[Rufus]

Sentient Marine

Well I guess there is no sense in asking you any more math questions. That stuff is way over my head. Hope you have success with your peers and your theory is accepted. If I were you I would place it in html on a web site and polish the hell out of it. Most people have webspace that they don't even know about. I can help with the html if you need it.

Rufe

[Sentient marine]

I must say I am very glad this Christmas went well. Looking at physics and possibilities is a worry. I believe the weaponization of space and other types of launches could pose future problems.

While I believe in being prepared not paranoid, I am terribly aware what a simple cleaner would have to put up with if the ideas I look at were correct. Apart from not being listened to now there would be the utter stupidity from those who read more into a few physics thoughts and comments on human nature than I should have written. So just before I give this whole thing a big miss ... just one look at the standard model:-

It is just so frustrating when based on the quantum mechanics our own top physicists preach there should be a testable inner boundary to a four dimension universe at all points. That is at all points particles can pop in and out ... are on the inner quantum boundary of the universe. But the physical inner boundary is not there. If a particle was to be able to move when attached to the physical inner boundary of the universe it would be the equivalent of saying the whole universe moved to accommodate that particle.

If quantum mechanics was to be believed then it would be a frozen and fixed universe, permanent unchanging, not moving ... anything ever. When you look at the energy required to strip the electrons from gold to smash just the nucleus of an atom it shows the levels of power involved.

Movement of any particle violates the principle of the strong nuclear force acting at the inner edge of the quantum universe so quantum mechanics is wrong, just wrong and the top scientists just accept it ... why?

[Sentient marine]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Sentient Marine

Well I guess there is no sense in asking you any more math questions. That stuff is way over my head. Hope you have success with your peers and your theory is accepted. If I were you I would place it in html on a web site and polish the hell out of it. Most people have webspace that they don't even know about. I can help with the html if you need it.

Rufe

Thanks Rufe for asking the questions. There are better minds than mine working on these things. I have got to consider the level of concern I am causing to people around me. It is normal in that Niels Bohr said "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it".

I am not anywhere near qualified to talk to physicists because my mathematics is way to simple for what they want. Nor do they want concepts as ideas just get called 'word salad'.

Looking at what I have written on a number of forums I realise I got in way over my head with ideas that were not wanted. You know it is a shame when some science groups do ask for ideas and then don't really want to hear them. But worst is the feeling that if anything changed then the one group a person would want to go to with concerns is the church and they are the mob to fear the most.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by Sentient marine

It is normal in that Niels Bohr said "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it".

I am not anywhere near qualified to talk to physicists because my mathematics is way to simple for what they want. Nor do they want concepts as ideas just get called 'word salad'.

Sentient Marine

Since you like writing so much, and since I am one of those people that can't understand quantum theory, I need a 500 to 1000 word essay written in simple language (no math or very basic math and each equation explained!!!) for my site.

I am one of those people that Niels Bohr speaks of but I want to be shocked by it. All I ever write is 'word salad' but that's not a problem.

I will give you full credit for the essay (Hopefully with your real name) and if you need 2000 words it's OK with me. You can begin a new thread with it or put it here, it's surely on topic. Take your time, I like polished works not spelling errors and bad syntax. James I Digol did one on strings which I have used but the English is lacking. Wikipedia just looses me with references to acronyms that need links to explain and they are just more acronyms.

Just say so if you would rather pass for now. (no rush)

Rufe

as Tina would add [TALK TO ME AS IF I WERE TEN] lol ;O}

[Sentient marine]

From very big to very small the universe is real, very real and it seems to handle all of its boundaries quite nicely. Unfortunately we use mathematics to describe reality and at the boundaries the mathematics break down.

Since science uses the language of mathematics the only way to talk to them is with mathematics. There is the problem in a nutshell. Mathematics as a language has its own humour and distortions and down right lies like any language. This is very useful when it comes to hiding a secret or misdirecting someone asking a genuine question.

