The Light Barrier Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) Hello, I have found something remarkable which explains the unification of mass acceleration and energy. The confusion behind this is because gravity I have found has a twin! The relation in philosophy is the Yin and Yang, Negative And Positive, Good And Bad etc... I am looking for someone whom I can "show" through theoretical mathimatics that this relation holds true. As I am about to go "public" with my find, they have told me that I need "physical" legitimacy by a "certified individual" within this category and subject. The selected person will get credit for this and shall benift from this as well. If you are interested to see this and test this in your field please let me know. I assure you, you will be quite amazed. Edited October 14, 2011 by The Light Barrier
mooeypoo Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 We'd be more than happy to see your theoretical mathematical proof, all you have to do is share it. ! Moderator Note As it's yet to be proven and mainstream, this moved to speculation.
ajb Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 As I am about to go "public" with my find, they have told me that I need "physical" legitimacy by a "certified individual" within this category and subject. Why? If you have something interesting to say then say it.
Phi for All Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Hello, I have found something Please show us. I am looking for someone Review shouold be done by multiple people. Unless you just want to test your mathematical model on an expert for feasibility, you should show your model and have lots of people try to falsify it. If it stands up, even more people will be interested. As I am about to go "public" with my find, they have told me that I need "physical" legitimacy by a "certified individual" within this category and subject. The selected person will get credit for this and shall benift from this as well. Who are "they"?
pantheory Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) Mooyepoo, Although Light Barrier's words are to the contrary, I think he means that he is looking for someone to take his concept and run with it concerning the theoretical physics. My guess is that he is referring to the Dark Energy hypotheses. Light Barrier, If you are looking for some math to explain Dark Energy (as an "anti-gravity") you can find it online. It's simply thought by the mainstream that it presently is a constant force applied, resulting in a uniform acceleration rate in addition to a constant expansion rate, concerning the observable universe. This is quite simple math. Another mathematical version of Dark Energy is as a constant called Lambda, in Einstein's cosmological equations. If your idea is something different please explain. // Edited October 14, 2011 by pantheory
Phi for All Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Although Light Barrier's words are to the contrary, I think he means that he is looking for someone to take his concept and run with it concerning the theoretical physics. So you think when he says this: I am looking for someone whom I can "show" through theoretical mathimatics that this relation holds true. ... he means he wants an expert to do the math for him to show others? It reads more like The Light Barrier wants an expert who will understand when The Light Barrier shows the relation using theoretical mathematics. But you may be right. English is a funny thing.
pantheory Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) So you think when he says this: ... he means he wants an expert to do the math for him to show others? It reads more like The Light Barrier wants an expert who will understand when The Light Barrier shows the relation using theoretical mathematics. But you may be right. English is a funny thing. He needs to explain his meaning. Those that wish to present theoretical physics often just throw it out there. It also may be that English is not his first language which could lead to ambiguity. With his confidence, I think he has a concept to explain which he thinks needs to be expressed in theoretical physics or tested by some computer model, to show its "physical legitimacy." ....they have told me that I need "physical" legitimacy by a "certified individual" ....... The selected person will get credit for this and shall benefit from this as well. If you are interested to see this and test this in your field please let me know. I assure you, you will be quite amazed. Edited October 14, 2011 by pantheory
mooeypoo Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 I think we guessed enough about what the original poster might or might not want to perhaps say but didn't. We can wait and see what he wants if and when he comes back to this thread to clarify and actually participate in the discussion. 4
The Light Barrier Posted October 15, 2011 Author Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) "they" are the people from news paper publication. They have stated due to the issues of the scientific field's chronological truths, they wouldn't want to embarrass "themselves" if this was not a "legitimate find." I found this odd, but other publications have told me also as well. I am also a well known music producer with news paper article credits and very well respected so I know what public confirmation is all about trust me, it is a pain! Is there any method to discuss this in a closed setting with the staff only? Do you have a place here to speak about my finds in where only "the staff have access", at-least for now? I am being very "wise" with this, the music business has taught me much, and I do not want any issues with "drama" jealousy or etc if this proves to be what I know it is. I am sooooo excited!!!!!!!! In short also, pi ratio is this twin! It is found in the star constellation of Gemini the "twins" at 360 degrees / 2 = 180 degrees! Who would have known!!!!!!! I want to live a peaceably life and not cause envy in this field as I have in the music fields. I am sure you know what I mean, The challenges in today's world in regards to fame is very ill fashioned. Thank You All, I have read your comments, and it seems that you "may" be the people I need. I hope this to be true... HENCE: Review should be done by multiple people, yes I agree. ---------->>>>>OH! I almost forgot, What type of knowledge do you all have in the fields of "Space Time Geometry???" I really need to know please....THANKS! Review shouold be done by multiple people. Unless you just want to test your mathematical model on an expert for feasibility, you should show your model and have lots of people try to falsify it. If it stands up, even more people will be interested. Who are "they"? Edited October 15, 2011 by The Light Barrier
