Graviphoton

It isn't? Well, lets plug some values into a and b. [math](1 + i\sqrt{2})(1 − i\sqrt{2}) = 1 − 2i² = 1 + 2 = 3[/math] where a=1 and b=2 for some reason it won't show... so bare with me while i type it out

And again... how is it wrong? I can easily plug real values into a and b, and the equation turns out right You;ve lost me

Yes, again. One of them was meant to have an expression J'

Klaynos... How is the multiplication wrong?

It wasn't... one of the J's where meant to be J'.

Klaynos... ... not what i have ever done...

yes

I failed then. Not the first time, and certainly not the last i will enounter in my lifetime.

Hi I am trying to compose a single answer from two values. The equation you highlighted, was the most simplest way i could, after making a previous algebraic error. Right, so here is the new conclusion: [math]a=b[/math] Which gives; [math]a^{2}=ab[/math] Which reduces to; [math]a^{2}=b^{2}[/math] The latter conclusion allowed me to speculate that [math]Tdi[/math] is the conjugate of [math]tdi[/math] because [math]a^{2}=b^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}i^{2}[/math] So… (where J represents the conjugate) [math]J=a+bi[/math] [math]J=a-bi[/math] Gives the form: [math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=a-bi^{2}=a-b(-1)=a+b=x[/math]

No, i don't see anything wrong with your math. I'll state i made a mistake. I missed the overline too... Let me alter the equation. I guess modifying the equations can be done. [math](a-bi)(a+bi)=a-bi^{2}=a-b(-1)=a+b=x[/math] Can be how they finally reach a single answer. This should be acceptable. Or i can keep the original notational idea: [math](a-i\sqrt{b})(a+i\sqrt{b})=a-bi^{2}=a+b=x[/math] Now. Is that acceptable? I believe it is.

If you think i am trolling, then i wont waste any more time. Just come to your own conclusions about the OP, and let it rest. There really is no more for me to say. And i do answer points. If i don't answer them all, it is because either: 1) i don't know how to answer them properly 2) or i haven't had the time to answer all posts It is not because of being ignorant, or nasty, or unfair. Its only fair one allows another a bit of time. Try cutting your arguements down into shorter notation, and less of the insults also, and your posts might be more pleasing to the eye.

Nothing, but your making the equation more complicated. If it is the concept of [math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=a-b=x[/math], then this is also allowed, and might make more acceptable mathematical expression: [math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=ab=x[/math] Agreed? Big Nose.. you said i couldn't do [math]a-bi=a+bi[/math] unless b=0... not true according to wiki, which plugs in actual values: [math](3-2i)=3+2i[/math] which is of the form [math]a-bi=a+bi[/math] Also, wiki has the equation finalised: [math]7=7[/math] [math]i=-i[/math], something which you also claimed to be wrong.

No.

Again, i don't think so.

