SEE, — HOW the complexities of
FIELD THEORIES HID from us, the fact that relative motion (phase) between all these spinning entities, in the micro & macro universe, gives us all the attractive and repulsive Fundamental Forces.
Oct-29-2018.
Field Theories in html: http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.html

Also, Field Theories in Word: http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.doc

& Field Theories in Adobe pdf: http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.pdf

Fitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.
Fitz's first book in 1966

Fitz's 1966 book in PDF


EVERYTHING on these links herein are FREE, & NO pop up ads with these either.


This was the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.



Paper # 10

Even

More from

Mathematical physicist

Tony Bermanseder's

WSM,. String, TOE, mathematical posts.

 


Click Here - for the Very Latest in SCIENCE.

 


Message 17450 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17450

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "leucipo2001" <ariv@w...>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We have uploaded an intriguing note today,
>
> http://xxx.unizar.es/abs/hep-ph/0503104
>
> It seems we can estimate the self-energy and vacuum-polarisation
> parts of the muon anomalous magnetic moment directly from simple
> combinations of the electroweak parameters. Rather strange.
>
> (And as a plus in a footnote, we have yet another estimate of
> Weinberg angle)
>
> Alejandro

Dear Alejandro!

I am very interested in the generation of the lepton masses from the
radiative couplings to the magnetic moment generators.
I have downloaded your file and seen a number of points which might
interest you and helpyou to further your endeavours.

My own work has found a beautiful generation for the weakon masses
from the Higgs-Bosonic-Restmass-Induction (HBRMI) mechanism from the
supermembrane parameters.

Furthermore the Schwinger terms of Alpha/2Pi form a natural pivot in
the cosmogenetic wavefunction B(n)=(2e/hA).exp[-Alpha.T(n)].
They depict the first moment of standard deviation about the
functional Riemann Bound FRB=-1/2.

Additionally, I have found a beautiful binomial distribution of the
v/c ratios about precisely the FRB.
This allows a mathematical analysis of the electron mass as
effective with respect to an additional magnetocharged part adding
to the naked electronmass.
This is often termed electromagnetic mass.

But allow me now to describe the tabulated form for the weakon
masses: {K=Kernel; IR=InnerMesonicRing; OR=OuterLeptonicRing}.

VPE-Level KIR= 14.11358 MeV* VPE=Vortex-Potential-Energy
VPE-Level KOR= 46.09643 MeV* K=Neutrinoic
Up/Down-Level= 150.5558 MeV* Pionic-Mesonic
Strange-Level= 491.7308 MeV* Kaonic-Leptonic
Charm-Level = 1606.043 MeV* Diquark-u-Singlet U*=(uu); c=U*ubar
Beauty-Level = 5245.495 MeV* Diquark-d-Doublet b=b*ubar=(ud)ubar
Magic-Level = 17132.33 MeV* Diquark-d-Doublet m=m*ubar=(us)ubar
Dainty-Level = 55956.0 MeV* Diquark-s-Triplet D*=(dd)dbar
Truth-Level =182758.0 MeV* Diquark-s-Triplet t=t*dbar=(ds)dbar
Super-Level =596906.8 MeV* Diquark-s-Triplet S*=(ss)dbar


Results of the Analysis:

1)There is a Kernel-Ring-Cross-Coupling defining the Higgs-Scale
from the XL-Boson identified as heterotic supermembrane class HO(32).
This K/L ratio is calculated for the present time as 2.87827.

2)The transformation of the Planckian scale hierarchies map the
magnetocharges onto Coulombic charges as mass/current equivalents in
specifying [Classical ElectronRadius{Re}.c^2<=>e*<=>e<=>Planck-
Length-Oscillation{PLO}.c^2, for PLO=Planck-Length.Sqrt(Alpha), and
proportionality of ComptonRadius={Re}/Alpha].

3)The Sum of (n+1)L-means approximates the nth K-mean/2.

4)The ElectroWeak Mixing Angle from the XL-Boson transform
calculates at the presnt time as 3.266103301 to set the linear
generating scale of the HBRMI.

5)The K-means from Strange to Dainty sum to the mass of the W-weakon
in 80.432 GeV* as a first approximation.

6)The K-mean for the ttbar-resonance represents the mass of the Z-
weakon in 91.38 GeV* as a first approximation.

7)The K-mean for the SSbar-resonance represents the Fermi Constant
as upper bound for the saturated Higgs-Scale in 298.5 GeV* at the
cosmogenetic time of 1/365 seconds* and a temperature of 3.4x10^15
K*.

8)The conversion factor for calibrating the superbrane scaled units
(*) to SI is eV*=1.002429865eV.

9)The application of quark-wavelet quantum geometry naturally
introduces the quark multiplets, say the pentaquark as diquark
derivatives (Takashi Nakano, Osaka University 2003; Dmitri Diakonov,
St. Petersburg and Ken Hicks, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
Facility in Virginia, USA).

You may contact me for further information if you so desire.



Best of science to you Tony B.

 

 

 

 

 

Message 17451 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17451

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Roy,
>
> I copied that from Milo Wolff.
>
> I think schaum is foam.
>
> I gave all my foreign language dictionaries to my grand kids.
>
> I kinda think it's meant to mean something like soap bubble foam
that
> isn't really there when you dig into it.
>
> Free spinning electrons repel each other just like free spinning
> stars.
>
> Imo it's nothing but relative motion. Of course quantum theorists
say
> no to this.
>
> I found out, when i was a kid, that Ampere's relative motion laws
> showed me what was going on a lot better than Faraday's magnetic
> lines of force and charge.
>
> Think of this:
>
> The only time you can ever have any kind of attractive force
anywhere
> is when something loses its freedom and gets "locked" in some way
to
> lose its freedom - magnetism and sigma and pi bonding are good
> examples of this.
>
> Our galaxy is "locked" onto the much larger Andromeda galaxy and
we
> are being pulled toward it (the great attractor).
>
> I can see the reason for all this using Ampere's laws but i can't
> using gravity and Faraday's rules.
>
> So I simply have always gone with the rules or laws i can
understand.
>
> Cheers
>
> z
>

Hi guys!

I speak fluent German, having resided there for 16.5 years.

I can assure you that Schaumkommen is a juxtaposition of two words;
Schaum=Foam and kommen=to come.
So Zeus's description is correct.

In terms of physics however, one absolutely must associate charge
with mass (and hence electric and magnetic current).
This has been the great mystery in physics in the pioneering days
over 100 years ago.

The NATURE of charge is not understood, but its association with
mass is.

So when Milo says 'Schaumkommen' describes charge, he means that
charge is a fleeting phenomenon and that the mass-inertial
descriptions manifest charge as say electromagnetic phenomena.

But when one introduces the Action-Law of Action=Charge^2; then the
mysteries of the associations dissolve.
The Action-Law is by its very nature superconductive, unitising
resistance and impedance.

And Roy is correct in superposing the Wolford Centre as the
spacetime interval mapped from the subtimespace.

Now the subtimespace IS NOT the Vacuum of Milo; but the underpinning
plenum of abstraction, which allows space to emerge from
dimensionless time (Einstein's Tautime in GR).
One could describe it as a Platonic World of ideal morphology, which
manifests as the wormhole singularity as a mensuration limit.

This is also the limit for Minkowski-spacetime in the Weyl-Geodesic,
satifying Roger Penrose's Weyl-Nullification hypothesis.

So the Wolford-Centre is the Penrosian Limit as well and it is there
that the magnetocharges map the electrocharges in magnetopoles
becoming electropoles via agency of c^2.

So both of you are correct in your propositions, Wolford's Charge
Centre uses Zeus's c^2 transformer to effect the material and
observable universe of the natural laws.

Tony B.


>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Wolford"
<rwolf@r...>
> wrote:
> > Hi Dan:
> >
> > Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate and enjoy
> controversy involving TQP. As you say, we all have our views and
> that is what makes it fun. If we all agreed, it would be the same
as
> if we all looked alike.
> >
> > I for one, see energy as a positive or negative charge
> potential sphere as the box, containing the Kitty as ZPE and mass
as
> compacted fields of charge when the Kitty gets loose. In other
> words, I am suggesting that I walked into the room containing Schr?
> ger's Cat and heard it meow, so I let it loose. Consider my
> Infinity<+0->Infinity as an infinite space full of infinite energy
> potentials as the boxes and ZPE as the kittycat photons being
> released when the event happens.
> >
> > I could not find the meaning of Shaumkommen. My Mother was
> German and my Father's family originated in Germany, but I do not
> speak German. Max Planck and my Grandfather looked like
brothers. I
> can only take the scientific approach and ASSUME the word means a
> figament of one's imagination, Theoretical Quantum Physics at its'
> finest.
> >
> > Have fun,
> > Roy Wolford
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Robert Byron Duncan
> > To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:22 AM
> > Subject: [TheoryOfEverything] Re: File - Short TOE.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > Roy,
> >
> > All of us are searching to find the holy grail or whatever.
> >
> > I've been lucky to have had to study charge since high school
> days
> > when I got my first radio license.
> >
> > After working all my life in electronics I have come to the
same
> > conclusion as Dr. Milo Wolff, who gave us the words of
> Schroedinger,
> > that charge is nothing but shaumkommen.
> >
> > Your +0= concept has something going for it though.
> >
> > The picture one sees depends from where one looks at it.
> >
> > Charge can be seen as your +0= because this is indeed an
INFINITE
> > resonance universe.
> >
> > BUT
> >
> > When it comes right down to each of these spherical standing
wave
> > particles, from which we are all constructed, i'm very much
> afraid
> > that it's an extremely simple quantum, resonance, impedance
> matching
> > coupling between only two particles, at a time, where the in
> phase
> > resonances from both particles deliver a quantum of energy
from
> one
> > to the other.
> >
> > Many of these abovementioned vector matches are seen, by us,
as
> this
> > scalar charge or as Schroedinger put it "Shaumkommen".
> >
> > Of course this is imo.
> >
> > You, of course, have a different opinion to which you are
> entitled.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Dan Fitz
> > z
> >
> >
> >
> > Since then I've had many more FCC radio licenses and have come
to
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Wolford"
> <rwolf@r...>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Dan:
> > >
> > > A while back I remember hearing a story about a man
> talking to
> > God and telling God he could create anything that God could.
I
> do
> > not know the Author as it was word of mouth. When God told
the
> man
> > to proceed, the man stooped down and grabbed a handful of
dirt.
> God
> > said to the man, "Wait a minute, get your own dirt."
> > >
> > > I believe this applies to your theory because you rule
out
> > charge. I believe my infinite charge potential equation
> Infinity<+0-
> > >Infinity representing the infinite positive charge potential,
> with
> > ZPE as the equatorial center, and the infinite negative charge
> > potential as an infinity of charge potentials, combined with
> Allen
> > Francom's Adjacency and Tony Bermanseder's dimensional
> explanation,
> > is very logical. Combine an infinity of Wolford Centres and
The
> > Trinity of Elementary Interactions with Tony and Allen's
> > explanations, and we could have discovered how God makes His
> (dirt),
> > mass, but still do not have our own dirt, we just discovered
the
> way.
> > >
> > > Have Fun,
> > > Roy Wolford
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
> > > To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 4:23 AM
> > > Subject: [TheoryOfEverything] File - Short TOE.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > Fitzpatrick's
> > >
> > > Theory of Everything
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > By Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
> > >
> > > ? 2002
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chapter One
> > >
> > > Mathematicians Needed
> > >
> > > If you are a good mathematician then you had better take a
> look
> > at this.
> > >
> > > I'll give you a workable Theory of Everything concept but
> then
> > you will have to supply the math for it. Andre M. Ampere gave
us
> a
> > bit of the math for it but much more is needed.
> > >
> > > Here's the problem: All our present science uses math that
> > calculates things measured from a certain place of rest. While
> this
> > seems fine to us who feel we are at rest here on this earth,
> there is
> > a problem with this because there is nothing really at rest in
> this
> > entire universe. We are actually on a geodesic path which is
the
> > closest thing to a place of rest, I suppose.
> > >
> > > But this geodesic path the earth takes most certainly can
not
> be
> > considered a place of rest if we want to put together a Theory
of
> > Everything, which has to take into consideration everything in
> this
> > entire universe. This will include all the particles in
quantum
> > mechanics & all the objects we will ever want to deal with in
> general
> > relativity.
> > >
> > > Some will say our science laws will work OK in all
reference
> > frames but a proviso must be added and the truth is that our
> science
> > laws change with different surroundings.
> > >
> > > Quantum Theory is built on the fact that we cannot take
> Newton's
> > laws into the microcosm.
> > >
> > > Niels Bohr was able, after a bit of fudging, to actually
take
> > centrifugal force into the microcosm and with this he showed
that
> > certain electron orbital drops produced certain quanta
(spectral
> > lines) but he could only match these in the single electron
> hydrogen
> > & helium atoms. With different surroundings, of heavier atoms,
> his
> > modified centrifugal force no longer was valid.
> > >
> > > This is one more message telling us that the Galileo-
Einstein
> > idea of reference frames falls completely apart whenever
> surroundings
> > are sufficiently changed.
> > >
> > > But there is a way around this different surroundings
> difficulty.
> > Ampere essentially gave us a method in 1822---even before
James
> Clerk
> > Maxwell was born---to unify not only the four fundamental
forces
> but
> > all invisible forces. The trouble was Ampere couldn't do the
math
> for
> > it even though he was a math prodigy and knew all the math of
his
> era
> > by the time he was 12. We can add a few very simple
modifications
> to
> > Ampere's original 1822 laws, plus consider surroundings,
> and "Presto"
> > we have a top notch universal law we can use to come up with
the
> > Unified Field that Einstein was looking for. Or it gives us
> the "big
> > picture" of a modern Theory of Everything, but unfortunately---
> like
> > Ampere before us---we still can't do the math for it yet today.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chapter Two
> > >
> > > The "A" Laws
> > >
> > > While these "A" Laws are laws that work in any
surroundings,
> > these are also laws that depend on the surroundings to work.
None
> of
> > our other science laws seem to do this and therein lies the
> problem
> > in developing the math for these new "A" Laws.
> > >
> > > George Berkeley, Ernst Mach, James Clerk Maxwell and a
host
> of
> > others all claimed that our surroundings caused our inertia.
> Einstein
> > was also of this opinion when he published general relativity
and
> he
> > saw the importance of the surroundings not being changed and
he
> > emphasized that our surroundings were homogeneous and
isotropic.
> > Since taking surroundings into consideration would make all
the
> > science math far more complicated, we completely forgot about
> what
> > these important people said and we fitted our scientific
theory
> to
> > the math and that seemed to work well enough for everyone even
> though
> > we were warned.
> > >
> > > Now I'm going to change the scientific theory a bit and
put
> > surroundings back in. The problem then will be to find new
math
> to
> > fit this new theory that includes these important
surroundings.
> But
> > it's a much better theory than anything we've got now because
it
> > actually gives you a "big crystal clear picture" of
unification.
> > >
> > > Remember, surroundings are the key here: And here's the
> Aufbau
> > Law Theory or Construction Law Theory of our entire universe.
> > >
> > > Einstein wanted a simple answer and this is really simple
but
> > it's different from what your peer group is handing out
presently.
> > >
> > > Look! Once you see that you live in a universe that does
have
> > quantum theory and that does have general relativity then you
> must
> > see something is wrong with the ideas handed to you by your
> ancestors.
> > >
> > > Change your thinking to this new concept. Then you will
> > immediately see exactly why you must have quantum theory and
> general
> > relativity.
> > >
> > > We are going to say, in this new Aufbau Law Theory, that
> space-
> > time is generated by the surroundings, especially generated by
> all
> > this motion in these surroundings.
> > >
> > > We are also going to say that space-time is frequency
> conscious.
> > >
> > > These laws agree with what we find is happening in general
> > relativity and the quantum world.
> > >
> > > Now, consider the surroundings in all of this and
these "A"
> Laws
> > will show you the whys & wherefores of space-time creation,
which
> can
> > also be seen as those forces we've eliminated.
> > >
> > > * The 1st. "A" Law where all objects in motion produce
space-
> time
> > between themselves:
> > >
> > > The space-time interval is created the least between any
two
> > objects, the closest sides of which "see" themselves spinning
or
> > moving on parallel paths in the same direction at the same
> frequency
> > or a close harmonic thereof. You can also say these two
objects
> will
> > attract each other.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > * The 2nd. "A" Law where all objects in motion produce
space-
> time
> > between themselves:
> > >
> > > Both space and time are created the most between any two
> objects,
> > the closest sides of which "see" themselves spinning or moving
on
> > parallel paths in opposite directions at the same frequency or
a
> > close harmonic thereof. You can also say these two objects
will
> repel
> > each other.
> > >
> > > ^
> > >
> > > Of great importance, in the two preceding laws, is that
these
> > laws are frequency laws and they work separately for each
> separate
> > spin/orbit-frequency level which means these individual wave-
> > particles must "see" themselves doing these things from their
> > viewpoint in their local gauge environment. It does not matter
> how
> > some other spin/orbit-frequency level views these things
because
> > space and time and indeed the average space-time interval is
> entirely
> > different for each different spin/orbit-frequency level.
> > >
> > > These two laws look equal and opposite but they are not:
The
> > 1st "A" law "locks on" while its opposite 2nd sister law never
> does.
> > This is because the total force is generally centralized and
you
> can
> > feel this 1st "A" law "lock on" when two magnets come
together.
> These
> > two laws result in limits of aggregation being established all
> > throughout this universe: This is why there are limits to the
> size of
> > atoms and limits to the size of stars as well.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > * The Aufbau or Ampere Corollary
> > >
> > > The aforementioned forces, or space-time intervals,
between
> two
> > objects will vary proportionally with the cosine of the angle
of
> > their paths and they will have a torque that will tend to make
> the
> > paths parallel and to become oriented so that objects on both
> paths
> > will be traveling in the same direction.
> > >
> > > Or
> > >
> > > All objects that "see" themselves traveling in the same
> direction
> > on parallel paths at the same frequency will attract and/or
space
> and
> > time, at that frequency, between them is created the least.
> > >
> > > All objects that "see" themselves traveling in opposite
> > directions on parallel paths at the same frequency will repel
> and/or
> > space and time between them, at that frequency, increases or
is
> > created the most.
> > >
> > > ^
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chapter Three
> > >
> > > A few more concept changes
> > >
> > > In order to hand you this simple answer that Einstein
wanted,
> I
> > am going to chuck out all these forces that you've really
loved
> to do
> > all that math for. I'm going to completely chuck out
magnetism,
> > charge, gravity, centrifugal force, the strong & weak forces.
In
> fact
> > ALL the invisible forces go completely out the door never more
to
> > return.
> > >
> > > In their place is a simple concept that all permanent
> particles
> > are really spherical standing waves.
> > >
> > > The electron is a spherical standing wave and so is the
quark
> but
> > they are spherical standing waves of different frequencies.
> > >
> > > Your space & time that you see is an electron-spin & quark-
> spin
> > frequency mixing to give us our space-time heterodyne
frequency.
> > >
> > > We see all this space-time because we are composed of BOTH
> > electrons & quarks but those individual particles will behave
> like
> > NOT MUCH of our space-time is present.
> > >
> > > With nothing but this, and these "A" Laws, we can now
build
> our
> > entire universe.
> > >
> > > Watch:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chapter Four
> > >
> > > Inertial Qualities
> > >
> > > Here's where we substitute something really simple for all
> those
> > forces that we eliminated.
> > >
> > > You know we have inertia but now we are going to give all
> > spherical standing wave particles inertial qualities. All
> permanent
> > particles of any type whatsoever now will have inertial
qualities
> > handed to them by all the other similar particles in their
> > surroundings.
> > >
> > > That's all we really need to eliminate charge, gravity,
> > magnetism, and etc. (all the invisible forces).
> > >
> > > But this changes our inertia somewhat. Our inertia now is
> caused
> > mostly by the spin frequency of all the quarks that surround
us
> in
> > not only our galaxy but in those super-clusters and probably
> further
> > than we can even see with this new 10X modification to the
> Hubbell
> > space telescope.
> > >
> > > Now let's begin to build our universe only with what we
have
> at
> > this juncture.
> > >
> > > First of all, every spinning entity or particle will now
> have,
> > not only inertial qualities but, a type of gyroscopic inertial
> torque
> > imparted to it if it spins.
> > >
> > > But let's say the electron has these qualities. Are you
going
> to
> > notice this as inertial qualities?
> > >
> > > The answer is no.
> > >
> > > Also, let's say galaxies get some of their inertial
qualities
> not
> > only from the quarks in the surrounding galaxies but also from
> the
> > surrounding galaxies themselves. Will you then be able to
> transfer
> > your present concept of gravity, using Einstein's general
theory
> of
> > relativity, to the actions of these galaxies?
> > >
> > > The answer is again no. So this theory is already telling
us
> that
> > this fast rotation of these galaxies may be proof that our
> present
> > concept of gravity is a bit wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chapter Five
> > >
> > > Magnetism
> > >
> > > Forget all your old laws of magnetism & look at these
new "A"
> > Laws. They give you a better picture of magnetism than the
> Faraday-
> > Maxwell picture of magnetism. No poles or lines of force are
> needed.
> > In fact, in this new concept, opposites do NOT attract. It's
just
> the
> > reverse.
> > >
> > > Electrons that are all spinning in the same direction
cause
> > magnetism. The sides or poles of these magnets will always
> attract
> > when the closest sides of the electrons therein, causing the
> > magnetism, are all moving in the SAME direction and this is
the
> > 1st "A" Law.
> > >
> > > The sides or poles of magnets will repel when the closest
> sides
> > of all the electrons therein are moving in OPPOSITE directions
> and
> > this is the 2nd "A" Law.
> > >
> > > If you want to get into all the electrical nitty gritty of
> > generators, motors & transformers then these also can be
easily
> > explained by these "A" Laws as well. You can find all of this
> > explained in the TOE herein: http://www.rbduncan.com
> > >
> > > All the electrical phenomena known can be explained by the
> > gyroscopic inertial qualities of the electron. This you can
find
> in
> > the e-book that you can get free by clicking that previous
link.
> > >
> > > These electrons that cause magnetism are the electrons in
the
> d &
> > f shells in iron. There are up to 5 electrons in the d shell
of
> iron
> > and up to seven electrons in the f shell of the iron atom that
> are
> > all spinning the same direction and causing the magnetism.
> > >
> > > Only the inner orbital locked electrons can attract each
> other
> > like tiny magnets. In fact these inner orbital locked
electrons
> ARE
> > the tiniest magnets.
> > >
> > > These spinning electrons that are causing the magnetism
are
> all
> > inner orbital electrons that are "locked". Free outer orbital
> > electrons that are NEVER locked either spin up or spin down
can
> NEVER
> > cause magnetism. These electrons will always repel other free
> > electrons and this is covered in the next chapter.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chapter Six
> > >
> > > Why electrons, stars & galaxies repel each other
> > >
> > > Remember, we have chucked all those invisible forces you
are
> > familiar with and all we have now are these two "A" Laws.
> > >
> > > So in this new "big picture" of everything, there are no
such
> > things as plus and minus charges.
> > >
> > > Please pay attention to the following.
> > >
> > > Electrons can exhibit either an attraction such as unlike
> charges
> > when they are "locked" or a repulsive behavior such as with
> similar
> > type charge or similar magnetic poles when they are "free".
> Our "A"
> > Laws show us why this is so and in the next 8 paragraphs you
have
> the
> > best explanation of why electrons and even stars & galaxies
repel
> > each other.
> > >
> > > Lets look at these free electrons first: They spin and
hence
> they
> > have inertial qualities and this includes gyroscopic inertia
> which
> > always provides this force 90 degrees to any external force
> acting on
> > such a spinning item.
> > >
> > > Completely forget about charge now and only look at our
> new "A"
> > Laws and what they say.
> > >
> > > The 1st "A" Law tells us that there is a possibility that
two
> > free electrons can attract each other providing that any
portion
> of
> > their closest sides are spinning in the same direction at the
> same
> > frequency. This means either their sides can be spinning in
the
> same
> > directions or they can be lined up so that both of their poles
> can be
> > spinning in the same directions: Any such two electrons will
> attract
> > each other.
> > >
> > > Then we see that there is something else: This attracting
> force
> > comes in as the cosine of the angle of the movement.
> > >
> > > As this force begins to act, it in turn causes this 90-
degree
> > gyroscopic torque to twist both of those totally free
electrons
> away
> > from this initial attracting position, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > So because of this gyro torque, two free electrons can
never
> > remain in a full attracting position and they will therefore
be
> > forced to stay more in a repelling position. Therefore free
> electrons
> > will always end up repelling each other and this repelling is
not
> > explained by using this thing called charge: it is explained
only
> by
> > simply using global inertial qualities and our new global "A"
> Laws.
> > >
> > > The above 8 paragraphs explain not only why electrons
repel
> each
> > other but they also explain why any two perfectly free similar
> > spinning objects must repel each other. So now you know why
both
> > electrons and galaxies stay well away from each other.
> > >
> > > This is Einstein's cosmological constant.
> > >
> > > Something somewhere has to be "locked" in place and
> synchronized
> > in frequency with the electron's spin or a close subharmonic
of
> the
> > spin to get any kind of attracting force:
> > >
> > > Yes, the proton attracts an electron. When two up quarks
> combine
> > with one down quark to form a proton then something in this
> special
> > type of assemblage is able to synchronize in with the
electron's
> spin
> > frequency and "lock" it thereby preventing the electron from
> > precessing or wobbling and therefore it can attract the
electron.
> > >
> > > This is why aggregations come together (gravity) and
larger
> > aggregations come together and accumulate because as these
things
> > grow in size there are more things "locked" in place
> strengthening
> > the attractive force of the 1st "A" Law.
> > >
> > > Once we know more about quarks and we learn exactly how
those
> two
> > up quarks and the one down quark in the proton are set up then
we
> > will know more about how this type of attractive quark strong
> force
> > binding functions. Attraction is always a synchronized
frequency
> > attraction and it is not simply the old idea of plus and minus
> > charges.
> > >
> > > All attractions in this theory must be synchronized
frequency
> > attractions.
> > >
> > > Now let's go to the stars and you will see the same "A"
Laws
> > apply there as well and, as you can see, these too will always
> have
> > to remain in a repelling position with each other.
> > >
> > > Close binary stars of the same mass, on the other hand,
will
> > always be spinning so that their closest sides are always
moving
> in
> > the same direction at the same frequency.
> > >
> > > So here you can see that our "A" Laws tell you exactly why
we
> > have Einstein's "cosmological constant" not only in the sky
but
> in
> > the microcosm as well.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chapter Seven
> > >
> > > Perlmutter's acceleration
> > >
> > > Perlmutter's group discovered the expansion of this
universe
> is
> > accelerating and Perlmutter, himself, said we had the
repelling
> force
> > of Einstein's cosmological constant between all stars,
galaxies,
> > super-clusters, etc. in this universe. So really this makes
our
> > macrocosm similar to the microcosm where this repelling force
is
> > accepted as fact.
> > >
> > > When you apply Einstein's principle of equivalence to such
a
> > repulsive force then it is plain to see that if there was such
a
> > force out there then we would indeed mistake it for an
> accelerating
> > expanding universe. So we are most probably in a steady-state
> > universe.
> > >
> > > So this acceleration, which now has been proven from other
> > sources now as well, points to a steady-state universe much
the
> same
> > as our microcosm. The principle of equivalence clearly states
we
> > cannot distinguish between a force out there and acceleration.
> > >
> > > Yes, there was a Big Bang. I'm not disputing that fact.
But
> > acceleration needs a present force. There is no present force.
> The
> > Big Bang was a past force. You can't have acceleration with a
> past
> > force.
> > >
> > > The problem then becomes one of getting an explanation for
a
> Big
> > Bang without us having an existing physically expanding
universe.
> The
> > solution was shown to me in the last week of December of 1950
at
> the
> > Miami Air Show when I saw William T. Piper, who founded the
Piper
> > Aircraft Corporation. God knows how many airplanes he built
from
> > 1929 'til he died in 1970 but he built over 5,000 of his Piper
> Cubs
> > just for the Government during World War ll. He was about a
week
> shy
> > of his seventieth birthday when he demonstrated a short field
> landing
> > at the Miami Air Show with one of his Piper airplanes. I used
> what I
> > saw that day to save myself once. Piper brought his little
Piper
> > airplane in and touched down on the runway. Then as soon as he
> was
> > down he immediately hit the right brake as hard as he could
and I
> > have never seen anything like that in all my life because now
> here
> > was this Piper airplane that was suddenly transformed into a
fast
> > spinning top right in front of my eyes. That airplane went no
> further
> > down that runway. All that energy now suddenly went into
spinning
> > that Piper airplane around like a giant top and it zipped
round
> and
> > round and round: it was the most incredible sight that I have
> ever
> > seen. It was announced that he was going to demonstrate a
short
> field
> > landing but I had never expected to see anything like that.
Piper
> > lived almost another twenty years after that too and died a
year
> > short of his 90th birthday. I was ushered in to flying being
> trained
> > in one of his yellow Piper Cubs and I almost exited this life
> early
> > because of one of them too.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chapter Eight
> > >
> > > Gravity
> > >
> > > The 1st "A" Law tells you exactly why you are being pulled
> toward
> > this earth. Since---compared to your surroundings---you are
going
> the
> > same direction on a parallel path as the earth then you will
be
> > attracted to the earth.
> > >
> > > The only difference between the microcosm and the
macrocosm
> is
> > symmetry. They both have a different symmetry but both use the
> very
> > same "A" Laws.
> > >
> > > The earth is on a geodesic path, which means that the
amount
> of
> > space-time being generated between the earth and the sun will
> always
> > be the same as the amount of space-time being generated
between
> the
> > earth and all the far off stars in the surroundings. The
amount
> of
> > space-time being generated between you and the earth will be
less
> > than this because you are going on a parallel path with the
earth
> in
> > the same direction (1s t" A" Law). Thus you will sense you are
> > attracted to the earth.
> > >
> > > This agrees with general relativity because gravity is a
> slowing
> > down of time. You can see yourself that there is also less
space
> > because you seem attracted to the earth.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chapter Nine
> > >
> > > The speed of light
> > >
> > > The Michaelson-Morley experiment proved beyond any shadow
of
> a
> > doubt that the speed of light is a constant, independent of
the
> > velocity of the source or observer.
> > >
> > > This is pretty potent stuff. It brought in Einstein.
> > >
> > > So how does one build a universe where the speed of light
is
> a
> > constant and we have Einstein's general relativity and quantum
> > mechanics?
> > >
> > > By making the speed of light the speed that our space-
time,
> at
> > this electron-quark heterodyne frequency, is being produced.
If
> we
> > allow this then we will sense that gravity and light will both
be
> > propagated at the same speed, which we will see as the speed
of
> light.
> > >
> > > This is just a short example of this new concept. For a
> longer,
> > more concise version go to: http://www.rbduncan.com and read
the
> TOE
> > therein.
> > >

