Strange Anomalies in Science. Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » On the Failings of Reason (closed-archived) » Strange Anomalies in Science. « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 07:05 pm:   

Strange Anomalies in Science.

This page is dedicated to the strangeness of some scientific evidence for which we may or may not know the reason. In some cases, a new science is called for, while in others is needed a better understanding of current science. If theory bumps against facts repeatedly, then reason must be called up to question theory, or reason 'fails'.

An example is Seeing through Silver where light can pass through solid metal, in this case either zinc or silver. It could make for see through solid walls, or a better one-way mirror? I can imagine future spacecraft with 'see through' in their metallic walls.

Maybe not too strange, but 'quantum tunneling' appears strange. http://focus.aps.org/story/v18/st4

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 01:32 am:   

Something strange is happening near the galactic black-hole.

NewScientist article on Baby stars near galaxy's center:
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9738-baby-star-found-near-galaxys-vio lent-centre.html

Stars are birthing there, which is contrary to current understandings in astrophysics. How can stars form in such numbers in relative closeness to the colossal to the behemothic gravity hole there? However, if gravity is great enough in that region to fuse the heavy hydrogen, such as spat out the axis, then star formation so close to that black-hole axis makes perfect sense. But we don't know that, because for our current reason, gravity G is a universal constant. So these new million-years-old stars there are a surprise to us.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 05:36 am:   

To Ivan
In general and special relativity extreme speeds and extreme gravity cause time dilation.

Question #1
Is it possible that since every center of mass has an effect on every other center of mass, time dilation is caused by the change in gravity due to the movement of something away from other masses at high speeds (near or at the speed of light)? Or perhaps if gravity just is (a space medium or even space-time itself), then moving at extreme velocities (along it) might be something like approaching the instantaneous nature of gravity and thus could be responsible for the time dilation (similar to the way the collapsing of a Black Hole would seem to take forever to the observer but not to the Black hole itself. How would this relate to the time dilation caused by close proximity to extremely high gravitation?

Question#2
Is a black hole / or any high gravity source spinning the space time around it at such high velocities that time dilation occurs, or simply the curving of space as general relativity says?

Question#3
I guess what I want to know, is time dilation an inroad to understanding Gravity? Has anyone approached the study of gravity this way? If so I would love some links to their work and would value your insight.

Question#4
If the curved space of general relativity is really gravity between bodies, at what point does the mathematics predict mass will collapse this so called fabric? Is the collapsing of fabric of space at this time equal to the moment of energy destruction/transformation into gravity? What would your Axiomatic say about these questions? I hope I asked this right.

Question #5
If I was traveling in circles at light speed (like astronauts in that chamber), and someone was observing me, what would they see and what would I see (given I had control of the breaking mechanism and decided to stop after an hours time lets say)? I think special relativity says I will see them moving at normal time, but when I slow down they will suddenly be older or dead. Is this right?

Thanks,

Naive.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 08:33 pm:   


quote:

In general and special relativity extreme speeds and extreme gravity cause time dilation.


Time-dilation may be a function of electromagnetic information received over great distances as redshifted information, so this takes longer for us to register. By this reasoning, time-dilation is an optical illusion; or atomic-oscillation phenomenon, kind of like a slowing kitcfhen clock does not mean times is slowing. Otherwise, other than slowing or accelerating atomic clocks, which may be a function of atomic oscillations while traveling at high speeds through gravitational fields, hence 'gravitational redshift', there are no real examples of 'time dilation'. So in answer to your five questions, Naive, I am forced to consider them as answerable only within the parameters set by the mathematics of Special or General Relativity, as defined by Einstein or Lorentz, but not necessarily in terms of what actually happens in the universe. If time dilates because of redshift of light, or any electromagnetic wave (stretched signal takes longer to register here), then it may not necessarily be due to relativistic time, but rather to how this redshift 'slows' information received, though at its source the same time occurs unshifted. I think of time as a human construct, a kind of 'notch on a stick' marking change, but not necessarily what the universe defines as time. Once you establish a unit of measure of time, it is not dilatable or adjustable in any way. The reason relativistic math 'dilates' time is that it is constrained by the speed of light as a universal constant, so the math must adjust time (for the observer) in order to make sense of what is being observed at relativistic velocities. But from the 'observed' point of view, time remains the same, no matter how fast or slow traveling.

The problem with Einstein's relativity is that it is constrained within the parameters of its assumptions and definitions, but all observable aspects of the theory may in fact have other causes, so the math involved in their explanations are superfluous. Relativity is an 'observational' phenomenon only, what we can observe given that we use light as our message delivery system, which is constrained by the light constant c, but if we were able to use some other method of observation that was 'instantaneous' then relativity would be meaningless. So what happens at black-holes? If light cannot escape there, then we simply cannot know. But we can observe the polar jets at black holes and know they are spitting out proto-hydrogen at near light velocity, so this is observable. We also know quasar redshift more than they're supposed to, but this may be due to the very great gravity present there, like in neutron stars, so this is really 'gravitationally redshifted' light coming at us. This leaves the question: What is gravity? Einstein's General Relativity only gives it a mathematical description of curved space-time, but no cause and effect reason. So for now, we are ignorant of what gravity is really all about. But time is whatever measure you want to make it, but no fair to start changing the rules set once measuring motion, or the whole exercise is meaningless. Still, Relativity has built up quite a following, though it is more math-faith based than real. Once we understand what is gravity, Relativity as we know it will disappear, except as a fun exercise in math. The reality is that what is being observed at relativistic velocities cannot be imposed on the observed phenomenon; the two are unrelated, which nixes a lot of SR/GR right in the bud. So, though Relativity is full of sex appeal, and immensely popular, I think it is an example of failed reason, in my humble opinion.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 09:59 am:   

Ivan,

Thanks for keeping me up at night. I just discovered your Axiomatic Equation a few days ago and now I'm going back to read all of your posts (I'm fascinated) . . . while reading, several things occured to me:

1. Your description of energy and gravity reminds me of the behavior of gas. For example . . . what if the star does not just have a dampening effect on gravity, but might actually work to excite it similar to a gas. Thus making the effect of gravity less in local regions, and greater further away from the star.

2. On ecclipses: Since you said small (albiet infinitesimal) changes in gravity could be measured during ecclipses, perhaps experiments would better be conducted on the moon when the earth comes between it and the sun. At least you wouldn't have to wait for all the deep space information, and it would be less expensive if you were trying to convince someone to fund it.

Space reminds me of genesis and human nature.
1. God creates light from darkness (blackhole - Hawking radiation).
2. Lucifer (meaning light bringer) is the prince of darkness.
3. In betwen them is the "matter" - humanity
4. We try to be positive, often act negative
5. When we get sucked into our most negative and destructive hour (blackhole),
6. We find positive redemption (axis emissions) as we come through it.

Such inverses are the stuff of poetry:

We never understood the gravity of the situation
Until we moved away from the light.
More difficult was travel through our dark destination
Pioneers showed Ivan was right.
Fools will say "no", and defend with big bangs
Ideas of a constant force
But they are generally, and relatively wrong
Gravity is variable of course!

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 09:34 pm:   

Thank you Naive, for the encouragement. I think the idea you have about behavior of gas in radiant energy rich environment, that it expands, is something I also had thought about on and off: why is this so? What drives the molecules into a frenzy of activity, pushing away from each other into a larger volume, though it remains the same mass? It's almost as if energy gets pumped into those atoms so they are more active, less bound to one another, so in a gas they separate, become less dense. The analogy fits to what happens to gravity in a hot radiant solar region, that it is less 'dense', and that in the cold of deep space, it becomes more 'dense', which is what the Axiomatic Equation says, in essence.

So in yours: "Thanks for keeping me up at night. I just discovered your Axiomatic Equation a few days ago and now I'm going back to read all of your posts (I'm fascinated) . . ." I feel I can relate to that, having spent many nights tossing around an idea, and wondering why am I even thinking of this, when I should be asleep? In fact, the whole conundrum started with some of us on this forum, years ago, asking whether it may be possible to find a kind of philosophical "theory of all things", where 'all things' included not only physical and material energy, but also psychic and spiritual energy. This was quite a question, a kind of ultimate philosophical quest, to understand how the universe works. One thing led to another, and I found myself contemplating 'energy' as being the universal, with matter only one manifestation of this universal energy, except for gravity to binds all things. This then led to trying to match energy with energy, which is how the Axiomatic Equation started to take shape, and atomic matter became the key to solving this riddle. You can find a trail of how these ideas progressed, with links to specific notes on this, on this page: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/6/23.html?1148054570 - and scroll down to May 7, 2006: 'BREAD CRUMBS' TRAIL. You'll see how this idea progressed from some simple questions to the hypothesis that perhaps gravity is not what we thought it was. The Axiomatic Equation essentially takes a Quantum equation, as formulated by Planck and de Broglie, and matches it against the famous Einstein equation, which already had been theorized by JJ Thomson (and an Italian, De Pretto published it two years prior) earlier, which we all know as E=mc^2 (note in the Wiki reference, the equation is not exactly right, as Max Planck noticed). However, while the left side of the equation showed mass in kilograms, the right side mass was also in kilograms, but something was missing; I subtracted a very tiny gravity (proton-to-proton) component from that side, and suddenly everything began to make sense. When I worked out a hypothetical energy component for all the planets, and using the Axiomatic Eq. figured out the gravity component, what fell into place (much to my surprise) was that Newton's G was not a universal constant, but had a linear progression of about 1G per 1AU (astronomical unit =distance of Earth to Sun), which again was a great surprise. So you can see how this stuff really can work on your brain at night, when you really want to sleep. When I learned the Pioneer Anomaly approximated this same rate for G as the equation showed, then I thought there was a chance it just maybe might perhaps be right, at least hypothetically. That's where it stands now, only as a hypothesis for what happens to mass and gravity at some distance from the radiant stars, where G is very low, and in deep intergalactic space, where G is very high. Of course, until we test for G outside of Earth's orbital region, we really don't know, so it can only be a hypothesis for now, though some things seem to fit, like flat rotation curves of galaxies, or why the gas planets sport such large atmospheres, especially evident on Titan, the Saturn moon smaller than Earth but having an atmosphere (rich in nitrogen like Earth's) that is ten times thicker and taller than Earth's. So a lot of unanswered questions, and perhaps testing for G on the moon during a total Terran eclipse might give us a clue, as you suggested, even if the difference is still very small.

Well, that's about all there is for now, so the search continues, and clues keep coming in, that Newton's G is not a universal constant. But I, like De Pretto, am a dilettante, not a scientist. So, in time, we'll know.

Thanks, Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 10:29 pm:   

GRAVITATIONAL 'POTENTIAL' VS. GRAVITATIONAL INVERSE SQUARE LAW.

Note how 'potential' (1/r) violates the 'conservation law' while the inverse square law, such as experienced by light traveling through a vacuum (1/r^2) does not, which may appear unreasonable. Here is a page that discusses this in mathematical terms: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath527/kmath527.htm

I suspect that gravity is something different, in how it is 'felt' throughout space, than the way light travels, at v=c. Gravity, or other electromagnetic 'potentials' may in fact be instantaneous, though this is not accepted theory at present.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 03:39 pm:   

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/news/2003-04-15/poincare/
Poincaré Conjecture Proved--This Time for Real

Alhazen's problem
Don solves the last puzzle left by ancient Greeks
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/04/01/ngre01.htm l

Until the Oxford Don proved it they said it could not be done.

Hippias was a contemporary of Socrates whose only contribution to mathematics seems to be the quadratrix - a curve he may have used for squaring the circle and trisecting angles.

Some times great work must be rediscovered in order to fully understand it. That the circle can be squared and the angle trisected has long been known. What it truly means is different. Ed explored the quadratrix as a child and but for brain damage might have been one of the greatest mathmeticians the world has ever known.

I have copy of his diagrams and hope one day to meet him. Life is not fair often and I hope that he will find fulfillment in his life. That he saw something in geometry beyound what we can see I have no doubt. Any mind that can reconstruct and re-discover the quadratrix as a child using a child's compass and ruler is indeed special.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 07:05 pm:   

THERE IS 'DARK' MATTER, here's the proof.

When I see a sentence like: " The Bullet Cluster is not the only direct evidence for dark matter. In fact, last year folks claimed to have found a "ghost galaxy" made mainly of dark matter and cold hydrogen, with very few stars" -Per This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 238), by John Baez; then I have hope that we may yet be on the path to discovery. The operative word is "cold" which is what modifies atomic matter to leave it "dark". Per the Axiomatic Eq. (may need Netscape Navigator to read Greek symbols), where there is an absence of light electromagnetic energy, higher wavelength radiant energy, then the atomic gravitational mass is greater than what we know here on Earth, in close proximity to a hot radiant star. Out in deep space where this light is very low, the gravitational G for any atomic matter out there is very high, some five orders of magnitudes higher than Newton's 'universal constant' G here. So all hydrogen and other molecular gas in that space acts as if it were higher gravity 'dark matter', with such greater G. Once you read the above article by Baez (we had corresponded long ago about this, BTW, but it went nowhere), then the articles below start to make more sense. The evidence is slowly trickling in.

New Scientist: Cosmic smash-up provides proof of dark matter 21 Aug. 2006

BBC Science news: Team finds 'proof' of dark matter 21 Aug. 2006

Let's see where this goes, but the glimmers or 'reason' are getting out of the cold dark, maybe. :-)

Ivan

Ps: I agree Anon, that Ed could have been one of those for that math prize, maybe still can happen someday. But prizes are worth more to those who give them than those who receive, in my opinion, so no loss. I'm sure Ed understands. He's the one who knows what he knows.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 09:39 pm:   

Thanks for the kind words Ivan,

I still remember as a child drawing the lines that trisected the angle. My teacher at the time told me that it had to apply to all angles so I played with it and made it work. Decades latter I discovered that I had just repeated what Hippias did thousands of years ago.

In my solution to the Billiard Problem I used the quadratrix to solve it like the trisection of the angle. Once learned it become a skill and explains why Pi is integral to my solutions to the trisection of the angle.

The quadatrix is a powerful tool and all I did was demonstrate its application to solving the Billiard Problem as well as trisecting the angle and squaring the circle; using the same tools I used as a child.

One of the reasons I shun publicity, public awards and public recognition and what drives me to remain out of the public spotlight is that thru most of my childhood I was constantly called stupid for not being as well socialized as other kids due to coming from a poor background; not being as strong or fast as the other kids due to lack of a balanced diet as kid; and then having a teacher call me stupid in front of an entire class because I could not spell well.

Then when I worked my way to the top of my profession and had the rug jerked out from under me by co-workers that were fighting to retain their positions on government contracts that were being terminated for lack of performance. I could not take it any more and walked away.

Years of breaking codes, and spy networks using the gifts I had. I could always see the patterns in the data sets that troubled me. The Conrad Spy ring was one: the Spy ring in our Embassy in New Delhi another: the theft of my laptop with the data on it that I could myself have used to reconstruct the operating environment used by the Department of State on its computer networks, now confirmed by massive pentrations of the databases steming from Asia. The breaking of the code talk used by Al Qaeda, like the old Navajo Code talkers we used in WWII. I still recall the time in Saudi Arabia and my identification of the Al Qeada network and why I left. I read all about them and then I read all of the releases by Al Qaeda.

After that I turned my gifts to Abu Graib Prison in Iraq and the abuses of prisoners. From conversations with the analysts putting the information into the computer systems we gleaned from the interrogations; to conversations I overheard, and reports I read, I was able to rebuild the interrogation techniques being used that violated the Geneva Conventions. When exposed as I feared those tactics leap like fire around the Middle East. This ability earned me the hatred of many in the Government and many of the NEOCON's. it is something I live with and will live with until the day I die.

That is why I walked away and shun publicity and did everything to keep those of the media at bay.

All of that and the thousands I helped kill over the course of my career. I balance that with the millions I help save.

In all I count myself fortunate.

Am I angry, at this point I am too busy and tired to be angry most of the time.

Will I again enter government service. Perhaps.

Until then I wish you my best.

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 02:44 pm:   

THE QUADRATRIX
Trisecting an angle - Squaring the circle
http://cage.rug.ac.be/~hs/quadratrix/quadratrix.html

When you deconstruct and reconstruct Ed's final solution to the Billiard Problem you find it involves an application of the Quadratrix of Hippias that is similar to that used in Squaring the Circle. All in all it is a nice piece of work and could have in other circumstances have been used to justify the award of a PHD in Math/Geometry with proper documentation.

Its clearly a masterful approach to solving the problem.

Pity that he was not a citizen of the UK. We know how to reward men and women like him when it comes to this type of thing. A honorary degree and position at university would have been appropriate.

Cheers
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 07:32 pm:   

http://descartes.cnice.mecd.es/ingles/maths_workshop/A_history_of_Mathematics/Gr ecia%20heroica2.htm

Thanks Anon,

The above link illustrates the application of the Quadratrix of Hippias in trisecting an angle. To perform the feats of geometry I did with regards to trisecting any angle, squaring the circle and solving the Billiard Problem I had to generate the curve first discovered by Hippias then go from there.

In doing so I was able to prove that the Quadratrix of Hippias has other applications. Could I document this work to qualify for a PHD. Probably but it would take a lot of time given the damage I have sustained to my brain. I am starting to see the relationships now that I can compare them to the diagrams of the Quadratrix.

I note I did this work while recoving from neurtoxin exposure and did the best I could in explaining it until the teams of doctors I was being treated by was able to find the right chemical combination to counter the effects of the neurotoxin I was given.

I also note that my ideas and work was attacked by at least one poster during that period on this website. A hate filled man I suspect was using the name Marcus on another site. I ignored him for the most part and knew that my work with the Quadratrix was correct.

I also note that when I was predicting earthquakes I used feeds from NASA, USGS, historical databases on earthquakes, gravitational readings from gravity meters, tidal data and a number of other factors and indicators to assess stress on fault lines. To do this I logged onto multiple computers and brought up simultaneous feeds on them and then performed an assessment of all the information I was getting in.

Was it worth it. I think so. In doing so I was exploring the effects of gravity and trying to visualize it. It about drove me crazy.

I have given up that and have settled down. I am going on vacation, working on my house and will be going wild boar hunting soon.

I leave the rest up to the scientific community and the federal government that made me a case study following the Persian Gulf War. To them I say there is an indelible record on the WWW of my predictions and geometry. A copy of my briefing on the risks of further earthquakes follwing the great Sumatra Quake and the likely location of these quakes is circulating among many hands.

This data is and was available to the United States Government prior to the great Pakistani Quake. I did my best and the government did not listen. Ten's of thousands died. In the records of DIA and my DSS security file there are also my comments prior to 9/11 when thousands died.

In both cases I warned. Sound science, sound intelligence and sound geometry. Like ripples in the pound these predictions and work spread out around the globe until they come to lap at the stairs of the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court.

This time I decided to publish my predictions and diagrams. I leave the rest to the scientists and PHDs to figure out.

I have a wild boar to hunt and some mountains to climb and a family to care for. In my spare time I also hold an A average in college despite brain damage. Now you know what faced the Soviets during the Cold War. I was just one of the best and brightest of that generation. During that war I hunted Soviet Operational Manuever Groups and Independent Tank Battalions with Nuclear Weapons if I had to I would have destroyed most of Southern East Germany and Czechoslovakia.

According to all rating charts I am 80% disabled. You should have seen me before I was poisoned with nerve agent. When I go boar hunting I will be on the ground with a black powder rifle and one shot to face the boar.
When I pull the trigger I expect to hit what I aim at.

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 05:29 am:   

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/edwardchesky/detail?.dir=/66d7&.dnm=11f0re2.jpg&.s rc=ph

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/Students/Tim/Quadratrix.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IsoscelesTriangle.html

In looking at Ed's solution to the Billiard problem depicted on the website above I duplicated the steps to generate an isosceles triangle within a circle.

It's clear that in doing so the curves generated which form the arcs in the center of the circle which contains the triangle are respresentations of the Quadratrix of Hippias.

It is not exactly the solution as envisioned by the ancient Greeks but is worthy of further study and would form the basis of a thesis for a PHD.

In summary it is clearly a brillient piece of work.

As a point of reference I have attached a link to Dr. Nash's home page.

http://www.math.princeton.edu/jfnj/

Dr Nash's page in its simplicity and its content mirrors that of Ed's page and his postings on this site. Who is to say what insight these types of minds have had into the nature of creation. That is a debate best left to other forums in my opinion.

It is interesting to note that all of these minds from Newton, to Einstien have all shared some of the same traits and said much of the same type of thing. The difference however with those that work with geometry is that they generate a result that can be checked and which, over the course of time, opens doors to places that other minds can venture.

I also note that Dr. Nash's career mirrors that of Ed's including employment by major defense firms, in Dr. Nash's case that was the Rand Corporation and in Ed's case a number of other major defense corporations. In both cases what we observed was the functioning of minds that understood the theories of War Gaming and higher mathmatical and geometric functions. The exception being one had a PHD and one did not.

Also in Ed's case what he did was also demonstrate and application of War Game Theory to Terrorism, Counter-espionage and Network Theory. His insight into the dynamics of Social Network Theory, War Game Theory Counter-espionage and Terrorism are clearly also worth more investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_theory

http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/socialnetworktheory.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-espionage

Again masterful work and worth more study. I wish Ed well and will hope for the best.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 09:37 am:   

When I go boar hunting I will be on the ground with a black powder rifle and one shot to face the boar. When I pull the trigger I expect to hit what I aim at.
Ed Chesky
Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 04:32 pm: Anonymous


Dear Ed,

I pray that you return with the boar as trophy. I believe you plan the wild boar hunting to verify whether your ability to discern patterns is in tact or not. Should you test your recovery putting yourself at risk?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar
===
The boar spear was fitted with a cross guard to stop the enraged animal driving its pierced body further down the shaft in order to attack its killer before dying.
===

Are there no other ways? How about predicting the ‘hourly weather’ beyond 48 hours?

You had helped your doctors to identify the correct medicine combination to counter the neurotoxin given by the enemy. As I understand the modern medicine it normally fights the symptom but does not eliminate the cause. I am on ‘black cumin’ only from 1986 and God has kept me alive and reasonably healthy. See

http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=cumin&translator=1&search=1& book=&start=0

In some places the black cumin is known as ‘onion seed’ and thus being a product of nature it causes no side effect. When I was in Riyadh, I got the black cumin investigated through the good offices of my neighbor in the King Faisal Research Hospital and was informed that the oil has no toxic effect at all. So in my opinion it is safe to take along with any other medication.

By its very nature the black cumin would restore your health to the pre-toxin days, if you take it one month for every year that you had suffered the toxin. This one month per year of suffering is advocated for a natural medicine and it is my hope that it applies to the black cumin.

My solution to m-secting an angle does not use the quadratix as I did not know about it until a few minutes back.

Enjoy your vacation and do contribute even by joining the government. I do feel sad when our talents are misused, but we contribute in the hope that one day it might lead to immense benefit.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 09:38 pm:   

GETING WARMER ON 'DARK MATTER'

This NewScientist article, Sky survey nabs four new Milky Way satellites, has an interesting quote:

"Different models of dark matter make different predictions about how easily it clumps together. The particles in so called "warm" dark matter models move too quickly to be easily pulled into clumps by gravity, while slower-moving "cold" dark matter particles congeal into clumps easily."

Note how there is now a growing distinction between "warm" and "cold" Dark Matter? That's the first glimmer of understanding what this is all about. But it's not really "Cold Matter" but merely how gravity G behaves in warm versus cold pockets of the intergalactic space. If the stars fail to generate sufficient radiant energy, then it is a "cold" region where G acts on matter as to give it more gravitational mass, or what we commonly call "Dark Matter". But if this region is made up of more hot stars, then it is getting warmer, so the Cold Matter is not so gravity mass intensive. At least, that's how the quantum side of the Axiomatic Equation equates it with the gravity side. Far from hot stars, Dark Matter exists because G is very high; while close in to hot stars, there is no such animal. Well, there's the Pioneer Anomaly which fits G growing in linear fashion by the ratio of 1G per 1AU, but otherwise, we see very little of this Cold Dark Matter effect here. Gaseous atmospheres is about the only other evidence betraying something is wrong with a universally constant G, even Mars has a thicker upper atmosphere than expected (see last sentence in article), but that's a whole other story.

Reason fails with a universally constant Newton's G, but makes a lot more sense with a variable G. The fact stuff like this above quote now appears in print shows we're getting warmer... :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 05:31 am:   

Srinivâsa Aiyangâr Râmânujan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

Sometimes a mind walks onto the world stage and forever changes it.

Ramanujan had no degrees, was self taught and yet out performed the PHDs of the time.

Last night I took a compass and ruler and reproduced the triangle in a circle Ed came up with. It is a very elegant solution.

Cheers
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 11:19 pm:   

Thanks Cheers, for that fascinating link to Ramanujan, what a mind.

Sometimes I get weird brain storms, like the one that's been plaguing me for past few weeks. So I sat down with paper and pad, lots of statistics on Mercury and the Sun, and worked out Mercury's precession as a function of a 'transfer of momentum' from the Sun to Mercury's perihelion orbital 5 day period, per the inverse square law. Surprisingly, and I will go over all the numbers and math before I post it here, but it seems the results are nearly identical to the 43" per century, only short by a few hundred kilometers per century. I'll work it some more, but the slight difference may be accounted for my using only 5 days at perihelion. Still, rather intriguing. Will post when I'm ready, if all is correct.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, September 01, 2006 - 03:26 am:   

CAN MERCURY'S PRECESSION OF 43" PER CENTURY BE MERELY 'SOLAR MOMENTUM TRANSFER'?

I worked out some numbers that show there is an alternative (and perhaps simpler than Einstein's General Relativity related solution), to understand why Mercury's orbit precesses by about 43 arc seconds per century. This idea had been on my mind for some time, but of late it got a boost when I read a post on BAUT astronomy forum, posted by Richard, aka 'publius', Aug. 30, 2005, which gave a reference I was looking for. This was the 'solar angular momentum' which came from a paper on gravitomagnetic precession: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0507/0507041.pdf , in which the value for solar momentum is:

L_sun = 1.9E+41 m^2 kg s^-1 (1)

[Note: I'm not totally clear as to what this value represents, whether it is the sun's equatorial spin momentum, or its momentum traveling in space relative to other stars; I found both are related to a velocity of about 20 km/s, spin as well as travel velocity; so I used it as a value of solar momentum, without knowing exactly what it is. However, this solar angular momentum seems to yield results.]

If I were to divide this value of solar angular momentum, per the inverse square law, by distance squared from Mercury's perihelion, which is d = 46.0E+6 km, as d^2 = 2116E+12 km, which reduced to meters becomes d^2 = 2.116E+18 m. Now taking L_sun divided by d^2 we get:

L_sun/d^2 = 1.9E+41 m^2 kg s^-1 / 2.116E+18 m = 0.898E+23 m kg s^-1 (2)

I see this value as the 'transfer of solar momentum' to Mercury's orbit at perihelion. However, this result now needs to be divided by Mercury's calculated mass, 3.302E+23 kg. [This mass was derived from Newton orbital dynamics using a constant universal Newton's G; though I think this G at Mercury's orbit is much lower than on Earth (about 0.39G), it does not affect how this equation computes, since we are consistent in our units, which are Earth based; so Mercury's mass is what we calculated it to be, though in a smaller G its structural density would be greater than now assumed, but same planet mass.] This gives us a delta for "??" at perihelion:

L_sun/d^2/m_merc = 0.898E+23 m kg s^-1 / 3.302E+23 kg = 0.272 m s^-1 (3)

I have a "??" here because I am not totally certain what this number represents, except it is meters per second, hence "velocity". I suspect this velocity is what is added to Mercury's perihelion velocity, where V_merc_perih = 58.98 km s^-1, or in meters, V_m.p. = 58,980 m s^-1, so at perihelion, the full velocity (for the 5 day period it is at perihelion) is V_m.p. = 58,980.272 m s^-1. Now, if taken over a five day period, this 'extra' delta velocity, what is being transferred from the Sun's angular momentum, works out as follows:

(delta) V = 0.272 m s^-1 * 5 days (432,000 seconds) = ~117,504 meters (in 5 day period - per earth year) (4)

So distance traveled (d=vt) becomes the 'extra' distance Mercury will be 'carried' by its close proximity to the Sun's angular momentum in that 5 day perihelion position. It should be considered that Mercury's year is only 88 Earth days, so this 'extra' distance traveled will not be exactly right for Mercury's year, but if using a time scale of Earth years, meaning this is netted out for our time scale, then in one century, the extra distance traveled, at Mercury's perihelion, is:

(delta) d_century = ~11,750,400 meters/century, or ~11,750.4 km/cy (vs. real 11,944 km/cy - see below) (5)

This valuation of necessity is "rough", an approximation at best, but it helps illustrate how the Sun's angular momentum transfers over to Mercury's orbital behavior at perihelion. Thus, it gives us a working number, one which can be adjusted for Mercury's full orbit within its 88 Earth day time period, so the final number should be higher.

When I compared this result with the distance traveled in one century, 43 arc seconds, per this reference on the Perihelion Advance for Mercury, I find 43" = 11,944.44 km/cy. This is fairly close, though higher, than the rough calculation made above. The full quote is:

"The animation below is not to scale. It takes 60x60x360/43 = 30,140 Earth centuries for Mercury's perihelion to advance one full circle. (One ellipse = one Mercurial year = 0.24 Earth years)."

If we take Mercury's full 360 degree orbit, which is d = 360,000,000 km, and divide it by 30,140 centuries, we get:

d_cy = 43" * 30,140 = 360 degrees (full orbital cycle), where divided by centuries, the 43 arc seconds become:

360,000,000 km / 30,140 cy = 11,944 km/cy (6)

When this is compared with the "rough" calculation above, where (delta) d for Mercury is approximately 11,750 km/cy, we are in the ball park. In fact, the real number is higher, as it should be, though we are not equipped here to fully calculate precession for Mercury's full orbit, so only focussed on 5 days at perihelion, where this effect is greatest. [In fact, this may be only affecting Mercury's orbital behavior for less than 5 days at perihelion, but balances out over the full 88 days where outside perihelion the effect is much lessened, to coincide with Earth's observed 43" per century.] So the solar angular momentum may be a very limited effect at most of Mercury's orbit, but concentrated at perihelion.

In any case, the point of this rough illustration is to give an example of where General Relativity's assumption that "... the increase in the planet's mass increases its velocity," (per Perihelion Advance paper referenced above), which explains Einstein's take on the matter, in fact the truth is much less exciting. Some have accuse Einstein of plagiarizing Paul Gerber's equation (from same paper):

"The Perihelion Advance of Mercury is perhaps the most discussed of all in the solar system, in part due to its high eccentricity and visibility. Whilst the other inner planets, Mars, Earth, and Venus, are more predictable, Mercury has defied a satisfactory equational description for several centuries. A wide spread fallacy is that only Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity can accurately predict the PA of Mercury. In fact, German school teacher, Paul Gerber, first devised the equation Einstein used in 1898 - 18 years before General Relativity was published. Just like Einstein, Gerber offered no mechanism. Einstein is here often accused of plagiarism, as the GR equation for perihelion advance of Mercury is identical to Gerber's, including identical use of letter symbols, and identical use of upper and lower case. Einstein never mentioned Gerber."

Of course, none of this proves my approach right (which may be coincidence), but it does illustrate that there may be a much simpler, and less "sexy" approach, to understand why Mercury's orbit precesses at 43 arc seconds per century. It may be no more than a totally natural transference of our main star's angular momentum to its nearest planet at perihelion.

In conclusion, from all the above, I do not know if the 'solar angular momentum' is from the Sun's spin, or from its travel through space in relation to other stars as it makes its way around our galaxy, at about 20 km/s, though I suspect spin. It is this 'momentum transfer', in my opinion, that controls Mercury's behavior at perihelion, not some fancy mathematical formalism as Einstein concluded. Mercury's orbital precession is just a transfer of our Sun's angular momentum of spin, and surely not planet "Vulcan" as was once assumed. Newton's law holds here rather well.


Ivan

[Ps: There is probably more here than meets the eye, but that is all I can muster for now. I still suspect Mercury's response to the Sun's gravity at perihelion may have some relationship to how its gravitational mass is 'lower' in how it is affected by angular momentum, which 'accelerates' it briefly, though its planet mass is same. The rest of Mercury's orbit is barely affected, once this brief encounter is transferred, so remainder of orbital mechanics are same. The fact this also affects Venus and Earth, and other planets, at much lower values, is intriguing. But that will have to wait for another time.]

Additional References:

Minute of arc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcsecond

Perihelion Advance: http://www.autodynamicsuk.org/PerihelionAdvance.htm

Mercury (planet): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28planet%29

Sun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Anomalous Precessions: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm

Einstein's math on Mercury's precession

PPs: "At certain points on Mercury's surface, an observer would be able to see the Sun rise about halfway, then reverse and set before rising again, all within the same Mercurian day. This is because approximately four days prior to perihelion, Mercury's angular orbital velocity exactly equals its angular rotational velocity so that the Sun's apparent motion ceases; at perihelion, Mercury's angular orbital velocity then exceeds the angular rotational velocity. Thus, the Sun appears to be retrograde. Four days after perihelion, the Sun's normal apparent motion resumes." (bold mine) - from Mercury page, the planet - FYI. I mention this here only to illustrate that something unusual happens at Mercury's perihelion, where spin and orbital velocity are equal for a few days. 'Tidal lock' near perihelion? -IDA


Also see: Gerber's Gravity

quote:

The contribution to the Newtonian potential at a given location in space at a given instant due to a mass m is strictly a function of the distance of that mass from the given location at the same instant.  In other words, if we let r[t] denote the distance from the given location to the mass particle at the time t, then the contribution of that mass to the gravitational potential V[t] at the given location at the time t is V[t] = -m/r[t].  Thus, Newtonian gravity represents instantaneous action at a distance, because the effect of changing the position of a gravitating mass is "felt" throughout the universe at the instant when the mass moves.  Needless to say, for the simple two-body problem this potential gives stable elliptical orbits...

This is the same as the first-order non-Newtonian precession predicted by general relativity for weak fields.  (See Anomalous Precessions.)  The gravitational radius of the Sun is m = 1.475 km and the semilatus rectum of Mercury's orbit is L = (5.544)107 km, so the precession of Mercury's orbit due to this effect (excluding the perturbations of the other planets, etc.) is 0.1034 arc seconds per revolution.  Mercury completes 414.93 revolutions per century, so its orbit precesses (due to this effect) by 42.9 arc seconds per century, in excellent agreement with what is observed.  This formula also gives values for all other known bodies orbiting the Sun consistent with observation.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Friday, September 01, 2006 - 12:27 pm:   

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarionsTheorem.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HexylTriangle.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExcentralTriangle.html

In looking at Ed's generation of an isosceles triangle within a circle and his generation of hexagons while applying the Quadratrix of Hippias to the trisection of the angle and billiard problem it appears on the surface to indicate a linkage to Marion's Theorem, the Hexyl Triangle and recent work with Excentral Triangles.

In all a good bit of work that that is on par with that produced by some of the best mathmaticians today.

Cheers
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Friday, September 01, 2006 - 01:25 pm:   

Thanks Cheers

It was called thinking outside the box.

In order to solve it I have to go outside the circle and work my way back in.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Friday, September 01, 2006 - 10:48 pm:   

Triangle geometry is the study of the properties of triangles, including associated triangle centers, triangle lines, central circles, triangle cubics, and many others. These geometric objects often have remarkable properties with respect to the triangle.

An amazing number of connections between geometric structures occur in triangle geometry, prompting Crelle (1821) to state, "It is indeed a wonder that so simple a figure as the triangle is so inexhaustible in its properties," and J. Wetzel to remark that triangle geometry "has more miracles per square meter than any other area of mathematics" (Kimberling 1998, p. 1).

Triangle geometry lay dormant for most of the middle of the 20th century, but has recently arisen "from the dust and ashes that history has piled on it" (Davis 1995) by the use of computers to systematically study and geometric structures and their properties (Davis 1995, Kimberling 2005). In addition, experimental investigations using numeric approximations coupled with exact verification using computer algebra have resulted in remarkable productivity in triangle geometry (Kimberling 2005).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Sunday, September 03, 2006 - 02:44 pm:   

Since we assume light is a particle (photon) that propogates at a constant speed, and that constant speed is not enough to escape a black hole, we also assume that gravity is a medium which affects the propogation of light (as we have already seen).

Question:
How can we really assume light travels at constant speeds across the universe if we do not understand the nature of the material it propogates through (or on)?

Question:
Shouldn't the gravity around us (solar interactions, and our own gravity) cause us to observe light speed at a constant as it reaches us (even if it does not travel at a constant through other gravitation forces elsewhere)?

Question:
Can't we turn our deep space probes' "eyes" back upon ourselves and measure the propogation of some light source from earth to the probe? If so, we might see the effects of (less of the sun's) gravity on light.

I need clarification.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, September 04, 2006 - 12:47 am:   

Does light travel differently through gravity?

You ask interesting questions, Naive, on the speed of light through gravity. The assumption, Einstein's second postulate in his Special Relativity, is that light is constant while traveling through a vacuum at velocity c. I think all signal measurements from distant space probes are made using this assumption. The second affect on light traveling through space is its Doppler redshift. It was the anomaly of this Doppler redshift in the Pioneer signals sent and received that clued the team of LANL scientists, Anderson, Nieto et al, that something was wrong. The expected redshift wasn't right. I would think after a certain period of time, if the Pioneer probes are being drawn back to the Sun at a constant acceleration, that the signal should also return sooner than expected. So turning out deep space probes back towards Earth and exchanging signals already happened. But this did not confirm whether or not electromagnetic signals traveled at anything other than c.

If gravity redshifts light, which we know it does, then can this be interpreted as slowing it down? I suspect not, that light is still traveling at c, even while redshifted gravitationally, same as it travels at c regardless of the velocity of the signal generated. I also wondered if perhaps light traveling through deep space, where potentially gravity is orders of magnitudes greater than on Earth, as measured by Newton's G, that this may affect how fast light travels. Does it slow it? Redshift acts as if it does, since the signal's full information will act as if it were 'time-dilated'. An observed event registering in our instruments, let's say a supernova, will take longer to fill the information received than how long it took to generate it, because the signal is stretched, or redshifted. This means if the supernova took 10 minutes at its origin, depending upon how far it traveled to get here, the signal would show observationally that it took 15 minutes, or something like that. Of course, understanding that the signal is stretched can help us reconstruct the actual time sequence, which is in a way what Einstein's time dilation does. The part about the universe expanding complicates this, though the expansion may be illusory, that no such space expansion is taking place; rather all distant cosmic light will redshift if G is so much greater for all that space dust and gas in between galaxies. So my hunch is that light travels, as an electromagnetic wave, at the velocity c, as Einstein postulated, but that if gravity is not a universal constant G, as postulated by both Newton and Einstein, then perhaps the redshift resulting from a variable G, greater in intergalactic space, gives us an automatic 'time-dilation' though no such dilation actually happens at the source. This makes time-dilation merely an observational artifact, which means that there is no Doppler expansion of space at all. It merely looks that way, which is illusion.

So how can we measure light speed in deep space, such as at great distances between galaxies, or in relatively short distances as within our solar system? We know light bends around massive objects, which is why gravitational lensing works. And we know light slows traveling through a transparent material medium, such as glass or water, but that's about all we know. The medium slowdown may be due to atomic interactions, so light photons have to 'bounce' around before exiting, which would account for its slowing, but this is not the condition encountered in space. We now think light bends around massive objects because of gravitational effect on its velocity, but this then goes against Einstein's second postulate. I never understood why physicists found this explanation acceptable, since it violates Einstein's second. The only thing that makes sense to me, if G is variable, is that while light, or any electromagnetic signal, travels from high density G, then to low density G, and back to high density G again as it leaves the galaxy or star region around which it bends, then this may act more like a 'lens' to give us gravitational lensing. It would be like the reverse of entering a dense transparent medium and leaving it again, so the two would not be identical. Light is deeply redshifted in deep space, but less redshifted around a radiant body (i.e., it 'speeds up), but then more deeply redshifted again once leaving that radiant region. We see this in gravitational lensing where rather than getting a concentrated image we get multiple images instead, so they are different from a glass lens, for example. But this still does not answer the question as to whether or not light velocity is affected by this. So, without knowing any more than this, and some of this not even accepted by current physics, I would say there is no way to measure for light speed outside our little Earthly environment, such as in a lab. Does light propagate at different velocities over the great distances of space? At one time I thought it might, but never figured out how. So at this point, I would rule that this is an unknown. Probably not, but we just don't know. Of course, if there is something about this you know we don't know, share it by all means. :-)

Okay, all that said, in re-reading what I wrote, I had thought: if light is deeply redshifted in deep space, does it redshift less upon entering our radiant solar region, where G falls off (at ~1G per 1AU), so by the time it reaches Earth is it less redshifted then it was in space? Now that really throws in a monkey wrench, because then the Einstein time-dilation, as a function of square root (1-v^2/c^2) no longer holds true! The time dilation is thus reduced. So what are we actually measuring in the Pioneer Anomaly if light is less redshifted, and less time-dilated by the time it gets to Earth? So the space probes may actually be closer in than we think! Perhaps at this short distance, out to the Oort Cloud, it does not make much of a difference, but we may have the Anomaly wrong. It should be greater than -a=8E-8 cm/s^2... Now I'm really confused...

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, September 04, 2006 - 11:55 am:   

Ps: After sleeping on this, I'm still not sure if a variable redshift, per variable G, would really make a difference. If the signal goes out and redshifts progressively on its way to the Pioneers (which are now silent, btw), then it would redshift less on the way back, so null result in terms of 'time-dilation'. If there were a probe launched with an 'eye' back on the Sun from beyond Kuiper Belt, and it was pre-programmed to send a signal, perhaps that would clarify things, since we would know in advance from the distance this signal is coming from. In effect, the Pioneers are probably where we think they are, and the anomalous acceleration is most likely close to what it should be, even in a variable redshift scenario, per variable G.

My next question is: how far will the Pioneers (traveling at 'escape velocity') travel before the anomalous acceleration tugs back enough to put them on a very large elliptic orbit around the Sun?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, September 04, 2006 - 12:57 pm:   

Light faster than light?

I found this article in LiveScience: "Light Travels Backward and Faster than Light" by Robert Roy Britt

http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.html

See both the graphic and video animation, and it shows how light wave pulse has a mysterious quality to it, like it 'knows' instantenously what it is doing, though the pulse itself may only travel at c. This is not gravity related, but illustrates that there is still more to be learned on what is light, or any electromagnetic propagation in any medium, space included.

