Theory of Space cannot afford Time. With equations.

[Yanborg]

6. Solve TOE

Can you afford a time-share condo?

I can. My father sells timeshare actually. The upkeep fee's of $1000 to me negate the purpose.

The mechanics of Timeshare can be summed up in few words. You buy a condo worth $300,000 and sell it 48 times for $20,000. Then charge $1000 per year to each customer in upkeep fees. It takes 2 weeks to "prepare" the appartment ready for the next year, which is why they can only sell it 48 times.

Most time share customers do not keep up with the annual fee's.

It got that way because some people fail to either teach or learn the difference between “proper time” and the time measured by the physical device that we call a clock. We don’t have a clock that can measures “proper time”. Many posts on this site prove that fact very well; these posts included!

Great, its nice to be around people who see this ! I have seen how a clock works as inertia meter btw ! It freaked the relativists out. lol.

This equation. . .

Ey = (mass of the universe) / Mass (si unit)

Where Eternity (Ey) Is defined as a limit of count. It is not a limit of movement however. So what is the link between the physic of movement and the physic of all energy ? Perhaps they are seperate.

hmmmmmm

so you have a bit of classical, with a bit of determinism, thrown in with a bit of probability. Well that helps to describe the nature of movement yes ! Where the probabilistic Quantum mechanics, determines the science of how different spheres smash off into unpredictable locations when they collide etc. Looking at the nature of these particles when they collide in media such as hydrogen, the spiral shapes are very intruiging.

However.

What we are really trying to do at arriving at TOE is somehow integrate

Strong force with Gravity and Electroweak force.

What is it that unifies these forces ?? I'm finding that it is a golden mean. But not an ordinary Golden mean.

And you might laugh, but I just stumbled onto something of extreme interest. You see I am a very good geometrician/ I strongly believe that all problems of mathematics can be expressed geometrically.

Just then, I calculated the distance of an Electron from a proton using the Bohr radius. You see, I've never drawn these things out on the page to scale before. So using my software I have a radius of 5.29nm

Then, I gave the electron a mass of 1 and the proton a mass of 1836, which I then multiplied by a distance 5,000,000.

1/1836 x 5,000,000 = 2723.3115


Basically, what I am trying to uncover is a proportion of strength between Strong force, Gravity and Electroweak Force.

Then I looked at the Earth and the Sun - A case of classical gravitational force.

I gave the Earth 1, and the sun 332,950

Which I then multiplied by the distance 150,000,000.


1/332,950 x 150,000,000

this gave me 450.51.

Then I drew a rectangle 450.51 x 2723.31 just out of interest.

Well I remembered my lessons in the Golden Mean from Architecture. It was one of the first things we were taught in the History of Architecture in aesthetics. That is a rectangle is at its most natural percievable cirumstance when its width is 1.5 x its height.

So this rectangle of 450.51 x 2723.31 looked very odd. That was until I divided it by 4. When I divided it by 4 1/4 of my rectangle was about 99% acurate to the ratio of 1 x 1.5.

The other thing was that the area of this stretched oblong, was also the exact area of a golden mean rectangle, half its length.

Assuming the mass of the sun earth, proton and electron are accurate, is this just a co-incidence ?

Obviously mass plays an incredible role in binding the forces together, but perhaps there is a curve of relation which operates between the forces of the very large and the very small.

Without introducing accelaration, can a Unified Force be a proportion of mass and simply its distance from an object ?

ok this is getting beyond a joke. . .

I just did the same comparing jupiter to earth, and again arrived at 4 golden mean rectangles.

is there a way to post cad diagrams to this forum ?

Here are the diagrams. First is of what seems to be a pattern between mass and distance. From the very smallest relationship within a hyrogen atom - proton orbiting electron - to the very large earth - sun, and jupiter - sun.

Hmmm. Still needs a bit of work to polish up the points of accuracy. I'm not done with it at this point. Need more cases. Can anyone give me more specs of different atoms ?

Well.

I'm not sure how these figures were accurate. The reason I cannot know for sure is that I do not know the radius that an electron orbits a proton.

HOWEVER. And this is with a big capital H.

I DO KNOW THAT EARTH AND JUPITER WERE DEAD ON BALLS ACCURATE.

If you find that this information is accurate. Your search for a TOE (in unifying the big with the very small) might be a big waste of time, unless you are a numerologist.

The reason is that there can't be a curve of relation ! THESE ARE IRRATIONALS.