mooeypoo Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 "they" are the people from news paper publication. They have stated due to the issues of the scientific field's chronological truths, they wouldn't want to embarrass "themselves" if this was not a "legitimate find." I found this odd, but other publications have told me also as well. "News" or peer reviewed? There's a difference. A big one. I am also a well known music producer with news paper article credits and very well respected so I know what public confirmation is all about trust me, it is a pain! Is there any method to discuss this in a closed setting with the staff only? Do you have a place here to speak about my finds in where only "the staff have access", at-least for now? Actually, you're comparing two completely different fields. In music and arts "public confirmation" counts a lot. In science it counts for nothing; a paper can be disliked -- but if there's evidence and the math and physics are consistent and hold to scrutiny, public "confirmation" doesn't matter. Nature doesn't care if we like its rules or not. For that matter, I don't think you'll find many undergraduate physics students who "like" quantum mechanics. It's mind boggling, confusing, anti intuitive and full of weird math. And yet the fact it's annoying and anti intuitive doesn't mean it's not describing reality quite well. If a theory stands for scientific scrutiny, it holds. That's what peer review is about. I am being very "wise" with this, the music business has taught me much, and I do not want any issues with "drama" jealousy or etc if this proves to be what I know it is. I am sooooo excited!!!!!!!! In short also, pi ratio is this twin! It is found in the star constellation of Gemini the "twins" at 360 degrees / 2 = 180 degrees! Who would have known!!!!!!! Yeah, again, you're comparing different subjects here. This is how science works: You submit a paper, people try to tear it apart and scrutinize the living hell out of it. If they succeed, it means the theory wasn't too strong. If they fail, it means the theory is sound, and proceeds to gain acceptance. About this 'twins'... you.. will have to explain a little better. Pi and 180 degrees are obviously related, but what are you talking about the "twins" at 360 degrees? you mean apart? which twins? you're not being clear. I want to live a peaceably life and not cause envy in this field as I have in the music fields. I am sure you know what I mean, The challenges in today's world in regards to fame is very ill fashioned. Thank You All, I have read your comments, and it seems that you "may" be the people I need. I hope this to be true... HENCE: Review should be done by multiple people, yes I agree. ---------->>>>>OH! I almost forgot, What type of knowledge do you all have in the fields of "Space Time Geometry???" I really need to know please....THANKS! I'm not quite sure what to say about the first paragraph in this quote, but there are quite a lot of Physics, Math and Chemistry PhD and Masters here that can review and help. I don't think the level of math here should worry you, or the level of physics. What you should probably take care for is staying focused and explaining what you mean. The above statement ("twins" and 360) is really not very clear what you're talkinga bout,and we might have problems helping you if we're not sure what you mean. ~mooey
The Light Barrier Posted October 15, 2011 Author Posted October 15, 2011 LOL, thanks I read it all, and yes you are every correct "and" to the "point" Need I Say.... I will need to formulate a "FULL" MODEL For you guys, and will place this up ASAP here. However the model ""images""" I will need to place these " photos" on a blog site to show you the "position vectors" for the twins of pi ratio in relation to space time. Unless I can place them "here" by any chance, then I will do so as well with a url address in standard ways. And yes, quantum mechanics is crazy! But never underestimate the power behind it....It goes much further believe me. In the mean time, look up singularities, they are known to be " walls" in outer space or areas of space that come to an end.... Yes I know, do not even comment I will be here soon again, thank you so much for your time! "News" or peer reviewed? There's a difference. A big one. Actually, you're comparing two completely different fields. In music and arts "public confirmation" counts a lot. In science it counts for nothing; a paper can be disliked -- but if there's evidence and the math and physics are consistent and hold to scrutiny, public "confirmation" doesn't matter. Nature doesn't care if we like its rules or not. For that matter, I don't think you'll find many undergraduate physics students who "like" quantum mechanics. It's mind boggling, confusing, anti intuitive and full of weird math. And yet the fact it's annoying and anti intuitive doesn't mean it's not describing reality quite well. If a theory stands for scientific scrutiny, it holds. That's what peer review is about. Yeah, again, you're comparing different subjects here. This is how science works: You submit a paper, people try to tear it apart and scrutinize the living hell out of it. If they succeed, it means the theory wasn't too strong. If they fail, it means the theory is sound, and proceeds to gain acceptance. About this 'twins'... you.. will have to explain a little better. Pi and 180 degrees are obviously related, but what are you talking about the "twins" at 360 degrees? you mean apart? which twins? you're not being clear. I'm not quite sure what to say about the first paragraph in this quote, but there are quite a lot of Physics, Math and Chemistry PhD and Masters here that can review and help. I don't think the level of math here should worry you, or the level of physics. What you should probably take care for is staying focused and explaining what you mean. The above statement ("twins" and 360) is really not very clear what you're talkinga bout,and we might have problems helping you if we're not sure what you mean. ~mooey
