🚀 go-pugleaf

Good work, Ross. Please let me know when your book is published. I note with
some disdain that your post is being ignored by the physics elite herein,
but that's pretty much par for the course, wouldn't you say?
Please, if you have time, give me your thoughts on this and how it fits with
your view of the universe as a wave medium. It concerns primarily the
dimensionality of the universe.
The Big Bang was actually the collapse of four-dimensional space into a
lower energy state consisting of three space dimensions. The "lost"
dimension became a tiny string of energy present in all of the resulting
threespace, eventually combining with other, preexisting strings to form
particles of matter, hence it is a quark. These other preexisting quarks
came from earlier, higher-dimensional universes, which died a heat death and
collapsed to lower-dimensional space matrices. Hence, the universe as a
whole acts just like an atom, dropping from one level to the next.

As such a crackpot, I don't worry about a Big Crunch - can't happen, there's
not enough matter, and besides, it would assume that entropy would decrease,
which violates the natural pattern. The age of the universe is something
else I don't worry about too much. Okay, our threespace universe probably
came into being around 20 billion years ago, give or take 10 billion, but
there was a universe before that, and another before that, although their
properties were radically different. And the Bose-Einstein condensate is
evidence of the collapse of threespace at absolute zero

I would be very interested in your interpretation, Ross, and whether this
notion agrees with your own.
Thanks,
Rick Williams
.
cyrano@pasdepub.com wrote in message <36b2cb1f.4453179@news.twics.com>...
>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:10:42 -0800
>To: Claude Rifat <cyrano@twics.com>
>From: Ross Tessien <Tessien@oro.net>
>Subject: Re: Commentaires sur les travaux de Finkelstein
>Cc: David Ritz Finkelstein <david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu>
>
>Greetings All;
>
>Claude has sent me a number of things on your work, so if you are
>interested, here is a little more of the work I have been doing.  My
>work
>is based more on observation, astro physics, but those were initiated
>based
>on expectations that arose from the fundamental thinking on my
>theoretical
>work.
>
>I am very busy right now and in the middle of incorporating a new
>company,
>so I haven't been able to respond to most of your messages Claude.
>
>Ross
>
>>>
>>>The comments are a bit too broad in scope for brief comment.  I gather
>>>Tessien has not seen my book, Quantum Relativity, which summarizes my
>>>progress as of 1996.
>
>Correct, I have not.
>
>>>Physical theories swallow their parents alive. The parent theories go on
>>>working inside the child.  The theory I seek must first swallow quantum
>>>theory and general relativity. It must then cope with some of the many
>>>phenomena and relations they do not cover, especially the particle
>>>spectrum. To undertake the search for such a theory without first
mastering
>>>the parent theories seems too reckless for me, like setting out to climb
>>>Mt.Everest bare-handed without ropes. Yet if we master them too well we
may
>>>get stuck in them.
>
>I completely agree that this is the norm.  But as you mentioned, our
>present way of thinking can become a trap to novel discoveries.  It is
>my
>belief, based on fundamental thinking coupled to expectation, and
>finally
>to experimental observation, that some of our most cherrished concepts
>have
>a subtle but important error hidden in them.  And this error has led
>to
>astro physical confusion for decades.
>
>I chose a fundamental approach I expected to go no where, and it was
>based
>on no presently held tenet.  I made one simple assumption, "There
>exist in
>nature, no *tensile* means for transferring action".
>
>This assumption, after years of work, has resulted in  dynamic and
>geometric descriptions for the geometries of things like electron,
>photon,
>nucleon, mass, etc.
>
>Had I begun with the pre-conceptions of present physics, I would have
>been
>convinced that energy and mass are the same thing, just in two
>different
>forms.  But because of this new approach, it is clear to me that mass
>is
>"amount of aether", and that the universe is an ocean of aether, that
>"particles" are localized high density resonances in that same aether.
>
>
>what this means is pretty simple and shocking.  Our interpretation of
>mass
>to energy conversion is wrong.  Instead, we should be studying the
>effect
>of two standing waves interferring and interacting, and hence fusion
>leads
>both to the acceleration of the new resonant geometries, AND, to an
>emission of the excess aether the new geometries of resonances (aka
>particles) cannot confine.  In short, fusion leads not only to the
>acceleration of the particles, but as well, to pushing the rest of the
>universe away from that location via the emission of a new patch of
>buzzing
>aether.
>
>This has tremendous cosmological concerns, alters GR substantively,
>and
>perhaps most importantly, explains what gravity is.  This model
>**anticipates** the nuclear strong, weak, electric, gravitational,
>**and**
