Hi everyone,

As the previous TOE page is getting rather heavy, pushing 500 KB, I thought it okay to start a new discussion thread: TOE/Theory of Everything - 3, where we can continue the most interesting ideas already presented regarding the physics and philosophical notions of an all comprehensive theory of everything. To begin this thread, I would like to list some links on Gravity which may shed more light on this, so it seems, rather contentious subject.

Electrogravity Physics.
http://rognerud.com/physics/

Charging a rotating cylinder to a high voltage.
http://rognerud.com/physics/html/rotating.html

Gravity Shielding.
http://rognerud.com/physics/html/tampere.html

The Speed of Gravity.
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html

The reason I list these links is to demonstrate that there is research being done on the cutting edge of science which shows that Gravity is not simply a neutral constant force, but may have properties of which we are still ignorant. What the result of these new ways of seeing gravity may be may yet yield surprising data which will not plug in comfortably into the known physics, and which will force us to rethink how the universe works. In fact, is gravity but another manifestation of electro-magnetic forces, or is it some left over primordial force germane to the pre-evolutionary universe which became what it is today from its interaction with photonic light? Interesting to see the results of these new tests, for the old thesis of F = GMm/r2, may in fact need to be rewritten. Watch for anomalies of how gravity works, and that is the path to discovery, to go beyond what is known and expected, or hitherto believed to be true.

Enjoy the search, the truth is out there.

Ivan

Everyone,

Follows is an AP news release June 2, 1999 – I thought it rather interesting, but is it possible to explain away the contradictions within it? I don’t think so.

--------------------

Astronomers measure orbit of our solar system

June 2, 1999

Web posted at: 5:00 p.m. EDT (2100 GMT)

CHICAGO (AP) -- It may seem like the sun is just creeping through the heavens, but a new technique for measuring cosmic motion has found that sol is clipping along at an eye-popping 135 miles per second in its orbit of the Milky Way.

Astronomers using a radio telescope system to make the most precise measurement ever of the solar system orbit found that it takes the sun and its family of planets 226 million years to circle the center of its home galaxy.

That means that the last time the sun was at this point in its orbit of the Milky Way, dinosaurs ruled the world and human beings were not yet on the scene.

The new measurement is the most precise value ever determined for one of the fundamental motions of the Earth and its sun, said James Moran of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He spoke Tuesday at the national meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

"Our new figure of 226 million years is accurate to within 6 percent," Mark Reid, a Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer and leader of the team that made the measurements, said in a statement.

The sun is one of about 100 billion stars in the Milky Way, one of billions of ordinary galaxies in the universe. The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy, with curving arms of stars pinwheeling out from a center. The solar system is about half way out on one of these arms and is about 26,000 light years away from the center. A light year is about 6 trillion miles.

Reid and his team made the measurement using the Very Long Baseline Array, a system of 10 large radio-telescope antennae placed 5,000 miles across the United States, from the U.S. Virgin Islands in the east, to Hawaii in the west. Working together as a single unit, the antennae are able to measure motions in the distant universe at an unprecedented accuracy. The accuracy is such that the VLBA can look at a bit of sky that has an apparent size one-ten thousandth the diameter of a human hair held at arms length.

For their solar system measurement, the astronomers focused on Sagittarius A.., a star discovered two decades ago to be at the center of the Milky Way. Over a 10-day period, they measured the apparent shift in position of the star against the background of stars far beyond.

The apparent motion of Sagittarius A.. is very, very small, just one-600,000th of what could be detected with the human eye, the astronomers said.

Reid said the measurement adds supports the idea that at the center of the Milky Way is a supermassive black hole.

"This ... strengthens the idea that this object, much smaller than our own solar system, contains a black hole about 2.6 million times more massive than the sun," Reid said in a statement.

Moran said the new measurement of the solar system orbit adds new accuracy to a fundamental fact of the universe: Everything is moving constantly. The Earth rotates on its axis at about 1,100 miles an hour, a motion that creates day and night.

The Earth orbits the sun at about 67,000 miles an hour, a motion that takes one year. The sun circles the Milky Way at a speed of about 486,000 miles per hour. And the Milky Way, along with every other galaxy, is moving away from each other, as the universe expands at a constantly accelerating rate.
----------------

My question to each of you is: What is obviously wrong in the information as presented?

If all galaxies are moving away from one another – howbeit possible for the Milky Way and Andromeda to collide as predicted?

Milky Way – Andromeda Collision

Claude

Hi Claude, G-man,

Claude, thanks for the above article. The expanding universe thesis is very much in question, given the observation. I think it is not expanding, only in motion, and the redshift illusion makes it appear to be expanding. But that may be only a function of light at great distances, which may undergo decay of some sort.

G-man, Claude, what do you think of the idea behind spinning magnetized disks displaying evidence of life? I suspect that it is not gravity related, but rather a function of intensifying the disk's electromagnetic field to the point where it engages the Earth's magnetic field, and if so, then it is merely another possible form of propulsion. The link to it is at: http://rognerud.com/physics/html/rotating.html

However, another question which is not answered in this link is whether or not this experiment has the same result at the equator, or more specifically, south of the equator. It may, but the result should be opposite, if my conclusion is correct. Below are other links on this. Meanwhile, here is something on Electro-gravity, just for summer fun. Go fly a kite!
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm

Electrogravity Vs Antigravity?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/electrog.htm
http://www.rexresearch.com/ttbrown/ttbrown.htm
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/elgo2.html

Pdkeltnov & Schnurer's experiments:
http://alephzero.gmxhome.de/antigrav/

Ciao for now! Ivan

Ivan: One of the points I raised earlier ties into the zero-point electrogravity concept. If in theory a sphere spins in a perfect vacuum, as it accelerates ever-faster it tends to flatten into a disc. Eventually, as it achieves c, the remaining mass achieves as singular point which was the sphere's original core, at which point v = c and m = 0. G-man

Ivan,

Concerning the Yamashita patent issued in England and the rotating cylinders – about all I have to say, how come it was not patented elsewhere? English patents are well known for being patently unpatentable elsewhere.

I cut my teeth on electro-gravity 1964, not so very long after I built my first computer – a Heatkit EC-1. What I learned is, Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radiation becomes so very uncomfortable after just a few seconds of exposure, the efforts were not worth the pain involved. It sure was not any fun in my book! Our device was huge compared to the itty-bitty ones described; ours weighed 34 ounces, but hey – we did not have many composite materials available in 1964.

Electro-gravity? No thanks - I would rather dance with a lightning bolt!

Claude

G-man,

G-man: “If in theory a sphere spins in a perfect vacuum, as it accelerates ever-faster it tends to flatten into a disc. Eventually, as it achieves c, the remaining mass achieves as singular point which was the sphere's original core, at which point v = c and m = 0.”

A sphere if a solid, will not flatten inside a vacuum if spun to c at the outer edge – the law of centripetal force denies potential for the center of mass cannot obtain c simultaneously with the outer edge. That is exponential function at work of which, cannot be predicted, or projected. In theory, such a sphere could become exactly like a spiral galaxy in as much, the sphere should appear as a disk with a globular center much like our own Milky Way, and in all probability would exhibit fingers as does all known spiral galaxies. That is what honestly explains our lumpy universe, for it is not gravity, or radiation of any type.

The only potential for vc = m0 to occur is in straightforward motion of the entire mass. That also explains why a photon is a wave, until trapped when it becomes a particle, yet it remains O mass.

Only “its” with O mass can obtain the theoretical c, even if in a vacuum.

If we have a sphere that is one mile in circumference, it must revolve at 186,000 revolutions per second to obtain c at the outside edge – The inside center at 3.82 inches from the pivot point of the sphere (12” circumference sphere) would only be moving at 186,000 feet per second = 35.228 miles per second. The innermost 1” circumference sphere would only be moving at 2.936 miles per second, and if we reduce the center point sphere to .25” it would be moving at .734 miles per second. Now we go bananas, and reduce the center sphere to .10” the speed reduces to a paltry .294 miles per second, and as we go totally insane, and reduce the center to the .001” the speed reduces to - .00294 miles per second = or just a bit more than 15 feet.

Yes, there probably is an error in the computations since I used MS Calculator with its idiosyncrasies, but I hope each of you get the gist of Exponential Function, and the impossibility of duplicating it, or even rendering it sensible by using numbers to the extent, we can even come close.

Here, I propose a thought exercise: The universe consists of 99.9% plasma, a given if you will for it has been conclusively proven! Since the universe has always existed, and never began so it will never end, I propose there is but one force at work in the universe, as we know it!

That force is “centripetal force,” as exerted by the universe as it rotates in its entirety at c^3.14 - Yes, I can explain how G – S – W – EM forces evolve – as they are required – from Centripetal Force!

Welcome to my world of Omegatron Dynamics!

Claude

Dear Claude,

(From yours on TOE-2, June 30, 2002)
RE "Photons have no method to interact with an atom- A photon can only mess with, and/or interact with an electron inside an atom, but it cannot alter the atom. Furthermore there is no such thing as primordial space, unless you agree with the BBT."

This is the crux of it, that photons do not interact with an atom's mass. They create the atom.

RE "...the interaction of photons with atoms can increase the energy state of an electron inside of an atom, but all that does is give “opacity” to the atom when it absorbs the photon – it causes no other effect, or affect. There is no potential to alter the mass of the atom, and the photon then becomes part of that atom, but the mass of the atom is not altered."

Precisely so, that photons once absorbed give "opacity" to the atom, as an example of how a photon "modifies" what is a primordial state of the atom before it encounters photon energy, which then creates it into being. If there were no photons in the universe, the universe would remain in its primordial state void of matter, and in a "supergravity" state, which is not the same a BBT, but it does resemble it. Once these atoms of mass are created, from the primordial soup of supergravity, they continue their existence. Remember that the basic atom is hydrogen, which travel typically in pairs, but then can be combined into heavier elements, as happens when stars go nova and then explode. But once they exist, you cannot turn back the clock to their non-existence, for they become a permanent state of physical reality, and thus can only be modified but not created. The only evidence of this photon/supergravity (not atomic) interaction is that gravity, which I say is only a left over byproduct of this interaction, varies in relation to its proximity to such photonically active areas of space. Where there is a lack of photonic activity, gravity would be greater than what we experience here in the vicinity of our star. Thus, what would be worthwhile to find out, and thus validate what I am saying, is evidence that gravity when observed far from a star is a variable and not fixed as we now suppose. And if this is found to be so, then we may be on a new path of understanding what happens inside the atom and how gravity is created from those interactions. But this theory needs validation through observation, which is what I am interested in finding, evidence that gravity away from the solar system, or other stars, is not the same as it is here.

