ALSO, it would be wise to seet what's transpiring in "posts on religion?" topic.
I have not seen this topic, where would I find that
RealityCheck
2nd September 2005 - 09:12 PM
Hello "Guest".
And yet, 'scientific method' can be applied to ALL MANNER of questions/conundrums, not just those relating to 'inanimate things' as you say. Every time you go to the doctor/priest for 'treatment, BOTH priest AND doctor have been 'scientifically' trained to one degree or other (in addition to any occupation-specific social/phychological problem-solving conflict/aggression-management techniques etc.).
So you see, it takes a 'broad' approach to many and all questions, using 'tools' appropriate to the job...and sometimes those tools are 'mixed', combining BOTH 'spiritual' AND 'worldly' approaches together for best effect/solution.
And the topic: "posts on religion?" can be found on the start-page under the "Comments/Suggestions?" forum (last one down the list).
Best of 'broad' thinking regards from: RealityCheck.
Guest
3rd September 2005 - 03:25 PM
I'm sure you find it surprising not many persons would think of searching there  ow by the way, I didn't make one single religious remark - I did make remarks abouth faith though
Guest
3rd September 2005 - 03:38 PM
if your last statement was about people using logic, - that's was not invented by science  I wouldn't get anywhere near doctors, if ypu know just how worthless psychologists are (another "great" branch of science, you'll say  )
RealityCheck
4th September 2005 - 12:08 AM
Hello "Guest".
Funnily enough, I AGREE with you regarding 'pshycology'...I myself have come to see it more likeas AN ONGOING 'EXPERIMENT WITHIN' SCIENCE, rather than 'A SCIENCE' AS SUCH. Although, to be fair to psychologists, they do at least TRY to apply the 'scientific method' even if they are not very good at it (probably because there are too many variables dependent on their own 'subjective takes' on behaviour (as compared to the 'objective correlations' made by 'real' scientists like neuro-pathologists/neuro-chemists etc. who operate on 'real' chemical/physical observations and then apply the scientific method to see if there are any 'connections' between their observations/data with behaviour in those affected by any the chemical/physical phenomena occurring and being studied).
As to who invented 'logic': It was the 'Natural Philosopher' schools. It may interest you to know that the name/function of "natural philosopher" has evolved to become "scientist" applying a "logic system" known as "the scientific method".
And if I inadvertently implied that you ever used the term 'religious', then I apologise. In extenuation, I would ask that you consider the readily-observable tendency that ANY purely-'faith'-based system of 'logic' INVARIABLY leads to 'religious' tenets of one sort or another. But of course, I have no right to assume that you were heading in that direction yourself; so, again, my apologies for assuming it.
Respectful regards from: RealityCheck.
.
rmuldavin
4th September 2005 - 01:44 PM
Just got e-mail from form editors, the one a day e-mail to a chatter.
How's does this work? Ok read back one day.
Comments:
Spirit and Material is Time and Space.
Unify more of our Internal Time and Space at least to match the External.
Gravity strings, for now seem to give mathematical tracking to the four forces.
electro magnetic traverse,
gravity longitudinal,
Higgs Particle Newton's Gravity,
electron's triplet subquarks,
one third charge,
dark energy,
30billions times,
everyday observed.
More later, thanks for invite,
best, rmuldavin
Guest
5th September 2005 - 06:45 PM
| QUOTE |
Funnily enough, I AGREE with you regarding 'pshycology'...I myself have come to see it more likeas AN ONGOING 'EXPERIMENT WITHIN' SCIENCE, rather than 'A SCIENCE' AS SUCH. Although, to be fair to psychologists, they do at least TRY to apply the 'scientific method' even if they are not very good at it (probably because there are too many variables dependent on their own 'subjective takes' on behaviour (as compared to the 'objective correlations' made by 'real' scientists like neuro-pathologists/neuro-chemists etc. who operate on 'real' chemical/physical observations and then apply the scientific method to see if there are any 'connections' between their observations/data with behaviour in those affected by any the chemical/physical phenomena occurring and being studied).
wether you like it or not, when talking about the soul, you leave the mathematical terrain of science (=nonintelligent systems) and enter the world of the invisible (in which case you might as well look at what the Expert on our soul says - yes, talking of God there  )
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Funnily enough, I AGREE with you regarding 'pshycology'...I myself have come to see it more likeas AN ONGOING 'EXPERIMENT WITHIN' SCIENCE, rather than 'A SCIENCE' AS SUCH. Although, to be fair to psychologists, they do at least TRY to apply the 'scientific method' even if they are not very good at it (probably because there are too many variables dependent on their own 'subjective takes' on behaviour (as compared to the 'objective correlations' made by 'real' scientists like neuro-pathologists/neuro-chemists etc. who operate on 'real' chemical/physical observations and then apply the scientific method to see if there are any 'connections' between their observations/data with behaviour in those affected by any the chemical/physical phenomena occurring and being studied).
wether you like it or not, when talking about the soul, you leave the mathematical terrain of science (=nonintelligent systems) and enter the world of the invisible (in which case you might as well look at what the Expert on our soul says - yes, talking of God there )
As to who invented 'logic': It was the 'Natural Philosopher' schools. It may interest you to know that the name/function of "natural philosopher" has evolved to become "scientist" applying a "logic system" known as "the scientific method".
science is an application on logic where experimental observations are combined in mathematical sound systems (though in practice different models on the same world can't be easily translated in each other, so there already you might get problems - though the plus is that any "feeling", intuitive understanding, would be lost if you really tried to work with an overall combined system, it still should be possible to do - just for the sake of soundness)
Guest
5th September 2005 - 06:50 PM
another problem of psychology is, ofcource, that the observer is not able to observe without interfering with what is observed - almost as fundamental as in quantum fysics
Zephir
5th September 2005 - 07:03 PM
QUOTE (Guest+Sep 5 2005, 06:50 PM) another problem of psychology is, ofcource, that the observer is not able to observe without interfering with what is observed - almost as fundamental as in quantum fysics A very good point, indeed.. This is why, the energy exchange is closely related to exchange of information. They exhibits a very similar evolutional principles, because both they're drived by its own divergence at the low level... Therefore, the society evolution is surprisingly similar to universe evolution (for example, the information singularities, like epochas exists here, too). From certain point of view, the universe is an analog computer optimised for simulation of itself.
NidStyles
5th September 2005 - 10:47 PM
So umm, how do you calculate time, and distance in this "theory"? If you can not do something simple like that, then it's invalid. Time and Distance are the very basics of everything we do in physics.
RealityCheck
5th September 2005 - 11:28 PM
Hello "guest".
I agree with you that psychologist (observer) impacts on the subject(observed) by the very act of interaction between the two---which is why I described 'psychology "...as an ongoing experiment WITHIN science, rather than a science itself...".
I also agree about the 'mathematical-logic' terrain; because MATHEMATICAL LOGIC SYSTEM does NOT equate with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD LOGIC SYSTEM---they are two totally separate 'logic systems'...the former system being merely ONE of the MANY 'logic tools' used by the latter depending on the 'discussion/communication of results' required in any study/debate context BETWEEN scientists of all sorts/fields.
I also agree with you on the multi-faceted approach one should take when contemplating ANYTHING. For example, even BEFORE any 'scientist' even contemplates/observes anything, his subconscious mind IS ALREADY 'modeling' and 'intuiting' and 'conjecturing'...from which point his/her concious mind proceeds to 'concretise' all the results through application of the 'scientific method' using any/all of the 'logic' tools available to it.
So in fact there is no disagreement here. Wow!...this has to be a 'first'!
'Consensus' regards from: RealityCheck.
Zephir
6th September 2005 - 01:33 AM
QUOTE (NidStyles+Sep 5 2005, 10:47 PM) So umm, how do you calculate time, and distance in this "theory"? There is a information memory and a carrier of information At the very beginning both the roles have provided by the single particle, later the role have specialized (boson, fermion). The number of bits tranferred during contact of two infocarriers proposes the speed of information spreading, which is constant under some social conformation/circumstances. There is information density/information flow in population of carriers, which corresponds the mass/energy transfer density in environment and implies the basic quantity unit. It's quantitized too and exhibits an information density gradient. The very first wave in universe carries just a single bit of information, after collapse during inflation singularity the information content in string unit increases per saltum. The some immediate increasing of information density (phase transition) occurs during after speech, handwriting, typography, letter, radio/tv and internet inventions, which are creating a new environment for spreading of information or after evolution of neural network, sex reproduction, eye ant the other evolution features. The biologic evolution is a just a continuation of the evolution of matter in the universe. Later I'll explain the exact mechanism of it on the model of biologic evolution in greater details, but from now you'll probably be abble to extend it without my further asistance.
