#### RainmanTime

##### Super Moderator

First I'll start with my gravity pulse generator.

the fact that you use terms like "gravity pulse generator" and "gravity waves" to describe things you (personally) cannot explain (and purposefully resist explaining, mathematically) certainly qualifies you to be described and rated by John Baez's crackpot rating scale... I am sure you must be familiar with this.

But for right now this experiment is begging me for a mathematical description. Because this is a Unified Field Theory concept. Looks just like simple algebra to me. What do you guys think?

Again, in my experienced opinion, you are fooling yourself into trying to avoid calculus. Darby's point is about as technically accurate as one can get, but let me try a different tactic:

Your eletronic setup no doubt has capacitors, and at least one large inductor. Capacitors are time-integrating devices that can ONLY be accurately described with the integral calculus. Inductors are time-deriving devices that can ONLY be accurately described with the differential calculus. Ergo, no mathematical explanation for your device or its effect (that would pass muster with an undergrad math instructor) can possibly be devoid of calculus. Period.

And this brings up your willy-nilly use of terms ("gravity wave") to describe something that you do not wish to model with existing science (because it would spoil your fantasy party). The problem is, if you are going to use your own, personal interpretive bias in what you observe as the EFFECT of your device, then it must carry all the way through to the nuts and bolts of what makes your device operate (down to the caps and the inductors). Certainly, it MUST especially if you are taking the grand step of calling this a Unified Field Theory... So now you are faced with a daunting task once you wield the term "gravity pulse generator" and the like. That task is that you (singlehandedly) must now redefine the entire basis of science and its mathematical underpinnings to fit your individual observations. Given your disdain for math that I already see, I'd say you are taking on a job that cannot ever be completed.

So what are you going to re-name capcaitors and inductors? "Gravity collection cells" and "gravity modulating coils"?

As I have said before, your experimental bent is to be appreciated and encouraged. But your fast and loose use of names to describe what you see, which flies in the face of scientific mathematical quantification of these effects, it crackpottery as only John Baez would hope to spot.

RMT