Binyamin Tsadik

Ha ha, very good! Use the earth's frame of reference for 400 ly, however when you do the transformation with length contraction and time dilation you will see that it remains at 400 ly for the new frame of reference as well. You could make a mistake and get 309.84 years

How long will it take a photon to reach the ship traveling at the speed of 1/4 C, from 400 light years away then? I already posted this earlier but this is a replay that I prepared for this issue http://www.youtube.com/embed/r2urZlbgPWE 6.1 Macro DiscreteTime Location - It is known that light (with no interference) alwaystravels at the same speed (for any frame of reference), regardless of anobject's motion or acceleration. Thiseffectively means that light will reach a specific object at the same time (forthat object's time reference) regardless of the object’s motion. Additional thought into this point reveals that all mass(assuming that the graviton behaves the same as undisturbed light) in theuniverse is effectively at the exact location that sight puts them in (althoughthey can in actuality exist at a different location) because mass informationtravels at the speed of light. These masses are all 'trapped' in time, unless their speedcan 'escape' this time. This leads tothe conclusion that all particles are located at Discrete Time Locations. 6.2 Quantum DiscreteTime Location - An extensioninto Quantum Mechanics will reveal the true nature of particles. A wave in space that possesses the ultrahigh,graviton frequency will have a small wavelength and thus divide space intosmall units. This unit will alwaysappear to have the same distance between it (despite Doppler shifting whichwill be discussed later). This ultimate,high frequency creates discrete quantum divisions in space – Discrete TimeLocations. 6.3 Mass – Particles are analogous to wavesources. These sources exist in discretetime locations relative to all other particles. These proposed waves in space create an attractive motion when they beatin opposition with the sources. In otherwords, two particles that exist 180 degrees out of phase will attract, and twoparticles that are in phase will repel. For this definition to hold true to mass, every particle'sgraviton source, will have to exist out of phase with every other particle'ssource in the universe. 6.4 Charge – Thisnext frequency is half the frequency of the graviton. Thus particles in discrete time locationshave the option to exist in two possible locations on a wavelength (in or outof phase from each other) and thus can attract or repel. 6.5 Quarks/Flavor– The next frequency is one-third of the mass frequency. This leads to 3 possible relationshipsbetween discrete time locations. Theseparticles exist 120 degrees apart from each other at this frequency. When we add two vectors with respect to the third we get a180 degree difference leading to an attractive force. Each color can attract the other 2 colors but repel the same one. 6.6 Four-State –When the frequency in space is one quarter of the mass frequency, a particlecan have 4 discrete time locations on one wavelength. When two particles are 90 degrees apart from each other, we get no interaction. This 4state positioning permits a source to have no interaction with 2 types,repulsion with the same type and attraction with an opposing type. 6.7 Doppler Shifting Doppler Shifting is a macroscopic effect. All vectors from a given particle arepossible directions in space. When aparticle source moves in a certain direction, a Doppler shift will occurrelative to all other particle sources in every direction. When a particle source moves towards another particlesource, the wavelength between them will get smaller because both particlesources appear to oscillate faster relative to the other. Therefore, the frequency increase of the waveis identical to the frequency increase of the source and therefore theparticles are still ‘trapped’ in their phase (location). 6.8 Extension forparticles that travel faster than light According to this model, a particle that travels faster thanlight in relation to another particle's frame of reference, will 'escape' itsdiscrete time location with relation to both particles. Along the Gluon/Quark wavelength it willappear to be shifting between Quark-states/flavors.

Here is an elaboration I made on this first concept http://youtu.be/r2urZlbgPWE Another great video that explains special relativity very very nicely is

Thank you for taking the time to write back. The Youtube video was really just a last resort because I have tried for 10 years to describe this idea to the physics community. I understand the scientific process and I do not care much for people's differing definitions for the word theory. It is a theory, it could be a wrong theory, or a theory built based on misunderstandings, but it is still a theory. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is that a hypothesis is for the result of an experiment, a theory is more encompassing. But I digress. I am not here to argue about the English language. I am here to present a Physics Theory to a more accepting audience. Perhaps an audience that will actually look at the ideas before they judge them. And about the medium. The medium is not the message. Only the superficial and shallow people that knit pick about the proper use of superficial words would make such a mind numbing statement. It is like saying "only the good looking know how to sing and write good lyrics." It is superficial nonsense and very very unscientific.

