Saturday, September 28, 2013

Space Revisited

Good day,

Einstein did open up the idea of the particle aspect of wave propagation and he did elude to the importance of particle mass on space and space's subsequent 'warping' however the pursuit of the Big Bang has left these ideas farrow.  Where Einstein's contributions place the function of Space on the highest order of importance of understanding and then the Big Bang theorist reduce Space almost completely out of the equation.  I see that the best way of understanding particle interaction comes from the understanding of Space and its subsequent Shapes.  I'm not shy about allowing a fourth dimensional space existing before the beginning of this three dimensional space.  I'll also goes as far as being willing to acknowledge a fifth spatial dimension.  I do insist that the only parallel universes are those established by the passage of time and that time is 'linear' and progressive.  Time doesn't loop back on itself and always moves forward with respect to the third dimensional space.

Therefore when I refer to Space I am not referring to the third nor the forth dimensional space but of the substance between these, however it is possible that it is more than a spatial forth dimensional three dimensional spatial manifestation.  The closest approximation that I had imagined this construction was called the "ether" of Einstein's era and before.  However I believe there to be distinct and functional attributes that cause real and measurable effects on three dimensional particles and waves. The upshot of all this is that the only purpose of time is to indicate the direction of forth dimensional space from third dimensional space.  In this respect there is no moral differential therefore cosmology is not a factor in physics.  If cosmology is factored in then it becomes a subjective version of reality based in an artificially construction and can only fall short as far as Science is concerned.

This might seem contradictory to earlier posts.  Any contradiction is an illusion of misunderstanding the fundamental concept of meditating on scripture and receiving a clear understanding of the circumstances of life.  Then there is the  contemplation of natural law which reveals the way of the Divine design.  Both reveal God's intentions if one is searching for God's intentions since God is by definition the source.  It is cause that can be interfered with by mankind.  This is a Universal concept verified by the main religions I have had a chance to read about and by what I have been told of by others.  No atheist that I have run across has been able to supply any other explanation for source nor have been able to explain observable factors of natural laws that are clearly beyond the scope of any man's and/or woman's control.  This is a fair summation that indicates a supreme divine creator and only an insane person will argue against this.  It is fair to know if your source is insane although they may be able to do the tasks that any primate can do.

It is this interference that can distort true nature of Space and Shape especially when particles are taken from their natural state by unnatural means and their wave properties are distorted and even completely distorted.  Einstein already demonstrated the power techniques of observation can hide and reveal aspects of Space and Shape.  It might seem if you've read any of the earlier blogs here that I am belaboring this one specific experiment of Einstein's however with its relatively passive selection of cause and observation of result it demonstrates more than the wave and particle aspects of photons.  It is a very tangible example of the importance of experimental interaction and observation.



Monday, December 31, 2012

Science without Cosmology

Good day,

I have been and will continue to speak out against the Big Bang Theory because of the followers of this belief have forgotten the views it was contrasting and have made into a religion instead of it's intended purposes for which it is now outmoded and being a theory of mankind it is disposable and should be as soon as possible.  Oh and it has been possible for sometime now.  Most of the theories have already been demonstrated to not need the Big Bang Theory to be substantiated and those that do are week and distracting from the pursuit of real science.  The other reasoning to abandon the Big Bang Theory is that it has deteriorated into philosophic destructive immoral drivel.

Although Monsignor George Lemaitre tried to keep his faith and science apart and I am not one to know an others mind I am certain from my own experience that spirit mind and body are connected and that true convictions of God shape a persons perception of the world around them and how they speak and write about it. Yes I admit that I am much more forward about the God reality of the natural world and the scientific pursuit of understanding it.  I do believe that no cosmology is needed to justify any science and God certainly does not need science to exist!

It is truly a sad state of affairs that those who profess to be atheist can not come up with anything scientific that is not steeped in Judaic-Christian belief can continue to maintain that they do not believe in any sort of divinity.  One of the main conceptions that I find flawed in the conception of the Big Bang Theory is the belief in a single point beginning.  If there is no origin of the initial beginning then the beginning is arbitrary.  This sort of logic is one of the very fundamentals of most mathematical proofs.  If for quantities "x" and for quantities "x=1" then... however it is a presumption that there is a finite quantity of matter, therefore x cannot go to infinity and an end point has to be defined.  Lets say that "X" equals the highest quantity of "x+ N" were N=X-x.   That the primeval atom is "A" and regardless of any theories after Lemaitre's 1927 hypothesis A=X. and even now their is no actual singular empirical representation of this transition by Big Bang Theorist to any exclusive decisiveness.

