imagine

I'm not running away; the hoverboard and the censorship threads were closed; preventing me from responding to critiques. I welcome and in fact seek out the toughest REAL critique I can for you; Simplifying the concepts gives me: "electron" as "modification" "the atmosphere at the stadium before the game was electric": people are constantly un-balancing (modifying) their view of the game result (as different from a game whose result is widely predicted?) A modification creates a "tipping point" e.g. "a + b" modified to become "a + b, + c" "un-balances "a + b" by introducing a third element; by definition it can only modify "a + b" if there is something rigid about "a + b". So "modification" itself implies a "rolled up" geometry; i.e. the very fact that something CAN be modified requires that it DID HAVE a fixed (at least relatively) structure of some sort. In base ten; the hundreds column allows some interchange between "one" and "ten" (i.e. is an "electron" for base ten)(one ten; or ten ones!) Hence "electron" is referred to as a point in geometry; because it is in fact "a geometry" in a point! "Moment" is an instant in time. "time" as seen from "what time did the moon rise? Before or after the sun set?" or from a pendulum path; appears to fit the idea "anywhere within limits". "In stant" is also "in a stance" i.e. the idea "anywhere within limits"? "Instant in time" then requires "a magnetic moment" i.e. a specification moment ("magnetic" involves the idea "the overlap region where two sets overlap in e.g. a Venn diagram; i.e. "specification" e.g. sets of "tables" and "chairs" overlap at "have ground support"; or "dogs" and "animals with tails" overlap with criteria common to both sets (so the overlap region "points beyond the horizontal integration of these sets" ). I can call this "a vertical space" as "ground support" must be a stand-alone idea INDEPENDENT of "chair" and "table" to have any meaning as where these two sets intersect; unless this region is disturbed by another way that the overlap can happen (so at least TWO electrons) in which case you have "a horizontal/ vertical space equation" (or artifical horizon). (A gyro; but to have "gyromagnetic" would require "a constant bias" or "lopsidedness" in defining how these sets get together; so "the illusion of an additional electron" or "electron uncertainty" in principle... actually a ratio (i.e. an artificial balance; i.e. at least two on one side and one on the other; so an imaginary third set.... but to define "gyromagnetic ratio" would make the imaginary third set ( a chair-table hybrid say: like a unicorn: something cobbled together) reversible so that it becomes like how "chairs" and "tables" can be four sets (two of each).) If "moment" requires "magnetic moment" then how to define "magnetic moment" ? Would need to be "para-magnetic" (surrounding magnetism: i.e. a vertical and horizontal integration of the sets by outside data). But that IS an electron, isn't it? To modify something requires some sort of fixed structure; which the two aspects of "chairs" and of "tables" give. To modify a page with a dot on it; requires at least two places the dot can be; AGAIN; so four possible locations for the dot! So the minimum definition requirement for "electron" appears to be "four possible locations, during time" ... To define "electron" AND "magnetic moment" would require "at least two electrons"... given "gyro-magnetic" seems to involve the same idea as this; you would need (formally: at least) one less electron to define "gyro-magnetic + electron + magnetic moment"; SO "electron interchangeability"? (? Could call this "Dirac non-equation" or where NOT to find an electron) (a "fuzzy electron" is a fuzzy fuzzy; so which is "electron" and what is "electron room"?) That allows "ratio" to be seen? So to also define "ratio" would need: "electron NON-interchangeability" i.e. electron group theory i.e. fixed boundaries on where you can place an electron i.e. the Dirac equation!!!!!!!!! Can you define also the Dirac equation if you have got "electron" and "magnetic moment" and "gyro magnetic" plus "ratio"? You would need a "+ ratio" i.e. "a certainty re: electron location"? An electron standing wave. Which is also in the idea of "quantum field theory": "quantum" as in "quantity" as in "at least two" so "meeting": "field" as in "skip-around-place"; "theory" as "more than one possibility"; "quantum field theory" as "meeting skip-around-place more than one possibility" so implies an internal subdivision (or fence) so "a space swap" or time integral; an experiment IS a "time integrated" (it is an attempt at organising objects in space so they have more than one option)(or it wouldn't be an experiment, i.e. if it was too predictable?) An "electron standing wave" is "a fixed rate of exchange" (the intersection of two sets is already "standing via group"; to define all this would require a specified sequence of juggling of information between the two sets to create a third view of the two sets (or analysis of their structure via-a-vis their overlapping so "taking notes"). To define all this would require ability to swap "experiment" with "quantum field theory"; so "electron standing wave" now becomes concrete-like (able to be measured without being overly disturbed)? I.e. "an electron standard"!? BUt if have a "standard model" then you need a standard model: so that just leaves you with a whiole lot of numbers to juggle 11 as 59 ("5 as accommodation ("a" accommodates "b", and "b" accommodates "a" gives 4; an outside view needs give and take with these 4 so "5"; chemistry = accommodation so "5" is significant in chemistry) "9" as one place removed from "5" in "59"; as "5 + 4" is "already one place removed; gives you another way to say "5" in the earlier space EXCEPT for the space itself (i.e. this number 1159 etc. IS a "space equation" it demarcates the boundaries in writing a number in base ten, such as to write it as a multi-part juggling of ten x ten i.e. "ten x ten" could be x another ten, all that could be x another ten it's Rubik's cube! Tell Ernesto Rubik!

If anyone is interested: "do you have a new theory"? YES, lots. Can I tell you about them? NO; not here unfortunately, too much censorship appears to be the rule. Look for me in due course at frostcloud. I can take the calculus and pendulum equation tests there. (Thank God for Captain Panic; how do you survive this place? ) See ya all Imagine (Why does almost nobody? have apparently any lack of cowardice here???? Trying to be nice but dictatorship hacks me off ...)

