2
More from
Mathematical physicist
Tony Bermanseder's
WSM,. String, TOE, mathematical posts.
Message 16905 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16905
Dell Coleman <decoleman@p...>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Some time ago we had a discussion about the Book of the Dead -
> following today's posting of the "winged chariots" from the Seti I
tomb
> (does anyone have the companion picture showing the location of
the
> previous picture? (ie in the upper right corner over a beam) --- I
> finally got around to posting a picture in the Book of the Dead
files
> section showing a DIN.GIR , a two stage rocket, the white house
looking
> object at the right. There are a bunch more of these in Sitchin
for
> those who wish to look further.
>
> I'm sure you remember that A, On and Arkan told Mr. Hamel that
humans
> had their technology in early times, but it was subsequently lost.
All
> of Mr. Hamel's machines make use of the "weight into speed"
and "speed
> into power" principles given to him by his visitors, and while
examples
> can be found in many places, Egypt is a prime example.
>
> Cheers
>
> DC
Dear Dell and Forum!
I might be able to give anyone here a formulation applicable to
Hamel technology as indicated in Dell's post above.
First of all, I am a dud when it comes to experiments or building
things. I am an unification physicist and my mind is practical but
unimaginative when it comes to putting things together.
But the statement above of 'weight into speed' transformation rang a
bell in some of my theoretical unifications, so I amsharing this
with you.
Many of you must have heared about 'loss of weight' in connection
with 'spinning masses'. George Pantos has mentioned something like
this and I know of controversial 'hard core' scientific experiments
claiming to have constructed antigravity machinery in Russia and
Sweden.
Take the Biot-Savart Law for Magnetic Field Strength.
B=mu0.q.v/(4pi.r^2) Tesla, B is the Magnetic Flux Density [Eq.#]
mu0 is the magnetic constant of permeability, q the charge, v the
velocity and r the radial displacement.
The formulation invokes the magnetic force F=qvxB applied for an
angular acceleration a=v^2/r=w^2r for w the angular velocity 2pi.f.
Using the unifying parameters of the Planck-Scale and the
magnetopole-electropole mapping e<->e*, we can rewrite Eq.# in the
following form:
B=(120pi/c).(M/30c).(w/4pi.r)=Mw/rc^2
(via 2pi.Go.M^2=e^2/2epsilono) for this chargequanta transformation.
Now write: B(x) = (Mw/2.c^2.Ru) indicating that prototypically a
magnetic flux is proportional to a displacement unification
parameter R(u).
What does this mean?
We have eliminated 'Coulombic Charge' and replaced it with Mass M,
using the magnetoploe-electropole mappings.
We also substituite tangential velocity with angular velocity.
Note that the formulation requires nonionisation, for plasma bodies
like the sun another modification for the Biot-Savart Law is
required.
Let us take an example and calculate the magnetic field for the
earth:
M=6x10^24 kg with a Core-Mantle differentiation at 9x10^22 kg for
the core at a distance 1.2x10^6 m (equatorial radius is 6.4x10^6 m).
So we use the unification radius of the core with a period T=1/f of
3600x24=86,400 seconds.
B=(9x10^22kg)(2pi/86,400s)/(2c^2x1.2x10^6m) = 3.03x10^-5 T or 0.3
gauss, which is the measured average of magnetometers.
Apply the formula for the planets, galaxies and superclusters and
you still find acceptable values.
Test this formula for neutron stars and you open the doors to the
higfh spinrates for masses of the order of the Chandrasekhar limit
(3/2 sun) yet concentrated in objects just so 10 km across.
So the formula (probably finetuned in perturbation models) serves as
a good approximation for the MAGNETIC ENERGY INDUCED BY SPINNING
BODIES of mass M.
The faster masses spin, the more mass can become converted.
And because its derivation utilised the interconvertability of
magnetocharge into electrocharge as mass, the 'weight-reduction'
suddenly become rigorously defined in the unification physics.
I hope this formulatiuon will prove helpful for the Hamel Tech
experimenters.
Best of science Tony B.
Message 16914 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16914
Dear Forum!
Considering the ongoing discussions here, allow me to share certain
information which results from the decoding of the Hamel Equation
and its origins within the unified field of quantum relativity
(UFoQR).
1. The ISOTOPE LINE
The ISOTOPE LINE is indeed an isotope line in clearly pointing the
way to a very special material - Bismuth at atomic number #83.
All radioactive substances decay into Lead at #82, except the
isotope of Plutonium-241 which decays to THE LAST STABLE ISOTOPE in
the periodic table Bismuth-209.
Now this has a link to Mercury at #80.
Bismuth is the most DIAMAGNETIC of all metals and its thermal
conductivity is lower than any metal except Mercury.
There are reports of extraterrestrial 'wreckages', where the debris
of the containing shell was constructed in sheets of Aluminium
separated by a Bismuth layer.
Diamagnetic substances have a small negative magnetic
susceptibility, defined in magnetic permeability ratios and so
Magnetic Field Strength H and Magnetic Flux Density B,
B=mu.H, mu the magnetic permeability constant intrinsic to the Hamel
Equation and its decoding.
2.GRANITE
What you are looking for is the VITREOUS SILICA or the GLASSY form of
Silicon Dioxide, namely FUSED QUARTZ, exhibiting the PIEZOELECTRIC
EFFECT.
That is why David talks about certain regions to extract the
Granitre from.
You require the Piezoelectricity to allow the shells to transform
mechanical pressure into electricity.
3. The Decoding
The Hamel Equation can be written in this form, (this is how I had
this equation filed in my papers):
f(i).E^2 = 9696969696.N^2 = Constant.c
Now you cannot do anything with that yet, but I can reveal that
Constant is a product of 4 other constants, namely:
Constant=[(Inverse Magnetocharge multiplier)^2]x[(Optical
Unification Frequency)^2]x(LightTransduction Constant/Wormhole
Perimeter).
f(i) relates to an EigenFrequency individualised to the "BrainWave'
of the occupier of the spacecraft.
This SelfFrequency is linked to the Schumann Resonance of the planet
as an Alpha-Frequency and corresponds to lightspeed 'c' (as the
cosmic factor) travelling the earth's perimeter 7.5 times a second
on average.
N is an eigenstate counter.
I leave the preliminaries for now and hopefully have helped the
experimenters and engineers amongst you to finetune your search for
the appropriate materials.
RTony B. Sirebard
Message 16917 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16917
Dear Forum!
The following is of interest in unification physics.
This is an extract from my unpublished book, relating to Hamel
Technology.
"But let us now have a closer look at the leptonic ringcharges of
electrons, positrons and their high-mass cousins.
In 1998, three physicists; Horst Stroemer then at Columbia
University in New York and Robert Laughlin, then at Stanford
University and Daniel Tsu, then at Princeton University; shared the
Nobel Prize for physics for the discovery of the fractionalisation
of the leptonic ring.
They proved by experiment, that the OLR carries electropolic charges
in multiples of [-e/3] and the same charge perturbation, which we
have utilised in the construction of the quarkian mass-sacales.
As you may have guessed, the magnetocharge is behind this
phenomenon, also known as the Quantum-Hall-Effect, which directly
establishes the Action Law acrolss the dimensions in the generalised
form of (Action=Charge^2).
Applying the superconductivity of paired electrons in semiconducting
layers of materials, (the latter being on a scale of an atomic
diameter), one effectively restricts the electrons to move in just
two dimensions, thus allowing the surface quantisations of 2D, 5D,
8D and 11D to come into play.
At a temperature near absolute zero of (-273.15 degrees Celsius),
such an 'electron gas', and when placed into a magnetic field,
quantises the voltage across the surface area in proportion tothe
magnetic field strength in integral steps of Planck's Constant 'h',
divided by the square of the charge 'e' in the applied action law in
10D-C-space.
Robert Laughlin showed in 1983, that a 2D-electron gas creates
magnetic vortices, if the magnetic fields are strong enough, instead
of just displacing Cooper-paired electrons sidewise as in weaker
magnetic fields.
Increasing the magnetic field strength also increases the number of
formed vortices, which attract the electrons as 'real particles' and
if there are more vortices than available electrons, then the
electrons split into 'quasiparticles' carrying fractional
electropolic charges.
The standard norm is that 3 vortices per electron and that is of
course our trisected outer ringh OR, which is magnetopolically
colourcharged as the YCM=W* or B*; VPE of Vortex-Potential-Energy.
Bart J. van Wees and collaborators had measured a quantisation of
electrical conductance at Delft University of Technology in the
Netherlands when constructing nanocircuits in micrographs in 1987.
Then in 1989, Xiao-Gang Wen of MIT, Massachusetts, showed that
the 'quasiparticles' moved in circles to avoid losing their charges
to positively charged impurities in the semiconducting material, but
that they bounced linearly in a series of modulated semicircles at
the edges of the material.
Then in 1992, Vladimir Goldman at the University of New York at
Stony Brook made the first measurement of the 'quasiparticle's'
charge.
He tunnelled electrons, one at a time, across the Hall-Surface and
observed peaks in the value of the electric conductance quantum
(2e^2/h), which again represents the law of action empirically.
Varying both the electric- and the magnetic field strength to
produce changes corresponding to a single charge carrying particle;
Vladimir Goldman measured the 'quasiparticle's'charge to be [-e/3].
And so did the quantum geometry for the New Standard Model become
established through experimental analysis and it was realised, that
the proton cannot possibly decay into particles defined in the
leptonic OR - in fact the proton does decay constantly - but
immediately recombines via its (KKK+IR) quantum geometry."
Tony B. Sirebard (Pacifica OmniScience)
Message 16925 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16925
Dear Forum!
Thank you Baraka Dabo, Dell and Ole for your replies.
Dell, the Orlowski formula 710Y+409(430) = C-2 +14z, proposedly
channeled from 'the source' 'feels' like a more
esoteric 'formulation'.
409 elements of water/air/fire/earth could relate to the modern
counterparts found in the four fundamental interactions (strong
nuclear =Earth, weak nuclear=Fire, electromagnetic=Air,
gravitational=Water), but I also intuit the 409 elements to refer to
isoptopes, but there are more than 409 or 430.
Contrary as to the Hamel Code, I do not resonate with this
formulation; so I, at present at least, do not feel authorised to
comment on any decoding of it.
The 21=430-409 difference however should relate to the stability of
the elements in the periodic table.
So unification physics in regards to that certainly relates to the
Hamel Technology and this I would like to share with you all today.
The Stability of the Nucleus in Unification Physics
Open any physics dictionary and look under MAGIC NUMBERS.
You will find the following sequence of numbers:
2,8,20,28,50,82,126,184,..
where the numbers relate to the number of protons or neutrons,
making up the nucleus.
This also relates to Bismuth at atomic number #83 in the following
analysis.
A general formula for the Magic Numbers of nucleonic arrangements in
shells is given by the SEps-algorithm {Sequence of Energy primary
sourcesink=Heterotic supermembrane EpsEss=HE(8x8)in M-space}.
This can be derived from the M-Space Unification Polynomial:
ax^3+bx^2+cx+d=0 and the Feynman-Path-Integral T(n)+2=0 sets the
mapping of SEps onto Super-Seps as the relative primeness of the
Experience-Factors in SEps superparitive to SEps* in extension.
Ole, this is the Francom-Adjacency File I have sent to you. You may
share this derivation with anyone interested.
Subtracting polynomial f(x) from polynomial f(x+1) for the Feynman
Identity n^2+n+2=0 for {T(n)=n(n+1)} gives:
3ax^2+(3a+2b)x+(a+b+c)=0 and specifies a=1/3 and b=0 and c=5/3 as
the coefficients for the unification polynomial.
This directly gives the MAGIC NUMBER FORMULA:
T(MagicNumber N)=N[N^2+5]/3 for N=0,1,2,3,...,N
Primary Series: 0,2,6,14,28,50,126,184,...
Secondary Series: 0,2,(2),6,(8),14,(20),28,(42),50,(78),82,(Stop
Command),126,...
The secondary series uses the Fibonacci mechanism of the fivefolded
supersymmetry to add successive terms to generate the NewState from
the Experience added to the OldState.
{This is how I discovered the Fibonacci Series on January 18th 1985;
during a great hailstorm, wrecking parts of Brisbane, Australia.
I thought I had discovered a NEW MATHEMATICAL SERIES, unaware at the
time, that it had already been discovered by Leonardo de
Pisa/Fibonacci in the Rennaissance).
As 50+82=132 > 126; the Magic Number for N=7; this Out-of-Order
sets a natural limit on the nuclear stability in the generation of
the periodic table of the atomic elements as consequence of
fundamental principles in the specification of Lead at #82 and
Bismuth-209 the last stable isotope at #83.
Ole, the principles are elucidated in the Algorithmic Gravity paper,
which I also put into the files section here for anyone interested
to access.
The secondary series reflects the Fibonacci/Francom mechanism of
always adding successive terms as the Experience-Factors in
the 'Information-Gathering-Parameter'.
The 2-branes of Helium-4 or Alpha-Particles so become topological
surface mappings fromM-space into C-space of 4D with added Calabi-
Yau-manifolds in 6D as the 'collapsed/conifolded' superstring
dimensions of 3-Torus transformations into the 3-Sphere of Riemann
(Hypersphere); rootreduced as Moebian-KleinBottle-Manifold in 2D.
This 'jargon' means that the quantum geometry of minimally connected
surface topologies (there are only three ways for a plane to fold
into a sphere with an opening to infinity, namely the Plane, the
Catenoid (hourglass, two cones apex to apex) and the Helicoid), is
then defined via the SEps-Identity XY=X+Y=-1=i^2=exp(i.pi) and the
3D-crystallisation of PLATONIC SOLIDS in the fivefolded symmetry
across omnispace (Tetrahedron, Cube, Octagon, Dodecahedron,
Icosahedron).
The above may prove hard to understand for many.
There is an experimentally verified analogy, Dell has previously
mentioned the sausage-shaped nature of atomic configurations.
Now science knows those as the IKEDA-SHAPES, relating to the
exceptional stability of the Helium-Nucleus with N=2.
In 1954 Fred Hoyle thought about the energylevels of hydrogen fusion
in the sun.
He predicted an excited state for Carbon at 7.6 MeV above
groundstate and to the astonishment of the experimenters it was
found.
This is the basis for the Ikeda Shapes.
Denote the basic building block for the nucleon stability as N=2,
that is He-4; adding those in chains, we get:
Be-8, C-12, O-16, Ne-20, Mg-24, Si-28.
So Beryllium becomes part of Oxygen, Neon, Magnesium and Silicon in
iterative nestings, separated by energylevels, all in MeV.
According to Ikeda-Data (Ref.: NewScientist, May1,1999,p.37):
Carbon level (7.16MeV); Oxygen (14,.44 & 7.16); Neon (19.17 & 11.89
& 4.73); Magnesium (28.48 & 21.21 & 14.05 & 13.93 & 9.31) and
Silicon (38.46 & 31.19 & 24.03 & 23.91 & 19.29 & 16.75 & 9.98).
Why does this work?
Because the Neutrons bind the alpha particles in the inner atom
together, just like the electrons do in the outer atom.
So the alpha-particles join up in sausage/torus shapes to minimise
their space and energies, described above in toplogy-jargonautics.
And as I have previously discussed with Dell, the origins for this
enfoldment is the quark geometry, say as indicated in the Nobel
Prize 1998 posting.
The Alpha-Particles quarkian geometry links up the individual 12
quarks about their common magnetoaxis in a precise order.
Neutron-proton-neutron-proton=d.u.d-u.d.u-d.u.d-u.d.u->d.
So the large scale atomic stability becomes a direct derivative from
the nucleon arrangements, which originates from the algorithmic
encoding as given by the Magic Numbers and its mathematical/abstract
foundation in the pentagonal symmetry of unification physics.
This is illustrated in the Hamel Physics Equation as a balance
between the Energy^2 from the higher dimensions becoming mapped into
the lower dimensions and the Action Law of Action=Charge^2.
With this I end this discourse and await your feedback.
In fraternity Best of Science to you all Tony Sirebard
Message 16928 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16928
--- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "Dr.M.A.Padmanabha
Rao" <raomap@n...> wrote:
>
> On one hand, bresmmstrahlung is explained due to decceleration of
> speedy electron by positive charge of protons while passing
through
> strong nuclear Coulomb field. If positive charge of protons can
> effect so much on a speedy electron, escape of beta particle from
> nucleus in its decay cannot be explained.
>
> Similarly, if electron has truely negative charge, Electron
capture
> should take place in all cases. Chemical bonding, passage of
> electricity in an electric wire are difficult to explain.
>
> The concept of charge originally introduced due to effect of
> electrical and magnetic fields on electron needs review.
>
> M.A.Padmanabha Rao
> Former Professor
> My recent research (not specifically on the above topic):
> Six fundamental physics discoveries
> http://education.vsnl.com/scientificresearch
> http://www.geocities.com/raomap
Dear Professor Padmanabha Rao!
This is a very insightful observation.
The standard literature is quite clear on this however.
Any physics dictionaries state that the NATURE of an Electric Charge
IS NOT UNDERSTOOD; but that the interaction of those charges with
massive particles, is what is measured and observed in the
laboratories.
What is the nature of an electric charge?
It is the MAPPING of a higher dimensional Magnetocharge onto the
lower dimensional Electrocharge.
This represents the manifestation of the long predicted, but
unobserved Magnetic Monopole and the supersymmetry in the Maxwell
Equations.
This mapping also maps the Planck-Scale as a family of superstrings
onto the quantum scale as the Compton-Wavelength, the Thomson
Scattering and the Size of the Proton as a basenucleon.
As the proton scale is contained within the electron scale, the
unification of the quarks and the leptons can proceed without
a 'zoo' of supersymmetric particles (sparticles).
The formulated mapping is simply given in the identity:
ElectronicDiameter.c^2 =Magnetocharge (e*)<->Planck-Length-
Oscillation.c^2=Electrocharge (e).
Analysis crystallises the higher D Magnetocharge as the StarCoulomb
(C*), which is equivalent to the Coulomb (C)in the lower D-setting.
Since e* can be expressed in the form of Inverse Energy (as
consequence of modular duality defining the superstring families),
the mass of a magnetic monopole (c^3 electronVolt as the GUT
boundary) becomes associated with any Coulomb Charge and explains
the NATURE of a Charge as the superbrane duality manifesting in the
observed mass-electricity duality.
Thanking you for your insightful remarks. Tony B. Sirebard
Message 16930 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16930
--- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "joseph_steinman"
<joseph_steinman@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> It goes without saying that I could not follow your argument --
which
> is not to say it is incorrect. However, I did notice that you did
not
> apply the same redshift correction to the galaxy whose redshift
was
> being compared to the QSO. Arp, et al, are claiming that two
objects
> at approximately the same distance have radically different
> redshifts, making suspect the assumption that redshift is solely
or
> primarily caused by recession. Istm that if you applied your
formulas
> to *both* redshifts, Arp's conclusion would likely remain
untarnished
> since the calculated distances to both objects would remain
radically
> different.
>
> Joseph
Dear Joseph!
Thank you for your message.
Oh how I would like that you could see it.
It would solve your philosophical conundrums with Joel in a flash.
This is the chicken-egg dichotomy, which is the what's first DNA
(chicken) RNA (egg) dichotomy; which is the quasar dichotomy.
