“Alpha constant through the looking glass of a numerologist”

[humanbydefault]

“Alpha constant through the looking glass of a numerologist”

The following are the two official figures from the latest Alpha calculation via experimentation:

Alpha (2006 CODATA) = 7.297 352 5376 (50) X 10-3

Alpha (from the formula using the numbers from above):

137. 035 999 679 (94)

If anyone disagrees with these numbers please refer to the following U.R.L. to file a complaint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

Thanks!

Watch what I’m doing with the first from above:

7. (297) (3) (5) (2) (5) (3) (76) (50) I only placed them in parenthesis.

(297) = (2 + 4 + 2) = (8]! *Even conversion!

(3) (2) (3) = (3 + 2 + 3) = 8!

(5) (5) = 10! *Even conversion!

(7650) = (7 + 1 + 0 + 0) = 8! *Even conversion!

Resuming:

Alpha looks like 7.8 8 8 X 10-3

Let’s bring down here the other one:

137. 035 999 679 (94)

(035) (99) (99) (67) (94)

(035) (0 + 3 + 5) = 8! *no conversions needed!

(99) (4 + 4) = 8! *even conversions 9 into 4 twice!

(99) (4 + 4) = 8! Same as above!

(67) = (6 + 2) = 8! *One conversion needed that will balance with the next following next:

(94) = (4 + 4) = 8! *This conversion finally balanced an even pattern.
So! Ladies and gentlemen allow me to introduce Alpha in its second costume:

137. 8 8 8 8 8!

Have you realized that if you rearrange 137 in the following way…?

(1) (3) (7) and add up (1) + (7) = 8!

However 8 is the image of 3 according to Physimatics, right?

But what is the Physical meaning of 8 so many times?

8 is the possible number one point-mass (sub-atomic particle) could be represented in a 3 dimensional space using a coordinate system and three axes) “Object” and its corresponding “Image” in an orthogonal state.

I tell you something else that the majority of you guys will most probably consider a “numerologist’s fallacy” too:

What I’m going to say has a theoretical parallel with what a great Physicists once said regarding this issue (Dr. David Bohm) but let’s read a resume of his thoughts:

“The basis for agreement with standard quantum mechanics is that the particles are distributed according to | ψ | 2. This is a statement of observer ignorance, but it can be proven that for a universe governed by this theory, this will typically be the case. There is apparent collapse of the wave function governing subsystems of the universe, but there is no collapse of the universal wave function.” (End of quote from Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation(For references)

I took the liberty to underline two key sentences I hope you identified with my Theory of Reality.

Ignorance: Based on our inability to match Reality’s speed during observation and that’s why the “Law of Probability” holds its ground. Not because it is the final answer but it is so far “the best we can do”! and those are two completely different concepts altogether obviously.

Universal “wave function”: is what I refer as the objective Reality inherent to every domain in all scales on the universe as we know it.
But this is not what I wanted to say to you earlier… This is:

Dr. David Bohm also mentioned that all there is in the universe is “light” (referring to energy). I see it the same way! Those “particles” we believe real, legitimate and eternal are those “three things” ONLY during 8 instants the materialization of energy is allowed for them to be!

The “Standard Model of Particles” is the perfect evidence to prove this Theory. Only under highly sophisticated engineering procedures using “Atom Smashers” we were able to smash those quanta and look at them in their 8 possible materialization patterns. Those 8 different configurations (4 for the “Object” and 4 for their corresponding “Images”) conformed the same structure Reality has reserved for the rest of the universe. 8 points conforming an “octave” like in musical notes from “Do to Do” back again. From Newton’s circle of colors.

Reality cycling itself with an inherent perturbation that causes 8 sets of coordinates in space to become 7 introducing a factor of uncertainty and probability in our views of Reality.


Miguel De Zayas



God Bless you!

[humanbydefault]

“THE IGNORANCE PARADOX”

Well, it seems that the word ‘ignorance’ was already spelled by others referring to some conclusions built upon a rather obvious absence of Common Sense than a needed balance between the last one and logic.
In fact… it has been always my most deepest belief that it has been precisely that excessive and out-of-control display of a stubborn logic what has taken us to the get lost inside the ‘Wheeler’s Tunnel.”
I want you to check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St..._Particles.svg

It’s just a diagram… No text to read, it’s just a picture.

What is that you see there?
I’ll translate what you see in that Table… You see Energy represented on the right column and a point-mass (infinitely small as Newton depicted mathematically in the past) in its three possible [material] configurations.
“Up and Down” “Charm and rude” “Top and Top-less” J
Could you tell me what a bunch of “colorful” terms has to do Reality in the first place?
I have read some “headlines” in this site and I’ve seen those classifications many times and I keep asking myself the same question:
When all this “hallucination” will finally have an end?
It looks like someone is sitting on a ‘Spinning Wheel’ with his eyes covered by a blindfold who from time to time was allowed to take a brief look at whatever was in front of him during that fraction of time.
Everything you see, touch, smell and hear are real because we are ‘jailed inside’ a Reality that cannot be broken by any means.
Is it the only possible Reality? Are there more ‘jails’ like ours only separated by an indivisible and unobservable fraction of time?
I happen to agree with this assumption and I have written quite extensively about the issue in my latest book “Lex Parsimoniae.”
I even proposed a set of possible values for Alpha for the other seven (parallel) universes…
How objective is our views of Reality if we relied only on what we can observe and measure?