If equation of motion = 2 observations = grip = centrifugal force; math i.e. categorised version is 2 observations balanced by a third so simple harmonic motion. If a "pendulum" is already present; then you get a time differential- it comes down to the structure of the pendulum string...? No time as coin-opeerated computer while travelling

" Equation of motion" is really cool puzzle. Gotta run; be back to look at that. Thought: E.R. in same world as Q.M. would require 2 observations. A continuous feedback loop between two observer posts? Is that grip? Also: a weighted bowl: is like in two places at once as it leaves the bowler's hand. So when it hits another bowl along the surface it rolls on; since it is "already" in 2 places at once; it creates more of an impact and stops early but sends the other bowl "flying"...? What if drop a block that is traveling left to right; and has had impacts on each side that balance, except that the impacts that occurred on say the right side are exactly more than the left side so as to exactly brake the object equal to causing the object to take exactly twice as long to travel left to right than it would have? looks like "drifting" i.e. the object has another kind of mass? It starts to hold its own boundary i.e. to differentiate itself as an object from the surrounding environment (space) .... ????? The climber effect may have involved same gravity but some of it pulling me more towards the climbing surface than down to the ground. With seconds to respond; initially; "equation" as "swap"; "motion" as "a" to "b" ; passing point c (non-directional at this stage) looks like its going to need a form like "(x,y) z" at right angles to w (Objectively defined direction?) ...

Mr. Skeptic: I have to rush to catch a bus today. I have in mind to take your test; I will not memorise the puzzle, what I have in mind is to use my method on it, and see what happens. Klaynos: I have explained my method. It is NOT "playing with words" exactly; but a very precise technique that LOOKS like I'm playing with words. It does not even require words as such so much as "patterns of information". I am utterly amazed that no one has followed the logic of it yet. I DO solve science problems, by simplifying them and using my compare and match patterns method; which you ALSO use without even realising it; as "comparing and matching patterns:" is basic in: how thinking works; it seems to me. The shocking thing is, I can look at a massive technical physics paper full of pages of math; yet discover key things that took the guy who wrote maybe years to find; almost instantly. That is very shocking to anyone who has not come to grips with that sea-change in science. By the way; I figured that there is an error margin in astronomy due to the fact that Earth-6-month change in orbit around the sun is not an absolute base-line; that the parrallax of nearby stars has an error-margin 'Parallax relativity" suggests that many if not all "extra-solar planets" could be, due to the highly deductive way they are allegedly "discovered"; may be perturberations in Earth's orbit by other planets in our solar system. "Dark matter" I found = "conserved energy" or "conservation of alternatives"; "dark energy" I found = "conservation of matter" or "conserrvation of disturbance"; both of these superimposed = "the Hioggs boson" = "gearing comparison" = "unit". You want the fabriic of the universe? HOW ABOUT the "fabrication" of the universe; i.e. the MAP. Problems in modern-day physics/astronomy appear to be analogous to the distortion of a spherical Earth when drawn on a flat page in an Atlas. "Einstein Relativity"= two trains that could be going back or forward relative to each other; but if only have a third train as reference; need to take an observation to get at least the impression of two trains moving togther in the same direction re: the third train (also called "parrallax"). "I'm not staying relativity" = quantum mechanics ('the mechanics of meeting") (the two trains that seem coupled in E.R. "meet" at the third train. How define both E.R. and Q.M. if they are different views of the same phenomenon?

"numerology": treating numbers as if they have "magical powers"?; as if they have meaning, like words do? "Lexicon equivalent of numerology": treating words as if....as if what? as if they have meaning---- words already have meaning; so as if they have 2 meanings? Similes? Similes are supposed to be similar in meaning to words; what I do is look for "essential defining criteria in patterns of information"; this can be done without words incidentally. Interesting comment, however. "Function" incorporates the simple pattern "group": a social function does (that's kind of like a simile, i.e. "social function" vis-a-vis "math-function"?) Math function requires distributing the item about which there is a function? So requires more than one way of looking at the item, so a "group" is inherently involved in defining "function"? "function" and "group" do not mean the precisely the same thing; but 'function" CONTAINS the idea "group"? This :"containment" reminds me of the ideas of Christopher Michael Langan, who's CTMU (Cognitive Theoretic Model Of the Universe) notes the significance of "same-difference" and has obvious links to what I do.)

