Robert Archer Smith's Unified Field Theory

[webolife]

Solar discovered an article by my late mentor, Robert Archer Smith, at this site:

http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.or ... /smith.pdf

Bob worked on his unified field theory here in Seattle between 1960 until about 1995 or later, when I lost touch with him altogether. I had opportunities to read and discuss with him his unpublished manuscript entitled "The Truth About Light" from about 1981 to around 1992. This work represents a good introduction to his thesis, and summarizes the basis for my own view of the universal field, which he refers to here as the "tee-bar" field. A tribute to him by another friend of his is found at "Cosmos Today" website, which Solar also found a few weeks back. That site also shows a number of his field geometry drawings, but has limited descriptive written material. I would be happy to answer any questions regarding his views and work, as I am possibly the person most familiar with his manuscript at this time.

Cosmos Today:

http://cosmostoday.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html

[webolife]

I listened to much of Bob's "preaching" while studying his physics theory with him...
it was not difficult to feel put off a bit by his evangelistic fervor. We occasionally had arguments about his theology, while engaged in deep discussion about his geometry , dynamics of light and gravity, etc. If you read some of the entries on the Cosmos Today website, you will see that the website author, Peter, was clearly inspired by Bob in more than just his physics.
I am hoping to get Peter to make some comments on this forum, as he knew Bob in the later years of his work. Unlike myself, Peter never had the privilege of reading "The Truth About Light" which was/is an unpublished 1000-page typewritten treatise covering the whole realm of physics from the "punctual" point of view. Bob had relatively less to say about electricity than about gravity and light, so a couple decades of study following my introduction to Bob led me naturally to consider the Electric Universe amd Plasma Cosmology. There are numerous potential connections in thinking between Bob's "punctual" theory and the EU, as I see it, although I've come to extend those connections over the past few years here at thunderbolts beyond what I think Bob ever tried to do. To my knowledge he was never acquainted with EU, although what he taught me about redshift fit very well with my more recent exposure to Halton Arp. Since Bob's passing a couple years ago, the whereabouts of his manuscript is unknown... I will continue to try to find relatives or contacts for this.

[webolife]

Bob Smith's unique contribution to my understanding was his unification of gravity and light. This unification is not a gravity-only theory, but unifies the geometry explaining gravity and light action as similar outcomes of the unified T-field.
Since EU's unified field is electricity, with gravity and light being outcomes of electrical action, there is much to be gained potentially from looking at both views together. This has yielded for me some very rich insights over the past 4 years or so that I've explored and then contributed to this site. I have been able to mentally reconfigure his Pascalian view of instantaneous action across distance into every study I've seen, with success in both simplifying explanations and predicting future observations. I've spent years analyzing the primary objections to his theory, eg. the c-rate, Doppler redshift, etc., and have found these theoretical concepts inadequate. I abandoned big bang long before meeting Bob, and have not viewed "photons" as particles or waves for nearly 25 years, and have yet to read about any phenomenon requiring such fantasies. I am fascinated by new "theories of everything", and compare them point by point with Bob Smith's UFT, occasionally finding some great points for collaboration, but often finding additional unnecessary concessions to standard models that Bob Smith explained away fairly easily. Until we are able to rediscover Bob's manuscript, this thread may be somewhat limited, but I'm grateful to Solar for finding this great piece of Bob's work having been scanned and published.

[quid]