You see you are looking at a mirror, the biggest mirror there is.
Joel is quite right when he says, the universe is neither big nor
small.
Any distance away from the mirror becomes in a sense nullified by
the 'imaginary' retreat inside the mirror.
You are looking at yourself, your own image in the mirror of the
universe, when you look at a quasar, star or your loved ones.
You are eating yopurself, when you eat anything, youi are killing
yourself, when eating a steak or a potatoe or a carrot.
However, this goes the other way around too, the apple being
assimilated in your blood becomes part of you, shares your
consciousness, evolves (say as an apple intelligence
someplace/sometime in the universe).
Being AWARE is what matters, killing the buffalo for food is no
crime, because the buffalo is honoured, its spirit moves on,
assimilating with the Indian and the environment.
Most native cultures know all this; it's no 'New Age' claptrap to
them - and you know it too deep inside your soul.
Now back to the words of science.
There is no contradiction in what I have said; actually this
discovery has confirmed the demetricated form of GR as being correct
in its application to the universe as an entity.
The EVENT HORIZON is YOU expanding in perceived time, looking back
at the Big Bang.
Because NOW TIME DEFINES that there are 3 thousand million billion
trillion Big Bangs occuring EVERY SECOND; time becomes a human
invention to experience the linearity.
The Big Bang is YOU, from your frame of reference, EXPERIENCING,
MEASURING and OBSERVING the EVENT HORIZON receeding fromYOURSELF
linearly.
This is you stepping backwards from the mirror you are looking into.
Draw a line from Odd Node O to Even Node E, the distance OE is 16.88
billion lightyears.
O is the Big Bang Node and E is the FIXED HUBBLE-NODE.
The Event Horizon Node,say H, moves between O and E and is presently
situated at a point 2.2 billion years from E.
So measuring the quasar from H gives a much smaller redshift than
measuring the quasar from O - this becomes the cosmological mapping.
There are linear approximation equations, which specify the mapped
2.2 billion year interval.
The arpian redshift is a variation maximum, directly measuring the
present slowing down expansion speed of thje 10D universe, relative
to the fixed 11D one.
So presently z(arp)=0.2505 (with velocity 0.22c), but as time goes
on, this decreases never reaching 0 in asymptotic flatness.
So all redshifts above 0.291 are in the 'Hubble Flow' and the
measured redshifts are cosmological without correction.
Lower redshifts can become blueshifted (cosmological expansion of
10D/11D and NOT galactic manouvers).
Distances can be calculated fromthe redshift correction equations,
provided the Hubble-Interval is known (16.88 billiuon years).
Here are the linear approximations:
Z(n)=Z(function of measured redshift Zm, where Z by necessity cannot
be less than the arpian limit).
Z(n,redshift)=0.3692[Zm]+0.2505 for interval Zm in (0,0.1097)
Z(n,blueshift)=-1.284[Zm]+0.6646 for interval Zm in (0.1097,0.2505)
Z(n) is multivalued in the interval (0.291,0.343) as redshift and
multivalued in the interval (0.2505,0.2910) as blueshift.
This means that the O-H mappings also specify the interval
(1.08,1.84).
It is in the latter, that the Alpha-Variation was measured at Mauna
Kea by Webb, Barrow and Co. measuring hydrogen absorption lines in
quasar spectra.
It is also the interval where apparent cosmic acceleration is known
to have been a deceleration wrt supernovae I luminosity spectra.
The formulae to calculate the distances wrt the 10D/11D scenarios
are:
R(n,10D)=R(npresent)-Rmax(n/(n+1)); npresent=1.1324, Rmax=1.60x10^26
m from the superbrane data.
R(n,11D)=[npresent-n]Rmax.
For the mappings, one calculates the appropriate n=Tau-Time via the
formulations:
n=Sqrt(c/v)-1 and v/c=(z^2+2z/(z^2+2z+2)), v/c the relative
speedratio between 10D and 11D.
Applying the above, to the quasar discovery, will give you the
distances to the galaxies, provided you have their z or v/c.
Thank you Joseph Tony B.
--- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "joseph_steinman"
<joseph_steinman@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> It goes without saying that I could not follow your argument --
which
> is not to say it is incorrect. However, I did notice that you did
not
> apply the same redshift correction to the galaxy whose redshift
was
> being compared to the QSO. Arp, et al, are claiming that two
objects
> at approximately the same distance have radically different
> redshifts, making suspect the assumption that redshift is solely
or
> primarily caused by recession. Istm that if you applied your
formulas
> to *both* redshifts, Arp's conclusion would likely remain
untarnished
> since the calculated distances to both objects would remain
radically
> different.
>
> Joseph
Message 16931 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16931
--- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "Dr.M.A.Padmanabha
Rao" <raomap@n...> wrote:
>
> I taught and practiced Radiological physics for over 33 years. High
> energy and lack of charge are the two attributes that make a gamma
> or X-ray penetrate deep into solid materials like lead, in terms of
> half value layer.
>
> Planck's formula explains wavelength reduces for gamma or X-ray
> over that of light photon. However, size of wavelength alone cannot
> address gamma or X-ray's ability to deep penetration over light
> photon.
>
> Secondly, charge cannot be attributed to a wave or photon.
>
> 1. Is it possible to explain deep penetration of gamma or X-ray
> over light photon, or suspect velocity of a photon in free space
> or matter might depend upon its energy?
>
>
>
> Prof. M.A.Padmanabha Rao
> raomap@y...
Dear Professor Radmanabha Rao!
Can a Photon be charged?
If yes, then your question is answered; but photons are not charged;
they form their own antiparticles with equal polarisation
probablities.
And yet, one could postulate another kind of charging for the
photon, namely as a Gauge Bosonic Photon.
A Gauge Bosonic Photon, we might term it a SourcePhoton would have an
antiparticle in say a SinkPhoton.
This would demand a reevaluation of the 'virtualnature' of the
vacuumparticles.
And this could lead us to the great symmetries in nature.
At the Beginning, there was Light and AntiLight, Radiation and
AntiRadiation in a absolutely homogenous and equilibriated unity.
But there was no gravity and no mass.
To create the former and the latter, gravity had to be born in its
Source Bosonic Template - the Graviton; with double the chirality to
the now sourceconflicted SourceBoson and SinkBoson, both of whom had
a single chirality, confliccting themselves because of the parity
and charge conjugation symmetries inherent in their genesis of
selfdefinition.
Apropos, the antiradiation disappeared, became suppressed in the
weak interaction templates of the massinduction process known as the
Higgs Field.
And so the SourceBoson became the mediator of the Unified Field of
Quantum Relativity and it had a charge, a magnetocharge directly
responsible for the creation of mass from its higher dimensional
magnetic electricity, manifesting as matter/antimatter blueprints
and suppressing the antimatter because of a supersymmetric particle
called the RMP (RestMassPhoton).
And so there is a very close relationship between the
scaleparameters of wavelength and that of Coulombic Charge, because
the Coulombic Charge is a mapping from the magnetocharge (defined in
scalerelationship with mass), which is nought but the Mass
Parameters as experienced in the higher dimensions.
And that is why the gamma ray can unify with the mass, its
wavelength is scaled with the Compton Wavelength of the electrons,
resulting in a 'tapping of the vacuum energy' as the divide between
the dimensions.
Thanking You Professor Rao Tony Sirebard
Message 16933 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16933
Dell Coleman <decoleman@p...>
wrote:
> Dear Tony
>
> A while ago in this group we were discussing the situation of a
fellow
> who was receiving messages, writing them down at night and
awakening in
> puzzlement. The star map he drew showed Sirius from the back -
side ie
> mirrored to us (a view point looking past it back toward us).
There was
> a picture of an apparent wormhole linking Earth and Sirius.
>
> He had an equation in which 2He4 was transformed somehow to
element 115
> UUQ. The 115 was used to initiate a wormhole to move between here
and
> Sirius.
> Does your outline below lead from 2He4 to 115 .. How in your
framework
> could you get there?
>
> Cheers,
> DC
>
Dear Dell!
Thank you for your post; yes,I had a quick look at Stan Romanek's
equations and their explanations on the website links indicated.
I concur with the comments and add my own impressions:
#1: I feel this relates to the supersymmetry in Maxwell's Equations.
CurlB=0 (normal for nonexistence of magnetic monopoles)is
written as curlB=e* with i* the lineintegral of j*.dS
Stan's CurlH=Curl(B/mu0) is the current i as the lineintegral of
j.dS; this latter expression is well known and studied.
This then seems to expand somehow into the expression of element
#115.
Its electron configuration is correct in the Radon Derivative:
[Rn]5f^14.6d^10.7s^2.7p^3; you'll have two parallel currents
encompassing some structure, relating the closure of the linearity
in a redefined closure.
This is much of what unification physics proposes.
The linear finestructure of element 115 also seems to be quite
similar to the finestructuring of the Hamel formula, which I am
discussing here.
But I do not yet understand the terms in Stan's linearisation; this
might be the same as that in the Hamel form, differently applied.
As a general background, this is what I wroteabout the synthetic
elements in some article.
This might be partially superceeded by now, I have not thought about
it lately.
Bismuth at #83 and Lead at #82 form the Isotope Divide.
"Bismuth-209+Gallium-69='SuperHeavy' 278#114 and
Lead-208+Germanium-76='SuperHeavy' 284#114.
But only combining Bismuth-209 or Lead-208 as the boundary
tostability with other magic numbers (Nickel-62,64) synthesises
the 'SuperHeavies'.
Bismuth-209+Nickel-62 gives Isotope 278#111 (Ni at #28, Bi at #83).
Bismuth-s09+Nickel-64 gives Isoptope 273#111.
Lead-208+Nickel-62 gives Isotope 270#110 and
Lead-209+Nickel-62 gives Isotope 271#110.
Anyway, the Magic Number 184, suggesting stability of element 114
with 184 neutrons and 114 protons cannot behave like Lead-208 with a
number of neutrons of 126 and 82 protons because of the intermediary
magic number of 132 in between the nucleon numbers 82 and 126.
Other nuclei with very stable nuclei are Calcium-40 (20 protons, 20
neutrons) and Calcium-48 (20protons, 28 neutrons).
The significance of element #43, Technetium also derives from the
magic numbers.
No stable isotope for Technetium exists and production is via
natural radioactive decay (Uranium) or synthesis from#42 Molybdenum,
a magic number.
The other transitory magic numner is #78 Platinum, preceeding Gold
at #79 and Mercury at #80.
78 Platinum is in an electron configuration column with elements 28
Nickel, 46 Palladium and the 'SuperHeavy' 110.
Copper, Silver and Gold link to 111 and Zinc, Cadmium and Mercury
point to 112.
But Mercury is THE liquid metal, exactly midway between magic
numbers 78and 82 as last transition of 'the magic'.
Projecting this midpoint forwards gives you element #84 Polonium and
all it's isotopes and succeeding other elemental isotopes are
radioactive.
Elements 113, 114 and so on can't be synthesisized, because Mercury
defines the electron transition limit for the Zinc-112 outer shells.
And the magic numbers UNIFY the electron shells with the nuclear
ones.
Yet, the alchemist might discern:
Calcium-48+Plutonium-244='SuperHeavy' 114#298 -6n as (132-126)."
This might or might not help some of you, more familiar with
material science.
#2. This denotes the Asteroid Belt for me, between Mars and Jupiter,
say as the 'exploded' planet 'Malduk' or whatever as indicated by
Bode's Law.
#3. This a good code, namely assign the planets in 12 according to
the revised/new zodiac.
1=Sun/Leo; 2=Mercury/Gemini; 3=Venus/Taurus; 9=Jupiter/Sagittarius;
8=Saturn/Capricorn; 10=Uranus/Aquarius; 11=Neptune/Pisces.
Now the others are 'missing' incorporated in the four intersection
points of the 'fish diagram' as:
4=FullMoon/Cancer; 5=NewMoon/Libra as the Dragon's SarosNodes of the
18year ecliptic sojourn; 6=Chiron/Virgo and 7=Mars/Aries in unison
with the bottom line as 13=1+3=4=Pluto/Scorpio.
This defines a cyclicity between opposite zodiacal transitions in
the points of Ophiuchus (November 22/23) as the transit of the Sun
from Scorpio to Sagittarius and the point of Orion/Arachne as the
transit of the Sun from Taurus into Gemini (May22/23).
All this links to the celestialmappings and Egypt as I have
indicated in earlier posts. (precessional cycles, mapping of the
Pyramid plateau as Orion's belt and the Draco constellation in the
Temples of Ankor); and as pointed out in some of the comments.
#4. Is Unification Physics, as it is centred about the
Electromagnetic Finestructure Constant Alpha=1/137.
#5. Is the Standard Gravitational Inverse Square Force expression
#6 Is the Hypercube, denoting the enfoldment of spacetime in the
Wormholesingularity.
This is expressed in the Klein-Bottle-Connection in the diagram.
This I have discussed earlier in the exchanges with Dell.
Best to all Tony Sirebard
> Tony Bermanseder wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
> This is the basis for the Ikeda Shapes.
> Denote the basic building block for the nucleon stability as N=2,
> that is He-4; adding those in chains, we get:
> Be-8, C-12, O-16, Ne-20, Mg-24, Si-28.
>
> So Beryllium becomes part of Oxygen, Neon, Magnesium and Silicon in
> iterative nestings, separated by energylevels, all in MeV.
Message 16934 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16934
--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, george ryazanov
<george_ryazanov@y...> wrote:
> Tony!
> I agree with your picture of Creation because it is similar
to my picture.
> Your AntiLight is my EM waves going from the future.
> We do not see the initial smmetry of Liht and AntiLight
> because now we are busy with the task of evolution (not a
creation).
>
> The appearence of mass and gravity I calculate in all
details.
> I agree with your choise of chaged bosons as initial field
>
> because in my physics of unity I derive SU(4 )
> as the symmetry of initial field (EM appear later).
>
> Here the initial charge turns out to be the mutiul Love
> of natural spirits that through the joyful play
> generate laws of physics as the norms of their singing.
>
> I see here a perspective for our working together.
>
George.
>
Dear George!
Thanking You.
The first time I saw your calculations, I knew that you are correct.
Like many others I do not understand many of your technical details.
But I understand the encompassment - you possess something which I
lack.
My entire model is, what you may call "A back of the envelope
calculation".
I do not possess the sophistication to dress all this up in tensor
fields and determinants.
But as yourself; I know that I am correct 'as the boundary
conditions' of the said 'back of the envelope calculus.'
Mine is a 'Poor Man's Model for the Universe'; but put it into the
tensor fields and the metrics and you will have the TOE.
It is and always was meant to be a groupeffort undertaken by all of
the natural philosophers of the human race.
So OUR CALL should be.
ANYBODY out there who would like to stop the quarrelings and the
search for individual fame and fortune?
Why not simply write down the TOE in such a way that EVERYONE can
contribute?
Forfeit the ownership of the 'intellectual property' and GIVE FREELY
to A WORLD IN NEED OF A NEW PARADIGM!
The TRUE TOE is OWNED by the GROUPMIND of the collective Human Mind;
because without the HISTORY of SCIENCE, noone ofus now could even
begin to fathomsuch a thing as a TOE.
LOVE to All; and if you are abhorred to listen to me, then listen to
George!
Best of Cooperation and OmniScience to All Tony Sirebard
dis
> Tony Bermanseder <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
>
> BODY { BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff}
> [input] Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail [input] [input] Welcome,
sirebard
> [Sign Out, My Account]Groups Home - Help
>
>
> sirebard ? PACIFICAP@h... Start a Group - My Groups Wave-Structure-
Matter ? Wave Structure of Matter Group Member [ Edit My
Membership ] Home Messages Post Chat Files Photos
Links Database Polls Members Calendar
> ---------------------------------
> Promote
> ---------------------------------
> = Owner = Moderator = Online MessagesMessages HelpReply |
Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines | Delete [input] [input]
[input] [input] Message 7678 of 7678 | Previous | Next [ Up
Thread ] Message Index [input] Msg # [input] [input]
From: "Tony Bermanseder" <PACIFICAP@h...>
> Date: Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:02 pm
> Subject: Re: Can velocity of gamma or X-ray differ from light
photon?
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> --- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "Dr.M.A.Padmanabha
> Rao" <raomap@n...> wrote:
> >
> > I taught and practiced Radiological physics for over 33 years.
High
> > energy and lack of charge are the two attributes that make a
gamma
> > or X-ray penetrate deep into solid materials like lead, in terms
of
> > half value layer.
> >
> > Planck's formula explains wavelength reduces for gamma or X-ray
> > over that of light photon. However, size of wavelength alone
cannot
> > address gamma or X-ray's ability to deep penetration over light
> > photon.
> >
> > Secondly, charge cannot be attributed to a wave or photon.
> >
> > 1. Is it possible to explain deep penetration of gamma or X-ray
> > over light photon, or suspect velocity of a photon in free space
> > or matter might depend upon its energy?
> >
> >
> >
> > Prof. M.A.Padmanabha Rao
> > raomap@y...
>
> Dear Professor Radmanabha Rao!
>
> Can a Photon be charged?
> If yes, then your question is answered; but photons are not
charged;
> they form their own antiparticles with equal polarisation
> probablities.
>
> And yet, one could postulate another kind of charging for the
> photon, namely as a Gauge Bosonic Photon.
> A Gauge Bosonic Photon, we might term it a SourcePhoton would have
an
> antiparticle in say a SinkPhoton.
> This would demand a reevaluation of the 'virtualnature' of the
> vacuumparticles.
>
> And this could lead us to the great symmetries in nature.
>
> At the Beginning, there was Light and AntiLight, Radiation and
> AntiRadiation in a absolutely homogenous and equilibriated unity.
>
> But there was no gravity and no mass.
> To create the former and the latter, gravity had to be born in its
> Source Bosonic Template - the Graviton; with double the chirality
to
> the now sourceconflicted SourceBoson and SinkBoson, both of whom
had
> a single chirality, confliccting themselves because of the parity
> and charge conjugation symmetries inherent in their genesis of
> selfdefinition.
>
> Apropos, the antiradiation disappeared, became suppressed in the
> weak interaction templates of the massinduction process known as
the
> Higgs Field.
> And so the SourceBoson became the mediator of the Unified Field of
> Quantum Relativity and it had a charge, a magnetocharge directly
> responsible for the creation of mass from its higher dimensional
> magnetic electricity, manifesting as matter/antimatter blueprints
> and suppressing the antimatter because of a supersymmetric particle
> called the RMP (RestMassPhoton).
>
> And so there is a very close relationship between the
> scaleparameters of wavelength and that of Coulombic Charge, because
> the Coulombic Charge is a mapping from the magnetocharge (defined
in
> scalerelationship with mass), which is nought but the Mass
> Parameters as experienced in the higher dimensions.
>
> And that is why the gamma ray can unify with the mass, its
> wavelength is scaled with the Compton Wavelength of the electrons,
> resulting in a 'tapping of the vacuum energy' as the divide between
> the dimensions.
>
> Thanking You Professor Rao Tony Sirebard
>
> /
Message 16935 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16935
"Skywatch" <skycom22@s...>
wrote:
> Tony,
>
> See my webpage on Flowing Gravity at
> http://www.geocities.com/xplorer2x/FlowGrav.htm
>
> This postulates a superfluid version of GTR.
>
> Bill
Dear Bill!
