LATER  PREDICTIONS  MORPHOLOGY  UNKNOWN  POWER  B HOLES! 
GRAVITY  NZ Weather?  Entropy  Mechanics  BIG DIP  BIG DIP 
PENDULA  B HOLES  TRAJECTORY  DEFLATION  SPACE?  EARLIER 
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:12:31 GMT
REGARDING: Special Proposal for exploratory merge of technologies for possible early earthquake prediction.
Dear ladies & gentlemen,
What this is, is a special proposal to raise funds for the development of a software program (actually the enhancement to an existing program) for the purpose of possible advanced warning of destructive earthquakes through the study of historical earthquakes.
This proposal centers on the theory that certain planetary positioning is effecting certain earthquakes and that by using the right software program we can know the planetary position in advance and hence possible earthquake times, and perhaps even earthquake locations; not just a few days in advance but years in advance. Seeing is believing and you can actually see it. I have seen gravitational formulas and arguments of all types and sometimes I think that there may be some kind of complex interaction which is not completely understood taking place. There has to be some logical explanation for the occurrence of severely damaging
earthquakes which happen when planets are lined up in a direct straight line.
This effort is being organized by myself, an avid user of a four star rated astronomy program which I use to forewarn of high probability times for earthquakes based on what appears to me to be a variety of unique planetary alignment scenarios. I currently operate a computer department and complex data analysis is just one of the many things I do; I have studied hundreds of earthquakes and compared planetary positions with precise dates and times.
The software program I use and wish to modify is called Distant Suns by Mike Smithwick . What this program allows you to do is view planets from an overview perspective from outer space. Of critical importance is the ability to go forward and backward in time and change position and perspective on the fly to judge planetary position. Once one studies numerous earthquakes it becomes apparent that some may be triggered by planets which almost eclipse each other and/or transition into and out of such an alignment. See www.webwork.com/earthgrav I believe his software is ideal for this purpose because Mike Smithwick maps out the Earth and its continents in high resolution and these perspectives are visible and accurate even when one uses the program's animation features. Once the history of earthquakes is mapped into the face of the earth in his program the history of earthquakes effected by planetary position should be readily observed; even as the earth is animated in 3D. The hypothesis is that patterns never before observed may then become visible and/or questions or answers about planetary alignments may be newly born or put to rest. The idea is to try and learn from the past how to survive the future if it is at all possible.
In an effort to ascertain the cost for his time to develop the necessary modifications, I have provided specifications to Mike Smithwick on what I would expect his program to do.
These modifications are similar to the representation of the globe provided by the USGS with earthquake intensity superimposed on a map of the earth, except that in the Distant Suns program you will be able to observe the earth spinning as the earthquake representations happen in real time. One will then be able to hover in one position from outer space; say for instance from the perspective of the Moon, look down on the earth and see earthquakes occur one after the next.
These modifications will allow the observer to view the earthquakes as they occur in real time from any angle above the earth when within viewable range. They will allow the observer to differentiate by depth and intensity of earthquake. They will uncover new more precise formula in defining planetary influence patterns on earthquake because earthquakes can be easily traced to observable planetary position if such is applicable.
The following document is from Indian scientists who claim to be able to predict earthquakes by planetary alignments. Some of the formulas are interesting. I was thinking of integrating this same formula package into the same software modifications except this is the first I have seen of it and I have not had the time to review it by now. If anyone has an opinion of these formulas please let me know what you think. And I will try to use your opinion on it.
I moved a copy of their document to my server because the available link on the net is very slow and appears to lock up
At: www.webwork.com/SCEV.pdf (1.6 Megs) by
N.Venkatanathan, N. Rajeswara Rao1, K. K. Sharma, & P.PeriaKalli
Department of Applied Geology,
University of Madras,
Guindy Campus, A.C.College Buildings,
Chennai  600 025, India.