mooeypoo Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 LOL, thanks I read it all, and yes you are every correct "and" to the "point" Need I Say.... I will need to formulate a "FULL" MODEL For you guys, and will place this up ASAP here. However the model ""images""" I will need to place these " photos" on a blog site to show you the "position vectors" for the twins of pi ratio in relation to space time. Unless I can place them "here" by any chance, then I will do so as well with a url address in standard ways. And yes, quantum mechanics is crazy! But never underestimate the power behind it....It goes much further believe me. In the mean time, look up singularities, they are known to be " walls" in outer space or areas of space that come to an end.... Yes I know, do not even comment I will be here soon again, thank you so much for your time! Singularities aren't "walls" in outer space, nor are they an area of space that comes to an "end"... and quantum mechanics might be crazy, but my point was that it's still no less real. Even after three semesters of hating it, I still respect it. In any case, you really need to tell us what this is about before we can advise on the actual science, so I'll wait until you have something more formulates and we'll take it from there. ~mooey
The Light Barrier Posted October 15, 2011 Author Posted October 15, 2011 OK HERE IT IS. The following information has been previously recorded on a radio show and the following unit of 94277083333321 is notarized and copyrighted. Your Time Is Much Appreciated!!!!!!! The model image positions. http://gravityhasatwin.blogspot.com/2011/10/gravity-has-twin.html The following image reveals the vector positioning of the units of measure I have found in relation to Einstein’s Field Equations or EFE. The arrows in red are where I believe the twins of gravity locate at. ALSO!!!!!!!!!! The vector position in the image model, are used as x y z “rotational axis only” in relation to torque speeds for both – and + directions for the twins. Also!!!!!!!! The vector positions are 3 for twin 1 and 3 for twin 2. Making these 6 altogether!!!!! Or a 180 *2 = 360 Full Sphere Dome! This part is “very crucial!” In the number of 3.04763462485999e-8 the exponent of -8 cancels out, due to its twin’s involvement “now.” In other words this is the constructive and destructive interference model in quantum atom theory. When positioning the vectors as such, the later model thus is constructed. Most notably I used a 3d program in where I used “flat disc” polygons! Sorry, secant lines and curves just don’t do it for me anymore….. The Coordinates of the twins! Twin #1 [X, 3.04763462485999, Y, 3.04763462485999, Z, 3.04763462485999] Twin #2 [X, 94277083333321, Y, 94277083333321, Z, 94277083333321] Now, within the formula of the field equation, I have replaced pi ratio with its “twin.” In other words pi ratio’s “twin.” The following explains this: Together in the Einstein’s Field Equations of: 8*3.14* [ G= 9.8 m/s squared] 3.04763462485999e-8 To this: 8*94277083333321*[G= 9.8 m/s squared] / 8077608713.062491 = 915038.5461701907 These are the twins! This number 94277083333321 is a “cloaked” version of the absolute decimal form of three things. 1. the speed of light 2. infinity 3. pi ratio All of these three “unify” all together as 1 and – 1. The reason for this cloak is for further private professional use under written non disclosed agreement by the selected individuals. Moving along. What makes the number of 94277083333321 so important is because it is also = to 0.000000011 in angular seconds. And the following reveals this connection: 360*0.000000011 = 0.00000396 log(0.00000396) = -5.40230481407449 1/10e5 = 0.000001 Also the number of 94277083333321 is = to 8.833077969e-15 of angular revolution. And the following reveals this connection with the 2x method of deferential derivatives. 360 / 8.833077969e-15 = 40755895200227230 Log (40755895200227230) = 16.61019043682455 -- note the exponent is a 2*8 = 16 or 2 x. And the following is a 16-17 = 1 in a exponent form “””contained within the precession of base ten.””” 1/10e16 = 1e-17 When the number of 94277083333321 is used as the original pi ratio we see the following connection with its twin. NOTE! 3.69 is an “””arbitrary number””” used for this example. 94277083333321*3.69 = 347882437499954.5 3.14*3.69 = 11.5866 11.5866 / 347882437499954.5 = 3.33060791549775e-14 ---------You see this??? This is the original pi ratio! However do note that the “original pi ratio’s” numbers of interest is only 3.14, thus this is 3 to the power of 14 with a radix precession base of 10 “in between the 3 and 14! It is rather yet known as the radix dot or [.] Making this = to 3.14. All other numbers within the “original pi ratio” itself are non valued numbers, supposedly. As you can see for yourself with the example above the number of 94277083333321 represents all these arbitrary numbers in the “original pi ratio” of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795… These are the twins doing their thing! Like the star constellation of Gemini at 360 / 2 = 180 degrees! Making this system unique and collective metaphors associated with the number 13! Previously I had introduced this find: E= t = the following: 299.792458/144.1994472645505 = 2.07901253220476 m /s sqrd 144.1994472645505/299.792458 = 0.48099758154873 m /s sqrd log(2.07901253220476) = 0.3178571072492 m /s sqrd 1/0.3178571072492 = 3.14606776816854 = PI RATIO! m /s sqrd You can now see the same process and relation as there is also an infant number of pi ratios “original numbers as well!” And they all work the same, dis-cluding the number of: 94277083333321 Conclusion: Within the limits of my theoretical mathematics, this is strong evidence that support this claim of gravity’s twin in relation to Einstein’s Field Equations, and more that I have found within normal physics itself. Yes there is numerology involved in this coupled with the theoretical math, a science which is based on empirical observation. Coupled with both these “ordained orders” of construction twin like patterns of such, they form a hyperdemensional cube which could now explain singularities, but I am not too sure of that due to my un-accessibility to the science world up until now “I hope.” What are singularities? They are: The paths of light and falling particles where they come to an abrupt end, and geometry becomes ill-defined. As per wikipidia. I am a big believer of this! This can also be a connection to Dark Matter and the god particle coupled the Theory of Everything. I do hope I have explained this to a degree of understanding, and although this may sound a bit confusing to “some” I rest assure when understood for what it is with an open mind your methods of research may now be “more clearer” to you. Especially those darn secant lines that don’t really tell you anything. Thanks To All! Singularities aren't "walls" in outer space, nor are they an area of space that comes to an "end"... and quantum mechanics might be crazy, but my point was that it's still no less real. Even after three semesters of hating it, I still respect it. In any case, you really need to tell us what this is about before we can advise on the actual science, so I'll wait until you have something more formulates and we'll take it from there. ~mooey