(My original source for above)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, September 04, 2006 - 02:54 pm:   

Ps: Solar redshift problem at the limb of Sun's disc: http://astroneu.com/refs/solar-redshift/

Gravitational lensing and solar redshift: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html

"In the 1960s, a team at Princeton University measured the redshift of sunlight. Though small, given the Sun's mass and density, the redshift matched Einstein's prediction very closely."

This solar redshift effect may also be a function of what I mentioned above, that light coming out of a very low G into higher G (Sun's <<G, at near 0 AU is unknown, but may be much lower than Earth's 1G, at 1AU) so there results a natural redshift of light coming into Earth's slightly larger G, which is our 1G (believed a universal constant, which it may not be) of G=6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. So this solar light shift may be natural, if G is a variable.

I also suspect that light velocity c is what our instrument receptors will always register, if measured in a vacuum, because that is what the 'light constant' represents. Do we know that such light constant works the same way billions of light years away, as it does here on Earth? If we postulate the universe is 'isotropic and homogenous' then we assume it does. But we do not really know this.

In this paper, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-1/Pope.pdf , by Viv Pope (Journal of Theoretics Volume 6-1, Feb-March 2004), it says:
"The physicists’ first consideration, then, is matter and space, and only secondarily light, which may or may not travel in the space between those various bits of matter. This was anathema to (philosopher George) Berkeley. How, he would say, could we know of those bits of matter and the space they occupy other than in the light by which we see them? And as for any idea of light travelling in that space which is nowhere but in the light, what else could that be but pure nonsense? If only Berkeley had not stated his dictum ‘to be is to be perceived’ in the subjective way he did, the history of modern physics might have been very different. For instance, if by ‘perceived’ he had quite legitimately included not only human perception, with particular emphasis on the sensation of sight, but also the observations scientists make by means of instruments in all the ranges of response that instruments are capable of, then since just about anything is an ‘instrument’ in this sense, nothing whatever would be excluded. ‘To be is to be perceived’ would thus have been the tautology he intended it to be. For physicists ‘the boot’ would then have been ‘on the othe defensive.
...
Undoubtedly, Berkeley’s theory would have had more impact if it had been written contemporaneously with the current situation involving relativity and quantum theory where the old hard-line division between matter and our observations of it has become more and more blurred. For instance, Berkeley could have argued that what Einstein called ‘photons’ are not little space-travelling light-corpuscles but the ultimate bits of quantum information which allow us to know about the universe."

We've come a long way from the 17th century philosophical speculations on light, but we still do not seem to really understand how the 'information' in packets of photons gets transmitted. It may be that the receptors already get the information instantaneously, but are forced to register it as v_c = 2.99E+8 m/s because of the spacial characteristics of how distance is perceived by us who use this velocity in our eyes, and instruments, to determine space. We are limited by our observations in how we are able to receive light, so all our spacial relationships are determined by this limitation of c. If we could perceive light as 'instantaneous', a kind of 'spooky action at a distance' reported by Quantum physics, then our perception of space and time would be different. However, we are designed to recognize a three dimensional universe, which is why it appears to us the way it does. But not knowing more about light scientifically than our present knowledge, we once again revert to philosophical musings. :-) So now it gets more interesting in the Machian sense:
"For Berkeley’s phenomenalist successor, Mach, this implied a universal holism in which everything is directly and instantly connected to everything else, a consequence which relativists have embraced as ‘Mach’s Principle’, although not necessarily accepting – or even understanding, in many cases – the philosophy on which it was based. One of the physical consequences of this holistic principle is that masses do not move independently of one another, with free momentum mv, in straight lines, as Newton assumed, but are automatically paired and balanced in angular momentum cycles of the sort we observe in the orbits of all astronomical bodies [5]. This makes redundant the idea that all masses are connected by an in vacuo ‘gravitational force’ without which, travelling independently of one another in straight lines, they would inevitably disperse towards infinity."

Who's to argue? Maybe both light and gravity have an instant interrelationship factor to which we are blind?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, September 04, 2006 - 03:28 pm:   

PPs: Concluding remarks in same Pope paper ref above:
"But if there is so little practical difference between the two, then what advantage can there be in switching from the classical mechanistic into the neoBerkeleyan, quantum-informational way of thinking? One might as well ask what were the advantages of switching from the original Ptolemaic to a Copernican worldview. The answer is the same: that reversing the order of ‘light in space’ to ‘space in light’ is at least as significant as cancelling the idea that the sun goes around the Earth and replacing it with the modern view of the Earth going round the sun. Such conceptual shifts fundamentally change man’s relationship with nature. In the Copernican case the earth lost its Biblical uniqueness and became no more than just a very small body among countless others in the universe. In the neo-Berkeleyan, quantum-informational case the change is from thinking of the world as a machine to thinking of it as something more like an organism."

Now we're really getting philosophical! But I think he has a point. It is also one more step towards seeing the universe as an organic holistic whole, in effect, a 'living' universe. I think it is, not 'God' per se, but in how it interacts within itself, infinitely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Monday, September 04, 2006 - 03:54 pm:   

I was thinking about the nature of light, gravity, and the black hole which lead me to think about the very nature of the atom. It seemed the speeds and interaction within an atom must be driven by very strong forces. Earlier you mentioned that there may not be a "strong" or "weak" force simply the varying degree of interaction between energy and gravity. This made sense to me.

After reading about Hawking Radiation and the way a Black Hole may recycle matter into energy I began to think:
If something can escape a Black Hole it should carry with it properties of the Black Hole. I thought maybe within the nucleus of the atom itself is something like a Black Hole.

Searching the Web I came across someone named Sarkadi (www.angelfire.com/wi/HolisticScience/atom.zip.) who says this as well.

Perhaps gravity exists as function of every atom having a black hole at its heart. This reminded me of the "Fireball" experiment in which the collision atomic nucleii produced Black Hole like qualities. This reminded me of neutron stars which in effect seem like to be the smashing of electron shells down toward the nucleus of an atom (but on a stellar scale). Then I came across the Scharwzchild Radius as a measure of when any body of mass may become a black hole through this same condensation of mass (for lack of a better word).

I don't know. I am not a physicist or mathematician. I just like theorizing after reading things. I am really interested in this topic and will probably continue searching for the answer until an answer presents itself.

Anyways an elegant picture is forming in my mind in which nothing can exist without gravity on very cosmic and atomic levels. Furthermore it is interesting to see that atomic ionization works to continue this building block process of creation when the effects of gravity from large bodies (like earth or sun) cancels out the atomic gravitational effects.

I just want to get your insight on this model of a Black Hole existing within the atomic nucleus. Is there mathematics to support or disprove this? What would it mean in terms of your axiomatic equation? What kind of spatial dimensions would have to exist for gravity to be instantaneous (the article on faster than light also got me thinking about this instantaneous stuff)? And can electrons really travel faster than C (as it says in the Sarkadi paper)?

Thanks again for the patience and help,

Naive

P.S. The above interactions involving gravity and ionization as the building blocks of all creation as we know it, has a very divine quality to it. I'm beginning to think a few variables are missing from Einstein's famous theory. One as you have already pointed out is gravity. The other . . . is thought/perception. But that is a grand topic for another time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, September 04, 2006 - 06:01 pm:   

Naive,

In what seems like ages ago I came to this website because I had an idea about the possibility of a micro blackhole existing in the heart of the sun.

While exploring this concept in my mind I began to explore the nature of creation and gravity. This lead me down many different paths some of which included taking a trip across an Einstien Rossen bridge in my mind through the heart of a blackhole where time and space themselves take on a new meaning.

In doing so I was only able to grasp fragments of what I saw.

To say the least it was a very enlightening and frustrating experience. with compass and ruler I have replicated a tiny fragment of what I saw. When my wife was recovering from cancer surgery I gave her a poem, a card and note with a trisected angle on it to show her that nothing is impossible when you approach the problem from outside the box and have the help of some of the best specialists in the world.

In the great scheme of things geometrists do something and then the mathmaticians and scientists like Einstien take it the next step using the work of the geometrists as a steping stone to a greater understanding of the universe. Such is the pattern down through the ages.

Sites like this are important because they allow us to explore concepts that are out of the mainstream.

I hope you will stay a while and continue the discussion from another point of view.

My Best

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ANON
Posted on Monday, September 04, 2006 - 09:20 pm:   

Euclidean wormholes
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000998FD-65C6-1C71-9EB7809EC588 F2D7
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 - 11:28 pm:   

IT'S A HOT TIME IN OL' - 'BLACK HOLE' -HOT TOWN

Huge Black Holes Stifle Star Formation"
"Galaxies can contain a large amount of hydrogen gas. If that gas is sufficiently cold and dense, clouds of it collapse to form young stars. However, if the gas in elliptical and lenticular galaxies has been heated to very high temperatures, it becomes unavailable as fuel for star-formation."

This may be only anecdotal, but where huge hydrogen gas surface areas are 'hot' star formation is restricted; while where 'cold' the gas clouds more easily collapse (because higher gravity G) into star fusion combustion. This article gives evidence that near a huge Black Hole, it is hotter than previously thought, so star formation becomes rare. This fits the pattern of an 'inverse relationship' between radiant hot energy and gravity 'remainder' of this energy's interaction with the strong force of atomic nuclei, so gravity is what is left over: low radiant energy yields higher gravity per mass, and vice versa. We live in a very low G region, being so close to our 'hot' Sun. This pattern is explained also by the Axiomatic Equation, as described here: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/166.html
___________________________________________________

This is an aside, that perhaps the 'Big Bang' microwave background radiation may not be what we think. Personally, I am quite sure BB never happened, that cosmic light redshift is a gravitational phenomenon of deep space high G, so space (Doppler) expansion is an illusion. However, it does not explain why we register CMB of nearly equal distribution in any direction we look. Of course, it could be what was discussed earlier, that perhaps how light redshifts by the time we see if from Earth, the very low wavelength and temperature CMB may be a totally natural phenomenon, what registers here from all directions of an infinity space; by the time all ambient light from the most redshifted zones, say 13+ billion ly away, this is all that remains, CMB. But for now just a guess.

Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test

========================================

Naive, I agree with your earlier post, above (Monday, September 04, 2006 - 12:54 pm):

quote:

Perhaps gravity exists as function of every atom having a black hole at its heart. This reminded me of the "Fireball" experiment in which the collision atomic nucleii produced Black Hole like qualities. This reminded me of neutron stars which in effect seem like to be the smashing of electron shells down toward the nucleus of an atom (but on a stellar scale). Then I came across the Scharwzchild Radius as a measure of when any body of mass may become a black hole through this same condensation of mass (for lack of a better word).


I too see the analogy between the atom's nucleus and massive galactic black holes. How both are modified by the ambient light should be a subject of greater study, I suspect. I think of what we think of gravity as being no more than atomic in nature, what is left over from the formation of the atom, as modified by electromagnetic wave action in the region where these atoms exist, with each atom then having a tiny 'remainder' left over, what we feel as gravity. But this is not physics as we know it, for now, so needs further study and confirmation to become anything more hypothetical. Until we find evidence of this, not yet a physics theory, IMHO.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 07:36 pm:   

"Roadrunner" makes a 'thousand trillion' calculations per second, and counting!

http://los-alamos-news.newslib.com/story/1696-3231539/

Brought to my attention by friend Dale, LANL news: "IBM to Build 1.6 Petaflops Super for Los Alamos"
http://los-alamos-news.newslib.com/story/1696-3231535/

"If IBM can pull off the Roadrunner design and deliver it on schedule, IBM will beat Cray to breaking the petaflops barrier. (One petaflops is equal to 1,000 teraflops, which is in turn equal to 1,000 billion floating point operations per second.) The biggest supercomputer in the world today, as measured by raw processing capacity on the Linpack Fortran benchmark test, is IBM's BlueGene/L supercomputer, which is installed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and which is currently rated at 367 teraflops of peak performance."

"Petaflops" is a lot of calcs! Like 10^15 flops... and counting.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 09:43 am:   

Are we strange in science? See my post in another thread:
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/90.html?1158068425#POST1881
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 07:18 pm:   

Fascinating, Mohideen. It seems that we and Neanderthals are not related after all, at least not genetically, though we may step from the same tree. Their main limb was cut off, so we are the side limb that became the dominant branch. I wonder if the Neanderthals didn't simply die out, extinct due to natural forces or disease? Or did we kill them? At this point, I don't think we know.

I came across this article in Physics News: Smallest Pyramids in the Universe
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/split/789-1.html

Someday, this discovery may yield 'super' materials, far stronger than anything we have today, maybe 'metals' as light as mylar fabric but tough as tugsten steel; or with conductivity properties that work with the natural electrical currents of our body, like keeping us warm when in the cold, or cool in heat?

We've come a long way from those early stone flakes in the hands of Neanderthals, or our own ancestors huddled by the fire some million years ago, listening to hungry tigers growling in the bush.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 10:52 pm:   

Mercury's 'spin' at its precessional moment, perhaps explained? Something not before considered by me.


I wrote something on planetary spin and 'zero-point energy' back in 2004-2005, where I worked out the black body temperatures vs. orbital solar radiant energies of the planets to show there may be a relationship to the planet's spin.
(See March 2, 2005: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/145.html and preceding posts)

What this hypothesis said, in essence, is that if the inner and outer energy levels for a planet were identical, there would be virtually no spin; but if the planet's interior energy was higher than its orbital solar irradiance energy, then there would be positive spin (like Earth's); but if the planet was cooler than solar orbital energy, then it might have a reverse spin.

Though this was never formalized into a simple equation, and remains a crude construction, because it is worked out with a series of cumbersome ratios to show the relationships, it nevertheless showed a relatively consistent relationship of solar irradiance energy at the orbital phase and interior heat. The more heat inside a planet, vs. its solar region energy orbital region, the greater the spin. This is not something easily explainable, though I have my suspicions why it works this way. However, it occurred to me, just today, that it may also explain Mercury's very slight spin, oddly enough. Here is how I think it affects Mercury:

In my above post, Friday, September 01, 2006 - 03:26 am, I showed how Mercury's precession may be no more than how the Sun's 'solar angular momentum' transfers to Mercury's orbital (average)* velocity for the 5 day period it is at perihelion. But in that post I also copied, without future pretensions, this in the PPs: ""At certain points on Mercury's surface, an observer would be able to see the Sun rise about halfway, then reverse and set before rising again, all within the same Mercurian day. This is because approximately four days prior to perihelion, Mercury's angular orbital velocity exactly equals its angular rotational velocity so that the Sun's apparent motion ceases; at perihelion, Mercury's angular orbital velocity then exceeds the angular rotational velocity. Thus, the Sun appears to be retrograde. Four days after perihelion, the Sun's normal apparent motion resumes." (bold mine) - from Mercury page, the planet - FYI. I mention this here only to illustrate that something unusual happens at Mercury's perihelion, where spin and orbital velocity are equal for a few days. 'Tidal lock' near perihelion?" This was the key, that "something unusual happens at Mercury's perihelion", that made me come back to it. It made me think:

What if the 4 days prior to absolute perihelion (which I read somewhere lasts about 5 days) the planet's spin is identical to its orbital velocity, so that in that short period, there is in effect 'no spin'? This is why in the past, before we had space probes there, that Earth astronomers would always see the same face of Mercury as it was most visible just before reaching perihelion, so it was believed (wrongly) that Mercury's spin is locked tidally to the Sun, same is our Moon locked tidally to Earth we we always see the same face. However, upon later study, it was discovered that Mercury actually does have spin: " The original reason astronomers thought it was synchronously locked was because whenever Mercury was best placed for observation, it was always at the same point in its 3:2 resonance, hence showing the same face. Due to Mercury's 3:2 spin-orbit resonance, a solar day (the length between two meridian transits of the Sun) lasts about 176 Earth days. A sidereal day (the period of rotation) lasts about 58.7 Earth days." (from above link, Mercury)

So the planet spins, in a resonant manner, its rotation is about 1.5 times its orbital period, which means for the 88 (Earth) days of one orbit, it rotates once in about 58.7 days. So there is rotation, though it is very slow. But what is most interesting is that this rotation always brings it back to the same 'tidal lock' facing the Sun just prior to perihelion. Why? Is there something perfectly natural going on here?

If we go back to my original musings on spin and relative radiant energies, the orbital solar irradiance vs. the black body radiation temperatures, then it begins to fall into place: When Mercury is approaching its perihelion, it is entering its closest position to the Sun, so that both its internal and external 'heat' are nearly identical, so at that point, there is virtually 'no spin'; but as it regresses away from the Sun into its highly elliptical orbit, it is entering progressively 'colder' regions, at greater distance from the Sun, so that its interior heat is now greater; hence it recommences spin. And this could be significant! But as it returns back towards the Sun, in its elliptical orbit getting closer again, and into a 'hotter' region, its spin again slows down to where we see it once again 'locked' into the Sun's tidal force; so from our Earth based observation, we see the same face again. In effect, this may be one more piece of the puzzle of why planets spin, that they are spinning relative to their position to the Sun's radiant energy. If so, there should be a very slight, nearly unmeasurable, slow down of Earth's spin at its perihelion (very slight because Earth is so far removed from the Sun, per the inverse square law making it a very weak effect), and a slight speeding up of rotation at its aphelion. Has anything like this been noticed? It is worth looking for, I should think. (See: Earth's spin, posted Mar. 4, 2008, where this spin variation is noted.)

So Mercury, that mercurial planet closest to our main star, is once again yielding a surprise, that not only does it measurably advance at perihelion, of 43 arc seconds per Earth century, but its spin may also reveal the radiant energy relationship that may be powering all planets. The very high spin planets are the gaseous giants, which may be internally 'hot' but live in a relatively cold region of our solar system; while Venus, which actually has a slight regressive spin, may be slightly cooler inside than the zone in which it orbits (Venus has a nearly circular orbit, which makes it something of an odd ball), if this explanation should prove correct. But in the case of Mercury, the only time its interior and exterior region radiant energies are nearly equal is at perihelion. It is as if the Sun has determined Mercury's interior heat by its radiance there, but this heat then stays within the planet as it migrates further away into a cooler region, so the slightly warmer interior gives it a slight spin.

Of course, this is all conjecture at this point, and not known science. In fact, I may add, that all the musings within these pages of Humancafe on gravity and spin are just that, hypotheticals scribbled in notes left behind. Perhaps someday, with the help of competent scientists, all this can be pulled together in to a full thesis. But I want first to know whether or not gravity, as expressed in Newton's G, is a variable, as it was described by the quantum equation I called the "Axiomatic Equation". First things first, the rest can wait. :-)

Ivan

*(I think to get a really true measure of what Mercury does at its perihelion period, we need to land a probe with which we can communicate to measure the level of its acceleration as it approaches perihelion, and deceleration as it recedes from it; otherwise, all we can really work with is an 'average' velocity dragging it into precession through its orbit in response to the Sun's angular momentum.)

Ps: BTW, here's the real mathematical solution to Mercury's precession, though devoid of cause: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RelativisticTwo-BodyProblem.html

Also see: Gerber's Gravity

quote:

The contribution to the Newtonian potential at a given location in space at a given instant due to a mass m is strictly a function of the distance of that mass from the given location at the same instant.  In other words, if we let r[t] denote the distance from the given location to the mass particle at the time t, then the contribution of that mass to the gravitational potential V[t] at the given location at the time t is V[t] = -m/r[t].  Thus, Newtonian gravity represents instantaneous action at a distance, because the effect of changing the position of a gravitating mass is "felt" throughout the universe at the instant when the mass moves.  Needless to say, for the simple two-body problem this potential gives stable elliptical orbits...

This is the same as the first-order non-Newtonian precession predicted by general relativity for weak fields. (See Anomalous Precessions.) The gravitational radius of the Sun is m = 1.475 km and the semilatus rectum of Mercury's orbit is L = (5.544)107 km, so the precession of Mercury's orbit due to this effect (excluding the perturbations of the other planets, etc.) is 0.1034 arc seconds per revolution. Mercury completes 414.93 revolutions per century, so its orbit precesses (due to this effect) by 42.9 arc seconds per century, in excellent agreement with what is observed.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 03:56 pm:   

Someday, this discovery may yield 'super' materials
Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 07:18 pm: Ivan


True. But I am rather disappointed by their extremely short life. Are we not finding strange properties in carbon nano-tubes?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 04:02 pm:   

It seems that we and Neanderthals are not related after all, at least not genetically, though we may step from the same tree. Their main limb was cut off, so we are the side limb that became the dominant branch.
Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 07:18 pm: Ivan


Don’t you think moving closer to the root of the genetic tree increases the genetic distance between us and the branching point? If we are not genetically related to Neanderthals whom we resemble, how could we be genetically related to any other species?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 09:33 pm:   


quote:

Don’t you think moving closer to the root of the genetic tree increases the genetic distance between us and the branching point? If we are not genetically related to Neanderthals whom we resemble, how could we be genetically related to any other species?


Good point, that we are genetically related, but that relationship ended when our branch separated from the main trunk. After that, it seems there was little if any, and perhaps none, of the kind of genetic mixing I'd expect from interbreeding. I think this was the point of the article, but I may have misunderstood. In other words, we do not have Neanderthal specific genes carried in our genetic makeup. Otherwise, we are related only up to the point where our family branch sperarated, if I understand this correctly.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 12:27 pm:   

… when our branch separated from the main trunk.
Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 09:33 pm: Ivan


It is an assumption that all life has the same root. That assumption needs to be proven by the evolutionists. It is my contention that we are the new seed of another tree of evolution. I claim so based on the genetic distance between us and other species whether current or extinct. It is possible that we shall be space colonizers and thus take life to every nook and corner of the universe. Such a capacity did not evolve from the earlier trunk is my claim.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 12:33 pm:   

One pyramid to another!
http://www.nuclearpyramid.com/great_pyramid.php
The above article proposes that the Great Pyramid was a plutonium plant and that the plutonium was taken to Mars.

Is it possible that the Martians colonized the earth when they abandoned Mars and that we are their descendants? How does one verify such a proposition?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 12:38 am:   

Groundwave Radio, or Geomantic Energy.

I came across this paper by serendipity, but it may have something of interest, if this writer is correct: http://www.icehouse.net/John1/groundradio.html

Some experiments are mentioned, which would be fun to try. This is the first time I ever heard of this, had no idea such Earth energy existed. Can we use it? Can we tap this energy to run our electronics? I wonder, or is this another internet misinformation? Anyone know anything about this? If this is true, it would be revolutionary.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 10:11 am:   

Charting 'islands of genius': Savants
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/09/06/savant.genius/index.html

Ed, this one's for you. Keep up the good works. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 12:30 am:   

I have to assume, Mohideen, that you posted this 'tongue in cheek'? Or maybe not?


quote:

One pyramid to another!
http://www.nuclearpyramid.com/great_pyramid.php
The above article proposes that the Great Pyramid was a plutonium plant and that the plutonium was taken to Mars.

Is it possible that the Martians colonized the earth when they abandoned Mars and that we are their descendants? How does one verify such a proposition?



I read this with great interest, since I had been inside the Great Pyramid, and it truly is awe inspiring. I remember pausing inside the great passageway and wondered, why is it so steep, why the peg holes along the sides, why the three large granite stones plug? I had no answers, but I was awed, even the large granite sarcophagus in the center of the bare room, vaulted by large granite slabs, it was something wonderful. It does make one want to believe this great achievement was other worldly. Or the mundane answer is that the king first had his burial chamber undergroud, covered by a flat topped pyramid, which was then the custom, and only later changed his mind and built the gargantuan Great Pyramid, perhaps at a great cost to himself and his kingdom. Anyone who had done any home remodeling can relate to that. He then moved the tomb higher up, with the airshaft aligned with Sirius, the Dog Star, which is a known fact.

In reading this paper, I did have questions about any artifacts found that might betray the authors' hypothesis. Did they find traces of Plutonium? Are there are metallic artifacts that could not be explained by conventional archeology, something that didn't belong there? I remember the pyramid had no hieroglyphs of any kind, which is strange if this was to be a great king's tomb. However, in re-reading the paper, there was a word that kept jumping out at me, "obviously", and whenever I had encountered this word in the past it always made me pause. Is it really so obvious?

Here are the lines that made me think that perhaps the authors are pulling our leg with their nuclear pyramid idea, pg. 9:

"Obviously, if the Great Pyramid was a plutonium mill, it produced a great many tons of plutonium. ... The logical answer is obvious: the plutonium was taken off planet."

How do you clean out all the plutonium, something that is 'hot' for a hundred thousand years? At that point, my interest waned, so I could no longer take it seriously. I enjoyed the hydrolic ideas, since I had seen other way out papers on this pyramid as a gigantic syphon pump. But then why none others were ever built like it? Or was this the only pyramid of note, and all others were copies, in a kind of ancient Egyptian 'cargo cult', waiting for the aliens to return? Regardless, the engineering and marvel of this construction will keep us guessing for a very long time.

So I have to assume, tongue in cheek myself, that you posted this paper to amuse us, or perhaps the Meta Research people had that same idea. :-) Regardless, thanks for sharing it, very interesting. I wish it were aliens, but my wishing does not make it so. Why Mars? Why not Zeta Recticulum?

So 'obviously' we do not know what this pyramid was all about. My suspicion is that it truly was the work of ancient Egyptians, clever and hard working, incredible mathematical and practical engineering skills, but never duplicated again. The only thing larger than the Great Pyramid might have been its architects' and king's egos. Otherwise, who knows? My tongue is still in my cheek. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 05:23 pm:   

RELATIVITY 'ONE LINER'

Here is the Dictionary.com defintion for Relativity:
3 results for: Relativity

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
rel.a.tiv.i.ty. [rel-uh-tiv-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.
the state or fact of being relative.
2.
Physics. a theory, formulated essentially by Albert Einstein, that all motion must be defined relative to a frame of reference and that space and time are relative, rather than absolute concepts: it consists of two principal parts. The theory dealing with uniform motion (special theory of relativity or special relativity) is based on the two postulates that physical laws have the same mathematical form when expressed in any inertial system, and the velocity of light is independent of the motion of its source and will have the same value when measured by observers moving with constant velocity with respect to each other. Derivable from these postulates are the conclusions that there can be no motion at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum, mass increases as velocity increases, mass and energy are equivalent, and time is dependent on the relative motion of an observer measuring the time. The theory dealing with gravity (general theory of relativity or general relativity) is based on the postulate that the local effects of a gravitational field and of acceleration of an inertial system are identical.
3.
dependence of a mental state or process upon the nature of the human mind: relativity of values; relativity of knowledge.


I would have a much simpler 'one liner' to explain Einstein's Relativity:

Relativity is a function of all observations being constrained by the speed of light c, so that any great distance or greatly accelerated velocity must be observed within the parameters of this constraint; if it were possible to observe 'instantly' such relativity would not exist, because there would be no light c constraint on observations.

I think this is the defining principle that separates 'observational' relativity from 'physical' relativity: the universe may not be constrained by our light c constraint in terms of how it interacts within itself at either great distances or accelerated high velocities, in that it 'knows' itself instantly. By this definition, Relativity is merely a human construct constrained by the fact that we have no way at present of observing physical phenomenon with anything other than electromagnetic energy, which is constrained by the speed of light c. The exception to this is either quantum 'spooky action' at a distance, or perhaps gravity, which may be (contrary to Einstein's) felt as 'potential' instantaneously. This has two ramifications: 1. if we find a way to measure at a distance instantaneously, or 2. inertial systems exist only as a function of the light c limitation to observation, then it means that Relativity as a 'real' phenomenon does not actually exist, but functions only as an Observational-Relativity using light as the delivery system for information transferred, from the source observed to our observational instruments. In effect, Relativity is a human construct to accommodate our light c limitation on observation, but is not a real physical effect that may be applied to the physics of our universe. Therefore, the universe does not use Relativity if it 'knows' itself informationally instantaneously. Time does not dilate with accelerated velocity if information is transferred instantaneously; then time is merely a measure of action over distance, e.g., change, and not relative but absolute.

What we observe may not be what it actually is doing, if so, except as an observational 'illusion', which means Relativity is only an observational science.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 09:41 pm:   

Gravitational solution to the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly, by Moffat & Brownstein
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/...11/0511026.pdf

I came across this paper in my readings, which the authors seem to entertain the idea that gravity G is a variable, though they have it growing out at about Saturn, peak out some distance beyond, and then flatten out into a MONDian curve fitting that math. The G variability is a function of distance from the Sun, but not specifically defined as to why this variable should exist. In any case, the pattern fits Pioneer Anomaly, though not sure about the part where it 'peaks', since in mine the variable G keeps increasing steadily until about 50,000 AU, where it flattens out as a constant, which would make it more 1/r rather than 1/r^2, if gravity grows at 1G/1AU. Still, interesting that nearly two years later, others are beginning to look at this same possibility of a variable G.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - 10:29 pm:   

"Relativity is only an observational science".

I've always thought this! How can we make predictions about the physical universe with only our senses as guides? Imagine a new set of sensory organs, and a whole new science appears. For example, we don't have "gravity" vision thus we can only see the effects of its affect. Our eyes only see electromagnetic radiation at a certain wavelength. And we actually believe we almost have the physical realm figured out?

Perhaps instead of examining what we can observe, we should examine our sensory organs. We are limited by them. They are only suitable for survival in our little earth environment. We need to think outside the sensory box. Indeed our very notion of dimensions is strictly dictated by what we can visualize. I wonder if Ed (being the spatial savant) has any further insight into the paradoxical idea of categorizing physical laws through subjective observation?

Indeed why do we have to take Einstien's word for it when it comes to curved space? For that matter, why is the sphere seemingly the "shape" of gravity? Is gravity causing spin and thus spherical shapes? Or is gravity a state of spin, or in a state of spin? Ed I think we need your help on this one!

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 11:51 am:   

But then why none others were ever built like it?
Posted on Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 12:30 am: Ivan


The authors have suggested a test of the chambers of the Great Pyramid to verify their conjecture. Even if societies do not take the suggestion seriously, one tourist could take a Geiger counter and check the levels of relative radioactivity. Having said that let us speculate why none else was built?

Hypothesis 1: After the monument Taj Mahal was built it is claimed that the emperor cut off the thumbs of every artisan involved in the project so that no other work of similar beauty would be built. Likewise whoever got that Great Pyramid built might have destroyed the skill after it was built.

Hypothesis 2: The aliens built it and found that it worked but not well enough. They realized that the environment of earth interfered and produced a product they did not desire to have. They reduced the radioactivity to a harmless level and left.

Hypothesis 3: They indeed transported all the produce to Mars. They designed the mill so well that there was no need for a second mill. As regards their carrying ultra hot products of the mill, we might surmise that they had the technology of transportation developed before they built the mill. Don’t we do that with respect to our own space exploration?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 07:16 pm:   

Dead stars provide Einstein test
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5356910.stm

Interesting double neutron star system only 2000 LYs away, closing in on each other at 7 mm per day, while doing a revolution in 2.4 hours. Einstein's predictions of slowing clocks and expected 'gravity waves' have a ready stellar laboratory. The article's writer seems satisfied, but until LIGO shows actual gravity waves, I remain skeptical, though good results for Einstein's theories otherwise. However, this may be no more than what Naive and I mentioned above, an artifact of 'observational science' constrained by the speed of light c, which is what Relativity is about.

As Naive pointed out, our eyes cannot see 'gravitationally' so we are blind to it, and are restricted to seeing with the light spectrum of electromagnetic waves. If LIGO was designed to register gravity waves, it should 'see' them here. However, if gravity is not traveling at c, but instantaneous, then nothing will show, since there would be no 'waves' in the e.m. sense.

As far as time dilation and slowing clocks is concerned, these are natural gravitational phenomena, same as GPS satellites traveling around the Earth's gravitational field slow. Slowing atomic oscillations is a form of gravitational 'redshift'. I think there are easier ways to deal with Einstein's relativistic phenomena than his complex Lorentzian math, and that simply measuring light or e.m. red-blue shifts will yield the same effects. That said, if Newton's G is 50,000 times greater (as I postulated elsewhere) in intergalactic space than Earth's orbital G, then all light passing through space diffused 'vacuum' of gases will redshift naturally at near the Hubble constant. Measuring redshift and its associated time delay would give us a more accurate reading of Einstein's relativity than the highly complex math he created. The math is a model, so it may or may not approximate reality; while reality is what it is. Measure the light shifts, and you're getting a direct observational 'relativistic' reading. Sounds easy. Why had it not been done?

Naive, Ed, Mohideen, Anons, maybe we'll have to work out the math ourselves, if others hadn't done it yet. :-) How hard can it be?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon
Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 10:55 am:   

I offer the following as an example of how far and fast Technological Society is progressing with regards to treating diseases and exposure to toxic agents.

In my case I was exposed to 1200 times the normal level (a lethal) dose of organophosphate based neurotoxins, Sarin and Tabun military spec type nerve agents during the 1st Gulf War. To conteract this I was taking PRALIDOXIME CHLORIDE or 2 PAM Chloride for short.

This drug provided protection against exposure to these agents and delayed the onset of symptoms until my body purged itself of the chemicals. While serving in Mexico I was given a second lethal dose of nerve agent following the theft of my laptop.

Long term symptoms from these twin exposures included affects on the Central and Peripheral nervous System and Autoimmune System efects. These effects were confirmed by detailed testing of my CNS, peripheral nervous system and auto-immune system. These tests were performed using advanced experimental investigational techniques performed by some of the best neurological and autoimmune specialists in the world at some the best and most advanced medical institutes in the United States.

Subsequent treatment following my exposure to these agents included advanced experimental/investigational automimmune therapy to counter act the effects of the nerve agent on my CNS and peripheral nervous system and tailored steroidal therapy to assist in regeneration of nerve coatings.

In addition to this I was given an advanced drug compound to restore balance to the neuro-transmitters in my brain (CNS) that had been disrupted by these exposures to neurotoxins.

Supportive therapy following the my drug treatment protocal included physical and mental rehabilitation to restore as close to full functioning as possible along with counseling to deal with the stress of the assault and damage I sustained to my CNS and peripheral nervous system.

Subsequent long term testing and evalution have confirmed that the damage to body's systems has been arrested, that the coating on my nervous system has regenerated, and that normal functioning of my CNS has been restored.

Total Cost for the evaluation and treatment I recieved has run in the millions of dollars. Spin off from the success of the treatment I recieved have the potential to lead to break throughs in the treatment of a variety of neurological illness and injuries such as MS, ALS, and Parkinsons Disease.

Such are the advances that are being made in science and technology each and every day.

One day once again I will pick up compass and ruler and explore geometry. Until then I have much other work to do.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 11:18 am:   

The Equinox Error: The Fallacy of Fall's Arrival
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/060922_equinox.html

Hmm... Today is Fall Equinox, by the calendar, or at least astronomically in how the Earth is tilted straight up with the Sun, so day and night are of equal duration. However, that apparently is not the whole story. If you watch sunrise and sunset, you would notice the 12 hour exact day and night actually happens some 4 days later. Today, on Equinox day, there is about an 8 or 9 minute difference! How can that be?

As the above article shows, the astronomers are not wrong about the date, only the visually observable effect of that date shows up later. The explanation given by the author is: "The reason is the Earth's atmosphere, which bends the sunlight around the horizon. It is somewhat like peering around the corner with a periscope. The atmosphere bends the Sun's light around the horizon slightly, such that the Sun appears in the East a couple of minutes before it actually rises. In the evening the reverse happens—the Sun's light is bent around the horizon to cause the Sun to remain visible for a few minutes after it has really sat." Well, maybe that's it. Or maybe it's something else?

So I got out my China made calculator, the kind you find at the "99 cents" store, and started punching. Let's see... the Sun's light takes about 8 minutes to reach Earth. Okay, how many minutes in a 24 hour day? 1440 minutes. Divide 8 by 1440, you get 0.005555. Okay, Let's multiply this by 365 days in a year, and times 2, because there are two solar events, sunrise and sunset. So we get 4.0555 days. Hmm... coincidence?

I bring up this little equinoxical exercise, like standing up an egg on end, to show that the explanation given for why the delay in visually observed Equinox may not be the best, but in fact the better explanation, if not mere coincidence, is that there is a relativistic effect here, of the time delay for the Sun's light reaching Earth. If the Sun's rays reached us at sunrise and sunset instantaneously, the Equinoxal 12 hour day and night would fall on today. But because there is a time delay for the light to reach us, of about 8 minutes, the visually observed 'equinox' falls about 4 days later. Of course, this is all relative because if the Sun's light were "space warped accelerated" to reach us 8 minutes earlier than the event, in a kind of inverse-space-time Einsteinian universe, then the visual 'equinox' effect would happen 4 days earlier! But I jest and digress. :-)

Ivan


Ps: in fact, thinking about this some more, if the article is right, that atmosphere causes 'curvature' of sunlight at sunrise-sunset, the visual effect should be earlier for sunrise, but later for sunset, so the effect would cancel! Hmm... I wonder if the author thought of that?.. Nahh, can't be right, since the days register as longer...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 12:59 pm:   

Compromise is called for, re Equinox anomaly above?

The article says: "The reason is the Earth's atmosphere, which bends the sunlight around the horizon. It is somewhat like peering around the corner with a periscope. The atmosphere bends the Sun's light around the horizon slightly, such that the Sun appears in the East a couple of minutes before it actually rises. In the evening the reverse happens—the Sun's light is bent around the horizon to cause the Sun to remain visible for a few minutes after it has really sat." -- bold mine

I think both things are at play here, both the light's curvature through atmosphere as well as time delay of light reaching Earth. Let me explain.

The author's tally, if only 2 minutes at sunrise but "a few minutes" at sunset, is inconclusive, since if both effects have a 2 minute time span, that amounts to only 4 minutes, which is half of the 8-9 minutes difference. However, if in mine it is only figured for a 24 hour day event, rather than split into to 12 hour periods (remember I multiplied by 2), the effect is halved. So my effect delays the visual observation is half of the 4 days delay, while the other 4 minutes go to the atmosphere's effect. Taken together, both the atmospheric 4 minutes effect and the light's 4 minutes time delay effect, added together becomes the full 8-9 minutes observed, or the 4 day delay.

Well, that's enough of a brain tease for this Equinox, my head hurts. Check back in 6 months. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 03:01 pm:   

The delay in the time it takes the sun's light to reach us causes us to observe sunrise 8 minutes later than it actually happens but likewise causes us to observe sunset 8 minutes later. The net result has no effect on what day we observe an even 12 hour day/night split.

And the calculation you did is a coincidence. If you keep multiplying numbers together eventually you can produce any number you like.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 03:30 pm:   

Thanks Anon, I appreciate the 'coincidence factor' as always.

You never know what strange coincidences may yield, however, in the long run. Random typings on the keyboard may yield the same. :-)

Still thinkin' about it. My point was that if light reached us instantly, we'd see the exact equinox effect today, but since it takes time to get here, everything is moved over by a couple of days; the other two days are accounted for by atmospheric lens effect. But still thinkin'... something to do with Earth's sidereal rotation:
Sidereal rotation period (hrs) 23.9345
Length of day (hrs) 24.0000
where the difference amounts to about 0.00262 from 24 hours, time delayed, factoring in the 8 minutes solar light delay. If the Earth were not moving in orbit, yours would be correct without doubt. But since it is in motion, I suspect mine has application to delayed equinox observation by a couple of days (half of what I originally posted), with the other half taken up by atmospheric lensing.

Ah well, it was an exercise for this auspicious day.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 04:59 pm:   

Can Mercury's full orbit be responsive to solar angular momentum?

More on Mercury's orbital precession, per post above,
Sept.1,2006: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/97.html?1159038064#POST1733
(and later, Sept 12, 2006, on spin: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/97.html?1159030758#POST1887)

These are just some random notes, not a real hypothesis:

I mentioned parenthetically as a Ps: "I still suspect Mercury's response to the Sun's gravity at perihelion may have some relationship to how its gravitational mass is 'lower' in how it is affected by angular momentum, which 'accelerates' it briefly, though its planet mass is same."

The assumption here is that if Newton's G at Mercury is a hypothetical ~0.40 of Earth's known G, so not a universal constant at Earth's G (though it may be 'universal' at a much higher, 10x^5 G, for intergalactic space, which is most of the universe - which would explain the Hubble constant redshift), then how would such a low G affect transfer of momentum 'drag' in relation to Sun's equatorial angular spin onto Mercury's orbit?

Per Equivalence Principle, demonstrated by Einstein, gravity G and mass have an 'equivalent' relationship. So in lower G, as per Mercury's orbit (where G grows at the constant rate of about 1G per 1AU), the 0.40G would mean it would take less force to move it using kinetic energy, such as a rocket ship pushing on it, only 40% of force needed; and likewise, gravitationally, the Sun's angular momentum would exert only 40% transfer to Mercury's mass (mass stays the same, same planet). However, Mercury's mass is 2 1/2 times less 'responsive' to this momentum transfer, because per Equivalence, it is 40% gravitionally-equivalent 'lighter' in response to this transfer of momentum. If we use these ratios applied to Mercury's orbital behavior, here is what it may look like:

1. Assuming a 5 day (Earth days) period for Mercury's perihelion time of precession, by convention, how many (Mercury's orbital period) days will be where the activity is actually affecting Mercury's orbital behavior?

2. Taking Mercury's orbital period as 88 days, vs. Earth's orbital period of 365 days, we get a ratio of 0.24, or nearly a fourth. So the (Earth's) 5 days perihelion period for Mercury is really translated into just under a fourth for Mercury's being affected by Sun's angular momentum, in Mercury time, so we get about 1.2 (Earth) days when Mercury's precession is actually active, per one Mercury full orbit.

3. But at 40% Equivalence (where gravity is at 0.40G), Mercury is dragged 'slower' because it offers less 'gravitational mass' for this momentum transfer, or about 40% slower for its 1.2 days when it is being affected by solar angular momentum the most, which gives us a 'gravitational equivalence' of 2.5 times its 1.2 (Earth) days at perihelion, or 3 equivalence 'days', though only 1.2 days in fact.

4. Bear in mind that Mercury's 'day' is about 58 (Earth) days, while its orbital period is about 88 days. That's a ratio of 1.5 orbital days to one spin day. If we equate the 5 (Earth) days for precession effect with 5 (Mercury) days for 'gravitational-equivalence' effect, we need to multiply Mercury's 3 equivalence 'days' by 1.5 times Mercury's day for a full orbit, which works out to be 4.5 days for its precession per Earth year. So we're a little short by half a day, for a 'gravitational equivalence' between Earth's 1G and Mercury's 0.40G, if such is the case of 5 days for both. Could it be the remainder is a function of the rest of Mercury's orbit? If so, then this would match the disparities between gravitational masses and their equivalent perihelion periods of 5 days.

