Get charged up with

Paper - - 7

Quantum Relativity

Some ideas from

Mathematical physicist

Tony Bermanseder's

WSM,. String, TOE, mathematical posts.

 

 

 

 

Message 16973 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16973

"Enrique Morales Riveira"
<emorale1@p...> wrote:
> Continuing with the discussion of the crucial role that
hierarchical barycenters plays in universal gravitation, I proceed
now to explain the cause of Mercury's perihelion's rotation:
>
>
Dear Enrique, Harald, Etherman and All!

Harald, I have heared that the MMX was struck off yahoo, because of
some impropriety issue of publishing something without authority.

Etherman, you are right in saying that the proton does not decay,
diamonds are forever.
The valif aspect of the GUT-unitary transformations is their
limiting unification energyof the Magnetic Monopole.
The latter is also the Gamma Ray Burster Maximum as
2.7x10^47 'monopolic watts' per kilogram, measured as luminosity
output in Joules.
The corresponding monopolemass is 2.7x10^16 GeV, very close to the
approximation used by GUT-models.
But there is no supersymmetry (as proposed) to the proton, it cannot
decay either into a positron-neutral pi-meson or an antineutrino-
pluskaon-meson; the reasons to propose proton decay in the first
place.

This is because the quark geometry disallows disassociation of the
proton into quark/antiquark (meson) lepton pairings as indicated.

The proton's quark geometry has been experimentally measured to be
best approximated by a kind of onion-layered structure by thge
Krisch experiments in the 1980's.

What the proton does, it decays and reassociates in a fundamental
parameter of elementary physics, namely the time it talkes for
light 'c' to cross the protonic diameter, which is the classical
electronic radius defgining its Compton wavelength/Compton
Scattering.

So there are subatomic resonances, called the Delta-Group for the
nucleon, consisting of 4 members: Delta++ (spin 3/2, charge +4/3),
Delta+ (spin 3/2, charge +1), Delta0 (spin 3/2, charge0 as neutron
delta) and Delta- (spin 3/2, charge -1) as a SU-Unitary Symmetry
group.
The proton disassociates into a Delta++ and a Down-Quark (spin -1/2,
charge -1/3) in this strong-nuclear-interaction-decay and
automatically recombines as the stable proton under the intermediacy
of the gluon template (of 8 colour permutations).

The down-quark is made up of a Mesonic Inner Ring (chatge -1),
hugging the 'complementary' kernelquark (+2/3 charge, spinning in
unison with the mesonic ring).

The proton's energy derives however fromthe trransmission of the
aforesaid magnetic monopole spectrum from the proposed (but greatly
simplified)Higgs Bosonic restmass induction process.

Enrique, I've read your post below and would like to ask you some
questions before goindg into details.

How do you assume the statement, that the sun would spin only once
in its circumnavigation of the galactic centre?

If spin is an intrinsic property of cosmological bodies, then what
determines intrinsic angular momenta of those bodies?

The cosmic architecture constant in my model is very close to the
rotation period of the sun around its galactic focuspoint in the
Sarkar Constant of 236.5 million years.
Have you any connections to this?

The barycentral attraction between the masses would be Newtonian and
the orbital drag seems to me the application of local curvature of
space in the tidal effect, that is the Weyl-part of the Riemann
curvature tensor R=Weyl-tidal + Ricci.g-metric.

Now the Weyl-curvature preserves volume in distortion, but the Ricci-
curvature reduces volume in contraction, increasing density.

And Einstein used exactly this local distortion of the combined
Riemann tensor to predict the perihelion advance of Mercury as local
application of General Relativity.

What you are implying is, that there might be a rotational
counterpart to the curvature/mass relations which could account for
the same space distortion.

Sincerely Tony B.

>
> The Sun's center of mass rotates around the Solar System's
barycenter every 26 terrestrial days approximately. The Solar
System's barycenter is found inside the Sun's mass, a few kilometers
from the Sun's center of mass. Therefore, given such a distance
between the two centers of mass, on the one hand, and given the
Sun's huge mass, on the other, the gravitational force that causes
the Sun's center of mass to rotate around the Solar System's
barycenter is, certainly, a force of colossal magnitude. If the Sun
were not to have the planets and comets which translate in orbit
around the Solar System's barycenter, the Sun, instead of spinning
every 26 Earth days on its axis of rotation, would spin on itself
once with each circumvolution around the Milky Way's barycenter;
that is, that a spin on its axis of rotation would last 225 million
years to be completed.
>
>
>
> The quick rotation of the Sun's center of mass around the Solar
System's barycenter every 26 terrestrial days has a very big,
gravitational influence on the planet Mercury's solar orbit,
inasmuch as said planet not only is situated at a short distance
from the Sun but also has a quite eccentric or elongated, elliptical
orbit. Therefore, when the planet Mercury approaches its perihelion
with regard to the Solar System's barycenter, two accompanying
gravitational forces work on said planet.
>
>
>
> The first is the gravitational, attractive force produced by the
Solar System's barycenter on the planet, which is the one that
causes it to orbit around the Sun, describing a rather eccentric,
elliptical orbit.
>
>
>
> The second gravitational force affecting Mercury's orbit is a drag
or pulling force produced by the rotational translation of the Sun's
center of mass in space, especially when Mercury approaches its
perihelion, or shortest orbital distance relative to the Sun.
>
>
>
> The orbital drag force produced by the Sun's center of mass's
motion and the gravitational attractive force the Solar System's
barycenter exerts over the planet Mercury have a very small average,
radial, angular difference between their respective radial axes, due
not only to the average distance between the Sun and Mercury's being
0.387 of an astronomical unit, but also to the average very short
distance between the Sun's center of mass and the Solar System's
barycenter.
>
>
>
> So, when the planet Mercury undergoes its perihelion, said
additional, orbital drag force reaches its maximum magnitude, as
well as its maximum angular difference with regard to the
gravitational force exerted by the Solar System's barycenter over
the planet Mercury. On the contrary, when Mercury goes through its
aphelion, or greatest orbital distance in relation to the Sun, said
orbital drag force's magnitude is noticeably weakened and the axial
angle between the two aforementioned gravitational forces becomes
practically nil.
>
>
>
> The very small, average, angular difference between those two
gravitational forces is what causes Mercury's perihelion to rotate
at a 0.1" angle in the direction of the planet's orbital motion with
each revolution it carries out around the Solar System's barycenter.
In other words, Mercury's perihelion's miniscule rotation in the
direction of its orbital motion is due to an almost imperceptible
increase in the planet's orbital angular momentum during the
planet's passage through its perihelion. That increase in Mercury's
orbital angular momentum is counter-balanced at all times by the
rotation of the Sun's center of mass.
>
>
>
> Best regards to all NPA's members who may have red this message,
>
>
>
> ENRIQUE MORALES-RIVEIRA

Message 16974 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16974

Allen Francom wrote:

>
>Gravity re-collapsing the gas from one or
>more Novae seems to be negentropic.
>
>
Actually no. Gravitational energy is negative, so when a mass collapses,
the gravitational energy becomes *more* negative. It is still a case of
energy flowing downhill, and the gravitational energy converts to energy
of motion. Genuine "negentropic" processes are always accompanied by
other related processes that make the *overall* process entropic.

Life for example is negentropic. But when you look at the whole system,
which includes the sun, we see that the *whole* system is actually very
entropic. The local negentropic part on the earth's surface is in fact
driven by a vast energy input from the sun, and this star generates that
energy at the expense of a huge increase in its own entropy.

For another example you can try for yourself - crystallisation of a salt
from a supersaturated solution. The crystallisation itself is definitely
negentropic, but the solution heats up in the process. If you try it
with sodium sulphate for example**, the effect is quite dramatic. If you
shake the supersaturated solution, crystals grow throughout the flask in
a matter of seconds, and it becomes too hot to hold.

The confusion arises for most people because they do not know the
fundamental relation between entropy and work. It is

W = DE -TDS

where "D" means "a change in", E is the internal energy of the system, T
is the energy density (before the change), or energy content per unit of
mass (temperature for example), and S is the entropy. In order for a
process to occur spontaneously, the W (work) term has to be negative. If
it is positive, the process has to be driven from some outside energy
source.

When a supersaturated solution crystallises, the DS term is positive
because the system locally becomes more orderly, but work is
nevertheless done *by* the system because the internal energy change is
greater (and negative), rendering the W term itself negative, so the
process occurs spontaneously.

In the gravity case, again, the negative energy term swamps the positive
entropy term, so the collapse is spontaneous, even though the end result
seems to be less entropic. Not so though, as the end result is also a
lot hotter, so the overall energy change is downhill as it must be for a
spontaneous process, and the overall entropy increases.

>However, I believe, on the whole, that
>there is an ultimate "loss" of mass
>in favor of "more energy".
>
>
No, don't treat mass as somehow distinct from energy. They are the same
thing, just measured in different ways. Mass *is* energy. If you want to
make a distinction between energy as mass and energy as work, OK, but do
realise that if energy converts to matter, or matter converts to energy,
the overall mass of the system remains constant.