Weboflife: Thank you for making the Cosmos Today website available. Yes, I too recall Bob's preaching. He often reminded me that Newton had had an experience of 'being born again' in the Light of the Son of Man, and saw no discrepancy between 'light' and the Light---Similar ideas can be found in the apocryphal book of the Bible known as the Wisdom of Solomon. So while Bob advanced a futuristic physics which could not be grasped in his lifetime by the vast majority of academics and scholars, he also harkened back to an earlier era of "Light Metaphysics". Personally, I see truth as 'coherency' and hence if 2+2=4 is truth and god is truth then 2+2=4 coheres in God---as far as I could graps this is how Bob proceeded. The modern disciplinary effort to isolate physical theory from theology, seems as arbitrary and biased as many other contemporary customs. It seems to me self-evident that what is meant by the word "God" is 'truth'. But it is odd that Jesus says I am "truth" and "Light". I do not see any reason not to take this literally and so Jesus is atomic energy, starlight, etc... This is only "mad" from a modern sort of bias! In other words, according to the idea that Jesus is the 'logos' and so forth, and that the universe was spoken into being via Jesus, that Jesus has a great deal to do with e=mc2. I know religious people will be shocked at me saying this, but the truly Christian religion of the future will be the one that speaks the truth of physics and light. Teilhard saw this very clearly! Bob was not fond of Teilhard and I do not think he saw the universe in evolutionary terms, but on this score I agre with Teilhard. Physical research is a discovery of truth, hence it is a description of God. I am so glad that you are discussing Bob's radical integer matrix (RIM) and his isodynamical system. I would not be surprised if his view is corroborated!! What I find truly beautiful in Bob's thinking is its simplicity and economy. It all stems from a basic intuition concerning the meaning of finitude. What discourages me and a great many other people I suspect from modern physics is that it seems to be devoid of fundamental intuitions, and empirically verifiable postulates. This only has the effect of creating a 'priestcraft' of physicists who amaze and dazzle the 'faithful' like Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor while in principle negating each and every individual's fundamental grasp of truth via their eyesight revealing the exigent physics of light necessary for such a 'world' to appear immediately to the naked eye. Bob's view seems far more human and liberating, an attempt to give a phenomenology of light rather than a set of abstractions and neologisms. Sure he coined quite a few new words but these are in service to the phenomenology and observable physics he proclaimed. This is merely my opinion, however, ultimately the word God and true science are redundant. We should aspire to speak of truth and truth alone leaving all forms of mythical language, whether, religious or scientific, behind.

[altonhare]

I am having difficulty with the first sentence:

Every part and particle of the Universe is finitude contained in infinity by central force.

This is saying that the universe is composed of parts, i.e. particles. Discrete, finite chunks. These are contained in "infinity". What is 'a' infinity and how does it enclose the universe? What is 'a' central force and how does it perform the action of containing the particles of the U?

[webolife]

The assumption herein is that the material universe is finite, both in mass and extent.
A logical consequence of this assumption is that the universe is bounded, ie held together by it's "infinite field", ie the universe as a finite "object" [don't go bonkers with that] is held to that state by "infinity."
Central, aka centropic, force results from that universal binding premise.

[altonhare]

The assumption herein is that the material universe is finite, both in mass and extent.
A logical consequence of this assumption is that the universe is bounded, ie held together by it's "infinite field", ie the universe as a finite "object" [don't go bonkers with that] is held to that state by "infinity."
Central, aka centropic, force results from that universal binding premise.

I am trying to understand how a "finite universe", by which I assume you mean there are a finite number of objects that exist, necessitates the existence of 'an' infinite object (field)? I undertand "universal binding", i.e. in a universe with a finite number of objects there must be net convergence (pull, attraction, i.e. "binding") between objects instead of divergence (push, repulsion, etc.). Otherwise each object would repel each other one and remain perpetually separate, which is not what we observe. I do not understand describing this binding as "infinite".

[webolife]

Think of an atomic nucleus in relation to its atom, or the atom in relation to its electronic sphere of influence [or think of that sphere of influence as the atom, it matters not], or the sun wrt the heliopause, or our solar system wrt its nearest neighbors, wrt the galaxy, wrt the local cluster, etc... wrt to the "edge" of the universe. Each "part" functions as a locus of its immensely greater field, aka sphere of influence, and is actually contained by that field... the finite universe then is contained by that which is greater than definity, ie infinity. This "containment" manifests logically as centrally directed vectors [think gravity] of force. Your strict, I might suggest OC, dependence on absolute definitions of things like "objects", "material", etc. will get in the way of your understanding of this approach, but you will miss some great insight if you dismiss it outrightly. But your use of the words "universal binding" and "convergence" fit this idea nicely.