5. Therefore, there may be some relationship to how Mercury's mass, behaving as if it were 'lighter' and less responsive by a factor of 2.5, so that within a full Mercury year, the transfer of momentum from the Sun gives us the precession observed. This would imply that though most of the effect is at perihelion, or equivalent to 4.5 'days' when it is felt most, there remains a slight residual effect throughout Mercury's orbit, even at aphelion, for the remaining 0.5 days; though the whole thing happens at Mercury's perihelion in 1.2 (Earth) days, times 4 (Mercury) years, or 5 (Earth) days at perihelion, the 0.40G adjusted precession works out pretty much the same for both.

In effect, 1.2 Mercury perihelion days times 1.5 times Mercury day, times 2.5 G adjusted, equals 4.5 gravitationally equivalent 'days' for Mercury per Earth year; the remainign 0.5 day may be throughout Mercury's orbit.


These random musings are not exact, only to illustrate that something may be happening at Mercury's orbital G region that we had not figured on before. Is Mercury being dragged by the Sun's angular momentum, however slightly, all through its orbit so close to the Sun? This effect may be already minimal by Venus and the further planets, but it may be measurable at Mercury. Should we probe this further on future space missions, to see if Mercury's orbital behavior is not only all centered on perihelion, but also throughout its orbit?

Lastly, I don't know if Einstein's GR addressed this issue, but it probably could not, since he figured Newton's G was a universal constant at Earth's 1G, as assumed Newton, rather than a variable in linear proportion to distance from the Sun. Furthermore, the issue of 'solar angular momentum' was not included in his theory. It was the Pioneer Anomaly that gave us the first clue, long after Einstein, though at this point the issue is not yet resolved. I don't think this this can be fully resolved without measuring for a 'variable G' in the outer solar system, however, and until we do, we just can't know. Our model of the universe is built on a 'universal constant' Newton's 1G, and if G is discovered to be variable, the model would need to change.

But all this may be mere 'coincident' philosophical musings anyway. :-) I leave it here as a note in an 'open notebook' of ideas, unresolved.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, September 24, 2006 - 12:27 pm:   

Face on Mars, so called.

From this well defined photo by Mars Express orbiter, it seems clear the 'facial' features of this mound are natural erosion. What is intriguing is that given Mars's smaller mass, meaning less gravity pulling down the rock, why should there be such erosions, especially in the absence of rains? If the hypothesis that Mars, at about 1.5 AU has a greater G at work, around 1.5G of Earth's, then this erosion begins to look more like solid mass flow. Bouguer gravitational anomalies on Mars, allegedly, show higher readings for mountains and ridges than expected. This may be cause enough to enable solid matter, held loosely by Mars lower gravity, to flow down faster from higher anomalous G regions, such as mountains. In effect, if so, on Mars rocks fall flow 'cascading' resembles more like Earth's water enhanced rock cascading flows. It is possible the 'face on Mars' is just a natural phenomenon due to a higher 1.5G condition, enhanced by the Bouguer anomalies there, to resemble greater erosion than would be expected from 1G gravity. Anecdotal at best, but the 'face' may be one more clue for a variable, and higher, Newton's G on Mars.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 10:38 pm:   

Global Positioning System - as a follow up to mine and Naive's above "Relativity is only an observational science".

In the Wiki page on GPS, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps there is a short quote on Relativity as it applies to 'time dilation':

"Time dilation
According to Einstein's Theory of relativity, because of their constant movement and height relative to the Earth Centered Inertial reference frame the clocks on the satellites are affected by their speed (special relativity) as well as their gravitational potential (general relativity). Consequently it was expected that when observed from the Earth's reference frame, satellite clocks would be perceived as running at a slightly faster rate than clocks on the Earth's surface. This amounts to a discrepancy of around 38 microseconds per day, when observed from the Earth. To account for this, the frequency standard on-board the satellites is set to run slightly slower than its desired frequency on Earth, at 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz—a difference of 0.00457 Hz.[13] The satellite clocks are claimed to be well tuned when in orbit, making it a practical demonstration of the theory of relativity in a real-world system. Neil Ashby presented in Physics Today (May 2002) [14] an account how these relativistic corrections are applied, and their orders of magnitude.

Note that in GPS the theory of relativity is a mere correction to classical wave theory; with new positioning algorithms that are meant to eliminate noise effects such corrections have become less important. Thus in his book GPS Satellite Surveying, Alfred Leick writes (p.68; 170):
Relativistic effects are important in GPS surveying, but fortunately can be accurately computed. The atomic frequency standards in the satellites are affected by both special relativity (the satellite's velocity) and general relativity (the difference in the gravitational potential at the satellite's position relative to the potential at the earth's surface. [...] In relative positioning, most of the relativistic effects cancel or become negligible.[15] - (bold mine)

Therefore, geometrical differencing in precise positioning cancels out most of the relativistic effects."

I find this quite revealing, that though there is a 'relativistic' type effect of clocks traveling above the earth at high speed through a gravitational field (where here are said to 'speed up') the actual relativistic effect is essentially self canceling. Earlier in the article it said a mathematical formula was used to compensate for the light speed ranging Doppler effect: "To understand how this works, consider a local clock that is off by 0.1 microseconds, or about 30 meters (100 ft) when converted to distance. When the position is calculated using this clock, the range measurements to each of the satellites will read 30 meters too long. In this case the four spheres will not overlap at a point, instead each sphere will intersect at a different point, resulting in several potential positions about 30 meters apart. The receiver then uses a mathematical technique to calculate the clock error that would produce this offset, in this case 0.1 microseconds, adjusts the range measurements by this amount, and then updates the internal clock to make it more accurate." - (bold mine) So in essence, though Einstein's relativity explains this phenomenon within the 'domain of applicability' its mathematical formalism describes, it nevertheless is easier to simply measure ranging light shift and mathematically correct for it, which is what the engineers at GPS do. Observationally, this is all that is really needed, the 'slowing or racing clocks' is simply an observable artefact of what happens to them when they travel at high speed in orbit, traveling through a gravitational field.

Ivan

Ps: Here is another revealing paper showing 'null results' for SR in GPS engineering:
GPS AND RELATIVITY: AN ENGINEERING OVERVIEW
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 10:35 am:   

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1768846.ece
===
'Weightless' surgery performed for first time
The specially converted Airbus took off from Bordeaux-Merignac airport yesterday morning and returned three hours later. During its flight, it performed 25 steep climbs and dives to create 22-second periods which resembled the zero gravity, or weightless, conditions experienced by astronauts in space. The surgeons operated only during those periods.
===

The total duration is 180 minutes. The weightless duration is 550 seconds, that is, a mere 5.1% of the total duration. The surgical patient experienced weightlessness for 5.1% of the time and experienced gravity, possibly more than gravity, for 94.9% of the time. Is it not a stretch of imagination to claim the average of 94.9% under gravity and 5.1% under no gravity as an operation carried out under weightlessness?

Don’t forget that it is the patient that is the most important actor; most of the biological functions of the patient would have been under normal gravitational influence as the body responds to the average stimulus rather than instantaneous stimulus.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, September 29, 2006 - 10:10 am:   

Dream Location on Mars, Rover's there at Victoria crater.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5388058.stm

Actually, I find this very exciting, being a desert rat. Water, water!

Amazing these tough little Martian rovers are still 'walking', wich I were there.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 07:13 pm:   

LIFE IS UNIVERSAL, ALL OVER THE PLACE!

Here's some eartly evidence that life does not have to be oxygen breathing, nor sun worshipping, like ourselves, but can manifest in some rather bizarre environments:

"Gold mind holds life untouched by the Sun"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10336-gold-mine-holds-life-untouched-by-th e-sun.html

If life can happen there, or in deep oceanic volcanic sulfur vents, then why not all over the universe? Perhaps it may not look like us, but universal evolution may yield some rather strange life forms, even some intelligent enough to talk to us. Though, they may not wish to share a table at dinner with us, unless we take a liking to sulfur soup. :-) Try not to slurp dear.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 07:25 pm:   

Some Things about Gravity, and Gravity Communications.

The search is on for 'variable G' in earnest. Here's my post on BAUT:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=848288#post848288 (nutant gene 71)
Read the thread from the beginning, quite interesting about LLR moon orbital data.

* * *
Something else, about the 'speed of gravity'. per Tom Van Flandern's calculations, gravity operates at much faster than lightspeed c, though not infinitely fast. The result seems to point to about g_v > 2x10^10c, which is ten orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light. If so, a quick calculation for how fast it would cross the length of our Milky Way, about 100,000 light years, yields this:

c = 2.999E+8 m s^-1
g_v = ~2E+10c
Milky Way distance (MW_d) = 100,000 LY
MW_d = 9.46E+20 meters

g x c = ~6E+18 m s^-1

so that: (9.46E+20 m) / (6E+18 m s^-1) = ~1.577E+2 seconds

That's fast! So if we could develop 'gravity based signaling', we could communicate with the other side of the galaxy within some 158 seconds? Wow, that's about 2.6 minutes or less to cross the whole damned Milky Way! No wonder SETI can't hear anything using electromagnetic signals. Why would any advanced civilization be stuck at signals traveling at slow c, when they can get signals traveling at ten orders of magnitude faster than c? Obviously, we're not only on the wrong wavelength, we're not even in the loop of all the universal chatter going on out there.

Of course, we have no capability to even send Morse code at gravity speeds, alas. So "hello? anybody there?"... silence.... Until we can build receivers that get 'gravity vibes', we're in the dark.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, October 22, 2006 - 05:05 pm:   

More on variable G, a conundrum.

I've run into something of a conundrum on this variable Newton's G idea, which I cannot at present resolve. When I was called upon my error in computing the variability of G for Earth from perihelion to aphelion, by Tassel's post on BAUT, he rightly showed how my numbers were way off. In fact, whether taken as a percentage of eccentricity of Earth's orbit, which varies between about 147 million km and 152 million km, or about 1.67% off the mean, G would vary by about 0.11E-11, vs. 6.67E-11, for Earth's G. However, nothing like this had ever been registered, so it leaves it a puzzle, as to why Earth's G should be so constant, given if a variable G is correct. Of course, it may not be, and I would have given it no further thought had the Axiomatic Eq. not yielded a result so close to the Pioneer Anomaly. However, when I worked out the Axiomatic for Earth's eccentricity, I got an even higher result, more like 0.2E-11. So this leaves either that a variable G is something very different from what my calculations, matching closely the Pioneer's acceleration towards the Sun, show or that Earth's orbital dynamics somehow mask the effects of a variable G. The fact that such a difference in Earth's G was never measured, I am forced to look for other reasons why this is so. All I can come up with, at present, is that it all nets out, treating Earth's orbit as one value for G, regardless of distance from the Sun, though I do not know why.

For the record, it remains a conundrum.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 09:39 am:   

Third time lucky on Mars?

They missed finding life, almost, on the Viking mission 30 years ago, and still not finding it with current rovers, but they may finally hit pay dirt on the next try. Looks like Martian water is a peroxide, so highly evolved life forms should sport golden blonds. But for now, keep the probe's nose close to the soil, where microbial life is most likely doing domestic chemistry, or bounding around like little Mexican jumping beans.

Viking landers may have missed Martian life\
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn10361-viking-landers-may-have-missed- martian-life.html

Third time lucky if we meet up with these guys flying around? Or "take me to your leader."

:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 02:06 pm:   

You've calculated the Pioneer anomaly as a function of a variable G? I'd like to see that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 07:16 pm:   

Hi Anon, I posted a mini-paper on it here, on the forums.

The result comes in within half an order of magnitude for a variable G overlay, where per Equivalence the gravitational-mass of Pioneers 10 & 11 is increasing at about the rate of 1G per 1 AU. Of course, until we find real evidence of a variable G, the result may be coincidence. So at this point, my use of a modified Quantum de Broglie equation, E = hf, remains conjecture. At least, that's how I see the 'Axiomatic Equation' for now.

If the Greek lambda "l" does not show up, try using Navigator, or the paper is hard to read.

Cheers, Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 10:24 pm:   

More Variable G and LLR, something else on variable gravity 'big' G.

dG/dt measurement and the timing of lunar laser ranging observations by Kenneth Nordtvedt

This is not proof Newton's G is variable, though the sinodic periodicity of G'/G shows even within Earth's orbital range, seems to be some variability, albeit very small. The author also mentions using similar ranging for our solar system, though at present this is still beyond our capability.

Final Demystification of the gravitational constant variation

Blaze Labs Research has an interesting paper on variable G, though don't necessarily agree with why this is happening. Note pages 2-4 showing Newton's G ranges about 1% within Earth's measurements. I don't think this was ever correlated to Earth's positioning relative to the Sun, though I suspect that the near sinodic wave of G's range through the year may have a similar effect. However, I would expect G to be slightly lower at perihelion (winter northern hemisphere) and higher at aphelion. Did anyone ever find this so? Again, the range is very small, but measurable, from upper G = 6.74E-11 to lower 6.635E=11, or about 1.6%. The balance of the paper deals with variable mass, per Einstein-Lorentz relativistic velocities, not too convinced of that. A variable G cum Equivalence is the better bet, in my humble opinion.

Ivan

Ps: Another paper: Seasonal oscillations in length-of-day
http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/bib/pub/str9603/9603.pdf
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 12:37 am:   

Why not just a transfer of angular momentum?

Here's what 'dragging space-time' looks like, per Einstein's theory: "The satellites orbit Earth so that they cross each other's paths, making the shape of the letter "X." Each orbit has its own plane, the imaginary flat field around which the satellite circles. The two researchers determined the central plane of the combined two-satellite system. The University of Maryland member of the team, Erricos Pavlis, says the laser beam measurements of the satellites' location showed that the swirling space and time around Earth caused a shift in this plane of about two meters per year in the direction of the Earth's rotation. Mr. Pavlis says the measurement agrees 99 percent with what Einstein's theory predicted, with a margin of error of five to 10 percent.
 
"Now, obviously it would have been much greater news if we had proven Einstein was wrong, but I think we are very satisfied with the present result to a 99 percent correct prediction and confirmation of that prediction," said Mr. Pavlis."
-bold mine.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2004-10/2004-10-21-voa131.cfm?CFID=660872 69&CFTOKEN=23651146

But why could this not be merely Earth's mass angular momentum transferred onto the orbiting satellites? After all, they are both in the same direction. I think Ockhams's razor would vote for the latter.

Another idea: Does Earth's spin vary? Does it slow ever so slightly at perihelion and accelerate slightly at aphelion? Anybody know? Here is the closest I could get to an answer on this question, notice the annual variations, but it is still not a good enough answer, explanations foggy: http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa090797.htm Blaming the seasons, or weather? Really! Not.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 04:29 pm:   

"But why could this not be merely Earth's mass angular momentum transferred onto the orbiting satellites?"

This is right on the money. A transfer of Earth's angular momentum is what was measured in this experiment. It's a consequence of general relativity known as the Lense-Thirring effect. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, October 28, 2006 - 01:01 am:   


quote:

It's a consequence of general relativity known as the Lense-Thirring effect. :-)



Cool! The Lense-Thirring effect sounds simple enough, and totally sensible. The angular momentum of a larger mass is transferred onto the orbital behavior of a smaller mass. How is that different from Mercury's precession? I would think they are the same. Could this not be explained in some easier methodology than relativistic math? I should think it doable, or as Henry David Thoreau had said "simplify." :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 01:19 pm:   

"Could this not be explained in some easier methodology than relativistic math?"

This would be kind of circular as the framework of general relativity provides the mechanism for the momentum transfer in the first place. Newtonian physics does not provide a mechanism for momentum transfer across a vacuum.

Like much of general relativity, this effect isn't so much explained by relativity as it is predicted by relativity. Lense and Thirring in studying general relativity realized that if it's right, this effect must be present. That it seemingly is present is very strong evidence that general relativity is fundamentally correct.

This effect is no doubt a factor in Mercury's orbit but it is very small. Other relativistic effects contribute much more towards Mercury's perihelion advance.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 05:58 pm:   

Hurricane on Saturn? Ivan's hypothesis.

Saturn's Freak One-Eyed Monster is a hurricane of mega proportions. This tempest is 5,000 miles wide with a clear eye in the center, and about some 45 miles deep. But it is stationary, much like Jupiter's Big Red, which also appear stationary within the 250 mph cycling atmosphere. It is the 'stationary' part of it that is such a puzzle here, not necessarily its huge girth. Also a mystery is that other smaller storms can form and merge with the larger one, or in Saturn's case, many small vortex like storms, or 'pearls', following the atmospheric bands. On Saturn, these pearl lie storms seem very common at some latitudes, such as picture here. I think the Saturn 'hot spot' has a lot to do with this storm. Here is my 'hypothesis' on this mega storm:

I suspect that unlike Earth, but also like Earth's ozone hole over the Icelandic volcano, there is a planetary 'hot spot' relationship between what is happening on Saturn, and Jupiter, where rage those mega storms. In the case of Jupiter, the Giant Red Spot is stationary, or anchored to the planet's rocky core, or it seems, and the same seems true for the polar mega hurricane on Saturn. So the apparent hypothesis is that these storms are generated by 'hot' atmospheric conditions over these particular hot spots. On Earth, we do not have the same dynamics as on these gas giant planets, and this could be once again anecdotal to different Newton's G readings, where on Earth it is a very light 1G, while on Jupiter an already significant ~5G, and Saturn still greater ~10G, so the dynamics are different. What seems to power storms on Earth is oceanic temperatures, causing for example the tropical storms off the coast of Africa, then picking up energy over the warm waters of the eastern Atlantic, turning into hurricane storms over the Gulf, or riding the warm Gulf waters up the coast of the Americas. On these gas giants, because of a hypothetical higher G, the dynamics are more rooted to the planet's surface than to the shifting oceans, if any, so that a 'hot spot' such as on the souther pole of Saturn, or underneath Jupiter's vast atmosphere, will generate storm conditions that on occasion become super storms, or hurricanes for their atmospheres. Different G worlds gives different dynamics, so we do not get hurricanes forming over hot spot volcanoes on Earth, as a rule, but may be getting just that result on higher G planets, such as the gas giants. So Jupiter's centuries enduring Big Red may be one such raging hurricane storm just at the surface over a hot spot, but though extended and very large, it is not deep enough but rather diluted over the atmosphere over a large area, so that a visible 'eye' of the storm is not apparent. Unlike this Big Red, the smaller polar Saturn storm is more concentrated on its hot spot, in a more concentrated Saturn G, so it rages tightly around a visible eye. This hypothesis satisfies these two conditions, of a raging storm over gas giant planet core hot spots, but it does not answer why there are mini storms created that seem to float in the atmosphere and sometimes merge with the larger storms.

I think once a storm is created over a hot spot, it can either have a life of its own and drift within the atmosphere, much as Earth hurricanes do, or it can remain fixed over the hot spot. In the case of Saturnian pearl like storms, they obviiously drift, but remain locked within the Saturnian jetstreams, so they band around the planet; in the case of the great Big Red Spot on Jupiter, it remains anchored to the surface hot spot; and in the case of smaller storms on Jupiter, they tend to drift with the latitudinal and elevation within which they are formed, so at times will merge with other storms into larger storms. These are atmospheric dynamics not witnessed within Earth's low 1G, but may be possible within the gas giants's greater higher Gs, so different storms for different planets. One more anecdotal evidence of higher ~10G on Saturn is the fact that its rings, though of very low physical mass, have an atmosphere, as noted here. So higher G means denser gravitational-mass, which means denser atmospheric behavior, and the end result is super massive storms over rocky planetary core 'hot spots' for the gas giants.

Anyhow, this is the model that seems to make the most sense, per my hypothesis of higher G in the outer solar system's gas giants. Now, let us watch for more empirical and observational evidence, if this is true, fingers crosed. :-)


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 06:18 pm:   

We might have been banged more often than we know, like a cosmic pin-ball solar system. Here's relatively new evidence:

Ancient Crash, Epic Wave
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/ancient-crash-epic-wave/2006111412140999002 0?cid=2194

There seems to be evidence of very large, much larger than imagined, waves crashing on our shores. I personally have seen large deposits of marine sea shells in the foothills of the Cleveland National Forest, about 25 miles in from the Pacific shore. Not just some pockets here and there, but whole hillsides full of shells. I couldn't imagine a wave that large, but after reading this article, it might have been possible. The shells were not fossilized, but still calcium shells, so must have happened in thousands of years rather than millions of years ago. Yikes! That could only happen from a deep impact hit, it would seem.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 01:42 am:   

Ed, any earthquakes triangulating on the California coast? I'm seeing a lot of Pacific rim activity last few days, including small but persistent activity along the lower San Andreas fault. It feels like there's a good one coming, maybe 5 or more. Here's the page with world activity: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/

See the list of 2.5 mag or better, and then also check out the USA listing, lots of little ones down by the Salton Sea and Mexican border. Note Mount St. Helen's yesterday, 3.4, pretty shalow, maybe indicating movement of tectonics: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsus/Quakes/uw11190420.php

Anything coming up on your scope? Thanks.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 09:01 am:   

Ivan,

I have not looked at the California data in detail but have a nagging suspicion from looking at the press reports that a 5-6 quake is building when I don't know.

I am and remain concerned about Mexico city and the quake activity and volcanic activity in Colima. A recent 5.7 just occured there. With the pumping of water from the aquifer under MExico city and the geological structure of the subsurface the Mexicans have increased the danger of an earthquake by increasing the amplifying effects of earthquakes by pumping the water out. As they pump the water out, the substructure becomes more subseptable to vibrations. Each new earthquake in the region then has a greater affect on increasing the stress on the faults underlaying mexico city.

That is what I am currently looking at the present time.

Hope this helps

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 04:49 am:   

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801gravityfield.html
SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD

I think it important to note that what I have been doing with earthquake prediction in the macro level has been based upon an evalution of the effects of the gravitational bulge at the earths equator and the stresses of Post Glacial Rebound coupled to solar and lunar tidal influences with regards to quake prediction coupled to historical data on the amount of energy locked in earthquake faults.

Roughly 6 hours after I posted my assessment of that a 5-6 quake was building a 6.0 quake hit the pacific plate

Region: CENTRAL EAST PACIFIC RISE
Geographic coordinates: 4.491S, 104.752W
Magnitude: 6.0 Mw
Depth: 10 km
Universal Time (UTC): 19 Nov 2006 18:57:33
Time near the Epicenter: 19 Nov 2006 11:57:33
Local time in your area: 19 Nov 2006 13:57:33

To assess the data for risk of earthquakes IAW my model of gravitational influences on crustal faults is time consuming and fatiguing with everything else I have on my plate at the moment.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 05:08 am:   

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/figures/PIA04652-fig1.jpg

The link posted above is to a gravity map developed from the latest NASA satellight mission. The gravitational hotspots coincide with the areas I was predicting earthquakes for
using the data feeds and historical databases I had access to at the university.

I note one gravitational hotspot lays in southern CA.

To do what I did with earthquake predications I had to work in the blind until the map I posted above was created.

It is with some relief that it matches my assessment of gravitational field interaction based on all source analysis

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Friendly Ghost
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 05:14 am:   

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/jul/HQ_03244_gravity_success.html

Now I know what made him one of the best analysts in the DOD and the history of Cryptology and why KGB poisoned him to take him out of the game to get his laptop.

With nothing but a home computer he charted the earth's gravitational field with nothing but his mind, in the dark alone using open source data available to everyone on the planet.

What a mind

Friendly Ghost
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Assemblies of God
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 05:50 am:   

A gift from God,

Osama used his gift at engineering to bring dowm the Twin Towers, our Embassies in Africa, and damage the USS Cole.

A Christian used his gift to chart the gravitational field of the Earth and the forces affecting it and predicted earthquakes that matched a map created by the finest and most advanced of NASA and European Satellights.

The Christian used his gift to lift us up to a new level, while Osama took us down.

Such gifts are rare and come from God.

May God Bless the United States and its Scientists

A Senior Leader in the Assemblies of God
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 07:55 am:   

Roughly 6 hours after I posted my assessment of that a 5-6 quake was building a 6.0 quake hit the pacific plate.
Ed
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 04:49 am: Anon


May I call upon the academics who read this post to prepare evacuation strategies by the hour for the population centers of USA if not the whole world so that loss of lives could be avoided even if we could not avoid the loss of infrastructure.

May I request Ed to publish his predictions in this page as soon as he makes them in so far as such predictions affect the population centers?

With prayers to God.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 02:50 pm:   

When I looked at the gravity map and compared it to my predictions of earthquakes something from the Bible came to mind.

I think it appropriate to mention it at this juncture.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."

So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.

The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,

to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day

The quest for knowledge is often terrifying to those that seek the truth. The forces of creation are more powerful than can be imagined. Greater than all of the nuclear weapons on the face of the planet.

In the great dance of forces we have through our actions upset the balance of the systems of systems that governs this planet. With our contributions to global climate warming the great forces are seeking a new equilibrium. Until that is reached we face change on a scale not seen before.

Earthquakes, floods, fires, pestilence and disease are to come. This is not new we have endured and survived them in the past. With advances in technology, alternative fuels our technological civilization will endure the change. What comes after has yet to be written.

With the launch of the Gravity space probe and its map we have been given a glimpse into some of the forces that influence our world. Einstien, Newton and the rest of the greats of science saw these same forces yet lacked the technology to paint a picture as NASA has done. They used the tools of the time words, math and geometry to paint a picture of what they saw. From it our technological civilization rose.

In time our understanding of gravity will grow and we will embark on the great journey to the stars in fulfillment of our destiny. To our decendents that live through this time of change our wars of ideology and religion will look like madness to them.

On the great starships that will someday be built men of faith will continue to argue over the nature of god, looked after by technocrats that guide the ships to their destinations, where we will raise new nations, and build our mosques, temples and churches as we continue to explore the universe that our God has given us.

Of this I am sure.

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Friendly Ghost
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 04:16 pm:   

I think it important to note the the Great Boxing day (christmas eve) mega quake occured during the old pagan winter solstice. This was an old pagan time of celebration that was incorporated into christianity.

True Christians know that Jesus of Nazareth's birth was at a different time to claim that this quake was divine punishment for some sects or people's actions is abserd.

However, the winter solstice comes during a period when the earth has reached the furthest point in an orbital change and forces acting upon it change their relationship to it.

Ed has clearly had an insight into the nature of gravity and like Newton, Einstien and the rest it has had a dramatic effect upon him and his view of religion. This effect is colored by his religous upbringing and as such influences the way he looks at things.

Osama too, I think, has had such a glimpse of something, like Ed. I suspect it was based upon his understanding of structural forces and what could be achieved with explosives. This coupled to his views on religion and gift for use of political forces made him what he is.

Whether God had a hand in any of this I do not know. But I suspect it will be argued for generations to come.

Of the two men opposing each other one argues for science, peace and technological advancements and promotes the concept of evolution and challanges us to understand the forces of creation on a mega scale rejects temporal or poltical power. The other would take us back to the stone age in terms of thinking.

Of the two, it is clear that one values life, freedom and the other death. Which I would choose to follow is a private decision, I have made.

Friendly Ghost
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 04:50 pm:   

Thank You Ghost for interjecting some rational thought into this discussion.

While I am a Christian, I seek to impose my views on no one. Nor do I have any desire for temporal power. What I seek is employment in a field where I can help others.

I hoped to teach others what is possible with an understanding the forces that influence our planet. In time the flux's and tugs of gravity will become known and our understanding of gravity will increase. I sat there with feeds from satellights, gravity sensors, historical databases, solar and lunar tidal effects charts and made some predictions based on years of skill and training and a gift for integrating data.

I and my wife are the products of selective European breeding that has been going on for over 1400 years. The strong servived and weak perished. Due to this heritage we have both skills, abilites and strengths, as well as weaknesses. Trade offs were made.

I was once told that a Japanese master craftsman always puts a minor flaw in his work; for to achieve perfection in anything is seen to be an insult to God and likely to bring misfortune.
Like that concept some in my family suffer from a very rare disease, like the descendents of the Japanese Nobility, due to limited breeding pools. This disease makes it difficult to retain calcium in the body.

For over 1400 years the nobility of Europe has used selective breeding to breed certain traits into the aristocracy, after that nobility fell from power the tradition continued in terms of who was acceptable to wed. My wife and I are the results of such a legacy. For her it manefests itself as gift for language, she speaks several languages, she also has a gift for mathmatics, and an IQ of 145. Like all gifts it comes with a downside as well and a lesson about what Christian Nobility did for over 1400 years.

As I sit here I look at a picture of an old KGB agent laying in a hospital bed fighting for his life against thallium poisoning. By rights he should be dead and incoherent. For me I look at the minor intermittant tremor in my left hand and weakness around my eyes from the damage I sustained to my nervous system from neurotoxin.

Yes we have gifts, weaknesses and strengths, it is part of evolution and makes us human and subject to the same flaws, wants and desires of the human race. As ny wife tell's me each of us is different and we have different tolerances to things. She is a very wise woman.

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 06:57 pm:   

In the time I have before I go to a class on Ageing In Society, I am reminded of what it took to pull together the data for the prediction of earthquakes.

I did a briefing slide on the subject in time that seems like ages ago and projected the quakes based on huge amount of data and years of experience and training by the best minds possible.

I built upon their work, without which it would not be possible.

When I looked at the gravity map it was the crowning achievement of years of study and work. Just like the Billiard Problem.

I once had a dream of working at NASA or continuing to work at for a major defense contractor in Flordia. Due to downsizing and games played by people at risk of losing their jobs for failure to produce, I was let go then brought back and then let go again and again.

Will I once again be part of a team building the future in terms of advanced technology? Only private industry and the Federal Government knows the answer to that. The industry I am currently in wishes to keep me where I am to profit from my skills at projecting quakes and damage.

I was never cut out for this particular industry and I hope to get picked up by something more in my line of work. I was never cut out for the private sector in general. I have no concept of money or profit or loss.

But until something better comes along then I continue to pursue my advanced degree.


My Best

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 10:09 pm:   

Harmonic earthwaves and earthquakes.

I've been thinking of how some sounds generate harmonics so other materials will vibrate with the same frequency. This led to the possibility that earthquakes generate harmonic waves that have the ability to travel great distances over the Earth's crustal plates.

When I looked at the Pacific plates earthquakes world map, I noticed some strong activity over the past few days in the northwester Pacific at Kuril Island, and again in opposite direction to southeastern Pacific, South America, also in Central America, then a large arc over the western-southwestern regions from Japan to Polynesia, as well as small but frequent activity in the Alaskan peninsula and southern California. With compass and ruler, I started to draw arcs to see how these connected in line of sight with each other, and found that there is one point of intersection that fits just below the Hawaiian chain, and another way off the coast of South America, where recent activity had been registered, out in the deep south Pacific. But the real concentration was north of New Zealand, as one end of two convergent arcs, while the other end was just off the coast of southern California, near San Louis Obisbo, about 100 km off shore. When I checked the fault-lines map, there was a terminal of a fault-line coming down from Monterey, CA, that ended in the water just north of where this convergent point was off the California coast. This led me to think that this particular fault lies underwater, but had not been active for a long time, so not on the map. It would run down the coast through Santa Barbara inland, then towards just off shore Los Angeles, somewhere near Catalina Island, all the way down to San Diego. (Looking at a map shows Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands as being possibly once a large land mass now underwater.) So this would turn out to be a massive fault, like the San Andreas, but submerged and only infrequently violent. Now, that causes a problem: if the earthquake harmonics of activity around the Pacific plate should converge, not necessarily all at once but over periods of days and weeks, on that specific point near the coast of California, it may trigger that fault to snap, with potentially violent results. Being underwater, it has an additional violent capacity to send water way inland. (The Indians living around Santa Barbara told the Spanish missionaries in early 1700s that water once came very far inland, many leagues, in a big wave.) A large tsunami on the California coast could be devastating.

Watching the activity in the Pacific basin makes me apprehensive that this could be a potentially great danger, if that unnamed fault snaps, which would affect the coast from Monterey to San Diego, if it should happen. With the increased activity seen recently, we may be not too far off from this happening, which would be a tremendous catastrophe, if it should be on a large magnitude, since the earthquake harmonics seem to be converging there. It could rival or surpass the damage witnessed in the south Indian ocean, when an earthquake of high magnitude hit underwater off the coast of Aceh, Sumatra. It may snap at anytime, which would be devastating, billions of dollars of loss, and thousands of lives lost, potentially. So the Pacific plate tectonics need special attention, if their activities increase. The coastal region of southern California may be at risk of the 'Big One' not inland, but off shore, which could also send tsunami waves all the way across to Hawaii and the western Pacific islands. This underwater coastal fault-line may make the frequently rumbling slippage San Andreas fault look like a pussy cat when this one snaps. That could be the surprise Big One. But when? Is increased activity in Pacific basin an indicator? Could stress be built up through constant harmonics bombardment from both the crustal surface as well as beneath the crust? It could happen any day, alas, or not for another hundred years... We have no hard science on this yet, not even sure the fault is there.

Here's a clickable map of faults in California: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/ca/index.php

Same clickable map of the USA, by state and region: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/usmap.php

This is an interactive Google map, try the 'hybrid' version with both satellite and road map, for any part of the USA, coastal regions, and in fact the whole world (zoom out, then zoom in again where you like): http://local.google.com/

(I just zoomed in on my condo in Rome, near Pantheon, another earthquake prone zone!)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 10:31 pm:   

Mohideen Ibramsha,

I thank you for your kind words regarding my work with visulization of gravity and advances in Geometry

When I travel to the Middle east come the spring I look forward to engaging in a peaceful dialog with the peoples of the UAE when I am there.

Unlike the military industrial complex, civilian sector and government of the United States, and its security services, the people of Europe, the Middle East, Asia and India have always treated me with curtesy and respect.

As I travel through Europe to the Middle East and on to the Indian Ocean region, I look forward to blending my network of contacts and efforts of the team I raised to bring down George Bush with those of other networks working to bring peace to the Middle East. Some of which we have addressed here in this forum.

Being under surveillence of the United States Government I expect communication will have to be via coded communications.

What I will be looking for is hard data regarding Iranian nuclear capabilites, and state of the opposition within Iran and true views of the people of the nation towards its government.

From the elements of data I recieve I will begin to assess key pressure points within Iran that the students can use to bring about change.

Since I was denied security clearance by the Bush administration and have full knowledge of all military and nuclear weapons capabilites within the region, as well as all of our advanced technology, command and control systems, weapon systems and nuclear forces, I expect to be able to converse in technical terms with the appropriate specialists that I may meet.

As I demonstrated with my visualization of gravity I have the capability to integrate large amounts of data and build a picture of a situation from which I can make accurate projections and estimates.

Israel has contacted me and offered me a position within Israel if I wish to relocate, however, I am a loyal American and am intending to use my skills for the benefit of all mankind.

What I have done with my visualization of gravity and prediction of earthquakes is part of my work towards contributing to a FTL Drive. My wife and our contacts are engaged in this project. What we offer is to expand our network into the Middle East to bring into the net moderate Islamic scientists that can work with us in unlocking the mystery of and FTL Drive. AL Hazam's billiard problem was one of the keys that allowed me to unlock some of the secrets of gravity that I have demonstrated. My wife through Israeli contacts is keeping abreast of the Isreal U.S. laser missile defense effort. We have also opened a dialog with Isreali specialists in advanced physics.

Do I have all the answers? No I don't what I demonstrated with my predictions and the NASA gravity map is a capability to put an understanding of Gravity to practical use.

Because I have been locked out of the American Research and Development Industry I and my wife have gone international with this project.

We use the story of Noah to cover our work in this area and use it to exchange data between Christian Church groups regarding the breakthrough in visualizaation of gravity and prediction of earthquakes I have demonstrated.

My Best

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Friendly Ghost
Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 05:45 am:   

Contrary to popular belief, Einstein never claimed that it was impossible to go faster than light: it was assumed from his equations. He however has no objections to accepting that spacetime fabric can travel faster than light. It is hypothesized that at the beginning of the universe, spacetime fabric travelled faster than light. Therefore, if we could bend spacetime, we could travel faster than light. Miguel Alcubierre theorized that it would be possible to "warp" spacetime by shrinking spacetime in front of you and expanding it behind you. Such warping would require a source of negative energy which would act as anti-gravity. A possible candidate is the dark energy of cosmology. However it is not clear if dark energy even exists and if it does what its properties are.

The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity
Miguel Alcubierre 1994 Class. Quantum Grav. 11 L73-L77 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/11/5/001
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/11/5/001


In his visulization of gravitational effects as it relates to stresses on the Earth Ed, along with a host of others, has opened a door to a better understanding of gravity.

My mind can not grasp what he saw in Geometry.

But I hope for the best and pray his team finds a Faster Than Light Drive.

Friendly Ghost
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 02:34 pm:   

Thank you Friendly Ghost.

What I presumed was that if gravity was the result of quantum forces that fluxuations at the quantum level might have measurable effects on other forces such as gravity, electromagnetics, probability and a number of other things.

When I opened up all the data feeds, electromagnetic readings of the sun, earth magnatic field and other measurements I attempted to find a causal realtionship in the data. This coupled to the stresses on geological faults which exist in areas that we may refer to as gravity sumps led me to predict that when these forces were in flux that it could impact on the realworld in terms of manefesting itself in terms of earthquakes.

Such is what I saw and did, working blind without the NASA gravity map what I was doing was charting the gravity sumps and the interaction of forces that were impacting on them.

I hope this helps.

ED
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 03:13 pm:   

Because I have been locked out of the American Research and Development Industry I and my wife have gone international with this project.
Ed Chesky
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 10:31 pm: Anon


The sustenance of every life is guaranteed by God. Sometimes God delivers the food directly as He did to mother Mary, peace be upon her. Often humans deliver the food as wages for work. In the nature of society some play the role of master and others play the role of servants. I believe in God’s estimate every work gets rewarded.

By locking you out the American Research and Development Industry lost its exclusive hold on your work. Now your work benefits the American Research and Development Industry also as they too are part of mankind.

My prayers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Friendly Ghost
Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 04:11 pm:   

ESA European Space Agency

http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/physics/technology_studies_CMP.htm

"An older study investigated a topic at the interface of condensed matter physics and gravitation, which was conducted by the relativity group at the university of Cologne. The results are quite surprising for anybody not intimately familiar with the subject: Neither for the post-Newtonian approximation nor for the background of a gravitational wave a general non-relativistic derivation of the coupling of a fermion to both the electromagnetic and gravitational fields exists. Hence the coupling between the gravitational field and a mesoscopic system cannot yet be predicted from our current knowledge because we even do not know yet how a single electron behaves. In principle, the derivation of the relevant interactions seems possible in a straightforward way. It is certainly a desideratum of gravitational physics. Despite this theoretical uncertainty the researchers who conducted the study consider it rather unlikely that surprisingly big couplings should be the outcome of the derivation."

ESA has been investigating the possible interaction of gravity, electromagnetics and quantum forces. In the extract above they say, "Hence the coupling between the gravitational field and a mesoscopic system cannot yet be predicted from our current knowledge because we even do not know yet how a single electron behaves. In principle, the derivation of the relevant interactions seems possible in a straightforward way. It is certainly a desideratum of gravitational physics."

In comparing all of the data he had available Ed has found a relationship between the forces described above.

What it is he found is unknown at this point as he said because the math processing center of his brain was damaged by military medical incompetance. But in demonstrating it here for us he offers those that understand this type of stuff insight into these forces as data from satellights, sensors and experiments begins to roll in.

MY BEST TO AN OLD WARRIOR.

Unlike Osama he took no life and opened a door to a place we may travel.

Friendly Ghost
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 05:14 am:   

Ivan,

A very interesting piece of work with regards to the compass and ruler work on earthquakes.

If we overlay that on top of the NASA graity map we find a correlation as well.

As friendly said as data comes in we can begin to build a picture. I said long ago I hoped that the space probe data was done asap as it would be like an MRI of the planet.

In the complex system of systems that make up this planet change has been introduced. What the end result of that change will be we are just now begining to understand.

I am sitting here looking at the gravity map, your posting and work with compass and ruler and a cup of coffee. Like Friendly Ghost I don't do well without it. I see him from time to time in Dunken Donutes in the morning near where I work.

If we compare the past series of great quakes with the gravity map and consider your thoughts we have some reason to be concerned.

I note that Iran lays on a major gravitational hotspot and that further quakes their are highly likely.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

The Poet
Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 11:07 am:   

We are but children in the eyes of God

In this forum three men discuss issues of God, Science, Faith, and the truth before the eyes of the world.

WIth simple tools, maps and historical data they ponder the forces that shape our planet and the universe.

One argues from the perspective of the Muslim, One from the perspective of the Agnostics and One from the perspective of the Christian. For a time a Jew joined the discussion.

Bad science, geometry, mathm mumbo jumbo, fiction and truth have been woven into this discussion.

In the end like a great magician of old the Christian unveils the truth to the audience as by slight of hand, opening our eyes to something we but dimely grasp.

Did the Magi of old truely die? Or did they pass the torch to the Children of the Emeril Isles in days long past.

Majic, science, religion and truth.

What we seek is a long journey like the one the three Magi that bowed to Christ took so long ago.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 06:03 pm:   


quote:

ESA has been investigating the possible interaction of gravity, electromagnetics and quantum forces. In the extract above they say, "Hence the coupling between the gravitational field and a mesoscopic system cannot yet be predicted from our current knowledge because we even do not know yet how a single electron behaves. In principle, the derivation of the relevant interactions seems possible in a straightforward way. It is certainly a desideratum of gravitational physics." --per Friendly's post

http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/physics/technology_studies_CMP.htm



This is most interesting that they are trying to find a solution to incorporate Quantum physics with Gravitation physics, and after 50 years have not yet resolved it. ESA may be interesting in seeing the Axiomatic Equation's treatment of this, where a deBroglie quantum hybrid equation yields a gravitational result showing Newton's G is a variable. Here is the paper where this was worked out for the nine (now eight?) planets, including how this is evident in the Pioneer Anomaly: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=6&post=300#POST300 (may need to use Navigator if lambda 'l" symbol not showing in equation - important)

In ESA's article there is an interesting observation towards the end:
"Modern physics rests on two pillars: Einsteins theory of general relativity and quantum theory. While the former successfully describes the gravitational field and its coupling to matter, the latter is the established frame for the fundamental (microscopic) description of non-gravitational forces. A major unsolved issue is the consistent combination of both into a theory of quantum gravity. Although various approaches exist (quantum general relativity, string theory), no final theory is known."