Yes I agree with you, the superfluid motion can be modelled on
Lagrangian boundary conditions; see the works of Toni Arbona's
spinforce model, to which I have added the concept of the Liquid
Crystal phasetransiting as the 'metric' from undefined to defined.
This engages the Planck-Plasma, the Planck-Gas and the Planck-Liquid.
But again all of this fits in very well with the general thrust of
the Standard Models, both in Partricle Physics and in Cosmology.
The BBT needs extensive revisions; this is achieved in melding the
higher dimensions to it.
The complexifications of Tensor-Fields and determinants is possible,
but not necessary to derive the basic premises and parameters.
See my last post as to my 'Poor Man's proposal'.
You would find, upon close inspection, that an encompassing 'common
property TOE'is indeed possible; but only under the umbrella of an
enveloping scientific philosophy.
If this would be the case now, there would only be cooperation on
all levels, and not this constant competitive quarreling of who is
right and who is wrong.
A simple point of consideration.
Take Joel Morisson's Sorce Theory.
There is little amiss with this theory as a model, however blending
it with Joel's scientific philosophy renders it a passionate
discourse in attack and defence.
I see no reason of attacking his theory, nor that of Bill Mitchell
for example, as all contribute to the 'TOE of and For ALL'.
The learning process is like the history of science, in
Shakespeares' words: "The History of the Science is the Science
itself."
So my 'back of the envelope model'encompasses Joel's I accomodate
Sorce Theory, but he feels he must defend Sorce Theory against
whatever he perceives 'my model' to be.
So it is with most groups, including this one.
Wouldn't it be better if WE call OURSELVES NPA_Unity of Science?What
is a dissident in the greater scope of things.
Does the dissident not become the pragmatist and dogmatist as
history has shown?
I'll end with that and I shall put the Arbona File on the Liquid
Crystal in the files here, if I am allowed to do so.
Again, thanks Bill. Cheers Tony B.
tific unity
Message 16937 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16937
Dear Bill!
I just had a good look at your website and the link you provided.
Your proposal is very similar indeed to the Arbona one about 'The
feasability of a classical TOER, based on fluid dynamics).
The input of Mayeul Arminjon regarding the mass Tensor simply sets
your in a timedimension dx^m/cdTau and 'his' in a spacedimension
dx^m/dT.
But the dimensionless 'Proper Time' Tau is simply the cycletime n in
my postings, deriving from GR as curvature Rc=c.dt/dTau.
Then simply cdTau=cdn and Rmax=Ro=c/Ho, with dn/dt=Ho (Fixed
HubbleRatio in 11D).
So can you see the convergence?
The "Poor Man's Universe" proposes the FLUID-ETHER to consist of a
certain number of spacial toroidal vortices (of volume
2pi^2.sourcewavelength^3, N~10^147) and as precursor for any
particle generation.
In particular, 4 such vortices joined together form the Unified
Field, defined in 12 magnetopolic junction 'knots' to crystallise a
number of things; including EMI-Junctions at even pi and GI points
at odd pi, associated with antineutrino and neutrino generation
respectively.
There are also Strong Interaction Loops, NonParity-Loops and
Matter/Antimatter loops, all differentiated by chirality.
Then there are spininductions and a supersymmetric
PairProduction/Annihilation Loop.
Then your particles are said to be supported by the Krisch
experiments on spinning protons.
You may remember that I posted this in reply to your question on the
WSM website.
The Krisch experiments allowed me to finetune the quark geometry and
are in full agreement with your vortex model.
IOf you read any of my posts, you willsee that I constantly refer to
a triesected Kernel-InnerMesonicRing-OuterMesonicRing structure,
bounded by the classical electronic radius.
I have worked for 20 years on this quark geometry and am able to
generate all the particle hierarchies from a simple three quark
model, the strange quark being a resonance of the down quark however.
So you propose Krisch's experiments as supporting your model and I
have used the Krisch experiments to incorporate the 'onion-neutrino-
vortex-structure' of all the elementary particles based on the
ylemic dineutron (resposible for He-4 superfluidity and stability as
the alphaparticle, see Ikeda shape of nucleon stability posted
before).
So where does your proposal differ from 'mine'?
Some semantics and perhaps your model is more of a 'Rich Man's
Universe' - and so it is with most other well thought-out
propositions.
Now should you blend the Ashketar model with Penrosian 7D twistor
spaces and the superfluid models and the Standard Models, then
suddenly you would find convergence on all levels.
This,'the Poor Man's Model' shows me very clearly.
All I can do, and always said was my motivation, is to present
additional data from the 'Poor Man's Universe'; mainly concerned
with the Lagrangian Boundary Conditions for most of the other models.
I would be very pleased, if you could use the information of
the 'Poor Man's Universe' {and I am a disabled pensioner by the way}
to further your agenda whereever it may lead you.
But you will find, that cooperation with other model builders would
stand you in good stead.
Best of All Tony Sirebard
Message 16942 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16942
Jim Nibblett <nibblett@j...>
wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I wrote the following letter to the editor. I'd be
interested in
> whatever feedback you might have for me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
> John Johnson and the PI did a great service bringing the
story of
> John Anderson of JPL and the 'anomalous' deceleration of Pioneer
10 and
> 11 ["Opening new door in space", 1/2/05]. The fraction of the
observed
> deceleration which is not accounted for by the sun's gravity
offers an
> important clue to the nature of interstellar space. The
displacement
> reported by Anderson of these spacecraft from their predicted
locations
> represents a glacially slow deceleration, only 248,000 miles over
30
> years or about a foot per hour per month. Computed as a constant
> acceleration, the force required would be easily transmitted by a
single
> human hair. The question is how best to account for this and what
it
> might mean.
>
> Since Anderson's work is highly respected, one first step
is to
> discount miscalculation. Likewise, the speeds involved are much
too low
> for relativity to take a role. While plasma physics or something
totally
> unknown may be responsible, the simplest explanation becomes wind
> resistance. This is to say that something falling toward the sun
has a
> greater contribution than 'solar wind,' highly ionized matter
(primarily
> protons) moving away from the sun at high speed. This leaves the
> question of why this might be important.
>
> One of mankind's oldest questions is why the sun is so
bright or
> where it gets its power from. It's long been known that the sun
very
> efficiently gathers in matter from the interstellar medium
(gravitational
> collapse) as it speeds around the galaxy at some 20 miles per
second in
> the direction of the star Vega.
>
> Tying this together is the fact that for every ounce of
matter
> gathered in this way which makes it to the sun's surface, some 11
million
> BTU's worth of energy is released, about the yield from burning two
> barrels of gasoline. This, in turn, brings up two other
questions. The
> first of these is where this material might come from. One source
is the
> solar wind of other stars. Two other sources include cosmic jets
and
> novas. The other question is if the energy thus implied obviates
> resorting to nuclear reactions within stars to account for their
power.
> Should this be the case, then the notion of stars 'using up' their
fuel
> is brought into question, further strengthening the case for a
Universe
> without beginning or end.
>
> Jim Nibblett
Dear Jim!
Thank you for your post. There is a deceleration in the universe,
which does away with the Dark Matter and aligns to the Modified
Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) of Professor Mordehai Milgrom (Weizmann
Institute, Tel Aviv, Israel).
Now I know that Milgrom's parameter, which is an acceleration works
for the entire universe as relative cosmological expansion of the
dynamics in 10D/4D Einstein/Riemann/Minkowski wrt to an 11D/5D De
Sitter mapping.
I do not know if, as is normally the case with the GR tensor-fields,
this deceleration can be applied to subscales.
However applying the Milgrom Deceleration -2cHo/(n+1)^3 to the Solar
System as a selfcontained entity in its own right does in fact
provide the magnitude for the JPL-Anderson observations.
The Pioneer 10 probe is measured to be slowed down by the Sun's
gravitational pull by about 80 billionth of a centimetre per second
squared.
A similar effect seems to occur in Pioneer 11, Ulysses and Galileo.
If you now subtract the nodal constant n(present)-N=0.1324.. in the
Milgrom formula, then you get:
Overall Cosmic deceleration (for Solar System as hologramic Subframe)
=-7.758..x10^-10 m/s^2 and in agreement with the Anderrson data.
Here the Ho is the Nodal Hubble Constant in 11D/5D of a FIXED
Friedmann/HubbleRadius of 58.04 km/s.Mpc and c is the lightspeed
constant.
N(present)=1.1324.. (from superbrane data of the de Broglie
phasetransition).
This might be of interest, but again I am unsure of the
appropriateness of using suframes in the demetricated form of GR.
Tony B. Sirebard
Message 16944 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16944
--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, george ryazanov
<george_ryazanov@y...> wrote:
> Tony!
> In my physics of unity Pioneer effect is explainet with all
details without any new assumption.
> George
>
> Dear George!
I don't know about any new assumptions. I do know that the nonlocal
parametrisation for displacement (just curvature Rc on the cosmic
scale), velocity and deceleration work very well; both for the model
of the universe as a Black Body Radiator and as cosmological
relative dimensional scale indicator (galaxies are not the expanding
media, but a scaled space relative to another scaled space).
It just seems more than coincidental, that considering the Solar
System as a subuniverse gives a deceleration confirmen by experiment.
Mordehai Milgrom also claims to explain the Pioneer effect in MOND,
stating that that supports the models without any Dark Matter.
So I feel that there is something to it and worthy of more
investigation.
Perhaps you got the metrics modified in a deeper analysis; anyhow
could you post the technical details for discussion?
Should you use our 'angelic' nomenclature, I will help you to
translate this into physics terminology for the forum.
Noone will take offense, if we work on this together.
Thank you George! Tony Sirebard
Message 16947 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16947
Dear Forum!
There is a significant Hamel-relevant part in Dell's postings about
Stan Romaneck.
Namely Equation/message #5 is all about unification physics.
It is quite precise and the sceptic in me doubts that Stan doesn't
know what it means.
But if he is really fair-dinkum (Australian Slang for honest), then
he too did receive some data from the subconscious/alien etc.
Equation #5 in a sense also converges to the frequency I am
discussing.
But this equation(s) are much deeper indeed; they actually confer
with my postings in many parts, including the deepest connection
between mass, magnetism and electricity.
Ok, I first state the Romaneck formulations for the mathematically
aware. Dell would know where you can look at them in their original
form. He gave the references a number of times.
Look at http://www.rense.com/general46/stan1.html
It doesn't matter if you do not understand the symbols, I can
explain for the askings.
1. d(Delta)wx/DV=-8pi.a.m.c/lambda(e).Lp^2=-8pi.e^2/lambda(e)^2.Lp^2
~10^73 GeV/c*^3 ~ -10^-45 m*p^2/Lp^3
2. A<=>2pi.e^2/hc ~1/137 2e <=> h/2pi.m.c ~ 10^-11 cm
3. mc -> mc^2 ~ 1/2 MeV
4. Lp^2 ~ 10^-66 cm^2
5. V=n.a.dB/dT =AC-Magnetic Flux Diagram)=A=4pi(2GM/c^2)^2=Diagram
1. The factor a must be dimensionless for the Action=Charge^2
superconductivity law.
This can be seen via dimensional consistency in: a(kg)(m/s)=(C^2/m),
which says a={C^2.s/kg.m^2}={C^2/Js}<->{e^2/h}
Hence one can derive: a=e^4/(h.W.Me.c)~35.81 numerically as the
Stan Romaneck Approximation.
I am introducing the following units:
Lp=Planck-Length=Sqrt(Go.h/2pi.c^3)
lamda(e)=wormhole perimeter=W=10^-22 m
e=Coulomb Charge Quantum; c=lightspeed c; h=Planck's Constant
Go=Boundary Gravitational Constant= 1.1111x10^-10 Nm^2/kg^2
Me=ElectronMass; muo=Magnetic permeability Constant=120.pi/c
B=Magnetic Flux Density, H=Magnetic Field Intensity
Now consider the expression: a*=e^2/muo.h=30.79.
So we have the link between Stan's #1 and the subsequent analysis
leading to the Magnetic Flux in #5 via muo.H=B.
Numerically, -8pi.a.mc/WLp^2~-5.4x10^72~-10^73 agreeing with Stan's
#1.
Now he links this expression to the Planck-Mass^2/Planck-Length^3,
where Mp=Sqrt(hc/2pi.Go) in the factor 10^-45 and setting the units
for wx as mass^2 or (kg)^2.
Now the units for the expression are
(C^2/m^4=Charge^2/Volume.Metres), so the Delta wx/V means
Charge^2/V.m = Mass^2/V, the V indicating Volume.
Unification Physics derives the crucial Planck-Length-Oscillation
(PLO)as MagnetoCharge=e*=ElectronSize.c^2 mapped as
ElectroCharge=e=PLO.c^2 with PLO=e/c^2 by definition.
We can write, using the de Broglie matter wavelength l=PLO and the
Action Law:
Mass M=Energy/c^2=hc/c^2.l=ee*/c.l=(ee*.c^2)/ec=[ec]unified.
This is nought but the established mass of an magnetic monopole as
[ec] kg or [ec]c^2 EnergyUnits in Electronvolts as eV in Stan's #1.
And this calculates as c^3 eV as per his expression GeV/c*^3!
The wx as mass^2 derives from Charge^2/m=ee*/PLO=ee.c^2/e*=M^2/e*
in the mapping of e<->e*.
2. This is simply the Alpha Finstructure Constant Alpha=2pi.e^2/hc
and the Compton Radius RCompton=Lcompton/2pi in RCompton=h/2pi.mc,
calculating for the electron's m=Me as ~ 3.8 x10^-13 m.
The all important identity is the following (you may understand it
after studying all of this post):
2e<=>{IDENTITY}Compton Radius h/2pi.mc; this IS the double-mapping
of ElectroPole Charge onto MagnetoCharge back onto ElectroCharge.
This takes the form of the OLP mapping the Electonic Radius mapping
the Compton Radius, so spanning the Planck-Length to the lepton-
quark symmetry to the atom.
e=OLP.c^2=Lp.Sqrt(Alpha).c^2 <->e*=2Re.c^2=2Alpha.RCompton.c^2->e
3. This relates the Kinetic Energy for the Electron as relativistic
expression Me.c^2 to its Kinetic low-speed approximation 1/2Me.v^2.
4. This is simply the Planck-Area as Lp^2 ~ 4.4 x10^-70 m^2.
5. This is the interesting part. It derives the Biot-Savart Law for
magnetism and links it to magnetic selfinduction in considering the
fluxed area as the event horizon of a Black Hole.
Unification Physics derives
E(selfinduction energy)=muo.e^2.v^2/8pi.Re, Re the electronic radius.
Inductive energy; E(inductive)=L.i^2/2=B^2.AR/2muo with integration
of the Volume AR as 4pi.R^2.dR.
For a moving charge with velocity v:
B=muo.ev/4pi.Re^2 (Biot-Savart)
As Inductance L: L=NBA/i=NA.muo.(N/R)=muo.N^2.A/R for area A per
unitlength R, the Inductive Energy becomes in integrating from Re to
Infinity: E(induction)=muo.e^2v^2/8pi.Re
Now using A to be the Black Hole surface area as magnetic flux
medium, gives this B as a Voltage V = N.a.dB/dT.
The last expression however requires further analysis.
Finally, our expression #1:
8pi.mc.a*/W.Lp^2=8pi.mc.e^2/muo.h.W.Lp^2
=Me[ec]^2/15.h.W.Lp^2
The factor 15 relates DIRECTLY to the decoding for the KRYPTONIQUE
short wave radio frequency.
In fraternity Tony B. Sirebard
PS.: The Newtonian ForceLaw extension (Alpha/MindForce relates to
this via the wormhole perimeter (W) definitions:
MagnetoCharge=Inverse Energy=e*, mapped as Volume.Awareness,
Awareness being angular acceleration acting upon the quantised
spacevolumars.
Message 16952 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16952
Dear Forum!
Hi everyone, Dell and all you chemists and material scientists out
there in the group.
I have some news, which should be pertinent.
I have revisited Romaneck's element 115 and the periodic table.
One thing struck me straight away, namely that our old friend
Bismuth is in the same group (VA) and directly above element #115.
So I put on my thinking cap and came up with a probable decoding of
the Romaneck equation #1.
Look at: http://www.rense.com/general46/stan1.html
I reiterate, I am no chemist and no materials scientist, but the
information I shall give, should allow more savvy contributors to
check some of the elements out.
The general thrust is this.
One starts with Helium-4, the most stable Magic Element and moves
down the Nobel Gases in group VIIIA.
Because there are 18 elements in the seven rows in the periodic
table, we shall attempt to line up 18 elements to move from the
first element Hydrogen/Helium to the last, namely #118.
What the material scientists are trying to do and what Stan's
equation indicates, is that there should exist a shortcut between
Helium-4 and #118.
We know that #118 is the most stable Transactinid element, being a
Nobel Gas. It would be specified in Magic Number 184 (see below).
So lets start with the Electron Configurations for the Nobel Gases.
This is given as Romaneck's N=R.Fa.Ne.Fe.Fi.Fc.L x100, instead of an
interpretation of the Drake equation for the number of civilisations
in the universe.
N=Shortcut, Hydrogen 1s^1/Helium 1s^2 x100)-> #101=Mendelevium to
#118.
These are the dots lined up and separated in Stan's equation #1.
In particular,the 'open circle' forming the two points of closure is
element #118, rendering the last circle enclosing the dot as #115.
Just count upwards for the divide between #113 and #114.
What are the mappings there for this divide? Starting with
Boron/Carbon we have Aluminium/Silicon; Gallium/Germanium;
Indium/Tin and Thallium/Lead.
So the transmutation of element #113 into element #114 must in some
way be valence-3 electron related and Aluminium would link to that.
So Stan lists elements #108 to #118 with dividing line #113/#114.
Then #115, mapped on Bismuth (via Antimony, Arsenic, Phosphorus and
Nitrogen), again valency 3 allows the 'Opening' to the magnetic flux/
Black Hole Surface Area relation from the previous post.
This element #115 then links to one 'on the other side' of
the 'transmutation-vessel', say elements #101 to #107, four of whom
are nonactinides and Mendelevium, Nobelium and Lawrencium, which are.
One of those seven is 'special', providing the link to #115.
My guess is, that the three dots closest to the dividing line on the
left are the three actinides, one of each mapped onto group IIIB.
Then the 'special' element would become #39 Yttrium, with #101
Mendelevium mapping #21 Scandium, with valency links to the
lanthanides.
#102 Nobelium would map #39 Yttrium and link to the lanthanides
especially via the valency-1 displacement of #70 Ytterbium.
#70 Ytterbium=Xenon.4f^14..6s^2 (No 5shell) and so is a special
transit element.
You might also know the usefulness of Yttrium in superconductive
materials.
#103 Lawrencium would map all of the Lanthanides from #57 Lanthanium
to #71 Lutetium.
The four other dots are the transuranic elements #104 to #107 and
mapped as below.
I am using the AUFBAU principle for electronic configurations in
orbitals spdfg.. via quantisation 2(2n+1) for shells KLMNO...
The n-counter is n=0,1,2,3...for the sequence: 2,6,10,14,18..for a
shell filling of: 2,(6),8,(10),18,(14),32,(18),50,..
This links to the Magic Numer Formula of the fivefolded symmetry in:
0,2,6,14,28,50,82,126,184 and its mapping 0,2,(2),6,(8),14,(20),28,
(42),50,(78),82,(stop command),126 as derived below.