Not a guess at all. We work our way back to a gravitational phenomena. If there is a singularity, quantum mechanics cannot solve the problem, because laws break down and turn infinite. If the universe grew from a topological opening, we will find quantum mechanics running the show, because since the dawn of time, quantum mechanics has not changed one iota. My arguement is much like how Einstein argued the existence of matter. He said, there was no such thing as matter, but only forms of trapped energy. My arguement is there is no real macroscopic form that escapes the effects of quantum rules, so everything follows them. If what is ristricting our calculations is complexity, then we should reduce the complexity as much as possible. In this case, i am obviously meaning the complexity of entire systems, whilst subatomic behaviour is quite simple (this is a statistical sense here). Some how, simple acting objects, give rise to complex machines. Let's keep it simple i say. Let's have a unified theory of everything in small terms, and use the large terms as a reference. Ofcourse, the last part was speculation on my behalf. The human being is a complex machine built up on smaller simpler machines. These smaller systems are electrons, photons and neutrons, atoms and molecules. Our bodies are nothing but a quantum sludge of electrically fried carbon materials. This sludge is seen at the Planck level to spontaneously throth at a level of 10 x 10^1.616, and in a time of 10 x 10^5.3. These seemingly simple acting particles in great amounts in a type of coherent state, gives rise to a complex intelligence and neural network. The electrons, neutrons and protons, whizzing about in my head are giving rise to something quite extraordinary. How so many particles come to do so, is statistical hell. There is no way a sane mathematician would dare take note of all the particles of a human brain, never mind the entire body. There are so many statistical averages to take a note of, an infinite amount of them, that it simply cannot be done. Also, the Uncertainty Principle forbids total knowledge as well. Where the original cell came into existence, and how, is at heavy controversy. In the beginning, there was just a vast ocean and one land, called Pangaea. Then, somehow, out of the primordial sludge of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, a spark of life appeared. A single celled life. A prokaryote. A catalyst was needed, like lightning. But so many tests have been done in labs. But no sign of the amazing transformation after repeated tests done by scientists. The Darwinian argument still goes on. How did life originate then? The primordial soup theory is still the most accepted, and likely said said, most plausible theory in store to answer how life came about. But even a single cell has about it, a special essence, a life force, or biofield if you will. Dr. Wolf says that it is an electrical biofield, and it encompasses living systems. The field is not necessarily consciousness, but it is the very essence of life, radiating from living matter…this, throthy, carbon sludge bubbling from the vacuum. Prokaryotes are systems that tend to mutate into multi-cellular life. They doubled every 12 million years, but a great catastrophic event would wipe out the eukaryotes, and leave the oceans decimated. The process repeated again and again, this time with reptiles emerging independent of the sea, the first fish, flowers and plants, only to be wiped out. Then dinosaurs appeared, and became the main animal to rule the kingdoms of earth, but they soon came to an end, in a 5th great extinction. We are now warned that a sixth mass extinction is inevitably close, in whatever shape or form. Humans have survived many conditions, but there are some things we have no control over. But from Adam and Eve, to the Apollo project, we have been a tireless force, continuing to catalogue the world as it unfolds around us, unleashing its mysteries like some thrilling novel. However that original cell came into existence, from which all living things today came from, began a chain of existence that would manipulate mass electrons and protons, atoms and molecules to behave so a single, carbon-based life form could exist. Exactly, how do so many atoms and molecules cohere? It’s as if all of them are arising to the same goal. We can use DNA to explain how certain genetic qualities affect a human, but what about the electrons and the photons… what tells them what to do? Is there some kind of back-reaction so that atoms, being told themselves by the molecules, which are them selves being influenced by other molecules, is how the system goes? Is it that even though the subatomic particles make up the atoms, the atoms are also telling the subatomic particles how to behave…? Of course, it makes perfect quantum sense. And the genetic materials like the double helix, is required just on the right level of size, to provide the building blocks to progressively mutate into the beings we are today, perhaps in small steps, or large quantum leaps. And the original materials that make us up, could have been extraterrestrial in origin. About 4 billion years ago, the same time when the first life had appeared, there was a massive collision in which the meteorite contained what was called ‘’Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons,’’ fitting the approximate date with a collision that happened in Antarctica. Since then, organic materials have been found even in space! But then, there is the question to why a limited amount of particles can even give rise to systems like ourselves. I am an advocator of the Strong Anthropic Argument, that existence is here so that we could exist. The fine tuning of the cosmos, the particular arrangement of conditions for life, precisely the coordinates needed to sustain mentality – in a very cold technical sense, we are nothing but the stuff of the vacuum; energy, space and time. Consciousness is the vacuum wanting to experience consciousness at powerful levels. We drop off from spacetime, existing and experience a type of subdimension, because it is said in physics, that the mind does not exist in space, but there has been some speculation about the time dimension, which has been explained before in quite some detail. Thoughts and memory however, may very well exist in the vacuum, existing in the form of quantum waves of information. Information certainly comes in many forms. Some of the information I talk about, involve electrons. Electrons have no unique radius, or size. They are in fact difficult to talk about, because we don’t know whether we are talking about a particle or a wave. And also whether the particle is being observed. ‘’First rule in quantum physics,’’ as Wolf would say, ‘’there is no electron unless it is being observed.’’ Thoughts become entangled with an object, and suddenly they become real. Before observation, reality as we know it is in a potential state – this is the Copenhagen Interpretation. There is of course the anti-argument. The theory in which states that things are no more different when being observed, than when not being observed. …… Yes, the body is an amazing thing. We know that there is no such thing as matter. Its just a longer lived fluctuation of energy. Through the [math]E=Mc^{2}[/math], we know that matter can be transformed back into energy and there is enough energy in the human body to power a city for a day! In a dice, there is about 10^94 grams of energy. Now that’s a lot of energy, so just imagine the energy you are made of. And only 2% of my body is actually matter and energy. The rest is just space and time. Wierd eh? Its because my body is not very dense. Does consciousness require an energy? If it does, then any quantum physicist will know the implication of a dependency of energy… It would also require a dependency on matter and space and time. If consciousness requires an energy, we can ask how much energy it uses. But how can we ever know? There is simply no way to measure consciousness with such accuracy. We can only speculate the amount of energy we use… the only thing I will state, is that it will most probably be a ground state of energy. This simply means it will use the least amount of energy it can. Spirit in Matter The 2004 book, ‘Spiritual Universe,’ by Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, many physicists in the field, such as Amit Goswami and Deepak Chopra considered his work as quantum physical proof of a quantum soul. His idea was actually scholarly, in my opinion. Our soul is in fact composed of billions upon billions upon billions of negatively spinning particles in the Dirac Sea. It is known by theory, that each particle of matter in this universe, is somehow intimately linked to a negative particle in the vacuum. This was the antipartner of the particle. He claims that our souls are intimately connected to the matter we are made of, and are always in constant communication with the particles in the potential vacuum. Fred however, in 2005 said that it wasn’t proof of a soul at all. And while I like the theory, by no way do I assume it’s correct, but until a better theory comes about, we have no idea what the soul is, if there is even a soul in question. Personally, I find it difficult to talk about the soul, because I am slightly convinced that the word ‘’soul’’ is in fact a metaphor for ‘’self’’. The word ‘’spirit’’ for me is more appropriate, since to me it can refer to a life force, which we undoubtedly have. … Thoughts and memory are not fully understood yet either. The very processes which allows the neural network to operate in a three-dimensional freedom is pretty strange to say the least. There must be a specific function or functions responsible for the epiphenomenon of the mind. The spatial phenomena we observe, is one thing, but we also experience a sense of time flow past us, in a specific directionality. The flow I propose, is an illusion. I don’t think any such thing as a psychological arrow even exists… sorry Eddington… If consciousness, the mind specifically, has some type of imaginary vectors, there cannot be any specific directions, like you would find doing normal vectors in physics, sketching them out with a pencil. Instead, there can’t really be any directionality at all, so the mind encompasses no unique place consistent within itself, and no real reference to spacetime and the things inside it, unless it is being observed. Whatever direction we think we are experiencing, is ‘’fundamentally’’, unique within ourselves, and no one else experiences our conscious phenomenon, so whatever directionality we feel, it is totally personal, and unique. But with little over 6 billion people on earth, there is a lot of different views, and each one has there own unique dimension of consciousness. There own little world and existence of time. Outside the mind, looking at all the minds, but not being attached, you would see nothing unique about the time experiences, and this is why they have no real direction in reference to each other. But inside the mind, the time it experiences is unique to it.

