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

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

Paper #9

Even

More from

Mathematical physicist

Tony Bermanseder's

WSM,. String, TOE, mathematical posts.

4 Decades of writings of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

Message 17155 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17155

Dear Forum!

Consider the dimensional mapping of a 26-letter alphabet as
information transmission onto the 26D bosonic superstring.

We recall that M-Superbrane-Theory is based on the compactification
of opposite chiralities and vibration patterns in the heterosis of
superstring HE(8x8) (or EpsEss) in 10 dimensions, 16 anticlockwise
spinning dimensions having become conifolded (Gross, Harvey,
Martinec, Rhom, Boston String-Quartet, 1985).

Shannon Information Theory defines the ratio of equal-value-letter
alphabet transmission relative to 1bit processing as:
log26/log2=4.700439718...,
that is 4.7 times the information of a bit is transmitted in a
single letter.

Now engage in a simple exercise in quantum geometry to establish a
link between the encodings of the 26-tiered alphabet as analogy to
the 26D bosonic (integral spinning) superstring.

Draw a circle radius 2r and define the Wolford-Centre on an axis as
the interval [-2r,0,+2r].

Next draw two inscribed circles, each radius r centred at coordinates
-r and +r.

Considering this 2D representation of a circle 2r and containing two
adjacent circles r as a cross-section of a sphere, cut in the z-
plane of XYZ-orthogonality, we find precisely 8 spheres radius r
contained in the encompassing sphere radius 2r.

8(4pi/3)r^3=(4pi/3)(2r)^3.

The volume of the inscribed torus, cross-sectional radius r however
is 2pi^2.r^3 and hence topological transformation of the
circumscribing sphere into its inscribed doughnut/torus shape
diminishes the spherical volume in the factor 32pi.r^3/6pi^2.r^3 or
by 16/(3pi)=8(2/3pi).

radius r so gives a curvature factor of 3pi/2 for this topological
transformation.

The inner 'wormhole/funnel/hourglass-saddleshape' of the torus
displays hyperbolic curvature, is encompassed however by the
ellipsoidal/spherical curvature of the sphere radius 2r.

The Feigenbaum-Delta or Chaos Constant fromChaos/Complexity Theory
is given by Delta=4.669 and which is upper bounded by the curvature
constant 3pi/2=4.712... just obtained from differential geometry.

Delta is the proportionality constant between a doubling of the
period and the cascade/chaos creation; say as the period of dripping
waterdrops relative to the flowrate.
Hence Chaos brcomes an encrypted form of Order.

We so can write the Information-Transmission-Boundary-Relation:

4.712..=3pi/2>Shannon Constant log26/log2=4.700..>Delta=4.669..

One could therefore propose, that the Curvature Transformation for
metricated (measurable) spacequanta (Volumes defined in discrete
toroidal volumars of 2pi^2 cubeunits); and if associated with a 26D
bosonic superbraned 'subspace' distribution; automatically
incorporates Shannon Information as intrinsic parameter, bounded in
the quantum geometry.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17419 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17419

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Rolf states:
>
> >>>> It is presumed
> that the graviton disappears and is converted into energy when it
> acts on an object or particle.>>>>
>
> This statement is very interesting.
>
> Where did you find this Rolf?
>
>
> z

Dear Forum, allow me to intercede with some general considerations
>
>
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf Guthmann"
> <rolfguthmann@u...> wrote:
> >
> > The Graviton?
> > Theoretically predicted but never observed, this hypothetical
> > particle with no electric charge and no mass is supposed to be
> > responsible for the gravitational interaction between matter and
> > energy.
> > The following summary will show how its existence can be
predicted
> > and why we can eliminate it from the new theory of gravity.

The Graviton is colourcharged, as are all gauge bosons.
It is anticyclic to the gauge photon and the gluon, but cyclic to
the Higgs-Boson's underpinning supersymmetry template.
The Graviton becomes naturally unified with the photon in
colourcharge neutralisation and must associate with the process of
Pair-Production in the presence of mass (say a nucleus) because of
its double-spin negated by the gauge fields of the photon and the
weakon-template.

Spin angular momenta are conserved in such gauge-bosonic
interactions.

> > Its existence has traditionally been justified by the need for
an
> > element responsible for gravitational mediation, to carry out
the
> > transmission of energy between objects or particles, because
> physics
> > does not accept the conversion of force into energy. It is
presumed
> > that the graviton disappears and is converted into energy when
it
> > acts on an object or particle.

This is true, and relates to the 'virtuality' of all the gauge
bosons.
A redefinition of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Action relation
indicates the 'virtuality' to be a 'source bosonic predictability'.
The colour charge interaction transmutes all energy states across
the Planck-Einstein Laws for frequency and mass.
Eight permutative gluonic colourcharge-states are utilised for this
purpose, transmuting either colour-anticolours in mesonic quark-
antiquark systems or baryonic/hyperonic quark-triplets, given by
{BBB,BBW,BWB,WBB,WWB,WBW,BWW,WWW}.

> > We know that when a force acts on a particle, its energy is
> altered,
> > and that this energy is quantised in multiples of h (Planck's
> > Constant), as established by quantum theory and confirmed
> > experimentally. We can thus analyse the following relations
between
> > force and energy.
> > Force is equal to change in momentum over change in time.
> > We therefore have: F = Đ/Ħquot; [N or
> > (kg.m) /s/s]. (1)
> > Force is also equal to change in energy over change in distance.
> > We therefore have: F = ą/ĸ [N or
> > (kg.m2)/s2/m]. (2)
> > Where: ą = (E2 ? E1)
> > [(kg.m2)/s2]. (3)
> > When a force acts on an
object or particle, its energy is
changed,
> > which is to say that work is done. This work is a change in
energy,
> > with the same units as the energy itself, thus:
> > W = ą = E2 ? E1= F.ĸ [Joules or N.m or (kg.m2)/s2]. (4)
> > From 4, we can see that,
as work is a change in energy, and as
this
> > energy is quantised, we can state that the work must also be
> > quantised. If one is quantised, the other must also be.
> > Returning to 2, the force must therefore also be quantised,
> assuming
> > that any change in distance is a continuous quantity.
> > We can now ask whether the distance is indeed continuous, which
we
> > cannot state with absolute certainty. It may be theoretically
> > possible to always find a new point between any two given
points,
> > but quantum mechanics shows that the shortest measurable
distance
> is
> > Planck's length (Lp).
> > Using the gravitational energy of an isolated mass given here:
> > Eg == 3/5.Gk.m2/r [Joules or N.m or (kg.m2)/s2], (5)

Rolf is using the gravitational potential, say of a star.
Quantum Relativity derives the protostars (ylemic dineutron stars)
from this consideration.

Let the thermal internalenergy or ITE=H be the outward pressure in
equilibrium to the gravitational potential energy or GPE=Omega.

Nuclear Density in subatomic parameters is rho/n=Mc/Vc~1.1x10^16
kilogram per cubicmetres (at ylemic times, corresponding to beta-
neutron-decay).

H=molarity.kT=(R/Re)^3kT for Omega(R)=-[Integral]GMdm/R, with
and Mc is a typical nucleon mass.

dH=3kTR^2.dR/Re^3 and dOmega=-3GMc^2.R^4.dR/Re^6 from Rolf's
expression Omega(R)=-3GMc^2R^5/(5Re^6).

Hence, equating dH+DOmega=0 for equilibrium in ITE and GPE, we
obtain the Ylemic radius formula as Rolf's 'isolated mass'.

Rylem(T) = Sqrt[kTRe^3/GMc^2] metres.

I have derived this to show, that these protostar radii are
independent of their masses as a function of their temperatures only.
They could so be considered as 'isolated masses'.
They were the precursors for neutron stars and magnetars and seeded
all of the galaxies, as well as defining the planetesimal limit at
the 1km scale and for a temperature of 1.2 billion K.

The Schwarzschild Radius and the Chandrasekhar limit for White
Dwarfs then associates in the magnetopolic electricity, giving rise
to the Cosmic Ray spectra as a derivative from the magnetic
monopole, the GUT-Unification scale at 2.7x10^16 GeV and the
precursive supermembrane class IIB.

> > we can deduce Planck's length (Lp) as follows:
> > Lp = ((h/2pi). Gk/c3)^(1/2) [m]. (6)
> > This Lp could theoretically generate the lowest quantised work
> (Wq),
> > and this could be used to define the lowest quantum of
> gravitational
> > force (Fq). Here is the graviton.

This is too general.
The link to the Planck Scale is via the Zero-Point-Oscillator, given
in hfps/2=kTps/2=1/2e* as superbrane parameters (class HE(8x8)).

Those relate to the Gravitational Finestructure as fiunction of the
Alpha-Electromagnetic finestructure.

Gravitational Finestructure: 2Pi.Go.Mc^2/hc for Go the initiatory
and bounding Gravitational Constant modular dual to electric
permittivity.

> > It was shown in chapter 7 of the QTG that the Universal
> > Gravitational Constant (Gk) is not entirely constant, but was
> > calculated for this part of the universe and could assume
different
> > values depending on the presence of objects or masses that could
> > modulate the frequency of the local time reference. We can thus
> > conclude that Lp will also vary from place to place, which will
be
> > of significance later.

Rolf is partially on the mark here. G varies very slowly (at present
to 3 parts in 10^11 per year); keeping the productation Gm(i)m(j)
constant however.
A massless universe would measure Go as a massless Black Hole,
encompassed by a 'Strominger Brane' in 5D (say), which would not

> > As gravity is the weakest force, the graviton would
theoretically
> be
> > its elementary unit. In this case, it would be a quantum of work
by
> > Planck's length (Lp), and the graviton would have the following
> > force:
> > Fq = Wq/Lp [N or (kg.m /s/s)]. (7)
> > From 7, we can see that this quantum of gravitational force (Fq)
> has
> > the units of force [N], while gravity has the units of
acceleration
> > [m/s/s]. As force is classically the product of mass and
> > acceleration, we have:
> > F = m.a [N or (kg.m /s/s)]. (8)
> > It was strategically determined that the graviton should have
zero
> > mass:
> > m = 0 [kg],
> > We should therefore theoretically have a lowest quantum of
> > gravitational force equal to zero:
> > Fq = m . 0 = 0 [N ou (kg.m /s/s)]. (9)
> > For this to occur, convention determined that this quantum of
> > gravitational force be magically converted into inertia. In
chapter
> > 6 of the QTG, it was shown that this artifice is unnecessary,
with
> > the demonstration that a difference in the relative forces of
the
> > atom results in a force without mass or inertia, thereby
respecting
> > all the laws and postulates of the classical theories of
physics.
> > In chapter 2 of the QTG, it was shown that gravity is generated
> only
> > when an atom is found in a gravitational field, without which
there
> > can be no temporal reference, this being defined by the presence
of
> > at least one other atom, and that the gravity generated also
> depends
> > on the intensity of the gravitational field.

I concur with this in the above description of a massless universe
described by the finestructuring of Maxwell's Constant 1/c^2 in the
magnetic permeability and electric permittivity constants.

Best of science to all Tony B.

> > We can conclude that it is not a force that generates gravity,
but
> > the presence of a gravitational field. That is to say, we do not
> > have the conversion of force into energy, but the conversion of
the
> > influence of a gravitational field into gravitational energy,
> > because, as shown in chapter 8 of the QTG, "gravity gravitates".
> > SEE: http://www.geocities.com/rolfguthmann/QTG/qtg.html

Message 17424 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17424

to Tony and Rolf again who stated

>>>>> > we can deduce Planck's length (Lp) as follows:
> > Lp = ((h/2pi). Gk/c3)^(1/2) [m]. (6)
> > This Lp could theoretically generate the lowest quantised work
> (Wq),
> > and this could be used to define the lowest quantum of
> gravitational
> > force (Fq). Here is the graviton.

This is too general.
The link to the Planck Scale is via the Zero-Point-Oscillator, given
in hfps/2=kTps/2=1/2e* as superbrane parameters (class HE(8x8)).>>>>

OK

But here's what I'm betting.

We are going to find a far SHORTER duration quantum of energy - than
h - in the realm of the quark.

I have this on my website (someplace).

In fact I was jubilant when the University of Alabama - link is on
the website too - claimed that gravity could not be quantized because
they saw a clearer picture of distant galaxies than they should have.

They didn't realize that the gravitational boson (graviton) is
derived via the spin of the quark as is h-bar derived via the
electron's spin change and h via the electron's orbital changes.

imo

z

ON THE SPIN AND THE STABILITY OF THE PROTON.

Dear Zeus!

The subtimespace, for which the HE(8x8) superbrane forms the geodesic wormhole limit cannot be measured.

Penrose's Weyl Nullification Hypothesis does represent a threshold for the physical analysis for the quarks.

The Quantum Geomtry associates a neutrinoic trisected kernel as three up-quarks with this 'core of wave matter'.

So you can reduce the wavequark proton into the double-plus delta of the three up-quarks, associated with a InnerMesonicRing (IMR).

In terms of quantum spin, the double-plus-delta carries 3/2 in separation from the IMR, that is as nucleon resonance.

In this process, the three up-quarks disentangle from its stable circularl form to align linearly alonhg a magnetoaxis given in the geometry.

The strong interaction recombines the double-plus-delta with the IMR in the time light can cross the nuclear diameter of the proton in so 10^-23 seconds.

This process flips the inner quark's spin to be opposite that of the IMR to reconstitute the proton.

You have 1) Stable Proton u(1/2)d(-1/2)u(1/2)=u(1/2)[u(1/2)+IMR(-1)]u(1/2)

2) Strong Interaction u(1/2)[VPE=ubar(-1/2)u(1/2)+d(-1/2)]u(1/2)

3) Unstable D++ u(1/2)u(1/2)u(1/2)+ubar(-1/2).d(-1/2) {p-(0)+GP(-1)}

4) Proton Reconstitution: D++(3/2) + p-(0) + GP(-1)= Proton(1/2).

So you find a GraviPhoton (GP) as a 'spinner', conserving the quantum spin as a noncolour -charged supersymmetric particle DURING the proton's shortlived stay as a delta-doubleplus nucleon resonance.

This is simply the spinalignment of the d-quark as the up-kernel to the IMR.

The down-quark's spin is so always comprised of the 'spinner' finestructure to allow the flipping of the neutrino-kernelled up-quarks.

This clearly shows, that the proton cannot decay, either into positronic or kaonic constituents, because this would require a positively charged IMR, as is present in the antiproton.

The proton is engaged in a perpetual dance of being the unstable doubleplus delta and of being the stable proton.

Your high resonance spinstates link to this however in the superbrane hierarchies 'within' the Weyl-geodesic.

The GUT-Unification energy is well known to be about 27x10^15 GeV as the upper bound of the Cosmic Ray spectra and the Gamma Burster Maximum.

This is but the eigenenergy for superbnrane class IIB, also known as the Magnetic Monopole.

This can be expressed via the Heisenberg Finestructure as c^3 eV.

Then as mass-monopolic current/equivalent E=(ec)c^2 maps this mass-current equivalence fromthe superbrane scale onto the atomic scale via the dimensional unifier c^2.

MagnetoCharge e*=2Re.c^2 maps Coulomb Charge e=LPSqrt(Alpha).c^2.

Furthermore, the Entropy-Counter fps^2=9x10^60=c^2/lps^2 does represent the resonance limit for the df/dt awareness differential for the angular acceleration acting upon the spacetime volumars as defined by magnetocharge e* (as function of the classical electronic diameter, itself finestructured as Compton proiportionality and quantised in the HE(8x8) wormhole parameters.{10^10 lps=360.Re}.

Your higher quark-spins are so given in the finestructure for the Planck-Action, but are restrticted to manifest within the Weyl geodesic, representing the event horizon for all physical measurements in accordance with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the superbrane mappings of the magnetocharges onto the electrocharges.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17162 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17162

Dear Zeus and Forum!

(Zeus, the factor c^3=c.c^2 as you often advocated is responsible for quark-wavelet energies. The superbrane mapping between charges is:

MagnetoCharge e*.Planck-Length.Sqrt(Alpha)=CoulombCharge e.ElectronicDiameter

e*.Planck-Length.Alpha^[3/2]=e.Compton-Wavelength)

The discussion below concerns the FineStructure Constant of Quantum Chromodynamics, part of the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

The Nobel Prize 2004 was awarded for an apparent experimental verification for this QCD-Constant.

FMC-Theory has uniquely determined the boundary values for this constant, as seen in the statistical graphs in the post below.

I would like to advise the forums and anyone concerned, that the QCD Finestructure Constant is limited at the GUT-Scale of the heterotic superstring class HO(32) at precisely a factor related to the manifestation of what is known as the XL-Boson of quark-leptonic unification.

The value is precisely given in the Cuberoot of Alpha at the scale where the Electromagnetic Finestructure applies its unification with the weak interaction as 0.1939...at an energy of about 8 GeV, being the octet SU(3) state for the nucleon (for 8 gluonic permutations).

At the GUT-Level this coupling constant decreases to a value given by the Squareroot of Alpha to reflect the unification of the four fundamental forces as given in the pentagonal supersymmetry underpinning this selfsame unification process. There the energy is 1.9x10^15 GeV, just below the unification energy for selfdual superbrane class IIB, also known as the magnetic monopole at-precisely 27x10^24 GeV (or c^3 unified eV-units from the unified conditions).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment : lichdus1.gif (< 0.01 MB), counter.gif (< 0.01 MB), dracula.jpg (0.01 MB), 397_thumb.jpg (< 0.01 MB), dogrose.gif (< 0.01 MB), fairyCakeStarCandle.jpg (0.02 MB), phypub2lowen.gif (< 0.01 MB), asymp.gif (0.05 MB), asympdetail1.gif (< 0.01 MB), asympdetail2.gif (0.01 MB), Cindy-Crawford.jpg (0.05 MB), hopper.jpg (0.03 MB), film_flaherty_nanook.jpg (0.02 MB), newtownpiedpiper.jpg (0.02 MB), visit.gif_us1108342563 (< 0.01 MB), serv_s_76001084_t_1108342563 (< 0.01 MB)

THE PRIORY OF THE DUNGEON

(A Peyote-induced Physics Thriller)

The strange case of the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics

The answer in seven easy steps

======================================

THE-FOUNDATION-IS-THE-FRONTIER SERIES

======================================

Essays on:

Physics in the Twenty-first Century

Series Index

by

Bibhas De

Copyright 2005 by Bibhas R. De

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WELCOME!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GRAPHICS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The graphics do not belong to this site. They are displayed, with thanks, by calls to their original sites. The sources of these graphics used in this Home Page and its supporting pages can be seen by right-clicking on the pictures, and then clicking on "Properties"

Strangest thing! Nobody has commented on the odd aspects of the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics. The usual laudatory celebration has gone on. The fearsome secret society of the Priory of the Dungeon has everybody where they want them. The Grand Dragon must be smiling from within his cloak and hood. His predecessor, the mysterious character known only as the Watchmaker, would be pleased too. The entrenched physics community is as fearful as the Elois. The Media is as docile as the Stepford wives. The Barbarians at the Gate fought a good fight, but are losing out. The grandest conspiracy at intellectual world domination is progressing unchallenged, apace.

Overview

Count Dracula, Meet Dr. van Helsing

This essay is not primarily to create a controversy about the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics. Any such controversy would be about as productive as the same for an Oscar. The Nobel Committee (hereinafter "the Committee") is neither democratic nor public, and does not owe anyone any explanations. But behind a controversial prize, there is usually an agenda. If there were a hidden agenda behind a Physics Prize, that agenda would need to be discussed most vigorously in an open scientific society. Since the physics establishment does not appear to be such an open society, I will do the discussing.

The 2004 Prize was awarded for a theory elucidating the nature of Strong Force, which is the last unexplained component of the Standard Theory of Particle Physics, a Quantum Mechanical theory on the nature of elementary particles. While this seeming victory is being celebrated, the public is not being told about the trouble brewing for the Standard Theory.

The Standard Theory has been for some time, and is increasingly coming under serious question.

First, the discovery that neutrino has mass places the theory in jeopardy. Compare this to holding the Holy Cross up to Dracula. They plan to fix this by applying patches to the Standard Theory.

Second, increasingly from many quarters outside of the mainstream physics establishment (i.e., from the Barbarians at the Gate), the suggestion is coming that the photon is not a massless particle either. If true, this can incapacitate the theory. Compare this to daybreak for Dracula.

Third, if the photons have mass and magnetic field, they might interact with one another. There is now experimental evidence, for example, that orthogonal electric and magnetic fields from different sources can combine to form an electromagnetic wave. There is even talk of a structure of photon, with a longitudinal (in the direction of propagation) magnetic field component. These developments are fatal for the Standard Theory. Compare this to Dr. van Helsing driving a wooden stake through the heart of Dracula. If you are not familiar with Dr. van Helsing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer would do nicely.

And do not forget the emerging line of experimental evidence that larger and larger carbon atom complexes are exhibiting quantum behavior! Within the world of the Quantum Theorist, this is like a 300 lb ballplayer sitting in a crib, sucking on a pacifier.

In the face of this rising chorus of criticism, the Committee chose to confer the prize. But that is not all.

If the above can be called an external atmosphere of doubt, there is ? echoing this ? an internal atmosphere of doubt as well. That concerns the scientific evidence on which the discovery was considered consummated. As to that evidence, read the material put out by the Committee, and you will end up saying to yourself: Methinks the Committee doth justify too much!

They do. And with good reason. They rushed to give the award before it becomes even more difficult by the year to justify it. Quick, before it melts!

The 2004 Prize is being pitched as something like the ancient papyrus map to the Holy Grail. If you follow my reasoning below, it may seem more like a more modern concept in documentation, referred to as a Bill of Goods.

Finally, the Committee has also now set up shop as a combination of Supreme Court of Physics Development and Physics Thought Police. They made declarative statements essentially to the effect that the Standard Theory is the officially correct physics, and the only physics. And, believe it or not, they also declared that this is the official path to the Theory of Everything! Nirvana Avenue is exclusively theirs to drive on.

You would think that this is as strong an indirect way of saying ?Barbarians need not apply? as one could formulate? Apparently not. In case some diehard Barbarians think that things may change down the road and their names might appear before the Committee, it goes on to say: If, God forbid, the Standard Theory should fall apart, it shall be the Superstring Theory that will be the acceptable substitute.

This is not an amusing matter. Not really. I cannot think of any other example in history of a more ingenious plot of an intelligentsia seizing control of the scientific pursuit. Except perhaps eugenics.

The ?science? of eugenics, it is little known today, had a wide and powerful support base among the scientific, social and political intelligentsia ? in the United States and in Europe. They were a veritable ?establishment?. They were going great guns until a certain Austrian corporal went too far. The corporal and his henchmen faced some accountability for what followed, but the intelligentsia escaped unharmed. History was rewritten for them. They are today recognized as some of the greatest men of history.

If you feel uneasy about the comparison with eugenics, just take out the social context and look at the realm of ideas. There is ongoing today a clearing of the brush around the Standard Theory. With eugenics, the idea also had to do with a type of clearing. And history will be rewritten here as well. When the Standard Theory unravels and the Barbarians turn out to have the right and the bright ideas, their ideas will be inducted into the Standard Theory in some clever way (cleverness they got by the barrel-full!). The Barbarians will remain exactly where they are.

Behind all this today is the invisible hand of the secret society, the Priory of the Dungeon. Did the Priory get to the Nobel Committee, or did they infiltrate it?

That is the question.

Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.

- Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (1533-1592)

THE UNBRELLA OF A HALLOWED TRADITION:

AND WHAT CAN BE SNEAKED IN UNDER IT

The Nobel Prize for Physics ? through long history and tradition ? has come to be universally accepted and respected as the ultimate imprimatur on a discovery or a development. It signals that all serious questioning of the subject work must now cease, that the work is the scientific truth. It places the recipients on a pedestal high enough to be beyond the reach of any type of edible projectiles. While some other Nobel Prizes, such as those for literature and peace, may come under criticism, the physics prize is given the ultimate untouchable status. This situation has come about naturally and with good cause, as a cumulative effect of the sound judgment shown in the award of the prize to genuine, deserving work - spanning over a hundred years.

The 2004 Nobel Prize was given for an impressive theoretical calculation addressing an impasse in the development of the ?Standard Theory? of elementary particles. It explained the Strong Force, the last unexplained force of the proposed four forces of nature. The calculation supposedly showed excellent agreement with experimental data, and withstood the test of time (some 25 years). On this basis essentially, it was declared to be a fully consummated discovery.

The truth, or at least the truth as I alone see it, is that it was at best a credible scientific proposition. The rest of the adornments that have been hung on it in the post-award statements from the Committee are secondary justification. The award is given strength from the fact that the discovery was counterintuitive. The work is said to extend a long-established path of inquiry. It is said that the discovery clears way to a Theory of Everything. These Nobel Laureates, it is said, are the latest in an aristocratic lineage.

A large part of the work of physics is to develop theories that fit experimental or observational data. Many times, multiple and distinct theories agree with the same set of data, to varying degree. A choice is then made upon further detailed tests of their comparative merits. So, one theory agreeing with data does not say much about the unique correctness of that theory. This comment applies whether or not competing theories exist (or have been allowed to exist). As to the test of time, the Piltdown Man withstood the test of time for 40 years ? during which period it underwent thorough scientific scrutiny. Imagine a grand prize given for this work in the 39th year!

You can hide all these objections under the force of great authority and great expert consensus, but they never really go away. History tells us so. You can push truth away from everywhere, but in the 21st century it will always have a last sanctuary: The Internet.

Of far greater and deeper concern than the Prize is what lies beneath the surface. The Committee very cleverly used the occasion of this award to make several declarative statements of final judgment, much as the United States Supreme Court renders final judgment on matters of great societal import. They, the Committee, made these statements in a very carefully worded report that has strong underlying legalistic tone and tenor. The Committee declared that the Standard Theory is the only scientific truth, a distinct Strong Force domain is the only correct scientific description, and asymptotic freedom (for which the 2004 Prize was given) is the only correct description of the Strong Force. Finally, they proclaimed that this is the only path to a Theory of Everything.

In this manner, the Committee took upon itself, and handled, the problem of growing unrest created by the Barbarians at the gate. They cleared the brush around the Standard Theory.

And most interestingly, there was no discussion anywhere about so momentous a step in the history of science, taken so stealthily. One does not expect the shallow scientific press to have the wherewithal to look so deep, but surely physicists at large were fully aware of what had transpired. But nobody said anything - not in public at any rate. It is the old carrot-and-stick situation. You do not want to upset the Committee ? who knows when your name might come up before them. But if you are not after this carrot, there is then the stick: The Priory. Who knows who is sitting on your tenure/advancement committee!

So there you have it: The King James Version of physics, courtesy of the neoGideons. Welcome to the Twenty-first Century.

THE BARBARIANS AT THE GATE:

INSURGENCY FROM WITHOUT

It is not inconceivable that an award may be given in good faith and upon due diligence, for an idea that later falls apart. This is perfectly acceptable, and no one should be faulted or made humor of. It is another matter altogether when a prize is given for a scientific proposal in an atmosphere of clear and present doubt.

In this case, there had been for sometime a rising cacophony from many directions about the foundation of Electromagnetic Theory and hence the nature of mass and matter, of photon and elementary particles - as well as approaches to a Grand Unified Theory. All these created a cloud of doubt above the Standard Theory. More specifically, the question of photon mass has come under serious consideration.

It is true that this cacophony came largely from ostrogoths and visigoths (collectively, "the Barbarians") outside the ramparts of the Physics Establishment. But not all of it. One of the vanguards of this movement, Bo Lehnert, Professor Emeritus of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, is a highly respected scientific colleague of those within the Nobel Prize-giving body. He is a member of the Nobel Prize-granting body. He is a very fine and meticulous thinker ? I know this firsthand because his mentor and my teacher were one and the same person. And if one thing characterized that person, it was unorthodox thinking. In today?s buzzword lingo, this is ?thinking outside the box?.

In the web site of a physicist whose work appears to be not acknowledged by the mainstream physics community, Lehnert wrote, with that courage which is born of intellectual honesty and purity:

Electromagnetic field theory still remains far from a completed area of research, and a new era of epochmaking investigations appears now to have its dawn. Myron Evans is one of the outstanding pioneers in this field of modified and extended theories. New fundamental properties in photon physics are thus due to Evans, such as the Evans-Vigier longitudinal magnetic field component in the direction of propagation of the photon, and an associated small but nonzero photon rest mass. As a continuation of Einstein?s ideas, a new unified field theory on electromagnetism and gravitation has also been developed by Evans which debouches into a general form which reduces to all the main equations of physics in appropriate limits.

There is no question that the Committee was aware of these developments casting doubt over that which they were about to anoint. When you take photon on one hand and mass on the other, and put them together, there is an explosion of cosmic magnitude that blows away much of the construction of modern particle physics.

All of which brings me to the purpose of my writing this article. The Committee is only incidental to my thesis. My purpose concerns my long-standing theory about the Priory of the Dungeon (hereinafter "The Priory"). This is the whole reason of my writing this page: To gloat that the 2004 award substantiates my conspiracy theory! Told you so!

THE PRIORY:

BE AFRAID! VERY AFRAID!

The origin of the Priory has been described in the thriller The Cat and the Eel. Formed during the first half of the Twentieth Century, this is an intensely secretive society. It has such an elaborate system of communication that members may not even know that they belong to the Priory. Unbeknownst to them, they do the Priory?s bidding. Only the five-member High Council which elects the Grand Dragon knows who he is. The system of secrecy has been fashioned after the cold-war era Komitet Gosudarstvennoi Bezopasnosti.

The purpose of the Priory is a clear, single-minded one: To preserve and protect the edifice of Quantum Theory from all enemies domestic and foreign. In practical terms, the purpose boils down to this: Always keep the obscure concept of photon completely obfuscated. ?Persuade? everyone from attempting to give any type of specificity to photon. If anyone still gets out of line, convene a meeting of the High Council in the Star Chamber. Then, if so decided, dispatch a mechanic followed by a cleaner.

The Grand Dragon of the Priory is given a strange name so as not to give out any clues as to who he is. Here is the history thus far:

The Founder: Der Uhrmacher

Second Grand Dragon: Mannlicher-Schoenauer

Third Grand Dragon: Pa rum pum pum pum

Fourth (current) Grand Dragon: Howdy Pardner

The salutation of the Priory (the way members recognize one another) has not yet been uncovered. It is believed that forming the letter M with fingers has something to do with the salutation.

It is believed that Dan Brown, author of the best-selling thriller Da Vinci Code about the super-secret, super-powerful Priory of Sion (whose purpose is to preserve and protect the bloodline of Christ) really intended to write about the Priory of the Dungeon. For reasons unknown, he changed his mind. Subsequently, it is believed, Michael Crichton looked at this subject, but for some reason ended up writing the safer book State of Fear about environmental eco-terrorists and fearmongers.

The Priory. Be afraid! Very afraid!

So why am I not afraid, you ask? I am wearing a string of garlic around my neck! It makes me stink something awful, but I am safe.

Now let?s get down to the business at hand.

STEP ONE: LET?S GET ORGANIZED?

There have been many expositions of the work that led to the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics. We do not want to belabor that here. We simply want to set up the problem for our purpose. So, here is a first-level summary:

The Prize was given for a discovery known as ?asymptotic freedom?, within the area of Quantum Chromodynamics, which is a part of the Standard Theory - within the general branch of physics known as Quantum Theory. Asymptotic freedom concerns how quarks, particles that make up protons and neutrons, behave with respect to one another. The force between quarks here is called the Strong Force or Strong Interaction. The discovery is that quarks, unlike electrons (say), attract each other with a force that becomes stronger as the distance between the quarks increases. When the quarks come close together, the force becomes weaker asymptotically ? as though the two particles are now independent of each other (Hence the name asymptotic freedom). Thus the discovery is said to elucidate the nature of the Strong Force, which has been explained as a new, ?color? force. The Strong Force is conveyed by gluons, particles which ? instead of having electric charge ? have something new called color charge (hence the name Chromodynamics).

Now, when you examine something of this momentousness, you have to be very careful ? scientifically as well as logic-wise. So let us identify the basic material we will use. We will get our story directly from the horse?s mouth. The Committee has put out two versions of the justification for this award: One intended for the public, Version A, and the other intended for the specialist, Version B. We will use both.