The filling of shells proceeds as:
1s,2s,2p,3s,3p,4s,3d,4p,5s,4d,5p,6s,4f,5d,6p,7s,5f,6d,7p.
R=Helium=1s^2
Fa=Neon=1s^2.2s^2p^6=Helium.2s^2p^6
Ne=Argon=1s^2.2s^2p^6.3s^2p^6=Neon.3s^2p^6
Fe=Krypton=1s^2.2s^2p^6.3s^2p^6d^10.4s^2p^6=Argon.3d^10.4s^2p^6
Fi=Xenon=Krypton.4d^10.5s^2p^6
Fc=Radon=Xenon.4f^14.5d^10.6s^2p^6
L=#114=Radon.5f^14.6d^10.7s^2p^6
#101=Mendelevium=Radon.5f^13.7s^2-----------maps Cesium/Alkalis/H
#102=Nobelium=Radon.5f^14.7s^2--------------maps Barium/Alkalis
#103=Lawrencium=Radon.5f^14.6d1.7s^2--------maps Lanth./Yttrium
#104=Rutherfordium=Radon.5f^14.6d^2.7s^2----maps #72 Hafnium
#105=Dubnium=Radon.5f^14.6d^3.7s^2----------maps #73 Tantalum
#106=Seaborgium=Radon.5f^14.6d^4.7s^2-------maps #74 Tungsten
#107=Bohrium=Radon.5f^14.6d^5.7s^2----------maps #75 Rhenium
#108=Hassium=Radon.5f^14.6d^6.7s^2----------maps #76 Osmium
#109=Meitnerium=Radon.5f^14.6d^7.7s^2-------maps #77 Iridium
#110=Darmstadtium=Radon.5f^14.6d^8.7s^2-----maps #78 Platinum
#111=Radon.5f^14.6d^9.7s^2------------------maps #79 Gold
#112=Radon.5f^14.6d^10.7s^2-----------------maps #80 Mercury
#113=Radon.5f^14.6d^10.7s^2p^1--------------maps #81 Thallium
#114=Radon.5f^14.6d^10.7s^2p^2--------------maps #82 Lead
#115=Radon.5f^14.6d^10.7s^2p^3--------------maps #83 Bismuth
#116=Radon.5f^14.6d^10.7s^2p^4--------------maps #84 Polonium
#117=Radon.5f^14.6d^10.7s^2p^5--------------maps #85 Astatine
#118=Radon.5f^14.6d^10.7s^2p^6--------------maps #86 Radon
Stan Romaneck's hypercube is the generalised 'shape' of the
universal topological deformation of the 'Hollow Sphere with an
opening to infinity topology' as a minmal surface (plane, catenoid
and helicoid).
This manifests as KleinBottle toroidal derivative of the BlackHole
event horizon becoming 'wormholed' in the higher-D KleinBottle con-
nection.
Stan's equation #6 so indicates a 'Turning Inside Out' of the
spacial vortex geometry via the magnetic flux properties intrinsic
to the unified field of quantumrelativity.
Chemically, this would engage the properties of Helium-4, not only
as the most stable Magic Element at N=2, but also its superfluid
properties, having the lowest melting- and boiling points of all
the elements.
This inside-out deformation must engage unification physics with
precise material parameters as given in the abstract definitions.
Then it should become possible, to directly relate Helium-4 to
element #118, most likely in attaining superfluid status at room
temperatures in the application and manipulation of intersecting
magnetioc fields and the supersymmetric nature of Maxwell's
equations under agewncy of the MagnetoCharge and the Magnetic
Monopoles as mass-equivalences from the superbrane dimensions.
I leave the interested researcher and contributor to peruse the
formulation for the Magic Number Formula below.
Best of Science to All In fraternity Tony B. Sirebard
The Stability of the Nucleus in Unification Physics
Open any physics dictionary and look under MAGIC NUMBERS.
You will find the following sequence of numbers:
2,8,20,28,50,82,126,184,..
where the numbers relate to the number of protons or neutrons,
making up the nucleus.
This also relates to Bismuth at atomic number #83 in the following
analysis.
A general formula for the Magic Numbers of nucleonic arrangements in
shells is given by the SEps-algorithm {Sequence of Energy primary
sourcesink=Heterotic supermembrane EpsEss=HE(8x8)in M-space}.
This can be derived from the M-Space Unification Polynomial:
ax^3+bx^2+cx+d=0 and the Feynman-Path-Integral T(n)+2=0 sets the
mapping of SEps onto Super-Seps as the relative primeness of the
Experience-Factors in SEps superparitive to SEps* in extension.
Ole, this is the Francom-Adjacency File I have sent to you. You may
share this derivation with anyone interested.
Subtracting polynomial f(x) from polynomial f(x+1) for the Feynman
Identity n^2+n+2=0 for {T(n)=n(n+1)} gives:
3ax^2+(3a+2b)x+(a+b+c)=0 and specifies a=1/3 and b=0 and c=5/3 as
the coefficients for the unification polynomial.
This directly gives the MAGIC NUMBER FORMULA:
T(MagicNumber N)=N[N^2+5]/3 for N=0,1,2,3,...,N
Primary Series: 0,2,6,14,28,50,126,184,...
Secondary Series: 0,2,(2),6,(8),14,(20),28,(42),50,(78),82,(Stop
Command),126,...
The secondary series uses the Fibonacci mechanism of the fivefolded
supersymmetry to add successive terms to generate the NewState from
the Experience added to the OldState.
{This is how I discovered the Fibonacci Series on January 18th 1985;
during a great hailstorm, wrecking parts of Brisbane, Australia.
I thought I had discovered a NEW MATHEMATICAL SERIES, unaware at the
time, that it had already been discovered by Leonardo de
Pisa/Fibonacci in the Rennaissance).
As 50+82=132 > 126; the Magic Number for N=7; this Out-of-Order
sets a natural limit on the nuclear stability in the generation of
the periodic table of the atomic elements as consequence of
fundamental principles in the specification of Lead at #82 and
Bismuth-209 the last stable isotope at #83.
Ole, the principles are elucidated in the Algorithmic Gravity paper,
which I also put into the files section here for anyone interested
to access.
The secondary series reflects the Fibonacci/Francom mechanism of
always adding successive terms as the Experience-Factors in
the 'Information-Gathering-Parameter'.
The 2-branes of Helium-4 or Alpha-Particles so become topological
surface mappings fromM-space into C-space of 4D with added Calabi-
Yau-manifolds in 6D as the 'collapsed/conifolded' superstring
dimensions of 3-Torus transformations into the 3-Sphere of Riemann
(Hypersphere); rootreduced as Moebian-KleinBottle-Manifold in 2D.
This 'jargon' means that the quantum geometry of minimally connected
surface topologies (there are only three ways for a plane to fold
into a sphere with an opening to infinity, namely the Plane, the
Catenoid (hourglass, two cones apex to apex) and the Helicoid), is
then defined via the SEps-Identity XY=X+Y=-1=i^2=exp(i.pi) and the
3D-crystallisation of PLATONIC SOLIDS in the fivefolded symmetry
across omnispace (Tetrahedron, Cube, Octagon, Dodecahedron,
Icosahedron).
The above may prove hard to understand for many.
There is an experimentally verified analogy, Dell has previously
mentioned the sausage-shaped nature of atomic configurations.
Now science knows those as the IKEDA-SHAPES, relating to the
exceptional stability of the Helium-Nucleus with N=2.
In 1954 Fred Hoyle thought about the energylevels of hydrogen fusion
in the sun.
He predicted an excited state for Carbon at 7.6 MeV above
groundstate and to the astonishment of the experimenters it was
found.
This is the basis for the Ikeda Shapes.
Denote the basic building block for the nucleon stability as N=2,
that is He-4; adding those in chains, we get:
Be-8, C-12, O-16, Ne-20, Mg-24, Si-28.
So Beryllium becomes part of Oxygen, Neon, Magnesium and Silicon in
iterative nestings, separated by energylevels, all in MeV.
According to Ikeda-Data (Ref.: NewScientist, May1,1999,p.37):
Carbon level (7.16MeV); Oxygen (14,.44 & 7.16); Neon (19.17 & 11.89
& 4.73); Magnesium (28.48 & 21.21 & 14.05 & 13.93 & 9.31) and
Silicon (38.46 & 31.19 & 24.03 & 23.91 & 19.29 & 16.75 & 9.98).
Why does this work?
Because the Neutrons bind the alpha particles in the inner atom
together, just like the electrons do in the outer atom.
So the alpha-particles join up in sausage/torus shapes to minimise
their space and energies, described above in toplogy-jargonautics.
And as I have previously discussed with Dell, the origins for this
enfoldment is the quark geometry, say as indicated in the Nobel
Prize 1998 posting.
The Alpha-Particles quarkian geometry links up the individual 12
quarks about their common magnetoaxis in a precise order.
Neutron-proton-neutron-proton=d.u.d-u.d.u-d.u.d-u.d.u->d.
So the large scale atomic stability becomes a direct derivative from
the nucleon arrangements, which originates from the algorithmic
encoding as given by the Magic Numbers and its mathematical/abstract
foundation in the pentagonal symmetry of unification physics.
This is illustrated in the Hamel Physics Equation as a balance
between the Energy^2 from the higher dimensions becoming mapped into
the lower dimensions and the Action Law of Action=Charge^2.
With this I end this discourse and await your feedback.
In fraternity Best of Science to you all Tony Sirebard
Message 16959 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16959
Dear Draco!
1. Cluster Movement and Einstein Rings
Milgrom accepts that his MOND model deviates from the rotational
curve predictions for the centres of clusters.
This has no bearing on the stated Milgrom deceleration parameter
applied on the largest cosmic scalings.
Like many proposed models, MOND adds valid data, supported by
experiment and observation to the encompassing paradigm; especially
to explain the dark matter as a gravitational variation and not as
an intrinsically missing and nonluminous mass.
Not all of MOND is universally applicable; neither is all of
QuantumMechanics, neither is General and Special Relativity.
Because of the de Broglie phase transition, phasespeeds must always
exceed 'c', being bounded by groupspeeds always less than 'c'.
So both Special Relativity and its nonLorentzian extension are
justified.
It becomes a question of observation linked to selfrelative frames
of scale in both displacement and time.
Einstein Rings are Gravitational Lenses, caused by the gravitational
bending of light and as predicted by General Relativity.
General Relativity is correct on all local reference frames, bar the
largest scale of the Schwarzschild solution.
Because this largest scale is subject to demetrication, any
holographic quantum form scaled on the underpinning
wormholeparameters also becomes subject to this demetrication.
This is the new physics, which we only now are beginning to become
aware of.
2.html postings
I would rather forward pertinent data and information in a somewhat
duplicated form, than spend hours after hours retyping the same
material for every group I contribute to.
I do apologise for this and thank you for pointing this out to me.
There must be many others who feel the same way as you do.
But I feel what is wrong with me, is that I rather answer questions,
than spend my time producing good-looking postings, which are very
quickly 'out-of-date' consideringh the voluminous output and
interactions in groups sucvh as this.
I have received very favourable comments regarding some of my
postings from other groups (see 1998 Nobel Prize posting).
Should you try to walk in my mocassins, than you would understand my
position.
Thank you for your comments Draco Tony B.
Message 16062 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16962
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A22099-2004Mar24¬Found=true
Scary Things Come in Small Packages
By Sharon Weinberger
Sunday, March 28, 2004; Page W15
It came from Los Alamos, express delivery. Refined, processed and sealed in plastic, it looked more like the grime that clings to the car after a hard winter than something that might cost as much as $28 billion an ounce.
In a barnlike lab at the University of Texas at Dallas, among massive accelerators, old pieces of cannibalized metal, layers of dust, broken knobs, bits of wire and discarded electronics, the precious material was placed atop an upside-down Styrofoam coffee cup.
A dental X-ray machine -- the kind used in hundreds of strip malls around the country -- focused on the cup. A man with a radiation tag on his shirt flipped a switch. A few days passed. To the naked eye, nothing happened. But during that time an invisible X-ray beam, modulated by a commercial audio amplifier, slammed into the minute amount of material on the Styrofoam platform. Protected behind cinder blocks, a flickering computer screen registered jagged graphs.
And just like that, physicist Carl Collins either proved he was on the way to the next Manhattan Project, or perhaps proved nothing at all.
That was 1998. Six years later, a scientific dogfight rages over Collins's result. Was it really the beginning of a new super-bomb, or the biggest fizzle since cold fusion?
But the Pentagon hasn't waited for the dust to settle. Despite increasingly outraged protests by some of the country's most respected nuclear physicists, the Department of Defense has sunk millions into something that sounds to some like science fiction: Collins's efforts to get near-nuclear-level energy from a rare radioactive element without splitting any atoms.
As the debate has raged, a defense official has been promoting Collins's work with a picture of a "nuclear hand grenade," some agencies have promised an entirely new class of "isomer weapons," and the Central Intelligence Agency and the military have raised fears that the Russians might get there first.
The Big Pop
He ended up marrying a Romanian and, with his East European colleagues, began trying to tap a possibly immense source of energy from an atom with a hopped-up nucleus called an isomer.
In the simplest conception, imagine the nucleus of an atom as a deflated balloon. Blow up the balloon and tie it at the end, and you have a nuclear isomer -- the same balloon, but now filled with the stored energy of the enclosed air. Under ordinary circumstances, the filled balloon will gradually lose air, and pressure, from slow leakage.
The energy that isomers "leak" is in the form of gamma rays. Gamma rays are the most energetic wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum. In extremely high doses, they could act like ray bombs in low-budget films, vaporizing living tissue and heating materials until they explode.
And theoretically that's what would happen if you could find a way to release all of an isomer's energy in an instant, like popping the balloon with a pin.
This, very crudely, was what Collins and his colleagues were attempting -- they wanted to use a small amount of energy to release a large amount of energy; they were looking for the pin that could pop the balloon. The potential was immense: Instead of the approximately one electron volt of energy stored in a single molecule of dynamite, each atom of the isomer Collins's group would eventually use could store 2.5 million electron volts.
Collins called the process "isomer triggering." His first attempts involved tantalum-180 -- the only naturally occurring nuclear isomer. The idea, roughly, was that he could use a beam of energy to act like a spark igniting dynamite. He eventually concluded that you could release energy from tantalum -- something that most physicists concede is possible -- but it required far more energy to "trigger" tantalum than the isomer released. In other words, there was no gain in energy, and thus there were no applications.
But Collins looked at his tantalum experiment as proving that triggering could work, and the issue was just a matter of finding a different, better isomer.
His belief in the potential of the right isomer was persuasive enough that, in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan announced his Strategic Defense Initiative (what became known as the Star Wars program), Collins's project got substantial Pentagon funding in the hopes that isomer triggering would become the energy source for a powerful gamma-ray laser, a weapon that might vaporize incoming missiles in outer space. But when the space-based Star Wars fell by the wayside in the 1990s -- too expensive and technologically uncertain -- Collins was left to carry on in obscurity.
Which Collins and his colleagues did, performing thousands of experiments over the span of a decade to find the best candidate for isomer triggering. In 1995, at a NATO workshop on isomers attended by Ukrainian and Russian scientists who had been conducting gamma-ray research during the Cold War, a consensus emerged that the isomer should be hafnium-178. A small supply had been found in minute quantities as an unintended byproduct of a Los Alamos accelerator. One ounce of hafnium-178 stores enough energy to boil 120 tons of water. One tankful of it could fuel a car on a trip around Earth 520 times. And, most to the point, one gram of the material would have up to 50,000 times the explosive power of a gram of TNT.
A Bomb And A Prayer
It was here, in the summer of 1998, that Collins and his group hooked up the dental X-ray machine and fired it at the hafnium sample. Today, the head of a similar X-ray machine, still attached to its swivel arm, sits discarded on the floor. The original audio amplifier, which Collins describes as the "type used in rock concerts," remains encased in concrete below the test bed, its final burying place.
Back in the office, behind a glass case, is the original Styrofoam cup, marked "Dr. C's memorial target holder," and next to it sits a second, identical cup ironically labeled "A cheap imitation."
The jury-rigged equipment is a testament to the resourcefulness of Collins's graduate students, the kind that only the command economies of communist Eastern Europe could have produced. A few of Collins's students picked up the X-ray machine from a dental-salvage business with a little sweet-talking and $1,500. Another student came up with the idea of using the 5-kilowatt amp to modulate the energy output.
The X-ray machine was left beaming on the hafnium for several weeks through a series of tests. There was no flash and bang -- even if hafnium proved to be everything Collins hoped it was, the microscopic sample's energy would be visible only to the most sensitive instruments. Instead, there was the painstaking recording and analysis of gamma-ray levels. Hafnium-178 has a half-life of 31 years, which means it gives off half of its stored energy over three decades. What Collins was looking for was clear evidence that his X-rays were accelerating that process, even a little bit.
Nothing about making the measurements or analyzing them was easy. It involved probability and margins of error, and required careful scientific rigor. But in a subsequent 1999 article in the respected scientific journal Physical Review Letters, Collins wrote that the experiment had been successful. The results were unambiguous, he claimed. He had been able to "trigger" the release of energy.
Among nuclear physicists, those results were met with some curiosity, some doubt and a great deal of ridicule. The results Collins claimed were absurdly out of whack with what conventional physics would allow for hafnium.
Critics also challenged his statistical accuracy, the high margin of error he reported and the overall significance of his results. Collins responded that the history of experimental physics was filled with examples of naysaying theoreticians being proved wrong. He dismissed the criticism as "judgmental opinion" and "logical fallacy."
But as the scientists fought out isomer triggering in the pages of Physical Review Letters, a number of dedicated isomer believers set out to show that Collins's results could be harnessed as a weapon. The isomer bomb began its roller-coaster ride from a controversial experiment in a relatively unknown science center to the inner sanctum of the military -- the E-Ring of the Pentagon. All it took was five years, an administration preoccupied with the war on terror, a new wellspring of support for nuclear and nuclear-type weapons, and an agency willing to ignore its own advisers.
Do You Believe In Isomers?
Sandia, along with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, is operated by the Department of Energy. The labs make up the three legs of the U.S. nuclear weapons lab system. (As the "Z Division" of the Manhattan Project -- the super-secret World War II program to develop the atomic bomb -- Sandia was assigned the engineering task of designing and building the weapons, while Livermore and Los Alamos were at the heart of physics work.)
McDaniel found a receptive hearing from his friend and Sandia program manager Nancy Ries. Shortly after the 1998 experiment, Ries and McDaniel started handing out campaign-style buttons that read, "I believe in isomers," according to Peter Zimmerman, then a senior arms control official in the Clinton administration. Ries, McDaniel and intelligence officials began giving briefings touting isomer research as "the best thing for weapons research since sliced bread," Zimmerman said. Hafnium could be used to build a more powerful bomb or, more to the point of what the military was looking for, a small bomb with a huge bang, the believers argued. And even better, building a weapon using hafnium wouldn't violate internationally negotiated restrictions on testing nuclear weapons or congressional limits on developing new nuclear weapons. Because it wouldn't involve splitting atoms, a hafnium bomb would be a totally new class of weapon.