Well, in a a sense, zero-point already predicts that all the energy in the universe come to a big fat zero... so yeh... it was in a mathematically mystical sense, a big bang of nothing.

Well... yea. I think. I don't know how they would have seen final calculations. What i was saying, is that 40 to us must still be 40 to them. They just may not derive the final answer in the same way.

No, there is no need to plug the variable ≠ in. If i am wrong, fine, its not the first time. In fact, i'm positive its not wrong in this concept.

Now -- that' s a very good point. However, the notion must have been known, to have ''40 years'' drafted all over the old testiment. This might just be a subtle condition, which need not be important. If the notion of ''40'' was known, then the notion of zero was known, but perhaps not in the sense we know it. its like 5 x 8 reads ''40''. Maybe its something like that. Mooey Wrong, again... you said... ''I don't have time nor do I have the patience to do this excercize on Harry Potter or The Wizard of Oz, but I suggest you take one of these books and prove to yourself that you can find 666, 777, 7707 or 820319 (my birth date) in random word combinations (appearing or NON APPEARING -- your examples give some words that are simply *made up* and do not appear in Genesis) in the first chapter too. And I can put my money on it, too.'' What's the point? I've already created my own draft, on the Bible Codes, which showed man can create these things. The whole point of the OP, was to proove an intentional design. I am sure i could look through a hundred books, and never find the kind of design that have been found. This is why i base it as ''intentional''. Remember, i don't refer to my work alone. INow As i said, make your own minds up. Let me dance around the fire, so long as there are a few logs to keep it burning.

It is wrong? I was under the impression it was right... Two conjugate answers must come together to create a single answer. Even if the second last equation is not correct, i take it you do agree: [math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=a-b=x[/math] Which is really important, and anything after this, can allowed to be wrong, though i honestly thought it wasn't. Now, you can excite the word salad if you like. What i have done above is meaningful, despite what you say. The irrefutable fact is that internal time and external time must have some kind of reference to each other, and i have tackled a mathematical idea for it. If this is salad, then i would like to ask exactly what is salad for doing that? Psychophysicists often refer to internal and external properties, dealing with both seperately. I have joined them together into a simple mathematical base, describing one as a conjugate of the other. The experimental (side) to this, lies in the same experiments as explained by wiki... spacetime theories, in short, are not considered a psuedoscience as such, but rather a protoscience, because they can predict experiment. Now... i am not an experimentalist, so i will leave that as something to be done by someone else. My work might be salad to you, but spacetime theories are not considered as such. But off the top of my head, my equation Δ[math]Tdi=[/math]Δ[math]tdi[/math] means... a change in our time, equals a change in external time... and that can be testable through special relativity. Is that enough?

mmmm interesting...

