Saturday, June 20, 2015

Pope Francis' Encyclical Missed Permaculture and Holistic Management

It was a brilliant encyclical by Pope Francis.  I'm very happy and grateful that he wrote it.  To me it is clear that the Holy Spirit wants us to take this radical redirection.  It may take many years and sufferings for all this to come to fruition.  We will also need help from Heaven, providence, miracles, special gifts, etc. because the greedy powers that be will work hard to never let this project get off the ground in an intense manner.  

If there were concepts I wish Pope Francis would have named, it was Permaculture and Holistic Management.  This would have introduced many to these systems developed by some of the most brilliant and admirable people over the past 50 years.  In fact some of Pope Francis' sentences were almost identical to the core tenets of Permaculture.  These ideas could gradually be learned and implemented all around the world.  To get basic ideas of Permaculture and Holistic Management you can begin with the Wiki articles and work through all the figures of these movements. There is so much information out there about these systems and the young can even travel and learn from the masters of Permaculture on their own farms.    

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Einstein's Telescope


Above is a picture used in the video from the link.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/62332/einsteins-telescope

All I see in this picture are two inverse square regimes! One inverse square regime originates in the star that goes supernova, and the other originates in the Earth. The only way to reasonably explain an inverse square regime for light is by assuming that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by a tense and rectilinear ray that mediates light. Why else would the rays spread out in a 1/distance squared??? (see: The Inverse Square Law of Light)

All the atoms of the three objects in this picture are already connected by an invisible, tense and rectilinear rays that signal light. When the star explodes these rays enacts signals and these are relayed or reflected by a set of atoms at the edges of the galaxy or of it's halo, rectinlinearly, or straight to the Earth or telescope stationed around Earth. The rays of light never bend, and little balls don't roll around space like in a roulette table. We don't need a concept called gravity, enacting a causal relation BEND on another concept called space which undergoes a change effect and then somehow influences rays of light in order to explain the signals of the star going supernova.

Proof is subjective. They say that this proves Einstein's explanation but to me this proves someone else's explanation.

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Brainstorm On Neutrons

A few months ago I had this thought that the neutron must have a tiny charge. Even the standard model of particle physics predicts a tiny charge separation leading to a permanent electric dipole moment. But the value is well below sensitivity of experiments. And besides they say the net electric charge is zero, the net average. Whatever this all would mean in reality.

I think of a neutron as a baby hydrogen atom. A hydrogen atom and a neutron have about the same calculated mass.  But for some reason this baby neutron has not grown out its electron threads to lengths of 53 picometers and beyond.  Or perhaps it's electron threads have been crushed and shortened at the center of a star.  In some decays perhaps it gets a substantial feed of EM Ropes, which work to twist out the electron threads to greater lengths so they would align and superpose with the converging EM Ropes and thus actively charge, effectively making it like a hydrogen atom (which it always was), or in a figurative manner, an adult atom.

But anyway perhaps a neutron has tiny little loops of thread that emanate around a few picometers or maybe even on a fentometer scale. Maybe this is why they are able to fit through or even make pathways between and through some atoms, effectively falling on protons. These tiny loops of electron thread perhaps enable a neutron to sort of clamp onto a proton or cacoon the proton of an 'adult' atom so that they remain bound together rather strongly.

But when I had this thought I tried to find any sort of evidence or information that the neutron might have charge which to me means it has twisted out at least one set of threaded electron signals sideways from the crisscrossing convergence of EM Ropes.

I found this article:
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1167106quotes:

"We have found that a neutron actually carries a negative charge at its inner and outer edges, but has a positive charge in between" said Gerald Miller, a University of Washington (Seattle) physics professor.

The idea that neutrons were actually composed of subatomic layers of charge that cancel to zero can be traced to speculation made in 1947 by Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi. However, Fermi speculated that neutrons had a positive charge at their core, which was offset by a negative charge on its outer surface. The uncertainty of his speculations, however, relegated them to historical footnotes not deemed worthy of including in textbooks.

"We believe this is a clear fact of nature that we didn't know before," said Miller. "It is significant because nobody realized this was the case until now."

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

From Conceptions of Space and Time by Akhundov



From Conceptions of Space and Time by Akhundov (p. 115)

The nonphysical character of action-at-a-distance disturbed even Newton, who attempted to develop a short-range theory of gravitation. The crux of the matter, however, is that action-at-a-distance is connected not with gravitation but with the conception of space and time. As Kuznetsov notes:

In Newton’s physics, forces were distributed rectilinearly over infinite distances. These Newtonian forces—the instantaneous, extratemporal interactions of bodies—were the physical framework of Newtonian space, which existed independently of time.