Religion has faith and science has mathematics. For instance the two Greek runners, the two have a race and the slower runner has a head start. Every time the faster runner gets to the point where the slower runner was he is still behind. When he gets to where the new position of where the slower runner was, he has again moved forward in the time it took the faster runner to catch up. Now in the real world the faster runner will at some point have a chance of passing the slower runner if the race is long enough but in the mathematical world the faster runner never quite catches up to the slower runner.

The moral of that story is if you are at a racetrack with a mathematician and he is always betting on the horse with the biggest head start, then do your own betting.

At some point the mathematics that described the real world took on a life of its own with all of the foibles and imaginary peculiarities that exist only in the world of mathematics. Normally that is not a problem but as in my previous post if you exchange the fishing line on the reel for a noodle then by working to a point where you can extract food via a division by zero it is possible to feed the world with an infinite amount of noodle unwound from a fishing reel. Funny enough in this world I live in that just does not seem to happen much. Now these are the people I would not allow in my little fishing industry wind out fishing line because ... well quite frankly because they are just plain crazy.

The problem is that it is their language and they as a people are not alone in the pride and defence of their language no matter how many difficulties it may cause others. The elite scientific community will insist that their language of mathematics, a language of all possibilities and a language of which the real numbers is just a very small and for the most part a very insignificant bit. That is what my problem with mathematics is. I live only in the real world and it is the only one that I have that I currently know of.

So through clever persuasion of politicians, politicians who do not want to look unintelligent ... the clever scientists have obtained the equipment, the most powerful equipment ever made for smashing objects together. Equipment that can suffer a loss of energy and still generate temperatures over two trillion degrees and it was a lot of energy that just disappeared ... not just a bit. Quantum experimentation is like using a hammer to break a watch to see what cogs and springs pop out. Bigger equipment is like getting an ever bigger hammer. So if there is an inside to the universe as quantum mechanics suggest there is ... then what happens if we pop a big enough hole in it.

That is why I stress, our beautiful little blue planet is our life raft all alone in the vast empty reaches of space. We are alone, have no neighbours to run to or habitable worlds to escape to. The ISS (the International Space Station) can hold a few but not indefinitely and even with recycling is still dependant on resupply from earth based launch sites. Our scientists are deep within our little vessel in fortified compartments with the approval of an authority untrained and not conversant with the language and the strange culture of the scientists who would take the risk of discovering a new power source or smashing a hole through the very boundaries of existence.

This is not the conventional view from science. I deal only in real world analogies, form, force and flow. To learn mathematics first one must forget the real world and quite honestly I am rather loathe to do that.

Cheers Michael Noonan

[Rufus]

Michael

Thankyou very much. You're right it is scary. I didn't expect to find out about the secret world of math but then I've always wondered what they were up to. I can disassemble the most complicated gearcase in my head and redesign the mechanisms, all mentally, but I can't even do the most basic algebra and logarithms, I don't even know what they are or represent.

I may polish your article slightly to make it fit the topic but it will remain mostly intact. I'm gathering information from this TOE site that applies to the study of mind and thought.

Thanks again

If you have any further ideas or inspirations I have a ton of web space and written work takes up no room at all. Everything I have written in my entire life would go on a couple of floppys. (Don't expect to find anything there for a couple of days, I still setting up the TOE room)

Rufe

[Sentient marine]