To remind you also that two severely destructive quakes occurred precisely one year apart from each other to within less than an hour of each other. This was Bam Iran and Sumatra Indonesia. In each case, Bam & Sumatra, there were instances of some type of unique planetary alignments. Views are available at www.webwork.com/earthgrav/
A useful free version of Distant Suns version 4 (in the downloads section) is available from the Distant Suns site. At www.distantsuns.com
If you are interested in participating I am accepting pledges for funding. Ultimately once the funding goal is reached I will coordinate efforts to have you pay the software developer directly. At no time is money to be paid to me. Please note also that even with all these modifications the understandings of such interaction may not progress if you do not use the
software properly to view it; so a road map of where to look and how must be followed to gain the proper perspective. Also there is no guarantee that anything new will be discovered, my hope is that there will be.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE NO DIRECT AFFILIATION WITH THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPER.
The funding needed is in the range of up to about $10,000.00
Thank you for your time.
Please contact me at:
editorny at earthlink.net
tass at webwork.com
Tassos Gioia
WOODSIDE, NY 11377
Day: 2126455600 ext 222
Fax: 8776479853
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:14:24 GMT
MORPHOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE
When I was studying on waveparticle duality, I found this results. We haven't completely any morphological foundations of the universe and time. I have determined them according to my studies.
MORPHOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE
1 Every morphological systems can be isotropic and anisotropic morphologies for the universe and time.
Our mechanical systems are Newtonian, Einsteinien, Quantum Mechanical Sytems. They are isotropic systems. We determined to the matter and antimatter according to them. But the universe has infinite isotropic mechanics. They are different than our mechanics. I have a lot of mathematical groups for other isotropic mechanics and found their basic equations and
constants. I haven't any anisotropic mechanics. I have determined a lot of anisotropic mechanics. I will explain on statististical mechanics for isotropic and anisotropic morphologies.
2 MY AXIOMS FOR ISOTROPIC MORPHOLOGY AND SPACES : DIMENSIONAL DESCRIPTION
Isotropic space has rational, fracritonal, irrational spaces and integer, fractional, irrational dimensions. We can explain on the matter, antimatter with unmatter by this study.
SPACIAL DESCRIPTION :
RATIONAL SPACE :
It has integer dimensions.
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
It has fractional dimensions.
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
It has irrational dimensions.
PHASE SPACES
RATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 3 dimensional rational space,phase space is 6 dimensional rational space.
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
It's on 4 dimensional fractional space,phase space's 8 dimensional fractional space.
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 4 dimensional irrational space,phase space's 8 dimensional irrational space.
QUANTITY SPACES RATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 3 dimensional rational space.
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
It's on 4 dimensional fractional space.
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 4 dimensional irrational space.
PHASE SPACES :
RATIONAL SPACE :
nr(p,x)1 = 4.pi.P1^3.V1 / 3.h^3
V1 is the size of three dimensional space.
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
nf(p,x)1 = pi.P1^4.F1 / 3.h^4
F1 is the size of four dimensional space.
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
ni(p,x)1 = pi.P1^4.R1 / 3.h^4
R1 is size of four dimensional space
QUANTITY SPACE :
RATIONAL SPACE :
k1 is a constant in rational space for distributing of the spherical particles.It is Boltzmann's constant.
Er = 3.k1.T / 2 = h.f1
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
k2 is a constant in fractional space for distributing of the spherical particles.
Er = 4.k2.T / 2 = h.f2
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
k3 is a constant in irrational space for distributing of the spherical particles.
Ei = 4.k3.T / 2 = h.f3
EQUATION OF ISOTROPIC ENERGY FOR SPHERICAL PARTICLES:
E = Er + Ef + Ei
= 3.k1.T / 2 + 4.k2.T / 2 + 4.k3.T / 2
= h.f1 + h.f2 + hf3
ISOTROPIC DISTRIBUTING EQUATIONS FOR SPHERICAL PARTICLES
MAXWELL BOLTZMANN FUNCTIONS
RATIONAL SPACE
nr = g / e^( Er / k1.T )
FRACTIONAL SPACE
nf = g / e^( Ef / k2.T )
IRRATIONAL SPACE
ni = g / e^( Ei / k3.T )
FERMI DIRAC DISTRIBUTION
RATIONAL SPACE
nr = g / e^( Er / k1.T )+ 1
FRACTIONAL SPACE
nf = g / e^( Ef / k2.T ) + 1
IRRATIONAL SPACE
ni = g / e^( Ei / k3.T ) + 1
BOSE EINSTEIN DISTRIBUTION
RATIONAL SPACE
nr = g / e^( Er / k1.T ) 1
FRACTIONAL SPACE
nf = g / e^( Ef / k2.T )  1
IRRATIONAL SPACE
ni = g / e^( Ei / k3.T )  1
3 MY AXIOMS FOR ANISOTROPIC MOPHOLOGY AND SPACES :
DIMENSIONAL DESCRIPTION :
Anisotropic space has rational,fracritonal,irrational spaces and integer,fractional,irrational dimensions.We can explain on the matter,antimatter with unmatter by this study.
