]
Clearly, only the cases inside the double brackets are possible.
The terminology we use, therefore, can make a lot of difference in
the success or failure of our attempts at communicating our ideas.
This could explain why Merlin seems to keep getting his image of
gravitons and my gravity-inducing tachyon mixed up.  And if it is due
to my neglecting to explain myself adequately enough, then for that I
am willing to apologize.
Even so, Merlin's statement that infinite speed "equates to infinite
mass, not zero mass" was given without qualification.  Such a
statement depends on the context.  According to SR, the mass of a
real particle approaches infinity as we attempt to accelerate it up
to lightspeed (which is a fact that has been demonstrated many times,
empirically, in particle accelerators).  So, as far as we can tell,
only massless particles (such as photons of electromagnetism) travel
at lightspeed in a vacuum (and I have never stated otherwise)  -
though there is evidence that some neutrinos, once thought to be
massless, could possess a small mass (but it has not yet been
established beyond question that all neutrinos travel exactly at the
speed of light).  In such cases, lightspeed equates to infinite mass
for real particles having mass, but to zero mass for massless
photons.  Correspondingly, lightspeed also equates to infinite mass
for imaginary tachyons with mass, but to zero mass for hypothetical
tachyons moving at infinite speed; our absolute-imaginary tachyons.
Obviously, massive particles traveling at lightspeed, whether they
are tachyons or not, do not and cannot exist, nor can we accept the
existence of absolute-imaginary particles, such as absolute infinite-
speed tachyons or absolute zero-velocity particles.
It is entirely possible, however, for a particle with a sufficiently
small mass to travel so close to a lightspeed velocity that, for all
practical purposes, we could not tell the difference.
Neither have I ever claimed that massless, energyless infinite-speed
objects exist, or could even possibly exist, except within an
alternate-dimensional realm that has to be described as a "spirit"
realm, and which is therefore not "real".  I suggest that tachyons of
many kinds may exist, but not according to the characterization which
Merlin is attempting to attach to my ideas.

I have shown, thus far, that Merlin is misrepresenting me, tells
lies, is hypocritical, and frequently displays an incomplete or
inaccurate understanding of physics and mathematics concepts, but
nevertheless employs such erroneous conceptualizations in his
arguments against my work.

But that is not the end of the debate.  Interested readers are
invited to return to this message-board for the next and future posts
on these issues.

Counter-Responses, Section 1

Here I will start supplying counter responses to the foregoing
comments from Merlin.  An attempt has been made to indicate who wrote
what, because we both quote each other's words, and, since the debate
is long and complicated, our statements could get confused.

Also, to keep posts from getting uncomfortably long (because I will
be re-posting what Merlin posted, then counter responding), my
responses to the previous sequence of postings will be broken-up into
a larger number of successive posts.

Readers are invited to post their own comments, and/or correspond
with me personally by e-mailing HKurtRichter@....


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


Merlin wrote:
This posting reminds me of the mess that TemporalSubliminalMan
typically posts. He, just like Kurt, claims to be something that they
are not, and offer "education" in the same way that so many
other "snake-oil-salesmen" have for centuries. I do seek to educate,
and the first rule is to be skeptical. The second is to be steadfast,
the third - investigate, and the forth - be open to new ideas.
Being "open" does not translate to believe that which you do not
understand because it's so complex that it must be right. Several
times a day I invite people to criticize/scrutinize my work (and they
do), and I love it. It is truly the only way to vet ideas properly;
spirited debate. Having said that, simply abandoning all that is
known and utilizing pseudo-science to refute someone's theories is
unproductive. That is what I accuse Kurt of doing.

My Response:
I have never claimed to be something I am not.  And I have no snake-
oil to sell.  I have ideas I like to publish on the Internet, so as
to get feefback on them.  Obviously, some of that feedback is going
to be negative; Merlin's comments representing a case in point.
Based on what Merlin actually said about me and my ideas, however, I
am of the opinion that Merlin's criticism of me comes of quite
different motives than those he espouses openly  (for he is clearly
insulting me on a personal level, not just disparaging my ideas).  I
would also question Merlin's assertion that he is open to new ideas.
I would suggest perhaps he is indeed open to new ideas  -  as long as
they support own.  Otherwise, forget it!
What is more, his accusation that I use "pseudo-science to refute
someone's theories" is untrue, as any objective reader of my work can
attest.  I sometimes point out where certain assumptions about
established theories need revision, for sound scientific reasons, but
I have never used any pseudo-scientific ideas, nor my work, to
dismiss valid concepts.
Indeed, I depend on the validity of certain well-established theories
(such as SR and GR).  What I am inclined to question are not such
theories, but so many of the assumptions, interpretations, and
personal opinions related to such theories, and which are too often
stated as facts.
Note too that my ideas have been labeld "pseudo-science" before, even
by me, although I use the chemist's definition of "pseudo-"
as "similar" (rather than the deragatory definition of "false").
Unfortunately, it seems that Merlin's idea of "the only way to vet
ideas properly" is to compare new ideas to "all that is known" to
make sure the new ideas fit with all of the old, out-dated, and
erroneous ideas of the past that he approves of  -  no matter the
real merits, possible benefits, or potential usefulness of the new
ideas themselves (unless, again, they support his own).  And, if the
new ideas do not fit, well then they must be pseudo-science!!!
Right?  Heaven forbid that any of the said assumptions,
interpretations, or personal opinions could be wrong.

Merlin wrote:
Bear in mind, respect is earned in science - not bestowed, so I will
be witholding judgement until I see something worth respecting. For
those of you wishing to complain about my "harshness", I offer the
following "pearls of wisdom" foisted upon us by Kurt, as evidence of
a lack of scientific credibility:
Kurt's words: relativistic energy-momentum relation of SR.
Merlin's words -- Huh?

My Response:
That is not my label.  Please reference the textbook "Physics for
Scientists and Engineers", 3rd Edition, by R.A. Serway (Saunders
College Publishing, 1992), page 1127.
I happened to look up the equation that Merlin cited in this textbook
(one of my undergraduate calculus-based physics books), and used the
label I found therein.
But if Merlin is a physics professor, as he claims, then I do not
understand why he would write what he wrote about this label.  Maybe
he is just used to calling it something else?
At any rate, I feel it is necessary to elaborate on Merlin's
statement about respect in science having to be earned, not
bestowed.  But, instead of using my own words (which Merlin will most
certainly claim are not worth considering), allow me to quote W.O.
Hagstrom, author of the book "The Scientific Community" (Basic Books,
1965; pages 172 to 176).
While Hagstrom's words are dated, it is evident (in my experience)
that they are just as valid today as when first published.  He
says:  "Prestige is accorded men and groups, not bodies of
knowledge.  Research in some bodies of knowledge of undoubted rigor
and generality will have low prestige because developments in them
have no consequences of importance for other specialties.  ...  As
long as science is organized as a community in which information is
exchanged for recognition, the prestige of specialties will depend on
the contributions they can make to other specialties and on their
theoretical content.  ...   A man's scientific specialty influences
his chances of receiving scientific honors.  The well-known honors
are usually given to individuals in specialties with high prestige.
This may be felt to be somewhat unjust by other specialists.  ...
The prestige-ranking of specialties is a collective manifestation of
the award of recognition to individuals, and it has an analogous
social control function.  An individual who pursues goals thought to
be peripheral to the aims of his discipline may receive less
recognition, and this will tend to reduce his motivations to
deviate.  ...  To grow and to receive a greater share of scientific
positions, facilities, and honors, the apparently deviant specialty
usually must demonstrate that pursuit of its distinctive goals
contributes to the achievement of the central goals of the
discipline.   ...  Specialists may reject the imputation that their
work is 'less valuable' but be unable to convince their collegues in
other specialties of the truth of their position.  That is, they may
challenge the prestige-order in their discipline.  Such challenges
may result from using different criteria to evaluate the excellence
and importance of scientific results  -  in other words, they may
involve a  conflict of values in science."
So, I would suggest that Merlin's statement about respect being
earned is not the whole story, and that certainly, sometimes, respect
can also be bestowed, by the awarding of prestige to a scientist who
provides support for some segment of the scientific community, and,
conversely, that scientists who question "established" scientific
dogma routinely get ostracized.

Kurt's words: reversed causality (negative time)
Merlin's words -- reverse causality would not translate to negative
time. Causality refers to "cause and effect", therefore, reverse
causality would mean that it arose due to no cause, and IT in turn,
became the effect.

My Response:
Merlin's statement here is blatant evidence that he is either lying
about actually being a physics professor, or he is attempting to
misinform readers who do not know the difference (or, if he really is
a physics professor, then he should be fired for incompetence in his
field!).
The word "reversed" implies an opposite, as a negative sign is to
positive; not a reduction of the opposite value to zero.  Both values
are referenced to zero; neither are made identical to zero.
If you change +1 to -1, it does not make -1 = 0.  [Only by adding +1
and -1 do you get 0.]
Of course, the astute reader will have suspected, right away, that
Merlin's statement that "reverse causality would mean that it arose
due to no cause" is not logical.
"Reversed causality" means that a cause comes after an effect; not
that a cause is not there.  However, the context is SR, in which
everything is relative to your frame of reference.  If we are in a
standard frame of reference and view a frame in which causality is
reversed, with respect to the causality that is natural in our frame,
it would appear to us that an effect comes before its cause in the
other frame.  Yet, if we changed places, and made observations of the
standard frame from the other frame, then it would be the standard
frame in which it would appear that causality is reversed.  In other
words, if we were made of tachyons and lived in a tachyonic universe,
then we would say that it is the normal universe in which causality
is reversed (i.e., time is negative).
Reversed causality is indicated by a time negative, if we count
standard time as positively signed.
And, by the way, as any honest physicist can tell you, reversed
causality does, in fact, result from making time negative.  Witness
the "light-cone" of SR.

Kurt's words: When photons of light from a lightbulb, netrinos from
the Sun, or particles coming from a radioactive substance flow out
from their sources, they give rise to radiation pressure on objects
that they hit or pass through. And that pressure is felt as a force
which is directed away from the source. That is, standard (i.e.,
positive) radiation pressure is a repulsive force. Alternatively, due
to their reversed causality, the radiation pressure setup by
radiating tachyons would cause a pull towards thier source, when
hitting or passing through the same objects. They setup an attraction
(negative radiation pressure), rather than a repulsion. And that
attraction is what we experience as the force of gravity.
Merlin's words -- The beginning is correct, sort of. Pressure is
exerted due to the exchange of energy as particles interact. Momentum
IS ENERGY therefore ricocheting particles are no different than
billiard balls. That is where the correctness ends. The pressure
exerted is not a force radiated away from the source, as I just
described above - it is a transfer of momentum - thus energy. The
rest is just nonsense with the names of Einstein and Riemann thrown
in to substitue for credibility.

