Bob L. Petersen

Don't worry about seeming like a Plumber. I now of at least one room unexplored and now unknown. The plane I got about half drawn some people decided I was trying to use hydraulics in the cold of space. It was a huge electrical trunk line. To the world where the world seems to have gears, too. I will need that one, too. Bob L. Petersen

Most the background of Rene Descarte and Issac Newton are from Charles Hutton's Mathematical And Philosophical Dictionary. Any insight is from my own use of logic. The first is Rene Descarte saw more than he ever got to tell of or others told of. But when they saw he was using the Cartesian Geometry, They do tell to at least give it a look at where it is headed. Certain things he is credited with saying one looking things we won't define for couple of Centuries. Laces for Rene Descarte. Patterns be our choice for a words. Issac Newton spend his early years schooling himself once he understood reading and writing. With his father dead he took care of the business in town. If you have ever self schooled yourself there is one you must say to yourself. All this is supposed to make sense. Charles Hutton said his discovery that light had wavelentgh was do to his Infintine Genius. He noticed the mirroring of surfaces came at regular intervals while triming a glass cube. Large number of ?strokes? at first and much less when one gets close. Newton just saw what others had not seen. This was something else that was from Issac Newton. They do use self education but not till one reaches Graduate School. There is enough information there know where this going, but not how. I would label Fourier as the first Lamb. There is enough information see the though. One of the opening insights was that one should consider the interactions that involve matter and space mock our math. That seeing something does not tell one enough to get excited and believe. Even after Fourier found it's way to useful it didn't move that much further. The second I consider to be a Lamb is Riemann. Even Rene Descarte would have to agree with that. I at the start also saw work of Paul Dirac. To show what I knew then I would have to cancel out parts of Dirac's Equation. I would then be in a unitless world. The one that would be canceling out were the ones I'd used to get the mass of the Proton and the Strange Mesons to the Electron. Math would not take me much further. The year WAS 1980. Now I would like to add Richard Feymann just because he isn't give much credit for what he did. It was just a modified Fourier. Which hard to move on further. But vantage point his caution ideas and even wording same more important. These also hindered his chances of advancing us further. My look got me considering where e or were made only units hiding one reason something is important. What is the last thing that must be checked. Bob L. Petersen I will be the last to just trust the numbers. Or just what someone gets to see at one point in time,

I started at the ?Wall? of Action spreading from what was the center of what you call the Big Bang. I have never wanted to see a bang in wanted to see more. I saw things that would make so I could not be right. They are all as important as anything I recognized must be true. What moves the Universe as we know it can't be made of anything we know. At least on the scale it would have to be happen at. What I see must be doing something beyond that scale. If you have opinion about my choice please just listen. There has to ?Wave Form? other then Space at the Center that filling in and pushing out. ?Parts? says any ?Action? still show ?Parts? the ?Actions? which can already be seen as happening here. The Structures can't be as different on might think. I came on to Pillars of Creation, the basic shape told me there were forces at work. One Author of that somewhere used the term the Tusks of an Elephant's Head. Now more are certering around an Elephant's Trunk. We no elephant has three of either Trunks or Tusks. So I'll go back to way fits how I arrived at needing strong Tusks. Not somthing handy and majical. But Elephants only have two Tusks. If you something current about the Tusks the middle is more important than the other two. How did I arrive at the idea told me that was correct. That Author have included the head is important and I will say I am still undecided as to EXACTLY why. I could stop here and look for possible whys. Just note there limited Cloud type material on the other side. What happened in the original ?Action? was a longer time? What is now a much more ?Action? due to the local System. Something did happen at what was originally the center. It was not space that just filled the world that would be. What see tells me there is no possible One Boson method for Universe. Tne ?Wall? and this each have One. Bob L. Petersen This is a small ?Parts?. If you can locate the made the Black Holes in the show The Universe. Try to look at it like has something in common with atom. Shells, energy of Black Holes and their Placement. I say the Cloud came first. Who moved? This is not the look that you get the most benefit from. It is one interest things about about ?Parts?. That really can open ones eyes giving more things to search. Bob L. Petersen Take time just make sure you have an opinion a reason. A llok at something different. One more look below A question from very early was whether Garvity could group form a line, then it was could sread one aaahh something. Temperature or interaction filler. An Otherwise Marginally Ordered Weak Field.(!!!!!Otherwise!!!!!) they at a arrive at traveling a common line between two large objects. I am around you looking at the world as it is. Look at Black Holes as though there parts of one of the more massive Galaxies. What each does and what they can't do. This is most of the span of our universe. The answer posted with trimmed title the word answers. I need anybody that want to know. If something blocks you up go ahead and peek later. Bob L. Petersen Tusks something like teeth at a different angle???? There will a post with opinions held as varibles, waiting for more knowledge.