Thanks Friendly Ghost for this interesting article, including the embedded links to science papers on Quantum-Gravity. We may be on our way to a whole new energy source, one which will not only zip us fast through space, but perhaps power all our energy needs from the space-vacuum itself, here on Earth. All we need to do is cancel lambda (on a point!) and we're there, if the Axiomatic is right.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ANON ANON
Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 09:40 pm:   

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030723.html

A spinning 3D gravity map is posted above.

God what a mind that charted this and predicted earthquakes using only a home computer!!!!!

ANON ANON
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 12:50 am:   

gravityearth2_grace.gif

There's the spinning 3D in ANON's post, quite amazing!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 04:29 pm:   

As I sit here following a thanksgiving Day feast with friends and family. I look upon the spinning 3D model of the earth's gravitational field and think back to the thousands that died in earthquakes.

It is a bittersweet momment for me. A child's compass lays on my desk. From it I took a trip in my mind through Non-Euclidean space across a Einstien-Rossen bridge and looked upon the forces of creation.

From my desktop PC, a Laptop and several univeristy computers I looked at the data readouts from solar observing satellights, gravity meters, the earth's magnetic field and saw a pattern in events.

To little to late to save the 74,000 dead in Pakistan.

When we master FTL drive they will be remembered.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, November 24, 2006 - 01:11 am:   

Human Genes show surprising differences?

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/new-human-gene-map-shows-surprising/2006112 2180809990012?ncid=NWS00010000000001

This came out of the blue, since we all thought we're all 99.9% the same genetically. Per the article:
"One person's DNA code can be as much as 10 percent different from another's, researchers said on Wednesday in a finding that questions the idea that everyone on Earth is 99.9 percent identical genetically."
This puts a new wrinkle on the idea of human homogeneity, especially if Neanderthals are 99.5 similar to modern humans. Could we have interbred? All those tough stocky people out there, descendants?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 09:00 am:   

Horror of horrors!

http://www.womenfitness.net/whatisleukemia.htm
===
Potential leukemia-causing chemicals in tobacco smoke include benzene, polonium-210, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
===

http://www.acsa2000.net/HealthAlert/lungcancer.html
===
Association Researchers say that the interdiction of cellular apoptosis by Nicotine, which prolongs mutated/damaged cells lives further (apoptosis insures longevity by causing damaged cells to die and replace with new regenerated cells, in the body), plus the long term consequences of Polonium 210 from the Tobacco plants, which provide over 75 mRads of Radiation Per Day (that's the same as between 3 and 50 Chest-X-Rays will give you, every Pack of Cigarettes you smoke) applied directly to the Lungs, and the resulting damage to your Lungs, prolonged by the Nicotine, lead to virtually ALL Lung Cancers among Smokers today.
===

It seems tobacco smoke is a silent killer because of the resultant polonium particles in air. Is it not in order that the medical industry considers a cure for the infection by polonium 210? Would immune system boosters help? Could one extract polonium from tobacco smoke using centrifuges? If that could be done, we don’t need nuclear reactors to produce polonium 210.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, November 27, 2006 - 06:06 pm:   

"One person's DNA code can be as much as 10 percent different from another's, researchers said on Wednesday in a finding that questions the idea that everyone on Earth is 99.9 percent identical genetically."

As I read the above I am preparing a 25 page paper on Human Behavior in the social environment, a 7 page paper on Aging in Society and working 50 hours a week existing with minimal sleep. At work today I just finished dealing with a cardiac fibrilation among other things.

This is inaddition to having suffered brain damage to my central processing centers of my brain, been poisoned with a 1200 times normal dosage of nerve agent and suffered a C Spine injury.

I expect to achieve a 3.4 to 4.0 GPA in both of my classes.

I also note that despite this CNS damage I was able to accurately predict the outcome of the NASA gravity mission by charting earthquakes, predicting the effects of Huricane Katrina and a number of other things like solve the Billiard Problem.

My first cousin who has been suffering from advanced terminal brain cancer has gone into remission following treatment with the cancer being reabsorbed into the brain.

His family shares a number of genes with mine via a common grandmother but sufferes from a inherited genetic heart defect due to Royal Russian descent and is prone to heart attacks and strokes.

There are a number of mysteries that have yet to be uncovered in the Human Races genetic heritage.

Neuro-regeneration is but one

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Friendly Ghost
Posted on Monday, November 27, 2006 - 06:28 pm:   

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3714992.stm

Medieval surgeons were advanced

The peasant's skull had been operated on
Surgeons were carrying out complicated skull operations in medieval times, the remains of a body found at an archaeological dig show

Over a thousand years ago Medieval surgeons were performing advanced brain surgery. Thousands of years before them the ancient egyptions were doing the same.

Just what capabilites the ancients had and used to modify the warrior cast over the ages? Just what were the capabilites of the ancient priest/king/warrior cast of old?

Friendly Ghost
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, November 27, 2006 - 06:55 pm:   

Friendly Ghost,

The ancient Egyptions laid the foundation for our understanding of the human nervous system. However, brain sugery may or may not have been conducted in ancient Egypt. It was however, being conducted as far back as the neolithic period.

Off to class

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 05:13 am:   

Its early morning and I am here sipping my coffee.

I have just finished scanning the news and note that AIDS is becoming one of the top killers in the world. I also not that stem cell research in the United States is limited compared to other countries because of religous considerations, yet Iran presses forward with stem cell research and has through it given movement to a limb in a rat that was paralized.

Scientists are bound by the law to due no harm, however, they are currently constrained by limits set by overly religious leaders that limit our ability to find cures to the most pressing problems that face our society today.

We have mapped the code to HIV resistance in the European Population and we have seen neuroregeneration induced as a result of stem cells, and on a limited basis in human beings, due to a quirk of genetics.

AIDs currently killes 8 million every year, but is expect to kill nearly 120 million a year by 2030 with most death occuring in the developing world.

That the human race is still evolving is quite clear. In the age old battle of the human against the evironment the strong survive and the weak perish.

Due to cultural practices in the Middle East Muslim birth defects are rising dramatically in the Islamic nations. Seven of the 10 countries with the highest birth defect rates are Muslim nations with a tradition of intermarriage of blood relatives, accounting for at last 20 percent of deformities there. This is in addition to birth defects induced as a result of lack of prenatal care and poverty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
Intermarriage in European royal families is no longer practiced, due the current understanding of the negative consequences, as well as the growing tendency to marry commoners. Also, it is not necessarily the case that there was a greater amount of inbreeding within royalty than there is in the population as a whole: it may simply be better documented. Among genetic populations that are isolated, opportunities for exogamy are reduced. Isolation may be geographical, leading to inbreeding among peasants in remote mountain valleys. Or isolation may be social, induced by the lack of appropriate partners, such as Protestant princesses for Protestant royal heirs. Since the late middle ages, it is the urban middle class that has had the widest opportunity for outbreeding.

Just some thoughts on what is facing the world. By their cultural practices Muslim peoples are reproducing today the same mistakes of the ancient European Nobility so long ago.

In Ryhad one night as I was at the mall a bus pulled up and let a group of Children out to go shop at the mall. They were all albino's and had other defects. The Saudis there pretended not to see them.

As we move into this next century, the question is will the people of Islam evolve or devolve?

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 06:38 pm:   

As I sit here after work in my study mussing on life I hear the television downstairs playing. I leave it on when home alone to give the house an illusion of life, while I wait for my wife to return.

I just got back from an annual checkup and the doctor has started me on a course of medication to control mildly elevated blood pressure, stemming from too much weight and lack of exercise. These two items I am resolved to change over the next few months. The medication is coursing through my body as I type this altering the balance of chemicals in my blood, lowering the blood pressure. I can feel the subtle difference as the medication takes hold, dropping blood pressure throughout my body. My left hand has a minor twitch that comes and goes. More an annoyance than anything else. The technical term for it Tardive Dyskinesia affecting the fingers of the left arm. It is a non-progressive side effect of the advanced medication I take to restore the dopamine balance in my brain, disrupted due to neurotoxin exposure. Of some note I have one of the highest recorded levels of neurotoxin exposure in history. A small price to pay for exposing the penetration of our intelligence and security services by KGB agents and their use of poison.

I suppose it is a miracle of science of sorts. As I sit here I am reviewing my scientific achievements in the area of predictive analysis and visualization of forces, geometry and cryptographics, I reflect upon my life. The walls of my study are lined with achievements enough for three men. These awards were awarded to me by some of the most powerful men on the face of the planet. On one wall is copy of the military service record of my great-great-great-grandfather who fought in the Civil War. (I also have a copy of his disability pension in my desk). My grandfather’s service record from WW II is hung next to this service record. Above these two service records is a copy of a painting of the signing of the Mayflower compact so long ago and the name of my ancient ancestor who boarded that ship before this nation was even formed.

I have much work to do on my papers for school in order to complete my advanced degree in Social Work, with a specialty in working with the disabled population. I am also reviewing some journal articles dealing with pre-Columbian contact with the America’s and possible Carthaginian influences. I have been invited to go on a field trip to look at some ancient stone works on the 3rd of December, but have a conflict with a concert I am going to attend given by the great blind tenor Andrea Bocelli. I saw him once on television singing for the pope. I would not trade the opportunity to hear him for a trip to see all the ancient stone works on the East Coast.

Enough musings.

My Best and I wish you well over the Christmas Season.

With compass and ruler imagination and intelligence tradecraft we assisted in changing the political landscape of the United States.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 10:30 pm:   

AN EARTHQUAKE IN TEHRAN MIGHT COLLAPSE IRANIAN REGIME

By Mahan Abedin*

BEIRUT, 7 Jan. The earthquake that destroyed the ancient city of Bam in southeastern Iran on 26 December has focused attention on the incompetence of the Iranian authorities.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2004/Jan_04/iran_earthquake_7104.htm

As I write this I note that geological stress is building in Iran from the shift of techtonic plates stemming from the Great Sumatran Quake. Following the Great Quake, the Indian Plate moved north increasing stress on the ancient faults that had been locked in the north. This resulted in the Pakistan Quake. Additional stress was tranfered to the Iranian faults.

It may be that change will come to Iran in an unexpected way

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 10:33 pm:   

Predicting the Next Big One

The team's new method differs from existing techniques in that it takes into account the small "chains" of tremors that often occur before a major earthquake.

When a long chain of related earthquakes is discovered in a region, the team analyzes the area's history, in search of various seismic patterns. If other patterns are discovered, the group announces a nine-month forecast.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61828,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

This pattern recognition is what I did to predict earthquakes and what Ivan has seen as well. Although I tied it to other factors as well

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 11:04 am:   

I have been looking at a recent pattern of earthquakes and note that a recent string of them occured along a line running from the area of Sumatra, to Indonesia and then into the Medeterrainean Sea out into the Atlanic Ocean.

Just on surface analysis it looks as if stress is building in India, Pakistan and Iran with regards to potential earthquakes. The earth is now finishing its shift into winter and stress from that coupled to other factors such as stored energy in faults. The effect of the release of energy of the Sumatran Great Quake and the influces of tidal gravitational forces, make me uncomfortable with the likelihood of a quake in Turkey the Medeterrainean Sea, Iran India and Pakistan within the near term.

Stress building could also indicate the possibility of an euruption of volcanos along that area.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peace and Freedom
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 04:54 pm:   

I have taken a look at the earthquake activity in Iran and a number of small earthquakes are occuring along the fault lines that run as I indicated. The main stress appears to be building on the east coast of the Persian Gulf along the faults that run parallel to it.

I expect that this could result in another major quake within the next 6-12 months if not sooner in the areas I outlined.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 06:45 pm:   

Due to cultural practices in the Middle East Muslim birth defects are rising dramatically in the Islamic nations.
Ed
Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 05:13 am: Anon


Islam does not recommend marriage among blood relations. Islam simply indicates the forbidden alliances.

These two Verses indicate the prohibitions.

4:23 Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: your mother, daughters, sisters, father's sisters, mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters, foster-mothers (who gave you suck), foster sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship born of your wives to whom ye have gone in, no prohibition if ye have not gone in; (those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married except those whom your right hands possess. Thus hath Allah ordained (prohibitions) against you: except for these all others are lawful provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property desiring chastity not lust. Seeing that ye derive benefit from them give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if after a dower is prescribed ye agree mutually (to vary it) there is no blame on you and Allah is All-Knowing All-Wise.

Only cousins are not excluded. The Arabs in their desire to preserve the wealth within their families have resorted to marrying cousins as far as possible.

When a prohibition is given it is better to move away as far as possible rather than just sit at the boundary. The Arabs have practiced blood relative marriages as close to the boundary as possible. If they suffer birth defects it is not because they understand the spirit of the Holy Quran and follow it.

What needs to evolve is to understand Islam and practice it. Islam by itself needs no evolution.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 07:46 pm:   

As per my assessment a 4.8 mag quake occured north of India along the plate boundry. This coupled to geological stresses indicates that stress along faults on the plate boundries of India, Pakistan, Iran, the Medeterrainean Ocean, out to the Atlanic are being to reach the breaking point.

How and when the next 5-7 mag quake occures I don't know but expect is soon.

I would alert the Iranian people to expect a quake within the next few months or sooner.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 07:00 am:   

Magnitude 6.3 quake hits Sumatra
No immediate reports of damage or injuries

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15979620/

The stress along the crustal boundry from Sumatra to India, to Pakistan, The Mediterraean Ocean to the Atlantic has reached the breaking point. Additional large quakes are expected, where along that fault line I do not know as I don't have access to the data necessary to make the projections.

I also suspect that quakes 5-7 will erupt along the adjacent pacific plate in the near term.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Friendly Ghost
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 07:02 am:   

Well done Ed,

I have been watching the line of quakes from Antartica to Europe.

Friendly Ghost
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 08:26 am:   

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA04652_modest.jpg

Gravity Map

http://www.iris.edu/seismon/

Seismic Monitor

http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/GSHAP/global/gshapfin.gif

Global Hazards Map

Solar data indicates major solar storm underway.

http://www.n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/pmap/Plots.html

Large Fluxuations in Earths Magnetic Field

http://www.iranica.com/articles/v7/v7f6/v7f654.html

Historical data on Afghanistan, Iran, Central Asia earthquakes.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html

Lunar Perigee and Apogee table

The above is a sample of a portion of the data set I use to assess the risk for earthquakes.

Within Iran there is a cycle to major earthquakes based on historical data with them occuring at an average interval.

Couple this to changes in stresses induced by the Great Sumatran Quake and we are entering a window for another significant quake in Iran

Hope this Helps

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alliance of Patriots
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 08:58 am:   

For the people of Iran.

That a great quake will happen in the future is without doubt.

That your government has neglected you in terms of preparing for it is without doubt.

When it comes much loss of life is to be expected.

Know that we will stand by to aid you in that dark time.

Alliance of Patriots
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Friendly Ghost
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 10:03 am:   

5.0 Quake hits Afghanistan.

Looks like its breaking along the line Ed said. Now what about Iran?

Friendly Ghost
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 10:06 am:   

Thanks Friendly

I like the IRIS Monitor because it integrates the sun's movement over the area giving and indicator of the solar tidal effects.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 12:25 pm:   

As I sit here looking at the IRIS siesmic map I note that the quakes are breaking along the plate boundries as I indicated from Antartica to Indonesia to India, Pakistan, Iran the Med and then on.

I have stayed away from anaylzing the pattern of quakes because it is time comsuming and painful to do it.

The earth is a system of systems and it is out of balance. Change is coming and everyone senses it. Those that long for the Apoclypse (Change) are many. They see signs and indicators of it in everything and live in fear. Other see it as divine punishment and long for its coming for they feel they will be among the choosen few.

These types that long for its coming fall into caategrories, some are terrorists that seek to bring it about, others spin out doctine and predictions of doom and capitalize on the fears by creating works of fiction sold as prophecy.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/BookReviews/left.htm

Tim LaHaye (with Jerry Jenkins)
Book Review*
The Left Behind Series

I hoever maintain that the Change that is coming is nothing that we have not gone through before and that we will weather it and go on to new hieghts of technology that we can only dream of today.

It is with this in mind that I posted many of my thoughts and my analytic work.

Within the music of the spheres and the threads of historical data I saw a pattern that was like looking upon the tapestry of creation itself.

In doing so I hope I have in my small way assisted in raising human conciousness to a new level.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 12:33 am:   

Ed, that Seismic Monitor map really shows what is happening in the Pacific plate region, almost real time, especially in the full screen mode. One just popped off the coast of Baja California. Really popping all around the Pacific, even up in Afghanistan, down in Indonesia, south America, Alaska ridge in north, antarctic ridge in the south, Easter island, lots of activity.

Thanks for this map, Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 09:05 am:   

You welcome Ivan,

I concur the plate boundries have become much more active. Per my assessment quakes have hit, Crete and Iran, with a lower mag threshold 4-4.8 range than I anticipated but in line with my assessment. I expect further shifts on the crustal plates with a potentially great quake mag 6-8 range in the near future.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 08:01 am:   

May be this is superfluous. The Mullahs might not organize relief efforts when the next quake occurs.

We, those who desire a peaceful change in Iran, must start the planning for relief efforts now instead of waiting for the big quake predicted by Ed.

How about sending help to our friends inside Iran through appropriate channels - food that could stay good for long periods of time, materials for tents, dresses of various sizes to protect the surviving population from the biting cold etc?

Is it not time to act?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Friendly Ghost
Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 02:06 pm:   

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2005/Sep05/sumatra.htm

EXPERT TO DISCUSS THE GREAT SUMATRAN EARTHQUAKE

With regards to the Great Sumatran Quake, "Sieh believes that the segment that ruptured during these two quakes is now "safe" for the next several hundred years. But danger remains on the same megathrust to the north in Myanmar and India, and to the south in the part of Sumatra south of the equator. He says that these lengths of the megathrust will be crucibles in which our ability and willingness to mitigate future great disasters will be tested."

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050827/bob9.asp

Earthshaking Event
Lessons from the temblor that produced tsunamis and other global effects

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/01/05/impact_of_events_may_h ave_altered_indias_geography/

Indian geologists were also concerned about the possibility that the tectonic plate known as the India Plate may have shifted north, affecting the region's seismic vulnerability.

http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=29762

Shifts in tectonic plates have submerged India's southernmost point, split one island in two, destroyed beaches and villages, fuelled social pressures and even threatened the habitat of an ancient and isolated tribe of hunter-gatherers

Then came the great Pakistan Quake. The entire dynamics of earthquakes have been changed throughout the world.

With the shifting of the great tectonic plates we are in more danger from earthquakes than ever before.

Friendly Ghost
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, December 08, 2006 - 06:44 pm:   

Do we live in a Bacteria Universe?

This NewScientist article is fascinating: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10758-oxygen-boom-fuelled-explosion-of-com plex-life-.html

Life on Earth lay pretty much dormant for billions of years locked up in bacteria until about 550 millions years ago when it suddenly exploded in an evolutionary 'fast forward'. Oxygen was released from phytoplankton activity after the last total ice age, which first populated the seas with filter-feeders, and later oceanic life using the newly released oxygen in water and atmosphere. My suspicion is that this process is universal, where all planets have some form of microbial life no more advanced than the bacteria stage, but that under favorable conditions, these simple life forms can explode into a fast moving evolution (fast in geologic time) to produce great varieties of multicelled life, some of it perhaps even intelligent. I feel totally comfortable with this idea, that life in the Universe is bacterially universal, though the next stage of development takes a combination of chance and survival. In a word, Bacteria'R'Us!

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 12:20 pm:   

What's wrong with Gravity?

Discover Magazine had been running some articles last few months asking this same question. It seems Newton and his wild haired successor Einstein were still missing something about what was going on. Milgrom's modification to Newton's famous F = ma equation seems a suitable patch to explain why the greater universe acts as if there was 'dark matter' in it, something invisible to light but gravitationally present. However, this patch in effect violates Einstein's Equivalence Principle by modifying acceleration so MOND's 'equivalence' now reads as: F = m a^2/ a_o, where a_o is an acceleration constant. (Coincidentally this a_o matches up with acceleration needed to reach speed of light over the age of the universe, viz. ~13.7 billion years, but this may be truly coincidence, since that age is also the distance at which our universe becomes invisible to our light, so no dice; the coincidence may be due to deep space gravity G orders of magnitudes greater than Earth's G will redshift light as if it were 'invisible' at 13.7 BLYs away, so it ceases to 'exist' from our point of view.) Now, wouldn't it be nice if Milgrom's F = m a^2/ a_o proved the Axiomatic Equation right? After all, Pioneers 10 & 11 seem pointing that way... that Newton's G is not a universal constant, but a variable inversely proportional by distance from a hot star, our Sun.

Some more readings on Mordehai Milgrom vs. Albert Einstein, Discover:

Nailing Down Gravity
http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-03/cover/

Nice Going, Einstein
http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-06/features/einsteinwrong/

The Einstein Dilemma
http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-06/cover/

Dark Matter for Consideration
http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/mond-dark-matter-dialogue/

Dark matter is no more than higher G molecular mass in deep space, per Axiomatic, but we're ahead of our times. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 08:26 am:   

... deep space gravity G orders of magnitudes greater than Earth's G will redshift light as if it were 'invisible' at 13.7 BLYs away ...
Posted on Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 12:20 pm: Ivan


Does not the existence of variable gravity leave the question of the age of the universe wide open?

Could we try different non-linear models for gravity and see what might be the real age of the universe based on multimodel results?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 10:21 am:   

The Age of the Universe, according to the Big Bang 'theory' is about 13.7 billion years. But this must assume of necessity that observed space expansion is a Doppler phenomenon, whereby running the clock backwards the universe had a 'beginning' at point zero, where space-time was (magically) created. If this reasoning is wrong, meaning the observation of space expansion is not due to Doppler effect of light redshift, but rather that light over great cosmic distances redshifts for another reason, then the whole exercise of running time backwards is moot, and pointless. I suspect gravity is what is now misunderstood, thinking that it is a universal constant. My calculations show that gravity is a variable, is very high in deep space far from hot energy sources, and that light passing through space gasses in deep space will (gravitationally) redshift naturally, to give us an illusion of expansion. If this is found in the future to be right, then the age of the universe is an unknown mystery that cannot be solved by our present knowledge, nor calculated in any meaningful way.

I worked this out here: July 10, 2005: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/108.html (scroll down, at bottom of page)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 02:32 pm:   

My calculations show that gravity is a variable, is very high in deep space far from hot energy sources, and that light passing through space gasses in deep space will (gravitationally) redshift naturally, to give us an illusion of expansion.
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 10:21 am: Ivan


In physics we studied Kelvin temperature and that zero degree Kelvin is the temperature where all atomic vibrations die leading to superconductivity. We also studied that the temperature in the interstellar space is zero degree Kelvin.

How does that ultimate cold affect the gravitational constant? (I looked at your equations. At this point in time I decided not to look deep into them. May be I would never do.They look too complicated at least now!)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:17 am:   

After all, Pioneers 10 & 11 seem pointing that way... that Newton's G is not a universal constant, but a variable inversely proportional by distance from a hot star, our Sun.

This cannot be correct.

The Pioneer anomaly is interpreted as an unexpected constant acceleration towards the sun. You're speculating G increases in a linear fashion. However, gravity follows an inverse square relationship with distance.

Mathematically, you cannot produce a constant acceleration anomaly by adding a linear modification to an inverse square function.

Post your math and we'll find the error.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Friendly Ghost
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 02:58 pm:   

Beliefwatch: Cosmology

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16126932/site/newsweek/

Davies has devoted his career to searching for the equation that will reveal what he calls "the mind of God," the metaphysical foundation for everything there is.

The universe is far more complex than can be imagined. 4000 years ago Hippias developed a curve that could be used to trisect the angle, square the circle and as later demonstrated solve the Billiard Problem.

In doing so this curve indicates that there exists a comon complex relationship between the solutions and these problems. By doing so it also indicates that there is some order to geometry, math and physical reality that we don't yet understand.

Is Ivan's math correct or incorrect? I do not know.

All I know is that we have barely scratched the surface of exploring what the ancient greats of geometry, math and physics achieved.

That is what forums like this are all about.

Friendly Ghost
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 06:48 pm:   


quote:

This cannot be correct.

The Pioneer anomaly is interpreted as an unexpected constant acceleration towards the sun. You're speculating G increases in a linear fashion. However, gravity follows an inverse square relationship with distance.

Mathematically, you cannot produce a constant acceleration anomaly by adding a linear modification to an inverse square function.

Post your math and we'll find the error. --Anon



Math is posted here: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/6/23.html#POST300

Think of it this way: Gravitational force works in the inverse square law, true. Now what happens if Newton's G increases linearly with distance from the Sun? F = GMm/r^2 is still operative as before, except the small 'm' is (per Equivalence) increasing in terms of 'gravitational mass' so its inertial mass is increasing with distance from the Sun. The end result is a growing 'mass' aboard the Pioneers being pulled back towards the Sun in a constant (linear) manner, of about 1G per 1AU. That's the theory behind the math referenced above. The reason why this happens is more complicated, has to do with Quantum theory, and why atomic mass has gravity at all.

Thanks for posting, glad to hear more later.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 01:56 pm:   

Math is posted here: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/6/23.html#POST300

Well, that's just a mess. For starters, you need to do a unit analysis on that math. Your result is not in m/s^2.

Think of it this way: Gravitational force works in the inverse square law, true. Now what happens if Newton's G increases linearly with distance from the Sun? F = GMm/r^2 is still operative as before, except the small 'm' is (per Equivalence) increasing in terms of 'gravitational mass' so its inertial mass is increasing with distance from the Sun. The end result is a growing 'mass' aboard the Pioneers being pulled back towards the Sun in a constant (linear) manner, of about 1G per 1AU.

Even if Pioneer’s mass was growing as you describe, it wouldn’t matter. Galileo showed this several hundred years ago by dropping two objects with different masses and noting that they hit the ground at the same time. The same principal applies to Pioneer: the acceleration Pioneer experiences due to the sun’s gravity is the same regardless of the probe’s mass. This is because the mass of Pioneer (or the rocks, in Galileo’s experiment) is so much smaller than the mass of the sun (or the Earth, in Galileo’s experiment).

Also, the equation above is not the correct one to use in this instance. We’re not interested in force. We’re interested in acceleration due to gravity, so we use a=Gm/r^2, where m is the mass of the object who’s gravity is causing the acceleration.

But let’s prove it with numbers. In the case of Pioneer, we would figure out the acceleration caused by the sun’s gravity tugging on the spacecraft and then, to cover all our bases, find the acceleration caused by Pioneer’s gravity tugging on the sun. Pioneer’s mass is 258kg and it is currently somewhere around 90 AU (1.34E13m) from the Sun.

Acceleration felt by Pioneer from the sun’s gravity:

a=6.673E-11 * 1.98E30kg / 1.81E26m^2
a=7.32E-7m/s^2

Acceleration felt by the sun from Pioneer’s gravity:

a=6.673E-11 * 258kg / 1.81E26m^2
a=9.56102E-35m/s^2

That’s a very small acceleration! So the net acceleration of Pioneer towards the sun is

7.32E-07m/s^2 + 9.56102E-35m/s^2 = well, basically 7.32E-07m/s^2!

Now let’s multiply Pioneer’s mass by 1000, just to prove a point, and see how hard it tugs on the sun now:

a=6.673E-11 * 25800kg / 1.81E26m^2
a=9.56102E-33m/s^2

Naturally it’s still very, very small. Again, if you add the sun’s acceleration due to Pioneer’s gravity to Pioneer’s acceleration due to the sun’s gravity like we did above and compare the results, you would have to go out over 30 decimal places to see any difference at all. The anomalous acceleration we see happening with the Pioneer probe, which is already very small, is much larger than this. So we see that we can’t even come close to reproducing the Pioneer anomaly in the way you describe. Even if we multiply Pioneer’s mass by 1000, the change is still many orders of magnitude too small.

However, none of this addresses my original point which is that you can’t produce a constant acceleration by modifying the inverse square relationship in a linear way. This is really simple logically, if you think about it. As the probe moves away from the sun, we expect it’s acceleration to decrease with the square of distance. You’re adding back some acceleration linearly with distance. It’s easy to see how the further out it moves, its acceleration is going to continually drop faster and faster while the rate at which you are adding back to it is going to remain the same.

We could prove this with numbers as well by picking a few points in space at varying distances from the sun and comparing the acceleration predicted by Newton versus the acceleration predicted by varying G. Let’s take a point at the orbit of Jupiter. How would I calculate the acceleration felt by Pioneer at the orbit of Jupiter using your variable G idea?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 07:50 pm:   


quote:

Even if Pioneer’s mass was growing as you describe, it wouldn’t matter. Galileo showed this several hundred years ago by dropping two objects with different masses and noting that they hit the ground at the same time. The same principal applies to Pioneer: the acceleration Pioneer experiences due to the sun’s gravity is the same regardless of the probe’s mass. This is because the mass of Pioneer (or the rocks, in Galileo’s experiment) is so much smaller than the mass of the sun (or the Earth, in Galileo’s experiment).



Not so, they're different. One is a different mass, while the other is a different G, which is the 'ratio of pull' between masses, so not the same. The rest will be addressed later, since cannot do so at present, rushed for time. Thanks.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 01:07 pm:   

Oh, OK. It's just that you said this:

The end result is a growing 'mass' aboard the Pioneers being pulled back towards the Sun in a constant (linear) manner, of about 1G per 1AU.

I interpreted that to mean your proposed mass increase was your explanation. I'll wait for a more detailed explanation. Thanks!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 07:29 pm:   

MONDian modification of Newton's gravity per Axiomatic Equation's gravity G: a possible Pioneer Anomaly solution.

Per the variable G paper, http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/6/23.html#POST300 , there are some rough spots on the universal standard units, which come up somewhat 'unstandard'. Never had to work with a 'universal constant' before that is variable, so bear with me until I can really sort it out.

Anon, in yours:

quote:

Also, the equation above is not the correct one to use in this instance. We’re not interested in force. We’re interested in acceleration due to gravity, so we use a=Gm/r^2, where m is the mass of the object who’s gravity is causing the acceleration.


I looked at it from a different tack, see if this helps resolve some of what you expressed in calculating anomalous acceleration towards the Sun. As said earlier, my wording was perhaps not the best, since 'mass' does not really change (same craft mass as when it left the gantry), but only its effective 'gravitational mass', which translates into 'inertial mass' per Equivalence, is what is affected by entering higher G territory of the outer solar system, and beyond. So I revisited the "Einstein Dilemma" in Discover Magazine, http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-06/cover/ , where on pg. 2 it says Milgrom's MOND modifies Newton's Force Equation, F = ma, as thus:
"If you took high school physics, you may remember having Newton's most important equation pounded into your head:
F = ma. With this simple formula, known as Newton's second law, Newton forever linked forces (F) to their action on mass (m) in the form of acceleration (a). ... Milgrom found that the best way to resolve the problem of the flat rotation curves was to modify this hallowed equation.

"I assumed that when the accelerations due to gravitational forces became very small, the formula changes to F = ma˛/a0," Milgrom says. According to Milgrom, this change holds only when accelerations fall below one 10-billionth of a meter per second every second. Not only does this modification work best with the data, he adds, but the new constant, a0, may be of cosmological significance: Accelerating at this rate will take you from a resting state to the speed of light in the lifetime of the universe. Otherwise Newton's law operates as usual. So with MOND, stars in the outer reaches of galaxies move faster than expected, not because of the influence of some invisible matter but because Milgrom's amended version of Newton's second law increases the force acting on them."
When Milgrom applied this to outer galaxy rotation curves, it fell into place. So I thought we might be able to apply this Force equation to something predicted by the Axiomatic Equation, that Newton's G grows at the rate of about 1G per 1 AU. So per MOND's Force, we get the following:

F = ma^2/ a_o

For Newton's Force regarding gravity, we get:

F = GMm/ r^2

Now combine these two, both as equation of Force, and you get:

F = ma^2/ a_o = GMm/ r^2

Now here it gets interesting, because according to the Axiomatic equation in the paper referenced above, G is a variable with distance. So to modify the right side for this variable, dropping out the small 'm' both sides, we have what I suspect is an equation that may work. G is increased with distance 'r', but only by the definition that 1G = 1AU, so to compensate for this, we need to multiply G by r, but divide by 1 AU's r. I'll write it this way:

a^2/ a_o = G(r) M / r^2 AUr

So this is a MOND version, combined with Axiomatic version, of Newton's: a = GM/ r^2 where it simplifies into:

a^2 = GM a_o / r AUr and taking square root, we get the delta of acceleration for very large distance away from the Sun:

(delta) -a = (GM a_o/ r*AUr)^1/2

So this equation, strange as it looks, should give us an acceleration towards the Sun (minus sign) for a space probe leaving the solar system at escape velocity, where the delta '-a' should remain constant regardless of the distance 'r' traveled. This can only happen if the above portion of the equation is equally proportional with the lower portion, as a constant negative acceleration for any distance. I do not know if this is true, since have no way to plug in the value for a_o at this time, but will check back on it again in the future. But if MOND works as stated, and if G is variable as stated, then this equation should give us a constant acceleration towards the Sun. I think the reason it needs to be square rooted is because of the Equivalence principle, where any change to G will impact the 'gravitational-inertial mass' in a square root fashion, like two forces interacting on each other.

So the point, if there is a point, is that it is not 'mass' that is growing with higher G, but only the effective 'gravitational or inertial mass' that is growing, which means it responds to the Sun's receding gravitational pull, though at 1/r^2, as if it were being pulled back, per MOND and Axiomatic's 1G per 1AU, at a rate of 1/r. This is what MOND shows for outer galaxy rotation curves, and it should also match what is happening to Pioneers, both of which happen to relate closely to the Hubble constant. They should all be from the same cause, a variable G that grows in a linear fashion with distance from the Sun, something our measurements should be able to spot from about Jupiter outwards. The reason we never saw it was because we had measured everything in the solar system from orbital dynamics ASSUMING Newton's G was a universal constant, which was his assumption too. Different G will not change the results of our measurements from a constant G, when adjusted for a variable G (same mass for same planets) except in how these masses manifest their density locally, ie., heavier atmospheres in higher G, like for Saturn's moon Titan. But that's a whole other story.

Well, that's all I can figure for now, and had also posted something similar on the Astronomy forum. They are quick to spot errors and tear them apart, so I hope they can do the same on this as well. :-) Watch them eat my lunch!

Here's the page where I posted on BAUT, as NG71: http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=885397&postcount=280

Still confused myself over this, not easy to figure out a variable G scenario, so stay tuned. Furthermore, I could be all wrong! :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 08:16 am:   

Secondary Fault Line Appears to becoming more active.

I have noticed a major fault line that runs from the Lake Baykal Region to Central Asia north of India to the Caspian Sea out to the Mediterrainean appears to becoming more active.

I am concerned about a shift in stress on this plate following the great Sumatran quake. I saw a similiar pattern of quakes before Bam Quake in Iran occured.

Couple this to existing stress on this fault and I think we are entering a period of increased risk of a major quake along that line which includes Tehran.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 09:03 pm:   

Hi Ed, keep an eye on this world map of earthquake faults.

http://www.iris.edu/seismon/

Click on central Asia, and you'll see the fault line that runs as you described, from eastern Siberia, Lake Baykal region down to Tajikistan, with a continuation of the faults into Iran. Why is 'God' always testing those Allah countries with hardship and disasters? There's a lot of activity out there around the 'Ring of Fire' and now into Siberia as well.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 08:17 pm:   

Thanks Ivan,

I was running some estimates today and felt that a quake in Iran was likely. It occured today at a low magnitude about 3.4, Shook some buildings but that was about it, thankfully. I am also keeping an eye on the situation along the fault lines.

In terms of stored energy a massive amount of energy on par with that of great quakes is stored in the area north of the Indian Plate. With the shift that this plate underwent following the Great Sumatran Quake I am concerned about other great quakes in this region and a domino effect.

In an aside I just got my grades from this term at university. I got two A's One in a course about Aging in Society and one in a course about Human Behavior in the Social Environment. Not bad for a brain damaged genius.

The fight to regain my cognitive functioning was painful beyond measure. The university provides me a venue to relearn facts and data that was damaged via the neurotoxin I was exposed to. I am having to rebuild entire entire sets of data in my mind that were errased by the neurotoxin, at my age this is somewhat diffcult but is something I have to do. My speach and verbal skills are improving and I am regaining my vocabulary. Spelling has always been a problem for me, but it is improving as well.

As the new neural networks I have had to forge in my brain mature learning function becomes easier for me. The math center of my brain is damaged to and remains functional at a limited level. I learned in my aging in society course that this area declines as we age and that damage to it is likely irreversable. Geometric centers of my brain, however, have increased in development likely by way of compensation.

Over all it has been a very informative semester at the university for both me and my instuctors.

My Best

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 11:23 pm:   

Here's a follow up post on MONDian gravity, posted today on BAUT forums: http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=887293&postcount=296

As you can see, there is some sort of MOND effect from variable gravity G and in some fashion similar to Pioneer Anomaly. However, this is far from conclusive proof. I had not yet worked out the numbers for all the planets, but in the case of Jupiter and Saturn, the first two gas giants, the acceleration towards the Sun is a delta -a = 8.417E-7 m s^-2 + 0.002, so neat, but not quite same as Pioneer anomaly. Pluto's at first showed up anomalous, later corrected, due to arithmetic error, so same as others. Interesting that they had not yet "eaten my lunch". :-)

Here's one more page where I listed this idea to be challenged, astronomy forum.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 10:57 pm:   

Universe's First Objects Possibly Seen

061218_first_objects_01.jpg
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061218_first_objects.html

We're talking about images 13 billion light years away, which means that these stars and galaxies are less than a billion years old, if the Big Bang started 13.7 billion years ago*, as postulated. However, surprise surprise of surprises, the universe is also poplulated with loads of stars and galaxy clusters, some stars much larger than our own sun, as if they had been there all along. Scratching their heads, but they can't quite understand how this can be, that stars and galaxies can form within a few hundred million years, when our own Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old. What's the story?!

I think the real story is that the universe is infinite, zillions of years older than the so-called Big Bang, that there was no such animal, and that what we as the 'early universe' is actually nothing more or less than where light redshifts naturally (due to very high space gravity G) and basically peters out of visibility. End of story. :-) Still, I enjoy reading the contortions astronomers must go through to explain their 'BigaBanga'.


*(Note, recent research shows universe may be 'older' and larger than estimates, more like 15.8 billion years old and 180 bly wide, assuming there was a Big Bang.)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 12:26 pm:   

What about the possibility that our 13.7 billion year old "big bang" is just one "local phenomena"? This bang might simply be the universal equivalent of a supernova. There might have been, or still are big bangs happening all over the universe 60 billion, 100 billion, 900 billion, etc. light years away. Once again we base everything upon our own limitations.

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 10:21 am:   

If Newton's G is variable, then it must have a limit.

Following up on this post on MOND equation for force and gravity: (delta) -a = (GM a_o/ r*AUr)^1/2 ... as derived from Milgrom's F= ma^2/ a_0
http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=2764#POST2764

which gave the answer when worked out as delta -a = 8.417E-7 m s^-2 + 0.002
http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=2816#POST2816

there must be of necessity some limiting factor where G stops growing, at it's cut-off 'frequency' per Axiomatic. I had worked this out elsewhere, that maximum G is reached at about 50,000 AU from our Sun (which is about 1/5th way to the next nearest star system, Alpha Centaury, ~270K AU) and where its magnitude reaches at about 10X^-6 (vs. 6.67X10^-11 here on Earth), so that in all intergalactic space G for all molecules and 'dead' matter out there is very high (which is why cosmic light redshifts traveling through that space, at the Hubble constant). So when the 'r' of the modified MOND equation is very very large, while the AUr, the distance of 1 AU, remains constant, the G grows to its maximum of about 10X-6 Nm^2kg^-2 in deep space, and so the F value stabilizes at F = GM/r over very large distances in deep space, such as galaxy outer rims, etc..

More on this as it develops, where MOND's equation for gravity matches (approximately) variable G as postulated by Axiomatic.

Note: This limiting high G is for deep space only, and not for a galactic center where G is at its maximum possible mangitude, and all light ceases to be visible around the black hole. Where all light and energy lambda cancel on a point, such as all ambient light and energy of a galaxy, then that G is no longer modified by this electromagnetic energy, so it reaches its extreme high, G = c. This does not happen in deep space because there is always light energy modifying G down to its limit.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 02:37 pm:   

Yes Ivan we did have major quakes along the two fault lines we were discussing the one along the pacfic plate and the one along the secondary major fault linte that includes Tehran.

http://www.iris.edu/seismon/

As I said earlier I am concerned about a major release of stored energy along the fault lines in the near future.

I will be keeping an eye on these developments as things progress, but we are I fear in danger of further significant quakes in the near future.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 09:56 pm:   

Ed, indeed there's a lot of activity both in Pacific 'ring of fire' and Central Asian plateaus. Noted that Southwestern Australia just had a good shake, which lines up with the Phillipines shakers. Taiwan just had a bad one on Boxing Day: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/27/asia/AS_GEN_Taiwan_Quake.php

Tsunami watch? Apparently none generated from these shakers, though a meter high one was expected, then called off.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 11:47 am:   

Yes Ivan activity is high along the fault lines.

As you and I have seen the great quake had world wide effects.

In the briefing I threw in the post box after being laid off by the Government, and following the Great Samatra Quake, I indicated with a series of arrows the likely location future quakes long the Ring of Fire along with increases in volcanic activity.

The quakes have been breaking in accordance with that estimate.

I also note my predication of quake activity matches the gravity map produced by NASA.

Not bad work for a couple of guys with home computers and life times of experience.

As to myself I am doing much better since I was poisoned in the line of duty. According to one of the doctors that evaluated me at Duke University I had the highest recorded levels of neurotoxin in my blood stream seen to date. The only other case that approaches mine is that of a young boy that had 800-900 times the normal level of nuerotoxin in his body following years of exposure to industrial grade pesticides.

My exposure level is recorded at 1200 times normal and is the subject of a Journal article in a periodical that deals with toxic exposures.

That article is as follows:

Abou-Donia, M.B. and L.K. Garrettson (2000). Detection of neurofilament autoantibodies in human serum following chemically induced neurologic disorder: A case study. Environ. Epidem. Toxicol. 2:37-41.

The fact that I survived this disorder and have gone on to achieve Dean's list performance in a Master's degree program, along with my other achievements, is reguarded as something of a medical miracle.

By rights according to science I should be dead. In effect a dead man according to science is typing this note. The boy who suffered an 800-900 time normal level exposure to nerve agent also suffered from serious neuro-muscular and CNS deficiets.

My wife bought me a Celtic Christian Cross ring from Ireland as one of my Christmas presents. I wear it as a sign of my faith and what the Churches took in broken and left to die by the enemies of this nation and cast out by the Bush Administration.