Here is the video at 6:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=997N_QRUCG4&feature=player_detailpage#t=400s I have had people argue with me about the first part and state that it was wrong, can anyone confirm please that the projection on the earth's frame of reference from the ship's frame of reference is correct? I still see no problem with it despite many objections.

Three questions 1. What is passive solar? 2. Can the water go back downhill after it goes uphill? 3. How could gears and springs possibly help with water?

First, a lot of what you said was interesting but this statement in particular I had a problem with. All of your statements are very general and there are a lot of exceptions to the rule. I personally would not dismiss a scientist or a theory simply because the scientist works in isolation. Albert Einstein is the greatest example of this. Leonard Susskind also worked in isolation at the beginning until his ideas were rejected. Garrett Lisi is also an example of this. Darwin worked in isolation, so did Galileo and Newton. The validity of a scientific discovery is not more or less relevant because it was discovered in isolation or not. What I have found (as have many others) in the scientific community is that they are very elitist and closed off to people with no credentials or someone who has not worked his way up the ladder. Your statement just further reinforces this elitism. This is also something that the great Richard Feynman tried to stay away from and fight against in his community. What history has taught us is that when we are too solid in our views and the box has been constructed too solidly around us, it takes someone from outside of the box to shatter and revolutionize the current world view. This was true of Galileo when Aristotle was the box, this was true of Einstein when Newton was the box, and this was true of Darwin when Taxonomy was the box. Only the most mediocre discoveries come from within the box (micro-evolution), but for macro-evolution to occur we need that lone scientist, thinking and working in his attic.

It is if it happens in one lifetime, but not over generations. If an organ is never used in a female, then females that had mutations in that organ would still pass on their genes. And if the other organ is never used in the male (remember in this stage of evolution there is only ever one male per generation) then their female organs could undergo mutation and not affect the health of the species. Put it this way, the XY party would have an internal behavior to fight for dominance, the XX party would not need this behavior, quite the opposite, the one that had more fight in them would have less of a chance to get impregnated. So over many generations the XX would tend towards submissive behavior. This statement wasn't even an argument. Evolution dictated that females who cling to an alpha male survive and thus this behavior is promoted. In human society, rape has been made illegal and females can chose their partners. So what I was stating (this is not a theory, this is social science) is that females now dictate what the alpha male is. In nature it was always the male who dictated dominance but now it is the female. It is very difficult to eliminate genetic behavior, studies show, that primal behaviors are not lost but are recessive to newer ones. So female domination has been molded to social domination and manipulation. Studies show that females have less stress levels and elevated blood pressure when they are in a relationship. And even more so when their male counterpart is in the same room. Females have a comfort level associated with the presence of a male. Being dominated also means being secure and protected. The opposite has been shown for males. Their stress levels have not shown any significant change whether or not they are in a relationship, and elevated stress levels occur when any female (not necessarily their partner) is present in the same room. I could not find any proof of a more primal drive for dominance in females, however, in nature mating rituals reenact some form of struggle for dominance. The fact that there are females that enjoy dominatrix type relationships, however, shows that females are capable of enjoying and have some desire for domination. In my opinion, the female attempt to dominate the male is to test him in order to determine if he is a dominant alpha or not. A female that does not try to dominate a male would never know if he can actually dominate her or not. But this is speculation.

Since then I have come up with another solution to QCD which simplifies it a great deal. I am having trouble getting anyone who actually understands enough about it to look into it however. I made a separate post about it entitled "discrete time location (DTL) theory". Please, if you understand QCD well, then you would be perfect to give me a little feedback on the idea.

