Hello there! Nice to meet you all =).
I'm an engineering student with some interest in particle physics (applying for a CERN scolarship), quantum mechanics, etc.
I like to surf around crackpot pseudo-science websites for a laugh, and since I saw a thread about Ivan Gorelik being debunked, I thought it would be a good idea to ask about another theory.
I think I have a fairly good radar to detect bullshit. More than checking out the maths themselves (which, given enough time, I could do myself) I usually have no problem identifying the theories coming from people who are just mentally ill. You can see it just in the way they write.
I'm having that problem with one though, and I googled around and saw no opinion on it. I would like you guys to honestly read through the thing (if you have time) and tell me why or where it fails, or if it's, at least remotely, possible. He doesn't seem to attack any established theory but instead tries to expand them with concepts that seem logically attractive, and on top of that the guy seems to have a degree in physics. However, they could be completely bull**** for all I know, and I'm not at a high enough level to get into those maths seriously.
Oh, and forget about the fact that he's a wizard (yeah, that's why I came there in the first place, to have a laugh). Just read the paper =P
To find it, google "VHC. Vorticitating Hypersphere Cosmology", it's the first link.
Thanks in advance!
It's not a paper. Papers have more substance.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jun 1 2010, 09:17 PM)
I would say crackpot
Well, that's exactly the kind of answer I'm not looking for =).
I know he's a magician, I know his theory is alternative. I just can't find a way to attack his theory for what it is. had it been published by a respected physician, I would think of reading it through and understanding it fully. I want to discuss his theory, not his obviously eccentric personality.
Also, on a separate note, he's a quite respected author in the field of occultism, for whatever that's worth =P
Well, that's exactly the kind of answer I'm not looking for =).
I know he's a magician, I know his theory is alternative. I just can't find a way to attack his theory for what it is. had it been published by a respected physician, I would think of reading it through and understanding it fully. I want to discuss his theory, not his obviously eccentric personality.
Also, on a separate note, he's a quite respected author in the field of occultism, for whatever that's worth =P
Though I have always liked the idea of time having extra dimensions, it's not falsifiable at our present state of science and the rest of his magnum opus is just a bunch of babble.
QUOTE
respected .... occultism
Oxymoron
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 1 2010, 09:31 PM)
Oxymoron
I know, I know, thus the final disclaimer. But even among occultists there are standards, I guess. Not everyone gets taken as seriously. Also, what makes you think an occultist is inherently more flawed than a zealous follower of a mainstream religion?
Back to the topic, anyone spot anything specifical wrong with his theory?
QUOTE
Also, what makes you think an occultist is inherently more flawed than a zealous follower of a mainstream religion?
Good point.
I would rather have a wizard than Newguy anyday.
Sorry for the random bump but reading this guy more in detail is really starting to confuse me. His theory makes too much sense to be the brain child of a lunatic. He is probably wrong, but not because he's an idiot.
I suggest you read the section "Quantum and probability". I might be getting lost in the fluency of his writing, but hey, he seems like he knows pretty well what he's talking about.
Anyone willing to criticise his work? (Again, not his wizardry =P)
I suggest you read the section "Quantum and probability". I might be getting lost in the fluency of his writing, but hey, he seems like he knows pretty well what he's talking about.
Anyone willing to criticise his work? (Again, not his wizardry =P)
QUOTE
I suggest you read the section "Quantum and probability". I might be getting lost in the fluency of his writing, but hey, he seems like he knows pretty well what he's talking about.
I rather suspect that you are him.
Why don't you try and publish in a reputable paper... or did they just garbage it?
It is garbage btw.
If you want a detailed criticism... have the balls to admit who you are and we can go from there.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jun 2 2010, 10:20 PM)
I rather suspect that you are him.
Why don't you try and publish in a reputable paper... or did they just garbage it?
It is garbage btw.
If you want a detailed criticism... have the balls to admit who you are and we can go from there.
Wow wow wow, wait, I'm not him!
I'm just a 20 year old engineering student from spain. Seriously. Want me to put the webcam on? lol
Now you guys are being paranoid. I just came here for an explanation about why his theory is garbage. I already suspect it is garbage, I just want to have a little pointer why, because I can't find it myself. If you can't find it either (or don't want to waste your time doing so) tell me and I'll ask somewhere else, but don't go witch hunting =P-
EDIT: For sincerity, I will *admit* that I have certain affinity for the philosophy behind Chaos Magic, but definitly not about the part that concerns Carroll, and I'm not a practicant or anything. I just like to read about that stuff, but I don't believe in it particularly or talk in behalf of that magician guy. I stumbled upon his page searching for info on chaos magic, and I found his writings on magic to be quite dogmatic and uninteresting, but his science part didn't sound that bad, and that's what made me come here.
Basic assumption that centrifugal force extends into a 4D (or 6D) hypersphere is suspect. No attempt was made to justify this assumption.
Hello Physforum people, I just noticed some comments here on my specularium ideas.
I'd like to point out that recent studies of Dark Matter appear to demonstrate its absence in this galaxy at least. Statistical studies of pulsar frequencies at about 5bnlyr and 8bnlyr done at Edinburgh observatory fail to show the expected time dilation in an expanding universe, and it now looks vanishingly unlikely that the Higg,s Boson exists.
My H8D and VHC hypotheses predict all of these observations, and I therefore consider them to remain un-falsified.
Having been out of academia for 40 years I don't have the facilities or connections to publish scientific papers so I stick my calculated guesswork into my magic books instead.
Regards, Pete.
I'd like to point out that recent studies of Dark Matter appear to demonstrate its absence in this galaxy at least. Statistical studies of pulsar frequencies at about 5bnlyr and 8bnlyr done at Edinburgh observatory fail to show the expected time dilation in an expanding universe, and it now looks vanishingly unlikely that the Higg,s Boson exists.
My H8D and VHC hypotheses predict all of these observations, and I therefore consider them to remain un-falsified.
Having been out of academia for 40 years I don't have the facilities or connections to publish scientific papers so I stick my calculated guesswork into my magic books instead.
Regards, Pete.
QUOTE (Montec+Jun 3 2010, 07:53 PM)
Basic assumption that centrifugal force extends into a 4D (or 6D) hypersphere is suspect. No attempt was made to justify this assumption.
that is an interesting statement . I will file that one in the file cabinets of my mind
that is an interesting statement . I will file that one in the file cabinets of my mind
QUOTE (Peter Carroll+Jun 9 2012, 04:46 PM)
Hello Physforum people, I just noticed some comments here on my specularium ideas.
I'd like to point out that recent studies of Dark Matter appear to demonstrate its absence in this galaxy at least. Statistical studies of pulsar frequencies at about 5bnlyr and 8bnlyr done at Edinburgh observatory fail to show the expected time dilation in an expanding universe, and it now looks vanishingly unlikely that the Higg,s Boson exists.
My H8D and VHC hypotheses predict all of these observations, and I therefore consider them to remain un-falsified.
Having been out of academia for 40 years I don't have the facilities or connections to publish scientific papers so I stick my calculated guesswork into my magic books instead.
Regards, Pete.
Well your the guy . What do you know ? Unbelievable . You have your own wiki page too.