My investigation was more than speculation. We certainly do experience a time dimension, and that time dimension must be inextricably linked to the external time dimension… I’ll provide more reasons into this soon. We also experience spatial dimensions, and it has been proposed by well-known spacetime theories to advocate dimensions for the mind as well, since we know very well we see three dimensions… but what we see isn’t of real space, so what we are observing are naturally created dimensions inside the mind. Can this be refuted? I applied the following mathematical conclusions from Pythagorean geometry: [math]Tdi[/math] – Internal Time Experience [math]tdi[/math] – External Time Experience a, b and c are the spatial coordinates [math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+tdi^{2} - Tdi^{2}[/math] I allowed a solution if you plugged in [math]i^2=i*k^{2}[/math] so that the result is a^2+b^2+c^2-i^2*k^2^2=0 [math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+k2^{2}=0[/math] And solve normally through algebra: [math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+tdi^{2}[/math] Explained either 1) Two time dimensions don’t need to exist, or we can keep the notion that the expression [math]tdi^{2}[/math] is naturally taken for granted [math]tdi^{2}=Tdi^{2}[/math] 2) Or there are two time dimensions I settle with the former discipline. I prefer the idea that the asymptotic time we all experience, and cosmic time are two different sides to the same coin. [math]a^{2}=i^{2}=(\sqrt{(a_{1}^{2}+a_{2}^{2}+a_{3}^{2} ))^{2}}=\sqrt{a_{1}^{2}+a_{2}^{2}+a_{3}^{2}}[/math] The equation above, was my attempt to describe the spatial dimensions we see, as being dependant on the external spatial dimensions, where the right hand side refers to an equality with the left. Now… I went on to show how [math]Tdi[/math] and [math]Tdi[/math] are related. I explained: ‘’ [math]tdi^{2}=Tdi^{2}[/math] Then we can unite the fabric of spacetime with consciousness through the expression: [math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+(tdi^{2}- Tdi^{2})[/math] *where (tdi^2- Tdi^2) just means proportional to… But space and time on the relativistic map, is invariant, so that they play the same roles. For instance, a change in time Δt must also indicate a change in space. If time is a human aspect, and there is a change in our vector, then this would instantly determine a change in all the other variables: Δ[math]a^{2}+[/math]Δ[math]b^{2}+[/math]Δ[math]c^{2}+([/math]Δ[math]tdi^{2}-[/math]Δ[math]Tdi^{2})[/math] So instantly can we assume that this model is flawed, because in no way have we ever had any experience that a change in how we perceive time, alters the external world of clocks. This immediately renders the equation [math]tdi^{2}=Tdi^{2}[/math] flawed one might think. But, with some careful thought and deduction, relativity does say that a conscious observer will experience time change in for instance, time dilation. This experience alone can excite [math]tdi^{2}=Tdi^{2}[/math], and allow it to work. So simply put into math, Δ[math]a^{2}+[/math]Δ[math]b^{2}+[/math]Δ[math]c^{2}+([/math]Δ[math]tdi^{2}-[/math]Δ[math]Tdi^{2})[/math] [[Just going to add here, that there is some speculation among scientists that without the mind, time would become obsolete of meaning… and therefore, obsolete of existence]] ‘’ When Things Get Complex It’s quite a difficult job dealing with a change in our time, and external time, when both are the same, because we know fine well that we can loose mental seconds, but not a second disappears on the clock on the wall. This is where quantum physics comes into play. There is no perception without perception, so whilst time can flux, and we change with it, it still requires our existence to allow it to be measured, and therefore created. Using the equation Δ[math]Tdi^{2}=[/math]Δ[math]tdi^{2}[/math] to describe the following event: ΔTdi=tdi_1 – tdi_2 where we would be using a change in time between two points in reference to it being actual experience, is actually a notion well used in special relativity, and we are hardly ever noticing it. Special Relativity is observer-dependant in a relative sense, because humans are required to make measurements, AND, this is why the observer is important in physics. It’s ok to describe the quantum system, but not the system measuring it? Some Deduction of Logic Today, when sitting comfortably with a cig in one hand, and a coffee in the other, I decided to rewrite [math]Tdi^{2}=tdi^{2}[/math] into a simpler algebraic formula, and run it from there. If you follow my logic through, you will see how I derive the final conclusion – [math]Tdi = a[/math] [math]Tdi = b[/math] Now… [math]a=b[/math] Which gives; [math]a^{2}=ab[/math] Which reduces to; [math]a^{2}=b^{2}[/math] The latter conclusion allowed me to speculate that [math]Tdi[/math] is the conjugate of [math]tdi[/math] because [math]a^{2}=b^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}i^{2}[/math] So… (where J represents the conjugate) [math]J=a+bi[/math] [math]J=a-bi[/math] Gives the form: [math](a-\sqrt{b})(a+\sqrt{b})=a-b=x[/math] So that the squaring of the variables gives a real constant of [math]x[/math]. In physics, we often multiply conjugate parts together to create a single answer. In fact, some theories suggest that a collapse in the wave function happens when two complex-conjugates like this square. I like this idea better than some of my previous ideas. This way, [math]Tdi[/math] and [math]tdi[/math] take on new forms with each other mathematically. They may very well act together as conjugates to produce the very phenomenon of time (but of course, this is major speculation on my behalf). The final solutions naturally give: [math]Td-tdi=Td+tdi[/math] Because [math]a-bi=a+bi[/math] and [math]a=b=i=-i[/math] (There where two reasons i kept the two seperate... but never mind)