Thank you. I'm short of time, need to travel so very briefly: "Playing with words" is a relatively common complaint. Who says you cannot solve problems this way? (I explained my method in "math-free analysis". It is a bit like how Sudoku puzzles work) (I was inspired incidentally, by a movie "Monster's Inc." and the wisecracking conversations between Mike and Sully)(And also by the explanation of how words are defined in the book "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" by John Hospers; among other things. Re: John Hospers: how do you define an elephant? Stand at a zoo and point at an elephant? Said to be too narrow- what about other elephants? "something with four legs"? Too wide, surely? What about zebras, or even tables, they have four legs. This "broadening and narrowing" I found fitted the pattern "electro-magnetism"; sets that intersect (narrowing) then broaden via overlap with another set in higher dimensional space ) I didn't quote other people at length, I don't get resources for searching for them plus my methods allow me to discover things very fast. This freaks out people? who cannot believe how much can be done with one's own sensitivity to one's ability to be aware of reality......? The maths I discovered as you know this week. That doesn't make me a bigwig; the universe is an open book to anyone who wants to read it. Quoting: "In maths, the derivative of a function f is defined as the limit of f(x + delta x) - f(x)/ delta x; as delta x tends toward zero." Analysing this (simplifying it to apparent minimum essential defining criteria; finding common ground between patterns and differentiating them as different aspects of the common ground by typically one-step only): function = group delta x = change in x x + change in x = two views of x Since "function" already involves "group" so at least two views of x; function (x + change in x) = two views of bracketed two views, so at least three views of x - f(x) = - at least two views of x so f(x + delta x) - f(x) = at least three views of x - at least two views of x which = the ability to flip x i.e. to turn x upside down i.e. to carry x around i.e. to treat x as an exchangeable unit i.e. x's ability to divide through itself so implies another dimension to x; this whole thing was divided by x so that gives x divisible, divided by x = another dimension to x, divided by x = a space factor of x i.e. how x integrates with something else which is the local limit in defining x as x tends to zero but since the phrase "limit ......as x tend to zero" is already used then this gives twice this pattern so how x "integrates" with something else in 2 dimensions i.e. how x can have factors i.e. quite l i t e r a l l y THE DERIVATIVE OF x! Another Nobel prize given me by you guys. Incredible. I didn't know this till you "told" me. (In conversations, each party tells the other all kinds of stuff they may not even realise is there, like a higher dimensional code; you can receive anything if you put aside prejudices as much as you can, it seems- or ...?)(Here what happened though was I just logically analysed what Mr. Skeptic quite plainly said; and without knowing whether it would pan out, the answer arrived consistent with the word "derivative" as being an appropriate word for the formal mathematical description Mr. Skeptic gave).

Wot av we 'ere then? ? for what it is worth (yes, I can explain the maths of space differentiation, which has only just been found this week ! ): the proposed "new branch of physics" which is claimed to be "the science of GRIP" and can also be called "centrifugal force" or "the inverse of electro-magnetism" (i.e. "magno-electricity" or a name I've seen somewhere that happens to fit: "electro-gravity" (i.e. generalising gravity) (and given the discovery that "gravity" apparently = the general measurement of space (i.e. the general metry of space i.e. the geometry of space)(so generalising gravity = the specific measuring of "space" i.e. "where to draw the line")(or "relativistic quantum electro dynamics" i.e. Weighing things up i.e. "a constant pressure differential" i.e. "inflation theoretical" ); I worked out the formal structure of this proposed branch of physics which I posted as four space-time diagrams (of which one is 4 sub-diagrams) where each diagram is closely related to each of the four Maxwell equations of electro-magnetism. In this subject one may wonder what is math; what is physics. The climber experiment was real, a substantial effect, the real evidence you can experience yourself (but need a wall about 23 degrees beyond vertical (so 113 degrees) and sufficiently weak arms that even though the holds are good, when you stop for a rest 40ft up you cannot but help notice the astonishing "extra" rest you get i.e. the temporary apparent weakening of the pull of gravity. If it is true that a "weighted" bowl presses less on the ground than a non-weighted bowl; in bowling a heavy bowling ball; then an experiment could be devised to test that. Be interesting to figure out how to do that. Also; possibly not properly part of this subject: but suppose that you dropped two blocks of highly-vibratiional material simultaneously, but one had been set vibrating via a sudden pattern of collision with other items each side; and if the internally vibrating block fell slower than the other block, that would be interesting. The only solid evidence so far is the climbing result; and possibly the skidding meteorite theory as I know where such a "gravitational semi-conductor" was found. The math, at least what looks like math; I didn't have till I came to this forum; it is quite amazing so here it is to entertain and delight: (The scientists at CERN are possibly about to discover this subject; so perhaps you might like to tell them about it)(!)(fabric of the universe: space differentiation: path integrals in hyperspace; fun as! ) What is a derivative? "Derived from" e.g. "contained within" What is "quantum derivative"? It is "meeting contained within" So quantum derivative of "x squared" can be drawn as a square of two sides marked "x" that requires a third side (or multiplicity of additional "sides") i.e. room for + or - in defning "x times x". (Note: x squared already has an unknown that is fully differentiated and integrated as a flattening of x-space (so the quantum derivative of x cubed is just "x squared" given that it is by definition you have a meeting contained within x cubed of every way x squared can happen consistent with keeping aligned with x squared i.e. the quantum derivative of x cubed is a kind of volumetric view of x squared)(i.e. it differentiates the space in x cubed as a singularity (or cross-over minimum requirement) being x squared ) Looking at quantum derivative of x squared i.e. a meeting contained within x squared: this requires a third aspect in defining "x squared"; and this third aspect must "evenly differentiate the space in x squared". So there needs to be room for + or - in defining "x times x". "x" has 2 views (the two sides of the square in drawn form) in "x squared"; plus or minus the role of the unknown (the unknown was introduced to create a "meeting contained within x squared") ; so a bias is possible to one of the "x" 's in "x squared". (This apparently involves the science of how a pebble gets its shape; through a multiplicity of collisions in a wave-action environment) There is a possible bias or difference in one of the "x"'s in "x squared"; this bias is caused by the possibility that the unknown has more effect on one "x" than the other. If the first "x" is quantifiably different than the second "x"; then the second "x" is already different from the first. So you need to define the second "x" in the meeting of the two "x"s in "x squared:" in the space "unknown" as "+ or - the role of the unknown" in order to balance out any bias that occurs from the effect of the unknown on the first x automatically defining BOTH x's as different (causing immediate inflation towards u)(so creating "hyperspace"); and thus, whatever happens; there is still going to be a possible bias towards "u" (the unknown) even when both x's are balancing! So the whole "second x package" can be added or subtracted to the first x system, to allow "u" to have two "x-factors". That is to allow "u" to be floating in "x squared". The quantum derivative; that is; the meeting contained within; "x squared" (so requiring an unknown "u" to provide this meeting potential; so requiring at least a cube or expansion into at least one new dimension of x-squared space) is written: qd x squared = x(2+u) + or - x(2-u) (a) the "u" refers to the unknown introduced to give the two "x"s room to meet another way; so that a meeting is contained within x squared (synonomous with "larger hadron collider"... or "near the speed of light") (near the comparison of comparison)(one bias) (b) the "2" refers to the 2 perspectives inherent in x-squared from a x,x,u perspective (i.e,. where these perspectives are all interchangeable so allow room for floatation) (could be synonomous with "Michelson Morley experiment" or "diagonal")(two mirrors opposite each other)(no bias except a perfect distribution i.e. a constant change in direction i.e. spin) In x(2+u) + or - x(2-u) (Michio Kaku's dreamed-of two-inch equation for a hyper-space by-pass! ? ) the first "x package" gave linear factors i.e. assume "u" and "x" were in perfect alignment but the other "x" could disturb this (so an "uncertainty principle" as a "round" flattening of space i.e. "directional sorting") so this other x has to be a perfect mirror on what the first x does regarding "u" to ensure mutual factors i.e. a 3d minimum in defining the "assembly" of x,x,u reverses the factors and pushes them out in to 3d (or more?) producing a quantum derivative!