My Response:
Oh, my.  Well, if pressure is not defined using force, then how is it
defined?
I'm sorry, but I thought that pressure was force per unit area.  And
every reference work I can find on the subject defines it the same
way.  If the force is given in pounds of force, and it is applied
over an area measured in square inches, then the pressure is in
pounds-per-square-inch (psi).
Here, again, Merlin is displaying either his ignorance or his
dishonesty.  But which?

Kurt's words: Relativity Operator (RO)
Merlin's words -- This is a 'Kurtism,' not a real term. This is an
example of Kurt creating things that he believes will support his
assertions (though they do not). This is also not new dispensation; I
have seen a nearly identical posting at forum.physorg.com. The math
is wrong there too.

My Response:
'Kurtism'  Hmmm.  I like that.  I think I will keep it.
In his theory of Special Relativity (SR), Einstein made use of the
Lorentz Transformations to relate measureable quantities (such as
velocity) in different reference-frames that move relative to each
other (hence the term "relativity").  In doing so, he employed an
operator that he derived from those relationships.  It can be denoted
as (1 - [(v/c)^2])^(-1/2).
For example, if we want to calculate the amount of moving mass "M"
for a particle, but we only have the rest-mass "m" and the
velocity "v", then the equation is;
M  =  m[(1 - [(v/c)^2])^(-1/2)]  .
Quite often, the operator is denoted by the Greek letter alpha;
alpha = (1 - [(v/c)^2])^(-1/2)  .
For a formal derivation of this operator that was written by Einstein
himself, see his book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory",
from Crown Publishers, 1961; pages 115 to 120.
I like to name the operator the "Relativity Operator", or "RO", so
that, if we let an abbreviation be;
RO =  (1 - [(v/c)^2])^(-1/2)  ,
then we can write a simpler equation for M;
M = m(RO)  .
And yes, I once discussed my work at the PhysOrg.com forum.  It is,
in fact, among the citations that pop-up when you do a Google search
using the key phrase "tachyonic gravity".
But the math is not wrong.  It just does not have Merlin's stamp of
approval.

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

More to come.

Here, I continue re-posting Merlin's comments without giving a
counter response.  This post will be followed by a re-posting in
which I do offer counter responses to what Merlin has written.


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

In the original of the text below, Merlin quoted me without
indicating me, and followed each quote with commentary of his own.
Here, I will designate who words are whose.

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

I Wrote:
"I am, myself, drawn to the impression that Merlin is dishonest, and
is here attempting to misinform readers who do not feel the need to
confirm for themselves that what I wrote is "mathematically,
logically, or observational(l)y" feasible."

Merlin Responded:
Of course you would say that! I would have been surprised if you
would have chosen the option of "erroneous". This way, you get to
insinuate that you are correct by merely intimating that I am
dishonest. You're such a sly fox, hardly anyone will notice your
little "sleight of hand trick"

I Wrote:
"Once more, Merlin is confusing my description of a gravity-inducing
tachyon with a graviton, which I have never said were the same, and
he appears to be implying himself that a graviton is indeed
a "special" tachyon, if his wording is to be taken as-is."

Merlin Responded:
That is a leap of pseudo-scientifc proportions... If my wording is
taken "as-is" the tachyon you are describing doesn't exist. I do not
theorize that "any" tachyon is impossible - only the one you
theorize. My whole "This guy has no idea of what a tachyon is..."
comment was based upon your comment: "Gravity is faster-than-light,
and is therefore a tachyonic force" I was assasinating your logic.
First, you began the logical argument with an assertion (Gravity is
faster than light), which is a major "scientific method" no-no. Then
you "associated" the conclusion by saying "therefore", and included
the word tachyonic. Since you had never proven that gravity is faster
than light, nor proven that "tachyonic" means anything, "associating"
them is a hapless attempt to conclude your posting by assertion. This
is another "sleight-of-hand". People only do this when they cannot
otherwise make their case, so I simply pointed out that studying math
and science would be a great place to start if you ever hoped to make
your case logically, scientifically and successfully. I was being
helpful.

I Wrote:
"Either that, or he is misrepresenting what I have said, in a feeble
attempt to debunk me."

Merlin Responded:
There's that sly-fox again... In just that one sentence you intimate
that I failed to debunk your mythology while at the same time
insinuating that it is I who is misrepresenting the facts. You
certainly are sneaky; no one will notice that parlor-trick.

I Wrote:
"In point of fact, I have been doing research on the idea of tachyons
for nearly 30 years.
And, with respect to the meagre list of college courses Merlin cited,
I can say: "Been there. Done that." "

Merlin Responded:
I'm surprised to hear that you have been "researching them" for 30
years considering they first arrived on the scene in '67 (Feinberg,
Phys, Reveiw) and were barely discussed until the late-70's (North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1978). But hey, I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt. As for having, "Been there - done that," I'm stunned...
Speechless (almost). I find no proof that this is anything other than
an assertion.

I Wrote:
"As I stated in the first post of this thread, I have a degree in
mathematics (with a second major in computer science), and I am close
to getting another degree, specifically in theoretical physics."

Merlin Responded:
Is this meant to be a comparison? Let's not do that Kurt; my intent
was not to embarass you, just disparage your theory of gravity. Might
I suggest that you should spend more time increasing your education
in physics and math before moving along to the theoretical aspects? I
believe that comment was a little more nurturing and less
discouraging than the one I made the other night; regarding your
educational level.

I Wrote:
"I have also been an at-large member of the American Institute of
Physics for over 6 years, and I am the founder of the online think-
tank I call "The Tachyonics Society of America", whose members and
other supporters include "real" physicists, government researchers,
university professors, and other knowledgeable individuals, and which
is actually dedicated to the study of the tachyon, to finding
whatever applications of Tachyonics there may be now or in the
future, and to understanding all superluminal phenomena."

Merlin Responded:
Stunned again... As a member of AIP myself, I am curious to know
which affiliate? I myself am a Fellow with honors (in good standing)
of the affiliates: APS (15 years), AAPT (17 years), AGU (8 years),
AVS (9 years) & AAS (12 years). I also happen to know that this lends
absolutely nothing to your credentials; unless you too are a Fellow
w/honors. You see, I do fall into most of the categories that you
listed: Government researcher (former), University Professor
(currently) and Physicist (last 20 years), and yet, I'm more than
happy to listen to those who would be "heirs to the throne" of
knowledge. I love to learn, and I love new (and radical) theories;
however, I am a bit of a stickler for facts & proof. Silly me...
As for the "think-tank" - well, I encourage you to engage more "real
physicists" in your tank.
AND FINALLY, my favorite comment of all:
Kurt said, "As for the dispute between Merlin and myself, I believe I
have demonstrated in this thread that I am owed a sincere apology. "
I cannot even begin to comment on why anyone would think that an
apology would be warranted by the rebuttal above. No cogent argument
was achieved, and, after having read the entirety of the rebuttal -
my opinion remains unchanged. Wait a sec. - was that another bit of
shenanigans from you Kurt? I think it might have been... You
intimated that you managed to foil my critical dissection of your
theory by insinuating that an apology was warranted. By using your
logic, I could easily demand such an apology from you seeing as how
your rebuttal was even less compelling than your original argument.
Oh well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Good luck on
your quest for tachyonic gravity.

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

Subsequently, Merlin posted the following.

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

... your "website's math" is not at all PROOF. For someone who claims
to be a "physicist", you should know that mathematical proofs look
absolutely nothing like what you are proposing at the tachyonics
website (yes - I did visit). I particularly liked the section where
you linked the readers to a different page due to the" limited
capabilities of the word processor used to write and publish this
article on the Internet, such symbols cannot be represented in a very
accurate way here."

... the fact that your entire 7-page thesis posted on AOL Hometown
display no "higher math" speaks volumes. Given that we are talking
about the interaction of theoretical particles outside of
relativistic bounds, I would have at least expected to see some math
similar to that of, something such as this.
<http://merlinsscience.0catch.com/YI.html>

Your closing assertion is a classic, and I quote:
"We have now established that Tachyonics links Quantum Theory to
General Relativity, with respect to the line-segment out of the path
of the tachyon responsible for gravitation, which segment corresponds
to the distance from the tachyon's source to an object which lies on
the tachyon's absolute straight-line path and through which object
the tachyon passes on its way to an infinite distance from the
source; the point-like tachyon imparting some of its causally-
reversed momentum to the object, which momentum is translated as a
force that pulls the object towards the source, thus giving rise to
the natural phenomenon we interpret as classical gravitation, whose
overall effect is depicted macrocosmically by the field equations of
General Relativity, but whose subatomic effect -- at the level of
quantization -- is interpreted as the collective result of all the
tachyons emitted from the source which happen to pass through the
object.
Conclusion: Gravity is faster than light, and is thereofore a
tachyonic force."
Not only sounds familiar, but smacks of the same twaddle and pseudo-
science-speak I commented on earlier; strange! Do you always cut and
paste from your own writings when you are being asked for proof? By
the way, how did you manage to confine the QM fields without the use
(or display) of Feynmann diagrams? I see a fair amount of
(elementary) Newtonian physical formulae (pre-SR), but nothing of QM
and little (if any) of GR...
Oh, by the way, EVERYONE took Einstein seriously at first. He had
established himself as a very competent theorist by the time SR and
certainly GR appeared on the scene. Remember, his Nobel came not from
relativity.
At any rate Kurt, I wished you well earlier, and I meant it. Keep
trying to work it out - and scrap the word processor; upgrade to a
computer so that you can create web pages with symbols.


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

Here are more of Merlin's comments; posted a little later.