First of all, it is not Lamarckian inheritance. Every single organism has this behavior genetically configured into its brain. The fact that the battle occurs means that both parties have the desire for the battle to occur. The fact that one of them wins, means that one of them dominated the other physically. This dominating party is the one who will pass on his genetics to the next generation. After the female developed into actually being a female, of course she would have developed some change in mechanism as an outer layer to the internal behavior pattern (because she would no longer require the desire to dominate in order to survive). She would have developed some desire for the Alpha male; and herself be drawn to be dominated in some way. A very interesting place this can be seen is in the tropical bird of paradise, where the females have the ability to fly away from the males. The females find males and observe their "dance". If the "dance" demonstrates a dominant male, then they will couple with them. This can also be seen in human society where females have a choice in who to partner with. They try to find a dominating male. Only, in our societies, females have a different idea of what domination is. Some view alpha as financial, others as intelligence, others as physical size. The female "defense" can be seen in old videos where Elvis would touch a female fan and have her feint on stage. This desire for the alpha is the defense mechanism. If there were any other type of defense mechanism, then the female would never have been impregnated and she would never have passed on this mechanism to a future generation. Only a mechanism that promoted the coupling would be acceptable. But of course, in the more primal female brain, she still has the desire to sexually dominate. This also comes out as Social domination.

I think you are straying off topic from what was originally posted. But perception is a simulation of the brain based on observation. Every mind has its own simulation of the world, and this is necessary for survival. Simulations allow us to predict the future and form a direction sense and a sense of our surroundings. A perfect circle may not exist in nature, but it does in mathematics, and mathematics is an extension of the digital information nature of our mind. A perfect circle may also be perception because that is easier for our minds to process and calculate with. Regardless, science is experimental and if a given simulation disagrees with reality it is not a good simulation. The better the simulation of reality that we can come up with, the more accurately we can predict the future (or the past for that matter). The simple fact that you can catch a ball, means that your mind is able to do simple physics intuitively and simulate the path of that ball in order to predict its final destination. Little adjustments of your hand while the ball is in flight is the result of a feedback loop control system in order to correct errors in your simulation.

I remember arguing with my 3rd year quantum physics professor about technicolor. He eventually convinced me that it was wrong but it was still a cool idea.

It's okay! Your point is very important, if there are other lifeforms in our Galaxy, then first contact is possible. It really just depends on the probability of life to exist in our universe. The density of life planets across the universe should theoretically be more or less evenly distributed, yet there is still a chance that two such planets exist in a single galaxy. Also, if the probability is high enough for life-planets to exist then the average distribution could be 2 per Galaxy. I was operating under the assumption that life planets are exceedingly rare. At least as rare as 1 per Galaxy.

I sent you a PM with my email if you want to speak in person, otherwise I'd be happy to expand and think together on anything you would like. I have a very interesting theory of where the origin of male and female came from, and with that, the origin of the alpha male instinct. Here is an excerpt from my book. 2.5.1 The Origin of AlphaInstincts and Gender (Theory) * <a href="file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/binyamin/Desktop/Chapter%202%20excerpt.docx#AlphaMale">>< (Theoretical Stage) Alpha instincts began with one of the first creaturesto have a head. The flatworm and the roundworm were a gigantic evolutionarystep. All organisms with heads evolved (in some way) from the worm. Heads leadto brains and brains lead to higher behaviour patterns (although behaviour andcentralised neural networks existed before the head). There are 3 reproductive types of worm. Thesimplest and the first type of reproduction is mitosis. These worms reproducethrough cell division. The second type is hermaphroditic. These worms reproduceby impregnating each other or themselves. The third and final type is thegendered worm that has both male and female genders. Thepoint that we are interested in is the point where genders divided from ahermaphroditic species to a gendered species. The worm of interest was hermaphroditic. These worms would attack each otherand the winner would pass on its seed to the loser who would have to bearchildren. This physical battle forsuperiority is the first case of alpha instincts and the point where gendersdivided. The strongest worm would do battle and damage and impregnate all the otherworms. This "strongest" worm was the alpha worm. (Granted that someof the other stronger worms could get the chance to impregnate worms until theydo battle with the alpha.) All of the weaker worms would combine their DNA withthe DNA of the alpha worm. This keeps the species strong. The next generation would have a new alpha. This new alpha could either pass onthe alpha chromosome it got from its "father" or the weak chromosomeit got from its "mother". The result would be either an alpha genecombined with a weak gene or two weak genes in combination. Two weak genes in combination would effectivelyproduce a female because the weak-weak worms could not win, at least, 50% oftheir battles and would ultimately end up bearing children (as a female does).The alpha-weak worms would compete again to pass on their seed. Eventually the weak-weak worms would lose their male organs from non-use(successful childbirth does not depend on the functionality of the female'smale organ) and the alpha gene would evolve to lose its female organs due tonon-use (because the alpha worm would never be impregnated and would not berequired to possess properly working female organs to procreate [geneticallysurvive]). Thealpha male instinct would not be required, for procreation, in females andtherefore is only found in the ‘Y’ chromosome. (The instinct may have modified itself and be present as the alphafemale instinct, but this is speculation. Thisdivision in gender is what makes up our alpha instincts today. Males in everyspecies will compete to pass on their seed. (It is interesting to notice howthe male dogs will mount each other to display superiority). Itis also true that before intercourse all animals instinctually re-enact thisoriginal struggle of male vs. female. Fortunately [in human cases] it does not extend as far as rape (in mostcases) but the battle is still present (in the form of a mating ritual) in allanimals today.