Here there is also a certain paradox that in general inevitably accompanies absoluteness (absoluteness is internally paradoxical). Thus action-at-a-distance, which was incorporated in Newton’s system to substantiate absolute space and time, repudiates the very idea of space and time. Acceptance of action-at-a-distance denies the continuity of absolute space and time, introducing into them absolute disruption.

The extratemporality of forces acting at a distance is intrinsic to their instantaneous essence. Emile Meyerson has also discussed their extraspatiality:

The hypothesis of action at a distance consists in supposing that one phenomenon is the condition of another and that nothing happens in intermediary space. Assuredly it will be affirmed that intermediary space is traversed by force. But the two phenomenon being simultaneous, force does not cross space; it leaps over it, if we dare express it thus.

This leads Meyerson to conclude that the idea of instantaneous action-at-a-distance is destructive of the concept of space.

Gaede on the Thread

Here is an excellent quote from Gaede's WGDE. It is extremely useful for conceptualizing Thread Theory. It's not easy at first because it is different:

In Thread Theory, the word light embodies both structural and behavioral aspects of a rope. Therefore, we have to specify whether we are alluding to an entity or to a signal, to the rope or its motion, to a noun or to a verb. Unlike in Classical and Quantum Mechanics where both waves and particles are outgoing mechanisms, in Thread Theory the rope does not travel from the Sun to the Earth. The rope already interconnects an atom in the Sun and an atom on Earth. The torque signal is the alleged ‘transverse wave’ or ‘particle’ that the mathematician believes ‘travels’ from one point to another. I put the word travel in quotes because actually this is an observer-related phenomenon. Each link of the rope actually rotates in place. Torsion is essentially a standing wave. Verify this yourself. Ask two people to hold the ends of a stretched out rope and to twist it. Has any link gone anywhere? Are the participants receiving any new links at their respective ends as the rope rotates? Only you – the lateral observer – can see waves. The rope as a whole and each link looks at itself and says that it is just twirling in place. Yet, despite that the rope twirls in place, the torque signal causes pressure on the surface of the electron shell where it ends. Torque a rope while someone holds the opposite end. Although the rope twirled in place, the other person feels a force. This phenomenon explains why light ‘travels as a wave’ and ‘arrives as a particle’. The pressure that Hertz and Lebedev (Ch. 3, § 2.4) observed in their experiments has to do with this attribute of the rope. It is this pressure that the mathematicians detect as a ‘particle’. The rope also differs from the wave and particle models of Quantum in that it necessarily ends in another atom. The mechanics believe that waves and particles travel to infinity if there is no atom present to absorb the ‘energy’. (Pages 198-199)

Pet Peeves in Physics

What are your pet peeves in physics?

Over the past couple of years I get irritated by two questions or comments I continually see.

1. Atoms are mostly empty space thus you are mostly empty space.

I hate the way the concept space is used. Space refers to that which lacks form. An object cannot be made of mostly empty space. This to me is a stupid thought rooted in Rutherford and the planetary model of the atom. Rationale would seem to suggest that an atom or a human is a fullness of whatever fundamental entity comprises all matter. Wherever an atom or a human or a star is, there is an abundance of whatever it is that fundamentally comprises these. All one need do is get over the unique properties and behavior of this fundamental entity such as superposition.

2. What if we took a spaceship into the far reaches of space beyond all the observable stars and galaxies. What would happen? What would we discover?

Lets just say we had a spaceship with unlimited energy to take us anywhere. In my current understanding of physics when that spaceship begins to travel beyond the furthest galaxies, like the ones at the 'edge' of our current Universe, the electrons of the spaceship would collapse, the atoms would decay, the chemical compounds would dissolve, etc. In other words the spaceship would never make it far beyond the farthest galaxy. There would be no spaceship to go anywhere. An object such as a spaceship needs a continual feed of the fundamental entity in order to changes locations. Beyond the furthest galaxy, there is no abundance of whatever that fundamental physical entity is, so as to uphold the integrity of all the atoms of the spaceship. So we would discover that we are idiots and that this whole hypothetical is useless.

3. Discreteness. Reason seems to suggest that everything is connected and continuous even if the fundamental physical entity acts in a manner that can be comparatively analyzed or measured in discrete values. No one can seem to get over the conundrum that maybe in spite of the fact that we can measure these discrete values everything is still physically connected.

4. Ascribing motion to concepts. Concepts such as energy cannot move or change, perform causal actions or undergo change effects. Duh. Space cannot possibly bend, Time cannot move forward or backward.

Touch, Contact and Connect in Context of Atoms

Touch:

comes from the Latin word toccare, meaning to knock, to strike implying touch. The Italian word toccata comes from toccare. A toccata refers to a rapid organ, harpsichord,or keyboard composition.