Zimmerman had long heard talk about isomers as a potent energy source for weapons, but had never taken it very seriously. He was well versed in the scientific issues -- with a PhD in nuclear physics. His 30-year career spanned the overlapping worlds of science and national security. The "I believe in isomers" campaign hit him just as he prepared to take over his new job in Foggy Bottom as chief scientist of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, whose mission was to both promote arms control and be on the lookout for new developments in weapons. As chief scientist, Zimmerman was responsible for preventing "technological surprise" in the weapons field. Though the science of an isomer bomb seemed to him to be questionable and the promises vastly unrealistic, he couldn't stop thinking about the 1939 decision by the Navy's research laboratory to ignore an Italian-born physicist, Enrico Fermi, who tried to convince the U.S. military that the fascists were working on a new weapon based on nuclear fission. The military thought he was talking science fiction.
Now, with talk of an isomer weapon, Zimmerman said recently, "I had the science fiction reaction, and a rather bad science fiction at that. But what I wanted to know was that if I discouraged DOD from funding it, I wouldn't be like the admiral who turned down Enrico Fermi in 1939."
Zimmerman had somewhere to turn: an elite, secretive group of senior scientists called the Jasons. Thought to be named after the Greek mythical hero Jason, the group of approximately 55 advisers has been around since 1959, most of the time as part of the Defense Advanced Research Proj-ects Agency (DARPA) -- the Pentagon's primary R&D arm. Operating mostly under the radar screen of public view, the Jasons pick their own members from among the nation's top scientists. Often called upon to evaluate controversies beyond the scientific understanding of government officials, the Jasons have weighed in on items ranging from obscure technology to weighty policy issues, and their influence over the years has been enormous. A 1966 report by the Jasons cast doubt on the use of strategic bombing to cut the Viet Cong's supply lines during the Vietnam War. In another report, the Jasons concluded that low-yield nuclear testing wasn't necessary for the United States to maintain a robust stockpile of nuclear weapons, a recommendation that figured prominently in the Clinton administration's support for a moratorium on nuclear testing.
Most important to Zimmerman with regard to the hafnium-triggering experiment, the Jasons had the scientific clout that would allow them to say whether a given scientific pursuit was outright harebrained. Zimmerman asked the Jasons to look at four principal questions: Did Collins indeed demonstrate that an "enhanced decay rate," or triggering, really took place? What is the physical mechanism that would allow the triggering to take place? Could enough hafnium be produced feasibly in the next 20 years to make it useful? Could a triggering mechanism be produced in the next 20 years?
The Jasons' conclusions, reached in July 1999, were damning on all four fronts. In essence, the Jasons concluded that the whole thing didn't pass the "snicker test," according to Zimmerman.
But there was a problem with the Jasons' study. Carl Collins, the man whose science was in question, never spoke to the group.
Even so, the study wasn't just about Collins's work. "Even if you trigger it, you couldn't use it as a weapon," said Steve Koonin, the provost of the California Institute of Technology, who led the Jasons' study. Hafnium-178 emits radiation like crazy; the amount required to fuel a bomb would require so much shielding to protect whoever is around the material that it would defeat the idea of having a small bomb. With the shielding, it wouldn't be such a useful bomb anymore, Koonin said. Finally, even if you could trigger hafnium in a bomb, it would be impossible to "burn" all the hafnium isomer. The resulting explosion, he said, would simply disperse a large amount of highly radioactive material. He paused for a second, and then said, "It sure would make a great dirty bomb."
A hafnium bomb, even if it didn't leave radioactive fallout, still wouldn't be like an ordinary bomb because, along with an explosive force, it would emit intense, penetrating gamma rays. According to Hill Roberts, a scientist at SRS Technologies in Huntsville, Ala., a gamma-ray bomb is appealing to some because gamma rays can pass through solid material and penetrate living tissue. Theoretically, an energetic gamma-ray burst could penetrate bunkers, killing whatever was inside -- be it humans or anthrax stockpiles. Putting it more bluntly, he said, "Tissue turns to goo."
But none of that would matter if an isomer bomb was flat-out impossible. Which was exactly what the Jasons concluded. Zimmerman thought he'd closed the book on the matter, and so did the Jasons.
In fact, the isomer bomb was just getting started.
The Argonne Group
"When the results of that first paper came out, it seemed strange, and many nuclear physicists said it just couldn't be right," said John Schiffer, a senior scientist at the Argonne National Laboratory's Physics Division in Illinois. "There were some comments published, criticizing the paper, but most people just talked about it as something not to be taken seriously."
But in 2001, two years after Collins's results were published, John Becker, a physicist at the Livermore Lab, decided to do just that. He eventually put together a group of scientists that included Schiffer and 13 other researchers from three of the nation's leading Department of Energy labs: Argonne, Livermore and Los Alamos. The Becker group repeated the experiment using the powerful X-ray source at Argonne, which is the size of a football field and more than 100,000 times more intense than Collins's dental X-ray. According to the scientists who participated, if Collins's results were correct, then their team should have seen a much bigger signal than Collins had reported. But when the Argonne scientists turned on the X-ray, they saw nothing.
Collins's response: The Argonne group had set its X-ray at the wrong energy level. In his first article, Collins didn't specify the exact energy level that triggered the hafnium, he said, because his group learned what it was only after repeating the experiment at an advanced X-ray source in Japan. The scientists led by Becker did a second experiment a year later to attempt the level Collins described. Again, they found nothing.
This time Collins said the failure was the result of other differences in the design of the Argonne experiment. One of the most significant differences, he said, was that the radiation detectors were "blind" to precisely the energy level of gamma-ray emissions present when the isomer was triggered. In a recent interview, he described the members of the Argonne group as "failures," who were unfamiliar with the literature on triggering, inexperienced in the field and ill-equipped to repeat his experiments.
Becker and his colleagues responded by saying that the experimental differences were either irrelevant or untrue. Opinion in the scientific journals favored the Argonne group. In fact, Collins suddenly was no longer able to get published in Physical Review journals. He eventually published in Europhysics Letters, a lesser known journal. In April 2002, Don Gemmell, a physicist from Argonne, wrote to the editor of Europhysics Letters, warning that the journal was in danger of promoting a new "cold fusion" -- the infamous 1980s claim by two University of Utah researchers that they had discovered how to produce almost limitless energy by running electric current through a bottle of heavy water. After a series of e-mail exchanges, Europhysics Letters published the Argonne response and later declined to publish any more of Collins's papers.
Unable to publish in mainstream journals, Collins had to resort to Laser Physics, a Russian journal of lesser stature. Traditional physics seemed to have won the public battle. Becker's group had produced what it considered to be a textbook experiment that debunked hafnium triggering. The critics thought that, with Argonne's results in print, the 1998 Collins experiment was destined for the scientific dustbin.
Wrong again.
How To Build A Better Bomb
Mort Weiss, a retired nuclear physicist who once led Livermore Laboratory's isomer research, recently recalled that a CIA official named Fred Ambrose approached him in the 1980s to discuss CIA concerns about foreign countries developing isomer weapons. Then, after Collins's 1998 experiment, Weiss said, Ambrose became convinced that hafnium could be weaponized and that other countries, primarily Russia, were working actively on such a project. Weiss said he tried to explain that the physics wouldn't work, but Ambrose was convinced it would. "Fred is a true believer," Weiss said.
Ambrose did not respond to a request for an interview, and the CIA declined to comment.
The fears about hafnium technology falling into the wrong hands, and the Pentagon's desire for a weapon that could radiate through hardened bunkers and wipe out biological weapons, could only have multiplied after September 11, 2001. It had been three years since the Jasons' report, and George Ullrich, a senior Pentagon official in charge of weapons research, decided it was an opportune time to reassess the isomer debate. This go-round, the task was assigned to the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded research arm of the Pentagon. Unlike the Jasons, whose 1999 review of the subject lasted just one day, IDA exhaustively researched hundreds of papers on the subject, including those by Collins.
While the IDA report concluded that research on isomers should go forward, it was critical of the focus on weapons. "Don't force it into trying to be practical before the relevant background work is done and it becomes ready for 'prime time,'" the authors wrote. In a personal blow to Collins, the authors also concluded his Physical Review Letters paper was "flawed and should not have passed peer review."
Ullrich's office accepted the judgment and decided that isomers were best left to universities engaged in basic physics research. But soon the nuclear hand grenade would once again explode back from the brink of oblivion.
Martin Stickley arrived at DARPA as a program manager in 2002. Stickley, who had managed research programs for the Air Force in London, had supported research by some of Collins's Eastern bloc colleagues. According to two of the participants in Collins's dental X-ray experiment, Stickley was a believer. The European work, according to McDaniel, "really sparked Martin's interest" in starting a triggering program at DARPA.
Stickley did not respond to requests for comment, and requests to DARPA to interview him were declined.
For Stickley, a promoter of isomer research, the timing was fortunate. The Jasons, who had panned isomer triggering three years earlier, had since been relocated out of DARPA, and it didn't hurt that the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, unveiled by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, emphasized that the United States needed new nuclear as well as non-nuclear bombs to destroy difficult targets, such as buried bunkers that could hide terrorists or weapons of mass destruction.
Last May, Stickley gave a PowerPoint briefing to a review panel in which he promoted the hafnium program as the next revolution in warfare. Hafnium bombs could be loaded in artillery shells, according to a copy of the briefing slides, or they could be used in the Pentagon's missile defense systems to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the air. He encapsulated his vision of the program in a startling PowerPoint slide: a small hafnium hand grenade with a pullout ring and a caption that read, "Miniature bomb. Explosive yield, 2 KT [kilotons]. Size, 5-inch diameter." That would be an explosion about one-seventh the power of the bomb that obliterated Hiroshima in 1945.
In other words, hafnium, if it worked, would be just what the secretary had ordered.
Under the direction of Stickley, DARPA began to hand out a number of contracts, totaling about $7 million, to national labs and research institutes, most of them associated with participants in the 1998 experiment. According to the Air Force, which administers the contracts, and a DARPA document, McDaniel, Collins and a former student of Collins's, James Carroll, were funded to conduct triggering experiments. The agency planned to spend $10 million in 2004, and then $20 million in 2005, according to a description of the hafnium program that DARPA gave to the State Department.
But Stickley needed to solve a fundamental problem. To make hafnium into a weapon, he would need to produce enough hafnium-178 to conduct a bomb experiment. The micrograms that had been used by Collins and others to test the physics of triggering were nowhere near the amount needed for a bomb. In early 2003, DARPA assembled a 12-member Hafnium Isomer Production Panel (HIPP) to make recommendations on the best way to produce the elusive isomer. Paul Robinson, the head of Sandia, co-chaired the panel along with Ehsan Khan, a Department of Energy official assigned to DARPA's isomer project.
Initial estimates were not encouraging. The Pentagon at first pegged production costs at more than $1 billion a gram, according to Robinson. While McDaniel claims that the production cost estimates have come down by "three orders of magnitude" to about $1 million a gram, the capital costs, according to some members of HIPP, would include $30 billion to $50 billion to build the specialized facilities needed to produce hafnium.
But as it turned out, production was only one of HIPP's concerns.
Among the experts appointed to the panel was Bill Herrmannsfeldt, who had worked for 40 years at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Herrmannsfeldt, by his account, began his research by typing the word "hafnium" into the Google search engine. One of the hits concerned the Argonne experiment, which led him to the Jasons' study, and then the IDA study, all questioning the original Collins experiment. He saw the ominous shadow of cold fusion creeping in through the crack of a Pentagon door. It was all there for him: the incredible claims, the immediate doubt and, most important, the inability of independent researchers to successfully repeat the original experiment.
His doubts became stronger when HIPP members met to discuss the production issues. Collins made a presentation to the panel, criticizing the Argonne experiment, and yet no members of that experiment had been invited to the meeting. Herrmannsfeldt said he tried to discuss his doubts about the science with Stickley and Khan, but to little avail. "I begged Khan to invite the critics, maybe I even threatened him, because this was really dangerous, even worse than I thought it would be," he said.
Frustrated by the lack of response from DARPA, Herr-mannsfeldt spearheaded a campaign to undermine the very project he was supposed to help move forward. His anger peaked with an August 13, 2003, letter written directly to Stickley at DARPA and Khan at the Department of Energy. Signed by five members of the HIPP panel and 10 experts in the field, Herrmannsfeldt's letter urged another review of hafnium triggering.
In Washington this January for another HIPP meeting, Herrmannsfeldt spoke calmly and softly about his concerns. He jotted down equations to show how DARPA would never get any useful energy out of hafnium. He talked about the reviews and competing experiments. He acknowledged his political concerns about the program -- he calls hafnium "the mother of all dirty bombs" that would entice other countries to build nuclear weapons -- but he based his argument on science. "I complained about the lack of respect for scientific advice, major reviews such as the Jasons and IDA," he said after the latest meeting. "Martin [Stickley] then came back and not very politely told me DARPA was above such things, and 'could ignore any publicity' around the program."
The end result of the panel's meeting, according to Herrmannsfeldt, was that Khan and Stickley were enthusiastic that production costs could be brought down. The program would go on.
'High Risk, High Payoff'
In its 46-year history, DARPA has had some incredible successes -- such as ARPANET, now better known as the Internet. It also has had plenty of failures.
But, Tether reminded his audience, "there is no sin in failing at DARPA. "Why?" he asked. "Because no one remembers the failure."
"High risk, high payoff" is Tether's motto, and it is DARPA's job to fund far-out ideas. Put in that perspective, the $7 million DARPA spent on isomer research last year is barely a drop in an annual defense budget of more than $400 billion. So why worry?
"I think the critics recognize that by Department of Defense standards, it's not a lot of money," said Ivan Oelrich, a former IDA scientist now at the Federation of American Scientists. "Even if they think it's a total waste, why lose sleep over it? The Defense Department spends about $16,000 a second, so by DOD standards, it's not much to worry about. That might be part of the explanation."
But Oelrich, who is familiar with isomer research from his days at IDA, argued that money alone should not be the standard for judging the program. Though DARPA reasonably wants to err on the side of pushing things too hard, rather than being too conservative, he explained, "there have to be some standards." Triggering hafnium, in his opinion, just didn't meet any intelligent standard.
Even one of the beneficiaries of DARPA's spending on isomer research, James Carroll, Collins's former student, has some concerns about the agency's approach. From his office in Youngstown, Ohio, Carroll argued that isomer triggering is not analogous to cold fusion, but he also described his unease with the focus on weapons. DARPA's involvement in isomer research is similar to an "impedance mismatch," he said, a scientific term describing the result of joining two systems that have different conceptual bases. DARPA wants a fast track, Carroll explained, but isomer research is still at the very basic stage. "It's a mismatch between expectations and reality. That perhaps is the difficult part here."
Isomer research is extremely good basic science, he said. "Maybe you can never make anything practical out of it . . . Maybe none of it will pan out. But in the meantime, we will learn a lot about how the nucleus responds to people banging on it."
In declining to answer specific questions about DARPA's work on hafnium, Tether responded with a general written statement offering a compelling argument for pursuing the hafnium bomb. The countries of the former Soviet Union are interested in isomer weapons, he said, and "an enemy with this capability could create havoc on a scale that has never been seen before." He raised the specter of isomer car bombs and "a suicide bomber with a few pounds of isomer."
While such weapons could be devastating in the hands of an adversary, it would be useful for the United States to have it as a deterrent, Tether wrote. An isomer bomb "would give the U.S. a capability that would truly be revolutionary given our ability to deliver small munitions with incredible precision."
Isomers Hit Prime Time
Visiting defense contractors meet in conferences, on panels and at seminars in the Sheratons, Hiltons and Marriotts that populate Northern Virginia. While rarely five-star accommodations, they are all a convenient 10-minute drive to the Pentagon. The Hilton Towers in Ballston is definitely not for the high-end bandit. Sandwiched between a Metro station and an office building, the lobby of the hotel is the size of a typical family dining room, and the industrial carpet shows the wear of daily visitors rushing to early-morning appointments.
Sitting in the lobby one day last fall, an Army captain read the sports page, with a PowerPoint briefing at his side marked "Transformation, Now!" -- the Pentagon buzzword of the day. Rising from the opposite couch, a woman enthusiastically greeted a Russian doctor. They were off to a biological and chemical defense meeting. And here, too, was Carl Collins, all smiles and dressed as you might imagine any professor, with a golf shirt and sports jacket. Collins was in the area to brief DARPA's higher-ups on the progress in hafnium triggering, yet he seemed somehow out of place.
Defense contractors call the Pentagon "the customer," and speak about program "milestones," mixing military metaphors with business euphemisms and indecipherable acronyms. Collins does not walk the walk or talk the talk of a defense contractor. He speaks about the scientific method. He says he has never had a security clearance, and doesn't want one. He prefers doing research out in the open and wants to continue working with colleagues from behind the former Iron Curtain, he says. Although not particularly bothered by the military applications that have caught the eye of DARPA, he seems genuinely uninterested in its focus on weapons. He says that he really wasn't aware of how or why the agency became involved in his research. He had a contract in place with the Air Force, and at some point he simply noticed that part of the money was coming from DARPA.
In fact, that fall day in Ballston, Collins said he was unsure that hafnium would be useful for a bomb, though he claimed not to have given it much thought. If he had given any thought to applications, he said, it was to the concept of using tiny amounts of hafnium "seeds" for cancer therapy. The isomer seed, Collins said, could be "triggered" to give out precisely the right amount of gamma rays needed to destroy a tumor. There was already some interest in this from the Mayo Clinic, he said.
Collins laughed at the mention of the infamous dental X-ray machine. "That's not the worst of it," he said. "Sometimes we used car parts." But the truth is, he said, there is nothing wrong with using a dental X-ray machine to save money. And more importantly, he said, in 2001 he and his team, working with Japanese colleagues, went on to validate his original results at the world's most advanced X-ray source, the Spring-8 facility near Osaka, Japan. Collins chose Spring-8 precisely because he needed an advanced synchrotron, which can be tuned to precise energy levels. In his mind, this was the scientific method at work, the reproduction of earlier results proving out his theory of isomer triggering.
Collins is not beyond a bit of drama: He sees himself and his challenge to traditional nuclear physics as the modern-day equivalent of the trials of Giordano Bruno, the Dominican monk who was burned to death in 1600 for claiming Earth revolved around the sun. The "expert panels" represented by the Jasons and other critics are trying the same scare tactics, according to Collins. "You start talking about expert panels, that's exactly what they did to Bruno," Collins said. "This is the same thing."
But despite Collins's view that his initial triggering results were validated at Spring-8, there has been a lot of bad news since the big flash of attention in 1998. First, James Carroll, his former student, broke with Collins's group shortly after the first experiment and went on to set up his own gamma-ray research team at Youngstown State University, taking with him prominent Russian scientist Sarkis Karamian. Worse for Collins, Carroll began to challenge Collins's contention that the 1998 experiment -- and later experiments -- was clear proof of triggering. The data were not conclusive that triggering took place, Carroll maintained, saying that the results were "intriguing" but very preliminary. Carroll and Collins both declined to speak about the break, other than to acknowledge that it has personal as well as professional dimensions.
Collins asserts that his critics don't accept his results only because they didn't come out of a large science center. The mainstream journals are dominated by a "daisy chain" of famous scientists unwilling to accept groundbreaking work from outside their clique, he contends. Yet, at the same time, he denies that mainstream physicists reject his work, and points to allies like McDaniel.