Also, RE how can Earth's molten core of iron be magnetized? Scientist "fudge" on this one, by claiming that the very deep center of the planet has turned back to "solid" due to the great pressure of gravity, and thus the magnetism originates there. Go figure!

I will write more on this when I have some time.

Talk soon, Ivan

Dear G-man,

RE "v = c and m = 0".

Imagine this, that the universe is a spinning disk, ala Claude's description above, with a velocity of C at the perimeter, and exponentially progressively lesser speeds as we approach the center. What happens? The outer edges are pure energy, no mass, only photons; whereas the inner areas of the spinning universe is endowed with progressively more mass, until we reach the center, where mass is infinite in effect, or supergravity. Wow! Were this so, wouldn't that blow away scientific minds! It would give us a whole new way of seeing cosmic existence, where perhaps the edges of the universe are in the process of creating other universes as they interact photonically with the primordial supergravity found there, ad infinitum. So forget BBT, for the universe may be in the process of constantly recreating itself all the time, in an infinite dance of C and O. Super cool if it were so!

Thanks for the brain tease.

Ivan

Hi again Claude,

RE "That force is “centripetal force,” as exerted by the universe as it rotates in its entirety at c^3.14 - Yes, I can explain how G – S – W – EM forces evolve – as they are required – from Centripetal Force!"

Please! I would love to see how this centripetal force works, since it can be a very important contribution to our inquiries of TOE as we have examined thus far.

Many thanks, Ivan

Ivan,

Ivan: “Precisely so, that photons once absorbed give "opacity" to the atom, as an example of how a photon "modifies" what is a primordial state of the atom before it encounters photon energy, which then creates it into being.”

A photon – cannot modify an atom before the photon makes contact. Read what you wrote since I put it in italics. A photon does nothing to “create” anything – a photon only has the ability to excite an electron beyond its existing energy state. After the photon has excited the electron beyond its existing energy state, the photon is absorbed, and then the electron returns to its “normal” or “preexisting energy state,” after which the electron and its associated atom are identical to that as they were prior to the photon’s excitation of the electron involved. The opacity factor ceases once radiation source is removed (at which time, the photon becomes a particle), and the photon decays instantaneously, leaving no trace of its existence.

For photons that are not absorbed it is thought, the half-life is about 6.5 billion years as we humans, calculate years. That is what accounts for the Hubble mistake for it actually causes “redshift” to occur, and originally gave rise to the “old, or tired light” notions as were popular just a few years back. Think – if the half-life of unabsorbed photons is 6.5 billion years, it is would be impossible to calculate the age of any entity beyond that 6.5 billion years if light is the basis for making the calculation.

Ivan: “If there were no photons in the universe, the universe would remain in its primordial state void of matter,”

Here, again, you are relating to “a creation phase” for the universe, which is not in any way consistent with an always-existing universe. So far as to your first assertion that photons create something, it has been conclusively proven by Fermi-lab, and by CERN, not to occur. After a photon is absorbed the associated atom is not altered for the photon decays immediately, the atom’s electron then reverts to its original state after the photon is absorbed. The opacity when imparted lasts only for that duration the photon is a wave; however, after the wave stops (source is removed) the photon becomes a particle, which immediately decays leaving no residue remaining to even prove it existed.

Think- if absorbed photons did not immediately decay after they become particles, every object or entity would be “luminescent,” or “incandescent” in perpetuity after the photons were absorbed. Photons are necessarily absorbed; otherwise, the photons would travel at coefficient of c until reaching their half-life, which in theory would eventually illuminate the entire universe in perpetuity.

So far as I know, there is no method to actually calculate the half-life of a photon, but there is one example formula that might work, if “exponential function,” could somehow be incorporated into the equation. But, since we “cannot” formulate the Exponential Polynomial algorithm required to prove the equation, all bets are off.

Link to Formula for calculation of photon half-life

Here, I think it imperative to say – there is but one alternative to the BBT for people who reject the conceptual eternal universe (much like that of Hoyle) that I propose, that being, the theory as elucidated by Hermonn von Helmholtz (1821-1894) and Lord Kelvin (1824-1907). The main alternative explanation to fusion is called "solar collapse," which was worked out more than 100 years before the BBT originated. That theory destroys all conceptualizations concerning BBT universe, and can prove a very young age of perhaps, less than 100,000 years for the universe! Also the sparse neutrino count that physically arrives at earth is fully explained by it. Needless to say, that theory is strictly a “theory of design,” and I do mean “intelligent design,” specifically, a God created intelligent design, and done so with a specific purpose, which lends creditability to every religion, even more specifically, the religion identified as Christianity. Here, I must iterate – the BBT originated from within the very human imagination of one Belgian priest - Georges Lemaître, and his theory was “blessed” by none other than, Pope Pius XII in 1951. I ask why fore was the conceptual notion presented by Lemaître, “blessed?”

That latter two of the notions above, the world as I know it, would be better off without either.

Claude

Stage 1 – Putting motion in order

Obviously, we do not know the physical size of the universe, because it is a necessity, and necessity dictates the universe is infinite; therefore, as the universe rotates at light speed ^3.14, the equation … c^3.14 = Infinity. This removes us from conventions of physics as presently understood, but explains several anomalies as proven by quantum theory and mechanics- chiefly the Principle of Uncertainty, and the Planck Constant.

Proposition

Motion, once begun, requires force to stop it. If the universe is infinite, there can be no outside friction; therefore, without friction, the universe is an entity in perpetual motion that cannot cease.

Premise A

The universe has no beginning

Premise B

The universe cannot end

Premise C

Universal Time does not exist

Discussion: No discussion required.

Conclusion: the proposition, and ensuing premises already detail the conclusion.

Claude

Ivan,

Perhaps the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics will explain why your hypothesis for the “creation” of atoms is doubtful. I much prefer a “modern exposition” of Thermodynamic Laws in order to comprehend the implications, and repercussions they present. There is a good reason for doing this, because it better explains their true functions, which are more directly related to Chemistry than Physics.

0th Law- If A is in thermal equilibrium with B and B is in equilibrium with C, then A is in thermal equilibrium with C.

1st Law - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

2nd Law - Heat will not flow between two sources at thermal equilibrium.

3rd Law - A heat sink at temperature -absolute zero- is unobtainable.

The 0th Law is included here to explain the interaction between each of the laws as they are positioned.

According to the 1st law, energy cannot be created or destroyed, which is confirmed by E=MC^2; therefore, your perception of “creating” an atom is not possible because that would contradict E=MC^2, and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Remember, all of the matter that exists, has always existed, and all of available energy that exists, has always existed. It is impossible to “create” a new atom – The only thing that can occur is, one atom can become a different type of atom by exchanging, stealing, or shedding of some part of its physical component structure. That is what occurs when Fusion, and Fission transpire.

In essence, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is redundant, as is the 3rd Law, but the 3rd Law should be taught because, There is no limit to how hot an object can be, but the lowest temperature is absolute zero at -273.15 degrees Centrigrade, or 0 degrees Kelvin.

The lowest temperatures, known to occur naturally, are on Triton (a moon of Neptune) in out Solar System and in inter-galactic space. Much lower temperatures can be created in the laboratory, but not as low as Absolute Zero! The actual temperature on Triton as measured by Voyager 2, August 25, 1989 was 34.5 Kelvin, or -235 C, or -391 F-, which is about the same as for the estimated temperature on Pluto-

Claude

Claude,

This is becoming something of a merry-go-round, since we simply keep repeating to each other what had been said. I understand that today's physics cannot imagine light interacting with a primordial supercompact universe to create matter. I do not propose that this is happening now either. Rather, this happened at one time, and may be happening somewhere, but not here, because now all the atoms had been activated and are now happily doing their stuff, which is what you keep referring to about how photon interact with the atom. I know this full well. Again, that is not the point.

What interests me, though it obviously goes right over you since you dogmatically insist this cannot be, is that if there are variations in gravitational force beyond the solar system, which in today's physics would be unexplainable, then there could be reason to think that the photon/supergravity interaction which originally created the atom is still at work as a modifying force, meaning: gravitational mass is less in the environment of light photons, and greater in their absence. Hence, deep in space way beyond a star region, gravity would be greater than it is here. Period.

This is obviously subject to examination and observation of gravitational activity at distances beyond our solar system. If this proves to be so, then we would have to rethink everything we now know, or believe we know, about how the universe works. In your statement:

"According to the 1st law, energy cannot be created or destroyed, which is confirmed by E=MC^2; therefore, your perception of “creating” an atom is not possible because that would contradict E=MC^2",

this is certainly true for things as they are now, and perhaps as they will remain in perpetuity. It may not have been the case when light first interacted with superdensespacegravity from which were created atoms, though it may be happening somewhere in space that we are not aware of. Same as new life cannot incubate in today's world, since it would be eaten immediately by the life already here, the new atoms cannot be created from this photonic interaction, as the place is already taken. Your theories are not in contradiction with today's general thinking on physics; mine are. I do not expect you to come around to my way of seeing things, and that's okay, no argument there. I am interested primarily in discovering evidence that, according to my thinking, should be predictable as I had stated, that gravity is not a homogenous constant (thank you G-man), but is a variable that will throw off astronomers and physicist when this is discovered. Why would it be a variable? That depends upon where you are. Any good theory should have duplicability and predictability, and mine would predict that gravity is a variable.

G-man, Claude, an aside about a rapidly spinning universe.

If we can calculate where we are inside the universe sphere, near infinite that it may be, then we may discover that the 15 billion light years away images we are now getting from Hubble may be only a pin prick within the whole, and probably somewhere in between zero mass, and infinity mass, with a long way to go in either direction. We may be exceptionally myopic in our view in terms of what we can observe, though this does not mean that the universe may yet not be a self contained set that then redirects itself from its largest totalities into a constantly changing, and I dare say growing, entity. No, not growth in the perpetual Big Bang sense, but growing in terms of what it manifests within itself: Life. And as it grows, this life becomes increasingly conscious. Time? Time exists every time you have a change, whether it be chemical change, cosmic distance change, polarity change, rotational change, even thinking change, all these require time to pass for them to happen. So evolution over time is not something to be disregarded, but rather to be respected as how the universe redefines itself. This too is an important element of how I see TOE.

