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

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

The Black Hole lie... What is Space anyways?

Good day,

If something is possible mathematically does that mean that it is possible? Considering that math is a language, or better still, a supplementary language, universal in general, with its only sense of grammar and such it, is likely that as traditional languages can be used for fiction, then math can likewise be used for fiction, and even lying. Yes, I mean literally ‘false’ as opposed to simply misleading which is frequently done with “statistics”. Since there are things that can’t be proved, like the “Beginning of the ‘Universe’” and things that aren’t provable at a specific time, like ‘velocities faster than the “speed of Light”, other things that are arbitrarily chosen, like ‘Time’, then there is and always will be room for differences in informed opinion legitimately based on what is known and differing because of outstanding variables.
In the case of ‘faster than the speed of light’ (‘>c’) being possible I believe is a, currently unobservable, regular occurrence. I will have to go into this at a later date. If you haven’t run across it yet I did an extensive survey of physic texts during the early 1980’s and was easily able to find everything I needed to work out the particulars. In the basic of formation constructions of an alleged ‘Black Hole’ all specific matter reaches a state which will induce enough matter to accelerate (almost instantly) to velocities well beyond ‘c’, the magnitude is related to the change of relative matter densities and relative thermal conditions primarily. Although arguments can be made for other factors I have found if considered in what be considered a ‘Grand Relativity Theory’ these fall into one of the two categories and the few special cases are secondary and only effect the range within its magnitude.
In cases not considering ‘>c’ subatomic deterioration is so easily dismissed that is laughable. Consider any ‘atomic bomb’ and the causes and effects of implosive and explosive forces. The hang up with the Big Bang Theorists is they think ‘if it comes together fast enough…’ or any of their rationalization, ‘that it can happen’. What about space? Einstein ventured an idea of the relationship of space and matter, and this is the crux. Space is. Not only is Space, but so is Gravity! What is Space’s relationship with Gravity? What is Gravity without matter? What is matter without Space? If you consider the relative matter density of a chemical compound; i.e. what is the part (percentage) that is matter? or what is the amount of Space displaced by the present matter? then you see that the formation of a Black Hole has to do with the displacement of space. This is very much like the idea of a cooling body. It does not get cold, or to say absorbs cold, its heat leaves, or better put it looses Energy. Needless to say if there is an ‘equal and opposite action for every action’ then there is an absorption, or transference, of energy by the next body creating an equilibrium effect were no net loss of energy occurs. Even in a ‘refrigerator’ situation and gaseous water is condensed into water, the vacating Space is not lost within the unit during transference in an opened system. In the case of a closed system the sealing container is acted upon by the energy pulling the container into the condensing matter. When a jar of properly treated preserves are open the dimpled lid ‘pops’ into place releasing the converted energy.

The magnitude of gaseous and liquid displacement is high compared to the liquid water to solid water transference this is an over simplification of relative matter density, how it demonstrates another aspect working against the formation of any ‘Black Holes’. As the water losses energy of liquid state to solid fissures form (it cracks) as ‘impurities’ that were held in the liquid state of the water but are incompatible with transforming along with the water to a solid under the particular circumstances (an over simplified example of an aspect of relative matter density). The cracks usually occur with vacating particulars in gaseous form, but liquids may not transform under the conditions, and solids may form and precipitate before the liquid losses enough energy to become a solid. Any container is affected as the energy flows out of the system as a glass may crack under the stress of spatial displacement.

Thus an aspect of variance regarding Euclidian geometry can be reconciled with a non-Euclidian geometry. I found a measurable quantity, Energy of Space, which can be measured as a relationship of relative matter density and relative thermal conditions. As far as I have been able to determine (note that the spatial displacement is bond by the variance of Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry) the variance of Gravity to Space is. That is to say a relationship of vectors in different reference plans (not space and definitely not time) with no direct over lap. A boat traveling downstream has no variance to the stream since they have corresponding properties to Special and General Relativity. Gravity and Space have no relationship to each other however they each have an effect on things that are subject to and influenced by Special and General Relativity.