pantheory Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) The Light Barrier, ...........What type of knowledge do you all have in the fields of "Space Time Geometry???" .... Space-time geometry according to the standard model would be Einstein's equations of General Relativity as it relates to gravity, also Einstein's cosmological equations as they relate to gravitational operations of the universe. "Einstein's field equations" is a synonym for his cosmological equations. The geometry involved is Riemann geometry which is non-linear three dimensional geometry, and Einstein added a forth dimension of time to it. One assertion of it is that matter warps the space surrounding it. The application of each would need to involve gravity for the equations to have meaning which I expect has something to do with your "gravity twin" proposal? ....Yes there is numerology involved in this coupled with the theoretical math.... numerology n. The study of the occult meanings of numbers and their supposed influence on human life. Is this the meaning of numerology that you are using? If not, give your definition of it or use a different word and explain that. Edited October 15, 2011 by pantheory
The Light Barrier Posted October 16, 2011 Author Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) seems like you have "much knowledge in this great!" I recommended you view my model and explanation I placed up here earlier, the model image links to a blog, NUMEROLOGY is used with a combo of theoretical math.... thanks! Hope to speak soon! The Light Barrier, Space-time geometry according to the standard model would be Einstein's equations of General Relativity as it relates to gravity, also Einstein's cosmological equations as they relate to gravitational operations of the universe. "Einstein's field equations" is a synonym for his cosmological equations. The geometry involved is Riemann geometry which is non-linear three dimensional geometry, and Einstein added a forth dimension of time to it. One assertion of it is that matter warps the space surrounding it. The application of each would need to involve gravity for the equations to have meaning which I expect has something to do with your "gravity twin" proposal? numerology n. The study of the occult meanings of numbers and their supposed influence on human life. Is this the meaning of numerology that you are using? If not, give your definition of it or use a different word and explain that. Edited October 16, 2011 by The Light Barrier
mooeypoo Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 Yeah, I'm completely confused, I'm trying to make sense of what you're writing there and it's very difficult. Numerology is, by definition, unscientific, as anything that is "occult". It has no scientific evidence and hence cannot be used to prove anything scientific. If you mean for this theory to gain traction, I suggest you avoid using non science, and stick to physics and math. The model image positions. http://gravityhasatw...y-has-twin.html The following image reveals the vector positioning of the units of measure I have found in relation to Einstein's Field Equations or EFE. The arrows in red are where I believe the twins of gravity locate at. ALSO!!!!!!!!!! The vector position in the image model, are used as x y z "rotational axis only" in relation to torque speeds for both – and + directions for the twins. Okay, pet peeve here,but an image cannot "reveal" anything since you are the one who made it. It can demonstrate, perhaps. I don't see what it is it's demonstrating in this case. There are two arrows that seem to be "pointers" to the number and two ellipses... which ones are the "position vector" ? neither is the common way of actually drawing a position vector. The meaning of the image isn't very clear, I'm not sure what it is you're saying with it. What are those ellipses? are they perpendicular? What do they represent? Also!!!!!!!! The vector positions are 3 for twin 1 and 3 for twin 2. Making these 6 altogether!!!!! Or a 180 *2 = 360 Full Sphere Dome! What twin? What are you talking about? I see ellipses and a sphere. You really are being unclear here. You need to define the meaning of your terms. You state "twins" as if it's the most obvious thing in the world and just proceeds on it without defining what, exactly, you mean by "twin". This part is "very crucial!" In the number of 3.04763462485999e-8 the exponent of -8 cancels out, due to its twin's involvement "now." In other words this is the constructive and destructive interference model in quantum atom theory. When positioning the vectors as such, the later model thus is constructed. Most notably I used a 3d program in where I used "flat disc" polygons! Sorry, secant lines and curves just don't do it for me anymore….. .... What? This makes no sense. The Coordinates of the twins! Twin #1 [X, 3.04763462485999, Y, 3.04763462485999, Z, 3.04763462485999] Twin #2 [X, 94277083333321, Y, 94277083333321, Z, 94277083333321] Neither does this. Where did you get the coordinates? did you invent them? did you discover them? How? Are they observable? What, for all that's worth, are the "twins" ? I've skipped everything because you keep refering to "TWIN" when twin is not explained, you don't say where you got your initial numbers (are these from observations? are these constants? which? where did you take the relations from? etc) It's unclear wordsalad. You need to speak physics and math, not "words" with "quotation" "marks" and no definitions. Also, numerology is not going to help you get this into the scientific mainstream. Conclusion: Within the limits of my theoretical mathematics, this is strong evidence that support this claim of gravity's twin in relation to Einstein's Field Equations, and more that I have found within normal physics itself. Yes there is numerology involved in this coupled with the theoretical math, a science which is based on empirical observation. I don't mean to offend you, but you haven't talked theoretical mathematics or physics in this post or thread. You posted numbers that have no meaning and seem to find random connection between them. Either you explained yourself poorly, or you don't quite understand what the