To all,

My thesis stands as it is. Not out of dogmatism, but because I do not think we have all the ingredients necessary to formally declare it yet, so I am willing to ask questions and seek proof. What is missing is how photonic light, which propagates as radiation from the stars in waves, and which compacts into a particle upon hitting an atom, as it interacts with the electron shells of the already existing atoms; how this photon energy interacts with the internal mechanisms of the supergravity force still latent within the atom, resulting in what we know as gravity. That is the search, to see if this gravity has observable variations. My prediction, based on (1/c2 x hc/w) + g = m, (see my Algorithm post on May 25, 2002), is that there will be more gravity away from the source of light, and less gravity where there is an abundance of this photonic light. Thus, the missing ingredient I am willing to search for is that light behaves in a way that modifies what I call primordial space, which is infinitely dense, and which, due to the fact that this density had been filled by energy, now exists only as a latent force within each atom. Period.

Keep thinking, as I know I will.

Ivan

Ivan,

One more time-

You keep missing the point - the Universe never began; therefore, all atoms have existed forever.

So, with my next post, which I did not really want to reveal yet, I hope that my knowledge will at last make a point that nobody, and I do mean, no human being that ever walked the face of this earth ever made before!

Claude

Everyone,

The calculations that follow are © Copyrighted in the fabric of the text 1998 by the author.
----------
Calculations for the age of Planet Earth, and Sun –

Local cumulative motion involved

Earth rotates on its axis 0.5KM/sec
Earth orbits the sun 30KM/sec
Solar system orbits Milky Way 250KM/sec
Milky Way orbits Local Group 300\KM/sec

Earth’s cumulate speed within the Local Group of Galaxies is 580.5 KM/sec, which if converted using the standard formula = 1231433.4276 Mile Per Hour. A goodly sum!

If the universe is infinite O; the universe is spinning @ c x 3.14^ the speed of rotation is also infinite; therefore, we can say, O x O = the universe as we perceive it. But we can now add a numerical constant to our theory, that is, Infinity = 584,040 miles per hour in local time and dimension. Next we divide Infinity – O – 584,040 by the cumulative sum of earth’s speed when combined to equal all forward motions = 1231433.4276 Miles per hour, which = 0.47427655195154457085325917296871 – Remember, Infinity = O, and we must now remove that Infinity from our result whereas, we remove the O. leaving the resulting numbers as calculated - 47427655195154457085325917296871, of which only the first ten are of significance (a number beyond 10 digits either side of a decimal point is worthless) – 4,742,765,519 – Which is the exact age of planet earth!

Using the same formula, we can calculate the exact age of our Sun.

Solar system orbits Milky Way 250KM/sec
Milky Way orbits Local Group 300\KM/sec

O – 584,040MPH divided by 1230314.9616 = 0.47470771162570246353736612155006, and when we remove O. the result is 4,747,077,116 years since our sun was born. What this means is, from the date our sun began to form, until the earth began to form, Local elapsed time was 4,311,597 years. It should be noted the planets within our solar system are not of the same ages.

Using Omegatron Dynamic algorithms as designed by the author, these calculations were generated and © Copyrighted 1998 under the laws of the United States of America. The accuracy is believed + or – 1%. It must be noted here, Universal time cannot be applied to the Universe; however, local time is based on the significant entity i.e., the sun for our solar system, and can be applied to other similar systems in the Universe.

At present, I have not calculated the age of our Galaxy, the Milky Way for reasons that I elect not to reveal now, or the near future for what should be, obvious reasons. I can say this however, the existing state of cosmology has lost its objective direction whereas, the rejection or blackballing of prominent scientists, and physicists involved in modeling the universe as it is – MUST CEASE! Too many $$$$ are expended on frivolous research of no consequence; therefore, the continuance of “ignoring” conclusive evidence must stop.

Claude

G-man,

This is an aside - I thought you might be interested.

---------------

Earth Simulator Press Release

The ultra high-speed parallel computing system, "Earth Simulator" attained the best computing performance in the world according to the Linpack benchmark test. The result of this test of execution performance, 35.61 TFlops (trillion operations per second), was approved and the Earth Simulator was registered as the world' s fastest supercomputer by Dr. Jack J. Dongarra of the University of Tennessee, USA, who announced the world Linpack benchmark test results.

The Earth Simulator consists of 640 supercomputers that are connected by a high-speed network (data transfer speed; 12.3 GBytes). Each supercomputer (1 node) contains eight vector processors with a peak performance of 8GFlops and a high-speed memory of 16 GBytes. The total number of processors is 5120 (8 x 640), which translates to a total of approximately 40 TFlops peak performance, and a total main memory of 10 TeraBytes.

35.61 TFlops is achieved from the operation of 638 nodes (5,104 processors) and an efficiency performance percentage of 87.2%.

According to the TOP500 list of supercomputers in the world, the second is the ASCI White system in the US, whose performance is 7.266 TFlops (peak performance 12.288 TFlops, peak performance percentage 58.8%). The Earth Simulator has five times the capacity of the US system.

April 18, 2002

* TeraFlops (TFLOPS)

1 TFLOPS is a term for a trillion floating-point operations per second."Tera" is a prefix for one trillion (ten raised to the twelfth power),"giga" for one billion (ten raised to the tenth power).

When the Linpack program was executed, the Earth Simulator achieved 35.61 TFLOPS, which is 35.61 trillion floating-point operations per second on average.

* Linpack benchmark test
A numerically intensive test that has been widely used to measure and compare the processing performance of supercomputers, and similar devices. Propounded by Dr. J. Dongarra of the University of Tennessee, the test measures the processing performance (in Gigaflops) of a computer program that solves a large-scale linear equation.

* All the test results are reported and updated on the Web, with the latest results indicating that the Earth Simulator is the fastest supercomputer in the world.
(Report Home Page http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/performance.ps)


* TOP500
A web site listing the sites that have the 500 most powerful computer systems installed. The best Linpack benchmark performance achieved is used as a performance measure in ranking the computers. The TOP500 list has been updated twice every year since 1993.
(Homepage http://www.top500.org/)

* Vector Processor
A processor that executes computational operations at high speed with a single instruction. Vector processors provide high-sustained performance
--------

My robots found it someplace-

Claude

Claude,

RE "One more time- You keep missing the point - the Universe never began; therefore, all atoms have existed forever."

This is a statement of your "belief", which is cool, but keep it in perspective. My "belief" is that atoms were, and possibly still are and will be, created from an interaction between energy and supergravity.

Having said that, I always believed that two, or three heads, are better than one, to the factorial!

So let's keep working on these ideas, each within our own belief system, and then share the results. However, the real value of the results of our thinking and research does not lie in our agreeing or disagreeing, though this has value as a stimulating exchange, but in the results we gain from observing reality, and its repsonse to our ideas when tested. After all, no matter how smart we humans may think we are, it is reality that is the final judge and executioner.

Take care, talk later, Ivan

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." [Gen. 1.3]

G-man, all,

Though I am loathe to quote biblical sources, since I do not think those ancient scribes knew a whole lot more than we know today, I would like to present an idea, in their acknowledgement.

If the universe is indeed spinning, then there would have to be some center somewhere, same as there would be a periphery. On the edges, there would then be pure energy only, zero mass, light; in the center there would be pure mass, zero energy, gravity supreme. Does this make sense, so far?

Now, let's suppose that we are within this system somewhere in the middle, let's call it the midway life-zone band, so that things look pretty stable from here, as far as the Hubble eye could see. Now let's imagine we go to the periphery of this universe; what would that look like? Would there be perpetual light? Or would it be an invisible light instead, since it has nothing with which to interact? I vote for the latter. At the periphery, there is no mass with which light can interact, so though it is pure energy, it is dark.

Now let's suppose we go the other way, towards the universe's imagined center. Would that center be devoid of light, due to some super black hole effect? Or would it be brilliant with light? I would vote for the latter, that it would be brilliant, because there the photonic energy has something with which to interact, the super massive black hole of infinite mass. I also base this supposition on the observation that visible light is very abundant surrounding the center of our galaxy, where it is expected is a black hole.

With this in mind, two things come to mind that could act as a test of this thinking. One, is there an abundance of light at the galaxy centers where black holes are thought to exist? The answer is yes, a great abundance of it. So the second thought is this: Should we be looking to see if there is a higher concentration of light somewhere in the Hubble visible universe? If there is, then it may be pointing towards the universe's center, with the opposite direction being the closest edge of the universe to where we are in it. If such a center exists, and we can actually see it through all the haze of cosmic dust, then we can better estimate where we are within the whole. One possible measurement is to use the decreasing wavelength of light, the so called redshift, as an application of Zeno's paradox: where the red shift is half in intensity, double the wavelength, of what it was at the source as the half way point between here and the light source. If we could see the universe's center, then we could estimate where is its perimeter.

In conclusion, it would be this observation that would add one more ingredient to the photon interaction with some prmordial dark force of supergravity. Notice how light gathers around galaxy black holes which, like antibodies gathering around an infection, try to overcome the lack of light there. These interactions between light and supergravity are not to be ignored, but should be used as evidence of what it is that we are trying to span, the way the universe interacts within itself into a complete whole that can produce life, even sometimes conscious life.

Interesting, no?

Ivan

Claude:...YOU have to slow down a tad. Keep going...but understand, your jumps are leaving huge ?gaps in the wake. You've got a lot of explainin' to do:) G-man

Claude: Your hypothetic premises remain philosophic/meta-physic because they do not internally contain their causation (probable, or otherwise). Revisit one of your June 30 posts. We realize (and share) your excitement. But your attempt to disprove the existence of Time falls short due to certain gaps (which, based on my own personal experience of hubris don't avail apparency until after the fact:) Also--and I'm still reading your latest--if we assume a universal (galactic or otherwise...) spin, the math model must also account for its alternative, namely, the many spinning wheels within a vastly larger...spinor spheric ?:) G-man (Call me da book keepa:)

Ivan, Claude:

The only was for a continuous self-perpetuating universe (cosmology) theory to work is...it must incorporate energy deflation into an inflationary model. It is distinctly different to say...the universe had/has no beginning, therefore it follows that x... is the case; versus, the universe had no [final] beginning because..., therefore it follows x. What's at stake here, really are answers to the how questions posed by...well, largely, the BBT crowd. G-man

Claude,

Thanks for the math on your post July 1, 2002, on the age of the Earth and Sun. I'm a little stuck, however, at the number of Infinity as 584040 MPH. How did you arrive at that number? I don't know it.