This was one of the many concepts that I had explored in 1982 when I was in high school.  The most basic of the widely accepted formulas that I have no need to dispute is Planck's simple relationship of the energy of a photon (e) to the photon's frequency (f) by using Planck's constant (h). e=hf.  Einstein's relationship between energy (E) and the mass of matter (M) in relationship to the speed of light (c). E=Mcc.  Then the hypothesis that the amount of mass can be totaled and when combined with the total energy of the Universe outside of  the mass and matter can rectified as mass this can be considered to be, by definition, X.  E=Xcc.  Then if A is actually a photon then the frequency of this photon can be solved for.  e=Xcc.  Therefore this frequency (f of A) = (Xcc)/h.  A simple solution for the wavelength (w) comes from fw=c, w=c/f.  w=h/Xc.  Therefore regardless of whether there is or is not a Big Bang or a primeval particle the smallest subdivision of a photon is w.  If and only if h and c are constants and c is the greatest velocity that can be achieved. 

Since our observations are limited to light (of various frequencies) then even if there are particles that might move faster than the speed of light we won't be able to obverse them as such and until a manner of observation can substantiate particles (or waves or whatever it might turn out to be) moving faster than the speed of light w should hold as a smallest unit of measure.  Weather or not w is a singular unit (or what some might refer to as a quanta measurement) I have not tried to verify.  What I was interested in at the time was the idea if something traveled faster than the speed of light then it would have to be smaller than the particle component of w.  If such a particle existed  and maintained a 'wave packet' profile then it prove that there could not be a primeval particle (although the Big Bang theorist would probably increase the amount of Matter/Mass in the Universe to appease this or exclaim they left out a certain amount of energy out of their claim

It really is an interesting idea of working out the total mass and total energy of the Universe and some have claimed to have done this.  However as far as a real scientific quantity the verifiability of such claims is of course impossible.  An other little wrinkle of this is an other strike against the idea of a black hole.  This idea is not contained by the presupposition that the Big Bang Theory' primeval particle displays waves particles.  Which would mean that it has no rotation and no properties that would lend any aspects of ever being part of a harmonic system i.e. it does not vibrate nor does it have the capacity to do so.  Truly, other wise it would traveling and if it is the only thing of the Universe, the beginning, then where is it going.  By the actual definition that is, if these limitations seem preposterous then the Big Bang Theory is not about the particle, the particle is sequential.  It is the nature of Space it's self.  But as soon as you step into Space it all becomes subjected to Relativity and then the Big Bang Theory is stuck in the Steady Space Theory that it has supposedly superseded.  So the Big Bang Theories primeval particle has to be a photon, the highest possible energy photon.  If all the mass and energy of the Universe can be suspended in a single photon then if matter is being pulled together before it can reach a critical mass to form form a black hole, it actually is reformed into high energy photons.  This formation we see all the time not only is the specific case of our sun Sol, but through out the observational journals of astronomy through out all the recorded time we have gathered. 

Now if this is a photon, then it has to be traveling, but where is it going and where has it come from.  Again it is no longer about the particle but about Space.  Therefore there is no scientific presidency for a Big Bang Theory of any type.  It doesn't mean that people can't have a Big Bang Theology but there is nothing left for Science in the Big Bang Theory.  True Science has suffered the demands of the Big Bang Theology long enough!  Lets talk about Space!

It is true that my ideas do come from scripture, but it is not that I am trying to validate my belief, I believe that there are some many different things outside of these realms of science that confirms my faith, and that is what it is my own, and anyone else's opinion is only their opinion of their own faith.  These things of faith are themselves singularly one's own.  What I do know is that my meditations on the first chapter of the First Book of Moses, Genesis, have led me to seeing far beyond the very limiting concepts and constrictions of the Big Bang Theory.  If people want to believe in the Big Bang Cosmology that is their own choose, everyone is free to choose their own religion and theology regardless of the United Nations stance on such reality.  I am a naturally born United States of America citizen and such things are self evident.  When I speak of how I have come across these ideas is to encourage those to come to allow a higher wisdom to govern their thoughts because mankind is limited and subjective. I badger those who hold onto the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution as pointedly as possible because they have imposed a strangle hold on the World Scientific Community and have kept the best of science from helping the multitude.