 

 

 

 

message 17451 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17451

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "clydedinkins"
<clydedinkins@y...> wrote:
>
> Robert:
>
> Thanks for your reply! I went to
> the below site. However, as a
> layman with "little" scientific
> acumen I only grasped about 3
> percent of it (I'm not being
> modest-simply telling the truth).
>
> Tony's following statement there
> I have a question on:
>
>
> "This then is embodied in the
> Theory of Special Relativity -
> THE SHARING OF DIMENSIONS."
>
> 1. Isn't this "sharing" based
> on, governed by, ruled by, etc.
> a "something"-law, principle,
> etc? Already in place whereby
> the dimensions do what they do,
> act (in relation to one another),
> operates, etc? I'm seeking to
> know whether the preceding is
> true or not. I say this in
> the following context: Last
> year I asked Sue a question.
> The explanation was way over
> my head (she knew I was a
> layman) and she gave no
> definitive "yes or no"
> answer that would have helped
> me to understand at least
> some of it.


Dear Clyde!

Yes, your question is deep and it took me a while to understand
this 'Sharing of dimensions'.
But it is superlative to understand this.
Not understanding this has resulted in millions of people attacking
Einstein's theories of special and general relativity as mere
mathematical constructs and conveniences.

I'll try to explain it to you.

There you are, Clyde Dinkins sitting in front of your computer
screen.
You are moving in orbit with the Earth around the sun and as the
siolar system around the galctic centre.
And the ther galactic centre moves relative to the Local Cluster
towards Andromeda and perhaps the Localcluster moves towards
a 'Great Gravitational Attractor'.

But relative to the computer you are not moving, sitting stationary
say.
This then becomes your Frame of Reference and all the other relative
movements are absorbed in your frame.

To illustrate further; imagine yourself as a sailor on top of a mast
with a knife.
You drop the knife straight down, wondering where it will hit the
deck, because the ship is moving at some definite speed v say East.

The kniife hits the deck precisely straight down relative to you,
but yet has travelled a parabolic path to get there relative to
someone watching the ship sail by and you dropping the knife.
This then is simple Galilean Relativity and Kinematics.

Now replace the speed of the falling knife with lightspeed c.

Relative to you the light follows a straight path down, but relative
to the onlooker it travels a longer path, which is a straight line
lengthened by the application of Pythagoras (this is Special
Relativity).

Can you see the difference?
Why isn't the lightpath bent parabolically, as the knife was?
Because the speed of the knife changed from 0 to maximum when it hit
the deck, but the lightspeed remained constant throughout.

So the maximum/minimum condition for the knife didn't apply. Light
cannot be accelerated or slowed down.

But the resolution of the knife's path as parabola with initial and
constant horizontal speed given in v AND the vertical CHANGE in
speed due to acceleration (g=9.8 m/s^2 or 32 feet/second^2) SHARED
THE DIMENSIONS of HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL in the Pythagoraen
hypotenuse of the straight line of the lightpath for constant speed
c.

Ok, but now you can RESOLVE the constancy of c, say in 3 dimensions.
This would associate left-right and up-down and forwards-backwards
as three components all summing via 3D-Pythagoras to c.
Actually it would be x^2+y^2+z^2=(ct)^2=r^2 as the definition for a
sphere.
Introducing the 4th dimension of time would extend this as a 4-
vector and then you have the exp[lanation of my posting.

ONLY IF YOU DO NOT MOVE AT ALL IN YOUR REFERENCE FRAME, will you
have NO x-y-z components which would REDUCE the maximum c^2 AS THE
WAY you travel through spacetime (4-vector).

SO YOU MUST MOVE WITH MAXIMUM SPEED THROUGH TIME, IF YOU MOVE NOT AT
ALL THROUGH SPACE.

Any motion through Space would decompose the 4-vector and SHARE some
of the maximum c as whatever velocity you would then travel through
space with.

Tony B.




>
> One thing I agree with Tony on is his seeking to share
> knowledge with you, Milo, Rybo, Fitz and other of his
> peers for the good and advancement of each of you.
> Your peer group synthesis and symbiosis of working
> together in seeking the TOE, explaining the mysteries
> of the universe - bosons, fermions, black holes, number
> of dimensions, etc., I respectfully suggest is esential.
> In short, working together and as a team for the mutual
> benefit of you each and the good of us all - even an
> amateur as myself who is light years beneath you.
> On this score, Kudos to Tony!
>
> I scan or read most all your and other's post every other
> day. Accordingly, I say the following and without
> disrespect to Milo (he's brilliant!), it appears he's not
> interested in team work-he's got the basic message-answer
> and the rest he will seek-work out on his own. The
> preceding is how it seems to me.
>
> Am ending question: Am i right in concluding that's it's
> an infallible scientific law - "Everything is connected?"
>
> Clyde

 

 

 

 

message 17509 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17509

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, John Obrien
<obrien6960@s...> wrote:
> The value of 1.618... Occurs so often in nature, I was amused by
It's value showing up in Plank's Length. Is the the universal tensor
unit?

Dear John!

Where did you get Phi from here?
Did you get it in the Planck-Length by association?

If you read my posts, you will find that the entire structure of
Qauantum Relativity (which is a theory built on Special-and General
Relativity with a modified version of M-Theory) is built on a
pentagonal supersymmetry linking the dimensions, based on PHI as the
mean of distribution of the cosmic wavefunction.

Tony B.

 

 

 

 

 

Message 17510 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17510

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "alden_parent"
<alden_parent@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "alden_parent"
> <alden_parent@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "TONY BERMANSEDER"
> > <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > Dear Tony,
> >
> > It is a scientific reality (as any physicist can
> > tell you) that the imaginary substance "ether" in
> > space and the universe; does not exist! You will
> > find only helium,hydrogen and a very small amount
> > of deuterium which is an isotope of hydrogen.
> Approx: 25% helium
> 75% hydrogen and its' isotope
> deuterium.
> >
> > alden

Dear Alden!

Of course; but I am posting in the 'lion's den' where the anti-
Einstein mob seeks to undermine the core of physics.

I find it very telling, that all the 'experts' there cannot refute
my formulations in defence of Einstein and the Big Bang, but
continue to either ignore me completely or try to ridicule me on
personal levels.

For example, they discussed the Twin paradox for so two months now,
and as soon as I posted this as a tentative explanation, they
stopped discussing it.

The only ether is the Spherical Standing Wave of light itself as the
medium of invariance.
It explains the Sagnac effect and the Michelson-Gale experiments the
dissidents have also tried to use to undermine thge relativity
theories.

Thank you for your intelligent comment.

Tony B.

 

 

 

 

 

Message 17512 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17512

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "clydedinkins"
<clydedinkins@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony:
>
> I understand some of what you're saying. The below questions
> after your comments will help me understand more.
>
> Clyde
> ___________________________________________
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "TONY BERMANSEDER"
> <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
> > Message 17453 of 17496 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ]
> From: "TONY BERMANSEDER" <PACIFICAP@h...>
> Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:34 am
> Subject: On the Origins of IT All/Clyde,Clarence and all forums
>
> --- In 4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com, "Hans Dieter Franke"
> <netstory@t...> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ARMAND L. ARCHAMBEAULT" <ANDYANDGOD@p...>
> > To: <4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 5:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: [4DWorldx] Re: [MetaExistence] My Mirror Universe
>
> > > I understand that the conscious mind is never asleep, and is
> subdued in the subconscious mind while the body is sleeping. The
> subconscious mind can be programmed to allow the conscious mind
> to be more aware while the sleeping process is going on. We can
> tell our subconscious mind to become 'awake' at 6:30 a.m., and
> this will happen. The conscious mind will be alerted at 6:30 a.m.
> to wake you up, within about 3-5 minutes minus or plus. This
> happens with me regularly.
> > >
> > > The subconscious mind is always on duty, receiving signals
> from our senses while the body is sleeping. When in a coma, our
> conscious mind is 'locked' into the subconscious mind, similar to
> when we are asleep, but more so. When speaking within hearing
> distance of a person in a coma, we should always speak in
> 'positive' terms to help the patient heal sooner. Negative
> statements cause more and deeper coma.
> > > Love, Armand
> >
> > Dear Armand
> > 'subconsciousness' is imo a not in any way founded concept. I
> still think that the idea of subconscious results from inadeaquate
> definitions of attention and awareness. I defined mind as
> computable however with imaginary modal logics to account for
> intuition feeling and dreaming but consciousness is the substrate
> on which the mind machine rests. Subconscious, unconscious
provide
> a structure to consciousness which is itself formless and
> structureless. These assumptions of a hierarchy of
> > consciousness, a fine structure, introduce unneccessary
> > complication and open a endless regression towards a final -
> mechanical-cause. In my opinion, consciousness is the final layer.
> >
> > Hans Dieter
>
> Dear Hans-Dieter and All!
>
> Hans-Dieter's consciousness is precisely 'my' proposed ChangeRate
> of Change - what is mathematically described as 'Awareness'.
>
> HD might disagree with the labellings, but nevertheless the change
> of the changing of the unchanged (nothingness, void are incomplete
> labellings here), is what I have described as the Awakening from a
> form of constancy.
>
> The words are all incomplete as descriptions though. I simply
know
> this, because I FELT IT. Now this probably doesn't make
scientific
> sense and yet I know it to be true from a nonpersonality
> perspective. You are all free to disagree, but what is this
> 'knowing', but a RESONANCE. Like Love or sexual lust it forms the
> basis for the manifestations of anything as a maximum/minimum
> polarisation of something I could explain in terms of differential
> equations and their boundary conditions. It becomes maximum and
> minimum impedances in parallel or serial application of inductors
> (magnetopolic intellect/power for analysis) and capacitors
> (electropolic memory) electromagnetomonopolic circuits, which
could
> be used to model this change of awareness as the df/dt timerate
> change differential of the Eigenvibrations bounded by the
0/infinity
> boundary conditions. The infinities become asymptotes, just like
> in gravitational and electric potentials and are hence finitised
in
> the equations describing the models.
>
> Now all of this wouldn't convince Hans-Dieter, because it is
> material modelling.
>
> Yet if we go back to the awareness as emerging from a form of
> consciousness, then this df/dt indeed could be used to map the
> changes of number/frequency to energy and hence the equations of
> quantum physics and the relativities and the mechanics of Maxwell
> and Newton.
>
> So easy for me and some others here to see; the consciousness
> as background matrix EMERGES as materiality/physicality through
> abstract and mathematical definition/logos.
>
> The UNDEFINED becomes DEFINED by the WORD of GOD/HUMAN in other
> words.
>
> Now this requires EMBODIMENT and a form of recycling IF the
> consciousness by itself cannot express any form of physical
> experiences.
>
> So the Dead Alive Ones do not exist UNTIL they have LIVED in
> physicality as the Alive Dead Ones.
>
> As soon as consciousness has become awareness in embodiment, it
can
> return in the mirror duality/universe (of George) to energise and
> CREATE the mirror world as the DEADALIVE=WAVEPARTICLE to REFLECT
> the ALIVEDEAD=PARTICLEWAVE 'On the Other Side'.
> This is the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics.
> ___________________________
> 1. Isn't consciousness, awareness regardless of the degree?
> Meaning, it "already" is awareness.

Tony
These are just labels, Clyde. The important thing is the principle
behind what consciousness/awareness is.
QR clearly specifies the nonexistence of anything supernatural.
Everything is natural.
So any Gods and/or devils must be created out of the same stuff as
everything else.
This shows that mankind's Gods and Demons are all selfcreated
constructs from what one may call superconsciousness or
subconsciousness.
But then the stuff of consciousness, which every human possesses,
must be primordial and "higher than the 'invisible' or ethereal gods
and devils".
And so defining consciousness would not only DEFINE the God of gods
with the Devil of the devils, but would also DEFINE the
LOGOS/WORD/DEFINITION of the HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS as this LOGOS.

So the 'stuff' is the UNIFYING GODDEVIL or whatever one likes to
call it and it is found in the Thinking/Awareness Potentials of
every human.

Now you can understand the incredible story of the human history as
a race of conscious 'truth-seekers'.

The scribes who wrote the bible stories say, simply engaged their
seeking-truth consciousness to imagine/feel/create certain scenarios
which RESONATED with their intent of the truth-seeking.

And because the consciousness of the 'stuff' RESONATED, it became
powerful scripture.
The same goesforall great story tellers, Homer, Shakespeare and
Goethe, Milton, Huxley, Spielberg and de Laurentis.

But science has now, for the first time in this human history evolved
toa stage, where this can be qualified and quantified in formal
language.
I give you a hint: Exodus.3.14 describes the 'Burning Bush' of
Moses, which told him the 'Name of God' as I AM THAT I AM.

But this can be anagramed as MATHIMATIA.
So as Wheeler said for example (perhaps jokingly), God must be a
Mathematician and not a Physicist.

>



> ____________________________
> Question now is, how did this thing begin?
> If nothing is alive in embodiment, it cannot become dead as
> required.
>
> (There are many references by Jesus to all this in the gnostic
> gospels by the way).
>
> The only conclusion is that the primal state, which MUST by
> necessity contain everything definable in time and space is
> REQUIRED to split into TWO to create the first duality.
> ___________________________________
> 2. IMO, since the beginning (infinity) there was duality (thesis,
> antithesis). There never was perfection from the beginning
> (infinity). I posit, because no matter how you cut it - "From
> perfection only perfection can come." I contend, the preceding
> is not only a tautology, but infallibly true. I further contend
> the only way it can be refuted is if you change the definition of
> "perfection." Kant's "Thing in its self" and the Law of
> Contradiction rejects such giving a thing a name and definition.
> A thing is what it is, otherwise we go back to square one to
> hear/debate the definition of perfection. Your critique?

Tony
I agree with you here.
I said, that the primal state must contain everything definable and
this includes perfection and imperfection.
But then it goes deeper, very much deeper.
Because you can model perfection as either side of a mirror as
reality or as unreality, yet real because of the real projections of
the real onto the real 'surface', which creates the unreal as image.
Now you find this in nature as the nonexistence of antimatter.
I'll send a post on this here, addressed to you -so you may look for
it.
The perfection is really the Platonic Ideal, which is imaginary but
can be better and better approximated in 'physical reality' as the
imperfection.
There are many models and descriptions.
Kant's idea of Contradiction derives from the duality and the primal
state is monadic (Leibnitz and Spinoza).
The contra requires the 'to be contra agains' and the perfection
requires the imperfection to have any meaning.




> ____________________________________________
> And then the process of LIFE must proceed via INDUCTION, much in
> the form of the 'spiritual heritages' proclamaitions (Jack's many
> references).
>
> So one can see the necessity for a FIRST MAN in the Adam/Eve story,
> able to reconstruct the Big Bang of the Cosmogenesis and to
> 'redeem' the creator, who has split into two.
> ___________________________________________
> 3. I contend, speaking absolute: Nothing was/is necessary.
> Meaning, because this or that exists - things happened, happens
> the way they did/do doesn't mean it was of necessity or had to be
> that way. It could have been otherwise, and admitting that is
> enough to refute the "necessity" position. Addendum: I use the
> phrase, "of necessity" myself, but it's to be understood I'm not
> speaking in the absolute (context) when I do. In short, what I'm
> saying when I use the word is, "As far as we know that's the case."
> Your critique?

Tony
True again - in the context you are using it.
Nothing is necessary - but then something is.
True on both counts.
So the 'stuff' the consciousness, which doesn't have to be, yet is;
can be defined as the bifurcation of the NOTHING IS and the IS.

And bingo, this allows you to work in contrast od vacuums and
nonvacuums; matter and non-matter a physical field and the absence
of a field etc. etc.

Btw, when I use 'necessity' I normally refer to mathematical
necessity; like sufficiency and such labels.

Thank Clyde, and I shall send the antimatter post shortly.
Tony B.

> But before this possible reconstruction, the morphologies must
> naturally evolve to 'house the embodied spirit/soul/awareness.
>
> And so science can reconstruct the evolution of life from
crystals,
> using the nonparity of the weak interaction (Anna antimatter is
not
> a perfect mirror image for matter, because of certain neutrino
> definitions coupled to the weak interaction bosons, giving mass to
> radiative blueprints via the radioactive force......).
>
> But it all begins with the Adam/Eve scenario on the microscale of
> the Electron=Adam and Proton=Eve.
> Later this would become Adam=XY sexual chromosomes and Eve=XX
> sexualchromosomes via the 'Rib of Adam' selfiterative loop: XX: =
> XY+XX (one of the four digits of the X becoming XX again and
> leaving the XY behind).
>
> So Hydrogen becomes the first 'Heavenly Wedding' 'healing' the
> fall, a FALL of GOD HIMSELF, so he could recombine with himself
> as HERSELF.
>
> The story of every human's life relived as GODDOG=DOGGOD; or
> the 'Heavenly Dragonomy' between God(Goddess) to Goddess(God) as
> Yang(Yin)+Yin(Yang), say.
>
> Love to all Tony B.
>
> PS.: Yes, and it all had to begin in DEFINING
> MASS=...=..=Energy=...Frequency,
> otherwise it could not have begun.
> I can prove this mathematically with my omniphysics.
>
> Love from the DragonHeart!
>
> As a mathematical physicist, I also study ancient scrolls and the
> signature can be evaluated on a number of levels; from childishly
> naive to profoundly esoteric---Tony Whynot, Unicorn of
SophiaGnosis !
>
> ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82
> =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17
>
> http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 17513 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17513

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Royce" <tag123@u...>
wrote:
>
> Royce says:
> Thank you Roy Wolford, Andy, Robert, and Alden for your
> responses. Don't concern yourselves too much about the "ear
full".
> It is like when there is a deep wound and the surgeons need to
> operate, yes there is pain, but what hopefully results from the
> operation is far more important than the pain along the way. Why
do
> I write with such urgency? My situation... For a long time, I
have
> read and scanned through theories in a variety of groups online
> hoping that some of them came close by themselves to the
obviousness
> of the truth. For a long time I have put up a few posts myself
> hoping for some to listen and understand what I have to say on
behalf
> of the obviousness of the truth. Instead of finding people who
have
> truth, I am bombarded by heaping loads of nonsense, unending
> nonsense! People assuming, presuming, that the basics from which
> there were taught and upon which they construct their new theories
> are absolutely correct despite the fact that these basics do not
fit
> the facts.
>
> When I think about people not understanding these things and
> when I think about writing about these things, I begin to sweat
and
> my nerves feel like they are shaky even though my body remains
still,
> so strongly do I feel about these things.
>
> Several years ago, I had become aware of some of these
> discrepancies in the basics. Then I as I dug deeper, I became
aware
> of a few more discrepancies. But see, here I am speaking in
general
> terms, as anyone could, and speaking generally about anything
> (including the failures of understanding the basics) is not wise;
as
> Andy mentioned it is better to give examples, and he is right
about
> this, so I will.
>
> For starters, what you have been taught about the atomic
> model is incorrect. Now haven't I already lost about half of you
> with just that one statement? After all it is unthinkable,
> unquestionable, that such a thing so basic could be incorrect.
> Right? But if listening to famous dead physicists bares weight
(and
> it does not to me, only the truth bares weight to me and not any
man
> living or dead) then consider that Einstein himself said to "Never
> stop questioning."
>
> Now, I am a true believer in the actual working of things.
I
> believe that physical happenings actually happen for a reason. In
> other words, I have the audacity to believe that what is real, is
> actually real and what exists, actually exists! And since I
believe
> the real is real, therefore I believe that the truth is truth, so,
I
> uphold science properly, the only way it can be upheld, by
science's
> very definition. Science: a search for what is real using what is
> known to be real. Science is not a search for any idea that fits
> some of the facts.
>
> So let me give an example of an idea that fits some of the
> facts. It is said that electrons are attracted to a nucleus.
They
> believe this is so because of something they call electrical
> attraction. In their mind they have made up this set of rules
that
> closely resemble the facts. They say that the electron has a
> negative charge and the proton has a positive charge and that
> opposites attract and that like charges repel. This rule works
out
> in many ways, but it does not fit all the facts because it is not
> what is really going on. What facts does it not fit? Well, one
fact
> is that the electron is then said to be attracted to the nucleus,
but
> it does not crash into the nucleus. And so they make up the extra
> special ideas like, "It does not crash into the nucleus because it
is
> orbiting the nucleus." In fact this is a very wide spread excuse
> that is widely accepted to explain away this obvious and inherent
> problem with this incorrect system of rules. For example, even
the
> widely known and used nuclear energy symbol, is that of an atom
drawn
> with a nucleus in the middle and the orbits of electrons in many
> directions going around it. This idea is also in the science
books.
> To deny that this is the main and most popular model for the atom
is
> to deny many drawings and the writings of many books. But it is
> wrong. This model for the atom is wrong. Why? Because, it would
> never work in reality. It does not work in many scenarios but one
of
> the most striking ways that I have found in which it does not work
is
> with the hydrogen atom.
>
> The Hydrogen Atom, The Disprover Of The Current Atomic Model
> In a hydrogen atom, there is only one proton composing the
> nucleus and only one electron around it. To stay away from the
> hydrogen atom's nucleus, it is said that the electron orbits the
> nucleus, like the earth orbits the sun, or like a satellite orbits
> the earth. To get a satellite to orbit the earth you must
precisely
> match the speed of the orbit with the distance the satellite is
from
> the earth or else. Or else what? Or else if the satellite is too
> slow or too close to the earth in it's orbit, the satellite will
> crash into the earth. On the other hand, if the satellite is too
> fast or too far from the earth in it's orbit, the satellite will
fly
> off into space. Apparently this is a very tricky balancing act,
> because many a million dollar satellite has been lost, and much
> insurance is often bought prior to launch. So if this lone
electron
> is in this balancing act in which it is attracted to the nucleus
(a
> single proton) but kept away by it's orbit, then any slow down in
> speed or if it starts off too close, it will fall directly into
the
> proton. This is what is expected, but this is not what in fact
> happens. You can charge hydrogen by stripping away electrons or
by
> giving it too many electrons. So electrons can come and electrons
> can go, but the electrons never crash into the proton even though
> they are thought to be attracted directly to the core of the
proton!
> Why? Why doesn't taking electrons away and returning electrons
> almost always lead to proton neutralization (crashing)? But
instead
> it never crashes. Could they be right? Could it actually be that
> inside the electron there is a super intelligent, computer
regulated,
> jet propulsion, system that regulates the speed of the electron
> exactly and precisely such that whenever the electron approaches
the
> proton it vears off and adjusts for exact speed and the exact
> distance around the proton necessary to keep it from crashing. I
> mean you could say that such exact calculations and speed
adjustments
> are not "rocket science" but it is. Therefore, I highly doubt
that
> the electron is making those calculations and speed and height
> corrections magically all by itself, every single time the
hydrogen
> atom's electron comes in contact with anything. No, I think there
is
> no super smart alien pilot aboard the electron; I simply think
that
> the electron has no electric charge and that the proton has no
> electric charge and therefore the electron is not attracted to the
> proton.
>
> So why does the electron come to the proton but the electron
> does not crash into the proton? Because whatever is around the
> electron wants to fill the holes among whatever is around the
> proton. So what is around the electron is "attracted" to whatever
is
> around the proton. That is why the electron moves in to fill the
> holes around the proton, but after it fills those holes, it does
not
> move in any more, closer to the proton. That is also why
electrons
> arrange themselves in other atoms in different distances according
to
> what fits around a nucleus.
>
> This way of thinking is also consistent with crystal
> structures, where as orbiting electrons do not allow for any
> structure to be built of any kind with the exception of a very
loose
> gas where nothing stays together. It has been known for a long
time
> that the structures of rocks and minerals have always been in
> conflict with the atomic model. It is one of those long lasting
and
> famous conflicts like the one about is light a wave or a
particle.
> But why believe me. Look it up in a rock and mineral book for
> yourself and you can examine the crystal structures for yourself.
> These outer shared electrons between atoms are never shown as
> orbiting. The entire theory of rock and mineral structures as
> demonstrated clearly through the exact shapes of crystals and
through
> experiments showing the relative positions of the crystal's atoms
> show that the outer electrons can bind in these ways because they
are
> holding those exact positions. And as further proof, you can
break
> those bonds by running electricity through particular parts and
burn
> the crystal apart. Even the way certain crystals break show that
> these models for the bonding are accurate.
>
> Robert, I hope this explanation helps to answer your question and
> lead you to the understanding of what this push is from.
>
> So why are people to this day so lost in how many things
work
> and not just how the atom works. Blame it on stupidity. Blame it
on
> faithful belief in the experts who write the books to tell them
what
> to believe. Or blame ourselves for not, through simple logic,
> examining the reasoning behind these things for ourselves. Do not
> feel badly about misunderstanding things, but instead strive on in
> understanding the truth about things.
>
> The way the atom works may seem trivial, but it has far
> reaching consequences. I mean if the electron is found to have no
> charge (as the hydrogen atom itself has just demonstrated clearly
to
> you), then the model for electromagnetic waves also changes
> drastically. If you change to a correct understanding of the
basics,
> you change the entire system that has been built on those basics.
> Positive and negative charges were a close way of looking at what
was
> happening but it was not exact. But now with the correct change
> implemented, even cold fusion can be explained for why it is not
> possible. In fact suddenly new possibilities are brought to light
> and new limits are clearly seen. But now again, I am speaking in
> general terms. But I think you have had enough specific examples
for
> one day, if not for a while, something to think about, many things
to
> look up, many things to check up on. Still, I have many more
> discrepancies to discuss and show you why it is not the way they
say
> it is. To show you which way that it says it is. It always
speaks,
> but it is like no one listens to it.
>
> I regret having to make my posts so lengthy; I hope I do not
> loose people in them. But without knowing my audience, I am
unsure
> as to what prior knowledge you have about what I am writing. It
> seems that any good and solid point I can not conveyed in just a
few
> paragraphs. And even with this lengthy writing I have neglected
many
> supporting points, to that one point of the model of the atom and
of
> the supposed electric charge. There is a lack of completeness,
> because of time, but feel free to ask questions and to comment.
>
> Thank you for your time,
> Royce

Dear Royce

I have read your post and your diligence and mental concentration
are commendable.
You have some interesting ideas, some of which would certainly help
to unify the sciences.