I have been censored by Sayonara. He is afraid of having a fair discussion. My door is open. Peace be with you. Thanks for providing the opportunity to clarify my thoughts in certain matters, and stimulating the discovery of "quantum derivative". There is apparently lot of misunderstanding at this website. "Space differentiation" is something you guys have a lot to learn about, it appears. The climber phenomenon is real, I have experienced it.

Well, thankyou especially Bignose because incredibly; last night i found the "math": (no guarantees you are going to like this) (It's unbelievable though) QUANTUM CALCULUS ("hard math") too easy? You decide.... What is "calculus"? (By the way, my techniques allow rapid navigation through maths; also I get the impression that modern scientists have locked themselves in to a "mathematical jail" and could use a hand in breaking out of this mathematicalisation mentality... ; there are other ways of looking at creation ) Calculus is differentiating and integrating, say. "Quantum" involves "more than one" (to know an object is a unit, it must be one of a category (or potential category of more than one; or how would you know what it was a unit of? ); Quantum relates to quantity ; or items that meet. So I refer to "quantum" as "meeting" .... "Quantum Calculus" is "meeting differentiating integrating". This is "integrating and differentiating in 2 dimensions". Regular Calculus: the derivative of x squared, I seem to recall, is 2x. I can draw this to explain: if I draw a square, with two sides marked "x"; this shows that there are two ways of looking at "x". The "background" of x squared are these two perspectives on "x". What you can derive from "x, in the expression "x squared", is that there are 2 ways of looking at "x". Consider now, an uncertainty in the background: I can draw this as a cube, with two sides marked "x"; and with a third side marked "u" ("u" refers to "unknown", even whether there is a third side, or a fourth, or fifth, is not quantifiable at this stage ) What is the "quantum derivative" of x 'squared'? (It is written as "x 'squared' " to denote the uncertainty or higher dimension in defining "x", i.e. to show the existence of a crossover in defining "x" and defining "squared")(i.e. x is at least "cubed" ; you could have a whole lot of different calculations: x squared + 10x to the power of 5 , + 7 x to the power of 10, and whatever)(this string of x variations is an "information series" ) (How do you know x is squared? It could be cubed or more, it could have many extra dimensions? You quantise all the dimensions into a string) The "quantum derivative" of x squared is: x times (2+u) + or - x times (2-u) A drawing of a square, with two sides marked "x"; gives "two perspectives" on "x". If add an "unknown" to this (giving a drawing of a cube with two sides marked "x", and one "side" (or multiple sides)(where "how many sides" and "what these sides are" are rather muddly so far) marked "u"; then this divides x (so partial derivative?) yet this also times x (partial integral?) (once you have both, "x" is differentiated and integrated in a higher dimensional space, without actually having to see it. x is now a quantisable difference in the "many worlds" of x) The "partial derivative?" and "partial integral?" = an "imaginary x squared" one might say, or at least "x cubed" so denotes volume i.e. the idea of sphere i.e. round (dimension unsure but at least 3)(say "x factorisation"?) + or - x(2-u) could call this "teleport" in other words: imaginary "y" i.e. other side (two sides were x) or: "2" "squared" i.e. volume differentiation i.e. stitching i.e. polar i.e. the reverse of x factorise so establishes priority. So this gives "dimension unsure but at least 3" i.e. (x factorisation) (you know x is factorised but you don't know how or in what way (i.e. "how much") it is factorised) and volume differentiation i.e. stitching i.e. polar i.e. reverse of x factorisation so establishes priority giving a result that looks like a soccer ball i.e. a sphere-like object with surfaces stitched together otherwise can be called "parallax relativity" or "relativistic quantum electro dynamics" (fixed angle on background, is relative) (relativistic meeting generalisation room to move) a bar code how things stack up a constant pressure differential ? grip flotsam (floats the same) quick comments: examples of localised "switching off" of Earth's gravity effect on things: when a heavy ball is bowled along a lawn; a "weighted" shot versus a non-weighted shot: a constant pressure is maintained over a period of time with the ball in hand to create the weighted shot. This I think is pressing LESS on the ground than the non-weighted shot, as it's "weighting" due to Earth's gravity is reduced by its differential weighting at right angles to Earth's gravity (causing it to partially "hover" board i.e. to create a fixed template; and to locally partly fix its position in space i.e. an "auto gyro" (note: "forces after the big bang" translates via math-free analysis to "gyroscopic x 2" or "auto gyro"!) (The LHC at Cern may create this effect causing the whole ring to sink in to the ground a bit due to vibrations between becoming heavier and becoming ighter or something (called a "black hole" as it's a hole but you "don't know what caused it" ! - idea) ("Nothing" caused it i.e. "gravitational diffraction" ) A class of meteorites that are NOT "heavy" or necessarily magnetic; but which are objects that have skidded to a stop high in Earth's atmosphere due to their shallow angle and the direction of Earth's rotation with respect to the angle the object came on, and fluttered down to Earth; shedding mass so becoming unusually light (due to experiencing "gravitational electric charge"). A class of rocks which, though they may look massive, have shed "mass" through collisions and are now slightly or partly "floating" i.e. they do not press nearly as much on the ground as their bulk (or apparent bulk) suggest.... A climber can become "lighter" through how they synchronise pushing off holds and pulling on holds creating another way to differentiate their body's position in (geo) space...