[altonhare]

Each "part" functions as a locus of its immensely greater field, aka sphere of influence, and is actually contained by that field... the finite universe then is contained by that which is greater than definity, ie infinity.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't see how this follows. That which is greater than something finite is just something else finite. One is just bigger than the other.

our strict, I might suggest OC, dependence on absolute definitions of things like "objects", "material", etc. will get in the way of your understanding of this approach, but you will miss some great insight if you dismiss it outrightly. But your use of the words "universal binding" and "convergence" fit this idea nicely.

I do not think this is an issue of me being OC. I am trying to follow how something finite that is smaller than something else demands that "something else" be infinite. It seems that this "something else" is just a larger finite thing.

Relaxing language a little is one thing, but stringing words together in a way that is fairly familiar or at least not complete gibberish, does not automatically convey meaning. I am trying to be as relaxed as possible while still gaining the meaning. At some point relaxing more amounts to sacrificing understanding, at another point being "too strict" closes one in. At this point I do not see myself understanding anything further by relaxing further.

[webolife]

I was anticipating your objection about infinity following as the larger "whole" of definite.
Of course there is no way to prove the existence of anything defined as infinite! "Definition of infinity" is an oxymoron of infinite proportions [another oxymoron]. Suffice it [for now] to say that the universe's field encompasses, therefore is [much] bigger than, the universe, in terms of extent. Of course it is also difficult/impossible? to define extent without referring to "objects", so that is another arena of dimensionless description. But reflect a bit more on yopur own use of "universal binding" and "convergence." I think the forum, perhaps the world, would benefit from our discussion of something we actually both agree on!

[altonhare]

Of course there is no way to prove the existence of anything defined as infinite! Definition of infinity" is an oxymoron of infinite proportions [another oxymoron].

So the first sentence contains a term that is undefinable, i.e. a wildcard. This is absolutely unacceptable in science.

But reflect a bit more on yopur own use of "universal binding" and "convergence." I think the forum, perhaps the world, would benefit from our discussion of something we actually both agree on!

Since the universe is timeless (no beginning or end, i.e. was not created suddenly) then, in a divergent/repulsive/unbound universe objects do not encounter each other. This is the opposite of what we observe constantly.

[webolife]

No, wait... are you really sayng that science has no place for things without definition...
Euclid began his geometry with the undefinable point, then continued to describe undefinable lines and angles, etc...
You have exhaustively disputed the validity of this approach elesewhere with your little trapezoids, but geometry is very useful in science even with these poorly defined entities. Ondoubtedly you could counter with some diatribe about reification, but you would have to turn the word against yourself as well. It is "unacceptable" to you, who without blinking stated "since the universe is timeless" as though it were a credo of no controversy, to accept that the very definition of "defined" implies the existence of that which cannot be defined, yet what you do with "timeless", by using words like beginning and end, both of which depend on the meaning of time, doesn't really define the meaning of timeless, rather you have just substituted the word for "infinite". Things like thought, etc., may be described as "immaterial", ie these are not your objects with shape, yet they exist, and certainly have much to do with science. For a while you were saying "field" is not defined, but you are lately using the term in scientific discussion. Gravity was described by numerous scientists before it was "defined" and this forum disputes the definitions of gravity constantly, yet it is certainly a part of science. Some define the universe as "all the objects and the space between them"... when the question is asked, "Is there space beyond?" they say that it can't be answered by science, but that is only because of the choice to "define" the universe this way. Choice of definitions we use can never be the determiner of whether or not something is scientific... observation and prediction, verification with evidence, can determine this, and that is a centuries long pursuit. The saying that infinity is "incomprehensible" is no more or less meaningful than to say that the universe is finite. Is it observable that the universe is either finite or infinite? If not, is the universe not a subject for science discussion? Robert Smith posited that the universe is a finite object within an infinite field, and does so with the same understanding as that an atomic nucleus is infinitesmally small in comparison to its field of influence, or that stars are infintesmal in comparison to their spheres of interaction with other stars, or us who observe them. If you are saying you would concede to the possibility of a finite field for the finite universe, then at least you might be able to move beyond your orignial objection to get the sense of Smith's proposition. He is simply pointing to your same conclusion of universal convergence from a different philosophical perspective.
So Alton, back to my previous suggestion: How about concentrating on areas where we agree for a while...