I agree with you about the importance of electron postions in
crystalline structures for example, this is part and parcel of
quantum geometry of the nuclues operating on the next level of the
molecules.
But in all of your ponderings and trains of thought you must go even
deeper to the principles underpinning the cosmologies on all scales
and levels.

It is not sufficient to eliminate the Coulomb Charge, but then to
continue to use electricity and magnetism in your models without
giving a rigorous definition of what that 'flow of electricity' then
is.

You would find yourself on a more productive path with a much
greater audience, if you would build on the physics that is with
your ideas, instead of attacking the well established foundations of
physics; which despite certain anomalies and misinterpretations of
the experimental data; yet are verified in the laboratories every
day.

Best of science to you. Tony B.

 

 

 

 

 

Message 17514 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17514

--- In 4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com, "Anna" <pantheon@i...> wrote:
> Neil, a question to you:
> can you feel and be not conscious, but in some other state?
> Anna
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Neil Boyd" <rnboyd@m...>
> To: <
MetaExistence@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [MetaExistence] Re: [4DWorldx] Time always changes
space.
>
>
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:36:39 -0700, Anna <pantheon@i...> wrote:
> >
> >> Everything seems to be married and giving birth to ever new
> >> potentials...
> >
> > A lovely insight Anna :)
> >
> > This is so true! And well worth exploring Deeply.
> > Deep upon deeply go.
> >
> > Neil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links


Dear Anna and Neil!

Your words are the foundation for the universes as the omniverse.
It is the modular duality unified through its own mirror image as
kreativist elegantly has pointed out.

But it is not antimatter which forms the mirror for matter (in
something called CPT-Symmetry); but something else, a union between
radiation and mass, which QR has termed RadiationMass.
It's gauge-bosonic agent is the RMP=RestMassPhoton, just a label and
identifiable with the supersymmetry particles, say the axion under
intensive research.

What happend is that antimatter and matter were perfectly symmetric,
but then thre symmetry broke, because of a new rotation/angular
momentum potential in the fundamental templates for the gauge
bosons, which are all colourcharged as the unifying force for
everything.

The four 'force-interactions are unified as the one superforce which
is a colour/magnetic force/interaction.
The agent for unification is the Alpha-Finestructure, now linked to
unification models of SU(5,10,O) symmetries in the GUTs.
It all becomes Higgs Mass and Magfnetic Monoplole spectra
transmutating into the nucleons/hyperonsandlepton scales.

The Graviton is a natural symmetriser, which realigned the symmetry
breaking in creating the gravitational interaction as a direct
proportionality/nesting toAlpha.

So the Antimatter became suppressed, because matter templates yould
use gluos as colourcharges to unify the spin-angular momenta with
the gauge-psource photons, the gravitons and something else.

This something else was antiradiation as preexistent template
before the matter-antimatter scenario became mass induced.

So the antiradiation became suppressed as weak interaction to allow
the Higgs Boson to create themasses as seeds foreverything.
This is all detyermined in quark-scales and fundamental ratios,
derived directly from the cosmogenesis.

Because the Higgs is scalar with 0-spin; something else had to be
created as a blueprint to conserve angular momentum of the gluon
(+1), source photon(+1), graviton(-2), antisource=sink antiphoton
(+1) - this is the RMP which is always left polarised (spin -1).

Oneday, this will allow science to understand the deep potential for
mass as superlow frequency resonators to 'transcend' ointo the
radiationmass (spiritmass) realms.

It's a long long story of the potentials in the unified field of QR.

Tony
B.

Love from the DragonHeart!

As a mathematical physicist, I also study ancient scrolls and the signature can be evaluated on a number of levels; from childishly naive to profoundly esoteric---Tony Whynot, Unicorn of SophiaGnosis !

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 17516 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17516

--- In NPA_Dissidents@yahoogroups.com, WMitch8493@a... wrote:
> Tony B., whoever you are,
>
> "Special" quite obviously was a typo. It should have
been "General".
> (Things like that sometimes happen.)
>
> If you would read my book, based on 20 years of study of
cosmology,
> astronomical data related to it, real science instead of fantasy,
and common sense,
> you might learn quite a lot.
>
> Folks who were idoctronated into the accepted Big Bang
cosmology by
> establishment hacks, without ever bothered to in examine its
validity, will sooner
> or later wake up and see the light.
>
> Bill Mitchell

Dear William!

I am well versed in cosmology, having studied it for 30 years.
I am aware of the developments, the various models and the
experimental data sets, which require reinterpretation of the data.
This has been done in Quantum Relativity and we now have a beautiful
extension of the Old Standard Big Bang Model, as the New Standard.

So the old well tested premises of the BBT are intact and getting
stronger.
We have solved the redshift dilemmas in incorporating much of Halton
Arp's work and we have incorporated the intergalactic magnetic
fields in blending in Hannes Alven's work and that of Mordehai
Milgrom.
Sarkar's work has shown that the large scale superclusters derive
from the architecture constants of the cosmogenesis, limiting
gravitational interaction to a radius of 236.5 million lightyears.

We have solved the flatness problem in showing that the Hubble-
Friedmann Radius became a fixed upper bounding scale at
timeinstantenuity.
We had to blend superbrane theory and de Broglie phases with
cosmology to do that.

We have solved the horizon problem in showing the intersection of an
oscillating Alven cosmos with an asymptotic Einstein-Friedmann
cosmos.

We have solved the monopole problem in showing that the magnetic
monopole can be identified with superbrane class IIB. This renders
it subject to the quark-lepton evolution scenarios of the Standard
Model of Particle Physics.

We have solved the redshift problems in particularly identifying the
expansion of space as a dimensional expansion of space within space,
little to do with stars or galaxies individually.
This also relates to the Alpha-Finestructure variation as wmeasured
by John Webb, Barrow and co and the anomalous deceleration of
Pioneer 10 and Galileo.

We have solved the lambda problem, in identifying the cosmological
constant as 'falling out' of the demetricated form of the GR-
equations.
Einstein's Lambda becomes simply the difference between the
Gravitational Omega (based on the deceleration parameter) and the
Milgrom deceleration (as the demetricated deceleration).

This is Milgrom's dissident view having become absorbed as
established physics.

So this should be an example for you and all the dissidents here.

Milgrom's work has been found to EXTEND the OLD MODEL, rendering the
old as new.
The same holds for Arp and Alven.

Yes, Bill,I know about your work. I have read about it in NEXUS and
I have been to your website.

You have concentrated on the anomalies and the openly admitted
difficulties, such as the age of the universe.
You have omitted the many verified parts of the model, such as
nucleosynthesis, the microwave background and the stellar- and
galactic evolution models.

I found a zealous application of your ideas, perhaps built on a
solid philosophical perspective.
I did like your NEXUS article, and thought about inviting you to
work with me, as I liked your distaste for the prevalent elitism
and discriminatory attitudes, so prevalent in academic circles.

But then I realised that your mind had become tunnel-visioned, not
seeking the truth any longer, but the justification for your ideas.

You did not contribute new ideas on your site, but attempted to suit
your personal agenda, which is insufficient for a genuine
exploration of the natural phenomena.

Yes, and I can assure you, that the universe is 19.11 billion years
old as the only age for a oscillating Alven-Cosmos intersecting
certain coordinates which fluctuate the Hubble-Constant, presently
at 66.9 Hubble Units. This the 'measures' the universe's age at 14.7
billion years (13.7 by for 72 Hubble-Units).
The NODAL Hubble-Constant is however constant at 58.04 Hubble Units
and this FACT brings a smile to another justified dissident in Alan
Sandage of Carnegie.
Best of Science to you Bill Tony B.

Love from the DragonHeart!

As a mathematical physicist, I also study ancient scrolls and the signature can be evaluated on a number of levels; from childishly naive to profoundly esoteric---Tony Whynot, Unicorn of SophiaGnosis !

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 17537 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17537

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

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony B.
>
> Guess I'm alone on this one:
>
> But I'm betting it was a beta decay big bang as herein described
> http://www.rbduncan.com/page7.html
>
> Scroll about 3/4 of the way down the page or type in beta decay in
> the edit - found on this page menu.
>
> I think the fine structure constant IS CHANGING as has been
recently
> discovered.
>
> This I know is being disputed.
>
> I think the neutron was a stable particle for many hundreds of
> billions of years.
>
> And this was an all neutron universe for that time as well.
>
> When the fine structure constant changed enough, it all came
suddenly
> unglued with one gigantic beta decay.
>
> When half the neutrons were converted into protons and electrons,
it
> stopped because the other half of the neutrons were then safely
> inside of these newly created atoms where they could continue to
> exist.
>
> Pull out a neutron from an atom and they only survive for about
> fifteen minutes.
>
> But back then they were all stable alone,
>
> This beta decay Big Bang would have happened ALL THROUGHOUT the
> universe too.
>
> We know the Big Bang happened ALL THROUGHOUT the universe.
>
> The rest of the present models have a big problem in this respect.
>
>
> z
>
Dear Zeus and all!

Well, he did it. Zeus has absolutely flabbergasted me with this post.
Why, because in his proposition about beta decay, being somehow
linked with the Big Bang, he has actually REDISCOVERED Quantum
Relativity.

Zeus, if you really stand with what you have written above, then I
am well prepared to offer you a full partnership with whatever may
come out of QR.
You know the people who have supported me in this from the
scientific perspective; you, Roy, Mike and Allen from theoretical-
physics and that's about it.

But to your post.
Away from the first statement that the neutron existed in time
before the Big Bang and some finetuning of the Alpha-structure, you
have rediscovered QR.

One of the most beautiful formulations you have posted is that of
the YLEMIC NEUTRONSTARS.
Do you remember?

Well the details are this.
The Neutron's Beta-Decay WAS mapped precisely onto the cosmogenesis.
So you find YLEMIC spacetime vortices, which carry the potentials
for mass to become generated in the Higgs-Restmass-Induction.
That is why Steven Weinberg calls the Higgs Boson the God Particle.
This also fits in well with the Wolford Centre making the mass
appear as a hyperlow-frequency spectrum, quantised in the photon-
mass equivalence of the Planck-Einstein duality hf=mc^2.

Now do a google search for YLEM; its an old no longer used word of
the science vocabulary.
It means the primordial matter or neutronic matter.
But perhaps you knew this.

I have given the derivation a number of times; the gravitational
inward pressure is in equilibrium with the outward thermal pressure.

Rylem=Sqrt[kTRe^3/(Go.Mc^2)] m.
k=Boltzmann's Constant; t=Temperature; Re=ClassicalElectronRadius;
Go=Gravitational Boundary Constant; Mc=prototypical nucleonmass.

Using just subatomic parameters (mapped from the superbrane boundary
conditions, following the Weyl-geodesic defining the timeinstanton),
The Ylemic Radius formulation manifests the quarkian wave-geometry
of the Inner Mesonic Ring as an annular region precisely matching
the recently discovered neutrinomass at Kamiokande, Japan (June 4th,
1998).
This defines the Higgs-Neutrino as a scalar neutrino of precisely
0.052 eV and as the DIFFERENCE between for the annular region for
the mesonic inner ring in the Standard Model.
Those boundarys DEFINE the Tau-neutrino's mass as being centred just
about dead-centre on 3.00 eV.

m(higgs-neutrino)=W.Me.rE.{1/rG-1/rF}/(2Pi.Re)=9.3x10^-38 kg.
W=wormhole-wavelength; Me=effective electronmass; and E,G,F are the
spacetime-markers for the neutronic betadecay under discussion,
which are mapped onto the mesonic inner ring.

The researchers don't call it Higgs-Neutrino yet, they still
speculate on a scalar neutrino predicted by certain GUTs (SU(5,10).

But what happens cosmologically?
Well, it is as you proposed.
The inner limit calculates as 1130.5 seconds (18.8 minutes) and the
outer limit as 1150 seconds (19.2 minutes).
Corresponding temperatures are 209 billion K ands 206 billion K.
Corresponding Ylem-Radii are 24.0 km and 23.9 km.

Now Steven Weinberg has written a famous little book, called "The
First Three Minutes", attempting to describe the cosmogenesis.

He was pretty right, except that the temperatures are on the mark,
but the corresponding 'scale/size' of the universe is not.
This is because the Guth inflation and extended models are right in
terms of the time, but wrong in terms of size also.

Anyway, the Zero-Point-Oscillator is h(W-frequency)/2=k(W-Temp.)/2.
And the ylemic Radius-Maximum can be calculated via Re(Mu/Mc)^[1/3];
where Mu is the Chandrasekhar MassLimit (for White Dwarfs becoming
Neutron Stars). This is so 40.2 km for a temperature of 583.5
billion K and a time of 287.3 seconds or 4.8 minutes.

Now our formulations used Re, which is the proton's diameter and so
we half that again to get Weinberg's times for Rylem=20.1 km and a
temperature of 1167 billion K and 114 seconds or 1.9 minutes.
We double the temperature to 'undo' the Zero-Point-Oscillator for
an ylem radius of 56.5 km and then modulate Rp=Re/2 for the maximum
nuclear compression of 56.5 km to 20.1 km in factor Sqrt(8)=2.828.
This defines the onset of nucleosynthesis and the creation of the
elements.
And of course our earlier ylem radii, compressed in unison become
24km/Sqrt(8)=8.5 km as the observed scale for neutronstars and
magnetars and relating the Schwarzschild Radii Rs=2GM/c^2 for the
Chandrasekhar Mass as Rs=7.4 km in superbrane parameters.


One can use this data to show that the Big Bang scenario is very
much correct in terms of the temperature evolution of the cosmology.

But Zeus' s rediscovery goes further than this.
It also solves another great mystery in physics, that of the
planetesimals.
How did the primordial gases coalesce to form the planets and the
stars?
The molecular forces do bind structures together for gravity to act
upon, but a number of calculations in different fields of chemistry,
geology and physics indicate, that only structures on the scale of
the km would be able to exert enough gravitational force not to be
torn apart by the electromagnetic and related forces acting in the
violent background matrix of the cosmic scenario at ylem time.

How did the km scale become cosmically enabled?

Enter Zeus's rediscovery and recall the neutrino formula from
Kamiokande.

The G and H scalemarkers defined the inner mesonic ring and the E
scalemarker defines the outer leptonic ring's inner boundary.
(The leptonic ring's outer boundary is the Hubble-FriedmannRadius of
the Hubble-Node, which defines the universe as the Spherical
Standing Wave of the Identity:
W(frequency).W(wavelength)=c=(Hubble-Nodal-Constant)(Hubble-Radius)).

So what does E represent?
Temperature is 1.2 billion K; ylem radius=1.8 km; time=1.1 million
seconds (or about 13 days).

Recalling that the ylemic/dineutronic cosmogenesis manifest in the
inflow-outflow potentials of the spacetimequanta defined by the
superbranes's macroquantisation; there will be a wavecentre or
vortex about which this process fluctuates.
Subsequently the planetesimal limit of 1.8 km forms a macroquantised
Wolford-Centre of macroquantisation.
The molecular forces of dispersion are bounded and confined in the
planetesimal Wolford-Centre.
Once the matter agglomerations have 'filled' this Wolford-Centre,
the gravitational forces suffice to continue the evolutionary
journeys for planets and stars.

This is of course similar to a later development for the cosmic
architecture, where it is the Sarkar Constant, derived from the
Einstein Field Equations specifies 236.5 million lightyears as the
architectural limit for gravitational attraction between
suprclusters.
Beyond this limit, the universe must be homogenous for all scales.
This is indeed observed and the Sarkar Constant (defining also the
deceleration parameter and the omega/critical mass ratio), solves
yet another mystery.
Why are the largest structures in the universe of the Sarkar size,
but appearing just 1 billion years into the cosmogenesis?
How could such gigantic structures form so early?
Well, now you now, the Sartkar Constant defines a cosmological
redshift of 7.477 as the limit for such structures and the time is
236.5 million years, correlating with the WMAP data for the 'first
light' from the first stars to permeate the microwave background.

But summarizingly, Zeus's Beta-Decay for the Neutron indeed
describes the Big Bang Scenario for the first 13 days or so of
creation.

Tony B.







>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "TONY BERMANSEDER"
> <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
> >
--- End forwarded message ---

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 17538 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17538

 --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> alden,
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> In the manner you used "cosmological constant", I thought you did
not
> know its meaning.
>
> Yes, I too have written about Saul Perlmutter's "cosmological
> constant" findings of the acceleration in
> http://www.rbduncan.com/page2.html
>
> Scroll not quite half way down.
>
> OR
>
> If it opens in Word then:
>
> Click edit.
>
> Click Find on this page.
>
> Type in; cosmological constant and it will take you right to it.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> z
>



Dear Zeus and Alden!

I may as well get it over with.
After our brilliant corroberation regarding your Beta-Decay Post; I
must disagree with you on this point.

The universe is not accelerating, but appears to do so for certain
cosmological redshift intervals.
This is a clear prediction of QR.
If Perlmutter's model is correct (his data IS supported by QR, but
not his and Brian Schmidt's conclusion of the Australian 'High-
Z'collaboration), then QR is wrong.

Perlmutter's and Schmidt's data beautifully correlate with the Webb
data of 1998 (Mauna Kea, Hawaii, Keck 10m, observing quasar spectra
of hydrogen absorption, showing a dip in Alpha to 80 parts per
million).

Now the Alpha-Dip is measured between cosmological redshifts of
about 1.0 and 1.6.
QR predicts this to be 1.08 to 1.84.

The supernova Ia data now indicates, that the universe was
decelerating for the highest supernova redshifts (i.e. SN1998eq has
z=1.1 and SN1997ff with z=1.7 (Riess, 2001, Hubble-Space-Telescope)
as the lowesty bound and hitherto highest one detected).

So already, the predictions of QR are borne out for redshifts
exceeding the Alpha-Dip onset.

Why can QR predict this?
Because the Hubble-Oscillation engages the Spherical Standing Wave
or SSW of c-invariance in 11D to bounce back and forth between the
two nodes of the 10D-asymptotically decelerating event horizon and
the quantum big bang 'singularity'.

Now this defines two equivalent observers, one at the expanding
wavefront and the other at the Big Bang Node.
The Big Bang Node always looks back in time towards the Big Bang as
the event horizon and the Event Horizon always looks back to the
origin of the Quantum big Bang.
This is cosmological QR.

The cosmological redshift interval 1.08-1.84 defines the 'Alpha-
Variation' centred on a varaiation ,maximum, defined as the Arp-
Redshift-Limit.
It also defines the 'Peak of Galaxyformation' at z=1.19, 3.98
billion years after the timeinstanton and supported by the
scientific data.

Because the universe expands presently at 0.22c, this Arpian limit
is z(Arp)=0.2505.
The Arpian limit changes with the Hubble-Constant, defined by the
coordinates of the Hubble-Oscillation of the SSW.
So for a nodal fixed Hubble-Constant of 58.04 (Sandage Hubble-
Constant); the presently 'measured' Hubble-Constant calculates as
66.9 for an inferred age of the universe of 14.7 billion years.
Because a Hubble-Constant of about 72 is used, this age is
publisised as 13.7 billion years.

Now the Arpian variation is mapped by the nodes, which act like
spacetime mirrors relative to the two Big Bang observers.

The interval 1.082-1.843 (describing a 2.23 billion year interval)
is imaged in the interval 0.343-0.291 and indicates that any
measured cosmological redshift beyond 0.291 can be considered
to occur in 'Hubble-Flow', not requiring a 'redshift-correction'.

The 'boundary' z=(0.343-1.082) is imaged in 'boundary'
zArp=(0.2505-1.082) in the NODAL MIRROR of z=0.291-1.843) and the
BOUNDARY MIRROR of z=(zArp=0.2505-1.082) images the nodal z=(0.291-
1.843) in the nodal z=(0.1097-1.843).

This explains why the cosmic deceleration model begins to 'curve
away' from the predicted slowing down, say in the Chilean Cala-
Tololo data at about z=0.12.
Then this data shows a 'redshift 'gap' until z=0.3, after which the
High'Z data shows the 'cosmic acceleration'.

But QR has predicted z=0.291 to be the Alpha-Variation-Limit and the
High-Z data and the Cala-Tololo data support the above redshift
analysis for the intersecting spacetimes.

Latest analysis by Riess and co. have proposed an 'onset' for the
acceleration about a redshift of about 0.4, which then ends at about
z=1, but appears to continue for the present.

If we introduce out two Big Bang Observers, then the situation
becomes clear.
QR predicts an asymptotic deceleration for the universe from
Einstein's Field equations after demetrication.
QR also predicts the dimensional intersection, which maps
the 'electromagnetic return' of the SSW towards the Big Bang
Singularity observer as a blueshift superimposed onto the redshift
of the asymptotic deceleration.
The event horizon observer 'rides' the expanding wavefront at 0.22c
and is itself redshifted at the Arp-Limit relative to the Big Bang
observer.

So just as in Special Relativity, certain transformations must be
applied to take account of the interfering measurements of the two
observers moving relative to one another.
This QR has termed Redshift-Correction-Correlation, applicable for
the stated intervals.

To summarize, the Perlmutter-Schmidt and related data all are
supported and predicted by QR; but the conclusion as to an
accelerating cosmos is clearly refuted.

I may mention many attempts by would-be-TOE'ers, including you Zeus
here; who have adjusted their models to accomodate an accelerating
cosmos to take stock.
QR is INCOMPATIBLE with an accelerating cosmology. It destroys the
classical Greek geometry upon whom it is based in extension to the
Quantum.
The absolute Machian frame and the 'Relativity of Inertia', upon
whom Einstein based his belief in a geometric nature of the
universe, cannot exist in a cosmology not ruled by c-invariance as
the 'ether-medium' for the SSW's.
So the oscillating universe encompasses the asymptotically
decelerating one in DEFINING the Asymptotic limit.
Then a higher dimensional extension is possible as macrouniversal
quantum states of universes multiplying.
Always however must the protouniverse be a subset of the multiverse.
An accelerating universe would be unbounded and QR and the geometric
dream of an ordered cosmos shared by Einstein with me, would
collapse.

When I see the proposal for a TOE; I look for equations and the
principles. As soon as I see the acceptance of the accelerating
universe, I know, that it is not compatible with QR.
This is the case just for the previous post on this site, discussing
a 'Gyroscopic Cosmology'.

I hope I have not dampened any spirits of euphoria.
The Eureka of Archimedes is in exclamation still.

Tony B.

 

 

 

 

 

Message 17541 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17541

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "alden_parent"
<alden_parent@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "tom rice"
<th1nker@i...>
> wrote:
> >
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Absolutely! Proof is required in any manner
> attainable. However! Rather than just looking at the
> four forces as "ONE" you have to consider that the
> four forces may be under the control of "ONE" for
> a total of five. After all is it not the "GOLDEN"
> number!? The question then is. What might the fifth
> powerful source be?
>
> alden

Dear alden!

Allow me to reply to some of your comments.
I feel you make a wonderful scientist, you are precise, yet
discerning and you are obviously a deep thinker who can focus on the
essentials - an excellent addition to any team seeking truth and
wisdom.