Many thanks, Ivan

G-man,

If Claude's numbers are right, then Earth moving through space at a velocity of 1,231,433 MPH means we're really cookin'! Talk about things being in motion, and spin as an all universal phenomenon. All things are then spinning within the Great Spin, which I think is a more credible theory than everything expanding within the Big Bang.

Ivan

G-man, Ivan,

As I stated earlier, each component set belongs to a hierarchy of sets, stemming from the master set; by that, until sets 11, 12, and 13 – no compilation can occur; therefore, I have no alternative but post sets as completed, instead of the progressive order situated by rote.

Concerning time; I have spent the better part of 30 years attempting to prove Time exists, but a consensus of technical papers accumulated from a broad spectrum of sources prove that whenever Time is a factor in computations, that computed eventually provokes some type of error that cannot be reconciled, such as Singularity, which always results with the problem of an infinite regress. Time cannot be ascribed to the Universe, nor is theoretical use of time applicable when formulating or evaluating exponential function, which is the price we must pay when dealing with an analog device using digital apparatus. Time can be a factor only when concerning local events, even then, reliability diminishes, which is a contributive factor to the errors in R, SR, and several constants as now applied in order to make – something fit, where it does not fit; i.e., Hubble Constant, which has changed so often few physicists today remember what the current ratio is. Again, I must point to Einstein and his theories, R and SR, within which, E - categorically stated using his own words, “Singularity cannot possibly occur in Reality.”

Today, there are more than 1,000 existing alterations to R and SR used by physicists to “make them fit” the existing BBT – science calls them “fudge factors,” and people who challenge their use such as Halton Arp does regularly, are blackballed for their efforts?

Fact: There will be no math model.

I can apply Omegatron Dynamic algorithms to local events only, but I also realize the error potential; therefore, I strive to use them only for Local Events, which, obviously occur only within our Solar System. For instance, I calculated the ages of sun and the earth using only basic figures available to everyone; however, the results are similar to existing comparisons that required considerable expense to calculate. Simplicity is the key, which has been lost in the clouds of formulas required to say, “The earth rotates on its axis,” scientifically.

You are thinking like an engineer (causation) – which today, cannot duplicate a Pyramid equivalent to those in Egypt within the same tolerance of construction. I know the BBT cohort will challenge me, and I realize those challenges must be met head on but as I am putting this together, I also have enough conflict/contradictions on record to cause them to prove their own conceptual enterprises as less worthy or reliable because of complex distortions within existing methodology, and observed phenomena.

Because my theory is based on a Plasma Universe, it is a necessity that I unify the four forces – strong, weak, EM, and Gravity into a GUT whereas, each will explain the other, and prove the interaction sequences logically without error. I have done that, and the lone factor that allowed me to accomplish fact is based on the 1st Thermodynamic Law, which is for all practical purposes, a law pertaining to both chemistry and physics. That fact in essence, should reveal the bridge that physicists and chemists seldom stand upon, for without a total understanding of how two differing materials interact to become some other material, particle studies are worthless. Yes, forces are involved, but reactions of a specific catalytic are the method of formation of matter through a synthesization process, whatever it may be. In other words, how often will physicists ask for advice from other fields such as Thermo-Chemistry?

Quote: Beyond Our Universe

“If space is infinite, and how could it not be, then our Big Bang and the universe born of it, leaves a lot of space to account for. What's out there? Could be unimaginably exotic things. In our little corner of infinity, there was a big bang event. It's not too hard to imagine the remnants of billions and billions of other big bang events clustered together in local groups, clusters, and super-clusters of big bangs.”

The above quote was made by a modern physicist, and a supposed believer in the BBT; but is it logical for someone to make such statements?

“In our little corner of infinity,” infers, we are “inside of infinity,” and specific inference, “If space is infinite, and how could it not be,” proves the contradictory conceptuality of many practicing physicists and cosmologists.

Claude

Ivan, G-man,

Omegatron Dynamics is of my own theoretical design, developed to allow incorporation of as near – true – analog calculations as possible using exponential function potential. It is based on a theory: Everything that is, is, as it is – or, if you prefer the analytical format,

E = I + I + I

It is an algorithm language wrought of years attempting to build an analog computer that I can program simply by twisting knobs in relationship with one another, but without the convention of using numbers whereas, digital calculations, are not required to obtain the resulting – digital statement; i.e., readout of information delivered. My first success did prove the theory as viable, but I kept having problems with the zero - 0. - and - .0 - when or if they occurred in the readouts. One day while trying to interpret readouts, it came to me that – 0. and .0 represent – infinity when the O falls immediately before and after the decimal point. That was my first wakeup call, which said to me, “Only the first ten digits function as they should in conventional math,” but the “first digits” on either side of the decimal point must be a physical number, not the placeholder O. For example:

.01234567891 – is an invalid number or sum – reason being it begins in -infinity, instead of reality-

Conversely,

19876543210. is also invalid number or sum – reason being it begins in +infinity, instead of reality-

Reality is pure – and consists of the reality of each individual object as it appears to us; it does not appear as – individual – segmented – parts; therefore, John Wallis, the inventor of the Infinity symbol 1657 (the horizontal figure 8) – knew it could not be written OO -with a separation between the greater than 1 and lesser than 1 point, – between – the two sides of conventional equations; by that, we cannot divide by 0, neither can we divide an integer into 0, for the result is the same – one is positive, one is negative, and never shall one meet the other!

Pondering what was seemingly a paradox for a while, it dawned on me that a circle is the one geometric figure that represents a continuum such as the universe if made into a 4D object (sphere) with – length, width, height, depth – What happens if the sphere begins to spin? Nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever, no matter what velocity, or the direction of spin involved, for all forces “cancel one another” and in Reality, the object retains its spherical appearance, and in essence, becomes perpetually, and permanently stationary! By simulation of exacting facts, I conclusively proved that to be true, without a shred of doubt possible. The four forces that we commonly know as, weak, strong, EM, gravity, are but four effects of perpetual “infinite” motion in a state of perpetual neutralization.

The result was, there is negative O, positive O, and True O (infinity), and when we play the numbers game, we are playing with negative and positive infinities only; therefore, if we elect to play the numbers game, everything must be done in multiples of not 3, but PI for that is the only sum that works reasonably well to establish the dimensions of circles, and spheres. C = 186,000mph, therefore, C X 3.14 = 584,040mph, which = true infinity.

Hoyle and cohorts were very close with their SST, but only the entire universe is in what we would say is – a steady state, for outside of it – no thing can possibly be; however, in the inside of the universe, there are four forces, which constantly neutralizes every effect of the external perpetual motion endured by the universe. It is those forces, which cause Real Events that we experience as the Event’s Reality, as they occur, of which, results in our physical experience.

Yes G-man, my model fully incorporates energy deflation into an inflationary model.

Infinity Game

Claude

Ivan, G-man,

Now, do either of you want to explain how Time can be a universal factor, if in fact that I am correct, and the universe as a whole, is infinite, in every respect, as pertaining to, age, dimension, is an externally closed entity that no other thing can enter into it from outside of it, and it cannot change its external appearance, size, age, or dimensionality because it is permanent?

The universe as it exists, is forever permanent because of its infinity; therefore, this will reduce arguments to only those relative to what occurs inside the universe; moreover, the very definition of infinity precludes such arguments, including causal for but one reason, The universe is spinning inside in a “totally frictionless” environment; therefore, insuring its own perpetuity.

Claude

Hi Claude (& all),

Okay, I think I get it:

RE your: "The result was, there is negative O, positive O, and True O (infinity), and when we play the numbers game, we are playing with negative and positive infinities only; therefore, if we elect to play the numbers game, everything must be done in multiples of not 3, but PI for that is the only sum that works reasonably well to establish the dimensions of circles, and spheres. C = 186,000mph, therefore, C X 3.14 = 584,040mph, which = true infinity."

So the mph is a function of C and Pi, and infinity is the Omega, O, an infinite sphere. That makes sense. But there is still the puzzle as to why only "10" digits are valid, as opposed to say 9, or 12? Would a different number of digits yield different results, by a factor or 10, or even 100, or more? If you cut off the decimal, after you drop the O, at say 11, isn't the result 10 times greater, meaning the Earth is not 4,742,765,519 years old, but 47,427,655,195 years old instead? So I'm not clear I follow here.

Time, as you define it, as a function of infinity within infinity, then does not exist, except for the interactions within infinity as they affect each other. But, on the other hand, do these interactions, spin, chemical change, motion, physical distance change, etc., do these not interact of necessity with the infinity? And if so, what happens to their time value? Does it simply cease to exist? Again, this is a puzzle to me.

I can see how the universe, because of its infinity, is permanent in perpetuity, but change within it can also have the effect of altering the nature of that permanence, so that there can be evidence of either progression or regression in relation to what was. Maybe the totality of infinity remains unchanged, and unchangeable, but change is registered within this totality's parts, and if so, then change alters the universe's permanence somehow. Is this not so? Take the progression of changes in life, in how species adapt to changing environments. Where does this change originate? Is it due to some change in the living organism, or is it from the changing conditions within which it finds itself having to survive? Or can it be both. I agree that mutation is a poor excuse, and that there is too much order in the universe to leave it to chance. But where does this change originate?

What a brain tease! Thanks for so many great thoughts.

Ivan

Ivan,

Tongue in cheek on this one,

Ivan: “But there is still the puzzle as to why only "10" digits are valid, as opposed to say 9, or 12?”

Logic says, “What is the total number of digits you have on both hands?”

Why?