RealityCheck
6th September 2005 - 02:02 AM
Hello Zephir and NidStyles.
Regarding Zephir's view that "The biologic evolution is a just a continuation of the evolution of matter in the universe."...
...Zephir, is this in any way similar to my own view that, for example, the ELECTRO-CHEMICAL plasmon/electron 'sea' MEDIUM 'bulk' that is produced/contained within the bounds of a NEURAL-NETWORK 'organically-evolved' structure is analogous to the ELECTRO-PHYSICAL electron/plasmon 'sea' MEDIUM 'bulk' arising/produced within the bounds of a SUPERCONDUCTOR 'inorganically-evolved structure?
Curious regards from: RealityCheck.
.
rmuldavin
6th September 2005 - 01:30 PM
Comrad Newbe, your post above reads well to my mind, so pasting your ending here, and then some comments:
"The energy available exists as a unified field of frequency remaining relative to our Earth, whereby the energy potential decreases isometrically with distance to the non-absolute boundary of Universe.
The accelerating expansion of Universe has nothing to do with gravity as there is no gravity to speak of at the outer boudary of Universe. The rate of expansion corresponds to the rate of acceleration affecting the energy potential existing at the center of field in relation to the non-linear dynamics of field.
The rate of expansion is due to the maximum relative ratio of resistance existing at the outer boudary, in relation to a decrease in energy affecting a further increase in resistance to a further increase in energy. Therefore the Universe is forced to expand rather than contract.
And in order to understand this we have to understand the structural dynamics of field with our relative field system."
Comments:
Using my visual model your writing made sense to me, roughly, until the first sentance pasted above.
The visual model, the G-string got from each Dot "Mass" to every other Dot Mass in the imaginable "Universe(s)".
The G-string, a thread, cable, or tube, a co-axial of layered submass and strings sheaths.
The tube, I guess has maybe an outside coat of triplet subquark electrons (Dehmelt 1998 conjectures), or might consider the inside of the tube, maybe both(?).
This distinction of inside and outside flat "equallateral" triangles, a mesh, allows to engage in Steven Hawkins speculations (Glaskow Conference) as to the the nature of the Black Hole surface, thickness and nature, and inside, but to us appears as a disk, and a disk to other observers around it location in space, there for this chat, a sphere.
So let us view it here as a flat surface, keeping in mind it has some curvature, and that would warp the "flat layered" Black Hole and that "stress and strain" needs to have an accounting.
Maybe the black body radiations detected from the outside are vibrations of the "sphere" and it layered structures?
Several decades ago I read that the inter connections were some ten to the 58 th power.
But for me the convincing statement was found on the web: Kip Thorpe at Cal Tech offered a course on physical layered cable theory. And this seems a great starting way to clarify a future statement on "layered" string dimensional" theory.
The play on the acromnym for above would be lsd, my attempt to also connect how our minds might work as conjectured by Roger Penrose that our neurons use the spindles of soma (body) cells that give two daughter cell, the neurons use them to connect neurons giving rise to faster than sound electrical sodium/potassium travel along axions.
The results in our brains might be like the ring counters or sociograms giving some links, L, of the following number at the most:
L(N)=N(N-1)/2.
The G-string may be the physical carrier of the "FOUR FORCES".
It seems the string theory literature has established that the e-m force travels transfersally, the gravity force travels longitudinal. Chatters posts here find agreement with this too.
If this established conjectures are true, I'd quess Kip Thorne, he and his students, will be writing some essays on this subject. And I venture to write, the connectionn betwen e-m forces and gravity forces.
It might be a helically shaped wave, it's leading edge traveling at 20 to 40x the speed of light as measured by our laboratory's internal electrons as they switch orbits. Nice graphics presented above, much to think about, thanks.
The faster than light gravity speed appears to be confirmed from two views: (1) detection of gravity waves from pulsars or dual BHs (?) arriving prior to the light pulses; (2) recent work by Horowitz and others (Science, November 2004) that our universe observable may be a "dumb" dark energy mass shell.
Wang Zhong, professor at Beijing University of Economics and Science, as a NYT Space and Cosmos chatter gave the G-string it Capital "G", he supports it seems that gravity waves travel soome 20 to 40 times the speed of light as we observe it.
The electron, considered an "a-tom", not breakable, seems likely bound by some greater than 2/3 of the universe's mass. I take this to mean we are inside a black hole shell. The original "cosmonium" was conjected by Dehmelt (1998) to a balanced triplet. It divided so each prior balanced triplet divided into three, and so forth, to today's "kth" level, and I add K = +/- observable. Plenty of wiggle room with this view(?).
Using symmetry, let the inner universe do the same, following Willard Gibbs formalizations of phases between named materials.
That is, for my perceptions, the collective works of others and the nave's view of fifty fifty, micro-macro layered universes, this is a starting place for further dialog and research (for me books and the web).
The slight imbalence, asymmetry, "are us".
So upon trying to keep up with this form's intelligent and fast pace, many drops from the internet and XP networking and apple airport hub, I add here from saving the above essay, some comments to this time.
As an electrical engineer with communications and computer options, years ago from that valuable place, UC Berkeley and during the Vietnam War protests and other 60's protests and demonstrations for peace, what is occuring here is the way, wave of the future, and to quote Lord Rutherford what he was asked, "How does it feel to be riding the wave of the new physics?". He replied "I am the wave!".
Good humor, and can we not add, "We are the wave, all of us and all the people".
More later, thanks for the stimulating chats, best, rmuldavin[QUOTE]
Zephir
6th September 2005 - 04:34 PM
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 6 2005, 02:02 AM) the ELECTRO-CHEMICAL plasmon/electron 'sea' MEDIUM 'bulk' arising/produced within the bounds of a SUPERCONDUCTOR 'inorganically-evolved structure? Hi! Unfortunatelly, I don't know nothing about this effect/phenomenon, so I can't take a some finite stand about it...  But if it effect exists really, it could be considered to the special kind of the bionic model of universe evolution, of course. In fact, the base ot he universe evolution is the information, not matter (the matter existence is the side-on effect of information evolution, the increasing human brain density as the example).
Guest
6th September 2005 - 04:53 PM
| QUOTE |
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
another problem of psychology is, ofcource, that the observer is not able to observe without interfering with what is observed - almost as fundamental as in quantum fysics
A very good point, indeed.. This is why, the energy exchange is closely related to exchange of information. They exhibits a very similar evolutional principles, because both they're drived by its own divergence at the low level...
Therefore, the society evolution is surprisingly similar to universe evolution (for example, the information singularities, like epochas exists here, too). From certain point of view, the universe is an analog computer optimised for simulation of itself.
I'm sure you're making fun of me, AND that you are calling to me, go spamming somewhere else
now, maybe I should do so; anyway, at least RealityCheck is open to discussion - which is a plus for this forum
it's probably clear that I still have no idea wether there's something interesting for me here - which is why I never registered; now have fun removing an interesting discussion if you like to do so
RealityCheck
8th September 2005 - 08:10 PM
Hello Zephir; long time no see! What ya been up to!? By the way, about your not being up to speed about the plasmon/phonon stuff: here's a quick wikipedia link about this stuff (I hope the link works!)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlasmonsBest plasmic regards from your friend in science: RealityCheck.
Zephir
8th September 2005 - 09:40 PM
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 8 2005, 08:10 PM) Hello Zephir; long time no see! What ya been up to!? Just "publishing" to the other forums here... I've had heard about the polaron effects in metals, but not at electrochemical system, like CNS.
rmuldavin
9th September 2005 - 03:56 PM
Just posted the below on the NYT Space and Cosmos chat. Got Physorg.com notice, so this constitutes a response. Best, rm
rmuldavin - 11:19 AM ET September 9, 2005 (#18528 of 18529)
To Err is human---Einstein-Rosen on Gravity Waves link to Triplet Higgs Boson?
Posters All, three essays below, first given by Form post, 1997; second, 7feb2005; third, sep2005.
(1)Williamson and van der Mark, "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology";
(2) Chris Quigg, "Nature's Greatest Puzzles",
arXiv:hep-ph/0502070 v1 7feb 2005
(3) Daniel Kennefick, "Einstein Versus the Physical Review", Sept. 2005, Physics Today,
http//www.physicstoday.org
The last article Einstein and Rosen write an essay "Do Gravational Waves Exist" (the essay essentially states "No"), Einstien submits to Physical Review, the essay is peer reviewed by unknown, but likely reviewer Howard Percy Robertson of Cal Tech, CA, notes that the infinite parallel e-m waves used in E-R essay would produce local singularities.