In response to your request (I'm not expecting you to like what I am about to say, but you never know, I do not want to prejudge your response): what I have discovered can include things that are much harder to stomach than what I have demonstrated so far; but note; if a being from a far distant part of the galaxy turned up at this place, and tried to explain to you their science, they would probably get a similar reaction to what I have had. It is not necessarily a question of hierarchies of civilisation; the boomerang is thousands of years old aboriginal technology that’s pretty incredible. If you had never heard of it, scientists might have said that anything thrown by hand cannot surely travel so far away yet come back? And to the ancient tribal group, what would they make of a mini video camera? Yes I have discovered a lot; including a new branch of physics which I describe as the inverse of electro-magnetism. It comes with a vast array of potential new inventions. When I investigated electro-magnetism, I found that it appears that everything written in this science fits the pattern: "electro" as "generalisation" as "a set" (like "the set of horses" is a generalisation as it involves more than one horse)(although some may argue of a set containing one item; such a set relies on the potential of more than one, or how could you refer to what it was?) "magnetic" as "specification": like two sets that overlap; "magnetic" as the region of overlap. To my knowledge, ALL electro-magnetic physics is now derivable (Ohm's law, Maxwell. etc.etc.). FROM A POST IN ANOTHER FORUM 3 YEARS AGO: (NOTE: I AM MAPPING PHYSICS AS PATTERNS OF INFORMATION AT A VERY SIMPLE WAY. THIS IS PRE-MATH: MATH HAS AN EFFECT OF CATEGORISING SO MAY “FLIP” THE “MATH_FREE” PATTERNS SO THE “LAWS OF ELECTRO-MAGNETISM MAY SEEM TO SWAP NAMES”) ****************************************************************************** “What if categorise a field of common factors? common to "car" and "truck": engine wheels chassis brakes doors If I categorise this field of common factors to "car" and "truck" by: "vehicle" (as they are all parts of vehicles) I need a "double slit experiment". The sample has to go through one hole ("car" or "truck") or the other hole ("truck" or "car"). All on the list are parts of vehicles so there are other ways of combining these items (ways that don't involve cars or trucks) by definition of "vehicle" being independently defined (outside "car; truck" ) . These other ways of combining the items in the field of common factors to "car" and "truck"; allow free association into INTERNAL GROUPS e.g. "engines wheels". These "internal groups" = Russell's "grains of spacetime" -time ("vehicle" being "space" to complete "space-time"). *************************************************************** Maxwell's Equations: How differentiate "vehicle" from the Lie Group: "car and truck"; "car"; "truck"? That is: "how make the string, theoretical? Or: how maximise wellness (how MAX WELL)? (curious: scientist inspired by own name?) If "equation" (If allow all concepts to be units so exchangeable so equated in this manner by mathematics: vehicle units; car units, truck units, car truck "units" (obviously a problem!)(No wonder you get vectors) you get "vector space". "vehicle vehicle": Faraday's Law of induction! "car" plus "truck": Ampere "car" OR "truck": guess the generalisation (Gauss Law Electricity)(could be car or truck)(Keeping options open)("feel the electricity" say) "truck" only (I could have said "car" only): I've specified which one (but which one did I specify?) Guess the specification (Gauss Law of magnetism) ************************************************************** Newton's Laws: How differentiate "vehicle"? How "new town" !? How gravitate (how come together)? Need car truck) car truck) that is "action, reaction"; OR car car) or truck truck): the car truck (the force) = mass (car or truck) times the acceleration note: acceleration = meters per second per second = speed per time per time. time = self referent reference distance (a clock self-refers to the center in defining a distance on its perimeter; a pendulum self-refers in defining the distance of one swing by being defined as maintaining same start and end of that swing in next swing) acceleration = distance per self referent reference distance per self referent referent distance = distance (any direction) PER distance ONE direction = "Meters" that is "distance comparison" that is "light on distance". car car) or truck truck): the car truck (the force)(the freedom of "car" and "truck" to associate) is in the pattern of TWO "car" and TWO "truck" is = to the mass (The uncertainty: the "car" OR "truck") times the acceleration ("this "car" or "that "car")(this "truck" or that "truck"). (car or car; truck or truck) = light on distance = acceleration. Inertia: "IN hurts ya": "car" "truck" just stay as they are. They come together by staying apart (The background is fixed). A field of common factors; common to "car" and to "truck": engine, wheels, chassis, brakes, doors. Categorised by "vehicle" (as all are parts of vehicles). The question was asked "how differentiate "vehicle" from "car and truck; car; truck"? How new town and max well? Need new town max well; that is "probe ability amplitudes" or "the mechanics of meeting" i.e. "quantum mechanics". Now ("car and truck"; "car"; "truck") can split (Rutherford: rather ford: rather cross (associations here: "ford a river" = "cross a river"): split the split)(nucleate: integrate by double differentiation i.e. split the atom by atomising the split (firing modifications (alpha paricles) at it)(keep doing stuff like that and you'll get a limit on differentiation; i.e. "6 quarks for Mr. Mark (Mr. Integration by a slip differential (By a Higgs mechanism)(By gearing!) IF carry "car" "truck" (Einstein Relativity) then get: counting vehicles (Plank quantum) 2 vehicles = ghost (car truck, car truck). One must be "car" of these "quantum superpositions", one must be "truck"; but which is which? Go est (need movement to establish identity, i.e. "location". A collision took place (EPR experiment)(note: double slit experiment = Michelson-Morley-like? EPR-"experiment(?)" = large-hadron-supercollider-like)... THREE vehicles = "universal time" = (car truck car OR truck car truck) = vehicle certainty uncertainty (vehicle relativity)(speed of light constant) = Eigen functions (I gain functions)(engine x 2 etc.? ) Relative Eigen functions = Eingen value (I gain value)(engine/2 e.g.) (Unchecked these last ideas) Wednesday, November 30, 2005 04:07 AM Correction: "These "internal groups" = Russell's "grains of spacetime" -time ("vehicle" being "space" to complete "space-time")." An omission here; should read: = Russell's "grains of space-time" (car trucks, cars, trucks): time (as self referent reference) vehicle: space” ****************************************************************************** INVERSE OF ELECTRO-MAGNETISM: “MAGNO-ELECTRICITY” OR “CENTRIFUGAL FORCE”: Not four equations as with Maxwell, but four space-time diagrams of which one is a group of four related diagrams: From recall: “space” on horizontal axis, “time” on vertical axis: The diagrams are (“non-equations of magno-electricity” i.e. “of” inverse polarisation - hence the link with Van de Waals forces” and what happens when a climber sets up shock-waves travelling in opposite directions through his body, affecting how his body stacks-up- i.e. how his body is able to be differentiated by a local; gravity such as Earth)(He creates “an artificial earth” you may suppose- a local blindness to Earth’s gravitational field. (This is ALIEN MATHEMATICS)(I’m supposing/thinking !) The rare earth elements are postulated to already have this- if you vibrate them at the right frequency within the appropriate spacial structure; you get an inversion of how they are defined as matter-distibution) (Somewhat speculative) The Space-Time diagrams; for the science of “magno-electricity” (or “centrifugal force”(or “grip”)(the inverse of “electro-magnetism” i.e. the inverse of “juxta-positioning” i.e. NON-juxtapositioning i.e. “non-polar ionisation” i.e. “constantly (re)arranging in groups” (“your soaking in it” i.e. (super) liquidity (non-polar ionisation requires a continuous rotation (so steering)(“drift” catch) are: DIAGRAM ONE (relates Gauss electricity) A short vertical line somewhere within the space between the horizontal (space) and vertical (time) axes DIAGRAM TWO (relates Gauss magnetism) A short horizontal line somewhere within the space between the horizontal (space) and vertical (time) axes DIAGRAM THREE (relevant Ampere’s Law) A dot somewhere within the space between the horizontal (space) and vertical (time) axes DIAGRAM FOUR (linked to Faraday’s Law of Induction) A group of four diagrams: a short vertical line connected to a short horizontal line (forming a little corner) somewhere within the space between the horizontal (space) and vertical (time) axes three more such diagrams, each shows a different “corner” so all four ways of depicting this “corner” shape are shown.

