Lets allow to individuals a flat business tax rate for income that is devoted to savings, investments, education, and seeding of a family business, and also a sufficient business deductible. But tax breaks on capital gains, inheritance and consumer loans are not justified.

--
Michael J. Burns

Tachyonic observers would need to see themselves as made of particles with dilation horizons, right? So would we rather discuss tachyonic observers that agree with us on their horizons, or ones that agree on divergence and convergence?

--
Michael J. Burns

This book represents a high state of art in academic physics. But I am still capable of alarm at the lack of insight into curved spacetime that is prevailing there. Why is three sets of field lines considered sufficient to represent a gravitational field? That breaks compliance with the principle of general covariance. Four sets are needed, and they must be orthogonal partitions that are second order and covariant, not contravariant lines.

Professor Smolin is due credit for his interest in topos theory. This sort of logic - with a dependence on context - is indeed a tool and subject needed for understanding new physics. It makes a start on the physics of symbolism. Even so, traditional logic can be made to emulate some of this content.

But the fiber bundle representation of fields once again appeals to the wrong tensor rank. And parts of the bundle representation are likely the orthogonal dual of what is required. This representation even identifies mass and not Kaluza-Klein charge as the composite entity.

--
Michael J. Burns

Else the Higgs boson could not vanish in a collision with another. This charge must be considered as geometric in the classical context. How else could it be related to mass?

But the nonconservation is an exception to geometric existence - some nonlocal correlation of the tabs that I think of as representing spacetime failure on the small scale.

I am still not convinced that such a convoluted theoretical explanation of the mass of the electron is viable. The Kaluza-Klein picture provides mass just fine. All that is needed is a quantization of the spacetime form that matches the well known empirical quantization of the electromagnetic field.

--
Michael J. Burns

Professor Michio Kaku wrote long ago a little fantasy about the possible, as he thought, rips in spacetime allowing a New York pedestrian to face the muzzle of a T. Rex. But the standard of the metric does not actually allow for this encounter; worm holes such as Michio Kaku describes are disallowed.

But why? Are not exceptions allowed in the metaphysical context? Well they are allowed, but physical observers can not see them. The New York pedestrian is irrevocably a product of the metric. So there is a lock in of perception in many ways as a matter of mathematical theorem.

--
Michael J. Burns

I took two days of exploration and finesse at the keyboard to manage an upgrade of my 12" Toshiba from Fedora 13 to Fedora 14.

The time was filled with the temporary removal of problem packages - I remember lyx, mdadm, and openoffice - together with repeated exercise of the various upgrade commands until they registered success.

--
Michael J. Burns

The Einstein-Davis and Kaluza-Klein system inherently excludes any use of the constant. There is no place for it in the behavior determined by the Bianchi identities of the system. Boundary conditions on the metric, taken together with these identities, imply the value of the metric in the interior.

And consider that all of this is actually the logical foundation of mechanics - this being defined by the Einstein equation of gravity. So the cosmological constant would be confined to the behavior of mechanics, not spacetime.

Again, consider that the background of tachyons that are necessarily created by a cosmological constant could not be conserved when passing through a red shifted region, creation there would not keep pace.

--
Michael J. Burns

My new edition is pending. (Look for "Hacking Physics".) These are the new trends in my argument that have not been noted yet. I want to write the clauses here, and then insert them into the new edition.

Risk management theory have been argued here recently as applying to terrorism. But beware, criminal acts and warfare have a secondary effect as an assault on civilization. So counteractions in excess of the potential damage done are commonplace and arguably justified.

The C C ...

Invisible failure of spacetime and observer lock in theorems ...

Topology and group theory are abstractions over geometry, but they cover ground outside of geometry where no independent theorem that locks in observers is apparent to me. So these theories might depend on the valid range of spacetime for their reliable application.

The problem of nonconserved short range charges ...

Topos theory and the book Quantum Gravity ...

--
Michael J. Burns

If they could carry an electrical charge that mattered, then a tachyonic observer could manipulate it in her time, thus leaving a temporary signal distributed in space for a subluminal partner to read.