This also frees you, the reader, from the need to go to the library and seek out scientific papers. Everything you need is available from your desktop. Furthermore, for our purpose, we need not at all go to the intricacies of physics. That is precisely what you do not want to do ? to get needlessly bogged down in details and lose sight of the main issue.

STEP TWO: UNDERSTAND THE EDIFICE

If you read Version A carefully and between the lines, you will see repeated allusions to the fact that asymptotic freedom sits critically on a multi-story edifice that has been erected over many decades. But it is presented in a reaffirming way: This work stands on previous Nobel-prizewinning contributions. Get it? The previous Nobel Prizes are solid floors of the edifice, so this one has to solid also.

For our purpose, let us identify some features of the lower floors, specifically, the four basic forces of nature:

(1) The gravitational force is carried by gravitons (not yet found).

(2) The electromagnetic force is carried by photons (which do not interact with each other, and which have no rest mass and no electric charge).

(3) The weak force is carried by bosons (massive particles)

(4) The strong force is carried by gluons (no mass, no electric charge, but color charge).

The last three forces together are referred to as the Standard Model. Their starting point, both logically and historically, is Classical Electrodynamics. From that was developed Quantum Electrodynamics, and thence to the Electroweak Theory, which seeks to link the electromagnetic force and the weak force.

Roughly speaking, the Standard Theory is the Edifice.

STEP THREE: EXAMINE THE EDIFICE

So we start with Classical Electromagnetic Theory. Now, at a first level, the current formulation of electromagnetic theory (most of which is embodied in the Maxwell?s Equations), going back to about the middle of the 19th century, is always under attack from one corner or another. It has always been so. It is like everyone wanting to build a better mousetrap. There is no branch of physics where there has been more debate or more acrimony. It is not our task to address or assess that issue, but to simply note that this type of activity cannot be put forward to criticize the Edifice. For one thing, scientifically, the Edifice is more fortified than that which contradicts it.

Now, however, in recent years there has been a growing chorus, from many independent quarters, that the photon has a nonzero rest mass. (I will not go into detailed referencing, but simply do a Google search under "photon mass" and the whole subject will be at your desktop.) This result is completely at odds with the Edifice. You will be given a general answer that this type of ideas are being pursued by the Barbarians outside the city walls, and that you should not be concerned about this.

I do not agree with this statement as it stands. Scientific truth can come from anywhere. If you start assigning credibility score to the sources, you have then to distinguish between a Ph. D. from UC Santa Barbara and UC Santa Cruz. It is ludicrous. The proper thing to do is to look at the work ? even if it is from a retired postal worker or a patent examiner. Suffice it to say, the scientific establishment has not addressed the issue as it relates to the Barbarians.

But let us play along. Now the problem for the establishment is this: The Committee physicists themselves have a colleague, a distinguished academic, who is a vanguard of the photon mass movement. Why do they turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to him? I do not know. But it is clear that he is publishing his work in the fringe publications.

There is no strong reason to oppose the mass of a photon except to preserve the Edifice.

You see, a great deal depends on the photon not having a mass. You have no idea how much depends on the photon not having a mass until you stop and think about it.

And that is where the Priory of the Dungeon comes in. They will ensure that photon has no mass, not officially.

Let us at this point give our imagination some reigns. You are a fly on the wall of the conference room where the Committee meets for the final time. There are five members, and oddly, an outside consultant representing an unnamed organization. Here is what you might witness (The names have been altered to protect the innocent):

Dramatis personae:

Erki: Committee Chair

Gunnar-Gosta: Committee Member

Thor-Bjorn: Committee Member

Ingeborg: Committee Member

Sven-Bertil: Committee Member

Ebbie: Consultant

Act III, Scene III:

A Secret Conference Room in Stockholm

Enter the Committee ? Ebbie in tow.

Erki: The Committee will come to order. Welcome, Ebbie. We are pleased to have the benefit of your organization?s advice. And thank you for your letter of recommendation. We are here today to finalize our choice. Gentlemen, are there any pending issues we need to look at?

Ingeborg: There is the matter of the views of our dear friend and colleague Bo Lehnert.

Sven-Bertil: Good old Bosse is just having some post-retirement fun. He is too nice a gentleman to have anything to say about our choice.

Thor-Bjorn: Nevertheless, there is the issue of appearance.

Ebbie: Never you folks worry. My people can squelch any criticism. After the Prize is announced, I will make some comments to the Media from the prestigious platform of my University, supporting the choice. My organization has the Media in its pocket.

Ingeborg: What about the public failing to understand what this grand discovery is all about? Can your organization help there?

Ebbie: The exalted Grand Dragon has considered this point, and proposes the following stagecraft. He suggests that you round up a man and a woman from the Academy?s staff. Then have then stand close to each other, and put a giant rubber band around their waist. When they walk away from each other, they will be pulled closer. They will have a pained expression on their faces. When they are close to each other, they are free to do whatever they want. We can show the woman happily talking on the cell phone to her boyfriend. Asymptotic freedom, simple! The cameras will be rolling. The public is basically stupid, and they will lap it up.

Sven-Bertil: That is diabolically clever!

Ebbie: Thank you. Also, the exalted Grand Dragon would now like to start building up our esteemed colleague in String Theory for the Prize. He thinks this year is a great occasion to get the process going ? so that we can bring it to a head in a couple of years.

Gunnar-Gosta:No problem. We can give him a plug at the end of our write-up this year. But, I am still uneasy about Bo Lehnert: I have great respect and admiration for Bosse. And he has something of a following. Here?s what I propose. Let?s don?t say anything about the photon. If we acknowledge any issue with photon mass, we cannot proceed with this Prize. But technically speaking, Bosse?s issue is first with Electromagnetic Theory which, in our case, translates to Quantum Electrodynamics. When we write up our justification, we can say that QED has proved to be a highly accurate science. That way we are covered.

Erki: I think that is a good solution. Does everyone agree?

Chorus: We agree! We agree!

(Drum roll)

Erki: Tak simiket. Tak ska du ha. The decision is made final, and the Committee is adjourned.

(Exeunt Committee ? Ebbie in tow, talking on his unlocked triband GSM cell phone).

STEP FOUR: SOAK IN THE HISTORY

You know Inspector Maigret, the French detective? He and his associates Luca, Janvier and LePointe formed a great team that solved crime through a combination of hard work and brainpower. But Maigret himself had a very special style. After he surveyed a crime scene, he did not go back to his precinct immediately. Instead, he hung around the neighborhood. Then he found a bar and sat on the sidewalk with a Pernod, soaking in the ambience ? the comings and goings, how the day grows, when the housemaids leave etc. This is an intellectual version of casing the joint. Once having developed a feel for the neighborhood, he can view the crime in some context.

But, most important, Maigret is always on guard that things may not be what they seem.

So, to get to the bottom of this caper we have on our hands, let us soak up the ambience.

First, I would read the Version A, intended for the general public. This nicely keys you in to the neighborhood.

But you should really then go on to Version B ? a most remarkable document with multi-layered messages. I would simply read it through even if I did not understand most of it. I would still gain a sense of history, of passionate scientific quest spanning over the better part of a century, of failures and setbacks, of final victories, and of tragic figures and lucky winners. And also a sense of mathematics harnessed into the service of physics. It is a physics epic, with many heroes and no villains. (Until now, perhaps.)

The subliminal messages are combination of pleadings, justifications and warnings, intended to preempt any criticisms or questionings of the Committee decision. Some of these messages are, in my reading:

(1). DON?T EVEN DARE: This discovery comes as the final fruition of decades of search by the highest minds. Don?t even dare question it.

(2). NOBEL BEGETS NOBEL: This is the latest Nobel Prize in a distinguished lineage of Nobel Prizes in this particular field. This is a part of an integral series. You question this, you question the entire package.

(3). DON?T WORRY, WE ARE CAREFUL: There were many false leads in the past, but we did not give out prizes for them. We only gave prizes for the correct discoveries. So we have a track record of doing the right thing.

(4). NIRVANA AVENUE: We are embarked on a long pilgrimage, and with this discovery, the Temple is in view: The Theory of Everything. (Translation: Nirvana is at the end of that road on which we are journeying, and no other roads.)

(5). ESCAPE CLAUSES: But just in case, we equip ourselves with escape capsules. Quantum Electrodynamics is a highly accurate science (Translation: That is why we are not worried about the Barbarians reworking the Electromagnetic Theory, and especially Bo Lehnert). The recently discovered mass of neutrino may do the Standard Theory in. String Theory ? which is being worked on by our boys - may then come to the rescue. There, we have said it all. So, don?t blame us in case of these eventualities.

(6). WE ARE NOT AMUSED: We will not acknowledge the Barbarians at the Gate. We will say nothing about photon mass, or extensions of the Electromagnetic Theory. But we will give a nod to the far more controversial String Theory, for it comes from within our midst. We take care of our own.

STEP FIVE: START THE DISASSEMBLY

My main point is obviously the pointed ignoring of the gathering dark cloud. But did scientific evidence for the theory justify this ignoring? Not really.

A theory is consummated by experiment or observation. Everything else that is advanced by way of justification is wrappings and adornments, icing on the cake, and rum that soaks the cake. This is a most important point, because you have to recognize what is decoration (don?t eat the candles!), what is icing (that stuff is bad for you), and what is rum (never enough!). Remove them, and then taste the basic cake.

So first, let?s remove the basket and the decorations, which are:

(1). Believe the theory because it correctly predicts something that is counterintuitive.

(2). Believe it because it has withstood the test of time.

(3). Believe it because it completes a story line by explaining the last unexplained force: The Strong Force.

(5). Believe it because when an intricate theory agrees with experiment, it means more than when a simpler theory agrees with experiment (Translation: My math is bigger than your math.)

Now let us carefully scrape off the icing, which comes in many layers and flavors:

(1). Believe it because our three amigos did this while they were still at a very tender, dreamy age.

(2). Believe it because it was very hard work (Cf. President George W. Bush)

(3). Believe it because it is now in the graduate level textbooks.

And finally, we have to figure out a way to dry off the rum:

This is the trickiest part ? and some readers and I might part company here. It concerns the strongest justification that is advanced for the Prize: Expert consensus. The experts have recommended that this is a worthy prize. If you, reader, accept this ? as most, if not all, will ? then there is no point reading this article further. There is in fact a strong bureaucratic point in favor of expert consensus: What other way is there?

For those who stay with me: Expert consensus in physics today means about as much as the same in Miss Universe contest. This is subject I can go on and on, but let us stay focused. Let me just learn you a thing or two about experts!

Academics see hundreds of recommendation letters on job candidates. They see that some average candidate gets strong letters from high places. A fine candidate ? who has ticked off people ? gets letter with veiled warning messages. Academics can even engineer what kind of letter to get by pre-priming the author of the recommendation. There is often mutual back-scratching (You support my guy, I will support yours). These are facts of life that academics know very well, but may not admit to. So much for letters of recommendation. Rude awakening for you? I am sorry.

Now on to expert consensus. Ever heard of the much experts-lauded contributions of Jan Hendrik Schoen? How about the experts-endorsed seminal discovery of Victor Ninov? And if one had listened to the expert opinion of the British Royal Society, your long distance travel options today would be limited to Greyhound and Amtrak.

What I am saying to you is this: Be on your guard. Everyone has an agenda that they are cleverly pitching at you. (My agenda, if you have not already guessed, is that of a Barbarian outside the Gate). Today, subliminal suggestions are coming at you faster than cereal ads are coming at kids. The Committee tells you how the experimental data were acquired from huge international collaborations. The Media is telling you what wunderkids the discoverers are. An Internet campaign lists chronologically the great discoveries of physics, and seamlessly tacks on to that the present ?discovery?. The jury pool is being carefully primed. Unbeknownst to yourself, you are becoming predisposed to viewing the experimental evidence leniently, and in a positive frame of mind.

So what do I suggest you do? When this evidence is presented on a paper, you should instead forget everything, and look at just that piece of paper. This is what your scientific training has taught you. Whether a hundred million dollars were spent to acquire the data points, or five vestal virgins were sacrificed for the gods to give man the theory curve, is completely irrelevant. That?s the ultimate beauty of science.

Now we are down to the basic cake. Take a short break, get a cup of coffee. This is going to be fun.

STEP SIX: EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE

The experimental evidence, as I understand it, comes basically in two categories:

A. Comparison of theory with Coupling Constant vs. Energy data from experiments.

B. Comparison of the theory with particle shower data.

Both types of evidence have been presented in Version A. It appears that the second category is really a supporting, semi-quantitative test. It is the first category that is being put forth as the clenching evidence. Coupling Constant is a parameter that can be derived with certain assumptions from the raw experimental data obtained from large particle accelerators, and also computed from the theory under certain assumptions.

Now here is the Category A data from Version A:

Figure 1: Evidence as presented to the public

And then there is the evidence in Version B, which is addressed to the experts. Here, more comprehensive data compiled in 2002 and 2004 are presented in the two diagrams:

====================

THE EVIDENCE

====================

(a) v (b)

Figure 2: Evidence as presented to the experts

And below, I reproduce the most key paragraph the Committee has given us in justifying the award:

==========================

COMMITTEE INTERPRETATION OF DATA

==========================

Although there are limits to the kind of calculations that can be performed to compare QCD with experiments, there is still overwhelming evidence that it is the correct theory. Very ingenious ways have been devised to test it and the data obtained, above all at the CERN LEP accelerator, are bounteous. Wherever it can be checked, the agreement is better than 1%, often much better, and the discrepancy is wholly due to the incomplete way in which the calculations can be made.

Now, as far as I can gather, the above diagram is really the distilled essence of the experimental evidence: It puts the best face forward. Or at least it is representative of the data that support the theory. So, what do we have here?

What we have here is a total disconnect between what is shown in the diagram, and what is being said in the interpretive text. It is difficult to see that the text corresponds to the diagram.

==========================

MY INTERPRETIVE PREMISE

==========================

In examining Figure 2, I employ the following clear, straightforward premise:

A. If the experimental data are good enough to be touted as overwhelming evidence for the success of the theory, they are just as good to question the theory.

B. If we are talking of accuracy of better than 1%, then any features in the data at this level are significant to the proceedings.

C. The primary test of theory is hard, quantitative data. If that succeeds, then secondary tests (semi-quantitative or qualitative data) and circumstantial evidence are pertinent. If the primary test fails, nothing else matters much. We are dead in water.

So, what I see in the diagram is:

Although the right panel shows data from different sources than the left panel and is on a different scale, in terms of scope of the diagram, the right panel is an expanded sub-portion of the left panel. In the right panel, we see that the uncertainty in the experimental data is typically about 10% or more. In the left panel, if you leave out the very large error bars - as you might if you are making a stringent test - the scope essentially reduces to that of the right panel ? 10 GeV and above.

We are trying here to get past the salesmanship aspect of presentation that every scientist is familiar with. Just plot the 10 GeV error bar from Figure 2(a) onto Figure 2(b), and you will see what I mean by saying that the 1 ? 10 GeV data having too much leeway for theory comparison. You can fit a mouse into a house. But what does that signify? Only this: A mouse in a house.

Within this smaller scope 10 ? 200 GeV, we note from both Figur 2(a) and 2(b) that:

(1) Based on the latest compiled data, the general agreement between theory and data is fair, given the uncertainty in the data. There is no conceivable way one could conclude that the evidence is here overwhelming. And there is no way one could claim better than 1% agreement from this type of data.

(2). There are two distinct features in the data (at about 75 GeV and 175 GeV, Figure 2(b)), ?dips? resembling absorption lines. (Take a printout, get a red pencil, and connect the dots ? you will see very clearly what I mean). These are also confirmed in Figure 2(a), but have been masked there by the compressed scale of that figure. The dips are shown in the details of Figure 3. Simple logic suggests that if the data points were spaced closer, the dips can only become deeper, and more well-defined. If these dip features are real, they are likely to be the primary clue to the underlying physics ? physics that is not reflected in the theory curve. If asymptotic freedom theory is finessed to explain these features as second-level effects, that is another story. If these features are experimental artifact (random scatter in the data, for example), then the rest of the experimental data are also at issue.

(a) (b)

Figure 3: Details from Figure 2(b) showing ?dip? features in the experimental data vs theory

However you look at it, there is at the very least, based on nothing more or less than the evidence you are staring at right now, a ?reasonable doubt?. You can choose to pooh-pooh this right away, or you can pause to think.

If today you were making a theory ab initio, you would no more ignore peaks or troughs in experimental data than you would ignore the lobed structure of an antenna pattern.

Now, the Committee gives us another clue as to what to make of disagreements where they arise: ?.the discrepancy is wholly due to the incomplete way in which the calculations can be made. So it is the computation! The theory is fine! The question is, if you cannot compute properly, how do you know that the result of the computation would have agreed ?wholly? with experimental data?

Do not forget to note how this effect is not present in Figure 1 intended for the hoi polloi. like me. It is nothing like Figures 2(a) and 2(b). Figure 1 is picture perfect, with a slight blemish left in - which makes it even more credible. Another fine promotional strategy.

Figure 4: Visual psychology of how a slight blemish enhances an already perfect beauty

To summarize: When you cut through all the layers of delicately flavored icing, the primary evidence we have at the core is just what you see in Figure 2(b). There may be more data like this, and there may be other secondary evidence. But quantity does not make up for efficacy. Five B grades do not add up to an A+ grade.

The evidence supporting the theory, it appears to me, is underwhelming-to-fair.

Here then is my interpretation of the data:

====================================

MY INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA

====================================

At the low energy end (< 10 GeV), there is too much leeway in the data to permit any definitive conclusions from a single-theory comparison. At the high energy end, there are clear features in the data not explained by the theory. The highest energy data have a slope contrary to asymptotic freedom. Yet here is where the name derives from. The visual appearance of an overall "broadband" agreement is misleading. More and different diagrams of this type will not change this conclusion. Secondary support from particle showers should be reexamined in the light of this failure of the primary comparison with hard quantitative data.

But I do take my hats off in awe to the Committee. They may have done a most advanced smoke-and-mirror job: With fine storytelling, deep subliminal suggestions and deft draftsmanship. The underlying salesmanship here is at a remarkably sophisticated psychological level. Let me explain.

Take a look at this picture (If you have seen this before, make believe that you have not):

What do you see? Folks sitting in a bar, drinking.

Now suppose I tell you about the brooding American painter Edward Hopper. I tell you how he liked to capture in his painting the loneliness, the vacuity and the ennui of modern city life. Note the completely empty city street. You get a sense of absence. I then tell you the picture is called Nighthawks. Now look at the picture again. What do you see? Great sadness and great beauty.

This transformation from your first reaction is of course a beautiful experience. From a mundane vignette of city life, you are lifted to higher thoughts of human condition and aesthetics ? once given a context.

The Committee has very cleverly used this capacity of the human mind to transformation on a context. But they have used the ?technique? in reverse. In the above example, a mundane scene became profound, when are given a context. In the present case, a profound context is first established, and then questionable evidence is slipped in as profound evidence of correctness of the theory. In Version B, intended for experts, they have presented such an elaborate story line with so many appealing nuances (with history, geography, veritable Greek tragedy of human foibles and failures and missed opportunities, the agony and ecstasy, etc), that even the expert fails to see the obvious: What you have in the end is just a questionable agreement of the theory with selected aspects data which, by their very nature, have large uncertainties. The expert thinks he is eminently following the Committee?s logic and reason, whereas in fact his own logic and reason are being placed in suspended animation.

With this level of sophistication of technique, you could sell:

- Ice cubes to Eskimos;

- XXL tee shirts to Lilliputs;

- Long range domestic passenger jets to Lichtenstein;

-

Madison Avenue, Stand up and take note!

As I said, it may be that there is tortured explanation for the strange paragraph from the Committee interpreting evidence, but my feeling as that if you start digging into those explanations, you might find more than you bargained for. But given the representative data, in order to buy into that paragraph, you would have to be as far removed from the scientific process as Nanook of the North, or as unquestionably trusting as the children of Hamelin.

Nanook of the North enjoys the benefits of science. Children of Hamelin follow something other than logic and reason.

But if you are neither from Igloolik nor from Hamelin, proceed to Step Seven

STEP SEVEN: DIG DEEPER

As I said before, the issue here is not so much the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics itself, but what went on behind the scene, and the hidden agenda that is being executed. Let the Laureates enjoy their fame and fortune in good health.

The Priory of the Dungeon, formed in the early part of the last century to preserve and protect the edifice of Quantum Theory from all enemies domestic and foreign, is today concerned mainly with the Standard Theory. The founder, the Watchmaker, is of course long gone. It is not difficult to guess who the Grand Dragon is today.

The latest item on the Priory?s agenda has for sometime been the elevation to sainthood the discoverers of the penultimate component of the Standard Theory: Asymptotic Freedom. The ultimate is of course the Theory of Everything. The Priory is also fed up with the Barbarians at the Gate, and wants to deal with them once for all.

The 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics conferred the sainthood accordingly, and decreed that the Standard Theory is the official, and the only correct physics. The award also served a cease-and-desist notice: Theory of Everything is theirs to formulate. Barbarians stay outside the city walls! And if there is a problem with our theory, what will take its place is Superstring Theory from our guys. So, Barbarians, curl up and die.

And this vehemence leads to the question: Did the Priory get to the Committee, or did they actually infiltrate it?

Lastly, and I mentioned this before, the official justification of the Prize is that it is the collective decision of experts in the field. Against this, why should anyone think about what some Internet weirdo says? This is a good point, and I do not have an answer to this. Suit yourself.

But I also can cite a thing or two about ?experts?. I have already told you about the British Royal Society. Here, let me pick a safe example from outside of physics. I like to summarize my view in two words: Piltdown Man.

A relic of an ancient ape-man was discovered near the village of Piltdown in Sussex, England in 1912. Experts verified it as such ? and there followed a tremendous academic celebration. On digging deeper, more relics were found in time in the ?dig?, and experts concluded that there was overwhelming evidence that the theory is correct. Laudatory ovations followed.

This fitted nicely into a cherished story line, you see. The British wanted to believe that their island too was the cradle of man, and not just Europe and Africa. The story withstood the test of time for 40 years. Not dormant years, but years of vigorous attention.

Even as early as 1915, someone who did not know any better suspected that this was a grand hoax. To draw attention quietly to this, he fashioned, and surreptitiously placed in the dig a certain bone implement appearing to have been carved by the ancients. But his effort backfired. Experts found the implement, and advanced it as further evidence of the advanced social life of Piltdown Man.

The implement was a cricket bat.

One cricket bat, two dips ? Are you getting the picture?

.

.

Posted 14 February 2005

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17176 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17176

<joseph_steinman@y...> wrote:
>
>
> For the purpose of calibration -- to make sure you are trying to
> provide the solution of standard physics for the non-rotating
Sagnac
> apparatus -- the rotating disk represents the lab, which is
rotating
> say, CW, and the light beams go around the perimeter of the disk
or
> lab CW and CCW, where v = Rw, is the velocity of the tangent
vector
> to the perimeter of the rotating disk or lab.

Dear Joseph!

I do not consider the lab as rotating, no superimposition is
required.
But of course you may term the rotating disk the labframe, then this
would be what I have called the perimeter frame.
There are only two observers, the stationary Bird's-Eye-Observer or
BEO which could be anywhere, except on the rotating disk.
For a nonrotating disk the BEO could be on the disk.
Otherwise, yes to the above.

>
> With the above in mind, what is the justification for assuming
that
> the SoL along the perimeter is c+v and c-v for beams going CW and
CCW
> respectively, as seen by the BEO? The 'v' defined above cannot be
> seen by observers in the lab, but you claim that your BEO is in
the
> frame of lab and *can* observe this 'v'.

Correct, the v above is unobserved in the perimeter(lab)frame, but
is observed by the BEO, because heher is stationary relative to the
perimeter(lab)frame, which is moving past herhim at tangential speed
v.
And precisely because this v is either added or subtracted relative
to the BEO, the SR effect of Lorentz Contarction manifests itself.
This is the starting point of Einstein's 1905 paper, where he
definies the PATHLENGTH as described (btw I did mix up CW and CCW in
the SR post, but corrected it in the Go For It post).

Hence the justification is the founding postulate of SR.

>
> In addition, you seem to tacitly assume an ether and Galilean
> transformation for light along the perimeter, where c is the SoL
in a
> stationary ether. Even if we assume that the perimeter is in
rotating
> motion wrt the BEO, I don't see how SR allows you to claim that
that
> the measured SoL is c+v and c-v along the perimeter for the BEO.

I do not assume an ether at all here.
In this context it is unneccessary and SR considerations suffice.

What the ether-problem implies is that there does exist a substratum
for the metric continuums.
This is the demetrication I posted about, it is a subtimespace,
where UNDEFINED spacetime EMERGES as Spacetime, a spacetime which is
then termed the Vacuum and the subsequent Heisenberg Uncertainty.
Since the Heisenberg Constant is finestructured however, this
subtimespace can be deduced in the mappings/transformations from the
Planck-Scale onto the metricated scales applicable for GR and SR.

But for any metricated system as in the above, this subtimespace is
not applicable BECAUSE spacetime IS in fact metrically defined by SR
and GR.

the Lorentz-Contraction in two frames of references at once.
This is simultaneity on the next level, but fully supported in the
formalisms of SR and GR.

Fact 1: Relative to the BEO the perimeter is 2Pi.R if it is not
rotating.

Fact 2: Relative to the BEO the 'measuring rod' used by an observer
in relative motion to the BEO does Lorentz-Contract.

Fact 3: This seems to contradict the 'absolute' perimeter lenght of
2Pi.R in 'contracting' it - for a positive/ellipsoidal curvature and
as desctribed in GR.

Fact 4: The perimeter dilates relative to the perimeter(lab)frame
observer - for a negative/hyperbolioc curvature described in GR.

How do we reconcile the 4 facts? Do they need reconciliation?

Consider the 4 facts on the cosmological level and you more or less
can answer the second question above in the negative.

Consider Fact 1: Relative to the cosmologist and the available
evidence, the Universe is perfectly Euclidean Flat.

Consider Fact 2: All the available cosmological experimental evidence
seems to converge to the fact that there is not enough mass to
render the universe flat on its largest scale.
This implies a negative/hyperbolic curvature.

Consider Fact 3: Finetuning the experiments to allow for the largest
angular resolutions indicate however that the universe's topology
must in fact be positively curved, possibly allowing multiple copies
of its image in the oscillatying or bouncing light/electromagnetic
parameters.
This implies a positive/ellipsoidal curvature around the
huperbolic/negative one.

Consider Fact 4: The equations of GR and SR predict Euclidean
Flatness in a superpositioning of the Friedmann models for a
deceleration parameter of 1/2 and a gravitational omega of 1 with
respect to the critical density.

So what have you found?
The replication of the cosmological scenario, as described by SR and
GR, in the scalerelative frame of the BEO relative to the perimeter
(lab)frame.

If you require further confirmation or evidence for the correctness
of the application of SR and GR to this discussion, superpose it
onto the cosmological conundrums and controversies and everything
will fall into place,vindicating SR and GR in the scalerelative in-
troduction of QR as described in the Go For It! post.

The conceptual difficulty is simply this.
How can the selfdefined stationary BEO observe the flatness of
PathLength = 2Pi.R if if 'nothing moves', but then measure a
PathLength of < 2Pi.R if something does 'move'?

The answer is given in the Superpositioning of relativities, here
called QR.
The BEO is also the ABSOLUTE SELFDEFINED OBSERVER and AS SUCH
superimposes his observation as the framerelative BEO onto the
observation of the framerelative perimeter(lab)observer.
This cancels the curvatures and reattains the flatness of 2Pi.R.

It could not be more elegant and as described in SR becoming GR
becoming QR and becoming SR again.
You can skip the complication of GR and the curvatures in directly
applying SR WITH QR to explain the phenomena under discussion.

This might or might nor satisfy your question, but in a qualitative
way it 'proves' what I have tried to point out for so
long, regarding ther redshift dilemmas, the flatness problems, the
monopole problems etc.
It all resolves itself in Quantum Relativity.
Demetricate GR and you get QR, which is experimentally verified in
SR.
The positively curved universe is enveloping the negatively curved
universe in a within=without topology of the toroidally derived
KleinBottle topology.
This manifests as a 3D-surface, which is the Riemann Hypersphere of
4D-Volume and is conifolded in a 9D-surface as a 10D-volume in the
Calabi-Yau quiantum geometries.
See my posts Go For It! and its addendum for the 'schoolboy'
geometry leading to this in a way the 3D-familiar perception can
understand.

It is more or less 'proven' Joseph.
I just wish I could be smarter, then writing down the above in the
formalism required would unify all of theoretical physics as it
stands so far.
That is why I am inviting anyone, including you to use this
information to 'truly rattle the boat' of the ivory tower brigade.

I can do no more but to give the foundations.
Anyone is welcome to ask for the QR parameters of the necessary
boundary conditions. I have posted many of those already.

Thank you for this discussion. 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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17179 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17179

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Chaim Yankle"
<chaim_yankle@y...> wrote:
>
> Have you heard of the Great God Mota that made the universe with
his
> BIG BANG MACHINE?
>
> Fo mo in fo go to http://come.to/joozis

Dear Mota!

Yes,I have indeed.
It was so 19.11 billion years ago, sidereally measured when there
He was very clever, knew how to mix up certain algorithms frompure
abstractions too manufacture his Big Bang Machine from the computer
code he just imagined to be.
Then this character created geometries and shapes, series of numbers
and so on, in short he invented Mathematics.

Then he looked at his machine and the machine became a mirror and
this character started to talk/think to himself.
He didn't like the heness of the image and decided to close his
eyes, imagining a sheness.
Closing his eyes caused an inwards inflection becoming an outward
reflection and the mirror blew up creating the universe as the

Its a long story, but I remember the name of the character, because
I was there also in a mirror reflecting the mirror holographically,
so I should know.

The name of the character was Chaim Yankle and the name of the Big
Bang Machine was Mota!
Tony B.

>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, george ryazanov
> <george_ryazanov@y...> wrote:
> > THE LAST TESTAMENT
> >
> > God speak:
> > Imitate My selfcontradictory thinking.
> > Its projection into the realm of matter
> > generate the key to the universe.
> > Turning this key open the picture of ship
> > that will bring you to Me,
> >
> > Do not take My words on trust - that is abominable for Me.
> > Prove My worlds through avalanche of discoveries.
> > that end in the ultimate unity.
> >
> > This unity is My true image.

Message 17182 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17182

Time02112@s... wrote:
>
> Medical science has contributed to mapping out the human body, and
> now with DNA research, we have continued to explore the deepest
> regions of the world of inner space within our own minds & bodies.
>
> Our space program has launched many humans and satellites to probe
> the mysteries of our cosmos, do you suppose we could eventually
map
> out Q-Space like we have continued doing throught the years with
> sending our satellites & deep space probes?
>
> I think that the development of a quantum computer would be a good
> place to begin, it would be the equivalent of our first rocket on
the
> endless discoveries that may become the stanadrd for linking us to
> the Space-Time bridge.
>
> ---Gary Voss
> EM2 in a Round Hole
>
>
Dear Gary!

Indeed, but the technology involved must incorporate the mind as a
feasible scale-selfrelative force.
This is well defined in the Newtonian extension.

Differentiate F=d(mv)/dt using relativistic mass with photon
equivalent mo=hf/c^2 and you'll get a bifurcation for the Force.
Onre is the ordinary F=ma say as linear term and the other is F-
alpha as angular part.
The latter carries the coefficient hv/c^2 which is of the order of
10^-50 and so not observable in experiments.
However this term is multiplied by the Awareness=df/dt, i.e the
change of frequency over time and upper bounded by
wormholeperimeters, which also depict the entropy counter per
spacetimevolumar as 9x10^60 as maximum.
As the minimum is the inverse of this you can see that
socalled 'mindforces' are elusive indeed in the laboratory.
It relates to resonance fields and such.
The v also relates scalerelative speed as groupspeed always less
than 'c' to phasespeed always exceeding c in de Broglie matter waves.

So the science is there theoretically already; now mankind must
unite, because the mindforces are a function of groupconsciousness
and unity of thought.
The mental disunity is the reason why those technologies cannot be
implemented nothing else.
Btw. the Awareness acts as a quasi-angular acceleration (units of
df/dt) upon a discretisation of spacetime volumars as given in my
posts.