I will make that with one exception.

the development of a chart, with regards to all the orbits we know,
from small to big. That DATA set will need allot of research, and even
then,

You're only going to arrive at a distribution table of some kind.

I mean, lets be particle ! err I mean practical

Yeah seems there are allot of numerlogical cases presented in physics.

Dirac Large Numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_l...ers_hypothesis

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

Two schools (from wiki)

According to tradition, Pythagoreanism developed at some point into two separate schools of thought, the akousmatikoi ("listeners") and the mathēmatikoi ("learners"). The mathēmatikoi were supposed to have extended and developed the more mathematical and scientific work begun by Pythagoras, while the akousmatikoi focused on the more religious and ritualistic aspects of his teachings. The akousmatikoi claimed that the mathēmatikoi were not genuinely Pythagorean, but followers of the "renegade" Pythagorean Hippasus. The mathēmatikoi, on the other hand, allowed that the akousmatikoi were Pythagorean but felt that they were more representative of Pythagoras.[1]

Hippasus and irrational Numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippasus

[austintorn@aol.com]

Sort of like the rational versus the irrational?

[Impressivesort]

Or like -- the NANO'S (New-Age-Nuts Orating Something) -- and the ME'S (Materialist Existentialist Sociopaths).



The Nuts tend toward coming out of their shell, while the Me's tend to work their way into one . . . it's all a "shell" game?

[austintorn@aol.com]

The irrational numbers may outweigh the rational, but I'll have to pass on the infinitely possible and be a shelless turtle walking around in his pajamas and not looking for a shell, but enjoying reality, as is, not worrying about whichever way science or whomever eventually finds it out to be implemented (or not all knowable).

[Yanborg]

Sort of like the rational versus the irrational?

Yes. And wow ! If we hit a brick wall with the LHC, then what comes then ? I mean, what if it turns out that the gravitational constant is part of a irrational numbers masterplan ? It would mean the rational has literally hit the wall of the irrational. The "akousmatikoi" would have triumphed over science at the last wall, the last bastion of matter, the Higgs Boson. Like, they were waiting at the finish line the whole time !

It will probably lead to the labelling of a new particle. If there is a new particle to be found, let it be The Hippaseon - in honour of the first recognisant of irrational numbers Hippasus. He was wrongly executed for his discovery. And let it signify the infinate divisibility of matter as well as the irrationality of the real gravitational constant. We have enough points of observation to unify the Gravitational constant if indeed it is possible. I am not being pessimistic. I am just being realistic. We don't need to mine further into matter.

I mean all suggestion points to the fact that YES all gravity is related but in an ordered fashion of irrational numbers.

Regarding, Dirac, he worked it out a different way to me, but even then he arrived at the same conclusion. I think he's a genius. . .and he Deserves more of the limelight.

http://www.paricenter.com/library/download/dirac01.mp3

The irrational numbers may outweigh the rational, but I'll have to pass on the infinitely possible and be a shelless turtle walking around in his pajamas and not looking for a shell, but enjoying reality, as is, not worrying about whichever way science or whomever eventually finds it out to be implemented (or not all knowable).

I'm not sure I understand the poetics of this sentence.

What I am talking about is a pattern of the infinite sure; Not an infinity of count. That is the problem with the equations, like Einsteins - They are bound to the infinity of count. When you put massive massive or tiny tiny numbers into them, they will not serve to accurately describe phenomena. But just like Dirac says ; we don't want to get rid of these equations because they are enourmously successful.

On the other hand, when you compare the strong force to the weak force, the ratio of their strength becomes visible in the "pattern" of the infinate -. The pattern of the infinate is different from the infinite itself.

When we stare at the horizon of infinite count, we see an unapproachable sum; and our rational minds give up. This is sane.

When we stare at the pattern of the infinite; the involute, pi, golden ratio, fractals we see an unapproachable sum, but we also see a pattern.

This pattern can lure us into a false sense of establishment. Because its like a horizon of the infinate posing as order.

These are truly interesting geometrical expressions. What Stephen Hawkings seeks in a TOE is not scientific. To me it is clearly numerological.

So I'm bowing out of this forum. I wish you guys all the best with he TOE.

Take care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY1P-...eature=related

Ok, ,had to come back with something.

I have an idea.

And it has to do with my idea about time not existing. Is it possible that things move only because they are in some kind of geosynchronous liesure to do so ?