Obviously touch refers to a concept, a brain work in which we relate objects. One of those objects is always a hand or fingers intimately pushing another object for example the key of a piano or keyboard. At the microscopic/atomic/quantum level this always involves atoms with their feature we call electron, or I call electron thread(s). So I really don't think that atoms separated by immensely long Threads can said to be touching one another.

Contact:

Some seem to think that atoms separated by light years worth of Thread are in contact with one another. Contact comes from another Latin based word called tangere. Tangere means to touch, with the prefix con means to to touch together. Contact is the intimate coming together of two things or two people. At the atomic level this implies the feature of the atom called electron: thread emanating out sideways from what we call proton. Again atoms separated by immensely long EM Threads are not literally in contact with one another.

Contact is used in electricity "Electrical contact" and this implies the coming together of metallic atoms with their electron threads.

Connect:

comes from the Latin word nectere meaning to tie, to link. Nexus is a offshoot of nectere. Nexus is a means of connection, a mediator, a go between. The sense of the concept "connect" seems to be that two objects separated by some great distance and NOT TOUCHING and NOT IN CONTACT are somehow united by means of another object. For example two buildings are connected by a bridge. The bridge doesn't have to be touching or contacting the two buildings.

So connect would be a fit word to use for the relationship of all atoms assumed in rope hypothesis and thread theory. All the atoms are connected by EM Threads or EM Ropes. Atoms are remotely linked together by means of this fundamental entity called Thread. They communicate with one another and influence one another, they pull one another but this activity is not intimate like two bodies coming together in touch. As a side note it if very interesting to see how some ancients and moderns used words like connected, linked, united to describe the relationship conceived of matter (see this link:https://www.facebook.com/groups/442708405857037/permalink/465216723606205/ )

An atom, the fundamental unit of matter, or one of the fundamental objects I assume is radically distinct and unequal to the more fundamental entity called Thread even if they are somewhat the same. The form of atom is radically distinct and unequal to the form of Thread even if they rely upon one another and complement one another. This alone should make it clear that two objects like the Sun and the Moon are distinct even if united by the Thread.

When Thread intersects, overlaps, or superposes to what we call a critical Thread density (an intersection, overlap or superposition of Thread through which no more Thread may pass) I assume some sort of radical transformation is established that is utterly unique; as unique as the Thread. Without this critical thread density atoms would not organize an electronic structure (a pattern of electron threads), they would not be able to relate to one anther intimately in the concepts embodied as push, touch, contact, etc. They would not be able to chemically bond, etc. They would not be modified by the word tangible, an adjective meaning capable of being touched. And yet without this critical thread density atoms would not be able to dynamically relate to one another remotely as in the concept embodied in pull, light, gravity, etc. Without a converging bundle of Thread there would be no atoms. So I think there is this sort of wondrous perfection. Given that some of these ideas are true, all things would truly be elegant.

There is also a newer idea I call Critical Ethereal Thread Anomaly. This concept is defined as a radial superposing alignment of electron thread and EM Ropes beyond the nucleus. This is where light happens. Electron thread and EM Rope influence one another, they turn one another, etc. There is probably a critical number of these Threads that needs to be established in order to trigger a primal light event. This concept can also be applied to electricity. Electron threads from two or more atoms superpose in alignment and begin turning one another at the same frequencies.


I think these fundamentals are somewhat mysterious (inexplicable) and perhaps not even able to be completely understood. Critical Thread Density and its opposite doesn't explain a phenomena. It is descriptive. And it seems that the proton is structurally dynamic which is interesting. Obviously the atom also constantly reforms. This is somewhat mysterious to me. I'm willing to concede a couple of natural wonders like Thread overlapping Thread and Thread establishing a radically distinct form in what we call the hydrogen atom and all the atomic elements beyond. And also an idea such as Critical Ethereal Thread Anomaly.

Holism

Quote of the Day: NICHOLAS A. CHRISTAKIS
Physician and Social Scientist, Harvard University;

From an article on Holism
Holism does not come naturally. It is an appreciation not of the simple, but of the complex, or at least of the simplicity and coherence in complex things. Moreover, unlike curiosity or empiricism, say, holism takes a while to acquire and to appreciate. It is a very grown-up disposition. Indeed, for the last few centuries, the Cartesian project in science has been to break matter down into ever smaller bits, in the pursuit of understanding. And this works, to some extent. We can understand matter by breaking it down to atoms, then protons and electrons and neutrons, then quarks, then gluons, and so on. We can understand organisms by breaking them down into organs, then tissues, then cells, then organelles, then proteins, then DNA, and so on. 
But putting things back together in order to understand them is harder, and typically comes later in the development of a scientist or in the development of science. Think of the difficulties in understanding how all the cells in our bodies work together, as compared with the study of the cells themselves. Whole new fields of neuroscience and systems biology and network science are arising to accomplish just this. And these fields are arising just now, after centuries of stomping on castles in order to figure them out.