Your scientific intuition is on the mark; the five classes of
superstrings are unified via something called the Alpha--
Finestructure and manifest as one of the five in the heterotic
superstring HE(8x8).
This becomes the decisive Weyl-Geodesic for the Weyl-Tensor
nullification as the boundary of General Relativity with the Quantum
Scale for the superbranes, bounded in the Planck-Scale.

The proof (mathematical) you are seeking can be found in an
synthesis of a number of decisive parameters; all engaging the
fivefolded supersymmetry of the superbrane classes linked to
supersymmetry. All this is known and under intensive investigation
by thousands of string theorists around the globe.

What is not known, is that the five classes are not all AT the
Planck-Scale, but are transformations of it, ending at the Weyl-
Geodesic, which MUST represent that supersbrane closest to physical
and observed reality.
This is known; HE(8x8) has long be suspectred and proposed to do
just that (but at the Planck-Scale).

Certian GUTs have come very close in actually proposing this.
There is the NG-Van Dam proposal, which introduces a scale of 10^-21
m, say linked to the detection of gravitational waves (LIGO, LISA).

So you can see that the status quo is tumbling about the light
switch, but not knowing or understanding the principle underpinning
F/M-Theory, they camnnot determine the initial/boundary conditions
for the formidable equations fed into supercomputers.

QR doesn't require supercomputers, because it does not pretend to
give a full description for the natural phenomena.
What QR does very successfully, is to apply the quantum cosmology of
the Weyl-geodesic onto the boundary conditions of the HE(8x8)
superstring, which allows it to apply General Relativity to the
universe as a whole.
It's predictive power for the universe as a quantum is henceforth
superlative.
Of course this also allows Mach's Principle to be applied and many
cosmological riddles solve themselves as the Machian observer can
observe the entire cosmos fromthe Bird's Eye View.

To calculate the local curvature for spacetimes, the metricated GR
is used and this is nothing new.

QR also predicts the quantum geometry of the subatomic quark-leptoin
structure of the Standard Model in mapping the classicalgeometry of
the cosmological Standard Model onto the Particle Physics One.
It then uses the pentagonal symmetry to derive the mappings of the
superbrane energies onto the quark-lepton structures voia the Weyl-
geodesic.
The five-folded supersymmetry directly transduces onto the scalesof
the magnetic monopoles, the cosmic rays, the gamma bursters and the
fermions by using the underpinning symmetries of the Alpha-
Finestructure mapped onto the Electron-Radius and the Compton-Radius
and the de Broglie matter waves.

One of the proofs (my favourite) involves the eqivalence of the
magnetic selfinduction of an electron with its relativistic mass.
One finds a beautiful binomial distribution of the (v/c) ratios of
Special Relativity about a certain Mean, the Functional-Riemann-
Bound (FRB).
A Cosmic Wavefunction B(n)=(2e/hA)exp[-Alpha.t(n)] is defined to be
gaussian centred at the FRB=-1/2 and PRECISELY fluctuates about the
MEAN defined by the pentagonal supersymmetry underpinning the entire
cosmology.
The decisive identity is: XY=X+Y=-1=i^2=exp[iPi].

It is perhaps hard to believe that the entire universe can be
derived from just that identity in its mathematical description.

Your cosmological constant is 'God's Law' as you reiterated.

Why, because the Einstein Lambda becomes the DIFFERENCE between what
is called Omega of Gravitational attraction and the demetricated
form of the universe's deceleration.
This means that this difference (it could be called quintessence)is
the great modifier between the force of gravity and the expansion of
the 10D/4D spacetime into the 11D/5D spacetime.
The harmony is always there; there is an eternaldance between the
omega and the lambda to render the demetricated deceleration precise
in the encompassing Hubble-Oscillation.

It would be nice if I could draw pictures (I've got notalent for
that, not even diagrams), but if I could, then you would agree that
it is a most beautiful and elegant cosmology which has now been
discovered.

Anyway, here is 'God's Formula':


Einstein-Lambda=Go.MoX^{n/2}/r^2(n) - 2cHo/(n+1)^3 (m/s^2 units).

Go=boundary Gravitational Constant=1.111x10^-10 Nm^2/kg^2;
Mo=Restmass-OmegaSeed=1.81..x10^51 kg;
X=0.618033..;
n=Ho.t=Einstein's dimensionless Tautime for curvature radius
Rc=cdt/dTau; dn/dt=Ho= nodal Hubble Constant (58.04 km/Mpc.s)
r(n)=Rmax(n/(n+1)) as the scalefactor in GR, Rmax=Rc-limit.

The factor -2cHo/(n+1)^3 is the Milgrom Deceleration and the part of
the MOND theory (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) applicable to QR as
the alternative for the dark matter scewnarios.
Those are another topic for discussion and engage the RMP as
missing 'fifth' elementary force in the UFoQR (Unified Field of QR).

So you were right, there is a fifth force and it introduces
the 'Mind of God' in yet another of her equations.
See the Mirror/Antimatter post.

TonyB.

 

 

 

 

message 17547in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17547

Tony,

your recent post to Bill Mitchell on the expanded Big Bang Model is an important piece of the new science paradigm. This is a great way to begin looking at the new theory. Not only wrt the scientific community but, opinion leaders and the public at large. I'm preparing comments which I"ll post shortly. However, in the meantime, istm, the following article adds a significant piece to the puzzle. What do you think?

Dennis

P.S. Is there any further research on the nature/function of quark-gluon plasma? What are pions?

Dennis, I just ended a discussion about the primodial dineutron state of the cosmogenesis

in the post below.

The quark-gluon plasma is neutron-star matter.

The pions are the basic up/down quarkstate of the baseVPE, where VPE is Vortex-Potential-Energy.

For example the simplest decay of a neutral uncharged pion is two photons as gamma rays. charged pions are involved in the decay of unstable hyperons into stable nucleons (protons and neutrons, which are stable only within the nucleus) - see post below where I shall interleave.

----- Original Message -----

From: Anna
To: 4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:38 PM
Subject: [4DWorldx] Quest to understand matter

Quest to understand matter right after the big bang
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON NEWS RELEASE
Posted: March 18, 2005

Scientists trying to recreate conditions that existed just a few millionths of a second after the big bang that started the universe have run into a mysterious problem - some of the reactions they are getting don't mesh with what they thought they were supposed to see.

Now, two University of Washington physicists have dusted off a quantum mechanics technique usually associated with low-energy physics and applied it to results from experiments at Brookhaven National Laboratory on New York's Long Island that produce high-energy collisions between gold nuclei. The result is data much more in line with what theorists expected from the experiments, said John Cramer, a UW physics professor. That means physicists at Brookhaven probably have actually succeeded in creating quark-gluon plasma, a state of matter that has not existed since a microsecond after the big bang that began the universe.

As it turns out, the model the physicists were using was missing some pieces, say Cramer and Gerald Miller, also a UW physics professor, whose findings will be published this month in Physical Review Letters, a journal of the American Physical Society.

"We think we've solved the puzzle by identifying important phenomena that were left out of the model," Cramer said.

Since 2000, scientists have been using the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven to collide gold nuclei with each other at nearly the speed of light. They are trying to get subatomic particles called quarks and gluons to separate from the nuclei and form a superheated quark-gluon plasma, 40 billion times hotter than room temperature.

Physicists used a technique called Hanbury Brown-Twiss Interferometry, originally used by astronomers to measure the size of stars, to learn the size and duration of a fireball produced in the collision of two gold nuclei. The technique focuses on momentum differences between pairs of pions, the particles produced in the fireball.

Before the collider experiment began, scientists expected a quark-gluon plasma to fuel a large and long-lasting fireball. Instead, the interferometry data showed a fireball similar in size and duration to those seen at much lower energies. Researchers also expected to see pions pushed out of the plasma gradually, but instead they seem to explode out all at once.

"We expected to bring the nuclear liquid to a boil and produce a steam of quark-gluon plasma," Cramer said. "Instead, the boiler seems to be blowing up in our faces."

While other evidence suggested that the collider experiment had created a quark-gluon plasma, the interferometry data pointed away from that possibility. To solve the puzzle, Cramer and Miller used a phenomenon called chiral symmetry restoration, which predicts that subatomic particles will change in mass and size depending on their environment - in a hot, dense plasma as opposed to a vacuum, for instance.

By adding that process to the model, they found that pions in the plasma have to expend a large amount of energy to escape, as if they were stuck in a deep hole and had to climb out. That is because chiral symmetry gives pions a low mass when they are inside the plasma but a much higher mass once outside. The scientists also allowed for some pions to disappear completely, to transform into some other type of particle as they emerge from the plasma.

The result reconciles all the evidence from the collider experiments, supporting the possibility that a quark-gluon plasma actually has been created.

"We have taken a quantum mechanics technique, called the nuclear optical model, from an old and dusty shelf and applied it to puzzling new physics results," Miller said. "It's really a scientific detective story."

The work, supported by U.S. Department of Energy grants, adds to the general understanding of what happened in the first microseconds after the big bang, he said, "and what we bring to bear is a better microscope, the microscope of quantum mechanics."

Cramer noted that adding chiral symmetry restoration to the picture achieved results very close to what computer models told scientists to expect, and did so without forcing the experimental data to fit preconceived standards.

"A microsecond after the big bang, there was a state of matter that no one was able to investigate until very recently," he said. "We are still learning, but our understanding is growing."



> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
> <zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Tony B.
> >
> > Guess I'm alone on this one:
> >
> > But I'm betting it was a beta decay big bang as herein described
> >
http://www.rbduncan.com/page7.html
> >
> > Scroll about 3/4 of the way down the page or type in beta decay
in
> > the edit - found on this page menu.
> >
> > I think the fine structure constant IS CHANGING as has been
> recently
> > discovered.
> >
> > This I know is being disputed.
> >
> > I think the neutron was a stable particle for many hundreds of
> > billions of years.
> >
> > And this was an all neutron universe for that time as well.
> >
> > When the fine structure constant changed enough, it all came
> suddenly
> > unglued with one gigantic beta decay.
> >
> > When half the neutrons were converted into protons and electrons,
> it
> > stopped because the other half of the neutrons were then safely
> > inside of these newly created atoms where they could continue to
> > exist.
> >
> > Pull out a neutron from an atom and they only survive for about
> > fifteen minutes.
> >
> > But back then they were all stable alone,
> >
> > This beta decay Big Bang would have happened ALL THROUGHOUT the
> > universe too.
> >
> > We know the Big Bang happened ALL THROUGHOUT the universe.
> >
> > The rest of the present models have a big problem in this respect.
> >
> >
> > z
> >
> Dear Zeus and all!
>
> Well, he did it. Zeus has absolutely flabbergasted me with this
post.
> Why, because in his proposition about beta decay, being somehow
> linked with the Big Bang, he has actually REDISCOVERED Quantum
> Relativity.
>
> Zeus, if you really stand with what you have written above, then I
> am well prepared to offer you a full partnership with whatever may
> come out of QR.
> You know the people who have supported me in this from the
> scientific perspective; you, Roy, Mike and Allen from theoretical-
> physics and that's about it.
>
> But to your post.
> Away from the first statement that the neutron existed in time
> before the Big Bang and some finetuning of the Alpha-structure, you
> have rediscovered QR.
>
> One of the most beautiful formulations you have posted is that of
> the YLEMIC NEUTRONSTARS.
> Do you remember?
>
> Well the details are this.
> The Neutron's Beta-Decay WAS mapped precisely onto the cosmogenesis.
> So you find YLEMIC spacetime vortices, which carry the potentials
> for mass to become generated in the Higgs-Restmass-Induction.
> That is why Steven Weinberg calls the Higgs Boson the God Particle.
> This also fits in well with the Wolford Centre making the mass
> appear as a hyperlow-frequency spectrum, quantised in the photon-
> mass equivalence of the Planck-Einstein duality hf=mc^2.
>
> Now do a google search for YLEM; its an old no longer used word of
> the science vocabulary.
> It means the primordial matter or neutronic matter.
> But perhaps you knew this.
>
> I have given the derivation a number of times; the gravitational
> inward pressure is in equilibrium with the outward thermal pressure.
>
> Rylem=Sqrt[kTRe^3/(Go.Mc^2)] m.
> k=Boltzmann's Constant; t=Temperature; Re=ClassicalElectronRadius;
> Go=Gravitational Boundary Constant; Mc=prototypical nucleonmass.
>
> Using just subatomic parameters (mapped from the superbrane
boundary
> conditions, following the Weyl-geodesic defining the timeinstanton),
> The Ylemic Radius formulation manifests the quarkian wave-geometry
> of the Inner Mesonic Ring as an annular region precisely matching
> the recently discovered neutrinomass at Kamiokande, Japan (June
4th,
> 1998).
> This defines the Higgs-Neutrino as a scalar neutrino of precisely
> 0.052 eV and as the DIFFERENCE between for the annular region for
> the mesonic inner ring in the Standard Model.
> Those boundarys DEFINE the Tau-neutrino's mass as being centred
just
> about dead-centre on 3.00 eV.
>
> m(higgs-neutrino)=W.Me.rE.{1/rG-1/rF}/(2Pi.Re)=9.3x10^-38 kg.
> W=wormhole-wavelength; Me=effective electronmass; and E,G,F are the
> spacetime-markers for the neutronic betadecay under discussion,
> which are mapped onto the mesonic inner ring.
>
> The researchers don't call it Higgs-Neutrino yet, they still
> speculate on a scalar neutrino predicted by certain GUTs (SU(5,10).
>
> But what happens cosmologically?
> Well, it is as you proposed.
> The inner limit calculates as 1130.5 seconds (18.8 minutes) and the
> outer limit as 1150 seconds (19.2 minutes).
> Corresponding temperatures are 209 billion K ands 206 billion K.
> Corresponding Ylem-Radii are 24.0 km and 23.9 km.
>
> Now Steven Weinberg has written a famous little book, called "The
> First Three Minutes", attempting to describe the cosmogenesis.
>
> He was pretty right, except that the temperatures are on the mark,
> but the corresponding 'scale/size' of the universe is not.
> This is because the Guth inflation and extended models are right in
> terms of the time, but wrong in terms of size also.
>
> Anyway, the Zero-Point-Oscillator is h(W-frequency)/2=k(W-Temp.)/2.
> And the ylemic Radius-Maximum can be calculated via Re(Mu/Mc)^[1/3];
> where Mu is the Chandrasekhar MassLimit (for White Dwarfs becoming
> Neutron Stars). This is so 40.2 km for a temperature of 583.5
> billion K and a time of 287.3 seconds or 4.8 minutes.
>
> Now our formulations used Re, which is the proton's diameter and so
> we half that again to get Weinberg's times for Rylem=20.1 km and a
> temperature of 1167 billion K and 114 seconds or 1.9 minutes.
> We double the temperature to 'undo' the Zero-Point-Oscillator for
> an ylem radius of 56.5 km and then modulate Rp=Re/2 for the maximum
> nuclear compression of 56.5 km to 20.1 km in factor Sqrt(8)=2.828.
> This defines the onset of nucleosynthesis and the creation of the
> elements.
> And of course our earlier ylem radii, compressed in unison become
> 24km/Sqrt(8)=8.5 km as the observed scale for neutronstars and
> magnetars and relating the Schwarzschild Radii Rs=2GM/c^2 for the
> Chandrasekhar Mass as Rs=7.4 km in superbrane parameters.

FOR DENNIS OKU!

The temperature in the quark-gluon plasma experiments is in the 40 billion K range and so is between the planetesimal limit and the mesonic ring induction mapped onto the neutron stars.

The experiments you have commented upon, so are also bounded in the ylemic formulations.

For T=40 billion K; Rylem=10.4 km, which becomes 3.7 km for maximum nuclear compression.

This clearly shows the temperature to define neutron stars as presently observed and analysed.

But their temperatures are off the mark. They do not reflect the temperatures of microseconds in the cosmogenesis.

40 billion K correspond to a cosmogenesis time of 10,265 seconds or 2.8 hours.

So the universe was much bigger then, than what the models of the fusion predict.

Can you see, that that experiment too, has confirmed quantum relativity as the new model.

I'll calculate the sizes.

The model of the microsecond (10^-6 s) for c would predict a scale for the universe of about 300/pi metres as diameter (~100 metres across).

This would create the large fireball of relatively high energy.

Qr calculates the scale as 2x10.4 km~21 km; bigger by a factor of 210.

Of course a much smaller fireball with lower energy MUST result.

Tony B.


>
>
> One can use this data to show that the Big Bang scenario is very
> much correct in terms of the temperature evolution of the cosmology.
>
> But Zeus' s rediscovery goes further than this.
> It also solves another great mystery in physics, that of the
> planetesimals.
> How did the primordial gases coalesce to form the planets and the
> stars?
> The molecular forces do bind structures together for gravity to act
> upon, but a number of calculations in different fields of
chemistry,
> geology and physics indicate, that only structures on the scale of
> the km would be able to exert enough gravitational force not to be
> torn apart by the electromagnetic and related forces acting in the
> violent background matrix of the cosmic scenario at ylem time.
>
> How did the km scale become cosmically enabled?
>
> Enter Zeus's rediscovery and recall the neutrino formula from
> Kamiokande.
>
> The G and H scalemarkers defined the inner mesonic ring and the E
> scalemarker defines the outer leptonic ring's inner boundary.
> (The leptonic ring's outer boundary is the Hubble-FriedmannRadius
of
> the Hubble-Node, which defines the universe as the Spherical
> Standing Wave of the Identity:
> W(frequency).W(wavelength)=c=(Hubble-Nodal-Constant)(Hubble-
Radius)).
>
> So what does E represent?
> Temperature is 1.2 billion K; ylem radius=1.8 km; time=1.1 million
> seconds (or about 13 days).
>
> Recalling that the ylemic/dineutronic cosmogenesis manifest in the
> inflow-outflow potentials of the spacetimequanta defined by the
> superbranes's macroquantisation; there will be a wavecentre or
> vortex about which this process fluctuates.
> Subsequently the planetesimal limit of 1.8 km forms a
macroquantised
> Wolford-Centre of macroquantisation.
> The molecular forces of dispersion are bounded and confined in the
> planetesimal Wolford-Centre.
> Once the matter agglomerations have 'filled' this Wolford-Centre,
> the gravitational forces suffice to continue the evolutionary
> journeys for planets and stars.
>
> This is of course similar to a later development for the cosmic
> architecture, where it is the Sarkar Constant, derived from the
> Einstein Field Equations specifies 236.5 million lightyears as the
> architectural limit for gravitational attraction between
> suprclusters.
> Beyond this limit, the universe must be homogenous for all scales.
> This is indeed observed and the Sarkar Constant (defining also the
> deceleration parameter and the omega/critical mass ratio), solves
> yet another mystery.
> Why are the largest structures in the universe of the Sarkar size,
> but appearing just 1 billion years into the cosmogenesis?
> How could such gigantic structures form so early?
> Well, now you now, the Sartkar Constant defines a cosmological
> redshift of 7.477 as the limit for such structures and the time is
> 236.5 million years, correlating with the WMAP data for the 'first
> light' from the first stars to permeate the microwave background.
>
> But summarizingly, Zeus's Beta-Decay for the Neutron indeed
> describes the Big Bang Scenario for the first 13 days or so of
> creation.
>
> Tony

 

 

 

 

 message 17550 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17550

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony B.
>
> Wait.
>
> Stop and think.

Dear Zeus and all!

Yes, Perlmutter and QR are both right - in the experimental data.
But who carries more weight to INTERPRET that data?
This is the only point of disagreement.

The antigravitational effects of the Einstein Lambda can be
calculated.
Here are the intervals:

1) Higgs-Temp-Field initialises Einstein Lambda as GoMo/
(wormholeperimeter)^2=2.015x10^85 m/s^2 ->ANTIGRAVITATIONAL.

2) False Vacuum of Temperature Tunnelling ends at n=0.014015 (Sarkar
Constant at 236.5 million years, z=7.477).

3) Galaxy Formation begins (z=2.15) for Einstein Lambda=0. Now
Einstein Lambda becomes GRAVITATIONAL ADDING TO OMEGA
This is the DARK MATTER PHASE for n=0.1064-9.2255, which is 1.79 -
155.9 billion years with absolute minimum for the Einstein Lambda at
z=1.19 or n=0.2352 or 3.97 billion years,(so including the present
epoch).

4) LIGHT MATTER PHASE for n=9.2255-10.4055-12.2777 (maximum at 175.8
and Einstein Lambda 0 for 207.5 billion years).
THhis is an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL INTERVAL where the 'missing' mass of
the dark matter would be measured as an 'excess' mass of light
matter.

5) GREY MATTER PHASE forn=12.277 onwards for asymptotic approach to
0 with local minimum at n=19.9354 (336.9 billion years).
This is GRAVITATIONAL again and coincides with the gradual 'running
out' of nuclear fuel for the stellar and galactic generations.

But the Heat-Death or the ultraviolet catastrophe will not occur,
because the superposed macrosuperbrane evolution of the wormhole-
geodesic into the Sarkar Constant of the cosmic architecture
RECHARGE the cosmogenesis in modular duality.

This is explained in the initial mass-seedling Mo as the maximum
quantum transforming into the minimum quantum of the wormhole as a
mini BlackHole and as an elementary particle say.
Details involve the 'Mother-Sarkar-BlackHole' shrinking embedded in
a Strominger Brane, which does not Hawking radiate (it is extremal
as a boundary condition).
When this shrinking reaches the Weyl-Geodesic, then it will become
massless and the RECHARGING can take effect.
This cycle takes 7.53 Trillion years and is the expected duration
for the last stars to exhaust their nuclear fuels.

So in a sense the Equivalence Principle of GR is nested in this
process as the Principle of Quantum Relativity of the Modular
Dualities.

Tony B.

>
> Your QR and Perlmutter can BOTH be right because if Einstein's
> Principle of Equivalence is true for gravity then it is also true
for
> gravity's equal and opposite force (if it exists), Einstein's
> cosmological constant factor.
>
> So if we can not distinguish earth's gravity from an accelerating
> contraction, then we also can't distinguish Einstein's original
> cosmological constant repelling force from an accelerating
expansion.
>
> Since your QR math will indeed work in such an expanding universe
> then it must also work in a steady-state universe with force
(instead
> of expansion) won't it?
>
> Acording to Einstein's Principle of Equivalence, it most certainly
> will - or am i missing something?
>
>
> z

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 17551 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17551

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony B. - Will QR work in a steady state universe?
>
> Yes or no
>
>
> z

Dear Zeus!

This depends of what you mean by Steady State.

The Oscillating 11D/5D universe can be considered the Steady State
of Fred Hoyle and QR defines this beautifully.
There is even a kind of mass-creation, though not the way he thought
of it; more in the way Dirac and van Flanders thought of it.

If you envisage some spacial infinite extent, then no, QR cannot
work there at all.
The infinite extent is already contained in the wormhole singularity
as the INSIDE mapping, but its image defines the INFINITE EVOLUTION
as an asymptote of asymptotes as the OUTSIDE mapping.

Tony B.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 17552 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17552

Tony Bermanseder" <PACIFICAP@h...>

Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:39 pm

Subject: Re: Higgs scalar particles with a magnetic charge/Al

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

--- In tapten@yahoogroups.com, "Al" <dockzef@y...> wrote:

>

> hep-ph/0503138 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :

> Title: Phase transition in gauge theories, monopoles and the

> Multiple Point Principle

> Authors: C.R. Das, L.V. Laperashvili

> Comments: 100 pages, 25 figures, review article

>

> This review is devoted to the Multiple Point Principle (MPP),

> according to which several vacuum states with the same energy

> density exist in Nature. The MPP is implemented to the Standard

> Model (SM), Family replicated gauge group model (FRGGM) and phase

> transitions in gauge theories with/without monopoles. Lattice

gauge

> theories are reviewed. The lattice results for critical coupling

> constants are compared with those of the Higgs Monopole Model

(HMM),

> in which the lattice artifact monopoles are replaced by the point-

> like Higgs scalar particles with a magnetic charge. Considering

our

> (3+1)-dimensional space-time as discrete, for example, as a

lattice

> with a parameter a=\lambda_P, equal to the Planck length, we have

> investigated the additional contributions of monopoles to beta-

> functions of renormalization group equations in the FRGGM extended

> beyond the SM at high (the Planck scale) energies. We have

reviewed

> that, in contrast to the Anti-grand unified theory (AGUT), there

> exists a possibility of unification of all gauge interactions

> (including gravity) near the Planck scale due to monopoles. The

> unifications [SU(5)]^3 and [SO(10)]^3 at the GUT-scale \sim 10^

{18}

> GeV are briefly discussed.

>

>

>

> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0503/0503138.pdf

>

> if nothing else read the conclusion of this paper, very worth it

imo!

 

Dear Al!

 

I've downloaded this file and studied it. It deserves a reply; but I am unsure if this would be understood here.

Did you download this file from a site, where you could send this

reply to?

I am not sure; but I shall briefly indicate some points in it.

 

The paper discusses monopoles and certain unification scenarios

based on the Alpha finestructure constant.

The authors of the paper would surely be interested in the boundary

value of Alpha as the strong interaction coupling constant and the

exact limit for the monopole mass in their GUT SU(10) approximation.

They are using approximation techiques, based on perturbation series

throughout.

 

Now the Nobel Prize in physics for 2004 was awarded for just such a

procedure, allegedly showing the convergence of the strong

interaction coupling constant at about 0.2.

 

The precise value is the Cuberoot of Alpha*, where Alpha* is the

invariant they are looking for in the approximations.

You see the entire quest can be immensely simplified, should the

authors understand that the five superbraneclasses do not all

operate on the Planck-Scale (only type of the open and closed ones

do).

The supersymmetry of the modular dualities between the classes is a

derivative of the pentagonal symmetry of the cosmogenesis in Quantum

Relativity and engages Alpha* as the invariant.

I'll tabulate the five classes in energy hierarchy:

For details, the authors should contact me, so I can direct them to

my site or tome, where they can find the details and the derivations.

 

1. GENESIS/NullTime (7.54x10^37 K; 2.99x10^-41 m; 6.61x10^24 GeV)

2. Planck-Boson (1.08x10^32 K; 2.09x10^-35 m; 9.48x10^18 GeV)

3. Monopole (3.07x10^29 K; 7.34x10^-33 m; 2.70x10^16 GeV)

4. XL-Boson (2.15x10^28 K; 1.05x10^-31 m; 1.89x10^15 GeV)

5. ECosmic-Boson (3.16x10^22 K; 3.16x10^-26 m; 6.27x10^9 GeV)

6. EpsEss-Boson (1.42x10^20 K; 1.00x10^-22 m; 1.24x10^7 GeV)

7. HBrmi (3.40x10^15 K; 4.17x10^-18 m; 298.785 GeV).

 

1. initialisation of PrePlanck subtimespace epoch from algorithms of

the cosmogenesis

2. Planck-Scale of class I, bounded in the Planck-Length-

Oscillation, which is found to be Planck-LengthxSqrtAlpha*.