Scripture can not confirm any idea of physics.  It is not the nature of the texts.  However it is intended to teach ethics and morality and scientists around the world will always have need to know how to use the amount of virtue they have been given for the greater good more so than others.  More so is ethics and morality for the scientists because they have been given a great responsibility.  They are the teachers of teachers and have been charged with tasks that people and even themselves may not understand why they have to be done.  Often they themselves do not have the resources to carry out their research and maybe able to find these resources offered by others.  What are these terms of these others?  Are they also scientists?  Are they capable of granting the liberty the scientist needs to be wrong?  Or is the scientists to set aside their own ideas to pursue an others?  These are only the slightest important realities that all scientists need a strong foundation in ethics and morality.  Sometimes a scientist might have delved so deep into their field that even their peers are uncertain about what is being discussed.



Saturday, December 29, 2012

Science for the Good of Mankind vs Big Bang Theories' Fascism

Good day,

Even though the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by the Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927 in his writing "Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques" (or in English) "A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae" which was published in the Belgum Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles  which translates as Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels in English.  There is an ever expanding library of evidence that The current Big Bang hypothesizes are inaccurate.  I am not arguing against his writings which have since been attributed to Edwin Hubble at this moment but to the misconceptions of the incongruousness of the idea that the Judaic-Christian God and science are incompatible. 

Science is only effective if human-beings maintain the flexibility to be put aside their theories when they are demonstrated to be inaccurate.  Surely as I have pointed out in earlier blogs that there are a number of different ideas of physic mechanics that were demonstrated to hold true long before the Big Bang Theory was suggested.  Just because those ideas were incorporated into the Big Bang Theory does not mean the Big Bang Theory has been demonstrated to hold true.  Basically what it suggests is that there has been a rationalization of ideas and since many of the current ideas that are put forth as being part of the Big Bang mythos do not subscribe to Einstein's and Lemaitre's work then the Big Bang Theory has become the raving  of schizophrenic minds.  It is a sad state of affairs that these ideas are even being considered to be valid because when they are scrutinized they fail to predict anything outside a singularly closed system (the Big Bang Theory has slowly been trying to close itself off from chemistry and the wide variety of elements that we depend on for our own lives) but fail to be able to reconcile various other phenomena that also occur even within the very small singular set of conditions.

The reason why has to do with the old idea of the Ether, or as I sometimes refer to it more specifically "the Shape of Space" or as the ancient Greeks discuses it as Void.  In some sort of crude and savage manner some of the properties of the Shape of Space the Big Bang Theorists are trying to convey as being Dark Matter. I have already written about the lack of credibility of the Dark Matter conjecture of the feeble minded.  I am not addressing this in this blog.  The point above all else has to do with the lack of need for science to have a singular cosmology!  This means that the Big Bang Theory is not only meaningless to science, having no merits of it's own to contribute to the furthering of scientific understanding, But to actually define a cosmology in math restricts the individual's ability to experience spiritual growth.

All religions have a cosmology for the Judaic-Christian faiths this is outlined in the first two chapters of the First Book of Moses "Genesis".   There isn't anything specific about this particular cosmology and if I can paraphrase the current Pope the Big Bang Theory is not necessarily sacrilege, which is different than saying it is Christian doctrine.  One of the essential duties of any Pope is to negotiate treaties with worldly authorities.  During the Second World War the Pope had to plead for the Catholics living within Germany and the territories that Germany had and would later invade.  There are outsiders that do not understand why this was done however thousands of condemned non-Catholics were smuggled out of Germany's torturous grasp.  Another crucial function of the Pope is to continue the legacy of Saint Peter to whom Jesus Christ had given "the Keys to Heaven".  Again some outsiders do not understand the importance of God's Mercy and Grace, and some of the ideas are so controversial that those who did not understand them have gone to great lengthens to cause mass violence and oppression against Catholics. 

