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.



Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Real Science...subjective v.s. objective

Good day,

The scientist is supposed to distinguish themselves by being able to analyze evidence/facts and further the understanding of Life, the Universe, and Everything...  Sounds a bit pretentious, huh?  It's pretty much understood that the whole answer is not expected because any one of those subjects once explored only produces more to explore.  A journey for a life time.  Aristotle, who was schooled by Plato who was schooled by Socrates, was using his
 explorations as a means of gaining greater understanding into all of those three from a non-temporal entity by applying a method of isolating the principle and contemplating its relationship to other principles.

This process (as best as I can determine) was lifted from the house of Israel before they were enslaved in Egypt and still lived there as honored citizens.  The descendants of Israel have a meditative process of meditating on the Ten Commandments in a manner and contemplating the relationships of the commandments to each other.  This is a  pursuit to better understand their relationship to/with God, amongst themselves, and with others in a strict manner of devotion to God.

One of those who applied this in engineering was Archimedes who learned through his great-grandfather, a great mathematician of the time.  Archimedes had built incredible defenses of the city he lived in.  One of these wonders was a series of mirrors and such that allowed the city to burn its enemies ships on approaching and in the city's bay.  Regardless the city was, after years of being under siege, breached and sacked, including the death of Archimedes who is reported of saying that he did not want to be interrupted in contemplating the circles, and these inventions were destroyed.

During the 1980's then President Ronald Reagan got sold on idea that popularly was called the "Star Wars Defense System" which most physicists working in the field of particles knew was cocked-up and any real chances of achieving was slim to none.  However they wanted the money and went along with the gag.  The entire alternative energy program that the former President Jimmy Carter had established was pilfered and billions of dollars wasted.  Sure there were a few contributions made, but mostly as an afterthought and of little effect as far as impacting the general welfare of the United States as far as I know.

When a community abandons the idea of working for the good of the human race, greed and power become the predominated factor.  It is easy to look at the United States Medical community to see this work for healing become a way of making money.  When the debate for reform perpetually stalls consistently, even when the government contributes to the income of these enterprises through the Military, on and off the field of combat, the elderly, and disabled, the smoke screen is so thick that it is ignored that the national and state government do have socialized medicine.  I'm not even mentioning the government grants and tax breaks for research at universities, FDA, and pharmaceutical companies.  Then there are public fundraising campaigns for specific and general research that are also tax deductible.  When insurance rates, not just personal, or through an employer, but the facility's and doctor's liability are all added up, what is the true cost?  How many extra expenses have been added, and that isn't even looking at the inflation of salaries.

Certainly this is not an in-depth analysis, but when citizens are charged voluntarily or involuntarily for services that they may or may not receive a benefit from there should be a means of accountability.  I have known plenty of people who have been railroaded away from receiving prompt and effective health care who are paying into an HMO or other group service and their only recourse is if something permanently detrimental is the result of these blatantly profit motive companies.  If with a body and whether or not it is alive cannot bring sane application of scientific principles than how can the rest of the scientific community be principled?  Oh, sorry, that is rhetorical.  If you think you're above it all you are part of the problem!  True research is searching, and obviously in searching there is a degree of not knowing.  That is the driving force of discovery.    However the desert is not the best place to find naturally growing watermelons, and a submarine is not needed to find crickets.  A certain amount of common sense is needed for the common good.  I sincerely hope that the future of science will become of good sense.



Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Dark times... the fall out of modern physic's Dark Age

Good day,

It's was a very noisy sunrise this morning; there were two large garbage truck emptying the large metal dumpsters, one of which have seemed to have its back-up beeper stuck on, and then there was the guy with the leaf-blower across the street.  The clouds were building for the coming rain; yes it does rain in Los Angeles California.  It had rained a couple of days ago, not much, disappointingly so, a very little drizzle for an hour and then some small smattering for an hour.  Considering the rain from last year which was substantial and produced a lot of growth and without adequate rain this year means it's dying off leaving considerable brush for fires.  I've seen the fires here before and the smoke from distant fires.