RATIONAL SPACE :
It has integer dimensions.
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
It has fractional dimensions.
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
It has irrational dimensions.
PHASE SPACES
RATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 3 dimensional rational space,phase space is 6 dimensional rational space.
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
It's on 4 dimensional fractional space,phase space's 8 dimensional fractional space.
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 4 dimensional irrational space,phase space's 8 dimensional irrational space.
QUANTITY SPACES
RATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 3 dimensional rational space
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
It's on 4 dimensional fractional space.
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 4 dimensional irrational space.
PHASE SPACES :
RATIONAL SPACE :
nr(p,x)1 = 4.pi.P1^3.V1 / 3.h^3
nr(p,x)2 = 4.pi.P2^3.V2 / 3.h^3
nr(p,x)3 = 4.pi.P3^3.V3 / 3.h^3
V1,V2,V3 are the sizes of three dimensional space.
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
nf(p,x)1 = pi.P1^4.F1 / 3.h^4
nf(p,x)2 = pi.P2^4.F2 / 3.h^4
nf(p,x)3 = pi.P3^4.F3 / 3.h^4
nf(p,x)4 = pi.P4^4.F4 / 3.h^4
F1,F2,F3,F4 are the sizes of four dimensional space.
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
ni(p,x)1 = pi.P1^4.R1 / 3.h^4
ni(p,x)2 = pi.P2^4.R2 / 3.h^4
ni(p,x)3 = pi.P3^4.R3 / 3.h^4
ni(p,x)4 = pi.P4^4.R4 / 3.h^4
R1,R2,R3,R4 are the sizes of four dimensional space
QUANTITY SPACE :
RATINAL SPACE :
k1 is a constant in rational space for distributing of the spherical particles.It is Boltzmann's constant.
Er = 3.k1.T / 2 = h.f1
E1 = 3.k1.T1 / 2 = h.f11
E2 = 3.k1.T2 / 2 = h.f12
E3 = 3.k1.T3 / 2 = h.f13
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
k2 is a constant in fractional space for distributing of the spherical particles.
Er = 4.k2.T / 2 = h.f2
E1 = 4.k2.T1 / 2 = h.f21
E2 = 4.k2.T2 / 2 = h.f22
E3 = 4.k2.T3 / 2 = h.f23
E4 = 4.k2.T4 / 2 = h.f24
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
k3 is a constant in irrational space for distributing of the spherical particles.
Ei = 4.k3.T / 2 = h.f3
E1 = 4.k3.T1 / 2 = h.f31
E2 = 4.k3.T2 / 2 = h.f32
E3 = 4.k3.T3 / 2 = h.f33
E4 = 4.k3.T4 / 2 = h.f34
EQUATION OF ANISOTROPIC ENERGY FOR SPHERICAL PARTICLES:
E = Er + Ef + Ei
= 3.k1.T / 2 + 4.k2.T / 2 + 4.k3.T / 2
= h.f1 + h.f2 + hf3
ANISOTROPIC DISTRIBUTING EQUATIONS FOR SPHERICAL PARTICLES
MAXWELL BOLTZMANN FUNCTIONS
RATIONAL SPACE
nr = g / e^( Er / k1.T )
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k1.T1 )
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k1.T2 )
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k1.T3 )
FRACTIONAL SPACE
nf = g / e^( Ef / k2.T )
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k2.T1 )
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k2.T2 )
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k2.T3 )
n4 = g4 / e^( E4 / k2.T4 )
IRRATIONAL SPACE
ni = g / e^( Ei / k3.T )
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k3.T1 )
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k3.T2 )
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k3.T3 )
n4 = g4 / e^( E4 / k3.T4 )
FERMI DIRAC DISTRIBUTION
RATIONAL SPACE
nr = g / e^( Er / k1.T )+ 1
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k1.T1 ) + 1
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k1.T2 ) + 1