role of mathematics is within theoretical physics. Either way, your conclusion does not follow the premise. Coupled with both these "ordained orders" of construction twin like patterns of such, they form a hyperdemensional cube which could now explain singularities, but I am not too sure of that due to my un-accessibility to the science world up until now "I hope." .... What? No. It doesn't explain singularities. No even close; it barely explains what a twin is. What are singularities? They are: The paths of light and falling particles where they come to an abrupt end, and geometry becomes ill-defined. As per wikipidia. I am a big believer of this! This can also be a connection to Dark Matter and the god particle coupled the Theory of Everything. Requires evidence and proof which you did not supply. Also, "The God Particle" is a fun dandy pop-media name given every time scientists try to find the "next order" of particles, it seems. Which particle are you talking about? I do hope I have explained this to a degree of understanding, and although this may sound a bit confusing to "some" I rest assure when understood for what it is with an open mind your methods of research may now be "more clearer" to you. Especially those darn secant lines that don't really tell you anything. Thanks To All! Sorry, but you didn't. Try again please, and this time explain what twins are before you state they exist, where you got your numbers from, etc. Also, take into account that any and all physical and mathematical theories must (I cannot emphasize this enough) MUST be possible to repeat and replicate results. That means that you HAVE to tell us how you found these numbers so someone else can observe the same values, follow your method and confirm your result. Otherwise the theory is bunk by definition. I think you should go over this thread regarding what constitutes a proper scientific theory ("So, You've Got a New Theory..."), and try explaining your idea again, this time with a bit less flair and a bit more concrete data. 1
The Light Barrier Posted October 16, 2011 Author Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) I GOT A GREAT SOLUTION HERE. Yes I know my method of explanation is quite (reverse) let us "for now" concentrate ""ONLY"" in this area. To add, they are not vectors, they are " positions only." Now, within the formula of the fieldequation, I have replaced pi ratio In other words pi ratio’s“twin.” The following explains this: Together in the Einstein’s FieldEquations of: 8*3.14*[G= 9.8 m/s squared] / 8077608713.062491 = 3.04763462485999e-8 To this: 8*94277083333321*[G= 9.8 m/s squared] / 8077608713.062491 = 915038.5461701907 These are the twins, These positions were used as 6 position all together within the x y z rotations only, they are not used in the methods of A->B, these are not vectors, they are "only positions for vectors static I assume." What Vectors?? I do not know. I only understand where these are located at. These are two twins, that form 1 all together. Yeah, I'm completely confused, I'm trying to make sense of what you're writing there and it's very difficult. Numerology is, by definition, unscientific, as anything that is "occult". It has no scientific evidence and hence cannot be used to prove anything scientific. If you mean for this theory to gain traction, I suggest you avoid using non science, and stick to physics and math. Okay, pet peeve here,but an image cannot "reveal" anything since you are the one who made it. It can demonstrate, perhaps. I don't see what it is it's demonstrating in this case. There are two arrows that seem to be "pointers" to the number and two ellipses... which ones are the "position vector" ? neither is the common way of actually drawing a position vector. The meaning of the image isn't very clear, I'm not sure what it is you're saying with it. What are those ellipses? are they perpendicular? What do they represent? What twin? What are you talking about? I see ellipses and a sphere. You really are being unclear here. You need to define the meaning of your terms. You state "twins" as if it's the most obvious thing in the world and just proceeds on it without defining what, exactly, you mean by "twin". .... What? This makes no sense. Neither does this. Where did you get the coordinates? did you invent them? did you discover them? How? Are they observable? What, for all that's worth, are the "twins" ? I've skipped everything because you keep refering to "TWIN" when twin is not explained, you don't say where you got your initial numbers (are these from observations? are these constants? which? where did you take the relations from? etc) It's unclear wordsalad. You need to speak physics and math, not "words" with "quotation" "marks" and no definitions. Also, numerology is not going to help you get this into the scientific mainstream. I don't mean to offend you, but you haven't talked theoretical mathematics or physics in this post or thread. You posted numbers that have no meaning and seem to find random connection between them. Either you explained yourself poorly, or you don't quite understand what the role of mathematics is within theoretical physics. Either way, your conclusion does not follow the premise. .... What? No. It doesn't explain singularities. No even close; it barely explains what a twin is. Requires evidence and proof which you did not supply. Also, "The God Particle" is a fun dandy pop-media name given every time scientists try to find the "next order" of particles, it seems. Which particle are you talking about? Sorry, but you didn't. Try again please, and this time explain what twins are before you state they exist, where you got your numbers from, etc. Also, take into account that any and all physical and mathematical theories must (I cannot emphasize this enough) MUST be possible to repeat and replicate results. That means that you HAVE to tell us how you found these numbers so someone else can observe the same values, follow your method and confirm your result. Otherwise the theory is bunk by definition. I think you should go over this thread regarding what constitutes a proper scientific theory ("So, You've Got a New Theory..."), and try explaining your idea again, this time with a bit less flair and a bit more concrete data. I GOT A GREAT SOLUTION HERE. Yes I know my method of explanation is quite (reverse) let us "for now" concentrate ""ONLY"" in this area. To add, they are not vectors, they are " positions only." Now, within the formula of the fieldequation, I have replaced pi ratio In other words pi ratio’s“twin.” The following explains this: Together in the Einstein’s FieldEquations of: 8*3.14*[G= 9.8 m/s squared] / 8077608713.062491 = 3.04763462485999e-8 To this: 8*94277083333321*[G= 9.8 m/s squared] / 8077608713.062491 = 915038.5461701907 These are the twins, These positions were used as 6 position all together within the x y z rotations only, they are not used in the methods of A->B, these are not vectors, they are "only positions for vectors static I assume." What Vectors?? I do not know. I only understand where these are located at. These are two twins, that form 1 all together. And when unified they form a sphere it the image I have here. Both ellipses form the north, south, east and west poles respectively. Edited October 16, 2011 by The Light Barrier