What does any of that have to do with 'Dark Matter'?  Oh, I left out city smog, but I did say that I'm in Los Angeles... I was thinking of what has been termed 'Dark Matter' when the predawn light brought out the majesty of the cloud formations moving in, but I won't have been thinking about that if an acquaintance of mine hadn't asked me about what I thought of 'Dark Matter' (DM) and 'Dark Energy' (DE) the day before.

DM and DE are ideas that came up after I had left the field and when I had heard of it the brief explanation I got was interesting, I was hoping that they finally got a glimpse of something outside the Big Bang Theory delusion.  However when I started to do some digging around and researching what had been written on the phenomena I was really disappointed to find the same twisted fantasy thinking.  Now they have something that can not be seen and rationalize their inability to substantiate the failings of the Big Bang Theory.  Totally insane! Really inane, pathetic, poor souls, unable to admit they are wrong...

Looking at Space as possessing 4 spatial dimensions and Matter as being of 3 spatial dimensions and the extrapolations of  these is observable by Gravity's Unified Field effects (any theory with this as a basis makes the idea of Dark Matter and Dark energy unnecessary).  However I don't even have to get into any of that because of  Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, just ask him, oh he's dead, that doesn't mean what he had to contribute, even though I'll take it as theory and expand on it, should be ignored..  And even more basic than that, when there are a sufficient number of unknowns there are certain unsolvable factors.  It is even worst when you use a wrong equation to calculate a fundamental quantity causing all solved equations to be wrong.

Basically all regions between large bodies are composed of Space and matter, then subsequently various aspects of Gravity's Unified Field effects.  Just ask anyone who uses or has used a radio-telescope.  Any Astronomer including Astrophysicists would tell you that beyond planetary atmospheres and other planetary atmospheres it is not a complete vacuum.  The "vacuum of space" although far more vacant than what we can produce here on Earth still has particles distributed throughout it.  Another idea that is relevant is that a star is observable, if unobscured, from every vantage, every degree, minute, and ever so smaller, or larger.

This is the place I get into a little of the problems with the World's Scientific Communities opinions of Quantum Mechanics.  Again, the profound differences between BBT and fourth spatial dimension Space lends to very different understandings of what Quantum Mechanics is.  Now to get back to the discussion with the layman acquaintance the other day; he had some basic questions about DM, DE, and the phenomena of scientists claiming to have images of a single particle simultaneously in different places.  And curiously the general explanation answers all three misconceptions.

The two observable examples I pointed out to him were: 1) although the air here is not visible, if you go up to into the mountains and look back down, for instance to the valley, or even downtown LA you'll see a layer of smog. 2) If you've ever been fishing and looking into a brook and see a fish, the fish is not where you see it, and if there is a significant wave pattern to the surface of the brook, then one fish in the brook can be two or more fish.  Yeah, an optical illusion!

'Nuff said?



Monday, February 6, 2012

Morality and Gravity

Good day,
     I had written a version of this post a couple of weeks ago or so and been stewing on it until I lost that version.  Mostly because it is the first real postulate of the theory I had come up with nearly three decades ago that is radically different than the Big Bang Theory.  The reason I am so general about these ideas is because of the tragically destructive nature of the BBT.  In lots of ways I wonder if I have already written too much about the contrast of these two ideas that they can be extrapolated to create even more destructive weapons, and such, than we already have.

     So it is a grave decision, weighing the benefits of encouraging people to let the old, wrong, and inaccurate ideas of the BBT on the roadside to rout, or perhaps write too much, too specific, that even more destruction and it's residual fear out of the box.

     It is an ancient idea, Judaic in nature, that the Universe was created outside of the Universe.  That it is considerably smaller than the actual reality that it is founded in.  Although there are other religious creation theories… yes the dreaming gods and the navel thingy and such.  I am not here to discuss religious constructs even though I have grown up in an environment for me to see and study a very wide and healthy selection of the worlds extreme variety of religions.  I was raised and I am a Christian of the Catholic variety, Irish, with a healthy dose of Eastern European to contrast including relatives of the Russian Orthodox persuasion.  So it is from my own background that I have seen the relationship of religious understanding and it influence on thought and action.  