Thank you for your question Gary! Tony B

Message 17183 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17183

Dear Forum!

Consider the following scenario of 'sharing' time and space dimensions at the core of Special Relativity.

You are sitting in front of your computer screen, perfectly at rest, RELATIVE to ALL other SPACIAL frames of References.

In this idealised case scenario YOU NOW and only THEN MOVE with MAXIMUM VELOCITY 'c' THROUGH TIME as the 4th dimension, say as given in x=ct.

As soon as you MOVE relative to any of the 3 spacedimensions, you begin to SHARE the maximum ct-frame and you move at LESS than Maximum 'c'.

This then is embodied in the Theory of Special Relativity - THE SHARING OF DIMENSIONS.

This conceptual understanding would go a long way to 'explain' SR and GR to the layperson and many of the conceptual difficulties and arguments could become avoided in a clearer understanding of the underpinning assumptions as given and made by Albert Einstein.

Einstein's Formulations:

The 4D-Vector is X=(ct, x1, x2, x3) with x1^2+x2^2+x3^2 +c^2.T^2=c^2.t^2.

We call the magnitude of the position vector (x1, x3, x3) simply as x, say as motion along the x1-direction.

T is the proper time as measured by the moving clock and t is the time of the synchronised stationary clock.

The invariance of lightspeed c is given in c=dx/dT with the Pythagoraen identity and the pathlenght dx=c.dT.

c^2(dt)^2 = c^2.(dT)^2 + (dx)^2, rewritten as: (dT)^2=(dt)^2 - (dx/c)^2.

Then this is written as:

c^2(dT/dt)^2 + (dx/dt)^2 = c^2 as the identity: (dT/dt)^2 = 1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2.

c.(dT/dt) DECREASES the SPEED THROUGH TIME, COMPENSATED IN THE INCREASE of the SPEED THROUGH SPACE, given in (dx/dt).

This formally derives the 'sharing' of the dimensions, as indicated in the previous posts.

Your questions about dimensions 'dragging' relative to 'c' is very deep in its conceptual basis.

One easy way to get the "Gedanken-Experiment" is to 'think' like Albert Einstein did at the beginning of his 'journeys into relativity'.

Imagine yourself to travel WITH the light, that is you are stationary relative to it.

Now turn the argument around and imagine Light to be a Stationary Standing Wave, not travelling at all, but 'filling' all of space and all the dimensions.

Of course for this to 'work', you need to have 'nodes' as spacetime mirrors.

Those are defined in 'higher dimensions' in the 'Hubble-Oscillation', 16.9 Billion years apart in 11 dimensions.

Since the 11th, 8th, 5th and 2nd dimension all are in a sense surface dimensions; you can think of the 'surfaces' as nested within each other and also defining 'volumes' in 3D, 6D, 9D and 12D.

So the 'higher dimensions' are really coexistent with the 3D, say as translation-rotation-vibration-quantisation.

All this requires investigation in your mind pondering, comparing and analysing.

It is not that hard; if you read my posts (I invite you to join my site below for more information) than you will see that.

But 'c' is much more than a 'speed-limit', in the form of c^2 it is a dimensionless scaling constant relating the higher dimensions to the lower ones, say as charge-mappings between mass as magnetic electricity and the ordinary electromagnetism exhibited by charge-carrying 'particles/wavelets'.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17198 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17198

<etherman23@y...> wrote:

<tmgulland@h...>

> > wrote:

> > > This is a mere statement, not an explanation of the specific issue I outlined. Natural selection operates on the level of the single mutant organism (and only subsequently, its descendants), not the

gene pool.

> >

> > You were asking about how sexual dimorphism may have arisen. How does this not answer your question? There are some asexual creatures on

the planet so they haven't totally been pushed out of existence.

>

> I always was puzzled by how the life chaged from unisexual form to bisexual form. Bisexual reproduction seems to have produced way more

complex life forms. This is probablly what Tony describe an trans-aleph change. I do not know if trans-aleph change is a natural process or not.

Hi guys!

Assuming that you refer to me in the above post, allow me to say

I agree with both of you here.

The issue is the programming of the RNA and DNA precursors in

crystalline enantiomated chiralities.

In a sense the Chicken(DNA) and Egg (RNA) paradox which it isn't.

Natural amino acids are predominantly lefthanded molecular chains of

peptides and polypeptides for the protein production of the 64-

tiered codon RNA matrix.

However in the DNA and RNA, the righthanded (dextro-enantiomated)

sugars give rise to the righthanded helical structure of the

doublestrands.

We then find chemical precursors for the biovitality in the

evolvement of the doublehelix in the crystalline properties of

materials.

Ergo, the intensive research into nanotechnology and buckyballs to

link the silicon chip to bacteria and the like.

I have written on this, because it links to something I have

mentioned previously in the context of the Standard Models in

Cosmology and Particle Physics, which require revision tooncorporate

this unificatiuon also found in biology.

The quantum geometry of say clay-crystals uses this pentagonal

supersymmetry, say as in Penrose tiling patterns and Shechtmanite

quasicrystals. Then you have the ubiquitosity of Platonic Solids,

found in nature, icosahedral retroviruses, primordia of embryonic

growth patterns in the Fibonacci spirals, the tetrahedral shape of

water, buckytubes, soccer-ball shapes etc. etc.

The importance of this symmetry is that it is both longrange in

translation and in rotation.

The rotation engages a decagonal geometry, which is replicated in a

redesign of the DNA helix.

Two pentagons back to back twist the guanine nucleotidal base

relative to the cytosine and skew the uracil relative to the adenine.

This realigns the bases in changing the Crick-Watson-Franklin form

into something known as the Curtis-form.

So you see how it comes together first from crystalline geometry,

(also part of weak-interaction parity CP-violations) into

LIFEINDUCTION of the lefthanded organic amino acids via thge weak-

interaction force (this relates to the search for axions and WIMPS

etc).

But the unified field of particle physics eventually becomes

responsible for the life induction.

What is this life force?

Well it is the same energy which seeded the universe cosmologically

and perpetuates it.

It is the subtimespace energy which metricated the universe in the

vacuum and then started it of in a kind of oscillating form,

surrounding a linear transversion.

But you could call it 'God's LovePhoton' or the wormhole energy; it

is all the same thing, just different labels.

There is much to explain, but I'll refrain.

Suffice to say, that the Duality of the beginning must be the

dichotomy you are discussing.

The bifurcation of the sexual chromosomes, say, mnorphologically

expressed in form, which is genetic expression.

The bisexuality is modelled on capacitative electroples and

inductive magnetopoles, all new science, linked to the X-Y

chromosomes or their precursors.

Those inductions are both self- and mutual, allowing cross-

fertilisations.

It all flows together in the appropriate convergences of the fields

of science.

None can do without the other, but Mathematics and especially the

quantum geometry of the Holographic Principle is of paramount

importance.

Nuclear Forces relate to cryctal structures, those relate to

inductive mechanism manifesting the 'life-force' as 'consciousness',

the latter exprerssed as 'Awareness' in the quasiangular

acceleration of volumars/spacetimequanta.

Hence the 'Mindforce' manifests from Newtonian extension, indulging

SR and GR to emerge spacetime as scalerelative phenomena.

The basic unit of consciousness then becomes the Hydrogen Atom,

because it as progenitor combines positive and negative charges in

the unity of the cosmogenesis.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17202 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17202

 wrote: > >"Tony Bermanseder" > wrote: > > > The issue is the programming of the RNA and DNA precursors in crystalline enantiomated chiralities. > > > > In a sense the Chicken(DNA) and Egg (RNA) paradox which it isn't. > > > > Natural amino acids are predominantly lefthanded molecular chains of peptides and polypeptides for the protein production of the 64- tiered codon RNA matrix. > > > > As a logician, I am interested in this arument of egg-chicken problem. But not in the sense you are thinking. I intended to say that the hetero sexual reproduction dramatically increases the variation of genes. I do not understand how this change from monosexual reproduction to hetero sexual reproduction happened in history. This certainly is as mysterious a the egg-chicken problem. > > In computer science, this development is something similar to the change from solo-computer system and Computer network system. You know, computer network allows us to inheric the experience of millions of other computers. Heterosexual reproduction does the same. Offspring of heterosexual reproduction benefit from the experience of two parents. > Ah, a wondeful thought! the Minkowskian transformation of Platonic time to Lorentzian time must be an egg-chiken problem too! As you know, positivisitc time is obtained by observing a motion. A motion is a function from time to space. Dear Tatakai! A wonderful insight, we might be moving the same pathlength here. Allow me to resolve the chicken-egg paradox mythologically. It is not really mythic, but the words I shall use, might give it that appearance. I am an avowed Platonist, most mathematical thinkers are. This viewpoint then allows me to derive metric time superposed on the NOW time (or cyclic time of the instant(on)). To me this is none other then the dimensionless TauTime of Einstein in GR, defining the curvature scale in Rc=c.dt/dTau. The mythology might allow you to dress or reformulate the following into mathematical symbolism. I do not have enough background to do so. Consider a Father (Chicken, DNA) who can in its own eigenstate be HIS own Father, but requires a Mother to give Birth to HIM. As analogy consider the male gonads, say the Eggs of the Male for subsequent spermatozoa production. Corollarily, the Mother (Ovum, RNA) can function as HER own Mother, but requires a Father to 'Create' HER, think her into being. As analogy consider the Zeusian myth; Zeus giving boirth to Athena from his forehead, without sexual union with say, Hera. Then of course, Hera's 'jealousy' results in the Creation of Hephaestus/Vulcan (the lame blacksmith, tamer of the fire, he eventually gives to the mankind below the Olympian mountain). This 'myth' is resurfaced across the human cultures, say as the founding mythology of gnosticism, itself derivative from Persian Zoroastarism and Akhenaton's monotheism in Egypt's Aton so 3000 years ago. So what have we got here? The 'Creator', say as 'Imaginary' Rooster 'THINKS' the Universe into being, using nought but the Platonic World of shape, number, geometry and converging and diverging series. Exactly upon which the theoretical foundations of modern science is built. But HE cannot GET REAL; so HE must dichotomise, become two in the CREATOR-CREATION DUALITY. This can then be modelled on modular duality with vibratory and winded supermembranes acting as one, yet settiung maximum minimum scales in the metrication of the subtimespace. So the universe is 'born' AS the MOTHER, now able to GIVE BIRTH to HIM as part of HIMSELF, given away in the creation process (say Big Bang). Now reproduction becomes possible as the within-without topology of differential geometry using dimensional reduction. Mythologically, this 'knowledge' or gnosis=science becomes embedded in say the Solomonic axiom: As Above, so Below! Genetically, we have messengerRNA coding the DNA and the messengerDNA returning the messages via the RNA. As the chicken is the imaginary Father, desiring to 'Get Real', the RNA of the Mother communicates with the DNA of the Father reestablishing the Unity as Two in One and One in Two. I have posted a parable about this: It is called: "Little Adam and the Rooster's Egg'. You may like to read it for further elucidation on this. Good talking to you Tatakai! 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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17202 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17203

Wave Function of the Universe(s)

by Dr. Michiu Kaku <javascript:ol('http://mkaku.org/');>

[Physicist Stephen] Hawking is one of the founders of a new scientific discipline called quantum cosmology. At first, this seems like a contradiction in terms. The word quantum applies to the infinitesimally small world of quarks and neutrinos, while cosmology signifies the almost limitless expanse of outer space. However, Hawking and others now believe that the ultimate questions of cosmology can be answered only by quantum theory. Hawking takes quantum cosmology to its ultimate conclusion, allowing the existence of infinite numbers of parallel universes.

The starting point of quantum theory ... is a wave function that describes all the possible various possible states of a particle. For example, imagine a large, irregular thundercloud that fills up the sky. The darker the thundercloud, the greater the concentration of water vapor and dust at that point. Thus by simply looking at a thundercloud, we can rapidly estimate the probability of finding large concentrations of water and dust in certain parts of the sky.

The thundercloud may be compared to a single electron's wave function. Like a thundercloud, it fills up all space. Likewise, the greater its value at a point, the greater the probability of finding the electron there. Similarly, wave functions can be associated with large objects, like people. As I sit in my chair in Princeton, I know that I have a Schr֤inger probabllity wave function. If I could somehow see my own wave function, it would resemble a cloud very much in the shape of my body. However, some of the cloud would spread out all over space, out to Mars and even beyond the solar system, although it would be vanishingly small there. This means that there is a very large likelihood that I am, in fact, sitting here in my chair and not on the planet Mars. Although part of my wave function has spread even beyond the Milky Way galaxy, there is only an infinitesimal chance that I am sitting in another galaxy. Hawking's new idea was to treat the entire universe as though it were a quantum particle. By repeating some simple steps, we are led to some eye-opening conclusions. We begin with a wave function describing the set of all possible universes. This means that the starting point of Hawking's theory must be an infinite set of parallel universes, the wave function of the universe. Hawking's rather simple analysis, replacing the word particle with universe, has led to a conceptual revolution in our thinking about cosmology.

According to this picture, the wave function of the universe spreads out over all possible universes. The wave function is assumed to be quite large near our own universe, so there is a good chance that our universe is the correct one, as we expect. However, the wave functon spreads out over all other universes, even those that are lifeless and incompatible with the familiar laws of physics. Since the wave function is supposedly vanishingly small for these other universes, we do not expect that our universe will make a quantum leap to them in the near future.

The goal facing quantum cosmologists is to verify this conjecture mathematically, to show that the wave function of the universe is large for our present universe and vanishingly small for other universes. This would then prove that our familiar universe is in some sense unique and also stable. (At present, quantum cosmologists are unable to solve this important problem.)

If we take Hawking seriously, it means that we must begin our analysis with an infinite number of all possible universes, coexisting with one another. To put it bluntly, the definition of the word universe is no longer "all that exists." It now means "all that can exist." For example, in Figure 12.1 <javascript:ol('http://deoxy.org/h_kaku2.htm%2312.1%2312.1');> we see how the wave function of the universe can spread out over several possible universes, with our universe being the most likely one but certanly not the only one. Hawking's quantum cosmology also assumes that the wave function of the universe allows these universes to collide. Wormholes can develop and link these universes. However, these wormholes are not like the ones ... which connect different parts of three-dimensional space with itself - these wormholes connect different universes with one another.

Figure 12.1

In Hawking's wave function of the universe, the wave function is most likely concentrated around our own universe. We live in our universe because it is the most likely, with the largest probability. However, there is a small but non-vanishing probability that the wave function prefers neighboring, parallel universes. Thus transitions between universes may be possible (although with very low probability).

Think, for example, of a large collection of soap bubbles, suspended in the air. Normally each soap bubble is like a universe unto itself, except that periodically it bumps into another bubble, forming a larger one, or splits into two smaller bubbles. The difference is that each soap bubble is now an entire ten-dimensional universe. Since space and time can exist only on each bubble, there is no such thing as space and time between the bubbles. Each universe has its own self-contained "time." It is meaningless to say that time passes at the same rate in all these universes. (We should, however, stress that (1) travel between these universes is not open to us because of our primitive technological level ... and (2) large quantum transitions on this scale are extremely rare, probably much larger than the lifetime of our universe.) Most of these universes are dead universes, devoid of any life. On these universes, the laws of physics were different, and hence the physical conditions that made life possble were not satisfied. Perhaps, among the billions of parallel universes, only one (ours) had the right set of physical laws to allow life.

Hawking's "baby universe" theory, although not a practical method of transportation, certainly raises philosophical and perhaps even religious questions.

According to this theory, before the Big Bang, our cosmos was actually a perfect ten-dimensional universe, a world where interdimensional travel was possible. However, this ten-dimensional universe "cracked" in two, creating two separate universes: a four- and a six- dimensional universe. The universe in which we live was born in that cosmic cataclysm. Our four-dimensional universe expanded explosively, while our twin six-dimensional universe contracted violently, until it shrank to almost infinitesimal size. This would explain the origin of the Big Bang. If correct, this theory demonstrates that the rapid expansion of the universe was just a rather minor aftershock of a much greater cataclysmic event, the cracking of space and time itself. The energy that drives the observed expansion of the universe is then found in the collapse of ten-dimensional space and time. According to this theory, the distant stars and galaxies are receding from us at astronomical speeds because of the original collapse of ten-dimensional space and time.

This theory predicts that our universe still has a dwarf twin, a companion universe that has curled up into a small six-dimensional ball that is too small to be observed. Michael Talbot and David Bohm (in quotes) in Talbot's The Holographic Universe, Chapter 2: The Cosmos as Hologram, p.51 According to our current understanding of physics, every region of space is awash with different kinds of fields composed of waves of varying lengths. Each wave always has at least some energy. When physicists calculate the minimum amount of energy a wave can possess, they find that every cubic centimeter of empty space contains more energy than the total energy of all the matter in the known universe!

Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves. The universe is not separate from this cosmic sea of energy, it is a ripple on its surface, a comparatively small "pattern of excitation" in the midst of an unimaginably vast ocean. "This excitation pattern is relatively autonomous and gives rise to approximately recurrent, stable and separable projections into a three-dimensional explicate order of manifestation," states Bohm.[12] In other words, despite its apparent materiality and enormous size, the universe does not exist in and of itself, but is the stepchild of something far vaster and more ineffable. More than that, it is not even a major production of this vaster something, but is only a passing shadow, a mere hiccup in the greater scheme of things.

I can only hope and imagine that you will enjoy these free associations, some I wrote while obviously copying others. I have become suspicious that there is a super set of enlightened individuals in the world today seperated by cultures and languages but united by poetry and mathematics. Let's find out! Clarence

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17204 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17204

Yes Anna; I had called it the LOVEPHOTON, long before heterotic superstring E(8x8)

was named/invented.

This was back in 1984, when I first received inspiration about what I am doing.

It is just like George's Revelations really or Armand's connections or your own alchemy or Bola's

But now I understand much better what LOVE must be; namely the literal 'glue' which holds the

universe and the fabric of spacetime together.

In terms of material phenomena, this LOVE is the STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE and is called

the GLUON, a gauge-colourcharged fieldparticle/wavelet.

In terms of electromagnetism/light, this LOVE is the ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTION as

LOVEPHOTON, also as gauge-colourcharged fieldparticle/wavelet.

This DOUBLELOVE is balanced by GRAVITY as the GRAVITON, also colourcharged, but

anticyclic in colour permutation.

So the LOVEPHOTON and the GLUON, both 'spin' clockwise and the GRAVITON 'spins'

anticlockwise with doublespin, cancelling the monospins of the matter force and the

light force.

So now we are left with total cancellation -almost- the spins 1+1-2=0; but the

colourcharges are two cyclic Red-Green-Blue say and one anticyclic Blue-Green-Red.

(Note that RGB=GBR=BRG but NOT BGR=GRB=RBG).

So RGB is left over WITHOUT SPIN and this explains the creation.

LOVE has become disempowered, because it lost its 'spin'.

So what to do?

Well you need to find out where this RGB spinning clockwise say, came from in the first place?

It is intricate, but elegant, it generates the Unified Field of everything just in considering selfrelative

rotations in a kind of Moebius-Strip twisting of itself.

Anyway, it turns out that a mass-generating NEW template must come into existence because of a

'disharmony of the sourcesinks'.

This is the stuff of the legends, the fall from heaven of Lucifer etc.

ASnd because of this Hans Dieter's Personalitiy Theories are on the mark.

Because the Fall is the Creation of Personality from Nothing (probably someother word would be

better, it can't be described as Nothing, because this implies dichotomy of Something; ask Hans Dieter).

But Matter and Antimatter are created as Yellow-Cyan-Magenta and anticylic MCY.

This would also annihilate and cance each other, where it not for the initial leftover of LOVE.

So blah, blah, blah (important for Dennis so), eventually a combined blueprint allows the Antimatter to

become totally suppressed and in its place is the RESTMASSPHOTON or RMP.

Now the RMP manifests the 'MindForce' I am posting about and it is behind the Pantos Black Box and the

parapsychology phenomena.

The story goes on and on - into harmony and unity as George, Dennis, Jack and myself are proclaiming.

It is all a derivative from initial Unity (being bored as personality) splitting into Duality with the potential

to REPRODUCE ITSELF as UNITY in the Many.

Love from 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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17232 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17232

<joseph_steinman@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In NPA_Dissidents@yahoogroups.com, "TONY BERMANSEDER"
> <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:

Dear Joseph!

No Joseph, this is the solution.

> &&& At this point in time, there is no 'this'. There is just a lot of
> jargon and hope. JMHO.

I can give it to you step by step, but you need to compare what I say
to the Ives paper. I am so grateful for Tom for this. It allowed me to look at the experiment and apply the relativities.
The numbers are from the Ives paper, it is original stuff. I have sent you the Ives file last night.

> &&& Yes, but I haven't opened it. In the case of AE's paper, the equations were not reproduced.

Dear Joseph!

I had the same problem The Einstein paper wasn't a PDF file it
copied text and the equations as pictures separately.
The PDF file of Ives should show equations.
It's important if you wish to get to the nitty griity of this.

My analysis stands.

> &&& Iirc, you 'proved' using SR, that for the rotating device the speed of light is the same in both directions. You Lorentz contracted the measured perimeter as measured in the lab frame, and used the Galilean transformation on the differential path lengths. Imo, you have not touched the problem Dennis and I were discussing.

Joseph, you are forgetting the ORIGINAL point of all this.
The Sagnac experiment with rotating frames of observer.
This is the entire point of the Ives paper.
The Dufour and Prunier experiment is the one in accordance with SR,
the initial Sagnac is not.
Langevin went to great length to derive (unnecessarily) the original
form of equation 3a (up to which my formulas are equivalent) as
identical to equation 12.

Quote:" Looking back at the expression for the difference of arrived
times of the light signals, as recorded by a clock travelling with
the light source, namely (3a), we find it is IDENTICAL with that
just obtained (12).."

P(R)/t(R)=[P/Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]/[P/{cSqrt(1-v^2/c^2)}]=c (Eq.11).

This is Langevin's Pathlength of Einstein's original x=ct for the
sationary observer.

The statyionary observer is the one in accordance with SR, Sagnac is
not (as mistakenly assumed because of the Sagnac experiment, using
the moving observer).

THIS IS THE POINT for the subsequent experiment. To show that the
nonrotating frame also gave the Sagnac effect for constant 'c' Eq(11).

Ok now to the Sagnac experiment with the rotating frame.
It is subtle, so please consider carefully, I'll go slowly.

Remember my exposition of the moving train and you being the
backwards frame and Harry the forwards frame?

This is Galilean relative to a stationary observer as expressed in
the analysis we agree on.
BUT relative to the moving clock on the train, the lightsource
exactly midway between you and Harry emits and is measured
SIMULTANEOUSLY by both you and Harry DESPITE the train's velocity v
being however incorporated by the stationary observer as the shift
in pathlength.

Now what is the difference between this scenario of inertial frame
and that of the rotating disk?

The Polygon approximation doesn't help. It simply circularises the
path, irrespective of the nonineretial acceleration experienced by
the perimeter observer (moving clock say).

See you can't apply the straight line train CW-CCW because this
would only apply IF the observer would rotate with the disk frame.
After 180 degrees, the observer faces west if at the beginning he
faced east.
Then the CW light would have gone the same distance as the CWW light.
This is the invariance of lightspeed c and Sagnac's argument for the
luminiferous ether.

Can you see it? This is why the paper claims lightspeed is c+v or c-v.
It only applies for the corotating frame of reference, seemingly
violating c-invariance.

Quote: "In a discussion of this experiment (1937) Langevin has
asserted that by using 'local time' on the apparatus the velocity of
light is found to be 'c'. It has previously been dismissed by
proponents of the theory of relativity as involving motion of
rotation, and as such, along with the gyroscope, capable of
explanation only by reference to the influence of all the matter in
the universe, i.e., by attaching the pattern of radiant energy to a
framework which is not called the ether."

What does this tell you?

The Sagnac result is identical to the 1937 result, Langevin then
claims that the 'local time' of the (1937) apparatus leads to a
constancy of 'c'. He transportds the clocks around and resets them,
eventually reproducing (3a) as (12).

So the point is that the (1937) result measured the Sagnac result of
(1913) with the pathlength difference, which Langevin then uses
to 'undo' this difference in using SR to exhibit a seeming paradox
in the clock measurements.

Quote/Subscript 6: "There are of course not merely two clocks, but
an infinity of clocks, when we include those which could be
transported at finite speeds, and around other paths. As emphasized
previously the idea of 'local time' is untenable, what we have are
clock readings. Any number of clock readings at the same place are
physically possible, depending on the behaviour and history of the
clocks used. More than one 'time' at pone place is a physocal
absurdity." -Ives/Langevin

This line of argument shows you the gist of the paper.
It sounds a lot more confusing to me, than SR.
Transported clocks with resettings at infinite places, depending on
their histories???

Anyway, the solution is found in reexamining the Sagnac observer.

Any observer rotating with the lightsource must be somewhere on the
disk.
Resolve the coordinates into radius vector and tangential vector.
Then the coordinate of the corotating observer is defined by a
certain radial displacement from the nonrotating centre.

This then must engage the definition of a point, ergo QFT and GR
clash in being unable to define the metric of the singularity.
Enter the BEO as being at a 'limiting point' for the radius vector,
definable in the GR metric, i.e. a geodesic around the 'limit point'.

This geodesic describes a curved path of minimum displacement, we
call the wormholeperimeter.

In a sense the 'limit point' becomes an event horizon for the BEO.
Now the BEO is NOT rotating with respect to the rotating frame of
the lightsource and the pathlenght differences willbe measured as
predicted by SR modified by QR.

Now consider the 'point limit'as encompassing a certain volume of
space, say a minimised Black Hole.

QR predicts, that within this Black Hole, the entire mass- and
energy content of the universe is quantised as the Riemann tensor of
Weyl-Tidal curvature and Ricci-density.
The Weyl-part must be zero at the point of minimised quantisation.

Thus transforming the corotating observer onto the 'pointlimit'
allows the Absolute Frame of Reference for the Universe (previously
termed the 'fixed stars') to manifest as the BEO.

The total angular momentum for the universe becomes
Einstein's 'Relativity of Inertia' as the Machian Reference Point.

The total mass M of the universe is given in the critical density
for flatness: rho=3Ho^2/8Pi.G=Rmax.c^2/2GVmax as Schwarzschild
solution for the minimised event horizon.

Angular Momentum: Sigma(mr^2)w=M.Rmax^2.w.

But w gives the wormholeperimeter in w=2pi.f=v/{r/2Pi}, where the
modular duality between the universal macroquantum and the universal
microquantum linearises the wormholewavelength (Lp) in

superbrane limiting parameter for heterotic superbrane HE(8x8)
resurfaces as: Lps.fps=wormholewavelenghtxwormholefrewquency = c.
Furthermore this gives the micro-macro-coupling as:
Lps.fps=Rmax.Ho=c; with Ho the nodal and scalefixed HubbleConstant.

Now MRmax^2.w = N.h (Equation #), N an integer;
describing the quantisation of ACTION in Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle as h=Lp/(8Pi.Re.c^3), with Re, the classical electronic
radius proportional to the Compton Wavelength in: Alpha.LCompton=Re,
Alpha the electromagnetic finestructure constant specifying the
interaction probability between matter and light.

For any subframe rotation then, w must be exceedingly small to
satisfy Equation #.

But this defines the ABSOLUTE FRAME for the ultimate BEO observer
reproduced in the subframes, topologically enfolded in the
encompassing frame.

The BEO measures the CW-CCW pathlength difference, as predicted by
QR and as experimentally validated by the Sagnac Experiments.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17233 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17233

Dear Gary!

Some information.
The Crick-Watson-Franklin-Wilkins form of the DNA of 1953 and as
evidenced in crystallography becomes a stacked spiralling sequence
of pentagons around a decagon with longrange translationalorder and
longrange rotational order.

The geometry between the nitrogenous base pairings is one ofNH2-O
and NH-N matching between guanine and cytosine in a triple bonding.
The adenine-uracil displays this as a double bonding.

Cytosine and Uracil(Thymine in DNA) consist of a heterocyclic
hexagonal ring of emiricity C4H4N2 as organic pyrimidine base.
Guanine and Adenine are purine derivatives as C5H4N4 organic bases
and display a hexagonal geometry interwoven with a 5-fold symmetry
in pentagonal rings.

For RNA the sugar deoxyribose is replaced by ribose,a hydroxide (OH)
replaces hydrogen and in uracil, the methyl radical CH3 changes to H.
Synthesis of OH with H produces water as internalisation for the
DNA/RNA molecule, meaning that water is absorbed from the chemistry
in the organismic body.
This waterloss defines the hydrogen bonding between the sugar-
phosphate DNA/RNA backbone to the nitrogenous bases.

In all three cases of the 1951/53 model, the purine
pentagonalsymmetry is suppressed in the hydrogenic bonding.
Reflecting adenine and guanine in a 'bonding mirror' realigns the
bases.

This is known as the Curtis-model (1994 I think).

The 'twisting' of cytosine and the reflection of uracil occur
in 'higher D' (as defined in superbrane theory as toroidal
KleinBottle derivatives etc in Calabi Yau shapes) and the H' in
guanine becomes the new connection to the sugar/phosp0hate backbone,
whilst H'-N-H=NH2 (amine) 'switches' with the cytosine's backbone
connection.

Subsequently, the double helix becomes a stacked in the Penrose
Tiling Patterns with counting frequency XY=1, i.e. the ratio between
rhombuses of 36- and 72 degrees; this is also the cosmogenetic
supersymmetry via: X+Y=XY=-1=i^2=exp(iPi) with T(n)=n(n+1)->1 as the
defining boundary condition.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17234 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17234

Dear Hans Dieter!

I am actually in agreement with much of your stated cosmology.

You may consider my stated positions, that the numbers (and hence all archetypical representations, such as alphabets and hieroglyphs) are derivative of something more fundamental, say the binary code.

This binary code then is represented as a dyadic algorithmic state, itself archetyped in some 'story or creation mythology'.

My personal labellings prefer this to be the existence of a 26-dimensional bosonic superstring, which partitions itself from a stationary-nonmoving state (out of space and time) into lefthanded and righthanded rotation/frequency patterns.

Those are still labels of abstract mathematics, nothing more or less.

But they allow the picturisation of the numeral 0 say, as a closed eigenstate, ABLE to become an open eigenstate(selfstate) in the cipher 1.

You can make of this what you will, relabel or philosophise.

However the fact remains, that computercode, written in such a binary form DOES allow a physical reality to be SIMULATED etc.

You are the expert here not me, but the philosophical implication of what I am proposing as a kind of DECODING of the perennial philosophy as found in the number systems etc. are that it is possible to find/discover/invent mathematical descriptions for reality (i.e., said Bosonic 26D-superstring or the ch7763ujdk-code of tks6hei of jhhd7yjk,....).

And the scientific progress/discoveries/models of the last 300 years or so have lead to just the possibility for such abstract definitions.

Regarding the sphinx; you must surely know of certain 'mapping theories' Bauval&Gilbert (The Orion Mystery, Keeper of Genesis); Cottrell (The lost Pharaohs); Lemesurier and Sitchin etc.

Looking at the geometric constructions of the Gizeh complex in Egypt and the Ankor Temples in Thailand; there seems to be a celestial mapping of the constellations Orion, with Sirius and the Draco Constellation respectively.

But only if one precesses the time back into the age of Leo (symbolised in the Sphinx as ManAngel with leonine body and Eagle's Wings (Griffin) and a Serpent's Tail).

This time coincides with the Atlantis mythology and the weathering flood-patterns found on the sphinx - it is so 11,014 BC (my story).

Excerpt from my book: "Code of the Rainbow Dragon".

"The date by calendars is January 22nd, 11,014 BC and the architects of ancient times have mapped the exact midpoint for the 'Age of Man" in the Great Precessional Cycle for the planet known as 'The Cradle of the Gods'.

It is coded as the 4,757,618th day of the 7th Age of the Libran Balance'." (end of quote)

It is just a story, kind of fitting many of other historical, anecdotal, scientific pieces of evidence or propositions and ideas.

I am saying, that no pyramids or sphinx had to physically 'be there', but the celestial encoding at that time DID PROJECT a potential manifestation/construction of them, relative to the stars.

