The Reinstatement of Einstein’s Presently Abandoned
Unified Field (Steady State) Theory In 20,000 Words: Without Mathematics

by K. B. Robertson, Copyright c December 1999

* By Kent Benjamin Robertson,

Published by Great Continental EuroAsian Green Grass
RiverDragon Productions Unlimited

San Francisco City College, Small Theater Auditorium.
Greenpeace Benefit

(Expanded edition) * * * * * * * * * October, 1976

"Not long ago I was kindly admonished that the subject of this evenings' discussion - which is Einstein's 4-Dimensional Space-Time Continuum - is far too technically specialized and complicated for the majority of most otherwise knowledgeable persons.

That, if I ever attempted to lecture it to an open audience, any such attempt would inevitably fail and moreover, quite possibly bore peo-ple to sleep. Such talk does not discourage me however; permit me to tell you why.

There's bound to be a few people here tonight, who need to catch up on some sleep. Of the few well-intended critics who have made these heavy lidded predictions, none have read my book or attended my lectures. It’s their jobs they sleep on.

Such relaxed and yawning, recreationally preoccupied forecasts faithfully represent the fashionable response to any proposal that the 4th Dimension can be identified or substantially communicated: without mathematics.

Like gravity, the 4th Dimension is formally assigned a permanent post of non-mathematical incomprehensibility. Hence, any suggestion that the fourth dimension is non-mathematically approachable is immediately evaluated by the knowing as the mark of a rank scientific novice. Someone who does not know enough mathematics to understand that the 4th dimension is comprehensively accessible, only to those who do (‘know enough mathematics’).

These foregone determinations stem from the fact that there is not even the slightest history of any unsuccessful attempts to non-mathematically identify the 4th Dimension - let alone any successful one. No such accomplishments are anticipated.

The 4th Dimension is correctly equated with time and motion, while formally and consistently relegated to be non-mathematically incomprehensible and even unimagin-able - an abstraction on the face of a speculative wrist watch - in those 3- dimensionally timeless words (George Gamow, GRAVITY).

This is the reason why none of my somnambulant critics - most of them confidentially vanquished physicists and/or Big Bang gangers - (explosive beginners and entropically whimpering enders) have troubled themselves with reading or attending my lectures.

Hopefully, this accounts for all of the more serious and important matters; so that we may address ourselves, if you will, to all of this allegory insensibility, idle chatter, inane scrawl and/or ranting bom-bast about gravity being the 4th Dimension.

"That is an unprecedented statement. The only thing gravity and the 4th Dimension are presently recognized to have in common as far as academic physics is concerned, is what is not known about them. Specifically: neither gravity nor the 4th Dimension has ever been non mathematically identified. It is acknow-ledged that they exist, it is mathematically and elaborately described what they do, but it is not and it has never been comprehended what they are.

On the other hand, it is my intention to generate and popularize only one particularly prominent and inevitable question around the unprecedented statement that Gravity Is The 4th Dimension, and that question is. Didn't we know that before? And, if not: why not?

If the statement, 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension' is incorrect, why has it never been disqualified? No one is being asked, neither of course is anyone obliged to accept or believe that gravity is the 4th Dimension. When any one at any time finds this statement seriously credible it is never because I said so, or due to the introduction of a lot of new or ponderous ideas. The statement is found credible when it is revealed and recognized as the inevitable and quite over-whelming import of a wealth of simple, fundamental and familiar facts. Well known but hitherto unrelated facts, which, when related, reveal quite unexpected but equally unavoidable, imminent and overdue; still remarkably unrecognized (and as we shall see, stub-bornly and apocryphally denied) conclusions.

Terra Incognita, revisited

(Here be unslayable Old World dragons):

"As a place to start, I will cite three facts; the first of which is an excerpt concerning gravity, which is extracted verbatim from the 2nd and 3rd pages of Isaac Newton's' three page (non-mathematical) Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.

Then, we will review Albert Einstein's' definition of gravity from his GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY.

Thirdly, we will review the mathematical-geometric definition of dimensions, to determine if and how the definition for physical dimensions relates to Einstein's' renowned 4th Dimension.

At that point we will summarily consider if and how the 4th Dimension relates to what Newton and Einstein have independently and formally offered, in the PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA and the GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY respectively, as their two centuries divided considerations of the identity of gravity.

.......................

"Respectfully submitted here, that if you will simply permit presentation of the above subjects, the non-mathematical identity of gravity, and the non-mathematical identity of the 4th Dimension, will be revealed and proven to fulfill the engagement, comprehension and agreement of 85% or more of the intellectual facilities present here this evening. I submit furthermore that this proof will self-explicitly and irrevocably include the statements:

Proceeding from there, to find the Big Bang Theory an undeniably high ranking hybrid of flippantly bastardized corporate state Hollywood and Bessemer Furnace fired, CIRCUS TIME popcorn (Quarks, Strangeness and Charms, going off with the Big Bang gang; with and without punctuation, ingressing and egressing to and from Carl Sagen’s multi- billionaire sponsored, Hollywood malapropos - smoked & mirrored - - inspiring COSMOS).

Finally, I respectfully submit that if allowed, the unfolding all of the above proposals will be accomplished in the next approximately seventy minutes (discourse time actual) or less.

"The forthcoming excerpt from Newton's Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA is precluded here with the clarification that, even today gravity is colloquially thought-of and popularly accepted de-finitively as a pulling force of attraction; originating at the centers of individual material objects (‘particles’ - ‘charges’; systems of same); the force of which increases proportionately with increasing mass values.

This definition has always been a categorical presumption applied to the unknown identity of gravity; for the sake of convenience and for apparent lack of any other alternative definition.