I want a wiki page . What did you have to do . A bribe . Is that it ? You bribed someone didn't you . Was it cronyism? Is that how you did it .
Just teasing , Un bunch your panties now . Great encounter of the 1st kind . Kiss
I'd like to point out that recent studies of Dark Matter appear to demonstrate its absence in this galaxy at least. Statistical studies of pulsar frequencies at about 5bnlyr and 8bnlyr done at Edinburgh observatory fail to show the expected time dilation in an expanding universe, and it now looks vanishingly unlikely that the Higg,s Boson exists.
My H8D and VHC hypotheses predict all of these observations, and I therefore consider them to remain un-falsified.
Having been out of academia for 40 years I don't have the facilities or connections to publish scientific papers so I stick my calculated guesswork into my magic books instead.
Regards, Pete.
Well your the guy . What do you know ? Unbelievable . You have your own wiki page too.
I want a wiki page . What did you have to do . A bribe . Is that it ? You bribed someone didn't you . Was it cronyism? Is that how you did it .
Just teasing , Un bunch your panties now . Great encounter of the 1st kind . Kiss
QUOTE
I'd like to point out that recent studies of Dark Matter appear to demonstrate its absence in this galaxy at least.
If the study you're referring to is Mondin et al, it's been refuted here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033
When the correct velocities for the stellar tracers are used, there turns out to be more dark matter than originally predicted.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 9 2012, 07:22 PM)
If the study you're referring to is Mondin et al, it's been refuted here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033
When the correct velocities for the stellar tracers are used, there turns out to be more dark matter than originally predicted.
Will it ever be possible to get hold of this dark matter Alex? Any ideas about what it is like?
You are too stupid to worry about it, robbityboob, so STFU.
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 9 2012, 08:31 PM)
You are too stupid to worry about it, robbityboob, so STFU.
Will it ever be possible to get hold of this dark matter Alex? Any ideas about what it is like?
Don't you feel stupid when you forget to sign in properly!
Will it ever be possible to get hold of this dark matter Alex? Any ideas about what it is like?
Don't you feel stupid when you forget to sign in properly!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Jun 9 2012, 02:59 PM)
Will it ever be possible to get hold of this dark matter Alex? Any ideas about what it is like?
Well, guest summed it up pretty concisely.
Well, guest summed it up pretty concisely.
I don't know how I come to have a wiki page or a facebook page either, I don't know enough about computers to put up such things or to to find out who did. When I opened another facebook page so that I could post an occasional message on 'my' facebook page it eventually barred me from it for failing to accept any friends and not giving wiki my mobile phone number.
(I got 500+ applications from 'friends', only 8 of whom I actually know, it seemed a bit mean to accept some but not others, and daft to accept all, so I accepted nobody, plus I don't have a mobile phone.)
One of the guys in my business offices maintains my Specularium site for me.
I have had a few interfaces with heavyweight physicists over the years, they all opined that I'm probably mistaken but they didn't identify any obvious holes. One doctoral student wanted to use some of it but his tutor said he was taking a hell of a risk and that the entire faculty would submit his thesis to extreme scrutiny if he did, so he intends to put it to one side till he's got his doctorate.
My hypotheses are far simpler than they may look, I'm basically saying that Einstein was right the first time, the universe does consist of a 3-sphere, and Godel almost got it right about why it doesn't implode, he treated it as a rotating 2-sphere instead of a vorticitating 3-sphere. The vorticitation supplies the mechanism for Einstein's 'cosmological constant'.
Then of course the redshift data came along and everyone jumped to the wrong conclusion about expansion.
The small positive curvature of the universe creates a lensing effect which causes a mismatch between the entirely distance dependent redshift and the apparent magnitude of type 1A supernovae, leading to the dark energy idea.
They do say that the real test of any alternative cosmology lies in its explanation of the CMBR. I take a position close to Eddington's original simple idea, it merely represents the basic temperature of the universe with radiation* in thermodynamic equilibrium with the interstellar medium. *Trans-antipodal radiation that has gone round the entire universe, maybe an unaccountable number of times.
I have to say that BB theory looks increasingly like something infected with epicycles and phlogiston, full of holes pasted over with with inelegant patches like inflation, dark matter and dark energy, and now even multiverse theories.
The attempt to quantise gravity also looks like a major blind alley, and here I also think Einstein got it right when he equated mass with spacetime geometry. The gauge-force formalism will probably never work for gravity and indeed it seems more promising to consider static electric or magnetic fields in terms of exotic distortions of spacetime rather than in terms of the exchange of virtual bosons. I do not dispute the existence of real bosons or the possible existence of gravity waves from violently accelerated masses, but I don't find the idea of virtual bosons mediating static electromagnetic or gravitational forces very credible, virtual bosons seem to imply 'unquantifiable quanta'.
I got out of academia decades ago to pursue magic for fun and business for fun and wealth, but I kept up the physics as an interest which became more interesting as the standard models of particle physics and cosmology lurched into dubious speculations presented as cast iron theories which you couldn't get away with in any other field of scientific endeavour.
Regards, Pete.
(I got 500+ applications from 'friends', only 8 of whom I actually know, it seemed a bit mean to accept some but not others, and daft to accept all, so I accepted nobody, plus I don't have a mobile phone.)
One of the guys in my business offices maintains my Specularium site for me.
I have had a few interfaces with heavyweight physicists over the years, they all opined that I'm probably mistaken but they didn't identify any obvious holes. One doctoral student wanted to use some of it but his tutor said he was taking a hell of a risk and that the entire faculty would submit his thesis to extreme scrutiny if he did, so he intends to put it to one side till he's got his doctorate.
My hypotheses are far simpler than they may look, I'm basically saying that Einstein was right the first time, the universe does consist of a 3-sphere, and Godel almost got it right about why it doesn't implode, he treated it as a rotating 2-sphere instead of a vorticitating 3-sphere. The vorticitation supplies the mechanism for Einstein's 'cosmological constant'.
Then of course the redshift data came along and everyone jumped to the wrong conclusion about expansion.
The small positive curvature of the universe creates a lensing effect which causes a mismatch between the entirely distance dependent redshift and the apparent magnitude of type 1A supernovae, leading to the dark energy idea.
They do say that the real test of any alternative cosmology lies in its explanation of the CMBR. I take a position close to Eddington's original simple idea, it merely represents the basic temperature of the universe with radiation* in thermodynamic equilibrium with the interstellar medium. *Trans-antipodal radiation that has gone round the entire universe, maybe an unaccountable number of times.
I have to say that BB theory looks increasingly like something infected with epicycles and phlogiston, full of holes pasted over with with inelegant patches like inflation, dark matter and dark energy, and now even multiverse theories.
The attempt to quantise gravity also looks like a major blind alley, and here I also think Einstein got it right when he equated mass with spacetime geometry. The gauge-force formalism will probably never work for gravity and indeed it seems more promising to consider static electric or magnetic fields in terms of exotic distortions of spacetime rather than in terms of the exchange of virtual bosons. I do not dispute the existence of real bosons or the possible existence of gravity waves from violently accelerated masses, but I don't find the idea of virtual bosons mediating static electromagnetic or gravitational forces very credible, virtual bosons seem to imply 'unquantifiable quanta'.