     In general people are people and they we do what people do.  From the apathetic to zealots, personal determinations are based primarily on the person.  However religion is fundamental.  If a person can’t wrap there brain around it the ABC’s and 123’s will never profit the individual, to paraphrase Socrates.  If you don’t know that you never read the various introductions the ancient Greeks wrote that are the current bedrock of ALL Eastern Math and Sciences.  Truly, check it out!  Go now and be quick about it… 

      There are various lessons that religion confront and teach.  Socrates and those before him brought forth from the historic ancient Egypt (probably but not proven during the era during and after Joseph’s appointment over the Pharaoh’s granaries) ideas of blending meditation with math and the sciences to obtain information from God’s messengers to deal with real life problems.  These messengers are well known as Angels, but for the ancient Greeks this would be Hermes and this idea may or may not be generally and sometime inaccurately referred to as Hermetic.  For the children of Abraham is has been handed down as Kabbalah, ‘handed down’, and begins with meditating on the relationships of the Ten Commandments with each other in a very specific way.

     So many of the ideas that I needed to come up with the unifying of Gravity with the fields had already been established and I have understood them since before I was twelve, but how to do it was the question I wasn’t able to fully answer until I was nineteen.  This was also accompanied with a specific application including proofs of mathematics which were necessary to demonstrate the various aspects of the theory and its application.  The mathematical approach that I had extrapolated and set down is different in accordance, I believe, to rectifying the problems that Newton had claimed kept him from publishing his version of what we now refer to as Calculus.

     Interestingly Newton was deep into mystical practices that undoubtedly influenced his wide range of contributions to Math and Science.  These religious practices he kept very much to himself because he feared the grave consequences that the Church of England could and probably would have imposed upon him if they were discovered.  Some of these writings were found after his death.

     So it is that religious morality, Math, and Science, have been meticulously interwoven not just by humans, but as Einstein is known to have said, “God does not play dice with the Universe.”
The math I had come up with I leave out entirely because during the 1980’s the specific designs for what was going to be the largest cyclotron ever built and the intentions of the experiments it was designed for could, if the math was applied with the BBT would suggest importance in variations of the experiment and that would lead to a catastrophic event in which not only would the entire cyclotron be destroyed, but the implosive/explosive result would leave a five mile diameter crater besides the other subsequent destructive forces radiating out from the event would probably devastate everything within a twenty-five mile radius.

     I do still reflect on a conversation I had with a physicist and a semi-retired translator for major Japanese corporations a few days before the Japanese withheld the funds they had promised for the cyclotron's completion.  I do not know if the two have anything to do with each other but it keeps me wary of what I do write about math and science.  I will not be writing anything about a wide range of topics around ‘Universal Relativity’ which has very radical approaches and solutions to various phenomena including the securing of Gravity as being unified.

     Again all of this is for the Earth’s human protection from the followers of the BBT and their less than scrupulous allies and benefactors.

    The main concepts that are the driving force behind the differences of theories I hope can be safely written about in a public forum and I trust the only destructive result will be the abandoning of the BBT, various aspects of Quantum Mechanics (which I probably won’t address for a while), and the Theory Evolution. 

     Honestly the ‘evolution’ construction is very antiquated to constructs that are based around a natural unfolding of a veritable pool of genetic constructions susceptible to surrounding replicating material.  Such an idea makes the idea of hormone treatment easily explainable and how carcinogens cause cancer and can lead to better selections of cures through focused chemical substitution that is more agreeable to replacing corrupted cells and easier to process.  Also it is the fast track to effective treatment and through understanding genetically stimulated diseases and other issues of failing biological systems due to biological deterioration and might even prove to be effective in growing organic/biologic organs for transplants.  The logic follows as far as I followed it, but biology is merely a sideline of interest for me.