As I have stated before I do not want any such violence or repositories against those who subscribe to the Big Bang Theory or Evolution.  I am merely speaking out against the madness and ignorance of these theories.  They fall far short of what science has found of the world and that which surrounds it and permeates it.  When asked about the Pope's statement my first reaction was that he didn't know of the staggering amount of evidence contrary to the Big Bang Theory.  Then a quiet second after that I realized the Pope was demonstrating God's Divine Mercy.  As you can tell I am not bashful of tell those who still cling to the inferior Big Bang Theory and Evolution, but I am not the Pope.  I am not looking for rewards and awards of this world.  The paralyzing grip of the mass insanity of the world scientific community is staggering and it is better to shout out loud against the din of their stupidity because maybe someone will notice the idiots are wrong and there is a way of peace the Almighty has made if they are brave and turn away from the tyrants of war and continually ask God to show them how to bring a little more Peace to those they may. 



Monday, December 24, 2012

The Judaic-Christian Foundation of Modern Physics v.s. the Big Bang Theory

Good day,

'Tis the season for all Christian's to prepare to receive God into their lives by remembering the modest beginnings of their frail human condition.  Even though this is a calender remembrance it is in essence a daily, moment by moment reality that Christians grow into understanding.  That the flesh is week, and to be poor in spirit allows the entrance of God into our lives.  I, myself, do get very indignant at times especially around the idolatry of the Big Bang theory.  I do not apologize.  Jesus Christ was justified when he turned over the tables of the money changes in the Temple at Jerusalem and I believe that the pursuit of science is a search for God in the World.  Newton, who was the first to recognize gravity (as if you didn't know but the Big Bang theorists seem to have no ability to perceive), was highly religious and Christian.  Almost everyone who contributed the basic ideas of modern physic's quires into what an atom is and photons and the like were either Christian or Jewish.

It is completely preposterous for any practitioner of any Western math or science to deny the existence of God since every fundamental idea comes from the minds of those whose beliefs are unified in the belief of and in God. In this day and age it is impossible to over state the importance of Judea-Christian in all of the fields of physics.  The influence of such people as Planck, who's dad was a Christian minister, on shaping modern physics by contributing the essential principles of cause and effect.  However the Big Bang theorists have twisted the application of these principles to their own means of destruction.

Where would the Big Bang theorists be with out the almost countless essential ideas of physics?  Nowhere!  They are nowhere.  They are nobodies.  They are being used by the warmongers of the world to develop even more destructive weapons.  They have lost their humanity.  They are the Artificial Intelligent automatons. Sure they are flesh and blood, but they are devoid of Life.  Not that they are entirely Zombies, but they want to 'suck out your brains'.  They don't want you to thick for yourself, or pray, and the definitely don't want you to meditate on the nature of God!  The Judaic-Christian tradition teaches that God's power is far beyond human understanding.  I suggest that the all of everything, the Universe, was created in six days  Unfortunately a man and a woman managed to screw it all up on the day God decided to rest.  Now that is incredible power!  The Big Bang theorists can not conceive of this power and I thank God for that!  Because God is protecting Everyone from the Big Bang theorists' want for destruction.  Luckily the Big Bang theorists think that it took billions of years for the Universe to become as it is now.  Do you have any idea of the difference of magnitude between six days and several billions of years?

 Yes!  Now you might understand the reasoning behind me being vague and illusive as far as divulging the math and physics I have come across over twenty-five years ago.  Maybe you can see the reasoning behind my offensive and unbridled attacks against the Big Bang and Evolution theorists.  It is not fitting that they should be privy to understanding the amazingly and mind boggling true of the incredible power of God.  But I am now writing about it for this maybe the wake up call for them to repent!  That maybe today will allow themselves to become reborn and awaken to the Holy Ghost and be consumed  in the flames of redemption and learn of the Tree of Life.  But I have buried these writings to be guarded by God against those who are set upon  releasing Hell.  I trust in the God Creator to keep these ideas secrete if not these words.