>cosmological forces simply by virtue of the fact that the resonances I
>work
>with interfere with one another in that many different ways.  No more,
>no
>fewer.  (well, actually there are other more subtle interactions of
>less
>importance, and these are known to us too in BEC's, condensed matter,
>phase
>transitions etc.
>
>The best part, is that when you go looking at stellar evolution with
>these
>thoughts in mind, you see the writing on the walls for our present
>thinking
>being changed.  Mass to energy conversion, and ergo the belief in the
>equivalence of mass and energy is what is keeping GR and QM from being
>unified.  I have the concepts, understand the approach that must be
>taken
>technically, and have the experimental observations to back up what I
>am
>asserting!  The evidence is everywhere in astro physics once you know
>what
>to look for and how to seek it.
>
>I would not have discovered this if in advance, I had learned QM in
>detail
>because I would never think to challenge the equivalency of mass and
>energy, nor would I have challenged the notion that attraction forces
>exist.  That, is the trap that present physicists are in today.  They
>believe in forces of attraction.  Even the Casimir effect which is
>clearly
>a result of the QVF outside the plates *pushing them* toward one
>another is
>thought of erroneously as a force of attraction by most.  "What
>difference
>does it make" is what is usually said.  And at first, it seems like
>there
>is no difference at all, but on closer inspection, if you work with a
>wave
>mechanics instead of a particle mechanics, then it makes all the
>difference
>in the world.
>
>It takes a long time to realize it and get comfortable with it simply
>due
>to the fact that we grow up believing that gravity and magnets pull on
>one
>another.  But the fact is, everywhere you think two objects are
>pulling on
>one another, you can invert your thinking and look to wave energy
>arriving
>from the rest of the universe to be pushing them toward one another.
>This
>fails miserably if you think in terms of particle physics.  But it
>succeeds
>beautifully if you work with wave mechanics and wave interference
>interactions by thinking in terms of momentum delay, and momentum
>refraction in regions of varying aether density.  But it does get
>complicated to understand that you must think not only of momentum and
>motion, but rather in terms of the relative phase of that momentum as
>well,
>where phase is measured against the dynamic structure of spacetime.
>
>And you cannot think in terms of a spacecraft moving through space,
>you
>must instead think in terms of a bunch of waves, precessing through
>the
>ocean, where the medium of the ocean isn't moving, but the waves are.
>This
>is similar to a surfer, stationary out on the ocean with the waves
>moving
>underneath.  The waves move, but the water essentially does not.
>
>>>You and I and Tessien probably agree that space-time is best treated as a
>>>physical medium, and that the cosmological constant might reflect the
>>>energy-momentum-stress content of space-time. There is enough to do to
keep
>>>us all busy for a while.
>
>I go a step further.  I don't treat spacetime as a medium.  I treat
>spacetime as a universe wide global topology of standing wave energy
>IN, an
>ocean of a medium.  "Spacetime" like a topology of sound standing
>waves in
>a room full of air.  Sound is not air, and air is not sound.  I treat
>particles as localized standing waves IN the same ocean of medium.
>Thus,
>particles are nothing but localized standing waves in ***phase and
>frequency lock*** with the wave energy that is spacetime.  Spacetime
>thus
>drives the resonances of, "particles".  With that, force fields simply
>fall
>out as the distortion to the wave geometry of, spacetime, near a
>localized
>resonance, aka particle.  The entire structure reduces to the study of
>coupled resonances.
>
>The most fundamental resonance particle is the electron, a spherical
>resonance.  Muon and tauon are just larger versions of the same
>spherical
>geometry.  Protons and neutrons are just clumps of muon resonances all
>buzzing in unison with 9 muons in a helical sort of geometry that is
>hard
>to describe in words.  And forces are simply the interaction of
>various
>resonances with various other resonances.
>
>strong:  spherical resonance coupled to spherical resonance
>weak:   exchange of spherical resonances at different phase angles
>electric: spherical resonance, which distorts the spacetime topology,
>then
>converges           back into a distant spherical resonance.
>gravitation:  *frequency* interference of local resonances with
>Doppler
>shifted wave energy arriving from the deep universe.  Hence,
>gravitation
>pushes objects toward one another due to mutual filtering of the noisy
>quantum vacuum.
>cosmological:  this results from the emission of aether during mass to
>energy conversion inside of stars, ie, exothermy anywhere it occurs.
>
>Well, that is what I am working on in a nut shell.  And I have a huge
>amount of astro physical observational evidence accumulated to explain
>what
>I am describing as soon as I can get the book written on these
>concepts.
>
>>>
>>>Yours in the quest,
>
>Good Luck.........
>
>Ross
>
>
>
>