     There are certain points of the theories I had come up with that touch other fields.  It has cast a shadow of misunderstanding that has inhibited all sorts of health care technologies, including non-biological organ transplants and recreating cannibalism into our culture.  Instead of eating human flesh and digesting it and leaving it to the body to disperse the nutrients some doctors will cut people opened and put the human flesh right where they think it’s needed. 

     Procurement, the taking of living flesh from somebody… I really don’t to draw out the subject of comparing organ transplanting to cannibalistic tribes but in general anthropological reports seem to depict a political process rationalized to the populous by ‘shamanistic’ leaders then structured around social events before and after hosted by the political leaders that benefit from the death.  Again, not a specialty of mine, and certainly nothing I indorse to any degree.  I bring it up because there is a deterioration of social and cultural values is happening before our eyes.

     Truly I do wish and hope for a release from these and many other bastardizations of science.  That if the current world scientific community can’t capitulate to sound science that a new generation of scientists will prevail.  So for the soundness of science and society I venture to write.

     What Gravity is.  The simple answer is…

     Gravity is the direct result of the relationship involving the fourth spatial dimension Space and third spatial dimension Matter particles.  

     The fields are precipitates of Universal Relativity.

     Universal Relativity expands the theories of Relativity that Einstein proposed.

     It is as described in the first book of Moses, Genesis, that we have free will, not only does Space control Matter, but particles of Matter are allowed to be directly effect by other particles of Matter to the extent that manipulated Matter can be accommodate by Space.  To illustrate...

     Man's will, as God allows, can be forced to an extreme; such people as Hitler and the Nazis rise to power.  Then God also predetermined that other people can rise to overcome these people when they have forced themselves well beyond the measure of other peoples' will.  Likewise physicists can force Matter to do things against Space.  This perverting Matter can not change the properties of Space.  However the observance is Relative.  Therefore the physicists only see what is happening to Matter as a fish sees what is beyond the surface of it's 'lake'.  Before the nature of Space can be effected the forced particles of Matter are rearranged as Space dictates and the particles of Matter reacts in an up perceptional way and this way is Gravity and it's perceptions are in the fields depending upon Universal Relativity.

    As the illustration is concluded... Hitler, after being defeated by his own miscalculations, committed suicide, Mussolini was hung by his own countrymen, and the Emperor of Japan was forced to abdicate to the US losing his ‘divinity’ after the US had demonstrated its ultimate downfall.  Midway, the Japanese Admiral could not concede defeat and rushed into the battle anyway.  All war scenarios after the US foothold in the Philippines was established demonstrated an ultimate Allies’ victory, however the loses on both sides were calculated a few hundred thousand.  The “Bomb” was dropped and the Emperor wouldn’t concede forcing a second “Bomb” to be dropped. 

     The stacks for mankind are high.  Einstein tried to dissuade the German scientists in the 1920’s from participating in the experiments the Nazis wanted them to perform.  Later anti-Semitic activities forced Einstein to ask several countries' governments of the European community, including France and England, to take him in.  They all refused.  Only the United States would harbor him.  These are only some of the facts regarding the importance of moral integrity for scientists.  I hope the world scientific community has a change of heart.


Stephen A. Halkovic III

Friday, January 20, 2012


Good day,

I was looking at the moon this morning, predawn, and remembering many imaginations I had several years ago during a Lunar eclipse about the reflected light of the sun from the moon.  Now as a child my Dad would take me out star gazing, not that he knew anything more than what he had just read in the star chart books that fascinated me.  Actually both my parents encouraged me without much comprehension even though they were accomplished in their fields.  But I digress, so this first lunar eclipse was purely by chance as the moon lost its light on a clear night.  We weren't even star gazing that night, I just noticed and we spent the time watching, trying to see the 'cloud'.  It wasn't until the next day that my Dad had excitedly explained that he had heard on the news that it was a lunar eclipse.

There are some very interesting facts about Lunar and Solar eclipses, and yet they are not what I'm writing about today, may be later.  But as a note if there was any real notion of setting up camp on another planet, the moon would be a good start, a handing launching site or test facility, and a first try will turn up what is truly necessary for such future ventures.  Now that's getting closer to what it was I was thinking about.  There is the necessity of imagination and the willingness to put aside ideas that do not line up with reality.

If I recall correctly, Einstein called this process "mind thought experiments" which is the precursor of actually writing it down and such.  There isn't anything new about taking an idea and applying it to a known set criteria.  Much like a simple equation/formula (mind) and seeing if it performs in a known situation/quantities (thought) and if so then how will it performs in an unknown situation (experiment).  The idea is itself intuitive, and then the rest is analytical.  Therefore if the intuitive thought is grounded in reality and the reason is sound, then any speculated conjecture that is associated directly with the intuitive thought should be able to be solved.  If the conjecture is only partially associated then only a partial solution is established, but this partial solution should indicate what is necessary for the conjecture to be solve.

This idea is echoed in algebra with its use of variables and constants, its known and unknown quantities.  However in the 'mind thought experiments' the quantities are ideas which might be represented as equations or how equations interact and such, so forth, and further on.

So why would I go on about this?  It has to do with developing critical thinking.  It is the only thing that distinguishes the scientist from the layman.  A serious problem with the BBT is that it is accepted without plausible explanation.  I remember years ago there was a bunch of hubbub over the echo of the Big Bang, however everyone knows that an echo is produced by the reverberation, to cause to vibrate again, ergo reflected back from an event.  However if there is nothing before the Big Bang then there can be nothing to reflect off of, therefore no echo.  Instead of revising the incorrect hypothesis numerous, even more erroneous conjectures are added.  Adding sloppy thinking to sloppy thinking just makes a mess. Even though three lefts make a right, three wrongs do not.

There is a wide range of ‘noise’ in the Universe. What does Universe mean? Well it means everything!  The entirety, including what is unobservable at this stage.  The atmosphere of the Earth creates an effect on the light that comes from the stars.  This atmosphere is made up of matter, space, and energy.  We transmit radio and television shows through it all the time.  We know there is a distinct effect to these signals caused by sun spots.  There are other factors which can effect these transmissions.  What is of interest is range as far as this discussion seems to be going.

Now the primary theory concerning transmissions that are heard locally and then aren’t detected for a certain radial perimeter and then picked up again further off still is that they bounce off the atmosphere and return to Earth according to that angle of incidence.  There is also another effect that can cause an intensity of a wave and that is harmonics.

Harmonics works off of a reflective surface.  What is a surface?  I am suggesting that it is a property that is acquired when Relativity natures of Matter and Space create a Gravitational harmonic barrier creating a definite difference of localized densities.  The exact construction of which is not the same as what is caused by a violinist when a vibrating string is restricted at a point relating to half of its length creating an octave higher frequency.  This is a pattern formed by a single frequency were the type of harmonics I’m referring to are those created by different frequencies naturally coming into phase with each other.  There is the residence frequency which is of note.  All three of these forms of wave variations are active within the Universe even in the vast space between planets and galaxies.

In general I view this background static as matter of fact, like background radiation, not anything to be concerned about, but aware of when making observations with equipment that maybe effected/detecting said interference patterns.  They are of interest, however from the perspective of the Earth and this solar system the actual application of such data as far as astrological data is very little.  Without the perspective of looking into this star system or galaxy, the understanding of its spatial density has no appraisable value.  It is highly likely that there is a 'surface' between this start system and a space between the next and even a mark difference of 'density' of different star systems reflecting the composition of matter as in star(s), planets, moons, asteroids, and any other matter which can be recognized as being 'local'.  Since I haven't made a specific demand on the 'beginning' of the Universe the general theory of unified fields with gravity does not have fixed presumptions of Space to Matter, but it has a clear perspective of matter, energy, and spatial interactions defined by Relative variances of qualities of Space and Matter.  So Energy, Space, and Matter are described in Relative quantities and their vectors and other qualities are similarly solved as such.


Stephen A. Halkovic III

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

What's this rubbish of multi-universes... life on Mars? Let's get real!

Good day!

There are so many different directions to go with Space and I had been wondering which.  Oh, no.  I wasn't meaning planetary exploration, although I love the idea.  That is probably one of the reasons for studying Astrophysics in the first place.  Although simply looking at NASA's projections of flight paths, launch dates, arrivals and the like it seems like it will be sometime before any serious considerations to planetary destinations will be attempted.

But that does lead one to think about why?  For some odd reason people keep going on about life on Mars.  an unfortunate bunch of misled people.  The answer is plainly no.  Any freshman general studies astronomy course, yes 101, which covers rudimentary planetary studies, provides the answer why.  Oh, really, if it must be spelled out, sure.  Mars does not have the mass to hold an atmosphere anything like ours to sustain anything resembling remotely characteristic to any carbon based life form on Earth.  Any carbon structures have to have been formed elsewhere, although there is a possibility of formation under the surface.  The difference in mass is significant enough to show markedly if there was a catastrophic reduction leaving Mars as we can now see it.

Since I am writing about such obvious hoaxes it seems to be an imperative to nip this idea of multiple universes in the bud.  No one in their right mind can serious believes in such things.  Sure it's fun to daydream about such things and read books about what could have happened if only if... and other sorts of forms of entertainment.  But as science it isn't worth considering since there is nothing that actually suggests that there are more than the one timeline.  A time line that only goes in one direction I should add.

Sure my hypothesis is that what we preserve is set in a forth dimensional space which may or may not be set in a fifth dimensional space.  The proof is not easily verified and the mathematics and higher reasoning of physics is potential extremely dangerous with the prevalence of the BBT.  A theory that's principle has to do with everything blowing up!  Bigger and bigger bombs is all it is really good for.  Mind you I'm not against national security by any stretch of the imagination!  God bless all those who have, do, and will put their lives to that task.  I pray for them and their family and friends regularly.  The perceived threat that Hitler had developed long range rockets and a possible fission program fueled a reaction here in the United States which culminated the creation of the nuclear technology.  I am not looking for a debate about the past, but as a voice of warning what may happen if the ignorance that BBT is perpetuating.

Therefore I will only write of these things in broad generalizations.  What does seem important has to do with the relationships of Gravity, Space, and Matter.  I had mentioned the transposition of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.  Is this a Relativistic concept or perhaps an indicator?  For me it introduced the idea of multiple constructions of Space.  Another clue has to do with the idea of relating 'Energy' spatially.  In simple geometry everyone is told how to find the circumference of a circle, not just one, but all of them.  Likewise the one of all of Einstein's equations is similar in appearance.  Therefore the quarry: of how far can Relativity be pushed?  So supposing that Einstein's self confessed lack as a mathematician and that no one had enough insight to his ideas that the mathematical representations maybe a little askew in some respects.

Of course I know that the variables and constants are not directly related and to that sort of remark I remember that the circle is static and if the radius is a vector, that is if the circle becomes larger, does that mean if the energy increases without changes to the matter that is making up the mass does the mass still increase, or is it possible that the second of light changes?  Now if I remember right there were such experiments carried out and the mass did change.  Although I never scrutinized these tests therefore I don't recall, I can concede that.  It makes it feasible to demonstrate that if you can rectify Euclidean geometry with non-Euclidean then you can think of the properties of an atom, or nucleus as a sphere as you might take an asteroid, planet, or star as a sphere.  This really isn't outside of the box as far as constructions goes.  However what does happen, if the previous experiments have occurred to the conclusion that "c" does not change with the an increase of Energy however the radius of the sphere does as the mass increases when the matter does not change i.e. matter nor mass is expended it is induced from/by an outside source.

Therefore the observed motion of the Universe indicates an exterior source.  Not several, whether thousands or trillion, the uniformity is extreme and very predictable.  Even one less of infinity would markedly disrupt this finely tuned Universe and an infinite amount would create a standing pattern in which 'time' would stand still.


Stephen A. Halkovic III

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Space more than a frontier... vs. What is the Matter with Gravity?

Good day,

What I have found is that there is a good deal to how we look at things.  Electricity, it can be quit shocking!  I'm not certain when it was that I first electrocuted myself but I remember finding regular household items in need of rewiring.  Knowing the unapparent indiscriminate product of an event and then taking apart the circumstances to find the cause and learn that it was actually very discriminate.  Thus in the lesson learned gives allowance to then setting it to a more useful nature.  This is all very good with lamps, vacuum-cleaners, radios, and the like however there are such situation in which this approach does not work.

As far as electricity goes, or more to the point why I brought it up has to do with an intense interest the formation of OPEC and the former President's Carter actions leading to an increase of funding for alternative energies inspired me to explore various possibilities and researched them extensively.

Some very interesting ideas came to mind around the ideas and experiments involved with creating a plasma flow of  hydrogen to generate a self supporting and powering a controlled fusion reaction.  Although it was determined that it wasn't a viable alternative it made me consider why, besides seeing the first and subsequent Lunar landing throughout my childhood, did I want to study Astrophysics.  Obviously it was Solar that inspired the scientists in the pursuit of plasma Hydrogen fusion.  The expense really struck me, construction of incredible tori that in my mind made cyclotrons look like pop guns, but of no practical end.  It's really too bad, because there are so many incredible pieces of technology built that at best are really expensive toys and every once and a while something is learned.  But I digress.  Pressure, density, temperature, and a whole lot of stuff that was tried to contain and achieve Hydrogen as a plasma really fired my imagination, and added with an incredible wealth of data and such I searched and researched forcing my mind to continue to open wider and wider.

Somehow space has more going on with it than distance, area, and volume.  It holds its own quite well against matter and its energies.  It actually appears, invisibly, that Space causes Gravity to stratify it's attraction of all matter to all matter yielding magnetism, electricity, week/strong forces, and many others wave propagating observances including photons.  Since an object which is at rest tends to stay at rest, Space yields easily when the item is acted upon and allows that object to travel uninhibited to pass on it's received act upon the next object it encounters.  Then what in the world am I writing about?  It's about the incomplete transference of action.  These occur for a wide range of reasons, angle of incidence is probably the most illustrative, but what is the object and why won't it complete the transference is the trickier more interesting reasons.

In general when the momentum is significantly greater than the attraction of gravity between the two objects they will part and the angle of incident will determine the direction and transference of the objects.  What appears in Space to happen is the surface tension of the space contained within the objects verses the surface tension of the Space that exists around the two objects.  Physicists have been able to study various internal interactions with some degree of accuracy because it is known what the Relative relationship is with the exterior.  As a matter of fact a lot of effort and expense has been given and taken with these studies and large scale projects like cyclotrons are used in these efforts.  But what is lost?  A perspective of what happens universally.

Thus the noose of self acclaim tightens, choking out the spectacle of the beauty that surrounds and fills us that the world as matter is very little compared to Space.  So in collision the Space of the interiors of the two objects is condensed. If these are billiard balls the electrons are said to be projected as a wave harmonics of the protons deep within the space of the surface and the electrons repeal if there is not significant ionic attraction, nor surface 'friction' however in a pool hall an amount of the Spaces' vs. Gravity's reaction creates an audible sound.  Thus is energy released from the actual surface as Gravity is kept from combining the matter of the balls by Space.  The two subdivided by the Gravity of the matter of the objects and the Space of the objects action.  The wave effect of the audible sound is not a reaction of air being caught between the two objects, but radial transference of Gravity and Space acting on the matter of air suspended in Space and filled with Space eventual a Space and its opposing Gravity and matter absorbs the totality of the first act (it can be a combination of felt on the pool table walls players and such).


Stephen A. Halkovic III