More importantly are that who find themselves in the trials of their faith and maybe they will find these and know that the deception of the Big Bang theorists and Evolutionist is very real and that they have formed a religion of mass destruction even more vicious than the Thuggees that the British had outlawed in India.  Since I am a citizen, born and raised in, of the United States of America I am not a proportionate for making the religion of Big Bang and Evolution illegal, but I am committed to making it clear that they are participating and practitioners of traitorous activities against the United States of America and Humanity!  Almost none of the believers are directly aware of these activities against Humanity nor are they aware they have been deceived including  J. Robert Oppenheimer; an American Jew had spoke out on developing the Hydrogen bomb before it was resolved that the United States would in 1953 he was accused of having sympathies for communists, and Enrico Fermi; an Italian who began his studies of science using the Jesuit priest Father Andrea Caraffa's text book 'Elementorum Physicae Mathematicae' and later left Italy because the Manifesto of Race threatened his Jewish wife Laura, and even though his is buried in Chicago he is memorialized in the Catholic Franciscan church Basilica di Santa Croce in Florence Italy.

I have seen and experienced the madness of delving into the inner workings within the the spaces and shapes beneath protons and neutrons. I have emerged from the experience wanting to return to my faith in God and have been given something more profound than anything I was able to believe about God prior to my descent into the Hell of the Big Bang Theorists and Evolutionists.  Perhaps those who are striving to find faith in God are the ones who will find these rantings or maybe they will buried deeper within the serves archives lost as their electronic signature dissipates.

"In some sort of crude sense, which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose." - J. Robert Oppenheimer



Monday, December 10, 2012

Relativity vs Quatum Mechanics

Good day,

I have been writing about the wisdom that the Big Bang theorists have left out from there conjectures of the nature of worldly matters.  Firstly that there is a God and they are far from being God. Second it is not all about the particles that make up matter and that it is more about how matter creates a space an area of influence around it because it is these areas of influence that causes the effects that we perceive and as importantly or even more importantly what we can't perceive.

This past July (2012) there was much to do about the theorized Higgs boson when CERN announced that they might have observed such a particle.  The long and the short of it is that Higgs had conjectured that there were other particles amongst the makeup of the subatomic particles in the 1960's with several other scientists.  Besides formulating a theory to explain various aspects of unifying the 'weak force' with the electromagnetic force there are calculations aimed at discrepancies in mass of subatomic particles when certain experiences were done.  Decades earlier Einstein had championed physicist Satyendra Nath Bose's subatomic particle theory for whom after the 'boson' acquired it's name.

The 'Higgs' boson is presented as an quantum particle i.e. a minimum unit and indivisible.  As I had alluded to before there had been a branch in ancient Greek philosophy that conjectured the idea of  an Atom.  A subset of  unobservable particles from which all mater is constructed from.  In many ways during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries understandings of the elements brought back the idea of the atom and as observational technology developed our current elemental atomic periodic table was formulated.  There were about two centuries of activity when many of the essential ideas where debated and revised.  Zeno's paradoxes started the second foil of the development of atomic theory.  Not only the aspects of what makes up matter but as importantly how, or even more distressing, does matter move.  The upshot of the ancients' discourses came to the choose of two choices: one; there must be an absolute singular minimum size of matter and time because matter moves, two; that matter does not move, it simply is where it is and then it is somewhere else.

The idea of an Atom went beyond those particles noted on the elemental table and the currently recognized subatomic particles.  Fire was also considered to be composed of matter composed of Atoms.  Einstein was able to validate this idea that light was not only a wave but was also a particle by constructing an experiment that altered the way we looked at light.  The two experiments Einstein constructed demonstrated a perspective that showed the wave quality of light in one and the other demonstrated the particle quality of light.  The 'photon' and 'wave-packet' construction substantiated the centuries old ideas of an Atom.  I'm not writing about an Atom per se, the ancients idea of an Atom stipulates an indivisibility and indestructible quality for an Atom, as well as a stipulation that an Atom is completely solid and without void.  This construction of solidity I believe to be a reaction to contradict those who insisted on the dominance of void over matter and the voids permutation throughout all matter.

What I am conjecturing is that the understandings of the various forces that fall within and without the unified field theories is not a matter of quantum reduction but that the solution to these discrepancy is a matter of properly recognizing the appropriate reference spatial systems and solving for their relative quantities.  That the lack of a measurable mass when it is known that a particle has mass can simple be case demonstrating the wave properties of the particle excluding the matter properties of the particle.  It is easier to work out how to insure that Schrodinger's cat emerges from the box dead than it is alive.  To paraphrase an early test jet propulsion saying; you can get anything to fly if your strap a large enough rocket to it. 

