wdavidb wrote: a good kick in the pants can have a profound effect.

I'm sorry David I don't understand. Who kicked who in the pants here?

So Dr. Brown suggested that the universe was simultaneous.

My goodness, that IS something. Can you tell me exactly WHERE he actually said that? I'd look through all the journals to find it but it would be easier for you to just tell us where you saw that statement please.

I have been told that the energy of the aether field cannot be accelerating and decelerating at the same time and I said nothing to counter that statement. I chose to let it ride in order to see where it might go.

Well I can't possibly let it go until you define your "Field Tensors" and your mathematical definition for "displacement". Acceleration is a DUAL integration. Acceleration is a dynamic function, and not a simple action. it is NOT motion.

We all want to know what it was that caused Dr. Brown's work to be considered so sensitive and secret, yet it seems he may have already let the cat out of the bag. He said the universe was simultaneous.

I see.... so that is the big secret then.... The universe is "simultaneous" and this is the nutshell explanation that which you have deduced from his journals?

In a simultaneous universe you are enclosed within a unified field system remaining relative to the system of reference.

And in a unified field system you have an underlying unifying force which is simultaneously accelerating and decelerating in opposition to the non-linear rate of acceleration.

My question here is: WHERE IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIFYING FIELD?????

What is the "System of Reference", and what are the units of measurement for this reference?

Now Newton's laws of gravity is similar to your confusing

"non-linear rate of acceleration" because if you measure the displacement of a falling object you will notice that it gains speed as it falls. This means that is does NOT move at a linear speed of displacement, it increases the rate of speed as it falls. You see it's called a derivative of a derivative. (dv/dt) This function has been known since the 1800s by Newton and Liebnitz and is the foundation of the mathematical branch called CALCULUS. -Ever heard of it?

Now according to your above statement

"an underlying unifying force which is simultaneously accelerating and decelerating in opposition to the non-linear rate of acceleration."Let's carefully take this statement appart here. If I can assume that your

"non-linear rate of acceleration" (remember now acceleration is allready defined as a dual derivative) -is actually a TRIPPLE derivative that would mean that (dv/dt/?) what are the vectors and tensors of your base dimension???????

Let's assume that you are not trying to confuse us and that your

"non-linear acceleration" is really just the standard double derivative: displacement velocity over displacement of time(dv/dt). That would mean that in regular classical physics you are speaking of "Acceleration" (pure and simple) in other words

its already non-linear David, so for you to combine the words "Non-linear Acceleration" is to introduce confusion in the standard definition of these words.

Then here is your next sentence:

simultaneously accelerating and decelerating in opposition to the non-linear rate of acceleration

You see my problem here David. Acceleration allready has a

precise definition in science and I'm sorry but if you insist on using in in any kind of REAL technology, you cannot just redefine the words AS YOU SEE FIT.

Acceleration is THE RATE OF CHANGE IN SPEED of A MOVING OBJECT. The OBJECT IS MOVING (displacement=

d) and the rate at which it is moving is INCREASING (displacement of time=

dt)

Your statement above has no mathematical consistency whatsoever until you "EXPLAIN ACCELERATION"

Getting back to your quote here:

a simultaneous acceleration and deceleration implies some sort of OSCILLATION. Is this what you are implying?

You have symmetrical focus to the center of field and isometric expansion to the outer boundary of field. And at the extreme high and low of this unified field you have non-absolute boundaries linked to both the past and future

OK...Now here you are onto something really powerful and elegant, but this IS NOT an original concept I think. For one thing

"Symmetry" is foundation of several major "Theories Of Everything" (TOEs)

All you have left to do here is define your dimensions..... What is

High and low with relation to a reference of some kind. Are we talking about "high" in value.....WHAT VALUE? if it's a field, then define your vectors. Are you in a right handed universe or a left handed universe so please define the "Chirality" dimension of your field....

The high end boundary focused to the center of field is the portal to future and the low end boundary expanding outward is the portal to past.

Ok... here we have another brilliant and elegant concept which I happen to believe is

absolutely correct. However it only makes sense when you take all other existing concepts and assign them a foundation which have precise references to them. You cannot just AVOID math and first order logic and proceed without even knowing what the word CHIRALITY means.

There is no linear counterpart to time or linear component to time, as time has nothing to do with clocks and watches.

Fine..... then define TIME itself!!! What is "the interval"? Is it VARIABLE or INVARIABLE? Does Minkowski's definition of TIME/SPACE still apply here?

If you are hinting towards a non-euclidean geometrical basis for time, then please know that there are several others who have tackled this issue, and I hope you have done your homework because the "time continuity theorem" is one of the most interesting and complex issues on earth. I know because I've spent the last ten years trying to understand it.

The secret is quite simple, we know what we know but we can't have anyone know what we know because then they would know that we don't know very much at all,

This may apply to your knowledge but I assure you that it does not necessarilly apply to mine David (with all due respect of course).

If Dr. Brown said, the universe is simultaneous, he said a mouthful.

What's the matter here aren't you sure he said that anymore?

So where is the simultaneous communications system? Yes, that would be a secret alright. And if anyone thinks there is a registered patent for such a thing, you are only dreaming. Such a secret would justify a lot of time and energy being devoted to a well orchestrated disinformation program, which would remain operational indefinitely.

Ah... but I still don't know if you agree with the concept here David.

Do you?

Trickfox