Message 16762 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16762

"I is the Law" - it's the ultimate big idea, the source of everything we know about the physical world. And it all comes from one simple question, says Robert Matthews in

He was put on the trail of a radical new view of physics while investigating alternative ways of capturing the information content of images...

"What struck me", he recalls, "is that virtually all of physics can also be expressed in terms of differential equations." ...

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 16780 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16780

> > > Hi Tony and all,
> > >
> > > Further comments on you recent post. I'm interleaving.
> > >
> > > Dennis
> > >
> > > Anyway, I would like to comment on your post on Meaning and
Form.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Bohm's Wave of Formation, Sheldrake's
morphogeneticism
> > and
> > > > > Pribrams/Priorgione's kaleidoscope of frequencies - all
are
> > elementary to
> > > > > the new paradigm.
> > >
> > > [DHO]
> > > Yes. The new science paradigm is a synthesis of current
> theories
> > on the
> > > nature of the universe; the underlying order which governs
it's
> > operation; and,
> > > the potential of new technologies to leverage that process --
as
> > it applies to
> > > individual, organization or, societies as a whole.
> > >
> > > > > The link to physics is even deeper, than most people
imagine
> > and it is
> > > > > based on INFORMATION, as the article above indicates.
> > (previous post
> > > > > on Active Information - dho)
> > >
> > > > > I do know the mechanism and I shall gradually share it
with
> > you; I have
> > > > > touched on it in most of my postings.
> > >
> > > [DHO]
> > > Yes. I too, know this mechanism. In fact, it is the basis of
> the
> > complex
> > > systems model we've developed. It is not quite ready to be
> > presented
> > > on-line yet, but will be shortly. I will also share this with
> you
> > as we
> > > progress. (As Tony says below: "I" is at the center (and
> > periphery)
> > > of this system).
> > >
> > > > > "I is the Law" - it's the ultimate big idea, the source of
> > everything we know
> > > > > about the physical world. And it all comes from one simple
> > question,
> > > > > says Robert Matthews in
> > > > >
> > > > > NEW SCIENTIST; 30th January 1999, p.24-28.
> > > > >
> > > > > Quote:"Where do the laws of physics come from? It's the
> sort
> > of question
> > > > > only children and geniuses ask - certainly most physicists
> are
> > far too busy
> > > > > putting the laws to work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Take quantum theory, the laws of the subatomic world. Over
> the
> > past century
> > > > > it has passed every single test with flying colours, with
> some
> > predictions
> > > > > vindicated to 10 places of decimals. Not surprisingly,
> > physicists claim quantum
> > > > > theory as one of their greatest triumphs. But behind their
> > boasts lies a guilty
> > > > > secret: they haven't the slightest idea why the laws work,
> or
> > where they come
> > > > > from. All their vaunted equations are just mathematical
lash-
> > ups, made out of
> > > > > bits and pieces from other parts of physics whose main
> > justification is that
> > > > > they seem to work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now one physicist thinks he knows where the laws of
quantum
> > theory come
> > > > > from. More amazingly still, Roy Frieden thinks he can
> account
> > for all the laws
> > > > > of physics, governing everything from schoolroom solenoids
> to
> > space and
> > > > > time. Sounds incredible? You haven't heard the first of
it.
> > For Frieden
> > > > > believes he has found the Law of Laws, the principle
> > underpinning physics
> > > > > itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > The laws of electricity, magnetism, gases, fluids, even
> > Newton's laws of
> > > > > motion - all of these, Frieden believes, arise directly
from
> > the same basic
> > > > > source: the information gap between what nature knows and
> what
> > nature
> > > > > is prepared to let us find out.
> > >
> > > [DHO]
> > > Tony, could you say more about this gap?
> >
> >
> >
Tony
Lagrangians are simply collections of differential forms, often
using generalised coordinates.
Say you have a dynamical system in which both Potential Energy V
and Kinetic Energy are defined by conservation laws.
Then the Lagrangian L=T-V can be described as 'Kinetic Potential'
in the Equation of Motion: d/dt{DL/Dq'(i)} - DL/Dq = 0.
Here D means partial derivative and t=time and q=position and
q'=timerate change for this position, that is velocity.
i is a coordinate subscript/counter, i.e. i,j,k for orthogonal XYZ-
axes.

For any given system, I and J are statistical quantities, which
can be calculated using Frieden's methods.
And having I and J allows a direct derivation of the Lagrangian
ruling the dynamics (say as above) and hence a physical law that
rules it. (Say the conversion of KE into PE and vice versa in the
trajectory of a missile).
The 'gap' is the minimisation/maximisation as decribed by
derivatives by definition.
(Example: the Curve y=x^2+1 is a parabola with first derivative
f'(x)=2x; hence f'(0)=0 for x=0 and there is a minimum at x=0 for
the curve y=x^2+1, namely the point (0,1).
It's a minimum because the derivative of the derivative (which is
2), is positive for an increasing curvature about the minimum point.
This is basic calculus).
> > >
Quote from Frieden article: "So Frieden's achievement is to give a
philosophical view of physics a solid mathematical foundation."
> >
> >
> > > > Using sophisticated mathematics, Frieden has shown that
this
> > notion
> > > > > of physics as a "QUEST FOR INFORMATION" is no empty
> > philosophical
> > > > > pose. It can be made solid, and leads to a way of
deriving
> > all the major
> > > > > laws of fundamental physics - along with some new ones.....
> > > > >
> > > > > He was put on the trail of a radical new view of physics
> while
> > investigating
> > > > > alternative ways of capturing the information content of
> > images...
> > > > >
> > > > > Named after the Cambridge statistician Ronald Aylmer
Fisher
> in
> > the
> > > > > mid-1920's, Fisher information - usually contracted to "I"
> > captures how
> > > > > much information you can squeeze out of a physical
> system.....
> > >
> > > [DHO]
> > > Tony, could you elaborate on the last sentence? Another
recent
> > article talks
> > > about the enormous processing capacity of the holographic
> brain.
> > Are there
> > > any problems with the holographic model?

Tony
The holographic model is in my opinion the most lucid way to
describe the multidimensional reality as a mapping from the higher
dimensions onto the 4D-continuum.
The inside surface of a bubble is connected to its outside surface
via a 'hole' in the closed membrane say; and this hole allows an
enfoldment/conifoldment of the inside as/with the outside.
This is wellknown in mathematical circles and simply the topology
of a Klein-Bottle.
Folding a sheet of paper into a torus requires two edges to fold.
Folding only one and connecting the folded edge with the 'stretched'
or bottle-necked unfolded other edge gives the Klein Bottle, but
requires an 'additional' dimension to 'stretch into'.
This is like you cannot fold a closed rubberband of 0-shape into
the 8, unless you 'lift' from 2D into 3D first.

Holography works this topological principle in creating a hologram
as interference pattern from a primary monochromatic lasersource
(in 3D), using this bifurcation in a semitransparent mirror say.
Half of the waveform penetrates the membrane/mirror, reflects of
the object and moves to the recording device; the other half moves
directly to the recording device (photographic plate).
The 'beam-splitting' in holography is the halfenfolding of the
torus.
In spiritual terms, the object is the matter/universe able to
ABSORB the SOURCELIGHT and REEMITTING IT as say, DARK LIGHT.
So the entire creation becomes purposed to first absorb the white
light, process it and then reemit it as NEW MATTERSOURCE.
The circle is closed and the Creator's Creation becomes Creator
itself, using however the original sourceenergy as input to
manufacture the output.

> > > > > Studying Stam's work, Frieden noticed that it made use of
a
> > result from
> > > > > information theory called the Cramer-Rao-inequality. This
> > little known
> > > > > mathematical result shows, roughly speaking, that when the
> > error in a
> > > > > measurement is multiplied by the amount of Fisher
> information
> > in the
> > > > > measurement, the result is a number that is never less
than
> > one.
> > > > >
> > > > > {My own work shows a coefficient: 2e/hA~0.998, so hA/2e >1
> upon
> > > > > renormalisation of 12D-F-space mapping 10D-C-space. (the
gap
> > is the
> > > > > error)}
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a relationship strikingly similar to the uncertainty
> > principle. Multiply
> > > > > together the uncertainties in your knowledge of a
particle's
> > position and
> > > > > its momentum, and the result is never less than a certain
> > value {h/4pi}.....
> > > > >
> > > > > "Since Heisenberg's principle is so basic, it occurred to
me
> > that perhaps
> > > > > every physical phenomenon occurs in reaction to
measurement -
>
> > that
> > > > > measurement acts as a kind of catalyst for the effect",
says
> > Frieden...
> > >
> > > [DHO]
> > > So, this is the effect of the observer on the observed?
Tony
As said before, the cosmology makes sense in allowing the
Creator/God to become the higher-dimensional LASERSOURCE wishing
to get its sent energy/signals back - White becomes Black becomes
White like AC Current really.

> > >
> > > > > Digging into this possibility, Frieden soon found another
> > mathematical
> > > > > 'coincidence'. Whenever he did calculations using the
Fisher
> > information,
> > > > > the final results were differential equations.
> > > > >
> > > > > "What struck me", he recalls, "is that virtually all of
> > physics can also
> > > > > be expressed in terms of differential equations." ...
> > >
> > > [DHO]
> > > What is the significance of this?
> > >
Tony
Ditto the Lagrangians/Energy Concepts as minimum/maximum boundary
conditions and parameters.
> >
> >
> > > > > Put simply, Lagrangians are made up of the difference
> between
> > two
> > > > > quantities which together form something called
the "action".
> > >
> > > [DHO]
> > > Couldn't find Lagrangians in dictionary. But, what are these
> two
> > quantities
> > > which form 'action'?
> > >
Tony
Anything that multiplies to give the ENERGYxTIME dimensions; (as
Planck's Constant h/4pi); say Energy and Time or Displacement and
Momentum.
> >

> > > > > For reasons as yet utterly mysterious, this quantity stays
> as
> > small as
> > > > > possible under all circumstances. This curiosity - known
as
> > the principle
> > > > > of least action - is reflected in the fact that the
> > fundamental laws of physics
> > > > > are differential equations, since that's what you need to
> > minimise the
> > > > > action.....End of quote.
> > >
> > > [DHO]
> > > We need to mimimize action to conserve energy?
> >
Tony
Minimising the Action, maximises Nature's efficiency to permutate,
transform the source-energy.