Einstein withdraws essay writing he and Rosen didn't give premission for the peer review.
Einstein and Rosen find they made errors in interpretation of their equations, make a correction, essentially writing that the "No" answer now becomes "Don't know".
Article author Kenneflick concludes Einstein likely didn't read fully the peer review, but Einstein has the corrected essay published by the Journal of the Franklin Institute in Philidepha.
Chris Quiqq "Natures Greatest Puzzles", was the "Opening Lecture at the 2004 SLAC Summer Institute" and on page 6 summarizes the state of the art/science of a decade of research, in particular he states
"The top quark, a remarkable apparently elementary fermion with mass of an osmium atom, was discovered in [anti-proton+proton] collisions]"
It took a while to find some data on the Atomic elememt Osmium, write in my note book, and propose as I believe I read in doing Google searches, to the Higgs Boson, and trying to related Os to a balanced triplet, as for the Dehmelt "flat" triplet electron, but for Top Quark a triplet Higgs Boson.
Os/76/189,190,192/M(mu)/Ip/%/1/2life
76 is the number of electrons in the outter shells and the number of protons in the Nuclear Shell.
189-76 = 116 would be the number of neutron.
My availabe text books and Internet essays and comments discussing Higgs Bosons give possible arrangements of the triplet Higgs Bosons, dual Higgs, Pentaquark decays, Nuclear Shell-model energy levels, and correspondences to, yes, "Magic Numbers".
Over my head for now, but reading the three essays above with interest.
[contined]
rmuldavin - 11:25 AM ET September 9, 2005 (#18529 of 18529)
[continued] Ideas about Higgs Triplet Bosons
The interesting ideas that occur to me are these:
(a) Using the equal lateral triangle, say to your left, draw to the right increasingly larger ones, say the apex up, the opposide side horizontal, the order from left to right: electron, space1, positron, space2, Higgs triplet, space3, (?).
This ordering might work as the layering, flat for the Black Hole surface, deciding if the electron layer is inside or outside the BH.
And for the nuclear shell model, maybe the electron (left above) towards the center, on assumption that the binding forces of the triplet electron are so strong as to stop the 1/3 charge subquark electrons from canceling the magnetic field, from the unity to 1/3, as might occur in the nucleus.
This is right now confusing to me, suggesting within the nuclear shell models the opportunity for the electron 1/3 suquark to go opposite another, but the Atomic Valence Shell model and the Nuclear Shell models maybe can be matched by the Atomic triplet electrons tracking the Nuclear positron triplets, so then the order is revered, triplet positrons being on the outside of the Nulcear Shell Model.
The G-string conjectures may have the triplet electrons on the ouside, giving the string it's e-m field like properties while compacting the inner string to very small diameter, slicing through most everyday mass objects, mostly other strings. Like for "surgical string cutting in topology string theory essays.
in essence, we, the observers are surrounded by triplet electrons and matching nuclear positron.
Interestingly, the Einstein-Rosen corrected essay accepted for publishing chose Cylinderical Coordinates, the question of the center of the cylinder being a singularity or not seemingly unanswered, since there were objections to singularities as explainations at that time as maybe now.
Right now I'd "vote" for the singularity being the G-strings connecting the inside of the cylinder ("locally" closed brane surface) as so small as to appear as a singularity, maybe the basis of the super nova bounce when Iron core keeps compacting with no know force to stop it from contracting.
If Osmium can be the Higgs 'particle' as a triplet, that would give 26.4 % of the Osium isotope as three times 116/3=38, Strotium.
I'd link this kind of analysis which may suffer from the label of "Numerology" to the current Six Partly talks, that is, to the possibility to knowledge of tapping the now hidden "dark energy" that might be safe to explore to reduce the pressing needs to find non-toxic energy that is "decentralized" in a way that would eliminate current and tragic fossil fuel war.
It remains to find out just what secrets Pakinstanian Nuclearn Scientist has given to North Korea and others, there seems to be an absence of information about nuclear science, but who Paranoid or Paranormal these days?
Any ideas? Best in Bosons, rmuldavin
Zephir
11th September 2005 - 03:10 PM
I've just sended the mail notification concerning the Aether theory to the Email@RelativityChallenge.com, but with no success (Service unavailable; Client host [212.47.13.199] blocked using sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org) In fact, Dr. Einstein has no mistake in it‘s final STR equations. Moreover, dr. Einstein never refused the Aether conception in general, correctly supposing, that Aether absolute movement just cannot by observed using a light - si it's impossible to confirm or refute it with certaintly. So, Dr. Einstein has a rather deep insight to Aether concept - but unfortunatelly not a quite perfect one... Furthemore, dr. Einstein‘s postulate c = const. can be explained easily in terms of Aether wave spreading using a simple geometry, so it cannot be wrong by any way. Please note my submissions, applets and pictures herein and older discussions (mainly in Czech) from this site and older discussion history link given here.
rmuldavin
11th September 2005 - 09:07 PM
Zepher, nice graphics, I read backwards your posts from the physorg.com notification link to your comments to yesterday.
Thanks, with my ruraly phone line, the only place to get wide band is our rural public library, and there I'm beggiing to usemy USB memory stick to save carrying around my HP XP owner power off controlled system, thus denying MS full control.
What I'm trying to do is first assert that Dehmelt (1098) conjected that the electron, the believed no-divisable, a-tomic, partilce with mass, is divisable.
It is a triplet, I guess in "free space" an equateral triangle with vertexes of smaller tripets.
Dehmelt further conjectured (1998) that there was a Cosmonium, a prim-ordinal atom, that if visualized as a mobile above our heads hanging on the ceiling, each of the initial triplets, divide into triplets, as they drop, the continue to do so.
Or in some gravity free space (is this the vacumn?) I visualize the initial three verticies dividing equally separated in vacumn free space (vfs).
So by my computer I got my volley ball, it's surface containing hexigon patches surrounding a smaller pentagon patch.
The patches all match in size, across the "spherical" valleyball polar axis a similar sided patch.
For the pentagons the polar match is rotated to split a side (1/2 of 360/5=72/2=36 degree, if my geometry is correct.
The hexigons are matched.
The conjected G-strings can be proposed withing within the surface of the vollley ball, or through the center of the volleyball.
Now have you read essays that use methods of matching vectors from one brane to another?
The cylinderical coordinates might be considered as a tubular balloon, say, with two ends twisted to a knot, now pull appart at both ends, that's the string, the knots, the "masses" connecting each other, whether micro or macro.
The interesting conjecture, using this visual model as opposed to the strings of words, and your graceous writing and posted graphics show me you and I are in much agreement, except I am writing to present, groping my way in my own, I hope, temorary blindness, to simplify.
There are other coordinate systems, but another idea I present here.
The brane's "Fabric" should start as the Dehmelt Triplet quark electron (D-tqe) since is seems bound so tightly that only within the forces of the nucleus could the three 1/3 charged quarks be separated.
And maybe within a Black Hole "flat" layered surface, given in the literature as "Z*" (so I percieve).
Thus I pounder (as in "poundals" the english unit for Inertial forces) if the micro topographical toruses, some of which you posted, match in energy levels of their surface or volume as layered triplets, e-, e+, H+, H-, ...? are connected by, first, the fields between the e- and e+ which are thicked as e- and e+ get closer, whether in the nucleous or within heavier bodies, Black Holes.
The asymmetry of the e- and e+, the many questions raised by Chris Quigg, "Nature's Greatest Puzzles", he reduces to some simple questions, one:
page 3 "why is te proton mass 1835 x the electron mass" ... "Why are charged-current weak interactions left-handed?".
arXiv:hep-ph/0502070 v1 7feb 2005
are informative, and I'm still studying his comments.
So I give my final serve of the volleyball model this model that has been stated as to the mathematical form of the cosmodium atom:
The math model states that expansion was rapid, not radiation could escape until the structure could allow energy within to escape from it's surface.
So this may be a clue to how to match a math model to the observations of that prim-ordinal model's expansion.
Nasa has some models on their sight, showing some near hexigon threaded shaped on an expanding surface.
The reality may be a mix of G-string densities manifesting G-strings between different "primary" quark-like "masses", so we, the observers have out study cut out for us.
More later, thanks again for your visuals.