3.Magnetic Monopole of selfdual class IIB, bounding for gamma ray

bursters and Cosmic Rays.

4. quark-lepton mass generator as heterotic superbrane class HO(32).

5. Superbrane class IIA as 'cosmic ray knee' resonance.

6. Heterotic Superbrane class HE(8x8) as Weyl-Geodesic as link

between General Relativities' wormhole perimeter and quantum

mechanics and also the 'cosmic-ray-ankle' resonance.

7. Higgs-Bosonic-Restmass-Induction as the upper bounded Fermi

Constant and the Higgs/Chi-Resonance.

 

Thank you Al Tony B.

 

 

 

 

Love from the DragonHeart!

 

As a mathematical physicist, I also study ancient scrolls and the signature can be evaluated on a number of levels; from childishly naive to profoundly esoteric---Tony Whynot, Unicorn of SophiaGnosis !

 

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

 

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 17553 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17553

Dear Zeus and Alden!

I may as well get it over with.
After our brilliant corroberation regarding your Beta-Decay Post; I
must disagree with you on this point.

The universe is not accelerating, but appears to do so for certain
cosmological redshift intervals.
This is a clear prediction of QR.
If Perlmutter's model is correct (his data IS supported by QR, but
not his and Brian Schmidt's (of the Australian 'High-Z'-team collaboration) conclusions about what this means, then QR is wrong.

Perlmutter's and Schmidt's data beautifully correlate with the Webb
data of 1998 (Mauna Kea, Hawaii, Keck 10m, observing quasar spectra
of hydrogen absorption, showing a dip in Alpha to 80 parts per
million).

Now the Alpha-Dip is measured between cosmological redshifts of
about 1.0 and 1.6.
QR predicts this to be 1.08 to 1.84.

The supernova Ia data now indicates, that the universe was
decelerating for the highest supernova redshifts (i.e. SN1998eq has
z=1.1 and SN1997ff with z=1.7 (Riess, 2001, Hubble-Space-Telescope)
as the lowesty bound and hitherto highest one detected).

So already, the predictions of QR are borne out for redshifts
exceeding the Alpha-Dip onset.

Why can QR predict this?
Because the Hubble-Oscillation engages the Spherical Standing Wave
or SSW of c-invariance in 11D to bounce back and forth between the
two nodes of the 10D-asymptotically decelerating event horizon and
the quantum big bang 'singularity'.

Now this defines two equivalent observers, one at the expanding
wavefront and the other at the Big Bang Node.
The Big Bang Node always looks back in time towards the Big Bang as
the event horizon and the Event Horizon always looks back to the
origin of the Quantum big Bang.
This is cosmological QR.

The cosmological redshift interval 1.08-1.84 defines the 'Alpha-
Variation' centred on a varaiation ,maximum, defined as the Arp-
Redshift-Limit.
It also defines the 'Peak of Galaxyformation' at z=1.19, 3.98
billion years after the timeinstanton and supported by the
scientific data.

Because the universe expands presently at 0.22c, this Arpian limit
is z(Arp)=0.2505.
The Arpian limit changes with the Hubble-Constant, defined by the
coordinates of the Hubble-Oscillation of the SSW.
So for a nodal fixed Hubble-Constant of 58.04 (Sandage Hubble-
Constant); the presently 'measured' Hubble-Constant calculates as
66.9 for an inferred age of the universe of 14.7 billion years.
Because a Hubble-Constant of about 72 is used, this age is
publisised as 13.7 billion years.

Now the Arpian variation is mapped by the nodes, which act like
spacetime mirrors relative to the two Big Bang observers.

The interval 1.082-1.843 (describing a 2.23 billion year interval)
is imaged in the interval 0.343-0.291 and indicates that any
measured cosmological redshift beyond 0.291 can be considered
to occur in 'Hubble-Flow', not requiring a 'redshift-correction'.

The 'boundary' z=(0.343-1.082) is imaged in 'boundary'
zArp=(0.2505-1.082) in the NODAL MIRROR of z=0.291-1.843) and the
BOUNDARY MIRROR of z=(zArp=0.2505-1.082) images the nodal z=(0.291-
1.843) in the nodal z=(0.1097-1.843).

This explains why the cosmic deceleration model begins to 'curve
away' from the predicted slowing down, say in the Chilean Cala-
Tololo data at about z=0.12.
Then this data shows a 'redshift 'gap' until z=0.3, after which the
High'Z data shows the 'cosmic acceleration'.

But QR has predicted z=0.291 to be the Alpha-Variation-Limit and the
High-Z data and the Cala-Tololo data support the above redshift
analysis for the intersecting spacetimes.

Latest analysis by Riess and co. have proposed an 'onset' for the
acceleration about a redshift of about 0.4, which then ends at about
z=1, but appears to continue for the present.

If we introduce out two Big Bang Observers, then the situation
becomes clear.
QR predicts an asymptotic deceleration for the universe from
Einstein's Field equations after demetrication.
QR also predicts the dimensional intersection, which maps
the 'electromagnetic return' of the SSW towards the Big Bang
Singularity observer as a blueshift superimposed onto the redshift
of the asymptotic deceleration.
The event horizon observer 'rides' the expanding wavefront at 0.22c
and is itself redshifted at the Arp-Limit relative to the Big Bang
observer.

So just as in Special Relativity, certain transformations must be
applied to take account of the interfering measurements of the two
observers moving relative to one another.
This QR has termed Redshift-Correction-Correlation, applicable for
the stated intervals.

To summarize, the Perlmutter-Schmidt and related data all are
supported and predicted by QR; but the conclusion as to an
accelerating cosmos is clearly refuted.

I may ask and mention many attempts by would-be-TOE'ers, including you Zeus
here; who have adjusted their models to accommodate an accelerating
cosmos to take stock.
QR is INCOMPATIBLE with an accelerating cosmology. It destroys the
classical Greek geometry upon whom it is based in extension to the
Quantum.
The absolute Machian frame and the 'Relativity of Inertia', upon
whom Einstein based his belief in a geometric nature of the
universe, cannot exist in a cosmology not ruled by c-invariance as
the 'ether-medium' for the SSW's.
So the oscillating universe encompasses the asymptotically
decelerating one in DEFINING the asymptotic limit.
Then a higher dimensional extension is possible as macrouniversal
quantum states of universes multiplying.
Always however must the protouniverse be a subset of the multiverse.
An accelerating universe would be unbounded and QR and the geometric
dream of an ordered cosmos shared by Einstein with me, would
collapse.

When I see the proposal for a TOE; I look for equations and the
principles. As soon as I see the acceptance of the accelerating
universe, I know, that it is not compatible with QR.
This is the case just for the previous post on this site, discussing
a 'Gyroscopic Cosmology'.

I hope I have not dampened any spirits of euphoria.
The Eureka of Archimedes is in exclamation still.

Tony B.

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony B.
>
> Wait.
>
> Stop and think.

Your QR and Perlmutter can BOTH be right because if Einstein's
Principle of Equivalence is true for gravity then it is also true for
gravity's equal and opposite force (if it exists), Einstein's
cosmological constant factor.

So if we can not distinguish earth's gravity from an accelerating
contraction, then we also can't distinguish Einstein's original
cosmological constant repelling force from an accelerating expansion.

Since your QR math will indeed work in such an expanding universe
then it must also work in a steady-state universe with force (instead
of expansion) won't it?

Acording to Einstein's Principle of Equivalence, it most certainly
will - or am i missing something?


z

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17570

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony B. stated:
>
> <<<<When I see the proposal for a TOE; I look for equations and
the
> principles. As soon as I see the acceptance of the accelerating
> universe, I know, that it is not compatible with QR.
> This is the case just for the previous post on this site,
discussing
> a 'Gyroscopic Cosmology'.>>>>

Dear Zeus!

I am much obliged to you for your help and pleased that you agree on
the Fred Hoyle aspect.
Btw, what do you mean I've sold you on QR?
I cannot make out if thuis is a positive or negative comment.

Allow me to address your comments in interleaving below.
I shall digress a bit to share the bigger picture with you and the
readers.

> Tony, please stop and think now about what the Newton-Einstein
> Principle of Equivalence is all about.

I am in absolute concordonce with the Equivalence Principle.
QR's 3rd principle of modular duality is built on the relativity
principles of c-invariance and inertia-gravity equivalence.
It works because it then applies the 'Relativity of Inertia' as
Mach's Principle.

>
> Both Newton and Einstein saw that you cannot discern such a force
as
> gravity from acceleration.

Correct; but more acceleration implies more gravity.
So a decelerating universe 'weakens' gravitationally to reach a
Steady State in Flatness.
An accelerating universe would simply disperse and the heat-death
for the universe would be unavoidable.
Too many people do not realise, that an accelerating universe cannot
be eternal, but must die.
It is like a runaway nuclear chain-reaction really; like a star
burning its nuclear fuel too fast, because of too much mass; then
palpitates in death-pangs before blowing up.

So yes, I agree, the equivalence principle is valid in GR as the
SUBFRAME of QR and engages in all sorts of acceleration scenarios.

But QR is Machian and not local like QR.
There is only one caveat in the de Broglie Phasespeeds.

There is where the superluminal or tachyonic speeds are indeed
possible, limited only by the 'speed of thought'.
The metaphysics is there in potential; yet it must be encompassed by
an umbrella, the comprehensive principle of QR.

I know where you are coming from Zeus; with the eternal neutron sea
and that; but converge on the prototype as you have done so
magnificently in the beta-decay you can be very proud of.
And it works beautifully, the predictions all having and being
confirmed by experiment and observation.

This is our problem here, you can see the elegance of the QR
formulations; they are Machian referenced and therefore applicable
to the universe as a quantum universe; but you cannot see the
irrevokable conclusions of the boundary parameters, which are then
applied to produce that selfsame elegance in selfconsistency.

Now a quantum is what? A quantised or holographic UNITY.
This UNITY must BY NECESSITY BE BOUNDED.
You can have an Universe accelerating as a subset of an encompassing
Universe, which is indeed the case, whenever anything accelerates
relative to something else.

But those universes are potential holographic universes, relating to
the multiverse idea.
So you can have nestings within nestings; hydrogen atoms within
molecules within cells within stars within galaxies within
superclusters within Quantum Universes within the OMNIVERSE.

Why do I stop at the OMNIVERSE?

Because you cannot have infinite regression physically; this is the
conflict between the GR singularity and Quantum Mechanics again.

The ProtoUniverse is the one described by your Beta-Decay; but the
only neutrons existing before the protouniverse are YLEMIC
DINEUTRONIC BLUEPRINTS, waiting to become ENERGISED IN HIGGS-
RESTMASSINDUCTION. Those are the inflow-outflow vortices or
wavecentres.
The protouniverse DEFINES ITS OWN AGENDA, ITS OWN COSMOGENESIS out
of the superbrane definitions of the QR algorithms.
The Protouniverse is CONSCIOUS, IT KNOWS what it does, because it is
SELFPROGRAMMING ITSELF; this selfprogramming defining the
consciousness.
This Selfprogramming also has precise parameters, as to how this
EXPANSION/CONTRACTION must proceed to satisfy the initial and the
boundary conditions.

This is not the equivalence principle here, applied to the Quantum
of the Protouniverse; destined to phaseshift as a potential infinite
number or family of MULTIVERSES; yet encompassed in the OMNIVERSE.

You can visualise this in 3D.
Take a rugby-football as a prolate ellipsoid and rotate it about its
major or long axis. This of course is just a deformed sphere for
your SSW's to bounce around in.

The two focal points (defining the ellipse-cross-section), DO NOT
move under such a rotational transformation of coordinates.

THIS IS THE PROTOUNIVERSE, which MUST BE FIXED in some boundary
conditions, otherwise it could not be defined as a prolate ellipsoid.

Now rotate the protouniverse about either of the minor or short
axies and you will have the two focal points merge in forming a
point circle. This pointycircle is defined in angular displacement,
which specify the PHASESHIFTS for the protouniverse.
Any two or more phaseshifts (or rotational transformations) together
build a MULTIVERSE.
ALL POSSIBLE PHASESHIFTS anytime anyplace etc. form the OMNIVERSE as
the FAMILY OF FAMILIES OF UNIVERSES, individualised fromthe
PROTOVERSE, the latter the only one INVARIANT in its own major axois
rotation.

Zeus, the above shows you the DREAM of CREATION; because you as an
individual are the generator of the protouniverse as yourself; as
the GrandPa of your cosmogenetic inheritances etc.
Can you see the masterplan now?

The protouniverse must be established to GIVE ITSELF as the
ARCHETYPE of consciousness.

It must be defined in a selfconsistent manner mathematically and
physically to ALLOW further generations of ITSELF to become
born/generated FROM ITSELF - IT IS THE COSMIC WOMB.

Any potential Creator then is a potential FATHER to COURT the
MOTHER. The cosmogenesis becomes the human drama.

So lets assume the mysteries of the Womb have become sufficiently
deciphered to allow the MOTHER to BE.

Let us presume that there are some Zeuses in embodied and mental
presence to COURT the MOTHER, playing the FATHER as the BELOVEDS.

Now this is the mythology of the Greek Gods say, superposed on the
human dramas again.
Just ask yourself; why do I call myself Zeus?
I just gave you the answer to that.
You are well qualified mentally to play the part oif the FATHER.

But what is the destiny of the FATHER? - To graduate as a
GRANDFATHER.

Now superpose the Omniverse as the GRANDPARENT onto the MULTIVERSE
as the Parent and the PROTOUNIVERSE as the Child.
This is the masterplane of and for all times - Supercosmic FAMILY.

SoI have digressed a bit; but if we would see 'eye to eye' you are
required to know of this plan, the motivations behind it all.

Now I know, that any FORM or Gestalt DEFINABLE must be a subset of
the Universe. Thus a little ant must holographically contain the
entire universe.
The buddhists know this, so do many indigenous peoples.

Then there must be an antconsciousness pervading the entire universe
say.
The ant is small in form relative to you, yet, just like any
electron or proton, it spans all scales AS THE UNIVERSE defined in
say a cosmic wavefunction.

You see and it is here that the scalerelative cosmos with your
accelerations can come to the fore.
Away from apparent size and time; thought and perception and
selfrelativity MUST RULE.
What is the boundary - THE OMNIVERSE or GODDOG or HESHE or ITSELF.

So we could see eye to eye, if we could resonate on the level of the
archetype and the dream.

Now QR extends the indicated scenario above in the following manner.

Every 16.9 billion years the Steady State is attained in the SSW of
c-invariance merging with the nodal mirror on either the odd or
even node.
This is in M-Space, one dimension higher than the C-Space of the
massparametric expansion, which MUST ASYMPTOTICALLY DECELERATE to
allow the ORIGINAL BETA-DECAY to proceed as it has done.

So the odd nodes are the Steady State for the Expansion State.
The extension is the simple application of holography.
Allow the odd nodal mirror to be semitransparent and engage the
duality of reflection and transmission.

Then the Steady State bounces the Hubble-Oscillation as required
AND the Steady State CREATES NEW SPACE by using the archetypical
definitions of space to TRANSMIT the INFORMATION into F-Space.

F-Space is the FATHER-Space in 12D, allowing the graduate sons to
become FATHERS OF CREATION WITH THEIR BELOVEDS AS THE MOTHER-
CREATIONS and allow the OMNIVERSE TO TAKE SHAPE AND FORM AS THE
GRANDFATHERMOTHER.

Again, you have omniscience of QR blending with metaphysics,
spirituality and mythology.

For the present time then, the C-Space is measured at 14.7/13.7
billion years; the M-Space as the Witten-Mirror is at 16.9 billion
years and the Father-Space is at 19.11 billion years.

Because the F-Space is mirrored in the M-Space it is also in the C-
Space; causing the 'ACCELERATION' of the C-Space as the image of the
F-Space, if expressed in F-Space parameters.

Tony B.


> Neither can you discern gravity's equal and opposite force from an
> acceleration either.
>
> So gravity now - with such a repelling force - loses its monopole
> status and becomes a dipole force just like charge and magnetism.
>
> Once you agree that QR works in a Fred Hoyle type steady state
> universe then you also agree that it will work in an accelerating,
> expanding type universe because in both Einstein's and Newton's
> concept of equivalency BOTH are EQUIVALENT.
>
> You simply cannot discern the difference.
>
> All that repelling FORCE out there is equivalent to an
accelerating
> expansion.
>
> Your math will recognise it either as a FORCE or an accelerating
> expansion.
>
> In fact in the tensor math of general relativity there is no force
is
> there?
>
> It's just more space.
>
> OR what?
>
> An accelerated expansion of space isn't it?
>
> You cannot discern gravity from an accelerating contraction and
you
> cannot discern the force holding all the stars & galaxies apart
from
> an accelerating expansion.
>
> BUT
>
> One more caveat - that I discovered - about this principle of
> equivalency.
>
> I'll go into that later providing we see eye to eye on this
> acceleration bit.
>
> Therefore: acceleration IS compatible with QR, Tony imo.
>
> I'm going to change my website and put you in with the important
> scientists there. I'll push your QR too because I think you are on
to
> something extremely important while the universities are still
fast
> asleep.
>
>
> z
>
>

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17572

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

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Royce" <tag123@u...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Tony, Alden, and Robert, I have read your new posts.
>
> Tony said, "But in all of your ponderings and trains of thought
you
> must go even
> deeper to the principles underpinning the cosmologies on all scales
> and levels. It is not sufficient to eliminate the Coulomb Charge,
> but then to
> continue to use electricity and magnetism in your models without
> giving a rigorous definition of what that 'flow of electricity'
then
> is."
>
> Royce says:
> You are right, to leave it hanging is not helpful to people.
> What is the electron. Well, what do we know about the electron?
We
> know it has mass. All other things that we truly know about, that
> have mass, also have height, width, and depth to them. So it is
only
> logical to assume the electron must also have height, width, and
> depth. If we say the electron does not have height, width, and
depth

Dear Royce!

Who says that?
The sized electron is one of the most prevalent and important
parameters in Quantum Relativity.
It's size is called the Classical Electronic Radius of 2.8x10^15
femtometres.
As such it could be considered to occupy a space of that radius as
a 'spherical electron'.
Furthermore this size is of fundamental importance as being
proportional to the Compton Radius in the factor of
Alpha=Interaction Probability between matter and light (~1/137).

Additionally, EXACTLY 10 billion wormhole-perimeters fit into one
such ElectronRadius as quantisations of the Planck-Scale.

Where are the mass, size or electromagnetic properties (such as the
Bohr magneton) NOT specified in physics?
Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics utilise my
descriptions above every day in the laboratories.

Are we all wrong and you are right?

This might be so, but prove or at least show it mathematically with
equations, concepts and principles.
Just writing essays about your great discoveries and insights will
not suffice for you to contribute to the enhancement and progress of
science.

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17573

Dear Zeus!

The below is from your site; I'll interleave.


Einstein's Principle of Equivalence is telling you that if this cosmological constant force is really out there then you will not be able to distinguish it from an accelerating expansion.

Tony

The Lambda is not constant, but varies over time. So given the redshift, QR can calculate the magnitude of the lambda (quintessence).

It is presently -9.492x10^-11 m/s^2 (adding to Omega and not antigravitational).

The maximum is found at 'the peak of the galaxy formation' at redshift z=1.19 for lambda=-3.22x10^-10 m/s^2.

At timeinstantenuity it was magnaminously antigravitational in its precise boundary formulation GoMo/Lps^2=2.015x10^85 m/s^2.

This Lambda so has nothing to do with the Perlmutter/Schmidt data; as it is inbuilt into Einstein's Field Equations AS an acceleration/deceleration of space- see(*).

(*) This is not an accelerating, expanding universe.

Precisely, BECAUSE the above (*) completely determines the cosmic evolution for that universe {as a function of dimensionless cycle-time n}, in the acceleration/deceleration scenario with lambda the difference between the gravitationally attracting Omega and the Milgrom demetricated deceleration (-2cHo/(n+1)^3).
Only until redshift 2.15 (1.8 billion years after the Big Bang), was there an antigravitational lambda counteracting the gravitational pull of the omega, determined from the deceleration parameter.

Perlmutter has proven this because he has proven it's a force (cosmological constant) that we improperly discern as an accelerating expansion.

This doesn't make sense; Perlmutter's data correctly determines a deviation of the supernove redshifts for certain z-intervals.
This data clearly shows that the universe WAS DECELERATING for all redshifts greater than about 1.0.
Should your premise of the equivalence principle apply, then gravity was diminishing for redshifts exceeding 1, but then it increased again say from redshift 0.4 downwards.
This is a variable gravity-scenario, stop-start-stop accelerating-decelerating.

Zeus I understand your premise for the accelerated expansion being identical to the accelerating contraction; this is modular duality of the superbranes in a sense.

But this is not applicable here; Perlmutter's data is decisive in showing that the LIGHT-PARAMETERS are doing something which is not uniform, either accelerating or decelerating from the previously supposed Friedmann scenario derived from the Einstein Field Equations of GR>

But look what I said; the LIGHT PARAMETERS.

All we have done is measure the behaviour of light in certain cosmological redshift intervals.

The invariance of c demands that this change from uniform and predicted DECELERATION must be related to the distance scales via the LIGHTPATH travelled by the measured and redshifted LIGHT.

So you cannot invoke the equivalence principle to that, as light cannot be accelerated or slowed down.

But as in my other explicatory post; the dimensional intersection would produce the apparent acceleration because of the reflection/transmission properties of the LIGHTPATH.

Tony B.


Read the Perlmutter sources, say Kirshner and you'll find that many first hand researchers expressed sentiments like: (regarding cosmic acceleration).

'In your heart you know it's wrong!' [Robert Kirshner,High Z-Team](Sky&Telescope, Ann Finkbeiner, September 1998, p.45).

There must be then be found an alternative explanation.

Well, I have given you the alternative explanation in QR.

Love from the DragonHeart!

As a mathematical physicist, I also study ancient scrolls and the signature can be evaluated on a number of levels; from childishly naive to profoundly esoteric---Tony Whynot, Unicorn of SophiaGnosis !

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17588

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> I too will interleave.
>
> Tony B. states:
>
> >>>>An accelerating universe would simply disperse and the heat-
death
> for the universe would be unavoidable.
> Too many people do not realise, that an accelerating universe
cannot
> be eternal, but must die.>>>>
>
> Absolutely correct. I see the same thing. BUT I am saying what the
> mob is seeing as acceleratiom and expansion is a total illusion.

Dear Zeus!
Agreement on the acceleration (for redshifts less than 2.15); but
the expansion is a decelerating expansion. If you study the data you
will even find confirmation for the QR prediction as to the speed at
about 22% of c.

>
> I'm certain that if Einstein knew that Perlmutter would later
> discover this acceleration then Einstein would have realized that
> expansion together with aceleration is the same as a steady state
> universe. Remember Einstein repetedly told LeMaitre that he was
wrong
> and only after years of hounding by leMaitre did einstein change
his
> cosmological opinion.

Zeus, your scientific intuition is on the mark, but your
interpretation is not.
The cancellation of the curvatures is the Euclidean flatness
observed.
The decelerating and expanding universe is hyperbolically or
negatively curved.
The encompassingh electromagnetic universe is ellipsoidal or
positively curved.
Adding the two together GIVES THE STEADY STATE of zero curvature.
This is the Friedmann-Model in triplicate as One.

Ok, your infinite universe exists, BUT as the inner conifoldment of
the higher dimensions congruent with the Riemann hypersphere.
This means that the potential for further space creation exists and
is implemented AS THE RERSONANCE of the universe (your other post).
This RESONANCE is the HUBBLE-FREQUENCY of 16.9 billion years,
directly mapped so that the defining supermembrane can macroquantise
AS the Hubble-Radius.
It is not the modular dual here, but a phaseshift to allow the
linerisations of the superbrane-parameters.

The modular dual defines the 'Sphere of least scatter' however, the
point in the cosmic history, when the universe changed from
opaqueness to transparency.
The temperature was 2935 K then as the microwave background.
This is described in QR as the Universe evolving as a Black Body
Radiator a la Max Planck.

Should you be able to turn your visual perceptions inside out, then
you find the QR model.
The universe wasn't steady state and banged.
The universe was NullState and banged to manifest the modular
duality, out of which GR and SR and Quantum Physics could emerge.
The Quantum Big Bang is the simple linearisation of NOSPACE creating
the space to SPACE ITSELF.
Mass becomes superlow frequency ANTILIGHT, like DARK LIGHT
(poetically speaking), yet able to REFLECT and transmit information
to the overall dynamics.
TIME is born from minimum/maximum conditions set algorithmically.
Einstein's TauTime preceedes any SPACE; but they merge at the
instanton to form the 4D-Minkowski-Einstein spacetime metric.
GR is born and quantum mechanics as the remnant to the prespace
scenario and its nonlocal parameters.

So Zeus, if you could collapse your infinite preexisting space into
the modular mirror of the superbranes, then you have your vision as
the potential eternal expansion and growing of the protouniverse.
This is the QR prediction.
The Hubble Radius is the Steady State boundary; it has already been
exceeded by 2.2 billion lightyears; hence the age of the universe
discrepancies.
So Fred Hoyle's new space is being created right now in tandem with
the baryonic mass-seed all defined in the prequantum epoch of the
superbranes, which specify the scales for the spacetimequanta as
holographic cosmically universal building blocks.
The latter also set the frequency scales for the particle/wavelet
templates in the overall cosmogenesis.
>



>
> I'm certain Einstein's FIRST Machian concept was the correct one
and
> not the LATTER non Machian expansion concept of leMaitre's.
>
> Yes, it does oscillate as Fred hoyle showed half a century ago but
it
> nevertheless must be considered steady state, God bless Fred Hoyle.
>
> We have, imo, more or less a steady state universe here that
because
> of the principle of equivalence LOOKS LIKE an accelerating,
expanding
> universe.
>
> I agree with you. there is no REAL acceleration.


Yes but there is a REAL expansion; which in terms of light
measurements can appear as a contraction (of the Steady State).
Now if something contracts towards you, it would seem to accelerate
(Doppler effect) and you have the blueshifting of 11D relative to
the redshifting of the 10D.

> ===============
>
>
> TB >>>> But QR is Machian and not local like QR.>>>>
>
> I believe you meant " But QR is Machian and not local like GR.>>>>
>
> If you did then YES, I understand this.

