Acctually, I am in search for Horava's original paper. The document at your link is a presentation aid and not very useful lacking the presenter.

I am fully aware that you neither can nor will post your full data on to this forum. However, scientific work is also about distilling data into papers for others to critique. I assume you have done this. Such a paper would not be too much to ask for I think, assuming that you have already published it in a suitable paper. Anyone who successfully publishes and defends a theory of the magnitude of yours gets the nobel prize. When we get to read your publishable work, we can say that we were among the first to know about this.

Until I've acquired a degree in theoretical physisics or find someone else with a degree and willing to refine and publish my work the possibility of something as grandious as the Nobel prise is quite impossible. (there is also a large degree of politics involved as to who gets such a prize) There are others who have claimed to have a unified theory other than myself.



This isn't the case. I'm working to post what material I can on this forum. (please be patient)

As you seem to be saying that there is more than one universe, how many do you think there are?

At the minimum 24, but I suspect there may be an infinite number. (The number and relative placement of these universes would obviously effect my distance and mass calculations.) It is my belief that a universal inertial energy (at the quantum scale) will soon be detected with a resonance in harmony with the weekly sabbath. This energy will evidence the presence of a universe scale mass beyond our own universe, of which our own visible cosmos orbits. If this does happen I am most certain Satan will pervert this knowledge to bolster the upcoming Sunday law. This idea is of course completely speculative.

here's an alternate sight for Horava-Lifshitz gravity,

http://freelance-quantum-gravity.blogspot.com/2009/04/horavas-quantum-gravity.html

you might try this one too,

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache%3Ahu...y&hl=en&gl=us#3

I suppose the reason you keep refering to blogs and presentations is that you have not acctually read the original article. This is of course a speculative assumption.

Did you bother to look at the links on the first sight I gave you. There are copies of his work right there. There are also links to other papers ammending Horvara's work. What's wrong with looking at ammended copies of the original work? Are you trying to make a point about Petr's work?

Unless you already have authorization and am willing to pay for the pdf file you can not gain access to Horvara's original work. (Welcome to the real world of advanced physics.) I do not have any close connections at Berkeley and the physicists I know that do can not ethicly provide a pirated copy to me. I certainly can not "give" you something that I am prohibited from legally having direct access to my self. You need some form of physics degree, be involved in a current college physics program, or other legitimate reason to be provided access to such things. I've already outlined that I lack such a degree, and am quite far from the opportunity from gaining direct access to things like cutting edge physics papers from Berkeley.

So now my question for you is, what's your point?

If you need pointers, Horava published his work in 2009. The name of the the work is called Horava-Lifshitz gravity. You've at least pretended to already have direct access to his 65 articles written since 2007. If this is true then this quote makes me wonder if your being honest or just trying to play games.



First you claimed to know very little about physics, then you want to know which of his 65 articles is the one refered to in SA, then you complain to want the original work because what I provided wasn't "very useful." So then I provide you with a link to several amended variations of Horava's original work and I get your last statement.

I looked at everything that didnt start with "blog" in the link name.I incidentally do have access to journals found through the common channels such as Elsevier or Springer links by my university library. Further, through scholar.google.com I found that Horava's articles are published through arxiv.org which means that anyone has free access to them. I just need to know which one. This is an example of a link such as I were looking for from you: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.0009v1.pdfWhat you do need is being enrolled at a university or a college. However, you could study anything between string theory physics to the history of feminism and still have access to cutting edge physics papers. I acctually thought you either had or were studying for a BA in physics. My error. My point is to figgure out if you are "standing on the shoulders of giants" (Isaac Newton) or if you are building a straw house on a sandy shore.

Well.. With these pointers I think the first article would be one of these:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1163081
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.4287v3.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.3775v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.3657v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.0009v1.pdf
and that these might be useful aswell:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.0308v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.2849v3.pdf
You may notice that all of these except the very first one are free for all to read. It took me less than half an hour to find these four articles written by Horava since 2009 on this subject. Of course it would take me many years to understand them since I lack the proper education in physics and math. At any rate, your claim to have researched a new physics rings a bit more hollow now that we have established that I could in 30 minutes find the articles you claim to have based part of your work on but have apparently not even read. (Even when you cannot read the articles online, you could physically visit the local college or university library and read the journals there. Even so, I would expect you to keep proper references to any article you choose to quote, and be prepeared to share the reference with curious people.)
As I said, I know some things about research. New discoveries are built on the base of older discoveries. Even breakthrough work such as Einsteins or Newtons are not entierly new, but much of their genious is found on piecing old threads of evidence together into a new design with only some entierly new aditions. Building on old evidence requires that you are familiar with it. In todays scientific society, that familiarity comes through peer reviewed journals. Not least because new work is not considered until it has been published in such a journal. Information found through other sources may be but it may also not be good. How to research and source criticism are two main lessons learned in the process of obtaining a BA or MA. Starting with giving you the benefit of doubt, assuming that you had made these considerations but were downplaying them for the sake of other forum members, I made the questions and comments you quoted above. I now find that neither of these skills have left any large imprints on your work, at least not as presented here and even in the face of direct questions. I think this makes us both clear where we have each other.