I got out of academia decades ago to pursue magic for fun and business for fun and wealth, but I kept up the physics as an interest which became more interesting as the standard models of particle physics and cosmology lurched into dubious speculations presented as cast iron theories which you couldn't get away with in any other field of scientific endeavour.
Regards, Pete.
QUOTE
but I kept up the physics as an interest which became more interesting as the standard models of particle physics and cosmology lurched into dubious speculations presented as cast iron theories which you couldn't get away with in any other field of scientific endeavour.
But they work. Perhaps the reason you view them as 'dubious speculations' is because you don't understand them.
Now, no one is saying they're complete. The fact that there are a shitload of parameters which have to be entered into the Standard Theory of particle physics by hand, and cannot be derived from the theory, says that it's incomplete. But that doesn't make them wrong, just incomplete. But once those parameters are entered, the Standard Theory works very nicely in explaining and predicting what happens in the world of particle physics.
Similarly, current cosmological theories, i.e. Inflation and the BB, explain and predict the current state of the universe, but don't pretend to be the final word.
So these certainly aren't 'cast iron theories', but works in progress.
The reason you, and many others, will present them as 'cast iron' and 'dogma', is because what you, and others present, is immediately dismissed in favor of the current theories. And the reason for that is that the current theories present a certain degree of accuracy, while
Unless what you come up with is better than the current theory, there's no need to consider it.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 10 2012, 01:12 AM)
But they work. Perhaps the reason you view them as 'dubious speculations' is because you don't understand them.
Now, no one is saying they're complete. The fact that there are a shitload of parameters which have to be entered into the Standard Theory of particle physics by hand, and cannot be derived from the theory, says that it's incomplete. But that doesn't make them wrong, just incomplete. But once those parameters are entered, the Standard Theory works very nicely in explaining and predicting what happens in the world of particle physics.
Similarly, current cosmological theories, i.e. Inflation and the BB, explain and predict the current state of the universe, but don't pretend to be the final word.
So these certainly aren't 'cast iron theories', but works in progress.
The reason you, and many others, will present them as 'cast iron' and 'dogma', is because what you, and others present, is immediately dismissed in favor of the current theories. And the reason for that is that the current theories present a certain degree of accuracy, while
Unless what you come up with is better than the current theory, there's no need to consider it.
If I wanted to hear from an anus,I would simply flatulate.
QUOTE (Peter Carroll+Jun 10 2012, 12:04 AM)
I don't know how I come to have a wiki page or a facebook page either, I don't know enough about computers to put up such things or to to find out who did. When I opened another facebook page so that I could post an occasional message on 'my' facebook page it eventually barred me from it for failing to accept any friends and not giving wiki my mobile phone number.
(I got 500+ applications from 'friends', only 8 of whom I actually know, it seemed a bit mean to accept some but not others, and daft to accept all, so I accepted nobody, plus I don't have a mobile phone.)
One of the guys in my business offices maintains my Specularium site for me.
I have had a few interfaces with heavyweight physicists over the years, they all opined that I'm probably mistaken but they didn't identify any obvious holes. One doctoral student wanted to use some of it but his tutor said he was taking a hell of a risk and that the entire faculty would submit his thesis to extreme scrutiny if he did, so he intends to put it to one side till he's got his doctorate.
My hypotheses are far simpler than they may look, I'm basically saying that Einstein was right the first time, the universe does consist of a 3-sphere, and Godel almost got it right about why it doesn't implode, he treated it as a rotating 2-sphere instead of a vorticitating 3-sphere. The vorticitation supplies the mechanism for Einstein's 'cosmological constant'.
Then of course the redshift data came along and everyone jumped to the wrong conclusion about expansion.
The small positive curvature of the universe creates a lensing effect which causes a mismatch between the entirely distance dependent redshift and the apparent magnitude of type 1A supernovae, leading to the dark energy idea.
They do say that the real test of any alternative cosmology lies in its explanation of the CMBR. I take a position close to Eddington's original simple idea, it merely represents the basic temperature of the universe with radiation* in thermodynamic equilibrium with the interstellar medium. *Trans-antipodal radiation that has gone round the entire universe, maybe an unaccountable number of times.
I have to say that BB theory looks increasingly like something infected with epicycles and phlogiston, full of holes pasted over with with inelegant patches like inflation, dark matter and dark energy, and now even multiverse theories.
The attempt to quantise gravity also looks like a major blind alley, and here I also think Einstein got it right when he equated mass with spacetime geometry. The gauge-force formalism will probably never work for gravity and indeed it seems more promising to consider static electric or magnetic fields in terms of exotic distortions of spacetime rather than in terms of the exchange of virtual bosons. I do not dispute the existence of real bosons or the possible existence of gravity waves from violently accelerated masses, but I don't find the idea of virtual bosons mediating static electromagnetic or gravitational forces very credible, virtual bosons seem to imply 'unquantifiable quanta'.
I got out of academia decades ago to pursue magic for fun and business for fun and wealth, but I kept up the physics as an interest which became more interesting as the standard models of particle physics and cosmology lurched into dubious speculations presented as cast iron theories which you couldn't get away with in any other field of scientific endeavour.
Regards, Pete.
That is so strange . I saw you coming in the secret language of memes . I could hear you coming . Walking up to this site to our chance encounter. What does your wizardness have to say about that . I didn't give it much thought as it was happening . Any body hear the Rocken Roll preacher man this morning . It is a show that revisits the past of rock and roll . Someone St.James use to be guy , but I have not heard that radio call out for a while but it is all still blasts from the past .
So what was the theme this great fine morning " Were off to see the wizard"
It has been a theme for the last several days . Wizard this wizard that .
Unbelievable!! Well welcome to the forum . You fit right in . This is a great place to show your expressions . Viewership is going up too I think . Even the squeamish ones have a tendency to look back all rubber necking after they get over there disgust or fear of the unknown
We look forward to your intelligence Magic Man . Got magic hands .
We have been exploring ( Me mainly ) Circles of influence and the selfishness of the circles that drive motivation as applied to everything . Well mainly me . Humans being but one small element of influence circles. Although thinking they are more special than larger circles of influence . Little dog thinking they are big dogs kind of thing . Big fish little pond .
So were do we stand on multi wheel universes or bubble universes . The spiral still haunts Me . Bubble universe it self moving in a spiral ? Is it possible ? Something about the ladder of time not quite being circular . The beginning and the end not quite matching up but rather the end becomes microcosmic to the macro beginning .
With new macros backing up the micros in a forward motion . Recycling and eventually vanishing into next to nothing as the macros through revolution become smaller versions of the same thing at a steady rate of infinitely smaller copies with every revolution .
Can anyone else see that ? Less value like the tightening of sink hole . Smaller circles as time goes on . Like the whole thing about moral decay being a circular influence that degenerates to more smaller circles of influence . Fragmenting .
I really liked Alex's projection that dark matter was akin to negative pressure . That suggests to me that it would be about as close as we can imagine as nothingness . Some how I would think it relates to the limits of cold . Which is still a major mystery in my mind . How can you have a limit on how cold you can make it ? It is a strange constant when you think about it and why is the not just as strange as the speed of light being a constant ? Am I messed up on this ? A limit to cold ? What is the mechanics of that one ? We except it as a law of nature , but what is the reasoning behind the natural behavior ? Do we know ?