ajb Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 numerology n. The study of the occult meanings of numbers and their supposed influence on human life. Not to be confused with number theory
mooeypoo Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 I GOT A GREAT SOLUTION HERE. Yes I know my method of explanation is quite (reverse) let us "for now" concentrate ""ONLY"" in this area. To add, they are not vectors, they are " positions only." Now, within the formula of the fieldequation, I have replaced pi ratio In other words pi ratio's"twin." The following explains this: Together in the Einstein's FieldEquations of: 8*3.14*[G= 9.8 m/s squared] / 8077608713.062491 = 3.04763462485999e-8 To this: 8*94277083333321*[G= 9.8 m/s squared] / 8077608713.062491 = 915038.5461701907 So you picked a number out of your hat and called it "pi ratio twin", and now you plug it in and find weird relations you call "twin"...? Where is this number coming from? Obviously if you replace Pi in that equation you will get a different answer. These are the twins, These positions were used as 6 position all together within the x y z rotations only, they are not used in the methods of A->B, these are not vectors, they are "only positions for vectors static I assume." What Vectors?? I do not know. I only understand where these are located at. These are two twins, that form 1 all together. Position vectors are vectors, and coordinates are coordinates. You're mixing the two up in a way that makes no sense. You have to show where these "positions" came from, so far it seems like they're random. If you don't explain what those numbers are and why you use them, the entire thing is meaningless. You put a number YOU call 'twin' into an equation to show that twin exists. That's circular logic. Think about this case: I want to show that unicorns exists, so I state that since unicorns are animals and animals exists, therefore unicorns exist. I'm sure you'll agree that the above sentence is meaningless; in order to prove the existence of unicorns I assumed the existence of unicorns. You're doing the same thing with your numbers. In your proof for the existence of a "twin", you're assuming the existence of a twin. That does not follow, it's illogical and makes no sense, not in sentence-form or in mathematics or in physics. You have to tell us where these numbers came from. Are these observed? Did you find them through an independent equation WITHOUT assuming the existence of "twin"? What are they? We cannot go on without an answer to where the number came from. If you don't have that answer, then your theory is no different than my unicorn statement. Please go over the "You have a theory" thread. I am quoting it for your reference here. You REALLY have to follow these guidelines, or we're not going to go anywhere with this: (A collection of some thoughts brought on by recent posts and posters. Some of these are touched upon in the FAQ and Pseudoscience section, and these sentiments can be found on other science fora) If you think you've toppled relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution or some other theory with your post, think again. Theories that have been around for a while have lots of evidence to back them up. It is far more likely that you have missed something. Here are some things to consider: You have to back your statements up with evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence. Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack. Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum. Published research (peer-reviewed) is more credible than the alternative. But peer-review is not perfect. When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it. Just because some paper or web site agrees with you does not mean that you are right. You need evidence. Just because some paper comes to the same conclusion as you does not mean your hypotheses are the same. Provide references when you refer to the work of others. Make sure the work is relevant, and quotes are in the proper context. Disagreeing with you does not make someone "closed-minded." "Thinking outside the box" is not a substitute for verifiable experimental data. Mainstream science is mainstream because it works, not because of some conspiracy. If you think you have an alternative, you have to cover all the bases - not just one experiment (real or gedanken). One set of experimental results that nobody has been able to reproduce is insufficient. Respect is earned. People who are resident experts, mods and administrators have earned those titles. Be familiar with that which you are criticizing. Don't make up your own terminology, and know the language of the science. A theory is not a guess. If nothing will convince you your viewpoint is wrong, you aren't doing science. That's religion. All theories are of limited scope. Just because a theory does not address some point you want it to does not automatically mean it's wrong. Not understanding a concept, or discovering that it's counterintuitive, does not make it wrong. Nature is under no obligation to behave the way you want it to. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Science cares very little about your opinion, as it has little relevance to the subject. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to address criticism of your viewpoint. Good luck. ~mooey 2
Phi for All Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 I think we guessed enough about what the original poster might or might not want to perhaps say but didn't. We can wait and see what he wants if and when he comes back to this thread to clarify and actually participate in the discussion. Right in the concept, not even wrong in the execution. +4 1
mooeypoo Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 Right in the concept, not even wrong in the execution. +4 Tomato Tomahto.