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k1.T3 ) + 1
FRACTIONAL SPACE
nf = g / e^( Ef / k2.T ) + 1
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k2.T1 ) + 1
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k2.T2 ) + 1
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k2.T3 ) + 1
n4 = g4 / e^( E4 / k2.T4 ) + 1
IRRATIONAL SPACE
ni = g / e^( Ei / k3.T ) + 1
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k3.T1 ) + 1
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k3.T2 ) + 1
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k3.T3 ) + 1
n4 = g4 / e^( E4 / k3.T4 ) + 1
BOSE EINSTEIN DISTRIBUTION
RATIONAL SPACE
nr = g / e^( Er / k1.T ) 1
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k1.T1 )  1
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k1.T2 )  1
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k1.T3 )  1
FRACTIONAL SPACE
nf = g / e^( Ef / k2.T )  1
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k2.T1 )  1
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k2.T2 )  1
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k2.T3 )  1
n4 = g4 / e^( E4 / k2.T4 )  1
IRRATIONAL SPACE
ni = g / e^( Ei / k3.T )  1
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k3.T1 )  1
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k3.T2 )  1
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k3.T3 )  1
n4 = g3 / e^( E4 / k3.T4 )  1
Isotropic and Anisotropic morphologies are valid for matter, antimatter with unmatter and you can explain on them with this statistical mechanics.
4Every kinds of matter, antimatter with unmatter and other forms have a lot of rational, fractional, irrational constructions.
5Every kinds of reality, imaginary and other forms have a lot of rational, fractional, irrational constructions.
When I determined to the term of morphology of the universe, I have thought on structures of the universe; topology of the largescale structures of the universe, classification systems, quantitative morphology of universal systems, mathematical morphology, Keely's Morphology, Feynman's Morphology, Fritz Zwicky's Morphology, other morphological definitions, chaotic systems, cosmodynamics etc.
My studies can explain on the project of Leibniz's Characteristica Universalis.
sincerely
Ozan Hasimi OKTAR
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:24:12 GMT
"http://www.aetherometry.com/dark_energy.html"
[Anon.]
Agree  and you can check Alfred Lehmberg's opinion
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:17:29 GMT
Dear Mr. Ray dickenson ;
5 DIMENSIONAL DIFFERANTIAL OPERATOR SPACES
3 DIMENSIONAL OPERATOR SPACES
They are gradient,divergence,rotational operators.
You know that them.
5 DIMENSIONAL OPERATOR SPACES
5 DIMENSIONAL DEL OPERATOR
Del = [@ /@x1] e1 +
[ @ / @x2] e2 +
[@ / @x3] e3 +
[ @ / @x4 ]e4 +
[ @ / @x5 ] e5
5 DIMENSIONAL GRADIENT OPERATOR
grad Q = [@Q1 /@x1] e1 +
[@Q2 / @x2] e2 +
[@Q3 / @x3] e3 +
[ @Q4 / @x4 ]e4 +
[ @Q5 / @x5 ] e5
5 DIMENSIONAL DIVERGENCE OPERATOR
div Q = [@Q1 /@x1] +
[@Q2 / @x2] +
[@Q3 / @x3] +
[ @Q4 / @x4 ] +
[ @Q5 / @x5 ]
5 DIMENSIONAL ROTATINOAL OPERATOR
rot Q = + [@Q2 /@x4] e1 + [@Q3/@x5]e1
 [@Q4 /@x2] e1  [@Q5/@x3]e1
+ [@Q1 / @x3]e2 + [@Q5 /@x4]e2
 [@Q3 / @x1 ]e2  [@Q4 /@x5] e2
+ [@Q4 / @x1]e3 + [@Q5 /@x2] e3
 [@Q1 / @x4]e3  [@Q2 /@x5] e3
+ [@Q3 / @x2]e4 + [@Q1 /@x5] e4
 [@Q2 / @x3]e4  [@Q5 /@x1] e4
+ [@Q2 / @x1]e5 + [@Q4 /@x3] e5
 [@Q1 / @x2]e5  [@Q3 /@x4] e5
We can use for every 5 dimensional spaces.