OTOH, you might make a distinction between energy as heat (which is just
motion on a quantum scale) and radiation, and energy as matter. Sure, if
you consume mass in some process, like fusion in the sun, then the
result is a lot of heat and light, but that heat and light has the
*same* mass as the amount of mass that the sun itself loses in the process.

>Usually we do not see energy becoming
>mass, no matter what.
>
This is meaningless because energy does not "become" mass. It IS mass.
If you refer instead to "matter" rather than "mass", then right - it is
unusual, but not unknown if the energy density is high enough. At ultra
high temperatures, far hotter than the sun, raw energy becomes matter.
We can achieve such temperatures locally by pumping up electrons or
protons to velocities close to c, so when they hit something, their
energy of motion (their temperature in other words) converts to a shower
of matter particles.

>
>
>I gather there have been some accelerator
>experiments that would beg to differ.
>
>

Indeed - if you shine 1.5Mev gamma radiation at a piece of lead foil,
matter and antimatter come out the other side. The mass of the particles
is the same as the mass energy of the 1.5Mev radiation, which is
consumed in the process.

>So I just don't know.
>
>I believe the direction of time, as brian
>greene suggests, follows the path of
>entropy.
>
>
Indeed it does. Time as a dimension is reversible, but this only has
effect on a quantum scale, and even then it's not "time travel". All it
means is that a positron for example, is an electron in reverse time. It
reverses all the space vectors. Motion from right to left become left to
right. Clockwise spin becomes anticlockwise, and since charge is the
basis of electrostatic force, because the force vector reverses (pushes
become pulls), the charge factor does so too.

But the direction of time as we understand it is governed by macroscopic
processes, which are complex. The probability of reversal of a complex
process is very low, and at our scale, vanishingly small. Hence iron
rusts, but rust does not spontaneously turn back to bright iron, for
example.

Because of the confusion inherent in the reversibility of quantum time,
but the irreversibility of macro time, physicists avoid the term
"direction" when referring to macro time, and refer instead to the
"arrow" of time. And yes, it is intimately tied to the direction of
entropic energy flow, which is itself intimately tied in with probability.

>The universe, if it doesn't collapse,
>should eventually fizzle to just
>radiation or "empty space".
>
>
Indeed. Eventually all local concentrations of matter will end up in
black holes (that's the 'collapse" aspect), though it will take a long,
long time. Then the black holes will decay by Hawking radiation, leaving
a universe empty of matter, but rather a thin field of radiation.

As space continues to expand though, the energy density will eventually
become so low that it becomes subject to the uncertainty principle, and
when that point is reached, you have a primal vacuum once again, out of
which new universes could conceivably materialise.

>And yet we get light from galaxies
>100 billion light years away or more,
>father back in time supposedly than
>the age of the universe. Weird.
>
>

No we don't. There's been some guff written along those lines, but it's
crap. No galaxy seen by the Hubble telescope is older than about 12
billion years.. The CMBR is 13 billion years old, and is the heat flash
of the creation event. The universe is thus a little over 13 billion
years old.. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what he's talking
about. In particular, ignore weirdos who claim that the universal
redshift is not recessional.

These characters (who seem to be people who are hell bent for some
reason in wanting to discredit relativity - probably because they are
just too dumb to understand it) try to justify their assertion by
pointing out that there are light sources which show deep red shifts,
but which are actually closer than others with more modest redshifts.

Well, yes, there are, but they are not part of the *general* relation of
redshift to distance. The cause of these anomalous redshifts is that
they are galaxies with supermassive central black holes, so large than
the light of the galaxy core is gravitationally redshifted over and
above the general recessional redshift..

However such huge galactic black holes are rare, so the number of such
anomalous redshifts is small. Also, long exposures reveal that the
anomaly is restricted to the bright central region of the galaxy. The
fainter outer parts are redshifted according to the distance/redshift
ratio, so the galaxy is in fact where it should be.

The overall relation between redshift and distance is alive and well. It
is only in the finer details that we have some difficulties. One of
these of course is that we now know the distance/redshift relation is
not as Hubble originally thought, strictly linear.

Fine measurement reveals a universe whose expansion rate was slowing for
the first seven billion years, but has since been accelerating. This
means the distance/redshift relation is not a straight line, but a
gentle curve. However the departure from linearity is not great, so as a
rough approximation, it can still be regarded as linear for general
purposes.

The interesting thing about this non linearity is that it tells us there
has to be a force involved. The old linear idea could get away without a
force because momentum is conserved, and the galaxies simply "coasted"
apart from some original impetus in the creation event itself. However
non linearity implies that the galaxies aren't just coasting, but are
actually being continuously pushed, albeit weakly, so the search is
now on for the source of that push.

>So maybe there are other "inputs"
>that we're not aware of yet that may
>be continuous rather than a one time
>something "bang".
>
>

The vacuum could be producing "new" universes all the time under our
very noses, but even if it is, we would not be able to see them because
they would not run according to the same rules as the one we are a part
of. On principle, different universes arising out of primal vacuum,
cannot communicate. To do so would breach logic and the principle of
cause and effect. And nature simply never does that. Logic is apparently
essential to existence, and for totally different universes to
communicate would breach logic.

If you doubt this, consider that everything we see depends ultimately on
the size of the basic natural constants. Another universe would have
different values. How could we meaningfully see light, or charge, or
mass energy, with two different values simultaneously? That just
wouldn't make sense, so nature censors such observation. Theoretically
there seems no reason to forbid the existence of alternative universes,
but there is certainly reason to forbid us from ever detecting them
empirically.

:-)

mac

>;)
>
>-AEF
>

** Dissolve as much pure sodium sulphate as you can in boiling distilled
water. Then decvant the liquid and leave it to stand in a place free of
vibrations, and above all don't allow any dust to get into the solution.
With luck, it will cool to room temperature, but with the lack of
anything to nucleate crystallisation, it is supersaturated.

If you then shake or tap the container, you can cause local nucleation,
which then sets up a chain reaction through the solution. The whole
solution becomes almost solid, and the flask becomes too hot to
handle.... Though the crystallisation is negentropic, the overall
process is not.

Message 16975 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16975

"Roy Wolford"
<rwolf@r...> wrote:
> Here is something I wrote back in Jan. 13,
2001.
>
Roy Wolford
>
rwolf@r...
>
January 13, 2001
>
>
>Dear Roy, here are some comments regarding your ideas.

>
>
>
> BEYOND EINSTEIN AND BACK
>
>
BY ROY WOLFORD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FORWARD
> Since Einstein's Special Theory and Einstein's General Theory
of Relativity fail to unite quantum mechanics and gravity and remain
quite separate and different from each other, one must recognize the
similarity of the three forces involved and the fact that another
theory is missing. So, just what can be implied by this mystery?
> All through the totality of Creation, there is the dominance
of THREE. We have the positive, neutral, and negative factors
playing a game of "Walking The Fence." When something is walking
the fence, there is always two ways to fall. So, we have a theory
for the left side of the fence and a theory for the right side of
the fence, but do not have a substantiated theory for walking the
fence.
> Enter the Superstring Theories and the myriad of equations
evolving from the infinity of squiggly infinitesimal strings. So,
it has been stated that our world only "APPEARS" to be made of
point particles because our measuring devices are too crude to see
these tiny strings. It is this part of the superstring theory that
I wish to take issue with.
> I believe the issue of neutrality must be looked at as
possessing both the positives and negatives in every situation
because of the potential to "fall off the fence," and the point is
therefore the true factor and the string is the "APPEARING" factor.
> So, in order to explain this situation, we must venture into
the universe of the faster than light particles, the timeless
dimensions of theoretical quantum physics and the top of the fence.
> Roy Wolford
>
>
Roy Wolford (219) 223-2444
>
750 E 425 N rwolf@r...
>
Rochester, IN 46975 January 11, 2001
>

>
> COMPACTED
FIELD THEORY
>
> As we humans, on our micro-dot in a universe, are delving
into the mysteries of our universe, we cannot seem to shake the ego
problem of being special. Some of us even have the audacity to
believe we are the complete authority on these mysteries, to the
point of altering creation. In actuality, we are as children, with
a few toys, playing in a sand box.
>
> We humans walk upon concrete, steel, and many other
structures made up of atoms, but the structuring continues beyond
our comprehension. Imagine the Top Quark presenting a theory to the
scientific community of the atomic world. Top Quark states that the
structuring continues far beyond the molecular stage and there are
human and other structures walking on, swimming in. and flying in
this molecular structuring of your atomic world. After the laughter
dies down, Top Quark is ignored by the scientific world of the
atomic community by complete isolation and silence. They would call
him "strange," trying to bring him "down," but with his "charm," he
would rise "up" from the "bottom" and come out on "top."
>
> Whereas, the present theories entertain the prevailing law of
mass not being capable of exceeding the speed of light, my theory
utilizes a particle of energy capable of instantaneous speed
relative to the quantum unit. This makes it a string theory not
only bound by quantum mechanics, but also bound by quantum physics.
Infinity assures certainty. Nature has an automatic transmission
allowing the smooth flow of natural occurrences, whereas mankind is
still using the stick shift with 90 weight gear oil. This is
explained in the following metaphor:
>
>
QUANTUM PSYCHOLOGY
>
> As I travel upward, on life's mountain of knowledge,
> I find a deeply worn path,
> Of others before me, leaving their footprints,
> With the equations of math.
> There are many branches, left along the way,
> Beckoning and calling, to lead one astray.
> It is liken to a forest, that has many, many, trees,
> With scientists examining every root, down upon their knees.
> They proceed up the trunk, and finally reach the seed,
> And then begin to wonder, who caused this miraculous deed.
> Their movements shake the branches, and cause the seed to
fall.
> They watch the wonder of their growth and exclaim,
> "Why, WE are the cause of it all."
>
Roy Wolford
>
> Mankind has an ego problem standing in the way of knowledge.
Just because mankind shakes the branches of the tree does not mean
man created anything other than a disturbance. Mother Nature does
not have a problem with uncertainty, which is a human trait, for
Mother Nature does not need to measure anything. Since the need to
measure is eliminated, the interference of the observer is a mute
situation.
>
Ok, so far!