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

Kurt, you see me as so many others have in the past. You make the
(incorrect) assumption that I am a part of the establishment that
strives to keep new ideas out of the mainstream. I personally get
rather tired of that, but hey - it seems to come with the territory.
For the record, I did apologize (a couple of times) for being rude,
however, I do stick to my commentary as offered in refutation of the
facts you offered. That is how the scientific method works. Vetting
is supposed to occur so that errors do not creep into the science.
Like you, I would take it personally if someone were to find flaws in
my theories, however, I would not launch into a personal assination
attempt as you did. Instead, I would have "papered me to death" with
proof; that's how the process works. Just because you consider
yourself to be an outsider with radical views does not make you
immune to 100% of the scientific method. By avoiding the real
scientists (and the methods), you only isolate yourself further.
If you really are interested in finding out whether or not I
am "orthodox" in my study of the sciences, I suggest that you visit
here: Reality of our understanding.
<http://merlinsscience.0catch.com/Realitycheck.html> This is the site
where I "express myself" without having to worry about anything other
than speaking my piece; it's a work in progress.
By the way, Kurt, I am not a "One man show" either. I too have more
than just a handful of other experts in the fields relevant to my
areas of research working with (or for) me. I love to collaborate;
islands remain islands forever - even if bridges are built.

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

This ends the re-posting of Merlin's rebuttals to my previous posts
without any counter responses from me.  In the next few posts, I will
again re-post Merlin's rebuttals, in the order in which they appear
in Parts 3 and 4, but I will be adding my new counter responses.

Stay tuned.

Merlin posted additional commentary in response to my previous
posts.  I will re-post below most of what he wrote, but shall reserve
corresponding counter-responses for subsequent posts, so that Merlin
gets something of a chance to be heard without an immediate rebuttal.

I have done some minor editing, with respect to line spacing,
puncutation, and fonts, and I have deleted a few unimportant
paragraphs of praise Merlin had for some of his yes-men.

To see the original, go to subheading "Richter's Credentials" under
the primary heading "Future Science" on the Forum pages at
www.AtlantisRising.com.


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

Merlin posted the following.

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

(Kurt's) posting reminds me of the mess that TemporalSubliminalMan
typically posts. He, just like Kurt, claims to be something that they
are not, and offer "education" in the same way that so many
other "snake-oil-salesmen" have for centuries. I do seek to educate,
and the first rule is to be skeptical. The second is to be steadfast,
the third - investigate, and the fouth - be open to new ideas.
Being "open" does not translate to believe that which you do not
understand because it's so complex that it must be right. Several
times a day I invite people to criticize/scrutinize my work (and they
do), and I love it. It is truly the only way to vet ideas properly;
spirited debate. Having said that, simply abandoning all that is
known and utilizing pseudo-science to refute someone's theories is
unproductive. That is what I accuse Kurt of doing. Bear in mind,
respect is earned in science - not bestowed, so I will be witholding
judgement until I see something worth respecting. For those of you
wishing to complain about my "harshness", I offer the
following "pearls of wisdom" foisted upon us by Kurt, as evidence of
a lack of scientific credibility:
Kurt's words: relativistic energy-momentum relation of SR.
My words -- Huh?
Kurt's words: reversed causality (negative time)
My words -- reverse causality would not translate to negative time.
Causality refers to "cause and effect", therefore, reverse causality
would mean that it arose due to no cause, and IT in turn, became the
effect.
Kurt's words: When photons of light from a lightbulb, netrinos from
the Sun, or particles coming from a radioactive substance flow out
from their sources, they give rise to radiation pressure on objects
that they hit or pass through. And that pressure is felt as a force
which is directed away from the source. That is, standard (i.e.,
positive) radiation pressure is a repulsive force. Alternatively, due
to their reversed causality, the radiation pressure setup by
radiating tachyons would cause a pull towards thier source, when
hitting or passing through the same objects. They setup an attraction
(negative radiation pressure), rather than a repulsion. And that
attraction is what we experience as the force of gravity.
My words -- The beginning is correct, sort of. Pressure is exerted
due to the exchange of energy as particles interact. Momentum IS
ENERGY therefore ricocheting particles are no different than billiard
balls. That is where the correctness ends. The pressure exerted is
not a force radiated away from the source, as I just described above -
  it is a transfer of momentum - thus energy. The rest is just
nonsense with the names of Einstein and Riemann thrown in to
substitue for credibility.
Kurt's words: Relativity Operator (RO)
My words -- This is a 'Kurtism,' not a real term. This is an example
of Kurt creating things that he believes will support his assertions
(though they do not). This is also not new dispensation; I have seen
a nearly identical posting at forum.physorg.com. The math is wrong
there too.
Kurt's words: By plugging-in arbitrary values of velocity "v", we see
that, while the case in which E = 0 corresponds to v = 0 for an
ordinary particle, the case in which E = 0 corresponds to v =
infinity is reserved for tachyons (because of the reversed causality
imposed by the RO). It would therefore take an infinite amount of
energy to slow a tachyon down to lightspeed, and, in words, infinite
speed for a tachyon coincides with the tachyon's zero-energy level.
My words -- You failed to account for mass & momentum. Sure, we could
throw 'arbitrary' numbers in there all day long, but 'arbitrary'
doesn't equate to actual. You see, mass and energy are relative, as
is momentum and velocity.
The "REALITY IS" -- E = m*[1-(v/c)^2]^-1/2. Tachyons (if they exist)
have v > c, and, this means that E is imaginary (not arbitrary). So,
if we take the rest mass m, and calculate it to be imaginary, then E
is negative real, and the following calculations persist: E^2 - p^2 =
m^2 < 0... Or, p^2 - E^2 = M^2, where M is real. This graphs as a
hyperbola with branches in a "space-like region" of spacetime. E & P
for the tachyon therefore must satisfy this relation. Here is
the "REALITY PART": They accelerate (p increases) as they lose energy
(E decreases). A zero-energy tachyon is therefore, mathematically,
infinitely fast, and this would have distinct consequences.
Since "charge-less" tachyons would move faster than the speed of
light in a vacuum, they must produce Cherenkov radiation, and this
would lower their energy, causing them to accelerate more. So charged
tachyons would mathematically lead to a self-sustaining runaway
reaction releasing an incredibly large amount of energy. This means
that they would self-destruct shortly after creation (time base =
Planck*mass), and given that they are massless, their destruction
would be instantaneous. Heuristically, we can get spontaneous
creation of tachyon/antitachyon duality, then they "runaway" reacting
to one another and finally, the vacuum becomes unstable to the point
of uninhabitability.
According to all of our observations, you cannot have a "massive"
particle moving at the speed of light, particularly with no momentum.
Your explanation intimates that this is not the case -
however, "infinite speed" equates to infintie mass - not ZERO mass.
Throw the (incorrectly defined) words "negative causality" around all
you like - it won't make E=Mc^2 add up. I won't bother pointing out
the fact that massless, energyless infinite speed objects are
ridiculous. The idea that something can have ZERO energy and ZERO
mass, but be moving is just crazy-talk.

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

Merlin followed the above with the comments below.

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

Kurt, I have a few responses for you specifically:
You said: "My Response: Readers familiar with the mathematics will at
once recognize that Merlin is merely expressing an opinion, and one
that he cannot actually prove, because his assertion that there was
nothing correct in what I wrote above was, let's face it, either
dishonest or erroneous."
First, I am not "merely expressing an opinion" - try re-reading.
Second, it is predictable that you choose to offer the only two
options that serve your purpose. Only if I am Dishonest or Erroneous
can you be correct. You fail to offer the most glaringly obvious
possible answer: YOUR WORDS MAKE NO SENSE As I stated above, your
pseudo-scientific babble where you string "scientific-sounding" words
together make no cogent point. For those of you who do not wish to
scoll up, I have quoted the offending text once again: "Thus, these
specail tachyons can be described as constituting a monopole field
macroscopically, in accord with a Classical Newtonian vector-field,
applied locally; as causing the overall warping of spacetime
described by the Riemannian geometry of Einstein's theory of General
Relativity (which is equivalent to Newtonian gavity at its weak-field
limit); and as compatible with M-Theory..." I find no meaning in
those words, but I am willing to listen to a better explanation -
preferably one that shows the math not just talks about it.

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

More of Merlin's comments will be given in Part 4.

Here, I continue with my counter responses.

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

I wrote:
... many theorists now assume that there are no gravitational quanta
at all, because Einstein's theory of General Relativity, describing
gravity with great accuracy macrocosmically, does not involve
specification of a field of quanta.
Yet, that assumption is not a scientific fact. It is just an
assumption. And, what is more, it implies a mandated discrepancy
between the way gravity and the other fundamental forces behave.
Merlin reponds:
My goodness - this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black,
yet, it is entirely ficticious! No one has abandoned quanta of
gravity (gravitons), this is only an assertion on your behalf.

My Response:
Obviously, Merlin does not regularly conduct searches on the
Internet, routinely read phsysics periodicals, or keep himself
apprised of the latest news and information in this arena, or he
would have realized that there are a great many theorists who insist
that there is no need for the specification of quanta for gravity,
since General Relativity and/or M-Theory are good enough by
themselves.
Indeed, Merlin's own position is that M-Theory explains gravity quite
well; implying that a particle-based quantum gravity theory is really
unnecessary (although, if it is desired, then the old graviton model
is - somehow - the best).
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and preferences on any
subject. But it is a sure sign of dishonesty when someone infers that
someone else is lying when the accusation itself is not true, and
when the evidence given for the accusation is inaccurate.
In particular, the assumption that there are no quanta for gravity is
not consistent with what we know about natural processes.
Merlin responds:
And.... Your point is?

My Response:
My point is stated in the following sentences, and, if Merlin had
just read the whole paragraph before commenting on what I said in
this one sentence, then he would have known that.

I wrote:
Every other force of nature has been described empirically using
Gauge-Field Theory (a branch of Quantum Theory) to represent the
exchange and interactions of quanta.
Merlin responds:
No, gauge theories are classical transformations that have been
around far longer than QM, and are the very method that general (and
special) relativity were proven. The idea that symmetries can be both
local and global are the heart of the transformations. Do you have
any experience with math at this level? I find that you level of
understanding tends to make me question whether or not you
can "prove" your "theory".