Please note that the terms: >c, variance, Energy of Space, spatial displacement, relative matter density and relative thermal conditions, are all only being used to bridge the gap of concepts from the Big Bang theories, calculus, Special and General Relativity with the 4th/5th D-Space construction and the mathematical structure that I came up with to solve these dynamically different ideas. Any resemblance to existing terminology is due to lack of sleep...

Stephen A. Halkovic III

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Time! Its Illusion and Distraction…

Good day,

I hope this is a wonderful new year for you all. It’s given me a chance to pause and reflect on the arbitrary definitions that we’ve given to time. There was a time when April first was the new years, and then it was changed and those who remembered the good old days were called April Fools. Needless to say the annual, month, week, day, hour, minute, second does have a relevance to seasons, reservation, taxes, and the like.

Atomic clocks, radioactive decay, again, the falling apart, destructions, but what about growth and prorogation? Even a Big Bang Theorist can recognize the difference in yield between a fission and fusion reaction. But when a slow ‘cold’ fusion reaction was suspected by three well known physicists conjectured in the mid-eighties that they might have stumbled across such a reaction during an experiment and other physicists weren’t able to duplicate the results the three were ‘black balled’ and the world physicist communities inability to process the information was ignored.

On the other hand what I find to be actually hilarious about these constructs that they’ve hatched up is C14 dating. The presumption of knowing and understanding distribution of C14, C13, and C12, is a true tribute to their own arrogance. Going back to First causes. No one was there so any theory based on a fixed beginning is flawed and not scientific.

I do concede to a range of radio-active decay models, but some of them a presumptuous to a fault and exclude a wide range of possible factors. Baring in mind with what I’ve elude to recognizing fundamental flaws of calculus there are ranges of usage, as with the ancient Greek’s assertion that constant force was needed to keep a body in motion (before Newton’s demonstration of gravity and its cause of friction/drag), when long ranges of time are examined the arbitrary assignment of a time frame incurs a wider range of error. As Einstein’s Relativity Theories indicate it is only a perception of differences in observation and not the literal physical characteristics of the incident.

For instance? If the rate of radioactive decay was constant then nuclear bombs, fission or fusion, would not be possible. There is extreme evidence that reality is well established. Furthermore a less critical demonstrations is evident in any nuclear reactor, with the added component of ‘control rods’ adding another factor that there are other factors which in short term small controlled specimens can be address and accommodated for. Like simple relativity a closed system can yield effective results, and even in General Relativity adding more variables, but still maintaining fixed constants. Although the Universe is not so easily swayed practical applications have obviously achieved.

Unfortunately when the US government was solicited by various scientists during the mid and late 1970’s to build an underground research laboratory for the study and experimentation of and with radioactive waste for the treatment of those and subsequent materials towards reducing and possible eliminating their radioactive properties the scientist were refused. Just one example from many extreme mistakes by politicians due to ignorance and misinformation perpetrated by those following the Big Bang Theory, and many more in the line of medicine, several because of beliefs held by the Evolutionists. It is astonishing how truly progressive programs have fallen to the wayside to satisfy delusions within the scientific community.

I’m really trying not to get into the departed former President Reagan’s disruption of alternative energy and ecological research to be siphoned into the ‘Star Wars” debacle. However it is important to stress the fundamental flaws of “Voodoo Economics”. Just because someone says it is so does not make it that way. There are a lot of Zombies out there and if you’re not careful they’ll ‘eat out your brains’ and have you pay them for it. It’s illegal to shot them in the head. Honestly they only use it for eating and satisfying other baser animalistic cravings but the law is the law. Violence begets more violence. Beware of the ‘Military Complex’ to paraphrase the departed US General and President ‘Ike’.

Stephen A. Halkovic III