Best, rmuldavin
rmuldavin
11th September 2005 - 09:22 PM
[contiued]
If you have a volley ball in you hand and if it has pentagons separated by hexigons, the pentagons can be thought of as orginating from an all hexigon surfaced spherical like shape.
Suppose we choose to say that the vertex where the all hexigon surface joins divides into the pentagonal patches.
Then add this possiblity that Roger Penrose in his tile works for flat surfaces states that five sided tiles of apparent equal sides do not lay flat, so like Lithium production from a nova during the eary prime-ordinal expansion, such might be the initial excape of emergy from the mathematical portion of the inital expansion.
There is a lot of number matching to do here.
More later, best, rmuldavin
rmuldavin
11th September 2005 - 09:41 PM
[continued-Lithium to He4]
Note that on Binding energy (vertical axis) versus atomic weight (protons and neutrons) graphs that H goes up to He4, then down to L5, then up to C12, and on up, with smaller upward spikes, rounding to a peak at Iron, then by Strotium, down toward the Uranium and other nuclear fuels (bombs and piles).
The H-He4-Li5 up, peak, down, up curve, that would be a place to draw a horizonal line, this from my electrial engineering training would be a "negative" resistance straight line, and seems the likely place for generating locally controlled and safe electrical energy.
Hoppefully this would answer the need for fossil fuel wars driven by our limited information and over testosteronised responses to working on a planet with increasing populations beyond our capacity to feed and house.
Best, rmuldavin
Zephir
11th September 2005 - 10:07 PM
QUOTE (rmuldavin+Sep 11 2005, 09:41 PM) ... nice graphics, I read backwards your posts from the physorg.com notification link to your comments to yesterday....
Thank you for your time and patiency! Do you have some comprehensive background explanation of your theory on the web? Maybe with some illustrations, if possible?
rmuldavin
12th September 2005 - 06:10 AM
[reply]
Zepher, have some notebook drawings, will scan, these are 8.5 by 11 sheets of equal lateral flat triangles (elft) drawn along parallel strips, can be cut out to fold the H to C 3-dimensional shapes.
Will work on this this week.
Best, rm.
gadfly
12th September 2005 - 10:23 PM
Zephir
Is your concept of 'Aether Theory' consistent with the concept 'Fabric of the Cosmos" as popularized by Brian Greene?
String Theory and / or its variants actually seem to be related more to the 'weave' of this fabric.
Zephir
12th September 2005 - 11:18 PM
QUOTE (gadfly+Sep 12 2005, 10:23 PM) Zephir
Is your concept of 'Aether Theory' consistent with the concept 'Fabric of the Cosmos" as popularized by Brian Greene?
String Theory and / or its variants actually seem to be related more to the 'weave' of this fabric. Definitelly, I hope. At this time, the string theory isn't so fundamental, because it doesn't explain (as far my knowledge) the constant speed of light in vaccuo or the origin of gravity force, for example. Here is the very last step towards the theory of everything, what I'am talking about. But all of this can be explained at the base of the wave nature of universe easily, which realises the superstring theory principle too - so I suppose, both these theories tends to converge and they would give the very same qualitative results in the future. From this point of view the Aether theory results in a quite different / simplified approach to field equation model, the base of this is a Wheller's geometrodynamic model - not the topological, modular function space based one. But I believe, as a semiclassicall model, my theory is definitelly much more easy to understand. Believe it, or not - it's a natural model of universe...
RealityCheck
14th September 2005 - 08:26 AM
Hi Zephir.
In a post to Good Elf under TOPIC: “I want to traverse time...etc...”, I made the following suggestion...
******************
“...By the way, Good Elf, I’m thinking of starting a thread wherein you, martillo, Zephir, solidspin, yquantum (if still around), Cebrakon (and any others interested) answer a series of physical/logical questions posed by myself, the aim of which is to formulate a ‘complete’ T.O.E. on-line, step-by-step and from the bottom up, based ONLY on the
mutually-agreed-upon consistent/logical answers received thereto. What do you think?
******************
So...what do YOU think, Zephir? Good Elf says he will ‘give it a go’. Will you participate? I guarantee we will be able to come up with not only the best bits of YOUR model, but also the best bits of ALL the other ‘partial’ theories...and all quite naturally ‘from the bottom up’...that is, from first principles, and WITHOUT ANY ARBITRARILY-IMPOSED ‘BOUNDARY CONDITIONS’ WHATSOEVER! Meaning that we will start the theorising from a mutually agreed ‘absolutely independent’ STARTING CONCEPT ON WHICH WE ALL AGREE UPON ‘up front’ based on all the answers to my first questions. Also, so as to be readily understood, the ‘model’ that we ‘build’ on-line must at all times use ‘classical’ physics/mathematics language/concepts which ALL participants can understand. I am working on some simple ground rules, and I’ll let you know when they’re ready. Let me know what you think.
Best quizzmaster regards from: RealityCheck.
Grumpy
14th September 2005 - 12:49 PM
To Reality Check Up over greetings from Carolina I've been reading the posts in this thread and it has become obvious to me that physics has passed this old brain sort of like standing in the yard watching an airliner pass over at altitude ie way, way, way over my head!! Relativity I get. Quantum Mechanics I follow along, much beyond that and I will have to take your word for it!! So I will hereafter be a spectator in this project of yours, you already have several high powered contributers. But I do have a question The speed of light, time and gravity are the three parts of the puzzle left to be incorporated in the TOE, correct? As we(or anything) approach the event horizon of a black hole we would see several effects. 1. Light becomes more and more red shifted in the gravity field. The photon would "see" the universe in exactly the same way(relativity) so therefore; 2.Time would slow down. The closer to the event horizon the slower time would pass. Since motion is time times velocity; 3.Motion would slow to a stop as the event horizon was crossed. Everything that has ever fallen into a BH is still "falling" and will be after the last star goes out at the end of the universe! A singularity never forms(in our time) the BH would be a ball of ever increasing density but a singularity is avoided because there is not enough time in the universe for it to form and the BH will evaporate due to Hawking radiation before then!! I know this is mighty simple stuff but I never hear this particular view, scientists are always speaking of singularities but if my hypothesis is correct there are never any created. Comments appreciated. Grumpy 
Grumpy
14th September 2005 - 01:05 PM
PS The point I was trying to make in the previous post is that it is not coincidence that the speed of light and the "speed" of time becomes 0 under the influence of gravity. What is the value of the acceleration(gravity) required to accomplish this? Is that value the same for all sizes of BHs at the event horizon? Does the value of acceleration offer clues to the questions a TOE must answer? I never did like singularities(infinities). Grumpy
Good Elf
14th September 2005 - 02:43 PM
Hi Grumpy, I am not sure what this thread is about but what you said seems true to me. Also singularities are "awkward" and I think that nature abhors a "quantum vacuum"... he he he! I think curled up dimensions will "always" avoid singularities. That does not mean that you won't get the bejeesus squeezed out of you but nothing will go to infinity. As Maxwell Smart would say "missed it by that much". Of course... it is a mighty dangerous object to play with. You have your classic "Black Hole" and you have your stringified D-Brane with the invisible energetic string on the boundary with a dynamic "2D hologram" of the interior of that black hole with all the quantum information stored there? Maybe Black Holes are shortcuts to other Universes. There may still be "White Holes" on the other end of Black Holes... who knows, nothing has gone there and come back. Sorta like "death". You can believe what you like eh! If only a Black Hole could be controlled and end in a White Hole inside our Universe then that would be "cool". Trouble is I am not sure that we have ever seen a White Hole. Maybe there are supersymmetric partners of Black Holes that we can't see or are on a different scale to the Black Hole and in different places. We really do not understand our Universe that well yet. I think I will look under the bed tonight...  or perhaps into the "Wardrobe".... Who knows... White Holes may be small and fit in there... I would not like to call it yet. I want to visit Narnia... I am really hoping that some fairy tales will turn out true. Of course ... being an "elf" would mean that I would... wouldn't I?? Cheers
Zephir
14th September 2005 - 08:20 PM
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 14 2005, 02:43 PM) Also singularities are "awkward" and I think that nature abhors a "quantum vacuum"... This thread isn't about the black hole theory of course - but maybe you would be interested about alternative colapsar theory of my colleague (unfortunately currently in Czech language only...) - which evidences the theoretical impossibility of the singularity existence inside the common type colapsars. Neverthelles, the singularity concept is rather common in nature - even the single tornado (i.e. vortex) are singularities from the mathematical point of view. Its just a question of unit definition/transformation, if wer'e considering a mathematical (i.e. an infinitive quantity valued) singularity with connection of certain effect or not, after all. For example, the Aether wave theory suggests, the whole universe has created itself from some kind of singularity too - but this singularity was rather mathematical nature, because of it's initial zero weight/energy. For example, even electron is supposed to be a special kind of singularity, like most the others elementary particles. 