Claude

Ivan,

Think about it- if the universe is infinite, there cannot be a place outside of infinity for finite entities to exist; therefore, finite entities only have one place to exist, that being within the infinite place, which is the universe. There can be only one infinite place or entity, for there is no place for another infinite place or entity to exist. Remember, but one O is, so everything inside the infinite place, is finite. Every finite thing or entity is subject to the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, but the infinite place is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics; therefore, change only occurs inside of infinity, and does not affect the infinite place – the universe. The universe is completely equipped with every particle of matter, and every erg of energy; therefore, it requires nothing for the continuation of it in perpetuity.

Interaction does not occur between finite entities, and the infinite place, which is necessarily outside of every finite thing or entity. Finite things and entities often interact with other finite things and entities, and it is necessarily so; therefore, it is apparent then, that finite things and entities can/will/do readily displace the space within the infinite place (universe), in order to have a place for them to occupy.

Think of it this way – the space before your face is infinite, until a finite entity or thing displaces the space in front of you.

Time, is a specific non-entity or non-thing of each individual finite thing or entity, which begins with formation/birth/creation of whatever; therefore, it can be said, Time is local specific only to that, of which, is capable of perceiving changes, if/or when changes occur.

Changes can only occur in finite entities and things; however, such changes do not affect the infinite place other than expansion or contraction as required for entities and things to displace the space required for them to have their own place inside of the universe. Thus, expansion, contraction, and inflation, deflation – are automatic internal functions of the universe, as required.

All changes to finite entities and things begins according to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which begins an Omegatron Dynamic function, which inevitably leads to the total conversion of all matter to energy, and all energy to matter on a regular basis. The process is in essence, the methodology of a perpetual recycling universe that is in every respect, a totally closed self-sufficient system.

Claude

Hi Claude,

Did you mean MPS, when you wrote "C = 186,000mph, therefore, C X 3.14 = 584,040mph, which = true infinity"? I believe that this is the velocity per second, not per hour.

As an Addendum to my "Let there be Light" post July 1,2002, I notice that the description of the whole universe, with an energy rich outer shell and a mass rich inner center, as I described above, is actually not a bad analogy of the singular atom. This fits in rather nicely into my description of the atom, as being a supergravity center modified by photonic energy into the electromechanics forces, resulting in weak and strong forces within the atom. This description is supportive if the [zero x infinity = one] premise, while at the same time is true to the conclusions of interrelationship, which state that the largest is expressed in the smallest. So the elements describing an infinite type universe is then, through the interrelationship principle, replicated within the largest system's smallest components, which happen to be its atoms. So you have infinite mass at the center modified by massless energy on the periphery. Well, it's something to think about, at least interesting from a conceptual point of view.

Hi G-man,

Self-perpetuating cosmology has to be, unless we fall back on the BBT system (where things expand and then collapse). I'd go with a perpetual motion model, where individual parts may undergo change, and thus reflected within the whole, but the system, like the atom/universe examples above, works indefinitely. So, inflation/deflation is only an element of change within the whole, but the whole is perpetually in balance.

Chat later, Ivan

Ivan,

MPS it should be-

Claude

Ivan,

Remember, we are talking about a spinning universe, not a universe in forward motion; hence, an infinite universe would mean, no center is, and no outer is. Which means, in essence, everywhere in the universe is the center, and everywhere in the universe is the outer. It cannot be otherwise; no matter where a location is inside of the universe, that location necessarily is pinpointed in the exact center of the universe.

Remember – and think, “spin characteristics.” The above paragraph, explains the ½ spin characteristics of particles; moreover, it explains the paradoxical Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty, exactly, without error!

Claude

Claude, and All!

How do you solve the infinity spin "without a center" conundrum? One way is to spin infinitesimally, that is atomically, throughout infinity. And that, my friend, is exactly what cosmic reality is all about.

Have a great 4th of July!

Ivan

Everyone,

Recently trying to put to rest vagaries that continue to confound scientist/cosmologists and physicists today, I came across the following documentation as written by Edwin Hubble himself concerning the Redshift Phenomena.

"If the redshifts are a Doppler shift ... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time."

Source -Edwin Hubble, Royal Astronomical Society, M. N., 17, 506, 1937

Claude

Good source of info, Claude!

This universe may be one big humongous place. How
do you measure infinity? I think physicists who
are clinging to the Big Bang have an inherent
insecurity, like children who are afraid of
looking in the closet. In fact, boys, it's a very
big universe, and we're only in a very tiny
portion of it, as far as the Hubble eye could see.
I love it!

Cheers! Ivan

Everyone,

Still chasing the dastardly snakes of Science, I came across an old issue of Nature. I had always wondered about the magic of Albert Einstein, but if one searches long enough the truth can be found. In general science, E=MC2 has been used since J.J. Thompson noted the energy-mass equivalence for the case of an electrically charged body. In the April 5, 1900 volume of Nature the following quote can be found.

"The calculations of M. Henri Becquerel show that this energy is of the order of one ten-millionth of a watt per second. Hence a loss of weight of about a milligram in a thousand million years would suffice to account for the observed effects, assuming the energy of the radiation to be derived from the actual loss of material. The assumption that accounts for the stated figures is E=mc2."

M. Henri Becquerel is credited with the discovery Radioactivity-

Claude

Everyone,

Am I bonkers?

Relativity is applicable only when two objects are involved. If that is true, it is a basic, fundamental weakness in R and SR, and can be used to deny that a Singularity such as Black Holes could occur, for a Singularity is not relative to any other thing! Relativity cannot, and does not apply to a Singularity. If one is to listen to advocates of the BBT, Gravity exists between all entities in the universe, but I doubt that can be true, for if it were, we would be attracted toward Alpha Centauri as well as earth, but that does not accord with my reasoning – It would require an infinite amount of energy for us to be attracted toward Alpha Centauri, and since the Theory of Relativity is “regional,” how could it be possible for the Gravity of Alpha Centauri to effect us here on earth? Fact would be: The water in a pond ripples only until it reaches the edge of it!

According to E=MC2, mass increases as it is accelerated to C; therefore, should not a mass “diminish” in proportion as speed decreases? Or, are the laws of the BBT crowd strictly one-way affairs that nobody can doubt, or stomp upon?

Concerning – divide by O, which is the mathematic equal of Infinity – SR and R are now totally wrong and flawed for – a Singularity is both “Infinitely large, and Infinitely small simultaneously - Thus 9999999999 / 0 = Infinity, as is 1 / 0 = Infinity; therefore, a Black Hole cannot be defined mathematically! Do not believe?

If something in our universe approaches a singularity (black hole), the something would appear very tiny, but when it leaves the universe to enter the black hole, it would become infinitely large as it crosses the Einstein-Rosen-Bridge!

Think – Relativity is based only on light; therefore, it is a pure ghost affair of “perception only,” and Black Holes are figments of lost physicists whimsy.

Claude

Everyone,

Follows are the words of Louis Essen concerning errors in R and SR – Essen is the inventor of the Cesium Atomic Clock, and a man who should know something about – Time.

“Einstein’s theory of relativity was dealt with very briefly in my university course but we were told that we must not expect to understand it. I accepted this situation and I have since discovered that most physicists are content to remain in the same position assuming that it must be right because it is generally accepted. My doubts about it arose when I found that the experts did not understand either. An exchange of letters in Nature between Dingle and McCrea showed that they had opposite views about some of the predictions of the theory and the arguments advanced on both sides were in my view illogical and unconvincing. Much of the discussion about the theory was concerned with the readings of clocks when they are moving relatively to each other, and since I had a wide experience of comparing clocks and measuring time it seemed to be almost a duty to take a closer interest in the controversy especially as some of the so-called relativity effects although very small were not becoming significant in the definition of the atomic second and the use of atomic clocks.

It is always better to refer to the original papers rather than to second hand accounts and I, therefore, studied Einstein’s famous paper, often regarded as one of he most important contributions in the history of science. Imagine my surprise when I found that it was in some respects one of the worse papers I had ever read. The terminology and style were unscientific and ambiguous; one of his assumptions is given on different pages in two contradictory forms, some of his statements were open to different interpretations and the worst fault in my view, was the use of thought-experiments. This practice is contrary to the scientific method, which is based on conclusions drawn from the results of actual experiments. My first thoughts were, that in spite of its obvious faults of presentation, the theory must be basically sound, and before committing my criticisms to print I read widely round the subject. The additional reading only confirmed my belief that the theory was marred by its own internal contradictions. Relativitists often state that, the theory is accepted by all scientists of repute, but this is quite untrue. It has been strongly criticised by many scientists, including at least one Nobel Prize winner. Most of the criticisms are of a general nature drawing attention to its many contradictions, so I decided to pin-point the errors which give rise to the contradictions, giving the page and line in Einstein’s paper, thus making it difficult for relativitists to dodge them and obscure them in a morass of irrational discussion.

Special Theory flawed

There were definite errors about which there can be no argument. One was the assumption that the velocity of light is constant. This is contrary to the foundations of science and the fact that it is repeated in all the textbooks I have seen, shows how little these foundations are understood by theoretical physicists. Science is based on the results of experiment and these results must be expressed in a single coherent set of units. The unit of length was the metre and the unit of time was the second. Velocity was a measured quantity as so many metres per second. Even though it was found to be constant under certain conditions, it was quite wrong to make it a constant by definition under all conditions. Only the unit of measurement can be made constant by definition and Einstein’s assumption constituted a duplication of units. It was this duplication that led to puzzling and contradictory results and not the profundity of the theory as relativitists like us to believe.

The question of units is a rather complicated one; and in this instance some writers are confused by the fact that the velocity of light is now often used as a standard, distances being calculated from the time of travel of a pulse of light or radio waves; but the value used is the measured value and the conditions of measurement are carefully defined. Quite recently a further complication has arisen. At the end of our work at the NPL we made the suggestion that as the techniques improved it might be advantageous to redefine the units of measurement, keeping the atomic second, giving a defined value to the velocity of light and discarding the unit of length. This has now been done, but these developments do not affect the criticisms of the theory. Even with these units it would still be absurd to assume that the velocity would be the same for two observers in relative motion. Units must be used with common sense.