McDaniel, who now works at Sandia, is a crucial part of the isomer debate because, while a Collins collaborator, he is also the only person who claims to have independently reproduced Collins's results. Using DARPA's sponsorship, McDaniel and his colleagues conducted a series of separate experiments, including three at a high-tech X-ray source at Louisiana State University over the past year. According to McDaniel, one experiment "seemed to corroborate Carl's results very well" and with fewer errors than previous Collins work. Another experiment proved difficult to measure, he said. A third experiment has been conducted, but he hasn't yet had time to assess the data.
McDaniel, however, has never published any of those results, giving rise to criticism that his alleged confirmation is meaningless. "All the data's noisy, so we were reluctant to publish," McDaniel said of his most recent experiments. Besides, he added, "publish or perish is not a problem for government employees."
The "noisy data" that concerned McDaniel involves statistical uncertainty and, possibly, background radiation that makes it difficult to be sure the instruments are measuring emissions from the hafnium, and not from something else. Another problem is the chronic inconsistency in experimental results. Some of McDaniel's tests produced data that exceeded the 1998 results, but others failed to show anything. It is hard to explain these differences, McDaniel acknowledges, but he argues the inconsistencies are reason enough to continue the experiments.
McDaniel contends that much of the criticism of hafnium is based on political concerns over a weapon. If hafnium proves out its potential, then the government will face a political decision. "If it does work, it's the same question about the super," McDaniel said, referring to the 1950s debate over developing the hydrogen bomb. The critics are trying to fight the science in the press because they don't like the politics, he said. "The issue is, in a free society, we need to know what's possible."
McDaniel, for one, believes that hafnium triggering is possible, and at Sandia last year, Paul Robinson, the head of the laboratory, was beginning to believe it, too. As a graduate student back in the '60s, Robinson himself had been interested in building a gamma-ray laser, and as an experimental physicist, he liked the romantic notion of proving the theoreticians wrong. More importantly, he trusted the work of Pat McDaniel. So, why is definitive, bowl-over-the-critics proof in such short supply? This is often the way new science discoveries start out, Robinson suggested.
"I suspect you'll keep looking at the triggering until you get it firmly established that you can do it," he said last year.
Of course, by that point, he noted, hafnium research "would probably be made classified, and you wouldn't read about it."
Robinson's remarks proved prescient. Last November, DARPA's talk of a new weapon made its way to the State Department's Bureau of Nonproliferation, which wanted to know why everyone was discussing plans for a new super-bomb out in the open. The bureau sent a batch of e-mails to government scientists expressing concern that without more secrecy, isomer technology could fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states.
Scientists who had been involved in the work at Argonne were apoplectic. The idea that the government would make a nonexistent weapon a classified secret struck them as silly, and also as dangerous if it meant that the scientific debate became shrouded in secrecy. As Don Gemmell, the Argonne physicist, responded in frustration, "Classifying the work at this stage would serve to protect this waste from public scrutiny. I would sooner see us look for ways to trigger a chain reaction in sugar. The material is readily available, is not radioactive, has an energy density greater than TNT, and is about as likely to work as 178Hf!"
At least some of the scientists' doubts may have reached DARPA. According to Herrmannsfeldt, the critic on the production panel, in late February two leading weapons scientists, both critical of the isomer program, jointly called Tether. After the conversation, DARPA's director took one step back. Rather than putting money into hafnium production immediately, according to DARPA spokeswoman Jan Walker, the agency will focus on experiments to "scientifically prove, to the satisfaction of the majority of the nuclear physics community," that isomer triggering is real. For now, rather than the $30 million originally planned for 2004 and 2005, DARPA will spend just $7 million, according to updated budget submissions.
Zimmerman, the former arms control agency chief scientist, is skeptical that even the more cautious approach will make much difference in the end. "I think that a program like this, once started, will have an enormous amount of inertia," he said. It won't be a matter of someone deciding that this is just a waste of money, it will stick around for years, and likely grow in scope, he added. Zimmerman's concerns also go well beyond the science. "Are we going to advertise that we are going to build a new nuclear-type weapon based on new physical principles?" he asked.
The isomer bomb is foolish, Zimmerman said, but it's foolish in a dangerous sort of way if it pushes other countries to build real nuclear weapons in the hope of deterring the United States from using a fanciful hafnium bomb.
Back at Carl Collins's office in Texas, a clutter of paper shrouds his desk. A portrait of a beautiful young woman -- an old photo of Collins's wife, Doina -- stands out amid the chaos. Nearby is a copy of a novel by Dallas author Payne Harrison, who has written a number of techno- thrillers. The plot of one of them, Thunder of Erebus, has it all: a fictional isomer called rubidium-86, gamma-ray lasers for Star Wars, and then DARPA's development of a new, super-conventional weapon based on isomer triggering after Star Wars is canceled. In the book, Russia decides that it must control the world's supply of rubidium-86 (which, in the novel, is in Antarctica) for fear of DARPA's secret isomer program. Ironically, the Pentagon fears the Russians will build their own isomer weapon and then invade a country in the Persian Gulf.
Some years ago, Harrison hung around the gamma-ray lab for a few months "to absorb the culture," according to Collins. The author, a former tax accountant, shadowed Collins's team, eventually drifting out of the lab as quietly as he came in.
The odd thing is, Thunder of Erebus was published in 1991 -- a full decade before DARPA says it ever funded work on an isomer bomb.
Last May, Collins appeared at a DARPA meeting and showed a slide of a man hitting a golf ball across a field, a mushroom cloud rising at the end of the ball's arc. The caption read: "A golf ball filled with the isomer would have the energy of 10 tons of explosive." Collins was visibly uncomfortable when asked about the diagram, which was displayed at a closed meeting, and said apologetically that the "sponsors," DARPA, had asked him to make an illustration to show hafnium's potential. Collins is an avid golfer.
Asked how he felt about conducting an experiment whose results, if true, could lead to the next super-bomb, Collins began to talk about the need for science in a free society, about the medical applications, and then paused. "I guess I don't feel anything. At some point, I'll retire and go play golf," he said with a smile.
Sharon Weinberger covers Congress and the military for Defense Daily, a trade publication. She will be fielding questions and comments about this article Monday at 1 p.m. on www.washingtonpost.com/liveonline.
Tony B.
Message 16964 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16964
"Roy Wolford" <rwolf@r...>
wrote:
> Yahoo! Groups : theoretical_physics Messages : Message 1299 of
1299Is it possible to have galactic structuring of Quasars and our
galaxy is passing through the edge of one of them? That would
explain strange positioning. Of course, being more massive, the
distances involved within the structuring of Quasars would be
greater than a normal galaxy. Oops, there goes the red shift. At
what angle would we be approaching the Quasars or running away from
them. Just a thought.
>
> I have often wondered how our galaxy can be approaching one
another when a Big Bang would demand speeding away. Then,
centrifugal and centripetal force with spin and distance solved that
problem. Think about the possibility of our galactic structuring
being the infant stage of Quasar structuring. I do not believe we
are out here spinning for the fun of it. Here you could have the
answer to those mysterious unaccounted for great bursts of energy of
billions of suns, collapsing Quasar galaxies.
>
> Have fun,
> Roy Wolford
Dear Roy and String Theory Forum!
Your scientific intuition is following the same cosmogenesis embodied
in the blending of superbrane theory with the Standard Big Bang
model.
All of the Standard Problems in regards to flatness, the horizon
communication and the density distributions are solved in allowing
the de Broglie phasetransiton to occur in 11 dimensions to fixate
the subsequent evolution of the 10-dimensional dynamics.
The 11D resonance of Riemann's hypersphere is electromagnetically
closed with ellipsoidal positive curvature and in a sense oscillates
between two Hubble Nodes defined in Ho=58.04 km/Mpc.s, that is a
'Hubble-Wavelength' of 16.88 billion lightyears.
This 11D-Mother Black Hole can be modelled on a 5D-Kaluza-Klein-de
Sitter space, macroquantising the Calabi-Yau 6D conifoldments.
Much recent work by Strominger, Vafa, Hawkings, Witten, Susskind
and others is converging to such a scenario in 5D-Anti-deSitter
spacial topologies (referring to the Antiness as an 'empty'
universe).
Then the 4D-Riemann space as volume is mapped onto a 5D-surface in a
information transfer process nunder guidance ofthe 'Holographic
Principle'.
The hypershere, also known as Poincare's 3-sphere itself can however
be said to be a 3-dimensional surface in 10D of a hyperbolic and
open curvature,mapping itself asymptotically onto the 11D as a
Witten-Mirror mapping say.
So what is modified at the beginning, is the inflation scenario out
of a Temperature Gradient, defining the Higgs Scalar Field as a
consequence of Temperature/KE tunnelling.
One can model this on a mapped 'false vacuum'.
The interesting fact in this quantum tunnelling becomes the
crystallisation of a certain deceleration parameter qo=0.01401506,
representing the ratio between the Higgs Field hyperacceleration and
the de Broglie phase acceleration.
This can also be defined as Go.Mo/c^2.Rmax=Mo/2Mcritical=qo.
Here the Einstein Field equations directly lead to the Schwarzschild
solution, defining the critical density 3Ho^2/8pi.Go and Mcritical.
Because the de Broglie phase defines the wormholeperimeter W as a
derivative of the heterotic superstring HE(8x8), manifesting the
superbrane energy spectra physically; the Higgs Field becomes
defined in:
Lambda(timeinstanton)=GoMo/W^2=2.015x10^85 m/s^2.
The de Broglie phase hyperacceleration then is Rmax.c^2/W^2 leading
to qo and the subsequent formulation for the cosmogenesis of the
asymptotically expanding 10D/4D universe 'filling' the already
created 11D/5D space with toroidal KleinBottle Volume 2pi^2.Rmax^3.
The overall cosmic topology, combining the three case scenario of
the Friedmann model is so rendered perfectly Euclidean flat, the
outer spheroidal curvature encompassing the inner hyperbolic
curvature, the latter becoming 'mapped' in 12D-Vafa-F-space of the
entropy- and timereversal.
No horizon- and flatness problems exist, because the zero curvature
is an inbuilt parameter of the heterosis between superbrane
dimensions and the reduced Riemann space dimensions.
No density problem exists, because the critical Mass Mcritical has
already defined the overall masscontent of the universe in its
mapping onto the MassSeed Mo (which is 2.qo or 0.02803 at the
timeinstanton and has 'evolved/grown' to 3.68% for the present time).
And because at this present time, so 7.56 10D universes 'fit' into
the 11D 'envelope', a 'missing mass' of 7.56x3.68=27.82% is measured
by the astrophysics.
The Higgs Field is diminishing as a kind of 'quintessence', however
always engaging in a harmonic equilibrium dance with the
gravitational Omega (2qo) and the intrinsic parametrisised
deceleration (Milgrom deceleration given as -2cHo/(n+1)^3 where
n=proper TauTime in General Relativity as Rc(t)=c.dt/dTau, dn/dt=Ho).
Now this deceleration parameter also relates to the architecture of
the universe as a function of the cosmological redshift.
It is not galaxies moving away, but the 10D space is decelerating
into the 11D space.
This is why the cosmological redshift is the correct interpretation
for the universes 'second' expansion after the 'first' de Broglie
expansion.
qo.Rmax sets this cosmic architecture as the SarkarRadius as 236.5
Million lightyears at the redshift of 7.477, defining a Quasar-Wall
236.5 million lightyears (n=TauTime=0.01401506) after the Big Bang.
All subsequent galactic evolution is based on this constant of
cosmic architecture.
At n=0.1064, z=2.15 or 1.79 billion years after timeinstantenuity,
the lamda-quintessence became 0 and the matter deceleration was
exactly balanced in the Hubble/Milgromdeceleration.
This initiated the acceleration of galaxy formation, based on the
quasar wall, defined in the birth of quasars fromylemic (or
dineutronic) protostars, defined simp0lyu as a function of their
temperrature, independent of their mass and defined in subatomic
parameters.
(The formulation for ylemic protostars is:
Rylem(T)=Sqrt.(kTRe^3/Go.Mc^2) m)
k=Boltzmann Constant, T=Temperature, Re=ElectronRadius,
Go=Gravitational boundary Constant and Mc=protonucleonmass).
Corrsponding proper times define the neutron's beta decay.
The galactic architecture then reached its maximum at z=1.19 and a
proper time of 3.97 billion years or n=0.2352 after the Big Bang.
This is the 'Peak of Galaxies'.
At the present time then, z=0.2502 as the Arpian redshift limit for
a n=1.1324 and a proper time of 19.11 billion years as the true age
for the universe in 11D.
In 10D, because of the 11D/10D dimensional intersection, the true
nodal HubbleConstant converges to a value of 66.9 km/Mpc.s, reducing
the universe's 'age' in improper time to 14.7 billion years.
Any redshifts below 0.2910 are 'improper' and must become subject to
a redshift correction correlation (outlined in previous posts).
The larger the redshifts, the more true the proper time as measured
from the vantage point of the observer travelling with and as the
EVENT HORIZON of the expanding 10D space.
Changing to the equally valid perspective of being located AT the
Big Bang Instanton, renders the largest redshifts the smallest in
the convergence of the modular duality and symmetries inherent in
the superbrane definitions.
Experimental evidence fully supports the scenario indicated in the
above.
In terms of decelerations, presently the lambda assumes 81.7% of the
Milgrom factor and the omega 18.3%.
Precisely this has been measured in the latest Sloan survey of the
sky.
All galaxies and stars are built upon intrinsic spacetime parameters
defined on the Higgs Scalar Field MANIFESTING as VORTEXENERGIES,
defined as inflow-outflow sourcesinks.
This VPE=Vortex-PE=Vacuum-PE then manifests the superbrane
parameters of the de Broglie phase as metric spacetime background.
Ashketar's parallel vector transport models and Penrosian twistor
spaces, Smolin's quantum loop geometries for quantum gravity and
M-F-Theory, all converge towards a great synthesis, using the above
description as boundary conditions.
Summarising, all stars and galaxies are defined in their structures;
first by the Temperasture spectrum of primordial ylemic
dineutronstars and secondly on the Sarkar architecture binding the
galacticsuperclusters together gravitationally and in their cosmic
timeframes.
Subsequenty all stars are ylemic in their nature and all galaxies
must be defined in the quasarwall, manifesting in hierarchies of
BlackHole-WhiteHole dyadic systems.
Quasars are everywhere, but disguised as vortex energysourcesinks in
tandem with their Black Hole complements.
Much further discussion should illuminate and crystallise the
eventuating parameters and subsequent cosmicevolution even better.
Thank you Roy for your input.
I hope this elucidation has both supported you in regards toyour
thoughts and has supplied you with some additional background data.
Your ideas on the elementary -0+ fluctuation of the wormhole
singularity has also been fully borne out in the manifestation of
the Planck-Length-Oscillation discussed previously.
Best of Science to you Tony B.
Message 16972 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16972
"Roy Wolford"
<rwolf@r...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: alandean
> To: Jen Bulick ; Gladys Sheetz ; Jack Utter ; Sharon Jones ; Roy
Wolford ; RANDY BAUGHER ; quigley@m...
> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:34 PM
> Subject: Fw: fyi
>
>
>
>
> The university professor challenged his students with this
question.
>
> "Did God create everything that exists?"
>
> A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"
>
> "God created everything?" The professor asked.
>
> "Yes sir", the student replied.
>
> The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God
created
> evil, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our
works
> define who we are, then God is evil".
>
> The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor,
quite
> pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven
once
> more that the Christian faith was a myth.
>
> Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question
> professor?"
>
> "Of course", replied the professor.
>
> The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
>
> "What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you
never been
> cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.
>
> The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist.
According to
> the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the
absence of
> heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or
> transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or
> transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460? F) is the total absence of
heat;
> all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that
temperature.
> Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we
feel
> if we have no heat."
>
> The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
>
> The professor responded, "Of course it does."
>
> The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does
not
> exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light
we can
> study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break
> white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of
each
> color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can
break into
> a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a
> certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't
this
> correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens
when
> there is no light present."
>
> Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
>
> Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have
already
> said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's
> inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence
> everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but
> evil."
>
> To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least
it
> does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It
is
> just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to
describe the
> absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith,
or love
> that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what
> happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart.
It's
> like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that
> comes when there is no light."
>
> The professor sat down.
>
> The young man's name --- Albert Einstein
>
Dear Roy!
What a beautiful story about the perennial philosophy.
Two polarities must form a dichotomy to allow the potential harmony
between them to exist.
And this of course also answers your Order/Entropy question.
Look at the Angel of Order as a HeShe entity.
To ultimately harmonise, HeShe must engage in a 'Dragonomy' with
Disorder, a Wedding between Heaven and Hell.
Hisher bridegroom is the SheHe for the groombride.
They are known as AlphaOmega and OmegaAlpha also.
And the simulation within the polarities becomes the 'infinitesimal'
of (Francom)Adjacency,which is none other but your -0+ fluctuation
of two neutrality centres (whom you have called two zero-centres I
recall.
So Roy you may find your cosmology hidden in the mythologies and the
perennial philosophy (ancient wisdom) should you intuit deeply
enough with your mindfulness.
As Albert Einstein said: "Pure thought can grasp reality, as the
ancients dreamed!"
Congratulations on an excellent post.
You are supported also by George Ryazanov, a Russian physicist which
talked ast the Sakharov lectures.
He shares our philosophy.
Tony B. Sirebard
Message 16973 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16973
"Enrique Morales Riveira"
<emorale1@p...> wrote:
> Continuing with the discussion of the crucial role that
hierarchical barycenters plays in universal gravitation, I proceed
now to explain the cause of Mercury's perihelion's rotation:
>
>
Dear Enrique, Harald, Etherman and All!
Harald, I have heared that the MMX was struck off yahoo, because of
some impropriety issue of publishing something without authority.
Etherman, you are right in saying that the proton does not decay,
diamonds are forever.
The valif aspect of the GUT-unitary transformations is their
limiting unification energyof the Magnetic Monopole.
The latter is also the Gamma Ray Burster Maximum as
2.7x10^47 'monopolic watts' per kilogram, measured as luminosity
output in Joules.
The corresponding monopolemass is 2.7x10^16 GeV, very close to the
approximation used by GUT-models.
But there is no supersymmetry (as proposed) to the proton, it cannot
decay either into a positron-neutral pi-meson or an antineutrino-
pluskaon-meson; the reasons to propose proton decay in the first
place.
This is because the quark geometry disallows disassociation of the
proton into quark/antiquark (meson) lepton pairings as indicated.
The proton's quark geometry has been experimentally measured to be
best approximated by a kind of onion-layered structure by thge
Krisch experiments in the 1980's.
What the proton does, it decays and reassociates in a fundamental
parameter of elementary physics, namely the time it talkes for
light 'c' to cross the protonic diameter, which is the classical
electronic radius defgining its Compton wavelength/Compton
Scattering.
So there are subatomic resonances, called the Delta-Group for the
nucleon, consisting of 4 members: Delta++ (spin 3/2, charge +4/3),
Delta+ (spin 3/2, charge +1), Delta0 (spin 3/2, charge0 as neutron
delta) and Delta- (spin 3/2, charge -1) as a SU-Unitary Symmetry
group.
The proton disassociates into a Delta++ and a Down-Quark (spin -1/2,
charge -1/3) in this strong-nuclear-interaction-decay and
automatically recombines as the stable proton under the intermediacy
of the gluon template (of 8 colour permutations).