Think of 'Nature' as Big She; She is 'The Creation-Wife' of
the 'Creator-Father'.
She is the INFINITE ONE, potentially without bounds, while He is the
Void or Nothingness fromwhich She Came.
So He knows the Void, She doesn't.
This was done for the process of creating a NEGATIVE/or POSITIVE
Polarity for Infinity, necessarily in somewhat abstract terms.
Like negative entropy or imaginary time or negative mass (which is
not antimatter).
Geometrically we find Riemann's Complex Plane, wrapping itself up as
the Riemann-Sphere and mapping BOTH of the Infinities onto one of
the poles, say the NorthPole. This is the topology of the complex
plane vectors mapped onto the surtface of the Complex Riemann Sphere.

But now the Zero must be exactly opposite the Northpole and bingo
aimof the Creatoir-Father is achieved in redefining the infinities
as say the two poles with the Zero, namely the void of himself right
in the middle.

Poetically, Big She, Mother of All was afraid offalling off the
complex infinite plane, so Big He wrapped it up for her to alleviate
those fears.

And now, because the Infinite is contained within the Finite because
of this enfolding of space; the measxurements and observations can
begin.


> When looking at the string particle of energy I call the
tychon, one must realize exactly what this is. The tychon is the
building block of mass and all actions within the string are
frequency dominated. This is due to the tychon's, instantaneous
speed relative to the quantum unit. What Scientist are now looking
at as cosmic strings are simply structures within the tychon point
limited to the speed of light. My tychon is limited to the speed of
light opposite of mass, in that the tychon cannot go slower than the
speed of light. In other words, mass cannot exceed the speed of
light resulting in a tachyon when passing through the light barrier
and the tychon cannot proceed slower than the speed of light
resulting in photons at the interchange barrier. The tychon is the
straight string particle and all other cosmic strings are wrinkles
in the tychon slowing to absolute zero from absolute maximum
temperature. The interchange barrier separates the tychon from the
photon. This is why mass gains mass approaching the speed of
light. The tychon slows to become the photon at the light barrier,
thus gaining mass and the photon disintegrates to the tachyon at the
light barrier, thus expanding and appearing to lose energy.
>

Those are valid points encapsulated in the necessity of the de
Broglie matterwaves carrying two kinds of 'speeds' of propagation.

For matter waves we have a groupspeed always less than c, implying a
phase speed always exceeding c. One could call the excess speed
tachyonic or tychonic if one would like.

Formulation: l=wavelength, momentum p=mv, frequency f, E=mc^2=hf
PhaseSpeed Vph=l.f=(h/mv)(mc^2/h)=c^2/v > c for all v<c.

Lagrangian Boundary Condition then defines the scaling parameter:
v(deBroglie)=max. sourcewavelength(Hubble-RiemannRadius).sourcefreq.
=Rmax.f(ps) say (calculating as ~4.8x10^56 m/s)
This is also the maximum Tachyon/Tychon speed, traversing the
universe in exactly 1/3 of a thousandth millionth billionthn
trillionth of a second unit to set the maximum extent of the Riemann
Sphere in the folding up of the infinite complex plane.

In terms of the superbranes, one of the five classes is closest to
the energy/frequency values of the 'measurements' and that is the
heterotic HE(8x8).
Its definition then defines the wormhole parameters, two of whom are
the Rmax and f(ps) values for the Tachyon/Tychon speed.

But f(ps) must be modular dual (as the frequency part of the E(ps)E
(ss) 8x8 superbrane, ps=primary sourcesink and ss=secondary
sinksource) and so f(ss) is the Timeinstanton as 1/f(ps).

Hence the de Broglie PhaseInflation is defined as sourcefrequency
3x10^30 1/s.

And one could say, that the Tachyon/Tychon simply changes into the
SourcePhoton E(ps)=hf(ps)=m(ps)c^2=kT(ps) at the instanton.

So all of the classical relativistic physics can proceed as
measured, using the Tachyon/Tychon boundary values as new initial
conditions on the Bosonic/Particle scale.
Roy calls the SourcePhoton Threshold Tychon if above and Tachyon if
below.
And the 'slowing down' of the Tychon can indeed be defined by the
superstring parameters.

Energy: E=hf=mo.c^2; E=hf iff mo=0 OR E=mo.c^2 iff f=f(ss)

And because f(ss)=timeinstantenuity by modular duality as defined;
every masscarrying particle must carry an EigenFrequency quantised
in f(ss)=E(ss)/h=m(ss)c^2/h, with m(ss)=h/f(ps).c^2=2.47x10^-81 kg.

Relating this quantisation of mass to massinduction as a kind of
sourcecurrent,defined in magnetic monopoles as a higher superbrane
class and a process known as Higgs-Restmass-Induction can indeed
crystallise the mass hierarchies of the elementary particles.



> The previously postulated tachyon was proposed to lose energy
as it accelerates, but I propose that it only appears to lose when
it is actually expanding, therefore the energy appears more
dissipated. Actual creation is liken to the charging and
discharging of a battery because my proposed tychon would CONSERVE
energy as it slows. How? It would be in the form of
crystallization, which we see in the forming of the elements and the
freezing and thawing of water. On the energy side, the tychon and
tachyon prevail, but on the mass side, the photon and all the
elements are the result of the reactions of the tychon and tachyon
at the light barrier.
>

The sourceboson [E(ps)] has an antiparticle in the sinkboson [E
(ss)], both can be derived as the superparticle for the Superforce,
underpinning the four fundamental elementary interactions.
And indeed a close association between the weak interaction linked
to Electromagnetism and one between the strong interaction and
Gravitation is found in a pentagonal supersymmetry used in the
process of the Father-He to fold up the complex plane in higher
dimensional geometry to mirror Himself in the Mother-She.


> Now, as our scientist are busy trying to find a cosmic string
and prove they exist, I must remind them that they and our universe
are in a string particle-wave where our universe is just in one half
cycle within the string. We are in the expanding bulge of a
continuous string and will enter into the collapsing bulge in the
future. One has only to look at what information we find and are
able to induce within wavelengths, such as a lasers, and look at our
universe as a macro wavelength, an oscillating universe among an
infinity of others trying to occupy infinite space. Right now, it
seems our scientist are drowning in the water of an ocean, far from
land, and asking where the ocean is.

This is very true; except that the collapsing phase has already
begun 2.2 billion years ago, causing all the electromagnetic
mappings of 10D massparameters onto the 'returning' 11D.
lightparameter.
So the universe has completed 56.62% of its first total oscuillation
at the present epoch.

The thing with multiple/parallel universes is better modelled on a
phaseshift of the prototypical one, the one of the folded up complex
plane of the Father for the Mother to measure things in.

In three dimensions, the ProtoUniverse can be envisaged as a prolate
ellipsoid rotating about its major axis with invariant focal points.

But rotating this protouniverse about either of the minor axes
forces the focal points to merge in a pointcircle and bingo, an
infinity of multiverses are defined in just two phaseshifted
protouniverses forming a family.

All possible infinitely numbered phaseshifts together would form an
Omniverse as a symphony of multiverses.



> In Atomic Cosmology, the humanistic interpretation does not
allow for the fact that a Supreme Being would not be restricted to
human limitations. Therefore, Einstein's statement, "God does not
play dice," must take into consideration as to meaning, the use of
infinite numbers by God, would insure any intended outcome.
Infinity ensures certainty. God may use only six numbers on each
die, the quarks, but God would use an infinite number of throws to
assure an event. This makes Einstein correct, as usual, if one is
also religious. The use of infinite numbers provides the certainty
of events. Humans cannot even comprehend this as creation, but can
only look at it as trial and errors, little realizing that the
errors are also not, wasted events, but are part of the system.
Chaos exists only in the human mind. One is reminded of Dirac's
Cosmology, but he needed only to include infinity with his Large
Number Hypothesis. Two geniuses are vindicated.
>

Paul Dirac was also right in proposing a gradual change in the
Gravitational Constant.
This change is hidden in the productation of Gm1.m2 remaining
constant however.
This relates to large scale massmatching between Mother Black Holes
and their Temperature/Mass Hawking relations and also to the
micromatching between nucleon massevolution.
That is why it proves so hard tomeasure the 'G' precisely, the
neutrons are very slowly evolving to match the flatness predictions
in perfect Euclidean flatness.
This 'additional' mass could be described as Consciousness Mass, the
Evolvement of Mass itself, with certain 'recharge cycles' doing away
with the 'Heat-Death' and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe for an Entropy
gaining cosmos.