(I got 500+ applications from 'friends', only 8 of whom I actually know, it seemed a bit mean to accept some but not others, and daft to accept all, so I accepted nobody, plus I don't have a mobile phone.)
One of the guys in my business offices maintains my Specularium site for me.
I have had a few interfaces with heavyweight physicists over the years, they all opined that I'm probably mistaken but they didn't identify any obvious holes. One doctoral student wanted to use some of it but his tutor said he was taking a hell of a risk and that the entire faculty would submit his thesis to extreme scrutiny if he did, so he intends to put it to one side till he's got his doctorate.
My hypotheses are far simpler than they may look, I'm basically saying that Einstein was right the first time, the universe does consist of a 3-sphere, and Godel almost got it right about why it doesn't implode, he treated it as a rotating 2-sphere instead of a vorticitating 3-sphere. The vorticitation supplies the mechanism for Einstein's 'cosmological constant'.
Then of course the redshift data came along and everyone jumped to the wrong conclusion about expansion.
The small positive curvature of the universe creates a lensing effect which causes a mismatch between the entirely distance dependent redshift and the apparent magnitude of type 1A supernovae, leading to the dark energy idea.
They do say that the real test of any alternative cosmology lies in its explanation of the CMBR. I take a position close to Eddington's original simple idea, it merely represents the basic temperature of the universe with radiation* in thermodynamic equilibrium with the interstellar medium. *Trans-antipodal radiation that has gone round the entire universe, maybe an unaccountable number of times.
I have to say that BB theory looks increasingly like something infected with epicycles and phlogiston, full of holes pasted over with with inelegant patches like inflation, dark matter and dark energy, and now even multiverse theories.
The attempt to quantise gravity also looks like a major blind alley, and here I also think Einstein got it right when he equated mass with spacetime geometry. The gauge-force formalism will probably never work for gravity and indeed it seems more promising to consider static electric or magnetic fields in terms of exotic distortions of spacetime rather than in terms of the exchange of virtual bosons. I do not dispute the existence of real bosons or the possible existence of gravity waves from violently accelerated masses, but I don't find the idea of virtual bosons mediating static electromagnetic or gravitational forces very credible, virtual bosons seem to imply 'unquantifiable quanta'.
I got out of academia decades ago to pursue magic for fun and business for fun and wealth, but I kept up the physics as an interest which became more interesting as the standard models of particle physics and cosmology lurched into dubious speculations presented as cast iron theories which you couldn't get away with in any other field of scientific endeavour.
Regards, Pete.
That is so strange . I saw you coming in the secret language of memes . I could hear you coming . Walking up to this site to our chance encounter. What does your wizardness have to say about that . I didn't give it much thought as it was happening . Any body hear the Rocken Roll preacher man this morning . It is a show that revisits the past of rock and roll . Someone St.James use to be guy , but I have not heard that radio call out for a while but it is all still blasts from the past .
So what was the theme this great fine morning " Were off to see the wizard"
It has been a theme for the last several days . Wizard this wizard that .
Unbelievable!! Well welcome to the forum . You fit right in . This is a great place to show your expressions . Viewership is going up too I think . Even the squeamish ones have a tendency to look back all rubber necking after they get over there disgust or fear of the unknown
We look forward to your intelligence Magic Man . Got magic hands .
We have been exploring ( Me mainly ) Circles of influence and the selfishness of the circles that drive motivation as applied to everything . Well mainly me . Humans being but one small element of influence circles. Although thinking they are more special than larger circles of influence . Little dog thinking they are big dogs kind of thing . Big fish little pond .
So were do we stand on multi wheel universes or bubble universes . The spiral still haunts Me . Bubble universe it self moving in a spiral ? Is it possible ? Something about the ladder of time not quite being circular . The beginning and the end not quite matching up but rather the end becomes microcosmic to the macro beginning .
With new macros backing up the micros in a forward motion . Recycling and eventually vanishing into next to nothing as the macros through revolution become smaller versions of the same thing at a steady rate of infinitely smaller copies with every revolution .
Can anyone else see that ? Less value like the tightening of sink hole . Smaller circles as time goes on . Like the whole thing about moral decay being a circular influence that degenerates to more smaller circles of influence . Fragmenting .
I really liked Alex's projection that dark matter was akin to negative pressure . That suggests to me that it would be about as close as we can imagine as nothingness . Some how I would think it relates to the limits of cold . Which is still a major mystery in my mind . How can you have a limit on how cold you can make it ? It is a strange constant when you think about it and why is the not just as strange as the speed of light being a constant ? Am I messed up on this ? A limit to cold ? What is the mechanics of that one ? We except it as a law of nature , but what is the reasoning behind the natural behavior ? Do we know ?
I have not read up on your stuff yet Peter. I am dyslexic so I try to choose carefully what and when I read something as to my limited ability of comprehension due to my extreme case of dyslexia. Most people think I am a drug addict because of it but I assure you I don't do drugs , but nicotine caffeine and the occasional puff and once in a great while an Excedrin. That be it . Normal every day habitual user of pretty much acceptable recreational usage . 2 our 3 beers in a week don't make me a drunk either *** heads .
I am off point .
Negative pressure is so so interesting when you think about for what happens when you have negative pressure . If the sides that contain the pressure are to weak the space collapse in on its self . The space disappears . If the boundary that holds the space is not structurally sound enough to withstand the pressure the space collapses with in that boundary holding the negative pressure .
I think you opened a can of worms Alex . Anybody got anything to say about all that or is that just old business ?
I am off point .
Negative pressure is so so interesting when you think about for what happens when you have negative pressure . If the sides that contain the pressure are to weak the space collapse in on its self . The space disappears . If the boundary that holds the space is not structurally sound enough to withstand the pressure the space collapses with in that boundary holding the negative pressure .
I think you opened a can of worms Alex . Anybody got anything to say about all that or is that just old business ?
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jun 10 2012, 06:13 PM)
I have not read up on your stuff yet Peter. I am dyslexic so I try to choose carefully what and when I read something as to my limited ability of comprehension due to my extreme case of dyslexia. Most people think I am a drug addict because of it but I assure you I don't do drugs , but nicotine caffeine and the occasional puff and once in a great while an Excedrin. That be it . Normal every day habitual user of pretty much acceptable recreational usage . 2 our 3 beers in a week don't make me a drunk either *** heads .
I am off point .
Negative pressure is so so interesting when you think about for what happens when you have negative pressure . If the sides that contain the pressure are to weak the space collapse in on its self . The space disappears . If the boundary that holds the space is not structurally sound enough to withstand the pressure the space collapses with in that boundary holding the negative pressure .
I think you opened a can of worms Alex . Anybody got anything to say about all that or is that just old business ?
This is what I've been saying all along"equalization" negitive pressure. Nothing is the place to start, a vacuum and matter trying to fill the void moving ever faster.
I am off point .
Negative pressure is so so interesting when you think about for what happens when you have negative pressure . If the sides that contain the pressure are to weak the space collapse in on its self . The space disappears . If the boundary that holds the space is not structurally sound enough to withstand the pressure the space collapses with in that boundary holding the negative pressure .
I think you opened a can of worms Alex . Anybody got anything to say about all that or is that just old business ?