When I walk in a Church the ministers bow their heads to God and Christ and speak of miracles while the scientists write journal articles and do presentations at international medical conferences.

For the Federal Government and Bush Administration that locked me out of the research and development field and military industrial complex. I wanted to show them what helped win the Cold War and just what type of games I could play from the streets using access to the internet and 24 years of Intelligence and covert operations training.

My wife and I decided to do a photo safari to Africa this year instead of visiting the Middle East. The following year we are going to Italy and the Vatican.

When I stand in St Peter's square the Pope in Rome from his window will look out on a man that helped coordinate the downfall of the Repulicans and who walks with a lethal dose of poison in his viens and Celtic Cross on his finger. When I do so it is intended to remind the Pope of things long ago when Christianity First Came to Europe and that the Celtic Catholics still exist as force to be reckoned with. It is also to remind hime of what my wife's and my family have done down the ages in service to Christianity and debt that the Federal Government and United States Private sector owes us for our services and the theft of our dreams.

My wife until the cancer robbed her of career was being considered as a mission specialist on the space shuttle. I until the corrupt, greedy intelligence community and Bush Administration got a hold of me, was helping build high technology systems and would be now working at NASA living in my dream home in Florida.

Such are the man and woman that will stand in St Peter's square benneath the Pope's window.

When he looks out he will see the decendents of the men and women that stood with the Saints and fought before the Holy City and faced Saladeen the Great.

Strange Anomalies of Science indeed and a lesson to the enemies of the United States and the American Leadership of what a man armed with science and religion can do when he sets his mind to it.

My Best

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 11:29 pm:   

Where all light and energy lambda cancel on a point, such as all ambient light and energy of a galaxy, then that G is no longer modified by this electromagnetic energy, so it reaches its extreme high, G = c. This does not happen in deep space because there is always light energy modifying G down to its limit.
Posted on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 10:21 am: Ivan


Is there a minimum value for light intensity below which is must become zero? For analogy, in computers we have a smallest floating point number below which the floating point number must be zero. If there is such a minimal light intensity, can we estimate that?

As a corollary, does it mean that the black holes are the cause of energy becoming less than the minimum rather than it having infinite gravity and absorbing all radiant energy making that black hole as a massive object?

Let us hope that this New Year helps us understand the 'Black Holes' better and chart our path for space colonies.

Happy New Year!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 10:22 am:   

Black Holes Happen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6231623.stm
Black hole found in ancient lair

This is just what happens to large amalgams of hot stars, that inside their energetic environment's center, where all ambient energy comes together on a point, the canceling effect of lambda converging releases the very high gravity that exists without electromagnetic energy, so forms a 'black hole'. The reason it is a 'hole' is that gravity reigns supreme there, and the reason it is 'black' is because all light lambda cancels there, so it becomes invisible. That's how the Axiomatic Equation tells it, and I agree. :-)

Ivan

Ps: "Is there a minimum value of light intensity below which it must become zero?" Good question, Mohideen, but I'm not sure such a thing exists, at least not in terms of intensity, or energy density, that I know of. In mine aboves, the idea is that when the wavelengths (lambda) cancel out, the light e.m. energy disappears, and what re-appears in its place is its gravity nemesis. I discussed something like this on this BAUT page, talking about the 'cosmic microwave background' or CMB. So you see, the universe is a 'duality' at its core, if this is right, and e.m. energy modifies atomic mass gravity, so no energy means all gravity, i.e., black hole.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 09:41 pm:   

Leaving 'Dark Matter' in the dark.

There's no end of confusion over what this ellusive mythical Dark Matter stuff is, though I suspect it is nothing more than higher G ordinary matter. But, no matter, here is what this article says: Radio Telescope Could Make Dark Matter Visible... oh, ah hum... http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070103_tw_radiomap.html , this is the best they can do?
"Scientists think the stars and glowing gas visible to optical telescopes make up only about 10 percent of the matter in the universe. The rest is thought to be a mysterious form of non-luminous matter called "dark" matter.

As befits the name, dark matter does not absorb or emit light, and is therefore invisible to current instruments. While it can't be detected directly, dark matter's presence has been implied by the effect its gravity has on light.
...
About 400,000 years after the Big Bang, hydrogen and helium atoms permeated the universe. Over the course of a few hundred million years, gravity caused these gases to clump together to form dense clouds. Eventually, these clouds coalesced into the first stars and galaxies whose radiance put an end to the universe's "dark age.""
Right, the 'dark age' for 'dark matter' is about how I see it too.

Of course there is 'dark matter' because of gravitational lensing, since those 'cold dark regions of space' sport a much higher G for any atomic matter there, which means they can be used for gravitational lensing. Now, I ask, why doesn't it penetrate to our scientific astronomy savants that "if gravitational lensing is caused by 'dark matter' that maybe the gravity of that 'dark' hydrogen gas and other gases in cold deep space is due to GRAVITY being so much greater there"? No, too much to hope for, I suppose, until they actually measure for G variance, and then maybe, just maybe the light will turn on... So here's something cute until then: http://home.kimo.com.tw/liourongfenq/19_99.swf

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 09:31 am:   

So you see, the universe is a 'duality' at its core, if this is right, and e.m. energy modifies atomic mass gravity, so no energy means all gravity, i.e., black hole.
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 10:22 am: Ivan


Is not this the same as the famous equation E = m x c x c governing all nuclear power? You are applying the equation in the reverse, stating that absence of energy means all that is there is mass. Am I right?

If that be so, EFTV Energy From The Vacuum follows as a corollary as vacuum is the absence of mass and thus must be full of energy.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 11:54 am:   

Famous Energy equation revisited.


quote:

Is not this the same as the famous equation E = m x c x c governing all nuclear power? You are applying the equation in the reverse, stating that absence of energy means all that is there is mass. Am I right?

If that be so, EFTV Energy From The Vacuum follows as a corollary as vacuum is the absence of mass and thus must be full of energy. --Mohideen



That's what it appears to mean to me too. If there is an absence of 'energy', that quantity we call 'mass' is all there is, which then means only the 'gravity potential' exists. This showed up in the simplified version of the Axiomatic Eq., viz:

E = hf = hc/L(prot_m) = mc^2 = (1-g)c^2

[note, may need Netscape browser to view it correctly]

where h = Planck's constant, f = frequency, c = likghtspeed in vacuum, L = e.m. lambda, (prot_m) = proton mass, g = proton gravitational constant; and where m=mass is always 'one' in any unit of measure desired. Since we use kilograms in our standard units, the mass is represented as 1 kg, though more correctly it is represented as kg/kg = 1. *

It's the (1-g)c^2 that defines mass as energy, a modification of Einstein's famous E = mc^2, whereby the more energy there is, the lower the g, and higher 'energy content' for atomic mass, but lower gravity; conversely the less energy there is, the higher the g, so mass is composed of more gravity per atom. This is the condition encountered far from a hot source of e.m. energy, like our Sun, so gravity grows, expressed as Newton's G, the farther you go from a star. Out in deep space, because all energy is reduced to a very low level, i.e., 2.7 Kelvin, as all background energy of deep space, energy is very low; if so, then G must be very high.

This was explored, though not yet conclusively accepted as theory, on the pages to do with Axiomatic Equation, also at E = 9e+16 J, which represent's Earth's orbit solar energy level for ths equation. Planetary spin with regards to ZPF/ZPE which fits this theory was explored here; and other pages explored these ideas some years back both on New PeoplesBook Forums and Outta this World Physics. This exploration continues, so any new ideas are very welcome. At this time, the supporting evidence for how Energy and Gravity are a 'duality' relationship shows up in the Pioneer Anomaly, gas giant atmospheres, including their moons' atmospheres (tiny Titan has 10 times Earth's atmosphere), very large elliptical comet orbits (gassing out, or de-compacting, by Jupiter's orbit), Earth's anomalous spin (slows at perihelion), so-called neutron stars very high spin, tiny Pluto's anomalous atmosphere, all of which point towards a much higher G out there away from the Sun's energy. There are others, like why all galaxies have a 'black hole' at their center, or MOND outer galaxy flat rotation curves, but all this is now in exploration phase, still need to measure for G in outer solar system. Someday I'll write a small book to put it all together. It all started here, when we asked if there could be a "Theory of Everything" as a philosophical question; the answer appears to be "yes", if the universe has a duality where energy is inversely proportional to gravity.

So you see, Mohideen, a lot of work had gone into developing this idea, not yet a theory, and the progression of this idea can be found in this Bread Crumbs link. As you said, the 'vacuum energy' may have a lot more hidden in it than we know at this time.

Ivan

*(Kilogram is an Earth based measure of mass, is different for other orbital regions and needs to be adjusted when calculated for other regions, which is why kg/kg works better, so it is then universal.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 09:58 am:   

Distorted 'dark matter' universe, a pix worth 1000 words

Hubble makes 3D dark matter map
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6235751.stm

1.jpg

"According to one researcher, the findings provide "beautiful confirmation" of standard theories to explain how structures in the Universe evolved over billions of years."

I doubt it, but let's keep looking. There is no mystery, simply higher G between 'hot' galaxies of lower G, so simple.

Here's another article on the same, with more details: http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10903-dark-matter-mapped-in-3d-for-first-time.html , where it says: "Some areas show clumps of dark matter that do not have galaxies in them... Other areas show concentrations of ordinatory matter with no corresponding dark matter, 'a puzzle'..." Well, duhh, no kidding! :-) How about the two as 'mutually exclusive'?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 08:05 am:   

From the link given by Ivan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6235751.stm
===
"What would be an enormous puzzle would be to find big, luminous galaxies sitting out there in the middle of nowhere with no dark matter around them. That really would be shocking."
===

Given the dual wave - particle of nature it is natural to find packets of interference patterns where the light intensity is high. The expectation is that there should be plenty of such interference points where light has high intensity. Whether the lump is big is a matter of definition. It would be nice to put some size on 'big' so that we know when we reach a milestone.

Just for curiosity, from the history of science how long did it take to agree the duality in light - the wave and particle nature of light?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 10:04 am:   

Posted on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 02:37 pm:

Yes Ivan we did have major quakes along the two fault lines we were discussing the one along the pacfic plate and the one along the secondary major fault linte that includes Tehran.

http://www.iris.edu/seismon/

As I said earlier I am concerned about a major release of stored energy along the fault lines in the near future.

I will be keeping an eye on these developments as things progress, but we are I fear in danger of further significant quakes in the near future.

Ed
_________________________________________________
Yes a massive quake did occur along the Pacific plate IAW with what I said less than 30 days ago and the briefing slides I threw in the Post Box.

As I sit here drinking coffee, I am glad that a massive loss of life did not occur.

The federal government threw me out of the militiary industrial complex and all I had was compass ruler and my brain.

With 1200 times a normal dose of nerve agent in my body I fought back against all odds of recovery to achieve a 3.5 GPA in college, while working 60 plus hours a week in a mentally and physically demanding job.

Now you know what helped win the cold war and took on director of CIA, a president and a congress over a security clearence.

I have also been trained in nuclear and guerilla warfare.

Given access to a nuclear launch system I could rupture seismic fault lines, collapse continental shelves and other features to induce earthquakes and tidal waves on top of the nuclear blast effects.

Such is the mind that the Federal Government threw to the wolves.

Osama's bringing down the World Trade Center is child's play for me.

As I sit here sipping my coffee I look down at the Celtic Cross and the tree of life on my ring.

Be thankful I found Jesus Christ and accepted his teachings.

There are a host of governments in the world that would be me large sums of money for the data contained in my head. Be also thankful I am decended from the founding families of the United States and would never betray this nation. I have over 24 years read every Top Secret document I could get my hands on regarding weapons development, military forces, geo-political forces and environmental developments. If the government could classify me and lock me in a vault they would.

When I finish my studies at Univeristy I expect to be rehired by the federal government. Before then I will be taking a trip to South Africa and the Vatican in Rome.

During those trips I will speak to a number of people on a number of subjects. Until I walked out the door on the Federal Government I used to have to get permission to travel to foreign nations due to the nature of the information I have in my brain.

I expect that the Federal Government security specialists in NSA, CIA and the rest are having fits at this time over all of this and the danger to national security posed by me being off the federal payroll.

I like to think of the stress the security officials experience when I travel and about what I may say as punishment for their failure to follow the laws or man and god with regards to how they treat those in their care and custody, be they terrorist prisoners or illegal immigrants trying to better themselves by doing the work our citizens refuse to do.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 12:27 pm:   

Hi Ed, thanks for update on the big earthquake of the coast of Kuril islands. There was a Japan tsunami warning issued, but since called off: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6258167.stm "Small waves reached the north-eastern coast of Hokkaido Island at 1452 (0552 GMT), about 90 minutes after the quake which had a magnitude of 8.2." A possible warning was also given for our west coast, but fortunately it did not materialize. I am surprised by the number of earthquakes the Kurils experienced recently, this last one at sea, 8.2, was a big one. Keep us updated, thanks.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 02:40 pm:   

Your welcome Ivan,

As the melting of the polar caps increases the entire system of systems that is the earth is undergoing stress.

Changes in the position of mass, and other factors have caused strain to be placed on areas of this planet that can not withstand that strain without reacting to it.

At this juncture all we can do is prepare for the worse and pray for the best.

A I type this the temp outside my house is well above normal for this time of year. It is an unprecidented development.

It is just a sign of what is to come.

To face the damage to come we will need to reform our system of insurance, disaster relief and improve our communications capabilities.

I expect down the road after picking up my certifications at the university I will be working with various organizations to include church groups doing and supporting international relief missions.

What the federal government threw out, the state turned down for employment and the private capatalistic industry abused and exploited the churches picked up.

When I travel to South Africa, I will be staying in Kruger National Park and traveling throughout the country side. I am looking forward to the trip. Instead of a gun I and my wife will be taking a digital camera.

My days of carrying a weapon are over. As I look at the gravity map produced by NASA I note that but for the Bush administration I would be ,in a few years, working at NASA helping build the moonbase. Instead I will be in a few years, traveling the world aiding and comforting the injured and dying suffering from the effects of global climate change, natural disasters and war and terrorism.

It is funny how fate works. For over 1400 years my family has served the churches, defended them, fought for and against them and aided the sick and dying. During the plauge years we gave last rights to the victims and brought out the dead and comforted the survivors.

Such is what I will be doing in the future and am in training for.

God is harsh but fair task master and some are called to bring aid to his children, while others are selected to develop the technology that will free us from this planet and the missery of disease and poverty.

To salvage our civilization both sets of people will have to work together as the ravages of global climate change manefest themselves.

The great storms are coming and after them will come a winowing of peoples. Into this darkness, I and others will walk to aid the fallen and injured.

In this battle to come we fight for the survival of technological civilization itself.

My Best

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ANON ANON
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 04:19 pm:   

Take a guy that has read nothing but Top Secret SCI documents for 24 years and then walks out on the federal government.

Then that guy travels around the world unsupervised.

He also then survives poison, goes on to trisect the angle, solve the billiard problem, predict earthquakes, storm tracks, perform huricane damage estimates and then posts a list of everyone in the federal government on the Church door that screwed him over on his security clearence for everyone and his brother to read, in a move that reminds everyone of Martin Luther.

I have attached the rules regarding the movement of SCI cleared personnel around the globe below.

Just what exactly is going on here?

Just what is the Federal Government trying to cover up and what was in the blood tests, MRI and CAT Scans that have them so scared of one individual?

What DNA mystery is operating here and what did the NIH find that has them shaking their heads?

ANON ANON

"If you are approved for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) or selected Special Access Programs (SAPs), you have additional requirements relating to foreign travel. Your security office should be advised well in advance of your departure, if possible.

Risks During Foreign Travel provides threat awareness information for foreign travelers but necessarily deals with those general threats that apply broadly to many countries. Specific criminal, terrorist, and intelligence threats differ greatly from one country to another and are changing constantly. Before traveling, you should have the most current information pertaining to the countries you will be visiting.

Following your trip, complete any required post-foreign travel forms and report any unusual incidents that occurred during your travel.

Foreign Contacts: All cleared personnel must report contacts with individuals of any foreign nationality, either within or outside the scope of their official activities, in which:

"Illegal or unauthorized access is sought to classified or otherwise sensitive information.
The employee is concerned that he/she may be the target of actual or attempted exploitation by a foreign entity."

Persons approved for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and selected Special Access Programs (SAPs) have additional reporting requirements as discussed in Reporting Foreign Contacts.

A problem often arises in trying to follow policy on reporting foreign contacts. Many people do not recognize they are a target until the assessment and development process is quite far advanced. It is difficult to know when a foreign national who establishes friendly contact with you has an ulterior motive. To check whether you might be a target, see How Do I Know When I’m Being Targeted and Assessed?"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 05:19 pm:   

For Anon Anon,

You raise a good question Anon Anon.

The government's scientists and doctors probed and found something they could not explain.

During that probing they opened a door to a place they were affraid to venture. I and my family members have walked through that door many times as we lay dying from wounds and poison. On the other side of that door is another form of existance and in it exist beings that were once worshiped as Gods.

Then came the coming of Christ and the world changed forever.

In Building 100 at the Joint Analysis Center Molesworth England is a wall of citations. They list the men that flew the bombing missions over Germany during the war and yet even mortally wounded contiued to fight and operate the weapons until the mission was completed. The wounds they sustained were fatal and when the bombers landed after the mission the ground crews removed the corpses of the crew members that had died yet continued to fight.

In the War against Hitler's supermen the children of the ancient Celtic people and of ancient Rome and elsewhere were called to battle. Many things during that war were seen and then classified.

That is part of what the Federal Government forgot. But when looking at my MRI, EMG and toxin tests they remembered. Old military doctors from WWII looked at the results and remembered the Japanese that charged positions with swords and kept moving even when technically dead from mortal wounds.

The doors and windows that lead to the other side exist in many cultures and are not limited to Christianity.

Life and Death are different for us that have walked through the door or looked through the window into that form of existance before being brought back.

We are the decendents of the men and women that walked with and spoke to the Saints of Christianity. For us life and death are issues we have a long history of dealing with.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon Anon
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 06:40 pm:   

Just what did the federal government find?

1200 times the lethal dose of nerve agent tends to solve many problems in the area of national security when National Security is involved.

Who, what, when and how become questions to be asked.

Good Questions.

Anon Anon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 06:59 pm:   

Yes Anon Anon

I asked those questions myself. Then a funny thing happened. A truck tanker truck loaded with liquid natural gas showed up with a bible and Celtic Cross in the drivers compartment.

Then a truck load of gasoline slamed into a bridge near the pentagon and exploaded during the my investigation of the trail leading to my poisoning.

It is also why vehicles modified to look like IRA improvised mortar carriers showed up on the highway next to JAC Molesworth.

All of which is why I were a Celtic Cross on my finger and have one over my bed.

I have renounced violence and weapons of war.

During my investigation into my poisoning things escalated and the founding families of the United States stepped in to defuse the crisis.

I have spent 24 years in continuos combat and tend to react to threats with Force Majeure.

When threatened I do not bluff. My last boss in the SAIC company found that out and took me outside to say that it was not their fault my clearence was delayed. He did that after the tanker truck loaded with liguid gas showed up. This came after the Al Qeada truck bomb destroyed my old office in Saudi Arabia.

Some things are best left alone, and I got tired of being a passive target.

Now I am in training at the university for a new career path and I really don't like ahving my school schedule interfered with. Like a DSS agent found out when we generated a broken arrow atomic weapon lost message on TV

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 08:24 am:   

I have attached a summary of the damage that Organophosphate compounds cause. These compounds include nerve agents. One typical symptom of poisoning is Jake Leg or Jake Walk a term that was given to men experiencing diffculty walking after drinking a drink, called "Ginger Jake," which contained an adulterated Jamaican ginger extract containing tri-ortho-cresyl phosphate (TOCP) which resulted in partially reversible neurologic damage.

I have a limp "Jake Walk" steming from neurological damge from 1200 times the base level of organophosphates, nerve agent.

According to my Veterans Affairs Medical readjustment conselor the government by law is not required to addmit or accept responsibility for such and exposure but must pay damages for it if such exposure is documented in a service members medical record.

In my blood is enough evidence to open the door to tens of thousands of claims for damages stemming from Operation Desert Storm. Conversely it is enought to open an investigation into a poisoning in Mexico that reaches the Highest levels of national security.

Why is it that this data has been supressed by the Bush administration?

Much foor for thought.

Ed

Many organophosphates are potent neurotoxins, functioning by inhibiting the action of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) in nerve cells. They are one of the most common causes of poisoning worldwide, and are frequently used in suicides in agricultural areas.

The effects of organophosphate poisoning are recalled using the mnemonic "SLUD" or "SLUDGE", for salivation, lacrimation, urination, defecation, gastrointestinal upset, and emesis.

Atropine can be used as an antidote in conjunction with pralidoxime, though the use of "-oximes" has been found to be of no benefit, or possibly harmful, in at least two meta-analyses (Rahimi 2006 and Peter 2006).

The use of the organophosphates in aviation lubricating oils and hydraulic fluids and its impact on health and flight safety is a matter of much debate. Airline employees set up a non profit group in 2001 to highlight their concerns called the Aviation Organophosphate Information Site (AOPIS)[1].

Purdey (1998) suggested that organophosphates, in particular Phosmet, induced the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy epidemic of BSE. An European Union food safety Scientific Steering Committee examined the evidence and did not find a link[2].

Stronger evidence supports persistant chronic toxicity from acute poisonings or long-term low level exposure. The phenomenon of OPIDP (organophosphate induced delayed polyneuropathy, also OPIDN), which causes degeneration of the peripheral nerves, has been noted to occur several weeks after exposure to some organophosphates. Current issues in organophosphate toxicology

A striking example of OPIDN occurred during the 1930s Prohibition Era when thousands of men in the American South and Midwest developed arm and leg weakness and pain after drinking a "medicinal" alcohol substitute. The drink, called "Ginger Jake," contained an adulterated Jamaican ginger extract containing tri-ortho-cresyl phosphate (TOCP) which resulted in partially reversible neurologic damage. The damage resulted in the limping "Jake Leg" or "Jake Walk" which were terms frequently used in the blues music of the period. Europe and Morocco both experienced outbreaks of TOCP poisoning from contaminated abortifacients and cooking oil, respectively (Morgan 1978).

The U.S. Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), passed in 1996, designated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a 10 year review process of the health and environmental effects of all pesticides, beginning with the Organophosphates. The process has taken longer than expected, but was recently concluded and eliminated or modified thousands of uses. NYTimes Aug 4, 2006

Many non-governmental and research groups, as well as the EPA's Office of Inspector General, have published concerns that the review did not take into account possible neurotoxic effects on developing fetuses and children, an area of developing research. OIG report. A group of leading EPA scientists sent a letter to the chief administrator, Stephen Johnson, decrying the lack of developmental neurotoxicity data in the review process. EPA Letter EHP article New studies have shown toxicity to developing organisms during certain "critical periods" at doses much lower than those previously suspected to cause harm (see Slotkin et. al.).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 09:11 am:   

On Sept 23 1998 at Duke University Medical center a blood test was performed using the sodium-polyacrylamide-gel electrophoresis and western blotting technique.

Findings indicated that my exposure level to a chemical agent causing a chemically induced neurodegenerative disorder was 440% of normal.

Subsequent testing at Walter Reed Army Medical Center on July 9 1998 by Electronystagmography Report and full body EMG testing performed at The Boston on July 17 1998 indicated the presence of a Central Nervous system lesion.

Follow MRI performed in concert with those assessments however, indicated no damage what so ever to the Central Nervous system.

A follow-up full body EMG conducted at the Boston VA Medical Center 8 months after the first EMG was performed showed no indications of damage to the Central or Peripheral Nervous Systems. This subsequent full body EMG was observed by the Head of Neurology and Neuro Science for Harvard University and two representatives of the United States National Institute of Health. These subsequent findings indicated a unprecidented deomstrated and documented incident of neuro-regeneration. The implications of which were potentially worth billions to drug companies that could explain it or find the gentic sequence that made it possible.

Following these tests I was pulled into a black program by the Intelligence and Security services to break Al Qeada codes and perform earth Quake predictions at the Joint Analysis Center Molesworth England.

They, NSA Director and staff, turned me loose in Building 100 with access to all classified data feeds in available to NATO and the United States. The concern within the intelligence comunity was that gravity readings from ESA and NASA satellights were indicating a gravitational bludge around the equator. The effect that this buldge would have on the underlaying strata were not known. Then the great Sumatran Quake hit.

As I sit here looking at the gravity map from the latest NASA satellight feeds posted on this page. I think back to the desperate men and women at JAC Molesworth. They thought the world was going to end and wanted an answer, an assessment of what was going to come.

In response to that I did a series of briefing slides and threw them in a Post Box.

I then posted the results of my work at exploring the visualization of Gravity and earthquake predictions here. When I spun up the computers at the University it was to check to see if the indicators I delveloped from the classified systems with regards to stress points for earthquakes were still active.

They were and still are.

That is what the Federal Government and Intelligence and security services has been hiding and what I decided to expose for the world to see.

And yes my solution to the Billiard Problem has some application to General Relativity.

It was as easy as Pi

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:46 am:   

"A month and a half before the September 21, 1999, earthquake hit Taiwan, Chinese space scientists had predicted it, but they did not notify Taiwan until after the quake due to strained Beijing-Taipei ties," Chu said.

The Chinese scientists had noticed - through satellite thermal imaging - a two- to six-degree Centigrade rise in temperature on the ocean surface around Taiwan, the geologist said.

Prior to the great Sumatran Quake, our intelligence services and NASA were picking up strange data readings from the affected area. This coupled to a graviational buldge left them puzzeled and concerned.

From data sets that included deep water temperature readings in the affected area from U.S. Navy Submarines. Changes in accoustical data from sonar systems, shifts and expansion of geological structures and surface readings in the affected area indicated a substantial change in the environment was occuring. However the outcome of the change was not certain.

All data sets were classified and suppressed following the Great Sumatran Quake as it was potientially explosive material in that the world's population would begin to ask questions as why no warning was sent out prior to the great quake.

That was one of the projects I was working on in Building 100 at JAC Molesworth.

As we move further into global climate change we will be faced with more and more of these great catastrophies as the earth's systems of systems undergoes change.

As to me. I am preparing to working in the relief operations field. I have just completed certification in Emergency medical Services, and am completing advanced training in Pyschology and Counseling.

I did my best to predict damages and bring warning of what is to come. Now when I finish my qualifications, I will be working in the field aiding the victims of Global Climate Change.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 12:03 pm:   

The article below documents a breakthrough in Neuro-regeneration showing it is possible to for a body to regnerate Nerve Cells.

Locked within the army classified biological research facilities is genetic work and research building upon the observed and documented neuro-regeneration demonstrated by myself.

The end of the research is to find ways to regenerate CNS cells to overcome battle injuries, cure CNS diseases and the like.

The value of the research locked within these black programs is worth potentially billions of dollars.

As the United States military under national defense authorization can conduct this research without accountablity it is being done with no formal oversight and as such is open to corruption and profiteering by the members involved in the research and in charge of over seeing it.

This potential abuse of data and genetic material harvessed from myself brings back the threat of abuses not seen since the days of NAZI germany.

Such is what lays in the heart of the area of non-disclosure agreements and black projects in the Federal Government.

Ed



http://www.neuroskills.com/pr-novel.shtml

Novel Factor Spurs Nerve Regeneration

At Children’s Hospital Boston have discovered a naturally occurring growth factor that stimulates regeneration of injured nerve fibers (axons) in the central nervous system. Under normal conditions, most axons in the mature central nervous system (which consists of the brain, spinal cord and eye) cannot regrow after injury. The previously unrecognized growth factor, called oncomodulin, is described in the May 14 online edition of Nature Neuroscience.

Neuroscientists Yuqin Yin, MD, PhD, and Larry Benowitz, PhD, who are also on the faculty of Harvard Medical School, did their studies in the optic nerve, which connects nerve cells in the eye’s retina to the brain’s visual centers, and is often used as a model in studying axon regeneration.

When oncomodulin was added to retinal nerve cells in a Petri dish, with known growth-promoting factors already present, axon growth nearly doubled. No other growth factor was as potent. In live rats with optic-nerve injury, oncomodulin released from tiny sustained-release capsules increased nerve regeneration 5- to 7-fold when given along with a drug that helps cells respond to oncomodulin. Yin, Benowitz and colleagues also showed that oncomodulin switches on a variety of genes associated with axon growth.

Benowitz, the study’s senior investigator, believes oncomodulin could someday prove useful in reversing optic-nerve damage caused by glaucoma, tumors or traumatic injury. In addition, the lab has shown that oncomodulin works on at least one other type of nerve cell, and now plans to test whether it also works on the types of brain cells that would be relevant to treating conditions like stroke and spinal cord injury.

The current study builds on work Benowitz, Yin and colleagues published a few years ago. Studying the optic nerve, they found – quite by accident – that an injury to the eye activated axon growth: it caused an inflammatory reaction that stimulated immune cells known as macrophages to move into the eye.

“To make this finding clinically useful, we wanted to understand what was triggering the growth, so we could achieve nerve regeneration without causing an injury,” Benowitz says.

Working in Benowitz’s lab, Yin took a closer look and found that the macrophages secreted an essential but as-yet unidentified protein. Further studies revealed it to be oncomodulin, a little-known molecule first observed in association with cancer cells.

“Out of the blue, we found a molecule that causes more nerve regeneration than anything else ever studied,” Benowitz says. “We expect this to spur further research into what else oncomodulin is doing in the nervous system and elsewhere.”

For oncomodulin to work, it must be given along with an agent that raises cell levels of cyclic AMP, a “messenger" that initiates various cellular reactions. Increased cyclic AMP levels are needed to make the oncomodulin receptor available on the cell surface.

A two-pronged approach

Benowitz also notes that there is another side to the nerve-regeneration problem: overcoming agents that act as natural inhibitors of axon growth. These inhibitors are the subject of intense study by several labs, including that of Zhigang He, PhD, at Children’s Hospital Boston.

In a study published in 2004, Benowitz and postdoctoral fellow Dietmar Fischer, PhD, collaborated with He to combine both approaches – overcoming inhibition and activating the growth state (by injuring the lens of the eye) – and achieved dramatic optic-nerve regeneration. Now that Benowitz has isolated oncomodulin, he believes even greater regeneration is possible by combining it with agents that counteract growth inhibitors.

“We’re in the midst of an exciting era of research in nerve regeneration,” Benowitz says. “There are a lot of promising leads in the area of blocking molecules that inhibit regeneration. But to get really strong regeneration, you also have to activate nerve cells’ intrinsic growth state.”
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 03:06 pm:   

As I am about to leave for work.

I note the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intensions.

On one hand are advances that may lead to a breakthrough in neuro-regeneration. The other is profiting from stolen genetic material and strands of DNA to make a fortune for greedy investors.

MRI, EMG and witnesses have seen the potential of a previously not understood growth factor.

This factor coupled to a specific genetic sequence leads to neuro-regeneration.

For 1400 years the motto of my family has been pierced yet not dead.

As I look at the Celtic Cross on my ring and its interwoven tree of life, I recall the oral traditions of my family.

Within these strands of DNA are still yet other mysteries to be unlocked.

One includes liver regeneration following infection. But that is a story for another time.

My Best

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 08:35 am:   

During an advanced blood work-up at the Boston VA Medical Center on 06/18/98, in addition to documented evidence of neuro-regeneration, testing showed alterations in my immune system that are not completely understood as of this moment.

In specific the assay performed by a professor of medicine found a upward shift in High Intensity CD45RO and CD 29 cell status suggesting a high, "memory" status among circulating T cells. CD8High expression of TCR-gamm and delta+ T Cells suggested activation among this little understood group along with a possible defect or mutation in the B Cells in general.

Subsequent findings found no evidence of viral or bacterial infection within the body to include the Spinal and CNS Fluid. Testing for all pathogens to include STDs, HIV, HTLV and Lyme Disease was negative. A concurrent work-up by a professor of Medicine at the New England Medical Center on 06/10/98 ruled out all other likely causes and indicated that toxin exposure could not be ruled out.

The findings from the blood assey indicated in simple terms that my immune system is much more effective than that of the normal human population and is capable of retaining a high degree of memory function with regards to infectious agents. In effect once infected by an infectious agent my immune system responds with a high degree of aggressiveness and then once the infectious agent is eliminated retains a high degree of memory with regards to the anti-bodies needed to destroy the infectious agent.

Over the last 1400 years my family has served as soldiers, priests, knights and military officers. During the period of time we were exposed to a wide variety of diseases, toxins and battle injuries. The strong survived and the weak died.

The alteration in the immune systems also affords us some, but not complete, protection against cancer. My father was given 6 months to live 12 years ago when diagnosed with toxin induced cancer. His immune system, which I share, has been effective in suppressing the cancer and allowed him to continue functioning to this date.

In the world of black research there are test tubes and strands of DNA attempting to unravel the secrets of the genetic sequences that have been discussed above.

I have my great great grandfathers Civil War record on my desk. He was shot in the head with a 50 caliber round. Fragments of bone were reomved in a makeshift field hospital and then he was patched up. He went on to fight througout the entire civil war and lived to a ripe old age working his farm in Maine.

I have the MRI films in my study of the various MRI performed on my brain. They, following chemical and biological assualt are completely normal.

As a child I was raised to understand that we recover from many things that kill other people. Many of us go into the churches and many are buried with their bibles.

Of the two Books the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons my wife and I prefer the one Angels and Demons.

When my wife and I travel we do so to send a message to the terrorists. We are the decendents of those men and women that fought during the great reformation of Christianity. We fought on both sides to the death and beyound. In this latest war our two houses are united and backed by the full weight and power of many Churches.

When I and my wife go to the Vatican Next year we will be welcome in it. We are tools of the Church as well as leaders within it. The churches know our weakness and faults well, but also know our skills and abilites. We are allowed to move freely as a message to those that would attack Western Judeu Christian Civilization that we too can play the game of terror in the shadows if we choose for also have our own angels and demons that we can turn loose upon those that would make war on us in the shaddows. We desire peace and honor Islam, but we needed to show the Terrorists that Cross and Bible are not just meaningless symbols.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 12:19 pm:   

As by way of comparison and demonstration of the power of oncomodulin to regenerate nerve cells the following information is provided.

In the early 1990s a yound boy was exposed to oganophosphate chemicals over a period of a few days. These compounds were absorbed via the skin. Within 2 months of exposure he experienced leg weakness with lower motor neuron dysfunction. Within six months upper motor neuron signs developed the indicated a long lasting involvement of the brain and spinal cord characterized by spasticity also occured. Other CNS deficits included mental changes and increased irritability, along the cessation of normal development of speach.

Over time the patient's condition improved but he was left with a mild degree of mental retardation and loss of movement in the hands and feet. This loss of movement was due to irreversable damage to the upper motor neurons and was seen as perminent as damage to the CNS does not regenerate.

As I sit here I note my exposure to these same chemicals was 4 times that of the young boy. Damage to my CNS has mostly been repaired due to neuro-regeneration and my ability to move, speak and perform complex functions has increased to close to pre exposure levels.

In Mexico when my laptop was stolen I was given a neuro-toxin to finish me off. This was the second time I have been exposed to lethal concentrations of nerve agents. The first was during Operation Desert Storm. That took me until about the year 2000 to recover from. This last incident took me close to five years to recover from.

At present I can stand without fatigue for 12 hours, walk 12 miles without breaking sweat, lift 150 pounds without strain and perform at a high level of performance on minimal sleep.

According to the Official VA medical services I should be dead or in a wheel chair.

When I was poisoned I had to fight my way back from the point of death.

Twice in service to my government I lay on the border of life and death while my body regenerated the nerve cells in my CNS, Spinal Cord and peripheral nervous system.

As I sit here I have a complete copy of my medical records, MRI and test results, along with the war records and photos of my family members.

We have only begun to explore the mysteries of DNA and what we are capable of.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 07:13 pm:   

As I sit here tonnight, I am reminded of the amount of time it took for a little understood biological process to regenerate the damage to my brain stem caused by biological and chemical agents.

I posted the above data to prove what is possible, provide hope to those suffering from Neurological damage and what value the information has to those that would exploit me to learn how it works and what the federal government of the United States has been hiding from the rest of mankind.

When I was poisoned in Mexico I sustained major damage to my CNS on par with that I sustained during Operation Desert Storm.

This time the damage I sustained in Mexico was much more severe and resulted in damage to large portions of the CNS. This damage also resulted in my having to be hospitalized in Tampa at the James A. Haley VA Medical Center due to progressive CNS destruction. Signs and symptoms of this included secondary Parkinsonism, loss of Achilles Relexes and damage to both upper and lower motor functions.

5 years after this event I underwent a full neurological work-up at the Newington VA medical center which found the neurological deficiets and damage to have been repaired and healed. All bodily functions were within normal limits for a man of my age and except for weight gain and secondary effects from it nothing negative was found.

Due to neuron regrowth some memories were lost but most remained intact and I am relearning basic data at university that was lost as a result of the CNS damage that was repaired by a little understood biological mechanism that is only now being studied by Harvard Medical School.

In terms of value the monetary amount that such a breakthrough in neuro-regeneration is worth it is in the tens of billions of dollars.

As I sit here after working a long day and standing and walking for more than eight hours, I wiggle my toes and note that my Achilles Tendon relexes are normal and that my MRI still remain normal.

In ancient days we had myths and stories about such events. Today we have science, MRI scanners, genetic testing and bio-research facilities.

Now you know what the federal government, NIH and DOD has been hiding and what walked out of the world of black operations.

I was part of the blackest of black operations.

Having large portions of your CNS destroyed is not fun and very painful. Due to genetics and regenerative ability certain members of my family look up to 15 years younger than their true age and have served the Saints and great leaders of Christianity and Western Civilization down through the ages.

All of which is why my wife and I prefer the book Angels and Demons over the Da Vinci code and why we are welcome in all Churches within Christianity. To those men and women like Jones and David Koresh. Know this, I and my wife are not alone. Others walk this planet as well with similiar capabilities and are a family. Long ago our ancestors bowed to Jesus Christ and his apostles and pledged our service for eternity. For us their is only one son of God. and we serve him still.

It is our belief that in the end all will bow to christ but it neither our purpose or the intent of Christ to force any to worship him. We believe there are many paths to God for those that seek him

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 07:30 am:   

http://www.cellmedicine.com/als.asp

Researchers at Harvard University in collaboration with doctors from Massachusetts General Hospital were awarded an ALS Association grant to study the repair of cortico-spinal motor neuron circuitry by manipulation of endogenous stem cells. The "neural precursors" under investigation have already been manipulated in the adult cerebral cortex, producing neurogenesis in a region of the brain where this does not normally occur. These endogenous cells have also been induced to develop into new cortico-spinal motor neurons (CSMN), the results of which potentially suggest that upper motor neuronal circuitry may be rebuilt from the "inside-out". These researchers are studying the precise molecular signals by which new CSMN are induced, and by which the recruitment, infusion, growth, connectivity and regeneration of functional neurons and synapses from the body's own endogenous stem cells are regulated.

Researchers in the Division of Molecular Neurobiology at the National Institute for Medical Research in London have received a grant from the ALS Association to study the regulation and expression of the "proneural gene neurogenin 2" in the adult spinal cord. Proneural genes have the property of converting cells into neuronal fiber, but they also contain the on-off switch for controlling exactly when and where these fibers will be built. These researchers are focused on the "transcription factor" in these genes which causes the DNA of the responding gene to behave like an on-off switch. If one could discover the precise mechanisms behind this switch, and therefore turn the gene on or off at will, the implications for treating a variety of diseases would be vast.

The above is posted to assist the reader with understanding the mechanisms of neuro-regneration.

The Federal Government made me a lab rat. I decided to rebell in the process I highjacked an intelligence center that was once a nuclear base to prove a point about neuro-regeneration capability while I conducted research on the most classifed databases in the world.

When I left the base I had assembled a group that could field mock-ups of improvised IRA bomb trucks that rallied under the banner of St. George. When I left JAC Molesworth I told them about the Nurenberg Code and what the people would do to men and women that violated it. Then I posted the names of the men and women invovled in this experiment to exploit me on the door of a Church. Following that came a tanker truck loaded with Liquid Natural Gas a bible and a Celtic Cross.

I post the Nurenber Code here for those that would conduct such experienments in the Future and offer the above as an example of what the people would do in such a case.

THE NURENBERG CODE

The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
For more information see Nuremberg Doctor's Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 09:33 am:   

http://www.cnsfoundation.org/site/PageServer

http://www.cnsfoundation.org/site/DocServer/BuildingBrainBridge.mov?docID=162

The websites above include a link to a movie about use of stem cells to rebuild damage to the CNS.

I posted the information above and in previous posting both to provide insight into the process and biological mechanisms that control neuro-regeneration and the pain invovled in recovering from CNS damage for those who have a specific genetic sequence.

I also posted the information on this site as a warning to those men and women that would put greed above care and concern, exploit people for medical purposes in the name of science and indicate what the people would do in the event such became known.

I and my family are pro stem cell research so long as the genetic material used is given freely or would be destroyed if not used.

At the end of WWII we as a world passed judgement on the NAZIs for their abuses of science and human experimentation.

Today around the globe msny nations engage in human experimentation with little or no controls.

These nations include Iran, North Korea, China and a host of others.

In the great war against Nazism free men and women of all faiths and scientists banded together to bring down the Nazis.

In this current age greed and desire for wealth left unchecked will and has resulted in abuses on par with that of Nazi germany.

In opposition to such forces the Alliance of Patriots and myself stand in the shaddows armed with intelligence, computers and networks to bring down men and women that would capitalize on the misery of men and women by exposing such abuses of human rights for the entire world to see.

Such is the fight we and our ancestors have waged for over a thousand years. In ancient days we threw down the preisthoods that burnt children as sacrifices in order to gain temporal power. We then challanged Churches or men that claimed to have a monopoly on the path to salvation in God's name. We then went on to challange the divine right of Kings to rule and in this modern age of media spin men and women that would attempt to rule by fear, lies or arrogance in opposition to the will of the people whom we have pledged to serve in the name of Jesus the Christ, born in Bethlehem, to the house of David so long ago.

For this do we pledge our honor our fortunes and our lives

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 10:48 am:   

A Jewish woman gave the Prophet (peace be upon him) a grilled lamb for a gift. When he (peace be upon him) and his companions started to eat from it, he told them, “Stop eating. This lamb has poison in it.” And one narration says that he said, “This lamb is telling me that it has poison in it.” The Prophet (peace be upon him) went and asked her, “Why did you try to poison me?” She answered, “I wanted to know whether you are a prophet or not. I had thought that if you were a prophet, then God would tell you about it, and if you were a liar, then people would be relieved from you.”