So in simplistic terms, the 'missing mass', the 'dark energy' and
the 'darkmatter'; all are already there - as AWARENESS energy
(defined in the superbranes as the timeratechange differential for
frequency, acting as a quasi angular acceleration upon toroidal
spacevolumars).
The perennial philosophy talks of energy fields (auras) about all
living things (Kirlian photography).
Well,the Dark Matter Haloes are the auras for galaxies and things
like that.
All nonplasmic states of energy carry AwarenessEnergy and so the
BASICUNIT for ALL LIFE is the HYDROGEN ATOM.


> When looking at the equation, E=MC2, it states an
equilibrium. This is not the case of creation. The correct
equation for creation, which is obviously a cyclic and continuous
process, would have to consider that infinity results in the
creation of energy and energy results in the creation of mass
through crystallization. This crystallization is the slowing of the
tychon, (My name for the string particle of energy from
instantaneous speed), to the point of absolute zero. The wrinkling
of the tychon is the beginning of frequencies that crystallize, or
appear as mass particles at specific frequencies of existence. The
effects of gravitational and electromagnetic fields relating to
harmonics form the quantum units. This is verifiable by the
repetition, or cyclic events in cosmology.
>

Rather true, the open string class I is defined as the Planck-Boson.
The Planck-Boson mutates/transforms into the other four classes in
Cosmic Ray/Monopolic String hierarchies and ends at the HE(8x8)
where the transition initiates physicality in MANIFESTING the MOTHER
as a Physicalentity defined in BlackHoles/White Holes Dyadics joined
by wormholed superbranes.

> The problem involving the time before and during the "big
bang" can be compared to our mathematics before the advent of the
zero. Action at a distance is instantaneous due to the tychons of
the quantum unit. We do not have a representative integer for an
instant, relative to the quantum unit. An instant takes the same
time to cover the volume of an atom as an instant that covers the
volume of a universe. Think of a pulsating heart of a dinosaur and
a pulsating heart of a small dog. As each heart beats one beat,
blood leaves, but blood also returns at the same time. Here the
volume is different, but the instant is the same. Each area of no
time is the same. Zero is zero.
>

True again, the Planck-Length-Oscillation changes the ratio for the
Identity mapping OF SPACE from UNDEFINED to DEFINED; utilising the
Unification of the Electromagnetic- and Gravitational Finestructures
in the process.

Formulation: Alpha^18=G-Alpha=2pi.Go.m(protonucleon)^2/hc with
Alpha=e^2/2(epsilon0)hc; Go the boundary max.G
The actual transformation relates the Planck-Length-Oscillation as
PLO=SqrtAlpha=e/c^2, e the Coulomb Chargequantum mapping the
magnetocharge quantum defining not only E(ps)=1/e* but also the
mappings of the superbranes onto the atomic scales of the Compton
Wavelengths/Thomson Scattering in 2Re.c^2=e*=1/hf(ps).




If a single drop of water tried to cover the entire earth,
that drop of water would have to break up into units with space
between the units. Now, imagine a single unit of space trying to
occupy the entirety of an infinite volume of space. This is not
possible due to the energy requirement of a single unit of infinite
energy. Energy must, as the drop of water, break up into quantum
units. Here we have infinity causing energy to form solitons, lumps
of bound field energy. If we have a field, quantum law requires
particles, therefore, the tychon. This tychon, as I call it, is a
string particle, totally lacking in angular momentum, thus
possessing instantaneous speed.
>
> The energy particle, the tychon, totally lacking angular
momentum possesses instantaneous speed relative to the quantum
unit. An instant in an atom is the same as an instant in a
universe, but the volume of space covered within that instant
governs relativity. This is why the astronauts and the earthbound
relatives age differently. They enter another quantum domain.
>
> With the collapsing of space into a spheroid shape of a
soliton, the tychons appear by the collapse much liken to the
electrical charge of static electricity created on the mass side.
The collapsing towards the center causes the tychons to meet the
only force able to effect them, their like charge. This creates the
first hint of angular momentum and heat, bringing gravity into the
situation. What is happening is the birth of the first faster than
light particle. To understand this particle, one must be realize
that it is at the exact limitations of vibration where it
materializes, maximum heat, minimum radiation. There is a
limitation where the vibration cannot be distinguished between
angular momentum and kinetic momentum, the straight line of a string
particle, zero. Remember the extreme high temperature particles
discovered orbiting Jupiter, which cannot be explained, therefore,
seem to be forgotten.
>

The instantaneous speed is the de Broglie Phase of the fixed 11D
envelope for the 10D expansion (of relative space, not receeding
cosmic objects being carried along with the flow of this, bounded in
the event horizon).
Gravity and Electromagnetism are unified in the magnetocharges and
hence the keys to the cosmos are magnetic massequivalents flowing
as a higher dimensionalmapping of electricity AS mass.


> The time factor begins at the first hint of angular momentum
and the first hint of a collapse within the string particle, the
tychons. The time factor stops when the angular momentum ceases at
the "point," or waist of the tychon string. Thus, we have infinity
without a beginning or an end, but always possessing a center. It
always was, always is, and always will be, the continuous frequency
with the relative zero instant, a pulse. We are on a particle we
call earth, flying outward from the relative zero instant of our
universal cycle.
>

The He-Father occupies the Centre as the UNDEFINED VOID, YET bounded
by the She-Mother.
Hence the Undefinable has no boundary, yet can experience boundaries.
This is like the 11D universe multiplying itself every halfcycle.
About 7.56 10D universe would fit into the 11D one at the present
epoch and since the baryonic mass-seed has evolved from 2.803% to
3.68%; 3.68(7.56)=27.82% of 'nonmissing mass' is already mapped from
the open/closed 11D-universe onto the closed/open 10D-universe.


> Here we have the first faster than light particle at minimum
amplitude of angular momentum, maximum heat range, but minimum
radiation, collapsing towards a center with the accumulation of
gravitational force at the center. Since this is happening at near
instantaneous speed, the accumulation of plasmatic material is
forced to implode, expanding at a faster than light speed into the
form a universal cycle within the string.
>

Those are the superimposed selfrelative de Broglie phasespeeds with
the generalised relation for velocity: V=R(n).f, the frequency f as
inverse time relating to a scalefactor R, which depends on
dimensionless cycletime n (for the Hubble Oscillation),this n being
the 'Proper Time' in General Relativity as dimensionless
differential in Rc(t)=c.dt/dTau.


> What our scientists cannot measure into the fraction of a
second after the big bang is due to this faster than light speed of
the plasma, What this means is that fraction of a second in our time
could actually be an eternity, or thousands of years with the faster
than light plasma. This plasma, like the drop of water trying to
cover the earth, must break up into quantum units as it cools.

This fraction of a second is the timeinstanton as mapping of the Now-
Time, which is dimensionless in the minimumn/maximum ratio for
displacements: n(ps)=l(ps)wavelength/Rmax`6.4x10^-49.
>
> Angular momentum added to the energy particle, the tychon,
simply means that every bit of mass is a frequency derivative.
Without this, mathematics would not work. This is the proof. We
are mathematically compatible wrinkles in the string particles, the
tychons and tachyons. This is why a particle can be a wave and
harmonics work.
>

Yes, the f(ss) definition as Equation Number One.


> If one wishes to further explore this theoretical line, it
will lead to the grand unified field equation, 8=E, infinity equals
energy, explain action at a distance, lead to solving the problem of
cold fusion, and still leave plenty of room for religion. When
delving into the world of absolute zero, the tychon induces spin as
absolute zero temperature almost meets with absolute maximum
temperature.
>
> If one takes a close look at superconductivity, it would be
difficult to distinguish the difference between maximum angular
momentum and minimum angular momentum, but one would reveal the
presence of the other by spin. We all know the results of a drop of
water hitting molten steel, but just think of the maximum cold of
absolute zero meeting the maximum heat of the tychon. And we
thought the hydrogen bomb was something. Why doesn't every thing
blow up? Because it must be concentrated and compacted, hence, the
Big Bang. Now, back to the oscillating universes.
>


Yes, we will find Josephson Junctions, the Quantum Hall Effect and
the Electric Conductance Quantum; all as derivatives of the natural
superconductivity in the higher dimensional scenarios which map the
ACTION LAW: Action=Charge^2 as Superconductivity, say Unity
Resistance.


> When looking for cosmic strings, one has only to realize
these strings are different quantum lengths of the tychon because of
frequency length. Everything is the same thing, only in different
quantum states. The variable angular momentum of the tychon
appearing at harmonic levels, quantum mechanics intertwined with
quantum physics, the de Sitter universe within the Einstein
cylindrical universe. The point of apogee performs the function of
the Einstein cylindrical wall by the spin.

This relates to the R(n).f=Velocity scalings in the hierarchies.