But this happening is contrary to the cosmic censorship that is needed. The censorship is needed, as I have argued before, to prevent the contrary observations made by tachyonic and subluminal observers from actually confronting each other.

These contrary observations arise from the inability of a tachyonic observer to see the same magnitude of spacetime interval between two events that all subluminal observers can agree on. This disagreement actually magnifies itself into a dispute over the contraction or dilation of gravitational effects - this last assuming that they are not entirely disengaged from the subluminal view of events, that they will agree on convergence and divergence.

A Kaluza-Klein study of tachyonic charge shows a transition to an uncharged state at the most extreme, whereas subluminal charges show not a hint of this other than their relativistic increase in mass. Consider that charge and time symmetry dictate that a charged tachyon must reverse its charge after exceeding the point of perfect superluminality. Two perfect tachyonic charges can affect each others trajectory as you would expect, but can not act on a stationary charge. Note that neutral tachyons cannot interact gravitationally at all (I mean, of course, perfect tachyons with stationary objects).

You might argue that this is an impossibly abstruse result for me to actually arrive at, but careful diagramming of these gravitational fields actually can show what is happening. So, the Kaluza-Klein field (a pair of opposing paths for relativistically longitudinal compression and dilation) can be drawn for a tachyonic charge just as well as for a subluminal charge. Alas, I do not know of any academic physicist that can do the trick. So, download my manuscript!

--
Michael J. Burns

I compute that, in Bush v. Gore, the voting made for a trillion dollar difference. Put one million votes on the margin, so that each marginal vote is worth a million dollars. And then consider that every rational voter should value their vote as though it were on the margin. And further consider that a marginal vote for a losing candidate counts for more than one for the winner. After all this sort of marginal vote could change the outcome. And the incoming powers should worry, if they are competent, about every marginal ballot cast in opposition.

--
Michael J.Burns

Each observer can do a specific simplification of the metric and Einstein tensors. For that observer there is usually just one orientation of coordinates to make those tensors diagonal or orthogonal. Than the red and blue partitions that I have written about before are orthogonal and make a completely accurate representation of the metric.

The remarkable result is that this orthogonality is Cartesian in appearance, not hyperbolic since that property is just needed to translate to other observers, which in turn can do their own orthogonalization. Further, the hyperbolic rotation property of spacetime is not needed to geometrically construct geodesics from these visualized red and blue partitions. It is as though Cartesian geometry is sufficient for this purpose. The red and blue partitions are dimensionally accurate when used to correctly construct a geodesic - there is no use of an incorrect tensor rank then, so the correction factor of cosine squared for geodesic curves oblique to the red or blue partition holds for timelike and mixed curves as well as spacelike.

If the field is changed with the addition or subtraction of a source, then the orthogonalization is generally spoiled. A readjustment is possible.

Hyperbolic geometry remains crucial for the conservation of the centers or sources of the red and blue partitions. By the Bianchi identity, the centers of the components of the field, the centers of the red and blue partitions before they are superimposed and orthogonalized, are conserved in the direction that is hyperbolically orthogonal to the surface of those partitions

--
Michael J. Burns

Special motivation is needed by humans to do science and physics. Ordinary motivation and the usual human organizations are not sufficient for the task. Instead, the storm-the-Bastille intensity inherited by gifted individuals is the natural provision for this necessity. This is naturally provided by selection acting on human tribes, I might mention.

Not only are ordinary individuals and organizations insufficiently motivated, but they are also actively barred from the discipline by the occurrence of the cultural neurosis, as defined by French psychoanalysts. A mother complex is the source of anti-intellectual mysticism. And a father complex is the major source of taboo (whether holy, repugnant or unmentionable), dogma, loyalty testing, censorship, silence and ostracism. Symbols of sphincter psychology also apply. The overuse of vectors by physicists seems to me to be related to the phallic value that is so obvious in them.

The positive principle of science is mathematical realism. A person is not really doing science when they are not striving to to completely vindicate the reality of a mathematical system out there. Metaphor is not science, Professor Lakoff to the contrary. Falsification does not really apply to physics. Falsifiable or inconsistent mathematical systems are not reasonable candidates for physics, as I discuss next.