There are a number of theories and I admit mine is a bit of an oddball. I think differently or at least have not found the right arrangement yet. I have tried to explore some lateral thinking on physics and a few other aspects. One of the big drawbacks actually is if a change was significant enough then new emergent technologies would first consider weapon potential ahead of humanitarian potential. So I am reluctant to forge ahead and yet worried that if I do not try, then something I have left out might be even more important.
So from here on this refers to the thinking I have put in place regarding a cyclical universe and my apologies to any in the science community if a different angle of thought offends. This is just a way of writing up an idea that has hit a brick wall when it came to my asking for help with a concept. So I do not know if this is useful to you or not Rufe.
Time is considered the most important and unchangeable constant that we have in the universe. Unfortunately it is sometimes the way of things that we assume or forbid ourselves to look at that one thing that may hold important information.
Time is defined as a dimension to go with the other three spatial dimensions. That gives the space time curvature Einstein referred to with relativity ... that is space bends and time can be dragged a bit depending on how fast one is travelling. Roughly speaking over a certain speed nobody will agree that anybody else is telling the right time.
The second definition is that time is perception. That is a memory of events in a sequence and as such time does not exist outside of the conscious mind. That is part of the reason why there is such a big song and dance about whether time = 0.
In quantum mechanics the 'chronon' is a theoretical unit of time that is most closely linked with mass. Now this is where I took a different path to mainstream science and considered a third option ... what would time need to be to link the quantum world and the world of general relativity. It turns out that mass can be simulated by force like the push of water on the wall of a dam. Well that took care of quantum to an extent ... time is force but what is it pushing against, we needed the equivalent of the wall of a dam to push against to make it a force. More on that later.
For relativity gravity is a force which could be described as pulling all things toward matter or more curiously a push if it flowed and washed all things towards matter. It is like standing under the shower you feel the push of water from the pressure behind the shower head. So if gravity is described as movement then space needs shape and that is where time comes in. As a force in its own right it can push space giving it shape then balances the 'mass like' quantum property with a 'mass like' relative property. The big thing here is that to do that takes us away from nice little spheres and easy circles into rather more complex shapes. But not anywhere near as complex and utterly confusing as the mathematics and some of the bizarre excuses used to explain some of the fixes.
A classic example is quantum mechanics. Nowhere in quantum mechanics is there an explanation for magnetism ... quantum mechanics actually expressly forbids it. Maybe it is just me but that seems to suggest the most successful theory of science might ... dare I say it ... be not entirely correct.
Somehow none of the magnets that I use in everyday life understood that and they still work. Well almost, I have one of those annoying magnetic door opening swipe cards that has a limited set of friends in the door community. So instead of opening all of the doors as it should, it has restricted my access to a basic few that still make work possible although slightly less easy. I dislike anything without a sensible and easy manual override because when one most needs access or egress say in an emergency the chance is there for technology that is supposed to assist people to be the thing that traps them ... basic poor planning.
As I said I would get back to what is being pushed on when time is a force with weight or mass like properties. All experiments use matter which is comprised of atoms. Atoms require force to be moved ... overcoming inertia, and force to be stopped ... overcoming momentum. It may be a bit simplistic but to me if the atom or more precisely protons and neutrons were the boundary then everything works.
Where I am concerned with this model is that evolution is also evolving. So much flexibility could be built into lines of force but then they could divert to a new flow. We may be able to get in touch with our future or past and by force of will effect a change. We have not even successfully tamed the great rivers of the world yet, the flow of time may have even more surprises than even the most open minded thinker could credit.
Interestingly in the Newscientist magazine reporting on the next fifty years of progress and the real likelihood on having an answer for everything were confident that there would be no new discoveries outside the scientific community. I was quite surprised as there are surely still a few very clever people left in the world that are not scientists. But no, in a year or so of peddling an idea that I hoped might help generate more interest the response has not always been overly encouraging.
I actually believe the official scientific community could be right and be well on a path to ensuring there is no new science from outside the scientific community. You know when you are hitting rock bottom with groups on some other forums when they start posting pictures of strange looking fish and donkeys wearing straw hats. Thankfully this forum has been very supportive.
We do not have all the answers yet, maybe never will. Some things may just have answers that will take all of us, not just a few.

[Rufus]

Mike

Thanks
I put your other post in html and it will be up probably by tonight.
This one is very interesting because it shows the process that a non-scientist (if I can call you that) goes through to come up with a TOE. It seems that you are very dedicated to this goal and I can appreciate that. It gives you something to think about when you are working.

Your concept of time seems to be crossed with mainstream and your own theory but time from the modern science point of view has some mystical clock ticking away while there is nothing more than rocks floating in the void of non-space.

They do not want any info from outside because I cannot even get one communication answered and Lubos Motl won't even let me post on his text newsgroup 'alt sci strings' because I'm questioning the value of the theory.