>
> Infinite space possesses only a mid-point beginning and
cannot possess either a beginning or an end. The possession of
either a beginning or an end would render infinity void as a
singular entity thus, requiring the necessity of an infinite number
of finite units seeking to occupy an infinite space. This means
space must be occupied by quantum units of spherical collapsing and
expanding string particles, which I call tychons. These monopoles
of solitons give birth to universes. It is really that simple. The
pulsating string of time, frequency, results in creation.

Beautifully said, the Monoplic Energies define the GUT-unification
ebnergy at 2.7x10^16 GeV and the Gamma Burst Maximum as 2.7x10^47
monopolic Watts per kilogram, measured as luminosity output in
Joules.
The Magnetic Monoploe is also defined as the selfdual superbrane
ckass IIB.

>
> Infinity equals energy. We are simply a series of compacted
fields within compacted fields. In order to not be misconstrued,
this means particles are microfields within macrofields combining
gravity and the electromagnetic fields. Look at our universe
similar to a part of a pulse within a macro laser beam, coherent to
the nth degree. Then look at mankind's version of our universe as
an incoherent white beam of light. It could be stated that
universes are a pulse within energy beam lasers. Come on now,
swallow your ego. We are insignificant. The de Sitter universe
within the Einstein cylindrical universe is actually just a macro-
string. Guess what else? There is not any end to the structuring
of infinite space. It just becomes larger and larger structures as
each little bang becomes a member of a bigger bang. So, it is not
so difficult to recognize the familiar pattern Mother Nature uses
which we know as the splitting of cells. Simply check the harmonic
pattern.
>

These are the multiverses as derivatives fromthe protoverse
accumulating as the Omniverse.
The Omniverse is the generations after generations of Father-He and
Mother-She becoming GrandParents and on and on;the children being
the Multiverses as the GRADUATING BODIES of the carriers of the
holographic images, namely the HUMAN CATERPILLARS GRADUATING as the
STARHUMAN BUTTERFLIES.


> Why, it is all so simple now as a cell divides, so do
universes. Each universe is continually receiving the nutrients
from the infinity of space. The big bang is actually the point of
split where the mass is narrowed and concentrated, but not all the
mass. This is why the total mass of a universe is not necessary and
cannot be found. The rest of the mass is already in the bulge of
the splitting cells. Yep, infinite space cannot be occupied by one
singular cell due to the infinite energy requirements, but an
infinite amount of finite units are sure trying.
>
> So, do not look at Creation as a living process, but as a
mathematical necessity of cyclic events. If it is mathematically
impossible, it cannot happen.

The angels sing and rejoice hearing you say this Roy.
MATHIMATIA=I AM THAT I AM (Exodus.3.14), the DEFINITION of GOD as
given to Moses.

Before Newton's Principia there was the MATHIMATIA and just like
cells are mapped as galaxies in the outer cosmos from the cosmos
within; so do stars, planets, continents, cities,
mitochondria,...quarks and leptons map themselves as
groupconsciousnesses fromthe within onto the without and vice versa.

The 12th dimension is also the 10th in its reflection and also the
3rd.
TimeDimensions are connectors and only exist linearly.
1-2-3-(4)-4-6-(7)-8-9-(10)-11-12-(13=1) renders 4Worlds (Linespace,
Hyperspace, Quantumspace and Omnispace) all occupying the same SPACE
linearly defined, but multivalued because of the circular complexity
of the Riemann Plane which began it all to give substance to the
Mother as a World or Universe or Creation and to give Definition to
the Father as its Creator.
>
> Now, before you all go off on a tangent, you must recognize
the fact that only three forces are involved in the macro-world and
the weak and strong nuclear forces are simply the result of the
FIELDS being compacted along with the particles. Whatever made you
guys believe the fields disappeared during compression when quantum
law requires a field-particle relationship, doesn't anyone remember,
mass is compacted energy and energy is a field? So, the strong
nuclear force is the compacted gravitational field and the weak
nuclear force is the compacted electromagnetic field. Gee whiz,
what is so hard about that? I doubt if any one has considered just
how a micro compacted electromagnetic field and a micro compacted
gravitational field would act and react within the bounds of the
atomic world and the gravitational and electromagnetic fields as we
know them. I think they would find the actions and reactions one
and the same.
>
>No Tangents Roy; your story is true for a simple reason.
The Father LOVES the MOTHER and finally the time has come for the
MOTHER to stop running away from the Father in her motherly Wisdom,
but her lack of Fatherly Understanding (of the Void).
Now the Father's Understanding, but lack of Motherly Wisdom can
become harmonised with the Mother's Wisdom and the REPRODUCTION of
the UNIVERSALparents can proceed in the LOVEMAKING of the CHILDREN.

Because some of the CHILDREN have found a certain understanding and
the Cosmic Keys and you are one of those Roy Wolford.


Tony B. Sirebard seconding Roy Wolford

 

 

 

 

Message 16976 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16976

Allen Francom
<light_rock@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> We better name this one differently.
>
> There needs to be a clock definition and reason
> for it, and a modus operandi, and this needs to be
> understood.
>
> However, this is your ball man, good going it
> seems so far.
>
> Let's call it Bermanseder's Francom Adjacency Clock.
>
> Such a naming convention as this lends itself
> to the modular construction of a theory, which,
> I wholeheartedly believe as much as anything else,
> is going to be as essential as the concept of
> adjacency itself, so that things will continue
> to progress in a hopefully remarkably organized
> and yet flexible fashion.
>
> Let's call it BFAC. I'll take credit for the
> FA - Francom Adjacency, the C we should holler
> out to Mike and see if he would like that,
> and you can be the B.
>
> ;)
>
> Cool ?
>
> Makes sense ? Proper credit where proper
> credit is due ?
>
> Boy I hope you let me ask a lot of dumb
> questions about this clock definition...
>
> ;)
>
Thanks Allen!

You know it really is irrelevant what you call it.
It was you who started me off in reexamining the Fiboncci mappings
because of your many discussions and ideas about time.
I named it Francom Adjacency and it stuck.
It is all relative to me, there might never be any official
recognition of all that - it doesn't bother me in the least.

I feel I understand the universes' genesis and that thanks to all of
the people who have found the time to converse with me.
I have learned from everyone, including the contributors hostile to
my expositions and there have been many more of those, than the
other way around.

I always liked certain contributors; I always liked Roy's ideas and
I am very pleased that he can now see how closely his ideas match
those derived from 'my' models.
So the Wolford Centre is here to stay as well.
Who cares if noone 'officially' acknowledges a 'Revolution in
thought and perception' as Eric has termed it.

That is beautioful too.
It is OUR MODEL, I am glad to contribute on the Boundary Conditions,
the Algorithmic abstract beginnings.

You are many more adept with Computers, like Jim Whitescarver who
also has begun to talk to me.

Gee guys, all I ever wanted is to help you to foundate your models
and reinvigorate the orthodox stuff out there.
Then there is Mike, his thoughts are brilliant, I saw my own model
almost matching his step by step, thought by thought when I
downloaded and read his work on the Graviational Electron and the
Variation of G.

So Mike would be the first to admit, that without the past thoughts
of others, he would not have been able to reformulate the latter.
I am the same, it is all teamwork and together, we shall have
the 'TOE' or whatever- but we need to leave our egos of
selfimportance behind.

So naming things in my descriptions doesn't have to be the final
word.
Should those definitions become accepted labellings in the science
archives, then the archivers (powers that be) would name things as
they see fit.
Look at the elements, is #111 Meitnerium, long it might have been
Dortmundium (#112).

Should our minds converge to a COMMON UNDERSTANDING as to how the
universe works and came to be; then I feel, we have reward enough.

Why? Because WE would have lost our common IGNORANCE about those
things.

This has always be my purpose, to show HOW Boundary Conditions can
justify the many 'TOE's' discussed in the forums.

The higher dimensional settings and the modular duality allow this
and it is all beautiful, elegant and mathematically selfconsistent.
And all the 'dissidents' have their place, noone is excluded because
it is a teamwork engaged in by the collective human groupmind,
attempting to escape its own egocentric intellectual imprisonment.

Shalom and Peace can salvage this worrisome and selfdestructing
human society and culture - scientific reform is the only solution
(save alien invasion/takeover say), because Science is the
WorldReligion everyone agrees upon.

In short Mike's Universal Expansion is just another name for the
Riemann expansion and Tony's universe is also Allen Francom's
Universe.

I seek nothing personally, because Iknow how much destruction and
disease have infiltrated this planet because of this attitude of
superiority in all its disguises.
If I can help anyone to solidify hisher model of the universe, I
shall gladly do so with no other motivations.

So anyone can take anything I have ever posted and use it as if it
would be herhis own - because it is.
But this becomes philosophy now and I have made the point.

I hope we all can cooperate to help a motherplanet in dire
intellectual need for redefinition and a new perspective.

Tony B. Sirebard

Message 16992 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16992

<george_ryazanov@y...> wrote:
> Dear Jim!
> I am interliving

Hi all, I'm interleaving too. This is good. "Big HeShe' loves this.