The Light Barrier Posted October 16, 2011 Author Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) Please go over the "You have a theory" thread. I am quoting it for your reference here. You REALLY have to follow these guidelines, or we're not going to go anywhere with this: Whose we're???? Its been only " you " looking at this. My intuition suggest that this may not be the right area to further disclose anymore information, because " as you can already see", I pull numbers out of nowhere....remember? So why should it make any difference to you as how I found this pi twin?????? Also if Albert Einstein did not get this I doubt you would too. Remember ""you"" said you hate quantum mechanics and this is "space time." Where I got the position vectors from???? ARE YOU OK?? Seriously??? Here it is for the 4th time now! 8*3.14* [ G= 9.8 m/s squared]3.04763462485999e-8 To this: 8*94277083333321*[G= 9.8 m/s squared] /8077608713.062491 = 915038.5461701907 The Coordinates of the twins! Twin #1 [X, 3.04763462485999, Y, 3.04763462485999,Z, 3.04763462485999] Twin #2 [X, 94277083333321, Y, 94277083333321,Z, 94277083333321] DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE THE ORIGINAL PI RATIO CAME FROM??? WHY DOES NOT ANYONE ASK ABOUT THAT? WHY DO THEY USE IT AND NEVER QUESTION ITS ORIGINS????? Oh, I forget, it just works. For what it is worth: The point of interest is the x y z positions and the positions only, and still you have not even tested it nor anything else. You just want to know where I got my number from this is why I cloaked it. Also the example of the animals?????? Animals,, also have souls, where did these souls come from? do you know???? Stop being so dogmatic here. I am sure "others" may see what you do not. But of coarse this is in the speculations, and out of my control, but my math is not! And you do not control this, so HA!!!!!!!! WAYY-------------->Too anylitical "almost much suffocation here!" So you picked a number out of your hat and called it "pi ratio twin", and now you plug it in and find weird relations you call "twin"...? Where is this number coming from? Obviously if you replace Pi in that equation you will get a different answer. [/size][/font] Position vectors are vectors, and coordinates are coordinates. You're mixing the two up in a way that makes no sense. You have to show where these "positions" came from, so far it seems like they're random. If you don't explain what those numbers are and why you use them, the entire thing is meaningless. You put a number YOU call 'twin' into an equation to show that twin exists. That's circular logic. Think about this case: I want to show that unicorns exists, so I state that since unicorns are animals and animals exists, therefore unicorns exist. I'm sure you'll agree that the above sentence is meaningless; in order to prove the existence of unicorns I assumed the existence of unicorns. You're doing the same thing with your numbers. In your proof for the existence of a "twin", you're assuming the existence of a twin. That does not follow, it's illogical and makes no sense, not in sentence-form or in mathematics or in physics. You have to tell us where these numbers came from. Are these observed? Did you find them through an independent equation WITHOUT assuming the existence of "twin"? What are they? We cannot go on without an answer to where the number came from. If you don't have that answer, then your theory is no different than my unicorn statement. Please go over the "You have a theory" thread. I am quoting it for your reference here. You REALLY have to follow these guidelines, or we're not going to go anywhere with this: Good luck. ~mooey Edited October 16, 2011 by The Light Barrier -3
mooeypoo Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 Please go over the "You have a theory" thread. I am quoting it for your reference here. You REALLY have to follow these guidelines, or we're not going to go anywhere with this: Whose we're, its been only you " looking at this" I'm the only one taking the time to answer, I'm not the only one looking. Regardless, the point is the same. OUT OF THE RULES OF THE FORUM you should follow the post I posted. It's not just about me reading your post. I was trying to be polite about it. My intuition suggest that this may not be the right area to further disclose anymore information, because " as you can already see", I pull numbers out of nowhere....remember? So why should it make any difference to you as how I found this pi twin?????? Well, this is really up to you. I'm not going to waste my time insisting you help your own idea. I pointed out the problems, it's up to you if you want to fix them or explain yourself better. You insist on showing a number without telling us what the origin of that number is -- that won't work, and it's not just "me" who's "saying" "it". DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE THE ORIGINAL PI RATIO CAME FROM??? WHY DOES NOT ANYONE ASK ABOUT THAT? WHY DO THEY USE IT AND NEVER QUESTION ITS ORIGINS????? Oh, I forget, it just works. Capital letters won't help you either. You were asked to answer some questions, and you ignore them. We're here to follow reality and physics and mathematical evidence. The original Pi ratio was discovered with proper math. I think you have some reading to do, it wasn't just a number that mathematicians plucked out of nowhere and then insisted it's useful. The fact you don't KNOW where it came from doesn't mean it was an invention out of thin air. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi Pi is the ratio between ANY circle's circumference to its diameter. That's the ratio pi represents. It's not just "a ratio" we invented to make people happy and use in mathematical symbols. It has a meaning, a clear meaning. What does your ratio represent? Ratio between what to what? You can't just invent a number, call it a ratio, and insist it's useful and then be surprised we are skeptical. For what it is worth: The point of interest is the x y z positions and the positions only, and still you have not even tested it nor anything else. You didn't tell us positions OF WHAT. This is getting tedious and ridiculous. I shouldn't be wasting my time convincing you to be clear. You just want to know where I got my number from this is why I cloaked it. We told you from the start that we need to examine the theory to see if it's valid - and I told you also the difference between scientific validation and "art" --- the idea of "hiding the facts" or "masking things" is BUNK in science. You show it to the world so