Sincerely
Ozan Hasimi OKTAR
The full set of papers is featured at "Readers Big Ideas"
sci@percs
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:07:19 GMT
MANY THANKS FOR YOUR ARTICLE WHICH I FOUND VERY INTERESTING.
I WAS ONLY LOOKING FOR A LARGE SPINNING TOP FOR MY GRANDCHILDREN  I CAN NOW GIVE THEM A BETTER IDEA OF 'WHY'
KIND REGARDS,
RON SCOTT
Cheers Ron, glad you like it  sci@percs
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:22:57 GMT
Invention and Investment OFFER from Valery Feodorovich Andrus
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:51:33 GMT
i believe consciousness starts at a molecular level.
Yes, quite agree  and maybe even `below' that  check consciousness
sci@percs
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:52:15 GMT
MetaMAIL query re: Amenhotep IV?
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 12:53:46 GMT
good wishes from a Salamander
Date: Fri 5 Nov 2004
No physics majors here pal, just researched facts and logic.
Check "badsci" (Google) or try `Perceptions' scifacts  beginning with why physics majors have to learn a load of rubbish.
sci@percs
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:47:05 GMT
To the author of "no black holes", We are not all physics majors and belittling others does nothing for your own intelligence just arrogance. You seem to have latched on to a few theories and deemed them impossible but repeating yourself doesn't make it any more correct.
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:30:15 GMT
EvoMail from NZ  re The New Globalism
Wed. 27 Oct 2004
Thanks friend, glad you found it easily understandable  that page seemed to upset one or two  although Carsten and others agreed with you.
sci@percs
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 01:14:24 +0100 (GMT/BST)
thanks a lot your [`graveeffect' page] on gravity at the center of earth explained everything perfectly. i cant belive that you wouldnt weigh anything at earth [center] but you gave facts to prove your answer. with this source my essay on weight at the center of gravity will make scence to me and my class. thanks again for information that i can actually understand.
Subject: Tom Bearden's papers Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:38:07 +0100
Thanks a lot Graham,
Tom Bearden's papers are really penetrating and am amazed I haven't already heard of them.
In particular his questioning (and excellent review of) the establishment fudge / coverup re 2nd Law of Thermodynamics failure is a valuable work (and serendipitous just now  see below).
Haven't got deeply into it yet  coincidentally am searching for more concrete results from GRACE satellite experiments re gravitymapping. Typically the `science' hacks just waffled about "confirming Einstein's RubberSheet SpaceTime"  which many of us know to be untrue (and Tom Bearden's 2nd Law paper happens to demonstrate that also).
Also (longterm) waiting for o/p from GravityB: NASA's long awaited trial of the shieldinggyroscopes test of "Principles of Equivalence / Relativity". I recommended a minimum of 3 gyros (they're using four, maybe five) some years back ('99?) and Marc whatsisname (NASA's Head of Science Operations) wrote me saying he'd got too much on his plate just then. Not holding my breath for truthful reporting even so  see below.
Actually, if you go down that 2nd Law article of Tom's you'll find a Planck quote explaining reluctance to accept new ideas  but I'm rather suspicious that in this decade US / UK have actively suppressed much new science and squashed publication of some interesting results. Why?
Try "perceptions update" in Google (click No 1) and look for "What're they hiding?" in block of entries final date ** Oct. '04
best regards
sci@percs
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:59:43 +0100 (GMT/BST)
Giddaye Ray
Now here is a really interesting site that encompasses a view of UEF and its uses. I have not read all the first paper yet, but UEF is written all over it.
www.cheniere.org/articles/index.html
And the implications are not all that rosy, one could say. I got to it thru urbansurvival.com and the scalar weather concerns
Kind regards
Graham [NZ]
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:14:55 +0100 (GMT/BST)
Entropy  Uncertainty  Incompleteness  Chaos
The book "Physics Foibles" by Melvin Goldstein probes concepts everyone interested in the sciences should know. What is Entropy? What is Godel Incompleteness? What is Heisenberg Uncertainty? What is Chaos Theory? Do we live in a deterministic world? Can a super computer determine what happens next? What do these foibles portend for the Theory of Everything?
