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.
Peace,
Stephen
Showing posts with label Relativity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Relativity. Show all posts
Monday, December 31, 2012
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.
Peace,
Stephen
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.
Peace,
Stephen
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.
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.
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.
Peace,
Stephen A. Halkovic III
Friday, January 20, 2012
Reflections...
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.
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.
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.
Peace,
Stephen A. Halkovic III
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.
Peace,
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.
Peace,
Stephen A. Halkovic III
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.
Peace,
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.
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...
Peace,
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’.
Peace,
Stephen A. Halkovic III
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)