Thought experiments

The other glaring mistake occurred in the course of one of his thought experiments. Einstein had never made any actual experiments, as far as I can find, and he certainly had no idea of how to compare clocks. He imagined two identical clocks side by side and supposed one of them to move away at a uniform velocity and then return. According to one of the results deduced from the theory a moving clock appears to go slower than the stationary one when viewed from the stationary position. Calling the clocks A and B the predictions are:

B is slower than A as seen from A

and since velocity is only relative and either of the clocks can be regarded as the moving one:

A is slower than B as seen from B

This is certainly strange although not logically impossible. It implies that something happens to the signals during their transmission. He then outlines his experiment without giving any details of how the measurements are made and concludes that:

B is slower than A

and although he does not specifically say so:

A is slower than B

in accordance with the relativity principle.

This result is of course impossible, and is usually called the clock paradox. Many thousands of words have been written about it, but the explanation is simply that he did not go through the correct procedures in making his experiment. It is a very simple experiment, being carried out every day in clock comparisons, and the correct result agrees with his predictions, as indeed it must do since a thought experiment cannot give a new result. The predictions themselves are also inexplicable but this is one of the consequences of the duplication of units.

I had rather naively thought that scientists would be glad to have an explanation of the confusion, which had existed for so long and would at least pay some attention to my explanation, since I had more practical experience in these matters than all the relativitists put together. But I was wrong. No one attempted to refute my arguments although they justified Einstein by repeating his thought experiment and his mistakes in different forms. I was, however, dropped some pretty broad hints that if I continued to criticise the theory my reputation and career prospects were likely to suffer. It was only a sideline to my experimental work, but I found it so interesting that I did not feel like dropping it, and felt that it was very important that the theory should be exposed. My Director was good about it and said he had no objection himself as long as I did not involve the NPL. I was beginning to realise that scientists could be just as irrational as anyone else and having accepted the theory as a faith without understanding it they closed their minds to argument. They also tried to suppress opposition and two of my papers after being accepted by the referees were mysteriously never published.

I was not entirely without support and was invited to write an article by the Oxford University Press. It was not so comprehensive as they hoped, since I was not able to devote as much time to it as I would have liked, and lacked the secretarial assistance of my department, but it was accepted and published as one of their Research Papers (No. 5). The Director of the Royal Institution also invited me to give one of their Friday Evening Discourses. This was quite enthusiastically received and I had many letters of congratulation, although, as I noticed with some amusement, most of them were written on private notepaper and not on the paper of their organisations, as one would normally expect.

The history of relativity would make a fascinating study and I regret that I do not feel competent to do it myself. I have kept to those aspects dealing with units of measurement and the comparison of clocks which I know something about. It was inspired by the puzzling results of an experiment made by Michelson and Morley. They argued that if light travelled at a steady velocity through the medium, or aether, and the surface of the earth was moving through this medium there should be a detectable effect on the movement, but they failed to detect any. Fitzgerald and Lorentz gave an empirical explanation that moving rods were shortened and moving clocks were slowed down. Scientists badly wanted a more detailed satisfactory explanation and this is what Einstein thought he had done. All he did was to introduce irrational ideas into physics and incorporate the Lorentz explanation into electromagnetic theory as an assumption. The original puzzling results, therefore, remain and it is important to science that a true explanation should be found.

Joke or swindle!

The famous paper published in 1905 does not appear to have attracted any attention until Eddington returned from an expedition to study the eclipse in 1919, and with great publicity announced to a meeting of the Astronomical Society in London that the results had proved Einstein’s theory. What he thought he had confirmed was Einstein’s value for the bending of light round the sun. Scientists were prepared to go to a lot of trouble to obtain experimental evidence for the theory as they realised that this was necessary and yet Eddington is supposed to have said that the theory was so satisfactory that if the experimental results did not confirm it then they must be wrong. A criticism of the results made later pointed out that in order to obtain the result he wanted, some of the observations, which did not fit were ignored. Also someone has pointed out, with some evidence, that Einstein himself had predicted two results differing by 2 to 1 for the deflection. Finally the deflection of the sun’s rays has nothing to do with the special theory and the clock paradox and yet in some mysterious way it was claimed to confirm it. Still searching for experimental support an experiment was made in the US some years ago. Four atomic clocks were carried by plane in opposite directions round the world. The discrepancies between the results for different clocks were many times greater than the effect being sought, and yet by ignoring the results they did not like and performing some undescribed statistical analysis the authors claimed to have confirmed Einstein’s theory and specifically the clock paradox. There was a spectacular television programme about it in which a well-known actor was installed in a simulated space shuttle and told that he would come back younger than if he had stayed on earth. Being an intelligent man he appeared to regard it as a lot of nonsense as I hope the viewers did.

Unified field theory

My intrusion into theoretical physics must be regarded as a failure in that I did not convince the relativitists of their mistakes. It may have had some benefit in encouraging scientists to look for a rational extension of electromagnetic theory to explain the many mysteries not yet explained. There have been several attempts, that of Rene L Vallée being in my view particularly encouraging. It is a unified field theory giving an electromagnetic explanation of gravitation, and including a most important suggestion that it might be possible to harness the gravitational energy of space safely and economically. He argued that the nuclear energy programme in France was wasteful and misdirected and was in consequence obliged to leave the authority for which he worked. It is sad if his ideas were not fully studied because the nuclear fusion programmes throughout the world seem to make little progress in spite of the billions spent on them.”

--------
Claude

Hi Claude,

Definitely bonkers! But not worse than me.

RE: "According to E=MC2, mass increases as it is accelerated to C; therefore, should not a mass “diminish” in proportion as speed decreases?"

It would seem that at C, mass becomes infinite, but not necessarily infinite in the sense that it is infinitely dense. Rather, it makes more sense that in being infinite, it is infinitely diluted, so that there mass is actually = zero, same as the mass of a photon. This BTW is what happens in my model, where at light speed, mass is zero, same as photonic mass. What makes this whole thing intriguing is that zero mass has the power to then interact with infinite mass, which becomes expressed in the atomic mass of one, ie., zero x infinity = 1. So E=mc2 is not a crazy idea, if this is how the universe works, for it is an accurate expression of light and infinity interaction, which results in mass, which is then scattered throughout infinity in clumps. Why clumps? This can only be answered by how the universe structures itself, though there is plasma and neutrinos and light and gravity throughout the system.

As for relativity, that is only a function of perception, depending upon your point of viewing events and relative to your velocity when doing so. It is that simple, though physics, through its complex math, has made it something more than what it really is, by making it model of space-time rather than merely a function of perception. So this is much ado about nothing, since it is only a way to measure events in motion, and it does not have any bearing on how the universe has structured itself, which in fact will prove to be of amazingly simple. It is now up to observation to validate what the universe is doing within itself as an infinite machine capable of producing Life and Consciousness.

Keep bringing those great resources, so they will be recorded under our heading of TOE. Thanks!

All the best, Ivan

Neutrino reference science article:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/08/soudan.mine.ap/index.html

What does it mean?

Ivan

Ivan,

Mass at C (forward straight line velocity like a light beam) = Infinite Density, and Size- which is what gave us the BBT- and Singularity. Spin velocity = less density and size, exponentially reduced by the inverse square of PI x distance outward from the center. The inverse square of PI = 6.4265076052

What it means is, photons do not have the ability to interact and produce matter – but the neutrino can, and will – Neutrino mass has been confirmed several times; however, there are anomalies that require corrections before precise standards are established since there are three type of neutrinos. That is the purpose of the Soudan, Minnesota site.

Super-Kamiokande

Upper Limits Neutrino Mass

Claude

Claude, thanks for the info on neutrinos.

RE: NEUTRINOS AND COSMOLOGY: http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/significance.html

"The problem of missing mass or dark matter has received widespread exposure. In observational astronomy, gravitational influences are evident, within and among galaxies, which exceed those expected from the visible matter (i.e. stars). Neutrinos have been suggested as one source of this gravitation, but the small neutrino masses implied by the Super-Kamiokande result may be insufficient to account for all, or even most, of it. More likely is renewed theoretical attention to the cosmological effects of neutrinos with mass. At the very least, the neutrino is the first serious particle physics dark matter candidate actually known to exist."

I still do not understand how neutrinos create mass, or gravity for that matter. Dark matter is a measurable gravitational anomaly whereby deep space does not account for all the matter of the universe. In my proposal [(1/c2 x hc/w) + g = m] this anomaly is accounted for by mass being a variable, which means that away from energy sources, mass increases. This may account for the "missing" mass of the universe, since this mass is only a fraction of universal mass in the vicinity of star systems, like the one we live in, because of the abundance of light (neutrino?) energy in the star's environment. Keep in mind the quote from above: " In observational astronomy, gravitational influences are evident, within and among galaxies, which exceed those expected from the visible matter (i.e. stars)." So this means that the real mass of the universe, as represented by deep space (away from light energy sources), is greater than here.

I should note that conceptually, the May 25, 2002 algorithm [(1/c2 x hc/w) + g = m] which expresses both the light energy (with zero mass), and an atom's supergravity center (with infinite mass), can be understood either as 1/c2 representing the infinite mass center, and the zero mass of photonic light; or on the other hand, hc/w can represent zero point of supergravity mass, and infinite radiation of photonic light energy. (Note that the effective intensity of this radiation decreases with the R^2 ratio at a distance, so that it loses its strength rather rapidly in the great distances of space). Either way, these forces cancel out into a unit of mass (minus the small left over byproduct of a weak gravitational force). Together, this interaction then accounts for the mass in the universe, except that the mass in the vicinity of a star, or galaxy, or surrounding a black hole event horizon (before it sinks into the black hole, in which case it is then absorbed by the supergravity there), is less than when far away from these in deep space. So if you were to get aboard a space ship and travel a million light years away from our galaxy, your mass would be much greater than it is here on Earth. To find measurable evidence of this would be most exciting, since it would revolutionize our understanding of physics, and with it the Theory of Everything.

Not being too "heavy" I hope, Ivan

Ivan,

Perhaps the following link will help you get started.

Mirror Neutrinos

Ok- The next link explains the dark matter problem. Here, a reminder: In all experiments concerning photon collisions creating matter, the one factor most people forget is, one of the photons is a “virtual” photon, not a true photon-

Solar Neutrino Problem Solved

Finally a test to prove Einstein was right or wrong concerning Time Dilation-

Time Tests

Concerning algorithm of May 25, 2002, you must insert actual numbers to prove validity before assuming anything-

Claude

Ivan,

I had to dig the following link out of my archives. Perhaps it will help you understand neutrinos. You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view it - the HTML version sucks.