Click on the following to view more details:
web2.airmail.net/mgold/tst2.htm
physicsfoibles.com
www.trafford.com/robots/030139.html
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:46:21 +0100
Dear Ozan Hasimi Oktar
Thanks for your interesting message and papers.
The intro message is linked to the full set of papers featured at "Readers Big Ideas"
best regards
sci@percs
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:18:47 +0100 (GMT/BST)
STATISTICAL MECHANICS FOR HYPERBOLICAL PARTICLES
Dear Ray Dickenson,
When I was studying on Hyperbolical Spaces, I constructed a Theory of Statistical Mechanics for Hyperbolical Particles.
I proved this field equations.
They are isotropic spaces.
MY AXIOMS FOR ISOTROPIC SPACE TIMES :
DIMENSIONAL DESCRIPTION :
Isotropic space has integer dimensions.
SPACIAL DESCRIPTION :
RATIONAL SPACE :
It has integer dimensions.
PHASE SPACES
RATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 3 dimensional rational space, phase space is 6 dimensional rational space.
QUANTITY SPACES
RATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 3 dimensional rational space
PHASE SPACES :
RATIONAL SPACE :
nr(p,x) = 6.pi.sinh^3(p/3).6.pi.sinh^3(x/3) / h^3
QUANTITY SPACE :
RATIONAL SPACE :
k1 is a constant in rational space for distributing of the particles.
Er = 3.k1.T / 2 = h.f1
EQUATION OF ISOTROPIC ENERGY :
E = Er = 3.k1.T / 2
= h.f1
ISOTROPIC DISTRIBUTING EQUATIONS
MAXWELL BOLTZMANN FUNCTIONS
RATIONAL SPACE
nr = g / e^( Er / k1.T )
FERMI DIRAC DISTRIBUTION
RATIONAL SPACE
nr = g / e^( Er / k1.T )+ 1
BOSE EINSTEIN DISTRIBUTION
RATIONAL SPACE
nr = g / e^( Er / k1.T ) 1
Sincerely
Ozan Hasimi OKTAR
Subject: RE: The Big Dip: A Dynamical Model for a Dynamical Universe Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:13:56 +0100
Hi John,
Yup, pretty sure you're right about GR's (and Quantum's) failure to mesh.
Glad to hear you've played around to check robustness ("no matter what I did, some things just never went away"}. Maybe readers might like a sort of "diary" attached to the paper?
Re: your thought on "gravity push". Think it's becoming apparent that we simplify things and approximate reality more closely if we specify only one "force"  to provide the inertial frame. So "gravity" is simply the shadowofmass in that inertial frame. [try "abolish a force"]
As you say, that gives us a pushgravityattraction (within our own macrothresholds) which interestingly can turn to "repulsion" outside of those thresholds  i.e. for massive structures, super clusters and suchlike  or for below molecular, atomic thresholds.
(mixed effects, see < perceptions radiation > in Google).
Re: your thoughts on "illusion  the trick of an animal brain" _and_ the Ht question:
have thought for a while we've maybe got unjustified assumptions blocking thought on this;
e.g. mainstream accepts GR/SR/Quantum assumptions of a `locked' shapemechanismoftheuniverse  flared, pinched, looped or otherwise;
but a _fully contingent_ universe, reacting only to physical (material  protonic  and nonmaterial) actualities, might not be so predictable. Question is, does mainstream science allow
past Ht assumptions to distort our logic and restrict alternatives?
[Frankly it seems we still don't  and can't yet, due to `invisibility' of present universe and lightspeedconelimited view of past universe  have the hard facts about universewide
actualities that would give confidence in these matters.]
Hope you think about giving readers a diary, and please keep up the good work.
best wishes
sci@percs
Subject: RE: The Big Dip: A Dynamical Model for a Dynamical Universe Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 07:59:14 0700
Ray,
From what I can remember from perusing your site months ago, we are very much going in the same direction and I wouldn't doubt that I picked up a few things from you back then. I know I still have much to learn and it seems, the more I do learn, the larger the mysteries of the universe and the vastness of the unknown become and the more paltry my little bag of
thoughts appears.