My Response:
I must apologize to the reader for the length of the following
reponse, but I felt it necessary (in self-defense against Merlin's
insinuation), to show why I did not make a mistake in wording, and
therefore that Merlin is being unfair in his characterization of me.
There are a great many reliable sources on this, but have I chosen
one of my favorites to explain why my statement was correct.
I happen to own a copy of the Encyclopedia of Physics, edited by R.G.
Lerner and G.L. Trigg (2nd Edition, from VCH Publishers, 1991), in
which M.E. Peskin, of the Standford Linear Accelerator Center
(Standford University), wrote the entry on Quantum Field Theory
(starting on page 974).
Therein (page 977), Peskin says:
"To discuss the applications of quantum field theory to physics, it
is necessary to discuss the symmetries of quantum field theories and
the manner in which they might be realized. ... In quantum field
theory, symmetries can appear in four different ways:
"1. Manifest Global Symmetries
"This is the simplest situation; the various fields of the model form
multiplets under a symmetry group, which also interrelates their
couplings. ...
"2. Spontaneously Broken Symmetry
"This phenomenon is similar to spontaneous magnetization, ...
"3. Local Gauge Symmetries
"Quantum electrodynamics [QED] possesses a higher type of internal
symmetry, in which a different ratation can be applied at each point
of space-time. ... Yang and Mills showed that any continuous group
can be promoted to a local symmetry, as long as one adds to the
thoery one vector field for each symmetry generator and assigns this
field an inhomogeneous transformation law similar to that of the
photon field in QED. ...
"4. Spontaneously Broken Local Symmetry
"If the symmetry of a Yang-Mills theory is spontaneously broken, the
theory undergoes a further transformation, known as the Higgs
mechanism. ... "
Forgive me, but presentations like this are what have caused me to
view gauge-field theories as collectively forming a "branch" of
quantum-field theory. I understand, of course, that gauge theories
can be handled separately, and that they have a history of their own,
but still, what I said above was essentially correct.
More to the point, in context, I stated that all but gravity has been
successfully described using gauge-field theory. But, again, don't
take my word for it.
In the same encyclopedia, W.J. Marciano, of the Brookhaven National
Laboratory, wrote the entry on Gauge Theories (page 427), in which he
states:
'Gauge theories provide a findamental description of elemenatary
particles and their interactions. In that framework, forces between
particles are mediated by gauge fields associated with an underlying
symmetry. A gauge theory based on the symmetry group SU(3)x(SU(2)xU
(1) accounts for all the obsereved strong, weak, and electromagnetic
interaction phenomena. ... Because of its mathematical elegance,
simplicity, and many phenomenological successes, that thoery is
called the "standard model" of elementary particles, ... "
Clearly, I would be reading something wrong if I did not take such a
statement, in such a well-respected physics encyclopedia, very
seriously.
As for my ability to "prove" my "theory", as I have stated many times
in this forum, in other forums, and in all my work; I do not have a
theory of gravity. I have a thesis, about an hypothesis, and the
proofs (experimental evidence and mathematical implications) for its
validity establishes only, in my opinion, that it merits further and
continued investigation, because of the possible tremendous rewards
for breakthroughs that may come of such investigations.

I wrote:
They have, to-date, been able to establish a quantum-mechanical
description of all of these fundamental forces, sans gravity, in a
single Unified Field Theory, which is wholly supported by
experimental data.
Merlin responds:
Not so much... QCD falls apart in many instances during observation.
A major tenant of QCD is asymptotic freedom, and, without quantum
Perturbation theory and a healthy "fudge" factor, the theory flops.
Non-perturbative QCD does not actually exist. So, until QED and QCD
can be nenormalized without perturbation, we do not get to use the
term "wholly supported" - observations aren't as supportive as you
think. For the record, QCD is a gauge invariant; Lagrangian.

My Response:
Merlin's point, in this instance, I must and willingly concede.
Perhaps I should have used the phrase "largely supported" instead
of "wholly supported". Therefore, I stand corrected.
My zeal in knowing that there is at least some experimental support
for the Standard Model of elementary particles, as far as it has come
up to now, has gotten the better of me.

I wrote:
So, it is reasonable to conclude that gravity can likewise be
quantized, and then unified with the other forces. But the assumption
that the quanta of gravity must travel either at lightspeed or at
infinite speed, but never, for some reason, in-between, does not make
sense. The in-between possibility has been dismissed for far too long.
Merlin responds:
This statement alone indicates that your understanding of physics is
low. Even if it was a 'mythical tachyon' the fact that it is massless
is what determines its speed (through a vacuum). It was deemed
massless due to its infinite range. SR and QM tell us that it will
not move faster than the speed of light, and GR tells us that it can
move slower. No one is saying that it cannot move more slowly, when
obstructed.

My Response:
Merlin has confused the type of tachyon I have described as
responsible for gravity with the concept of the graviton. They are
not the same or even similar. Clearly, then, he has not read what I
have written about tachyons or tachyonic gravity, and is thus
commenting according to an inaccurate assessment of my ideas, tainted
by a preference for out-dated theories.
My thesis on tachyonic gravity rests almost entirely on the
hypothesis that there could exist tachyons with imaginary mass (not
massless), restricted to traveling between lightspeed and infinite
speed exclusively, whose collective radiation pressure upon objects
through which they pass (after being emitted from a standard source-
mass) is negative (causes a pull rather than a push), as compared to
ordinary (positive) radiation pressure caused by massive subatomic
particles (protons, neutrons, etc.) emitted from a standard
fissioning or radioactive source.
Merlin's assertion that "SR and QM" tell us that the quanta of
gravity "cannot move at the speed of light" is based on out-dated
assumptions about gravity, SR (Special Relativity), and QM (Quantum
Mechanics); explained as follows.
First, SR and QM "tell us" no such thing. In fact, it is implications
of SR that are behind the very suggestion that tachyons could exist.
And QM does not forbid the existence of tachyons. The idea that
nothing can move faster than light is an old assumption; no longer
valid. It stems from the fact that the equations of SR show that it
would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an ordinary
mass up to lightspeed. And since we do not see that sort of thing
happening, and we do not have access to infinite amounts of energy,
then it was widely assumed that nothing at all could exist on the
other side of lightspeed. But the equations do not themselves mandate
such an assumption. They only show, conversely, that, if tachyons
exist, it would take an infinite amount of energy to slow a tachyon
down to lightspeed.
I submit, therefore, that it is Merlin whose understanding of physics
is low.

I wrote:
Why is that? It is because of out-dated ideas. It is not an "a
priori" that the spin-2 graviton has to travel at lightspeed. That
specification is an assumption, based on the old but erroneous
assumption that nothing goes faster-than-light.
Merlin responds:
Negative... Read up on "real science" please.

My Response:
Wrong. I have. I do. And I will continue.

I wrote:
Yet, because that did not work out, it was then widely assumed,
because of the success of General Relativity (which does not specify
a field of quanta), that gravity has no quanta at all!
Merlin responds:
Excuse me? Since when?

My Response:
Please refer to any good text on Einstein's theory of General
Relativity (GR).
In its essence, it is a topological theory, employing Riemannian
geometry to give geodesics corresponding to the paths of objects
subjected to the warping of space due to the mere presence of other
masses in the volume of space under consideration. The notion of
a "field" of force is missing from the so-called "field equations" of
GR, and the incorporation of spin-2 massless gravitons as the quanta
of gravity must be done by hand, as an add-on supplemental idea.

I wrote:
Now, however, that assumption too is no longer adequate, because it
begs the question:
"Why, if the assumption is true, did Mother Nature quantize all of
the forces but gravity?"
No, gravity can be quantized, empirically, but not according to the
spin-2 graviton model.
Gravity's quanta are probably faster-than-light, but do not travel at
an infinte speed. They are more likely to be special kinds of
tachyons, with imaginary masses, that travel between lightspeed and
infinite speed excusively.
Merlin responds:
Observations tell us completely differently. The actions of stars,
moons, galaxies and pencils tell us that gravitons do not move
at "infinite speed." There is no form of math that can prove that
either.

My Response:
Wrong. For example;
Data from current "observations", such as of binary pulsars, hailed
far and wide as proving the old graviton model, is being used
unethically manipulated to support an otherwise unsupportable theory;
the data is being arbitrarily cherry-picked, the math used in the
analysis of it was clearly designed to give only one kind of result
(no matter what the input), and the entire claim of such proof rests
on an interpretation of the rigged results which itself asserts, from
the outset, as an initial assumption, that the said graviton model is
correct.
Also, here again, Merlin confuses my hypothetical gravity-inducing
tachyon with standard gravitons.
And there is math to support what I have said; if only Merlin would
read some of it. Please see, once more, my article "Tachyonic
Gravity" at www.TachyonicsSociety.com
<http://www.TachyonicsSociety.com>

I wrote:
They would be quite easily created by any real mass (because infinite
speed corresponds to a tachyon's zero-energy level).
Merlin responds:
Uh - no. Again, your lack of physical understanding is showing. The
formula for relativistic particle properties & motion is pretty
simple. E^2 = (m^2 ·c4) + (p^2 · c^2). Do the math.

My Response:
OK. Let's do the math.
Here, "E" is a massive particle's energy, "m" is its rest-mass, "p"
is its momentum, and "c" is the lightspeed constant.
Merlin cited the relativistic energy-momentum relation of SR, derived
from the total-energy equation;
E = [m(c^2)]/[1 - [(v/c)^2] = K + m(c^2) ,
where "K" is the kinetic energy of the particle;
K = (p^2)(c^2) .
The momentum is defined;
p = mv/[1 - [(v/c)^2], where "v" is the particle's velocity.
I refer to the factor "1/[1 - [(v/c)^2]" as the "Relativity
Operator", or the "RO", but it results from applying the Lorentz
transformations according to the tenets of SR.
The relation that Merlin wrote is, in fact, an equation that
specifically shows that it would take an infinite amount of energy to
accelerate a real mass up to lightspeed, because of the way the
Relativity Operator (RO) works itself out.
If, for instance, v < c, then the RO is a real number. But if v = c,
then the denominator in the RO goes infinite, and thus the RO is
either undefined, or, by convention, assumed to imply a zero mass,
corresponding to a massless photon. Yet, if v > c, then the RO
becomes imaginary, which defines a tachyon.
By plugging-in arbitrary values of velocity "v", we see that, while
the case in which E = 0 corresponds to v = 0 for an ordinary
particle, the case in which E = 0 corresponds to v = infinity is
reserved for tachyons (because of the reversed causality imposed by
the RO).
It would therefore take an infinite amount of energy to slow a
tachyon down to lightspeed, and, in words, infinite speed for a
tachyon coincides with the tachyon's zero-energy level.
So, although I regret to be the one who has to point it out,
obviously it is Merlin who lacks proper physical understanding of the
math of SR.

I wrote:
And, instead of traveling curved paths, they must travel absolutely
straight paths from their sources to an infinte distance.
Merlin responds:
But a straight path through curved space (geodesic) looks like a
curved path through flat space. You'll need an understanding of
calculus while you are at it.

My Response:
Merlin's point does not alter what I said, and his insinuation was a
not-too-cleverly disguised insult; as the reader will see forthwith.