we can REPLICATE what you do. Only by letting us replicate it can we be sure you're correct. That's how science works. It's up to you if you want to do science or insist you hold the gold key to the universe but hide from view. I can't check or test something I have no access to, and no one else can either. The reason I'm the one answering you is because there aren't many physicists who will take the time to take a look at what you're saying when it's clear you're hiding things and not really cooperating. It's simply a waste of time. If you don't want to share it, don't. If you want us to help you, you have to answer the questions. It's really that simple. Also the example of the animals?????? Animals,, also have souls, where did these souls come from? do you know???? Stop being so dogmatic here. I am sure other may see what you do not. It was an example of LOGIC, whic clearly you missed. It seems you need to read a bit about that too. WAYY-------------->Too anylitical "almost much suffocation here!" Guess what? Science is not about emotions or ego or intuition, it's about properly describing reality, and the way we test these are by analytical examination, by evidence, by experimentation. You seem to insist to go by science but reject the method by which science works. With the risk of being yelled at for involving ethically-conscious food items, I will remind you that you cannot eat the cake and leave it whole. You either want to do science --- and then you must follow the rules --- or you want to do it your way, in which case forget about making this a valid scientific theory. And no, it doesn't matter which topping. Good luck. ~mooey 1
Psycho Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) Are you going to post the mathematics of how you derived your numbers or not? I am looking for a Yes or No answer any answer that isn't a Yes or No will be assumed to be a No and therefore an admittance of not knowing how you derived the mathematics. If Yes, please post the mathematical derivation, preferably without any words as they shouldn't be needed, it should be logical enough to follow on its own merit. Edited October 16, 2011 by Psycho 1
The Light Barrier Posted October 17, 2011 Author Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) My ratio represents the opposite of pi ratio. The only thing I can say is treat the number I found as if it were pi ratio. Until I get an article that will "show the math" then I will disclose this information as per previously advised from other " sources" please don't ask. The ball is in your court, if you would like to see how I found this then help me get this out in a "published article and get credit as the person whom will re-define the math for me, into the standard "traditional mainstream ways." I learn from history here. If you would not like to, then I respect that. Thank You For Your Time, WOW! I feel somewhat honered really I do. I know the field of entertainment and fame trust me, been there done that. Can't get back into this loop again, if I had my math stolen then this would be three strikes against my produced music that "too" was stolen. I just cannot bare anymore losses...sorry..Plus I want to enjoy life too I'm the only one taking the time to answer, I'm not the only one looking. Regardless, the point is the same. OUT OF THE RULES OF THE FORUM you should follow the post I posted. It's not just about me reading your post. I was trying to be polite about it. Well, this is really up to you. I'm not going to waste my time insisting you help your own idea. I pointed out the problems, it's up to you if you want to fix them or explain yourself better. You insist on showing a number without telling us what the origin of that number is -- that won't work, and it's not just "me" who's "saying" "it". Capital letters won't help you either. You were asked to answer some questions, and you ignore them. We're here to follow reality and physics and mathematical evidence. The original Pi ratio was discovered with proper math. I think you have some reading to do, it wasn't just a number that mathematicians plucked out of nowhere and then insisted it's useful. The fact you don't KNOW where it came from doesn't mean it was an invention out of thin air. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi Pi is the ratio between ANY circle's circumference to its diameter. That's the ratio pi represents. It's not just "a ratio" we invented to make people happy and use in mathematical symbols. It has a meaning, a clear meaning. What does your ratio represent? Ratio between what to what? You can't just invent a number, call it a ratio, and insist it's useful and then be surprised we are skeptical. You didn't tell us positions OF WHAT. This is getting tedious and ridiculous. I shouldn't be wasting my time convincing you to be clear. We told you from the start that we need to examine the theory to see if it's valid - and I told you also the difference between scientific validation and "art" --- the idea of "hiding the facts" or "masking things" is BUNK in science. You show it to the world so we can REPLICATE what you do. Only by letting us replicate it can we be sure you're correct. That's how science works. It's up to you if you want to do science or insist you hold the gold key to the universe but hide from view. I can't check or test something I have no access to, and no one else can either. The reason I'm the one answering you is because there aren't many physicists who will take the time to take a look at what you're saying when it's clear you're hiding things and not really cooperating. It's simply a waste of time. If you don't want to share it, don't. If you want us to help you, you have to answer the questions. It's really that simple. It was an example of LOGIC, whic clearly you missed. It seems you need to read a bit about that too. Guess what? Science is not about emotions or ego or intuition, it's about properly describing reality, and the way we test these are by analytical examination, by evidence, by experimentation. You seem to insist to go by science but reject the method by which science works. With the risk of being yelled at for involving ethically-conscious food items, I will remind you that you cannot eat the cake and leave it whole. You either want to do science --- and then you must follow the rules --- or you want to do it your way, in which case forget about making this a valid scientific theory. And no, it doesn't matter which topping. Good luck. ~mooey Edited October 17, 2011 by The Light Barrier -1
Recommended Posts