“…The very term objectivity is in question around the world; many scholars have now concluded the proper term lies closer to a collective subjectivity on what we all can agree to be independent of any one person's opinion or perspective…” (…) “…However, this traditional view about objectivity ignores several things. First, the selection of the specific object to measure is typically a subjective decision and it often involves reductionism. Second, and potentially much more problematic, is the selection of instruments (tools) and the selection of the measurement methodology. Some features or qualities of the object under study will be ignored in the measurement process and the limitations of the chosen instruments will cause data to be left out of consideration. In addition to these absolute limits of objectivity surrounding the measurement process, any given community of researchers often shares certain "subjective views" and this subjectivity is therefore built in to the conceptual systems; and it can even be built in to the design of the tools used for measurement. Total objectivity is arguably not even possible in some—or maybe all—situations.”

If we cannot rely on the action of “observation” alone to establish the objectivity of a system of thoughts… could accurate predictions for a given measurement [even in the case when such predictions were based on a model of a Reality that cannot be observable] be enough to call science complete?

I believe this is what Einstein hoped and I believe it is possible too.
I believe that Reality could be represented under a fundamental empirical model and a version of “Synchronicity” could serve as a predictable tool in our physical measurements and technology.

Miguel De Zayas

[humanbydefault]

“Alpha constant through the looking glass of a numerologist”

"The following are the two official figures from the latest Alpha calculation via experimentation:

Alpha (2006 CODATA) = 7.297 352 5376 (50) X 10-3

Alpha (from the formula using the numbers from above):

137. 035 999 679 (94)

If anyone disagrees with these numbers please refer to the following U.R.L. to file a complaint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

Thanks!

Watch what I’m doing with the first from above:

7. (297) (3) (5) (2) (5) (3) (76) (50) I only placed them in parenthesis.

(297) = (2 + 4 + 2) = (8]! *Even conversion!

(3) (2) (3) = (3 + 2 + 3) = 8!

(5) (5) = 10! *Even conversion!

(7650) = (7 + 1 + 0 + 0) = 8! *Even conversion!

Resuming:

Alpha looks like 7.8 8 8 X 10-3

Let’s bring down here the other one:

137. 035 999 679 (94)

(035) (99) (99) (67) (94)

(035) (0 + 3 + 5) = 8! *no conversions needed!

(99) (4 + 4) = 8! *even conversions 9 into 4 twice!

(99) (4 + 4) = 8! Same as above!

(67) = (6 + 2) = 8! *One conversion needed that will balance with the next following next:

(94) = (4 + 4) = 8! *This conversion finally balanced an even pattern.
So! Ladies and gentlemen allow me to introduce Alpha in its second costume:

137. 8 8 8 8 8!

Have you realized that if you rearrange 137 in the following way…?

(1) (3) (7) and add up (1) + (7) = 8!

However 8 is the image of 3 according to Physimatics, right?" (Quoting from the top).


Testing ‘Reality’s secret message’ using Prime Numbers:

137. 8 8 8 8 8!

[1 + 3 + 7 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8]= 51!

The 51st Prime number in the Table of Primes is 233!

233 = (2 + 3 + 3) = 8!

Message confirmed!

Let’s analyze the CODATA number after “Mirror Analysis”…

7. 8 8 8!

[7 + 8 + 8 + 8] = [2 + 3 + 3 + 3] = 11! *after even number of conversions.

The 11th Prime number in the Table is 31!

[7 + 8 + 8 + 8] = 31!

Message confirmed!

[humanbydefault]

“Dr. Gilson’s empirical Alpha calculation was legit!”

I will prove to you (based on the series of recent ‘Numerological Analyses’ posted in this thread) that the official Alpha numbers (“The Fine Structure Constant”) calculated via Q.E.D. theory using a method involving 891 four loops Feynman diagrams are one and the same compared to the results obtained by Dr. Gilson few years ago.

This is Dr. Gilson Alpha:

1/137. 035 999 7867

Very well!

I will analyze the fractional side of the number only:

[035 999 7867] = [035] [99] [977] [8] and [6]!

[3 + 5] [4 + 4] [4 + 2 + 2] [8] and [1]! After 6 conversions (EVEN).

[8] [8] [8] [8] [1]!

*As a reminder to the non-initiated ones I converted three 9s, two 7s and one 6 from their ‘Image configuration’ to their ‘Object configuration’ keeping the reference to “0” (or “10” which is the same).
[See MAYAS NUMBER for info.]

The following number corresponds to the one calculated via QED:

1/137. 035 999 084 (51)

Nice!

[03599908451] = [03504448401] *After four conversions!

The converted numbers were three 9s and one 5! [EVEN]

[35] [44] [44] [8] [1]! = [8] [8] [8] [8] [1]!