I wrote:
To explain how this works, note that tachyons have reversed causality
(negative time), compared to that of ordinary particles. When photons
of light from a lightbulb, netrinos from the Sun, or particles coming
from a radioactive substance flow out from their sources, they give
rise to radiation pressure on objects that they hit or pass through.
And that pressure is felt as a force which is directed away from the
source. That is, standard (i.e., positive) radiation pressure is a
repulsive force. Alternatively, due to their reversed causality, the
radiation pressure setup by radiating tachyons would cause a pull
towards thier source, when hitting or passing through the same
objects. They setup an attraction (negative radiation pressure),
rather than a repulsion. And that attraction is what we experience as
the force of gravity.
Thus, these specail tachyons can be described as constituting a
monopole field macroscopically, in accord with a Classical Newtonian
vector-field, applied locally; as causing the overall warping of
spacetime described by the Riemannian geometry of Einstein's theory
of General Relativity (which is equivalent to Newtonian gavity at its
weak-field limit); and as compatible with M-Theory, since they
explain how it is that gravity can be so weak in our brane, but very
strong in another brane (according to the latest M-Theory ideas).
Merlin responds:
There was absolutely nothing correct in the above text.
Mathematically, logically, or observationaly - there was nothing
worth commenting on.

My Response:
Readers familiar with the mathematics will at once recognize that
Merlin is merely expressing an opinion, and one that he cannot
actually prove, because his assertion that there was nothing correct
in what I wrote above was, let's face it, either dishonest or
erroneous.
I am, myself, drawn to the impression that Merlin is dishonest, and
is here attempting to misinform readers who do not feel the need to
confirm for themselves that what I wrote is "mathematically,
logically, or observational(l)y" feasible.

I wrote:
Conclusion: Gravity is faster-than-light, and is therefore a
tachyonic force.
Merlin responds:
CONCLUSION: This guy has no clue as to what a tachyon is, much less
that a graviton is a "special" tachyon. H Kurt Richter needs to go to
school and learn the following (in this order):
Algebra 1, Algebra 2, Analytical Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus 1-
4, Chemistry, Physics 1, Thermodynamics, Physics 2, QED, QCD, Physics
3, Modular functions, Statistics, Physics 4-6.

My Response:
Once more, Merlin is confusing my description of a gravity-inducing
tachyon with a graviton, which I have never said were the same, and
he appears to be implying himself that a graviton is indeed
a "special" tachyon, if his wording is to be taken as-is.
Either that, or he is misrepresenting what I have said, in a feeble
attempt to debunk me.
In point of fact, I have been doing research on the idea of tachyons
for nearly 30 years.
And, with respect to the meagre list of college courses Merlin cited,
I can say: "Been there. Done that."
As I stated in the first post of this thread, I have a degree in
mathematics (with a second major in computer science), and I am close
to getting another degree, specifically in theoretical physics. I
have also been an at-large member of the American Institute of
Physics for over 6 years, and I am the founder of the online think-
tank I call "The Tachyonics Society of America", whose members and
other supporters include "real" physicists, government researchers,
university professors, and other knowledgeable individuals, and which
is actually dedicated to the study of the tachyon, to finding
whatever applications of Tachyonics there may be now or in the
future, and to understanding all superluminal phenomena.
Reference www.TachyonicsSociety.com
<http://www.TachyonicsSociety.com>

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

This ends my counter responses to the messages that were posted by
Merlin on another thread, and in which he attempted to refute my
ideas. Any readers that have read this far can decide for themselves
if he was successful, or not.

As for the dispute between Merlin and myself, I believe I have
demonstrated in this thread that I am owed a sincere apology.

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

More of Merlin's comments will be given in the next post, along with
additional comments from myself.

Here, I post my original words along with Merlin's responses, then my
counter response to each set.  In later posts, Merlin offers his own
added comments.

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

I wrote:
Actually, there is a way to deterimine how gravity is transmitted, by
assuming that it is faster-than-light, and is therefore a tachyonic
force.
Merlin responds:
Science "assumes" nothing. Since you are comfortable to just "assume"
things, and make 'em true, why not assume that the moon is made of
cheese? We could solve the Irish rat problem that way. Besides, there
is really no need to assume that gravity moves faster than the speed
of light if it emanates from a brane that is non-local. Beyond that,
tachyons are irrelevent - they are unproven, mathematically
unspecific, and observationally unfound. By the way, the only
discipline than does not successfully describe gravity is QM; M-
theory and the Standard Model (Relativity) describe it quite well.

My Response:
In truth, scientists must assume lots of things all the time. They
must assume that their view of reality is somewhat correct; that
mathematics can be used successfully to describe most of what we
discern about nature through experiment; and, perhaps most important,
that there are plenty of things about natural processes that we do
not yet know, do not know well enough, or do not have the most
accurate understanding of.
Furthermore, no experimental physicist would go about contemplating,
designing, and then doing an experiment without first considering a
fairly comprehensive set of initial assumptions about what to expect.
And how many scientists throughout the history of science have
assumed that some theory they came up with was correct, despite the
fact that there was no experimental evidence to prove it at the time,
but which theories were subsequently proven beyond question! Indeed,
science is replete with assumptions, based on educated quesses,
existing scientific facts, or well-established constants, to be sure,
but assumptions nontheless.
As for the assertion that "there is really no need to assume that
gravity moves faster than the speed of light if it emanates from a
brane that is non-local", that is like saying "everthing about nature
that we will ever need to know is already known, and there is
therefore no need to continue even trying to learn more."
That is not in the spirit of scientific inquiry.
And if tachyons are irrelevant, then this implies that any and all
experimental investigations into superluminal phenomena are also
irrelevant, and that many a well-funded research department in many a
well-respected institution these days (including research centers run
by the US Air Force) are only wasting their time.
But the fact that there are a number of very successful descriptions
of gravity is not in dispute. What is at issue is a quantum theory of
gravity that is supported by experimental data, which M-Theory and
General Relativity, though describing gravity "quite well", do not
supply.

I wrote:
Please remember also the reason for this thread; a comparison between
my thesis on gravity and Stromgol's concepts. Somehow, we strayed
from that discussion, and Merlin has even suggested here that there
is no description of gravity that lets us "determine how it is
transmitted".
Merlin responds:
That is correct. I represent what is actually known in science - not
what is assumed. I was quite specific and my words were chosen very
carefully. Take note that I did not state that "all gravity" is
unknown - go back and reread if you missed the point of my comments.

My Response:
OK. I went back to reread what Merlin wrote. I also compared what was
stated in this remark to my words, and I agree that I can find no
place in which Merlin stated that all gravity is unknown, but neither
can I find anywhere that I said so, nor exactly where this statement
comes in, and how it is logically connected to my comment.

I wrote:
With all due respect, that is not correct, because the tachyonic-
gravity hypothesis was not included as a viable possibility in
Merlin's assessment.
Merlin responds:
For very good reason I might add.

My Response:
Rejection of possible valid hypotheses based on personal prejudices
for some other idea, or else because it may conflict with what is
preferred, is not often considered by most scientists that I have
known as a "very good reason" for dismissing new hypotheses out of
hand. And, taking the implications of Merlin's comment a step
further, requiring that experimental proof comes before a theory is
thought up for the data that proves it is not a logical expectation.

I wrote:
Quantum gravity is, in fact, fully explained, and is made compatible
with General Relativity, Newtonian Gravity, and even M-Theory, if the
quanta of gravity are described as a special kind of tachyon. And the
tachyonic-gravity hypothesis is based almost entirely on a
description of how gravity is transmitted (via superluminal quanta).
Merlin responds:
Alrighty. Let's see the math. Trot out the proofs. Given that you are
using an unproven 'mythological' massless object with infinite energy
to transmit a force that is proven to be caused by the warpage of S/T
fabric, I'll be excited to see how you calculate p^W & m^a. I'll also
be astonished to see how you avoid the infinities that will result as
hidden objects in the `Dirac Sea' when e^x is forced negative.
Only "hole theory" can be afoot here, although, no Chernekov
radiation has ever been witnessed. Bring your best math with you, my
pencil is sharpened and ready.

My Response:
I don't know how many times I have referred to my work on this
subject (the results of which I have published online for everyone to
see) where some individual who berates me on it clearly has never
gone and actually read any of it!
An abbreviated version of my thesis (complete with all the math you
may need) is accessed by clicking-on the "Tachyonic Gravity" link at
my web-site, www.TachyonicsSociety.com
<http://www.TachyonicsSociety.com>
The entire 7-page treatement is at
<http://hometown.aol.com/TachyonicGravity/TLQTtGR01.html>
Additonally, a veritable treasure-trove of online sources on
tachyons, Tachyonics, and superluminal phenomena are linked from the
site, as well.
If anyone cares to take the time to look up those sources, then they
will find also many of the most recent sources of information on the
ongoing experimental efforts that are either directly or indirectly
related to the search for tachyons, and the investigation of
superluminal phenomena.
For discussions of this information, please note also my discussion-
group on Yahoo!, at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheTEPG>
Yet, if you simply do a Google search using the key phrase "tachyonic
gravity", then you will find that it is my work, and various
discussions of it, that are listed first, and that almost everything
on the topic that I have published or posted online is cited in the
overall list.
And the work I have done is highly mathematical in nature; involving
a great deal of theoretical physics (most importantly Special
Relativity). It stands, in fact, as an example of the blending of
some of the most advanced theoretical physics and pure mathematics
concepts of our times.
But don't take my word for it. Go and read it.
Then, maybe, a discussion of how infinities, hole theory, and
Cherenkov radiation may or may not apply to my ideas can be pursued.

I wrote:
What is more, while the spin-2 massless graviton does indeed obtain
its formal representation in the language of Quantum Mechanics, the
original reason for its invention was the desire to cast quantum
gravity as an analog of electromagnetism, so that it would be
compatible with Special Relativity, in hopes that a way could then be
found to make it compatible with General Relativity.
Merlin responds:
Hmmm... Actually I disagree completely. The graviton arose from
mathematics independent from classical interpetation. QM defined it,
and Relativity attempted to co-opt it in order to prove space time
curvature. The Standard Model failed miserably. So - the graviton was
never a QM attempt to copy the photon's success in the standard
model.