There are authentic narrations that say that the Prophet forgave her and there are other authentic narrations as well that say that one companion by the name of Bishr ibn Al-Bara’ died from that poison and that the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered the woman to be killed for killing him. Scholars have different opinions about which narration is more authentic, but I believe that both of them are authentic and the following is the way by which both could be understood in one context: The Prophet (peace be upon him) at first forgave the woman for trying to poison him but later he ordered her to be killed when Bishr died from the poison. According to Imam Bayhaqi (number 15791), Bishr became sick after the meal and, later on, died from the effect of that poison. So the Prophet (peace be upon him) punished the woman, after she confessed, for being responsible for Bishr’s death.

The direct effect of the poison on the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a mark on his gum that Anas, his companion, said that he could recognize.

There is one narration by Imam Darami (number 67) that suggests that the Prophet (peace be upon him) died because of a long-term side effect of that poison. In that narration, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, days before his death, “I have not been feeling well since that meal I ate at Khaybar. So, it seems that it is time for my heart vasculature to disconnect because of it.” So, according to this narration, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was guessing that the long-term effect of the poison played a role in that sickness, but this guess was never confirmed through a revelation. All other narrations say that the Prophet (peace be upon him) died of a fever, the medical cause of which was not known.

In any case, what the woman claimed, which is that her poison was her proof for whether Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a prophet or not, has no foundation. Many prophets of Allah before Muhammad had been killed and their death was not a sign of them being liars.

The other narrations that you are referring to are correct. The Prophet (peace be upon him) knew about his death from Angel Gabriel and told several of his family members and companions about it. He also referred to his death in the speech of his last pilgrimage, which was months before his death. Allah Almighty also gave him a sign in the Qur’an by the revelation of Surat Al-Nasr that year, which was a sign for the completion of his message, as Ibn `Abbas explains. Then, he was given a choice between becoming a great king on earth and meeting his Lord, and he chose to meet his Lord (refer, for example, to Al-Bukhari, number 80, and Darami, number 79).

With regards to Neuro-regeneration. I was sent in to Saudi Arabia by a network of Christians within the military industrial complex to prove a point to the Islamics. When I was there I was under surveillence of the Imam on the compound.

This Iman was in league with Al Qaeda. After watching and testing me for a period of time, he finally bowed his head to me just before I left. I told him through my interpretor when asked about my faith what I was. I told him I was Caltholic. I also told him that we had many capabilities that we had yet to demonstrate and that to attack us would be a mistake. This was before 9/11 and the Vinnell Arabia compound bombing. I also told him I was aware of attempts to gather data on the Pentagon, Air Defense Systems, chemical biological and nuclear weapons.

He listened to me but would not addmit to what he was doing, the most he did was bend a head to me. Then came 9/11 and the Vinnell Arabia bombings.

On the Vinnell compound the men their discounted the power influence and connections of the Iman or what was going on in the Mosque on the Compound. I did and spoke to him through my interpretor.

I tried to warn the DOD and CIA of what was in the works but they would not listen.

So I decided to prove a point with regards to neuro-regeneration and a particular genetic sequence.

Along the way a number of believers of the Celtic tradition raised the banner of St. George on the Highway next to JAC molesworth.

For those who have eyes the truth can be seen.

We were the best and brightest that fought the Cold War and were thrown out by George Bush who put loyalty above ability.

In this game of National Survival during the ravages of Global Climate Change we hold the line and perform relief operations while the technitions and technologists bring online new technologies.

For 1400 years my family has served the dead, dying, injured and sick. In this war on Terrorism as the storms of Global Climate Change sweep across the lands we continue to hold the line despite the abuses George Bush's administration has piled upon us for we serve not him but God and Jesus Christ and honor all religions

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2007 - 02:41 pm:   

As this thread is about to close it is fitting that we honor the men and women of science.

For me I accept the unique genetic sequence I have that leads to neuro-regeneration as a gift from God. Others may call it a rare mutation. Either way, current science has begun to unravel the mystery of it and the fact that generations of my family have had the ability to regenerate nuerological pathways.

Does this make us supermen. No we still die from other causes like heart disease, diabetes, strokes and cancer.

As the human race evolves parts of this genetic sequence are spreading through the rest of the human race. We are still continuing to evolve.

Hence my afinity for the tree of life motief on my Celtic Cross Ring.

CNS damage, Ruptured Spinal Cord, infection with biological agents and neuro-toxin exposure. Members of my family have evolved to survive under the harshest of conditions.

Some will argue such abilities are the result of extra-terrestrial interaction with mankind, others it is the will of God, and still more that it is a result of evolutionary pressure in the face of changing conditions.

Life is harsh and conditions on other planets that we will visit in the future will challange our abilites to survive in ways we have yet to forsee.

The human race is the most successful and adpatable species on this planet and we continue to evolve. Where we will stand a hundred generations from now is something only God knows

My Best

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 10:12 am:   

I do not know whether this page would close soon. If so, I sign-off. Please read
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/168.html?1169477952#POST3082
for my sign-off statement. Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 07:33 pm:   

A very good sign off statement Mohideen Ibramsha.

I have posted the information here as I was reforging my neuro-pathways and recovering my capabilities.

The biological data posted above and other data I have posted on this site during my healing is intended to provide insight into the nature of human conciousness and CNS as it heals from significant damage.

This process includes going from childish and magical thinking to more reasoned cognition. As my brain healed from damage I have regained much of my previous intellectual and physical abilites.

I have just recieved my grades from last semester at college and have recived two A's one in Human Behavior in the Social Environment and one on Aging in Society. Both were difficult masters level classes. In addition to this I passed my Emergency Medical recertification with superior results

The fact that I could achieve these results following a rupture to my spinal cord, confirmed CNS damge, confirmed 1200 times normal dose of nerve agent, confirmed infection with biological agents, confirmed skull fractures, and confirmed past head injuries is submitted as proof of neuro-regenerative capabilities.

This data along with MRI showing no damage to the CNS or spinal cord and diagnostic testing showing intellectual functioning above normal and being in the top 10 percent of the human race also provided as proof of the power of a specific gene sequence.

That this sequence and the related data above and posted elsewere was exploited for military research purposes is also one of the reasons that this material was submitted and posted here for the entire world to see.

Neuro-regenerative ability coupled to genes for physical prowness and advanced imune systems could lead to the development of super-soldiers capable of fighting and recoving from wounds and illnesses that would kill normal men and women and would be a prize that many nations would kill or do anything to aquire. The same could be said of drug companies that would love to capitalize on these abilities and use them as a guide to developing new classes of drugs or therapies.

Did this happen? Only the federal government, the DOD, CIA and NIH know that for sure.

One hopes the DOD, CIA and Federal Government has learned a lesson about intruding in someones life and medical history.

I hope you pass this data along to your associates in academia and in the Middle East and elsewhere.

For me I respect Islam and despise terrorists, liars and cheats.

I have recently read that Al Qeada is flurishing on the Internet and expanding its reach around the Globe.

Many times you have to fight fire with fire and demonstrate something in order to give the people something else to believe in. It is called hope.

That I am a christian is without doubt. Will I ever renounce my faith. Not until Jesus the Christ comes again and tells me to. Until that day I will fight to defend it to the death. Do I fight to impose my views on others? No I do not. I expect and believe that God has a plan and that in the end it will be revealed to us.

Until then my best.

Allah Akbah, Shalom and Praise be to God. My the Children of Abraham one day walk together in in peace on the shores of oceans on planets we have yet to find orbiting other stars.

Edward A. Chesky Jr
Major, USA
Military Intelligence Corps (Knowledge Is Power)
Retired

Transfixus sed non mortuus" (Pierced but not dead)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon Anon
Posted on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 09:39 pm:   

Procedures governing the activities of DoD intelligence components that affect United States persons, December 1982
-------------------------------------------------
Procedure 13 - Experimentation on Human Subjects for Intelligence Purposes

A. APPLICABILITY

This procedure applies to experimentation on human subjects if such experimentation is conducted by or on behalf of a DoD intelligence component.

This procedure does not apply to experimentation on animal subjects.

B. EXPLANATION OF UNDEFINED TERMS

1. Experimentation in this context means any research or testing activity
involving human subjects that may expose such subjects to the possibility of
permanent or temporary injury (including physical or psychological damage and
damage to the reputation of such persons) beyond the risks of injury to
which such subjects are ordinarily exposed in their daily lives.

2. Experimentation is conducted on behalf of a DoD intelligence component
if it is conducted under contract to that component or to another DoD
component for the benefit of the intelligence component or at the request
of such a component regardless of the existence of a contractual
relationship.

3. Human subjects in this context includes any person whether or not
such person is a United States person.

C. PROCEDURES

1. Experimentation on human subjects conducted by or on behalf of a DoD
intelligence component may be undertaken only with the informed consent of
the subject, and in accordance with guidelines issued by the Department of
Health and Human Services, setting out conditions that safeguard the welfare
of such subjects.

2. DoD intelligence components may not engage in or contract for
experimentation on human subjects without approval of the Secretary or
Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary or Under Secretary of a
Military Department, as appropriate.

With regards to black programs within DOD. The directives on Human experimentation stipulate that they must be approved at the highest levels of the DOD.

As per the information posted above it is clear that the SECDEF was most likely involved in sanctioning experimentation on Ed. By its structure the regulation implies that all material relating to such experimentation must have been classified at the highest levels.

For Good or Ill DOD has opened a can of worms that have spread across the globe via the Internet.

From the medical tests above and the injuries sustained to his CNS Ed has demonstrated neuro-regenerative capability. That DOD was attempting to unlock the mystery of it is highly likely but is most likely classifed at the highest levels

Anon Anon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 05:09 am:   

Thanks Anon Anon,

The last project I worked on was called the Common Intelligence Picture. CIP for short. What DOD and the intelligence community was trying to build was an integrated database that fused and displayed all intelligence information on a Interactive Wall Sized display. The system was to display indicators of impending terrorist attacks from the database as visible icons on the display to key analysts to likely impending terrorist attacks.

Construction of the display was tied to development of advanced algorythms that would shift through all incoming intelligence data to shift for indicators of impending terrorist attacks.

One of the things that was going on a JAC Molesworth was that the Intelligence and Security Services were using me to sift through data in order to find the thought process by which I used to develop indicators of impending terrorist attacks.

When I would not play ball with them, a number of U.S. corporations that were building the system and the Intelligence Community they took away my security clearance and walked me out the door. These corporate entities used financial pressure and threats to get me to cooperate with them when that did not work they upped the stakes.

In response to the pressure I decided to research global warming, religion, earthquake indicators, the state of Faster than Light Research, gravity, the interrogation techniques they were using to abuse prisoners and the like. After I did my research I would go to the Green in the small 800 year old villiage I lived in or the local city center outside a 1000 year old church and would make predictions of events to come for the assembled villiage masses and surveillence cameras and bugs that the intelligence community used to monitor me. I would then drop summaries of the information I collated in the post box and at church.

Every time that the intelligence community upped the pressure to get me to give them the process I used to make predictions I responded by making aditional predictions in public and tied it to those men and women invovled in the project that were riding on my coat tails in terms of predictions.

Things escalated and got a bit out of control. Then the founding families of the United States stepped in and defused the situation.

The total cost to the Federal Government for the CIP program in the black DOD budget was 25 billion dollars US. What I wanted was a share of the profit from the algorythms that they developed to shift through data from my work. They refused. So I decided to use all my skills to bring down George Bush's administration and leak all the data regarding his black programs.

It was a case of both moral and ethics along with self interest that motivated my actions. The moral and ethical component of my personality was outraged by the abuses of prisoners in our care, self interest was outraged by the theft of data and profiting by it by corporations outside the law. So I turned to the churches and the people. This coupled to neuro-regeneration capability was the reason that the people raised the flag of St. George on the Highway outside JAC molesworth.

Such is the nature of the battle I fought and the forces I engaged.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 09:19 am:   

A very good sign off statement Mohideen Ibramsha.
Edward A. Chesky Jr
Posted on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 07:33 pm: Anon


Ed thanks for the kindness. Let me add my bit on the power of the human mind and body.

I worked in the King Saud University, Riyadh from 1984 to 1991. As a faculty member I had direct access to the King Khalid University Hospital, which is a referral hospital for the general Saudi population.

I had tooth ache and the dentist X-rayed and said that one nerve was dead and thus he needed to drill and fill. I underwent the procedure. The pain did not go. During my next visit I was informed that the drilling was done on the adjoining good nerve and that they need to drill again. I was given another appointment.

I decided not to go. I keep fast on 3 days in a week. During the fast we do not take even a drop of water. I used to apply clove oil to subside the tooth ache. During the fast even that could not be done.

I did not have pain when I started the fast. After sometime the pain became unbearable. I was on a dilemma. I could break the fast (as it was voluntary fast) and apply the clove oil or I could bear the pain.

I decided to leave the matter in the hands of God. I offered two units of optional prayer and requested that God cure me. The pain was gone.

One could treat it as a miracle. One could also take it as a sign of the control of the mind over the body. In all probability, just after the prayer the brain turned off the warning signal. Well the tooth healed without external medicine.

The way I would give a scientific explanation is that the brain having understood that I am not going to support it by taking medicine decided to develop the medicine itself.

Your case is a very strong demonstration of the power of the mind over the body. Your will power intervened. The so called medicines are just for support.

I have written this to state that every human has the power to self-heal. Unfortunately the majority do not even try.

May God help the human race to exploit its innate capabilities.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 03:02 pm:   

Thank you for the kind words Mohideen Ibramsha

As to the mechanism of my recovery that I leave to the scientists.

As to the facts of the case I have all of my medical tests and reecords of my injuries here available to me.

This includes MRI films, EMG test result, blood work-ups, infectious disease tests, CSF results, pychological tests and school transcripts.

This tests provide a before and after snapshot of my recovery from CNS damage, infection and head trauma.

That coupled to my predictions and demonstrated ability to predict storm effects, terrorist attacks, earthquakes and the like are posted here along with my geometric work. This couple to my security clearence investigations, shows that the government has covered something up with regards to my case.

During our conversation here thousands of people around the globe have read these postings.

I posted here and did what I did to flush out people that would try and use my statements against me. Input and output on a global scale.

I used all of that to bring down the republican administration that locked me out of government service without firing a shot, or destroying a building.

In Saudi Arabia I moved thousands of game pieces across the great game board using nothing but my mind and a watch. I then developed a plan that destroyed a SANG Brigade using just a company of soldiers.

I used all of that ability to correlate process and visualize information coupled to tactical training to wage a psychological war against the Federal Government of George Bush and Dick Chenny using cutouts, leaks, dead drops and postings on the internet.

I tied this campaign to the forces of religion to raise an opposition to Al Qeada.

In this battle against the federal government a number of innocent people got caught in the psychological crossfire.

I wanted to demonstrate to the world how a man like Nelson Mandela could bring down a government from inside a cell in South Africa and that given access to the internet a genius could do the same thing against the Administration of George Bush from behind the scenes using smoke, mirrors, and deception to cover his tracks.

My services in psychological warfare and predictive analysis are at the disposal of the federal government should they decide to lay down the sword and play nice. As to corporate America, with access to the internet dead drops and globalization I could wage psychological war against any company in a plausable denial manor should I care to do so in the same manor I waged war against the federal government.

I am in the process of assisting with the over throw of the Iranian government by the use of agents within Iranian society, I suspect it will be a time consuming process. I use the techniques of inducing stress coupled to psychological warfare and manipulation to cause people to react to events, in order to chart networks of contacts and back channel information flows. I do this as the same time as I update situational awareness of events and the movement of pieces on the game board I maintain in my mind.

As per R. J. Zlatoper Commander in Chief United States pacific Fleet, my "Invaluable assessments of Chinese Exercise Activity, and North Korean military readiness assisted decision-makers in developing naval deployment schedules and plans for future Pacific Fleet force structure and employment." Additionally, "My proffesionalism, analytical expertise and dedication to duty, reflected great credit upon myself and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the united States Army."

As personaly recognized by the Commander In Chief Pacific Fleet I was one of the best there was in the intelligence corps. All was fine until George Bush decided to play games with intelligence and intelligence officers. Then I took the gloves off and used the same skills I had to bring him down as part of undergound network linked via the internet. I also note per my official military records that I am recognized by DOD and General Wesly Clark former Supream Commander NATO as a trained expert in guerilla warfare and nuclear weapons. When George Bush decided to play a game he made an enemy that had the ability to bring down his government. Such is the caliber of the man that decided to take on director CIA and George Bush over a security clearence.

Should a company wish to hire me to assist the United States in developing a psychological warfare plan against Iran, I would be more than happy to sell my services to them.

I believe I demostrated my abilities well here and look forward to becoming a highly paid consultant once again.

My best to You

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 05:25 am:   

I have just recieved a message from sources inside Iran regarding the potential for an earthquake.

Based upon their analysis of siesmic data the technical secular scientists in Iran feel that another major quake is highly likely. They are concerned about activity along the secondary fault line I and Ivan discussed.

Per the assessment of the Iranian scientists they monitored the recent quake and after shocks that hit Turkey a few days ago. They assess they can withstand a less than mag 4 quake with minimal damage but anything higher on the scale will, given their building standards, result in a high loss of life.

They are angry with the current Iranian government which has diverted funds to it military, nuclear and international terrorism activities at the expense of Iranian society.

I recieved this coded data via a translated message posted on a Iranian News Website.

That for the CIA is how you get data out of a denied area under the control of a dictitorial regime.

I note I read the Book Class 11 on the current group of CIA agents. They have a long way to go to match what organized religion can do.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 03:00 pm:   

Chairman: Bush officials misled public on global warming
POSTED: 2:28 p.m. EST, January 30, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html

As per my assessment on the intelligence community being pressured to keep classified all data on global warming my accurate assessments of the effects of storms based on that classifed data is partially proof that this current adminsitration is suppressing the truth on a scale that rivials that of the Soviet Union at its height.

It is clear that by reviewing those responsible for denying me a security clearance that the Bush Administration has been engaged in a policy of decieving the the United States public.

By back tracking my security clearence and the individuals invovled in processing it in the federal government it is possible to begin to map the network of Bush operatives invovled in suppressing the truth and punishing those that would speak out on the subject of Global Climate Change.

This is why I have turned to the Churches and organized religion for support against the Federal Government and in the process constructed a network of agents and supporters to oppose the current administration.

Locked within the intelligence services databases are classified studies on the effects of Global Climate Change on the planet These studies include its economic and military impacts along with assessemtns on the spread of AIDS and other diseases and the effects these will have on society as conditions change.

Data from these studies along with other data in the possession of the intelligence community indicates that we are entering a period of Global Climate Change. This change will greatly affect our world's society and is likely to result in much loss of life.

In an efforts to control the government this administration put loyalty and ideological purity over ability in terms of selecting people for positions within the government and as a result we failed the innocent men, women and children devestated and killed by Hurricane Katrina.

Such are the actions of the current adminsitration and what they will be judged by in the future.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 12:32 am:   

Venus is truly a strange planet, and hot.

Venus data: http://www.nineplanets.org/venus.html

"Venus' rotation is somewhat unusual in that it is both very slow (243 Earth days per Venus day, slightly longer than Venus' year) and retrograde. In addition, the periods of Venus' rotation and of its orbit are synchronized such that it always presents the same face toward Earth when the two planets are at their closest approach. Whether this is a resonance effect or merely a coincidence is not known."
The planet is very slow retro-spin, but one face will always face Earth upon their closest approach? That is truly odd. What an odd duck planet is Venus! But as a goddess of love and bringer of peace, I'll take her as my own. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 03:49 pm:   

And the Nobel Peace Prize goes to ... Al Gore?
He 'has put climate change on the agenda,' two Norwegian sponsors say
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16920923/

As I sit here at university I think back to all the work I did in terms of selfless service to the United States Government. With all the results of that work taken away from me because of a vengful president and vice president of the United States.

As I sit here I am glad that the subject of Global Warming has been recognized by the Nobel Prize committee. In some measure it is vindication of my work and predictions. I will however, for the rest of my life feel pain from this due to the actions of a vindictive federal government.

From my prediction of damage from Katrina to estimates of earthquake potential, global warming and the rest all I have sought to do was bring warning of what was to come. Because it went against the party line of a government I was locked out of federal service.

Did I and many others see the same things? Yes, it was one of the motivating factors behind the rise of the Alliance of Patriots.

To Al Gore I salute your nomination. You have endured much public ridicule over this subject but in the end Katrina proved us all right.

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, February 03, 2007 - 12:35 am:   

Boltzmann Constant numerical value, and a Gravitational G variable relationship, perhaps?


This is a 'back of the envelope calculation', but there might be one more piece of mathematical evidence in physics that relates to a variable Newton's G. I was casually looking at the Boltzmann Constant when the number of this constant, k = 1.38E-23 Joules/Kelvin, suddenly jumped out at me. It represents, per Wiki: "Boltzmann's constant k is a bridge between macroscopic and microscopic physics. Macroscopically, one can define a (gas scale) absolute temperature as changing in proportion to the product of the pressure P and the volume V that a sample of an ideal gas would occupy at the temperature." I saw this as an 'electron to temperature' relationship, or a micro to macro relationship, that somehow made sense to me. If Boltzmann's constant represents the electron, what is its macro equivalent represented by mass? So I did something, more a doodle, to figure this out. I know electron mass is m_e = 9.109E-31 kg. So dividing Boltzmann's number by this I got:

1.38E-23 J/K divided by 9.109E-31 kg = 0.1515E+8 J/K for kg. mass.

Now, if this is a Kelvin relationship, let's multiply it by Earth's black-body temperature, about 255 K (it varies from 254.3 K to 288 K, depending upon how measured, but we'll use 255 K for convention), so we get:

0.1515E+8 J/K kg. times 255 K = 38.6325E+8 J for kg, or = 3.863E+9 J for kg.

This is an odd result, which means only that we worked out a mass relationship to Kelvin in Joules, but then I tested it against Earth's mass (255 K black-body mass): M_Earth = 5.9736E+24 kg, so we get:

5.9736E+24 kg divided by 3.863E+9 J for kg, and we end up with = 1.546E+15 J (for kg).

This in and of itself is not meaningful, until I remembered that on a prior occasion (which I don't think I ever posted here), I had worked out how much energy difference was required to bring G down from a calculated (per Earth's orbital energy, in Axiomatic) down from 7.235E-11 (or ~7.24E-11) down to our measured 6.67E-11 G, and it worked out (see calculations at bottom) to be (delta)E = 1.54E+16 J. (This is close! .. but also off by one order of magnitude, so still not good enough.) The above, per Boltzmann's, is E (255K) = 0.1546E+16 J. That is most strange, because these two values resemble something else I had worked on, where planetary spin ratios* are related to their black-body temperatures. Strange relationship indeed. Here is a relationship between the electron's mass and Earth's black-body temperature in K, converted into Joules, that yields a value related to hypothesized variable gravity G, as per the Axiomatic Equation.

We know from real life measurements that Earth's G can vary fairly widely, or about 1.6%, which may or may not be Earth black-body temperature related, in fact it may be orbital location related, as mentioned here , where G can range from 6.74 to 6.635E-11, or about 0.105E-11 G, but not enough to account for the theorized 7.235 difference from 6.67E-11. Nevertheless, though largely ignored by cosmology, there seems to be, in addition to Pioneer Anomaly, some reason to hypothesize a variable G. (Another is Venus, where at 95% size of Earth, it's estimated mass (from orbital mechanics) is about 80% of Earth's mass; if Venus is at 0.72 AU from Earth, and it's G is only about 0.75 of Earth's G, then multiplying 95% by 80% gives us 0.784, which is within estimated range.) None of this proves a variable G, but it does point in that general direction: that G is variable, and perhaps that Earth's black-body temperature, as a function of its interior heat and solar radiance, modifies Newton's G by a small amount, to lower it, and give us the measured G = 6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, but this is not the real G for our orbit, which is slightly higher, at G' = 7.235E-11.

[Leaving out the calculations for now, will include at later date.
Note: when I reworked these numbers, they came up with a larger difference for E, by a factor of 10. Here are the computations, reworked:

To calculate Earth's orbital energy delta to a lower 6.67 G, vs. 7.235 G, we can reverse the gravitation conversion equation, G^2 = g c^2 pi^2, which was used to convert the proton-proton gravitational 'constant' 5.9E-39 into Newton's G. Taking the known value of G = 6.67E-11, we can by the numbers find the value for g' (for lower G):

(6.67E-11)^2 = g' (9E+16)(9.86)

44.489E-22 = g (88.74E+16)

g' = 0.501E-38 = 5.01E-39 (vs. 5.9E-39 for Earth's known g)

Now to convert this proton gravitational into proton mass:

g' (proton m) = g (proton m')

so solving for (proton_m') = g'/g (proton_m)

(prot_m') = (5.9E-39/ 5.01E-39)(1.67E-27)

(prot_m') = (0.85)(1.67E-27) = 1.42E-27 kg (which is proton mass equivalent for lower G=6.67E-11)

Applying this into Axiomatic: E = hc/ L(prot_m) = (1-g)c^2, solving for Earth's Energy value (with lower G):

E = (6.626E-34)(3E+8)/ (1.32E-15)(1.42E-27) = 19.878E-26 / 1.874E-42 = 10.6E+16 J

This is (delta) E = 1.54E+16 J, to bring Earth's G down from 7.235E-11 to 6.67E-11 G.

I suspect these are all 'ball park' numbers, but not close enough to call it. The Boltzmann calculation above is 1/10th this value for (delta) E, which implies an interior Earth temperature (what modifies G) as 10 times 255K, but this is still an unknown for now. Can Earth's interior be 2550 K? (Earth's geothermal temperature is estimated at over 5000 K at the planet's core, progressively lower towards the mantle, only 255 K at the surface, so we till don't know what is the average inner planet temperature.) We don't really know.]

*[Spin ratios for planets worked out on these pages, where I worked out a system of using black-body planetary temperatures, in Kelvin, relative to their orbital total energy to come up with a relationship that approximates planetary spin. Though not a perfect fit, there does appear to be some relationship to a planet's temperature to its spin behavior, which may indicate the importance of a planet's Kelvin black-body in terms of its gravitational behavior regarding its spin. (See Jaszz* spin, July 28, 2004 - March 2, 2005, where I calculated spin ratios vs. planetary zero-point-gravity (ZPG) and zero-point-heat (ZPH) I concluded, tentatively, how these two, heat and variable gravity, are indicative of how planets spin.) Also, Atomic Mass paper where it says in the abstract:

quote:

Abstract: Mass is both a function of energy, as per Einstein's famous equation E = mc^2, and also a Quantum function of Planck's constant times c, divided by lambda l times the proton mass, also known as the Planck-DeBroglie equation. It will be shown that in addition to these, mass is also a gravity function, as defined by the Axiomatic Equation, derived here, as an extension of the DeBroglie-Planck-Einstein equation; where the proton mass is a variable, leading to a proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant variable, which can then be computed into Newton's G gravity 'constant'. This Newton's G becomes a function of the Energy region where it is being measured, where for our solar system its delta G increases linearly at the rate of ~7.24E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2 per astronomical unit from the Sun, one AU = ~150E+9 meters. The hypothesis is that what happens to atomic mass at the quantum level is how it converts into Newton's G gravity at the macro level, per the Energy regions where G is measured.


In comparing this to the measured Newton's G on Earth, G = 6.67E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2, which is a difference of D G = 0.57E-11.]

So what have we got here, from this 'back of the envelope' rough calculations? It appears that Boltzmann's gives us an independent calculation for Earth's black-body temperature in Kelvin, which allows us to express it also in Joules, whereby Earth's energy is added to its total orbital energy in order to modify Newton's G to its known measured value, which is less than otherwise calculated by the Axiomatic Equation. It fits, since both numbers for additional Earth energy, both in Kelvin and Joules, approximate each other (within one order of magnitude, so still not close enough). Having figured this into the Axiomatic Equation's conversion to Newton's G, per G^2 = gc^2 pi^2, we come up with a very similar result. How can this be? Unless there is some relationship to Earth's black-body energy, as shown in the planetary spin referenced above, and the planet's gravitational value within its energy orbital value, then these numbers should not come so close into range. We can conclude, tentatively, that Earth's interior energy, what radiates out as black-body temperature, is a factor in lowering Newton's gravity 'constant' G by about 0.57E-11 G from what it should be. However, at this time, the numbers do not match up close enough to call it.

Given all the concerns for Global Warming, I should think there might even be cause to be concerned over it lowering it some more, if G is also Earth Kelvin dependent... But I digress.

This will require further thinking, except for now, there seems to be a micro-electron relationship to macro-energy Kelvin black-body temperature for Earth and its measurable gravitational G. It also appears to validate the conversion equation for Newton's G, as well as the Axiomatic Equation's variable G. Perhaps? Bottom line, we're still off by a factor of 10 on (delta) E.


Ivan

Ps: see my editorial comment here, as to whether or not this is any kind of 'proof' of a variable G.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

aladim
Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 06:58 am:   

Hi again,
I am something like ... comming back here - huh.

Ivan , I want to mention that it was hard for me to understand your theory but I guess that I understand the concept...just can't start reading it...too long man :P.

So - here is something interesting that I guess is related in some way to the Axiomatic Equation.

Copy/paste from the site listed in the end of the post !!!

"Yury N. Ivanov
Mossbauer’s effect and a formula to determine acceleration of the system of oscillators in gravitation field

If a photon with frequency n is emitted at height H over the Earth toward its center, then at the level of Earth’s surface its kinetic energy hn' increases at the expense of decreasing potential energy. So, in accordance with the law on energy conservation, we’ll have:

hn' = hn + mgH = hn + hn/c2 • gH

We assume here that photon’s mass m=hn/c2 doesn’t change. Thus the photon approaches the surface with frequency n, different from the one with which it was emitted. With H=10m

(n' – n)/n = gH/c2 » 1 • 10 –15

This tricky experiment was conducted with the help of Mossbauer effect. But what, in the Earth’s gravitation field, will be discordance of frequencies (Dn) of atoms, if we have a mono-atom crystal, where the distance between the nearest atoms is determined by one loops of a standing wave, i.e. H=ń/2n ?

(n' – n)/n = gń/2c2n
n' – n = g/2c (1.0)

If g = 9,81m/ń2, then Dn = 1.63 •10–8 Hz

Let’s re-write 1.0 formula with respect to acceleration g:

g = 2c(n' – n) = 2ń •Dn
g = 2ń •Dn (1.1)

From this point of view, we see that acceleration g is ensured by frequency gradient Dn emerging in the body’s crystal lattice under the influence of gravitation field (here we do not examine the way it happens). Such is the immediate cause of gravitational movement.

Such a reason of the gravity!


Gravitation force

Classical mechanics states that in the gravitation field Fg=mg. Rhythmodynamics discloses this formula a grade deeper:

Fg = 2mń •Dn (2.0)

with m – being index of proportion, quantitative measure of wave links in the body’s crystal lattice.

From 2.0 follows that Fg=0 if frequency difference, at least atomic level of matter organization, is absent (Dn=0). This conclusion is especially important, because it helps understand what must be changed in the bodies to reach antigravitation effects.

Another important thing is that elements of quantum physics have emerged in the formulas of classical mechanics. But that’s another aspect of rhythmodynamics.

Important is that elements quantum physicists appeared in formula classical mechanical engineers. This is a serious application for association these scientific directions."

Hope this helps.

The site is -> http://www.mirit.ru/index_en.htm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 06:59 pm:   

Rhytmodynamics, wow!

Thanks Aladim, for links, will read up some more.

About Axiomatic too complicated, as per my other post here: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=3230#POST3230

It's not really complicated. What I did was take Planck's E = hf, where h is Planck's constant, f is frequency, and converted it into de Broglie's E = hc/L, where c is lightspeed in vacuo, L is electromagnetic lambda, and further modified into Axiomatic, which is E = hc/L(proton mass), where L = 1.32E-15 m, and proton mass (for E = 9E+16 J - one kilogram of Earth mass) gives us proton mass = 1.67E-27 kg.

Now, taking this E = hc/L(prot m) as the 'left side' of the Energy equation, the Axiomatic matches it against the 'right side' of the equation, which is a modified Atomic Mass equation: E = (1-g)c^2, where "1" is atomic mass, always, in whatever units of kg we use, i.e., kg/kg (important if G varies, per Equivalence), and the little "g" is a proton mass gravitational function, i.e., 5.9E-39, which is either dimensionless, or in volts (?). That's it!

The rest is simply plugging in numbers for planetary orbital Energies, and the rest follows. The proton mass gravitational g converts into Newton's G by multiplying it by c^2 and pi^2, then taking the square root. It's all in the paper.

I'll write more when studied more of yours.

Cheers, 'dosvidannia', Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

aladim
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 08:09 am:   

Ivan , I am wondering how you can show/proove/experiment your thesis..
I mean is it possible to simulate it on a PC cuz as I see you are talking for great distances so we can't put sensors over there to measure..
I guess that if you clear the mathematical model we can use similar technic like Ed (for the earthquakes) but in this case we can use information from telescopes...There are easy to use softwares...like some of the COMSOL products!

www.comsol.com take a look - and please tell me is it possible to make some kind of (show and proove) :?)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 06:44 pm:   

Thanks Aladim,

As to my visulization of the geometry of spacetime. What I saw in exploring the Quadratrix of Hippias and the solution to the billiard problem is similiar to what other geometrists saw down through the ages but could not express in terms of math or words.

Great geomtrists tend to become overcome by the transcendental nature of the insight they gain from creating a solution to a problem. Their work often is used by others to push forward physics, math, computer science, cryptography and other fields.

What I saw like the other geometrists before me was that all of the forces of the universe were connected at a common level. This lead me to develop and intuitive understanding of these forces which I then used to look for patterns in data from a variety of sources. These sources included NASA satellights, tidal measurements, and a host of other sensors. I also looked at biological based sensors for data, with the premise that after millions of years of evolution that biological organisms would have to a degree been shaped by these forces and could have, in different species developed sensitivity to certain shifts in fundamental forces.

I cross referenced all of this data and was able to make some accurate assessments of the likelyhood of earthquakes occuring based on a knowledge of geological forces and data from earth measuring sensor systems.

To back up my claims of analytical ability I coupled my assessments to predictions of Al Qeada activity based on analysis in changes in terrorist data patterns and other sources to lend credability to my predictions of activity.

I then posted the data here to stimulate the very conversation you are having with Ivan and provoke thought on these subjects.

I based on training and ability am limited in what I can do and articulate. It is my hope that others like yourself from around the world will take what I have done and work with it to better understand the forces involved in these predictions and advance science.

I hope you pass help pass the word around the world that we are closer to and understanding of these forces and that with work, creativity and insight into them, flight to the stars is possible.

From simple tools and imagination the ancients of the world discovered geometry and opened our eyes to worlds that we are only begining to understand. In large part Einstien's work was based on geometry. Each field contributes to each other and we move one step closer to understanding how everything is connected.

Be Well and best wishes. May freedom of thought and the right to education, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and freedom from tyrany reign across the human race.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

aladim
Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 08:03 pm:   

Ed ,
I was thinking for the billard problem...before,when I posted my first post here .. 4-5 months ago I was very happy when I found the info about the mobius ressistor..in my openion it is an incredible thing,common things can be done with light source,I think that the light pressure is doing a serious work out there in space .
So I think that the mobius strip is a real (let me say) 3D'metrical constant , just becouse if we expand the width of the strip with permanent "radius" in one moment there will be a collision in the center of the system and we can take this width for constant...So if we need a constant we can take it from tehere I guess.
Other thing i want to mention - the numbers are an abstract brainbugging theory and they can be used only for finger calculations...they show nothng but as close as they can ,they will never do the real work...
I will explain what I think just becouse I guess that somebody will disagree.........

If we start moving from point A to point B and we have the perfect distance measurement equipment we will calculcate something like 9,8,7,6,.....0.9,0.8,0.7......0.00001,..., 0.000001 and if our "distance sensor" can measure anything we want(is perfect)...all the time will not be enough for our sensor to show NULL.Infact if the time exist the NULL can't exist... it is the very very very abstract thing that I think nobody can explain with math ,but as you can see the words are woking fine :-) ...
So the point is ... geometry rules...but in real world we can make experiments only if we use numbers ... so ... ... ... We will use positions and other things only if we can measure distance...but if we want to measure a NULL distance...the unknown things are comming ...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aladim
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 05:42 am:   

Please take a look at the text and the images...
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tripole.htm

I am wondering if we have a "flexible"/"plastic" permanent magnet and we try to make a Mobius strip with it than it will connect like this upleft ( + ) to down right ( - ) so the magnetic field will make a recursion...As I know electromagnet with the form of a Mobius strip will have 4 poles :!)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 10:17 am:   

Prime numbers may be at fault?

I think in yours, Aladim, the reason this is true:

quote:

If we start moving from point A to point B and we have the perfect distance measurement equipment we will calculcate something like 9,8,7,6,.....0.9,0.8,0.7......0.00001,..., 0.000001 and if our "distance sensor" can measure anything we want(is perfect)...all the time will not be enough for our sensor to show NULL.Infact if the time exist the NULL can't exist... it is the very very very abstract thing that I think nobody can explain with math ,but as you can see the words are woking fine ...
So the point is ... geometry rules...but in real world we can make experiments only if we use numbers ... so ... ... ... We will use positions and other things only if we can measure distance...but if we want to measure a NULL distance...the unknown things are comming ...


It is because prime numbers get in the way, since they cannot be divided by anything but themselves. So the square of the sides of a triangle, Pythagorean theorem's c^2 = a^2 + b^2, works only as an approximation, of necessity, of the real analog geometrical version, but it cannot fully reflect itself algebraically if there are prime numbers involved. Taking the square root of a prime number gives us only an approximation, but close enough for most of our mathematical needs. Another example is digital numbers only give an approximation of pi.

More later on the other, heading out to work.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 12:23 pm:   

Rhythmodynamics revisited, with a 'bias' spider-effect built in as motion.

spidanim.gif

Thanks for the link on Ivanov's Rhythmodynamics, Aladim, most interesting way to look at motion in the universe.

In yours, http://www.mirit.ru/index_en.htm , I'll have to revive my old Russian to read most of it, which is very poor. But I did read up on his works at: http://www.keelynet.com/spider/b-115e.htm , and read all 26 frames, so have some sense of where Ivanov is coming from. In particular, his idea of 'spiders' effect caused by interference patterns of matter in motion has potential, if the 'bias' of such molecular motion is taken into consideration. Think about it, if all molecules affected by this 'spider-effect' have a bias in any one direction, meaning they will wobble slightly more on balance one way than any other, a motion of the aggregate matter must result in that direction. I suspect this is what happens to matter in any accelerated motion, that this bias is what causes the motion to occur. The real trick, as Ivanov at the end of this paper says, is to recreate it artificially. We still cannot do this, but his math shows that is should be possible. And if we do, then we recreate what gravity does to us here, driving us downwards with accelerative motion towards the Earth. This is a purely gravitational effect, but we cannot as yet duplicate it. Are UFOs powered by this effect? I suspect they are. But until we can find gravity is NOT a universal constant as now believed by Science, but is a variable instead, which means it is also a manipulative force, then we are still unable to go to the next step.

So in yours:

quote:

Ivan , I am wondering how you can show/proove/experiment your thesis..
I mean is it possible to simulate it on a PC cuz as I see you are talking for great distances so we can't put sensors over there to measure..


There is no effective way to test experimentally for variable G cum radiant energy differentials posited by the Axiomatic Equation, except to go there in situ and see what we get. What is Newton's G on Mars, or Saturn? We have no idea.

At present, the only 'proof' I can find that a variable G may exist, such as hypothesized in HYPOTHETICAL ATOMIC MASS AS A GRAVITY AND ENERGY FUNCTION is in anecdotal evidence, both internally within the Axiomatic Equation, and externally in what we observe astronomically. On Earth, we simply cannot know, not unless we can duplicate this gravitational effect as postulated by Ivanov's Rhythmodynamics, with a bias to effect accelerative motion.

Here are some anecdotal reasons why this variable, and manipulative, gravity G is a possibility:
  • Converting Energy into gravity G, per Axiomatic, shows G for the planet orbital energies, as in above paper, grows at a constant linear rate of about 1G per 1 AU.
  • Einstein's STR is perhaps best simplified when reduced to what it really is, an 'observational' effect of Doppler shifted electromagnetic energy, where constant velocity of energy relative to observer is either red or blue shifted; that is STR math in a nutshell.
  • The Pioneer Anomaly, per Axiomatic, closely matches gravity G growing at 1G per 1 AU.
  • Titan moon has very thick (98% nitrogen vs. Earth's 80% nitrogen) atmosphere, about 4 times Earth's, for a body about 0.225 Earth's mass, in gravity only 0.14 g of Earth's, with a mean radius 0.404 Earth's; how can that be with a 'universal constant' G? - it should be about 9.5 G. ##
  • Dark Matter Galaxies**, which make more sense if Newton's G is very high in low radiance regions of space (normal baryonic matter is invisible to us if of low radiance), so is not some exotic matter, but ordinary low luminescence matter that acts gravitationally as if very high G, as postulated by Axiomatic.
  • MOND effect of flat rotation curves for outer galaxies and galaxy clusters.

This is not all inclusive list, since there may also be variable G effects on planetary spin (Earth spins slightly slower at perihelion than aphelion, for example), comet body behaviors in highly elliptical orbits (where they compact more mass very far out, but de-compact mass closer in as cometary tails), planetary density anomalies, Bouguer effect of anomalous gravitational measurements of mountains and valleys on Mars and Venus, galactic black holes super gravity, etc. All are only anecdotal for now. We still simply do not know, so have much research to do. But if G is variable, throw out Einstein's creative math, and get back to reality, even if a century late. And then let's fly, with a bias-rhythmodynamic generating machine, to the stars!

Here's another page explaining Ivanov's idea: http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/wsm/ivanov.html Catch the wave! :-)


Ivan

**[Note the contradiction in this article on Invisible (dark) Galaxy says: "Theorists have long said most of the universe is made of dark matter. Its presence is required to explain the extra gravitational force that is observed to hold regular galaxies together and that also binds large clusters of galaxies." If 'dark matter' is non-interactive with ordinary matter, how can it 'clump' together into large clusters of galaxies?]

##(Due to extreme low temps on Titan, both worlds cannot be equated for atmospheric density, where it should be greater for Titan; however, if 0.14g for Titan is X 9.5G, we get 1.33, which is in line with reported 1.5 times Earth atmospheric pressure at the surface of Titan, given low Kelvin there.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aladim
Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 02:18 pm:   

Ivan ,
The site can be viewed in english and there is a library section from where you can download and read PDF documents written in english :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tattoo
Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 06:29 pm:   

TESTING TESTING

2.jpg

2.jpg

Tattoo tatto :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 09:49 pm:   

Can the Casimir effect be understood as a function of space-gravity, un-modified by electromagnetic energy?