Newton himself, understandably had difficulty accepting the exist-ence of an 'invisible force' which he describes as 'occult', having the power to move apples and planets. Above all, he (very speci-fically) found - proved - the large force of the orbiting moon directly linked to the same mysterious force applying to the apple’s inspiration for falling, above and upon the earth’s surface. The tides. The planets orbiting the sun. Interacting in fact with the force of the apple on earth.

It was formerly thought that gravitational forces acting on earth were much different than forces acting elsewhere in the larger realm of solar system and universe. Newton, established for the first time, that it - the universal realms of the large and small - is all connected by a singular, commonly acting, unidenti-fied invisible force. That is the gist of Newton’s proven dis-covery - the proven extrapolation of the same force that causes relatively minuscule apples to fall, also causing the orbiting of the relatively enormous planets.

("The ‘thump’ of a great apple, in the stillness of a crisp October morn. Motivated only by the mere necessity of perfect ripeness". - Hawthorne).

"Newton, finally acknowledged the conditional existence of gravity; only because his own newly invented calculus confirmed that, indeed the same force that motivationally generates falling apples does likewise generate and sustain the orbits of planets. Yet, as we are about to be reminded, Newton took great care to point out that he did not know or purport to know the identity of gravity, and that his mathematical address to gravity is not concerned with or dependent upon its causal identity, or, its direction...

As we shall see, the popular term 'Newtonian concept of attraction (a pulling force)', as applied to gravity, was never unconditionally endorsed by Newton. The concept of gravity as 'a pulling force of attraction' remains a speculative though understandably popular term, coined by Newton's beneficiaries. All of this is to say that the conceptualization of gravity as any sort of pulling force of attraction was not Newton's resolute conceptual or by any means exclusive definition of gravity. Allow the derivation of this last statement to be further qualified:

"I wish to cite at this time what is to say the least, a most interesting alternative concept concerning the identity of (what Newton was always careful to call ‘universal’) gravity. An otherwise completely ignored statement which might even be correctly categorized as 'obscure', or 'inconsequential'. Were it not for the fact that this statement is made by Sir Isaac Newton. And, were it not for the fact that this statement is included in the very (3 page, non-mathematical) Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.

"From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting plan-ets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following state-ment about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of plan-ets & apples, quote:

"For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philoso-phers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain".

That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as, THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact. I repeat the quote (of particles and systems-of-particles: of matter), 'are either mutually impelled towards each other and cohere in regular figures (orbits; juxtapositions), or, are mutually repelled and recede from each other' ‘.

It implies directly and categorically, that gravity may in fact be the opposite of the universally considered impelling or 'pulling force of attraction'; that is to say, Isaac Newton and his formal defin-itions, directly and resolutely suggest that gravity may in fact be a repelling or pushing force.

It is difficult to over dramatize the very existence of this statement, its author, and especially its contextual implications. It categorically allows that everything Newton mathematically confirms and describes in The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA - from orbiting planets, falling apples, aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric tides - all the large and small phenomena of gravity - is caused by one of two kinds of forces: the conventionally considered impelling or pulling force of attraction, or, its exact opposite, a repelling / pushing force. That is fact #1.

"Fact #1 evokes at least one question: Allowing possible advantage in Newton's Gravitational Alternative that gravity may in fact be a repelling (pushing) force rather than an impelling (pulling) force, how might any such advantage be experienced and applied?

"This question and its derivation might still be deemed obscure and inconsequential, if, its direct unequivocal answer did not exist, most profoundly, at the heart-foundation of the latest and most advanced generalized theory of gravity in the history of Physical Science. That, being Albert Einstein's GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.

In the first quarter of this century, Albert Einstein, in observing the already well known inversely proportional equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values (which will be explained, shortly), described this equivalence as: 'an astonishing coincidence', and then applied the cause of his astonishment to the monumental task of formulating an unprece-dented theoretical generalization concerning the identity of gravity. That, being none other than the General Principle Of Relativity; which principle is quite literally the foundation upon which rests Einstein's entire General Theory of Relativity. The most advanced statement about gravity, to date.

"The General Principle is also known as the 'Equivalence Hypo-thesis', or 'The Principle Of Equivalence'; which states: 'There is no way to distinguish the effects produced by the inertial force of acceleration (a pushing/repelling force) from the effects produced by gravitational force (assumed to be a 'pulling/impelling force: identity unknown').

For those already familiar with the General Principle of Relativity that is clear enough. But, to the uninitiated it may sound a bit com-plicated. Fortunately, there is a simple and excellent demonstration which clarifies the import of this statement.

"The explanation originally used by Einstein to point out the meaning and implications of the GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is since then often utilized by relativist writers and physicists for the same reason. The explanation spoken of here is popularly termed 'the elevator analogy'. (Refer p. 49, Illustration A.) :

"An elevator car is depicted as falling down the shaft of a very high building after having parted its restraining cables. A group of human passengers perform experiments. They hold out objects and release their grip on them - the objects (cannonballs, bb-shots, pound of butter, wristwatch, etc.) remain suspended in midair; they do not accelerate downward. Because, all of the released objects are falling within and along-with the elevator and its passengers at 32 ft. per-second-per-second (16 ft per second, squared); in accordance with Newton's laws of gravitation (on or of, earth).

"The observers in the elevator are unaware of their predicament. They understand and explain the suspension of objects and them-selves in mid-air, by assuming they are outside the gravitational influence of the earth, and logically conclude that they are 'free-floating' in space where there is no significantly measurable force of gravity at all (‘a macrocosmic ‘weak force’ - the opposite of micro-cosmic ‘strong nuclear binding force’. They are generally misperceived as being unrelated; as being ‘two different kinds of forces’. The record proves they are qualitatively the same force, quantitatively occurring in two different - large and small/ tenuously thin and densely compacted - places/coordinate systems).