RealityCheck
14th September 2005 - 10:10 PM
. . . . . . Hi Grumpy! Welcome to Zephir's thread. As you saw, I am about to start an unusual thread aimed at 'starting from scratch' and re-thinking everything based on a 'common point of departure' for ANY AND ALL theorising aimed at arriving at a mutually agreed/understood TOE. Now, since the whole idea is to “BEGIN WITH A CLEAN SLATE”, NO-ONE’S EXISTING THEORIES WILL BE INTRODUCED OR DISCUSSED!...ONLY THEIR ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS!...questions aimed ONLY at eliciting from participants any OBJECTIVELY-ARRIVED AT PRINCIPLES, LOGICS and PHYSICAL/MATHEMATICAL SYSTEMS/CONCEPTS that the ‘collective’ answers to my questions identify IRRESPECTIVE OF CURRENT VIEWS (views which have got us into this confused mess in the first place---which is why this on-line RE-CONSTRUCTION of EVERYTHING needs to begin anew, and then follow in an UNPREJUDICED WAY wherever the theoretical trail leads, GUIDED ONLY by the mutually-agreed-upon objective/absolute implications of THE COLLECTIVE ANSWERS to my questions. So, really, THIS PROJECT WON’T BE A DEBATE BETWEEN CONTENDING “PARTIAL” THEORIES, but rather A CO-OPERATIVE EFFORT AT CONSTRUCTING A “COMPLETE” THEORY WHICH, AS I HAVE INDICATED, SHOULD SUBSUME/CONFIRM ALL THE BEST PARTS OF EXISTING THEORIES WHILE FILLING IN “THE GAPS”. Grumpy, because of the proposed project, I had decided to stop answering ad-hoc questions about this or that theory/enigma, as 80 years of such to-ing and fro-ing hasn’t really accomplished much...even amongst the ‘professionals’, let alone laypersons. HOWEVER, just because it’s YOU, Grumpy, I’ll make an exception for what I hope will be the last time...because most of the present confusions should be cleared up once and for all by the end of this proposed project. So, to clarify the matters which seem to be giving you and others such ‘headaches’..... (A) When they say ’time’ has ‘stopped’ for you, what they really mean is that your ‘internal processes’ have ‘stopped’...that is, whatever interactions were occurring at the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC LEVEL within your body are essentially ‘frozen’, and since there is NOTHING GOING ON IN YOUR BODY, there is NO ‘CLOCK’ OR OTHER ‘CYCLE-TIMING’ MECHANISM INSIDE YOU that could effectively ‘tick off’ the internal electro-magnetic CHANGES that represent the ‘PASSAGE’ OF SO-CALLLED ‘TIME’. Only YOU are affected by your particular situation, and NO OTHER THING IN THE UNIVERSE IS INVOLVED in that ‘frozen process’ situation of yours...everything else that you might ‘observe’ going on (although you couldn’t ‘observe’ in reality, because your processes/’time’ are/is ‘stopped’) is only APPARENT, NOT ACTUAL. (  And just because your ‘TIMING MECHANISM’ has ‘STOPPED’ doesn’t mean your ‘falling’ has stopped at the event horizon! You keep on travelling into the ‘hole’. Think of yourself in a train, looking at your watch...and just as it crosses the threshold of a railway tunnel, YOUR WATCH STOPS ‘TICKING’. Now, just because your watch stops ‘recording time’, IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT EVERYTHING ELSE STOPS TOO!...the watch continues into the depths of the tunnel IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS ‘TIMING’ OR NOT. So, your ‘time frozen’ body would continue to fall past the event horizon and into the depths of the Black Hole. As to WHAT you would HIT below the event horizon...well, I have worked that out already, but IN THE SPIRIT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, I won’t put my views on that before anyone else’s. We will just have to see what WE ALL come up with TOGETHER (and then we may ALL know what PHYSICS/OBJECT really occurs inside ‘black holes’). OK for now, Grumpy? If you DO keep an eye on us, you might eventually have all your questions answered simply and sensibly...and ‘classically’...like ALL questions should be answered in physics. Here’s hoping, Grumps! Best ‘classical’ regards from: RealityCheck.
Guest
14th September 2005 - 10:33 PM
Reality Check that won't bounce, we hope!
What is your first question?
RealityCheck
14th September 2005 - 11:35 PM
Hello Guest and everyone.
As I've advised Good Elf and Zephir, I'm in the process of putting down some simple ground rules so as to ensure 'fair play' for all and as little 'duplication'/'argument' as possible.
I will advise when my thread is imminent. And will canvass opinions on the ground rules I propose. ONLY WHEN ALL IS SATISFACTORY TO ALL WILL THE THREAD BE STARTED. Then watch out! Who knows WHAT 'emergent' behaviour will ensue! Until then, please be patient.
Calm and co-operative effort will be the thrust of the project; mutually-agreed-upon-progress will be the strength of it; and nothing less than a universally-understandable Theory of Everything is its goal.
Rome wasn't built in a day, you know? hehehe.
Best anticipatory regards from: RealityCheck.
RealityCheck
14th September 2005 - 11:40 PM
Oh, and Guest...I got your 'pun'. Very, very, good one, hehehe!
Best very-amused regards from: RealityCheck.
RealityCheck
15th September 2005 - 07:12 AM
Hi Zephir and all.
Please take a look at my post under the COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS Forum ( TOPIC name: “Good Elf, Zephir, martillo, solidspin et al.......” ).
Let me know your thoughts.
Best regards from: RealityCheck.
Zephir
15th September 2005 - 09:02 AM
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 15 2005, 07:12 AM) under the COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS Forum. Hi RC, can you place link to this forum here, please?
Guest
15th September 2005 - 01:21 PM
Reality Check, pun-is-meant for your humor too.
As for the "First Question" for consideration, the essay by Chris Quigg, "Nature's Greatest Questions" in giving the openiing lecture at the 2004 SLAC Summer Institute, poses a number of good questions.
arXiv:hep-ph/0502070 v1 7 Feb 2005
My opinion of what is occuring on this form comes from my reaction:
Confusion in my mind stimulates me to study the literature, not to appear too foolish, but a life of searching for answers is full of risk.
Best, rmuldavin
RealityCheck
15th September 2005 - 11:48 PM
Hi rmuldavin.
Yes, I appreciated the humour....thanks for the chuckle! hehehe.
I “Googled” Chris Quigg and SLAC and found the questions you referred to. They are all well and good, but they are ‘RIDDLED’ with assumptions and ‘pre-judiced’ as to the PATHWAYS TO THE ANSWERS.
That is, such questions are only useful ONCE ONE HAS A THEORY FRAMEWORK IN WHICH TO POSE THEM.
The series of questions I shall be posing will be those whose series of answers will ARRIVE AT A THEORY FRAMEWORK free of ALL PRE-EXISTING ASSUMPTIONS. Then, once we have a TOE which has been LARGELY SELF-GENERATED (via objective questions/answers rather than subjective observations/measurements), THEN we can ask the sort of questions Prof. Quigg highlights.
However, it may help to realise that, if and when we arrive at such a self-generated TOE, the answers to all of Quigg’s questions (and the rest) should AUTOMATICALLY ‘FALL OUT’ of the theory!...otherwise it won’t be THE Theory of Everything!
So you see, MY questions have nothing to do with ANY pre-existing theories; they have all to do with ALLOWING THE REAL TOE TO EMERGE ON ITS OWN, simply, objectively and comprehendably from FIRST PRINCIPLES collectively identified by all the participants right at the start of ‘theorising’.
Anyway, that’s the idea!...let’s hope it works! It certainly can’t be any more lame than the current approache(s) where everyone is so busy with their own version of reality that they miss the big picture right from the start...meaning they all are ‘bounded’ (and therefore, partial) theories based on totally incompatible assumptions/premises. No wonder they never agree on anything! hehehe
Best ‘fingers crossed’ regards from: RealityCheck.
Zephir
16th September 2005 - 09:24 AM
The Aether theory simply statues, that spreading of the light can be easily described as the other wave spreading (like this one onto water surface) - just under two simple conditions, which are very natural, in fact:
1) All perception/observation (including the distance or time interval measurements) must be done using that wave. The light-formed dimensions/space time has simple no meaning/importance in this model.