Neutrinos

Claude

Ivan,

One more link - this one concerns discovery of the "tau" neutrino. Most physicists believe it was the "final building block of matter" to be discovered. Personally, I am not convinced that it is the last building block, so I am content to wait until the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN to go online -

Tau Neutrino

Claude

Question: We tend to understand/measure mass according to a functional triangular coordinate proximity, for location purposes, i.e. velocity, gravity, travel distance. Is it possible that a singular force/phenomenon could explain all variable...assuming that such singular force were measurable (variably) according to time sequential phases? (Example: Absent polar em ionization factors, consider the mass of an inert stationary sphere in a vacuum, versus an energeaicly spinning sphere. We tend to define mass for both the still and spinning as equal & constant, according to relations to other mass/gravity sources. Yet does a grounded 747 weigh the same as a 747 flying at 600 mph?) My point? Ad more background and context here...for each and all. (The purpose of this forum is for ruthless critical challenge--so as to allow/encourage refinements for a world-class audience:) G-man

G-man,

I have been working on the problem as you stated it, but the results are going to be most difficult to explain for it cannot be done numerically, or symbolically. There is a limit to what can be achieved with determinate calculus and geometric function, when function is purely analog and such action occurs in a wholly fluid environment, which can inevitably annihilate every known logic for pressurized density necessitates an additional fourth and fifth factors – density of fluid the 4th (most difficult to ascertain), and the obvious motion of the ‘aether’ the 5th, which is for all practical purposes – a given at this stage of proofs.

I desperately need the full content study by Dayton Miller as compiled 1933 concerning motion of the aether (Miller was the student of Michelson & Morely), which was so far as we know – destroyed by Robert S. Shankland 1955, fourteen years after Miller died, which is totally suspect in light of the evidence that reveals Shankland could not defeat the studies while Miller was alive.

It is the motion of the aether that confounds Relativity, and Special Relativity, but so far as I know no similar studies have ever been made with the expertise and rigorous means expended by Miller to substantiate conclusive, irrefutable results. If the Miller study is undeniable, that means the BBT is totally dead in every respect, for that study was the single barrier to full acceptance by physics in general of R and SR. E himself wrote a letter to Shankland, thanking him for his “refutation” of Millers’ study –

Follows between the ------- lines is a quote from a thesis by James DeMeo, Ph.D., and it is © Copyright by James DeMeo.
------------------------

After his death in 1941, Miller's work was finally "put to rest", in the publication of a critical 1955 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics by Robert S. Shankland, S.W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone and G. Kuerti (hereafter referred to as the "Shankland team" or "Shankland" paper), which purported to make a fair and comprehensive review Miller's data, finding substantial flaws.

Lloyd Swenson's Ethereal Aether (1972) presents a cursory discussion of Miller and his "inexplicable" positive results, giving a high degree of significance to the Shankland team's critique. Swenson wrote:
"...Shankland, after extensive consultation with Einstein, decided to subject Miller's observations to a thoroughgoing review ... Einstein saw the final draft [of Shankland's pre-publication manuscript] and wrote a personal letter of appreciation for having finally explained the small periodic residuals from [Miller's] Mount Wilson experiments." (Swenson, p.243)

In August of 1954, Einstein replied to Shankland:

"I thank you very much for sending me your careful study about the Miller experiments. Those experiments, conducted with so much care, merit, of course, a very careful statistical investigation. This is more so as the existence of a not trivial positive effect would affect very deeply the fundament of theoretical physics as it is presently accepted. You have shown convincingly that the observed effect is outside the range of accidental deviations and must, therefore, have a systematic cause [having] nothing to do with 'ether wind', but with differences of temperature of the air traversed by the two light bundles which produce the bands of interference." (Shankland, 1973a, p.2283)

From the above accounts, it certainly would appear that the case was finally closed on Miller, and that all the lose ends were finally cleaned up. With the strongest support for cosmological ether-drift swept aside as the alleged product of temperature errors, Einstein's theory of relativity continued to grow in popularity and dominance.”
-------------------

As you can perceive, Einstein knew R and SR were in trouble, and remained in trouble across a broad spectrum of physicists, until Shankland published the study 1955. Soon after, the BBT slowly began to be the model of choice, which even went against ideas of Einstein himself. Still, most physicists ignore Albert’s complete denial that a Singularity could occur according to R and SR – yet, we have Black Holes running rampant in the universe without one factual, and believable candidate observed, and this is 60 years after physics fell into the bottomless abyss of the BBT- where it continues to wallow in ignominious mediocrity-

Claude

Atomic line-up, a surprise discovery.

Sandia National Labs in New Mexico reports that atoms do not distribute randomly, but arrange themselves into patterns. Is this a validation of the concept of "interrelationship", as set totalities defining their individual parts in relation to the whole? Could be.

If we think of the 10,000 atoms of lead constituting a whole, and the collective of their internal forces then interrelating in such a way that they then "redefine" themselves into the patterns evident, then the characteristics of an interrelated whole begins to make sense.

Question is, does this happen in all cases when atoms are left on their own, so that instead of forming random patterns, they actually form recognizable patterns? Is this a duplicatable event? If so, then not only does it satsify the definition of an "interrelationship totality redefining itself", but may also have industrial applications.

See science article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1539000/1539873.stm

How would this fit into our TOE?

Can you beat entropy?

There is evidence the answer is "maybe" in very small systems, for a very short period of time. However, like the article on atomic patterns above, it may in fact show that entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in very small systems may not always be true. The same may be theorized for very large natural systems, such as those that interrelate systems tending to infinity. Or, as in the atomic evidence above, in any closed system that organizes itself at the atomic level, i.e., crystals.

See Science article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2135000/2135779.stm

Ivan,

For me to answer the questions is dependent on finding of the Omegatron Neutrino- If what I suspect is true, atrophy does not occur at the universal level - only at the finite levels we are familiar with inside OF the universe.

Claude

G-man,

Chasing you down is hard - zipping across the Inet is not the easiest method either.

Watching your posting times- send me your dratted telehpone number via email.

Claude

This Pi is a piece of cake.

"How random is Pi?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2146295.stm

Lotto anyone? Of course, ten digits after decimal is... Pi runs into the zillions!

Ivan,

Now you understand why I don't trust math.

Claude

TOE resource / Ultimate Physics.

http://www.ultiph
ys.com/

Wu Chi Kay © 1999-2001 All rights reserved.

TOE SUMMARY, to date:

Hi All!

This is a TOE Summary, as "Natural Simplicity", which I will be presenting to "Ultimate Physics" at: http://www.ultiphys.com/ to share where we've gone thus far. But we are not far enough. We can go more!

All the best, Ivan

(revised Aug. 16,2002)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATURAL SIMPLICITY OF TOE.

If we were to summarize all that had been written in Humancafe's Forum to date on the TOE, I think it results in an amazingly natural simplicity, which then branches out into both physics and philosophical ontology. As you will see below, there is no need to creat mathematically derived distortions of space, or multi dimensions of space-time, to understand TOE. It is much more simple and natural than that. It starts with One. (See: 5/22/2002: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?1/59.html )

The foundational idea behind this Theory of Everything is that Total Being equals Identity.

This means that all things in existence are interconnected to each other from their point of being to the infinite totality of the universe. These interconnections form patterns, which may be called interrelationships, which in turn interconnect to the universal totality. Since each point is now defined by these patterns in terms of where it is in relation within them, then at infinity, in a kind of universal calculus, the totality interrelationship patterns totally define each point of existence in relation to where they are within that whole. (See: 7/14/2002: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?1/61.html /to Inexpressible Committee "Total being = identity" ) To put it another way, A=A not because Aristotle said so, but because all of "infinity minus A" says so, so that it becomes itself, as A=A.

This new way of seeing identity as a product of an infinite interrelationship yields a surprising result of unity, so that it can be expressed as "zero x infinity = one". This is the same as saying that each thing within the universe is define by its unit in terms of everything else. Because infinity must incorporate all numbers, those from zero to one, and those from one to infinity, we have the unique phenomenon that all numbers can be expressed as their inverse within an infinite system. So that all numbers from one down to zero, expressed as fractions, have their counterpart as digits from one to infinity. In other words, 0 x Infinity = 1 is also 1/3 x 3 = 1, or 1/3000000 x 3000000 = 1, etc., which then yields the interesting phenomenon whereby any fraction multiplied by infinity yields one minus the fraction (for fractions, One is Totality); and any whole number multiplied by infinity yields itself, and "infinity minus the number", so that both results are correct. (See: 6/1/2002: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?1/59.html ) So that multiply 3 x infinity = 3 , and "infinity-3"; multiply 1/3 x infinity = 2/3. This new way of seeing numbers as products of infinity then yields results that can be used in a new way of seeing "zero x infinity = 1". This Unity of One is realized simply in nature because things also have their inverse, and also have their definition from totality as themselves, as all totality minus the thing identified. Therefore, zero to one represents one totality; whereas one to infinity represents the other totality, together multiplying out into One.

This then lends itself to application in real terms, though I caution it is only a philosophical model: If we take an atom to represent mass as equal to one, m=1; and we take energy to represent infinity, E=infinity, or its inverse; and we take zero to represent the atom's infinitely powerful force (equivalent to Black Hole gravity) as a binding force, or its inverse; then we can substitute and rewrite Einstein's famous formula of E=mc^2. Therefore, it is rewriteen as E/c^2=m, which further can be substituted, using m=1, E=pc=hc/w (p=momentum, h=Planck's constant, w=wavelength of light, c=light speed), we can rewrite Einstein's formula as 1/c^2 x hc/w = m=1. (See: 5/25/2002: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?1/59.html , also see Momentum of Photon: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html#c2 ).

However, this formula, hc/w=m, then yields another surprising result, in that light energy is a variable which influences the equation. The remainder of that equation becomes gravity, what is left over from within the deep force (infiniton?) of the atom as it is modified by energy to produce mass. This variable, residual gravity is not witnessed within a particular star system, since the system exhibits a gravitational constant due to the constant level of energy received by it. However, going deep into space, far from a star system, by this algorithmic formula, would be revealed a gravitational variant. So the formula would be rewritten as (1/c^2 x hc/w) = m-g, where g is the gravitational constant. Or, for the sake of simplicity, it would be (1/c^2 x hc/w) + g = m. This then represents the TOE algorithm formula, based on E=mc^2.