The down-quark is made up of a Mesonic Inner Ring (chatge -1),
hugging the 'complementary' kernelquark (+2/3 charge, spinning in
unison with the mesonic ring).
The proton's energy derives however fromthe trransmission of the
aforesaid magnetic monopole spectrum from the proposed (but greatly
simplified)Higgs Bosonic restmass induction process.
Enrique, I've read your post below and would like to ask you some
questions before goindg into details.
How do you assume the statement, that the sun would spin only once
in its circumnavigation of the galactic centre?
If spin is an intrinsic property of cosmological bodies, then what
determines intrinsic angular momenta of those bodies?
The cosmic architecture constant in my model is very close to the
rotation period of the sun around its galactic focuspoint in the
Sarkar Constant of 236.5 million years.
Have you any connections to this?
The barycentral attraction between the masses would be Newtonian and
the orbital drag seems to me the application of local curvature of
space in the tidal effect, that is the Weyl-part of the Riemann
curvature tensor R=Weyl-tidal + Ricci.g-metric.
Now the Weyl-curvature preserves volume in distortion, but the Ricci-
curvature reduces volume in contraction, increasing density.
And Einstein used exactly this local distortion of the combined
Riemann tensor to predict the perihelion advance of Mercury as local
application of General Relativity.
What you are implying is, that there might be a rotational
counterpart to the curvature/mass relations which could account for
the same space distortion.
Sincerely Tony B.
>
> The Sun's center of mass rotates around the Solar System's
barycenter every 26 terrestrial days approximately. The Solar
System's barycenter is found inside the Sun's mass, a few kilometers
from the Sun's center of mass. Therefore, given such a distance
between the two centers of mass, on the one hand, and given the
Sun's huge mass, on the other, the gravitational force that causes
the Sun's center of mass to rotate around the Solar System's
barycenter is, certainly, a force of colossal magnitude. If the Sun
were not to have the planets and comets which translate in orbit
around the Solar System's barycenter, the Sun, instead of spinning
every 26 Earth days on its axis of rotation, would spin on itself
once with each circumvolution around the Milky Way's barycenter;
that is, that a spin on its axis of rotation would last 225 million
years to be completed.
>
>
>
> The quick rotation of the Sun's center of mass around the Solar
System's barycenter every 26 terrestrial days has a very big,
gravitational influence on the planet Mercury's solar orbit,
inasmuch as said planet not only is situated at a short distance
from the Sun but also has a quite eccentric or elongated, elliptical
orbit. Therefore, when the planet Mercury approaches its perihelion
with regard to the Solar System's barycenter, two accompanying
gravitational forces work on said planet.
>
>
>
> The first is the gravitational, attractive force produced by the
Solar System's barycenter on the planet, which is the one that
causes it to orbit around the Sun, describing a rather eccentric,
elliptical orbit.
>
>
>
> The second gravitational force affecting Mercury's orbit is a drag
or pulling force produced by the rotational translation of the Sun's
center of mass in space, especially when Mercury approaches its
perihelion, or shortest orbital distance relative to the Sun.
>
>
>
> The orbital drag force produced by the Sun's center of mass's
motion and the gravitational attractive force the Solar System's
barycenter exerts over the planet Mercury have a very small average,
radial, angular difference between their respective radial axes, due
not only to the average distance between the Sun and Mercury's being
0.387 of an astronomical unit, but also to the average very short
distance between the Sun's center of mass and the Solar System's
barycenter.
>
>
>
> So, when the planet Mercury undergoes its perihelion, said
additional, orbital drag force reaches its maximum magnitude, as
well as its maximum angular difference with regard to the
gravitational force exerted by the Solar System's barycenter over
the planet Mercury. On the contrary, when Mercury goes through its
aphelion, or greatest orbital distance in relation to the Sun, said
orbital drag force's magnitude is noticeably weakened and the axial
angle between the two aforementioned gravitational forces becomes
practically nil.
>
>
>
> The very small, average, angular difference between those two
gravitational forces is what causes Mercury's perihelion to rotate
at a 0.1" angle in the direction of the planet's orbital motion with
each revolution it carries out around the Solar System's barycenter.
In other words, Mercury's perihelion's miniscule rotation in the
direction of its orbital motion is due to an almost imperceptible
increase in the planet's orbital angular momentum during the
planet's passage through its perihelion. That increase in Mercury's
orbital angular momentum is counter-balanced at all times by the
rotation of the Sun's center of mass.
>
>
>
> Best regards to all NPA's members who may have red this message,
>
>
>
> ENRIQUE MORALES-RIVEIRA
Message 16974 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16974
Allen Francom wrote:
>
>Gravity re-collapsing the gas from one or
>more Novae seems to be negentropic.
>
>
Actually no. Gravitational energy is negative, so when a mass collapses,
the gravitational energy becomes *more* negative. It is still a case of
energy flowing downhill, and the gravitational energy converts to energy
of motion. Genuine "negentropic" processes are always accompanied by
other related processes that make the *overall* process entropic.
Life for example is negentropic. But when you look at the whole system,
which includes the sun, we see that the *whole* system is actually very
entropic. The local negentropic part on the earth's surface is in fact
driven by a vast energy input from the sun, and this star generates that
energy at the expense of a huge increase in its own entropy.
For another example you can try for yourself - crystallisation of a salt
from a supersaturated solution. The crystallisation itself is definitely
negentropic, but the solution heats up in the process. If you try it
with sodium sulphate for example**, the effect is quite dramatic. If you
shake the supersaturated solution, crystals grow throughout the flask in
a matter of seconds, and it becomes too hot to hold.
The confusion arises for most people because they do not know the
fundamental relation between entropy and work. It is
W = DE -TDS
where "D" means "a change in", E is the internal energy of the system, T
is the energy density (before the change), or energy content per unit of
mass (temperature for example), and S is the entropy. In order for a
process to occur spontaneously, the W (work) term has to be negative. If
it is positive, the process has to be driven from some outside energy
source.
When a supersaturated solution crystallises, the DS term is positive
because the system locally becomes more orderly, but work is
nevertheless done *by* the system because the internal energy change is
greater (and negative), rendering the W term itself negative, so the
process occurs spontaneously.
In the gravity case, again, the negative energy term swamps the positive
entropy term, so the collapse is spontaneous, even though the end result
seems to be less entropic. Not so though, as the end result is also a
lot hotter, so the overall energy change is downhill as it must be for a
spontaneous process, and the overall entropy increases.
>However, I believe, on the whole, that
>there is an ultimate "loss" of mass
>in favor of "more energy".
>
>
No, don't treat mass as somehow distinct from energy. They are the same
thing, just measured in different ways. Mass *is* energy. If you want to
make a distinction between energy as mass and energy as work, OK, but do
realise that if energy converts to matter, or matter converts to energy,
the overall mass of the system remains constant.
OTOH, you might make a distinction between energy as heat (which is just
motion on a quantum scale) and radiation, and energy as matter. Sure, if
you consume mass in some process, like fusion in the sun, then the
result is a lot of heat and light, but that heat and light has the
*same* mass as the amount of mass that the sun itself loses in the process.
>Usually we do not see energy becoming
>mass, no matter what.
>
This is meaningless because energy does not "become" mass. It IS mass.
If you refer instead to "matter" rather than "mass", then right - it is
unusual, but not unknown if the energy density is high enough. At ultra
high temperatures, far hotter than the sun, raw energy becomes matter.
We can achieve such temperatures locally by pumping up electrons or
protons to velocities close to c, so when they hit something, their
energy of motion (their temperature in other words) converts to a shower
of matter particles.
>
>
>I gather there have been some accelerator
>experiments that would beg to differ.
>
>
Indeed - if you shine 1.5Mev gamma radiation at a piece of lead foil,
matter and antimatter come out the other side. The mass of the particles
is the same as the mass energy of the 1.5Mev radiation, which is
consumed in the process.
>So I just don't know.
>
>I believe the direction of time, as brian
>greene suggests, follows the path of
>entropy.
>
>
Indeed it does. Time as a dimension is reversible, but this only has
effect on a quantum scale, and even then it's not "time travel". All it
means is that a positron for example, is an electron in reverse time. It
reverses all the space vectors. Motion from right to left become left to
right. Clockwise spin becomes anticlockwise, and since charge is the
basis of electrostatic force, because the force vector reverses (pushes
become pulls), the charge factor does so too.
But the direction of time as we understand it is governed by macroscopic
processes, which are complex. The probability of reversal of a complex
process is very low, and at our scale, vanishingly small. Hence iron
rusts, but rust does not spontaneously turn back to bright iron, for
example.
Because of the confusion inherent in the reversibility of quantum time,
but the irreversibility of macro time, physicists avoid the term
"direction" when referring to macro time, and refer instead to the
"arrow" of time. And yes, it is intimately tied to the direction of
entropic energy flow, which is itself intimately tied in with probability.
>The universe, if it doesn't collapse,
>should eventually fizzle to just
>radiation or "empty space".
>
>
Indeed. Eventually all local concentrations of matter will end up in
black holes (that's the 'collapse" aspect), though it will take a long,
long time. Then the black holes will decay by Hawking radiation, leaving
a universe empty of matter, but rather a thin field of radiation.
As space continues to expand though, the energy density will eventually
become so low that it becomes subject to the uncertainty principle, and
when that point is reached, you have a primal vacuum once again, out of
which new universes could conceivably materialise.
>And yet we get light from galaxies
>100 billion light years away or more,
>father back in time supposedly than
>the age of the universe. Weird.
>
>
No we don't. There's been some guff written along those lines, but it's
crap. No galaxy seen by the Hubble telescope is older than about 12
billion years.. The CMBR is 13 billion years old, and is the heat flash
of the creation event. The universe is thus a little over 13 billion
years old.. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what he's talking
about. In particular, ignore weirdos who claim that the universal
redshift is not recessional.
These characters (who seem to be people who are hell bent for some
reason in wanting to discredit relativity - probably because they are
just too dumb to understand it) try to justify their assertion by
pointing out that there are light sources which show deep red shifts,
but which are actually closer than others with more modest redshifts.
Well, yes, there are, but they are not part of the *general* relation of
redshift to distance. The cause of these anomalous redshifts is that
they are galaxies with supermassive central black holes, so large than
the light of the galaxy core is gravitationally redshifted over and
above the general recessional redshift..
However such huge galactic black holes are rare, so the number of such
anomalous redshifts is small. Also, long exposures reveal that the
anomaly is restricted to the bright central region of the galaxy. The
fainter outer parts are redshifted according to the distance/redshift
ratio, so the galaxy is in fact where it should be.
The overall relation between redshift and distance is alive and well. It
is only in the finer details that we have some difficulties. One of
these of course is that we now know the distance/redshift relation is
not as Hubble originally thought, strictly linear.
Fine measurement reveals a universe whose expansion rate was slowing for
the first seven billion years, but has since been accelerating. This
means the distance/redshift relation is not a straight line, but a
gentle curve. However the departure from linearity is not great, so as a
rough approximation, it can still be regarded as linear for general
purposes.
The interesting thing about this non linearity is that it tells us there
has to be a force involved. The old linear idea could get away without a
force because momentum is conserved, and the galaxies simply "coasted"
apart from some original impetus in the creation event itself. However
non linearity implies that the galaxies aren't just coasting, but are
actually being continuously pushed, albeit weakly, so the search is
now on for the source of that push.
>So maybe there are other "inputs"
>that we're not aware of yet that may
>be continuous rather than a one time
>something "bang".
>
>
The vacuum could be producing "new" universes all the time under our
very noses, but even if it is, we would not be able to see them because
they would not run according to the same rules as the one we are a part
of. On principle, different universes arising out of primal vacuum,
cannot communicate. To do so would breach logic and the principle of
cause and effect. And nature simply never does that. Logic is apparently
essential to existence, and for totally different universes to
communicate would breach logic.
If you doubt this, consider that everything we see depends ultimately on
the size of the basic natural constants. Another universe would have
different values. How could we meaningfully see light, or charge, or
mass energy, with two different values simultaneously? That just
wouldn't make sense, so nature censors such observation. Theoretically
there seems no reason to forbid the existence of alternative universes,
but there is certainly reason to forbid us from ever detecting them
empirically.
:-)
mac
>;)
>
>-AEF
>
** Dissolve as much pure sodium sulphate as you can in boiling distilled
water. Then decvant the liquid and leave it to stand in a place free of
vibrations, and above all don't allow any dust to get into the solution.
With luck, it will cool to room temperature, but with the lack of
anything to nucleate crystallisation, it is supersaturated.
If you then shake or tap the container, you can cause local nucleation,
which then sets up a chain reaction through the solution. The whole
solution becomes almost solid, and the flask becomes too hot to
handle.... Though the crystallisation is negentropic, the overall
process is not.
Message 16975 in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16975"Roy Wolford"
<rwolf@r...> wrote:
> Here is something I wrote back in Jan. 13,
2001.
>
Roy Wolford
>
rwolf@r...
>
January 13, 2001
>
>
>Dear Roy, here are some comments regarding your ideas.
>
>
>
> BEYOND EINSTEIN AND BACK
>
>
BY ROY WOLFORD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FORWARD
> Since Einstein's Special Theory and Einstein's General Theory
of Relativity fail to unite quantum mechanics and gravity and remain
quite separate and different from each other, one must recognize the
similarity of the three forces involved and the fact that another
theory is missing. So, just what can be implied by this mystery?
> All through the totality of Creation, there is the dominance
of THREE. We have the positive, neutral, and negative factors
playing a game of "Walking The Fence." When something is walking
the fence, there is always two ways to fall. So, we have a theory
for the left side of the fence and a theory for the right side of
the fence, but do not have a substantiated theory for walking the
fence.
> Enter the Superstring Theories and the myriad of equations
evolving from the infinity of squiggly infinitesimal strings. So,
it has been stated that our world only "APPEARS" to be made of
point particles because our measuring devices are too crude to see
these tiny strings. It is this part of the superstring theory that
I wish to take issue with.
> I believe the issue of neutrality must be looked at as
possessing both the positives and negatives in every situation
because of the potential to "fall off the fence," and the point is
therefore the true factor and the string is the "APPEARING" factor.
> So, in order to explain this situation, we must venture into
the universe of the faster than light particles, the timeless
dimensions of theoretical quantum physics and the top of the fence.
> Roy Wolford
>
>
Roy Wolford (219) 223-2444
>
750 E 425 N rwolf@r...
>
Rochester, IN 46975 January 11, 2001
>
>
> COMPACTED
FIELD THEORY
>
> As we humans, on our micro-dot in a universe, are delving
into the mysteries of our universe, we cannot seem to shake the ego
problem of being special. Some of us even have the audacity to
believe we are the complete authority on these mysteries, to the
point of altering creation. In actuality, we are as children, with
a few toys, playing in a sand box.
>
> We humans walk upon concrete, steel, and many other
structures made up of atoms, but the structuring continues beyond
our comprehension. Imagine the Top Quark presenting a theory to the
scientific community of the atomic world. Top Quark states that the
structuring continues far beyond the molecular stage and there are
human and other structures walking on, swimming in. and flying in
this molecular structuring of your atomic world. After the laughter
dies down, Top Quark is ignored by the scientific world of the
atomic community by complete isolation and silence. They would call
him "strange," trying to bring him "down," but with his "charm," he
would rise "up" from the "bottom" and come out on "top."
>
> Whereas, the present theories entertain the prevailing law of
mass not being capable of exceeding the speed of light, my theory
utilizes a particle of energy capable of instantaneous speed
relative to the quantum unit. This makes it a string theory not
only bound by quantum mechanics, but also bound by quantum physics.
Infinity assures certainty. Nature has an automatic transmission
allowing the smooth flow of natural occurrences, whereas mankind is
still using the stick shift with 90 weight gear oil. This is
explained in the following metaphor:
>
>
QUANTUM PSYCHOLOGY
>
> As I travel upward, on life's mountain of knowledge,
> I find a deeply worn path,
> Of others before me, leaving their footprints,
> With the equations of math.
> There are many branches, left along the way,
> Beckoning and calling, to lead one astray.
> It is liken to a forest, that has many, many, trees,
> With scientists examining every root, down upon their knees.
> They proceed up the trunk, and finally reach the seed,
> And then begin to wonder, who caused this miraculous deed.
> Their movements shake the branches, and cause the seed to
fall.
> They watch the wonder of their growth and exclaim,
> "Why, WE are the cause of it all."
>
Roy Wolford
>
> Mankind has an ego problem standing in the way of knowledge.
Just because mankind shakes the branches of the tree does not mean
man created anything other than a disturbance. Mother Nature does
not have a problem with uncertainty, which is a human trait, for
Mother Nature does not need to measure anything. Since the need to
measure is eliminated, the interference of the observer is a mute
situation.
>
Ok, so far!
Think of 'Nature' as Big She; She is 'The Creation-Wife' of
the 'Creator-Father'.
She is the INFINITE ONE, potentially without bounds, while He is the
Void or Nothingness fromwhich She Came.
So He knows the Void, She doesn't.
This was done for the process of creating a NEGATIVE/or POSITIVE
Polarity for Infinity, necessarily in somewhat abstract terms.
Like negative entropy or imaginary time or negative mass (which is
not antimatter).
Geometrically we find Riemann's Complex Plane, wrapping itself up as
the Riemann-Sphere and mapping BOTH of the Infinities onto one of
the poles, say the NorthPole. This is the topology of the complex
plane vectors mapped onto the surtface of the Complex Riemann Sphere.
But now the Zero must be exactly opposite the Northpole and bingo
aimof the Creatoir-Father is achieved in redefining the infinities
as say the two poles with the Zero, namely the void of himself right
in the middle.
Poetically, Big She, Mother of All was afraid offalling off the
complex infinite plane, so Big He wrapped it up for her to alleviate
those fears.
And now, because the Infinite is contained within the Finite because
of this enfolding of space; the measxurements and observations can
begin.
> When looking at the string particle of energy I call the
tychon, one must realize exactly what this is. The tychon is the
building block of mass and all actions within the string are
frequency dominated. This is due to the tychon's, instantaneous
speed relative to the quantum unit. What Scientist are now looking
at as cosmic strings are simply structures within the tychon point
limited to the speed of light. My tychon is limited to the speed of
light opposite of mass, in that the tychon cannot go slower than the
speed of light. In other words, mass cannot exceed the speed of
light resulting in a tachyon when passing through the light barrier
and the tychon cannot proceed slower than the speed of light
resulting in photons at the interchange barrier. The tychon is the
straight string particle and all other cosmic strings are wrinkles
in the tychon slowing to absolute zero from absolute maximum
temperature. The interchange barrier separates the tychon from the
photon. This is why mass gains mass approaching the speed of
light. The tychon slows to become the photon at the light barrier,
thus gaining mass and the photon disintegrates to the tachyon at the
light barrier, thus expanding and appearing to lose energy.
>
Those are valid points encapsulated in the necessity of the de
Broglie matterwaves carrying two kinds of 'speeds' of propagation.
For matter waves we have a groupspeed always less than c, implying a
phase speed always exceeding c. One could call the excess speed
tachyonic or tychonic if one would like.
Formulation: l=wavelength, momentum p=mv, frequency f, E=mc^2=hf
PhaseSpeed Vph=l.f=(h/mv)(mc^2/h)=c^2/v > c for all v<c.