This is what I've been saying all along"equalization" negitive pressure. Nothing is the place to start, a vacuum and matter trying to fill the void moving ever faster.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 10 2012, 01:22 AM)
If I wanted to hear from an anus,I would simply flatulate.
If you want to hear from an anus, you simply have to talk.
Troll.
If you want to hear from an anus, you simply have to talk.
Troll.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 10 2012, 06:52 PM)
If you want to hear from an anus, you simply have to talk.
Troll.
Oh who cut the cheese?
Never mind it was village idiot again.
Troll.
Oh who cut the cheese?
Never mind it was village idiot again.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 10 2012, 03:03 PM)
Oh who cut the cheese?
Never mind it was village idiot again.
You have made zero contributions to this forum. You're an anti-BBT troll and mostly just obnoxious. When you get banned, you won't be missed.
Never mind it was village idiot again.
You have made zero contributions to this forum. You're an anti-BBT troll and mostly just obnoxious. When you get banned, you won't be missed.
no no how about this . Gravity being the byproduct of negative presser . Or space collapsing in on it self . Matter plugs the hole depending on the size of the collapsing space. I have heard of the speculation of mini black holes , but no one has found evidence of them as far as I know . The whole thing with a tube that goes right through the center of the earth . Would you suspend wait less in the center? Would there be pressure still exerted on the body ? Do we know any of this ? This makes me think of a singularity ??? What causes the clumping of mater in the first place ? Why does it manifest where it does . In a particular spot . Cracks prescribed by a natural force ? Is there an unlimited combinations of configuration, Thinking of the periodic table tells me there is . A limit just like speed , cold, There was another one I was thinking of while washing dishes . I can't remember .
It did make me wonder if there is a limit to negative pressure . Big *** black holes indicates in my mind there may not be but rather dependent on the vastness of density . How much pressure in a black hole exuded on empty space if you could put empty space inflated in the middle of a black hole ?
It did make me wonder if there is a limit to negative pressure . Big *** black holes indicates in my mind there may not be but rather dependent on the vastness of density . How much pressure in a black hole exuded on empty space if you could put empty space inflated in the middle of a black hole ?
Mere hand waving verbal salad?
1) M/L = c^2/G
2) GM/L^2 = A
M = Mass of universe, L = Antipode distance, A = Anderson deceleration.
3) W^2 = 2piGM/Vh
W = Angular velocity in radians. Vh = 3D 'surface' volume of 3-sphere, (comes out at 0.006 arcseconds/century).
From 1,2 and 3, frequency, f = c/2L, and incidentally this applies both to the entire universe and to all fermions if we equate L with wavelength.
4) z = (GM/c^2 x 1/L-a) -1 (A 'tired light' hypothesis with mechanism!)
z = redshift, as originating from the geometry of the universe
a = astronomical distance.
5) Y = 1 + (a-a^2)^1/2 -a
Y = hyperspherical lensing which distorts apparent magnitudes, (quite significantly beyond halfway to antipode).
6) Vo = (Gm/r - rA)^1/2 (A MOND with mechanism!)
Vo = orbital velocity, r = radius, (eg of rotating galaxy, negligible effects on planetary motion).
May I attempt to raise the tone of debate here by inviting participants to run their own calculations using my suggested equations above. All you need to begin is the usual fundamental constants G and c, plus the measured Anderson deceleration of
8.74 x 10^-10 m/sec^2. Then try checking them against astronomical data, you may be pleasantly surprised.
Regards, Pete.
1) M/L = c^2/G
2) GM/L^2 = A
M = Mass of universe, L = Antipode distance, A = Anderson deceleration.
3) W^2 = 2piGM/Vh
W = Angular velocity in radians. Vh = 3D 'surface' volume of 3-sphere, (comes out at 0.006 arcseconds/century).
From 1,2 and 3, frequency, f = c/2L, and incidentally this applies both to the entire universe and to all fermions if we equate L with wavelength.
4) z = (GM/c^2 x 1/L-a) -1 (A 'tired light' hypothesis with mechanism!)
z = redshift, as originating from the geometry of the universe
a = astronomical distance.
5) Y = 1 + (a-a^2)^1/2 -a
Y = hyperspherical lensing which distorts apparent magnitudes, (quite significantly beyond halfway to antipode).
6) Vo = (Gm/r - rA)^1/2 (A MOND with mechanism!)
Vo = orbital velocity, r = radius, (eg of rotating galaxy, negligible effects on planetary motion).
May I attempt to raise the tone of debate here by inviting participants to run their own calculations using my suggested equations above. All you need to begin is the usual fundamental constants G and c, plus the measured Anderson deceleration of
8.74 x 10^-10 m/sec^2. Then try checking them against astronomical data, you may be pleasantly surprised.
Regards, Pete.
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jun 10 2012, 07:38 PM)
no no how about this . Gravity being the byproduct of negative presser . Or space collapsing in on it self . Matter plugs the hole depending on the size of the collapsing space. I have heard of the speculation of mini black holes , but no one has found evidence of them as far as I know . The whole thing with a tube that goes right through the center of the earth . Would you suspend wait less in the center? Would there be pressure still exerted on the body ? Do we know any of this ? This makes me think of a singularity ??? What causes the clumping of mater in the first place ? Why does it manifest where it does . In a particular spot . Cracks prescribed by a natural force ? Is there an unlimited combinations of configuration, Thinking of the periodic table tells me there is . A limit just like speed , cold, There was another one I was thinking of while washing dishes . I can't remember .
It did make me wonder if there is a limit to negative pressure . Big *** black holes indicates in my mind there may not be but rather dependent on the vastness of density . How much pressure in a black hole exuded on empty space if you could put empty space inflated in the middle of a black hole ?
Gravity is the mecinisum that makes it posible for matter to exist.
It did make me wonder if there is a limit to negative pressure . Big *** black holes indicates in my mind there may not be but rather dependent on the vastness of density . How much pressure in a black hole exuded on empty space if you could put empty space inflated in the middle of a black hole ?
Gravity is the mecinisum that makes it posible for matter to exist.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 10 2012, 07:38 PM)
You have made zero contributions to this forum. You're an anti-BBT troll and mostly just obnoxious. When you get banned, you won't be missed.
When you become moderator you can ban me, untill then you can STF up "Simple Sum"
When you become moderator you can ban me, untill then you can STF up "Simple Sum"
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 10 2012, 07:53 PM)
When you become moderator you can ban me
The current moderator is more than capable of banning trolls like you.
The current moderator is more than capable of banning trolls like you.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 10 2012, 11:58 PM)
The current moderator is more than capable of banning trolls like you.
Same goes for you. If you would quit following me around we wouldn't have this problem.
Same goes for you. If you would quit following me around we wouldn't have this problem.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 10 2012, 08:48 PM)
Same goes for you. If you would quit following me around we wouldn't have this problem.
I have been here for 3 years, have over 5500 posts and have never been warned or suspended. You've been here for 3 months and have been suspended once already.
Don't pretend that I'm following you around. Your first post on this thread was an insult to AlexG. In fact, all your posts are either insults or BBT troll posts. Failing to engage with active topics is a ban-worthy offense.
I have been here for 3 years, have over 5500 posts and have never been warned or suspended. You've been here for 3 months and have been suspended once already.