If this effect is due, per Wiki, to the Zero-point energy, which is a synonym of the vacuum energy, then it might stand to reason that space-energy is itself a gravity-energy, that which is perhaps exhibited by the Casimir effect. In theory, spontaneous emission, where an atom in excited state loses an electron spontaneously, happens in a quantum field contrary to Quantum Theory. As per wiki: "Quantum mechanics explicitly prohibits spontaneous transitions. That is, using the machinery of ordinary first-quantized quantum mechanics, if one computes the probability of spontaneous transitions from one stationary state to another, one finds that it is zero. In order to explain spontaneous transitions, quantum mechanics must be extended to a second-quantized theory, wherein the electromagnetic field is quantized at every point in space." Something like this spontaneous radiation may be related to the Casimir effect, where the quantum energy equation, E = hf, is modified as E = 1/2 hf, where h is h-bar. Further, "Summing over all possible oscillators at all points in space gives an infinite quantity. To remove this infinity, one may argue that only differences in energy are physically measurable; this argument is the underpinning of the theory of renormalization. In all practical calculations, this is how the infinity is always handled. In a deeper sense, however, renormalization is unsatisfying, and the removal of this infinity presents a challenge in the search for a Theory of Everything. Currently there is no compelling explanation for how this infinity should be treated as essentially zero; a non-zero value is essentially the cosmological constant and any large value causes trouble in cosmology." But this problem of infinities can be easily resolved with a theory of unity summations, where zero X infinity = one. If so, the cosmological constant is unnecessary, nor is cosmological space expansion; since the zero-point energy is expressed in its inverse, which together equals a unity of one.

Experimentally, though calculated in theory by Hendrik Casimir, the results were not obtained until nearly a half century later: "The Casimir effect was measured more accurately in 1997 by Steve K. Lamoreaux of Los Alamos National Laboratory and by Umar Mohideen of the University of California at Riverside and his colleague Anushree Roy. In practice, rather than using two parallel plates, which would require phenomenally accurate alignment to ensure they were parallel, the experiments use one plate that is flat and another plate that is a part of a sphere with a large radius of curvature. In 2001, a group at the University of Padua finally succeeded in measuring the Casimir force between parallel plates using microresonators." But did they understand what they were actually measuring, or was it coincidental to the quantum calculations by Hendrick? Virtual particles? Hawking radiation from Black Holes? Van der Waals force? A repulsive 'casimir effect'? Not. The attraction between two dialectric highly polished plates has been observed, and explained somewhat successfully as the 'pressure' of electromagnetic energy waves against the plates, thus pushing them together. But the real explanation has remained elusive, if the real reason for this 'pulling effect' on the plates is not push, but in fact gravitational in nature: remove the electromagnetic modifying energy from between the two place, where the e.m. lambda is larger than the space between them, and you recreate a very small gravity micro-black-hole condition where the gravity G effect is enlarged sufficiently to be measurable. Remember that the Sun's rays of energy are all pervasive here, at all wavelengths of radiant energy, so to successfully overcome this solar energy effect, that which keeps G very low, takes extraordinary conditions; which is why Casimir effect had been so difficult to measure in the past. But now that it had been achieved, the reason for its working may not be what Hendrik calculated, but a very simple inverse relationship between e.m. radiant energy and gravity; or in effect, a force out of nothing. Note something interesting:

quote:

While the Casimir force is too small to be observed for mirrors that are several metres apart, it can be measured if the mirrors are within microns of each other. For example, two mirrors with an area of 1 cm2 separated by a distance of 1 µm have an attractive Casimir force of about 10^-7 N - roughly the weight of a water droplet that is half a millimetre in diameter.


That is about what Newton's G should be in deep cold space between galaxies, nearly 50,000 times greater than here on Earth's 10^-11 N. Is this mere coincidence, counting apples and oranges? Something to think about! :-)

Will post more if I find out more, or anyone else knows more. Thanks.

Ivan

[At super cold temperatures, could near-zero quantum state frictionless Superfluidity be caused by proton-proton positive charge repulsion? If the negative-charged electron is so degraded by cold temps that it ceases to counter-balance the positive-charged proton, and floats free (superconductivity), then this Superfluidity makes sense as to why super chilled helium atoms would climb the wall.]
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, March 01, 2007 - 11:18 pm:   

Casimir effect -2, continued: a force from nothing

In this PhysicsWeb article, it says:

quote:

Another problem with calculating the expected Casimir force for a real system is the fact that experiments are never carried out at absolute zero - as originally envisaged in Casimir's calculations - but at room temperature. This causes thermal - as well as vacuum - fluctuations to come into play. These thermal fluctuations can produce their own radiation pressure and create a bigger Casimir force than expected. For example, the Casimir force between two plane mirrors 7 µm apart is twice as large at room temperature than at absolute zero. Fortunately, thermal fluctuations at room temperature are only important at distances above 1 µm, below which the wavelength of the fluctuations is too big to fit inside the cavity. -(italics mine)


I find this information rather telling, that thermal differences can influence the Casimir effect. There is further relationship of this effect to 'spin' in another web site (though cannot vouch how sophisticated its science): Casimir effect, http://www.halexandria.org/dward152.htm , where it says:

quote:

According to Casimir [2]: “For a spherical shell the electromagnetic mass at low velocities is given by 2/3 e2/Rc, where the “additional field energy” for low velocities is 1/2 me v2.”  In this regard, me is the electromagnetic mass, with the experimental mass being the sum of electromagnetic and mechanical masses.  It seems plausible that the electromagnetic or EM mass, i.e. the “self-energy” corresponding to the EM mass, is just the Spin Energy.  
--(bold mine)


How is the Casimir effect related to 'spin' with temperature differentials? This reminds me of the work that seemed to point to a 'heat to spin ratio' relationship I had worked out earlier for the nine (now eight!) planets: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/145.html , where a temperature differential from interior heat and exterior solar energy seemed to match up rather nicely with planetary spin. Alas, none of this is developed any further, and cannot be until such time that gravity G is shown through empirical evidence to be a variable, with distance from hot star energy source, like our Sun.

More to think about...

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 09:25 am:   

Casimir effect -3, continued: http://www.halexandria.org/dward152.htm

quote:

Furthermore, Rindler [3] has noted the implied interactions between electromagnetism and inertia. A result of this is that “a minute magnetic field should arise within any massive rotating shell with stationary charges inside it.” [emphasis added]


Why does rotating a sphere produce a 'minute magnetic field' with a stationary charge inside it? Is this what should happen when a partial vacuum sphere of ionized gas spins, so a magnetic field results? If this should prove so, then is the magnetic field akin to that produced from the galaxy center's black hole? Is there a connection here, that when hot plasma in a partial vacuum is spun, its center develops an anomalous micro-black-hole, with the characteristics described? And if this were so, then the same gravity should also be evident. Any one ever tested for this? Perhaps we should treat 'plasma mass' as something different, with a new symbol: m_+

Sonoluminescence, the answer may lie here. Why would an undisturbed atom send out a photon? If the above should work out experimentally, one of the byproducts should be light. More to look into...

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 06:07 pm:   

More on Sonoluminescence, from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

Sonoluminescence.jpg
[Long exposure image of multi-bubble sonoluminescence created by a high intensity ultrasonic horn immersed in a beaker of liquid.]

Perhaps this is chasing shadows, but here's what caught my eye:

quote:

Writing in Nature, chemists David J. Flannigan and Kenneth S. Suslick study argon bubbles in sulfuric acid and show that ionized oxygen , sulfur monoxide, and atomic argon populating high-energy excited states are present implying that the bubble has a hot plasma core.


And also:

quote:

An unusually exotic theory of sonoluminescence, which has received much popular attention, yet is considered to have a marginal effect on the mechanism of SBSL by the scientific community at large, is the Casimir energy theory proposed by Claudia Eberlein, a physicist at the University of Sussex. In 1996, it was suggested that the light in sonoluminescence is generated by the vacuum around the bubble in a process similar to Hawking radiation, the radiation generated by the edges of black holes.


This is beginning to look like, more feel like, a gravity cum plasma effect of the 'bubble' sonoluminescence. If ionized plasma responds to the energy of sound waves by giving off light, and perhaps magnetic energy, something is going on here. Vacuum energy? Perhaps. Or perhaps concentrated gravitic energy from plasma core 'bubbles' that act as if they collapsed into a microscopic nano meter 'black hole' effect, in microseconds, to give off a burst of light? Too early to tell, but the evidence is beginning to look telling, if not contestable that it is truly a Standard Model quantum effect. It might be a gravity hole effect instead... Need more info here.

Just a thought, not conclusive enough, so filing it here for future reference.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anonymous
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 01:23 pm:   

Einstein Wrong?

Here is a forthcoming documentary that will tackle Einstein myth: http://www.einsteinwrong.com/main/

From site: "Ask yourself this: would your life change if Einstein's theory of relativity were wrong? The answer is yes, but not because of what you would loose - which is nothing - but for what the world stands to gain." --David de Hilster, Director

Let's see what happens... This could be good! :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 02:12 pm:   

From the above site on Einstein is wrong: http://www.einsteinwrong.com/main/index.php?module=faq&FAQ_op=view&FAQ_id=9

quote:

Q:  
Why are people so upset about the idea that Einstein may be wrong?

A:
It is an emotional problem, not a scientific one. Although there are more and more people and proof as to why Einstein is wrong, and there are some very viable directions as to what is right, a very small vocal minority use Einstein to achieve acceptance, social status, and even admiration from other human beings who think they are "really smart".

If Einstein were 100% right, the reaction to the idea of Einstein being wrong would not bother anyone. It would be like a documentary about the earth being flat. No one would care or be upset. That idea is too absurde.

But the idea of Einstein being wrong is not absurd and everyone who knows some science knows this. People only get upset when they really feel their status is threatened and that the attack could be real.

The violent reactions against this film are emotional. Deep down inside people really feel that someone may someday come along and show that physics really is in a mess.

Anger comes from hurt and the hurt is that Einstein's relativity has intrinsic properties that make everyone question it from the first time they hear it and doubt overshadows relativity from beginning to end. That does not happen with Newton's theory or in modern chemistry which are understood by the masses and used everyday. This is not true for the fantasies of relativity, black holes, wormholes, the big bang and the like.


Very interesting indeed! If Einstein's image is so important to some people's "self image" of how smart they are, just think what will happen when he is truly proved wrong. This is as big as Ptolemeic astronomy and Copernicus, in the 21st century. Much ado 'bout nothin', except for the research funding lost.

My opinion? See Brilliant Mind of Einstein

Thanks Anony. Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 08:46 pm:   

Yes a good post Ivan,

As I look back at my postings I can see where the line between rationality, brilliance and maddness lays. Thanks to drug therapy, counseling and the support of family and friends I crossed back from the area that lays outside rational thought. It was a journey into non-Euclidean space time geometry.

Duing my journey I glimpse something outside the rational. From it came the knowledge to solve the billiard problem, chart earthquakes that in turn mirrored the gravity map of NASA, predict the devestation of Katrina and see the pattern in the actions of Osama and Al Qeada.

In venturing outside the rational I saw something that made no sense in Einstein's view of the universe. It was a common underlaying linkage that binds everything.

I saw it reflected in geometry.

As to where we go from here, I leave that to other minds for I have found to press beyound that point is something I can not do for it leads to a place we are yet not equiped to understand.

It may be that such an understanding lays beyound us now but not in the future.

As to me I am off on vacation to Africa in the morning. To see the great animals and the ancient land we all came from so long ago.

I will drop by here when I get back to see how things are progressing here.

All my Best

Edward A. Chesky Jr
Major United States Army
Military Intelligence Corps
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon Anon
Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 08:50 pm:   

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030723.html

It was a work of true brilliance that comes but once a generation.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 09:49 am:   


quote:

As to me I am off on vacation to Africa in the morning. To see the great animals and the ancient land we all came from so long ago.


Bon voyage Ed, you'all have a great time in that fabulous continent of Africa. I only saw the northern tip, but someday hope to see more of the rainforests and southern regions. Have a fabulous time, looking forward to hearing from you upon return. Safe trip.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 07:15 am:   

Do we talk about marvels of engineering here?

Visit http://www.grandcanyonskywalk.com/home.html and enjoy a dream come true.

Read also http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2143809820070322?src=032207_0853_FEA TURES_witness%3A_grand_canyon_skywalk&pageNumber=1
===
In the following story, he describes how it felt to step out over the abyss.
===

The engineers have dared and constructed a cantilever bridge into the Grand Canyon. I do hope that they have put stress sensors to keep the stress on the bridge within safe limits.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 09:42 pm:   

Grand Canyon Walkway opens, the video:
http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=45964

Thanks to Mohideen, for the Reuters story.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 06:44 pm:   

Sun's Atmosphere Sings:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070418_solar_music.html

This is not surprising given that the Universe is harmonic. I had worked out natural Pythagorean scales harmonics of hydrogen (see post August 25, 2002), for electron shells, which is an apparent musical relationship right down to the atomic level. The Sun is believed to be mostly hydrogen.

So it is not surprising that our Sun puts out harmonics similar to a musical instrument. The Universe may be a very musical place, from the atom to the soul. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

The poet
Posted on Sunday, April 29, 2007 - 10:49 pm:   

One man saw the rythmn in the harmonics of the sun

He worked to understand its effects as the earth on its axis spun

Fire, floods, earthquakes and famine did he see

While recovering from the poison that forced him to his knees

Some called him mad while others spoke of his genius

What ever he was he was not like the rest of us

For when a government failed to listen

The peoples eyes with tears did glisten

The Poet

I have attached a link to a website that discusses toxic poisoning

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1677.htm

When you look at it you will understand what one man had to endure and overcome.

We watched here as that man recovered from poisoning, left crippled and nearly homeless by an ungrateful nation and presidential administration that was more concerned with protecting secrets than it heros. A government and Army that lied about Tillman to capitalize on his fame and staged a photo op resque of a woman soldier in Iraq.

While government played games he used his genius at wargames and knowledge of intelligence to stabalize a nuclear crisis in India and advance the field of geometry.

The cost was chemically induced pyschos and pain beyound imagination to recover from it.

Now we know what blew a hole through the republican lies which the democrats exploited to regain control of a government and bring a president to his knees.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 09:58 am:   

Sun's Atmosphere Sings:
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 06:44 pm: Ivan


I hope the scientists record that low frequency music, shift the frequency up and record it for all to hear. Of course it would be better if they could give us an audiovisual treat of the phenomenon using timed snapshots of the corona along with the time compressed music.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 11:57 am:   

What would an Alien civilization look like? What common language could we speak?

In the Space.com article, "Culture in the Cosmos", they mention mathematics as being a common universal language. I think music is the better one, since all things in the universe display harmonics. Even our Sun sings, as per: The Sun sings post earlier, where I have a link to when I discovered electron shells of hydrogen have a Pithagorean musical scales harmonics relationship. The Sun is largely hydrogen, and it is why life on Earth exists. The universe is a universal Being made up of these harmonic scales, down to the music we hear, right down to the atomic construct of all existence. If there are other cultures and civilizations we are yet to meet, they will be musical as well. I would love to hear them sing. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/boom
Posted on Friday, June 22, 2007 - 09:14 pm:   

I was sitting in my office at work, about quarter to one, Pacific time, when I suddenly heard a big boom rattling my window. I immediately checked the earthquake report, but none there. Then upon further checking, I found the Suttle Atlantis landed in California, so it may have passed overhead as it reentered atmosphere. Now I know, not an earthquake, but a pretty solid "boom!" from space. :-)

_42415440_shuttlelands_ap203b.jpg

(Note, I had left open 'posting portal' while working on some stuff, but will reclose it again tomorrow. We'll reopen this for real in September. But thanks Preacher! - good post.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/BAUT-lost
Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 02:27 am:   

RE "Visible vs Known vs Actual Universe, c, and expansion effects" posts lost on BAUT, retrieved in part from Google cached.


iron_meteorite.jpgmugaliens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dortmund
Posts: 2,754
Visible vs Known vs Actual Universe, c, and expansion effects

I've been struggling with this concept for some time, but I believe I finally have a handle on it, thanks in part to this article:

(please - no quibbling on exact dates - it's the concepts which are important):

The visible universe is 13.7 billion years old. The most distant observable objects, at the observable edge, gave off it's energy 13.7 billion years ago. This "edge" isn't a function of our inability to see further, but rather, that's all there is - there is no "further" edge. There's no other energy reaching us from beyond that distance. Thus, the observable universe is 27.4 light years across.

The known universe is 13.7 billion light years distant plus a distance equivalent to how far the edge has travelled in the 13.7 billion years since it eminated that energy. If we assume that the edge is defined by the travelling energy itself, and that it was radiated in all directions, then we can assume that the known edge is 27.4 billion light years distance, and that the known universe is 54.8 billion light years across.

The edge of the known universe must also be adjusted for universal expansion. How much it's to be adjusted I haven't a clue (perhaps someone who has a clue can chime in with the details). I've heard distances in the fifty billion light year range (expansion effects stretch c as much as it does the distance, therefore no adjustment required), as well as in the 90s, and the 120s, based on non-equilibrium expansion effects on c vs distance.

We don't know how old the actual universe might be, or how large it might be, because we simply can't observe anything beyond the 13.7 billion light-year limit. It might actually be 54.8 billion light years across. It might be 92 or 128 billion light years across. It might be infinite. It's topology might not be spherical at all, but any number of warped globs, clusters, or even multiverses. If we can't observe anything older than 13.7 billion years, and we find that c remains inviolate (ie, we'll never travel faster than c), then we may never know what, if anything, lies beyond the known edge of the universe.

Even the known edge is derived from the observable edge.

It could be that the observable edge hit a proverbial wall 4.3 billion years after it gave off it's energy 13.7 billion years ago. It could be that said energy is rebounding towards us and will reach us in 8.6 billion years, and that it's already anhilated the outer 5.1 billion light years of the observable universe.

Obviously, the last paragraph is purely hypothetical. The issue remains that it's possible (however unlikely) simply because we cannot see/measure beyond the 13.7 billion year limit.
__________________
Many of our approaches to new technology and science is like trying to club someone to death with a loaded Uzi.

The repetitive use of logical fallacies is hazardous to one's mental health.

"Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite." - Heinlein
 
Yesterday, 07:53 PM

enceladus_earth.jpgnutant gene 71
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: desert city limits, CA USA
Posts: 463
Where's 'Ground Zero' in an expanding universe?


quote:

Originally Posted by mugaliens
I've been struggling with this concept for some time, but I believe I finally have a handle on it, thanks in part to this article:

(please - no quibbling on exact dates - it's the concepts which are important):

The visible universe is 13.7 billion years old. The most distant observable objects, at the observable edge, gave off it's energy 13.7 billion years ago. This "edge" isn't a function of our inability to see further, but rather, that's all there is - there is no "further" edge. There's no other energy reaching us from beyond that distance. Thus, the observable universe is 27.4 light years across.

The known universe is 13.7 billion light years distant plus a distance equivalent to how far the edge has travelled in the 13.7 billion years since it eminated that energy. If we assume that the edge is defined by the travelling energy itself, and that it was radiated in all directions, then we can assume that the known edge is 27.4 billion light years distance, and that the known universe is 54.8 billion light years across. ...(snip)...



I think the answer to your question is 54.8 billion light years across... But...

Walk yourself through it. Assuming 'Ground Zero' was 13.7 billion years ago, then the universe has been expanding since in all directions from every point within itself for all that time, allegedly uniformly, though 'acceleration' may play a part in this. This means that where we are, here on Earth, was but one more 'ground zero' point in that universe, while simultaneously 13.7 BLYs away was also one more 'ground zero' point in that universe. Looking in the opposite direction, 180 degrees, the same 'ground zero' is also 13.7 BLYs away. If the universe were expanding uniformly from 'ground zero' in all diretions at the Hubble constant (assuming no other factors are in play here, 'tired light' or 'gravitational light redshifting' etc), then it of necessity puts the 'Whole Universe' at 4 times the radial observational distance of 13.7 BLYs, or a total size of 54.8 billion light years, if it had been expanding for 13.7 billion years from 'Ground Zero'.

Now, our astronomical instruments may be hampered by the 13.7 BLY limit, meaning we can't see beyond that distance since the light seems to redshift to the point of invisibility; but there should be a whole other universe of equal size beyond it, if our Earth's observations 'ground zero' is but one more point within the totality of the universe. There is one problem, though, and this perhaps puts your question into the ATM sections, that no matter how we look upon it, Earth's 'Ground Zero' is always at the center of the universal totality. And that is a problem of mega proportions indeed, because ALL points in the universe are simultaneously 'ground zero' from their perspective.

Consider this conundrum: If every point in the universe is simultaneously 'Ground Zero' throughout the universe, then some points must of necessity be on the perimeter of the universal totality. But that's impossible if every point was 'Ground Zero' simultaneously at the origin of the Big Bang. So either of two things are at work here: 1) there was no Big Bang and there is no expansion, except as an optical illusion for our line of sight; or 2) what is observable for us within our 13.7 BLY 'bubble' is but one tiny part of what is in fact the total universe, and we simply cannot access the rest of it.

So where does that leave the original sentence, that the universe must be 54.8 billion light years across? Well, as you pointed out in yours... pick a number.
__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer
Last edited by nutant gene 71 : Yesterday at 08:18 PM. Reason: "r" key prob - spelling
======================================================
[Note, this above and subsequent posts were lost on BAUT when a moderator tried merging two discussions, so in part they are recreated here, with help from Google cached, for the record.]

""Visible vs Known vs Actual Universe, c, and expansion effects"
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ozDyKge5gYAJ:www.bautforum.com/astronomy/62523-visible-vs-known-vs-actual-universe-c-expansion-effects.html+http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/62523-visible-vs-known-vs-actual-universe-c-expansion-effects.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

-the other related discussion was cached on Google here:
"Visible vs Actual vs Measurable Universe"
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:51l-9jxyA_AJ:www.bautforum.com/astronomy/62522-visible-vs-actual-vs-measurable-universe.html+%22Visible+vs+Actual+vs+Measurable+Universe%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
===========================================
In a subsequent page of this discussion, one of the BAUT mods, Nereid, had suggested this paper: www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/DavisLineweaver04.pdf (486 kb - PDF) titled: "Expanding Confusion: Common Misconceptions of Cosmological Horizons and the Superluminal Expansion of the Universe" (but that page was lost too.)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/BAUT-lost2
Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 09:31 pm:   

When Time stood still?


There is only one way to make the expanding universe born of a Big Bang to work at the perimeter, the edge of expansion not in terms of its time, but in terms of its physical totality dimensions, and that is if at that 'edge' Time stood still, and all measuring rods were infinite in length.

This is in answer to the post above where the size of the universe is questioned, since if every point within it is 'ground zero', then there are no limits to its dimensions, in effect they are infinite. But if there was to be a limit, meaning the universe is 54.8 billion light years across (except that even this number is fictitious, since the universe had been continuing its expansion for the past 13.7 billion years), then at that mythical 'edge' of expansion, where Time remained forever frozen in its origin, of t = 0, then any observer looking in any direction, since measuring rods are all infinite, would see only darkness, no other stars or galaxies, except its own primordial Big Bang darkness, or bright lights within picoseconds of 'creation'. Of course, this is all absurd, merely a mathematically created mythology, but it could work in a good yarn of science-fiction.

There is one more element within all this, that Special Relativity (SR) was used by Einstein to construct, mathematically, General Relativity (GR) in order to explain not only space-time curvatures of gravity on mass, but also (later by successors) the expansion of the universe, including its ultimate Big Bang creation at 13.7 billion years ago. All this had been well reasoned, and accepted by most in the astronomical-physics community of astrophysicists, even defended heatedly when challenged by reason. But there is a slight flaw here that perhaps is being overlooked, which I found in the Lineweaver's reasoning on "Expansion Confusion" paper mentioned in post above, which says, pg. 100:

quote:

Despite the fact that special relativity incorrectly describes cosmological redshifts it has been used for decades to convert cosmological redshifts into velocity because the SR Doppler shift formula (Eq.12) shares the same redshift approximation v = cz as Hubble's law (Fig. 2). ...
Although velocities of distant galaxies are in principle observable, the set of synchronized comoving observers required to measure proper distance (Weinberg 1972, p. 415; Rindler 1977, p. 218) is not practical. Instead, more direct observables such as redshifts of standard candles can be used to observationally rule out the SR interpretation of cosmological redshifts (Section 4).



So we have the strangely comical situation where GR, which was built on a mathematical foundation of SR, overrules SR. (!!) And furthermore, the 'proper distances' measured are invalid as well. So now we are left with what I stipulated above, that in order for this to work, one has to have zero Time and infinite rods, which can be developed mathematically, but would they be really valid, or just another story?

It is far better to conclude, in a reasonable manner, that the light redshift of distant cosmic phenomena is not a Doppler expanding universe, but merely the gravitational light redshift (in line of sight) from Newton's G being some 5 or 6 orders of magnitude greater in intergalactic space. So unless we can find evidence here, where we are on the 'edge' of an expanding universe, that Time is zero, and all measuring rods are infinite, the whole Big Bang exercise starting 13.7 billion years ago is pure nonsense. Cosmological expansion of the space vacuum makes no sense at all, is pure fiction, a lovely story told by Einstein's math, but has no bearing on reality at all. And this is why I had to find and recapture the cached entry in BAUT after it was 'lost', because this is an important point. Where is 'ground zero' in the Big Bang? It's everywhere, and nowhere, because it did not exist.

So Lineweaver's thesis on how 'superlimunal expansion of the universe' is not an impossibility in GR is moot, because it is irrelevant to the real universe, where the apparent redshift is not from space expansion, where Time must stand still at the periphery, but from other causes, most likely gravitational.

Ivan

omega0.gif
Space-Time Diagram (interactive) from Ned Wright's tutorial, which is a very good place to study this, regardless.

* * * * *

On another topic, on 'variable time' in Special Relativity: That clever old fox Einstein!

Here is a follow up on the above, though from a different discussion, regarding Relativity's conundrum, again at BAUT forums, cross-posted here (in the event it somehow got lost), for the record: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/62710-terrys-thought-experiment-3.html


quote:

"The 'tyranny' of a constant light velocity c"

The 'tyranny' of the clock is not issue here, since there is only one clock sending out its time signal to two gals, each in her personal 'observational' reference frame. So at issue is the 'tyranny' of Einstein Relativity's second postulate, that all light in vacuo travels at c, including radio signals emenating from the clock. Therefore, each 'reader' will see the clock's signal according to their respective reference frame. This is what Terry's thought experiment seems to show, that their readings are different from each other, I think.

From an observational point of view, this is totally correct. What is more at issue (though admittedly I had not read all the posts here ) is the 'tyranny' of Einstein's first postulate, that "there are no preferred reference frames", so that all reference frames are equally valid. This is an assumption one has to live with, if SR/GR are to be believed, or else a large question looms over the horizon: Whose 'observational' reference frame is to be believed? We here on Earth can only 'observe' the universal cosmology from ONE reference frame, Earth's, so we will view the cosmos observationally only one way. Though, this does not stop us from 'inventing' other possible observationals, created mathematically, from perspectives of other reference frames (universe 'homogenous and isotropic'), though not our own, in which light or electromagnetic signals will tyrannize us with its constant velocity c.

The real tyranny, if there is to be a tyrant here, is that one clock is broadcasting time to two separate reference frames, which will give two separate readings. But whose reading are we to believe? Can we have it both ways, that "there are no preferred reference frames" AND "that two 'observational' readings are different"? Terry, is that what you're trying to say here? If so, that's a conundrum!
* * *

PS: So how did Einstein solve this 'conundrum', because I am certain he saw it too, in adapting Lorentz transformation into his Special Relativity? He did the only thing he could possible do: make length and time variable. 'Lorentz covariance' was the only logical answer. Then the rabbit comes out of the hat, and different reference frames can be 'synchronized' into his First postulate. Through the use of 'scalars, four-vectors, four-tensors, and spinors' he could make it work mathematically, so that what holds in one inertial frame will hold in any reference frame. Clever! And this is why I have such immense admiration for the man, he was brilliant. :-) I love his genius!



The rest is a hundred years of history.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/plasma
Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 09:57 pm:   

Plasma Universe.

196px-Aurora-earth.jpg
Earth atmospheric plasma, polar Aurora

The Universe may be mostly plasma, especially inside stars and interstellar gasses, which makes it an electromagnetic phenomenon. This tempered by gravitational potentials, possibly of variable G throughout the cosmos (inversely proportional to radiant energy density), the Plasma-Universe becomes a very 'alive' and fascinating place indeed. It's most of what we can see. However, our present physics have little developed this idea. Here is a resource to start, for anyone wanting to read up on it, at Plasma-Universe.com:

Know plasma, know 99.999% of the Universe
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma-Universe.com

192px-Peratt-galaxy-simulation.gif
Computer simulation of plasma galaxy formation

We may even be powered by 'plasma', keeping our cells alive, but only in my brain's plasmical hunch. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/plasmagravity
Posted on Saturday, October 06, 2007 - 01:57 pm:   

Important future Plasma/Gravity research to be done.

This is a discussion on BAUT that may lead to future discoveries in physics as it relates to plasma and space-vacuum energy physics. The discussion is here, well worth reading and pondering:

Relativity+
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/65487-relativity.html

Space: Gravitational Energy and Kinetic Energy
http://www.blackholes.int.pl/

Zero-Point Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

One hundred years from now, all this may be very different in how we understand the atom, electromagnetic energy, and gravity. - N.G. 71

070724_flying_saucer_01.jpg
Green-space travel (interactive) :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/UFOs
Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 04:24 pm:   

They're out there, the UFOs.

20070707143209990028.gif (interactive)
Sighted over the Austrian Alps, 1954

There's no question about it, 87% of the population believes there is other intelligent life in the universe, but a mere 33% ever saw anything like a UFO, or flying saucer. I had seen them only at a great distance, and the only reason why I thought so was because they were flying in formation, and abrutly stopped, at very great height over the Pacific, at the time of the dock labor strikes at Long Beach, when hundreds of ships were waiting to come into harbor. Under hypnosis I came up with quite a story how I was almost abucted in France when a young boy, about 1953, but told the 'aliens' I did not want to go with them. Both my parents had similar experiences in their youth! (Though I did not learn of this until much later in life.) I also saw a bar-bell UFO over Manhattan, a flashing UFO over southern California, and possibly another over the desert. What did I see? If was 'unidentified', so I don't know.

NASA to Search Files on UFO Incident. This 1965 incident will once again open files. So they should, and all the other files as well.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/UFOs2
Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 11:16 pm:   

Call for US to re-open UFO file

_44235281_skyitem203.jpg
BBC photo of 'unidentified flying object'

quote:

Every year thousands of people say they have seen UFOs in the United States and their claims are usually met with scepticism.



I've seen UFO, a number of times. Why not? What's to hide? An alien here or there, it could be fun. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/UFO3/vc
Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 10:02 pm:   

Breaking the 'light barrier' in space travel?

I've been thinking this (?) for some time now, but since the UFOs are once again on topic, I thought to bring up this strange idea. What if we can break the 'light barrier' of Einstein's light v=c?

Here is how it's done, perhaps... If in our E=mc^2 part of the universe (near a hot star) we can only accelerate to v=c, then in an E=mc^3 universe, what's inside the 'spacevacuum black-hole', then we should be able to travel 8 orders of magnitude faster than here. However, since the vacuum of intergalactic space, per variable G, is only some 5 or 6 orders of magnitude greater than on Earth, then we can only hope to achieve light velocity of about 100,000 times greater than here, or v=cE+5, which is pretty darn fast. So if our spaceships in the future are powered by 'spacevacuum' gravity-potential energy, perpetually accelerative, then our intergalactic velocities may be orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light!

"Take us to warp 5, Mr. Sulu..." :-) Now, it begins to make sense, Captain Kirk!

BearMountain4-2.jpg (interactive-more pix)
UFO over Bear Mountain

If they can do it, why can't we?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/UFO4
Posted on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 01:08 am:   

UFOs galore! See all these amazing pictures, they're incredible!

Here are some sample:

ufo-192.jpgufo-179.jpg
ufo-187.jpgufo-186.jpg
w9-4.jpgufo0627001.jpg


Go to this page for more, lots more!
http://www.ufopictures.net/categories.php?cat_id=1&page=1
Like 40 pages! Wow... Just gi'me plasma. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/UFOmore
Posted on Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 08:10 pm:   

UFO in all shapes?

You can find triangular UFOs at UFOpictures.net:

enemybttwo12.jpg

But my favorites are the really old pix, from before we had 'advanced' aircraft:

oregon1927.jpg

or their well photographed plasma propulsion system:

Grangemouth1.jpg

or really ancient accounts in pre-Biblical times:

Nibiru ,Planet X ,Annunaki.jpg

Aliens had been visiting us for a long time, perhaps since pre-history, but why are they so shy of us? Are we really still that primitive? Someday we'll find out, but until then, except for being better armed with digital cameras worldwide, we are still a no-go planet, for whatever reason. They can't hide forever, we know they're here. One day we'll meet.

Ivan

Also see: Why UFOs glow with plasma
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 07:44 pm:   

Maybe they are human visitors from our future, that have come to observe, but cannot interefere! Straight out of sci-fi.


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/aliens
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 10:39 pm:   

We're from our future? :-)

Well, I suppose if 'time travel' per Relativity were possible... then sure, the 'aliens' who are our great great grandchildren cannot interfere with the lives of their great great grandparents. Except in the movies!

Naive, I personally think people live throughout the galaxies, as well as many other life forms, some of which are not oxygen based, though whether or not sulfur or carbohydrogen based lifeforms evolve into intelligence we can't know at this time. We can't even find any mammalian intelligent life forms outside of Earth, as yet. But I suspect most of them, if the universe is 'homogenous and isotropic', that most advanced life forms will be more like us, or some facsimile thereof. Not to say we are an advanced life form, and may actually be pretty primitive by universe standards, but I think they biologically are mostly like us. At least reports of encounters, the Third kind, show mostly humanoids. Others report people exactly like us, maybe somewhat healthier and better looking, and intellectually more mature so they radiate a kind of compassionate understanding, but really not too different. What is puzzling, however, is why the silence? Are we not worth a conversation? Are we such universal boors as to be avoided? Or is there a bigger plan? What if they think, in their philosophical wisdom, that an 'immature' planet like Earth must be given time to evolve, show evidence of intelligence beyond the primitive kind, you know, the sneaky kind of devious cleverness even apes have, and that we really are reaching for the stars, intellectually. At this time, we may still badly fall short, so like an embryo inside its shell, we're being allowed to incubate into suitable maturity. If I were an advanced species of alien humanity, that's what I would do. Well, we won't know until they come over, friendly like, and say "Welcome" new species of human beings. You're almost there, just need a little help, and we can visit as distant cousins, which in fact we are. Now, about your technology.. tsk tsk.. needs work...

Cheers to the Aliens, who may be reading this too. -|:-)^* Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/fractal nuggets
Posted on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 03:17 pm:   

Holy Fractal Fractured Flickers, and the Big Hole!


GRB2_250.jpg
Death of a star. A large star explodes in a supernova, sterilizing an Earth-like planet - but don't lose any sleep!


It gets crazier all the time. People get funding for this? Amazing!

Fractal Universe ... dusting off mathematics (free PDF book, no math) get into the plasma spirals!

Nuggets of New Physics ... from KFC, the Colonel is proud, don't eat the skins.

Void: Imprint of another Universe ... you got to pay for this one, no universe 'free lunch' out there, not even holes.

It's absolutely mind boggingly amazing what they can come up with for shear... well, it was as much fun as a 'mad hatter'. :-) Have fun reading this neat stuff, even if it is 'out to lunch'.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Great Red Spot
Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 10:27 pm:   

Jovian Great Red Spot, a 'hot spot' anomaly?


250px-PIA02863_-_Jupiter_surface_motion_animation.gif (interactive)
Jupiter's Red Spot streaming latitude

This is in part a continuation of the other discussion on Jupiter, here concentrating on the Great Red Spot anomaly which had been of such interest since its discovery some 300 years ago. Can a 'stationary' storm large enough to swallow all of Earth really rage on the Jovian world, for centuries, without being 'puzzling'?

Note how the above image is different from this one mentioned on BAUT forum: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/downloads/20060312-jupiter_anim.gif

The difference is where in the above picture the Red Spot appears 'stationary' in relation to the Jovian jet stream, in the lower link the Red Spot is moving with the planet, though the jet stream is less distinct. So here is the question: Which is the better picture? If the top, then the Red Spot is part of some Jovian 'storm' system lasting centuries. But if lower link is correct, then the Red Spot travels with Jupiter's surface, or at least appears to be. This could mean something different than a long lasting 'storm' on Jupiter causing the great Red Spot.

On possible interpretation is that we are witnessing not a 'storm' per se, but a surface feature phenomenon, something 'anchored' to its small rocky core, which manifests in the very large atmosphere as a 'storm' of major substance and duration. So what could it be? One possibility is that it is some sort of 'hot spot' which spews into the atmosphere a rich mixture of heavy carbon materials, such as sulfur and phosphorus. Per Wiki referenced in pict link above, it says:

quote:

It is not known exactly what causes the Great Red Spot's reddish color. Theories supported by laboratory experiments suppose that the color may be caused by complex organic molecules, red phosphorus, or yet another sulphur compound, but a consensus has yet to be reached.


In earlier times, it was thought to be a Jovian surface feature, such as a mountain, but more modern interpretations discount that. Rather, modern theory has it as a very large cyclone like storm. But is this credible? Not if it never changes latitude, but only shifts some 10% longitude, which may indicate a 'hot spot' of possible volcanic like origin, but whereby the ejecta from this hot spot is then involved in atmospheric dynamics so it 'appears' to rage like a vast giant storm, but is warmer and, like a funnel tornado, it shifts from place to place along the Jovian jet stream, along longitude, but not latitude. This makes more sense, since it more closely approximates the real spin of Jupiter, as ascertained from magnetic readings, though until Juno Mission gets there, we can only guess. The Great Red Spot must remain a mystery, for now an anomaly.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Titan rivers
Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 11:19 pm:   

Titan's 'water' channels? Or are they hills?

PIA06993.jpg (click to get full picture)
NASA image composite showing channels

However, it is not clear at first sight whether or not these really are channels or eroded hills, which taken in composite look like 'channels'. I've often wondered about that while flying at high altitude over the Southwest deserts, as to whether I was watching ravines or hills. It could be a similar effect on Titan. However, this Saturn moon does have a very large atmosphere, so channels and rivers, or at least dry washes, could be possible.

PIA06090.jpg
Purple haze of Titan's atmosphere (click to read more)

How could such a small moon's atmosphere (mostly nitrogen like Earth's) be so large and thick?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/entanglement axiom
Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 10:18 pm:   

Faster than light 'entanglements' and mathematical axioms.


Laser_nach_LaPalma_l,0.jpg (interactive)
Characterisation of atmospheric effects for the inter-island experiment over 144 kilometres. A laser beam is transmitted from La Palma (in the horizon) towards the ESA's Optical Ground Station (OGS) in Tenerife (part of the dome is visible on the left).


I wrote on the BAUT forum in their General Science page earlier that choosing axioms predisposes the outcome of the math. Mathematics is a marvelous tool in physics, and the sciences in general, but it does not in and of itself prove anything, except itself. So to connect to the real world, the axioms chosen must make sense in terms of the problem solved, or else it is mathematically 'spinning one's wheels' in effect. Here is what I wrote there in response:

quote:

Originally in Eugene Wigner's paper: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.

"The principal point which will have to be recalled later is that the mathematician could formulate only a handful of interesting theorems without defining concepts beyond those contained in the axioms and that the concepts outside those contained in the axioms are defined with a view of permitting ingenious logical operations which appeal to our aesthetic sense both as operations and also in their results of great generality and simplicity."

More to the point, these are axioms chosen in response to conditions demanded to solve a particular problem, whether in the natural laws of physics, or probabilistic conditions observed. Once these axioms are correctly chosen, the rest of the math, which is nothing more than an ‘interrelationship’ of how these axioms interact, is useful in defining a solution, which when tested against real events gives predictability of what the solution should be. If the predictability fails, then the math may be inadequate, which may either be because axioms chosen are wrong, or the interrelationships defined are wrong. But when they are right, and predictability is achieved, then the ‘magic’ of math becomes evident. Though the math may be perfectly self consistent per axioms chosen and how they subsequently interact, it is not a language of the natural world unless it passes the test of predictability.

IMHO, where math and reality may become confused is when we use a limiting factor to our axioms, such as the 'light speed limit' of our observations (a reasonable axiom), to qualify the interrelationships that occur from this limiting factor. This is what Relativity is all about. But if the limiting factor applies only to our observations (we see with light), axiomatically, but not to how the observed interactions interact in and of themselves (which may be faster than light), then our axiom merely limits our ability to observe things in and of themselves, but not necessarily from their own intrinsic point of view: Viz., an event at time zero, and zero distance, will be different from the same event seen at a distance over time, since it is not limited by light c.

This, in effect, highlights an axiom of Relativity, that there are ‘no preferred reference frames’, which then limits our ability to understand the interactions without such light speed limitation. So from our local point of view, we are limited observationally, but this does not mean that (at a distance) the events under observation are constrained by our light speed limit. The end result is that we then are left with a light distorted view of the world, where natural laws interacting within themselves may not be constrained by the light speed limit; but we per our axiom of light speed limit c are constrained from seeing it, so we do not see it as it really is, merely as we can observe it to be. If so, the math may be ‘beautiful and elegant’, but it may miss the point of what is actually happening, because of the axiom chosen. And if this is so, then that axiom of light speed limit c is not the right tool mathematically to fully understand nature on its own terms, if it interacts faster than light. (Of course, it is totally the right axiom if the universe interacts at light speed c only.) And if this is so, we have the wrong tool to understand the interrelationships of physics, except as limited by our observational limit; though what we observe is correct as an observational artifact, since we must use light or electromagnetic energy to observe phenomena at a distance, which is therefore corrected by the Relativity effect of light speed c. Taken outside of its ‘domain of applicability’ the result of observation may be different from the facts involved, if they interact at above light speed!