Right moo... here's the deal... i'll through this chunk by chunk, and answer accordingly. If you study my work in the OP, you will find there is moving of any posts. Then after this, i need to go for a wee while, i have some math to do ''Okay, seriously now. Either the words mean something ro they don't. Either the meaning is important or it's not. STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST. If the words 'cearly mean something', the meaning is important, and cannot be roughly taken, specifically as an ad-hoc explanation after finding out the intended translation was wrong.'' The numbers and the codes, have not been specifically identified together completely, whilst there is some hint that the words ''of chosen catagories'' mean something based upon the findings. For an example, the catagory of nouns 'God', 'Heaven' and 'Earth,' are considered the core words of Genesis 1:1, that remarkable add to 777. But in no way can these calculations be related to the words, other than singular and total gemetria values. The fact distinguished patterns emerge, from numerically decyphering the words, can we make the speculation that the words and the codes do in fact have a symbiotic relationship other than the numerically placed values. Until we find evidence of this, we can only speculate. ''I do know the true form, because I can read the original form of the bible, in which these word-number-games were created.'' Well... good. Because it was the true form i was working from, before people started to comment on the authenticity of the translation and what translation one was using. ''This needs proof. There is no proof there's a "hidden meaning". Specifically not (AGAIN!) as an ad-hoc explanation for you fiding out you don't like the translation.'' I speculate otherwise. I say there is ample proof... as i said, this was now time to make your own minds up, which you have, and so have i, based on the evidence. ''The reader should be unbiased and go to external sources to validate his claims. The reader should read the words in their original intended language if he is to claim they hold special value. This reader seems to just not accepting the facts presented.'' Oh, but the reader is far from being ignorant to facts. He has looked through them, and given them the respect they need. But i have found no counter-evidence to wholey suggest it is wrong. Therefore, my conclusions are still open, and i will not be narrowed down to a dogmatic, unproved truth. ''WHAT CODES!? Geesh. The codes that come from random meaningless words or the codes that come from "whoops, thats not the intended words we hoped for" words? Meaning mean something or not? What about other random numbers to find words?? I found *other meanings* using the SAME THEORY -- and you completely ignored it. And after all this, you seriously expect anyone to take your theory seriously.'' I gave a good example of what a code can be. It went along the lines like this: ''If my analyse produced numbers like 775789, then i would have took no notice. But for the fact they produced 70707, and other multiple conditions, i argue they are hidden codes.''

Well, that's a bit flawed, because we already know that the words mean something, and roughly speaking, we do know them, give or take a few translational errors, and plus the fact one of the seven words are totally untranslatable. So it doesn't really matter whether: 1) the words make sense, because we already know they do... even if we cannot know the true form 2) whether the numbers have any hidden meaning at all to the Hebrew words; which is pointless to imagine anyway, because they never left God's Handbook to Cosmic Numbers. I think this is getting to the point, where the reader now must make a decision within themselves to either class the codes i have shown to be true or false. And of course, undecided. Also, if anyone is interested, i have been speaking to Dr. Jenkins. I have given him my results, and after a quick read over, he is keen to study the codes. With any further developments, or anything he generally has to say about them, i shall keep the page notified.

It has always been to my teaching, that the centrifugal force does not exist.