I had discussed before about the idea of a relativity beyond general relativity.  Further more if there is a non-Euclidean spatial relationship then it is possible for there to be a non-Euclidean spatial relationship that is of a second spatial relationship that is different than the Euclidean and the first non-Euclidean and if it is possible for there to be two different non-Euclidean spatial relationships then there must be a third possible non-Euclidean space.  If there a spatial configuration in which light can only be seen as a wave and a second in which light can be only seen as a particle then there must be two spatial representations to depict these two different perspectives.  Since these perspectives no more than one can be Euclidean.  Since both of these two different spatial relationships only demonstrate one of two different perspectives of two different properties of the same event there must be a spatial relationship that demonstrates both perspectives.  Since the duel perspective is a combination of two spatial relationships of which at least one is non-Euclidean then no less than two different non-Euclidean spatial relationships are needed to depict the three different perspectives of light.



Friday, December 7, 2012

Quantizs this!... and of misleading indicators.

Good day,

There are innumerable reasons why the idea of Quantum in physics does notwork out.  Sure it would be nice we see a singular apple, and for sure it is one.  However  when all apples are considered it is very quickly recognized there is an extraordinary range of variation; size, mass, color, even flavor indicating different relationships of citric acid and fructose just to name a few variations.  Even the idea of with or without steams, leaves, and what about crab-apples?  So what of these apples and oranges?  These things that we can be easily count.  In this macros we can isolate a single species, but if that in itself was singular as in being the same, then there wouldn't be hybrids.  More about  breeds?  What about dogs?  What does this have to do with subatomic particles, waves packets, and the like?  What doesn't it?  Sure we do not recognize the fur or the bark, them shedding or do we?  But that isn't even what I am referring to.  I'm not even talking about the difference as a cut of meat; shank, flank, rib, short rib, tender loin, filet mignon, and as such and a butcher cut as a hanger steak of Spencer steak and rib-eye. I extended that idea just to give a glimpse of the oversimplification Modern Physics still is in a Relative Universe.

It is my perspective that the various sub-atomic parts are broken bits as oppose to actual atomic particles.  That what it is that makes up an "atom" is probably different than what is observed.  As Einstein demonstrated they wave and particle of photos the method of observation constitutes the perception of what is being viewed.  I use the butchery terms mostly because that is what I believe is being done to form the currently view that the world scientific community is pushing as the way the Universe works and even created.  Where are the lungs, bowls, heart of these microscopic beasts?

What has been discovered and created by scientists in the various fields of physics and chemistry has seriously put a dent in the ancient Greeks idea that Atoms are singularly dense i.e. completely devoid of interior space.  Modern theory doesn't seem to have made up it's mind on weather or not they will embrace the idea that there should be a large variety of shapes and sizes.  It seems that the Big Bang theorists are determined to find their single piece from which a universe can emerge.  Which is an interesting way of looking at what the ancient Greek philosophers had debated about, however upon critical examination and an basic understanding of Christian scripture they are actually on a path of trying to find the portal into the Kingdom of God which is within.  This is the essence of the teachings of Jesus Christ son of God son of man, however Jesus Christ taught that this entrance was made through the grace of God and that acts of Charity is the only price of admission.

Although there are other such references throughout the world's religions of such a reality I am a firm believer in Jesus Christ's teachings.  I find it superior to any and all religions that I have heard and read about.  It is the Truth that spurs me on and has granted me understanding of many things however it is physics that I have been writing of here.  It is in this spiritual quest that not have I but many other great scientists have found their ideas.  Newton and Einstein are two others who had their own ways and contributed what they have found.  I have written before that the mathematics and details are too volatile to reveal at this time considering the Big Bang theorist's destructive nature.  It is as I had written above and before that their methods are crude and fueled by lack of perception.

