The Philosophy Of This Non-Mathematically ?Run? At A Unified Field Theory developed after a somewhat successful First Discovery Using Matematics 30 Years Ago And Many ?Runs? At It Since.
Bob L. Petersen
This is a look at some of the background of the author. It's with what leads up to the first Run. Which should explain the Philosophia of the author. One should be able to figure the author will not know why the people acted the way they did. They never do fit in the big picture, if there could be one.) The last explains the Philosophical Approach on this run. I needed to be be more sure of everything I thought. The naming convention to be used on ideas I would have to better define. The ideas that were advanced into this Run from earlier Runs. The idea that was to be the starting point to sarch out from.
My first run was in 1980. I did not run into the wall; I ran into the sky. I had done enough math using a calulator and then after spilling pop o)n it without it. It like I had fell down behind the table on to the back of the heat resister. I lay there for about 2 years. The keys snapped loose when pushed hard on them. I got funnier the more I broke loose. I found a battery and put it in. I came to life but the snapping sound did not abate. After all that had happened I, we were going back to school. I was the numbers that got me to were I got to. E08, E-19, E-27 and E-34 all of which I had never worked with.When I got there I said,"I should have come up this close to the top". All that appears here now from then is other thought. (I bought another calulator that was programable in Basic, I took both to Physics. I used both thumbs to hit the keys on the old calulator. Fast, very fast! By half way through the year there was a rule. That you could only bring one calulator to class. This was not STAR WARS this I can no be. The Professor is still alive. But by all I can no be. All the other pages I'll try do as professional as possible. But honest is what this requires.)
I had people tring to bother me and people wanting to say they were trying to help. I would get to where I could go on. I would change subjects and then I could work again. I had to be dreaming of it before I jumped back to it. Because there was no need to get warmed up. The subject in either case was not the problem. It was because of something I owned. Why can I say I own. Because they don't and they keep bothering me. I was going to sit and do an almost endless task growing a machine on a subject. What nobody who was screaming had never done. All from my own thoughts. had tried a Run directly at the problem less then a year before and with no luck, CHANGE HOW?I wanted to study what could not be found in nature by math.
I was going to post my work on the web as it happened. What tried to do in the past; I now formalised it on this run. What I decided on was what might be generated by forces at the extreme. This was then to be a crude ?THING? that managed to move like a particle. The first name I used in this run was the Chard. I put question mark around it so it appeared like this ?CHARD?. It was supposed to be created in a Black Hole. Why because all the KING'S MEN would have found it already, if it wasn't ?CREATED? there. The chances now are ZERO that there are any Black Holes or that there was a BIG BANG.
I then tried to set up my own model of how the Big Bang could take place. The part of the BIG BANG that proved most interesting was how could Universe be formed. The surface of thenew inside would have to ?SPIKES?. Looking at ?Spikes? lead to thinking about it cycling between ?SPIKE? and the ?Half Spherical Dents? Later I will read about the start Quark Theory to find the Parton. The parton or higher????? I was now ready just to keep going.
That is how this run lead to growing my understanding nature of the Universe. There was one other that I brought in that I had worked up before. It's name was ?LOCK?, I continued to call it a ?LOCK? the original definition explained it was the interlock with space at the core. This was what brought in the subject of ?Structure?. I considered as many of the other known particles. The ?Photon? Had To have A ?Structure? to it. I tried several approaches to the problem but nothing worked out then but now sets there showing me something, WHY I FAILED. Somewhere back then I return to the ?Chard? looked at what Ithought it would be like. It's range was no more 10E-10. Paradox now now could it bues to the pst the ?Lock? that it was created by to make a BOSON. No one at this time can say how just at what energy the Boson would appear. I had to write that here.
I brought back another old DEFINITION of something and followed what it implied all the way throught a search subject. I could not of course find a correct answer that way. I never used the term while working from what it implied. I have described well enough to claim the reason for the correctness of what I'm doing. Do remembder this no effort has really been wasted because those are some part ?Parts?. I made one choice for a name here that lead back to there. But I said I needed to chart this to move on. I said that so happily. Think about it use it but don't try that at home.