My mistake, of course it should be GR.
> ===============
>
>
> TB >>>>There is where the superluminal or tachyonic speeds are
indeed
> > possible,>>>>
>
> Yes, the limit c pertains ONLY to our spacetime realm.
> ===============
>
> TB >>>>> This is our problem here, you can see the elegance of the
QR
> > formulations; they are Machian referenced and therefore
applicable
> > to the universe as a quantum universe; but you cannot see the
> > irrevokable conclusions of the boundary parameters,>>>>
>
> That is NOT our problem here. Both you and I and Milo Wolff
> understand that this present science is flawed because it only
gives
> the Berkeley-Mach concept lip service.
>
> Present science does not really BELIEVE it needs to be restrained
by
> any Machian principles bacause taking the surroundings into
> consideration would make the math too difficult.
>
> I DO understand the boundary parameters, so does Milo.

This is true. But the complicated maths is de Broglie phases
superposed upon the de Broglie group phases.
Present establishment science is quite comfortable with the group
speeds as the encompassing frame of reference.
It is all waves, as Milo would say.
The distinctions will be the subtimespaces, which must engage the
Holographic Principle and the mapping of environmental information
from the inside mirror to the outside mirror.

Recent developments in teleportation of quantum states, parallel
computing and nanotechnology will all have to play part.
You need the scalar component of electromagnetic waves activated.
You need the Poynting Vector of intersecting magnetic fields.
You need the appropriate 'nudging' of the vacuum energy.

There is a big flaw in the perception of the vacuum in regards to
antimatter; antimatter only exists as product of pair-production and
not as cosmic constituent.
There were no equal proportions of neutrons and antineutrons at the
Big Bang instanton.
There wern't even equal numbers of protons and neutrons, there were
only dineutron-blueprints, but I think you got this one right
already.

So the entire edifice of Hawking Radiation must be reevaluated.


>
> His two formulas are based on a massive but finite number of
> electrons in the surroundings of any one single electron
determining
> that electron.

I don't disagree, because the electronic environment must be
determined by the spacetimequanta, which are all quantised in terms
of the ElectronRadius and subsequently the Compton Radius.

This then would map the electron charge as Coulomb charge from the
magnetopolic electricity from the mirrorspace to physically DEFINE
the electron as being wavecentred via Heisenberg's Uncertainty
principle and the Electron's wavefunction.

>
> Yes, there is a massive but finite amount of mass in our
surroundings
> that directly affects us - Mach's principle.
>
> What we may have though is a frequency spectrum that is infinite.

No, the frequency spectrum is defined in its boundary for any epoch.
Increasing the energy content would of course increase those
boundaries.
But conservation of energy and momentum requires this RERSONANCE you
wrote about in another post.
This allows for example a RECHARGING every 7.53 trillion years,
preventing any heat-death and yet preserves the conservation laws.


> =======================
>
> TB>>>> So you can have nestings within nestings;>>>>
>
> Yes, I have expressed this "linke piano keys, each being tuned to
its
> own separate frequency."
>
> They are linked via harmonics but far enough apart in spin/orbit
> frequency not to destroy each other.
>
> BUT
>
> unlike quantum theory, I allow the concept of motion to appear in
> each spin/orbit frequency system so that OUR minds can get what
Dirac
> predicted we would get, an "approximation of it all"
>
> This way motion becomes the common factor to unify all four
> fundamental forces and it works beautifully giving you a good
> approximation of what is really going on.
>
> Motion, space and time though MUST all remain in one single
spacetime
> realm and cannot be transferred out. Only the evidence of such may
be
> transferred out.(Wheeler and Feynman saw this.)

Yes, but you jump the gun a bit here.
These are the de Broglie scales for the phases; you still have the
envelope of c-invariance.

But all those dynamical processes are stochastic; QR clearly
predicts the statistical distributions of the phenomena.
>
> Each spin/orbit frequency will have its own separate motion, space
> and time. So to see the big picture you must move your mind into
each
> of these, one at a time.

Yes, but you are far ahead of any experiment here.
One must create the wormhole first, then all your visualisations
will become realisable with appropriate technology based on QR.

>
> I've found a few universal laws, besides Ampere's laws, for this
type
> of universe.
>
> I'm convinced all our science here is merely a collection of
subset
> rules for the symmetry aspect of our spacetime realm here.
> ==================
>
> TB>>>>ALL POSSIBLE PHASESHIFTS anytime anyplace etc. form the
> OMNIVERSE as the FAMILY OF FAMILIES OF UNIVERSES,>>>>
>
> Yes, this IS the most important element.
>
> I only saw the importance of Ampere's laws and motion at first.
>
> But then I saw how Ampere's laws gave an approximation of this
> impedance matching where the in phase vector resonances produced
no
> space (attractive force) and the out of phase vector impedance
> matches produced space or repulsive force (similar to GR).
>
> Time, particles, spins, orbits, (orbitals, eigenstates)
precessions
> are all the scalar standing wave entities of Milo Wolff.
>
> Believe it or not we both end up with the same universe but this
is
> merely looking at it a different way.
>
>
> z seconded Tony B.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Bermanseder"
> <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
> > <zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tony B. stated:
> > >
> > > <<<<When I see the proposal for a TOE; I look for equations
and
> > the
> > > principles. As soon as I see the acceptance of the
accelerating
> > > universe, I know, that it is not compatible with QR.
> > > This is the case just for the previous post on this site,
> > discussing
> > > a 'Gyroscopic Cosmology'.>>>>
> >
> > Dear Zeus!
> >
> > I am much obliged to you for your help and pleased that you
agree
> on
> > the Fred Hoyle aspect.
> > Btw, what do you mean I've sold you on QR?
> > I cannot make out if thuis is a positive or negative comment.
> >
> > Allow me to address your comments in interleaving below.
> > I shall digress a bit to share the bigger picture with you and
the
> > readers.
> >
> > > Tony, please stop and think now about what the Newton-Einstein
> > > Principle of Equivalence is all about.
> >
> > I am in absolute concordonce with the Equivalence Principle.
> > QR's 3rd principle of modular duality is built on the relativity
> > principles of c-invariance and inertia-gravity equivalence.
> > It works because it then applies the 'Relativity of Inertia' as
> > Mach's Principle.
> >
> > >
> > > Both Newton and Einstein saw that you cannot discern such a
force
> > as
> > > gravity from acceleration.
> >
> > Correct; but more acceleration implies more gravity.
> > So a decelerating universe 'weakens' gravitationally to reach a
> > Steady State in Flatness.
> > An accelerating universe would simply disperse and the heat-
death
> > for the universe would be unavoidable.
> > Too many people do not realise, that an accelerating universe
> cannot
> > be eternal, but must die.
> > It is like a runaway nuclear chain-reaction really; like a star
> > burning its nuclear fuel too fast, because of too much mass;
then
> > palpitates in death-pangs before blowing up.
> >
> > So yes, I agree, the equivalence principle is valid in GR as the
> > SUBFRAME of QR and engages in all sorts of acceleration
scenarios.
> >
> > But QR is Machian and not local like QR.
> > There is only one caveat in the de Broglie Phasespeeds.
> >
> > There is where the superluminal or tachyonic speeds are indeed
> > possible, limited only by the 'speed of thought'.
> > The metaphysics is there in potential; yet it must be
encompassed
> by
> > an umbrella, the comprehensive principle of QR.
> >
> > I know where you are coming from Zeus; with the eternal neutron
sea
> > and that; but converge on the prototype as you have done so
> > magnificently in the beta-decay you can be very proud of.
> > And it works beautifully, the predictions all having and being
> > confirmed by experiment and observation.
> >
> > This is our problem here, you can see the elegance of the QR
> > formulations; they are Machian referenced and therefore
applicable
> > to the universe as a quantum universe; but you cannot see the
> > irrevokable conclusions of the boundary parameters, which are
then
> > applied to produce that selfsame elegance in selfconsistency.
> >
> > Now a quantum is what? A quantised or holographic UNITY.
> > This UNITY must BY NECESSITY BE BOUNDED.
> > You can have an Universe accelerating as a subset of an
> encompassing
> > Universe, which is indeed the case, whenever anything
accelerates
> > relative to something else.
> >
> > But those universes are potential holographic universes,
relating
> to
> > the multiverse idea.
> > So you can have nestings within nestings; hydrogen atoms within
> > molecules within cells within stars within galaxies within
> > superclusters within Quantum Universes within the OMNIVERSE.
> >
> > Why do I stop at the OMNIVERSE?
> >
> > Because you cannot have infinite regression physically; this is
the
> > conflict between the GR singularity and Quantum Mechanics again.
> >
> > The ProtoUniverse is the one described by your Beta-Decay; but
the
> > only neutrons existing before the protouniverse are YLEMIC
> > DINEUTRONIC BLUEPRINTS, waiting to become ENERGISED IN HIGGS-
> > RESTMASSINDUCTION. Those are the inflow-outflow vortices or
> > wavecentres.
> > The protouniverse DEFINES ITS OWN AGENDA, ITS OWN COSMOGENESIS
out
> > of the superbrane definitions of the QR algorithms.
> > The Protouniverse is CONSCIOUS, IT KNOWS what it does, because
it
> is
> > SELFPROGRAMMING ITSELF; this selfprogramming defining the
> > consciousness.
> > This Selfprogramming also has precise parameters, as to how this
> > EXPANSION/CONTRACTION must proceed to satisfy the initial and
the
> > boundary conditions.
> >
> > This is not the equivalence principle here, applied to the
Quantum
> > of the Protouniverse; destined to phaseshift as a potential
> infinite
> > number or family of MULTIVERSES; yet encompassed in the
OMNIVERSE.
> >
> > You can visualise this in 3D.
> > Take a rugby-football as a prolate ellipsoid and rotate it about
> its
> > major or long axis. This of course is just a deformed sphere for
> > your SSW's to bounce around in.
> >
> > The two focal points (defining the ellipse-cross-section), DO
NOT
> > move under such a rotational transformation of coordinates.
> >
> > THIS IS THE PROTOUNIVERSE, which MUST BE FIXED in some boundary
> > conditions, otherwise it could not be defined as a prolate
> ellipsoid.
> >
> > Now rotate the protouniverse about either of the minor or short
> > axies and you will have the two focal points merge in forming a
> > point circle. This pointycircle is defined in angular
displacement,
> > which specify the PHASESHIFTS for the protouniverse.
> > Any two or more phaseshifts (or rotational transformations)
> together
> > build a MULTIVERSE.
> > ALL POSSIBLE PHASESHIFTS anytime anyplace etc. form the
OMNIVERSE
> as
> > the FAMILY OF FAMILIES OF UNIVERSES, individualised fromthe
> > PROTOVERSE, the latter the only one INVARIANT in its own major
> axois
> > rotation.
> >
> > Zeus, the above shows you the DREAM of CREATION; because you as
an
> > individual are the generator of the protouniverse as yourself;
as
> > the GrandPa of your cosmogenetic inheritances etc.
> > Can you see the masterplan now?
> >
> > The protouniverse must be established to GIVE ITSELF as the
> > ARCHETYPE of consciousness.
> >
> > It must be defined in a selfconsistent manner mathematically and
> > physically to ALLOW further generations of ITSELF to become
> > born/generated FROM ITSELF - IT IS THE COSMIC WOMB.
> >
> > Any potential Creator then is a potential FATHER to COURT the
> > MOTHER. The cosmogenesis becomes the human drama.
> >
> > So lets assume the mysteries of the Womb have become
sufficiently
> > deciphered to allow the MOTHER to BE.
> >
> > Let us presume that there are some Zeuses in embodied and mental
> > presence to COURT the MOTHER, playing the FATHER as the BELOVEDS.
> >
> > Now this is the mythology of the Greek Gods say, superposed on
the
> > human dramas again.
> > Just ask yourself; why do I call myself Zeus?
> > I just gave you the answer to that.
> > You are well qualified mentally to play the part oif the FATHER.
> >
> > But what is the destiny of the FATHER? - To graduate as a
> > GRANDFATHER.
> >
> > Now superpose the Omniverse as the GRANDPARENT onto the
MULTIVERSE
> > as the Parent and the PROTOUNIVERSE as the Child.
> > This is the masterplane of and for all times - Supercosmic
FAMILY.
> >
> > SoI have digressed a bit; but if we would see 'eye to eye' you
are
> > required to know of this plan, the motivations behind it all.
> >
> > Now I know, that any FORM or Gestalt DEFINABLE must be a subset
of
> > the Universe. Thus a little ant must holographically contain the
> > entire universe.
> > The buddhists know this, so do many indigenous peoples.
> >
> > Then there must be an antconsciousness pervading the entire
> universe
> > say.
> > The ant is small in form relative to you, yet, just like any
> > electron or proton, it spans all scales AS THE UNIVERSE defined
in
> > say a cosmic wavefunction.
> >
> > You see and it is here that the scalerelative cosmos with your
> > accelerations can come to the fore.
> > Away from apparent size and time; thought and perception and
> > selfrelativity MUST RULE.
> > What is the boundary - THE OMNIVERSE or GODDOG or HESHE or
ITSELF.
> >
> > So we could see eye to eye, if we could resonate on the level of
> the
> > archetype and the dream.
> >
> > Now QR extends the indicated scenario above in the following
manner.
> >
> > Every 16.9 billion years the Steady State is attained in the SSW
of
> > c-invariance merging with the nodal mirror on either the odd or
> > even node.
> > This is in M-Space, one dimension higher than the C-Space of the
> > massparametric expansion, which MUST ASYMPTOTICALLY DECELERATE
to
> > allow the ORIGINAL BETA-DECAY to proceed as it has done.
> >
> > So the odd nodes are the Steady State for the Expansion State.
> > The extension is the simple application of holography.
> > Allow the odd nodal mirror to be semitransparent and engage the
> > duality of reflection and transmission.
> >
> > Then the Steady State bounces the Hubble-Oscillation as required
> > AND the Steady State CREATES NEW SPACE by using the archetypical
> > definitions of space to TRANSMIT the INFORMATION into F-Space.
> >
> > F-Space is the FATHER-Space in 12D, allowing the graduate sons
to
> > become FATHERS OF CREATION WITH THEIR BELOVEDS AS THE MOTHER-
> > CREATIONS and allow the OMNIVERSE TO TAKE SHAPE AND FORM AS THE
> > GRANDFATHERMOTHER.
> >
> > Again, you have omniscience of QR blending with metaphysics,
> > spirituality and mythology.
> >
> > For the present time then, the C-Space is measured at 14.7/13.7
> > billion years; the M-Space as the Witten-Mirror is at 16.9
billion
> > years and the Father-Space is at 19.11 billion years.
> >
> > Because the F-Space is mirrored in the M-Space it is also in the
C-
> > Space; causing the 'ACCELERATION' of the C-Space as the image of
> the
> > F-Space, if expressed in F-Space parameters.
> >
> > Tony B.
> >
> >
> > > Neither can you discern gravity's equal and opposite force
from
> an
> > > acceleration either.
> > >
> > > So gravity now - with such a repelling force - loses its
monopole
> > > status and becomes a dipole force just like charge and
magnetism.
> > >
> > > Once you agree that QR works in a Fred Hoyle type steady state
> > > universe then you also agree that it will work in an
> accelerating,
> > > expanding type universe because in both Einstein's and
Newton's
> > > concept of equivalency BOTH are EQUIVALENT.
> > >
> > > You simply cannot discern the difference.
> > >
> > > All that repelling FORCE out there is equivalent to an
> > accelerating
> > > expansion.
> > >
> > > Your math will recognise it either as a FORCE or an
accelerating
> > > expansion.
> > >
> > > In fact in the tensor math of general relativity there is no
> force
> > is
> > > there?
> > >
> > > It's just more space.
> > >
> > > OR what?
> > >
> > > An accelerated expansion of space isn't it?
> > >
> > > You cannot discern gravity from an accelerating contraction
and
> > you
> > > cannot discern the force holding all the stars & galaxies
apart
> > from
> > > an accelerating expansion.
> > >
> > > BUT
> > >
> > > One more caveat - that I discovered - about this principle of
> > > equivalency.
> > >
> > > I'll go into that later providing we see eye to eye on this
> > > acceleration bit.
> > >
> > > Therefore: acceleration IS compatible with QR, Tony imo.
> > >
> > > I'm going to change my website and put you in with the
important
> > > scientists there. I'll push your QR too because I think you
are
> on
> > to
> > > something extremely important while the universities are still
> > fast
> > > asleep.
> > >
> > >
> > > z
> > >

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17591

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "alden_parent"
<alden_parent@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "alden_parent"
> <alden_parent@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Bermanseder"
> > <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "alden_parent"
> > > <alden_parent@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "tom rice"
> > > <th1nker@i...>
> > > > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > > >
> > Hello Tom & friends,
> >
> > Tony! This at first seems plausible but
> > I need more time to evaluate it. Tell me
> > more of X=0.618333 & how it fits in with
> > 1.618 when both are divided into "1" and
> > as someone suggested earlier how it fits
> > in with the planck lenght and "X".
> >
> > alden

Dear alden!

Should you read the post, you see the identity of identies.
XY=X+Y=-1=i^2=exp[iPi].
X is Phi and its inverse (from XY=-1) is 1+Phi, defining many many
things, but not at least the entire algorithmic basis for the
cosmogenesis.
For example the fundamental constants of physics k,c^2 and h are
generated, solving the most intractable question of unification
physics.

Where do the fundamental constants of physics come from?

Alden I'll send you the file which does this privately, as you seem
to be interested in this.

Btw. I did ask Tom where the Planck-Length link is, because QR
derives the Planck-Length from the Planck-Length-Oscillation which
then uses the Phi-symmetries to map across dimensionalities in
superbrane scenarios.

He hasn't answered, so perhaps he read one of my posts and hasn't
any new information for me.

Thanks Tony B.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely! Proof is required in any manner
> > > > attainable. However! Rather than just looking at
the
> > > > four forces as "ONE" you have to consider that the
> > > > four forces may be under the control of "ONE" for
> > > > a total of five. After all is it not the "GOLDEN"
> > > > number!? The question then is. What might the fifth
> > > > powerful source be?
> > > >
> > > > alden
> > >
> > > Dear alden!
> > >
> > > Allow me to reply to some of your comments.
> > > I feel you make a wonderful scientist, you are precise, yet
> > > discerning and you are obviously a deep thinker who can focus
on
> > the
> > > essentials - an excellent addition to any team seeking truth
and
> > > wisdom.
> > >
> > > Your scientific intuition is on the mark; the five classes of
> > > superstrings are unified via something called the Alpha--
> > > Finestructure and manifest as one of the five in the heterotic
> > > superstring HE(8x8).
> > > This becomes the decisive Weyl-Geodesic for the Weyl-Tensor
> > > nullification as the boundary of General Relativity with the
> > Quantum
> > > Scale for the superbranes, bounded in the Planck-Scale.
> > >
> > > The proof (mathematical) you are seeking can be found in an
> > > synthesis of a number of decisive parameters; all engaging the
> > > fivefolded supersymmetry of the superbrane classes linked to
> > > supersymmetry. All this is known and under intensive
> investigation
> > > by thousands of string theorists around the globe.
> > >
> > > What is not known, is that the five classes are not all AT the
> > > Planck-Scale, but are transformations of it, ending at the
Weyl-
> > > Geodesic, which MUST represent that supersbrane closest to
> physical
> > > and observed reality.
> > > This is known; HE(8x8) has long be suspectred and proposed to
do
> > > just that (but at the Planck-Scale).
> > >
> > > Certian GUTs have come very close in actually proposing this.
> > > There is the NG-Van Dam proposal, which introduces a scale of
10^-
> > 21
> > > m, say linked to the detection of gravitational waves (LIGO,
> LISA).
> > >
> > > So you can see that the status quo is tumbling about the light
> > > switch, but not knowing or understanding the principle
> underpinning
> > > F/M-Theory, they camnnot determine the initial/boundary
> conditions
> > > for the formidable equations fed into supercomputers.
> > >
> > > QR doesn't require supercomputers, because it does not pretend
to
> > > give a full description for the natural phenomena.
> > > What QR does very successfully, is to apply the quantum
cosmology
> > of
> > > the Weyl-geodesic onto the boundary conditions of the HE(8x8)
> > > superstring, which allows it to apply General Relativity to
the
> > > universe as a whole.
> > > It's predictive power for the universe as a quantum is
henceforth
> > > superlative.
> > > Of course this also allows Mach's Principle to be applied and
> many
> > > cosmological riddles solve themselves as the Machian observer
can
> > > observe the entire cosmos fromthe Bird's Eye View.
> > >
> > > To calculate the local curvature for spacetimes, the
metricated
> GR
> > > is used and this is nothing new.
> > >
> > > QR also predicts the quantum geometry of the subatomic quark-
> > leptoin
> > > structure of the Standard Model in mapping the
classicalgeometry
> of
> > > the cosmological Standard Model onto the Particle Physics One.
> > > It then uses the pentagonal symmetry to derive the mappings of
> the
> > > superbrane energies onto the quark-lepton structures voia the
> Weyl-
> > > geodesic.
> > > The five-folded supersymmetry directly transduces onto the
> scalesof
> > > the magnetic monopoles, the cosmic rays, the gamma bursters
and
> the
> > > fermions by using the underpinning symmetries of the Alpha-
> > > Finestructure mapped onto the Electron-Radius and the Compton-
> > Radius
> > > and the de Broglie matter waves.
> > >
> > > One of the proofs (my favourite) involves the eqivalence of
the
> > > magnetic selfinduction of an electron with its relativistic
mass.
> > > One finds a beautiful binomial distribution of the (v/c)
ratios
> of
> > > Special Relativity about a certain Mean, the Functional-
Riemann-
> > > Bound (FRB).
> > > A Cosmic Wavefunction B(n)=(2e/hA)exp[-Alpha.t(n)] is defined
to
> be
> > > gaussian centred at the FRB=-1/2 and PRECISELY fluctuates
about
> the
> > > MEAN defined by the pentagonal supersymmetry underpinning the
> > entire
> > > cosmology.
> > > The decisive identity is: XY=X+Y=-1=i^2=exp[iPi].
> > >
> > > It is perhaps hard to believe that the entire universe can be
> > > derived from just that identity in its mathematical
description.
> > >
> > > Your cosmological constant is 'God's Law' as you reiterated.
> > >
> > > Why, because the Einstein Lambda becomes the DIFFERENCE
between
> > what
> > > is called Omega of Gravitational attraction and the
demetricated
> > > form of the universe's deceleration.
> > > This means that this difference (it could be called
quintessence)
> is
> > > the great modifier between the force of gravity and the
expansion
> > of
> > > the 10D/4D spacetime into the 11D/5D spacetime.
> > > The harmony is always there; there is an eternaldance between
the
> > > omega and the lambda to render the demetricated deceleration
> > precise
> > > in the encompassing Hubble-Oscillation.
> > >
> > > It would be nice if I could draw pictures (I've got notalent
for
> > > that, not even diagrams), but if I could, then you would agree
> that
> > > it is a most beautiful and elegant cosmology which has now
been
> > > discovered.
> > >
> > > Anyway, here is 'God's Formula':
> > >
> > >
> > > Einstein-Lambda=Go.MoX^{n/2}/r^2(n) - 2cHo/(n+1)^3 (m/s^2
units).
> > >
> > > Go=boundary Gravitational Constant=1.111x10^-10 Nm^2/kg^2;
> > > Mo=Restmass-OmegaSeed=1.81..x10^51 kg;
> > > X=0.618033..;
> > > n=Ho.t=Einstein's dimensionless Tautime for curvature radius
> > > Rc=cdt/dTau; dn/dt=Ho= nodal Hubble Constant (58.04 km/Mpc.s)
> > > r(n)=Rmax(n/(n+1)) as the scalefactor in GR, Rmax=Rc-limit.
> > >
> > > The factor -2cHo/(n+1)^3 is the Milgrom Deceleration and the
part
> > of
> > > the MOND theory (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) applicable to QR
as
> > > the alternative for the dark matter scewnarios.
> > > Those are another topic for discussion and engage the RMP as
> > > missing 'fifth' elementary force in the UFoQR (Unified Field
of
> QR).
> > >
> > > So you were right, there is a fifth force and it introduces
> > > the 'Mind of God' in yet another of her equations.
> > > See the Mirror/Antimatter post.
> > >
> > > TonyB.

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17596

alden parent wrote:

Dear Doctor David,

I agree that Mathematics is a universal
language. But is it not more beneficial to
know many languages. Number Theory and the
Prime Number Pattern for instance may hold
many secrets as it relates to the Riemann
Hypothesis and the TOE. As I work on these
(as well as other related sciences) I often
hit dead ends only to bring them back to life
by appealing to my higher " WISDOM ". For math
& science often hold very subtle secrets that
the wisdom of man may not see. More often than
not the answer comes from an unexpected source;
another discipline of study or a fellow TOE
member. Do not shut out any discipline that can
be proven true or you may miss out. Even Andrew
Wiles or Einstein (if he were alive) would easily
tell you, deep secrets are often revealed in a
most subtle and shrewdest of ways. This is very
true especially if one appeals to the greater
"WISDOM"!

alden


Dear alden!

I would not go as far as saying that QR proves the Riemann Hypothesis using physics; but it shows the way for any competent mathemetician able to formalise the following in conjunction with the pentagonal symmetry as incorporated in the algorithmic gravity file I sent you earlier.

As you have studied the RH and the Zeta Function you would know the close association of the Gamma Function, the Error Function and the Prime Number Theorem.

Anyway you may see the connections now.

There is also the Maria Matrix, a beautiful series of numbers, which sum the sums of integers and which is related to the Mersenne Primes and the Fermat Numbers and the Perfect Numbers.

Perhaps you should join my site where I posted on this (or look through the files here to about January under Maria Numbers).

Have fun Tony B.

Elementary initial conditions for Francom Adjacency

We define the Euler-Riemann Summation, which defines the 'Mixing of the Count' in

linking Arithmetic Progression to the multiplicative Factorial Function '!'.

Define Eo=0 as the singularity (interval), then for any integer n, we find for the Harmonic Form of

Riemann's Zeta-Function (z=k=constant):

..............................................................................................z(z)=S(1/n^z)=1/1^k+1/2^k+1/3^k+1/4^k +...+1/n^k

This Sum diverges for [ 0<k<1], i.e. for k=1/2: {1+Sqrt(2)/2+Sqrt(3)/3+...+Sqrt(n)/n} increases without limit.

For k>1, we have convergence, however:

Formally, let: S1/n^p=1^-p+2^-p+3^-p+...

For even terms 2.2^-p >= 2^-p+3^-p for a geometric series 1^1-p+2^1-p+4^1-p+...+(2^n-1)^1-p

This Geometric Progression sums to: [1-(2^1-p)^n]/[1-2^1-p]=1/[1-2^1-p]

So for p=2, this limit maximises in 1/(1-1/2)=2 , and for p=3 it becomes 4/3 converging towards

1 for increasing p.

We consider the special case for p=1 applied to the Singularity Interval Eo.