Right on the spot! Both calculations were exactly the same… One being the result of an empirical operation with a basic mathematical function on numbers and the second one using Dr. Feynman’s QED theory which has proved to be (compared to others) one of the most precise in Physics.

About the CODATA… Well, you know! I believe that “c” depends on the density of the medium from where light travels and there is much we don’t know about what lies between Earth and those Stars…

If I had to bet I will bet on the first two results, that's for sure!

I wonder if Physicists would consider my analysis a legit one or another numerologist playing with numbers?

Miguel De Zayas (Physimatics)

[humanbydefault]

“Neutrino Oscillation and Standard Model agree with each other”

The only thing that doesn’t is ‘our blind logic’ and the real notion of Reality… They are far from each other by light-years!
Allow me to quote a brief description of the subject first:

“Neutrino oscillation is a quantum mechanical phenomenon (…) whereby a neutrino created with a specific lepton flavor (electron, muon or tau) can later be measured to have a different flavor.The probability of measuring a particular flavor for a neutrino varies periodically as it propagates. Neutrino oscillation is of theoretical and experimental interest since observation of the phenomenon implies that the neutrino has a non-zero mass, which is not part of the original Standard Model of particle physics.” (End of quote from Wikipedia)

The official definition of a perfectly reasonable and understandable physical phenomenon is yet another evidence of how dangerously close we stand to be rightfully tagged as ‘ignorant’ despite all the magnificent technological advance reached in last decades…
A ‘neutrino’ created with a specific ‘lepton’>>>I believe ‘leptons’ already have their place in the Standard Model or maybe I’m confused… can ‘later’ be measured to have a different flavor… ‘later’! Later as it propagates! Perhaps ‘later’ as Dr. Wolfgang Goethe was able to perceive with alternating fringes of bright and dark forming a progressive spectrum?

How about standing in the path of an incoming ‘neutrino’ so we could plot in a circle each and every ‘oscillation’ as it progress in time. Is it possible that we could count 8 different conversions 6 for mass-configuration and 2 for ‘energy’?

I don’t know! You tell me… “…The probability of measuring a particular flavor for a neutrino varies periodically as it propagates…”

It is true it ‘propagates’ along its path but it also rotates along the axis of propagation and it does it at such incredibly high speed that we only can obtain a partial ‘idea’ of its conversion. Some of them obviously are ‘forbidden’ for us to observe due to the unbreakable nature of a “Quantum of Reality” naturally.

Finally the most absurd piece of ‘scientific stupidity’ when it writes:
“…that the neutrino has a non-zero mass…” This is our problem!
Einstein proved it a long time ago and we keep coming back to the same paradoxical “Bull” over and over again. Just as a bunch of ignorant sitting around a table for the contest of “The World’s Greatest Dummy” we keep saying: “This is a particle” and “That is not it”.
Dr. Richard Feynman found the connection between ‘light’ and ‘electrical charge of an electron’ (Coupling Constant) then we consider ‘electrons’ particles and light just energy.

Einstein predicted and it was later on technologically applied that we can ‘produce electrons’ by radiating matter. (Photoelectrical effect).
Oh! We cannot know for certain the ‘whereabouts’ of a particle propagating along its path but we do know it “moves” as a wave and not as a ‘bullet’ would, right?

Duality! Yes duality but not in a chaotic pattern! There is nothing chaotic in this universe, the fact that we cannot ‘observe’ it does not make the fist ‘legit’! There is a cyclical and defined time-progressive pattern in this oscillation and it’s not just neutrinos… It is the same physical process with the rest of ‘Reality’s scales’ too.

[humanbydefault]

Alpha (2006 CODATA) = 7.297 352 5376 (50) X 10-3

The following is a simple demostration of what were those numbers on top "telling us" in their own language:

Let's copy the fraction only...

297 352 5376 (5) ...Now let's divide the fraction by symmetry:

29735 (2) 5376(5) As you can see I placed 2 inside parenthesis and you know why?

2 is the "Object configuration" of 7 [the whole number] and 5 at the end will supply the 'balance' for conversion of 9 into 4... watch:

2(4)735 (2) 5376 = 6735 (2) 5376!

However I will multiply the original configuration of the numbers on both 'branches' independently to arrive at a similar "mirror" result:

29735 x 7 (9 times) = 119987

53765 x 7 (9times) = 216899

Let's put those two numbers side by side:

11 998 7 >< 2 16 899 See it now? Converting 7 into 2 and 6 into 1:

11 998 2 >< 2 11 899

I will add up 216899 + 119987 = 336 886! We know that 8 is the "Image" of 3... So you get an idea!

The CODATA measurement has repeat within its own fraction the same symmetry obtained during our previous analysis with 137.035 999... after being transformed into 8s.

This simple numerical proof shows that the E.R.P.s (Encrypted Referential Patterns) observed in Alpha's fractional side is a result of the repeated pattern obtained from a symmetry.

Only with this kind of 'numerological' calculations you could unveil mysteries no orthodox mathematical procedures could.