Quote continued:

"The Cardinal points of the celestial coordinates are the starry constellations of Leo mapping the Sphinx of due East and of matching Aquarius in the Shadow of due West.

The 'Stars of Orion' are aligned in a prototypical structure of the Gizean pyramids and the 'Starry Serpent of Draco' is correlated in the geometry of the temples of Ankor.

The Engineers of antiquity know, that on the 9,509,787tth day, the 14th Great Age of the Arachnian Metamorphosis would dawn tomanifest the 'Age of Starman" on the 9,515,235th day.

Then a symbolic representation for the ancient encodings would be known as the Eastern Gospel of the Markian Lion; the Northern Gospel of the Lukesian Calf; the Southern Gospel of the Johanine Phoenix or ScorpioEagle and the Western Gospel of the Matthewnite AngelMan.

A superimposed dodecagonal or twelvefolded cycle specifies the Age of Leo to have begun on August 7th, 11,022 BC and as a phasal shift for the 'Last Days', initiated on January 21st anno1998 AD." (end of quote)

Those dates derive from linking the Mayan calendar systems to the Gregorian and involve calculations of different measures of time/years/days etc.tropical, sidereal synadic Saros etc.

It is just a possible story, which exact days almopst certainly incorrect as given.

But I do hope you may get my point.

Pyramids, Sphinx etc, all existed archetypically and 'constructed' by mindengineers/dreamers/shamans and so in some form of associations, say the stars.

Agape Tony

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17240 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17240

The Machian Momentum for the Universe

We consider the universe to be a Quantum Universe; that is we sum all fermionic spin-states (N) as

Intrinsic Angular Momenta to become the Intrisic Spin Angular Momentum for the Universe as a

quantised protoverse.

This rather naturally engages the Heisenbergian Uncertainty Principle in the form of the fermionic

(or halfspin) intrinsic angular momentm given in h/4p as the limit for measurement regarding dynamical

systems.

1. Moments of Inertia and the nested curvatures of dimension mappings

The Moment of Inertia of a solid sphere mass M and radius R is (2/5).MR^2 and that of a spherical

shell of the same dimensions is (2/3).MR^2 as determined by integration across the geometries.

We consider the universe to be the Hypersphere of Riemann of 4D-Volume [2p^2Rmax^3], which is also

a 3D-surface of toroidal derivative, i.e. a KleinBottle as Moebian extension in 2D.

As precisely 8 spheres radius (a) fit into a sphere radius (2a) and volume (4p/3)(8a^3)=(32p/3)(a^3);

we define the curvature factor (3p/2) to relate toroidal volume [(2p^2)a^3] to spherical volume [(4p/3)a^3].

Considering now the topology of such a torus, defined in radii a and 2a; we can observe a positive spherical

curvature encompassing a negative hyperbolic curvature in a 3D perspective, the latter which we expand

into 4D as the hypersphere of Riemann.

The encompassment or enveloping of a lower surface dimension by a volume dimension is however twosided.

We must consider the mapping of volumes onto both the inner and outer surfaces in the same dimensional

sense.

Whilst the inner volume of the earth, say is mapped onto the inner manifold comprising the earth's surface;

the outer volume of the earth (the outer space) is mapped onto the outer manifold as the encompassing

volume and as given in the 4D hypersphere, which is a 3D surface.

This consideration then allows us to extend the 3D/4D scenario in the application of conifolded or enfolded

higher dimensional geometries.

Especially, there exist toroidal derivatives in 6D, which are called Calabi-Yau manifolds and their

extensions into 7D are termed Joycian shaped topologies.

We so invoke here the nomenclature of superbrane theory, without its mathematical formalism.

In our analysis of the Machian observer, we shall find the principle behind higher dimensional M-Theory of

the superbranes.

The underlying principle is the Principle of Quantum Relativity (QR) as a natural extension for the Principle

of General Relativity (GR), itself a natural consequence for the Principle of Special Relativity (SR).

We rename M-Theory in 11 dimensions as FMC-Theory of Quantum Relativity in 12 dimensions for this

purpose.

The elementary precept of modular duality in M-Theory shall also be the defining foundation for QR.

We then consider 3D-surfaces as 4D-volumes to conifold 6D-Calabi-Yau shapes and 7D-Joyce manifolds in

the connector dimensions of their enfolding.

This process renders the Minkowski-Riemann spacetime metric as a scalerelative enfolding of space within

time, thus leading to the 'sharing of dimensions' and any object moving through time with maximum speed 'c',

requiring to be necessarily at rest relative to its scale relative spacial dimensions.

Any motion of the object relative to the space dimensions, would decompose the Minkowski 4-vector and

reduce the speed c via the formalisms of Special Relativity and its postulates.

For simplicity, we define the 12 dimensions as a simple superpositioning of four worlds superimposed upon

one another, say as:

LineSpace (1-2-3)HyperSpace(4-5-6)QuantumSpace(7-8-9)OmniSpace(10-11-12)(13=1-2-3)..

Each of the four worlds is the Riemann hypersphere with 3 spacial dimensions and a connector time

dimension, which forms however a spacial dimension for the adjacent superimposed world.

So LineSpace connects to HyperSpace via a convenient, but ultimately imaginary timedimension and as

say expressed in the Minkowsi 4-vector.

We could also extend our 4 worlds in ascribing Translation to LineSpace, Rotation to Hyperspace, Vibration to

QuantumSpace and Quantization to OmniSpace, the decisive constant being the speed of light in 'free space',

denoted as 'c'.

2. The Machian observer and the principles of relativity and the Weyl nullification

The rotational frames of references of HyperSpace will become elucidated in the Machian observer.

Consider the rotation of a dynamical system about its axis of rotation, say a solid circular disk radius R

with angular velocity w=v/R=2pf; f the frequency of rotation and v the tangential velocity linked to angular

centripetal acceleration ac =v^2/R.

The postulates of SR lead to Time-Dilation and Lorentz-Contraction and invoke the notion of no absolute

motion being measurable between two oberservers moving uniformely or at rest with respect to one another.

This and the invariance of 'c', irrespective as to the dynamical motion of the observer, forms the Principle of

Special Relativity.

The Principle of General Relativity states, that a dynamical system of SR, that is in uniform motion of an

inertial frame of reference and which is experiencing a gravitational field; is indistinguishable from a non-

inertial system subject to accelerations, which is not experiencing such a gravitational field.

This is known as the Principle of Equivalence.

Our rotating disk above so experiences both inertial and non-inertial frames of references, so applying both SR

and GR in the one dynamical system.

In particular the radius vector musty remain invariant, being normal to the central force, causing the

centripetal acceleration.

The tangent vector experiences Lorentz-Contraction relative to a Bird's Eye Observer (BEO), which remains

stationary relative to the rotating frame of reference (FOR).

Using SR and allowing an observer to rotate with the FOR must produce the invariance of 'c'.

Now any 'observation point' for the corotating FOR must be somewhere on the disk, resolved in the

radius vector and the tangent vector.

We 'shrink' the radius vector using GR until we encounter the Weyl-Limit.

The Riemann Tensor of GR's field equations consists of two parts; the Weyl-Tidal-Tensor and the

Ricci-Density-Tensor with the g-metric.

The Weyl-Tensor preserves volume, but deforms the volume, whilst the Ricci-Tensor reduces volume in

accelerating the particles comprising the warping surface inwards.

But our radius vector must remain invariant and when the limit for measurement is reached in the

'point-limit', then there can be no deformation by the Weyl-Tensor, because this would violate the

Subsequently, the Weyl-Curvature must be 0 and the 'point limit' must be a dewarped singularity, which

we now rename as the wormhole perimeter lps=rps/2p.

As mensuration limit, no further Lorentz-Contraction below the wormhole perimeter is possible.

This is a consequence of QR in the modular duality definitions for heterotic superstring HE(8x8), which we

rename here as the Supermembrane EpsEss.

3. Quantum Relativity definitions for the Mach observer

The Identity coupling the macrorealm to the microrealm is given in the inverse properties of SourceBoson

Eps and SinkBoson Ess, the subscripts denoting ps=primary sourcesink and ss=secondary sinksource.

QR defines the following:......Energy:..........E = moc^2 = hf

.........................................................................................E=hf iff mo=0

.........................................................................................E=mo iff f=fss=1/fps=lps/c

All elementary particles/wavelets thus carry an intrinsic EigenFrequency or Lightequivalent fss=1/fps=tps,

which is the TimeInstanton, the beginning of the universe as described by GR and the metricated scenarios

of mensuration, observation and scalerelative measurements.

This gives the inverse proportionality for lightspeed 'c' to the coupling between the vibratory Eps of high

frequency/small radius source-part, modular dual to the winded Ess of low frequency/big radius sink-part.

Gravitational Radiation is the modular inverse of Electromagnetic Radiation, differing in the scaleindependent

and algorithmnically QR-derived supersonstant c^2.

A derived minimum/maximum coupling relates the frequency of the 11D-oscillating universe with nodally

fixed Hubble Constant Ho=58.04 (km/Mpc.s) and maximum curvature radius Rmax=c/Ho to the wormhole in

the constancy for c in: c = Ho.Rmax = fps.lps

Also, the dimensionless TauTime(t) in GR, applied to the curvature Rc=c.dt/dt, becomes the cycletime

n in our descriptions as dn/dt=Ho, n=Ho.t.

The wormhole perimeter is directly quantised in terms of the classical electron radius Re=e^2/(4peo.mec^2),

which is proportional to the Compton Radius of quantum-atomic-structure in RCompton=Re/Alpha.

Alpha is the electromagnetic finestructure given as Alpha=e^2/2eohc and as Alpha=60pe^2/h in QR, and

denotes the interaction probability between matter and light.

(QR derives a superconductive form for the Action Law: Action = Charge^2, electrical conductance quantum,

Quantum Hall effect and Josephson Constant).

There are exactly 10^10 lps/360 wormholeperimeters in one Re; relating to the finestructure of Planck's

Constant h as: h=lps/[8p.Rec^3] in dimensionless Action-Units (relating to the monopole superstring class IIB).

{The 360 count is not arbitrary, because the QR derivation for transcendental p, engages trigonometric series which lead to the

cipher 180 as a limit in Archimedean polygon approximations, also related to QR definitions for magnetic permeability and

electric permittivity}.

The nodal and 11D oscillating universe grows under agency of 'c' in electromagnetic parameters, encompassing

the asymptotically expanding, but decelerating 10D hyperbolically curved 4D-volumed hypersphere as its inner

surface mapping in say the 5D-Anti DeSitter hyperspace.

The volume as 4D-information becomes the 3D-surface of the inner LineSpace mapping the 5D-surface

of the outer HyperSpace.

The volume is nested between the surfaces of two worlds, an ekpyrotic universe of LineSpace blending with

the Hyperspace, encompassed in the cyclicity of the 10th dimension , reflecting off the M-Space of the

Witten-Mirror.

Thus the connector-time dimensions are 4-7-10-13=1 and the four worlds are defined in perfect supersymmetry.

Maxwell's equations are introduced to the magnetic monopole(as selfdual superstring class IIB) and 12

magnetopolic junction points within a fourfolded propagation of the wormhole toroidal spacequantum define

the Unified Field of Quantum Relativity (UFoQR).

And yet, this fourfoldedness is just the one world of our Machian Observer.

The singularity is no more; it has become the selfrelative BEO at the centre of rotation as the Machian

Observer.

It is irrelevant if the BEO rotates with the Perimeter FOR or is stationary relative to it.

As Machian BEO, shehe is located literally at the centre of the universe, with everything else rotating or

moving relatively to himher.

The uniform motion of SR implies invariance of c, should the perimeter FOR rotate with the FOR.

It is only at the now demetricated singularity, that this corotation becomes arbitrary.

Demetricating the field equations of GR blends QuantumTheory with Classical Mechanics, culminating in

General Relativity, itself emerged from Special Relativity and the physics of Newton and Galileo.

The nullification of the Weyl-Tensor hence dewarps Minkowskian spacetime into the Schwarzschild

solutions for the overall cosmic evolution, from the wormhole singularity as limit for the g-metric onto the

Sarkar-architecture of the fractal universe in 236.5 million lightyears, then onwards towards the asymptotic

boundary defined by the Spherical Standing Wave defined by the Hubble-Oscillation and c-invariance.

Meanwhile so the oscillating cosmos as returned in its cyclicity to intersect the dimensions 2.2 Billion

years ago, superposing its blueshift onto the cosmological redshif and giving the 'appearance' of an

accelerating cosmic expansion, linked to a 'dip' in the Alpha-Electromagnetic Finestructure Constant to

about 80 parts per million in a redshift interval from 1.08 to 1.84, mapped again around an Arpian present

cycle value of 0.2505.

But the finite cosmos is enfolded within the infinite one, creating space and time as it moves ever onwards

under invariance of 'c'.

4. The Mach momentum for the universe

Let us now calculate the Machian Momentum for the Universe and the intrinsic angular momentum for it

as a Quantum Universe, a Protouniverse or monosong.

The geometry can be modelled on a prolate ellipsoid with major axis invariance under rotation.

The focalpoints would remain mathematical singularities as the 0-brane of Quantum Relativity.

Any minor axis rotation would merge the focus points in a pointcircle and the 1-brane of QR would define

an oblate ellipsoid of phaseshifted multiverses; integrated as angular function of the complex OmniSpace

as the Omniverse.

As there is no gravitational field outside the enfolded protouniverse, uniform motion of the protoverse in

inertial frames is not equivalent to accelerated motion in noninertial frames by the postulates of GR.

Subsequently, rotating the protouniverse in the nongravitational undefined spacetime without does not

cause centripetally forces balanced by centrifugal (coriolis) forces within the enfolded and metrically defined

spacetimes.

The Machian and Einsteinian postulates of 'Relativity of Inertia' hence becomes the BEO -frame within the

protoverse as referring to the centre of rotation as the Machian observer, a reference previously known as

'relative to the fixed stars'.

It is only in that FOR, that the BEO becomes independent from any other coexisting relative rotational

systems in the measurement of the invariance of light, say as in the Sagnac Effect.

The monosongs become tunes, melodies and a symphony of the supermembranes as particle/wavelets of

the UFoQR.

The Total Momentum for the Universe is given in:..................(2/3)M.Rmax^2.w = N.h/4p

We consider the Universe's mass M to be the surface mapping of 10D onto the inside of the 11D-manifold

and use the moment of inertia of a spherical shell.

We incorporate all fermionic particles, including the (anti)neutrinos, whose number is given in the

baryon/photon ratio (Eta h) and a number which increases N by a factor of about 10^9.

QR calculates, for a present cycletime np=1.1324.., the following parameters:

Deceleration Parameter qo=0.014015 for Sarkar-Architecture at cosmological redshift z=7.477 or 236.5 Mly.

Critical Density rc=3Ho^2/8pG=Rmax.c^2/2GVmax ....(rc=Ho^2/4p^2.G for 11D-curvature)

Mo=1.81371262x10^51 kg*

M8=6.47061227x10^52 kg*

Rmax=1.59767545x10^26 m*; R10D(n)=Rmax(1 - n/(n+1)) m*; R11D(n)=n.Rmax(n) m*

No=1.8275x10^78

N8=6.5197x10^79

h10D=3.64x10^-10

h11D=4.82x10^-11

w = 2pf = 2p /T = 3Nh/{8phMRmax^2} = 3.06x10^-50 1/s for the asymptotic 10D-massparametric universe

(T=Period)....................................................................= 5.08x10^-50 1/s for the oscillating 11D-electromagnetic universe

The QR definition for time sets the natural limit for this in the minimum/maximum ratio of lps/Rmax=nps.

The Timeinstanton tps=fss=3.333..x10^-31 s thus relates nps=1/lssRmax=6.26x10^-49; mapping the 'real'

time tps onto the 'imaginary' time Ho.tps=1.17x10^-66 s/s.

This analysis has lead us into the realms of the poets and dreamers.

Leonardo de Vinci's 'Vitruvian Man' has literally become the Machian Observer, encompassing the

entire universe as 'Cosmic Man', the Adam Kadmon of Lurianic-Hebrew Kabbalah or the Purusha of Hindu cosmology.

Molecules are mapped as star systems from the 'inner space' and biovital cells become the galaxies

of 'outer space'.

Every sentient being is mapped holographically as a neuron in all other 'immortalised' non-telomere

depleted 'neuronal brains'.

The monosongs become tunes, melodies and a symphony of the supermembranes as particle/wavelets of

the UFoQR.

Anthony Paul Bermanseder, BSc.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17247 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17247

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> Mach's principle is vitally important and most modern scientists
> absolutely ignore it.
>
> SO
>
> I sent this post of yours to about 90 different people and places.
>
> various other free e-mail outfits.
>
> Cheers
>
> z
Hi Zeus!

Thank you very much for your support in this.

You know I would be only to willing to work with Milo, you, Pop and
anyone at all to synthesise all our many partial structures into a
cohesive whole to bring the new paradigm into the public forums.

I am not mainstream Zeus, I am exiled from it for 20 years now.
Many suggest to me to contact Roger Penrose, because his pioneering
work is very imortant in my derivations.

I do not know what to do. Perhaps a site like yours or Milo's is
better - but we need to form symbiosis.

I have contacted Milo, he's not interested in working together,
perhaps because he doesn't like M-theory or the quarks.
I have written to him, explaining that the quarks are wavelets not
particles.
This comes out clearly in the Alan Krisch experiments at Argonne in
the middle 1980's.
It is confirmed in my kernel-ring structures for them as efferct of
quantum geometry.
They even threw me off the WSM site, perhaps believing that I am
challenging them.
I have read Milo's papers, they are fully supported by M-Theory.
and what I have posted-fixed HubbleRadius, sourcesinks and
sinksources and the Spherical Standing Waves.

But what I call M-Theory is a reduced version of it.
It relates to your discussion with Rybo and the Higgs Field.

The energies cut out at 10^-22 metres just below the 10^-20
mentioned by Lederman as the 'God-Particle'.

This is the wormhole geodesic and all energies above it belong to
the nonclassical superbrane hierarchies.

They will discover this soon, at least pointing to it in the planned
experiments at the LHC in the bnext few years.

I'll post a slightly revised version andseewhat happens next.

I am available for coauthorship,if anyone likes the postings and
would like to refine it to such an extent to be suitable for
mainstream publication.

Cheers to all

Tony B.

Message 17255 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17255

Hi All!

The Ether is a Standing Wave, characterised by invariance of c relative to any observer in SR, GR or QR (modified M-Theory).

This background of 'light' exhibits its particle-properties in the formof lightsignals emitted or received.

This is the Complentarity of the wave-particle duality.

Relative to the Standing Wave, TIME does not exist.

Time manifests in the manifestation of 'particles' as wavelets in dynamical systems, subject to observation and measurement.

Think about it and you know why SR and GR are the correct interpretations for the natural phenomena.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17265 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17265

Hi Chip!

Goto the site below and read the Algorithmic Gravity files for the details.

Also the threshold is the wormholeradius at the timeinstanton at Lps/2Pi=10^-22/2Pi m.

See Mach Paper. The maximum is fixed in 10D as the Hubble-Friedmann Radius so 1.6x10^26 m

but not in 11D, where it reflects with two arrows of time, one superposing the standing wave of 'c' back into 10D and the other extending 11D outwards, creating new spacetime.

Before the wormhole you have superbrane hierarchies, bounded in the Planck-Length, which ultimately oscillates in the formula Planck-Length-Oscillation=Planck-Length.Sqrt(Alpha).

The latter decreases the 'size' of the Planck-Length in about a factor of 11.7, which is also the ratio of the strong interaction strength diminishing from unification with electroweak theory.

You are asking good questions. Cheers 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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17270 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17270

In message 16477 - and many before it - I was trying to convince Dr
Milo Wolff, Geoff and others of the same thing that Tony B. recently
stated, which is:

Scalar, standing waves give us particles and TIME

I don't call it a standing wave in this particular message but in
some earlier ones and in my web page I do.

You get a gold star for that one Tony B.

I didn't see it via the math route like Tony did.

I wish i could convince Milo and Geoff that this is so.

z

Dear Zeus!

Absolutely, just yesterday I checked Milo's file on the electron structure. It beautifully concurs with the wavecentre becoming the classical electronic radius of the Thomson scatter and as quantised form of superbrane HE(8x8).

The oscillating wavecentre then specifies the quantum geometry of the Standard Model as the concentric kernel-inner Mesonic ring-outer Leptonic ring; just as he did envision.

The scalar component of the Maxwell wave adds the third orthogonality as the linear propagation of the Unified Field in the vortices of inflow-outflow duallity.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17279 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17279

Introduction to Quantum Relativity and the Quantum Geometry

by Mike Wilmac

Well let's take the first part - Imagine a line segment, and call it a
1-sphere. Now, it has no surface, because a surface is necessarily 2D.
Yet the surface has been defined by the length of the segment.. You'll
see why in a moment.

Introduce a second dimension and spin the segment around its centre, and
it traces out a circle. Now call the circle a 2-sphere. It has a
surface! Namely the perimeter, but it it has no volume, because a volume
is necessarily 3D. However, the circle defines the volume even so,
because if we introduce a third dimension and spin the circle around a
diameter, we get a ball!

Now the ball is a 3-sphere, right? It has a surface, and a volume, and
the volume defines - something else, but it isn't there yet because the
something else is 4D. Now spin the ball around - um - well, you have to
stop trying to visualise now because you actually spin the ball around
a planar section, but in such a way that it is orthogonal to all 3
visible dimensions, and you get a 4-sphere, only now there's a fourth
dimension to this thing, which I think is called a hypersphere (Tony?).

Now the fun thing is that you can actually start even lower than the
line segment, at a point, and call it a 0-sphere, and a "rotation" here
has to take the form of a double translation along a line to produce the
1-sphere, but we will call it an 0D rotation. Of course there is no
surface, no volume, nothing at all, except position. Its "rotation"
produces a 1-sphere (line segment ) that has position and magnitude.

Spin the 1-sphere around it 0D centre (the position) and you get the
2-sphere with position, magnitude and a surface. Now spin that around
its 1D axis and you get a 3-sphere with position, magnitude, a surface
and a volume. Now spin the 3-sphere around a suitable orthogonal 2D
section and it makes a 4-sphere, which has position, magnitude, surface,
volume and...... duration? See how we produce ever higher hyperspheres
we get more and more basic properties?

And so it goes on. As an aid to visualising, let's go the other way and
slice a 4-sphere with a 3D volume (don't try to visualise this or you'll
go mad) and you get a 3-sphere. Slice a 3-sphere with a 2D plane
surface and you get a 2-sphere or plane circle. Slice a 2-sphere with a
1D line and you get a 1-sphere, and lastly slice this with a point to
get the 0-sphere.

Tony is using brane terminology, but basically this is the operation
he's talking about I think The rest is a bit more abstract still and
rather mathematical. The speed of light is c and it is constant.
Furthermore, light as the one entity that actually moves at this rate is
a wave with frequency and wavelength, but also mass-energy (it's all
kinetic - there is no *rest* mass energy, so no inertia, and that's why
it can never accelerate, decelerate, or even exist unless it's buzzing
along at c.)

So - we have a constant manifest in real terms as a wave with a
frequency (inverse time) a wavelength (a space function), and a
mass-energy, and they are all inextricably entwined. The mass m is
E/c^2. The energy is E = hn, and the frequencty is 1/t, where t is a
toime parameter yet to be determined.. The constant speed c is nL where
L is the wavelength, and you can use simple algebra to get the other
dependencies.

So, this is a self consistent simultaneous set of equations in six
dimensions (but two are constant so you can set it up as 4D) that can be
represented using matrix algebra. You can describe such a system as a
matrix, and all matrices have certain powerful mathematical properties.
Things like discriminants, and very powerfully, an "eigenvalue" which is
unique to the matrix. If two matrices have the same eigenvalue, then
they are merely variants of the same system.

OK, now, setting this system up as a matrix, we can compute the
eigenvector and eigenvalue for the matrix, (don't ask me how - I'm a
conceptual physicist who visualises stuff, not a mathematician, so I
leave the donkey work to the mathos) and it turns out to be a function
of photon mass with the physical dimension of time.

That is, the eigenvalue which is a characteristic constant of the system
is fixed, and we can give it a name. Tony calls it an instanton, which
can also be regarded as a quantum of time for that system (obviously
though different photon energies will give different eigenvalues and so
the instanton is a variable when we consider all possible frequencies.)

Note though that the evolution of the system is such that you can take
time as the initial parameter on which everything else is going to
depend. From it we have a frequency, and from frequency we have
wavelength (i.e. space) and lastly we have energy (mass) from the Plank
energy equation expressed relativistically, E = hn = mc^2.

Now - say we shrink our system to the smallest possible length and time
that makes any physical sense, namely the Planck scale. You now have an
instanton that is absolutely the very foundation of quantisable
spacetime. It is a true time quantum from which EVERYTHING else derives.

I think Jim would be very pleased with this outcome as he sees
absolutely EVERYTHING as being built from Planck actions, a notion with
which I personally agree wholeheartedly. And you should be pleased
because it strongly vindicates your concept of a primal clock underlying
all reality (incidentally, in loop quantum gravity, these "instantons"
are ticked out by spin vectors that serve to generate space, so again
your early intuitions seem to be vindicated).....

Even though Tony's terminology is a bit obscure - and I for one am not
into brane theory at all yet, so I have to do a double take with most of
his stuff - it's mathy and I'm no motho - when I said it makes sense,
it's because I can *see* it clearly in my mind's eye. It certainly does
seem to be the way things work..........

Postulates of Quantum Relativity:

1. Set of Postulates of SR (verbatim): Principle of Relativity
2. Set of Postulates of GR (verbatim): Principle of Equivalence
3. Set of Postulates of QR (A,B,C,..): Principle of Quantization

A: Modular Duality between vibratory and winded Energy Eigenstates or
EE's, allows the description of high frequency/small radius EE's
as physically equivalent to low frequency/big radius EE's
The EE's are themselves defined in the Planck-Scale of the various
mensuration parameters as given in postulates 1.and 2.

Description:

The Operator E=f/R+wR describes vibratory mode f and winding mode w

as being invariant under simultaneous exchange of f & w and R & 1/R.

f=3 and w=2 for R=10 -> E=3/10+2.10=20+3/10 is IDENTICAL to

f=2 and w=3 for R=1/10-> E=2.10+3/10=20+3/10

In Point-Particle Quantum Mechanics, displacement and momentum are related

by Heisenberg's Constant and Fourier Transform.

EigenState [x> of position on the circle radius R is defined in [x>=Sf .exp[ixp]]p>

where p=f/R and [p> is a momentum eigenstate as the uniform vibration state of

the string with phase factor h/4p<=Et for t~1/E~R.

x is periodic with period T=2pR as position x on a circle radius R.

EigenState [X> of position on the circle radius 1/R is defined in [X>=Sw.exp[iXP]]P>

where P=wR and [P> is a momentum eigenstate as the uniform winding state of

the string with phase factor h/4p<=Et for t~1/E~1/R.

X is periodic with period T=2p/R as position X on a circle radius 1/R.

Two wavepackets x and X then evolve in time in proportionality of their respective

radii to the time required to complete a revolution of the circles and as given in the

Heisenberg Relation.

This serves as a technical description for 'displacement' in modular duality.

B: Modular Duality is defined in the threshold of the GR postulates
as the 'quantumsmeared' singularity of the Planck-Scale (1.&2.)

E=f/R+wR/LP^2, with LP=Sqrt(Gh/2pc^3)=Planck-Length remains invariant

under exchange of f & w as well as R & LP^2/R.

C: The fundamental constants, which define the Planck-Scale are al-
gorithmically obtainable in considering a demetricated senario,in
which space and time are undefined and subject to definition by a
Machian Observer doing the defining.

The derivation of the Electromagnetic Electronmass below indicates this.

A detailed analysis is found in the Algorithmic Gravity Paper.

D: The engagement of the Machian Observer then results in the Planck
Scale and under postulates B and A reattains the sets of the pos-
tulates as given in 1. and 2.

This is described in the Machian Momentum for the Universe Paper.

E: The algorithm defining the fundamental constants is based on the
premise of a mathematical supersymmetry, thus becoming realised
as physical reality,defined in postulate A.

The Cosmic Wavefunction is the following Differential Equation:

dB/dT + aB(n) = 0; a being the Electromagnetic Finestructure as the

probability of light-matter interaction (~1/137).

This has a solution: B(n) = Bo.exp[-a.T(n)];

Bo=2e/hA from QR boundary conditions defining:

T(n)=n(n+1) as the Feynman Path-Summation of particular histories

under the pentagonal supersymmetry given in the identity:

XY=X+Y=-1=i^2=exp[ip] and lim [n->X]{T(n)}=1

This allows the Normalisation of the [Y]^2 wavefunction to sum

to unity in B(n)=(2e/hA).exp[-a.n(n+1)] with Functional Riemann Bound

FRB=-1/2, centred on the interval [Y,...-1,...-X,...-1/2,...(X-1),...0,...X].

Interval [Y,-1] sets F-Space; interval [-1,0] sets M-Space with uncertainty

interval [-X,(X-1)] and interval [0,n) sets the C-Space, encompassing OmniSpace.

n<0 is imaginary as real reflection of real n>0 of the C-Space, metrically defined

at the coordinate n=0 mapping n=nps, which is the instanton tps=fss=1/fps.

Cycletime n is defined in GR as dimensionless TauTime in curvature radius

Rc=c.dt/dt for the pathlength of x=ct and become dn/dt=Ho, n=Hot in QR,

with Ho the nodal HubbleConstant defined in c=HoRmax=lps.fps.

The Feynman Path so sums both negative and positive integers

as: -n......-3...-2...-1...0...1...2...3......n =T(n) in absolute value to double the

infinities as the entropy reversal of lightpath x=c.t=(-c)(-t) in the Moebius

Property of the 4 worlds as outlined in the Machian Momentum Paper.

Cantor Cardinality Aleph-Null is thus Unitised in Aleph-All, counting infinities

as if they were integers of the Feynman Path.

This allows the Feynman interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as alternative

to the formulations of Schroedinger (fermions 1/2spin) and Klein-Gordon (bosons)

as timeindependent and timedependent (free particle form inconsistent with SR

in Schroedinger in 1st order t & 2nd order x), formulations respectively.

The units of B(n) are 1/J, that is Inverse Energy, with A^2 an algorithmic constant

defining Current-Squared and 2e/h the Josephson Constant in Amperes/Joules.

B(n) as the universal cosmic wavefunction describes the universe as a potentially

infinite collection of 'frozen' wormhole- eigenstates at n=0.

The timeinstanton 'unfreezes' one such eigenstate and activates the protoverse as

discussed in the Machian Momentum Paper.

This then allows the 'Mappings' of the C-Space 'real time n>0' from the F-Space of the

'imaginary time n<-1' under utility of the M-Space interval as 'mirror-space'.

QR unifies electromagnetic and gravitational finestructures in F-Space using the Planck-

Length-Oscillation LPSqrt(a)=e/c^2 from the subtimespace.

This yields the decisive mapping for the B(n):

Coulomb Charge e = LP.Sqrt(a).c^2 <-->2Re.c^2 = e* (StarCoulomb Charge)

But the StarCoulomb is Inverse Energy by definition of the vibratory part of the

modular dual heterotic supermembrane HE(8x8)=EpsEss.

..........................................Eps=(me/2e).Sqrt[2pGo/ahc]=me/{2emPSqrt(a)}=1/e*.

mP is the Planck-Mass and Go is the initiatory Gravitational Constant.

Thus Quantum Relativity is defined in the charge mappings between the OmniSpace

dimensions; F maps magnetocharges e* onto electrocharges e under agency of the

11D-Witten Mirror, which is a Onesided Surface moebian connecting 10D to 12D.

The all encompassing source energy quantum is the Eps-Gauge Boson, which manifests

as the Gauge mediator for the four elemental interactions, suppressing the weak inter-

action in a primary triplicity however to allow the Higgs Restmass Induction mechanism

to proceed in the defining qualities of the Unified Field of Quantum relativity (UFoQR).

The details are discussed in the aformentioned papers and the archives of the QR website

The paper below introduces some of those details.

CALCULATION OF THE ELECTRONMASS

The Main Idea is that the Electronmass is made up of two parts.