If anyone is interested, here goes: it is obviously impossible to have a free conversation here. I have witnessed the (alleged) appalling abuse of people here. Einstein would never survive this forum, nor anyone genuinely able to discover hitherto unrecognised secrets of the natural world; so it seems. The problem may partly come from what has happened in the university physics world itself; where ego, status, self-importance, "hero-worship" etc. etc. result in an output of repressed over-subservient-to-authority graduates and under-graduates whose native talents have been firmly squashed. It is very sad. The only way to rescue this forum, is to make it fair. That means no person who actually participates, should have any power to move posts to a "trash can" called "pseudo science and speculations". If participants in discussions are to talk freely, it will have to be somewhere where everyone has no more power to move posts or ban than the next person. Rules of decency are then applied by mediators who are not participants. If scientific standards are really a worry; "pseudoscience" and "speculations" should be separated; "challenges to orthodox thinking" could be added; and only a non-participant could shift posts and only in extreme circumstances (speculating is part of breaking new ground and developing new theories and belongs in my opinion, to at least some degree, in ordinary physics discussions) I appreciate that some people are trying to be decent.

If anyone is interested, here goes: it is obviously impossible to have a free conversation here. I have witnessed the (alleged) appalling abuse of people here. Einstein would never survive this forum, nor anyone genuinely able to discover hitherto unrecognised secrets of the natural world; so it seems. The problem may partly come from what has happened in the university physics world itself; where ego, status, self-importance, "hero-worship" etc. etc. result in an output of repressed over-subservient-to-authority graduates and under-graduates whose native talents have been firmly squashed. It is very sad. The only way to rescue this forum, is to make it fair. That means no person who actually participates, should have any power to move posts to a "trash can" called "pseudo science and speculations". If participants in discussions are to talk freely, it will have to be somewhere where everyone has no more power to move posts or ban than the next person. Rules of decency are then applied by mediators who are not participants. If scientific standards are really a worry; "pseudoscience" and "speculations" should be separated; "challenges to orthodox thinking" could be added; and only a non-participant could shift posts and only in extreme circumstances (speculating is part of breaking new ground and developing new theories and belongs in my opinion, to at least some degree, in ordinary physics discussions) I appreciate that some people are trying to be decent. Incidentally, a real ollie does not require, as far as I am aware, the back of the board to touch the ground; it is not jumping. It involves pushing down say on one leg causing the other half of the board to tip up; but countering that with a down-and sideways-movement with the other leg, and kind of canter-levering the board in to the air. I've done it briefly. (If you are REALLY interested, and there is some speculation at this point: the elements involved in "magno-electricity" are the Rare earths. If you look at their electron shell configuration; and the role of "much-of-a-muchness" in both how a TRUE ollie is executed; and how a climber gets an "unexpected weakening of gravity", it's all related. The relevant everyday material is clay. The trick with the Van de Waals is a factorisation of them. At its limit (gravitational disconnection) you have a shell effect: there are no internal "walls" stacking up against gravity; the only wall is the outer boundary of the object. It is real freaky stuff this, probably could scare people as it's quite "other-worldy" or "off the earth" science. Now there is speculation here; the climbing evidence is real; so is the physics of skidding (which is related: a skier effectively makes a "hover board" out of their skis during a skid); no-one to my knowledge has fully "switched off" local gravity. However, as it is a REAL science; you can work it out. Just as you know how to make a magnet; there is a process of building this kind of charge. The climber pushing and pulling themselves up an overhanging cliff builds enough of this charge to experience first-hand an unexpected additional rest from gravity when they stop. It is not magic. It is not psychological (nice guess though). It is also related to why different ways of hitting a golf ball produce different results. Now here is a speculation you can try for yourself: another pattern related to this whole thing is a geometrical shape called a "pebble" (or oblate speroid). A metal called "misch metal" or similar aparently contains traces of all the Rare earths. Get some, shape it like a particular kind of pebble; vibrate it at a particular frequency; and watch what happens. You want a flying saucer, you might just have one. Now that I agree is speculation. The rock-climb effect of an unexpected "holiday" from gravity" is real; is evidence; is part of a brand-new (If you like) science which I have worked out to a considerable extent. To you, this science challenges your pre-conceptions. It is "alien" to you. It is vast. For every invention that uses electro-magnetism, it is like there is one in this new science. Now it is true that some of it is speculative. I decided in principle I most probably need to leave this forum, as you cannot have a discussion (I don't mind severe scientific critique that's valuable; but being constantly threatened with posts being booted away or being banned is not a power participants should be allowed to intimidate each other with in my humble opinion) . Re: local "gravity invisibility": A related subject appears to be "drifting": A DVD "Need for Speed: Tokyo Drift" (special features) explains how to drift a motor vehicle. It includes a world champion. I apparently figured out the physics of 'drifting"; and what I found is consistent with the comments people made in the DVD. First: about "carving" of skis: In "How The Racers Ski", by Warren witherall, an all-time classic book of ski-racing from the late 80s (when skis were longer and straighter, but had enough sidecut to carve a curved narrow line if pressured and placed at an angle to the snow), the author gives the "biggest secret" in his book. called "The Rise-Line Secret"; it is: If you are skiing a round turn down the hill around a gate; the "fall-line" is the path a ball would take rolling down the hill from the gate. The "rise-line" is if you extend the fall-line uphill from the fall-line. Get in a light inside edge for the new turn, then wait till your skis