What does this mean in the cosmos, in nature?

If we take all the fractional numbers to represent the forces within the atom, as absolute deep force gravity to represent either zero or some value tending towards one, then the atom is represented as one. If so, then all variables within that force yields the physical results we have identified through physics to represent the interior and electromagnetic forces of the atom, both in their strong and weak forces. If we take all the integer numbers to represent atoms, and all their interrelationships to some cosmic totality, some set that includes all that is in existence, then all of existence is spanned by the forces accumulated to infinity which is the total universal mass, minus gravity, which is the left over byproduct. This means that gravity in the vicinity of a stable energy source is likewise stable, a constant, but away from that energy source, where it is unstable, it becomes a variable. If so, then mass away from a stable energy source grows in intensity. In a Black Hole star, it is absolute, so that nothing survives as energy, nor mass; at the periphery event horizon of this absolute gravity is a superabundance of energy, which is evidenced by the great concentration of star energy sources surrounding it, as we have at the galaxy center. Taken as a whole, the galaxy then represents a stable energy source, so that gravity tends to be more constant, but away from the galaxy, or at its absolute center, gravity is intensified, and with it mass, or gravitation attraction. This prediction would be vindicated if it can be shown through observation that gravity away from a galaxy is greater than within it. As of now, this is still unknown.

As for the Totality of Being equal Identity, this would be satisfied by each thing within the universe, by its position within the whole, then taking on the characteristics of infinity minus itself, so that an apple is that by the nature of everything else that is around it, or had been around it through the process of existence, in an infinite regress to some obscure beginning of time. Therefore, the identity of anything in existence is determined by its place within it now, and over time.

If this reasoning is then applied to living things, then each thing within the universe that is alive has its essence of life going back to the beginning of life, since each living thing is descended from its parents, and simultaneously is alive with the essence of all of existence around it, interrelated to infinity, the universal totality. Does this mean the universe is a living entity? In a way, yes. Does this then mean consciousness as we know it in ourselves is already a universal phenomenon? Very likely, yes. We live in a universal totality that is consciousness. Some of this consciousness is thus evident in all living things, as long as living things have locomotion, ability to learn, and to choose, but in us it is paramount because we are actually aware enough of it to give it a name: consciousness. Therefore, in conclusion, what the universal consciousness has done through time is evolve a replica of itself, which we call Mind. This will also be the opening for a new kind of biophysics still unknown to us.

What does this all mean?

We are beings of light, in how light interacts within the deep forces of the atom, to make it into a unit of mass. This means that all of creation is a product of light and the absolute darkness of nothingness. If there were no light energy present, the universe would very likely revert back to some stygian singularity of absolute gravity. We, as living entities, are also replicas of universal consciousness, for we have a mind. All living things are replicas of universal life force, and universal consciousness as it manifests in them. In us, we being the most conscious beings of which we are aware to date, that consciousness has evolved enough to make us conscious of it. We are who we are, as individual entities, by the force of being products of an infinite interrelationship that defines each one of us in relation to everything else in existence. This is the conscious Who we Are in our self identity, in our minds.

Thus, being entities of light, and being aware of who we are as individual identities, we can philosophize, and even create a Theory of Everything. (See: 5/25/2002: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?1/59.html ) This is the complexity of all existence brought down to its natural simplicity: We are who we are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that this TOE as mentioned above is the result of a team effort by many contributors, so that I cannot claim its sole authorship in its entirety, but am merely one more contributor to its creation. To read more on how these ideas were derived, and other ideas expressed in parallel, please see the Forum at Humancafe.com >> Theory of Everything: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/ Thank you to all who had contributed to this development of ideas. Nevertheless, I take full responsibility for any of its defects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I invite all ideas, criticisms, support, parallel thoughts, logic, algorithms, brain storms, feelings, or graffiti, in response to my above. All ideas are welcome.

Sincerely, and truly with joy,

Ivan Alexander©

Dear Claude,

In reviewing some of our earlier posts while
composing the entry for Ultimate Physics TOE
(above), I came across this quote, which I think
needs reexamination:

"By Claude on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 12:43 pm:
The Four Forces of the Universe-

Strong Force
Weak Force
Electromagnetic Force
Gravity

Again, the four forces identified by science,
reinforces the conceptual Hierarchical Order of
Structure of the Universe. The conceptual
Hierarchical Order further retains the sense of
order as perceived by humans, of which could
possibly be subject to change; however, if in fact
such a change is required, it would demand
conclusive, irrefutable proof."

As you will see from the post above, NATURAL
SIMPLICITY OF TOE, I have not come to the same
conclusion as you have. The first three forces
you mention: strong force, weak force, and
electromagnetic force; are all forces WITHIN the
atom, not germane to the rest of the cosmos. Only
gravity is external to the atom, the universal
force that exerts influence throughout the cosmos.
Electromagnetic force also leaks out of the atom,
but is lost at a fairly short distance. Thus only
gravity is truly universal, though it too leaks
out of the atom, since it spans space to infinity.
I bring this up because in my post above, I make
the distinction between what happens between zero
and one, as inside the atom, and one to infinity,
which is what is outside the atom. The structure
of TOE, as here presented, then is contingent on
how these two sides of one, fractions decreasing
to zero, and integers increasing to infinity,
interact as their inverses.

This is important, because by showing it this way,
I can interrelate both the infinitesimally small
with the inversely infinitely large. Then
combining this thesis with the thesis of
interrelationship, I can further combine them into
a totally comprehensive, and easily
comprehensible, thesis of how the universe is self
interactive, and consciousness. This
consciousness is then evident in all its living
species, most dominantly in us.

I hope this helps clarify my view somewhat better,
and explains why I see it this way. If it is to
be truly a Theory of Everything, then it must be
able to reconcile what at present are
irreconcilable, and philosophically contestable,
issues. Those issues are whether or not
objectivity is compatible with subjectivity, or
whether reason can validate self consciousness.
In the universe as constructed by TOE as stated
above, those issues are easily resolved, for we
live in a conscious universe, and we are the light
filled conscious beings within it.

Take care, please continue on your TOE, as I think
we are very close to an important breakthrough.

Ivan

Well, Gentlemen, I rest my case.

In his excellent critique of modern physics as being mainstream mathematical physics, as opposed to a reality based natural physics, Wu Chi Kay says: http://www.unifiedtoe.com/index.html

"A detective or a Don Quixote seeking the Theory of Everything may trigger the renaissance of natural physics. The outsider sees the best. One of the outsiders may notice the key, while insiders usually see the trees but not the forest."

We are "outsiders" and in our thinking have come up with a "key" which, if nothing else, is simply elegant. With it we are able to incorporate atomic structure, gravity, infinity based mathematics, the interrelationship of all existence, and the phenomenon of conscious Being. And all this was done with the deceptive simplicity of "zero time infinity equals one". I suspect Nature takes the deceptively easiest course in its economy of how it structures itself. Nature does not live in a Wonderland world of multi-dimensionality of space-time, though other dimensions of reality may exist beyond ours. Though the mathematical games of modern physics may be intriguing, they are merely models describing themselves, same as Ptolemeic astronomy described only a model of itself. The concentric circles within circles, to explain how the planets and the sun went around the Earth, were fascinating, but it took for Copernicus to prove the Earth is not at the center of the solar system. Thus the unbelievably complex astronomy of the Middle Ages was replaced with the simple elegance of the Copernican idea. I suspect we are there, that we are about to blow apart the mathematical models of modern physics, with their anywhere from 5D to 17D dimensions. The breakthrough will happen when we discover Gravity is not a "universal constant", but a constant only within its locale. So now we wait for confirmation. It will come.

Again, thank you so much for all your fine thoughts, for my thoughts could not have germinated without them.

I am most Gratefully yours,

Ivan

BBC article re gravity deflection experiment:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2157975.stm

Whether or not this is plausible, or just bad science, will come to light. However, if it is good science, then it will be one more road marker on the way to the new TOE as developed above. This may mean that photonic energy may influence the gravitational mass of matter to give the effect of a gravity shield by influencing the mass above the spinning-super conduction ring. It does not mean that gravity is "cut off", but that the device has influenced the mass around it, or above it. At least, that's how our TOE would explain it.

I should note here that gravity may act as a kind of medium in its own right, so that a denser gravity mass (away from energy source) may be attracted to the less dense gravitational environment near the photonic energy source, in a way similar to hot air rising within cooler-denser air. If so, then matter in deep space would be naturally drawn towards star systems, and in so doing would lose density upon approaching the energy filled solar systems. This would also explain why those comets which have orbits that take them way past the last planets return again, since as they exit the solar system their mass increases, which makes them fall back towards the "lighter mass" area of the sun, only to be sling-shoted back out again. Mind you, this is only thinking out loud and would need observational validation, but it could explain why space is lumpy with large stretches of the cosmos relatively empty of mass. This same reasoning could also have ramifications on our calculations of mass within solar active stars, since there the mass would be much lighter than for an inactive star.

Ivan

Ivan,

Yevgeny Podkletnov's theory has ran rampant off and on since 1997, but so far, has never been duplicated anywhere in the world that I am aware of. Most of these stories originate in the UK, but there is no credibility to them. NASA has tried several times with no luck; moreover, the original research is not consistent in its findings; in other words, one time = one result, the next time = a different result.

Boeing dropped the notion 3 days after beginning tests because Yevgeny Podkletnov could not tell them how to make the "ceramic disks."

Claude

G constant may not be?
http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm

New gravity model by David W. Allan introduces an energy density component and diallel, gravitational-field lines as part of new Unified Field Theory.

I don't know if this gravity model has merrit, but I was intrigued by a line in David Allan's paper on the Deep Space probes, Pioneer 10, 11, and Ulysses, where he says: "The space vehicles exhibit a pull toward the sun greater than current theory would predict by about 2e-8 cm/s^2," vs. G constant of 9.8 m/s^2, which is a miniscule difference, but as our TOE predicted above. I suspect, and still looking for verification of this, that the variance will be much greater outside the planetary system, and greatest in deep space away from the galaxy. Of course, this is only theory, and my explanation of why this is so may be lost in space, but that's how it stacks up.

Keeping eyes and ears open, and mind too.

Ivan