>
> Jim Whitescarver <jim@x...> wrote:
>
> Welcome George.
> george ryazanov wrote:
>
> > To Tony and Jim from George!
> >
> > I put in Attachment the beginning of the
description
> > of my dialogue with She.
> > I name Her the Soul of the World.
> >
> > The projection of He-She duality into the realm
of matter
> > has the form of spinorial nature of any particle.
>
> Alternating orthogonal differences alternating alternately up spin
> ladders, have relative identity, not fundamental since our notions
of
> momentum and position are relative to our motion.
>
> G. I am speaking not about spin but about spinors


Tony
Those are Roger Penrose's terms for 'twistors', using complex
imaginary times (as does Hawkings in the no boundary proposals).
Years ago Roger thought of this as 7D; he may have extended this now
to 10D or 13D.

George's 4 worlds are the supersymmetry in Maxwell's Equations and
also in the Riemann Tensor (I don't know much about that, except
that the Weyl-Curvature preserves Volume in say tidal effects and
the Ricci-Curvature contracts the volume with corresponding density
increasing under function of the g-metric).

Yet Jim is right also, because the orthogonal spin-adjacency is
nothing but the magnetoaxis distributing the individual particles,
not only in terms of quantum-spin, but also as the alternating up-
down quark geometries.
And because this is basically higher dimensional mappings of
topologies, we argue over the 2D/3D representations of something
which is connected in higher D but appears distinct in lower D.

So when the M-Theorists talk about Calabi-Yau manifolds in 6D and
Joyce-manifolds in 7D; we simply find the conifoldment of those
higher dimensions.
This is what Penrose intuited as Twistor-Space with two time arrows
and this is what George is elaborating on and this is what Jim also
knows.

>
> that are two wightly related bur opposing worlds.
>
> We cannot agree on
> particle identity.
>
> > Any particle is rotating along a double circle.



Tony
This is important Jim. Because the doublecircle is also higher D.
It is the trisected template (in 2D) back to back rotating
oppositely, mixing 'colourcharges' (Allen's discussion).
Because the cyclic and anticyclic colour permutations can create a
new set of primary colours RedGreenBlue and CyanMagentaYellow, say,
the Unified Field can extend itself in 'birthing' quantum gravity
via the Graviton blueprint.
Allthose scenarios are occuring still higher D, say as in WITHIN the
SOURCEBOSONIC BLUEPRINT.
But the creration of the graviton allows the Quantum Big Bang and
the manifestation of Space out of undefined space.

And all particles derive from this ylemic blueprint, which is your
higher D Moebian H-Atom as ylemic neutron, say.


> Why must we embellish discrete alternations with pi in the sky? A
circle
> may be envisioned instantly, but not constructed in finite time.
There
> is no evidence of anything existing which is not constructible.
>
> G. Those double circle form the basis of all physics.
>
> >
> > Tony's higher dimensions are a result of
> > the three steps of inflation:
>
> i would say emergence.
>
> > from quark to strong,
>
> deeply secrete inner space, third order independence
(orthogonality).
>
> > from strong to electro-weak,
>
> Half correlated 2nd order independence.
>
> > from all that to gravity.
>
> entropy.

Tony
Exposited in the above. \George's Double Circle is Jim's Moebian
Serpent - isn't it beautiful?
What are you arguing about?

The transitions from the four fundamental interactions derive from
the selfsame Moebian Serpent and engage the fourfolded nestings
within each other of the 5folded symmetry of the 4 interactions.
So George is right, yet vague and Jim is right in critisizing the
vagueness.

>
> G. I do not understand your comments.
>
> >
> > The archetype of these transitions
> > I have described in all details in an example
> > of gravity generated by electromagnetism.
>
> gravity is the loss (secrete reception) of the electromagnetism
> manifesting our space.
>
> >
Tony
The archetype of archetypes, mathematically, is a very simple
identity:
XY=X+Y=i^2=expi.pi)=-1.

> > George.
>
> If you ignore the data you are not doing science.
>
> G. I derive physics that is much more powerful
>
> that modern physics or any dissident variant.
>
> While there are
> logical truths which most certainly must be manifest up to some n.
> number of states which may be reasonably presumed to exist. These
do
> not, however, include and infinities.

I feel we have to really slog out Cantorian definitions of infinite
sets, cardinality, Goedelian incompleteness the continuities of
discrete systems and so on.

But this exercise in mathematics is relevant for physics, because in
it is found the Mind of God and this I agree, we can only approach
in the evolution of our own mnindfulness.

But She wishes us to try anyway.

And Jim, I feelyou might have a headstart here with your knowledge
of information physics.
But Shannon Information links to the Information models of
Bekenstein and the Holographic Principle of Susskind, so we should
find some ways of connecting information theory with cosmology.


>
> I think you and Tony have made things a little too complicated for
me.
> I cannot believe in particles or waves or fields acting magically
at a
> distance unless

Tony
Jim your 'Magic' is the Moebian Serpent of your own scientific
intuition.
>
> G. Where do you see this?
>
> they are consistent with measurement. Instead they are
> contradicted by measurement.
>


Tony
All Measurements become rationally explicable in the higher D fgorm
of the Physics of Unity.

Tony

> Jim
>
>
> G. George

Message 16993 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/16993

Allen Francom
<light_rock@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi Roy and Allen and Forum.
Allow me to interleave with brief commentary.

> Hi Roy,
>
> I will think more about what you said, but I
> have a hard time, no pun, at first glance,
> worrying about the constancy of rules throughout
> the universe.
>
> If what you just said is correct, then Time
> as well as space is also emergent and the
> problem is what is enforcing the consistency
> "of the laws of physics"...

The emergence mathematically is the Mapping of Associations onto a
Counting Procedure, i.e. the Natural Numbers.

Your 'problem' is simply to understand, that there is no set of
rules to EXPLAIN the Natural Numbers.
But ASSOCIATION of the CLOSED Superstring as the digital 0 and the
OPEN Superstring as the digital 1 becomes the PHYSICAL association
of the intrinsic undefinable.
This is the Second Goedelian Incompleteness Theorem, demanding
a 'stronger' definition system than that given by the Natural Number
Count.
This 'stronger' system is the 'Thought/MindFulness' creating the
mapping of the associations, the associations hence becoming
physically 'Readable' from the underpinning abstract code.

This abstract encoding is Roy's 'Energy' in nonphysical terms; i.e.
none but the Definition for God in its 'unfathomibility'; yet
explicable following the mappings of the abstract idea onto the
concrete idea.

>
> In what I'm suggesting, the universe is "digital",
> and the motivation of "change" is essentially
> a "cosmic clock signal".
>
> So yes "off on" I suppose, however, this is the
> same as saying "something happened".
>
> That's why I can hold it up as the archetype
> of "energy", and by Einstein, matter.
>
> In InfoPhysics, Jim describes a "creation event" and
> supplies text that "like a doubler circuit" the fabric
> of timespace emerges.
>
> That is similar to what both you and I are saying.
>
> However, in both cases I respectfully submit that
> "change" at a base layer is a "clock", "the primal
> clock".
>
> Jim will say "information is propogating".
>
> Propogating is a verb, relies on "time".
>
> +0- is great, but nothing happens unless time
> goes, otherwise it is static and unchanging.
>
> So again, basically, in order for a video game
> to work, actors interact, bullets fly, and
> gravity pull, a clock is behind it all, otherwise
> the screen is blank.
>
> I don't know a better way to say it, and I
> believe, thanks to infophysics, that the analogy,
> while not perfect, is however perfectly valid.
>
> :)
>
> ?
>
> -AEF
>
> Tony

The Digitalisation is the opening and closing of the superstring
EpsEss permeating both space and time as its own intrinsic
definition, allowing everything alse to emerge as forms of energy
and as vibration patterns about the Wolford Centre.

Tony B.

> --- Roy Wolford <rwolf@r...> wrote:
>
> > Hi Allen:
> > I really never associated energy with the
> > ticking of a clock, I guess because tick tock would
> > be the same as off on. I can see the relationship
> > to a ticking clock as an informational tool, but I
> > believe it to be hampered due to the following.
> >
> > I guess I think in alternating current of
> > positive, neutral, negative instead of direct
> > current, off and on. IF one must look at energy as
> > a ticking clock, then the mechanism involved would,
> > of necessity, have to concern positive and negative
> > influences of pressure.
> >
> > The question we have is either energy is a
> > "bundle" of space trying to exist, or energy is not
> > a "bundle" of space trying to exist. Both involve a
> > factor to two. Energy, with positive, or negative,
> > the clock ticking or tocking. The energy bundle
> > involves charge and potential, oscillations. The
> > ticking clock involves induced motion in a relative
> > fashion always in a steady state. So, I take the
> > tick to mean impact, or the bumping together.
> >
> > The ticking in the Adjacency Theory, in my opinion
> > would depend upon the degree of compaction,
> > (pressure). Perhaps I do not completely understand,
> > but the degree of instantanity would not depend upon
> > distance, but would depend upon how compacted CPH
> > would be.
> >
> > In other words, back to our world, which would
> > transfer impact better, a hunk of lead or a piece of
> > iron? Is there any reason that this effect cannot
> > be present in the subquantum world? What degree of
> > absorbtion would be involved in ticking?
> >
> > I think my referal to two types of zero answers some
> > of the questions. We have the mathematical zero
> > representing a number and then we have my
> > infinity<+0->infinity representing potential.
> >
> > With charge, a neutral factor must be involved,
> > leaving potential on either side. With a clock,
> > there is not any potential. So, I guess this is why
> > I believe the trinary computer is a necessity.
> > Without it, we will be stuck with the ticking clock
> > without potential.
> >
> > Our computers are ticking clocks, 0 or 1, tic or
> > toc, therefore are hampered by lack of knowledge.
> > When all the facts are not present, the answers will
> > always be riddles. So, they solve the math, but not
> > the problems.
> >
> > So basicly, I see the ticking clock as telling us
> > whether it is left handed or right handed, up or
> > down, possible or impossible, in or out, equal or
> > not equal, and all the factors of two, but leaving
> > out potential. So, the subquantum plasma could be
> > ticking along at millions of degrees, without
> > potential, unable to radiate the heat generated by
> > adjacency until the critical state of containment is
> > reached. Let there be light.
> >
> > So, I guess we have our cake and can eat it too.
> >
> > Just a few thoughts on the "matter" for now.
> >
> > Have fun,
> > Roy
> >