[bboyer]

.... So Alton, back to my previous suggestion: How about concentrating on areas where we agree for a while...

Steady, Gordon. Steady. Sometimes it's like differential overload around here.

[Total Science]

Any so-called "theory" of gravitation is doomed to failure.

"Magnetism is possessed by the whole mass of the earth and universe of heavenly bodies, and is an essence of known demonstration and laws. By adopting it we have the advantage over the gravity theory by the use of the polar relation to magnetism. A magnetic north pole presented to a magnetic south pole, or a south pole to a north pole, attracts, while a north pole to another north pole or a south pole to another repels. This gives to us a better reason than gravitation can for the elliptical orbit of the planets instead of the circular. It also gives us some light on the mystery of the tides, the philosophy of which the profoundest study has not solved. Certain facts are apparent; but for the explanation of the true theory such men as Laplace and Newton, and others more recent, have labored in vain." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

Gravitation is a myth.

"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

[altonhare]

No, wait... are you really sayng that science has no place for things without definition...
Euclid began his geometry with the undefinable point,

A false start right there eh?

then continued to describe undefinable lines and angles, etc...

Yes unfortunately he had to refrain from definitions to

1) Avoid circularity
2) Avoid referencing physical objects

These are somewhat constraining, and people avoid conforming to these if they can. It turns out you can go on a great deal if you care not for definitions, circularity, or shapes. Euclid did a particularly good job.

You have exhaustively disputed the validity of this approach elesewhere with your little trapezoids, but geometry is very useful in science even with these poorly defined entities.

Geometry: The study of shape

Also, you went from "undefined" to "poorly defined". Let's keep it straight, the points and lines of Euclid and other mathematicians are explicitly and officially undefined.

If Euclid could not point to his "point" or "line", he is not doing geometry, let alone physics.

Euclid can define numerical relationships all day long and they have nothing to do with physics until he points to one or more object(s). If he cannot define his concepts in terms of objects they are floating abstractions.

It is "unacceptable" to you, who without blinking stated "since the universe is timeless" as though it were a credo of no controversy, to accept that the very definition of "defined" implies the existence of that which cannot be defined,

Umm, the existence of X does not imply the existence of "not X". Case in point, something. If something exists, this does not imply that nothing exists.

yet what you do with "timeless", by using words like beginning and end, both of which depend on the meaning of time, doesn't really define the meaning of timeless, rather you have just substituted the word for "infinite".

What I mean by "timeless" is that something has never come from nothing. I use the terminology you're talking about to try to communicate my ideas as well as I can to the most people.

The word "infinite" is not even in my vocabulary since it is a self contradiction. It's an adjective (describes an object) but describes that "object" as not being an object "shapeless".

For a while you were saying "field" is not defined, but you are lately using the term in scientific discussion.

I am comfortable using this term since I know exactly what I mean by it, i.e. in terms of objects (threads). If others cannot demonstrate what they mean via objects I have no idea what the word "field", as they use it, refers to.

Gravity was described by numerous scientists before it was "defined" and this forum disputes the definitions of gravity constantly, yet it is certainly a part of science.

Certainly patterns are usually identified in Nature before they are explained. The finding and identification of patterns is the role of researchers. Explaining these patterns in terms of objects is the role of scientists. Newton's equation is explained in TT.

Some define the universe as "all the objects and the space between them"... when the question is asked, "Is there space beyond?" they say that it can't be answered by science, but that is only because of the choice to "define" the universe this way. Choice of definitions we use can never be the determiner of whether or not something is scientific...

In science we demand rigor! It is absolutely imperative that the presenter define their terms unambiguously. Science is not just a bunch of people chatting at the bar, although such chats may spawn an idea or inspiration that leads to a scientific theory.

If "space" is part of a person's theory they have but to point to it. Simple as that. If they cannot the theory dies right there.

I'll respond more later.