My Response:
Oh, I must have made a terrible mistake, simply believing things I
read in books. I will just have to burn all of the physics books
(including textbooks), journal articles, and other works I have
accumulated over the years (and on which I have based my comment),
for they must all be in error! But wait. This is greater than just
the debate we are having. Should we not announce it to the whole
world; that so many physicists have got the history of physics all
wrong?
Hmmm... No. It is Merlin who is wrong.
Please note that the original concept of the graviton came from
string theorists (Schwarz and Scherk) in the early 1970s. They did
indeed arrive at a prediction for a spin-2 massless boson, from the
quantum mechanical equations of string theory, but they almost
immediately associated it with gravity; proposing that it was the one-
and-only quantum mechanical theory of the gravitational force, and
hence the long-sought connection between Quantum Mechanics and
General Relativity. But, lacking experimental proof, the notion fell
out of favor, although a respectable version, involving a point-
particle instead of a string, took its place (due to the many
triumphs of gauge-field theory). So, the theoretical need was then
established for a renormalizable theory of the graviton that fit in
with the rest of the quantum theories used for elementary particles.
And the story goes on.
Reference, for instance, Brian Greene's version of the tale, in his
book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" (from Alfred A. Knopf publishing,
2004), pages 340 to 344.
Oh, and just FYI, the point-particle version of the graviton was
specifically intended to be an anlog of the photon of
electromagnetism. Indeed, all modern quantum mechanical theories of
the elementary particle interactions (including quantum
chromodynamics) are intentionally based on, and involve fields
constructed essentially as analogs of, the electromagnetic field.
As physics textbook author David Griffiths has pointed out: "Quantum
electrodynamics is the oldest, the simplest, and the most successful
of the dynamical theories; the others are self-consciously modeled on
it. [Refer to book "Intro. to Elementary Particles", by David
Griffiths, from John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1987; page 56.]

I wrote:
That did not happen, because of the incompatibility between Quantum
Mechanics and General Relativity - which problem M-Theory (or Brane-
World Theory) purports to solve; and, to its credit, does
successfully explain why gravity is so weak at subatomic distances
(being weak in our brane, but strong in another). But the M-
Theory "explanation" of gravity actually amounts to yet another macro-
encompassing description of what gravity does (its large-scale
effect), not a quantum-mechanical description of the microcosmic
exchange-particles responsible for the force we know as gravity.
Merlin responds:
I have no idea of what you are saying... M-theory describes exactly
what gravity is. There is absolutely nothing "macro" about the
description of gravity as a vibrational mode upon a closed string
emanating from a D0-brane separated from the D3 brane by only the
Planck length. I'm of the opinion that you do not understand M-theory
at all.

My Response:
Clearly, Merlin has not been keeping up with the latest developments
in M-Theory (I prefer to call it Brane-World Theory, but it does'nt
matter).
In fact, there was even an hour-long televised press-conference that
appeared a few months back in which a co-author (a woman physicist)
of a new book on M-Theory discussed, in some detail, this very topic.
Meanwhile, I looked her up on the Internet, to get the scoop on her
book.
[I can't now recall her name, but so what?]
She explains that gravity is weak in our brane (our spacetime
manifold) but much stronger in another "nearby" brane (alternate-
dimensional spacetime manifold), and this realization solves certain
theoretical diffuculties that have been hindering experimental proof
of M-Theory.
Really. Merlin seems to be holding onto more than one set of out-
dated ideas.

I wrote:
One example of what happens, in this respect, is that many theorists
now assume that there are no gravitational quanta at all, because
Einstein's theory of General Relativity, describing gravity with
great accuracy macrocosmically, does not involve specification of a
field of quanta.
Merlin responds:
???? How many [real] theoretical physicists do you know? I'm appalled
by your proposition.

My Response:
I know, and have known, quite a few.
I am, in fact, an at-large member of the American Institute of
Physics, and I correspond with a number of physicists by e-mail
around the world.
But I am confused at why Merlin is so appalled at my comment. In
fact, General Relativity, in its fundamental form (using Riemannian
geometry to describe the curvature of space due to the mere presence
of mass), does not incorporate a quantum mechanical description of a
field of quanta.
It is often assumed that the standard graviton model goes with it, as
something of an add-on concept, but that is only an assumption - and
it is an erroneous assumption at that, because the standard point-
particle spin-2 graviton model most-often cited is based on non-
renormalizable theory, which renders it incompatible with the
Standard Model of the elementary particles (as opposed to the
standard model of gravity, which is, of course, the very same
fundamental form of General Relativity which I just mentioned).

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

Here I had to stop.  I had run out of time. But I continued my
counter responses in subsequent posts; re-posted next.

I have been participating in the forum at AtlantisRising.com, under
the heading of "Future Science"; discussing my ideas on tachyons,
Tachyonics, and tachyonic gravity.  Recently, however, although that
forum was specifically intended as a place for people to post and
discuss unorthodox ideas, I came under intense attack from a physics
professor who frequents the forum, and who, apparently, does so for
the express purpose of shooting-down (i.e., debunking) individuals
who actually post unorthodox ideas there.

I asked myself:  "What gives?"  I had long since ceased attempting to
post my ideas on mainstream physics forums (the kind where such
individuals belong), because of the dire and angry opposition to my
ideas that I encounter in such forums, but it seems to me that the
proponents of mainstream doctrine go too far when they interject
themselves into alternative forums with condemnatory commentary.

Then it occurred to me that such aggressive closed-mindedness is one
of the main reasons for the lack of progress towards the development
of, and contributions to, an Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology
(ISC) on the part of mainstream scientists  -  they have become like
a corrupt medieval priesthood, setting themslves up as Lords over our
minds, and holding onto out-dated concepts as if their views were the
tenets of some unalterable religious dogma.  And they will all go to
their graves defending the establishmentarian status-quo of today's
scientific community; dominated, as it is, by corporatism, which
shuns new ideas as unprofitable.  So, they tend to see new ideas, no
matter how promising or enlightening, or potentially beneficial to
our understanding of reality, as a threat to their positions as the
quardians and promoters of what they label as "scientific fact", much
of which is not fact at all, but some dead scientist's belief.

Yet, the issue of ISC, in this context, is complicated, because it
requires playing on their turf; beating them at their own game.

I have therefore decided to post somewhat of the debate I have had
recently with this professor, who calls himself "Merlin", and who
seems to have prompted some of his followers to support him with
comments of their own, but which are equally closed-minded, as the
reader will readily recognize.  It is hoped that by knowing what
arguments are thrown up against my ideas, counter arguments can be
found that cannot, in all honesty, be so readily dismissed.

The topic is Tachyonic Gravity.  In what follows, I will re-post here
certain posts that originally appeared on the Atlantis Rising Forum,
and will later-on begin offering additional comments of my own.
[Find the original posts at the www.AtlantisRising.com forum, under
the "Future Science" heading; subheading "Richter's Credentials".]

____________


On a thread started by Stromgol, I was asked by Stromgol to discuss
my ideas on tachyonic gravity as compared to Stromgol's view that
gravity pushes rather than pulls, because of how the expansion of
spacetime works. However, this is an open forum, and Merlin
interjected his own thoughts; to one of which I offered a response
that he seems not to have liked very much, and thus attempted to,
well, I quess you would have to say, he tried to "debunk" me.

But the last thing he did in that effort was to insult me by giving a
somewhat short list of the college courses I assume he himself has
taken, but which he implies that I have not.

In fact, I have, and then some. But the details can come later. Here
I would like to re-post the messages that started the debate, and
then take it from there with additional commentary.

Merlin, of course, is free to respond.


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


Previously, Merlin wrote:

"... Theoretically, strings give rise to fermions and bosons via
vibrational modes - but we can only acertain that through theory &
math. The electromagnetic force and fields are another issue. Since
we have no idea of why "charge" exists, any answer we give would be
fraudulent. Gravity, on the other hand, is different. We have many
ways to describe it, and observation to prove its existence, but no
way to determine how it is transmitted. So - in the end, we are at a
loss for words to "know" what it is. ... "


My response was:

Actually, there is a way to deterimine how gravity is transmitted, by
assuming that it is faster-than-light, and is therefore a tachyonic
force. [See an abbreviated version of my thesis on this by clicking-
on "Tachyonic Gravity" at www.TachyonicsSociety.com

There have also been some recent technological breakthroughs that
will result in the design of experiments that I predict will yield
empirical support for this idea very soon (within a few years, at the
latest, if not just months).

Please remember also the reason for this thread; a comparison between
my thesis on gravity and Stromgol's concepts. Somehow, we strayed
from that discussion, and Merlin has even suggested here that there
is no description of gravity that lets us "determine how it is
tansmitted".

With all due respect, that is not correct, because the tachyonic-
gravity hypothesis was not included as a viable possibility in
Merlin's assessment.

Quantum gravity is, in fact, fully explained, and is made compatible
with General Relativity, Newtonian Gravity, and even M-Theory, if the
quanta of gravity are described as a special kind of tachyon. And the
tachyonic-gravity hypothesis is based almost entirely on a
description of how gravity is transmitted (via superluminal quanta).

What is more, while the spin-2 massless graviton does indeed obtain
its formal representation in the language of Quantum Mechanics, the
original reason for its invention was the desire to cast quantum
gravity as an analog of electromagnetism, so that it would be
compatible with Special Relativity, in hopes that a way could then be
found to make it compatible with General Relativity. That did not
happen, because of the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and
General Relativity - which problem M-Theory (or Brane-World Theory)
purports to solve; and, to its credit, does successfully explain why
gravity is so weak at subatomic distances (being weak in our brane,
but strong in another). But the M-Theory "explanation" of gravity
actually amounts to yet another macro-encompassing description of
what gravity does (its large-scale effect), not a quantum-mechanical
description of the microcosmic exchange-particles responsible for the
force we know as gravity.

It seems to me, therefore, that much of the mystery about gravity
(and therefore of the many conceptualizations of it), comes not from
what we know about it, but from what we assume about it.

Our initial assumptions determine the range of choices of
mathematical tools we can use, and that, in turn, limits the kinds of
experiments that appear to be the most promising for yielding results
that confirm or disprove our theories.

One example of what happens, in this respect, is that many theorists
now assume that there are no gravitational quanta at all, because
Einstein's theory of General Relativity, describing gravity with
great accuracy macrocosmically, does not involve specification of a
field of quanta.
Yet, that assumption is not a scientific fact. It is just an
assumption. And, what is more, it implies a mandated discrepancy
between the way gravity and the other fundamental forces behave.