> > >
> > > > > Now Jack; my entire work, begun in 1984 after university,
> has
> > evolved about
> > > > > this Law of Action - I call it ACTION = CHARGE SQUARED.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe it to be the underpinning and hitherto
mysterious
> > reason as to why
> > > > > Fisher Information directly links to the Uncertainty
> Principle.
> > >
> > > [DHO]
> > > If this is the case, what does this mean? And, where does it
> fit
> > wrt the overall
> > > paradigm?
> > >
Tony
This is the task at hand.
Because, like Frieden and George, I have found a methodology to
derive the fundamental constants without recourse to experiment.
This is all very involved and you should read say, my algorithmic
gravity paper, which I have sent to you.
But for example Heisenberg's Principle itself is FINESTRUCTURED in
more fundamental parameters (say as Bohm's Hidden Variables).
It's in the paper, but so far noone understood it, though I wrote
it as simple as I could.
The overall paradigm becomes empowered absolutely, because no
experiments are necessary to crystallise any physical system.
Physics becomes OmniPhysics, purely derived from abstract encoding,
that is a primary binary algorithm.
It is like this: Only the concept of physical equations is
necessary.
The equations are becoming energised in:
SOURCEENERGY=LOVE=h.fps=1/e*=...= etc.with this LOVE DEFINED in
physical terms (namely frequency) from the abstarct algorithmic
definition and principles.
Its all principles, becoming algorithmic, becoming information/data
and then certain boundary conditions are satisfied in RECREATING
the selfsame definition process in cyclicities, seeded in say a
Quantum Big Bang and the birth of gravity to reestablish equilibrium
say between Radiation and Antiradiation (the White Light and the
Black Light say).
>
George has said this beautifully in his (TheoryofEverything)post:
The Big Bang was caused in the conversation between two gods.
It is also the vibratory highenergy part of a 11D-supermembrane in
modular duality to its lowenergy winding complementary part.
These again are George's superhigh frequencies linked to the Compton
frequency of atomic systems.
>
It is not hard, but I could go on and on.
Maybe you should read my book: Genesis; Where is the God of Science?
It describes much of the concepts you are waiting for.
I can send you a hardcopy, if you forward your mailing address.

> > > > > All my equations and principles reduce to this law and
> though
> > none
> > > > > understands what I am attempting to describe
> > mathematically/physically,
> > > > > the above quotation should indicate its validity to you.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am just not able to communicate the deep concepts
> > intelligibly.
> > >
> > > [DHO]
> > > Is this not just a function of time?

Tony
Time in the prespacetime algorithm completely concurs with the New
Age concept of NOW-Time - it defines IT as the minimum.
Specifically, the scalefactor R(n) with cycletime n (tau-time in
General Relativity), multiplied as a selfreferential frame of
reference with an eigen(self)frequency f substitutes for velocity v,
expressed both as de Broglie phasevelocity and/or as massparametric
groupvelocity.
This engages lightspeed 'c' as limiting parameter for mass
accelerations (Special Relativity) in the identity (min/max):
SourcewavelengthxSourcefrequency=c=((Nodal Hubble-Frequency)x(10D-
'size' of the universe).

> > >
> > > > > But the information in your posting is a consequence of
this
> > underpinning
> > > > > reality.
> > > > >
> > > > > A retelling/reformulation of this underlay so should allow
> all
> > the many
> > > > > threads, philosophical and scientific to converge.
> > >
> > > [DHO]
> > > Yes. Formulating the theoretic basis of the new science
> paradigm,
> > is largely
> > > a retelling/reformulation of existing threads. A
> > transdisciplinary synthesis
> > > which will provide a unified framework through which to
> > understand, articulate
> > > and advance the new paradigm. And, to develop the
revolutionary
> > potential of
> > > emerging technologies made possible by that paradigm.
> > >
> > > > > It is a symmetry of FORM, the FORM evolving in
morphological
> > > > > geneticism akin Sheldrake and Bohm.
> > > > >
> > > > > It derives from the archetypical form of the binary code,
> thus
> > it is
> > > > > algorithmic in origin.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is prespace and pretime; time emerging as a consequence
> of
> > the
> > > > > Action-Minimization of displacement.
> > >
> > > [DHO]
> > > These elements appear to be fundamental to the mechanism
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The symmetry is five-folded, like the Platonic Solids of
> > perfect shape.;
> > > > > (Jesus speaks of five immovable trees in paradise in the
> > Gospel of
> > > > Thomas).
> > > > >
> > > > > It is Penrosian/Buckminster-Fullerene in its link to
> chemistry
> > and
> > > > biology.
> > > > >
> > > > > Consciousness and sentience becomes a consequence of the
> > generating
> > > > > algorithm applying this fivefolded symmetry. This becomes
> the
> > METHOD of
> > > > > Information Transmission between neuronal synapses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Information between individual cells is transmitted in
this
> > encoding; I
> > > > have
> > > > > termed it the propagation of experience-factors.

Message 16784 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16784

Love Tony

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 16786 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16786

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

From: "tom rice" <th1nker@indiainfo.com>
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:48 pm
Subject: [TheoryOfEverything] Milo, this is from the Britannica:
To: Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com

Milo, this is from the Britannica:

The basic entities in superstring theory are one-dimensional massless strings only 10{sup -33} cm

long. (This distance is the so-called Planck length, at which quantum effects in gravity can no

longer be ignored.) The strings vibrate, and each different mode of vibration corresponds to a different

particle. The strings can also interact in ways that correspond to the observed interactions of particles.

Copyright (c) 1996 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved

So this is saying ALL particles are waves too.

Therefore the math that you developed for the electron must also be available for ALL the other particles as well.

BUT

I'm betting the formulae for the quarks will need a speed of c2 instead of c as in your formula for the electron.

And there may be several quark formulae because there are different types of quarks.

Cheers

Dan Fitzpatrick Jr.
Let's go to this site

Message 16787 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16787

--- In 4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com, "George Ryazanov" <ryazanovy@h...>
wrote:
>
>
> Tony!
> You are writing to Dennis
> but the topic touch deepest level of my soul
> and I decided to take part in the discussion.
>
> You are absolutely correct when you are writing
> that restoration the symmetry "electromagnetism - magnetic
> electricity"
> open a way to the realm of spirit.
>
> This analogious phenomenon I demonstrate
> in the case of another brolen symmetry:
> "from the past to the future - from the future to the
past".
>
> I see my procedure as an archetype of dealing with any
opposition.
>
> This procedure start from putting both ends of an
opposition on
> equal footing
> (though this equility contradict to experiments and to
common
> sense).

Dear George, allow me to address some of your comments made.

This 'placing on equal footing of opposing forces' is precisely
what lead to my formulations of the revised Standard Model for
Particle Physics.
So we agree again.
Yet your work is much more precise than mine in its academic
nomenclature - but my scientific intuition tells me that your
formulations are correct and I understand the basics of them.

All of my work is like a fence around your work, I know the boundary
conditions for everything to fall into a place, where it can be
analysed and processed further.
I am just an ordinary mathematician and an intuitive physicist and
nowhere near your analytical perceptiveness or talent.


> There are many ways to design such a dynamics that I name
heavenly
> dynamics.
>
> Then I demand the stability of this combination
> and see that only some asymmetric combinations turns out
to be
> stable.
>
> I calculate them and see that the derived dynamics explain
> not only observed asymmetry but a broad spector of other
observed
> phenomena.
>
> And I see an unexpected phenomenon:
> the heavenly dynamics can be arranged locally
> through some special configurations.
>
> I name those configurations "windows to angels".

That's it, though your labellings invoke ridicule from some quarters.
So allow me to briefly answer one question, the sceptics and
ridiculers often throw into discussions, such as this.

"How many angels can dance on the top of a needle?"

Well, there is an answer.
Consider a 'knitting needle' of linear dimension of about 1/4 of a
mm.
Using electronmicroscopy and the diffraction patterns of a Krypton
laser, one laboratory might analyse a specific sample of such
needles to arrive at a mean statistical value for the surface of the
needle-tip as say 1/12th of a mm^2 with an error of 2%.
In omnispace are no errorbars, as there are no measurements
required to determine continuuous distribution of measurable
quantities.
In omnispace(10-11-12D your first world), allsuch quantities are
quantised in discreet distributions, i.e. there are no partial
angels or devils dancing on the needle tips.

The surface area of the needle tip in question is an integral
numbercount for a minimum vacuum/vortex-area, defined in
quantumcircles (your electron as a circle say) of radius
sourcewavelength/(2i), inclusive the curvatures of nonEuclidean
spaces.

Dividing the surfacearea of maximum precision measurement by that
areaquantum (magnified Planck-Area used in Susskind/Bekenstein
holography as entropy counter), must so give the 'angel number' as
an integral count.

A first approximation is 5 million billion or 5 quadrillion.
A second approximation is 5.235987756 quadrillion.
And a third approximation is 5,235,987,756,123,456.789876..which
truncates to 5,235,987,756,123,457 Angels PRECISELY to dance on a
maximised/minimised standardised (by the laboratory) needletip.

Every 'angel' thus can also be represented or modelled on a wormhole
singularity.
>
> We would see here some chaos withut any meaning.
>
> To restore the meaning I use a special technique
> that unexpectedly demonstrate any particle to be
> an emotional complex without any matter.
>
> Matter turns out to be some collective modes of those
beings.
>
> Another collective modes turns out to be identical to our
emotions.
>
> Hence we can restore the life of of above beings
> from our art, religion, mysticism.
>
> And playing out this life we derive the collective modes
that we
> observe as matter.
>
> That is the mechanism of creation matter by spirit.
>
> This mechanism can be proved
> through the pictue of evolution of cosmoc, life and culturer
> and throuh the above windows to angels.
>
> This way from heavenly spirit to mandane spirit+matter
> turns oue to be iversible,
> we arrange this way back
> and fly into the world of angels.
>
> George Ryazanov.

With tongue in cheek, the above is an defence for our 'angelic
talk'; on purely reductionistic grounds.
The FEELINGS about the angelic windows and defining the same in
terms of art, culture and science emphasise and clarify the
reductionistic terminology in the richness and the multilevular
applicability of the physics of unity.

With Love from Tony

Message 16788 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16778

Dear Jim and Roy!

I want to inform you that Wheeler also had made a decisvie step
in the problem of two signs of time. According to Feynman just
Wheeler
had given him the idea to introduce in calculations opposing sign
of time.

Physics with two signs of time has some elements of God's
thinking
and because of this it solve many problems
including (through some extension) the great problem of its from
bits.