Like, what if time does not exist in matter ? I mean, when we look at objects of great density, we don't see much movement going on at all. What if the perception that things move arises only from this liesure. There is allot of space between atoms and their parts. I mean, in an H-atom; if a proton were a marble, then the electron would be a pin head about 5.29 km's away. But nothing apparently goes on inside this orbit, no solar systems or any other random stuff.

You know, when you look at the H-atom, its not hugely different in size scale to the sun and the earth, or the sun and Jupiter. Except we know that the force between the proton and the electron is stronger.

Maybe what we understand as movement in every day reality is because we exist in a Geo Synchronious relaxation, between the strength of the very small and the weak strength of the very big.

And then I thought about a compass. You know, if time existed, wouldn't the pointer move causally to the north ? But it doesn't do that, it moves past it, ,and then back. Instead of momentum being the cause of this, what if the pointer is just being slippery in the field, you know like when you drop a marble, and it bounces several times before hitting the ground ? Exponentially, we might say that the marble never comes to rest, or that the pointer never dictates the direction of true North.

Maybe the force of gravity should be unified with pressure first ? I mean force over area. We have to admit, water mitigates the force of gravity right ?


Just a thought.

I mean, what if the entire surface of the earth was a big electromagnetic
pole ? A 2d spherical surface of a magnetic pole. And we had a massive
spin wheel, the bottom of the wheel charged with the opposing pole.
But lets say that this massive electromagnet over the whole Earth was
only charged enough to mitigate the weak force a little bit, causing
the spin wheel to levitate by about 5m from ground allover the
planet.

I wonder, would the wheel like to keep doing what it is already
doing ? i.e. as the earth moves, the latitudes and longtitudes of the
spin wheel would create world lines across the planet, even though the
object was, for all practical purposes completely at rest.

Does the sun rotate on its axis ? All the planets rotate in the same counter-clockwise direction. I wonder how the sun rotates ? ( i don't mean orbits around the milky-way)

Hey this is interesting as well, ,

When I think of all the space in my own body, I come to realise that the substrate is much like the inside of an aero bar.

Which is kind of cool. So, it would be wrong to say that I had 100% density of stuff for my volume.

I am not an electron for example, which is pure indivisible shit with nothin else inside of it/ no other parts. So an electron on the other hand would have a 100% density of electron shit.

(just a throw in - maybe double slit experiment works for things with
absolute densities photon 0%, electron 100%)?

So too, the Earth wouldn't be 100% dense, though I suppose things get a bit denser at the core etc. All that sexy liquid hot magma shit! Which is pretty amazing, thinking that everything else, other than maybe an electron (and maybe a quark) is just the substrate of the aero bar.

So ok, things that are denser are heavier for volume. And we know heavier things have a greater attraction to the Earth than lighter things.

Now, this is the part of physics that I could never wrap my head around. The acceleration part... Cause ok, when shit drops, it falls at 9.8m/ss

But when shit has hit the ground, I mean to me, the ****************er ain't accelerating no more. I mean, when I did physics I just had to come to accept this as the way it was taught, otherwise I would have failed the exam. And, so force was still calculated as f = ma... even when the shit on the ground weren't goin nowhere. I mean WTF ? Oh, my physics teacher would say, its not moving but it is still accelerating to the Earth. And then of course, I had to work in the pressure equation as a separate observation. i.e. p=f/a. . . .to determine the amount of pressure that existed between the shit and the floor.

Sometimes I would say no! It ain't movin so it ain't accelerating. I said, if it were accelerating it ought to have a velocity, and as you can see plain and simple, the shit is on the floor without a velocity. Then he would say, well we don't need to use an equation for velocity because we know its accelerating at 9.8m/ss,

Then i say hold the phone ! I mean, its not a tube of shit anymore, i'll give it to you that the shit has flattened in the same way a car would flatten at the wall. He would say ahhh yes. .But you see, we have measured that everything falls to the Earth at a rate of 9.8m/ss and that same law applies to objects which are at rest. And so I would shake my head, do what he said and get on with the program. I mean, I guess he was right to teach what your supposed to teach to high school students. But what I didn't realise then what I realise now is that even the big hitters don't know what in **************** gravitational force really is. And that this Law he speaks of is generally compromised. Perhaps I should have taken the fight further ?

I still find this concept of acceleration really fu-bar.

Ok so heres another question. . . .