An Atom, singular and indivisible, an idea of contemplation, but not God, an unobservable bit amongst other size and shaped Atoms that are the fundamental essence of all the material world.  Colors, shape, taste, and the like are some of the original attributes contributed  by the ancient Greeks, and some of these ideas have been incorporated into distinguishing quarks.  But then what is a quark? the modern theorists ask amongst themselves and then there is something else and others.  There are voices that already are conjecturing beyond the Higgs boson if that is what they call it.  But all in all where is gravity? and mass?  If gravity is not recognized in subatomic theory then there can be no mass.  It can't be particle and being particle is the road that lead Einstein to divulge E=mc(squared).  Then there can be no energy.  Gravity IS the unifying force of nature.  It is that it can not be seen only felt.  If without feeling then it means that it is being ignored and misunderstood.  If matter can be converted into energy then maybe it is that these bonds of strong force or week force are of mater and constitute a "strength" as a string or rope or chain.  But really this is just an idea to spoil the obvious over-site that has occurred in even applying proven ideas.

What I have recognized is that quantum or is it quanta? regardless, it is relative. and not even momentary but a product of how an event is observed and not what the event is.  Sure it yields nifty pictures but when neurologists look at MRI images of a brain they know and perceive it as a cross section, an interior image, of what is a real whole brain and it can even be from a living person.  However the Big Bang theorists seem to have no inclination of understanding that their large particle accelerator approach is not that much different than dropping a cargo shipping container full of anvils on a mustard seed to see how it will grow.

It is true that I choose astrophysics because it allows for the contrast of micro and micro to   the extreme degree, and yet I never was hung up on the idea of black holes.  I never found the idea that appealing.  To me the idea of a black hole seems to be the same type of insane drivel that a paranoid schizophrenic is hopelessly strung out on and tries to sell to others like those people who are completely obsessed with a conspiracy theory. and  the Higgs boson is one a step away from that with it sudden appearance of mass to explain some interesting phenomenon with unobservable mass in some sub-atomic particle experiments.  I'll get back to that point but it is the general idea of finding the black hole in interior of an "atom" that all though as I wrote earlier above there is the gate to Heaven within everyone and it is connected to everything.  But quantum mechanics is set up on the premise that the laws outside of "atoms" don't apply in the same way they apply inside "atoms".  Usually it is a rationalization that there are other forces that become factors that over power the rest of the forces.  Sometimes its gravity vs the strong force, but I'm not here to go into these discussion now.

The point of this is about the intersection points between the unobservable forth spacial dimension (4DS) and the observable third spacial dimension (3DS).  What if neutrons are fixed in the 3DS and 4DS, photons are traveling from 4DS to 3DS, and protons are traveling from 3DS to 4DS?  That is not exactly what is going on but its a step away from the insanity of the Big Bang theorists' construction.  Oh, and maybe the 'illusive "gravitons"' are actually the quarks and such?  That the neutron, proton, and photons are actually the illusive Atoms of the ancient Greeks and the rest of sub-atomic is like the ashen remains after fire.  Again this is not nearly as incredible as what is really going on.  This is merely a simple step away from madness and a direction towards clear understanding.  The phoenix did rise from the fire as the Egyptians tell it and even though Aristotle argued against the idea of an Atom Socrates had his fire pot.

It is clear that the ancients did know and recognized many chemical transformations; they smelted ores, made a variety of glass and pottery.  They were also adept at making pigments, and the making of breads and fermenting process of milk (cheeses and yogurt), fruit (wine), and grains (beer).  Of course some of the substitutes alluded them and were mysterious, but it is the mysteries that beacons us to search out the light.



Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Atoms, elements,quarks, what??? the fraud of Higgs boson and other mathimatical traps of perception.

Good day,

It is impossible for atoms to be made up of quarks or any other such because of what an Atom is.  Is it possible to have an Atom of quark?  An Atom is a single particle of which all of the particles are all made up of and literally translates from the ancient Greek as "uncuttables".  These scribes of nature and their contemplations conjecture on ideas of Leucippus who might have existed and might even have taught Democritus who's existence is probable although of the few dozen works that he had written none have survived.  Others who also conjectured along these line are Epicurus and Lucretius.  I have always had a fondness for Democritus (YES THIS DOES TRANSLATE TO MEAN "chosen of the people").  He lived from 460 BC to 370 BC after Zeno of Elea, another favorite of mine who also left a few dozen discourses none of which survive except as referenced by those after him.