Message 17003 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17003

Jim Whitescarver <jim@x> wrote:
> Hey Tony,
>
> I hate to rain on your parade, but while you and George use
abstractions
> that might be good analogies to reality, I am compelled to be the
> information police and call them mathimagical fantasies that go
beyond
> science. We were taught that these things were real, but we were
misled.
>


Dear Jim and Forum!

Thank you Jim for your discourse.

Your comment above is accepted in the premise of 'Science' as it has
been practised and as it is understood since the reformation.

But what many advocating now is the need for an 'extended science' I
call it OmniScience, just one of many labels one could give to it.
Hence Physics becomes OmniPhysics and Chemistry OmniChemistry say.
But there is one 'Pure Science' which like an artform,doesn;t
require omnification and that pure artform is Mathematics.

And you keep on terming this artform Mathimagics, this is ok.
But it is still the Mathematics of the Greek Geometers, Euclid and
Pythagoras,..and Euler and Fourier, Poincare, Einstein and
Penrose,... and Witten and Donaldson and Wiles.

So what has misled what? Did the Mathematics restrict the
measurements or did the physical parameters limit the mathematics?

You know the answer to that; the physical parameters are the
measurements, mathematically defined, however crudely.



> Godel used proof by contradiction to solve a self referential
problem.
> So did Cantor. The results have a direct meaning only in the
> mathimagical world of Platonic thinking. It is fantasy. The
practical
> result is that classical logical analysis is wrong. They
contradict the
> law of the excluded middle and then proceed to apply that law to
obtain
> their result.

Mathematics hence in a sense interrogates and probes the physical
mappings of itself.
Again you infer the 'wrongness' or 'falsifiability' of logic and
mathematics as a selfreferential and may I say selfcontaine or
selfencompassing entity - this is the Mind of God, as George and I
would say.
And agreed, the Platonic World is the Mathimagic of ideal shapes and
mathematical relationships.
But it is also Karl Popper's Worlds of Culture mapping the Mental
World, which then maps the Physical World (of measurements) in a
linear hierarchy.
If you now allow a circularisation of this Popperian World of
Culture and its archetypes; then you get the Platonic World in
mapping both the Mental Worlds of Thought, including Fantasy and the
Physical World.
This is also Roger Penrose's idea as an unashamed Platonist.
Your excluded 'middle' so is trifurcated as Three in One.



>
> What is a Natural number? Are they really natural?
>
> Are their numbers really that cannot be generated by any logical
> process? Any extant number is generable by some algorithm. There
must
> be some logic process or Turing machine that outputs the number.
>
> Well clearly logical processes and Turing machines are countable
and
> correspond to the integers.
>
> Any list of such number may be numbered with the corresponding
number of
> the associated Turing machine.


Yes, but this again points to the Birth of the Binary State as the
creation of the linearisation of the finite from the circular
infinite or multivalued.

Cantor's Transfinite sets, by definition, always engage higher
cardinality in the subsets of the sets; leading DIRECTLY to the
Aleph-All Cardinality where integers are countable as infinities in
the limit of the Aleph-All eigenstate.
This is mathematically defined in the Omega-Interval [0,1].


>
> There are no systems that manifest transfinite numbers.

That is the Aleph-All Cardinality.
Transfinite numbers are not manifested as such, but become
associated in mappings of potential phasal states.
This I have used in physics to model the universe in linear time as
a 'frozen' eigenstate, awaiting activation.
This 'frozenness' IS the Aleph-All Limit X as the most irrational
number of all the irrational numbers.
X=0.618033..displays the least rationalisability of all the
irrational numbers.

The 'unfreezing' of the cosmic wavefunction (defined in Alep-All)
then sets a selfreferential scalar time as MAT (Mean-Alignment-Time).
MAT in 'my' phaseshifted universe/world is set at midnight, November
4th, 1996, Canberra, Australia, local time.

This Mathimagic then allows determination of a locally applied
dimensionless cycletime n=1.1324.. following solution of the
quadratic: n^2+n-2.414792841=0 in mapping imaginary time onto real
time, i.e. as the 12D-10D mapping identity.

n(real)=1.132419321 and n(image)=-2.132419321 as approximations.

Both 'roots' represent the transfinite mapping of infinities onto
the Omega interval of the Unity.
The real root also so models a prototypical universe, invariant in
major axis rotation, relative to its focal points.

So this model then realises Cantor transfinitism in the logical
extension of a physically representative entity defined by the
Transfinite mapping onto the Finite.

Rotating this entity about minor axes, moves the focalisations and
the variance of rotation, say mathematically mapped in complex
number multiplication, then allows the minimum subset of Alep-All to
finitise the infinities, just as an integer discrete distribution of
eigenstates (universes), phaseshifted from its prototype; yet
holographically containing its initial eigenstate.



>
> In the real world only relative values are manifest, thus only
surreal
> numbers are natural to nature.

I do not get this. What are surreal numbers?
Plationic idealisations do become physical in ratios, underpinning
measurements, but the integers, reducible to the Binary State
suffice to model any physical realisable entity/measurement/ratio in
my view.

In short only the Wolford-Centre exists: -Infinity<-0->+Infinity and
as the 'Cutting of the Circle' (Dedekind and Dirichlet Bound.

The Wolford-Centre becomes both the Binary State algorithmically and
the superbrane class I (with open and closed vibration patterns) in
a potential physicalisation for that algorithmic state.
>
> Having said that, I can say I agree with the analogy, but consider
it
> improper, not in itself, but because it is based on bogus
assertions
> that are improperly accepted by modern philosophy. Your analogy
is
> good, and could be reformulated using valid assertions.


There is always room for improvement and whatever I propose as
extended definitions, will form a skeletal approximation for better
things, more 'encompassing' definitions to follow.

Our argument is about IF 'my' approximation is deep, selfconsistent
and encompassing enough to serve as such a foundation to be built
upon.

Thank you Jim and shall answer your discourse with Pop shortly.You
haven't commented upon the Moebian Serpent? Roy also would like to
receive some input from you about that.

Best Affinities to you Tony B.

Message 17004 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17004

Jim Whitescarver <jim@x> wrote:
> Thanks for your support Tony, you seem to be one of the only
people that
> understands what I am talking about. I am pleased that George
also
> concurs with some of it. But it seems that you guys have bought
in to
> the standard model hook line and sinker. This makes what is
> fundamentally very simple nearly incomprehensible. It is a
tribute to
> your dizzying intellect that you can make sense of all that. It
is a
> tribute to information physics that most of that garbage can be
thrown away.


Dear Jim, George, Allen and Forum!

Allen, I find it intriguing that your genalogy relates to Moebius.
It must be in the bloodline, this attunement to archetypes and the
'twisting' of space/reality perception this entails.
I have called it Moebian Serpent, precisely because it is one of the
most pervasive and potent of the archetypes.

Now Jim would call this Mathimagic or numerology; whilst George and
I would term it the Mind of God, encoded in the Laws of Physics,
becoming decoded in Culture and Mythology, yet again mappable onto
the physical parameters and relationships.
Hence the decoding of the mythologies is closely associated, even
one-to-one, to the decoding of the Laws of Physics into mathematical
semantics.

SERPENT=PRESENT=97=SONOFMAN for example directly leads us into the
Story of the Temptation in the 'Garden of Eden'.

Here the 'Serpent' is moving up-and-down, like Jim's Helix and not
sidewise like a snake of the fauna.

It can be shown by scriptural analysis, decipherment,
interpretations in multilevel settings etc, that the SERPENT is also
the Cosmic Redeemer or Christ, enticing the 'Human Mind' to escape
the Innocence of ignorance (about the nature of good and evil).

So the powerful archetype of the Serpent (Caduceus of the
MedicalProfession as the Serpent Rod of Moses as the pharaonic
symbol of IbisGod Thoth/Hermes/Zoroaster/Jesus etc.) found in
cultures allaround the globe, also finds its place of primacy in
physics and in mathematics (as the Moebian twistor geometry).