Don't pretend that I'm following you around. Your first post on this thread was an insult to AlexG. In fact, all your posts are either insults or BBT troll posts. Failing to engage with active topics is a ban-worthy offense.
Any one do Peters math ? Alex ? Grim Reaper any one ! hE BE OUR MOD . And expert mathematician. O.K. got to go see Maria . God she is flirty today . She pulled her jeans out to show Me how much wait she lost and gave Me the full shot by angular position . I was standing over her in a way that when she did it that that that ? *** that girl is sexy . Got to get back to Maria . Texture time in her basement . Can't play today .
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 11 2012, 12:48 AM)
Same goes for you. If you would quit following me around we wouldn't have this problem.
The problem 'you think you're having' is derived from all the a$$hole irrelevant bullshit you've been trolling this forum with. Ignorance and acting like an a$$hole is a choice. People who choose to be an ignoranus don't have any business trolling a public science forum.
The problem 'you think you're having' is derived from all the a$$hole irrelevant bullshit you've been trolling this forum with. Ignorance and acting like an a$$hole is a choice. People who choose to be an ignoranus don't have any business trolling a public science forum.
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jun 11 2012, 06:30 PM)
Any one do Peters math ? Alex ? Grim Reaper any one ! hE BE OUR MOD . And expert mathematician. O.K. got to go see Maria . God she is flirty today . She pulled her jeans out to show Me how much wait she lost and gave Me the full shot by angular position . I was standing over her in a way that when she did it that that that ? *** that girl is sexy . Got to get back to Maria . Texture time in her basement . Can't play today .
Theoretical models must make predictions about natural phenomena. His math predicts that dark matter doesn't exist as real natural phenomena. So let's ask whether his modification [fudge factor] is relevant or even remotely interesting?
No.
Theoretical models must make predictions about natural phenomena. His math predicts that dark matter doesn't exist as real natural phenomena. So let's ask whether his modification [fudge factor] is relevant or even remotely interesting?
No.
The what you have called the 'fudge factor' A, appears as the measurable Anderson deceleration (ref. Pioneer anomaly) It appears as the centripetal effect of the gravity of the universe and the equal centrifugal effect of its vorticitation. It redshifts light from distant galaxies, indeed it tends to brake all forms of linear motion to a tiny degree, hence the Anderson deceleration itself. It also has the effect of making a small addition to angular velocity everywhere (thus in effect it doesn't violate the conservation of energy).
This increment to angular velocity acts like a Modified Newtonian Dynamics (which in its current form does constitute a fudge factor as its authors admit) however by using A we can give it a real physical mechanism.
It also of course explains the small and previously inexplicable small boosts that some spacecraft slingshot manoeuvres become subject to.
Plus A also allows us to calculate the mass and space and time antipode distances of the universe, and from these the ubiquity constant U of the universe, which represents the ratio of Planck to Cosmic scales, which, when applied to the Beckenstein Hawking conjecture can tell us a lot about the information and entropy content of the universe as a whole and the effective level of indeterminacy in reality. (A subject of considerable esoteric well as scientific and philosophical interest)
Regards, Pete.
This increment to angular velocity acts like a Modified Newtonian Dynamics (which in its current form does constitute a fudge factor as its authors admit) however by using A we can give it a real physical mechanism.
It also of course explains the small and previously inexplicable small boosts that some spacecraft slingshot manoeuvres become subject to.
Plus A also allows us to calculate the mass and space and time antipode distances of the universe, and from these the ubiquity constant U of the universe, which represents the ratio of Planck to Cosmic scales, which, when applied to the Beckenstein Hawking conjecture can tell us a lot about the information and entropy content of the universe as a whole and the effective level of indeterminacy in reality. (A subject of considerable esoteric well as scientific and philosophical interest)
Regards, Pete.
QUOTE (brucep+Jun 11 2012, 07:43 PM)
The problem 'you think you're having' is derived from all the a$$hole irrelevant bullshit you've been trolling this forum with. Ignorance and acting like an a$$hole is a choice. People who choose to be an ignoranus don't have any business trolling a public science forum.
What ever "£UCK head"!
What ever "£UCK head"!
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Jun 12 2012, 08:42 PM)
What ever "£UCK head"!
I read that as "luck head."
I read that as "luck head."
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 13 2012, 02:54 AM)
I read that as "luck head."
That's right bloke!
That's right bloke!
QUOTE (Peter Carroll+Jun 12 2012, 10:12 PM)
The what you have called the 'fudge factor' A, appears as the measurable Anderson deceleration (ref. Pioneer anomaly) It appears as the centripetal effect of the gravity of the universe and the equal centrifugal effect of its vorticitation. It redshifts light from distant galaxies, indeed it tends to brake all forms of linear motion to a tiny degree, hence the Anderson deceleration itself. It also has the effect of making a small addition to angular velocity everywhere (thus in effect it doesn't violate the conservation of energy).
This increment to angular velocity acts like a Modified Newtonian Dynamics (which in its current form does constitute a fudge factor as its authors admit) however by using A we can give it a real physical mechanism.
It also of course explains the small and previously inexplicable small boosts that some spacecraft slingshot manoeuvres become subject to.
Plus A also allows us to calculate the mass and space and time antipode distances of the universe, and from these the ubiquity constant U of the universe, which represents the ratio of Planck to Cosmic scales, which, when applied to the Beckenstein Hawking conjecture can tell us a lot about the information and entropy content of the universe as a whole and the effective level of indeterminacy in reality. (A subject of considerable esoteric well as scientific and philosophical interest)
Regards, Pete.
Word Salad ?
The drift in my math . I been hammering on the drift for some time . By channels . Or the loss . You can call it loss also . Drift or loss I don't care . It is not really a loss as it was never there in the first place .
O.K. O.K. This probably won't mean any thing to you braininess but I present any way as I believe my periodic number charts holed the key of the drift and the declination code of warp-age from big to small and visa versa .
It all ties in nicely to lack of randomness of reality also . Being nothing is random and free will is an illusion made up by humans so they can feel empowered
The prime number
O.K. we graduate to the 5,7 and that is it . Last time all we could do is go to the maximum factor of 2,3. Now we can only do 5,7 and that is the highest math we can do
We are still working in the simplistic form of 666 which is :::<<<
5,7
11,13
17,19
23,25
........
.......
..
That is our pairing which contains all prime numbers if you remember your last lesson plan
All pairing multiplied will be in the 5,11,17,23 set and all sq. will be in the 7,13,19,25 set all out to infinity .
So now lets look at it with only the 5,7 grouping
What do end up with . A solid pattern dependable as a cast iron pan .
So if you draw a line between 67 and 73 then work your way negative from that being your zero point you will see a pattern of 2 primes then 3 then 2 then 1 . Remember you can,t do any work in 11sq. at this point or any groupings above even that . No negative either as we do know that -5 from the one is considered prime although we are not thinking of 7 as being prime either but rather the starting point of 5,7 interruption of the prime line we knew of before 5,7 introduction to the 666 line . so just like 14 being introduced (or 35 ) 7 is x out . I could go further down the line to 175 and use that as a middle point if that is less confusing . No factors bigger than 5 remember so don't let your mind get a head of its self.