See www.george-ryazanov.com
George
>> Hi Jim:
> I am deeply honored and appreciative of your
>e-mail. I do have Professor Wheeler's e-mail address now.
> Would it be appropriate if I sent him this same e-mail,
>or just my e-mail?
>
> When do you plan your visit? My e-mail is
>rwolf@r... and I live in Rochester, IN.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Whitescarver
> To: InfoPhysics@y... ;
>theoretical_physics@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:12 PM
> Subject: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: [InfoPhysics] its
>from bits, EPI, RE: Active Information, Meaning and Form
>
>
> I'll be happy to pass your writeup on to John Wheeler,
> Roy, when I see him, you could mail it to him at Princeton yourself, or
>join me for the visit.....
>
> I expect he will tell you, as he has told me before,
>that, "You have more work to do."
>
> He expects the answer has to do with the nature of
>existence, which is as he describes it to be, a participatory existence.
>Your extension of his query of how we get "it from bit", to "its from
>bits", may suggest that nature, but your words fall short of making an
>unambiguous point. Perhaps words cannot ever really answer the question
>using symbols anyway, but we can, in principal, always be more precise, and
>more objective.
>
> I see your +0-, Roy, as a distinction, and more
>specifically a perspective on a distinction, as the distinction +0- implies
>the possible perception of -0+ from an opposite perspective. I call these
>directed distinctions from disorder "querks". They represent the quirks in
>nothingness that manifest everything. The smallest possible distinction is
>binary, + is distinct from -, or not. This is equivalent to the Plank
>action, why? The Plank action represents the minimum distinction of any
>measurable and it discriminates exactly 50% of quantum possibilities just
>like a bit. Why are all distinctions in integer multiples of Plank actions
>just as information is always in discrete numbers of bits? It seems to me
>that these equations must be addressed in answering Wheeler's challenge.
>
> You call +0- a point. Indeed, from a single
>perspective a directed distinction manifests A is distinct from B, where a
>is distinguished and B is implied, +0- distinguishes the point A as being
>distinct along with the knowledge that B exists somewhere.
>
> You call the property of +0- to be charge. Indeed,
>charge is one notion of energy, but what is manifest by measurement is one
>quantum state, energy is only manifest by momentums and position. As any
>form of energy is convertible to any other, there is no real distinction
>from spin and charge from momentum besides our notion of angular (spin) and
>scaler (charge). I will address the nature of spin more precisely in a
>separate item, as quantum spin is only 2 dimensional, it is more like a
>looping program than a spinning object. Charge is simply like another
>spin, or angular momentum in a different, independent direction. Together
>they "rotate" up spin ladders in 3D by both spin and charge discretely
>turning around (alternating, repeating, looping) once in 2D each. In any
>case, what is manifest by actions (distinctions) is space and time and
>energy all together depending on your perspective on the difference, not
>its inherent nature, making what is manifesting by distinctions a
>collaboration of the difference itself, and its perception, in a
>collaborative existence.
>
> But momentary existence is virtual. Being requires
>manifestation across time, A->B->A, can be thought of as alternating
>perspectives, manifesting A by indirect self reference, or mirroring +0-,
>-0+, +0-, or action-reaction.
>
> Further, existence implies, birth (first
>instantiation), lifetime (interval of being or periodic
>instantiation/occurrence), and death/annihilation (last occurrence if any).
>
> Like a computer program that outputs the text of the
>computer program itself, that which exists re manifests itself repeatedly,
>by reflections, actions-reactions, logically equivalent to indirect self
>reference across time. Nothing can exist in isolation, action requires at
>least two participants, at minimum, self and other, where discriminations
>are all that exists as they are propagated by participants, manifesting an
>ecology of information of what exists.
>
> From the "RE: Active Information, Meaning and Form" in
>theoretical_physics@yahoogroups.com I discovered one very promising
>approach to answering Wheeler. I have yet to read it all, but it seems Roy
>Frieden may have done a lot of my work for me in completing the information
>model. It seems there may be a community of information physicists who's
>thinking is up my alley after all.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
> http://books.cambridgeorg/0521009111.htm
>
>
> Science from Fisher Information
> A Unification
>
> B. Roy Frieden
>
> Published June 2004
>
> 502 pages 30 line diagrams 2 half-tones 5 tables
>
> Paperback | ISBN: 0521009111
>
> For price and ordering options, inspection copy
>requests, and reading lists please select:
> UK | North America | Australia & New Zealand
>
>
>
> This book develops and applies an analytical approach
>to deriving the probability laws of science in general. It is called
>'extreme physical information' or EPI. EPI is an expression of the
>imperfection of observation: Owing to random interaction of a subject with
>its observer and other possible disturbances, its measurement contains less
>Fisher information than does the subject per se. Moreover, the information
>loss is an extreme value. An EPI output may alternatively be viewed as the
>payoff of a zero-sum game of information acquisition between the observer
>and a 'demon' in subject space. EPI derives, Escher-like, the very
>probability law that gave rise to the measurement. In applications, EPI is
>used to derive both existing and new analytical relations governing
>probability laws of physics, genetics, cancer growth, ecology and
>economics. This unified approach will be fascinating to students and those
>who seek a new mathematical tool of research.
>
> Contents
>
> 0. Introduction
> 1. What is Fisher information?
> 2. Fisher information in a vector world
> 3. Extreme physical information
> 4. Derivation of relativistic quantum mechanics
> 5. Classical electrodynamics
> 6. The Einstein field equation of general relativity
> 7. Classical statistical physics
> 8. Power spectral 1/f noise
> 9. Physical constants and the 1/x probability law
> 10. Constrained-likelihood quantum measurement theory
> 11. Research topics
> 12. EPI and entangled realities: the EPR-Bohm
>experiment
> 13. Econophysics
> 14. Growth and transport processes
> 15. Cancer growth.
> Reviews
>
> '. a stunningly clear interpretation of the laws of
>physics . Unlocking the fundamental laws is impressive enough, but if this
>one principle really is the key to all physics, it should do more than
>reproduce what physicists already know. It should also reveal the secrets
>of unsolved mysteries.'
> Robert Matthews, New Scientist
>
> 'The book has two attractive features: the frequent
>discussions in basic physical terms, and the candid way in which the author
>describes how he has developed his thoughts . I urge the readers of this
>review to take a good look at the book, which is well-written and certainly
>thought-provoking.'
> American Journal of Physics
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> This looks like really fascinating stuff. Much of it
>is explained at:
>
>
>
>http://www.optics.arizona.edu/Frieden/fisher_information.htm
>
>
> Jim
> http://InformationPhysics.com
> Roy Wolford wrote:
>
> Jim:
>
>
> ITS FROM BITS
>
> The clue to a Theory of Everything lies in
>understanding an infinite space. Infinite space means there cannot be a
>beginning or an end to space. The only possible answer is a middle, or
>center. However, certain restrictions must apply. The energy demands for
>a single infinite unit of space cannot be met, therefore activating the
>quantum factor. This means instead of a single universe, there is a
>potential for an infinity of universes, each starting from a point, or
>position in space. This then sets up the competition for expansion due to
>adjacency and pressure presents the potential for compaction. The origin
>of an infinite space would be spherical points, due to the expansion in all
>directions outward meeting adjacent points also expanding outwards. Like
>bubbles in a bathtub, the spherical design disappears and quantum angles
>determine the steps of compaction. Something's going on here? I prefer to
>call it the heating and freezing of energy, the crystallization of energy
>to mass and mass to energy, oscillating universes.
>
> When thinking of infinite space, one cannot
>include mass as infinite, but energy is another story. Mankind has
>concentrated his efforts on the mass side of Einstein's famous equation,
>seemingly taking energy for granted. Now, think of nothing, is it just a
>zero used in the mathematical process or is it a zero point representing
>potential? This means we have two different zeros, one representing mass
>and the other representing energy. So here you have my point theory.
>
>
> GETTING TO THE POINT
>
> Exactly how would you represent this potential
>zero? The obvious way would be +0-, until a universal symbol can be
>substituted. It has to be separated from symbols of infinity because "it"
>represents potential infinity. Potential infinity means that the point has
>the potential to expand both directions, the positive and negative
>directions of infinite space, but there is also the possibility of
>interaction which would be the interventions, or interceptions in time,
>causing actions and reactions.
>
> A single point of expansion cannot exist due to
>the lack of boundaries. This is where the quantum factor comes in.
>Expansion from a point, yes a point, not a blob or a square, due to the
>fact that it was originally spherical, would be in all directions. Try
>that with a blob or a square. Wait, we have a problem here, expansion
>means distance, but there is not any time in infinite space because time
>only concerns mass. So, expansion of energy into an infinite space without
>time would give us a new term, infinite instant.
>
> Realizing we are dealing with energy, not mass,
>a demonstration of an infinite instant is in order. If I were to take a
>rubber stamp with a line the width of this page and stamp it perfectly on
>this page, the time of impact would be the same for a single atom under
>that line as it was for the entire number of atoms the total width of the
>page, instantly. So, if the rubber stamp scenario was possible for our
>universe, we have another problem, curvature. Yep, that old buddy distance
>demands curvature because mass is involved. Energy does not demand
>curvature, distance does due to spin and mass has to be present for spin.
>
> So far we have a point as the smallest form of
>energy, not the smallest form of mass. As you pointed out to me, Jim, I
>needed to explain the difference between infinitesimal and infinite with
>the two forms of zero for my theory to be understood. The plus on the left
>side of zero means the energy has the potential for expanding infinitely as
>a positive charge, and the minus on the right side of zero means energy has
>the potential for expanding infinitely as a negative charge. So, the rest
>is left to action and reaction due to the adjacency of opposite charges
>attracting and repelling and creating spin. Compaction causes heat and
>expansion causes cold. Hence, we have the thawing and freezing of space,
>the crystallization of energy.
>
> This is just the tip of the "iceberg" of the
>theory, but it is about as short and concise as I can put it. The crux of
>the situation is there are two zeros, the mathematical zero and the
>potential zero, something from nothing. All the little potential points,
>"bits," can birth all the little "its" in both the positive and negative
>worlds.
> Ours is just one of them.
>
> I believe Professor Wheeler will be able to see
>that we actually get his "It from Bit," and would be willing to help me
>complete the theory if you could contact him, Jim. Thank You
>
> Thank everyone in the groups also. The
>information in these groups has been very helpful. I really appreciate you
>all sharing your knowledge.
>
> Have fun,
> Roy Wolford

Message 16806 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16806

A new scientific paradigm, both reductionistically rigorous and spiritually intelligent should be the 'saving grace' of an evolving and perhaps awakening human groupmind.

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 16807 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16807

> Tony!
> You are correct. I cogratulate you
> and invite you to do the next step:
> to arrange a dialogue with angels.
>

Dear George!

Thank you George; you know, I knew about the Bekenstein Information
Bound in its link to the Holographic Universe Model (Susskind,
t'Hooft), but didn't think of applying it in the angel-density
context.
Thanks to Scerir's reference, we could add some data.

How to talk to the angels?
Allow me to share a metaphor with you.

"Once I woke up and found myself in a cold and isolated place.
I was trapped and imprisoned in a wormhole.
I got apprehensive and searched for a way out.
I found a message on the wall, pointing to a wormhole within the
wormhole.
The message read: "This is a direct telephone/link toGod the Father.
So I conversed through the wormhole-line and SHE told me all about
IT.
Well, whatever Big SHE wished me to know at that point in wormhole
time."

How did WE come to a common understanding here?
Three of US, George, Scerir and Tony talked to the 'Angels'.
Those angels could encompass the minds of many of the 'greats' in
local/nonlocal connectivity.
Watching and observing, helping and guiding - seeding and enriching
our ideas, which so are not our thoughts alone, but are common goods.

That is why I, for one know what I know, imperfect in expression and
substance often it may appear and be.

Love Tony

Message 16808 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16808

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "tom rice" <th1nker@i...>
wrote:
>
Dear Tom!

You are right and I may add, that this frequency-consciousness can
be expressed in a very simple scalerelationship.

Velocity = R(n)f with Scalefactor R a function of cycletime n=H.t
(tau time in GR) - H can be described as Nodal-Hubble-Constant (the
only place, where the Hubble-Law applies).

So what is measured as velocity can also be expressed as an angular
velocity times a scalefactor applied to individuated reference
frames.
The 'displacement' R(max) derives directly from the de Broglie
Phaseacceleration as the 'Hubble-Horizon' phasetransiting at the
end of the Guth-inflation 3.33x10^-31 seconds after Nulltime.