Define: for a nth term (numerator):.................................................T^k(En) = n^k.T^k(En-1) + [(n-1)!]^k

...............for the nth sum per n (denominator [n!]^k):................S^k(En) = T^k(En)/(n!)^k

{Here the suffices n,n-1 etc. denote subscript}.

T^1(E1)=1/1=1.0+0!=1=S^1(E1)=1/1!=1; T^2(E2)=2.T^1(E1)+1!=2+1=3 with S^2(E2)=T^2(E2)/2!=3/2=1+1/2;

T^3(E3)=3.T^2(E2)+2!=9+2=11 with S^3(E3)=T^3(E3)/3!=11/6=1+1/2+1/3=1+5/6 and so on.

Further Example: T^1(4)=4.11+3!=50; S^1(4)=50/4!=25/12 for the nesting: 4{3(2+1!)2!}3! with [4!]^1=24.

For 4 terms, the Euler-Riemann Summation so is: S^1(4)=1+1/2+1/3+1/4=25/12=2+1/12.

For 7 terms, S^1(7)=T^1(7)/7!=(7.T^1(6)+6!)/7!=13068/5040=363.36/(140.36)=2+83/140=1+1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5+1/6+1/7.

Project the Numberline with the Positive Integers mapping the Factorial-Function and the Negative Integers

remaining invariant in Feyman Summation T(n)=n(n+1)/2 as absolute value, mirroring the positive integers.

(n)<---4...3...2...1=0![Eo]0...1!...2!...3!---> (n!); where Integer 2 maps 1! in suppression of -1=2* and in algoradius eo=1.

Similarly, Integer 3 maps 2! in suppression of -2=3* and algoradius e1=2=2eo, etc. etc.

The singularity so mixes the interval [0-0!]=[-1,0] with Functional-Riemann-Bound (FRB=-1/2) becoming 'real'

in its mapping (FRB'=1/2) in [0,1] and the central limit or pole, about which the Zero's of the Riemann-Zeta-

Function propagate.

The first annulus in the Riemann-Euler-Harmonic so phasemixes the numbers [n=2] and [n!=1] and the nth number

is mixed with (n+1) as crystallised in the Feynman-Path-Integral or T(n)=1 in n(n+1), as a summation for all pos-

sible particular histories in quantum mechanics.

This also maps the series: SEps=Fibonacci#1=0,1,1,2,3,5,8,.....for a nth Term: Tn=[]-Y^n - X^n[]/Sqrt(5), for

absolute value []...[] and obtained say via MacLaurin-Expansion of the coefficients (Experience-Factors)

in the power series:

.........................................................f(x)=1+x+2x^2+3x^3+...= STn.x^n-1

Set x.f(x) + x^2.f(x) = f(x) -1, then by (a+b)(a-b): f(x)=a/(x-X) + b/(x-Y) for a=-b=1/(Y-X) and (Y-X)=-Sqrt(5).

SuperSEps=Fibonacci#2=2,1,3,4,7,11,18,29,.... for a nth Term: STn=[]-Y^2n - X^2n[]/[]-Y^n - X^n[]=[]T2n/Tn[]

..................................................................................................for n=1,2,3,...; T(2n=0)=2 mapping T(n=0)=0.

The combined SEps-SuperSEps (T-ST)-sequence of experience factors {from the triplet propagation of

[OldState, Experience, NewState]} can then be written as:

{Tn,STn}={(So=0,STo=2=S3); (S1=1=ST1=S2); (S2,S4=3=ST2); (S3,ST3=4); (S4=ST2,ST4=7); (S5,ST5)..(Sn,STn)..}

{Tn,STn}={(0,2), (1,1), (1,3), (2,4), (3,7), (5,11),...} containing integerset: {0,1,2,3,4,5,7,8,11,13,18,21,29,....}

We now represent the mappings in matrix form denoted as F-M-C, where the 'well behaved' terms

for the mapping (from {T5,ST5}) sets algorithmic C-Space and the preceding elements the

initialisation for the former.

Note we define Cantorian Denumerability Aleph-Null in Cardinality Aleph-All in the form:

Aleph-Null: limit{n=>Infinity}[T(n)]=Infinity

Aleph-All: limit{n=>X}[T(n)]=1 and counting Infinities as mapped one-to-one onto the positive Integer set.

.......................SEps=Fibonacci#1..................maps.....................SuperSEps=Fibonacci#2

.................................................................................................................................................................................

........................0.....0.....0....................................................................................7..-11...-4.....n=-3=3i^2

........................0.....0.....0*...n=Infinity via 0+0=0*=Infinity8..................-4.....7.....3......n=-2=2i^2

FSpace......0*...0.....1.....n=Infinity via 0*+0=Infinity=1*=0*=1.......3....-4...-1......n=-1=i^2...[a+ib complex upwards]

MSpace....1......0*...1.....n=0 via (1,1,1)...............................................-1.....3.....2*....n=0

.......................1......1.....2.....n=1 via (1,1,10=2*=0/0=1*)..........................2*..-1.....1......n=0....(Reflection-Interval)

.....2.....1.....3.....n=2 well behaved.............................................1.....2*....3......n=0

CSpace.....3.....2.....5.....n=3 well behaved.............................................3.....1.......4......n=1 well behaved downwards

........................5.....3.....8.....n=4 well behaved.............................................4.....3......7......n=2

........................8.....5...13.....n=5 continue downwards..............................7....4....11......n=3

..................................................................................................................................................................................

Triplet permutation 0*<->2* is mapped as 1D (1,0*,1) for n=0,1,2 onto 2D as (1,2*,3) for n=0

The linearity of the generating triplet configurations is extended in a complexification into a 2D symmetry.

SEps propagates the Experience Factors in an adjacent displacement of 1, in moving from one configuration

state to the next - this is termed Francom Adjacency.

[0*,1,1,2,3,5,...] as OldStates transfigure in Experiences [0,0*,1,1,2,3,5,8,...] into NewStates [1,1,2,3,5,8,...].

This algorithmic configuration space is however broken in the mapping onto SuperSEps.

Here the matching 'good behaviour' of the n-count is delayed in a factor of 2 in a 'reflection interval'.

Algorithmic modelling for this Francom Adjacency must generate the mapping of SEps onto SuperSEps in

an geometry of the pentagonal symmetries intrisic to the two series.

Hence a synthesis between linear propagation about an internal spiralling form is necessitated.

A longrange rotational- and a longrange translational order for the Experience-Factors is indicated in

the geometry of say Penrosian Tiling Patterns and the Schechtmanite Quasicrystals of empirical

form (Mg(32)[Al,Zn](49)).

The general form, (physically akin to the p _________________________________________________________________ Searching for that dream home? Try http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au for all your property needs.

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17607

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, Jelke Wispelwey
<wispj@s...> wrote:
> This is probably a very stupid question but so far I haven't been
able to get an answer.
> But you guys have all the answers:-), so here goes:
>
> It is said that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
This rate is determined by measuring the red-shift. However, the
farther away the star(galaxy) the earlier in time it is. Doesn't
this mean that they were receding faster in the past and thus slower
now? I.o.w, that the expansion is decelerating?
>
> I am new to this list so please don't hit me too hard!!
>
> Jelke.

Dear Jelke!

Welcome to this discussion group.
Your observation is fully on the mark with my understanding.
The observations all agree with you too up to a redsahift of about
1.0.
The disagreements begin with lower redshifts.
If the data is correct, then it 'appears'that the universe
decelerated from very large redshifts at the Big Bang to about 0.5
and thereabaouts begun to speed up.
This is ascribed to dark energy or the cosmological constant or the
quintessence.

If you read my posts, then you see, that the quintessence is a
variable acceleration/deceleration inbuilt into the equations for
the cosmos.

This predicts a predictable cosmic evolution from redshgift 2.15,
where the quintessence (Einstein Lambda) enhances gravity.

Soi the supernova 1a data from Perlmutter and Schmidt indicates
something else, namely the superposition of a 'two-way-traffic'
between the oscillating universe and the asymptotically decelerating
one.

I concur with Zeus, welcome to the club! Tony
B.

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17610

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "cosmology05"
<cosmology05@y...> wrote:
>
> Jelke,
>
> Hi! I'm new around here. But, to address the Question:
>
> *Closer* Type IA supernovae are moving faster than those farther
away
> (the ones farther away are really those back in time because it
has
> taken move time for the light to reach us compared to nearer Type
1A
> supernovae). Thus, if those that are closer are moving faster,
versus
> older ones (closer in time to the big bang) that are farther away
> from us, acceleration must be increasing.
>
> Or, see:
>
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3077857/
>
> ....
> "To their surprise, the redshift readings indicated that the
> expansion rate for distant supernovae was lower than the expansion
> rate for closer supernovae, Perlmutter said. On the largest scale
> imaginable, the universe's galaxies appear to be flying away from
> each other faster and faster as time goes on."....
>
> But then there's the new notion, posted earlier, but more
definitely
> addressed at, if you are interested:
>
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/indf-iuc031605.php
>
> So, maybe the observable universe is not accelerating.

Dear 05!

Yes, I just checked this out; thanks for this link, refurbishing
Zeus's link.
Eddy Kolb is right in proposing this as remnant of inflation.
You see it was like this.

The timeinstanton, now actively discussed in the ekpyrotic and
cyclic models of Neil Turok and Albert Steinbrecht; did do something
hitherto noone thought about.
If they would, they would discover QR (Quantum Relativity which we
are here discussing).

The de Broglie Inflsation did NOT inflate the primordial cosmos to
the size of a grapefruit as is believed and reiterated in the
textbooks and popular press.
It DEFINED the scaleparameters of the Steady
State 'instantaneously'; that is with a precise phasespeed and
phaseacceleration given by superbrane parameters.
To give you the numbers; in one third of a thousandth millionth
billionth trillionth of a second, the Event Horizon of the universe
travelled 16.88 billion years to DEFINE the Hubble-Radius as
1.59..x10^26 m.

This is the Kolb Inflation say, using de Broglie matter waves; the
matter then concentrated in vortices of ylemic dineutron blueprints
as part of the UFoQR (Unified Field of QR).

From timeinstantenuity onwards, the 11D/5D-Spacetime went on its
way 'to catch' up with that de Broglie expansion always at speed c.

It could do this, because the 11D-Hubble-Radius DEFINES the
superspace for the 4D-space to expand into.
And the 4D-space as volume is equivalent to a 3D-surface expanding
as the Hypersphere of Riemann and Poincare.

So now we have a universe of potential inflow-outflow vortices
defined by the UFoQR without any manifested mass; because the 11D
universe is purely electromagnetic, moving at invariant speed c.

The 10D-universe, as the 3D-Riemann-Sphere now MUST DECELERATE from
the c-invariance and is described in Einstein's Field Equations.
It expands into the inflation 'remnant' of Kolb as asymptotic
expansion to give Euclidean Flatness in cancelling the 11D positive
curvature with the 10D negative curvature.

The many details of this cosmology are discussed on this forum.
You will find a most beautiful and efficient cosmogenesis, which
solves all of the riddles which have plagued the 'grapefruit-size'
universe of the mass-parametric expansion by itself.

For example all the redshifts measured must be differentiated.
The cosmological redshift applicable to the distant stellar objects
is the relativity between the SPACE EXPANDING WITHIN SUPERSPACE and
has little to do with relative motions between the galaxies, quasars
and stars.
QR can calculate any distance without the Hubble Constant, the
latter being constant only at the nodes of the Steady State.

Welcome 05 Tony B.






Kol
>
> 05
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, Jelke Wispelwey
> <wispj@s...> wrote:
> > This is probably a very stupid question but so far I haven't
been
> able to get an answer.
> > But you guys have all the answers:-), so here goes:
> >
> > It is said that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating
rate.
> This rate is determined by measuring the red-shift. However, the
> farther away the star(galaxy) the earlier in time it is. Doesn't
this
> mean that they were receding faster in the past and thus slower
now?
> I.o.w, that the expansion is decelerating?
> >
> > I am new to this list so please don't hit me too hard!!
> >
> > Jelke.

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17611

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "clydedinkins"
<clydedinkins@y...> wrote:
>
> To the Group:
>
> Reference above subject and below
> from Kurzweil Newsletter for your
> info.
>
> Clyde
>
> *************************
> Mini Big Bang Created, Puzzling
> Results Too Explosive
> Space.com March 21, 2005
> *************************
> Physicists claim that at a trillion
> degrees, nuclear material melts into
> an exotic form of matter called a
> quark-gluon plasma -- thought to
> have been the state of the universe
> a microsecond after the Big Bang.
> Recreating this primordial soup is
> the primary purpose of the
> Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider
> (RHIC) at Brookhaven National
> Laboratory....
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?
newsID=4345&m=9092

Dear Clyde!

May I direct you to post 17547 on TOE?
This discusses the same experiment referenced by you above as the
wonderful discovery by Zeus about the Big Bang Neutron Beta Decay.

See how you are getting 'with it' now, discussing things with us
tunnel-heads? Tony B.

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17613

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Tag" <tag123@u...> wrote:
> Tony said, "Everything you stated in that last post "resonated"
with me."


This is news to me; where did I say that. Can you point to it Royce
please?

Tony B.

>
> Royce now says, I am glad you see you recognize these problems too.
>
> After Royce said,
> "All other things that we truly know about, that have mass, also
have height, width, and depth to them. So it is only logical to
assume the electron must also have height, width, and depth. If we
say the electron does not have height, width, and
> depth..."
>
>
> Tony said,
> "Who says that?
> The size electron is one of the most prevalent and important
> parameters in Quantum Relativity.
> It's size is called the Classical Electronic Radius of 2.8x10^15
> femtometres.
> As such it could be considered to occupy a space of that radius as
> a 'spherical electron'.
> Furthermore this size is of fundamental importance as being..."
> proportional to ... ...Are we all wrong and you are right?"
>
> Royce now says,
> Ah, this is the problem with writing instead of talking to people;
you can't correct them in time, when they misunderstand what you
said. My writing was for the electron being of a fixed size and mass
and not against it. That would be crazy. I only mention that it
would not be right to think of the electron as being a point of
energy without size, as some actually claim it is today. I a glad
you agree with me that it has mass and that it has size. I am glad
that you do not subscribe to the theory that the electron is a point
particle of infinitely small size. I felt it important to mention
because it was that particular ridiculous theory and because a
moderator of the Google group: sci.physics.electromag did not
believe that any particle existed smaller than the electron that he
banned one of my postings from that group, just because he was
thinking nothing was smaller than the infinitely small electron. I
eventually won him over, on that point, using a principle from
infinite math, but he still wouldn't let me post. Because I don't
know what all people believe or what strange theories people are now
subscribing to, I thought it was best to error on the side of being
perfectly clear in showing what an electron really is.
>
>
> Tony said,
> "This might be so, but prove or at least show it mathematically
with
> equations, concepts and principles."
>
> Royce says
> Math serves concepts and principles. When people get too heavily
into math the danger is that they begin to forget what the math is
supposed to represent."
>
> For example, I have 1 apple in the basket and I add to the basket
1 more apple, what do I have in the basket? You see the math serves
the concept of how many apples are in the basket. But if you begin
to use math as the master of principles and concepts instead of the
slave of principles and concepts, you can come to lapses in logic
and arrive at crazy ideas that are simply not true. It is not the
math that is at fault, it is the using of the math as a principle in
itself that is at fault. This happens all the time when people try
to come to conclusions about things through math instead of through
logic: trying to come up with an equation instead of with a concept.
Then they forget that the equation is supposed to support the
concept, not the other way around.
>
> For example, if you did not know what factors grows a tree large
and strong, but you knew it had something to do with light and good
air, but you were unaware of the concepts of good soil and correct
amounts of water, then you might mathematically represent the
averages of tree growth as they corresponded to the two concepts you
did know about (namely the light and good air). Then you could draw
up mathematical averages. Then you would find problems. And you may
think that these problems have something to do with your math,
because the averages of certain mixes of light and good air
sometimes seem to influence the growth, and sometimes they do not
seem to because you are missing the concepts of good soil and
correct amounts of water. So, in error, you adjust your unifying
mathematics and you readjust your unifying mathematics, and you
never can come up with the correct math for it, because you are
lacking the concepts necessary for the completion of this work. Do
you see? Math serves reality. Reality does not spring from math. If
you are missing a piece of the reality, you can not make up for that
missing variable no matter how much math you throw at it.
>
> So do I despise math? No. Do I recognize math's limits and what
math serves? Yes, I recognize that math serves the concepts of what
is. If you don't have all of what is, you can't make up for it with
any amount of math, as the above example clearly demonstrates.
>
> This also applies to the current search that people are doing for
one unifying mathematical equation to the universe. They can't do it
because they are missing a huge factor in there equations. A huge
piece of the puzzle is missing; they are missing the fact that we
are in an ocean of matter. And matter is the one unifying principle
in physics.
>
> Tony said,
> "Just writing essays about your great discoveries and insights
will
> not suffice for you to contribute to the enhancement and progress
of
> science."
>
> Royce says,
> That tone sounds like you might be accusing me of pride and
accusing me of pride being my motivating factor. Don't worry. It is
a common motivating factor, so I don't blame people for assuming
this. But I am not proud about this stuff. Do you know what pride is
and the only way pride occurs? Pride occurs when the person figures
they can increase their worth by increasing or possessing an
increase in some ability over others, thus believing that they are
entitled to more things and more love than others because they are
more than a person, better than average. I do not and can not accept
this ridiculous pride. Why? Because I know very well, just as our
forefathers knew that all men (and women) are created equal. (Now, I
think I know what you are thinking, "Oh no, here comes the speech."
Well, yes, here comes a speech, but it is a heart felt speech.) Not
equal in abilities: in looks, in strength, in brains, in money, or
in anything else, but equal in worth. And so are born the concepts
of freedom. Any person on the planet is worth just as much as an
other person on the planet. God places the same high worth on us
all. And surely He knows our large, real, and equal worth. Jesus
showed us this worth, by dieing for our sins to redeem those who
accept his sacrifice for their sins, so that all who believe in him
have eternal life, in heaven. Now people say that one person is
worth more than another because they do not really value the person,
they value what that person can do for them! (In other words people
value themselves.) But a good person will value their neighbor like
they value themselves (a teaching of Jesus). I make the distinction
between pride and self-confidence. I do not at all feel insecure
about my fixed and high worth that is exactly equal to the worth of
any other person on the planet. I will not lie to myself by
pretending that I can increase my high worth by my abilities or by
what I can gain for myself. My worth is high, fixed, and the same as
everyone else's worth. So I am confident in the high worth that God
attributes to me. I am not stupid enough for pride.
>
> Besides the concept of pride being fundamentally flawed, pride
also causes people to be stupid. Pride blind's eyes and deadens
hearts. How? Because when a person attributes their value by
something they do or know, when they find out what they have falls
apart, they will save it at all costs because they believe that
their very worth is tied up in what they built (whether it is a
theory or something else). As a result, they will ignore the obvious
faults in what they have constructed, and never admit to the
obviousness of the truth.
>
> And as far as being proud about knowledge, this is also
fundamentally flawed in another way. How? Because all knowledge and
everything complicated that you may come to know about is only
constructed of many simple parts. Everything complicated is only
made of many simple parts. So to boast about what you know is really
to boast about simple parts no matter how many and in what
arrangement. Who would boast about what always turns out to be
fundamentally simple? In fact the very basis of a Grand Unified
Theory is that every physical thing can be explained in a simple
unifying truth.
>
> Pride is a nonsensical pursuit. And I have such wisdom about pride
that you lowly people should bow down and kiss my feet... Ha
ha ...And feel free to quote your gracious benefactor... Ha ha ...
because my great wisdom in comparison to yours reduces you all to
worms... Ha ha... Ha ha, just kidding. But you can see that I have
logically solved for pride too.
>
> Breaking things down into their most basic components to see how
they work, is what I do. Logic is a pastime for me. Understanding is
what I feed on. My logic is beyond most people's logic, but that
does not increase my worth one little bit. And my other human faults
do not decrease my worth one little bit either.
>
> Sorry about the one whole page on pride, but most people do not
know what it is or how to avoid it.
>
>
> Tony said,
> "This is old hat Royce!
> 1. The equivalence of space and time is shown and unified in
> Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
> 2. The equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass forms
the
> unifying principle for General Relativity.
> It is this which leads to the presence of mass curving space and
the
> curvature of space forming the pathways for the mass to
dynamically
> move (in geodesic paths).
> So you have the interdependency right there - space=mass in some
> unified context.
> 3.'The Relativity of Inertia' itself is the Machian Principle
which
> provideds the reference frame for the matter to INTERACT with
> spacetime."
>
>
> Royce says,
> About how you are saying that some of the concepts I have brought
to light are already known, while I agree with some of what you just
said, I believe I disagree with most of it. Yes, Einstein did
connect space and time in his space/time fabric, and used that to
explain gravity in his way. But there was never a connection between
space and time being mass/matter itself. Prior to me, everyone has
always said that matter is affected by space and time.
>
> Tony says,
> "However your unfamiliarity with formal expression and your
obvious
> distaste for mathematics has unfortunately polluted your valid
> mental insights into yet another attack on the established and
well
> tested physical models of reality,..."
>
> Royce says,
> But the very reason I attack the models is because they do not
pass the test for being physical realities. If I had not found fault
in what I was taught, I would not be here, posting these faults on
the internet. I have not misunderstood their models either. I
received very good grades in college and graduated with honors. No,
I have not misunderstood what they taught me.
>
> Here is another problem that someone else observed. Consider that
the electron is supposed to have a negative charge, even to itself.
So, what keeps the electron together? The same could be said of the
proton. This apparent conflict was presented, not as a conflict, but
as an example of things that need advanced in physics. This example
was on a very reputable physics website.
>
> But this is no example of something that needs advanced; it is a
serious problem. I mean, despite the fact that the idea of a
negatively charged electron is pulled in by a positively charge
proton, does not work for keeping the electron from crashing
directly into the center of the nucleus of any atom, despite that,
the electron itself can not hold together either. And neither can
the proton hold together either. Hmm, sounds like we need to make up
more junk to keep this bad theory alive, ah, ok, how about the
protons are held together with some glue like glueons? Yee Haw,
that's some good "science"!? No, that is just pulling stuff out of
your, well, you know. And yet that is what they believe! They think
making up more and more stuff, as needed, is great science. And I'm
the only one I know blowing the whistle here.
>
> Do you want to know the real reason the electron holds together
and the proton holds together? Because "gravitated" to them is a
dense atmosphere of matter pushing in on them, keeping them
together. If you could remove the dense atmosphere from an electron,
it would begin to "evaporate" in all directions as the matter from
the electron accelerates toward the emptiness you have placed around
it, by removing it's dense atmosphere. Why? Because all matter,
including the matter inside the electron always accelerates toward
the emptiness. Matter always accelerates toward the void, because of
what matter is, as explained in my last post. This also explains why
the electron is a sphere and why the proton is a sphere. They are
spheres because a sphere is the only shape that maximizes on the
least amount of surface area contacting any outside emptiness. The
electron does not happen to be spherical, it is forced to be. You
see, the matter the electron is made of does not break off and leave
the electron unless the electron contacts more emptiness outside
than it does if it was to break into pieces on the inside. See, if
the electron cracks, it is accelerated together again because there
in the crack forms more emptiness to accelerate the electron back
together, which is exactly why the electron does not come apart. The
electron is not pulled apart by emptiness on its surface because its
surface is protected by the dense atmosphere. If you could remove
the electron's dense atmosphere of matter significantly, you could
reduce the size of the electron because there would not be enough
pushing on the electron's surface to keep it together and pieces
would break off making it smaller. So the electron's size is
regulated by the pressure of the atmosphere it can "gravitate" to
itself. Do you see? It is not a coincidence that all the electrons
are spheres and are the same size. And it is not a coincidence that
all the protons are spheres and are all the same size. It is because
things only hold together according to what they can get around them
to help keep them together. They are forced to be spheres and they
are forced to be particular step sizes because of the next step size
down covering them. This further proves we are in an ocean of matter.
>
> Have you ever wondered why so many of the products of super-
colliders last only a short amount of time? It is because they find
too many holes that pull them apart, because they are the wrong step
size for what can be around them to keep them from "evaporating" in
all directions. This is the reason. And this is also the reason for
nuclear decay. How can it be so simple yet explain so much, even
explaining things that have not yet been explained? Because it is
the truth. Ask me about any of these things. I can give more
details, than you see here.

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17614

From: "TONY BERMANSEDER" <PACIFICAP@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:07 am
Subject: Galxy distributions -a reply to the dissidents

Dear Tony (et. al.),

Since I've now been asked, I'm going to answer in as much depth as I can and still keep the discourse brief. To do this, however, means setting up a few ground rules. First is that we differentiate between observation and interpretation. The two chief examples of this are, of course, "We observe receding galaxies" and "it is widely held that ...". The former is flatly impossible. We have virtually no ability to judge distances using present technology much past 'the local group.' Clearly, with improvements such as the Hubble telescope and adaptive optics the ability to expand this radius is improving leading some to say that 'the Universe is accelerating' which leads us to the latter: "it is widely held that ...".

Dear Jim and all!

I shall address your post in interleaving and present a blending between the generally accepted facts and observations and certain dilemmas and ramifications, inclusive Jim Niblett's ideas.

This statement is, in fact, an observation. It is an observation about a psychological state. As I see it, anyone wishing to wear the laurels of a scientist should embrace 'the initial singularity' only after having been dragged there, kicking and screaming, by the predominance of the evidence. The paucity of such evidence is reflected in the fact that the Cosmic Background Radiation, evidence that the material in interstellar and intergalactic space is moving at some average speed, 'is widely held' to be the crowning glory of the 'standard theory.' The psychological state involved is kind of a silly human shortcoming, a difficulty in imagining an unbounded Universe. I don't know who to credit, but somewhere I read a statement to the effect "... The Universe is the way it is because we're here looking at it."

The above comment is an essay of Jim's persoanl assessment. It can be construed as an introduction to his model.

One might well say that all theories are equal until the first observation is made. In the case of the Standard Model, however, virtually anything is OK as long as you're talking about 'the Early Universe.' One quick example: It's said that for a brief moment, just after the Creation Event, gravity was repulsive. Go figure. I hope you'll duly credit that in the following effort I break no physical laws and require no laws to have been different in the past.

Ok, here I can give technical input.

This 'brief moment' is precisely definined if one allows the cosmogenesis to move beyond the so called 'singularity' of General Relativity and its field equations.

This 'brief' moment is so well defined, that it not only produces the deceleration parameter for the Einstein-Friedmann model from the equations of motion, but also sets this parameter in relationship with the baryonic to critical mass ratio and henceforth the density parameters required to analyse the subsequent evolution for the universe as a Black Body Radiator a la Max Planck.