You need to be convinced that the science of matter is of no consequence and begin to understand that there is only the science of thought and nothing else.

Keep writing, I enjoy your work and will absorb it all into html as you develop in toeland.
I love your humor.

Rufe

(not only donkeys but poetry.. up the ying yang)

[Sentient marine]

I like non-scientist it is a good description.

I do have a high regard for the scientists and understand that because the fields are so varied they must specialise in their chosen area. I am more of a generalist and have taken an interest in a variety of areas. Structure and shape seem to appeal to me and the study of human nature.

One of my early lessons was as a child watching Bill Bixby and Ray Martin in 'My Favorite Martian'. People do not expect to see what is hidden if it is in plain sight. The episode was when his ship lost its invisibility so Ray Martin tied a string to it and walked it home as if it was a large balloon.

I find value in stories from the generations too. This was in Reader's Digest ... three generations of women a grandmother, her daughter and her granddaughter were asked "What is the most essential labour saving device in your kitchen, something you would not want to be without. The daughter replied "That's easy the microwave." The mother smiled and said "The refrigerator". At this the daughter agreed "Oh yes that is the most important". Then the grandmother spoke and it all became perfectly clear "The thing that saves me the most time and that I would not want to be without is running water".

So when Michelson or Morley found it hard to accept there was no aether I wondered why. Was it because for all other wave motions there had to be a medium ... something for it to travel through.

Here in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment
is the entry regarding the search for the aether. One result is to dismiss it and say it does not exist while another might be do we know enough to determine the right test yet. Even general relativity could use a form of ether which if one reads down the page a bit

As late as 1920, Einstein himself still spoke of a type of ether that was not a "ponderable medium" but something of significance nonetheless:
"...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Tesla held the idea that space was indeed very stiff and not since his beam experiments has anyone achieved what he did to a distance of hundreds of kilometres some eighty years ago. So clearly there are things we do not know.

But is modern science able to look, now that is the question. So many prestigious reputations are riding on being 'right' that to even consider 'alternate ideas' is undermine the elite of the system and question the absolute rightness of the scientific principle based on skepticism.

I am not the first to wonder why personal position and prestige takes precedence over line of inquiry and I sure that I am not going to be the last. At some point there may be a watershed, an event that makes us re-evaluate our ideas just as has happened so many times in the past until the same mistakes are visited on us again. I have only had a year or so in this most fascinating arena, here is someone who has tried for thirty years ... the web page of R Webster Kehr and his example of yet another with results that did not get heard ... http://www.teslaphysics.com/

In 1991 an engineer named Roland De Witte, who lived in Belgium, did a 178 day experiment using 6 atomic clocks, 6 digital phase comparators, etc. During this entire experiment he continuously detected a "sidereal day period."
Roland was excited because he had detected that there was a Universal Reference Frame. He submitted several papers to scientific journals and was rejected every time. He could not even get published in Belgium.

I can not sum up this little article any better than the Aunt of Mr R. Webster Kehr

My aunt, Helen Kehr Billings, who herself had a PhD, use to tell me:
"When they give a person a Bachelors degree, they take away their mouth, when they give them a Masters degree, they take away their brains, and when they give them a PhD, they give them back their mouth."
Helen Kehr Billings, PhD (1901-1995)

[Rufus]

Mike

That's a gas. Now I see why no one will respond to my letters. I sent an article that I thought was earth shaking to Scientific American, which I read for years and they just rejected it out of hand and It was not so much the rejection that hurt, but the sense that I got from them that it really didn't matter what I wrote, but who wrote it.

Perhaps the ether could refer to what everything actually seems to be composed of.

Two articles of yours are up now and these last two will be up in a few days. I'm a bit behind on some other stuff right now.

Perhaps you could explain what cyclical Universe based on Big Rip Scenario means in laymans terms so I can understand it. I maintain that all those 'time beginning' senarios are false because they all seem to start with pre-supposed conditions. I mean how can someone have a theory about how it all began when they start their theory with space and some form of matter??

I'm not trying to put you under any pressure. Go have your holidays or whatever.

later Rufe