The phasetransition then became classical, following the cosmic
evolution as a Black Body Radiator and as described in standard
models.
Greetings Tony

Message 16809 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16809

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message16818 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16818

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Someday we will understand what worm holes are.
>
>

Dear Zeus!

Many already do and the present research on the Ng VanDam scale and
as linked to Gravitational Wave detection apparatus gives indication
for this.
Tony B.
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Bermanseder"
> <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
> > Yahoo! Groups : 4DWorldx Messages : Message 17365 of 17365
> > Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail
> > Welcome, sirebard



> > > Tony!
> > > You are correct. I cogratulate you
> > > and invite you to do the next step:
> > > to arrange a dialogue with angels.
> > >
> >
> > Dear George!
> >
> > Thank you George; you know, I knew about the
Bekenstein
> Information
> > Bound in its link to the Holographic Universe Model
> (Susskind,
> > t'Hooft), but didn't think of applying it in the
angel-
> density
> > context.
> > Thanks to Scerir's reference, we could add some data.
> >
> > How to talk to the angels?
> > Allow me to share a metaphor with you.
> >
> > "Once I woke up and found myself in a cold and
isolated
> place.
> > I was trapped and imprisoned in a wormhole.
> > I got apprehensive and searched for a way out.
> > I found a message on the wall, pointing to a
wormhole
> within the
> > wormhole.
> > The message read: "This is a direct telephone/link
> toGod the Father.
> > So I conversed through the wormhole-line and SHE
told
> me all about
> > IT.
> > Well, whatever Big SHE wished me to know at that
point
> in wormhole
> > time."
> >
> > How did WE come to a common understanding here?
> > Three of US, George, Scerir and Tony talked to
> the 'Angels'.
> > Those angels could encompass the minds of many of
> the 'greats' in
> > local/nonlocal connectivity.
> > Watching and observing, helping and guiding -
seeding
> and enriching
> > our ideas, which so are not our thoughts alone, but
are
> common goods.
> >
> > That is why I, for one know what I know, imperfect
in
> expression and
> > substance often it may appear and be.
> >
> > Love Tony

Message 16848 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16848

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 16863 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16863

Dear Forum!

This will be somewhat tiresome for some of you, but I feel I should
post this anyway. It is part of scientific works and derivations.

Excerpt from: "M-Space definitions of scaling parameters for
magnetocharged superstrings as Planckian energy transforms in F-
space duality of Calab-Yau manifolds." (pages 25-26)

The third expansion coefficient is 2/103125 and gives the frequency
eigenstates for sufficiently 'evolved-aware-conscious' VPE-Mo/mc
concentrations.
(2/103125)fps.Lo=9696969696, which is the OPTICAL UNIFICATION for
EpsEss in the 'marriage' between Radiation and Matter parameters
through the agency of the RMP's and can be written as Eigenstates:
f(i).E(i)^2=9696969696 in units (J^2/s).

The squared E(i)-eigenstate implies a 'doubling' of magnetocharged
entities by the Action-Law of h*=e*e and the Cooper-Pairing of the e-
chargequanta in supercon ductivity and the Josephson-Constant Jo in
the B(n).

We so define E(i) as 2moc^2, where 2mo=m(i)+m(j), which becomes 'two
bodies as one' or the average mass of a couple as Mo.
The frequency eigenstate is then f(i)=9696969696.N^2/E(i)^2.

The number N of eigenstates f(i) is then defined by 2moc^2/N, where
N can be said to constitute the number of unitcells for the combined
body.
Setting N=Lofps=5x10^14 as the transduction frequency fromF-space
into C-space, that is a wavelength of 6000 Angstroems (Orange
Light), allows a partitioning of the unitcells into 8 gluonic/colour-
magnetocharged eigenstates of 62.5 Trillion per permutation and
reflecting in a quadrupolar magnetocharge distribution shared
between a DUALITY-Monad exhibiting waveparticle-particlewave duality
in 12 dimensions and quantising AS the 13-dimensional 26D-Weyl-
Tensor in the rootextension of 4D-SpaceTime.

For mo=70 kg, a typical Alpha-Schumann-Resonance frequency hence
calculates as f(i)=15.270 and reflects the evolutionary potential
from the Alpha-Rhythm (7.5 Hz) into the higher activity of the Beta-
State.

Why is the Schumann Resonancer increasing?
Because the evolutionary potential of the Alpha-State is closing in
onto the Beta-State, where the 'Peace of Mind' of the
meditative/Alpha-State becomes accessible to the normalised-thinking
conscious brain activity of the Beta-state.

Tony Bear

Message 16864 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16864

--- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Hill"
<medisynergi@h...> wrote:
> another point is just because we cant see beyond the limits
doesnt mean
> there is nothing there.
>
Hi Marc and Tom!

In my educated intuitively guessed and analysed opinion, the Big
Bang Theory is based on a single, yet easily corrected,
misinterpretation.

This is the concept of inflation and the consequent expansion as
creating the space in its dynamic manifestation.

There was inflation as a de Broglie phasetransition from the
superbrane/Planck-Phase into the classical phase as described in GR
and SR.
BUT, the inflation DEFINED certain spacetimemarkers which
became 'frozen' as space in just 1/3 of a thousandths millionth
billionth trillionth of a second.

So SPACE is 'frozen'/defined in 11D/5D AS A BOUNDARY for a 10D/4D -
the classical and measured universe to expand into.

However after this boundary has been reached by 'c' (16.9 billion
years), this nodal and cyclic 'steady state' universe quantises on
the largest scale and CREATES additional space rendering the closed
universe open in its dimensional extension by one, (
this is described by Chern groups in superbrane theory).

In a nutshell, the de Broglie inflation set the subsequent cosmic
evolution in a dimensionality increased by one of that observed.

A certain entropy-counter (9x10^60) mirrors this macroquantisation
in the toroidal differential geometry of the microquantum, which
sets the wormholeradius as the 'Event Horizon' , at which locality
the equations of GR become invalid, but reappear as the scaling
parameters of Black Hole hierarchies.
This entropy counter also prevents any 'heat-death' or ultraviolet
catastrophe for the universe as a whole, because a recharge cycle of
7.52 trillion years, corresponding to a death of nuclear-fuelled
stars, is superimposed onto the linear 10D/4D cosmic evolution.

Tony Bear.

Message 16867 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16867

--- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Bermanseder"
<PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:

Dear Forum, the file Hawking on Gravitational Entropy is available
on website TheoryofEverything-Files.

I have forwarded this file, because it lends technical support for
my posting on the boundary for the universe.

Mathematically rigorous and referenced, the 5D AntideSitter space is
mathematically nested within the 11D-Witten space.

In particular the Nut-Charge of Hawking is referred to as magnetic
mass, which becomes 'extended' as Bolt-charge in a dimensional
extension by one.

Tony B.

Message 16873 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16873

One day, those concepts will be applied to 'tap' the vacuum in intersecting magnetic fields, using the scalar property of restmass as 'frozen light' and very precise boundary conditions for the displacements.

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 16875 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16875

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Bermanseder"
<PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, Sandra Weaver
<snweav6@s...> wrote:
> Mr Rice:
>
> I would like to know if anyone in this group is familiar with the
book called The Bible Code? Has anyone purchased the software? Has
anyone tried the math from the Bible Code to try and find clues to
the Theory of Everything or just for the fun of it? If so, please
let me know. I would be very interested to find out if I am just a
nutball or what.
>
>
>
> Thank you and Happy New Year
>
>

Dear Sandra!

I am informed about the Bible Code by Michael Drosnin.

It became popular after it apparently predicted the assassination of
then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on November 4th, 1995.

The code was discovered by Dr. Eliyahu Rips, a world renown expert
in mathematics (group theory).

A Dr. Brendan McKay (Australia National University, Canberra) won a
$10,000 'Skeptics' award for allegedly 'debunking' Rips's work in
August 2003.

Allow me to quote from a local newspaper (Aug.21,2003-Canberra
Times).

"The way the bible code works is by looking at the first five books
of the Old Testament, otr the Torah, as a 304,805-long string of
Hebrew letters.
Starting at any letter, the code uses a simple skipsequence.
'But you can choose to start at any letter with any amount of skip',
Professor McKay says. 'You can do it with any book'."

McKay allegedly found an assassination foretold in 'Moby Dick' and
messages about the deaths of Princess Diana, Martin Luther King,
John Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and Rabin.

Personally I do not buy into the skeptics argument, Rips's work is
mathematically sound, albeit linked to a passionate interest of Rips
in the Torah of Moses.

An such passion, especially if accompanied by trained thought
processes (like those of a mathematician or scientist), would result
in certain insights.
Much of the 'sacred scrolls' of antiquity were composed and written
that way.
The religion of the pre-Christian gnostic impulse derived in such a
manner.

But to your question of finding the TOE?
One requires deep insights into the history of science and a certain
ability to fuse seemingly contradictory ends together.
It appears likely, that a synthesis of many of the TOE's around the
place; superbrane theory, plasma physics, nonCopenhagen forms of
quantum mechanics and a variation of Smolin's works might do the
trick in the next decade or so.

As Shakespeare and Einstein have said:

'The History of Science is the Science itself.
Religion without Science is blind and Science without Religion is
lame.
Pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.'


Best wishes to you Tony B. Sirebard
--- End forwarded message ---

Message 16877 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16877

"uthave" <uthave@y...> wrote:
>
>
> I should like to make clear , right at the outset ,
that
> it is not my intention , here , to provoke a fire fight but rather
to
> initiate thought and discussion on subjects which are so much taken
> for granted that the fact that there once were and still remain ,
> grounds for discussion , has long been forgotten.
> For some time now , the last fifty years or more to be
> precise , the scientific community has been enacting with
admirable
> felicity the role of the Emperor in his new clothes. Physicists
strut
> about , pointing out with great earnestness , and considerable
pride
> , the fantastic fit of the clothes , or the wonderful ruffles at
the
> wrist, or the incredibly complicated folds of the neck cloth ,
> seemingly unaware that , in actual fact they are wearing no
clothes at
> all. As the story itself so admirably proves , the very
conviction
> that you are wearing something , even when you are not , is at
times
> more than enough to compensate for any lack , to the extent that
even
> onlookers become partakers in the deception. Thus a fantastic
array
> of theories such as Three dimensional gravity , M-theory , String
> theory , super symmetry , F-Theory , Brane theory etc., have been
put
> forward with little or no foundation. The reason that the Emperor
was
> bereft of clothing was of course due to the fact that there was
no
> fabric to begin with.
> To explain , where I am coming from , it is necessary
to
> return to the centuries old argument of whether light is a wave
or a
> particle. Take first the view of light as a wave. Our observations
> show that waves are actually to do with the transfer of energy.
If a
> pebble is dropped into a pool of water, the observation is not that
> all the molecules of water at one side of the pool are shifted to
the
> other side of the pool , but that the individual molecules remain
> where they are , and that it is the energy that is created by the
> dropping of the pebble into the pool that travels. The same
> observation holds true of all waves , whether they are moving
through
> air as with sounds or through some other form of matter. Waves
require
> a medium through which their energy is transmitted. Light and
> electromagnetic waves , on the other hand , achieve the seemingly
> impossible of being able to travel through space without the aid
of a
> medium. At this point someone is certain to point out the fact that
> Maxwell's theory on the propagation of electromagnetic waves had
> solved and explained this problem more than a 150 years ago ,
> conveniently omitting to add that in fact Maxwell's theory has to
all
> purposes been rejected by proponents of Standard theory and modern
> electrodynamics.
> So how would we go about explaining the fact that
light (
> electromagnetic waves ) can travel without the help of a medium.
The
> only possible explanation which comes to mind is that light , in
some
> as yet to be explained manner , disassociates itself at its point
of
> origin ( moves into another dimension ) and then re-manifests
itself
> at the point where it is detected. This might seem to be an old
> fashioned concept , trying to associate what we actually observe
with
> what we think might happen , in a particularly inflexible manner.
Yet
> , this is exactly what Quantum mechanics attempts to do , by
putting
> forward the view that light as it travels from one point to another
> exists at all points in between ( not just those in a straight
line)
> , in other words during its travel light is disassociated only
> re-manifesting at the point where it is detected. This point is
> significant ,not least because it shows the fundamental
importance of
> the fact that some reasoning of this sort is necessary to explain
why
> light ( electromagnetic waves ) can travel from point to point
without
> the help of a medium. AAD (action at a distance ) is a sensitive
issue
> and carries as much weight with us as it did with former
generations.
> This arcane reasoning put forward by Quantum mechanics regarding
the
> disembodiment and re-embodiment of light as it travels is
supported
> by mathematical relationships.
> To return to the question of whether light is a
particle
> or a wave , the million dollar question is , why can't it be both ,
> namely the symbiosis of a particle and a wave. High frequency sound
> waves , often behave like particles ( as for instance when used in
> medical science for the removal of kidney stones ) although closer
> examination shows that the manner in which these high frequency
sound
> waves work differs slightly from the manner in which an actual
> particle would interact with matter. However the analogy does
exist .
> If we were to take frequencies several billions of times higher
than
> those of the highest frequency sound waves , it would be extremely
> difficult to determine whether what we are seeing is actually the
> result of a particle or of a wave. While high frequency sound might
> consist of about 10 ^^ 5 Hz , light waves consist of 10 ^^ 14 Hz.
(The
> question of how lower frequency electromagnetic waves can exhibit
the
> same characteristics as light will be explained at a later time)
Yet
> Quantum mechanics , insists in the manner of a particularly
obtuse
> student , that light is a wave when viewed in one manner and
equally
> that it is a particle when viewed in another manner but that it
can
> never exhibit both properties at the same time. It can never be
both a
> particle and a wave simultaneously.
> If we have a wave/particle then obviously we must also
have
> a medium through which these waves /particles can travel. Quantum
> mechanics has already , and against all its previously established
> statements and caveats on the subject of an aether , put
forward ,
> both in the Standard theory and in quantum electrodynamics , the
> possibility of the existence of such a medium or aether. This field
> (or aether ) consists of what are known as "virtual" quantum
entangled
> pairs , which are constantly undergoing a process of creation and
> annihilation , they pervade the whole Universe. Thus when a "real "
> photon ( as in an electromagnetic field ) comes into contact with
> these quantum entangled pairs ,which according to quantum
mechanics
> permeate the whole of space , the result is the annihilation of the
> original photon and the creation of a new positron/electron pair
which
> in turn is annihilated to give rise to a photon with exactly the
same
> energy as the original photon. One has only to study this scenario
> very briefly to realize that it is immensely complicated . How for
> instance are the enormous range of photon energies accounted for ?
Or
> how for that matter, do low energy electromagnetic waves
consisting of
> eigen values of 10^^-12 eV and less manage to produce
> electron/positron pairs ? It is not surprising then that these
> difficulties are reflected in the mathematics which attempt to
define
> this process resulting in numerous infinities which are
conveniently
> written off in a process called re-normalization and which by any
> other word would be classified as a form of cheating. For the
moment
> , however , this is not the central issue. The central issue here
is
> that the possibility of the existence of an all pervading field or
> aether and that this possibility has been raised has been
raised by
> its most staunch antagonist Quantum Mechanics.
> Is it possible to substitute , instead of the highly
> dramatic and complicated quantum entangled pair type of aether , a
> simpler aether which would more readily account for the properties
> that we observe in the propagation of electromagnetic waves ? The
> answer is that the possibility of a simpler more plausible aether
> does exist and that it exists in the form of "virtual" photons .
The
> photon is widely accepted as being the particle representative of
the
> electromagnetic field , thus a "virtual" photon aether , would mean
> that there exists an aether with electromagnetic properties . There
> are several advantages to seriously considering the existence of
such
> an aether , for one thing , "virtual" photons are completely
permeable
> to matter , "virtual " photons , because of their extremely low
energy
> , would pass through matter as if it did not exist , for another
such
> a field composed of "virtual" photons would be extremely difficult
to
> detect. However when I use the word extremely difficult , it does
not
> mean impossible , for the existence of "Virtual" photons has in
fact
> been both detected and confirmed , in what has come to be known as
the
> Lamb shift. Anomalies in the orbit of the electron around the
> hydrogen nucleus have in fact confirmed that electrons in orbit
around
> the nucleus are constantly emitting and re-absorbing "virtual"
> photons. This explains why electrons in orbit around the nucleus do
> not spiral into the nucleus. Thus "virtual" photons are fairly
common
> place. The "Virtual" photon field , if it does exist , would have
to
> have extremely low energies , corresponding to about 10 ^^ -40 the
> energy of a real photon. This is not only not surprising , but also
> convenient , because as it turns out this is exactly the energy
> difference between the force of gravity and the electromagnetic
force.
> Many of our greatest scientists , true giants of the
> scientific world such as Henri Lorentz and Albert Einstein , have
> strongly favoured the idea that the force of gravity might be
related
> to the electromagnetic force . In the existence of a "virtual"
photon
> aether or an electromagnetic aether lies an explanation that might
fit
> all theories , for one thing it would exactly correlate to the
density
> of objects and hence of the virtual photon activity present in that
> particular form of matter , for another it would also explain the
> concept of inertial mass. In order to understand how these
> interactions might take place it is necessary to understand that
the
> "virtual" photon field is in fact , regardless of its magnitude ,
> essentially an electromagnetic field. It must be assumed that this
> field would serve to transport or carry the energy of a real
photon.
> Thus in the presence of a real photon the photons of the "virtual"
> photon field would align themselves in the direction of
propagation of
> the real photon forming a line whose ends rest on infinity , along
> which the energy of the real photon is transported at the speed of
> light. Now here we have a possible explanation of the force of
gravity
> , assuming that all atoms are constantly emitting and re-absorbing
> "virtual" photons , we must also assume that this activity results
in
> a weak alignment of the "virtual" photons of the field , this
> alignment would exactly correspond to the force of gravity, and the
> density of the matter concerned.
> The next point to be made is with regard as to where
these
> "Virtual" photons might originate , how did they appear in numbers
> which literally swamp the Universe ? To understand this concept it
is
> necessary to confront yet another myth perpetuated by Quantum
> Mechanics , namely the myth that light can travel forever and exist
> forever unchanged in its energy and identity , except for nominal
red
> and blue shifts. . It is true that light from galaxies literally
> billions of light years away has been detected , yet consider that
> this light originates in black holes belching out energy equal to
> whole galaxies and that the energy is in the form of a
concentrated
> directional cone. Replace this immeasurable source of energy with a
> 40W light bulb and it would be difficult for anyone to claim that
the
> light would still reach us over these immeasurable distances. One
> explanation for the fact that we are unable to detect light from
weak
> sources at any great distance is that the photons spread out so
much
> that we literally slip through the gaps as far as detection of
these
> sources is concerned. Yet this is not completely true , and
certainly
> does not correspond with facts as we experience them. For instance
the
> Voyager space craft are now transmitting from a distance of more
than
> six billion miles , directional antennas no longer count , yet the
> same signal that we receive on earth would be present at any point
on
> the huge transmission sphere which is probably , as far as
dimensions
> go , greater than the solar system itself. The only possible
> conclusion is that during the propagation of any electromagnetic
> radiation , a point is reached when the photon formation loses
> definition and the individual photons deteriorate into "virtual "
> photons. This theory has a more logical basis , the photon
travels as
> far as it can and then deteriorates into a "virtual" photon. This
> together with the fact that all matter is constantly emitting and
> re-absorbing "virtual" photons (some of which escape ) would
serve to
> explain the presence of a "virtual" photon "aether" which pervades
the
> whole of the Universe.
> It is now time to examine in more detail some of the
> conclusions reached by QM and the experiments used as their basis.
> The double slit experiment maybe considered as the premier
experiment
> of Quantum Mechanics , it is the experiment on which , the wave
> /particle duality of matter is based , as well as practically every
> other phenomenon to do with light and electromagnetic radiation.
What
> are the conclusions of Quantum mechanics when considering the
double
> slit experiment ? To be contd. If anyone is even vaguely interested
> !!!!!! D. James


Dear D.James!

You raise an interesting issue here, proposing that the universal
energy matrix consists of 'virtual photons' instead of particle-
antiparticle pairings.

Did you know, that an analysis of Heisenberg's Constant,
underpinning all of the quantum phenomena shows, that it itself is
subject to a finestructure?

If so, then your proposal would allow a scenario, transcending the
matter-antimatter concept.

You must also know, that superbrane theory still engages the Riemann
metric as spacetime background for the brane oscillations to operate
in.
There are certain models, like that of Ashketar's parallel vector
transport and Penrose's twistor spaces, which attempt to demetricate
this spacetime backdrop.
And then there is the 'Holographic Principle' (Susskind, Bekenstein),
which seems to converge towards Ed Witten's third superstring
revolution, as predicted in March 1995.

But allow me to indicate the following.
As you have indicated in your post, one could propose a Gauge-Photon,
say as a derivative of the heterotic HE(8x8) superstring to magnify
the Planck Scale onto say the Ng VanDam scale of about 10^-22 metres.

One could also say, that this macroquantisation of the Planck-Boson
(say as superstring classI) would then best approximate the physical
reality.
This has already been discovered.
Duality between the HE(8x8) and the HO(32) could then finetune the
preclassical cosmogenesis in tandem with the dualitries between
classes IIB (GUT-scale of the magnetic monopole) and IIA (Cosmic Ray
spectra).

Anyway, you see a simple exposition of the 'magnified' Planck-Boson
as heterotic gauge photon (having a colourcharge) would validate
your basic premises.

Your 'normal' photons would be their own antiparticles, but the
gauged sourcephoton would allow its antiform in the form of its
selfduality.
It is a long story, but the finestructure for Planck's Constant
would encompass this materially metricased sourcewavelength, say in
the expression:
(h/4pi)=(sourcewavelenght/8pi.Re.c^3).
Here Re is the classical electronic radius, say as observed in
Thomson Scattering and c is the speed oflight constant, whose energy
transformed notation as [ccc] gives the magnetic monopole energy
scale as 27x10^15 GeV and links to superbrane class IIB.

Thank you for your contribution Tony B. Sirebard

Message 16879 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16879

Dear Forum!


Please allow me to elucidate the formulation about the Heisenberg
Finestructure of the previous post.
This is very important and should allow many of you to reevaluate
your various attempts to unify physics and refine your searches for
prospective TOE's.

Now you all can do this, provided you are aware of the Planck-Length
formula and the electromagnetic finestructure constant.

It has long been proposed, that metric theories, such as General
Relativity break down at the Planck-Scale.
Length might behave like time and charges might behave like mass and
other such association of dimensionless quantities in a 'quantum
foam'.

Einstein's lifelong search to unify gravitation with electromagnetism
revolved around the assimilation of Maxwell's equations with those
of General Relativity - he did not incorporate the nuclear force
interactions or an ubiquitous application of the Planck Scale.

There are two equivalent ways to find the necessary unification
between electromagnetism and gravitation; they both involve the
ForceCharges, that is the proportionality constants in the Coulomb
law (as 1/4pi.epsilon0) and Newtonian gravitation (G).

Applying the modular dualities of the superbrane models; the inversed
scale of say winded superstrings is physically equivalent to the
linear mode of vibratory superstring; allows one to set two
identities.

1) hc/(sourcewavelength)=Inversed Energy (sourcequantum)=1/e* (say),
and
2) G/4pi.epsilon0=1.

1) leads to the de Broglie formulations for matter waves and 2)
unitises the proportionality constants of electric permittivity and
gravitation.

This leads to the same formulation as starting from the Planck-Scale
as follows.

Consider the Planck-Length as the minimum condition for any metric
spacetime background.

Now allow this Planck-Length to oscillate, that is contract and
rebounce in a form of random/probability fluctuation.

Apply Richard Feynman's preferred form of matter-light interaction,
that is the electromagnetic finestructure constant as Sqrt(Alpha),
where Alpha=2pi.e^2/(4pi.epsilon0.hc).

The Planck-Length is: L(Planck)=Sqrt(hG/2pi.c^3).

DEFINE the Planck-Length-Oscillation as: L(Planck).Sqrt(Alpha)=L*.

What do you get in multiplying this out?

You get: L*=[e/c^2].Sqrt(G/4pi.epsilon0),

Now comes the trick; the dimensionality below the Planck-Scale is
UNDEFINED a priori, but can be REDEFINED in the Planck-Length-
Oscillation.

Suppose there is variation (associated with the missing mass) in G,
just as Paul Dirac proposed and that there exists a bounding G=Go at
the beginning of the cosmogenesis.
Set this initial Go as the inverse of the Coulomb-Constant to unify
the forcecharges and hence REDEFINE L*=[e/c^2](unified).

This also unifies gravitation with electromagnmetism in a prePlanck
physical quantity denoted as Inverse Energy above (as magnetocharge
e* say).

In particular 1/e* as 1/Energy Units MUST become the StarCoulomb
(C*), defined in units of Volume/Time Squared or the quantifier
C*=m^3/s^2.

But Coulomb Charge e relates to this via the Identity engaging the
Electronic Diameter(Re from Thomson scattering) (2Re).c^2 = e* which
becomes mapped as the atomic scale of quantum mechanics onto the
prePlanck-Scale as L*.c^2.

Those definitions now lead directly to the Heisenberg Finestructure,
defining Planck's Constant h as a form of the wormhole radius (which
is the sourcewavelength of the heterotic superstring HE(8x8) in
magnification to the Ng VanDam limit).

We recall: h/4pi = sourcewavelength/(8pi.Re.c^3). (Equation #)

But we have just shown that: L(Planck).Sqrt(Alpha)=[e/c^2].Unity.

Hence hc/sourcewavelength=1/e* with the mapping e*<->e between the
classical/quantum and prePlanck scales.
Setting e*(unified)=sourcewavelength.c^2 as the Planck-Length-
Oscillation, then gives the required dimensionality unification:

hc.c^2/e* = 1/e* = h.c^3/e* for h->1/c^3 as Equation #.

This derivation should clarify the matter of dimensional consistency
in the previous post.

Sincerly Tony B. Sirebard

Message 16882 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16882

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, Sandra Weaver
<snweav6@s...> wrote:
> Yes MR Bermanseder, they also said the world was flat. Aha they
sure did. So I take it you would rather be a nayer than a player.
Yeahm now that is an open mind!
>
> Thank you kindly for your response.
>
> Tell me ~ is everyone in this group naysayers?
>




Dear Sandra!

Can you read! You have misquotred me completely.
I have answered your question and pointed out that certain skeptics
organisations have tried to discredit Rips' work.
I then defended Rips, saying that his mathematics is sound and that
I DID NOT buy into the skeptics argruments.

You then call me a naysayer??? naysayer of what? of pointing out a
balanced view of believers and skeptics to the forum, allowing
anyone to form their own opinion.

We are all players in the game of life Sandra.
If you really would like to know what a TOE (including works and
concepts such as that of Rips, and prophecy and ancient scriptures
and..and..)entails, you are welcome to ask me or anyone in any forum
any pertinent questions you may desire to ask.

But please avoid just skimming any replies you may receive; rash
judgements are not inducive for meaningful discussions.

Hope to hear from you again Tony B.


> Tony Bermanseder <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Bermanseder"
> <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, Sandra Weaver
> <snweav6@s...> wrote:
> > Mr Rice:
> >
> > I would like to know if anyone in this group is familiar with
the
> book called The Bible Code? Has anyone purchased the software?
Has
> anyone tried the math from the Bible Code to try and find clues to
> the Theory of Everything or just for the fun of it? If so, please
> let me know. I would be very interested to find out if I am just
a
> nutball or what.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you and Happy New Year
> >
> >
>
> Dear Sandra!
>
> I am informed about the Bible Code by Michael Drosnin.
>
> It became popular after it apparently predicted the assassination
of
> then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on November 4th, 1995.
>
> The code was discovered by Dr. Eliyahu Rips, a world renown expert
> in mathematics (group theory).
>
> A Dr. Brendan McKay (Australia National University, Canberra) won
a
> $10,000 'Skeptics' award for allegedly 'debunking' Rips's work in
> August 2003.
>
> Allow me to quote from a local newspaper (Aug.21,2003-Canberra
> Times).
>
> "The way the bible code works is by looking at the first five
books
> of the Old Testament, otr the Torah, as a 304,805-long string of
> Hebrew letters.
> Starting at any letter, the code uses a simple skipsequence.
> 'But you can choose to start at any letter with any amount of
skip',
> Professor McKay says. 'You can do it with any book'."
>
> McKay allegedly found an assassination foretold in 'Moby Dick' and
> messages about the deaths of Princess Diana, Martin Luther King,
> John Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and Rabin.
>
> Personally I do not buy into the skeptics argument, Rips's work is
> mathematically sound, albeit linked to a passionate interest of
Rips
> in the Torah of Moses.
>
> An such passion, especially if accompanied by trained thought
> processes (like those of a mathematician or scientist), would
result
> in certain insights.
> Much of the 'sacred scrolls' of antiquity were composed and
written
> that way.
> The religion of the pre-Christian gnostic impulse derived in such
a
> manner.
>
> But to your question of finding the TOE?
> One requires deep insights into the history of science and a
certain
> ability to fuse seemingly contradictory ends together.
> It appears likely, that a synthesis of many of the TOE's around
the
> place; superbrane theory, plasma physics, nonCopenhagen forms of
> quantum mechanics and a variation of Smolin's works might do the
> trick in the next decade or so.
>
> As Shakespeare and Einstein have said:
>
> 'The History of Science is the Science itself.
> Religion without Science is blind and Science without Religion is
> lame.
> Pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.'
>
>
> Best wishes to you Tony B. Sirebard
> --- End forwarded message ---

Message in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16889

Tony B.

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 16890 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16890

--- In theoretical_physics@yahoogroups.com, Mike <wilmac@a...> wrote:
> Roy Wolford wrote:
>
> > Thank you Tony B. Your patience and teachings are greatly
appreciated.
> >
> > I will work on Infinity as you advise. I am handicapped by my
total
> > lack of mathematical education, but somehow, that factor has
allowed
> > me to see the forest and the trees, but not the wind shaping
their
> > destiny.
> >
> > Have fun,
> > Roy
>
>
> Be careful of infinity. There is not only an infinity of
infinities, but
> there are also several different kinds, so it's as well when
arguing a
> concept using "infinity", to be well aware of which kind you are
using!
> If you use the wrong one you'll have mathematicians all over you
like a
> rash.....
>
> ;-D
>
> mac


Dear Mike and Roy!

This is a very valid argument of Mac and at the core of the analysis
indicated in the previous posts, which I sent for general
information.

About infinity; consider the set of integers/Natural Numbers as
enumerable/countable.
One can map the even integers as infinite set onto the odd integers
as another infinite set.
This is called Cantor Cardinality Aleph Null, and mathematicians
consider this 'Nullness' a minimum condition for Sets of Infinity.

But consider the interval [-1,0,+1]; it is well known that the
inversion properties of numbers can be restricted in this interval.
In a sense this 'Oneness' maps the (+/-)Infinity in reciprocity of
convergent series.

Now consider a mapped interval say symmetric about the 'Functional
Riemann Bound' n=-1/2 (this relates to the famous Riemann hypothesis
and the distribution of prime numbers across the zeroes of the Zeta-
Function).
The interval [-Y,-1/2,X] contains the subinterval [-1,-1/2,0] and
actually defines (in the analysis indicated in the other posts) the
universal wavefunction for the universe as 'Spherical Standing Wave'.
Its formulation is: B(n)=(2e/hA).exp[-Alpha.n(n+1)] and its form is
that of the normal gaussian curve (standard deviation).

Now consider the following mathematical limits:

Aleph-Null: limit(n->infinity){T(n)=n(n+1)}= Infinity

Aleph-All: limit(n->X){T(n)=n(n+1)}= 1.

Introducing the abovesaid rernormalisation for the [-1,0,+1]
interval, mapped on the ordinary (minimum) Cantor Infinity allows
one to COUNT INFINITIES as if they were integers with a limit of 1,
defined in the pentagonal symmetry intrinsic to the XY bounds in the
identity:
T(n)^2=1=X+Y=XY=-i^2=exp(i.pi)

where the Feynman-Path-Integral, describing the squared probability
distribution in quantum eigenstates is simply the summation of
absolute integers in arithmetic progression.

(-n)+...+(-3)+(-2)+(-1)+0+1+2+3+...+n = n(n+1)=T(n)

This then becomes the physicaljustification for using the
term 'infinity' as used in my other postings.

Sincerely Tony B.

Message 16891 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16891

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony
>
> I wish you would e-mail this to "jennie traschen"
> <traschen@p...> and see what she thinks about it.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> z
>
>
> Hi zeus!

Thanks for this reference. I would do this but do not know her email.
Perhaps you could post her email on this board.
I'll check if she's a member here.

Thanks anyway, much appreciated. Tony B.

Message 16892 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16892

--- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "joseph_steinman"
<joseph_steinman@y...> wrote:
>
> Does GR, without the cosmological constant, imply an expanding
> universe, a contracting universe, neither, or both?
>
> What are the types of initial conditions required for the
different
> solutions and how do the solutions depend on these conditions?
>
> Please keep it as *simple* as possible. Thank you. Joseph.

Dear Joseph!

Use the Friedmann Solution: Rc(dot)^2(+/-) Rc^2=4GMRc/3pi.c^2 for
the combined three solution scenario.

Substituting the parametrisation for Rc=Rmax.(n/(n+1)) and the nodal
HubbleScale n=Ho.t, dn/dt=Ho will lead to the Newtonian form for the
critical density as Rho(critical)=3Ho^2/8pi.G, as well as the
Schwarzschild solution.

You need the curvature multiplier as the Feigenbaum delta/chaos
constant to convert Newtonian forms into curvature.

You'll have Rmax/[(n+1){1/(n(n+1)^2} (+/-)n]=2GM/c^2=r(n)[1/T(n)^2
(+/-)1]=2.(decelerationparameter as Sarkar Constant As say).

Here T(n) is the Feynman Path-Integral as summation over
all 'particle' histories and as parametrisation of r(n=cycletime
tautime in GR) simply adds the absolute integers as gaussian
distribution.
(-n)+....+(-3)+(-2)+(-1)+0+1+2+3+...+(n)=n(n+1) (arithmetic
progression).

Now the ALL IMPORTANT BOUNDARY CONDITION for all this is the
identity:
T(n)^2=1 =X(X+1)=-XY=-i^2=exponent(i.pi).

This relates to the pentagonal supersymmetry intrinsic to both the
DStandard Modelds in Cosmology and in Particle Physics.

Your questions are answered by the statement: all of the above.

As nodal oscillation (spherical standing wave models as propagation
of toroidal spacevortices defined in the transition of the
superbrane epoch into the classical dynamics); the universe
oscillates with a halfphase of 16.9 billion years and a wavelength
of about 1.60x10^26 metres.

As lower dimensional asymptotic expansion, the universe decelerates
as defined in the scalefactor parametrisation.

So the higher D cosmos is subject to contraction electromagnetically
(causing all the redshift dilemmas), but not in terms of
massparameters, where it continues to decelerate according to
the 'true' 'Milgrom' deceleration -2cHo/(n+1)^3 m/s^2.

The application of the parametric scale is restricted to the
universe as described; its initial conditions deriving from the
aforesaid phasetransition from the superbranes into the classical
Einstein-Minkowski spacetime metric.

I can give you all of those if you so desire; they include the
initial temperatures, scales and times associated with the de
Broglie transition.
That is why I can confidently predict some simple values for the
subsequent cosmic evolution.

The way GR is applied is in subframes of locality; I do not know if
the parametrisations are valid in subsystems, away from the
phase/group-velocity relations described before.


This might be getting toolong already, but if you are interested, I
can give you more details of the mechanisms as applicable on the
largest scale.

I do hope to have answered this a little better than I have done
previously.

Best of science to you Joseph Tony B.

Message 16893 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16893

--- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Dorsey"
<rdorsey26@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "TONY BERMANSEDER"
> <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> I incorrectly stated that the point in time for the 10000 X the
> current speed of light as the beginning of the universe when the
> speed stated Setterfield is 8X10^11 the current speed.
> http://www.setterfield.org/stellarhist.html#vcmodel
> I take it that you believe the the universe is still expanding.
> The question that I have is, if that is true wouldn't the red
shift
> observed show a smooth change rather than the quantified shifts
> observed by W. Tifft, Guthrie & Naoier, and Brian Lewis.
> The following is an excerpt from the following
> link.http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html#quantredshift
>
>
> Galaxy Motion Smears Out The Quantization
> One final piece of observational evidence is pertinent to this
> matter. Tifft and others have pointed out that, as far as
clusters
> of galaxies are concerned, the quantised redshift means that the
> actual velocities of galaxies must be minimal except in the very
> centre of the clusters [Tifft, 1977, p. 31; Arp, 1987, p.119].
> Observational evidence that this is indeed the case was mentioned
at
> the Tucson conference on quantization in April 1996. Observations
> of the Virgo cluster and other clusters have shown that in the
> innermost parts of the clusters "deeper in the potential well,
> [galaxies] were moving fast enough to wash out the periodicity"
> [Arp, 1998, p.199]. (Again the word 'periodicity' is being used
as
> an alternative to 'quantization'.) In other words, if galaxies
> really had a significant velocity, it would actually smear out the
> quantization. As a consequence, these observations reveal that
> redshifts are not basically due to galaxy motion at all, but must
> have some other primary cause, with any Doppler effects from
motion
> being secondary. This conclusion also resolves one matter that
has
> puzzled astronomers for years. Use of the redshift to determine
> galaxy motion in clusters has given a false impression of the
actual
> velocities of galaxies involved. If the redshift is interpreted
as
> a velocity, the outer galaxies in clusters are moving too fast to
be
> held by the gravitational field of the cluster. As a result,
> astronomers have looked for the 'missing mass' which should hold
> such clusters together. The quantisation of the redshift reveals
> that actual galaxy motions are so low that there is no
> mass 'missing' at all. A thorny problem is thereby resolved by
> these observations.


Dear Robert!

Thank you for your reply.
The questions which you raise are all pertinent and at the core of
the redshift controversies.
But the enigmas can only resolve in a complete and encompassing
reassessment of the cosmological parameters invoked in the
theoretical expositions.

Yes, there is something 'wrong' with the redshift mappings; yes
there is a 'missing mass' in relation to the critical density and
yes there is a discrepancy in the galactic rotation curves,
deviating from the Newtonian prediction.

All of this is interwoven, one can 'quantize' the redshifts, say in
the Compton scattering and then superimpose a local phenomenology to
describe the relative dynamics between bulge and corona of a galaxy.

My understanding utilises the universe as a dynamical selfcontained
entity; say in the tradition of the Einstein-Friedmann model.
This model is based empirically on Newtonian dynamics, but
introduces the mass-curvature relationship via Riemann's tensor
mathematics in multidimensional Minkowski spactime.

Now this model works well for a metrically based background; which
defines displacement as the minimisation between two 'abstract
points'.

There is the conundrum linking to quantum field theory; what is a
point and how is this point physically definable?

I am not diverging from your question Robert, please allow me to
elucidate.
You see the advent of higher dimensional 'physical theories',
initially Kaluza-Klein and now M-F-Theories have REINVENTED the
Riemannian spacetimes, first used by Einstein in GR.

So you might perhaps see the significance of the 'points' as
defining the metrics - now reinterpreted as QUANTUM WAVEPARTICLE.

Doing away with the metric of Riemann and Einstein ONLY works on the
absolute quantumlevel of the universe, not on any subscale.
The beauty, not yet generally understood or appreciated, of
superbranes in higher dimensions is this concept of modular duality.
The physics of the large scale with small energyintervals is
externally indistinguishable from the small scale with large
energyintervals.
This allows mathematically to model nonperturbative (extremely hard
to analyse)models AS perturbative models.
It all revolves about UNITY, a number/ratio being less or greater
than 1.

What has this to do with redshifts?
Well you see, the COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT is THE criteria to describe
the dynamics of the entire universe as a QUANTUM PARTICLEWAVELET,
that is itself.
Conceptually people, even very intelligent ones like Caroline, Joel,
Nico and others, run into severe difficulties to understand this
idea.
It is not common sense to consider the outside of say planet Earth
as being holographically equivalent to its inside.
But this is how the universe is a selfcontained entity within and
without itself.
This is the higher dimensionality enfolded withi.without itself.
The universe as discussed is BOTH; a 3D-Surface AND a 4D-Hypersphere.
It is BOTH INFINITE and FINITE at the same 'timeevent'.

So the Cosmological Redshifts apply to the expansion of the universe
as its own selfstate or Eigen-Gestalt.
The redshifts are precise and completely interwoven into the fabric
of the higher/mapped dimensional spectrum.

But as soon as you apply a subframe, say a galaxy supercluster, or a
group galaxy or a galaxy or a solar system; those same redshifts are
not simple velocity indicators, but relate to superimposed scenarios.
Often, as 'my' model has shown, there are blueshifts mapped onto
redshifts, not only from the relative velocities between
constituents, but also as mappings from the cosmological parent
redshift.
Halton Arp in a sense got it right; he proposes families of galaxies,
hierarchies like fathers and daughters and generations upon
generations.
What is constant however is the cosmological redshift, determining
the expansion of spacetime itself.
Whilst there is a boundary (set in the inflation which wasn't an
inflation from a false Temperature vacuum), this boundary is subject
to its own infinitisation.
In other words the universe is QUANTISING ITSELF; just as the
galaxies and blackhole/quasar dyads regenerate themselves.
This leads us into entropy and negentropy considerations and just
how the 'cosmic recharging' cycles relate to that.

You must have heared of the work of Mordehai Milgrom, he proposes
the Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) to account for the rotation
curves.
This does away with the dark matter and introduces a new fundamental
constant with units of acceleration.

Well, this 'fundamental cinstant' automatically 'pops'out of
Einstein's equations in the demetricased way (it is -2cHo/(n+1)^3).
Milgrom has proposed this value of being of the order 2x10^-10
acceleration units and all of this fits the experimental data very
well indeed.
Except in one case, namely the distribution of rich cluster cores.
The bigger the scalings get, the closer the cosmological redshift
becomes the true criterion you see.

Now Milgrom is right with his acceleration, but has not yet been
able to link MOND to GR and the overall cosmology and the 'dark
energy'.
That is because the 'dark energy' is in a way a nonentity, whilkst
the 'Milgrom acceleration' is a fundamental constituent of the
parametric form of Einsteins fieldequations (applied at the unity
scale).

As said in a previous post, there are redshift mappings, all related
to the Milgrom formulation (-2cHo/(n+1)3).
It for example 'explains' the measured anomalies in the
Pioneer/Galileo spacecrafts relative to the solar system
(Ref. Georg Musser, Pioneering Gas Leak, SciAm.,Dec.98).

In a previous post I have also linked the Compton Effect as redshift
related; superposed onto the general present epoch of the Hubble-
Oscillation.

Summarising, the 'missing mass' isn't missing, but an effect of
the 'evolvement' of mass from mass-seedlings, dating to the time of
nucleosynthesis.
This has been experimentally observed and is closely and
appropriately modelled on the Milgrom proposals.
There are presently 7.56 10D universes 'contained' as the 'within'
within the 'without' of 11D and subsequently a 'defect' in
massdensity must be measured.
Since the BigBang massseedling is specified as 2.8% of the critical
massdensity for Euclidean closure (this is the socalled deceleration
parameter also defining the mysterious cosmic architecturte of 236.5
million lightyears) and this has grown to about 3.8% as baryonic
part; the massdiscrepacy (dark matter) amounts to a WMAP-measured AP
3.8(7.56)=28.7%.