Yes, if intelligent life is in our Galaxy, or even non-intelligent life, we will theoretically be able to observe it if we had a device that could do so. However, the closest Galaxy is approximately 2.5 million light years away. So unless there was life that long ago, we would not even be able to theoretically observe it. And even if we did observe it at some point, it would take twice that long in order to have a 2 way communication, and that is assuming that in another 2.5 million years they would not have already answered their own questions.

Even if alien life did exist in other galaxies, because information about these galaxies takes thousands of light years to reach us, even if there are other civilizations as advanced as we are, it would be thousands of years before we could see the evolution of their underwater life. In fact, the universe could be populated with intelligent life in every galaxy, sending out radio signals, but by the time we get them our sun will have undergone a super-nova.

Hi, I just wanted to say that I share your view, only I do not think it is emotions. I call them instincts. Instincts are what produce emotions. Certain survival instincts and behavioral patterns promote survival and thus these behaviors are passed on. The other thing that I have found is that these primal instincts that were passed on from very ancient ancestors never disappear. They stay present but are trump-able by more recent behaviors that may contradict them. The reason they stay in place is so that when the more recent behaviors begin to fail, the organism has something to fall back on. This is the idea of the lizard brain. Evil in our society has its very source in these survival instincts. A lion that kills for sport is not evil, because he does not have behaviors that can trump this behavior. We, on the other hand, should be trumping violent behaviors such as these with more controlled behavior. Survival is the root behavior, this root can spread into 3 main branches. 1. For survival, Nutrition is required 2. For survival, Procreation is required 3. For survival, avoiding death is required (at least as long as you can replicate) These 3 branches further split out into more branches. 1. Nutrition - Hunger instincts (try feeding a child with no hunger instinct) - Territorial instincts (actually linked to all 3 main branches) - Selfishness, Greed, and the need to acquire wealth (this is also linked to procreation but we will get to that) - Breathing (oxygen is a required nutrition and conscious control over this is limited) - Physiological processes (no conscious control over this, like a beating heart) - ETC. 2. Procreation - Alpha instincts (complicated alpha visions could be acquiring wealth, intelligence, physical strength, fame... etc.) - Mothering instincts (such as worrying) - Sexual Drive - Protecting the herd (territorial) - ETC. 3. Avoiding Death - Fear (fear of death survives) - Taste buds - Shelter making instincts - ETC. I have an entire book devoted to these ideas, you can obviously delve into them with a lot more depth.

About 10 years ago, I came up with a theory that got rejected from every theoretical physics journal that exists, and I got shrugged off from every Theoretical Physics professor that I could contact. Nobody has every agreed to even hear the theory. So I recently posted a description of it on YouTube. Maybe someone can look at it and tell me why people are so against hearing new theories. Part 1. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=997N_QRUCG4 Please start the video at 6:40 minutes, that way you can skip the clumsy introduction and me just getting my bearings straight. Part 2 answers a few questions that I got so far from my Father. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=es_PfNz7W64 Hopefully a few of you will understand enough to bring up flaws and queries to delve deeper into the theory's relevance.