The only way to know if our observation is true or not is then to test it for predictability: Observationally, it will prove correct within its ‘domain of applicability’ and line of sight; but realistically, it may prove wrong locally (at time and distance zero), though we cannot know it! Why? Because our axioms chosen would not let us know we are wrong, since we chose axiomatically that there are ‘no preferred reference frames’ within the ‘domain of applicability’ for observations using light. But this may be wrong, since it assumes that what we observe at a distance is what is being observed locally. This is true, but only if one assumes that there is a ‘preferred reference frame’, that of the observer, since the universe may work above the light speed limiting factor (and not the other way around). Circular reasoning then takes effect, where we are proven right within our domain of applicability, but only observationally, and not necessarily true for the reality observed, which may break the axiom. Using the light speed limit c then of necessity gives us a limited understanding of what nature is really doing, if so. To break out of this circular reasoning can be done only one way, and that is with independent observation at a distance, where time and distance are both zero. But in astronomy this is impossible! So there is the conundrum for using mathematics as a tool of astronomy, which may prove correct observationally, but we do not know it to be true in fact. What we think we see may not be what is there. In fact, our ‘act of observing’ skews the result, just like in the Quantum world, because we are limited by the speed of light in all our observations.

And if distant aliens were to do the same mathematical observations they would come up with the same results, from their point of view within their ‘domain of applicability’, but with different units of measure, perhaps? Unless... they do not use the light speed c limit in their mathematical modeling… different mathematical tools... they'd come up with a different 'Arelativity' model.

Of course, this 'breaking the axiom' in Einstein's Second Postulate, that light speed is a constant in all reference frames (which necessarily breaks the 'no preferred reference frames' axiom), is now known from Quantum entanglement, where 'information' is communicated over great distances instantly. This had recently been tested over a relatively great distance, 144 km, and shown to be true: ESA takes steps toward quantum communications. The point is that our present observations are limited by light c, and hence why Relativity has this built in axiom, but it may not be how 'information' within the universe communicates within itself, which may be instantaneous, which breaks that axiom. Or as in computing we had learned, "garbage in garbage out", and it could be merely a mathematical limitation we had placed on ourselves with the 'beautiful and elegant' math of Relativity. But it does not necessarily explain how works the universe, merely how we are able to observe it, for now. We may not know how to do it, but it does not mean some advanced humans out there haven't already figured it out. :-)

Also see: Quantum foam 'Emergence' and the evolution of life consciousness

Quantum Entanglement

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/FTL com
Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 10:01 pm:   

Should SETI be broadcasting its message into space?

Personally I think it is a waste of effort and time, and money. Trying to contact Aliens with radio signals is like using smoke signals next to the cellular phone tower (you know, the one decorated to look like a palm tree or such) and no cell phone number will pick up the signal. Here is an article on that, click image.

080410-seti-AShadowofOurselves-01.jpg (interactive)
"Hello? SETI calling... this is the BBC."

Except they will never answer, because we don't have their technology for 'instant' communications in space, and radio or microwave, or light waves are just too slow. So the discussion on BAUT on this matter, in my opinion, is off base and meaningless: Astronomers: Please stop shouting out to the universe. In fact, they can't hear us, and if they did they would turn a deaf ear, since we obviously are telegraphing our ignorance, or primitive technology at best, so should be ignored. Ergo, I did not participate in that discussion either.

What could we say to Extraterrestials if we had the means to reach them? Remember these signals would have to travel light years, perhaps millions of light years with our slow radio waves, which makes such communications unwieldy to say the least, even if they had equipment primitive enough to hear it. More likely, they can 'tune in' on what we're writing right now using quantum 'entanglement' like technology, so can see you typing on your keyboard... if they want to. That is, if they're even interested! But if you could write letters to Extraterrestials, what would you say anyway? Good topic, come to think of it. There is so much that can be said, let's suppose they actually read this stuff, and perhaps one day we may get an answer in some surprising way we never expected. After all, if they are millions of years more advanced than we are, they must have learned some tricks along the way. At least, I hope they aren't still killing each other for Allah, or oil, or some piece of dirt somewhere.

Should we be afraid? Probably not. If they wanted us, they'd have us in cages by now. Obviously, we're not that necessary for their ego satisfaction, except as curiosities to be examined closer up at times. Why all those UFOs, and they must have mastered 'faster than light' travel by now, if they're not too interested?

"Hello? Is anyone reading this keyboard?... Halloo?... Olah... Prontro? ... Waba waba?" :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/sqrd-circle 'real' time
Posted on Friday, May 02, 2008 - 11:11 pm:   

Squared-circle in 'real' time, or 'quadratic time' and light.

1034.png (linked image)
Elegant proof for squared-circle, February 22, 2008; scroll up/down for more on this in linked page.

In the discussion on the Squared-circle (see March 02, 2008, for Major Edward A. Chesky, USA (RET), algebraic proof with collaborative input by Mohideen Ibramsha, PhD), there seems to work out a methodology for figuring the area of the circle in terms of the sides of the square of equal area. It was worked out (see diagram above) that algebraically the side of the square has a relationship to the radius of the circle, if both of equal area, which works out to be "r=s/sqrt Pi" regardless of "s" chosen. This is not insignificant, because it may have other applications, such as quantum computing. But more interesting is its application in quantum 'entanglement', of what Einstein called "spooky action" at a distance, where light speed is not a factor. There, information is passed from one point to another instantaneously, which is what defines 'entanglement'.

Look again at the illustration above, and see how if r=s/sqrt Pi, then if the source of 'information' entangled is the center of both the circle and square, then clearly the distance from the center to the edge of the expanding wave of information traveling is r=s/sqrt Pi, for an area of s^2. The reason this is not insignificant is that the entangled information exists simultaneously anywhere on the expanding circle's circumferential curve, simultaneously, which means in effect that such information exists anywhere within the area of the circle simultaneously. What does this mean?

It may mean, however here we must jump a little, that when light leaves its source, no matter how far or long ago, it remains 'entangled' with its simultaneous information throughout the area of the expanding circle formed by light waves traveling; so what is inside the square is also inside the circle of equal area; and the information contained is available in 'real time' simultaneously throughout that area. On way to think of this is to imagine light traveling towards us, we being the receivers, from its source remain 'entangled' with a kind of informational umbilical cord, so that as soon as its source stops sending (snuffs out) then the information contained stops. And then all that is left of that information is an echo, which will continue to travel to us until all the area is erased, and we finally see the light go out. So once the source stops sending, at an 'entanglement' level of information, the signal stops at the same time. This is 'real time', but the echo of that real time will still sound for as long as the receiver keeps hearing it, though in time it will come more and more diffusely, and finally disappear. When that signal is finally lost, then the whole area within the squared-circle loses whatever information was there.

This is of not much use to know today, but someday when we have developed the on-board gravity drive to speed into space at above light speed, this method of 'entangled' communications will become mandatory, or else we would be lost. Perhaps at some subconsciously intuitive level the writers of Star Trek were 'seeing' this in their minds, when Capt. Kirk would use sub-space to communicate with another Quadrant of space light years away, instantly. This is really not so far fetched, as the Squared-circle illustrates, that in any quadrant of the circle, there is a connection with both the circumferential energy wave and its umbilical source, while at the same time present throughout the are of the circle (or more correctly sphere) whose radius in terms of an equal quadratic square (or cube) is at r=s/sqrt Pi. That will be how we will talk, and SETI is a little disadvantaged here, since we do not yet have that capability... but they do! And one day we will too.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/UFO x-file
Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 - 10:02 am:   

UFO fantasy... or is it?

760.jpg (interactive)
File photo - BBC News

BBC - Audio UFO report

MOD to release UFO files - BBC Video

Even the Vatican chimes in:

_44653653_blackhole_afp226b.jpg (interactive)
"Aliens could exist" says Vatican

If 'men in black' show up at your door, don't be surprised. :-) What's going on?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/gravity lensing
Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2008 - 11:03 pm:   

'Gravity lensing' may be something else, perhaps?


dn14064-1_250.jpg (interactive)
'Einstein cross' of gravitational lensing, G2237 + 0305
From NewScientist article: Astronomy study proves mathematics theorem


The mathematical theorem may be incidental, what is really happening here is 'gravitational lensing' as observed.

I wrote back on July 1, 2005, GRAVITY LENSING MAY NOT BE A GRAVITY EFFECT?:

quote:

Invisible Dark Galaxy mentioned in this NewScientist.com article does not mention "gravity lensing". Can it be that the massive gravity of this "dark galaxy" does not work for gravity lensing? If so, this would be very telling, because then it might mean that radiant energy is necessary for this (gravity) lensing effect. So massive hot stars and galaxies work, as observed, but "dark" massive bodies may not work. The Axiomatic Equation indicates that gravity lensing is a function of blue/red shifted light which is only indirectly affected by gravity. Next question would be if neutron stars, so called, are essentially "dark" by failing to generate enough hot radiant energy to modify gravity, so they are gravity rich in a radiant energy poor scenario, then they too should fail as "gravity lensing" massive bodies, though we know they are extremely massive.



However, at the time I thought gravity lensing was a blue/red shift phenomenon affected by gravity only indirectly, how mass affects 'refractive' lensing in space, though later I revised the idea that such blue/red shift can also happen from purely gravitational red shift regardless of whether or not the body generates light. An example of this would be 'dark matter' galaxy gravity lensing, such as described in a later NewScience article: Ring of dark matter surrounds cosmic collision; also 'Dark galaxy' continues to puzzle astronomers.

I wrote later, August 12, 2007, on the 'instantaneousness' of light in space:

quote:

First of all, a photon can appear to be at two separate places at the same time. This is true both in the case of gravitational lensing, where the background image magnified by large foreground mass will appear in multiple images around it, as well as distant light seen from two places simultaneously. So it is not merely the life of one photon, but a multiple version of itself. This is also why the double split experiment with light will yield spectrographic lines, a very useful tool in astronomy and physics. Light, as a continuous stream of photons, does not exist at any one point as that photon alone, because it can be split, so that the photon must carry with it 'information' able to reach beyond its particular existence, in a kind of 'spooky action' at a distance effect.



Note, separately, how the 'Ghost Galaxy NGC 2915 actually shows spiral arms when imaged in neutral hydrogen gas (HI), which is what is usually dubbed 'dark matter' in the galaxy (which is merely HI at higher G so gravitationally more massive though not visible in ordinary light). So these 'dark galaxies' may be gravitationally acting as refractive 'lenses' for gravitational lensing purposes, though the 'refractive' part of this story is what needs to be explored. How can it do that, if so? Is it a function of light entering into a low-gravity well (hot stars, low G) and exiting through a high gravity well (cold space, high G), so a lens effect happens, for example?

0_61_070718_bullet_cluster.jpg
Bullet Cluster showing (blue) dark matter

Perhaps the above listed article is correct, that there is a mathematical relationship to how this 'Black Hole gravity lensing will be observed, but the cause may have more to do with the how light 'blue shifts' into the gravity well and then 'red shifts' out, which gives it a refractive 'lensing' effect. Of course, 'dark matter' is not necessary for explaining such lensing, if the Modified Gravity effect is taken into consideration, if it is merely higher G in deep space (away from hot stars, per Axiomatic). Something of this sort may be evidenced per a theory by two Canadian astronomers (though not supporting Axiomatic Eq idea), John Moffat ande Joel Browstein, 'Dark Matter' Is Bunk:

quote:

Using images of the Bullet Cluster made by the Hubble, Chandra X-ray and Spitzer space telescopes and the Magellan telescope in Chile, the scientists analyzed the way the cluster's gravity bent light from a background galaxy — an effect known as gravity lensing.
The pair concluded that dark matter was not necessary to explain the results.


You still get 'gravitational lensing' even if no visible matter is present, but the 'refraction' of space, such as caused by Gravitational redshift is another matter.

Gravitational_redshift_neutron_star.jpg
Gravitational redshift of a neutron star (not exact)

The observational evidence of 'dark matter' and gravitational lensing is now well established. But what causes this space 'refractive' lens effect? Is it gravity per se, or is there another phenomenon at work here, which mimics the gravitational lens? We know what we see, but what does it mean?


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Axion DM
Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 12:05 pm:   

Axion-generated solar flares may be 'bubbles' of dark-matter?

dn14588-1_250.jpg (interactive)
Some solar flares may be caused by dark matter

The NewScientist article (see image link) explains how a 1970s theory of Axions may be responsible for solar flares:

quote:

Some solar flares may be caused by dark matter particles called axions spewing out from the centre of the Sun, new calculations suggest.
Solar flares are sudden changes in the Sun's brightness thought to be caused when twisted magnetic fields on the Sun snap and reconnect explosively.
But they could also be caused by dark matter, the mysterious entity that makes up most of the universe's mass – if it is made up of theoretical particles called axions.



Axions are believed to be an interim elementary particle when photons interact in strong magnetic fields, incorporating both the weak force and strong force, with implications for 'dark matter'. Per Wiki:
"One theory of axions relevant to cosmology had predicted that they would have no electric charge, a very small mass in the range from 10-6 to 1 eV/c˛, and very low interaction cross-sections for strong and weak forces. Because of their properties, axions interact only minimally with ordinary matter. Axions are predicted to change to and from photons in the presence of strong magnetic fields, and this property is used for creating experiments to detect axions.
...
If axions have low mass, thus preventing other decay modes, axion theories predict that the universe would be filled with a very cold Bose-Einstein condensate of primordial axions. Hence, depending on their mass, axions could plausibly explain the dark matter problem of physical cosmology. Observational studies to detect dark matter axions are underway, but they are not yet sufficiently sensitive to probe the mass regions where axions would be expected to be found if they are the solution to the dark matter problem."

Skipping the 'early universe' stuff, which may be fallacious reasoning, but looking at the possibility that our Sun generates such 'axion dark matter' in its nuclear combustion, there may be room to imagine that such bubbles of axions do exist and are interactive with the solar magnetic fields at the surface, what may be causing flaring.

When the Axiomatic Equation, per Atomus Summus, was first postulated, there would be a cancelation of all light lambda on a point. In the Axiomatic-2 page, while still early in developing this idea, I wrote: "Please note if g=1, such as at a galactic black hole where all light lambda cancels, using the above equation, then Black Hole gravity G (max) = 3x10^8, which is another value of c. In effect, within the event horizon, where G^2=c^2, zero light energy = total Gravity. (Pi drops out from this equation because it effectively has no radius.) The conclusion is therefore that Newton's G becomes very great in a Blackhole, where total maximum gravity equals Energy." This same principle may be at work on a very small micro-micro scale anywhere within the subsurface energy being generated by our Sun, or any hot star, where tiny little bubbles of 'self-gravity' micro-micro black holes come into existence on the nanoscale, and then disappear again. But their brief existence may be long enough to become influenced by the Sun's magnetic fields, so they show up as solar flares.

This would imply something is happening beneath the solar surface where eddies of hot energy momentarily combine in such a way that lambda of light cancels to create a micro-micro self-gravity 'black holes' which mimic what we think of as 'dark matter', but which also interacts in the way Axions are expected to interact, thus causing flaring on the Sun's surface. Again, the article linked above (in image) then reverts back to talking about the 'early universe' but this is spurious. What is really of interest here is the Sun's ability to generate micro-micro bubbles of black holes within its structure, long enough to interact with its magnetic field, and thus produce flares. Of special interest is these Axions ionize surrounding matter, where the freed electrons produce X-ray signature photons, something we can actually measure.

The whole process, if this Axion generated 'dark matter' is true, is then one more clue to how hot energy lambda interacts with ordinary matter, whereby in our solar system each atom is 'modified' at the femtometer scale to convert strong force into atomic matter and a remainder gravitational force, which means further from the Sun, more gravitational G is evident, which in turn per the Equivalence Principle registers are a higher mass per volume. And what we think of as 'dark matter' is merely that, we cannot see it but it is gravitationally more active with higher G, even within the Axion micro-nano 'bubbles' inside the Sun's structure.

It's all related! to Newton's G variable. But only if, and only if, we find evidence in our solar system of a variable G. Then everything begins to fit, including a new cosmology based on very high interstellar G to cause the Hubble (gravitational) redshift. Of course, if this should be true, then it means all hot bodies in space, planets included, will have a micro-black-hole at their center, the size of which depending upon the amount of energy surrounding it. If true, then we truly live in a very strange universe, where our 'dark matter' is no more than ordinary non-luminous matter at high G, and gravitational black holes are a common denominator from galactic centers to star interiors, down to the quantum atomic scale where the nucleus Strong force is that.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/LHC
Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 09:13 am:   

Large Hadron Collider (LHC) gets fired up.

_45004140_cms_cern_226.jpg (interactive- BBC)
'Big Bang' experiment starts well


quote:

Eventually, two proton beams will be steered in opposite directions around the LHC at close to the speed of light, completing about 11,000 laps each second.
At allotted points around the tunnel, the beams will cross paths, smashing together near four massive "detectors" that monitor the collisions for interesting events.
Scientists are hoping that new sub-atomic particles will emerge, revealing fundamental insights into the nature of the cosmos.



The math works, now let's see if the matter will reveal those new particles, like WIMPs and bosons. Can they re-create the conditions at the beginning of the 'Big Bang'? Only if it actually happened. Actually, looking for the 'God' particle, or Higgs Boson, which gives form to the whole universe. Can't wait to see how this all works out. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mustafa
Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 11:44 am:   

Hubble Finds a Mystery Object


quote:

The mystery object did not behave like any known kind of supernova. It is not even in any detectable galaxy. "The shape of the light curve is inconsistent with microlensing," say the researchers. They recorded three spectra of it — and its spectrum, they write, "in addition to being inconsistent with all known supernova types, is not matched to any spectrum in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey database" of vast numbers of objects. "We suggest that the transient may be one of a new class."




What was it? How far away in space? A new mystery in middle of nowhere?

Mustafa

(submitted via e-mail to Humancafe.com)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/quantum comm
Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 08:57 pm:   

Somebody called us?... and we couldn't answer back?

Okay mustafa dude, I think I know what that was about. 'They', the Aliens, use a tractor beam to send communications over very great distances of space, a kind of X-ray laser beam linked with Quantum entangled information embedded in it. So this beam acts like a kind of optic 'wire' while it is turned on, but the signal is not the beam itself. Rather, the signal travels along the beam, back and forth, instantaneously, much as an electron signal travels inside a wire, but much much faster, in fact instantly. So when this x-ray beam was directed at Earth, for the duration of about 100 of our days, it was ringing us. But nuts, we don't have any way to answer that ring! So we noticed it, Hubble saw it, but were forced to remain mute.

1114.jpg (interactive)
Entanglement experiment in Quantum communications, Tenerife

How do they generate such a powerful concentrated x-ray signal? Where did it come from? WE can't answer that, too top secret from their perspective. Either you have it, or you don't. Too bad Earthlings, but you just ain't there yet.

But they tried, just in case.... The message was in the tractor beam, instantaneously fast, but we cannot read it... not yet.

180px-Pidgin_2.0_contact_window.jpg
replace above buddy list with "nanu-nanu, wririri, teget'an," etc. :-) sadrul's cool.


ivan'tan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/neutron
Posted on Friday, October 03, 2008 - 09:01 pm:   

Neutron is a proton with an embedded electron?

This kind of makes sense: Journey to the Center of the Neutron.

neutron_charge_250-2.gif


quote:

Core values. The charge at the center of the neutron is positive when looking only at low-momentum quarks (top) but becomes increasingly negative for quarks of higher momentum (middle and bottom).




Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Trojans
Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 06:42 pm:   

Strange Pictish 'moon' shadows us, but will never connect.

3753 Cruithne - Wikipedia


quote:

Cruithne is approximately 5 km in diameter, and its closest approach to Earth is approximately 30 times the separation between Earth and the Moon (12 Gm or million kilometres). Although Cruithne's orbit is not thought to be stable over the long term, calculations by Wiegert and Innanen showed that it has likely been synchronized with Earth's orbit for a long time. There is no danger of a collision with Earth for millions of years, if ever. Its orbital path and Earth's do not cross, and its orbital plane is currently tilted to that of the Earth by 19.8°. Cruithne, having a maximum opposition magnitude of +15.8, is fainter than Pluto and would require at least a 12.5 inch reflecting telescope to be seen.



Orbits_of_Cruithne_and_Earth.gif
Cruithne and Earth seem to follow each other in their orbits.


quote:

Cruithne is in a normal elliptic orbit around the Sun. However, because its period of revolution around the Sun is almost exactly equal to that of the Earth, they appear to "follow" each other in their paths around the Sun. This is why Cruithne is sometimes called "Earth's second moon".[2]However, it does not orbit the Earth and is not a moon.[5] Cruithne's distance from the Sun and orbital speed vary a lot more than the Earth's, so from the Earth's point of view Cruithne actually follows a kidney bean-shaped horseshoe orbit ahead of the Earth, taking slightly less than one year to complete a circuit of the "bean". Because it takes slightly less than a year, the Earth "falls behind" the bean a little more each year, and so from our point of view, the circuit is not quite closed, but rather like a spiral loop that moves slowly away from the Earth.



Horseshoe_orbit_of_Cruithne_from_the_perspective_of_Earth.gif
Cruithne appears to make a bean-shaped orbit from the perspective of Earth.

I find this strange object, about 5 km across, very odd; here are other near-moon like bodies following us in orbit: 2002AA29; 54509 YORP, both acting line Trojans.

250px-54509_YORP_image_radar_and_3D_model.gif
Radar and 3D model of YORP

Trojan asteroids exist mainly for the gas giants, but Earth and Mars have some too.

Also, see "horseshoe" orbit asteroids, such as 2010 SO16, interesting near-Earth orbit.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/planetary spin
Posted From: 69.239.61.79
Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 01:10 pm:   

Planet spin ratios anomaly, revisited (and to be revised).

enceladus-water-plume.jpg (interactive)
Saturn's moon Enceladus is 'hot' with organics

Under the notes and ramblings of the thread: Does Zero-point Energy Explain Spin?, which got called Jaszz spin, between about July and September 2004, we worked planet spin ratios calculated from their interior black body heat vs. their (per Axiomatic eq, as first formulated - a rough sketch) orbit region energy, which when adjusted for the square-root of distance (AU) times the calculated spin ratio we got a fairly close approximation of actual spin ratios (planet spin in Earth days), which itself in retrospect is something rather anomalous. (see Jaszz Spin 1-6) By Sept. 25th, when actual spin ratio began to appear to align with calculations, they were still way off; this was not resolved until after it was realized that Newton's G (per Axiomatic equation) grows at the flat curve of about 1G per 1 AU, which happens to be related to the Pioneer Anomaly (which is about the 'square root of distance' from Sun per centimeter); all of which when taken together shows there is a variable G relationship component to the deep cold space regions of where the planets reside, which then makes the spin ratios work. It was on March 2nd, 2005, that the breakthrough showed up as a variable G function:

[Please note this below is unedited from when first posted, though there are computational errors, which will be addressed at a later date; i.e., Mars values are wrong, for example.]


quote:

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 10:57 pm:

SPIN RATIOS CURVE SOLVED:

Though calculations for planetary Spin Ratios vs. Kelvin heat and Energy are rough, there was a pattern that occurred with fair consistency which seems to put calculated SR and actual SR' (see chart below) within some sort of curve. This lead to 'shelve' it for a long time, until now. I think I solved what this curve represents. Taking the post of Sept. 25, 2004, above: ...
...So I've been thinking... Here is what happens when the ratio of actual SR' divided by calculated SR is compared. Notice how this then compares with the square root of AU, far right: ... etc.



So something was happening to spin ratios not only in terms of interior heat vs. orbital energy levels (which happen to equal out at about 1, see PEER posts same page), but also in terms of the gravity G relationship with distance from the Sun. Here is what I wrote back on March 17, 2005:

PLANETARY SPIN RATIOS PER AXIOMATIC EQUATIONS (as later formalized) AS A FUNCTION OF OF VARIABLE E AND G:

Taking planetary black-body heat in Kelvin and planet's orbit Energy, per Axiomatic, we can arrive at a spin ratio, SR, which will yield each planet's spin as measured in earth days. The resulting equation is:

(PK/PE) :/: (13.36E-16) x (PK/231.7K) :/: (planetary orbit/365) :/: (planet spin) x (AU)^1/2 = SR

where:
SR = Spin Ratio for planets
PK = Planet Kelvin, black-body heat
PE = Planet orbit solar Energy, per Axiomatic
VK = Venus Kelvin, base planet spin (245 days retro spin, per 244 days orbit), here as base spin "zero" (where Kelvin and Energy nearly equal)
VE = Venus Energy, per Axiomatic
planetary orbit = in Earth days
planet spin = in Earth days (or fraction of Earth day)
AU = G'/G, ratio of planet's G' and Earth's G, linear deltaG = ~7.2E-11 per AU
(AU)^1/2 = same as square root of (G'/G)
Spin Ratio = SR, a Kelvin and Energy dependent number, which when Earth's SR (2.32) is divided by planet's SR yields daily planet spin.
x = times
:/: = divided by
VK/VE = (2.317K/17.33E+16 J) = 13.36E-16 , which is a ratio, used in SR equation above, as a base for Venus (near zero) parity

The above equation for Earth yields:

(254.3K/9E+16J) :/: (13.36E-16) x (254.3K/231.7K) :/: (365/365) :/: (1) x (1) = 2.32

Tables of above values, where orbit and spin are in Earth days, and SR is as calculated per equation above:

AU; PLANET; P-KELVIN; P-ENERGY; ORBIT; SPIN; (AU)^1/2; SPIN RATIO

0.39 ; Mercury; 442K ; 60.55E16 J; 88 days; 58.8 ; 0.624 ; 0.0456
0.72 ; Venus ; 231.7K ; 17.33E16 J; 244 ; -245 ; 0.850 ; 0.005 (this is is way off - retro) ?
1.0 ; EArth ; 254,3K ; 9E16 J ; 365 days; -1- ; 1 ; 2.32 (base SR)
1.5 ; Mars ; 210.1K ; 3.86E16 J; 687 ; 1.03 ; 1.225 ; 2.246
5.2 ; Jupiter ; 110K ; 0.335E16 J; 4329 ; 0.415 ; 2.28 ; 5.41
9.5 ; Saturn ; 81.1 K; 0.1004E16J; 10753 ; 0.455 ; 3.08 ; 4.97
19.2; Uranus ; 58.1K ; 0.024E16J; 30660 ; 0.718 ; 4.38 ; 3.21
30 ; Neptune ; 46.6K ; 0.01E16J ; 60225 ; 0.673 ; 5.48 ; 3.69
39.5 ; Pluto ; ~37.5K ; 0.006E16J ; 90520 ; 6.3 ; 6.28 ; 0.304

Divide Earth's SR = 2.32 (which is our1 day spin) by any of the above planetary SR's, and you will find a close match to actual spin in Earth days. Here's the lineup:

Merc: 2.32/0.0456 = ~51 (vs. actual 58.8)
Ven: 2.32/ 0.005 = ~464 (way off by ~x2! vs. actual -245)?
Ear: 2.32/2.32 = 1 day (our home planet's spin)
Mar: 2.32/ 2.246 = ~1.033 (vs. 1.03 actual)
Jup: 2.32/ 5.41 = ~0.428 (vs. 0.415 actual)
Sat: 2.32/ 4.97 = ~0.467 (vs. 0.455 actual)
Uran: 2.32/3.21 = ~0.723 (vs. 0.718 actual)
Nept: 2.32/ 3.69 = ~0.629 (vs. 0.673 actual)
Plut: 2.32/ 0.304 = ~7.63 (vs. 6.3 actual) ?

You can see from the above that Venus is way out of line (it has retro spin) and Pluto are off by more than 20%, Mercury is off by 12%, but the other planets are a fairly good fit. Considering I am working with rough estimates, taken from Nasa Planet tables, and used mean distances, the spin ratios as a function of planetary heat and orbit Energy come in fairly close to actual spin. Perhaps there are more accurate numbers for Mercury or Pluto? Venus is truly an enigma, though as a retro spin planet, perhaps the number at nearly twice what it should be is not so odd, since it spins the other way in its Energy orbit per its relatively low Kelvin. But you get the general idea.

Later ideas tying in variable G in deep space with Hubble redshift, solar mass balances out at E=mc^3, also Earth's inner core 'Schwarzchild boundary', with a similar application to Asteroid belt, with Earth's anomalous spin momentum (slows millisecond during north winter), and one begins to wonder if this is not all true? If so many pieces fit for a variable G, then a flat-G begins to look more anomalous, along with all the modeling a flat G generated... such as the expanding universe and BBT. The puzzle is that Einstein's relativity theorized in a flat G has so much observational support... Or does it really? Planetary spin may be a key to a Newton's G on a curve, along with all the other anomalous observations for the outer planets, like their very large atmospheres; but still so much to understand. For example (pict above), why does Enceladus have a hot water plume at one pole? What drives its interior heat to do this?

Ivan

Also see:
New Spin on Planets Spin?

http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/294/294.html#POST3939 (to see table of contents for science pages)

More on this written May 11, 2011: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1177/1977.html#POST5506 FYI-Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Spin re-examined
Posted From: 69.228.40.157
Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2008 - 01:25 pm:   

Zero-point-Zone planetary spin - re-examined.

All this is based upon work done back on "Jaszz Spin - phase 1-6", between July and October 2004.
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/145.html

180px-Gas_giants_in_the_solar_system.jpg 180px-Terrestrial_planet_size_comparisons.jpg
Our Solar System, from outside-in

I had then worked out the ratios for planets using a common denominator of black body Kelvin and orbital Energy to arrive at a 'zero point' value that represents a planet's internal energy vs. its external solar energy. The purpose for this exercise four years ago was to find some common denominator with which we could calculate an 'Earth equivalent' spin-ratio. However, when it was realized that Newton's G may grow at about 1G per 1 AU, it was realized that the background of space zero-point energy, here represented as a square-root of AU (in effect G) was needed to bring the ratios into a meaningful pattern of spin. This was further redefined in terms of Earth's orbital and spin dynamics, so that the final spin ratios are Earth based derivatives. Here is how the numbers worked out, though some will differ from the above, since they had been recalculated using a different methodology. The initial algorithm for Zero-point-Zone planetary spin was:

(PK/ PE) ÷ (VK/ VE) x (PK/ VK) ÷ (AU)^0.5 = ZPZ spin ratio

where: PK = planet's Kelvin black body heat
PE = planet's orbital-solar Energy (per Axiomatic Eq)
VK = Venus Kelvin black body
VE = Venus orbital energy
AU = distance from sun, taking its square-root AU^0.5

This equation translates into one more easily understood, with canceling dimensions, so simplified as ratios:

(PK^2/ VK^2) * (VE/ PE) ÷ (AU)^0.5 = ZPZ SR

Here is what those values will look like for the planets, where VK = 231.7K, and VE=17.33E+16 J, so that:
PLANET: (PK^2/ VK^2) x (VE/ PE) ÷ (AU)^0.5 = ZPZ SR


Mercury: ~(442K^2/ 231.7K^2) x (17.33E16J/ 60.55E16J) ÷ 0.39^1/2 = ZPZSR
e.g. = 3.64 x 0.286 ÷ 0.6245 = 1.667 SR
Venus: ~(231.7^2/ 231.7^2) x (17.33E16/ 17.33E16) ÷ 0.72^1/2 = 1.178 SR
Earth: (254.3^2/ 231.7^2) x (17.33E16/ 9E16) ÷ 1.0^1/2 = 2.32 SR
Mars: ~(210.1^2/ 231.7^2) x (17.33E16/ 3.66E16) ÷ 1.5^1/2 = 3.178 SR
Jupiter: ~(110^2/ 231.7^2) x (17.33E16/ 0.335E16) ÷ 5.2^1/2 = 5.71 SR
Saturn: ~(81.1^2/ 231.7^2) x (17.33E16/ 0.1004E16) ÷ 9.5^1/2 = 6.865 SR
Uranus: ~(58.1^2/ 231.7^2) x (17.33E16/ 0.024E16) ÷ 19.2^1/2 = 10.37 SR
Neptune: ~(46.6^2/ 231.7^2) x (17.33E16/ 0.01E16) ÷ 30^1/2 = 12.65 SR

(Note, there appears a steady progression from Earth's ZPZ to Neptune's, though not yet clear what this represents.)

In the original, August 7, 2004, I had theorized in words:
"Planetary Kelvin heat divided by planetary orbital Energy (to establish raw ratio between the two); divided by the ratio of Venus Kelvin to Venus orbital Energy (to establish Venus as a base with "zero" spin); which was multiplied by the Planetary Kelvin over Venus Kelvin (to establish a common measure of black-body temperatures in relation to zero-spin); which yields the Spin Ratio (SR as per 'phase 5' above)."

In equation form, the above looks like this, where P = planet, E = orbital Energy, for either the planet 'p' or Venus 'v', and K = Kelvin:

(Kp / Ep) ÷ (Kv / Ev) x (Kp / Kv) = SR

Note, this is the same as above: (PK^2/ VK^2) * (VE/ PE) = ZPH SR

This is the same as above, except I also divided the result by the square-root of planet distance AU from the Sun; this was to compensate for the theorized change in orbital region's G, where it grows at rate of 1G per 1 AU, though this may need revision (if the Equivalence Principle applies to a variable G). The equation used is still incomplete, where I then had said:
"Spin Ratio divided by the ratio of planet's full orbital days divided by Earth's orbital days (365); this value is divided by the planetary spin (expressed in Earth days); which yields a ZPH factor.

However, this came under criticism for having the "planetary spin" inside the equation seeking a planetary spin ratio, so is not valid. In retrospect, I agree with this criticism, so aim to find a way to express planetary spin ratio without using relative spin to Earth's 1 day; though I should adjust the above ZPZ SR for orbital periods, which means to adjust each value for planet's orbital period vs. Earth's 365 days, spin ratio adjusted (times orbital Newton's G to align for inertial mass Equivalence, per Axiomatic):

Mercury: 1.667 SR ÷ 0.24 orbital period = 6.95 SRa times the "squared value of G" at orbital region (x 0.152 = 1.056)
Venus: 1.178 ÷ 0.615 = 1.92 (x 0.518 = 0.995)
Earth: 2.32 ÷ 1 = 2.32 (x 1 = 2.32)
Mars*: 3.178 ÷ 1.881 = 1.69 (x 2.25 = 3.80)
Jupiter: 5.71 ÷ 11.86 = 0.48 (x 27 = 12.98)
Saturn: 6.865 ÷ 29.66 = 0.23 (x 90.25 = 20.76)
Uranus: 10.37 ÷ 84.23 = 0.12 (x 368.6 = 44.24)
Neptune: 12.65 ÷ 164.79 = 0.077 (x 900 = 69.3)

What is intriguing is that the resulting SRa values are virtually the same as worked out on August 1, 2004 (Jaszz Spin phase 5), where these numbers climbed in the same proportion as shown here. The higher the ratio, the greater the spin expected, though this is not what happens, so these numbers are inconclusive. However, once those values were adjusted for relative spin by dividing those SRa values by ratios of planetary spin vs. Earth's one day spin, they immediately fell into place. I then wrote (Jaszz Spin phase 6):
In this manner, all the planets are now aligned both in terms of Venus, which has an essentially "zero" spin (though this will be adjust for the 245 days of spin versus 244 days of orbit), and then further adjusted for Earth's 365 orbital period, so that all planetary spin is established in Earth days. The complication for this equation started with relating Kelvin temperatures to Watts per meter squared, and now further complicated by taking Venus and Earth's relationship, thus the equation looks the way it does. Now, taking SR values from table below, let us compute Spin Ratio in terms of Venus into actual Earth spin days, which yields ZPH:

MERCURY: 1.043 / (88/365) ÷ 58.8 = 0.0736 ZPH
VENUS: 0.996 / (244/365) ÷ (-)244 = -0.006 ZPH (edited for minus sign)
EARTH: 2.316 / (365/365) ÷ 1 = 2.316 ZPH
MARS*: 3.69 / 1.88 ÷ 1.03 = 1.963 ZPH (edited arithmetic error)

What this means is that if ZPH tends towards zero, it is fairly balanced in terms of its interior heat and exterior solar energy. The higher ZPH, the greater is the planet's interior heat to its orbital energy environment, as it is expressed by solar irradiance. So Earth and Mars are relatively 'hot' planets, both with good spin, though of different temperatures since they inhabit different energy regions (Mars's is cooler than Earth's); whereas Mercury is cooler, slower spin, in relation to its solar irradiance; and Venus is almost totally balanced within its solar energy environment, hence almost no spin. Now, let us turn to the gas giants:

JUPITER: 11.67 / (4329/365) ÷ 0.415 = 2.371 ZPH
SATURN: 21.15 / 29.46 ÷ 0.445 = 1.613 ZPH
URANUS: 44.18 / 84 ÷ 0.718 = 0.732 ZPH
NEPTUNE: 70.27 / 165 ÷ 0.673 = 0.633 ZPH

So we are back to where we started four years ago, but what does it mean? Back then, when I divided Earth's SRa by these ZPH values, the numbers fell into place for relative spin ratios (See Sept. 25, 2004), but not until March 2, 2005 was this issue "resolved":
So I've been thinking... Here is what happens when the ratio of actual SR' divided by calculated SR is compared. Notice how this then compares with the square root of AU, far right:
AU Kelvin heat Planet spin Earth days calculated SR actual SR' ratio SR'/SR sqrt AU


0.39 442K Mercury 58.8 0.0736 0.0394 0.535 0.624
0.72 231.7K Venus -245-0.0060.0059 0.983 0.85
1.0 254.3K Earth -1-2.316 2.316 1.00 1.00
1.52 210.1K Mars* 1.03 1.963 2.40 1.223 1.225
5.2110K Jupiter 0.4152.371 5.541 2.38 2.28
9.581.1K Saturn 0.445 1.68 5.204 3.10 3.08
19.2 58.1K Uranus 0.7180.732 3.226 4.40 4.38
3046.6K Neptune 0.673 0.633 3.441 5.44 5.48

And so we come full circle, where the square-root of AU (which is same as square-root of G at AU), drives the numbers to show planetary spin. (I cannot vouch for anything of real value here, because I may be double-counting?) What I wanted to show by this re-examination is that using a different approach, the same ratios for planetary spin come out only, and only when, the variable G is invoked, but I cannot claim I understand this.

To sum up, here is what happened: I took the original equation for ZPH SR and multiplied it by square-root of AU (G) and got a rising ratio SR, that when I multiplied by square G so got ratio SRa, which approximates the original steeply rising values; in effect, the square-root G and squared G both interact; but when ratios of planetary orbit and spin (adjusted for Earth's) were applied, the resulting ZPH ratios became a function of square-root AU (G) to give us an approximation of actual planetary spin ratios (vs. Earth's) in the final analysis.

So is there a significant relationship between planetary spin and orbital energy vs. Kelvin black-body heat? Only when a variable G is taken into effect. Otherwise, the answer would be "no", not without G per Equivalence.

More to think on this, because it certainly appears "puzzling", like so much of cosmological science. The bottom line is the simplified equations for ratios of Kelvin and orbital Energy need a variable G factor, which may be significant... Sometimes it takes many trips round the mountain to realize the mountain is right before you!


Ivan

*(Mars was corrected from original 2004 posts)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Black Hole confirmed
Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 09:50 am:   

Galaxy Black Hole confirmed in our Milky Way.

Black_hole_lensing_web.gif (interactive -BBC)
Simulation of Gravitational lensing by a black hole which distorts a galaxy in the background.


quote:

German astronomers tracked the movement of 28 stars circling the centre of the Milky Way, using two telescopes in Chile.
The black hole is four million times more massive than our Sun, according to the paper in The Astrophysical Journal.
Black holes are objects whose gravity is so great that nothing - including light - can escape them.
According to Dr Robert Massey, of the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS), the results suggest that galaxies form around giant black holes in the way that a pearl forms around grit.



Every large galaxy of stars will have a Black Hole center, according to the Axiomatic equation, because that is where all surrounding ambient hot radiant energy will converge on a point, where the canceled light lambda releases primordial maximum gravity: G = c.

Ivan

[BTW, interesting that intergalactic space G happens to coincide at about same as if Axiomatic Eq were set to E=c (dimensions adjusted)*, which means rather than E=mc^2 (mass-energy conversion for matter), background space energy is only about E=mc. It's all, the universe's matter and gravity mass, about c!] :-)

*(See for greater detail: By Ivan A. on Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 12:54 am:
AXIOMATIC CUT-OFF FREQUENCY FOR GRAVITY?, where was first postulated E=mc for space; also see: LIGHT REDSHIFT DISTANCE TRAVELED AT 1 Z for cosmic light.)

Also read: Countdown to Strangeness for updated ideas.

... Continued on Deep Space Science posted thread.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Near 'instant' communications
Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2016 - 11:30 am:   

On near 'instant' communications.


photo.jpg
Entanglement over 143 km

This is a continuation of an earlier discussion, Something about light and time, where the idea that light photons contain stored information back to its source simultaneously, and that this information may be retrievable in 'real time' by compressing the signal with severe 'blue-shifting' of the signal to a near zero point, so it is readable in virtually zero time. This of course would be immensely useful to communicate across great distances in real time, employing light photon 'entanglement' rather than the relatively slow lightspeed c velocity. In effect, we could communicate information, data and voice, over great cosmic distances without the current time lapse handicap of such communications today.

The concept behind this hypothetical system is based on the idea that the gravitational medium, deep space gravity background, acts as a dimensionless medium within which light travels, what in effect means gravity is near instantaneous (as opposed to gravity waves traveling at lightspeed); so the space manifold acts in real time (General Relativity is right on space geometry, but not on gravity waves propagation), and light or all electromagnetic energy retains that space geometry. It may also account for why the space manifold bends light gravitationally around large mass (such as giant stars or galaxies) giving us gravitational lensing. The ambient background space gravity acts as a medium within which light travels, and bends, holding within itself all the information contained in the photon. This information follows the path of the space manifold, while at the same time retaining information from its inception (where even gravity lensing is a mild form of 'accelerating' the information at its source). Then it is a matter of 'collapsing' the highly blueshifted wavelength to access what information it carries, nearly instantaneously.

Information entanglement, or what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance", is what results in this space gravity medium, so the wave collapse brings such information to the forefront without light c time limit. Entanglement had been demonstrated on Earth over great distances, but now could be engaged over astronomical distances. The trick would be, for example, to first collapse the wave of the intended target star system to relocate it in real time (where it actually is now), and once found to then point a powerful laser at it (which would diffuse into a narrow cone over the distance) to establish a communications link. This could be achieved at any distance in the solar system, or at any distance in interstellar space. With this channel open, communications in real time could proceed per quantum entanglement principles from both ends.The technology already exists for quantum entanglement, but rather than used for information encryption as now, it could be theoretically used to communicate in space in real time.

IDA

Also see: Quantum entanglement
Faster than light communications
Are gravity waves falsifiable?

Villa Borghese, Rome

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration