Paper - - 4

Message 16930 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16930

--- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "joseph_steinman"
<joseph_steinman@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> It goes without saying that I could not follow your argument --
which
> is not to say it is incorrect. However, I did notice that you did
not
> apply the same redshift correction to the galaxy whose redshift
was
> being compared to the QSO. Arp, et al, are claiming that two
objects
> at approximately the same distance have radically different
> redshifts, making suspect the assumption that redshift is solely
or
> primarily caused by recession. Istm that if you applied your
formulas
> to *both* redshifts, Arp's conclusion would likely remain
untarnished
> since the calculated distances to both objects would remain
radically
> different.
>
> Joseph


Dear Joseph!

Thank you for your message.
Oh how I would like that you could see it.
It would solve your philosophical conundrums with Joel in a flash.
This is the chicken-egg dichotomy, which is the what's first DNA
(chicken) RNA (egg) dichotomy; which is the quasar dichotomy.

You see you are looking at a mirror, the biggest mirror there is.
Joel is quite right when he says, the universe is neither big nor
small.
Any distance away from the mirror becomes in a sense nullified by
the 'imaginary' retreat inside the mirror.

You are looking at yourself, your own image in the mirror of the
universe, when you look at a quasar, star or your loved ones.
You are eating yopurself, when you eat anything, youi are killing
yourself, when eating a steak or a potatoe or a carrot.
However, this goes the other way around too, the apple being
assimilated in your blood becomes part of you, shares your
consciousness, evolves (say as an apple intelligence
someplace/sometime in the universe).
Being AWARE is what matters, killing the buffalo for food is no
crime, because the buffalo is honoured, its spirit moves on,
assimilating with the Indian and the environment.
Most native cultures know all this; it's no 'New Age' claptrap to
them - and you know it too deep inside your soul.

Now back to the words of science.
There is no contradiction in what I have said; actually this
discovery has confirmed the demetricated form of GR as being correct
in its application to the universe as an entity.

The EVENT HORIZON is YOU expanding in perceived time, looking back
at the Big Bang.
Because NOW TIME DEFINES that there are 3 thousand million billion
trillion Big Bangs occuring EVERY SECOND; time becomes a human
invention to experience the linearity.
The Big Bang is YOU, from your frame of reference, EXPERIENCING,
MEASURING and OBSERVING the EVENT HORIZON receeding fromYOURSELF
linearly.
This is you stepping backwards from the mirror you are looking into.

Draw a line from Odd Node O to Even Node E, the distance OE is 16.88
billion lightyears.
O is the Big Bang Node and E is the FIXED HUBBLE-NODE.
The Event Horizon Node,say H, moves between O and E and is presently
situated at a point 2.2 billion years from E.

So measuring the quasar from H gives a much smaller redshift than
measuring the quasar from O - this becomes the cosmological mapping.

There are linear approximation equations, which specify the mapped
2.2 billion year interval.
The arpian redshift is a variation maximum, directly measuring the
present slowing down expansion speed of thje 10D universe, relative
to the fixed 11D one.
So presently z(arp)=0.2505 (with velocity 0.22c), but as time goes
on, this decreases never reaching 0 in asymptotic flatness.

So all redshifts above 0.291 are in the 'Hubble Flow' and the
measured redshifts are cosmological without correction.

Lower redshifts can become blueshifted (cosmological expansion of
10D/11D and NOT galactic manouvers).

Distances can be calculated fromthe redshift correction equations,
provided the Hubble-Interval is known (16.88 billiuon years).

Here are the linear approximations:
Z(n)=Z(function of measured redshift Zm, where Z by necessity cannot
be less than the arpian limit).

Z(n,redshift)=0.3692[Zm]+0.2505 for interval Zm in (0,0.1097)
Z(n,blueshift)=-1.284[Zm]+0.6646 for interval Zm in (0.1097,0.2505)

Z(n) is multivalued in the interval (0.291,0.343) as redshift and
multivalued in the interval (0.2505,0.2910) as blueshift.
This means that the O-H mappings also specify the interval
(1.08,1.84).
It is in the latter, that the Alpha-Variation was measured at Mauna
Kea by Webb, Barrow and Co. measuring hydrogen absorption lines in
quasar spectra.
It is also the interval where apparent cosmic acceleration is known
to have been a deceleration wrt supernovae I luminosity spectra.

The formulae to calculate the distances wrt the 10D/11D scenarios
are:

R(n,10D)=R(npresent)-Rmax(n/(n+1)); npresent=1.1324, Rmax=1.60x10^26
m from the superbrane data.

R(n,11D)=[npresent-n]Rmax.

For the mappings, one calculates the appropriate n=Tau-Time via the
formulations:
n=Sqrt(c/v)-1 and v/c=(z^2+2z/(z^2+2z+2)), v/c the relative
speedratio between 10D and 11D.

Applying the above, to the quasar discovery, will give you the
distances to the galaxies, provided you have their z or v/c.

Thank you Joseph Tony B.

--- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "joseph_steinman"
<joseph_steinman@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> It goes without saying that I could not follow your argument --
which
> is not to say it is incorrect. However, I did notice that you did
not
> apply the same redshift correction to the galaxy whose redshift
was
> being compared to the QSO. Arp, et al, are claiming that two
objects
> at approximately the same distance have radically different
> redshifts, making suspect the assumption that redshift is solely
or
> primarily caused by recession. Istm that if you applied your
formulas
> to *both* redshifts, Arp's conclusion would likely remain
untarnished
> since the calculated distances to both objects would remain
radically
> different.
>
> Joseph

Message 16931 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16931

--- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "Dr.M.A.Padmanabha
Rao" <raomap@n...> wrote:
>
> I taught and practiced Radiological physics for over 33 years. High
> energy and lack of charge are the two attributes that make a gamma
> or X-ray penetrate deep into solid materials like lead, in terms of
> half value layer.
>
> Planck's formula explains wavelength reduces for gamma or X-ray
> over that of light photon. However, size of wavelength alone cannot
> address gamma or X-ray's ability to deep penetration over light
> photon.
>
> Secondly, charge cannot be attributed to a wave or photon.
>
> 1. Is it possible to explain deep penetration of gamma or X-ray
> over light photon, or suspect velocity of a photon in free space
> or matter might depend upon its energy?
>
>
>
> Prof. M.A.Padmanabha Rao
> raomap@y...

Dear Professor Radmanabha Rao!

Can a Photon be charged?
If yes, then your question is answered; but photons are not charged;
they form their own antiparticles with equal polarisation
probablities.

And yet, one could postulate another kind of charging for the
photon, namely as a Gauge Bosonic Photon.
A Gauge Bosonic Photon, we might term it a SourcePhoton would have an
antiparticle in say a SinkPhoton.
This would demand a reevaluation of the 'virtualnature' of the
vacuumparticles.

And this could lead us to the great symmetries in nature.

At the Beginning, there was Light and AntiLight, Radiation and
AntiRadiation in a absolutely homogenous and equilibriated unity.

But there was no gravity and no mass.
To create the former and the latter, gravity had to be born in its
Source Bosonic Template - the Graviton; with double the chirality to
the now sourceconflicted SourceBoson and SinkBoson, both of whom had
a single chirality, confliccting themselves because of the parity
and charge conjugation symmetries inherent in their genesis of
selfdefinition.

Apropos, the antiradiation disappeared, became suppressed in the
weak interaction templates of the massinduction process known as the
Higgs Field.
And so the SourceBoson became the mediator of the Unified Field of
Quantum Relativity and it had a charge, a magnetocharge directly
responsible for the creation of mass from its higher dimensional
magnetic electricity, manifesting as matter/antimatter blueprints
and suppressing the antimatter because of a supersymmetric particle
called the RMP (RestMassPhoton).

And so there is a very close relationship between the
scaleparameters of wavelength and that of Coulombic Charge, because
the Coulombic Charge is a mapping from the magnetocharge (defined in
scalerelationship with mass), which is nought but the Mass
Parameters as experienced in the higher dimensions.

And that is why the gamma ray can unify with the mass, its
wavelength is scaled with the Compton Wavelength of the electrons,
resulting in a 'tapping of the vacuum energy' as the divide between
the dimensions.

Thanking You Professor Rao Tony Sirebard

Message 16933 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16933

Dell Coleman <decoleman@p...>
wrote:
> Dear Tony
>
> A while ago in this group we were discussing the situation of a
fellow
> who was receiving messages, writing them down at night and
awakening in
> puzzlement. The star map he drew showed Sirius from the back -
side ie
> mirrored to us (a view point looking past it back toward us).
There was
> a picture of an apparent wormhole linking Earth and Sirius.
>
> He had an equation in which 2He4 was transformed somehow to
element 115
> UUQ. The 115 was used to initiate a wormhole to move between here
and
> Sirius.
> Does your outline below lead from 2He4 to 115 .. How in your
framework
> could you get there?
>
> Cheers,
> DC
>
Dear Dell!

Thank you for your post; yes,I had a quick look at Stan Romanek's
equations and their explanations on the website links indicated.
I concur with the comments and add my own impressions:

#1: I feel this relates to the supersymmetry in Maxwell's Equations.

CurlB=0 (normal for nonexistence of magnetic monopoles)is
written as curlB=e* with i* the lineintegral of j*.dS

Stan's CurlH=Curl(B/mu0) is the current i as the lineintegral of
j.dS; this latter expression is well known and studied.

This then seems to expand somehow into the expression of element
#115.
Its electron configuration is correct in the Radon Derivative:

[Rn]5f^14.6d^10.7s^2.7p^3; you'll have two parallel currents
encompassing some structure, relating the closure of the linearity
in a redefined closure.
This is much of what unification physics proposes.
The linear finestructure of element 115 also seems to be quite
similar to the finestructuring of the Hamel formula, which I am
discussing here.

But I do not yet understand the terms in Stan's linearisation; this
might be the same as that in the Hamel form, differently applied.

As a general background, this is what I wroteabout the synthetic
elements in some article.
This might be partially superceeded by now, I have not thought about
it lately.

Bismuth at #83 and Lead at #82 form the Isotope Divide.

"Bismuth-209+Gallium-69='SuperHeavy' 278#114 and
Lead-208+Germanium-76='SuperHeavy' 284#114.

But only combining Bismuth-209 or Lead-208 as the boundary
tostability with other magic numbers (Nickel-62,64) synthesises
the 'SuperHeavies'.
Bismuth-209+Nickel-62 gives Isotope 278#111 (Ni at #28, Bi at #83).
Bismuth-s09+Nickel-64 gives Isoptope 273#111.
Lead-208+Nickel-62 gives Isotope 270#110 and
Lead-209+Nickel-62 gives Isotope 271#110.

Anyway, the Magic Number 184, suggesting stability of element 114
with 184 neutrons and 114 protons cannot behave like Lead-208 with a
number of neutrons of 126 and 82 protons because of the intermediary
magic number of 132 in between the nucleon numbers 82 and 126.

Other nuclei with very stable nuclei are Calcium-40 (20 protons, 20
neutrons) and Calcium-48 (20protons, 28 neutrons).

The significance of element #43, Technetium also derives from the
magic numbers.
No stable isotope for Technetium exists and production is via
natural radioactive decay (Uranium) or synthesis from#42 Molybdenum,
a magic number.
The other transitory magic numner is #78 Platinum, preceeding Gold
at #79 and Mercury at #80.
78 Platinum is in an electron configuration column with elements 28
Nickel, 46 Palladium and the 'SuperHeavy' 110.
Copper, Silver and Gold link to 111 and Zinc, Cadmium and Mercury
point to 112.

But Mercury is THE liquid metal, exactly midway between magic
numbers 78and 82 as last transition of 'the magic'.

Projecting this midpoint forwards gives you element #84 Polonium and
all it's isotopes and succeeding other elemental isotopes are
radioactive.
Elements 113, 114 and so on can't be synthesisized, because Mercury
defines the electron transition limit for the Zinc-112 outer shells.
And the magic numbers UNIFY the electron shells with the nuclear
ones.
Yet, the alchemist might discern:
Calcium-48+Plutonium-244='SuperHeavy' 114#298 -6n as (132-126)."

This might or might not help some of you, more familiar with
material science.

#2. This denotes the Asteroid Belt for me, between Mars and Jupiter,
say as the 'exploded' planet 'Malduk' or whatever as indicated by
Bode's Law.

#3. This a good code, namely assign the planets in 12 according to
the revised/new zodiac.
1=Sun/Leo; 2=Mercury/Gemini; 3=Venus/Taurus; 9=Jupiter/Sagittarius;
8=Saturn/Capricorn; 10=Uranus/Aquarius; 11=Neptune/Pisces.

Now the others are 'missing' incorporated in the four intersection
points of the 'fish diagram' as:
4=FullMoon/Cancer; 5=NewMoon/Libra as the Dragon's SarosNodes of the
18year ecliptic sojourn; 6=Chiron/Virgo and 7=Mars/Aries in unison
with the bottom line as 13=1+3=4=Pluto/Scorpio.

This defines a cyclicity between opposite zodiacal transitions in
the points of Ophiuchus (November 22/23) as the transit of the Sun
from Scorpio to Sagittarius and the point of Orion/Arachne as the
transit of the Sun from Taurus into Gemini (May22/23).

All this links to the celestialmappings and Egypt as I have
indicated in earlier posts. (precessional cycles, mapping of the
Pyramid plateau as Orion's belt and the Draco constellation in the
Temples of Ankor); and as pointed out in some of the comments.

#4. Is Unification Physics, as it is centred about the
Electromagnetic Finestructure Constant Alpha=1/137.

#5. Is the Standard Gravitational Inverse Square Force expression

#6 Is the Hypercube, denoting the enfoldment of spacetime in the
Wormholesingularity.
This is expressed in the Klein-Bottle-Connection in the diagram.
This I have discussed earlier in the exchanges with Dell.

Best to all Tony Sirebard


> Tony Bermanseder wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
> This is the basis for the Ikeda Shapes.
> Denote the basic building block for the nucleon stability as N=2,
> that is He-4; adding those in chains, we get:
> Be-8, C-12, O-16, Ne-20, Mg-24, Si-28.
>
> So Beryllium becomes part of Oxygen, Neon, Magnesium and Silicon in
> iterative nestings, separated by energylevels, all in MeV.

Message 16934 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16934

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, george ryazanov
<george_ryazanov@y...> wrote:
> Tony!
> I agree with your picture of Creation because it is similar
to my picture.
> Your AntiLight is my EM waves going from the future.
> We do not see the initial smmetry of Liht and AntiLight
> because now we are busy with the task of evolution (not a
creation).
>
> The appearence of mass and gravity I calculate in all
details.
> I agree with your choise of chaged bosons as initial field
>
> because in my physics of unity I derive SU(4 )
> as the symmetry of initial field (EM appear later).
>
> Here the initial charge turns out to be the mutiul Love
> of natural spirits that through the joyful play
> generate laws of physics as the norms of their singing.
>
> I see here a perspective for our working together.
>
George.
>

Dear George!

Thanking You.
The first time I saw your calculations, I knew that you are correct.
Like many others I do not understand many of your technical details.
But I understand the encompassment - you possess something which I
lack.
My entire model is, what you may call "A back of the envelope
calculation".
I do not possess the sophistication to dress all this up in tensor
fields and determinants.
But as yourself; I know that I am correct 'as the boundary
conditions' of the said 'back of the envelope calculus.'

Mine is a 'Poor Man's Model for the Universe'; but put it into the
tensor fields and the metrics and you will have the TOE.
It is and always was meant to be a groupeffort undertaken by all of
the natural philosophers of the human race.

So OUR CALL should be.
ANYBODY out there who would like to stop the quarrelings and the
search for individual fame and fortune?
Why not simply write down the TOE in such a way that EVERYONE can
contribute?
Forfeit the ownership of the 'intellectual property' and GIVE FREELY
to A WORLD IN NEED OF A NEW PARADIGM!

The TRUE TOE is OWNED by the GROUPMIND of the collective Human Mind;
because without the HISTORY of SCIENCE, noone ofus now could even
begin to fathomsuch a thing as a TOE.

LOVE to All; and if you are abhorred to listen to me, then listen to
George!

Best of Cooperation and OmniScience to All Tony Sirebard

dis
> Tony Bermanseder <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
>
> BODY { BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff}
> [input] Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail [input] [input] Welcome,
sirebard
> [Sign Out, My Account]Groups Home - Help
>
>
> sirebard ? PACIFICAP@h... Start a Group - My Groups Wave-Structure-
Matter ? Wave Structure of Matter Group Member [ Edit My
Membership ] Home Messages Post Chat Files Photos
Links Database Polls Members Calendar
> ---------------------------------
> Promote
> ---------------------------------
> = Owner = Moderator = Online MessagesMessages HelpReply |
Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines | Delete [input] [input]
[input] [input] Message 7678 of 7678 | Previous | Next [ Up
Thread ] Message Index [input] Msg # [input] [input]
From: "Tony Bermanseder" <PACIFICAP@h...>
> Date: Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:02 pm
> Subject: Re: Can velocity of gamma or X-ray differ from light
photon?
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> --- In Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com, "Dr.M.A.Padmanabha
> Rao" <raomap@n...> wrote:
> >
> > I taught and practiced Radiological physics for over 33 years.
High
> > energy and lack of charge are the two attributes that make a
gamma
> > or X-ray penetrate deep into solid materials like lead, in terms
of
> > half value layer.
> >
> > Planck's formula explains wavelength reduces for gamma or X-ray
> > over that of light photon. However, size of wavelength alone
cannot
> > address gamma or X-ray's ability to deep penetration over light
> > photon.
> >
> > Secondly, charge cannot be attributed to a wave or photon.
> >
> > 1. Is it possible to explain deep penetration of gamma or X-ray
> > over light photon, or suspect velocity of a photon in free space
> > or matter might depend upon its energy?
> >
> >
> >
> > Prof. M.A.Padmanabha Rao
> > raomap@y...
>
> Dear Professor Radmanabha Rao!
>
> Can a Photon be charged?
> If yes, then your question is answered; but photons are not
charged;
> they form their own antiparticles with equal polarisation
> probablities.
>
> And yet, one could postulate another kind of charging for the
> photon, namely as a Gauge Bosonic Photon.
> A Gauge Bosonic Photon, we might term it a SourcePhoton would have
an
> antiparticle in say a SinkPhoton.
> This would demand a reevaluation of the 'virtualnature' of the
> vacuumparticles.
>
> And this could lead us to the great symmetries in nature.
>
> At the Beginning, there was Light and AntiLight, Radiation and
> AntiRadiation in a absolutely homogenous and equilibriated unity.
>
> But there was no gravity and no mass.
> To create the former and the latter, gravity had to be born in its
> Source Bosonic Template - the Graviton; with double the chirality
to
> the now sourceconflicted SourceBoson and SinkBoson, both of whom
had
> a single chirality, confliccting themselves because of the parity
> and charge conjugation symmetries inherent in their genesis of
> selfdefinition.
>
> Apropos, the antiradiation disappeared, became suppressed in the
> weak interaction templates of the massinduction process known as
the
> Higgs Field.
> And so the SourceBoson became the mediator of the Unified Field of
> Quantum Relativity and it had a charge, a magnetocharge directly
> responsible for the creation of mass from its higher dimensional
> magnetic electricity, manifesting as matter/antimatter blueprints
> and suppressing the antimatter because of a supersymmetric particle
> called the RMP (RestMassPhoton).
>
> And so there is a very close relationship between the
> scaleparameters of wavelength and that of Coulombic Charge, because
> the Coulombic Charge is a mapping from the magnetocharge (defined
in
> scalerelationship with mass), which is nought but the Mass
> Parameters as experienced in the higher dimensions.
>
> And that is why the gamma ray can unify with the mass, its
> wavelength is scaled with the Compton Wavelength of the electrons,
> resulting in a 'tapping of the vacuum energy' as the divide between
> the dimensions.
>
> Thanking You Professor Rao Tony Sirebard
>
> /

Message 16935 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16935

"Skywatch" <skycom22@s...>
wrote:
> Tony,
>
> See my webpage on Flowing Gravity at
> http://www.geocities.com/xplorer2x/FlowGrav.htm
>
> This postulates a superfluid version of GTR.
>
> Bill

Dear Bill!

Yes I agree with you, the superfluid motion can be modelled on
Lagrangian boundary conditions; see the works of Toni Arbona's
spinforce model, to which I have added the concept of the Liquid
Crystal phasetransiting as the 'metric' from undefined to defined.
This engages the Planck-Plasma, the Planck-Gas and the Planck-Liquid.
But again all of this fits in very well with the general thrust of
the Standard Models, both in Partricle Physics and in Cosmology.

The BBT needs extensive revisions; this is achieved in melding the
higher dimensions to it.
The complexifications of Tensor-Fields and determinants is possible,
but not necessary to derive the basic premises and parameters.

See my last post as to my 'Poor Man's proposal'.

You would find, upon close inspection, that an encompassing 'common
property TOE'is indeed possible; but only under the umbrella of an
enveloping scientific philosophy.

If this would be the case now, there would only be cooperation on
all levels, and not this constant competitive quarreling of who is
right and who is wrong.

A simple point of consideration.
Take Joel Morisson's Sorce Theory.

There is little amiss with this theory as a model, however blending
it with Joel's scientific philosophy renders it a passionate
discourse in attack and defence.

I see no reason of attacking his theory, nor that of Bill Mitchell
for example, as all contribute to the 'TOE of and For ALL'.
The learning process is like the history of science, in
Shakespeares' words: "The History of the Science is the Science
itself."

So my 'back of the envelope model'encompasses Joel's I accomodate
Sorce Theory, but he feels he must defend Sorce Theory against
whatever he perceives 'my model' to be.

So it is with most groups, including this one.

Wouldn't it be better if WE call OURSELVES NPA_Unity of Science?What
is a dissident in the greater scope of things.
Does the dissident not become the pragmatist and dogmatist as
history has shown?

I'll end with that and I shall put the Arbona File on the Liquid
Crystal in the files here, if I am allowed to do so.

Again, thanks Bill. Cheers Tony B.