Modern science and mathematicians have found themselves perplexed by these ancients and what they were able to recognize and explore without the aide of preposterous machinery such as CERN and yet these scientists now claim to have found the "god particle".  I must admit that I do like to look at the pictures from these various "experiments" no matter how erroneous their conclusions are of them.  It is true that Higgs did spend a lot of ink on his ideas and of course all should but it is only with the spirit's purity can there ever be written anything compared to the absurdly profound poetry that has constructed and perpetuates the world.

For instance: what is silver, oxygen, hydrogen, and all of the rest of the "atoms" described on the periodical table of elements.  That is it!  They are elements; reduced to and described as "atoms".   Similar as in what makes up a brick of gold?  Gold!  However an "atom" of gold is not an "atom" of oxygen and not even lead.  However that did not deter those from trying to find a way of turning lead into gold.  Perhaps even as Rumpelstiltskin spin straw into gold.  Einstein saw through some of this riddle and recognized that E=Mc(squared).  However successful he was in aiding numerous scientists with various contemplations of the nature of "elemental atoms" the "Godless" created atomic bombs, abandoning any remnant of sanity and humility.  Almost the entirety of science have abandoned the human race and the foundations of the United States claim to independence and the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".  Harken citizens of the world, even if they strike to destroy the United States and that may make you very happy beware for these scientists have set their minds and your money towards transforming matter into far more dangerous poisonous "atomic elements" construction even more explosive bombs that leave behind not only death and destruction but thoroughly contaminated the land, water and air in ever widening spheres.

It is not that I am here suggesting how to transform common elements into precious metals, even though I believe that to be a better use of time than creating high yield bombs.  What I am leading to is an explanation and a refinement of understanding the basic "building block" of what the Universe is composed of, or more to the point 'the decomposition' of matter.  Now there are many discrepancies between what an Atom is and what modern science calls an "atom".  However I have often found that an idea, even an erroneous one, can led to a deeper understanding into the nature of life and the world in which we live.  We know that the elements themselves have variations, therefore an element is not an Atom; C(12) with C(14), H(2) and H(3) as well as ordinary H.  That an element is determined to be of a specific piece of matter and recognized by the number of "protons" each with their "electrons", as opposed to how many "neutrons" it has.  However a "neutron", nor "proton", and certainly not an "electron" are considered to be an Atom.  Is the idea of an Atom merely an over simplification?  If so then "quantum mechanics" has to be recognized as an over simplification and if "quantum mechanics" is an oversimplification then the Big Bang Theory is an oversimplification.  As a child I was truly fascinated by the idea of an Atom and I can truly appreciate the pursuit of such an idea.  As as adult I can see it, the idea of an Atom, and recognize the wish to have some sort of defense in an uncertain world.  However, the Big Bang theorist have succumbed to their fears and have forgotten the lesson of the idea of an Atom.

But what about the "god particle" idea?  True, I do think that they think that it is the link to discovering an Atom.  But let us get serious about the scientific method to start and recognize that ultimately it means the need for them to hold down a lepton long enough to prove that it is indeed made up of Atoms and then chart these Atoms' configurations.  Ah but that is it isn't it?  What the Big Bang theorists have forgotten about science.  Especially the ancient Greeks and their shared knowledge from the greatest minds of the ancient Mediterranean territories and the Celtic traditions and teachings.  It is, physics and math, are about how to build and create, however the Big Bang theorists are all about the destruction of everything.  The riddle of an Atom is simply that, a riddle.  As much and as meaningful as Zeno of Elae's Achilles vs the tortoise paradox.  Surely there are mathematicians that claim that calculus is this riddle's solution and they a partially correct.  Calculus is only partially correct that is, however the Egyptians were able to divide the lands on the Nile to equal lots.  This is a problem that can be solved by using calculus to a satisfactory degree of accuracy.  Many conjectured that the Egyptians had to know of calculus and over a decade ago undeniable proof was found that they did.  Ergo the paradox of Achilles vs the tortoise was rhetorical, and as I had discovered that the idea of an Atom is also as such.  Socrates students have indicated that the contemplation of math and asthmatic specifically was the best and surest way of having the unseen creator disclose the nature of the world.