O.k all factors above 5,7 are considered prime at this point of the sieve . Got That . That is our given .
So from 175 what do we have :
going down the number line we have 4 primes , one prime , 2 primes, 3 primes , 4 primes ,3 primes , 2 primes and if 7 is part of the string of 0,7,14,21 it is no longer part of the prime line as we start from 0 . Every thing always starts from 0 in this new math of mine so with 7 not being designated as a prime any more then 1 is one prime .
Should we go the other way for the slow thinkers ? Need I do it ?
You will fined it identical . But lets not be confused for they are not really the same . 210 is the true center or . The line does not truly repeat until you reach 210 from zero so 175 back to the zero would be in negative territory . Yet it is all good for if you applied the same rule of making 5,7 in the negative realm non prime the patterning holds up to scrutiny .
O.K. anyone brave enough to understand what I said will be grateful when understood . You will have new path ways of operation in your own life . It is no bull *** . I know it sounds like meaningless babble and is hard to follow , but you will begin to realize nothing is random
This increment to angular velocity acts like a Modified Newtonian Dynamics (which in its current form does constitute a fudge factor as its authors admit) however by using A we can give it a real physical mechanism.
It also of course explains the small and previously inexplicable small boosts that some spacecraft slingshot manoeuvres become subject to.
Plus A also allows us to calculate the mass and space and time antipode distances of the universe, and from these the ubiquity constant U of the universe, which represents the ratio of Planck to Cosmic scales, which, when applied to the Beckenstein Hawking conjecture can tell us a lot about the information and entropy content of the universe as a whole and the effective level of indeterminacy in reality. (A subject of considerable esoteric well as scientific and philosophical interest)
Regards, Pete.
Word Salad ?
The drift in my math . I been hammering on the drift for some time . By channels . Or the loss . You can call it loss also . Drift or loss I don't care . It is not really a loss as it was never there in the first place .
O.K. O.K. This probably won't mean any thing to you braininess but I present any way as I believe my periodic number charts holed the key of the drift and the declination code of warp-age from big to small and visa versa .
It all ties in nicely to lack of randomness of reality also . Being nothing is random and free will is an illusion made up by humans so they can feel empowered
The prime number
O.K. we graduate to the 5,7 and that is it . Last time all we could do is go to the maximum factor of 2,3. Now we can only do 5,7 and that is the highest math we can do
We are still working in the simplistic form of 666 which is :::<<<
5,7
11,13
17,19
23,25
........
.......
..
That is our pairing which contains all prime numbers if you remember your last lesson plan
All pairing multiplied will be in the 5,11,17,23 set and all sq. will be in the 7,13,19,25 set all out to infinity .
So now lets look at it with only the 5,7 grouping
What do end up with . A solid pattern dependable as a cast iron pan .
So if you draw a line between 67 and 73 then work your way negative from that being your zero point you will see a pattern of 2 primes then 3 then 2 then 1 . Remember you can,t do any work in 11sq. at this point or any groupings above even that . No negative either as we do know that -5 from the one is considered prime although we are not thinking of 7 as being prime either but rather the starting point of 5,7 interruption of the prime line we knew of before 5,7 introduction to the 666 line . so just like 14 being introduced (or 35 ) 7 is x out . I could go further down the line to 175 and use that as a middle point if that is less confusing . No factors bigger than 5 remember so don't let your mind get a head of its self.
O.k all factors above 5,7 are considered prime at this point of the sieve . Got That . That is our given .
So from 175 what do we have :
going down the number line we have 4 primes , one prime , 2 primes, 3 primes , 4 primes ,3 primes , 2 primes and if 7 is part of the string of 0,7,14,21 it is no longer part of the prime line as we start from 0 . Every thing always starts from 0 in this new math of mine so with 7 not being designated as a prime any more then 1 is one prime .
Should we go the other way for the slow thinkers ? Need I do it ?
You will fined it identical . But lets not be confused for they are not really the same . 210 is the true center or . The line does not truly repeat until you reach 210 from zero so 175 back to the zero would be in negative territory . Yet it is all good for if you applied the same rule of making 5,7 in the negative realm non prime the patterning holds up to scrutiny .
O.K. anyone brave enough to understand what I said will be grateful when understood . You will have new path ways of operation in your own life . It is no bull *** . I know it sounds like meaningless babble and is hard to follow , but you will begin to realize nothing is random
so now lets move the goal post . New zero by introduction of the 11,13 pairing . I would venture to say that 5x7x11x13 would be the new zero 5005 and down to 121 all would be identical to all above 121 or more than likely down to 143 all though i don't know what happens at the equivalent distance as below 121 or 143 all coverages with the 5,7 pairing .
Does the line do so moving forward is the question . I do know that every 5005 there forth will repeat the pattern just from what we learned about the 5,7 pairing or the examples of 35 So lets think about this . Every 5005 travels through the field one click at a time so on bigger scale 6 moves of 5005 and that repeats from there .
i better map it better.
start from 35,70,105,140,175,210,and 245 is the same as 35 in the line
so 5005,10010,15015,20020,25025,30030,and then 35035 would be back at the start of the pattern . All is equivalent
Does the line do so moving forward is the question . I do know that every 5005 there forth will repeat the pattern just from what we learned about the 5,7 pairing or the examples of 35 So lets think about this . Every 5005 travels through the field one click at a time so on bigger scale 6 moves of 5005 and that repeats from there .
i better map it better.
start from 35,70,105,140,175,210,and 245 is the same as 35 in the line
so 5005,10010,15015,20020,25025,30030,and then 35035 would be back at the start of the pattern . All is equivalent
Lets take the 666 line at the root so we can see the further subdivision. The set will be 0,6,12,18,24,30,.........up to 210 . Then all repeats . Now we got further subdivision of the line . It don't resonate and with out doing the math my guess is it is right in the middle of the 0 to 210 set . By looking at the pattern the middle of the pattern and it reflects it self out both ways is between 102 and 108. Lets see what the math says . . Ah yes . It is . But see I didn't come up with that from the math . I came up with it from the pattern recognition of the 5,7 lines cutting through . Counting back 102,96,then the factors of 5,7 which are 90 and 84. Verses the positive growth of 108 114 and then factors of 5,7 which are 120 and 126. Now you can follow that out to 210 and zero and see it is the same . So a one half of the full line that mirrors the full line between o and 210. So now you can see more of the 1 to 2 relationship of the line . It continues like that . I don't have to check it to know it does . It shows up in every thing from the smallest set to the largest sets by the law of ( I don't know what to call it . The even odd law ? you take 123 and 2 is the middle and 1 plus 3 is 4 and 2 is one half of that sum . All part of the same law . you take 1234 and it is still the same except there is no whole number . So the prime number line follows the same rule of whole half whole half whole half to ......................................
You can try it your self lets triple the 210 and see what happens . So we got 630 and what is its half 315. Not in our number set of 0,6,12,18,............
Now it don't seem like much and a yeah 315 is half of 630 all stupid like ah Yeah so what ?
The pattern is the what not the math . if 315 is zero then the pattern in the line from 0 to 630 is the same in opposite directions from 315 . Mirrors of it self just like the 123 where as the 1 is in relationship to the positive 3 equal distant from the 3 .