cross the rise-line above the gate. At that point, strongly pressure and edge the skis- a "comma-shape" turn will result with excellent grip. Why? because at the moment the skis cross the rise-line; centrifugal force and gravity are in opposition to each other. Minimum tendency to skid here. (This works amazingly) A modification of this secret may be needed now-a-days due to changes in ski design. I worked out: Drifting on skis: When the skier comes horizontally level with the gate, centrifugal force and gravity are at right angles to each other. Maintain this balance, and I call that "drifting"- the line doesn't come under the gate but "drifts off partly down, partly across the slope, gradually more downhill. To drift on skis: keep an even keel: i.e. keep an equal balance between centrifugal force (traction control) and gravity (creates a "plank" or board effect (like you could walk up and down the ski like a surfer on a long board): a "wave equation" for skis (they seem to float ). (Many discoveries can follow: take this "drift-line and map a parallel drift-line through the gate. The point above the gate where a skier crosses the "drift-line" occurs a little earlier than where they cross the "rise-line". Using modern carver skis; briefly engage the carver skis edges at the moment of crossing the "drift-line" and you can carve the skis as much or as little as you want after that through the turn (a theory). (Rise-line secret produces "drift acceleration" so comma-shaped turn; so easy to step the skis (to carve a variable line). Drift-line secret produces "step acceleration" so round-shape turn; so easy to ski the steps (bump skiing)(accelerate and decelerate the skis at will)(theory). (Figured out Bode Miller's (U.S. ski-racer) breakthrough in how bindings are mounted may be allowing "double turn" technique related to above) Drifting a motor vehicle: (this is not intended to substitute for professional instruction ) My theory; Brief counter rotation from applying the handbrake (causes extra (sudden) traction inducing a start to skid)(Clutch in) Sudden grip of tyres gives an overlap in defining wheel spin and momentum. Wheel spin<->momentum so uncertainty of where the road is. Momentum drives the car. (handbrake takes time to engage so put clutch in after so engine spin and wheelspin "engage" gyroscopically to prevent "overtaking" i.e. gyroscopic swing of vehicle ). If accelerate: the car rotates inwards about ita centre approximately. Engine drives wheels, get car spins in; it holds its overall curved trajectory i.e. "in control". If decelerate: engine slows down wheels; get engine braking/braking (one or other or both): car could go either way i.e. "out of control" (car spins out both ways) By using various visual and other cues a driver bcan develop "perfect pitch"i.e. can "tune the car" while driving (accelerate and decelerate at will to create a car that seems to flip over from end to end; as if the car is 'weightless" in that it keeps to a narrow track even while turning because it makes a fair balance between gravity and centrifugal force (grip). Theory: gravitational drifting and gravitational repulsive force: What is centrifugal force? Going around a circular path, the centrifugal force is directed where you were heading a quarter-turn ago. As you travel over rough ground, the ground brakes you (lurch backward) and you trip forward (lurch forward). After a quarter turn, these two merge (they are residual effects now acting at right angles to the quarter-turn-later (new) direction of travel. The structure of the Van De Waals forces appears to be identical to this lurch forwards, lurch backwards concept. This would mean Van De Waals is centifugal force in the making! Going down a ski slope, a drift will incorporate gravity. "Gravitational drifting" would require a second lot of gravity. The ordinary drifting of skis on a slope involves the same idea as a drifted car: as if the whole length of the ski (or frame of the motor vehicle) is mapping itself lengthwise. Could call this effect a "board". Question is how to make a "hover board"- a "board" is already hovering in the sense it is frame-mapping (at least to some extent) along its path. (This is all apparently related to the tail structure of comet MacNaught on its spectacular re-emergence from going around the sun!) A drifted ski can easily be rotated about a central axis at right angles to the ski extending above the ski. Same I guess with a drifted car in some way- not exactly - the car does some rotation around this axis as it takes a drift path around a corner. An axel (this is inspired by DrP) at right angles to the first axel , in a plane parallel to the ski; alows a full range of movement in any direction- (?) i.e. a "hoverboard effect". Like an astronaut in outer space! If the drifting skier put their poles out to each side at right angles to their direction of travel (or the car-driver put their elbow out the window and their hand on the roof of the car) then perhaps conservation of momentum (and momentum is doing the steering in drifting!) would cause this "steering uncertainty" to be repelled. But if you resist pulling the poles in, then maybe momentum has nowhere to go; gravity is fed back a gravitational repulsive force is generated? Another perspective is: by analysing gravity I found: that the equation for the force of gravity F = G m1m2/r squared can be derived by asking the question "how do you know what is background"? I found "gravity" appears to be consistent with: gravity as background gravity as the geometry of space gravity as conservation of information gravity as space-grip force of gravity as "parallax" (a fixed angle of background) inertia as "time grip" gravity as "resistance to inertia" ("quantum gravity" as a fixed background "loop quantum gravity" as "loop x 2" as "a string".) It is possible for information to be internally "scanned" by a body such as to make it independent of a local gravity field? Edtharan gives a plausible alternative explanation of an "ollie"; the type I was describing does not involve any contact between the back of the board and the ground. The climbing effect is significant and very real; I was amazed by it and afterwards worked out a way of explaining it. It lasts for a short while. My activity in physics has real consequences, so far in sport. I figured out many secrets of nature that sports people must have stumbled across! My methods can deliver: Someone bounced on their back to standing for ten bounces on a trampoline; wearing a polarfleece jacket. They held out their hand and invited me to make contact. I got an electric shock. Using my thinking, I figured out if I tensed the muscles in my hand, the shock would be neutralised. The experiment was done again, I tensed the muscles of my hand; a crackle occured- but no electric shock! I might not get it right al the time, but get it right often enough, so far I think!