The Earth is Round and so is the Sun. So there is a curved relationship of gravitational force between the surface of the Earth and the sun. Its one thing I suppose to assume that everything operates from the center of mass, but hey, that doesn't really take into account that matter on the poles, might also be attracted to the sun. So a curved planet, will have the majority of gravitational pull operating from its center of gravity sure, but what about the multiplicity where other locals of matter exist and possibly at different densities ? Who knows ? Maybe the North HS weighs more than the South HS ? or visa versa.

And so here is the problem with math and physics. They are completely seperate. Yes, you can use principles of math to do physics, but you can't go and make the earth a virtual object, with mass, density and so-forth assuming just one center of gravity, and one force existing between the center of gravity of the Earth with the center of gravity of the sun. Especially not when sub atomic particles are suspended in their own spaces/ their own bubbles so to speak in the Aero bar.

Oh

And here is another problem. We are all familiar with the mobius strip ? So, I am going to use this analogy, not as a mathematical object, well kind of, but also as a principle of argument. A mobius strip is a beautiful object, because it allows us to walk (with magnetic boots) utilising both sides of the walking medium. Basically, we can double the distance walked with the same length of medium if it were not a closed circle. It allows us to walk on both of its sides, and if we walked at the same rate would take us twice as long to get back to where we started. Imagine if that medium had a story printed on both sides, and you wanted to finish the story but couldn't. The middle chapter disappearing where you started, and your back at chapter one allover again !

{I imagine this mobius strip VS the closed circle analogy is probably the underlying problem with how you arrive at an 80mpole fitting in a 40m Barn with relativity. When you calculate that an 80m pole fits into a 40m barn, you can't possibly be looking at both sides of the picture}

Maybe the trick is to unify the equations so that they read like a mobius strip not a circle ? If you re-read the story between my physics teacher and I, I was trying to make a mobius strip out of what he was trying to teach me was a closed circle. Hence the reason I probed more and more and escalated on the issue.

And basically this is the problem with time in a nutshell! Like a mobius strip vs a circle, time does not allow us to observe both sides of what the object is doing. You see, we observe things moving to the Earth at that 9.8m/ss rate because of the force of gravity. So, then when the object is at rest, our minds go into the circle mode. "oh the object must still be accelerating at 9.8m/ss". Our mind should be going into mobius strip mode to see what is happening on both sides (i.e. what is happening after the middle chapter). I'll explain why. On the other side of the story we might imagine that the center of gravity of the shit once hitting the floor, flicked immediately to the center of the Earth. The shit is now part of the Earth is it not ? How the hell can it still be accelerating ? It's center of Gravity is now in the same place !

Here is the problem with Time. It forces you us into the CIRCLE of reason, why bother with a 4th dimension when our own 3d space offers us ways of re-thinking our real problems!?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Some people on earth are much more dense than others. That is the story of nuts in a nutshell.

The circle of reason is a three ring circus.

I don't think there's any gravity at all at the center of gravity.

I think this thread is running out of space.

[Yanborg]

Some people on earth are much more dense than others. That is the story of nuts in a nutshell.

The circle of reason is a three ring circus.

I don't think there's any gravity at all at the center of gravity.

I think this thread is running out of space.

Yeah sorry : thought work in progress theory literally meant, work in progress theory.

Hey man ! Your not saying I'm dense are you ? My intention is not to solve anything, rather to provide inspiration. Maybe someone has an amazing idea about how to circumnavigate force without introducing acceleration.

Can't say the mobius strip story is boring either can you ?

[baudrunner]

You have a lot of faith in your teachers, my friend. They are not infallible. There's an old saying, "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach." The shit stayed on the floor and was no longer accelerating because its progress had effectively become impeded, obstructed, absorbed etc. Acceleration is observable. So is the lack of it. The laws of motion are proved through observation.

So can the relationship between gravity and time be proved. Large masses slow down time the most.

[Yanborg]

You have a lot of faith in your teachers, my friend. They are not infallible. There's an old saying, "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach." The shit stayed on the floor and was no longer accelerating because its progress had effectively become impeded, obstructed, absorbed etc. Acceleration is observable. So is the lack of it. The laws of motion are proved through observation.

So can the relationship between gravity and time be proved. Large masses slow down time the most.

Yeah I've developed the whole plot into a sci-fi movie on Youtube. . .Enjoy !!!


The irrationality of Unified Gravitational Theory Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XtASHzJq58

The irrationality of Unified Gravitational Theory Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TQV5...eature=related

The irrationality of Unified Gravitational Theory Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcJ7Ij1B_uE

The irrationality of Unified Gravitational Theory Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCj1qnJjBBw