This then does not mean, that George and I have 'bought' into the
Standard Models without reservation.
Because we found the 'Standard Descriptions' insufficient to account
for the natural phenomena; an extended science proved desirable.
Yet this OmniScience (one of many possible labels) would render
Physics as OmniPhysics and Chemistry as OmniChemistry, though
building on the welltested and established edifices of the
scientific methodology and philosophy as paracticed by the 'elders'.

One of the natural sciences, often considered an artform, however
needs not be 'omnified' and that is Mathematics.
OmniMathematics is still just Mathematics as the 'Mind of God';
there is no OmniGod, just the one God say as the encompassment of
many gods. This is the Holographic Principle in artistic terms.

If now George calls this the 'Mind of God' underpinning all
philosophical principles as a sort of communication of the Oneness
with Itself or if an atheistic philosopher searches for the 'ether'
of all ethers permeating reality as a physical(quasi)substance; all
this still converges as the buddhistic search for selfrealisation,
a Spinozaen concretisation of the continuum, the monadic self of
Leibniz and the 'Universum des Alten Eines' (Universe of the Old
One) of Einstein.


>
> Let's get down to basics.
>
> Spinors twist up spin ladders, which are alternating alternations
in two
> orthogonal dimensions. Each "step" is 1/2 dimensional. NOTHING
IS
> SPINNING, NOTHING GOES IN CIRCLES. The Angular momentum reflects
the
> energy of alternations in two dimensions only. You can think of
it as a
> spiral staircase with 90 degree steps, but nothing is really
spinning.
> There may be an emergent third dimension of time, but NO MORE
DIMENSIONS
> because there is no more information, (unless we have multiple
spinors
> in which case we might have up to two more per spinor). We
embellish
> them with extra properties and dimensions to suit our notion of
> continuous time-space, but our time-space is emergent, not
fundamental.

I really like this notion of 2D.It concurs beautifully with my
(oversimplified) statement of 2D=5D=8D=11D.
And Jim's argument holds, because to twist the 2D one requires 3D.
This renders the twosided coin of Head and Tail as a Onesided
Twisted Coin, where the Head can see the Tail via a higher
dimensional manouver or topological deformation.

Without the 'higher 3D twist, the Head, say requires two mirrors,
one in front and one behind the coin, so that the image in the
mirror reflects the other image in the other mirror allowing Head
and Tail to look at one another via a 'Physical Mediu,'/Ether etc.
The Mathemagic would say - is this just coincidence Jim?

SPACETIME=91=SPIRIT=MIRROR! (Hebrew Kabbalah code, anglosaxonised
A=1, B=2,...Z=26 for 26 Bosonic Dimension in the supersymmetric
superstring aka algorithmic alphabet).


> We embellish it with funny influences at a distance (fields)
because we
> have been fooled into thinking such things exist.
>
> Quarks are quacks. They are fleeting manifestations of triple
> differences manifest briefly when you explode an atom. As
Heisenberg
> puts it, they are illusionary. The interior of the atom follows
the
> same physics as the outside, quantum state state, there are no new
> physics, no such thing as color forces. They are an unnecessary
> complication with only very occasional usefulness.

Jim you are correct, but incomplete and underinformed in your
assessments here.

Allow me to elucidate.
The Standard Models in both Cosmology and in Particle Physics are
incomplete. This is well known, publisized and no conspiracy.
There are horizon problems, monopole density problems, very
persistent redshift problems in cosmology.
Then the strong interaction force misses hgarmonisation with the
weak interaction force because of the missing Higgs mechanism.
So 18 parameters must be inserted into the equations to make quantum
chromodynamics work, describing the particle hierarchies.
Would or does any physicist working in those fields proclaim the
Standard Models as complete?

Take the 8 gluons which are colourcharged and mediate the strong
force between the quarks, supplemented by mesonic quark/antiquark
connectors.
There are no red quarks shooting off gluons to other quarks
transmuting into say green quarks.
The three quarks connected by gluonic springs model is mechanistic
analogy and passe in the New Standard Model.

There are no colourcharges as physical colours somehow giving energy
to the disjointed quarks/gluons as energy inducers.

Here we have the 2D analogy, working very well to depict the highD
PHYSICAL Reality.

Ask any painter how many colours he requires to mix all other
colours. The back of your colour TV tube harbours three primary
colour cones: Red, Green and Blue.
RedGreenBlue are additive in primary radiation and Antcolours
CyanMagentaYellow are subtractive in primary mass.
RadiationColours ADD to White (W) and MassColours SUBTRACT to Black
(B).

This manifestation is mapped from the higher D as the Moebian
connectivity on which we perhaps agree.

Now the New Standard Model eliminates the gluonic colourcharges and
so the 8 different gluons in redefining 8 permutation states.
BBB,BBW,BWB,WBB,WWB,WBW,BWW,WWW model the transformation of the
radiative state into the restmassinduced state and vice versa.

The baryonic SU-symmetries are in triplet form and the mesonic quark-
antiquarks are in doublet forms (using anticolours RC,GM or BY).

Is this still the Standard Model as you have encountered it?
Or is it a New Standard Model, accomodating the higher dimensions?
Has the New thrown out the Old or has it refined the latter?

That is why George and I remain extremely reluctant to discard the
orthodox premises, favouring instead refinement and extension,
accomodating the new measurements, observations and propositions in
the true tradition of a progressing science.

George's model claims to be even more encompassing than what I have
proposed; exactly because he is leaving the physical parameters as
just one of four worlds, exploring instead the higher expressions
for this physical world in their holographically, albeit energised
mappings.
Those higherD mappings aren't really higher D as you might perceive
them to be.
Rather they are located just in the 3D scenario of space as a
multilevel or complexified state (mathematically multiplied to gain
rotational freedom).
But those higher D's manifest in FEELINGS and the aesthetic senses
of beauty, harmony and so on.
This becomes the 'Angelic Principalities' (to whom you felt
attracted, do you understand why?).
This is the 'angelic communication' of higher D 'energies'
communicationg as their selfenergies (frequency Eigenstates_ with
the lower worlds, which are also the higher wotlds, depending on
perceptive resonance.

That is why every individual
physicist/mathematician/philosopher/thinker MUST attempt to CREATE
hisher very own world/universe.
None can do this for herhim; the SELFRESONANCE is the KEY
into 'Heavenlization'.
That is why there is Jim's Model for the Universe in 'seeming'
competition with so many other Theories of Everything.

But Jim's World is not in competition with George's World or with
Tony's World, because the resonances are modulating the Frequencies.

Velocity=R(n).F eliminates Time and establishes a EigenScale as
depicted and 'measured' in the de Broglie phaseacceleration.
R(n) is a function of scale, engaging cycletime n, the dimensionless
TauTime in General Relativity (Rc(t)=c.dt/dTau).
So the horizon poroblem in cosmology resolves itself, as do the
redshift dilemmas, so does the monopole density problem, so does the
ether of all ether (non)metric background and so do the superluminal
velocities.

Because when UNIVERSES blend with each other, then Jim's World
phaseshifts relative to George's relative to Tony's.

So who can create the universes, but the Sons of God?
And if God is the 'Mind of Mathematics' then ONLY the MATHIMATIA,
the synergy of Spirit and Science can produce the OmniScience.

The prototypical universe is the one we observe and measure.
It is a prolate ellipsoid with invariant focal points upon major
axis rotation.
It resides PHYSICALLY in 11D as the envelope of all subdimensional
entities.
It is nothing but an ABSTRACT ellipse drawn on a 'piece of 2D paper'
in the 'Mind of God'.

When NOW-Time is perceived in its LINEARISATION,then MANY Sons of
God will begin to follow their Father's Footsteps in constructing
the ABSTRACT 2D-ellipses on PHYSICAL 2D-papers.

So many Sons will begin to construct universes as their own worlds
within the world of their parents Big HeShe.

Some of the potential universes will become selfconsistent and
potentially feasible , both in abstraction and in mapping potential.

And then the ptototypicall universe of measurement will begin to
phaseshift in its Aleph-All Cantorian cardinality.
The invariant focal points will move into pointcircles following
minor axes rotation of the prototype.

And then Jim will remember and George and Tony and Zeus and Milo and
Joel and Allen and Roy and Mike and ...
Ah, we have done all this before, 19.11 billion years ago; when we
sat next to the Father (as unborn parts/semen/ of the Father) when
HE created She the same way we doing now.
WE were the LOGOS., the WORD OF GOD as unfulfilled potential,
directly as IMAGE of the MIND of GOD.


>
> You guys love fancy physics and I hate to bust your bubble, but in
order
> to understand my double hyper helix model of the atom you got to
dump
> the standard model and accept only what can be distinguished by
> measurement. The Moebian Serpent is only half the picture, spin
and
> charge, the are three additional orthogonal differences that
comprise
> the double hyper helix which direct the propagations of the
serpent. (I
> call them color differences but they are no different from any
other
> differences) I surmise from your discussion you can easily
understand
> what the double hyper helix is, it corresponds to your double
circle,
> without the Platonic embellishments.
>
> With Love,
>
> Jim With Love to the Sons Tony B.
>

PS.: The Sons means SonDaughters=DaughterSons.