Those are some of the worst handled Reference, too. The background for this thought was discribed before 2010. It goes beyond what QUARKS gave us. We should from the 8Fold Way almost be expecting Quadrics. But end up looking a 3 and 5. The 3 vectors and a a divided scalar. The equations Fourier or Feynman use the values of such areas. To start with Feynman and end looking right at Extensions of Gell-Mann. It's quite alot to think about and quite alot of time to figure why it is really something to behold. What was breezed through was very old. But until fully described is meaningless. Trivial what was once meaningless til..... Rodger Penrose Bob L. Petersen

Thank You for just leaving me here. I will find myself and my youngest daughter just buried everywhere else. Thank You Blank tried to feature themselves. That daught's favorite word was the. As in THE PIZZA.

This contains the sources for what I am basnig my Theory on. The short Title is Parts. First the Electroon and the Positron are not perfect anti-partiles. What is and what could be and work are the greatest problem. The Proton and it's don't fit right either There is a second page that has not been post. Because this one could find any place where I had been working. Thank You.

Supertring & quantum mechanics TIME Gerard 't Hooft Prof Leonard Susskind Supertring is the way it's spelled on youtub. Now you find it with just that, Supertring. Gerard 't Hooft has won a Nobel Prize and Leonard Susskind covers all the math used by Physics at Stanford. I have to reserve the rights so that I may defend my Ideas and possible Theory. I should be able to at least have something only someone fron Cern could know. I restarted subject in 2008. But I know when they had Bains. The short title is Parts. Half way into this I realised their were too many Effects in the Universe's System. Bob > Petersen In 1973 I bought a CRC a Hand Book of Cemistry and Physics. Number 54 used it's numbers and in 1990. I mentioned something in it to those who worked on making magnetic films by spatering material. It is not a method it is what can be made by are world. What are they called. The book was chained to a table. Parts were missing. I wasn't a favorite either. One more time later. Gather things up and thing about them. If it pleases you. Iam going to start here with Tesla and go on down. I have made my coments on Tesla Waves before.To big and to few to be able to catch one to read it. there is more of course. I am now approaching what some people feel is the temature of the wall surrounding are Universe. I see it as the tempature of our Universe. There is a ?NOISE? there. Much greater then that above it. Mathematic's term is a Crtical point. One easy thing to say can be happening there. What was happening around there is not happening there something else is. The effect around and above that tempature tick tock in there actions with effect reversing. Now the CRC on HElium.(Looking FOR ABSOLUTE ZERO) I just wonder about it back then, When it's tempature pushed below 4 degrees it starts to take a much great cooling power. Much great there more than two Critical Points. How is it geting away? No Boson as we know them else where. We need them to move on in our understandin of ?THING? I am leaving it for you to think about. The upper Limit has to have what causing what. He did whisper (as in a aside) else where he wants those listening to think. Gerard 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind Thank You Bob L. Petersen Gerard 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind Thank You Bob L. Petersen Gerard 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind Thank You Bob L. Petersen Gerard 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind Thank You Bob L. Petersen