Another positive point for philosophy of physics is an axiom for which Spinoza and Leibnitz seem to have held a meeting in order to discuss it and come to an agreement. They agree that there is no reasonable possibility of either a cosmic enforcer in favor of any particular set of mathematical systems, nor is there a possibility of a cosmic censor to suppress any mathematical system that is a strong candidate for reality on a priori grounds. A mathematical system which is obviously falsifiable would intrinsically require the services of a cosmic censor and enforcer for existence over against its naturally more workable competition. Note that censorship and enforcement are causal activities, which are not available outside of the context of some classical form of physics. And this principle of possibility necessarily allows for the existence of unresolved contradictions or nonmathematics in the realm of metaphysics. But these are not seen in any classical system of physics, not until there is a physics of symbolism or the like.

Hybrid mathematical systems, or indeed their opposite - undifferentiated combinations, are not successful "competitors" for a priori existence. Elegantly simple logical structure is required in a "competition" for the attention of an observer. Coincidences are rare. No mathematical system is capable of universal metaphysical presence without contradiction, but the simple fare better. The single premise of spacetime is an example - it only depends on the ability of observers to agree on a metric.

Some mathematical systems have theorems of causality and observer lock-in. Observers acting within them might not see instances of nonexistence of the system. They might even have trouble seeing "competing" mathematical systems even when they have compatible effects on the first. Obviously, spacetime has this property of causality and observer lock-in as a theorem.

Godel's proof demands that alternative mathematical systems exist - logically distinct and possibly in disagreement with the spacetime system. But Godel's proof does not impinge at all, in the first instance, on the integrity of spacetime. Nor does it serve as any disproof of mathematics in general. After all spacetime is not, in the first instance, a symbolically self-referential system.

--
Michael J. Burns

The red and blue disks that I use to visualize changes from flat spacetime have opposite effects on space or time.

The red disks that represent the loss of a unit of time when crossed in the timelike direction make for a gain of a unit of length when crossed in the spacelike direction. Blue disks make for a gain in units of time and a loss of units of length when crossed. Remember that the centers for these red and blue disks are repeated or conserved in the relativistic direction of the orientation of the disks due to the Bianchi identities that apply to spacetime.

This opposite effect is so because of the opposite sign for timelike and spacelike directions in the metric. Extra dilation, red disks, that are purely timelike in one coordinate system can be crossed only spacially in another, that is for a well chosen interval. The timelike dilation, a loss of units of time, make the interval longer according to the rules of the metric. The other coordinate system can not disagree about the increased interval. So the same additional red disks crossed in the spacelike direction must represent a contraction of the spacial units, more of them are included.

Actually this correction simplifies the gravitational effects of these disks. Namely, red disks cause convergent curvature at their edges, and blue disks cause divergence. Remember that the rotation required by the loss or gain of units is hyperbolic for time and circular for space.

--
Michael J. Burns

Mathematics is contingent. Even mathematics with the best expressiveness and possessing the most thorough of observer lock-ins can go out of range. Its premises can fail so that even locked-in observers can see some consequences of the different mathematics that can perform contrary to the original in its absence.

Spacetime geometry seems to be the most expressive of mathematical systems that is yet not self symbolic. It has the most elegant of observer lock-ins in its Bianchi identities, which lead directly to the conservation "laws", that are actually corollaries of the identities.

But still there are visible failures to the idea of spacetime, namely the existence of solid surfaces and colored light, that point to the relevance of some other system of mathematics where the premise of spacetime fails on the small scale.

On the very largest scale, consider that these particular failures become much less notable. On the smallest scale, there is a literal failure of spacetime; the logically contrary system of quantum mechanics takes over where it can. But on the intermediate scale, quantum mechanics can not contradict spacetime where the premise of spacetime holds firm. It is just the symptoms of quantum mechanics that are not contrary - solid surfaces and colored light - that can appear to an otherwise locked-in observer.

I grudgingly concede to Niels Bohr the importance of his complementarity principle. The concession is grudging because his interpretation of this principle and of the uncertainty principle is abusive, an attack on the utility to humanity of analysis and understanding that does not follow from the data, and apparently comes from a motive of a religious style of mystification.