2) The massive objects and gravity deformation aren't deformation of the wave space, but its environment primarily, so that the environment for the wave spreading isn't its space. The absolute movement of this environment results just the change of spacetime metric, not the wave movements.
It means, the "absolute" movement of wave environment (like the underwater sound waves) cannot be directly observed using the surface waves as the "background radiation". Therefore, even such a simple model introduces a concept of energy exchange in the hidden dimension scope by the same way, as superstring theory does.
The older explanation of Aether didn't include the one of or both of rules - so that they are were refuted easily, leading to inconsistency with the well proven relativity transformations.
By the way, it tooks a over one hundred years to understand this simple principles by people.
rmuldavin
16th September 2005 - 05:28 PM
RealityCheck and Zephir, RC thanks for reading Chris Quigg, "Nature's Greatest Puzzles" arXiv:hep-ph/0502070 v1 7Feb2005 He refers to reference "64" for an animation of (page 12) "8. The Double Simplex", but I'm having trouble getting his above link through Google, getting instead the physorg.com form itself, I quess Google works by where the above appears, and the form seems to be the place. Are we not, or is the essay, out of the loop? From pages 10 through 12, however, I find an amazing analysis by Chris Quigg, brielfy this: (pp 10-11) the vacumn energy (in outter space) is some ten to the 54th times the energy than within the nucleus. That is Vacumn to Higgs is 10^-46 Ge V^4/ 10^8 Ge V^4 that's 10^54. I read decades ago, but cannot find source, that each dot or "patch" ( over layers on brane from Roger Penrose new text book) is connected to others in "universe" with 10^54 connections. Take these to be G-strings (the conjecture) and I cannot help but draw the following connections to verbal, conversational physics. Thus the Higgs "patch" if a triplet maybe like the Dehmelt Conjecture (1998) maybe be connected either to itself to reduce it's effect upon us, or there is some type of string connections to the outside universe that acts locally to cancel (?). Right here I'm confused enough to "hit the books", hope I can get the reference (64) Quicktime aninations st http://www.conf.slac.stanford.edu.edu/ssi/...g/DoubleSimplex[note, the "www.conf...." was printed as "www-conf..." so I hope I get back into the loop of high energy physics, where there is enough work for many lifetimes, but constructive work towards peace. -- no luck, maybe you can Really Check this?] Best, rmuldavin
Zephir
16th September 2005 - 06:00 PM
I have some pyramids, too...;-)
Guest
16th September 2005 - 07:08 PM
Zephir, there's text to Quigg's and other's work: http://boudin.fnal.gov/~quigg/JGV/EnvPFLl.htmlI'm being blocked, it seems, even at our public library, so this may mean blocking is not computer specific but my "name"{. Not that I'm paranormal, -noid, it may only show how important this knowledge is to generating low cost safe electrical energy, North Korean instistance on water based nuclear generaators may be more than for bombs, it may be for a local electrial generator. Yet maybe a deadly "raygun", sounds like Press Raygun and his admitted plans to nuke Soviet Union, see Robert Shear (sp?), "With Enough Guns" a book with interviews with Raygun and author and maybe Bush Senior(?). This only adds to the excitment of possible blocking by governments and other hackers, commerical or otherwise. What's your take on this? Best, rmuldavin
Guest
16th September 2005 - 08:56 PM
Correction:
Robert Sheer's book is entitled: "With Enough Shovels", the Raygun-Bush Sennior plan was to draw the CCCP members into some underground bunker outside Moscow, then then "nuke'm".
Press Raygun, movie idle, also listened to Edward Teller and his pitch for "Star Wars" anti-missle defense, a system that to this day does not work well, if at all, in it's goal to shoot down missles before they reach us in USA.
P-strings ought to be Peace strings, not Puppet strings on central leadership.
If hundreds of Interneters can show a path to peace through guided "love" (mussle-a Yiddish word my father tells me) not hate, through constructive technology endeavors, we can say, "give peace a chance" that we deserve.
Best, rmuldavin
Zephir
17th September 2005 - 10:30 PM
The monetary economic evolution is not the only example of boson-fermion specialisation of energy (value, information) transfer during universe evolution.
The very same example was the sexual reproduction appearance during so called precambrium explosion of species, which realises a type of inflation singularity on the genetic information exchange level.
From this time a two types of biological entities exists here: a male element (the bosonic), usually more moveable and volatile one, transfering energy and the female elements ("fermionic"), which waits to the bosone interraction (collision) to become heavier (i.e. "pregnant"), occasionaly producing a new entities generation with part of internal structures derived as a result a such of this interaction.
The new type of sexual dimorfismus doesn't replace the former prokaryotic model, but stays in dynamic equlibrium with it by the same way, as the particles coming from inflation singularity stays in equilibrium with the former gravitones, forming the very basic environment of particle energy interaction.
Guest
18th September 2005 - 10:52 AM
What ever you guys are on, I want some.
Zephir
18th September 2005 - 11:13 AM
It looks like a quite good model, doesn't it? Thus, the fundamental spacetime equation seems to be just as simple: CODE space = (1 + sin(time))(1 + 0.9 cos(8 . time))(1 + 0.1 cos (24 . time)) 
rmuldavin
18th September 2005 - 01:25 PM
Maybe a brain scattering pattern?
Or maybe a fig leaf?
Does it make a buddy wiser?
Should we call in DARE?
[Drugs Appear Really Excellent, that's the problem]
If you first don't suceed, try again, with your friends.
Live Sucessfully Daily without drugs, it's less expensive.
Don't loose your job, or your head.
Best, rmldavin
rogersmith7671
18th September 2005 - 03:13 PM
So it's not true then, you know the bit about space being an infinite constant into which the local universe expands into?
rmuldavin
18th September 2005 - 04:38 PM
Trying right now to google "nuclear binding energy" to see if Lithium to Helium, valley to peak, curves can support an oscillating system like we studied and used for electronic oscillators by having a resistor form a straight line through at least three parts of the curve (a saw toothed wave), and got the Form e-mail of a post.
A horizontal straight line on the binding energy curve vrs nuclear weight horizontal would or should correspond to constant energy or temperature(?).
Would not this be "doable" as a start?
And should not our (USA) efforts with, say Iran, North Korea, be a cooperative one to explore electrical energy direcly from nuclear?
Why play global dictator and police the world with threats and actual violence, taking out nuclear facilities by bombing?
International trade with interchangable peoples of all nations will most likely insure peaceful uses.
Is it the fading away of national loyalities to religious ones that scares the one nation controllers?
As "public atheist" I'm not afraid of people with strong religious beliefs, here in the USA our federal constitution, First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or the free exercise thereof" is a good starting place.
What I am afraid of is that governments will be occupied by those who forget the lessons of history, although history is often what one believes regardless of what it might be (read Gerta Lerner's "History Matters) and thus history starts as an individual matter.
Albert Einstein, being from Jewish origins was aware of the dangers to his people, declaring himself at the Patent Office when asked his religion, as "Mosaic", and carried, I believe, with him the burden and joy of his people.
"Infinity" as I view Albert Einstein's writings is itself relative.
First to our lifetimes, next to our observations during our lifetimes.
Maybe "infinite" is atributed to the "GODS" of some who would claim power over us "mere mortals"?
If you are a member of a class of mortals subject to extermination, how often does a "GOD" enter into justification?
It's enough to have made me a "public atheist".
Back to the present.
So, if we merely mortals are within a shell or nearly closed brane of dark energy matter and the conjectured G-strings are connected maybe 2/3s (like a triplet, we being 1/3) of them to this shell, haviing traveled some 20 to 40 times C longitudinally there, and maybe back again as, say, noise, then our visualization can still include something outside this dark 2/3 shell.
There might be some very clever way of determining this from background noise, some model that can be formalized.
Something like the organic Humuclus, that embryonic like human infinitely regressing object of past speculations, or infinitely progressing.
Dispare not, it is enough to keep us and our offspring safe and healthy if we can keep going for generations, provided we keep our heads above the waters, unless we have to re-enter the waters from which we orginated.
Or was it outer space? Or inner space?
Best, rmuldavin
Zephir
18th September 2005 - 06:09 PM
The simple applet (MSIE only supported at his time), where you can check the stability criterion of the spacetime. After time step increases over critical value, the wave equation solutions starts be unstable, leading the waveform to collapse into new dimension set.
Zephir
21st September 2005 - 12:26 AM
6D spacetime origin&evolution:
The most of visible matter constitutes a result of shockwave blast coming from the 3D space collapse into about 1E40x more dense 6D vaccuum during the so-called "inflation" period (which was deflation, in fact). The "inflation" process leads to the nearly clean 6D vaccuo and very small "inpurity" part forming the 9 - 12 dimensional visible matter particles. The rest of shockwave forefront is observable in the space as the so called dark matter streaks and are forming quasars, i.e. gallaxy cluster nuclei, expanding by the radiation pressure under partial lost of weight.
The visible matter is slightly astable result of the fast cooled of the shockwave front. This is very good with respect of vaccuo stability, because of the casual concentration of the visible matter doesn't lead to the another inflation as a result of avalanche-like gravitational collapse, but it has its consequences with respect to the black hole stability, etc.
The resulting vaccuo is formed by the mixture of 3D quantum gravity vortexes with the small portion of the free preon particles (1D gravitonic wave pockets), which have hybridised mutually to the 6D Callabi-Yau manifolds dropplets. This mixture resembles the hyperelastic quantum fluid, native particles of it are called neutrinos, which are forming the oscillationg 6D vortex rings. The density of neutrino seems to be slightly higher the rest of vaccuo, because are forming an individual, well shaped particles having nonzero rest mass.
Vish
23rd September 2005 - 12:13 PM
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 29 2005, 10:30 PM) ...the final theory exists for more than three years - but it's practically unknown yet? You can found the most precious and simplest natural explanation of STR/OTR/QT and present cosmology models, pictures, animation and applets in the discussion forum here - currently in Czech language - but questions in English will be answered too. Any other ideas are welcomed, of course. Here you can found the simplest possible, but solid explanation the origin of the Einstein's postulates, QM paradox, superstring theory dualities, light nature and other models based on the simplest possible wave equation model of ether / dynamic vacuuo. See http://193.85.233.106/.chatroom/63575 and all corresponding links given here. These original ideas have no single official author a should never have to. Its not just a physical theory - but a social experiment, which is spreaded on the OpenSource principle. If you'll find it inspiring, you can use it freely for the extending of the former or your own theories on webring basis - just under condition of inserting the quotation link to the previous, original source of ideas. Thats all, folks - and have fun! i un unable to translate the link into english, i would be glad if u give me an alternate site , Regarding the TOE topic, i believe your approach is required to get a tighter grip on any theory , but the real intentionbehind developing any theory to a great extent is to diffuse it to the entire human race and beyond which is the approach chosen by RealityCheck .. like forces of nature.. no thinking is superios than other, we need em all for the universal balance  vish
Zephir
23rd September 2005 - 12:58 PM
QUOTE (Vish+Sep 23 2005, 11:04 AM) okay let us assume space is never empty.. and to be honest.. we dont know what space is. if it is never empty.. how can u conclude it is a soup resisting the motion??
i mean if u try to understand neutrinos, you know that the universe is virtually empty for them, and they can pass light years without hitting anything in their path. Likewise there are many particles for which even the gap between the nucleus of an atom and the electron is as big as the average distance between any 2 stars, if space consist of such small particles even an electron would eventually believe its isolated! , hence i do not say it is a solid of infinite density,
well, density is a relative parameter, and universe being a "uni" we can never conclude its absoluteness..
in my understanding , i found we can never even say if this universe is single, if it has direction , if its moving, if its hot or cold etc.. i mean anything that requires a comparison to detect the value of substance at hand can never be used to speak about the space or universe in whole!.
( try reframing your second Q, after you understand the first one) <br>The space is empty by the same way, as the water surface is. There is not observable obstructions, but - as I've explained previously. So all kind of motion on the water surface leads to the certain surface billowing, which requires some energy, which we are calling "inertial". This energy is released back again, when we try to stop the surface motion again. So the universe seems to be very dense, but no viscous. that the universe is virtually empty for them (neutrinos)Not really, of course, but neutrinos interact just by the more then 6D quantum loops inside of particles directly (i.e. at 10E-17 m distance) - so there is very low effective scattering cross-section. But the inside of neutrino is 3D convoluted, so it doesn't interact with the 3D particles, forming the rest of universe. As a general rule, the particles of the same space convolution layer behaves like bosons, so they're doesn't interact with each other. So the neutrino can't interact with vacuum by the same way, as the proton can't interact with the neutrino on the long distance. The observable vacuum energy density has no relation to its inner energy density by the same way, as the energy density of the liquid mercury surface has no direct relation to the mercury density. anything that requires a comparison to detect the value of substance at hand can never be used to speak about the space or universe in wholeTry to have look to the derivation of the average vacuum energy density (so called zero-point energy) 2,5E91kgm-3 As the energy density experimental proof serves the Casimir Effect, Lamb shift, Van der Waal’s forces, diamagnetism, spontaneous emission, microdegree liquid Helium, quantum noise and most recently, and cosmological dark matter and dark energy.
Zephir
30th September 2005 - 02:16 PM
The Aether theory supposes, the energy isn't distributed by uniform way across the universe, but it's aggregated into closed gravity loop (i.e. quantized vibrations od spacetime), which are exchanging energy just in certain directions. These directions are forming our space time metric for the light spreading.  The image constitutes a link to the small WMV video. In the case of viewing problems you can try a little bigger animated gif picture.
rmuldavin
30th September 2005 - 04:54 PM
Alternatively, gravity can be viewed as bungee cords holding each bane dot mass-energy suspended wherein the apparent movement of the observed dot is a sum of the bungee cord multi-directional pulls and incoming electron-magnetic nudges (quantum wavelengths).
I prefer the bungee cord(s) as the actual G-string(s) going from one dot to all other dots in our "universe" and beyond. (Each 10^54 per dot, total "universe" links, 10^108)
The major problem would be the conjecture that bungee cords can intersect and pass through each other, maybe with slight local interactions as they "surgically" pass through each other (drag?).
The notions that there are 26 Dimensional strings may give each dimension as the place for the "storage" of energy.
A heavy subject for continued study.
It is easier for a thread to pass through the eye of a needle than the rich to enter into the heaven of understanding.
A poor explanation, but it is easier to imagine strings than the gravitons as particles.
Easier to imagine electromagnetic energy as the transverse displacement of the G-string, easier to view the forces of gravity as longitudinal movements, both moving together along the string, both directions.
May Kip Thorne's Cal Tech class in everyday cable physics offer new insights and his students go on to "unwrap" the rapping, here and elsewhere.
And maybe someday a simple equation that explains mathematically that gravity and e-m forces are related as the helical "photon" spins by us on the G-string, transmitting the energy and a wavelength or more to it's dual dot partner.
Best, rmuldavin
Zephir
30th September 2005 - 05:11 PM
At the first glance, the Aether wave theory looks like the current theories hybrid, which is a quite natural, because most common theories are mutually converging into exact description of universe. It seems, the Aether theory contradict any commonly accepted physical theory - instead of this, it generalizes it. The basic insight of Aether wave theory comes from the model of the water surface wave, which behaves as the common light-formed spacetime. The underwater wave field is not observable by the surface wave directly, because it lies at the so called "hidden dimension space". This gives a natural explanation, why the Aether movement isn't observable using light directly, although it's a quite real, having frequency, mass, etc. It means, the Aether wave theory is just an ancient plenum/aether hypothesis, expanded/generalized using the Poincare's hidden dimension concept.... The second most fundamental insight comes from superstring theory (i.e. "everything is a string" concept), just replacing the word "string" by the more intuitive "gravity wave". The only difference, the superstring/M-theory is using the hidden dimension concept as the ad-hoc postulate, by the same way as general relativity a quantum mechanic theories. It means, both superstring theory, both the Aether theory is fully compatible with the general relativity theory, both quantum theory - but Aether theory explains it's postulates ab initio, using the water wave spreading model ( 1, 2). The nature of gravity wave is the mutual space-time oscillations by the Wheeler's geometrodynamic theory from the end of 60's, where gravity field time change corresponds the mass location change. Therefore, all terms like "space-time frequency", "energy potential", "gravity divergence", "mass field homogeneity" are mutually equivalent in Aether theory. Furthermore, the geometrodynamic theory leads to the model of so called geons, i.e. closed loops of the gravity wave, which are collapsing gradually, being metastable. It means, the geometrodynamic theory extended by the hidden dimension concept is the natural mathematical model of the Aether theory - not the ad hoc brane/manifold models of the superstring theory. From this point of view the Aether theory is compatible both with the Penrose's twistor theory, both the Quantum Loop Gravity theory, too - but the quantum loop/twistor field is the natural result of spacetime compactification during the inflation period of universe - not initial ad hoc postulate/prediction by the Aether wave theory. The branes of superstring theory corresponds a phase interface ("surface") of the quantum loops environment in Aether theory. It means, the Aether theory is compatible both with the standard inflation model, both with the Linde's chaotic inflation model of cosmology. In general, the Aether wave suggests the universe formation from the infinitesimal gravity field fluctuation (i.e. from "nothing"), but it doesn't stop here. Instead of this, it explains the nature of this field as the evolution result of "uberspace"/"ubertime" quantities of indeterministic nature and extends these cosmology models to the examples of the biological/sociological evolution. From this point of view the term "Aether" represents rather common denominator of the metaphysical environment directed by the common evolutionary principle based on the Hegel's quantity->quality transformation.
Zephir
7th October 2005 - 04:09 AM
The following animations presents main concept of the space-time formation as the result of principal gravity wave equation instability (link under picture leads to the higher resolution XVid video).  The formation of multiple dimension leads to the mutual vibration in convoluted space, forming the rotation movement inside the gravity quantum loops:   These loops are forming both the lowdimensional gelatinous superfluid - fabric of our spacetime, both the massive particles, being convoluted into the higher dimension set. This is the easiest way, how to connect the Aether theory with superstring/LQG/twistor theory.
Zephir
9th October 2005 - 12:10 PM
The time dimension size (i.e. "speed of time") corresponds the underlying gravity field freqency in Aether theory, which is controling the whole process. As I've explained previously, by compression of the time dimension makes the solution of the gravity wave equation unstable. But in real case the solution the doesn't "blow up", but it simply starts to occupy a new dimension instead. The image bellow forms the link to the WMV video of such this process.  The spacetime now starts to collapse avalanchelike by such of way, so et the end, all the existing space-time vibrations will start to mutually interfere together accross the dimension newly created, forming a quantized loops with the lowest frequency ratio possible - a new "particles of space-time", forming a new phase for gravity energy transfer with its own space-time metric are formed. During this process, the overall energy density increases in order of 1E+40 magnitude, and as the underlying gravity field wave frequency increases too by the same ratio, we are calling this process an "inflation of universe". This represents the direct analogy of the initial spacetime formation from "vibrations of nothingness" at the very beginning of universe.
Good Elf
18th October 2005 - 07:59 AM
Hi Zephir, QUOTE (> The impossibility of something faster than light+) QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 16 2005, 03:52 PM) ..The article you are referring to is "misleading".. Good Elf, I'm able to explain the A-B experiment easily using Aether wave theory - but here the discussion about it is off-topic. Try to introduce a new one. <a href='http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=374&view=findpost&p=30377' target='_blank'>http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=30377 As you suggested I have moved to your thread... I would be interested in your theory of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect (as well as all those associated effects the Aharanov-Cashir and Aharanov-Anandan Effects). Cheers
Zephir
18th October 2005 - 10:01 PM
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 18 2005, 07:59 AM) I would be interested in your theory of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect At first, you should understand the principle of spacetime convolution to the so called t(toroidal) dualities (the link under animation leads to the DivX video at the better resolution). The system of mutually entangled dualities (quantum loops) creates the Aether fabric. The vacuum is formed by the single convoluted loops, the neutrino twice curled one, and the electron forms the triple convoluted loop. The gravity makes 3D oscillation movement inside each loop level along the helix-type path, which can be modeled the double-triple winded spirals.   
Zephir
18th October 2005 - 10:54 PM
Although the convolution level in each loops is about 10E+20, the energy is exchanged easily between levels, which leads to the fundamental R to 1/R vibration mode of t-duality : 
RealityCheck
18th October 2005 - 11:13 PM
Hi Zephir, Good Elf!
Just thought I'd drop in and answer Good Elf's question, mate. But remember, both of you...you heard it here first!, hehehe.
GOOD ELF...What happens when energy is added to a 'bound' system? It's 'GRAVITATIONAL-LENSING' EFFECT INCREASES FROM ITS ORIGINAL 'UN-ENERGISED' STATE. So the simple answer would be that it isn't so much the DIRECT EFFECT OF MAGNETIC FIELDS that causes the phase shift due to path deviation...rather it is the ENERGY of those magnetic fields that act through ADDED-GRAVITY EFFECT that cause the phase shift. Hence the 'neutral'/'passive' nature of the 'force' that causes difference...GRAVITY LENSING CHANGES DUE TO SYSTEM ENERGY CHANGES. Remember, Good Elf, your contention that the atomic 'ORBITALS' pattern EXISTS EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ELECTRONS IN THOSE ORBITALS?...well, you're right!...those orbitals represent the GRAVITATIONAL GRADIENTS/INFLOWS INTO THAT ATOM CORE MATTER!...so in fact, it isn't the matter itself that is 'projecting' that force pattern...it is the grav-inertial (spacetime stuff) inflow swirls/gradients that cause the atom to 'spin' and provide 'resonant orbitals' for electrons to 'naturally settle into' at 'quantum resonance' levels as they 'unfold and flow around the grav-inertial 'pattern FLUX-TOROIDS/SWIRLS ETC PATTERNS THAT SURROUND THE ATOM NUCLEUS.
ZEPHIR...Your graphics are getting VERY close to the reality of the matter as far as 'convolutions' are concerned, but it's not quite there yet (I will explain as we proceed with the TOE project...which hopefully will provide the full 'background/behaviour/bulks situation for your excellent graphics skill to work on more 'completely').
The really funny thing (to me, anyway) is that you’re both right in a way...it’s just your coming at it from totally different angles/language/ (pushing different ‘barrows’, hehehe...which is why I’m trying to ‘bridge’ all those things with the ‘open’-community’ TOE project process that will establish ONE COMMON ANGLE/LANGUAGE...and ‘barrow’, hehehe).That's your two cents’ worth from my ‘overarching perspective’, guys..and remember, about that aharanov-bohm and atomic orbitals thingies: YOU HEARD IT FROM ME FIRST, heh!....Just in case I have any ‘glory’ coming to me; which would be nice for a change! hehehe.
Your 'impartial' friend in science: RealityCheck.
.
Zephir
18th October 2005 - 11:23 PM
Well, RealityCheck - I'll draw my ideas an you'll explain it - but not in this topic, OK?
Thank u a lot!
...It's 'GRAVITATIONAL-LENSING' EFFECT INCREASES FROM ITS ORIGINAL 'UN-ENERGISED' STATE... I'm definitelly sure, everybody understand exactly what u mean....
RealityCheck
18th October 2005 - 11:49 PM
Hi Zeph!
OK...but most of it will have to wait until the TOE project is well and truly 'rolling' along 'on common rails' as it were, hehehe; because, as I indicated, I don't want to add to any misunderstandings that may be happening owing to the obvious fact that NONE of us are yet discussing the 'same things' using a 'common language'...which has been the main problem with all discussion in this field over at least the last hundred years. Let me make it quite clear that YOUR model IS the 'most complete' and sensible/meanigful so far discussed...but I think you will agree, not yet 'perfectly' complete, heh?
In any case, my apologies if I have strayed 'off' topic' with my last contribution to your discussion here...but I innocently gathered that you and Good Elf were interested in some 'new' observations/contributions about the aspects treated in that last post. Again, sorry if I was intruding!
Your friend in science: RealityCheck.
.PS Yes, I agree, I did 'explain' the Grav-lensing 'nature' of the A-Bohm effect a bit at length, didn't I? hehehe! But you never know 'who's listening in' to us, maybe they aren't all physicists of our calibre, heh?. BTW, I hope I didn't over-explain that 'atomic orbitals' GRAVITATIONAL pattern thingy as well? (oh dear, I suspect I did...sorry, I just can't contain myself sometimes! I'll try not to next time, Zeph, honest! hehehe....forgive me?) RC.
Zephir
19th October 2005 - 09:41 AM
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 18 2005, 11:49 PM) ...but I think you will agree, not yet 'perfectly' complete... Hi, Reality Check. No theory is complete till now - let show me some theory, which is really "complete". But what part of Aether theory is missing for you, exactly? QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 18 2005, 11:49 PM) ...did 'explain' the Grav-lensing 'nature' of the A-Bohm effect a bit at length... I'm not sure, whether your explanation is able to predict the dependence of this effect to the magnetic field intensity, for example. The A-B effect is a sort of quantum effect and from this point of view all quantum effects can be explained by the "Grav-lensing 'nature' of vaccuo", which "is influenced by fields" - but such explanation brings no new information or clarification. Do you feel, what I mean?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here. |
|
|
|
|