The difference is the 5,7 was introduced and it all still held up to scrutiny . The field got larger but the law maintained its integrity. So you see where I am going with this . If this all holds true then no matter what pair you introduce there is a limit in the repeat performance. If it can be said to be true with the 5,7 pair then it should all apply to any pair . The magnitude of scale is what changes not the mechanism
To clarify . This is proof of the lack of randomness . As some of you still believe there is free will . Not I say . It is an illusion . Just like prime numbers are not random . It it makes you feel better you can believe what you want . I know it is very hard to except your every breath is controlled by bigger forces out of your personal control ,
I tell you what you can see plain and clear is why there are prime pairs if nothing else
You can try it your self lets triple the 210 and see what happens . So we got 630 and what is its half 315. Not in our number set of 0,6,12,18,............
Now it don't seem like much and a yeah 315 is half of 630 all stupid like ah Yeah so what ?
The pattern is the what not the math . if 315 is zero then the pattern in the line from 0 to 630 is the same in opposite directions from 315 . Mirrors of it self just like the 123 where as the 1 is in relationship to the positive 3 equal distant from the 3 .
The difference is the 5,7 was introduced and it all still held up to scrutiny . The field got larger but the law maintained its integrity. So you see where I am going with this . If this all holds true then no matter what pair you introduce there is a limit in the repeat performance. If it can be said to be true with the 5,7 pair then it should all apply to any pair . The magnitude of scale is what changes not the mechanism
To clarify . This is proof of the lack of randomness . As some of you still believe there is free will . Not I say . It is an illusion . Just like prime numbers are not random . It it makes you feel better you can believe what you want . I know it is very hard to except your every breath is controlled by bigger forces out of your personal control ,
I tell you what you can see plain and clear is why there are prime pairs if nothing else
Higgs or Not?
Today’s announcement from CERN does not send me scuttling off to eat the relevant pages of The Apophenion and The Octavo as I promised to do if the Higgs mechanism proves correct.
The CERN announcement, like many before it, seems to have a whiff of desperation about it, almost as if they need to justify their activities and maintain the excitement before the impending particle physics conference in Melbourne and another lengthy shutdown of the LHC.
The search for the Higgs boson has led to one of the most expensive and messiest series of experiments in history.
They appear to have evidence of some sort of a particle with an energy around 125GeV. However this particle only appears once every few trillion collisions and we can only infer its fleeting existence from its decay products as it only lasts for a vanishingly short time. This particle could well consist of a composite entity like a top-antitop meson rather than a truly new fundamental particle.
I have severe reservations about the Higgs Mechanism for many reasons: -
1) The Higgs Mechanism evolved to explain the surprisingly large masses of the W and Z bosons of the weak interaction compared to the mass of the photon which theoretically has a zero mass even though it carries momentum and energy. Theorists have attempted to extend the Higgs mechanism to explain the masses of all other particles with mass. The Higgs boson does not in itself confer the property of mass upon other particles. According to the theory of the Higgs mechanism, particles acquire mass through interacting with the Higgs field, their mass then simply represents the extent to which they couple with the field. The Higgs boson itself doesn’t normally manifest in nature, supposedly it only appears fleetingly when we supply enough energy to the omnipresent Higgs field for one to pop into existence.
2) We already have a most excellent theory of mass called General Relativity, this describes mass as spacetime curvature. Most importantly it includes both the inertial and gravitational components of mass. In Newtonian theory these two components just appear as co-incidentally identical. In General Relativity their fundamental equivalence forms the cornerstone of the theory itself. The Sat Nav system validates GR on a daily basis; it simply wouldn’t work properly if it didn’t account for the curvature of spacetime around this planet.
3) The Higgs mechanism can only perhaps explain the inertial component of mass, but not only does it fail to explain gravity but it ignores the fundamental equivalence principle of GR. In a Higgs based universe gravity would have to have some other mechanism, presumably the emission and absorption of so called ‘virtual’ gravitons. This would then require that mass carrying particles mysteriously coupled with the Higgs field and the graviton field in EXACTLY the same way, despite that the apparently massless photons remain subject to gravity.
4) Basically the attempt by particle physicists to explain mass and gravity with the same sort of Gauge Force model they use for electromagnetic interactions seems highly questionable, and the Higgs mechanism remains very far from proved.
--------------------------------
You may well wonder why I bother with all this physics stuff, well as I explain in my books, my current Magical Theory also makes certain predictions about the structure of spacetime and particle physics in terms of a 3D time metric, and if these become falsified I'll have to build another magical theoretical framework.
Today’s announcement from CERN does not send me scuttling off to eat the relevant pages of The Apophenion and The Octavo as I promised to do if the Higgs mechanism proves correct.
The CERN announcement, like many before it, seems to have a whiff of desperation about it, almost as if they need to justify their activities and maintain the excitement before the impending particle physics conference in Melbourne and another lengthy shutdown of the LHC.
The search for the Higgs boson has led to one of the most expensive and messiest series of experiments in history.
They appear to have evidence of some sort of a particle with an energy around 125GeV. However this particle only appears once every few trillion collisions and we can only infer its fleeting existence from its decay products as it only lasts for a vanishingly short time. This particle could well consist of a composite entity like a top-antitop meson rather than a truly new fundamental particle.
I have severe reservations about the Higgs Mechanism for many reasons: -
1) The Higgs Mechanism evolved to explain the surprisingly large masses of the W and Z bosons of the weak interaction compared to the mass of the photon which theoretically has a zero mass even though it carries momentum and energy. Theorists have attempted to extend the Higgs mechanism to explain the masses of all other particles with mass. The Higgs boson does not in itself confer the property of mass upon other particles. According to the theory of the Higgs mechanism, particles acquire mass through interacting with the Higgs field, their mass then simply represents the extent to which they couple with the field. The Higgs boson itself doesn’t normally manifest in nature, supposedly it only appears fleetingly when we supply enough energy to the omnipresent Higgs field for one to pop into existence.
2) We already have a most excellent theory of mass called General Relativity, this describes mass as spacetime curvature. Most importantly it includes both the inertial and gravitational components of mass. In Newtonian theory these two components just appear as co-incidentally identical. In General Relativity their fundamental equivalence forms the cornerstone of the theory itself. The Sat Nav system validates GR on a daily basis; it simply wouldn’t work properly if it didn’t account for the curvature of spacetime around this planet.
3) The Higgs mechanism can only perhaps explain the inertial component of mass, but not only does it fail to explain gravity but it ignores the fundamental equivalence principle of GR. In a Higgs based universe gravity would have to have some other mechanism, presumably the emission and absorption of so called ‘virtual’ gravitons. This would then require that mass carrying particles mysteriously coupled with the Higgs field and the graviton field in EXACTLY the same way, despite that the apparently massless photons remain subject to gravity.
4) Basically the attempt by particle physicists to explain mass and gravity with the same sort of Gauge Force model they use for electromagnetic interactions seems highly questionable, and the Higgs mechanism remains very far from proved.
--------------------------------
You may well wonder why I bother with all this physics stuff, well as I explain in my books, my current Magical Theory also makes certain predictions about the structure of spacetime and particle physics in terms of a 3D time metric, and if these become falsified I'll have to build another magical theoretical framework.
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.