In particular, the assumption that there are no quanta for gravity is
not consistent with what we know about natural processes. Every other
force of nature has been described empirically using Gauge-Field
Theory (a branch of Quantum Theory) to represent the exchange and
interactions of quanta. And that kind of theory remains the preferred
formal format of nearly all mainstream experimental physicists
involved in elementary particle research. The Standard Model of
elementary particle physics is a Gauge-Field Theory that unifies the
weak-nuclear force with electromagnetism, in a single force called
the "electro-weak force", which is also unified with the strong-
nuclear force, in the language of Quantum Chromodynamics.

They have, to-date, been able to establish a quantum-mechanical
description of all of these fundamental forces, sans gravity, in a
single Unified Field Theory, which is wholly supported by
experimental data.

So, it is reasonable to conclude that gravity can likewise be
quantized, and then unified with the other forces. But the assumption
that the quanta of gravity must travel either at lightspeed or at
infinite speed, but never, for some reason, in-between, does not make
sense. The in-between possibility has been dismissed for far too
long.

Why is that? It is because of out-dated ideas.

It is not an "a priori" that the spin-2 graviton has to travel at
lightspeed. That specification is an assumption, based on the old but
erroneous assumption that nothing goes faster-than-light.
And it is not mandatory that the only other choices are that there
are no quanta for gravity, or that its quanta travel at infinite
speed.

Theorists in Einstein's day (including Einstein himself) could not
accept the Newtonian assumption that gravity acts instantaneously
(which would imply that gravity's quanta travel at infinite speed),
because that causes the math to be undefined (it gives infinite
solutions). And with the great experimentally-verified successes of
Quantum Theory, their logical choice for quantum gravity was to
consider an analog of electromagnetism; where the first nonvanishing
solutions required a quadrupole field (rather than a two-pole or a
monopole field).

Yet, because that did not work out, it was then widely assumed,
because of the success of General Relativity (which does not specify
a field of quanta), that gravity has no quanta at all!

Now, however, that assumption too is no longer adequate, because it
begs the question:
"Why, if the assumption is true, did Mother Nature quantize all of
the forces but gravity?"

No, gravity can be quantized, empirically, but not according to the
spin-2 graviton model.

Gravity's quanta are probably faster-than-light, but do not travel at
an infinte speed. They are more likely to be special kinds of
tachyons, with imaginary masses, that travel between lightspeed and
infinite speed excusively. They would be quite easily created by any
real mass (because infinite speed corresponds to a tachyon's zero-
energy level). And, instead of traveling curved paths, they must
travel absolutely straight paths from their sources to an infinte
distance.

To explain how this works, note that tachyons have reversed causality
(negative time), compared to that of ordinary particles. When photons
of light from a lightbulb, netrinos from the Sun, or particles coming
from a radioactive substance flow out from their sources, they give
rise to radiation pressure on objects that they hit or pass through.
And that pressure is felt as a force which is directed away from the
source. That is, standard (i.e., positive) radiation pressure is a
repulsive force. Alternatively, due to their reversed causality, the
radiation pressure setup by radiating tachyons would cause a pull
towards thier source, when hitting or passing through the same
objects. They setup an attraction (negative radiation pressure),
rather than a repulsion. And that attraction is what we experience as
the force of gravity.

Thus, these specail tachyons can be described as constituting a
monopole field macroscopically, in accord with a Classical Newtonian
vector-field, applied locally; as causing the overall warping of
spacetime described by the Riemannian geometry of Einstein's theory
of General Relativity (which is equivalent to Newtonian gavity at its
weak-field limit); and as compatible with M-Theory, since they
explain how it is that gravity can be so weak in our brane, but very
strong in another brane (according to the latest M-Theory ideas).

Conclusion: Gravity is faster-than-light, and is therefore a
tachyonic force.


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


That ended my comments to that juncture, and they appear to have
angered Merlin so much that he posted quite a lengthy and insulting
response; taking issue with most of what I said, ...

____________


To be continued.

In the latest issue of Physics Today magazine (Nov. '06, page 44),
there is an article, "Quantum Gravity Faces Reality", by L. Smollin,
who is on the faculty at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical
Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

The blurb for the article reads:
"String theory is only one of the many approaches to quantizing
general relativity.  Increasingly, all those approaches will be
judged by how well they accord with experimental data."

While somewhat concise, Smollin does a good job of describing what he
sees as important candidates for several modern quantum theories of
gravity which, in his view, may have the best chances of finding
experimental confirmation.  And, although he does not mention the
hypothesis that gravity is tachyonic, he does note, in passing, such
related topics as the "inflationary cosmological models", based
on "semiclassical methods" of coming up with a quantum-gravity
scenario compatible with General Relativity.

Inflation Theory, in cosmology, has it that there was a brief period
of superluminal expansion (a tachyonic phase, if you will), during
the first and most formative moments of the Big Bang.  It is my
contention that a wide assortment of tachyons were created at that
time, and that many of them did not slow-down to become the "known"
elementary particles, nor did they vanish from existence, but that
they remained in existence, and in their tachyonic forms, including a
certain form that can be used to describe and explain quantum gravity
in a way that is wholly compatible with General Relativity.
[See:  "Tachyonic Gravity" at www.TachyonicsSociety.com.]

Unfortunately, Smollin failed to mention several recent research
developments that most certainly have a bearing on the technology
that is, and can be, used to do experiments on gravity.  There is,
for instance, a new detection method, employing lasers, which is
reported to be capable of detecting motion with infinitessimally
small error, and a new means of measureing Newtonian gravity at the
micron scale, with an accuracy down to the millionths decimal-place.

Perhaps Smollin has merely included these considerations in the
overall "many approaches" reference, and I should nevetheless applaud
Smollin for giving readers of Physics Today a fairly good overview of
the current doctorate-level work being done on quantum gravity.
But I am personally disappointed in the progress that has been made
so far, and I get the impression that it will be some time before any
truly significant breakthroughs are forthcoming, if the direction in
the research he points to is the most significant indication.

It seems to me that quite a lot of what is hampering experimental
efforts at finding the ideal quantum theory of gravity is the almost
total adherence to out-dated notions about gravity.  Not one of the
approaches Smollin described, for instance, involves the hypothesis
that gravity could be superluminal.  And that, in my opinion, should
be the primary question being addressed!

Instead, what is happening is only that the men who have the funding
to do experiments are trying to establish theselves as the gods of
gravity, by collecting evidence for their own theories, despite the
true process of quantum gravity; i.e., instead of attempting to
determine how Mother Nature herself actually does gravity, and then
finding the correct descriptive theory that conforms to the data.

Such, then, is the present state of affairs with quantum gravity.

Well, so be it.  If we have to devise a description first, then test
the description it to see if it is supported by experiment, I propose
that my thesis on tachyonic gravity should be added to the list of
viable candidates, and suggest that experiments designed to test it
will be the first to yield undeniable proof that gravity is faster-
than-light, and is therefore a tachyonic force.

For more, go to "Tachyonic Gravity" 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;
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.


ISC and Scientific Fact

"But physics already involves in-depth explanations of reality,"
a scientist may interject, "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 with it from then on.

It all reduces to a matter of consensus, of course. Yet, in many
cases, the consensus is that whatever some person says about data
from an experiment  -  not what the experiment reveals in and of
itself  -  is held as the empiricism, and touted as "scientific
fact", regardless of the so-called "scientific method".

"But that is how it has always been done," another will say.
Well, yes.  But maybe that is actually the problem.

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, unhindered by any one
individual's "interpretation" of the data  -  for, without such a
leap forward in our understanding of existence, we are all little
more than a many-minded collective; groping as if blind in the midst
of a terrible data maelstrom.


The Potential of ISC

ISC promises to give us that method, which will then gives us valid
ISC theories.  Within 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.

We are seeking research papers, articles, and other serious works
(online, in periodicals, or in books) that deal with the philosophical
ramifications of the application of Tachyonics (the study of the
tachyon) to our understanding of life, the universe, and everything.

Anyone with such work, published or not, is invited to submit either a
plain text version of it for free publication on our main site, or ad-
copy describing an already published work.

Submit or inquire with the founder, HK Richter, by e-mail only to
HKurtRichter@...

Applications:

For more details about tachyons proper, click-on "Tachyons" at
www.TachyonicsSociety.com.

Tachyonics is simply the study of the tachyon. And there are three
areas in which Tachyonics holds out the promise of significant
advancement in our understanding of natural processes.
These are
(1) theoretical physics,
(2) interdiscipline philosophy, and
(3) metaphysics.

In theoretical physics, it can be shown that quantum gravity obtains
an explanation consistent with empirical data from gravity-related
laboratory experiments and from numerous astronomical observations by
suggesting that the quanta responsible for what we know as gravity
are actually special kinds of tachyons, which can be represented
using the imagination-unit.
Details on this are available by clicking-on "Tachyonic Gravity" at
www.TachyonicsSociety.com.
See also our message-board on Yahoo, at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheTEPG.
Additionally, more information on tachyonic gravity has been
published at the following sites.
http://hometown.aol.com/TachyonicGravity/SuperluminalGravitation.html
http://hometown.aol.com/TachyonicGravity/TLQTtGR01.html

In philosophy, Tachyonics can be used as the foundation for an
ultimate Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology (ISC), capable of
explaining all of existence in the most accurate and comprehesive
manner that is humanly possible, even compared to the most advanced
scientific cosmologies.
Find online details at
http://hometown.aol.com/hkurtrich/ISCpage1.html,
or click-on "The AoISCT" at www.TachyonicsSociety.com,
which takes you to the formal homepage of The Association of ISC
Theorists (The AoISCT) group, whose purpose is to establish ISC.
Join The AoISCT discussion-group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheAoISCT.

In metaphysics, the life-force, and the nature of thought itself, can
be explained as interactions of our vital organs with undetected
tachyonic fields of force which serve to animate our bodies, and
which give us the automatic and consciously-controlled capabilities
we associate with the workings of the brain, and which also explains
how we have true minds - by which we possess time-preception, with
real memories, upon which we can exercise willful recall, and are
made completely sentient, self-aware, and individualistic (instead of
living like instinct-driven animals).
Furthermore, many other previously-unexplained natural phenomena, and
nearly all documented supernatural phenomena, including psychic
ability, are explained by applying Tachyonics to investigate them.
For more on this, go to
http://hometown.aol.com/hkurtrich/TachyonicMetaphysics.html,
or click-on "The IOoEW" at www.TachyonicsSociety.com.
The Independent Order of Esaerehn Wizardry (The IOoEW) is an online
association of thinkers, paranormal researchers, and other interested
persons who propose that actual magic, psychic ability, and other
supernatural phemonena are essentially tachyonic in nature, and can
therefore be understood scientifically.
The IOoEW Group is a Coterie of The Tachyonics Society.
The text of their handbook, The Wizard's Book of Esaerehn Magic, is
available free at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheIOoEW, and they
have discussions at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WizardsOfEsaereh.