One part is the 'naked electronrestmass' and the other an additional part (a magneto-

charged part also called electromagnetic mass).

Together this gives a dynamic effective electronmass, which derives naturally from the

other integerbased fundamental constants.

There are three such constants given by an algorithmic program, which relate

directly to Energy concepts.

1. Einstein-Constant as: (9,10,16)=> 9x10^16=c^2.

2. Planck-Constant as: (15,10,32) => 1/(15x10^32)=h.

3. Boltzmann Constant as: (15,16,18) => 1/(15x16^18)=k.

They are all dimensionless in pre-quantum algorithm space (prePlanck-Phase).

In a transitionphase, relating to the 'Quantum Big Bang', a boundary between

a 'quantum realm' and classical physics became established in a quantum tunneling

of a 'false vacuum'.

This is described in de Broglie phase-inflation.

This phase inflation defines a closed curvature topologically equivalent to an open

curvature and specifies modular duality between maximum/minimum conditions.

The dimensionless number constants became physically manifested and related to

many other derived parameters relating to energy in the order of Temperature,

Radiation and Mass; that is in the order of Boltzmann, Planck and Einstein.

One such relationship finestructures Maxwell's: 1/c^2=moeo.

Another relationship defines the electronic radius as a quantum macroboundary in

terms of the magnetic constant mo.

Another relationship sets the linearisation of a circular quantum continuum in direct

relation to a prequantumscale, that is the supermembrane epoch from Planck-Time to

Wormholetime.

The wormholetime derives from finestructuring the Action-Constant.

This formulation involves the electronic radius as a number constant.

From that electronic radius, the electronmass is implied as:

Equality of dynamic electromagnetic mass in magnetic selfinduction to the relativistic

mass increase, then leads to a finestructure for the effective electronmass (above) as a

distribution and as set out below.

There are a number of parameters and fundamental constants which are given

by the pentagonal supersymmetry between four dimensionally nested worlds.

The lightconstant 'c' becomes dimensionless in: c^2=9x10^16 for example, giving a

'cosmic standard' system where c=300,000 km*/sec* precisely.

Calibration to the SI-system differs often less than 1%.

The electronmass was not amongst the elementaries however, because all restmasses

are set to 0 in the first world (here termed Omnispace of dimensions 10-11-12-(13=1)).

So we must derive the electronmass from the other given elementals.

It proceeds something like this.

One first finestructures the Maxwell-Constant into electric and magnetic parts and then

applies the OmnispaceLaw {ACTION=CHARGE^2} to find dimensionless (superconductive)

expressions for electric permittivity eo and magnetic permeability mo.

This ACTION LAW maximises/minimises the Lagrangian in Omnispace, especially the

boundary condition of the Planck-Length-Oscillation, which maps the ForceCharges

between Omnispace and Linespace.

Linespace connects Omnispace in dimension 1=13, which also becomes a mirrored

Timedimension in 1-2-3-4 D.

(Hyperspace is world #3 mapping 4-5-6-7 and Quantumspace maps this as 7-8-9-10 into

Omnispace as world #4).

There are two equal expressions for the Planck-Length Oscillation; allowing mappings

from the creation world into the first manifestation.

Planck-Length-Oscillation: (e/c^2)=Planck-Length.SqrtAlpha.

This allows mapping of MagnetoCharges (e*) from 13D as Coulombic charges (e) as 1D (say).

Since Magnetocharge is defined as Inverse SourceEnergy in the form:

e*=Classical Electronic Diameter.c^2 in units (m^3/s^2) or as

[Volume.Angular Acceleration] and also as:

E[ps]=hf[ps]=h/f[ss]=1/e*,

we find modular duality in supersymmetric associations between magnetocharges and electrocharges.

In particular, the vibrating Supermembrane (11D) E[ps=primary sourcesink] is modular

dual to E[ss=secondary sinksource] and so relates the inversion properties of Maximum Radius to

This is the backbone of M-Theory, which labels our supermembrane EpsEss as the heterosis between

HE-Superstring (8x8) in 10 dimensions with a Bosonic superstring in 26 dimensions.

In particular, you now find the mapping:

(e=Planck-Length-Oscillation.c^2) <=>(e*=Classical Electronic Diameter.c^2) for electropole e and

magnetopole e*.

The overall symmetry, crucial for deriving the electronmass is found in the Cosmic Wavefunction:

B(n)=(2e/hA).exp(-Alpha.T(n)),

where A is an algorithmic constant relating to (Current^2); Alpha is the Electromagnetic Finestructure

Constant related to the Gravitational Finestructure Constant in direct scaleproportion as

ALPHA(GR)=ALPHA(EMR)^18;

and T(n)=n(n+1) is the Feynmann Summation, the Path-Integral over all possible particular histories,

(summing all absolute integers in a Cantor Cardinality of Aleph-Null becoming Aleph-All, the counting

of infinities as integers differing in 1).

The crucial point here is, that this wavefunction defines an infinite number of 'frozen' spacetimes, which

upon a process of 'thawing' (we could call it a spiritual awakening) can ACTIVATE themselves in (coming

alive); but redefining themselves as eventuating 'Baby Universes'.

Renormalising those frozen wormholes/potential universes, then defines a Functional-Riemann-Bound in

the Complex Plane at imaginary cycletime n=Hot (Ho a nodal Hubble Constant at 58 Hubble Units).

The statistical mean is at [n=-1/2] for the squared wavefunction as a density distribution.

This [FRB=-1/2] then relates to many fields in pure number theory, such as the Riemann Hypothesis of the

Zeta Function and the Euler Harmonic.

B(n) is also a disguised form of Sterling's Formula as function of Alpha.

But we now have expressions for the magnetic constant, which relate to the propagation of the unified field

in the form of 12 selfintersecting monopolic current-'knots'/junctions, giving rise to all particle families,

bosonic and fermionic in the application of a colourtrinity, triplets of unification (Red-Green-Blue=White in

Complementary triplets/doublets/singlets then define the unitary symmetries, such as 8 gluonic intermediate

mesonic states in {RC=MG=BY} and the permutation octet (WWW,WWB,WBW,BWW,BBW,BWB,WBB,BBB).

In particular there are exactly 10^10/180 l[ps] wavelengths in the Classical Electron-Diameter, the latter

which is found modular dual in the expression: c=l[ps]f[ps]=1/l[ss].f[ss].

Because of this quantisation of the wormholeradius r[ps]=l[ps]/2p; we can directly relate the unified field

propagation (which is 4l[ps] or 8p radians) to the magnetic constant linking the linearisation of the worm-

holeperimeter to the fourfoldedness of the angular multivalued expression.

Define the electronrestmass as equality between the relativistic massincrease and its dynamic magnetic

selfinduction.

You have: c^2.(m-mo)=mo.e^2.v^2/(8pRe), where mo is the electronmass; e the electropolecharge; v the electron

velocity; mo the magnetic constant and Re the Classical Electronic Radius.

Now set: Constant A=mo.e^2/(8pRe.mo) and let Constant B=(v/c).

This defines a distribution of B^2=(v/c)^2 relativistic velocity ratios in mo.A=mo.e^2/8pRe.

Using our definitions, we find: mo.A=30e^2.c/e*=4.645263574x10^-31 kg*.

This implies, that for A=1, mo=me/2, where me=9.290527155x10^-31 kg* from the prequantum

algorithmic associations, based on the magnetic constant defining the Classical Electronic Radius.

Here me is the EFFECTIVE ELECTRONMASS and includes a MAGNETOCHARGED PART; added to the

'Naked Electronmass mo'.

As B^2>=0 for all velocities v, bounded as groupspeed (not de Broglie Phasespeed always >c) in c

for which B^2=1; a natural limit is found for the B^2 distribution at A=1/2 and A=Infinity.

For A=1/2: B^2=-3/2(+-)3/2 for roots x=0 and y=-3;

for A=3/4: B^2=-5/6(+-)(19/12)^1/2 for roots x=0.425 and y=-2.092;

for A=1: B^2=-1/2(+-) Sqrt(5)/2 for roots x=X and y=Y;

for A=Infinity: B^2=(1/2)[-](+-)(1/2)[+] for roots x=1[-] and y=0[-];

Letting B^2=n, we obtain the Feynman-Summation and the Binomial Identity gives the limit of A=1/2 in:

A=1/2 - B^2{3/8 - 5B^2/16 + 35B^4/126 -...}.

But the FRB is defined in the renormalisation of B(n) exactly about the roots X,Y and so the model of the

'heavenly boundary conditions' is proved, (relative to the composer).

The unifying condition is: XY=X+Y=i^2=-1=exp(ip).

One can now introduce the magnetocharge to derive the 'naked electronmass' by perturbation and the

REDUCED CHARGE.

Let me*=me-mo for me*=2mo.e^2/3Re.e*=1.556642765x10^-32 kg* {EQ.*}

as a first approximation and introduce the unitvolume V in: me*=mo.e^2.V/(4pRe^2.c^2).

"Cubing the Sphere" in the ratio of an inscribed (or circumscribed) sphere of unitradius and bounded by

a cube of side 2-units then sets the unitvolume in an octagonised coordinate system.

V so becomes 4p/3 in the ratio 4p/(3.8)=p/6 and we have {EQ.*}.

Using perturbation techniques, one then approximates the 'naked electronmass' from its magnetocharged

and effective progenitor.

A complication arises because of the higher dimensional independence of the Alpha-Finestructure Constant

from electric permittivity.

The creation world form for Alpha=60p.e^2/h as a direct reflection of the ACTION LAW (h*=ee*).

This results in a measured Alpha-Dip for certain cosmological redshift intervals (10D-11D intersections of

electromagnetic parameters) and other factors discussed in the 'Gravitational Constant' File, found on

this site.

There is a possibility that Euler's Constant explicitly defines the electropolecharge and hence Alpha, but this is

a work in the wings.

But any empirical measurements of the 'Naked Electronmass' engage the Charge/Mass ratio [e/m] and are

thus subject to further finetuning.

Tony Sirebard

CALCULATION OF THE ELECTRONMASS

The Main Idea is that the Electronmass is made up of two parts.

One part is the 'naked electronrestmass' and the other an additional part (a magneto-

charged part also called electromagnetic mass).

Together this gives a dynamic effective electronmass, which derives naturally from the

other integerbased fundamental constants.

There are three such constants given by an algorithmic program, which relate

directly to Energy concepts.

1. Einstein-Constant as: (9,10,16)=> 9x10^16=c^2.

2. Planck-Constant as: (15,10,32) => 1/(15x10^32)=h.

3. Boltzmann Constant as: (15,16,18) => 1/(15x16^18)=k.

They are all dimensionless in pre-quantum algorithm space (prePlanck-Phase).

In a transitionphase, relating to the 'Quantum Big Bang', a boundary between

a 'quantum realm' and classical physics became established in a quantum tunneling

of a 'false vacuum'.

This is described in de Broglie phase-inflation.

This phase inflation defines a closed curvature topologically equivalent to an open

curvature and specifies modular duality between maximum/minimum conditions.

The dimensionless number constants became physically manifested and related to

many other derived parameters relating to energy in the order of Temperature,

Radiation and Mass; that is in the order of Boltzmann, Planck and Einstein.

One such relationship finestructures Maxwell's: 1/c^2=moeo.

Another relationship defines the electronic radius as a quantum macroboundary in

terms of the magnetic constant mo.

Another relationship sets the linearisation of a circular quantum continuum in direct

relation to a prequantumscale, that is the supermembrane epoch from Planck-Time to

Wormholetime.

The wormholetime derives from finestructuring the Action-Constant.

This formulation involves the electronic radius as a number constant.

From that electronic radius, the electronmass is implied as:

Equality of dynamic electromagnetic mass in magnetic selfinduction to the relativistic

mass increase, then leads to a finestructure for the effective electronmass (above) as a

distribution and as set out below.

There are a number of parameters and fundamental constants which are given

by the pentagonal supersymmetry between four dimensionally nested worlds.

The lightconstant 'c' becomes dimensionless in: c^2=9x10^16 for example, giving a

'cosmic standard' system where c=300,000 km*/sec* precisely.

Calibration to the SI-system differs often less than 1%.

The electronmass was not amongst the elementaries however, because all restmasses

are set to 0 in the first world (here termed Omnispace of dimensions 10-11-12-(13=1)).

So we must derive the electronmass from the other given elementals.

It proceeds something like this.

One first finestructures the Maxwell-Constant into electric and magnetic parts and then

applies the OmnispaceLaw {ACTION=CHARGE^2} to find dimensionless (superconductive)

expressions for electric permittivity eo and magnetic permeability mo.

This ACTION LAW maximises/minimises the Lagrangian in Omnispace, especially the

boundary condition of the Planck-Length-Oscillation, which maps the ForceCharges

between Omnispace and Linespace.

Linespace connects Omnispace in dimension 1=13, which also becomes a mirrored

Timedimension in 1-2-3-4 D.

(Hyperspace is world #3 mapping 4-5-6-7 and Quantumspace maps this as 7-8-9-10 into

Omnispace as world #4).

There are two equal expressions for the Planck-Length Oscillation; allowing mappings

from the creation world into the first manifestation.

Planck-Length-Oscillation: (e/c^2)=Planck-Length.SqrtAlpha.

This allows mapping of MagnetoCharges (e*) from 13D as Coulombic charges (e) as 1D (say).

Since Magnetocharge is defined as Inverse SourceEnergy in the form:

e*=Classical Electronic Diameter.c^2 in units (m^3/s^2) or as

[Volume.Angular Acceleration] and also as:

E[ps]=hf[ps]=h/f[ss]=1/e*,

we find modular duality in supersymmetric associations between magnetocharges and electrocharges.

In particular, the vibrating Supermembrane (11D) E[ps=primary sourcesink] is modular

dual to E[ss=secondary sinksource] and so relates the inversion properties of Maximum Radius to

This is the backbone of M-Theory, which labels our supermembrane EpsEss as the heterosis between

HE-Superstring (8x8) in 10 dimensions with a Bosonic superstring in 26 dimensions.

In particular, you now find the mapping:

(e=Planck-Length-Oscillation.c^2) <=>(e*=Classical Electronic Diameter.c^2) for electropole e and

magnetopole e*.

The overall symmetry, crucial for deriving the electronmass is found in the Cosmic Wavefunction:

B(n)=(2e/hA).exp(-Alpha.T(n)),

where A is an algorithmic constant relating to (Current^2); Alpha is the Electromagnetic Finestructure

Constant related to the Gravitational Finestructure Constant in direct scaleproportion as

ALPHA(GR)=ALPHA(EMR)^18;

and T(n)=n(n+1) is the Feynmann Summation, the Path-Integral over all possible particular histories,

(summing all absolute integers in a Cantor Cardinality of Aleph-Null becoming Aleph-All, the counting

of infinities as integers differing in 1).

The crucial point here is, that this wavefunction defines an infinite number of 'frozen' spacetimes, which

upon a process of 'thawing' (we could call it a spiritual awakening) can ACTIVATE themselves in (coming

alive); but redefining themselves as eventuating 'Baby Universes'.

Renormalising those frozen wormholes/potential universes, then defines a Functional-Riemann-Bound in

the Complex Plane at imaginary cycletime n=Hot (Ho a nodal Hubble Constant at 58 Hubble Units).

The statistical mean is at [n=-1/2] for the squared wavefunction as a density distribution.

This [FRB=-1/2] then relates to many fields in pure number theory, such as the Riemann Hypothesis of the

Zeta Function and the Euler Harmonic.

B(n) is also a disguised form of Sterling's Formula as function of Alpha.

But we now have expressions for the magnetic constant, which relate to the propagation of the unified field

in the form of 12 selfintersecting monopolic current-'knots'/junctions, giving rise to all particle families,

bosonic and fermionic in the application of a colourtrinity, triplets of unification (Red-Green-Blue=White in

Complementary triplets/doublets/singlets then define the unitary symmetries, such as 8 gluonic intermediate

mesonic states in {RC=MG=BY} and the permutation octet (WWW,WWB,WBW,BWW,BBW,BWB,WBB,BBB).

In particular there are exactly 10^10/180 l[ps] wavelengths in the Classical Electron-Diameter, the latter

which is found modular dual in the expression: c=l[ps]f[ps]=1/l[ss].f[ss].

Because of this quantisation of the wormholeradius r[ps]=l[ps]/2p; we can directly relate the unified field

propagation (which is 4l[ps] or 8p radians) to the magnetic constant linking the linearisation of the worm-

holeperimeter to the fourfoldedness of the angular multivalued expression.

Define the electronrestmass as equality between the relativistic massincrease and its dynamic magnetic

selfinduction.

You have: c^2.(m-mo)=mo.e^2.v^2/(8pRe), where mo is the electronmass; e the electropolecharge; v the electron

velocity; mo the magnetic constant and Re the Classical Electronic Radius.

Now set: Constant A=mo.e^2/(8pRe.mo) and let Constant B=(v/c).

This defines a distribution of B^2=(v/c)^2 relativistic velocity ratios in mo.A=mo.e^2/8pRe.

Using our definitions, we find: mo.A=30e^2.c/e*=4.645263574x10^-31 kg*.

This implies, that for A=1, mo=me/2, where me=9.290527155x10^-31 kg* from the prequantum

algorithmic associations, based on the magnetic constant defining the Classical Electronic Radius.

Here me is the EFFECTIVE ELECTRONMASS and includes a MAGNETOCHARGED PART; added to the

'Naked Electronmass mo'.

As B^2>=0 for all velocities v, bounded as groupspeed (not de Broglie Phasespeed always >c) in c

for which B^2=1; a natural limit is found for the B^2 distribution at A=1/2 and A=Infinity.

For A=1/2: B^2=-3/2(+-)3/2 for roots x=0 and y=-3;

for A=3/4: B^2=-5/6(+-)(19/12)^1/2 for roots x=0.425 and y=-2.092;

for A=1: B^2=-1/2(+-) Sqrt(5)/2 for roots x=X and y=Y;

for A=Infinity: B^2=(1/2)[-](+-)(1/2)[+] for roots x=1[-] and y=0[-];

Letting B^2=n, we obtain the Feynman-Summation and the Binomial Identity gives the limit of A=1/2 in:

A=1/2 - B^2{3/8 - 5B^2/16 + 35B^4/126 -...}.

But the FRB is defined in the renormalisation of B(n) exactly about the roots X,Y and so the model of the

'heavenly boundary conditions' is proved, (relative to the composer).

The unifying condition is: XY=X+Y=i^2=-1=exp(ip).

One can now introduce the magnetocharge to derive the 'naked electronmass' by perturbation and the

REDUCED CHARGE.

Let me*=me-mo for me*=2mo.e^2/3Re.e*=1.556642765x10^-32 kg* {EQ.*}

as a first approximation and introduce the unitvolume V in: me*=mo.e^2.V/(4pRe^2.c^2).

"Cubing the Sphere" in the ratio of an inscribed (or circumscribed) sphere of unitradius and bounded by

a cube of side 2-units then sets the unitvolume in an octagonised coordinate system.

V so becomes 4p/3 in the ratio 4p/(3.8)=p/6 and we have {EQ.*}.

Using perturbation techniques, one then approximates the 'naked electronmass' from its magnetocharged

and effective progenitor.

A complication arises because of the higher dimensional independence of the Alpha-Finestructure Constant

from electric permittivity.

The creation world form for Alpha=60p.e^2/h as a direct reflection of the ACTION LAW (h*=ee*).

This results in a measured Alpha-Dip for certain cosmological redshift intervals (10D-11D intersections of

electromagnetic parameters) and other factors discussed in the 'Gravitational Constant' File, found on

this site.

There is a possibility that Euler's Constant explicitly defines the electropolecharge and hence Alpha, but this is

a work in the wings.

But any empirical measurements of the 'Naked Electronmass' engage the Charge/Mass ratio [e/m] and are

thus subject to further finetuning.

Tony Sirebard

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17283 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17283

"Skywatch" <skycom22@s...>
wrote:
> General Relativity's first postulate is that the source of the
gravitational field is the stress-energy tensor of a perfect
fluid, "T". "T" contains four non-zero components. These four
components are the density of the perfect fluid and the pressure of
the perfect fluid in each of the three physical axes. A perfect
fluid in general relativity is defined as a fluid that has no
viscosity and no heat conduction. This basically describes a
superfluid.
>
> Notice that Einstein, though admitting to dan ether states (see
below) that "the idea of motion may not be
> applied to it". Einstein's either was like a plastic that could
warp and bend, but not move among its parts
> such as fluid ether would.
>
> In "Ether and Relativity", 1920, Sidelights on Relativity, page
23, Einstein writes:
>
>
>
> "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory
of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this
sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general
theory of relativity space without an ether is unthinkable; for in
such a space there not only would be no propagation of light, but
also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time
(measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals
in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as
endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of
motion may not be applied to it."
>
>
>
> Einstein admits that space is endowed with physical properties, as
it must be in order to conform to geometrical distortions and
affirms that, in that sense, there is an ether, but does not ascribe
any motion to this ether. Since further developments postulated the
existence of gravitational waves, it is difficult to reconcile this
early statement with modern thinking on the subject.
>
>
Hi Bill!

You have quoted the appropriate definition for the ether above.
LIGHT requires an ether to propagate; LIGHT IS this ETHER as a
Standing Wave nodally oscillating in 11D in 16.9 Billion years
between the odd and even nodes.
So when Einstein says, the ether cannot move, he means that it is
itself the selfrelative timelessness of c-invariance.

Yet your fluid-ether,as I have pointed out previously has merit, in
that the subtimespace, constituting the vacuum is contained in
spacetime-vortices which couldbe described in fluid dynamical
prperties.
Those spacevortices are inflow-outflow sourcesinks and thus best
described in a Milo Wolff-like wavelet model.

This is exactly what Alan Krisch discovered at Argonne in the proron-
proton scattering experiments.
You have corresponded with him and must be aware of the onion-
layered nature of the proton.
This is the wavecentre of WSM, defined in QR as the classical

So the fluidity of the c-ether manifests in the Standard Model of
Particle Physics in rendering them wavelets of oscillating
wavekernels encompassed by mesonic and leptonic rings as magnified
supermembranes unfolding fromthe toroidal quantum geometry of the
Calabi-Yau toroidal topologies.

The old Standar Model of billard-ball like quarks, connected by
gluonic springs is passe; the mechanics of the point-particle has
become the wave mechanics of the Wolff wavelet.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17288 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17288

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "TONY BERMANSEDER"
<PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
>
Hi zeus!

Sorry about the Greek.I didn't know you could only send 64 kB it was
222 kB.
I had pasted the Postulate File, the Mach file, the Algorithm file
and the Francom Adjacency files together to present a case for the
interested parties to consider.

I am trying to get a coauthorship together. Perhaps the material is
about sufficient to present a fledgling theory.

As you may have seen, I have deecided to rename the wavequarks as
Wolff-wavelets.
His picture on the WSM site did inspire me.
So lets see what happens next.
Do you have any suggestions?

Tony B.

Message 17298 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17298

Zeus wrote:

Tony B. states:

>>>>> Einstein admits that space is endowed with physical properties,
as it must be in order to conform to geometrical distortions and
affirms that, in that sense, there is an ether, but does not ascribe
any motion to this ether. Since further developments postulated the
existence of gravitational waves, it is difficult to reconcile this
early statement with modern thinking on the subject.>>>>

This had me too for a while but then I realized that motion is only
seen by single spacetime realms.

For instance: we can not see motion in either the electron's
spacetime realm or the quark realm.

We can imply from the waves emanating from these realms that angular
momentum has changed thus some accelerated motion or orbital change
has happened but we do not see the motion itself.

I'm not even so certain that motion per se exists in the universe as
a whole.

It could be that we, having an oscillator inside us like a

BUT

This might be an all resonance universe with no such thing as motion
in it per se.

These are not happy thoughts.

z

Dear Zeus!

Allow me to cheer you up. A recent discussion with Jim on infophysics is converging into the idea of Smolin's QLG, which does away with surfaces and volumes in favour of orthogonal spin states and twistor connections.

My argument is, that this is fine above the Weyl-geodesic, where physical properties are measurable wrt the Planck Action.

Since the Planck-Action sets the perimeters for the quantised particles, their dynamics become subject to their quantisation scales as you point out above.

The motion you are referring to above might well be the information transmission as given by QLG and Jim's Infophysics.

I however still would isist, that the selfsame information is then classically representable in a form of quantum geometry holographically mapping the data algorithmically.

Much of this will be worked out in the future, after the basic premises are acertained.

Tony B.

 Tony, The cosmology of the digital model is the primal tetrahedron, except it is oriented every way at the end of our universe as in a house of mirrors. There is only orthogonality in spin networks. The idea that they are distorted or bent is an illusion due to our perception of them, not something real. Its distortion is different for different observers. IT HAS NO ABSOLUTE REALITY WHAT So EVER beyond simple orthogonality. Deterministic Plank actions obey Lie algebras without any little tiny magical influences. What is discriminated by these Plank actions is manifest, period. Jim > > Jim wrote: > Yes, Loop Quantum Gravity is the closest thing to my objective > information physics.  It is the only theory that correctly shows > in principle how quantum interactions manifest gravity.  It is one > of the few lattice free theories allowing the Machian synthesis of > spacetime.It seems however, that they get things a bit backwards, their > primal twistor is a tiny thing on the Planck scale. I contend that the > primal twistor of a single Plank action is gigantic on the universal > scale. They think that state exists on the Plank scale always.  I > say it is only manifest where there is sufficient energy to > discriminate distance on such a small scale.It is because the large > scale and the small scale are connected by doubling that Plank actions > manifest binary distinctions, and images conveyed by signals are > perfect digital representations of the source that never get mixed up > in space independent of motion.They are trying to build a model from > the bottom up when it must be a top down bottom up model.Jim Jim's > stubbornness is commendable in some respects. I have done some > calculations and can verify Jim's basic ideas on quantum loopgravity. > Cutting everything up into planbck-volumes, Smolin gets 10^184 nodes, > rerpresenting the volume for the universe. These would calculate as > (1/2).[10^184]! connections within. > Using Stirling's Formula, this still gives you > (1/2)Sqrt(2Pi).10^92.(10^184/e)^[10^184] connections. This however > becomes a single quantum, which reduces to Jim's 'measurement-criteria' > as the approximation, replacing the exponent 184 with 147. > This is a firm prediction of Quantum Relativity. > So dear all,we find ourselves in a precarious position here. > Jim's top-down is justified, as well is Smolin's bottom-up. > The link is quantum relativity, which Jim refuses to acknowledge. > Smolin's scale is enlarged to the mensuration limit as given in GR. > Jim's approach works from that limit upwards (NOT downwards). > His calling of the 'quantum geometry'as yuck, bespeaks of his > ignorannce in this regard. Jim stubbornly inisists that his approach > allows for the description of the geodesic limit. If it could, then > Smolin's exponent would Planck-Action him in ther Planck-Scale. But > QR's reduced exponent manifests Jim's scenario in any possible computer > simulation, using whatever mensuration technique. So what are we to do? > The more I think of it, the more I grow convinced that the > digitalisation of Jim is Quantum-Loop-Gravity, doing away with > geometrical necessities for surfaces and volumes. But the cosmology of > quantum-loop-gravity will not be found in it. It requires a classical > blending of the relativities with the Planck-Action, such as proposed > 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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17299 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17299

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "tom rice" <th1nker@i...>
wrote:
>
Yes, and this rhythmic clock inbuilt into every wavelet/particle is
the instanton as the MassEigenfrequency defined in QR.

fss=tps=1/fps=1/(3x10^30) second-units.

And not surprisingly, this TIME coincides with the proposed End of
Inflation in the various Guth-based models and scenarios.

Tony B.

Message 17305 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17305

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Rybo" <rybo6@u...> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2005, at 2:23 AM, TONY BERMANSEDER wrote:
>
> DIssidents] > General Relativity's first postulate is that the
source of the
> gravitational field is the stress-energy tensor of a perfect
> fluid, "T".? "T" contains four non-zero components.? These four
> components are the density of the perfect fluid and the pressure
of
> the perfect fluid in each of the three physical axes.? A perfect
> fluid in general relativity is defined as a fluid that has no
> viscosity and no heat conduction.? This basically describes a
> superfluid.
>
> RY]
> 1) A 4-fold octahedron has 3 perpendicular and diametric axis-
planes( square ).
>
> 2) A 4-fold tetrahedron 6 edges are centerd on 3 diametric axis in
60 degree
> coordination/orientation.
>
> 3) A 5-fold icosahedron repeats 3 perpendicular and diametric axis-
planes( rectangular )
> five
> times.
>
> DI] Einstein's either was like a plastic that could
> warp and bend, but not move among its parts
> such as fluid ether would.
>
> RY] This is not possible. Any thing is physical or quasi-physical
realaity ergo energitic or
> quasi-energetic.
>
> ?DI] > "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general
theory
> of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this
> sense, therefore, there exists an ether.
> According to the general
> theory of relativity space without an ether is unthinkable; for in
> such a space there not only would be no propagation of light, but
> also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time
> (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time
intervals
> in the physical sense.
>
> RY] Mostly I agree, so far.
>
> DI] But this ether may not be thought of as
> endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
> consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of
> motion may not be applied to it."
>
> RY] Not trackable because either too small, or too fast, or both.
> This again may be the outer convex aspects of gravity( quais-
phyiscal ) while we only see
> the inner concave reflecting back at us at speeds of radiation or
less.
>
> DI] > Einstein admits that space is endowed with physical
properties, as
> it must be in order to conform to geometrical distortions and
> affirms that, in that sense, there is an ether, but does not
ascribe
> any motion to this ether.? Since further developments postulated
the
> existence of gravitational waves, it is difficult to reconcile
this
> early statement with modern thinking on the subject.
>
> RY] As long as gravity is outside of our physical reality of
detectablity it may always appear
> to us only as an abstract geometry of space time
>
> TB] You have quoted the appropriate definition for the ether above.
> LIGHT requires an ether to propagate; LIGHT IS this ETHER? as a
> Standing Wave nodally oscillating in 11D in 16.9 Billion years
> between the odd and even nodes.
>
> RY] I think it is more radical than this. EMRadiation is the inner
concave side of convex
> gravity.
>
> TB] So when Einstein says, the ether cannot move, he means that it
is
> itself the selfrelative timelessness of c-invariance.
>
> RY] I must admit I dont understand why EMRadiation has a constant(
invariant ) speed. I
> think it has to do with the idea that once it once it leaves an
fermionic electron phase
> becomes maximally dispsersed on the geodesics of gravitional space
> speeds( cosmological limits{?} ) of gravity.
>
> TB] Yet your fluid-ether,as I have pointed out previously has
merit, in
> that the subtimespace, constituting the vacuum is contained in
> spacetime-vortices which couldbe described in fluid dynamical
> prperties.
> Those spacevortices are inflow-outflow sourcesinks and thus best
> described in a Milo Wolff-like wavelet model.
>
> RY] Tony you call it subtimespace whereas I call it quasi-physical
gravity.
> I think the Jim Lehmans 4-fold 3-sided curved Pods are the primary
wavelets of Universe
> that travel in 5-fold high frerquency,great-circle( great
polygon ), primary-2ndary
> etc.....geodesic pathways/trajectories at speeds just beyond our
accepted speed-of-
>
> http://www.blackcatphotoproducts.com/pandora.pdf
> See above link( PDF ) for the beautifully artistic and only known
discovery of the curved
> version of the all-space filling, Isotropic Vector Matrix, labeled
by jim as the Pandora
> Spheric.
>
> TB] This is exactly what Alan Krisch discovered at Argonne in the
proron-
> proton scattering experiments.
> You have corresponded with him and must be aware of the onion-
> layered nature of the proton.
> This is the wavecentre of WSM, defined in QR as the classical
>
> RY] In Rybonics All baryons have a quadra-bonded traheddral nature
i.e. there is four
> layers to each baryon.
>
> TB] So the fluidity of the c-ether manifests in the Standard
Model of
> Particle Physics in rendering them wavelets of oscillating
> wavekernels encompassed? by mesonic and leptonic rings as
magnified
> supermembranes unfolding from the toroidal quantum geometry of
the
> Calabi-Yau toroidal topologies.
>
> RY] Whoa boy! Tony that is a mouthful. :--)
> 1) fluidity = flowing? Energetic? moving/motion?
> 2) oscillating = energetic
> 3) "wavekernal" = ??? i.e. a quark is a wavekernal?
> 4) Mesons surround( encompass ) all baryons?
> 5) leptons( electrons ad neutrinos ) surround( encompass ) all
baryons?
> 6) leptons are rings as in torues/toroidal?
> 7) A super membrane is what again? Got a schematic drawing of one?
> 8) all quantum geoemtry is toroidal?
> 9) Calab-Yau toroidal topoligies is at the bottom/root of the
hierarchal sequence you lay
> out here above?
>
> TB] The old Standar Model of billard-ball like quarks, connected
by
> gluonic springs is passe; the mechanics of the point-particle has
> become the wave mechanics of the Wolff wavelet.
>
> RY] Tony are you saying there are no gluonic forces? Gluonic
springs/strings etc...?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear Rybo!

I apologise.
For some unknown reason your replies do not show up in my mailbox.
I was unaware that you replied to my postings.

I am trying to rectify and shall answer you shortly.

Tony B.

Message 17307 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17307

The Tearing and Repairing of SpaceTime

--- In InfoPhysics@yahoogroups.com, "James Allen" <abey2@c...> wrote:
> "Time is the manifestation of all phenomena in the linearisation
of the wormhole parameters and is onearrowed in the LineSpaceworld
which asymptotically expands in deceleration as physical mapping of
the ordering principle onto the shadow world of a well-defined
mirror duality and as given by M-Theory of the Calabi Yau
topologies. I can provide details as to the decade long research
which has proven this by Greene, Aspinwall and Morisson - it is
called 'Topological Flop-Transitions in spacetime'."
>
>
>
> This description felt good in my mind. Would your premise account
for the fact that when a measurement is to be made between two
points, those two points turn out to have , lets say, five quantum
values each. What happens in reality is that the device or
technology used to measure the difference distance between points A
and B turns instantly into five different 'machines' only one of
which is perceptible to our own 'normal' quantum level eyes. For
this reason we only see one measurement when in fact there were five
measurements. I think this was the experiment that led to the "many
worlds" theory of existence. Clarence

Dear Clarence!

Thank you for this comment. It seems you know more than me here.

My description refers to a pure mathematical description of say the
physics of one Calabi-Yau (which is toroidal and 6D) space which
contains an enclosed 2-sphere. Think of a wrapping about something,
the wrapping being the 6D.
Now the 2-sphere (spherical surface) shrinks to a minimal radius,
which describes the point of a 'tearing of spacetime' in the
topology of the characteristic homology group. You find a kind of
rotation of say an elongated shape, toplogically but symmetrically
deformed within by 90 degrees.

The 'Flop transition' becomes the inside/out description for this in
a 'mirror' duality defining M-Theory in 10D-11D transitions.
As the minimal radius is reached, the encompassing Calabi-Yau
manifold breaks into two, and reconnects as the minimalised 2-sphere.
Then the 2-sphere expands again and you get a different topology of
multiconnectedness in the two halves of the original being joined by
the blown up 2-sphere.

So should the physics described in the 'well behaved' wrapped world
calculate the same as the physics in the 'torn apart and reconnected'
have been discovered. Spacetime can be torn and repaired; this
allows for wormholes to exist in physical reality.

Exactly this has been achieved by Greene, Morrisson and Aspinwall at
Princeton in 1992.

Now does this relate to your 5 quantumstates?
As Mike has said, 6 numbers define the system of the Planck-Einstein
equation for measurement via the Uncertainty Principle.
Those become 4 in 4D Minkowski-spacetime and the Hypersphere.
So this concurs beautifully with your proposition from an elementary
position, with only one of five being observed as a kind of
summation.

My position on the 'Many Worlds' is as given in QR.
There is only the one protouniverse, which invariant as say major
axis rotation, nevertheless allows an infinite number of phaseshifts
in minor axis rotation (of the focal points as 1-brane becoming the
2-brane).

The Copenhagen Interpretation of 'Many Worlds' is passe and
untenable because of recent experiments observing both the particle
properties and the wave properties of complementarity simultaneously.

So 'Many Worlds' for me mean phaseshifts of the prototype in
selfrelative scalings of velocity/momentum in V=R(n).f, R(n) the
scalefactor of cycletime n=Ho.t and f the frequency of the
eigenstate.

But perhaps you know more about the 5 quantum states
than I do here.

Tony B.

Message 17312 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17312

Zeus wrote: I am interleaving!

Mass to Charge ratio

Tony Bermanseder states:

>>>>But any empirical measurements of the 'Naked Electronmass' engage the Charge/Mass ratio [e/m] and are

thus subject to further finetuning.>>>>

Mass to Charge ratio

You MUST understand what mass really is and you must understand what charge really is before you can understand what is happening in the mass to charge ratio.

Tony

Of course, but you didn't understand this derivation. The entire analysis shows that it is the effective electronmass, which is used in QR as the inertia for the dynamically interacting electron.

This problem was known in the 1920's and led to Schwinger numbers in the perturbation of the magnetic moment for the electron.

According to the wave mechanics of Dirac, the electron spin should be exactly one Bohr magneton eh/4Pi.m, but QED shows a small difference.

In showing that magnetocharge is related to mass via the stringcoupling of the magnetic monopole as [ec]unified, manifesting as c^3 eV, the finestructure of Heisenberg's h/4Pi crystallises as a function of the wormhole perimeter.

My analysis simply shows how the electromagnetic mass of the electron can be accounted for by this magnetocharge and then the textbook electronmass becomes subject to perturbation theory and the reduced charge formulations.

QR never uses this textbook value, as it is not incorporative of the electromagnetic mass component.

We see these as two different forces because of our antiquated science and our subset spacetime realm.

There is really only one force in this universe, NOT 4 fundamental forces.

Tony

Correct and this elementary force is the magnetocharge force, manifesting as the Strong Interaction as the colourforce of the gluons.

QR defines this as the Cuberoot of Alpha, relative to the invariance of Alpha as the Electromagnetic Interaction.

This reduces to the Squareroot of Alpha in the prewormhole epoch for the scaling of the Higgs Restmass Induction Scale, as set by the so called XL-Boson of superbrane class IIA.

You need to analyse the generation of the unified field, which describes the intrinsic spin angular momentum as the decisive factor for its genesis.

To see these things as one force you MUST be able to understand Ampere's Laws and see this as a resonance universe composed of scalar standing waves determining particles and TIME.

You must see all these particles having spin that produce vector resonances between couples that produce SPACE or force.

Thus space, as in general relativity, equates with force or becomes force.

Tony

Very true Spacexdf/dt=Magnetocharge, THE underpinning definition in QR.

But MagnetoCharge behaves like Inverse Energy in the mapped F-space allowing the S-duality of the coupling strengths to manifest mass as 'Natural Electricity'.

Hence [ec]u as superbrane, energy 2.7x10^16 GeV (the known GUT-threshold) becomes a SourceCurrent in Ampere.Metres,, which relates the magneton as Magneton per unit displacement.

Introducing the magnetopole through this strong-weak coupling symmetrises Maxwell's Equations in Gauss, Faraday and the vectors of divergence and curl.

Imagine an infinite frequency universe now in which for instance a multitude of individual de Broglie VECTOR spin resonances, between couples, add up to produce a SCALAR standing wave resonance that we see as the electron.

Tony

Yes, this is Milo's treatment to sum frequency states as the electron's wavefunction.

This links again to a new interpretation of the Psi^2.dV amplitude of the probabilities of finding the electron at position x.

As MagnetoCharge=(angular acceleration)(Volume); Angular acceleration (df/dt)/e* now describes 1/dV as the missing scalar allowing the statistical analysis.

So Psi^2 maps (Rate of change of frequency/MagnetoCharge).

This electron now has spin that produces a multitude of individual spin resonances between electron couples that produce SPACE in the electron's realm but only quantum units of energy or FORCE in our spacetime realm.

These individual quantum spin units add up to produce a SCALAR resonance that we see as LIGHT in our spacetime realm but which Tony Bermanseder has shown can also be visualized as a standing wave by c inversion.

Tony

Yes, I do not invoke the summation in the subsystems, as Milo did. I use the total collection of spinstates as given by the cosmological parameters as a direct macroquantisation from the superbranes as microquantisations in modular duality (Holographic Principle).

Then c-invariance describes the postulates of the relativities.

c^2 crystallises from the T-duality of electromagnetic to gravitational interactions.

c^3 becomes associated with the monopole as masscurrent leading to

[ec].c^2 = c^3 electronvolts as applied in high energy particle/wavelet physics as a natural consequence of S-duality.

Magnetic monopoles as elementary particles mapping individual quarks as colourcharged wavelets becomes EQUIVALENT to Quark summations (say colour/anticolour mesonic doublets/hyperonic colour triplets) as elementary particles mapping quantised magnetic monopoles as mass-currents.

I'm afraid that this is really a wave universe just as Milo Wolff is telling us but it is one where an infinite spectrum of frequencies produce individual VECTOR resonances between couples, which multiplied, produce SCALAR resonances that we see as particles and time.

Spherical solid particles, time and motion can only be seen as such in one spacetime realm.

Tony

There is only the One spacetime realm, however located in four-foldedness as described. The hypersphere occupies the 4D-volume also expressed as a 3D-manifold; interwoven with Translational linespace, Rotational hyperspace, Vibrational quantumspace and Quantised omnispace.

The spin of these particles produce lower frequency vector resonances that produce space at a lower frequency.

A multitude of these produce a SCALAR wave resonance and TIME at a lower SCALAR frequency than the previous SCALAR frequency.

This is an endless chain that goes on and on and on giving us space and time at various frequencies and an infinite frequency universe but only a limited number of these spin/orbit frequencues can have any effect on us hence the limited dimensions of String Theory.

z

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17326 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17326

Dear Rybo, Zeus; allow me to interleave.

On Feb 24, 2005, at 7:31 PM, Robert Byron Duncan wrote:
> Quantum mechanics is based on spin reversals (h-bar)

Robert, I hope you get a chance to inload( 3 minutes ) the PDF of that
"Wavicle" article as it has one utterly fantastic/incredible picture of
translational(?) waves of open ocean photographed by Air Froce/Navy
planes. The whole of the Wavilce article is also well done, or so it
appears from a my layman perspective.

So "spin reversals" is called "h-bar". I mus try and rememeber/imprint
that little tidbit into the little gray cells.

> and orbital changes (h)

Orbit al changes are called "h"?

Because 2PiR=Wavelength as a circular perimeter, describing the quantization of orbital angular momentum as h; the 'intrinsic' spin angular momentum becomes quantised as h/2Pi=h-bar.

> quantum units of energy given off by the electron.

So really mean to say that QED is base on quantum units of energy given
off by the electron. These units are called photons. Area they not,
Robert?

Photons are selfdual (own antiparticle) field particles of QED, mediated by a colourcharged gauge-bosonic photon (antiphoton here is colourcharged).

The interaction between a photon and matter (say electron) is given in the strength of the electromagnetic interaction (Alpha) and as 'mediated' by the source-photon of the same (Eps-photon of QR).

> General relativity looks at gravity which I'm betting is caused by
> the spins of quarks.

I know you have mentioned this before. I like the idea in that quarks(
elementary ) are fundamental/basic however, they do carry more mass and
charge than an electron( elemetary ) so they loose the concept of
fundamental to some degree in realation to electrons mass and charge.

The other thing that bothers me in this scenareo Robert is that of the
any alledged Higgs boson that is alledged to give rise to formation of
all fermions, so, even tho it has not been verified, some or many
physicist feel i tmust exist ergo if it does I think that it is closer
to the gravitonic/gravity field of force than a quarks influence. I
dunno.

Here the gauge-boson of the Eps-Photon becomes 'gluonic' as the one superforce holding the fabric of the cosmos together.

The formation of quark hierachies is well defined in the manifestation of superbrane IIA, also known as the XL-Boson of GUT unifications.

The Higgs Boson does not exist as a particular particle/wavelet, but is responsible for givinbg mass-eigenvalues to the socalled elementary particles as a variable scaling parameter definable in frequency.

Its upper limit is the Fermi Constant of so 294 GeV and its lower limit is the Higgs Scalar Neutrino of mass 0.052 eV.

Is the mass of a Higgs supposed to be higher than a baryon(
quarks over the electron scenario to some degree i.e. the more massive
a particle the more likely it is what creates gravity, assuming
gravity( - ) is created and not eternally existent and balanced --[ -
and + ]-- against ( + ) but only accumulates more in some places than
others.

> Since they spin at a higher frequency than electrons then their
> quantum units will be of a much shorter duration but more powerfull
> quantum units - - which we haven't as yet discovered.

Ok, I see clarification here now. Shorter frequency ergo smaller ergo
closer to the planck length( 10^- 32 ) alldedgement of gravitons ergo
gravity production. --[ any gravitonic existence in your book/eyes
Robert? ]--

> When they are discovered then String theorists will unify general
> relativity with quantum mechanics.
> imo z

What experiments if any are on the horizon or beyond that might help

This is easy Rybo. The wormhole perimeter is 10^-22 metres or a magnification of the Planck-Scale in a facytor of 10^13.

The proposed LHC (LargeHadronCollider) at CERN is engineered to reach towards the 10^-20 metres limit.

Hence, certain neutrino associations with the wormhole should become discernible; though not the actual wormhole requiriing more energy in the 10^7 GeV region.

Tony B.

Also, what does "imo", IWO etc... mean anyway. I was late into the
computer scene and never have gotten imprinted all those uhhh
whatcamcallits. imo = oh by the way?

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17334 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17334

Dear Forum!

Here is an extract from my book, deriving particle masses as indicated as unsuc-cessful by Robert on his website.

Robert Sceptico: "Yes, that and a correlating discovery at the Standford Linear Accelerator in California and the neutrino research of Kamiokande in 1998 helped us to reformulate the New Standard Model of

particle physics, replacing the old norm of 'billard balls linked by gluonic springs' with our KKIRKOR

or Kernel-Inner Mesonic Ring-Outer Leptonic Ring quantum geometry.

The HBRMI works on certain ratios to generate the masses of the elementary particles; one ratio

links the cross fertilisation between the rings and the kernel and the others finetune the linear pat-

terns of growth for the nine quarkian basetemplates.

In the old model, there were no diquarks or quark-molecules, but in the new model the three base-

quarks up-down-strange or uds are 'doubled' in the DoubleUp (U=uu), the DoubleDown (D=dd) and the DoubleStrange (S=ss); all as VPE-resonances of the basequarks u, d and s.

The DoubleUp forms a quark singlet as the basis for the Charmed Quark (c=Uu(bar)) and the Double-

Down and DoubleStrange are resonances of the DoubleUp-VPE and form a quark doublet in the di-

quark states (b*=(ud), m*=(us)) and a quark triplet in the diquark states (D=(dd), t*=(ds), S=(ss)).

The mass scale consists of the Kernel-K-masses in a certain range and the IR-OR-masses in a

cross fertilising scale, being contained in the K-mass scale and based on the supersymmetry from the heterotic superbrane class HO(32) in its energy definition.

That particular supermembrane defines the X-Boson for Grand-Unification at (1,885 trillion GeV*) in

an energy unification of the SNI and the EMI and the WNI, the latter two being the EWI as the ElectroWeak Interaction; the cross fertilisation arises in unifying the GI with the EWI, resulting in the

L-Boson as the basetemplate for the Muon (m) as (111.045 MeV*).

The formulations involve the pentagonal supersymmetry and an unification polynomial for the four

basic interactions, centred on the invariance of the EMI's [Alpha], mapped in (C) and can be written

as: {P(C)=CCCC+2CCC-CC-2C+1=(1-C)(C)(1+C)(2+C)-1=0}.

-87-

The X-Boson's mass is: ([Alpha]xmps/(ec)) modulated in (SNI/EMI=Cuberoot of [Alpha]/[Alpha]), the

intrinsic unified Interaction-Strength and as the L-Boson's mass in: ([Omega]x(ec)/(mpsxa<2/3>),

where the (Cuberoot of [Alpha]^2) is given by the symbol (a<2/3>)=EMI/SNI).

Ten quark-mass-levels crystallise, including a VPE-level for the K-IR transition and a VPE-level for the IR-OR transition:

VPE-Level [K-IR] is (26.4922-29.9621 MeV*) for K-Mean: (14.11358 MeV*); (2.8181-3.1872 MeV*) for IROR;

VPE-Level [IR-OR] is (86.5263-97.8594 MeV*) for K-Mean: (46.09643 MeV*); (9.2042-10.410 MeV*) for IROR; UP/DOWN-Level is (282.5263-319.619 MeV*) for K-Mean: (150.5558 MeV*); (30.062-33.999 MeV*) for IROR;

STRANGE-Level is (923.013-1,043.91 MeV*) for K-Mean: (491.7308 MeV*); (98.185-111.05 MeV*) for IROR;

CHARM-Level is (3,014.66-3,409.51 MeV*) for K-Mean: (1,606.043 MeV*); (320.68-362.69 MeV*) for IROR;

BEAUTY-Level is (9,846.18-11,135.8 MeV*) for K-Mean: (5,245.495 MeV*); (1,047.4-1,184.6 MeV*) for IROR;

MAGIC-Level is (32,158.6-36,370.7 MeV*) for K-Mean: (17,132.33 MeV*); (3,420.9-3,868.9 MeV*) for IROR;

DAINTY-Level is (105,033-118,791 MeV*) for K-Mean: (55,956.0 MeV*); (11,173-12,636 MeV*) for IROR;

TRUTH-Level is (343,050-387,982 MeV*) for K-Mean: (182,758.0 MeV*); (36,492-41,271 MeV*) for IROR;

SUPER-Level is (1,120,437-1,267,190 MeV*) for K-Mean: (596,906.8 MeV*); (119,186-134,797 MeV*) for IROR.

The K-Means define individual materialising families of elementary particles; the (UP/DOWN-Mean)

sets the (PION-FAMILY: po, p+, p-); the (STRANGE-Mean) specifies the (KAON-FAMILY: Ko, K+, K-); the (CHARM-Mean) defines the (J/PSI=J/Y-Charmonium-FAMILY); the (BEAUTY-Mean) sets the (UPSILON=U- Bottonium-FAMILY); the (MAGIC-Mean) specifies the (EPSILON=E-FAMILY); the (DAINTY-Mean) bases the (OMICRON-O-FAMILY); the (TRUTH-Mean) sets the (KOPPA=J-Topomium-FAMILY) and the (SUPER-Mean)

defines the final quark state in the (HIGGS/CHI=H/C-FAMILY).

The VPE-Means are indicators for average effective quarkmasses found in particular interactions.

Kernel-K-mixing of the wavefunctions gives (K(+)=60.210 MeV* and K(-)=31.983 MeV*) and the IROR-

Ring-Mixing gives (L(+)=6.405 MeV* and L(-)=3.402 MeV*) for a (L-K-Mean of 1.50133 MeV*) and a

(L-IROR-Mean of 4.90349 MeV*); the Electropole ([e-] =0.52049 MeV*) as the effective electronmass

and as determined from the electronic radius and the magnetocharge in the UFoQR.

The restmasses for the elementary particles can now be constructed, using the basic nucleonic

restmass (mc=9.9247245x10^-28 kg*=(Squareroot of [Omega]xmP)) and setting (mc) as the basic maximum (UP/DOWN-K-mass=mass(KKK)=3xmass(KKK)=3x319.62 MeV*=958.857 MeV*);

Subtracting the (Ring VPE 3xL(+), one gets the basic nucleonic K-state of: m(no,p+)=939.642 MeV*).

For the proton-restmass, we then add {L(K-IR-VPE)-[e-]}=udD=1.5013-0.5205=0.980835 MeV*

or 0.978461379 MeV for the d-quark and double this for the two d-quarks of the neutron.

(Proton-Restmass: (mp+) = 939.642+1.5013-0.5205 MeV* = 940.62 MeV* or 938.34 MeV (SI));

(Neutron-Restmass: (mno) = 939.642+3.0026-1.041 MeV* = 941.61 MeV* or 939.33 MeV (SI)).

The difference between the restmasses for the proton and the neutron hence becomes a conse-

quence of the manifestation of their differing Calabi-Yau quantum geometries in KKIRK=udu and

KIRKKIR=dud, respectively.

Unlike Kernel-Ring geometries attract and unlike Kernel-Ring geometries repel in the cross fertili-

sations of the magnetocharges (e*), defining the chromaticity-chargeforce of the HBRMI.

Subtracting the {L(IR-OR-VPE)-[e-]}=dsD=4.90349-0.5205=4.3830 MeV* or 4.3724 MeV from the L-Bo-

son-mass gives the muon-mass and the tauon-mass adds VPE-corrections (mm, (K+), (L+), 2IROR) to the Charm-K-mean with:

( Muon-Restmass (mm) = 111.045-4.9035 MeV* = 106.15 MeV* or 105.89 MeV);

(Tauon-Restmass: (mt) = 1,606.043+(mm)+60.210+6.405+9.807 MeV* = 1,788.62 MeV* or 1,784.29 MeV).

The neutral pion uses the Pion-K-VPE minus the contained Pion-IROR-VPE and adds 2 electro-

pole corrections as the KK(bar) -Groundstate and the charged pion then adds two (K-IR)-VPEs and 2[e-]

to that groundstate for:

BasePion-Restmass: (mpo) = 150.5558-16.015+1.041 MeV* = 135.581 MeV* or 135.253 MeV and

ChargedPion-Restmass: (mp+-) = (mpo)+4.184035 MeV* = 139.765 MeV* or 139.427 MeV.

The massdifferential between the baseneutral and basecharged VPE-state is called 'Basedelta'

or (BD=4.184035 MeV*); used to denote a basic energy differential between the up- and down state

in VPE coupling between quarks and antiquarks and derives from individual quarkmass differentials.

Because the outer ring carries the potential for a trisected electropolic charge; the OR-corrections

([e-/3]=0.1735 MeV* or [2e-/3]=0.3470 MeV*) can slightly alter the measured masses, for instance re-

ducing (mm = 105.98 MeV* or 105.72 MeV) and enhancing (no = 941.95 MeV* or 939.67 MeV).

-88-

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17344 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17344

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, rybo6 <rybo6@u...> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2005, at 8:43 PM, Zeus wrote:
> > RY] if it does [ Higgs ] I think that it is closer
> > to the gravitonic/gravity field of force than a quarks
influence. I
> > dunno.>>>>
> > RZD] ALL energy transfers are bosonic in character.
>
> Correct but you say that it is best to drop any notion of
conventional
> four forces and just pay attention to your two "A"( ampere ) law
forces
> that either repulse( EMR-electro magnetic radiation ) or attract(
> M-magnetism )
>
> > RZD] Where are the bosons (gluons etc.) involved?
> > Answer: They are momentary.
>
> Robert, Even if momentary, then they do exist, as the conventional
> strong sub-nuclear force, bonding quarks.( period end of story ).
>
> This is true of many if not all particles except protons. Strong
> nuclear force of mesons( two quarks ) are very short lived ergo
> momentary. On cosmic scale all particles except protons are
momentary.
>
> > RZD] ?FIRST you MUST read about and understand the Bose -
Einstein
> > consensate.[ condensate? ]
> > ?SPACE disappears around bosons: They come close together.
>
> I just came from reading your page, as you suggested, and
partially
> understand the basic priniciple repulse and attract scenario base
on
> parallel same direction or 180 degrees opposing spin direction.
> Spin/orbit( gauge ) etc...will take time to grasp as there are no
> images to assist me understanding.
>
> The space/gap/void between any particle "disappears" as any two
> fermionic or bosonic particles come together i.e. the particles
occupy
> that space/gap/void as they come together, and perhaps leave a
> space/gap/void behind them between other, like or unlike, repel or
> attractive particles( spin/orbit frequency waves whatever ) except
in
> circumstances where that space/gap/void is filled with gravity --[
or
> your "A" law type forces]--.
>
> > ?RZD] WHY?
> > ?SPACE increases around fermions. They spread far from rach
other.
>
> It can increase or decrease, no? Quarks are fermions they do not
> spread from each other. An atom can have many electrons in stable
and
> unstable configurations ergo the electrons are not going away from
each
> other or the baryons in the nucleus
>
> > RZD] ?WHY?
> > ?Because fermions ALWAYS have unbalanced spin and bosons ALWAYS
have
> > balanced spins.
>
> If you are referring to integer of spin-charge i.e. quarks(
> 1/3-2/3-2/5-1/5 etc....) and electrons( 1/2 ) while bosons have
whole
> number spins, then I agree, tho I may not really understand these
> spin-charge phenomena.
>
> > RZD] You will have to look at Ampere's Laws to see why this
works the
> > way it does.
> > When the equator of a spin up electron lines up exactly with the
> > equator of a spin down electron then BOTH of these TOGETHRR have
their
> > spins balanced and they TOGETHRR make a bosonic energy exchange
> > because for that instant their spins are balanced via each other.
>
> Robert, to be clear here. Is it enough, just to have any two
fermions
> have their, equator-of-spin balanced( parrallel i.e. same plane )
or
> must that spin be in same direction.
>
> I think you men they can be either direction --[ ergo repulse or
> attract ]-- as long as the their equators are in the same plane --
[
> your "parrallel" ]--. Isnt that how you see it.
>
> > ?RZD] SPACE - at that frequency - between them actually
disappears.
>
> Ok, we have any two( or more ) fermionic particles, any distance
apart,
> but their equatorial spin planes are parallel with each other.
>
> I guess it helps if the two particles are sam kind of particle for
> starters.
>
> This concept of your is much clearer now and it appears to only be
> related to fermions accorrding to you i.e. that all alledged
convential
> forces do not exist or if they do they, they can be explain by the
> parrallel( matching ) same, or opposite spin, of spin-planes, of
> like-fermions.
>
> This part is easy to image with out a drawing/graphic assistance.
>
> 1) two or more quarks have no parallel spin-planes
> ..1a) two or more quarks have same parallel spin-planes with same
> direction-of-spin
> ....1b) two or more quarks have same parallel spin-planes with
opposite
> diretions-of-spin
>
> 2) electrons same as above
>
> 3) neutrinos same as above
>
> 4) baryons same as above
>
> Rybo

Dear Rybo and Zeus!

Allow me to add my understanding of basic geometric spin-properties.
Zeus is describing an elementary association between quark-lepton
constituents, which have significant application and are well
understood in the experimental apparatuses.
Rybo I wish I could draw pictures and the like but I do not have

Let us take two leptons, an electron and a positron, both with
fermionic halfspin (s=1/2 in intrinsic angular momentum quantised as
(1/2).(h/2Pi)=h/(4Pi).

If the spins are aligned or parallel, then the electron and positron
can revolve about each other and form a shortlived system called
ORTHOPOSITRONIUM, decaying in so 10^-7 seconds into THREE Photons
(which are spin1 Bosons).
Orthopositronium has a combined BOSONIC SPIN of 1 and because of
Maxwell's Equations a 1spin particle-state cannot decay into TWO
photons, as the spins of 1 and 1 cannot conserve the 1 spin of the
Orthopositronium.

If the spins are antiparallel or opposite, however, exactly this
situation occurs and PARAPOSITRONIUM decays into TWO Photons with
opposite spins, cancelling each other as 1-1=0 and the spinstate of
Parapositronium.
Parapositronium decays in so 10^-10 seconds and is longer-lived in
the factor Alpha (1/137) becaiuse this is the interaction
probability between a photon and the matter/antimatter state.

Ok then. This process repeats itself in the 'Gluon-Jets' in the
Standard Model.
The Charmonium (J/Psi-Meson) decays into THREE GLUON-JETS, each
gluon jet partitioning into quark-hadron/meson particle-showers.
The Charmonium-Meson has of course 1spin and is a high mass form of
Orthopositronium.

This then is the parallel/antiparallel spin-resonance background,
where pure energy transforms between radiative (photonic) and
massive eigenstates.

We transfer this into the nucleus, found in the basis of the
nucleons (proton and neutron).
Here then you find very stable Heluium-4 arrangements of nucleons as
quark extensions, forming sausage-shaped or toroidal shapes (Ikeda
Shapes I have posted this here and can resend it).
Particularly, the quark geometry becomes all spin-dependent.
u.d.u.d.u.d.u.d.u.d.u.d=[proton][neutron][proton][neutron], the
first up-quark closing the circle in linking with the last down-
quark.
The importance is the symmetry between the ups and downs.
In stability (the most stable Ikeda shape is the one above), the
middle quark in either proton or neutron spins opposite the adjacent
ones.
So you have +-+-+-+-....describing the superstability of quark
geometry.
Ampere's Laws and Maxwell's Equations come into it, because this
spinning occurs about a magnetoaxis, defining the spin-orientations.

I'll repost the uds-hyperon decay, for you to see the experimentally
verified nature for this.

Well, I'll do this and then you can ask questions about it.

Tony B.

Message 17345 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17345

 Hi Rybo and Zeus and Forum! Allow me to propose a quark geometric explanation for the three forms of the decay pattern for the hyperon with quark content uds. I propose this to derive as a question of stability. The uds in the form of the Lambda(1/2spin,0) charge is the most stable of the trio, decaying via the weak interaction in so 10^-10 seconds. The uds in the form of the Sigma(1/2spin,0) charge is less stable, decaying electromagnetically in so 10^-18 seconds. The uds in the form of the Sigma-Resonance(3/2spin,0) charge is least stable, decaying strongly in so 10^-23 seconds. Now consider an magnetoaxis about which the individual uds quarks oscillate normally. Define a neutrinoic Kernel, hugged by an Inner Mesonic Ring and bounded by an Outer Leptonic Ring (defined as the Classical Electronic Radius, scaled in the Finestructure Constant Alpha to the Compton Radius of the Thomson Scattering Cross-section). This quark geometry allows 8 permutation states for the gluons in a BBB, BBW, BWB, WBB, WWB, WBW, BWW and WWW transformation between radiative (W)hite and restmass-induced (B)lack states; either in primary colourtriplets (RedGreenBlue or Anticolours CyanMagentaYellow) relating to unitary symmetries SU(3) or colour/anticolour doublets of SU(2). The gluonic permutation states would activate as toroidal spacetimequanta in the form of InflowOutflow vortices oras sourcesink dualities/dyadics. Those gluonic states would connect the linearly oscillating quarks normal to their vibration patterns about the magnetoaxis. Quantum Geometrically, the Outer Membrane of the s-quark oscillation wouldcarry two gluonic eigenstates of colourpermutation as would the Inner Membrane of the d-quark oscillation; reflected in the magnetoaxis, acting like a mirror for the 8 eigenstates. Orthogonally to that would be the vibration of the wavequark membrane parallel to the magnetoaxis and define the weak interaction Higgs restmass induction in the weak interaction gauge bosons W+ and W- as parity particles of each other. This orthogonalvibration would also be bounded by the Classical Electronic Radius. Because of this arrangement of quark quantum geometry, the positioning of the individuated u-d-s quarks become significant. The Lambda's d-u-s is most stable, because a Feynman diagram connecting the different kernel-ring-markers would balance the Inner Ring of the d with the Outer Ring of the s, encompassing the Kernel's u. The Feynman diagram depicts hyperbolic curvature. The Sigma's u-s-d is less stable; because since opposite quark geometries attract and like ones repel, due to their ringcharges; the d adjacent to the s repels in the ringcharges but there remains a balance in the Kernelcharge of the u-quark opposite the d-quark. The Feynman diagram depicts ellipsoidal curvature. The Sigma-Resonance's u-d-s is the least stable; with no balancing of the three quark arrangement about the magnetoaxis. The Feynman diagram depics linear divergence. The lamda is assigned Isospin 0 and the Sigma Isospin 1 in the baryon octet and the Sigma-Resonance is assigned Isospin 0 in the baryon decuplet of the unitary symmetry. Thanking You for your considerations. 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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17346 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17346

I am using the AUFBAU principle for electronic configurations in
orbitals spdfg.. via quantisation 2(2n+1) for shells KLMNO...
The n-counter is n=0,1,2,3...for the sequence: 2,6,10,14,18..for a
shell filling of: 2,(6),8,(10),18,(14),32,(18),50,..

This links to the Magic Numer Formula of the fivefolded symmetry in:
0,2,6,14,28,50,82,126,184 and its mapping 0,2,(2),6,(8),14,(20),28,
(42),50,(78),82,(stop command),126 as derived below.

The filling of shells proceeds as:
1s,2s,2p,3s,3p,4s,3d,4p,5s,4d,5p,6s,4f,5d,6p,7s,5f,6d,7p.

R=Helium=1s^2
Fa=Neon=1s^2.2s^2p^6=Helium.2s^2p^6
Ne=Argon=1s^2.2s^2p^6.3s^2p^6=Neon.3s^2p^6
Fe=Krypton=1s^2.2s^2p^6.3s^2p^6d^10.4s^2p^6=Argon.3d^10.4s^2p^6
Fi=Xenon=Krypton.4d^10.5s^2p^6

Stan Romaneck's hypercube is the generalised 'shape' of the
universal topological deformation of the 'Hollow Sphere with an
opening to infinity topology' as a minmal surface (plane, catenoid
and helicoid).
This manifests as KleinBottle toroidal derivative of the BlackHole
event horizon becoming 'wormholed' in the higher-D KleinBottle con-
nection.
Stan's equation #6 so indicates a 'Turning Inside Out' of the
spacial vortex geometry via the magnetic flux properties intrinsic
to the unified field of quantumrelativity.

Chemically, this would engage the properties of Helium-4, not only
as the most stable Magic Element at N=2, but also its superfluid
properties, having the lowest melting- and boiling points of all
the elements.

This inside-out deformation must engage unification physics with
precise material parameters as given in the abstract definitions.
Then it should become possible, to directly relate Helium-4 to
element #118, most likely in attaining superfluid status at room
temperatures in the application and manipulation of intersecting
magnetioc fields and the supersymmetric nature of Maxwell's
equations under agewncy of the MagnetoCharge and the Magnetic
Monopoles as mass-equivalences from the superbrane dimensions.

I leave the interested researcher and contributor to peruse the
formulation for the Magic Number Formula below.

Best of Science to All In fraternity Tony B. Sirebard

The Stability of the Nucleus in Unification Physics

Open any physics dictionary and look under MAGIC NUMBERS.
You will find the following sequence of numbers:
2,8,20,28,50,82,126,184,..
where the numbers relate to the number of protons or neutrons,
making up the nucleus.

This also relates to Bismuth at atomic number #83 in the following
analysis.

A general formula for the Magic Numbers of nucleonic arrangements in
shells is given by the SEps-algorithm {Sequence of Energy primary
sourcesink=Heterotic supermembrane EpsEss=HE(8x8)in M-space}.
This can be derived from the M-Space Unification Polynomial:

ax^3+bx^2+cx+d=0 and the Feynman-Path-Integral T(n)+2=0 sets the
mapping of SEps onto Super-Seps as the relative primeness of the
Experience-Factors in SEps superparitive to SEps* in extension.

Ole, this is the Francom-Adjacency File I have sent to you. You may

Subtracting polynomial f(x) from polynomial f(x+1) for the Feynman
Identity n^2+n+2=0 for {T(n)=n(n+1)} gives:
3ax^2+(3a+2b)x+(a+b+c)=0 and specifies a=1/3 and b=0 and c=5/3 as
the coefficients for the unification polynomial.

This directly gives the MAGIC NUMBER FORMULA:

T(MagicNumber N)=N[N^2+5]/3 for N=0,1,2,3,...,N

Primary Series: 0,2,6,14,28,50,126,184,...
Secondary Series: 0,2,(2),6,(8),14,(20),28,(42),50,(78),82,(Stop
Command),126,...

The secondary series uses the Fibonacci mechanism of the fivefolded
supersymmetry to add successive terms to generate the NewState from
the Experience added to the OldState.
{This is how I discovered the Fibonacci Series on January 18th 1985;
during a great hailstorm, wrecking parts of Brisbane, Australia.
I thought I had discovered a NEW MATHEMATICAL SERIES, unaware at the
Pisa/Fibonacci in the Rennaissance).

As 50+82=132 > 126; the Magic Number for N=7; this Out-of-Order
sets a natural limit on the nuclear stability in the generation of
the periodic table of the atomic elements as consequence of
fundamental principles in the specification of Lead at #82 and
Bismuth-209 the last stable isotope at #83.

Ole, the principles are elucidated in the Algorithmic Gravity paper,
which I also put into the files section here for anyone interested
to access.

The secondary series reflects the Fibonacci/Francom mechanism of
always adding successive terms as the Experience-Factors in
the 'Information-Gathering-Parameter'.

The 2-branes of Helium-4 or Alpha-Particles so become topological
surface mappings fromM-space into C-space of 4D with added Calabi-
Yau-manifolds in 6D as the 'collapsed/conifolded' superstring
dimensions of 3-Torus transformations into the 3-Sphere of Riemann
(Hypersphere); rootreduced as Moebian-KleinBottle-Manifold in 2D.

This 'jargon' means that the quantum geometry of minimally connected
surface topologies (there are only three ways for a plane to fold
into a sphere with an opening to infinity, namely the Plane, the
Catenoid (hourglass, two cones apex to apex) and the Helicoid), is
then defined via the SEps-Identity XY=X+Y=-1=i^2=exp(i.pi) and the
3D-crystallisation of PLATONIC SOLIDS in the fivefolded symmetry
across omnispace (Tetrahedron, Cube, Octagon, Dodecahedron,
Icosahedron).

The above may prove hard to understand for many.
There is an experimentally verified analogy, Dell has previously
mentioned the sausage-shaped nature of atomic configurations.

Now science knows those as the IKEDA-SHAPES, relating to the
exceptional stability of the Helium-Nucleus with N=2.

In 1954 Fred Hoyle thought about the energylevels of hydrogen fusion
in the sun.
He predicted an excited state for Carbon at 7.6 MeV above
groundstate and to the astonishment of the experimenters it was
found.

This is the basis for the Ikeda Shapes.
Denote the basic building block for the nucleon stability as N=2,
that is He-4; adding those in chains, we get:
Be-8, C-12, O-16, Ne-20, Mg-24, Si-28.

So Beryllium becomes part of Oxygen, Neon, Magnesium and Silicon in
iterative nestings, separated by energylevels, all in MeV.

According to Ikeda-Data (Ref.: NewScientist, May1,1999,p.37):
Carbon level (7.16MeV); Oxygen (14,.44 & 7.16); Neon (19.17 & 11.89
& 4.73); Magnesium (28.48 & 21.21 & 14.05 & 13.93 & 9.31) and
Silicon (38.46 & 31.19 & 24.03 & 23.91 & 19.29 & 16.75 & 9.98).

Why does this work?
Because the Neutrons bind the alpha particles in the inner atom
together, just like the electrons do in the outer atom.

So the alpha-particles join up in sausage/torus shapes to minimise
their space and energies, described above in toplogy-jargonautics.

And as I have previously discussed with Dell, the origins for this
enfoldment is the quark geometry, say as indicated in the Nobel
Prize 1998 posting.

The Alpha-Particles quarkian geometry links up the individual 12
quarks about their common magnetoaxis in a precise order.

Neutron-proton-neutron-proton=d.u.d-u.d.u-d.u.d-u.d.u->d.

So the large scale atomic stability becomes a direct derivative from
the nucleon arrangements, which originates from the algorithmic
encoding as given by the Magic Numbers and its mathematical/abstract
foundation in the pentagonal symmetry of unification physics.
This is illustrated in the Hamel Physics Equation as a balance
between the Energy^2 from the higher dimensions becoming mapped into
the lower dimensions and the Action Law of Action=Charge^2.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17371 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17371

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> More on your electrostatic spin - Rybo
>
>
> Re: [femm] Modelling the new discovery of electrostatic rotation
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> ----------
>
> To: femm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [femm] Modelling the new discovery of electrostatic
> rotation
> From: Dave Squires <djsquires@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:41:25 -0700
> References: <bh91qd+cbgu@e...> <3F384AF3.8080009@i...>
> User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.2)
> Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> ----------
>
> I would agree with Mr. Meeker. FEMM will not show
> anything mainly because it is a static tool and probably
> will not take into account those aspects shown in the
> analysis in the paper quoted.
>
>
> In order to get rotation normally this needs an initial push
> to set up a slight asymmetry in the charge distribution.
> Then it takes off (if free to rotate).
>
>
> The paper with the spheres is interesting in that a static
> torque is maintained. Their analysis is probably reasonable
> and seems to match the results. The only thing new I see
> is that the spheres are held against torsional stress of
> the mountings.
>
>
> But I still doubt that FEMM or any other tool will
> show this torque because,
> 1. It is a 3D problem and integration.
> 2. Possibly the equations are not in the software to
> handle this particular type of analysis. I could
> be wrong, but it is doubtful.
>
> DRS
>
> David Meeker wrote:
> wigstonmagna wrote:
>
>
> Apparently if you charge up a sphere to a modest few kilovolts,
> fixed in place, and then suspend two other spheres close by, the
> other two spheres rotate. In the experiments described in the
> references below, they didn't
> actually rotate, but instead torqued up their suspension filaments
> until the restoring force equalled the torque.

Dear Zeus!

Remember my Electronmass post?
The difference between the 'naked electronmass' and the 'effective
electronmass' is carried by the electromagnetic masspart, which is
magnetocharged.
Now the calculations clearly show, that this difference in mass
describes an electron moving with a speed of 0.1808 c through an
electric potential of 8.575 keV.

This then provides the direct link to this new discovery of the
electrostatic poptential in terms of the parameters of Quantum
Relativity, as intrinsic to the Laws of Nature.

Thank you for your support in regards to the other posts.

Tony B.

PS.: Also recall my post about the Magnretic Field expression in the
reformulation of the Biot-Savart Law, as Ampere derivation.

Formulation: B= Mw/2c^2.R(x); where R(x) is a scale unification
parameter, w is the angular velocity of Mass M.

This depicts another application of the Finestructure unification
between the graviton and the gauge source-boson defined in QR.

>
>
> FEMM shouldn't predict a torque about the center of a perfectly
> conducting sphere (or infinite in the into-the-page direction
> cylinder, either). If the sphere (or cylinder) is perfectly
> conducting, the sphere (or cylinder) is at a constant voltage.
This
> means that at the surface of the sphere, the only components of E
and
> D are directed normal to the surface (analogous to flux lines
having
> to enter perpendicular to the surface of a block of highly
permeable
> iron). Consider the electrostatic stress tensor at any point on
the
> surface of the sphere (or cylinder). If E and D at a given point
are
> directed normal to the surface, the force at this point must also
be
> directed normal to the surface. The torque about the center of the
> sphere due to the force at the point of interest is r cross dF,
where
> r is the vector from the center of the sphere to the point of
> interest, and dF is the force at the point of interest. Since dF
is
> directed normal to the surface of the sphere, r and dF are
pointing
> in the same direction,--their cross-product, and therefore the
> torque, is zero.
>
> If you actually tried this (say on the cylinders) in FEMM, you'd
> doubtless get some small torque--a finite element solution is only
> approximate, after all. However, with increasingly fine meshing,
the
> computed torque ought to converge to zero.
>
>
> --
> David Meeker
> dmeeker@xxxxxxxx
> http://femm.berlios.de/dmeeker
>
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, rybo6 <rybo6@u...>
wrote:
> > http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=548
> >
> > Here is 2003 discovery regarding unknown electrostaic-spins. I
> dunno.
> >
> > They say "rotation" causes "spin", huh? Rotation is spin, yes?
So
> im
> > not sure what all the hoopla is about. Maybe others get it.
> >
> > Rybo

Message 17372 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17372

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, rybo6 <rybo6@u...> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2005, at 11:10 PM, Tony Bermanseder wrote:
> > > 1) two or more quarks have no parallel spin-planes
> > > ..1a) two or more quarks have same parallel spin-planes with
same
> > > direction-of-spin
> > > ....1b) two or more quarks have same parallel spin-planes with
> > opposite diretions-of-spin
> > > 2) electrons same as above
> > > 3) neutrinos same as above
> > > 4) baryons same as above
> > TB] Allow me to add my understanding of basic geometric
> > spin-properties.
> > Let us take two leptons, an electron and a positron, both with
> > fermionic halfspin (s=1/2 in intrinsic angular momentum
quantised as
> > (1/2).(h/2Pi)=h/(4Pi).
>
> If you can start, by spelling this out this equatin/formulae for
me, in
> more layperson like terminology, would help, would be of great
help.
> E.g.( 1/2 ) = 1/2 half-spin, correct? Not one divided by two,
correct?
>
> Keystroke .( dot/period ) = times( X ) or as Im most familiar with
> others using the key stroke * to mean times?
> (1/2).(h/2Pi) = h/(4Pi)? I.e. what does this formulae equal other
than
> the term you used above "quantised"( quantisized )?

Dear Rybo!

Just as 1/2.1/2=1/4, so is the quantisation of Heisenberg's h/2Pi
implied.

>
> h/(4Pi) = quanta? Electron or psositron quanta? If yes, then
shouldnt
> the numebr be .511?

.511 is the restenergy for the electron and not invoked in the
above.

>
>
> > If the spins are aligned or parallel, then the electron and
positron
> > can revolve about each other and form a shortlived system called
> > ORTHOPOSITRONIUM, decaying in so 10^-7 seconds into THREE
Photons
> > (which are spin1 Bosons).
>
> Do you have a link to this orthopositronium? Is it an isotope of
> positronium? Is a word you created or is conventaionally confirmed
> existence?

Isotopes are neutron-different forms for atomic elements.
I did not coin the positronium label; it can be found in any
dictionary of science.

>
> > Orthopositronium has a combined BOSONIC SPIN of 1 and because of
> > Maxwell's Equations a 1spin particle-state cannot decay into TWO
> > photons, as the spins of 1 and 1 cannot conserve the 1 spin of
the
> > Orthopositronium.
>
> If is has spin-1 then it must be a photon( boson ) not a set of
> co-orbiting electron-positron.

Two like-spinning fermionic states create a bosonic energy state.
Two opposite-spinning fermionic states also create such a state,
such as in superconductivity's Cooper Pairings of 2D electrons.
Mesonic groundstates can also be thus defined, but engage matter-
antimatter couplings, say as in quark-antiquark pairings.

>
> > If the spins are antiparallel or opposite,
> > however, exactly this
> > situation occurs and PARAPOSITRONIUM decays into TWO Photons
with
> > opposite spins, cancelling each other as 1-1=0 and the
spinstate of
> > Parapositronium.
>
> Tony, This is not clear. Are you saying that a co-orbiting
> electron-positron having either one of two conditions;
> 1) the co-orbiting electron-positron are in anti-parralllel planes
> 2) the co-orbiting electron-positron are parrallel but spinning in
> opposite diretions
>
> and that in either case, they produce Orthopositromium????

No Positronium can form two different eigenstates, termed
OrthoPositronium and ParaPositronium as described above.

Tony B.
>
> Rybo

Message 17379 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17379

Dear Forums!

Quantum Relativity seems to have struck a chord with some mathematicians.

The Banach-Tarski Paradox states, that any two spheres of differing radii can be divided into the same number of of congruent and disjoint sets.

The Banach-Vector Space is more general than the Hilbert Space used extensively in Quantum Theory and the Riemannian Geometry used in General Relativity for a potentially infinite number of dimensions as Euclidean Vector Spaces.

It forms the subject of Functional Analysis in partial differential equations and integral equations and appeares to be a natural abstract setting for many general theories of analysis.

The post below derives the topological equivalence of the multiconnected torus to the Riemann Hypersphere (Poincare's 3-Sphere) as an underpinning consequence for the mapping of 3D-surfaces as 4D-volumes in the Moebian topology of megabranes in CMF-Theory.

Note that a circumscribing sphere of radius 2a 'contains' precisely 8 spheres of radius a and the curvature multiplier of 3Pi/2 is equivalent to 8 times the difference between a precisely circumscribed torus with equivalent radii for the revolving circle describing the locus of a point distant that radius a from the toroidal centre. This results in a torus volume of 2Pi^2a^3.

Anna wrote in 4DWorldx/Yahoogroups:

If Oneness is larger that the sum of the components, than A+B has larger
potential than AB which shows a merged state, but does not tell us if
there was a division and later addition again. Only when things add up, they
becomes larger than their unrealized potentials in Totality.
Seems that realization of potentials depends on division first, then
addition. Merging as well ( AB) may mean Zero.
Let's make clear here that Zero, Oneness and Totality are all different
concepts.

Context is independent of meanings. Context forms a mental background of
potentials to which meanings become selectively attached.
This is because meanings are controlled by emotions while the context is a
collection of neutral random images which being a picture language runs
stimulatoanously, although in a background, with the verbal language used
by a thinking observer ( foreground mind ).
Anna

----- Original Message -----
From: "picard" <chofborg1@yahoo.com>
To: <4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:41 PM
Subject: [4DWorldx] Re: [cyclesi] mathematical physicist Tony Bermanseder's
Fibonacci paper:

>
>
> --- In 4DWorldx@yahoogroups.com, "Anna" <pantheon@i...> wrote:
>> What do you think of it? Tony is also member of my group....
>> Subject: Re: [cyclesi] mathematical physicist Tony Bermanseder's
> Fibonacci paper:
> ...............................................
>>This 'jargon' means that the quantum geometry of minimally connected
>>surface topologies (there are only three ways for a plane to fold
>>into a sphere with an opening to infinity, namely the Plane, the
>>Catenoid (hourglass, two cones apex to apex) and the Helicoid), is
>>then defined via the SEps-Identity XY=X+Y=-1=i^2=exp(i.pi) and the

>>3D-crystallisation of PLATONIC SOLIDS in the fivefolded symmetry
>>across omnispace (Tetrahedron, Cube, Octagon, Dodecahedron, >Icosahedron).
>
>
> Hi Anna
> This reads like a cleaner version of a post i made on mirai recently.
>
> That is, the banach-tarski paradox allows for 0's and oo's to be
> equals wrt circumcircles A and B which are interchangeable, so then
> AB and A+B are algebraically just larger or smaller versions of the
> same spheres. And ultimately B of radius 1 is circumcentric about A
>
> If what we call a time is isolated then we must take a perspective
> where-in there are no 3d dimensions seen, origin and endpoints
> appear as one. And a unit imaginary sphere (AB or A+B, positive
> become negative, -1) becomes interchangeable with the 3d version
> (pi) according to e^ipi. At least that the sense I make out of it.
> len
>

Dear Forum!

Consider the dimensional mapping of a 26-letter alphabet as
information transmission onto the 26D bosonic superstring.

We recall that M-Superbrane-Theory is based on the compactification
of opposite chiralities and vibration patterns in the heterosis of
superstring HE(8x8) (or EpsEss) in 10 dimensions, 16 anticlockwise
spinning dimensions having become conifolded (Gross, Harvey,
Martinec, Rhom, Boston String-Quartet, 1985).

Shannon Information Theory defines the ratio of equal-value-letter
alphabet transmission relative to 1bit processing as:
log26/log2=4.700439718...,
that is 4.7 times the information of a bit is transmitted in a
single letter.

Now engage in a simple exercise in quantum geometry to establish a
link between the encodings of the 26-tiered alphabet as analogy to
the 26D bosonic (integral spinning) superstring.

Draw a circle radius 2r and define the Wolford-Centre on an axis as
the interval [-2r,0,+2r].

Next draw two inscribed circles, each radius r centred at coordinates
-r and +r.

Considering this 2D representation of a circle 2r and containing two
adjacent circles r as a cross-section of a sphere, cut in the z-
plane of XYZ-orthogonality, we find precisely 8 spheres radius r
contained in the encompassing sphere radius 2r.

8(4pi/3)r^3=(4pi/3)(2r)^3.

The volume of the inscribed torus, cross-sectional radius r however
is 2pi^2.r^3 and hence topological transformation of the
circumscribing sphere into its inscribed doughnut/torus shape
diminishes the spherical volume in the factor 32pi.r^3/6pi^2.r^3 or
by 16/(3pi)=8(2/3pi).

radius r so gives a curvature factor of 3pi/2 for this topological
transformation.

The inner 'wormhole/funnel/hourglass-saddleshape' of the torus
displays hyperbolic curvature, is encompassed however by the
ellipsoidal/spherical curvature of the sphere radius 2r.

The Feigenbaum-Delta or Chaos Constant fromChaos/Complexity Theory
is given by Delta=4.669 and which is upper bounded by the curvature
constant 3pi/2=4.712... just obtained from differential geometry.

Delta is the proportionality constant between a doubling of the
period and the cascade/chaos creation; say as the period of dripping
waterdrops relative to the flowrate.
Hence Chaos becomes an encrypted form of Order.

We so can write the Information-Transmission-Boundary-Relation:

4.712..=3pi/2>Shannon Constant log26/log2=4.700..>Delta=4.669..

One could therefore propose, that the Curvature Transformation for
metricated (measurable) spacequanta (Volumes defined in discrete
toroidal volumars of 2pi^2 cubeunits); and if associated with a 26D
bosonic superbraned 'subspace' distribution; automatically
incorporates Shannon Information as intrinsic parameter, bounded in
the quantum geometry.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17385 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17385

Allen Francom
<light_rock@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Bare with us just a few emails more please.
>
> Roy has a remarkably strong conviction, and I would
> like to do something to enhance it even more.
>
> Like you just said on de Broigle... I am offering
> Roy an additional and fitting "aha" and / or
> Roy is throwing one our way.
>
> Roy's -0+ needs a "goingness".
>
> I'm preparing to provide that with equal conviction.

Hi Roy and Allen!

Please allow me to comment on the Wolford Centre and the Francom

Firstly, the 'goingness' of the Wolford Centre is defined in the
observable universe as the Weyl-Geodesic.
This is the wormhole definition as the limit for measurements at
the point in spacetime where the continuity of say GR breaks down.

This is the 'scale' of the heterotic supermembrane HE(8x8), but is
not the scale of Calabi Yaus or Joyce manifolds, which in a sense
reside within the wormhole.

So you find a hierarchy of superbranes, differing in scale from the
Planck-Scale of 10^-35 m to the wormhole scale at 10^-22 m and a
magnitude dilatation of 10^13.

Now the strange thing is the warping of spacetime within the
boundary wormhole.
Because of modular duality; the entire GR-defined cosmos must also
be contained within the wormhole.

So could you imagine yourself at the boundary, crossing from the
outside inside, then this Wolford Centre would perform the exact
reversal of timedilation and Lorentz Contraction you experienced in
the transition.
Say, you would shrink from 1m to the wormhole perimeter as 10^-22 m
(0.1 zeptometres), travelling at c; then 1 second after having
crossed the boundary you would be inside the wormhole and yet 1m
distant from that boundary.

Your shrinking would become a growing again - modular duality does
this in the outer universe described by radius R being physically
equivalent to the universe within with radius 1/R.

So the wormhole observed from without forms the lower shrinking
limit, which modularly inverts as the lower magnification limit, as
the wormhole observed from within.

The curvature radius experiences is maximum warping as the Weyl-
Geodesic-Limit; 'straightens itself out' in Weyl-Nullification;
which is a Moebian turning inside-out and then dewarps itself in the
mirror M-duality described by Calabi Yaus of toroidal shape, which
define the Moebian-Serpent topology as a Klein-Bottled-Dragon.

The Wolford Centre so becomes the entire universe as a superquantum
of itself, defined in the warping of the fivefolded symmetry of the
contained superbrane classes.

This definition process automatically incorporates Roy Wolford's
descriptions of the energy-charge relations, the absolute
temperature-kinetic energy associations in terms of the 'false
vacuum' tunneling which created the wormhole geodesic as the double
boundary, and so on.

The de Broglie Phase Inflation outside established the Hubble-
Friedmann Radius at tachyonic speed; which then became the photonic
speedlimit c at the instanton.

Now the de Broglie Phase also inverted inside to precisely define
the Planck-Length-Oscillation as the now observed cyclicity for the
macrocosmos.
So the age of the universe (14.7 billion years) outside mirrors the Planck-Time reduced in the factor of the Feynman Alpha (Sqrt(Alpha)~1/11.7).

16.9 billion years map the Hubble-Radius as asymptotic limit onto the inverted asymptotic limit defined in the Hubble-Oscillation.

Summararily, the Wolford Centre depicts the miniaturised universe in
both 10 and 11 dimensions.
The 10D universe expands asymptotically towards the Hubble Radius
and is always decelerating.
The 11D universe is cyclic and the superpositioning of the bouncing
universe allows for apparent periods of acceleration as measured by
the two observation points, namely the wormhole 'singularity' of the
Quantum Big Bang and the Event Horizon of the expanding 11D
universe, always travelling at c as defining parameter of the Hubble
Oscillation.

Francom Adjacency as a 'Clock' must incorporate the mapping of the
instanton onto the primordial TIMEINSTANTON, as defined in the
Planck-Lenght-Oscillation as dimensionless Now-TauTime which is
simply the ratio between the wormholeperimeter and the Hubble Radius.
The primordial-TIMEINSTANTON is calculated as 6.2591x10^-49 seconds
and the wormhole-timeinstanton as 3.333..x10^-31 seconds.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17386 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17386

From: SIREBARD

--- In InfoPhysics@yahoogroups.com, Allen Francom <light_rock@y...>

wrote:

>

>

> Okay, Tony, a few questions and observations:

>

> --- TONY BERMANSEDER <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:

> Hi Roy and Allen!

>

> Please allow me to comment on the Wolford Centre and

>

> < not opposing concepts, complementary )

>

> Firstly, the 'goingness' of the Wolford Centre is

> defined in the observable universe as the

> Weyl-Geodesic.

>

> < unfortunately I don't know what that is, it sounds

> like a rigid geometric concept not going >

Tony:

Seems you got it underneath.

>

> This is the wormhole definition as the limit for

> measurements at the point in spacetime where the

> continuity of say GR breaks down.

>

> < Oh... Gotcha enough for the moment >

>

> This is the 'scale' of the heterotic supermembrane

> HE(8x8), but is not the scale of Calabi Yaus or Joyce

> manifolds, which in a sense reside within the

> wormhole.

>

> < The Calabi Yaus are involved when trying to

> stand up a particle, right ? Say, Electron ?

> So necessarily a Calabi Yau is a String Attempt

> at "going bump" ----> XXXX(bump)(bump)XXXX and

> in infophysics this can be only a binary

> difference, not a "sub-dimension" which is

> actually a concept that at least in a few ways,

> suggests "no" to calabi yau, and forces a closer

> inspection of the purpose of those things and

> their architecture ( mathematical underpinnings ) >

Allen

The Calabi Yaus are quantum geometric shapes/topologies, which

enfold (conifold) 6D-toroidal shapes as the collapsed dimensions.

So they are associated as a core or centre for all the

particles/wavelets - but they do not define their quantum geometries

as observed or measured.

Overall the 'binary differences' are algorithmic in the sense of the

Fibonacci series, i.e. the pentagonal (Platonic) symmetries.

My brain works geometrically and not digitally; as I have said

before. I can give you the parameters, but not the programming

language, which is not my expertise.

>

>

> So you find a hierarchy of superbranes, differing in

> scale from the Planck-Scale of 10^-35 m to the

> wormhole scale at 10^-22 m and a magnitude dilatation

> of 10^13.

>

> < What is "magnitude dilatation" ??? >

The interval of the Planck-Length to the Wormhole 'length', as

defined in the Wolford Centre.

>

>

> Now the strange thing is the warping of spacetime

> within the boundary wormhole.

>

> < No, that makes PERFECT sense.

>

> ----> XXXXX (bump)

>

> The "wormhole context" is the arrangement

> of XXXX, whatever that intercrossing is,

> 2, 4, moebius-ized, etc.,

>

> PERFECT SENSE >

>

>

> Because of modular duality; the entire GR-defined

> cosmos must also are contained within the wormhole.

>

> < All of a sudden we went from PERFECT SENSE to

> WHAT IN THE HECK ?

All I can suggest is for you to read Brian Green's 'The Elegant

Universe' and particularly the appendices of mathematical

description.

The core point is the 'bouncing' of 'scale R' measured in m at some

limit (say Planck) to become physically equivalent to 1/R (measured

in m.

This enfolds the dynamics of a shrinking space without to become an

expanding space within.

That is WHY the Universe is a macroquantised wormhole connecting the

As Above So Below or the Inside is the Outside in Moebian

connectivity. The Doubling of Infinities is the twosidedness

becoming onesided.

>

> Let me say it like this and you please

> agree or disagree:

>

> ----> primal kinetic principle, abstract concept,

> like "a perfect circle".

>

> XXXXX crossing itself, self relative, sine wave

> on the perfect circle such that it makes a self

> relative interference. "Crossing" when reduced

> to the most basic archetype of binary information.

>

> For me, any Wormhole must be essentially

> the XXXX fabric itself.

Indeed, the macrocosmos is the microcosmos 'made up' of the toroidal

timespacequanta 'wormholes', which contain 6D Calabi Yau shapes as

subtimespaces.

>

> To say that the "entire cosmos is contained

> within a wormhole"

>

> To me that is an over-exaggeration.

It is a simple consequence of M-duality and leads rather naturally

to the Holographic Principle. (Susskind and co.)

>

> I would say, since the fabric itself is

> spatially non-extant...

>

> And as we have conceptually crossed into

> a realm of reason one order of magnitude

> "beneath" matter, or an order that is

> "separating effects in primal kinetic

> by itself" - or "the archetypal space, which

> is really more like self relative time"

> ...

The selfrelativity arises from the mapping of the de Broglie

phasetransition as the outer limit onto the inner limit in terms of

scale.

>

> I'd say "we touched the fabric of the cosmos"

> but I would not say "the wormhole is also

> the entire cosmos".

The cosmos within is mapped as the cosmos without.

>

> Please correct me where wrong and or elaborate

> on what you are saying. >

>

> So could you imagine yourself at the boundary,

> crossing from the outside inside, then this Wolford

> Centre would perform the exact reversal of

> timedilation and Lorentz Contraction you experienced

> in the transition.

>

> < It is very easy to imagine ----> XXXXX(bump)

>

> But my imaginings are DISCRETIZED.

My discretisation ENDS at the boundary of the continuum of GR.

The discretisation within then allows the inner physical reality to

become Platonic in the plenum of the subtimespace of idealisation.

Mathematics then allows the scalerelativity to become individualised

in creativity to map this creativity onto the 'outside'.

This is metaphysical, but the ultimate consequence of superbrane

theory linked to Einstein's 'Principle of Relative Inertia'.

In other words, mingling in the submerged world of the superbranes

allows quantum phenomena to become macroquantised as magnifications

of the inner worlds transforming as outer worlds.

>

> Not cosmic scale at once, but related. >

>

> Say, you would shrink from 1m to the wormhole

> perimeter as 10^-22 m (0.1 zeptometres), travelling at

> c; then 1 second after having crossed the boundary you

> would be inside the wormhole and yet 1m distant from

> that boundary.

>

> < ---> XXX(bmp)(b)(bmp)(bump)XXXX

>

> What does fabric bumping look like at what

> frequency ?

The threshold-frequency is precisely 3x10^30 cycles.

>

> And when the action of bumping is the information

> that makes an electron and NOT the fabric itself,

> the propogation of the (bump) through the

> fabric looks like what, relative to what...

>

> See ?

Information transmission follows the pentagonal pattern, relative to

the selfenfoldment of the Logos/SourceEnergy/God whatever you like

to term it.

(1,0,1);(1,1,10);(10,1,11);(11,10,101);(101,11,1000);....(OS,E,NS);

where OS=OldState and E=Experience and NS=NewState.

>

> It is possible to condense fabric in such a

> way that two objects (bump sets) are actually

> "closer" in terms of how much fabric is

> "between" them.

>

> But this is also the same thing as bringing

> the objects closer together.

>

> I say only it is possible perhaps to have

> a macroscopic wormhole we can "fly through",

> but that really means only that

> XXX(bump)xxx bumps propogate to "closer space".

>

> No small wonder so much energy is imagined

> in sci fi to acheive such a wormhole.

>

> It is effectively bringing Alpha Proxima

> Closer so we don't have to fly so far.

> Same thing ultimately. >

Yes, I agree, your principal thoughts are on the mark.

>

>

> Your shrinking would become a growing again - modular

> duality does this in the outer universe described by

> radius R being physically equivalent to the universe

>

> < (bmp)(bump) as the tension of the fabric

> varies, so does the frequency of bumping

> and so does the time between bumping effects >

I see the frequency shifts as the differences of adjacent Fibonacci

Numbers (which are all relatively prime to each other).