As I said, there is censorship at this forum- it isn't a forum; it is a place where people aere bullied; and I find this highly offensive.

You want to make a hoverboard? There is a problem. How am I supposed to talk to you about this here? There is censorship. I have worked out the science, apparently, of real hoverboards. That is, like in the Michael J. Fox movie "back to the future". I have discovered an entire branch of physics, unknown to those who might claim to be leading scientists, it appears. We need to talk somewhere else; I am looking for investors in this technology. I can give some clues: there is a phenomenon in skateboarding, called "the ollie". It is the most basic trick. The physics of it are amazing. I discovered a direct link to the science-fiction-like physics of potentially real back-to-the-future style hoverboards. Another amazing phenomenon is, some people can "ollie" with a "fingerboard" (apparently some people can do awesome tricks, visible on You-Tube). A fingerboard is a tiny precision skateboard that instead of two legs, you place two fingers on it. There is an entire new branch of physics I discovered, which has an old name "centrifugal force" (alleged to be a pseudo force)(I call it "grip"; as to experience this always involves "grip": if you are sitting on the back bench seat of a car and it goes around a corner and you feel yourself being "thrown" sideways ("centrifugal force"), if there was no friction, how would you know "centrifugal force" existed?) The science I discovered is the inverse of electro-magnetism. There is a formal representation of this new science which is closely related to Maxwell's Equations of electro-magnetism. I call this inverse science (which happens to also be called "centrifugal force", and be very misunderstood by orthodox physics) "magno-electricity". Like "electro-magnetism"; it has real natural world examples. Not "lightning" , which is a real world example of "electro-magnetism" ( which I also can call "slip"); but "lightening" which is a real world representation of "magno-electricity" (or "grip"). Sometimes rocks fall, and collisions among the rocks are such that they experience a kind of "charge" (which I might call "Van de Waals charging") (or magno-electric charging), which partially disconnects a rock e.g. from Earth's gravity. It doesn't float necessarily, just doesn't press as much into the ground as its mass would suggest. You can experience this yourself. Go to a climbing wall with a steep overhang and lots of good holds. Climb up (with top-rope protection) and after 40ft you may be surprised when you take a rest, that gravity is "weaker" than expected. Reason: the synchronisation of pushing and pulling as you climbed the overhanging cliff sets up a series of internal "collisions" re: inside your body, such that the Van De Waals forces (which resist gravity) are re-organised in a broader way: gravity is diluted. It's a weird experience. I worked out heaps about this whole subject. Even where on the periodic table to find elements asssociated with this phenomenon. I worked out how in theory to build a hoverboard of full sci-fi capability! I need investors!