The redshifts as cosmological indicators also map a certain interval
(1.08-1.84) onto the interval (0.25-0.29).
Just recently, Harvard University astrophysicist Abraham Loeb has
calculated that galaxies we now see at a redshift of 1.8 would now
be disappearing over our event horizon due to the 'apparent' cosmic
acceleration, (said to have started at a redshift of about 0.5).
So any light emitted by objects at a redshift greater than that
would never reach us.

But, whilst Loeb's calculations are correct, the premise of an
accelerating universe is flawed.
The apparent acceleration is cosmological redshift (cycletime n)
dependent and what is a redshift appears as a blueshift.
But this is another story, I'll end here and await your comments.

Yes, I know about being ignored by other contributors, Robert.
All one can do remain in one's scientific integrity and I reply to
everyone.
And there are other sites, where one's contributions are appreciated.
We are all learning from one another.

Best of scientific insights to you Tony B.



> I appreciate you taking the time to reply and continue this
> discussion. Appearently there are others who feel that this writer
> is too far below their level of understanding to dignify any
> comments with a reply.
> Thanks,
> RRD

Message 16895 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16895

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, george ryazanov
<george_ryazanov@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Tony and RRD!
>
> You are writing:
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> Yes, I know about being ignored by other contributors, Robert.
> All one can do remain in one's scientific integrity and I reply to
> everyone.
> And there are other sites, where one's contributions are
appreciated.
> We are all learning from one another.
>
> Best of scientific insights to you Tony B.
>
>
>
> > I appreciate you taking the time to reply and continue this
> > discussion. Appearently there are others who feel that this
writer
> > is too far below their level of understanding to dignify any
> > comments with a reply.
> > Thanks,
> > RRD
>
> But I am also ignored:
>
> I calculated missing masses,
>
> distribution of it along galaies,
>
> Pioneer effect
>
> without any hypothesis
>
> only from the +t and -t symmetry.
>
> And I did not received any comment!
>
> George
>
>
>Should all the scientific thinkers and philosophers who have been
ignored put their mettle together; then the TOE would syurely
eventuate.

So we should support each other and our 'brainchilds' instead of
quarreling whose TOE is better than the others.

There is an underlying all-encompassing philosophy and George,
your's stands in the light of exactly that illumination.

The creative force in the universe does not ignore any sincere
attempt of selfillumination effected through its sons and daughters.

This SourceEnergy grows and evolves in all of our endeavours and our
cooperations with each other.

May all the TOE's (and every philospher is required to construct
one's own as contribution to the whole), converge for the glory of
the creator, the creation and the pioneering indominitable human
spirit.
Tony B. Sirebard

Message 16896 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16896

Dear Zeus! and interested readers

I thought about your TOE and feel I can help you with your sought
after mathematical underpinning.
You seem to have an understanding about my previous Heisenberg
Finestructure Post and so I feel honoured to share the following
extension of it with you and anyone else interested in this forum.

We find four parts in this attempt to link universal resistances
(here electrical) to the cosmogenesis.

1.The finestructure of Maxwell's Constant 1/c^2.
2.The superconductivity of 'free space'
3.The Action Law: Action=Charge Squared
4.The massenergy of the magnetic monopole

1.The finestructure of Maxwell's Constant 1/c^2.

For simplicity, allow me to propose the following:
Any sentient and technically advanced civilisation is able to
determine the cosmogenesis of the universe by measuring two
elementary constants of nature.
a) the invariance of the speed of light 'c' and
b) the invariance of the action constant 'h'.

(Technically Boltzmann's Constant and the chargequantum constant are
obtained in corollary laws, but need not be measured and G is a
special case, linked to the permittivity constant and c via alpha).

Then any such civilisation can construct its own selfconsistent
mensuration system, defining energy, space and time from 'c' and 'h'.
Now there then exists a standard mensuration system, in which c has
the exact numerical value of c^2=9x10^16 velocity^2 units and h has
the exact numerical value of h=1/(15x10^32) action units.

We now finestructure Maxwell's Constant as: (magnetic permeability
constant mu0).(electric permittivity constant epsilon0)=1/c^2
AND further define the numerical values as:

mu0=120.pi/c (Henry/metre=H/m=Js^2/C^2.m) and
epsilon0=1/(120.pi.c) (Farad/metre=F/m=C^2/J.m).

2.The superconductivity of 'free space'.

Form the ratio mu0/epsilon0=(120.pi)^2 ->{H/F=J^2/(A^2.C^2)=UNITY}

But here we could write: CHARGE^2=ENERGY^2/CURRENT^2 or
RESISTANCE^2=UNITY.

This is the prePlanck definition for Superconductivity as say
manifested in the Quantum Hall Effect: N(Voltage(Hall)/I)=h/e^2 ,
the Josephson Effect: V=(h/2e).Josephson-Frequency and the
Electrical Conductance Quantum: 2e^2/h. (Goldman, Wen, Wees).

3.The Action Law: ACTION=CHARGE^2

The finestructure of Heisenberg's Constant:
h<->sourcewavelength/(2Re.c^3) incorporates this Action Law in the
form h*=e.e*,with the interdimensional mapping of electropoles e
onto magnetopoles e*.

The Action Law is the Law of Superconductivity implying Unitary
Resistance/Impedance as related to the quantifier c^3.

Because magnetocharge is defined as inverse energy and is manifested
in the scale of the nuclear diameter (thomson scattering, Compton
effect) as e*=2Re.c^2 (as mapping of the Planck-Length-Oscillation,
using electropole e), an elementary relationship between the Nature
of CHARGE and MASS is crystallised.

4.The massenergy of the magnetic monopole

The Magnetic Monopole is also known as the selfdual superstring
class IIB in 10 dimensions.
Its energy is precisely (ec) unified 'kilograms'.
E=mc^2 applied becomes (ec).c^2 <-> 'c^3' electronvolts unit or
27x10^24 eV.
This is the Gamma-Ray-Burster/Cosmic Ray energy maximum and is used
to define the absolute GUT-Unification scale in gauge unitary
transformations.

It is slightly above and coupled to superstring class HO(32),
defining the X/L-Boson heterosis, (giving rise to the particle
hierarchies and the wormhole transitions in superstyring class HE
(8x8) and the Higgs-Bosonic-RestmassInduction mechanisms).

The resulting superconductivity can be expressed in the SOURCECURRENT
I(sinksource)=N(2e.fss), where integer N quantises the
sinksourcefrequency of the winded part of the HE(8x8) superstring in
modular duality to the vibratory part embodied in the wormhole
definition. The 2e coefficient relates to the Cooper-Pairings of
electrons/phonons.

fss is also modular equivalent to the time-instanton, namely the
time at which the de Broglie inflation ended at 1/3x10^30 seconds
after the Big Bang, initiating the classical cosmogentic evolution
as a Black Body Radiator and the relativity laws.

Summarising, the fss instanton is massequivalent mss=hfss/c^2 so
defining all masses to carry an eigenfrequency fss.
This can be expressed as a redefinitiuon of the Einstein-Planck
formulations.

Energy: mo.c^2 <-> h.f

E=hf iff m0=0;
E=m0.c^2 iff f=fss

Further exposition would crystallise the massequivalence to a natural
current I=(2e)f, reducing second order differential equations in RCL-
circuits say into first order differential equations.

Instead of using dQ/dt as the flow of charge in masscarrying media
(say copper wires), the superconducting chargequantum (2e) serves as
coefficient, frequency f becoming the parameter of differentiation.


This 'natural current' utilises the toroidal vortices of the vacuum,
as a quasiether, defined in the sinksource sourcesink duality of
their superbraned origin.

I am available for further elucidation, should anyone be
interested.
In friendship Tony B. Sirebard

Message 16899 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16899

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 16904 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16904

--- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "draco_reptoid"
<draco_reptoid@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Bermanseder"
> <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
> >
>
> >There is no horizon problem and there is no monopole problem.
>
> There is and it's solved by inflation.
>
> >The Friedmann model is applicable as Schwarzschild solution and GR
> wonderfully describes the cosmic dynamics in any locally applied
> scales of references.
>
> Not entirely. The universe would NOT expand sufficiently fast and
the
> resulting universes would be unstable and empty. The Inflation is
what
> fills the universe with particles because the inflation outruns the
> tendency of virtual particle to recombine. They could not recombine
> when they could not find each other. And they do come in pairs that
> have to be matched.
>
> Draco

Dear Draco!

There are many models of inflation, all of which are incorrect in
their basic scaling parameter.
You have read some of the prevalent literature addressing the
mentioned problems.

Inflation cannot be modelled correctly unless the initial conditions
causing it can be evaluated with the experimental data obtained from
the subsequent cosmogenesis.

Consider the universe as a macroquantum and the various 'ether'
models become selfevident.
The 'ether' must be the holographic minimum as microquantum;anything
else would result in structural deviation on the most intrinsic
scale.
The universe is EXACTLY EUCLIDEAN FLAT with an Omega of 1, not 1.002
or something like that.
There is no cosmological constant, but there is a lambda function,
acting as an acceleration differential.
This 'quintessential' dance between acceleration (gravitational and
electromagnetically induced) smoothes out the cosmos to the degree
of the dimensionless quantifiers expressing themselves as the
fundamental constants and ratios of nature.

The observed WMAB/COBE T-fluctuations derive from the seeding of the
mass-radiation equivalences, all set as Temperature-Evolution.

The universe expands precisely fast enough to harmonise the critical
density with the baryonic evolving one.
This is a simple derivation of the critical density from the
Schwarzschild solution, defining not only rho(critical),but also the
deceleration parameter qo in the same formulation.
This leads to a certain scale, which has been measured and observed
countless times in the extent of superclusters.
Beyond superclusters, the universe is isotropic and gravitationally
balanced, with inward pressure in equilibrium with the critical mass
gravitational contraction.

The Pair-Production Annihilation loops are a consequence of the
microquantisation.
A fourfolded sourcewavelength defines the Unified Field, part of
which defines the PP/PA loops adjacent to parity loops for matter
and antimatter.
There are 12 magnetic monopole 'knots' contained, which as current
junctions manifest the 'particles' as wavelet-current equivalents.

Anyway, there is a flaw in the matter/antimatter Tandard Model.
One, because the primordial particles/waveletys were not protons and
neutrons, but dineutrons leading directly to the Higgs Template.
And Two, because of neutrino definitions in the unified field (also
defining Weakons W+/-and Zo's), antimatter blueprints are suppressed.
Antimatter is 'programmed' to be 'substituted' by RMP's which are
RestMass-Photons.
RMP's are often thought as as axions or wimps and other such things.
RMP's are the great unifiers.
They not only symmetrise the strong interaction in gauge
definitions, but they also form the 'particles' of the 'missing
mass', which is nought but the aforesaid harmony between the
critical density and the baryonic density.
At the instanton the baryon density was double the deceleration
parameter 2.803%, this has grown to 3.68% for the present epoch. And
precisely that has been measured by the WMAP data.
Because 7.56 10D universes fit (in terms of mass) into the 11D one,
the socalled RMP-Dark Matter amounts to 7.56(3.68)=27.82%.

Thank you for your contribution Draco Tony B.