The Einstein lambda becomes GoMo/L^2=2.015x10^85 m/s^2; a truly enormous antigravitational acceleration. (l=wormholeperimeter redefining the GR singularity as the Heisenberg Limit of the Weyl-Geodesic).

Jim you may see your Schwarzschild scale hidden in this formulation.

While many on this list disagree with Relativity, I use it but with a radically different interpretation of the equations. My interpretation involves substituting the frequency of a given electromagnetic disturbance in the famous 'clock' form of the relativity equation. Just for reference, Gravitation (Misner, Thorne and Wheeler) flatly states that it would be a mistake to do this, but offers not a single word as to why it is a mistake. Another way of looking at this same issue is via the Schwarzchild radius. Starting here with some diligence one can derive the fact that light can only travel only a particular length of time, depending on the square root of the density of space. I don't have the numbers in front of me.

Jim is onto something good here; he is approaching the cosmic evolution scenarios as a Schwarzschild Radius evolution which it is.

This relates to Strominger Branes encompassing shrinking subspaces of extremal Black Holes (which as boundary conditions do not Hawking radiate) and also the well known fact that every galaxy contains a Black Hole with energy 0.2% of its surrounding core/bulge.

This relates to both ellipticals and spiral galaxies.

Just for reference, the Schwarzchild radius says that a small black hole must be very dense, the larger the event horizon the less density is required. Thus the density is directly proportional to time (of flight) squared. But the real question is one of interpretation. "It is widely held that" a given object is either a black hole or it is not. This is equivalent to saying that a given super massive star would suddenly go from having a perfectly normal, unshifted spectrum to blinking out of sight with the additional mass of, say, a single brick.

Jim is trying to say, that there are two Black Hole spectra; one for the massive stars (the limit is about 6500 kg) and the other for subatomic particles/wavelets.

The good insight of Jim here is that the threshold to the stellar Black Holes can be determined by frequency. This is correct and the frequency is in the gamma ray region.

Two examples:

The brightest star in the nighttime sky is Sirius. Detailed spectral data is available for Sirius. Almost nowhere in the literature is the statement made that this spectrum is shifted (toward the red) from laboratory values. When first reported it was heralded as 'proof' of relativity. The other example involves observations concerned with the central parsec of the Milky Way Galaxy. Completely unchallenged was the statement "We observe a recessional velocity of about 700 KM / second." (This was in Scientific American many, many years ago in an article named something like 'The Central Parsec of our galaxy.') One might well say that it is possible for our sun to be hurtling away from the galaxy's core at many times the speed it has around that core. Possible, but unlikely. The most likely radial velocity for member stars of a galaxy is zero. In fact it easy to argue that a stable galaxy is one in which the member stars have an average radial velocity of zero. All of this contributes to the notion that there is a certain amount of loss suffered by photons as they 'do work against' a gravitational field; this is equivalent to an 'escape velocity'.

Here Jim is mixing up a number of scenarios, related to the redshift dilemmas.

Fact 1. When stellar or intergalactic (or extragalactic) objects move relative to one another, then the doppler shift relation must be used. This is accepted by orthodoxy.

Fact 2. The only valid redshift for the expansion of the universe applicable is the cosmological redshift relation. This is accepted by orthodoxy but applied incorrectly.

It is the relative expansion of superspace to the observed space (10D/4D) which defines this cosmological redshift.

It has nothing to do with the doppler shifts relative to individual galaxies, clusters or stars.

Because of this, the Hubble Constant IS NOT NEEDED, to determine cosmological distance scales.

Fact 3. The tangential velocities of many globular clusters and stellar entities do not conform to Newtonian prediction for slowing down with radial size, but appear to find a kind of dynamic uniformity.

This fact is used to engage dark matter halo scenarios or alternative models for Newtonian modification at larger scales such as MOND (Mordehai Milgrom).

The explanation is found in a modified form of MOND, which demetricates Einstein's field equations and shows that the Milgrom deceleration is in fact an inbuilt phenomenon of the fabric of the cosmos.

This also eliminates the need for dark energy, as the Milgrom deceleration is constructed of the gravitational omega (from the deceleration parameter) and a difference, which is the Einstein-Lambda or 'Cosmological Constant'.

In terms of acceleration for the present epoch; omega is 18.3% and lambda 81.7% summing to the Milgrom 100%.

This is not the mass-proportion which calculates as about 3.7% baryonic and 27.8%

'dark matter'

But this 'dark matter' is the dissidents 'ether'-fluid-field' as a form of consciousness or 'aura' (of c-invariance), which encompasses the galaxies as 'dark matter haloes'.

The 'dark energy' then is the missing mass for Euclidean flatness, calculated as the 'Black Hole' evolution from the GR equations, and correctly intuited by Jim Niblett.

As an aside I should note that a pivotal part of the discussion involves something I can't put my fingers on. That something is a chart with the Y axis reporting the number of observed galaxies within a range of shifts and the X axis the particular range of shifts involved. Those who've read The Nature of Scientific Revolutions will recognize this immediately. Those things which don't fit into the extant frame are 'frozen out' of the conversation. Thus, failing to find the actual curve of N as a function of Z, I'll describe it and put a shout out to anyone who can post a URL for it or post it as an attachment, it would be much appreciated.

This is unneccesary diatribe against the establishment.

Ignoring this, we remain with the facts and discuss the distribution of galaxies .

The Local Group contains some 25 members, including the nearest Andromeda at so 2.4 million ly; the large and small Magellanic clouds, the Leo and Dwingeloo galaxies and the recently discovered Sagittarius dwarf, being assimilated into the Milky Way.

Many galaxies are obscured by the disk of the Milky Way (about 20%).

Redshifts to those would relate doppler shifted relative velocities; i.e. Andromeda and Perseus (the Milky Way) are approaching each other, destined to meet in about 6 billion years. So Andromeda is blueshifted relative to the Milky Way.

One can apply the cosmological redshift here of course, but the formulation must be redshift corrected, because of the Arpian limit of the universe's present expansion speed of 0.22c.

For a measured redshift Zm, the formulation is (up to a redshift of 0.343):

Zred(Zm)=0.3692(Zm)+0.2505

So for Zm=0, one gets Halton Arp's epoch-based limit of Zarp=0.2505.

What does this mean?

It means that because the universe is itself expanding at speed 0.22c, the observer 'riding the expanding wavefront' is itself reshifted with Zarp.

And because the 'expanding wavefront' observer is equivalent with the Big Bang observer at the quasi-singularity (the Weyl-Geodesic) looking back in time at that observation point, the arpian limit in a way requires to be subtracted.

The curve starts with a small number of observations with a Z of zero. These galaxies include some from the local group. From this beginning point, the number of observations within a given range of shifts increases dramatically (parabolicly?) with increasing Z.

While Z is still small (it seems to me it's at about Z = 0.04, but I could be mistaken) there is an inflection point and (again this is working purely from memory) from there to something like Z = 0.06 there is a steady increase in the number of galaxies observed per unit shift as the shift goes up. Above this level and up to a shift of 0.10 there is a continuous increase of observations per unit shift, but increase in the increase is less. This is to say that there is a maximum at a shift of 0.10 (again, if memory serves).

Beautiful, Jim QR calculates the slope for the above redshift correction as slope=0.0405/Zni, for ni=nodal image. Hence Zni=0.1097 and slope=0.3692.

So dear forum, Jim's tentative analysis confirms QR in its application of the Arpian redshift correction correlation for nearby galaxies (up to a measured redshift of 0.343), after which Z(Zm)=Zm and the mesasured cosmological redshift coincides with the 'Hubble-Flow'.

But there is an Arpian reflection in the interval from 0.2505 to 0.2910 where this redshift correction becomes invalid.

The cosmological redshift becomes a cosmological blueshift, given in the formulation:

Zblue(Zm)=-1.284(Zm)+0.6646.

Above this the number of observed galaxies per unit shift steadily decreases with increasing shift until the numbers get quite small at a shift of, say, 3.00. The right hand of the curve is shaped a lot like a gaussian (bell) curve. This curve (which I look at as the 'signature of the Universe) is the answer to a question, but we have to ask the right question for the answer to pertain.

It is a clear prediction of QR that the cosmological redshift of 2.15 changed the cosmic evolution dramatically. The lambda changed from antigravitational counteracting gravity to support gravity. The time was 1.79 billion years after the timeinstanton (Big Bang).

At redshift 1.19, the 'peak of galaxies' coincided with a time of 3.97 billion years after the timeinstanton.

The Local Group is part of the Virgo Supercluster about 50 million lightyears away.

This supercluster is measured to converge to a 'Great Attractor' in the Hydra Constellation, engaged in a 'tug-of-war' with another supercluster called Perseus-Pisces. They both are about 200 million lightyears from the Local Group at the centre, say.

Now our old friend, the deceleration parameter defines the cosmic architecture in the Sarkar Constant of 236.5 million lightyears as the supercluster limit for homogenous gravitation.

So we find superclusters of about 500 million lightyears across as the largest gravitationally interacting structures in the universe.

Distant Galaxy Clustering beyond the redshift limit of 2.15 must so be derivatives from this architecture.

Exactly this is observed and again Jim has contributed to this in his post.

A deep redshift survey of 67 faint galaxies found a large cluster at redshift 3.07.

Charles Seidel (Palomar Observatory, Palomar Mountain 5m and Keck 10m on Mauna Kea, Hawaii) found this in Aquarius (Astrophysical Journal, January 10th, 1998).

The second part of this exercise starts by making a couple of assumptions. First among these is the Universal Cosmological principle which says that no matter where you are in the Universe and no matter which direction you look, as long as you're using a large enough yardstick it all looks the same. I'd enlarge this to include 'or when.' Next we take a statement of Z thus:

Z = -1 + (1 - L)^-0.5

where L = a fraction of the maximum time of flight, as discussed above.

This position is of course untenable for an expanding universe; earlier time implies higher density and so a different mass distribution for the galaxies.

Jim now introduces L as the scaleproportion between the radial distance to a galaxy and its projected Schwarzschild radius, given by Rs=2GM/c^2.

To this point I haven't introduced any mathematics, but it can't be avoided any further. Imagine a narrow cone with its apex corresponding to the location of the telescope and the open end at L = 1.00. Next divide this cone into some large number of roughly cylindrical sections, each of equal length. The first section has a volume of half the base times the height, or:

V = B * H / 2

For a start Jim here uses dimensionless quantities; all of L, B and H are defined by him as having no units.

So I presume Jim is inferring his calculations to refer to 'per unitvolume'.

where

B = pi * {(delta L) * tan (narrow angle / 2)}^2 and

H = delta L

Let's assume that the small angle rule applies, such that the tangent of this angle is the angle itself, expressed as radians. This means that

V = pi * (delta L)^3 * (narrow angle (in radians) / 2)^2 or

= constant * (delta L)^3

The second segment has a volume of:

V(2) = constant * {2 * delta L)^3 - constant * (delta L)^3 or

= constant * 7 * (delta L)^3

the third is:

V(3) = constant * (27 - 8) * (delta L)^3

= constant * 19 * (delta L)^3

the fourth is:

V(4) = constant * (64 - 27) * (delta L)^3

= constant * 37 * (delta L)^3

and so on. Now let's throw in some numbers. Let's say that (delta L) is L/50 and that the diameter of the cone is 2 degrees. This latter corresponds to a very big survey done at the University of New South Wales. Each night a 2 degree cone of space was investigated and galaxies were characterized in several ways, including their spectral shifts. Hundreds of nights were spent doing this.

The trouble here is that Jim is attempting to use parallax methods, which cannot be applied in triangulation except to some nearer stars in the Milky Way. The Hipparcos Satellite survey done a few years ago, has extended the parallax-triangualation methods to their technological limit yet achievable.

The UNSW and similar surveys, which Jim mentiones do in fact survey the angular sky, but consider not individual stars or galaxies, but conglomerations thereof.

Earlier I mentioned that I assume galaxies to be more or less evenly distributed throughout space. This means that a given volume of space is equivalent to a given number of galaxies. Plotting V on the Y axis and Z on the X axis produces the same shape of curve as the N vs. Z plot once published by the New South Wales group.

There is not a perfect fit of the two curves; the peak on the V vs. Z occurs at Z of something like 0.15 rather than 0.10. The question then devolves to what would be appropriate fudge factors. One obvious choice would be extinction by, perhaps, a cloud of dust. The odds of a given galaxy being blotted out goes up linearly with distance as a first order relationship. In reality we'd be better served to think of dust clouds as having some finite average size. We can guess that if a dust cloud is near a given galaxy, then the galaxy's light would make it past that cloud. The question becomes what is a reasonable size for a cloud of dust? Just as a pure guess, let's say such a cloud is five light minutes in diameter. Therefore a nearby dust cloud obscures a great many galaxies. Dust clouds which are further away obscure fewer galaxies but are greater in number than nearby ones.

Jim says that the volume of space should be proportional to an increasing function for his delta^3. As the volume increases so should the redshift according to his formula.

He then presumes a 'fudge factor', say dustclouds to skew the predicted redshift peak at z=0.10 to z=0.15.

Statistically though, the UNSW data is in perfect accord with its error predictions about the 'skewing' of the redshift with spacial volume.

Jim Niblett himself admits, that he uses many guesses to arrive at his conclusions.

A second factor has been alluded to before, this is an 'escape velocity' term. Yet another fudge factor is more speculative; that light from these galaxies may be passing through a region of space which has a greater loss than if the effected photon had not gone through that region of space. This one, too, is linear with distance, but they fit into different equations; The extinction factor fits into the V factor, the escape velocity term is added to the L term and the third term, which also adds to the L term, but it is linear with time of flight. As with dust clouds, we have to think of these energy depleting volumes of space as finite in dimension.

It must be pointed out that the term 'escape velocity' is a direct consequence of the Schwarzschild solution of Einstein's GR-Field-Equations.

If you rearrange Rs=2Gm/c^2 as c^2=2GM/Rs and then replace c^2 with v^2, you have the Escape Velocity' formula: Vesc=Sqrt(2GM/R), which is about 11.2 km/second for the Earth's parameters for mass M and radius R.

The last step in the chain is adjusting the various parameters until the two curves coincide. (Or they fail to.) In either event we'll find out something new about Mother Nature and perhaps understand why the night time sky is dark.

I have to preempt an argument that I know is coming. That argument is that there is no known phenomena which changes the wavelength of a photon. This argument is simply untrue and is a whole other discussion. Suffice to say that the bulk of the known phenomena that change photons' energy involve electrical fields, magnetic fields and some form of matter, typically a plasma. If you really want an example, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance offers one set of principles. I think there are a dozen, Kerr and Zeeman effects pop immediately to mind.

Those are good ideas; associating magnetism with the phenomena of nature. However the actual interrelationships between those fields demands thorough mathematical and scientific analysis.

In regards to the photon's wavelength. It is a direct consequence of its frequency and energy.

Hence changing the wavelength must also change its frequency; and a process which occurs incessently in various of the phenomenas Jim has indicated and including the work of light against gravity in say a gravitational well.

I'm eager to hear what people thing about this.

Jim, seconded by Tony B.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:30:28 -0000 "Tony Bermanseder" <PACIFICAP@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
> --- In NPA_Dissidents@yahoogroups.com, Henry Lindner
> <milesian2003@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- Jim Nibblett <nibblett@j...> wrote:
> > > Three times now I've presented a model
> > > for the
> > > interpretation of a deep space survey and I have
> > > received exactly zero
> > > feedback on any of them. It's as if no one has the
> > > 'chops' to do the
> > > math and see what the physical interpretation of
> > > Einstein's two 'fudge
> > > factors,' the deceleration parameter and the other
> > > one (lambda?).
>
> Dear Jim!
>
> I have extensively posted about lambda just in the last few posts.
> The deceleration parameter is Omega/2, where Omega is the ratio
> between the baryonic mass-seed and the critical mass, given by
> Omega=1. The deceleration parameter q=0.01405, meaning that only
> 2.81% of the necessary mass is baryonic. This has grown to so 3.6 %
>
> for the present time, because of the G-variation predicted by Dirac
>
> and van Flanders.
> This relates to the Hubble-Constant, all of which I have derived a
> number of times.
> I'll do your math on the redshifts, if you ask the questions.
> On a glance your redshift corrections are similar to the ones
> applied in QR.
>
> Tony B.




Love from the DragonHeart!

As a mathematical physicist, I also study ancient scrolls and the signature can be evaluated on a number of levels; from childishly naive to profoundly esoteric---Tony Whynot, Unicorn of SophiaGnosis !

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17629

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Can I put my 2 cents in here?
>
> We find ourselves inside this universe bounded by the Hubble
extreme
> on the large end (and Tony B's wormhole on the small end?)

Dear Zeus!
Whilst I am sympathetic to your general idea about impedance
matching; the derivations of QR evolve about Unitary Resistance
given in the ratio between magnetic permeability and electric
permittivity; you cannot just transfer this a priory inside the
wormhole as the Weyl-Geodesic.

Inside the wormhole, the Calabi-Yau shapes take the place of the
quark-lepton families and the tearing and reconnecting of spacetime
is permitted under the mirror dualities of the 6D-toroidal
topologies.

You again have the basic right idea; at the event horizon the
wavecentre can form and then expand to match the elementary
particle/wavelet templates in the unified field defined by the GR
equations incorporating the Ricci density tensor.

Recall that the Ricci Tensor changes volume, but the Weyl Tensor
does not.
This is beautifully described in QR when the Weyl-Geodesic expands
its influence to become the concentric wavequarks hugged by mesonic
inner and leptonic outer rings.
This is very much the introductory picture at the WSM site.
It depicts the Weyl-Geodesic.

But the wavecentre of neutrinoic kernel forms the limit; you cannot
further regress and think of individual quarks doing things inside
the wormhole.

The unification physics occcurs there, as defined by the superbrane
scenarios.
Outside the wormhole you have symmetry breaking physics increasing
with radius and within you have a reforming of that symmetry with
decreasing radius.
When the Planck-Scale is reached this symmetry bounces in the Planck-
Length-Oscillation to define the physics of the superstrings as
magnetocharge mappings, manifesting as Coulombic charges.




>
> All this is, is the volume of mass within which we can have
impedance
> matching between all the various items within (energy transfer).
>
> A black hole is simply that area too high in mass for our quarks
and
> electrons to have impedance matching with.

The energy transfer is the basic Planck-Action, because the
Heisenberg Uncertainty is finestructured in the wormhole perimeter
and c.c^2. That is where your c^2 quark-spin idea resides.
It is directly monopolic; that is found in the Cosmic Ray and Gamma
Burster spectra and as given by the superbrane classes.

It is when protons are energised to superbrane defined energies,
that the high energy cosmic rays can materialise from the BlackHole-
WhiteHole dyads, that is from the wormhole perimeters connecting
them.
They depict the Calabi Yau spacetime tearing and regluing say.

>
> The event horizon (surface) is where our electrons lose all
> connection (impedance matching) with the electrons further inside
the
> black hole.
>
> The singularity - further inside the black hole - is where our
quarks
> lose all quark to quark (gravitational attraction) impedance
matching
> with those quarks inside the black hole because the quarks inside
the
> black hole are simply too massive and they no longer NORMALLY will
> impedance match with our quarks.
>
> That does NOT mean they are NOT there.

Well what is there are the quasi-quarks as Calabi Yau manifolds.

>
> Impedance matching to those quarks in ALL the black holes can be
> accomplished merely by rotating a flywheel thereby giving those
> quarks, in the rim of the wheel, MORE MASS so they can impedance
> match with those quarks FURTHER Inside THAN THE SINGULARITY,
inside
> ALL the black holes in the surroundings.

Here you are calling upon the increase of centripetal acceleration
with radial scale.
Here the increasing acceleration implies increased warping of space
by the equivalence principle.
However recall the Weyl-Nullification Hypothesis of Roger Penrose.
At the 'smeared out' quantum-singularity, the Weyl curvature must
become zero.
So the radius vector must be 'straightened out' and the volume
cannot further contract.
This is the Strominger Brane, which was found to encompass the
internal spacetime tearing like a 'wrapping', allowing the latter to
occur in the first place.

As I have said before; the trick and future quest for physics is to
create the wormhole and to grow it.
Then and only then will the scenarios you are intuiting come to the
fore and be possible as the scalerelative cosmos.

Tony B.



to
>
> THIS is why gyroscopic inertia has as much force as it does.
>
> imo, of course.
>
>
> z

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17630

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> alden,
>
> Yes, it averages out.
>
> BUT
>
> There seems a bit too much acceleration to average out all the
> deceleration.
>
> And that's my point.
>
> Because of the principle of equivalence you simply cannot rule out
> the extra accelerating expansion, that you see, from really being
a
> repelling force.

Dear Zeus.

Fact 1: The Principle of Relativity holds for INERTIAL frames only.
This means uniform non-accelerated motion.

Fact 2: The Principle of Equivalence holds for NONINERTIAL frames;
showing the indistinguishability between ANY acceleration and a
gravitational field.

Fact 3: The Principle of Machian Inertia (Einstein's 'Relativity of
Inertia) holds for the universe as a Quantum Universe, hence
allowing a preferred frame of reference on that scale and
introducing the scale-relative cosmos via V(n)=R(n).F for a scale
given by R(n), frequency F and scaled velocity V(n).
This then allows de Broglie matter waves to become phased from their
encompassing wave-groups.

You can apply the Equivalence Principle to GR as the subMachian
frames, but not to the quantum universe.
Just as the Equivalence Principle subsumes the Relativity Principle,
so does the Machian Principle subsume the Equivalence Principle.

The universe's 'repelling' or antigravitational force is the Tension
of the quantum tunnelling requiring a 'false vacuum' or a
temperature gradient.

It was this force, that caused de Broglie inflation and expanded the
wormhole scale to the Hubble-Radius.

There will be no more inflation until the evolution of that same
wormhole scale becomes modular dual to the Sarkar radius, given by
the deceleration parameter.
The wormhole grows to the Sarkar 'Mother-Black Hole' of 236.5
million lightyears and that Sarkar scale shrinks to the wormhole.
This is the duality defining the recharging, which takes 7.53
trillion years.

When the Sarkar Radius has reached the wormhole, then the universe
will be reseeded by the Vortex-Potential-Energy or VPE of the inflow-
outflow vortices, which are the two mirror parts of the
supermembrane class HE(8x8).

The universe is cyclic on that supertimescale and superposed onto
the Hubble-Oscillation of 33.8 billion years.

Tony B.


>
> A repelling force holding all the stars, galaxies apart is going
to
> look to us exactly like an accelerating expansion (principle of
> equivalence).
>
> Not only that but with this force in place, all the outer galaxies
> will look like they are expanding faster than the closer ones.
>
> The universities are SLOW on the uptake.
>
> I'm betting that several years from now the universiries will be
> telling us that this is PROOF we are really in a steady state
> universe or an oscilating one such as the late Fred Hoyle said we
> were in.
>
> You cannot discern gravity from an accelerating contraction and
you
> cannot discern this repelling force, out there, from an
accelerating
> expansion.
>
>
> z
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "alden_parent"
> <alden_parent@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "alden_parent"
> > <alden_parent@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron
Duncan"
> > > <zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > Hello Jelke & Robert,
> > >
> > > EXPANSION: is 'distance'
> > > MOMENTUM: is 'the speed' of mass in expansion.
> > > ACCELERATION: is 'the increased rate' of speed of
> > > mass in expansion.
> > > DECELERATION: is 'the decreased rate' of speed of
> > > mass in expansion.
> > >
> > > Acceleration and deceleration are not a
> > > stop-start, start-stop cenario. It is a speed-up,
> > > slow-down action. Though they are different rates;
> > > they may (on 'average' rate of speed) still be
> > > constant. Or if acceleration increases enough to make
> > > up for deceleration and they average out on each
> > > cycle, you still have a constant and continuity in
> > > Expansion. A "constant average rate" if you will!
> > > Allowing both expansion and momentum to continue.
> > > JUST A THOUGHT OF INTUITION!

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17631

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, Jelke Wispelwey
<wispj@s...> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Thanks for the welome and the reply. I was wondering more about
what 'established' science's position is re: my question. I noticed
that you guys have different opinions and are usually talking way
over my head :-(. Personally, I like the oscillating idea, mainly
because it 'harmonizes' with other natural processes like night and
day, birth and death etc. When everything in the Universe has this
cyclic nature, why not the Universe as a whole?? (This also fits in
with the Eastern idea of the Night and Day of Brahman).
>
> Jelke.

Dear Jelke!

You are correct and the universe does behave like night and day.
I call the Hubble-Oscillation the Heartbeat of the encompasssing
Mother Black Hole.

We are residing within a Black Hole you know; but a Black Hole which
is connected to a White Hole in a higher dimension.
This is the inside-outside doubling of a twosided surface becoming
onesided in doubling the surface area.
Like a Moebius Twist you might say.

Tony B.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Byron Duncan
> To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 4:00 PM
> Subject: [TheoryOfEverything] Re: Question.
>
>
>
> Jelke,
>
> That's exactly what we are now discussing.
>
> Saul Perlmutter says accelerating (opposite from you)
>
> Tony Bermanseder, Fred Hoyle (departed but not forgotten)
says/said
> oscillating.
>
> I, myself have said steady state but now wonder.
>
> Welcome to the group.
>
>
> z
>
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, Jelke Wispelwey
> <wispj@s...> wrote:
> > This is probably a very stupid question but so far I haven't
been
> able to get an answer.
> > But you guys have all the answers:-), so here goes:
> >
> > It is said that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating
rate.
> This rate is determined by measuring the red-shift. However, the
> farther away the star(galaxy) the earlier in time it is. Doesn't
this
> mean that they were receding faster in the past and thus slower
now?
> I.o.w, that the expansion is decelerating?
> >
> > I am new to this list so please don't hit me too hard!!
> >
> > Jelke.

 

 

 

 

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17639

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "alden_parent"
<alden_parent@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "alden_parent"
> <alden_parent@y...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Toe friends,
> >
> > We know that pysically "white holes" do not
> > exist but are a "Theory of Intuition"!
> > Can someone explain it to me mathematically
> > please.
> > Since it cannot be measured or seen! Tony ?
> > Thanks,
> > alden

Dear alden!

White Holes are predicted from Einstein's Field Equations.
Black Holes are wormhole connected via a Einstein-Rosen Bridge to
White Holes.

But I identify quasars as White Holes in nonlocal (mirror)duality
with Black Holes as dyadic feedback associations.

Matter coupled to Antiradiation becomes the Input in Black Holes and
Antimatter coupled to Radiation the Output in the Quasars.

Antiradiation links to Gravitons as Gravitational Radiation and the
Antimatter transforms (with present Matter) into high energy gamma
radiation as Electromagnetic Radiation.

It is known, that Quasars feed Black Holes and vice versa.

Tony B.