Monday, June 1, 2015

Professor Richard Muller on Gravity

Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, Berkley, California
Lecture 03: Gravity and Satellites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdoU2YQJvOg

At 25:00 He says:

"What is the force of gravity on me? Well, its the pull of the Earth on my body. That is what we call the force of gravity. Newton figured out that the force of gravity is actually a force of attraction between mass. So, for example if you have the Earth, its a big mass here, and you have you, with your little mass here, that every atom of the Earth is pulling on every atom of you . . . you are also pulling on it. Ah you are pulling it up. You may say you don't have much mass, so you don't pull very much, but there are a lot of atoms here, and you are pulling on all of them. The amazing thing about gravity is that it goes RIGHT THROUGH THINGS; more effectively than even neutrinos. You are pulling, RIGHT NOW, on the atoms of the other side of the Earth. They're far away, so its not very strong, in fact your force of pull depends on the distance. The rule is given here. The force of pull is 1/r2, so we say the force of pull for gravity is a bunch of constants, G, mass of the first object, mass of the second object, divided by r2. . . . There is gravity between my two hands right now, the masses of first hand and second hand are kind of small, [not a lot of connections] when you plug in the constant here and so the force isn't very big. G is 6 * 10 to -7. But if you have enough fists and a whole Earth made of fists, then it all adds up. So we're being pulled in every which direction by ??? (he says gravity) and because the Earth is a sphere it feels as if, I mean the sideways forces cancel, that thing over there and over there are pulling me in opposite directions but they cancel each other. But the net effect is AS IF I am being pulled straight down.

Let me show you that again. Here is the Earth, here am I. Every bit of mass is pulling me in its own direction. These forces are weaker than these cause this is closer, its 1/r2, go twice as far away the force is 1/4, 100 times away 1/100the squared times, so most of the force is coming from nearby stuff and most of it is pulling me straight down. Now suppose the Earth is not a completely uniform sphere like this, and suppose there is a hole over here. What do we fill that hole with? Well we could fill it with vacuum (conceptually) but those don't really EXIST. Lets fill it with something light. Lets fill it with oil. Now look at the gravity on me. The rock over here is pulling me down this way, but the oil over here is pulling me, but not very much. They no longer cancel. So if I have a very accurate meter I can search for oil using the gravity anomaly."

The String Theorists

Every once in a while I like to see what madness the Stringers (those who adhere to String Theory) are up to. Today, at the book store I found them selling this mother called

The Shape of Inner Space: String Theory and the Geometry of the Universe's Inner Dimensions

Yeah. Well I started to cringe when I opened the cover to find:

SPACE/TIME

Time, time
why does it vanish?
All manner of things
what infinite variety.
Three thousand rivers
all from one source.
Time, space
mind, matter, reciprocal.
Time, time
it never returns.
Space, space
how much can it hold?
In constant motion
always in flux.
Black holes lurking
mysteries afoot.
Space and time
one without bounds.
Infinite, infinite
the secrets of the universe.
Inexhaustible, lovely
in every detail.
Measure time, measure space
no one can do it.
Watched through a straw
what’s to be learned has no end.

Shing-Tung Yau
Beijing, 2002

Cringe, cringe, cringe. Scratching your nails against the chalkboard couldn't make me cringe more than that piece of idolatry.

What else did I find? Of course, the author shamelessly preaching the nihilistic religion of Geometry with oodles of sugar. He even compared Euclid's writings to the Sacred Books of religion like the Bible. And of course he doted on himself and his colleagues, in subtle and not so subtle manner.

BUT, but, but that is not what I was looking for. You see I have this 'hypothesis' and it goes something like this. All geometers, seemed to have lacked any sort of healthy relationship with women in their time of undergraduate studies, thus they become fascinated with perverted ideas like curves. They say I have to practice what they call Science, and so I have to collect evidence in support of my hypothesis and then have it peer reviewed to make sure there are valid correlations (never mind about causation). Someday I'm hoping my hypothesis will be sanctified into a theory.

And lo and behold I didn't have to go far and Yau delivered for me. I have evidence!

p. X

I still recall the thrill I felt during my first year of graduate school, when—as a twenty-year-old fresh off the boat, so to speak— I was struck by the notion that gravity and curvature could be regarded as one and the same, as I’d already become fascinated with curved surfaces during my undergraduate years in Hong Kong. Something about these shapes appealed to me on a visceral level. I don’t know why, but I couldn’t stop thinking about them.

Fascinated with curved surfaces . . . visceral . . . something about these shapes appealing . . .

Um yeah. Not only are those Stringers mad, they are degenerate.