Lagrangian Boundary Condition then defines the scaling parameter:
v(deBroglie)=max. sourcewavelength(Hubble-RiemannRadius).sourcefreq.
=Rmax.f(ps) say (calculating as ~4.8x10^56 m/s)
This is also the maximum Tachyon/Tychon speed, traversing the
universe in exactly 1/3 of a thousandth millionth billionthn
trillionth of a second unit to set the maximum extent of the Riemann
Sphere in the folding up of the infinite complex plane.
In terms of the superbranes, one of the five classes is closest to
the energy/frequency values of the 'measurements' and that is the
heterotic HE(8x8).
Its definition then defines the wormhole parameters, two of whom are
the Rmax and f(ps) values for the Tachyon/Tychon speed.
But f(ps) must be modular dual (as the frequency part of the E(ps)E
(ss) 8x8 superbrane, ps=primary sourcesink and ss=secondary
sinksource) and so f(ss) is the Timeinstanton as 1/f(ps).
Hence the de Broglie PhaseInflation is defined as sourcefrequency
3x10^30 1/s.
And one could say, that the Tachyon/Tychon simply changes into the
SourcePhoton E(ps)=hf(ps)=m(ps)c^2=kT(ps) at the instanton.
So all of the classical relativistic physics can proceed as
measured, using the Tachyon/Tychon boundary values as new initial
conditions on the Bosonic/Particle scale.
Roy calls the SourcePhoton Threshold Tychon if above and Tachyon if
below.
And the 'slowing down' of the Tychon can indeed be defined by the
superstring parameters.
Energy: E=hf=mo.c^2; E=hf iff mo=0 OR E=mo.c^2 iff f=f(ss)
And because f(ss)=timeinstantenuity by modular duality as defined;
every masscarrying particle must carry an EigenFrequency quantised
in f(ss)=E(ss)/h=m(ss)c^2/h, with m(ss)=h/f(ps).c^2=2.47x10^-81 kg.
Relating this quantisation of mass to massinduction as a kind of
sourcecurrent,defined in magnetic monopoles as a higher superbrane
class and a process known as Higgs-Restmass-Induction can indeed
crystallise the mass hierarchies of the elementary particles.
> The previously postulated tachyon was proposed to lose energy
as it accelerates, but I propose that it only appears to lose when
it is actually expanding, therefore the energy appears more
dissipated. Actual creation is liken to the charging and
discharging of a battery because my proposed tychon would CONSERVE
energy as it slows. How? It would be in the form of
crystallization, which we see in the forming of the elements and the
freezing and thawing of water. On the energy side, the tychon and
tachyon prevail, but on the mass side, the photon and all the
elements are the result of the reactions of the tychon and tachyon
at the light barrier.
>
The sourceboson [E(ps)] has an antiparticle in the sinkboson [E
(ss)], both can be derived as the superparticle for the Superforce,
underpinning the four fundamental elementary interactions.
And indeed a close association between the weak interaction linked
to Electromagnetism and one between the strong interaction and
Gravitation is found in a pentagonal supersymmetry used in the
process of the Father-He to fold up the complex plane in higher
dimensional geometry to mirror Himself in the Mother-She.
> Now, as our scientist are busy trying to find a cosmic string
and prove they exist, I must remind them that they and our universe
are in a string particle-wave where our universe is just in one half
cycle within the string. We are in the expanding bulge of a
continuous string and will enter into the collapsing bulge in the
future. One has only to look at what information we find and are
able to induce within wavelengths, such as a lasers, and look at our
universe as a macro wavelength, an oscillating universe among an
infinity of others trying to occupy infinite space. Right now, it
seems our scientist are drowning in the water of an ocean, far from
land, and asking where the ocean is.
This is very true; except that the collapsing phase has already
begun 2.2 billion years ago, causing all the electromagnetic
mappings of 10D massparameters onto the 'returning' 11D.
lightparameter.
So the universe has completed 56.62% of its first total oscuillation
at the present epoch.
The thing with multiple/parallel universes is better modelled on a
phaseshift of the prototypical one, the one of the folded up complex
plane of the Father for the Mother to measure things in.
In three dimensions, the ProtoUniverse can be envisaged as a prolate
ellipsoid rotating about its major axis with invariant focal points.
But rotating this protouniverse about either of the minor axes
forces the focal points to merge in a pointcircle and bingo, an
infinity of multiverses are defined in just two phaseshifted
protouniverses forming a family.
All possible infinitely numbered phaseshifts together would form an
Omniverse as a symphony of multiverses.
> In Atomic Cosmology, the humanistic interpretation does not
allow for the fact that a Supreme Being would not be restricted to
human limitations. Therefore, Einstein's statement, "God does not
play dice," must take into consideration as to meaning, the use of
infinite numbers by God, would insure any intended outcome.
Infinity ensures certainty. God may use only six numbers on each
die, the quarks, but God would use an infinite number of throws to
assure an event. This makes Einstein correct, as usual, if one is
also religious. The use of infinite numbers provides the certainty
of events. Humans cannot even comprehend this as creation, but can
only look at it as trial and errors, little realizing that the
errors are also not, wasted events, but are part of the system.
Chaos exists only in the human mind. One is reminded of Dirac's
Cosmology, but he needed only to include infinity with his Large
Number Hypothesis. Two geniuses are vindicated.
>
Paul Dirac was also right in proposing a gradual change in the
Gravitational Constant.
This change is hidden in the productation of Gm1.m2 remaining
constant however.
This relates to large scale massmatching between Mother Black Holes
and their Temperature/Mass Hawking relations and also to the
micromatching between nucleon massevolution.
That is why it proves so hard tomeasure the 'G' precisely, the
neutrons are very slowly evolving to match the flatness predictions
in perfect Euclidean flatness.
This 'additional' mass could be described as Consciousness Mass, the
Evolvement of Mass itself, with certain 'recharge cycles' doing away
with the 'Heat-Death' and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe for an Entropy
gaining cosmos.
So in simplistic terms, the 'missing mass', the 'dark energy' and
the 'darkmatter'; all are already there - as AWARENESS energy
(defined in the superbranes as the timeratechange differential for
frequency, acting as a quasi angular acceleration upon toroidal
spacevolumars).
The perennial philosophy talks of energy fields (auras) about all
living things (Kirlian photography).
Well,the Dark Matter Haloes are the auras for galaxies and things
like that.
All nonplasmic states of energy carry AwarenessEnergy and so the
BASICUNIT for ALL LIFE is the HYDROGEN ATOM.
> When looking at the equation, E=MC2, it states an
equilibrium. This is not the case of creation. The correct
equation for creation, which is obviously a cyclic and continuous
process, would have to consider that infinity results in the
creation of energy and energy results in the creation of mass
through crystallization. This crystallization is the slowing of the
tychon, (My name for the string particle of energy from
instantaneous speed), to the point of absolute zero. The wrinkling
of the tychon is the beginning of frequencies that crystallize, or
appear as mass particles at specific frequencies of existence. The
effects of gravitational and electromagnetic fields relating to
harmonics form the quantum units. This is verifiable by the
repetition, or cyclic events in cosmology.
>
Rather true, the open string class I is defined as the Planck-Boson.
The Planck-Boson mutates/transforms into the other four classes in
Cosmic Ray/Monopolic String hierarchies and ends at the HE(8x8)
where the transition initiates physicality in MANIFESTING the MOTHER
as a Physicalentity defined in BlackHoles/White Holes Dyadics joined
by wormholed superbranes.
> The problem involving the time before and during the "big
bang" can be compared to our mathematics before the advent of the
zero. Action at a distance is instantaneous due to the tychons of
the quantum unit. We do not have a representative integer for an
instant, relative to the quantum unit. An instant takes the same
time to cover the volume of an atom as an instant that covers the
volume of a universe. Think of a pulsating heart of a dinosaur and
a pulsating heart of a small dog. As each heart beats one beat,
blood leaves, but blood also returns at the same time. Here the
volume is different, but the instant is the same. Each area of no
time is the same. Zero is zero.
>
True again, the Planck-Length-Oscillation changes the ratio for the
Identity mapping OF SPACE from UNDEFINED to DEFINED; utilising the
Unification of the Electromagnetic- and Gravitational Finestructures
in the process.
Formulation: Alpha^18=G-Alpha=2pi.Go.m(protonucleon)^2/hc with
Alpha=e^2/2(epsilon0)hc; Go the boundary max.G
The actual transformation relates the Planck-Length-Oscillation as
PLO=SqrtAlpha=e/c^2, e the Coulomb Chargequantum mapping the
magnetocharge quantum defining not only E(ps)=1/e* but also the
mappings of the superbranes onto the atomic scales of the Compton
Wavelengths/Thomson Scattering in 2Re.c^2=e*=1/hf(ps).
If a single drop of water tried to cover the entire earth,
that drop of water would have to break up into units with space
between the units. Now, imagine a single unit of space trying to
occupy the entirety of an infinite volume of space. This is not
possible due to the energy requirement of a single unit of infinite
energy. Energy must, as the drop of water, break up into quantum
units. Here we have infinity causing energy to form solitons, lumps
of bound field energy. If we have a field, quantum law requires
particles, therefore, the tychon. This tychon, as I call it, is a
string particle, totally lacking in angular momentum, thus
possessing instantaneous speed.
>
> The energy particle, the tychon, totally lacking angular
momentum possesses instantaneous speed relative to the quantum
unit. An instant in an atom is the same as an instant in a
universe, but the volume of space covered within that instant
governs relativity. This is why the astronauts and the earthbound
relatives age differently. They enter another quantum domain.
>
> With the collapsing of space into a spheroid shape of a
soliton, the tychons appear by the collapse much liken to the
electrical charge of static electricity created on the mass side.
The collapsing towards the center causes the tychons to meet the
only force able to effect them, their like charge. This creates the
first hint of angular momentum and heat, bringing gravity into the
situation. What is happening is the birth of the first faster than
light particle. To understand this particle, one must be realize
that it is at the exact limitations of vibration where it
materializes, maximum heat, minimum radiation. There is a
limitation where the vibration cannot be distinguished between
angular momentum and kinetic momentum, the straight line of a string
particle, zero. Remember the extreme high temperature particles
discovered orbiting Jupiter, which cannot be explained, therefore,
seem to be forgotten.
>
The instantaneous speed is the de Broglie Phase of the fixed 11D
envelope for the 10D expansion (of relative space, not receeding
cosmic objects being carried along with the flow of this, bounded in
the event horizon).
Gravity and Electromagnetism are unified in the magnetocharges and
hence the keys to the cosmos are magnetic massequivalents flowing
as a higher dimensionalmapping of electricity AS mass.
> The time factor begins at the first hint of angular momentum
and the first hint of a collapse within the string particle, the
tychons. The time factor stops when the angular momentum ceases at
the "point," or waist of the tychon string. Thus, we have infinity
without a beginning or an end, but always possessing a center. It
always was, always is, and always will be, the continuous frequency
with the relative zero instant, a pulse. We are on a particle we
call earth, flying outward from the relative zero instant of our
universal cycle.
>
The He-Father occupies the Centre as the UNDEFINED VOID, YET bounded
by the She-Mother.
Hence the Undefinable has no boundary, yet can experience boundaries.
This is like the 11D universe multiplying itself every halfcycle.
About 7.56 10D universe would fit into the 11D one at the present
epoch and since the baryonic mass-seed has evolved from 2.803% to
3.68%; 3.68(7.56)=27.82% of 'nonmissing mass' is already mapped from
the open/closed 11D-universe onto the closed/open 10D-universe.
> Here we have the first faster than light particle at minimum
amplitude of angular momentum, maximum heat range, but minimum
radiation, collapsing towards a center with the accumulation of
gravitational force at the center. Since this is happening at near
instantaneous speed, the accumulation of plasmatic material is
forced to implode, expanding at a faster than light speed into the
form a universal cycle within the string.
>
Those are the superimposed selfrelative de Broglie phasespeeds with
the generalised relation for velocity: V=R(n).f, the frequency f as
inverse time relating to a scalefactor R, which depends on
dimensionless cycletime n (for the Hubble Oscillation),this n being
the 'Proper Time' in General Relativity as dimensionless
differential in Rc(t)=c.dt/dTau.
> What our scientists cannot measure into the fraction of a
second after the big bang is due to this faster than light speed of
the plasma, What this means is that fraction of a second in our time
could actually be an eternity, or thousands of years with the faster
than light plasma. This plasma, like the drop of water trying to
cover the earth, must break up into quantum units as it cools.
This fraction of a second is the timeinstanton as mapping of the Now-
Time, which is dimensionless in the minimumn/maximum ratio for
displacements: n(ps)=l(ps)wavelength/Rmax`6.4x10^-49.
>
> Angular momentum added to the energy particle, the tychon,
simply means that every bit of mass is a frequency derivative.
Without this, mathematics would not work. This is the proof. We
are mathematically compatible wrinkles in the string particles, the
tychons and tachyons. This is why a particle can be a wave and
harmonics work.
>
Yes, the f(ss) definition as Equation Number One.
> If one wishes to further explore this theoretical line, it
will lead to the grand unified field equation, 8=E, infinity equals
energy, explain action at a distance, lead to solving the problem of
cold fusion, and still leave plenty of room for religion. When
delving into the world of absolute zero, the tychon induces spin as
absolute zero temperature almost meets with absolute maximum
temperature.
>
> If one takes a close look at superconductivity, it would be
difficult to distinguish the difference between maximum angular
momentum and minimum angular momentum, but one would reveal the
presence of the other by spin. We all know the results of a drop of
water hitting molten steel, but just think of the maximum cold of
absolute zero meeting the maximum heat of the tychon. And we
thought the hydrogen bomb was something. Why doesn't every thing
blow up? Because it must be concentrated and compacted, hence, the
Big Bang. Now, back to the oscillating universes.
>
Yes, we will find Josephson Junctions, the Quantum Hall Effect and
the Electric Conductance Quantum; all as derivatives of the natural
superconductivity in the higher dimensional scenarios which map the
ACTION LAW: Action=Charge^2 as Superconductivity, say Unity
Resistance.
> When looking for cosmic strings, one has only to realize
these strings are different quantum lengths of the tychon because of
frequency length. Everything is the same thing, only in different
quantum states. The variable angular momentum of the tychon
appearing at harmonic levels, quantum mechanics intertwined with
quantum physics, the de Sitter universe within the Einstein
cylindrical universe. The point of apogee performs the function of
the Einstein cylindrical wall by the spin.
This relates to the R(n).f=Velocity scalings in the hierarchies.
>
> Infinite space possesses only a mid-point beginning and
cannot possess either a beginning or an end. The possession of
either a beginning or an end would render infinity void as a
singular entity thus, requiring the necessity of an infinite number
of finite units seeking to occupy an infinite space. This means
space must be occupied by quantum units of spherical collapsing and
expanding string particles, which I call tychons. These monopoles
of solitons give birth to universes. It is really that simple. The
pulsating string of time, frequency, results in creation.
Beautifully said, the Monoplic Energies define the GUT-unification
ebnergy at 2.7x10^16 GeV and the Gamma Burst Maximum as 2.7x10^47
monopolic Watts per kilogram, measured as luminosity output in
Joules.
The Magnetic Monoploe is also defined as the selfdual superbrane
ckass IIB.
>
> Infinity equals energy. We are simply a series of compacted
fields within compacted fields. In order to not be misconstrued,
this means particles are microfields within macrofields combining
gravity and the electromagnetic fields. Look at our universe
similar to a part of a pulse within a macro laser beam, coherent to
the nth degree. Then look at mankind's version of our universe as
an incoherent white beam of light. It could be stated that
universes are a pulse within energy beam lasers. Come on now,
swallow your ego. We are insignificant. The de Sitter universe
within the Einstein cylindrical universe is actually just a macro-
string. Guess what else? There is not any end to the structuring
of infinite space. It just becomes larger and larger structures as
each little bang becomes a member of a bigger bang. So, it is not
so difficult to recognize the familiar pattern Mother Nature uses
which we know as the splitting of cells. Simply check the harmonic
pattern.
>
These are the multiverses as derivatives fromthe protoverse
accumulating as the Omniverse.
The Omniverse is the generations after generations of Father-He and
Mother-She becoming GrandParents and on and on;the children being
the Multiverses as the GRADUATING BODIES of the carriers of the
holographic images, namely the HUMAN CATERPILLARS GRADUATING as the
STARHUMAN BUTTERFLIES.
> Why, it is all so simple now as a cell divides, so do
universes. Each universe is continually receiving the nutrients
from the infinity of space. The big bang is actually the point of
split where the mass is narrowed and concentrated, but not all the
mass. This is why the total mass of a universe is not necessary and
cannot be found. The rest of the mass is already in the bulge of
the splitting cells. Yep, infinite space cannot be occupied by one
singular cell due to the infinite energy requirements, but an
infinite amount of finite units are sure trying.
>
> So, do not look at Creation as a living process, but as a
mathematical necessity of cyclic events. If it is mathematically
impossible, it cannot happen.
The angels sing and rejoice hearing you say this Roy.
MATHIMATIA=I AM THAT I AM (Exodus.3.14), the DEFINITION of GOD as
given to Moses.
Before Newton's Principia there was the MATHIMATIA and just like
cells are mapped as galaxies in the outer cosmos from the cosmos
within; so do stars, planets, continents, cities,
mitochondria,...quarks and leptons map themselves as
groupconsciousnesses fromthe within onto the without and vice versa.
The 12th dimension is also the 10th in its reflection and also the
3rd.
TimeDimensions are connectors and only exist linearly.
1-2-3-(4)-4-6-(7)-8-9-(10)-11-12-(13=1) renders 4Worlds (Linespace,
Hyperspace, Quantumspace and Omnispace) all occupying the same SPACE
linearly defined, but multivalued because of the circular complexity
of the Riemann Plane which began it all to give substance to the
Mother as a World or Universe or Creation and to give Definition to
the Father as its Creator.
>
> Now, before you all go off on a tangent, you must recognize
the fact that only three forces are involved in the macro-world and
the weak and strong nuclear forces are simply the result of the
FIELDS being compacted along with the particles. Whatever made you
guys believe the fields disappeared during compression when quantum
law requires a field-particle relationship, doesn't anyone remember,
mass is compacted energy and energy is a field? So, the strong
nuclear force is the compacted gravitational field and the weak
nuclear force is the compacted electromagnetic field. Gee whiz,
what is so hard about that? I doubt if any one has considered just
how a micro compacted electromagnetic field and a micro compacted
gravitational field would act and react within the bounds of the
atomic world and the gravitational and electromagnetic fields as we
know them. I think they would find the actions and reactions one
and the same.
>
>No Tangents Roy; your story is true for a simple reason.
The Father LOVES the MOTHER and finally the time has come for the
MOTHER to stop running away from the Father in her motherly Wisdom,
but her lack of Fatherly Understanding (of the Void).
Now the Father's Understanding, but lack of Motherly Wisdom can
become harmonised with the Mother's Wisdom and the REPRODUCTION of
the UNIVERSALparents can proceed in the LOVEMAKING of the CHILDREN.
Because some of the CHILDREN have found a certain understanding and
the Cosmic Keys and you are one of those Roy Wolford.
Tony B. Sirebard seconding Roy Wolford