Yet other application of Tachyonics are possible, although many will
have to wait upon a more advanced technology before they can be
successfully implemented. In most of these applications, of course,
it is likely that the imagination-unit will find a home.
It is also likely that Tachyonics will serve as the intellectual
foundation upon which we can pave the way to the development of
instantaneous interstellar communications systems, for which distance
is no issue; faster-than-light propulsion for spacecraft, by which we
may at-last break the lightspeed barrier to space-flight; and, not-
the-least important, it may give us access, hopefully in the not-too-
distant future, to virtually unlimited sources and infinite
magnitudes of energy.

Only our imagination places a bound upon all such possibilities.


_________________________________________________________________



End of treatise.

Author:
H. Kurt Richter
Founder, The Tachyonics Society of America
www.TachyonicsSociety.com

Readers are welcome to send comments by e-mail to
HKurtRichter@....

Copyright: 2006, H. Kurt Richter. All rights reserved.

Introducing The Imagination Unit

As demonstrated in Part 2, we can use the relativistic mass M of an
ordinary particle to define a corresponding tachyonic mass tM,
writing;
tM = -iM ,
where
M = m[(1 - [(v/c)^2])^(-1/2)] ,
with m as the ordinary particle's rest-mass.

We have also shown why the negative sign on the imaginary-unit is
necessary for correctness, in such cases. Yet, despite thereby
placing the definition of tachyon mass on a formal footing, this
representation can create some confusion when complex quantities
associated with both M and tM are discussed in the same mathematical
contexts; especially when the two appear in the same formulas.

For example, suppose there is yet another particle with an imaginary
mass, iM, with the same amount of mass as M, but which is tardyonic,
not tachyonic, and we get a negative sign in the equations from
somewhere other than R; say, when employing vectorial velocities, as
with the formula for momentum, and this tardyon goes in the opposite
direction to the original tardyon. This can happen, let's say, if
the oppositely-moving imaginary mass, iM, is for a particle traveling
near-to but slower-than lightspeed, and we want the imaginary unit,
i, to be interpreted according to its common convention of implying
that iM is merely a standard imaginary; such as, in quantum physics,
when we discuss processes involving massive virtual particles (for
instance, the neutral Z-particle and/or the charged W-particles that
mediate the weak-nuclear interactions).

How then do we distinguish between tardyonic and tachyonic -iM?

We could, and should, assign a different symbol to denote the
tachyonic -iM, but that does little to eliminate the potential for
confusion wrought by having two different interpretations of the same
imaginary-unit, i; one applied to tardyons, and another to tachyons.

To solve that problem, we can introduce a new imaginary-unit, an
operator I, called, let us say, the "imagination-unit", which
transforms any ordinary quantity into its tachyonic analog.

That is, multiplying I to any standard quantity and/or symbol is
defined - according to a new convention, to go along with the new
imaginary-unit - as imposing a transformation across the lightspeed
barrier, so that it is understood to project that quantity or symbol
into superluminal spacetime, where causality is reversed, all
velocities are FTL, and all objects therein can be referred to
as "actual imaginaries", to distinguish them from the standard
imaginaries that we deal with on an everyday basis in mathematics,
physics, and engineering.

Naturally, this would not help much if velocity restrictions are not
specified. So, we further define the imagination-unit, I, to imply
evaluation between lightspeed and infinite speed, exclusively.

That is, for example, instead of writing tM = -iM , we define the
tachyonic mass tM as follows;
[v = infinity]
tM = IM = M | ,
[v = c]
where the brackets indicate evaluation between the enclosed values,
but not at those values.

Representing tachyons in this way allows us to discuss a standard
particles with a negative imaginary mass, -iM, in the same context as
tachyonic particles, defined by IM, without fear of the confusion
that would be possible with two interpretations of the standard
imaginary-unit, i.

Case in point, suppose we want the tachyonic analog of a tardyon, but
the tardyon orginally has a negative imaginary mass, -iM, instead of
the standard mass, though it is not originally tachyonic.
We would not want -i to imply that this mass, or anything else, is
tachyonic.
So, we merely write;
[v = infinity]
-i(tM) = I(-iM) = -iM | ,
[v = c]
which reads:
"Negative imaginary tachyonic mass -i(tM) is equal to the tachyonic
analog of the standard negative imaginary mass, -iM, which is equal
to the standard negative imaginary mass, -iM, evaluated between c and
infinite speed, exclusively".

We can, of course, relate motion involving the tardyonic masses M and
iM to their tachyonic analogs using the Lorentz transformations,
because all tachyonic analogs are, by definition, in reference-frames
that are always moving relative to all tardyonic reference-frames, as
long as the tachyons do not move at infinite speed in either frame.

The mass of a tachyon that moves at infinite speed can be defined,
but that must be done quite separately, in a different manner, and
given only as a side-note, because such a tachyon cannot be treated
satisfactorily in any rigorous particle-physics setting, due to the
fact that the presence of an infinite velocity turns all equations
involving it into meaningless exercises.
Infinite-velocity tachyons can, of course, be imagined, and described
using pure mathematics, but they must be considered as having
applications only in metaphysical terms.

These ideas are probably best understood by inspecting the Velocity
Spectrum, denoted;

Vi[Iv[Ic[c[v[v=rel(0)[iv=abs(0)=iv]v=rel(0)]v]c]Ic]Iv]Vi ,

where Vi is infinite speed, Iv is any velocity between tachyonic
lightspeed Ic and infinite speed (exclusively), c is the lightspeed
constant, v is any ordinary velocity between v = rel(0) and c (also
exclusively), v = rel(0) is a relative zero velocity, iv = abs(0) is
an absolute zero velocity (which is a standard pure imaginary), and
the underlines indicate corresponding values for antiparticles.

Note that tachyonic lightspeed, Ic, can further be defined;
Ic = (1.00...001)c ,
with the exact number of zeros to the right of the decimal-point an
empirical unknown - making tachyonic lightspeed both an irrational
and a transcendental number.

Considering first only standard particles [everything to the left of
abs(0)], and no antiparticles, when dealing with complicated systems,
one-to-one correspondences across the lightspeed barrier, associating
standard variables with their tachyonic analogs, can be realized by
integrating with respect to velocities on the other side of c,
exclusive of c and Vi. That is, the evaluations associated with "I"
can be accomplished using integration, whenever a spread of real
quantities in standard spacetime must be related to a corresponding
spread of their tachyonic analogs in superluminal spacetime.

A similar tactic is employed for the antiparticles [everything to the
right of abs(0)].

Finally, it is not always necessary to use the imagination-unit to
describe things made of tachyons, but it is given here as a viable
option when complex tardyonic quantities and complex tachyonic
quantities are treated in the same context, and a method is needed to
eliminate confusion between the two.

Relativistic Imaginaries

Reconsider the Relativity Operator, R, defined;
R = 1/[(1 - [(v/c)^2])^(1/2)] = (1 - [(v/c)^2])^(-1/2) ,
and, once more, let M denote a moving mass, with m the corresponding
rest-mass, so that
M = Rm = m/[(1 - [(v/c)^2])^(1/2)] .
If v > c, the case for tachyons, then R is an imaginary number;
making M imaginary.

A commonly-used definition of a tachyonic mass tM has it that
tM = -iM .
This would, for instance, be the kind of definition physics
professors first give to undergraduate students.
And that is perfectly understandable, considering the way tachyons
are presented in the literature. See, for example, the entry
Tachyons, by physicist Gerald Feinberg, in the Encyclopedia of
Physics by Lerner and Trigg (I have the 2nd Edition, printed in
1991), from VCH Publishers; page 1246).
But this kind of definition leaves room for confusion when standard
complex quantities and tachyonic complex quantities are discussed in
the same context.

We explain the situation as follows.

Let Q indicate the absolute-value of the difference
"1 - (v/c)^2",
this condition being denoted;
Q = | 1 - (v/c)^2 | ,
and let the following notation convention be observed;
Q+ = (+1)Q whenever v < c ,
Q0 = (0)Q = 0 whenever v = c ,
Q- = (-1)Q whenever v > c .

Then, because
R = (1 - [(v/c)^2])^(-1/2) ,
let us indicate the three cases of R;
Case 1:
R = R+ = (Q+)^(-1/2) if, and only if, v < c .
Case 2:
R = R0 = 0 if, and only if, v = c
(assuming 1/0 is undefined; not infinity).
Case 3:
R = R- = (Q-)^(-1/2) if, and only if, v > c .

In the last case, for tachyons, where v > c, we have;
R- = (Q-)^(-1/2) = [(-1)Q]^(-1/2)] = ...
= 1/(i[Q^(1/2)]) = (1/i)[Q^(-1/2)] .
Note, however, that 1/i = -i ,
according to the following proof.
1/i = 1/[(-1)^(1/2)] = (-1)^(-1/2) = (-1)^[(1/2) - 1]
= [(-1)^(1/2)][(-1)^(-1)] = [(-1)^(1/2)][(-1)^(1 - 2)]
= [(-1)^(1/2)][(-1)^(1)][(-1)^(-2)] = [(-1)^(1/2)](-1)/[(-1)^2]
= (-1)[(-1)^(1/2)]/1 = -[(-1)^(1/2)] = -i .

Consequently, if v > c , then R is;
R = R- = (Q-)^(-1/2) = (1/i)[Q^(-1/2)] = -i[Q^(-1/2)] .

Thus, the relativistic tachyonic mass tM is properly defined;
tM = (R-)m = -i[Q^(-1/2)]m , where v > c ,
while the corresponding tardyonic mass M continues to be defined as
usual, but also;
M = (R+)m = [Q^(-1/2)]m , where v < c .

Hence, we can legitimately write
tM = -iM ,
when deriving tM rigorously using the Relativity Operator, R, but we
cannot write tM = iM , in such cases, because the sign is wrong.

We see that, because of the importance of keeping track of the sign
on the imaginary-unit in the rigorous derivation of tachyonic mass,
tM, we must adopt special rules on the symbols we employ (i.e., we
must use a notation convention), and which allow us to represent
tachyonic mass in terms of tardyonic mass, while maintaining
sufficient rigor to assure accurate conceptualization.

With that necessity established, we address the main source of
confusion in the very next section.

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.]
>