.....13-8=5 and 8-5=3 and 5-3=2 and 3-2=1 and 2-1=1 and 1-1=0 STOP.

>

> So the wormhole observed from without forms the lower

> shrinking limit, which modularly inverts as the lower

> magnification limit, as the wormhole observed from

> within.

>

> < I think that is giving too much credit to

> the wormhole, like PERHAPS, imagining a

> perfect circle.

No the wormhole is the universe holographically limited as say the

fractal shape in a Mandelbrot Set, rendered physical as limit for

measurement.

>

> The wormhole within and without will have

> a timelike barrier, or effect/barrier

> that matter can "splat" against like a wall

> as the frequency changes in the "space fabric"

> will not stand up the (bump sets) the same

> way and presumably the wormhole "wall"

> is rather "sudden". >

>

> The curvature radius experiences is maximum warping as

> the Weyl-Geodesic-Limit; 'straightens itself out' in

> Weyl-Nullification; which is a Moebian turning

> inside-out and then dewarps itself in the

> mirror M-duality

>

> < okay, we are saying roughly the same thing >

>

> described by Calabi Yaus of toroidal shape, which

> define the Moebian-Serpent topology as a

> Klein-Bottled-Dragon.

>

> < I'm not sure of the Calabi Yau situation, but

> again, the principle is sounding right.

>

> It is the details though of what I understand

> of the purpose of calabi yau shapes...

>

> I think the details might be wrong, because

> the perspective is wrong.

>

> Maybe it is only a subtle thing. >

The limiting factor is the Planck-Action, however finestructured as

the wormhole parameters in h=Wormhole perimeter/(2Re.c^3).

Since 2Re=2RCompton.Alpha, all of quantum mechanics falls into place.

>

>

> The Wolford Centre so becomes the entire universe as a

> superquantum of itself, defined in the warping of the

> fivefolded symmetry of the contained superbrane

> classes.

>

> < Okay, I don't have a problem with that,

> however, the principle "thing" must be a

> "goingness" which you have managed to avoid

> so far Tony by discussing the geometries

> to the exclusion of the happenings, no offense >

>

The happenings is the Planck-Action of Jim, but because of its

finestructure definition, he cannot see the underpinnings.

Those underpinnings are Platonic in the sense of a perfect harmony

between fundamental constants and mathematical relationships as

given in h=...

QR is based on thje Action Law: ACTION=CHARGE^2, validating Roy's

I am no computer programmer and my understandings can relate

algorithms to geometry, but not to programming semantics.

I have limited capabilities in binary digitalisations.

To me Loop-Quantum-Gravity or Jim's version for it are the correct

approach to model the computable aspects of reality/the universe;

but not its cosmogenesis or its evolution.

Those ideas must necessarily become metaphysical in the blending of

the 'real' and the 'imaginary' as say the complex number plane.

This blending in physics is the marriage of the Relativities in the

classical continuum of Riemann, Einstein and Minkowski with the

discretidsation of Quantum Theory.

This has led to the tentative birth of Platonic Quantum Relativity

and the MATHIMATIA=I AM THAT I AM (Exodus.3.14).

It so also represents the peace and harmony between science and

religion.

>

> This definition process automatically incorporates Roy

> Wolford's descriptions of the energy-charge relations,

> the absolute temperature-kinetic energy associations

> in terms of the 'false vacuum' tunneling which created

> the wormhole geodesic as the double boundary, and so

> on.

>

> < Again, no problem, as long as there is a goingness >

>

> The de Broglie Phase Inflation outside established the

> Hubble-Friedmann Radius at tachyonic speed; which then

> became the photonic speedlimit c at the instanton.

>

> < Phase Inflation - by what goingness principle ?

The goingness is the Temperature Gradient, tunelling the outside

into existence from the inside.

>

>

> Now the de Broglie Phase also inverted inside to

> precisely define the Planck-Length-Oscillation as the

> now observed cyclicity for the macrocosmos.

>

> < by what goingness can a geometry define a duration ?

> ??? See, the primal principle is kinetic, the

> geometries happen BY ACTION of this principle. >

The 12D-universe becomes a 3D-universe because of this tunnelling,

which is the simple untwisting of the Moebian Serpent as geometrical

duality defining the FMC-Theory of the superbranes 1,2,3.

>

> So the age of the universe (14.7 billion years)

> outside mirrors the Planck-Time reduced in the factor

> of the Feynman Alpha (Sqrt(Alpha)~1/11.7).

>

> 16.9 billion years map the Hubble-Radius as asymptotic

> limit onto the inverted asymptotic limit defined in

> the Hubble-Oscillation.

>

> Summararily, the Wolford Centre depicts the

> miniaturised universe in both 10 and 11 dimensions.

>

> < By what principle happen the necessary dimensions ?

> From where to they emerge, necessarily by action >

The dimensions are defined in the cosmogenetic algorithm with a

limit of 12 and dimension counters 4,6,7 and 11.

This is the metaphysical birth for the universe as described in the

Zip-file I have sent to you.

Theunderpinning mathematical realityy for the physics is evident

everywhere, say in the Francom Adjacency paper or the Maria-Matrix;

all leading to the fivefolded symmetry.

>

> The 10D universe expands asymptotically towards the

> Hubble Radius and is always decelerating.

> The 11D universe is cyclic and the superpositioning of

> the bouncing universe allows for apparent periods of

> acceleration as measured by the two observation

> points, namely the wormhole 'singularity' of the

> Quantum Big Bang and the Event Horizon of the

> expanding 11D

> universe, always travelling at c as defining parameter

> of the Hubble Oscillation.

>

> < Cyclic by what primal kinetic principle ?

The Planck-Length-Oscillation within maps the Hubble-Oscillation

without.

>

>

> Francom Adjacency as a 'Clock' must incorporate the

> mapping of the instanton onto the primordial

> TIMEINSTANTON, as defined in the

> Planck-Lenght-Oscillation as dimensionless Now-TauTime

> which is simply the ratio between the

> wormholeperimeter and the Hubble Radius.

>

> < I'm not sure but I think I am seeing

> exactly the opposite sitation. Give me time

> to digest all that has happened over the

> last couple weeks. >

The reality above is irrevokable and is verified by the mensurative

universe every day in the laboratories and ordinary physics, based

on natural law.

>

> The primordial-TIMEINSTANTON is calculated as

> 6.2591x10^-49 seconds

> and the wormhole-timeinstanton as 3.333..x10^-31

> seconds.

>

> < Boy I wish I could read a good book on this,

> with the instantons...

>

> The suggestion is that -------> bang,

> timeinstanton.

>

> Then, a few billionths of a second later,

> XXXXXXX bang, fabric of spacetime.

>

> And then, wait, no, ^-46 or thereabouts was

> ElectroWeak right ?

No, electroweak unification occured well in the GR-frame at so 10^-9

seconds, defining BOSONIC UNIFICATION in QR at an temperature of

10^15 K.

>

> So EM happens before wormhole timeinstanton ?

No, see above.

>

> EM is a precursor to matter ?

>

> Matter being necessary to arrive at

> the little mini-wormhole sitation in the

> first place...

Yes and No. The Restmass-Seedling Mo manifests at the Temp-tunnelling

and then distributes itself as the baryonic ylem-seed, eventually

generating the matter scenarios subject to Einstein's field

equations.

Those are at first demetricased to set the overall cosmic evolution

(of the universe as a Black Body Radiator) on its course.

All this is explained and derived in QR.

>

> That would be in keeping with what I've

> been thinking actually.

>

> But, I don't like to call it "instanton".

>

> I think it should be the "timegoon".

>

That's ok.

>

> -AEF with 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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17399 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17399

The Michelson-Gale Experiment and c-invariance

/Joseph, Tom Miles and all.

Thank you Tom Miles for your your excellent support in this discussion.

I did receive the original file from March 1925.

Here are the conclusions of my analysis.

1. The experimental data and the setup of the apparatus is convincing.

2. This experiment extends the Michelson-Morley Experiment of 1887.

3. This experiment superposes the Sagnac Experiment of 1913/Ives-Report 1938.

4. Analysis

The Michelson-Morley experiment used 'half' the setup of the MG experiment

and applied the pathlength differential in the formulation 2dv^2/c^2, [Eq.#1]

d being the same pathlength in orthogonal directions and v the proposed velocity

for the ether-wind acting parallel to one of the orthogonal directions.

The optical pathlength should differ in the factor [Eq.#1] for any ether-wind.

No such fringeshift was officially reported.

Derivation for MM and MG:

Assume Lorentz-Contraction L=Lo.Sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}, with Lo=4d the proper length.

DL=4d-L for (4d)^2-L^2 = 16d^2[v^2/c^2] = (4d-L)(4d+L) hence DL=(4dv/c)^2/(4d+L)

and DL=(4dv/c)^2/[8d-DL] ~ 2d(v/c)^2 [Eq.#1]

The MM-experiment uses 2 mirrors say postitioned at mutually orthogonal distances d from

the origin for the simultaneous emission of a divided lightbeam, which recombines at the

origin after travelling 2x2d as the lightpath.

The MG-experiment reflects this setup across the diagonal joining the MM-mirrors.

Here the lightpath is used as the perimeter for the 'square' side d and the formulation replaces

DL by DL/Lo for a fractional fringe effect.

The MG formulation then is 4Awsinf/lc , [Eq.#2] with the following data:

A=2010x1113 squarefeet (0.20784 km^2); w=angular velocity of the earth at latitude

f=41 degrees 46' Clearing, Illinois, Chicago, USA, w=1/23hrs 56min 4seconds

l=5700 (+/-) 50 Angstroems as the wavelength for the lightsource used with a defining

frequency n=c/l.

One can compare Eq.#1 with Eq.#2 and note that (v/c)^2/2 identifies 4Awsinf/lc

or the centripetal accelaration experienced by the apparatus being a=4A(wsinf)n.

We now apply the physics of Special Relativity onto this setup in a recall of the Sagnac

experiment of the rotating disk about a normal central axis.

We call this axis the north-southpole and we rename the perimeter of the Sagnac Disc

the earth's equator.

Postulating the invariance of c, we nevertheless observe and measure a change in the

pathlength of the light as measured by an observer at the centre of the rotating disc and

which is not rotating with the disc for CW and CCW pathlengths, the light must travel.

This is equivalent to performing the MG experiment on the northpolar axis for

f=90 degrees say. This maximises the fringeshift according to Eq.#2.

At the equator, the fringeshifts would disappear, because sin0=0.

The MG experiment henceforth measures the fringeshifts as predicted by the SR postulates

for an observer stationary relative to the apparatus, yet rotating with the earth at a latitude

defined in f, relating to the earth's angular velocity and so setting the perimeter frame as

applied in the Sagnac disk.

We recall, that any nonrotating observer in the Sagnac experiment would also measure the

changes in the pathlength as a Bird's Eye Observer (BEO) of the Machian Frame.

The MG experiment so changes the pathlengths of the light, with the lightbeam travelling

counterclockwise with the Earth's rotation being retarded in analogy to the longer pathlength

of the CW lightbeam for the clockwise rotating Sagnac disk.

5. Conclusion A

The lightspeed c remains invariant in the Michelson-Gale experiment for a changing pathlength

of the oppositely travelling lightbeams due to the Earth's rotation.

6. Conclusion B

The observer of the MG experiment must be in a Machian frame analogous to a stationary

Sagnac observer.

Because the MG apparatus does not rotate relative to a stationary observer rotating with

the Earth; the only conclusion is that c-invariance represents the one and only ether as an

absolute frame of reference and as a nodally defined Spherical Standing Wave and as

defined in QR.

7. Conclusion C

The latitude of the Earth represents the perimeter frame for this Machian observer;

subject to Lorentz-Contraction as applied above.

8. Summary

The Michelson-Gale Experiment most elegantly confirms the postulates of SR and GR

in extending their underpinning principles to the Machian Principle of Quantum Relativity.

Best of Science to all of you Tony B.

PS.: Any NonNull result in the MM-experiment would also engage the above analysis as an

intrisic prediction of the relativities, including the Machian frame of reference.

It is a well established premise in physics, that the closed path around line-, surface- and

volume-integrals allows advanced analysis in the mathematical modelling of the natural

phenomena.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17402 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17402

Chip,

Particles can be accelerated to .9c but NOT complex atoms and molecules.

Comets are the fastest molecular things man has seen moving and none of them have been clocked going faster than 50Km/sec.

Since light goes 300,000 Km/sec then this is 1/6,000th the speed of light.

You need to study general relativity to see what happens to things as they near ponderous objects like our sun.

Comets are mostly ice and they start coming apart, as they come close to our sun. Here's one, http://www.ags.dk/as/aberra.htm traveling at an average speed of 38Km/sec.

At what speed would a piece of steel start coming apart if it too approached our sun?

At 500Km/sec; at 1,000Km/sec: at !,500Km/sec?

We simply don't know.

The speed that complex molecules (comets) can get while approaching a massive object like our sun - without disintegrating - seems to be limited to about .0002c or .0002 the speed of light.

So to talk about a rocket ship being observed going at a speed of .9c takes you out of the realm of reality.

Congratulation though. You are at least thinking and that's more than many in these universities are doing today.

The universities are stamping them out like license plates claiming, "Look, each is a distinct individual (plate)."

But they all seem to think like the university license plates that they really are.

Cheers

z
Fitzpatrick's First Book (FREE)

Ok,

I read that nothing can travel beyond the speed of light, c. My
problem is understanding what is warped in space-time when two
objects are traveling towards eachother at close to the speed of
light to ensure the relativistic velocity is less than c.

For example,
Rocket A is traveling at 0.9c, V(a), towards rocket B as measured by
an observer at rest. Rocket B is traveling at 0.9c, V(b) towards
rocket A as measured by that same observer at rest. In my linear
thinking, the pilot of either rocket would see the oposing rocket
traveling towards them at 1.8c, u'. However, the actual speed is
0.9944c as calculated by u'=(V(a)-V(b))/(1+(V(a)*V(b))/c^2)

So what is warped?????

thanks,

Chip

Dear Chip!

Alllow me to answer your question, after zeus has pointed out some material difficulties to accelerating a 'spaceship' to 0.9c.

This scenario is nevertheless hypothetically imaginable.

First there is nothing warped in the scenario you are describing, because there is no acceleration (and neglecting the gravitational attraction between the planes, which do warp each others spacetimes by the equivalence principle of GR).

In any situation as this you should apply the ordinary Galilean Relativity to link two objects moving with relative speed toeach other.

The relationship is: Vba=Vb-Va, the velocity of a relative to b being Vba and the velocities of a nd b relative to the stationary observer say the earth are Va and Vb.

This is simple vector addition of velocities.

In your scenario, you have Vba=Vb-Va=0.9c-(-0.9)=1.8c, considering Vb to be positive and Va negative in some direction.

So this is the Galilean Relativity, upon which Special Relativity is based.

You now apply the Lorentz-Transformation, relating frames in relative uniform motion to each other, say at speed v.

Coordinates (x,y,z,t) relative to frame O are measured as (x',y',z',t') relative to frame O', with O moving at v relative to O'.

The Lorentz-transformation gives the following relations between O and O' and presuming the Galilean velocities are one-directional (x-axis).

x=(x'+vt')/Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), y=y', z=z' and t=(t'+vx'/c^2)/Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

You now consider the measurement of SIMULTANEITY for times t and t' between the frames O and O'.

[t2-t1]=[t'2-t'1]/Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which is the Time-Dilation Formula for a Proper Time to=[t'2-t'1];which measures the Improper Time [t2-t1] as longer/dilated and considers the improper clock to be running slow.

Now apply the Lorentz-Time equations for t1 and t2 and comparte them as t'1 and t'2. You use the proper times t1=t2 for simultaneity in frame O.

You find t'1=t'2 + v(x'2 - x'1)/c^2; which shows that t'1 and t'2, unlike t1 and t2, are not simultaneous as the improper time IN FRAME O'.

IT IS THIS RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY, WHICH SHOWS THAT LIGHT CAN SEEMINGLY BE AT TWO DIFFERENT PLACES AT ONCE, SUCH AS IN OBJECTS TRAVELLING WITYH AN APPRECIATIVE FRACTION OF C.

Now return to the Lorentz-Transformation and specify this in extending (not replacing) the Galilean Relativity linking velocity vectors from before.

Vx = x/t = (x'+vt')/(t'+vx'/c^2) = (x'/t'+v)/(1+vv'/c^2) = (v'+v)/(1+vv'/c^2)

As you see, substituting Vba=Vx as the velocity of a relative to b defines the relative approch speed in your example.

And your calculation is correct: Vba=1.8c/(1+.81c^2/c^2)=1.8c/1.81=0.994475c;

meaning that both spaceships a and b measure the other's approach speed at 0.994475c, in considering themselves at rest.

Again, it is the simultaneity of their measurements, which extends the Galilean Relativity to Einsteinian Relativity.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17419 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17419

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Rolf states:
>
> >>>> It is presumed
> that the graviton disappears and is converted into energy when it
> acts on an object or particle.>>>>
>
> This statement is very interesting.
>
> Where did you find this Rolf?
>
>
> z

Dear Forum, allow me to intercede with some general considerations
>
>
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf Guthmann"
> <rolfguthmann@u...> wrote:
> >
> > The Graviton?
> > Theoretically predicted but never observed, this hypothetical
> > particle with no electric charge and no mass is supposed to be
> > responsible for the gravitational interaction between matter and
> > energy.
> > The following summary will show how its existence can be
predicted
> > and why we can eliminate it from the new theory of gravity.

The Graviton is colourcharged, as are all gauge bosons.
It is anticyclic to the gauge photon and the gluon, but cyclic to
the Higgs-Boson's underpinning supersymmetry template.
The Graviton becomes naturally unified with the photon in
colourcharge neutralisation and must associate with the process of
Pair-Production in the presence of mass (say a nucleus) because of
its double-spin negated by the gauge fields of the photon and the
weakon-template.

Spin angular momenta are conserved in such gauge-bosonic
interactions.

> > Its existence has traditionally been justified by the need for
an
> > element responsible for gravitational mediation, to carry out
the
> > transmission of energy between objects or particles, because
> physics
> > does not accept the conversion of force into energy. It is
presumed
> > that the graviton disappears and is converted into energy when
it
> > acts on an object or particle.

This is true, and relates to the 'virtuality' of all the gauge
bosons.
A redefinition of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Action relation
indicates the 'virtuality' to be a 'source bosonic predictability'.
The colour charge interaction transmutes all energy states across
the Planck-Einstein Laws for frequency and mass.
Eight permutative gluonic colourcharge-states are utilised for this
purpose, transmuting either colour-anticolours in mesonic quark-
antiquark systems or baryonic/hyperonic quark-triplets, given by
{BBB,BBW,BWB,WBB,WWB,WBW,BWW,WWW}.

> > We know that when a force acts on a particle, its energy is
> altered,
> > and that this energy is quantised in multiples of h (Planck's
> > Constant), as established by quantum theory and confirmed
> > experimentally. We can thus analyse the following relations
between
> > force and energy.
> > Force is equal to change in momentum over change in time.
> > We therefore have: F = Đ/Ħquot; [N or
> > (kg.m) /s/s]. (1)
> > Force is also equal to change in energy over change in distance.
> > We therefore have: F = ą/ĸ [N or
> > (kg.m2)/s2/m]. (2
)
> > Where: ą = (E2 ? E1)
> > [(kg.m2)/s2]. (3)
> > When a force acts on an object or particle, its energy is
changed,
> > which is to say that work is done. This work is a change in
energy,
> > with the same units as the energy itself, thus:
> > W = ą =
E2 ? E1= F.ĸ [Joules or N.m or (kg.m2)/s2]. (4)
> > From 4, we can see that, as work is a change in energy, and as
this
> > energy is quantised, we can state that the work must also be
> > quantised. If one is quantised, the other must also be.
> > Returning to 2, the force must therefore also be quantised,
> assuming
> > that any change in distance is a continuous quantity.
> > We can now ask whether the distance is indeed continuous, which
we
> > cannot state with absolute certainty. It may be theoretically
> > possible to always find a new point between any two given
points,
> > but quantum mechanics shows that the shortest measurable
distance
> is
> > Planck's length (Lp).
> > Using the gravitational energy of an isolated mass given here:
> > Eg == 3/5.Gk.m2/r [Joules or N.m or (kg.m2)/s2], (5)

Rolf is using the gravitational potential, say of a star.
Quantum Relativity derives the protostars (ylemic dineutron stars)
from this consideration.

Let the thermal internalenergy or ITE=H be the outward pressure in
equilibrium to the gravitational potential energy or GPE=Omega.

Nuclear Density in subatomic parameters is rho/n=Mc/Vc~1.1x10^16
kilogram per cubicmetres (at ylemic times, corresponding to beta-
neutron-decay).

H=molarity.kT=(R/Re)^3kT for Omega(R)=-[Integral]GMdm/R, with
and Mc is a typical nucleon mass.

dH=3kTR^2.dR/Re^3 and dOmega=-3GMc^2.R^4.dR/Re^6 from Rolf's
expression Omega(R)=-3GMc^2R^5/(5Re^6).

Hence, equating dH+DOmega=0 for equilibrium in ITE and GPE, we
obtain the Ylemic radius formula as Rolf's 'isolated mass'.

Rylem(T) = Sqrt[kTRe^3/GMc^2] metres.

I have derived this to show, that these protostar radii are
independent of their masses as a function of their temperatures only.
They could so be considered as 'isolated masses'.
They were the precursors for neutron stars and magnetars and seeded
all of the galaxies, as well as defining the planetesimal limit at
the 1km scale and for a temperature of 1.2 billion K.

The Schwarzschild Radius and the Chandrasekhar limit for White
Dwarfs then associates in the magnetopolic electricity, giving rise
to the Cosmic Ray spectra as a derivative from the magnetic
monopole, the GUT-Unification scale at 2.7x10^16 GeV and the
precursive supermembrane class IIB.

> > we can deduce Planck's length (Lp) as follows:
> > Lp = ((h/2pi). Gk/c3)^(1/2) [m]. (6)
> > This Lp could theoretically generate the lowest quantised work
> (Wq),
> > and this could be used to define the lowest quantum of
> gravitational
> > force (Fq). Here is the graviton.

This is too general.
The link to the Planck Scale is via the Zero-Point-Oscillator, given
in hfps/2=kTps/2=1/2e* as superbrane parameters (class HE(8x8)).

Those relate to the Gravitational Finestructure as fiunction of the
Alpha-Electromagnetic finestructure.

Gravitational Finestructure: 2Pi.Go.Mc^2/hc for Go the initiatory
and bounding Gravitational Constant modular dual to electric
permittivity.

> > It was shown in chapter 7 of the QTG that the Universal
> > Gravitational Constant (Gk) is not entirely constant, but was
> > calculated for this part of the universe and could assume
different
> > values depending on the presence of objects or masses that could
> > modulate the frequency of the local time reference. We can thus
> > conclude that Lp will also vary from place to place, which will
be
> > of significance later.

Rolf is partially on the mark here. G varies very slowly (at present
to 3 parts in 10^11 per year); keeping the productation Gm(i)m(j)
constant however.
A massless universe would measure Go as a massless Black Hole,
encompassed by a 'Strominger Brane' in 5D (say), which would not

> > As gravity is the weakest force, the graviton would
theoretically
> be
> > its elementary unit. In this case, it would be a quantum of work
by
> > Planck's length (Lp), and the graviton would have the following
> > force:
> > Fq = Wq/Lp [N or (kg.m /s/s)]. (7)
> > From 7, we can see that this quantum of gravitational force (Fq)
> has
> > the units of force [N], while gravity has the units of
acceleration
> > [m/s/s]. As force is classically the product of mass and
> > acceleration, we have:
> > F = m.a [N or (kg.m /s/s)]. (8)
> > It was strategically determined that the graviton should have
zero
> > mass:
> > m = 0 [kg],
> > We should therefore theoretically have a lowest quantum of
> > gravitational force equal to zero:
> > Fq = m . 0 = 0 [N ou (kg.m /s/s)]. (9)
> > For this to occur, convention determined that this quantum of
> > gravitational force be magically converted into inertia. In
chapter
> > 6 of the QTG, it was shown that this artifice is unnecessary,
with
> > the demonstration that a difference in the relative forces of
the
> > atom results in a force without mass or inertia, thereby
respecting
> > all the laws and postulates of the classical theories of
physics.
> > In chapter 2 of the QTG, it was shown that gravity is generated
> only
> > when an atom is found in a gravitational field, without which
there
> > can be no temporal reference, this being defined by the presence
of
> > at least one other atom, and that the gravity generated also
> depends
> > on the intensity of the gravitational field.

I concur with this in the above description of a massless universe
described by the finestructuring of Maxwell's Constant 1/c^2 in the
magnetic permeability and electric permittivity constants.

Best of science to all Tony B.

> > We can conclude that it is not a force that generates gravity,
but
> > the presence of a gravitational field. That is to say, we do not
> > have the conversion of force into energy, but the conversion of
the
> > influence of a gravitational field into gravitational energy,
> > because, as shown in chapter 8 of the QTG, "gravity gravitates".
> > SEE: http://www.geocities.com/rolfguthmann/QTG/qtg.html

Message 17424 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17424

to Tony and Rolf again who stated

>>>>> > we can deduce Planck's length (Lp) as follows:
> > Lp = ((h/2pi). Gk/c3)^(1/2) [m]. (6)
> > This Lp could theoretically generate the lowest quantised work
> (Wq),
> > and this could be used to define the lowest quantum of
> gravitational
> > force (Fq). Here is the graviton.

This is too general.
The link to the Planck Scale is via the Zero-Point-Oscillator, given
in hfps/2=kTps/2=1/2e* as superbrane parameters (class HE(8x8)).>>>>

OK

But here's what I'm betting.

We are going to find a far SHORTER duration quantum of energy - than
h - in the realm of the quark.

I have this on my website (someplace).

In fact I was jubilant when the University of Alabama - link is on
the website too - claimed that gravity could not be quantized because
they saw a clearer picture of distant galaxies than they should have.

They didn't realize that the gravitational boson (graviton) is
derived via the spin of the quark as is h-bar derived via the
electron's spin change and h via the electron's orbital changes.

imo

z

ON THE SPIN AND THE STABILITY OF THE PROTON.

Dear Zeus!

The subtimespace, for which the HE(8x8) superbrane forms the geodesic wormhole limit cannot be measured.

Penrose's Weyl Nullification Hypothesis does represent a threshold for the physical analysis for the quarks.

The Quantum Geomtry associates a neutrinoic trisected kernel as three up-quarks with this 'core of wave matter'.

So you can reduce the wavequark proton into the double-plus delta of the three up-quarks, associated with a InnerMesonicRing (IMR).

In terms of quantum spin, the double-plus-delta carries 3/2 in separation from the IMR, that is as nucleon resonance.

In this process, the three up-quarks disentangle from its stable circularl form to align linearly alonhg a magnetoaxis given in the geometry.

The strong interaction recombines the double-plus-delta with the IMR in the time light can cross the nuclear diameter of the proton in so 10^-23 seconds.

This process flips the inner quark's spin to be opposite that of the IMR to reconstitute the proton.

You have 1) Stable Proton u(1/2)d(-1/2)u(1/2)=u(1/2)[u(1/2)+IMR(-1)]u(1/2)

2) Strong Interaction u(1/2)[VPE=ubar(-1/2)u(1/2)+d(-1/2)]u(1/2)

3) Unstable D++ u(1/2)u(1/2)u(1/2)+ubar(-1/2).d(-1/2) {p-(0)+GP(-1)}

4) Proton Reconstitution: D++(3/2) + p-(0) + GP(-1)= Proton(1/2).

So you find a GraviPhoton (GP) as a 'spinner', conserving the quantum spin as a noncolour -charged supersymmetric particle DURING the proton's shortlived stay as a delta-doubleplus nucleon resonance.

This is simply the spinalignment of the d-quark as the up-kernel to the IMR.

The down-quark's spin is so always comprised of the 'spinner' finestructure to allow the flipping of the neutrino-kernelled up-quarks.

This clearly shows, that the proton cannot decay, either into positronic or kaonic constituents, because this would require a positively charged IMR, as is present in the antiproton.

The proton is engaged in a perpetual dance of being the unstable doubleplus delta and of being the stable proton.

Your high resonance spinstates link to this however in the superbrane hierarchies 'within' the Weyl-geodesic.

The GUT-Unification energy is well known to be about 27x10^15 GeV as the upper bound of the Cosmic Ray spectra and the Gamma Burster Maximum.

This is but the eigenenergy for superbnrane class IIB, also known as the Magnetic Monopole.

This can be expressed via the Heisenberg Finestructure as c^3 eV.

Then as mass-monopolic current/equivalent E=(ec)c^2 maps this mass-current equivalence fromthe superbrane scale onto the atomic scale via the dimensional unifier c^2.

MagnetoCharge e*=2Re.c^2 maps Coulomb Charge e=LPSqrt(Alpha).c^2.

Furthermore, the Entropy-Counter fps^2=9x10^60=c^2/lps^2 does represent the resonance limit for the df/dt awareness differential for the angular acceleration acting upon the spacetime volumars as defined by magnetocharge e* (as function of the classical electronic diameter, itself finestructured as Compton proiportionality and quantised in the HE(8x8) wormhole parameters.{10^10 lps=360.Re}.

Your higher quark-spins are so given in the finestructure for the Planck-Action, but are restrticted to manifest within the Weyl geodesic, representing the event horizon for all physical measurements in accordance with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the superbrane mappings of the magnetocharges onto the electrocharges.

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 !

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17428 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17428

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> Thank you, thank you for this post.
>
> I've not found you to be wrong on anything you have said so far.
>
> I value your math and science expertise.
>
> But you can see even more than the math is showing you by knowing
the
> electron - in each atom - follows a certain course because it is
> strongly being affected by the green down quark in the proton.
>
> But that's imo
>
> Thanks again
>
>
> z

Dear Zeus!

The Green Down-Quark represents one third of the Down-Permutations
for the Mesonic Ring as wavelet oscillation.

It becomes VPE(Vortex-PE) in coupling with a Magenta-AntiUp-Quark to
release the InnerMesonicRing as wavelength quantisation h/4Pi.

The mesonic associations are Red-Cyan=Green-Magenta=Blue-Yellow.
The mesonic ring can then oscillate (in membrane fashion) to form
its higher energy resonance as the OuterLeptonicRing (OLR).
And the OLR is uniquely defined in the Electronic Radius and its
frequency associations in the charge-mappings.

By itself, the IMR and the OLR are invariant colourtriplets of Red-
Green-Blue in the radiative massless White-Eigenstate and Cyan-
Magenta-Yellow as their massinduced Black-Counterpart.

Milo Wolff's Frequency Eigenstates relate to that via the simple
mappings of the Electronic Radius (say as Thomson Scattering of the
nucleus) onto the Compton Radius in the Alpha-Proportionality, the
latter describing the interaction probability between matter and
light, which we have discussed above in the White-Black
transformations.

The Frequency-Eigenstate can indeed be described as an
internal 'clock of rhythm', because the original de Broglie phase
inflation is forever scaled onto the eigenstates.

The rewriting for de Broglie Phase-Speed as VdB=R(n).f indicates
this in most fundamental terminology.
R(n) becomes a scale of distance for dimensionless tau-cycle-time n,
defining the Hubble-Oscillation as a spherical standing wave
bouncing between nodes of integral n (n=1=>16.9 Billion years).
And f is the frequency as inverse time for this scale R(n).
Inverse time is modular dual to time in CMF-Theory and henceforth
the Hubble-Oscillation applicable to the entire universe can also be
applied to appropriately defined boundary conditions in
subuniverses, which become the local frames of references/worlds.

Milo's 'internal rhythm clock' so relates to de Broglian phase-
speeds lower bounded in 'c' and as inner eigenstates of the
encompassing groupspeed, which is necessarily upper bounded in 'c'.

Tony B.

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

Anyone may copy and paste this complete presentation to their web page providing they paste it in its entirety.

To paste any of my pages to your desktop in their entirety, FREE, do as follows.

1. Right click link of page.

2. Click - send target as.

3. Click - save.

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

If any of your work seems to correlate to my findings then please write to me at:

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Apt. 329

Belmont Village