So spacetime's premise, that observers can be made to agree on the magnitude of any given spacetime interval, must give way to some alternative mathematical system when this magnitude can not be established. On the small scale is one instance; tachyonic observers and observers beyond event horizons are more.

It is best to set up a particular duality and uncertainty principle by identifying another mathematical system that comes into range on its own when spacetime fails. But I have no special ideas on how to do this. I do think that the categorical proposition interpretation of quantum states, studied by Joseph Jauch, is the most relevant of the other systems. It is not obvious that a wave equation will serve as a dual theory here because it would not be free from the presumption of a metric; its necessity should be proved from the intersection of spacetime and quantum mechanics. The original uncertainty principle is not obvious here, neither is any modification of it.

Let's doubt the need for double relativity here. Side effects on the intermediate and large scale that actually break spacetime by varying the speed of light should be proved. I have already criticized inflation and the cosmological constant because they break the premise of spacetime, the metric.

So, without establishing a duality, let me expound on how the premise of spacetime can fail on the small scale. It is just there, on the small scale, where observers can not catch failures of the metric, the essence of spacetime. You can think of these failures as little tabs torn out of or inserted into the fabric of spacetime. These tabs represent an increased or decreased interval, in one or both directions and in parallel or orthogonal directions, as compared to their surrounding and parallel intervals.

These inserted or deleted tabs violate the Bianchi identities of spacetime, so they are not conserved like ordinary dilations and contractions are; the tabs do not persist in the relativistic direction of their alignment. If they did persist, then they would not be failures of spacetime. The Bianchi identities, after all, have the conservation "laws" as easy corollaries, and the existence of the spacetime metric is more than enough to prove the Bianchi identities.

So how do these tabs relate to the uncertainty principle, especially over long ranges? It seems that the original uncertainty principle and the correspondence principle imply that these tab failures actively balance out over large spacetime intervals. There is no need or mechanism for the spacetime metric to fail when it is within its natural domain.

Do I even have the right dimensionality? Planck's constant has the geometric dimensionality of L^2, so there is no standard size for these tabs, of dimensionality L. I must mention Lee Smolin's writing on quantized areas here, with their correspondence to quantum transactions.

And there are systems that might be made to emulate spacetime on the intermediate scale, but that are built on different premises, and may differ from spacetime on the small scale. By Spinoza's principle of noncensorship, these would coexist with spacetime where they agree. The logical agreement of quantum states that are in spacelike relations and the logical disagreement of quantum states that are in timelike relations makes one such system. I would like to retrieve a spacetime metric from this system.

--
Michael J. Burns

If they could carry an electrical charge that mattered, then a tachyonic observer could manipulate it in her time, thus leaving a temporary signal distributed in space for a subluminal partner to read.

But this happening is contrary to the cosmic censorship that is needed. The censorship is needed, as I have argued before, to prevent the contrary observations made by tachyonic and subluminal observers from actually confronting each other. These contrary observations arise from the inability of a tachyonic observer to see the same magnitude of spacetime interval between two events that all subluminal observers can agree on. This disagreement actually magnifies itself into a dispute over the convergence or divergence of gravitational effects.

A Kaluza-Klein study of tachyonic charge verifies this. When electromagnetism is converted to a gravitational field in higher dimensions, then the disagreement over the effects of gravity apply to the effects of charges as well. Both electrostatic attraction and repulsion convert into a gravitational, and very much milder, sort of repulsion. This is still notable since neutral tachyons cannot interact gravitationally at all (I mean, of course, perfect tachyons with stationary objects).

You might argue that this is an impossibly abstruse result for me to actually arrive at, but careful diagramming of these gravitational fields actually can show what is happening. The tachyonic observer does not agree on the direction of time. So, the strong additive affects of a Kaluza-Klein field (a compression-dilation longitudinal wave) become subtractive to a tachyonic test charge. I could ask you to diagram this for yourself, but I do not know of any physicist that can do the trick. So, download my manuscript!

--
Michael J. Burns