I look at this paper exactly the same way. There are so many questions that arise, especially about GR. There's a lot of work ahead and I'm enthused about continuing the journey. I doubt, though, that my finite mind and body, not to mention my ability to dedicate my focus, are any match for what looks to be an immense undertaking.
And I have no doubt that some of what think I know is only an illusion  the trick of an animal brain, hardwired to cope and survive, not to truly understand.
On the positive note, I do believe firmly in the basic thrust of the paper, even if parts of it do end up on the cutting room floor. The simplicity and the simplifying effects that I mentioned in the paper convinces me that I'm on the right path.
But, more than that, and something that I didn't mention in the paper, was the robustness of the model. I played around with the model quite a bit and, no matter what I did, some things just never went away.
You're probably right about gravity being too restrictive a word. I'll take any suggestions on that. Any suggestions on what my next step should be would also be appreciated. I have some thoughts of my own on that subject.
One thing that keeps gnawing at me is the question about the value of the current Ht. I'd have to do some serious retooling if Ht turned out to be exactly one or more than one. The value of Ht is absolutely crucial to the paper and yet, I would think, to extract that bit of information for the data you would need to make some assumptions about how the Universe is evolving, the very subject that my paper dealt with.
It looks like a Catch 22, or maybe just a bootstrapping operation.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
John
Subject: RE: The Big Dip: A Dynamical Model for a Dynamical Universe Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:45:08 +0100
Hello John,
Thanks, and it looks good.
As you've specified a +ve `force' ("gravity" maybe too restricted a word), and increasing `matter' it seems we're probably pointing in same direction.
best regards
sci@percs
Subject: The Big Dip: A Dynamical Model for a Dynamical Universe Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:25:03 0700
The Big Dip: A Dynamical Model for a Dynamical Universe
Ray,
More wordsmithing and such.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks.
John
here's John's new thesis  The Big Dip
Subject: re: Tunguska Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:38:43 +0100
Hello E.Y.
First, many congratulations  hope you're not working _too_ hard.
That Tunguska search _is_ interesting, I've always felt it was a little underinvestigated  because reports were so inconclusive I suppose.
If you hear anything before me (get sidetracked sometimes) would be grateful for an alarm call.
cheers
sci@percs
Subject: Tunguska Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:10:07 0700 (PDT)
We are enjyoing good monsoon rains here with occasional harsh sunshine.
I was wondering if we could discuss something about the Tunguska Site expedition that recently came in news. My opinion is : the Russian Scientists are either mistaken or are playing an elaborate hoax to attract attention or funding. If they are right, my sincere apologies.
During years of reading the best hypothesis that I came across was the comet nucleus one, which explains the explosion and the absence of a crater.
Well I hope they really found evidence of an ET vehicle.
Soon, with the easing of many pressures, I hope to be doing some more UEF thinking.
best regards
EY
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:05:41 +0100
Hi Sjoerd, Thanks for the reassurance
Re: pendulums / gyroscopes  Ordinary mass has a UEF shadow around it that we call `gravitational attraction'. A revolving mass intercepts most UEF in its plane (equatorial), so we expect an extended UEF shadow (gravity) in that plane.
Revolving mass intercepts least UEF through its center perpendicular to plane of revolution (axial  least angular momentum, so least interception of UEF). The difference between the equator and axis means that a `UEFdifference' exists along the axis.
Re: Acceleration (deceleration)  accelerating mass intercepts more UEF in direction of acceleration (hence relativistic changes).
A constant speed gyro's mass is accelerating towards its center, so in addition to intercepting `incoming' UEF (incoming to a focus at center) in equatorial plane, it also intercepts more `outgoing' UEF (from that focus) in same plane.
So a gyro is more sensitive to UEF differentials in the surrounding universe. The gyroscope's axial `UEFdifference force' makes the gyro feel "alive" when you're holding it (you're feeling the `pulse of the Universe')  but most commercial gyros are constrained or `limited' in reactions.
The `UEFdifference force' becomes significant  even awesome  on a larger scale. Say for planet or sun, UEF `gravity' extends outwards from equator (hence planetary or solar disks / rings etc.). But the axis is experiencing a much stronger `UEFdifference' force which emerges from the poles as "jets" of repulsion.
For a small body like the Moon the jets are almost imperceptible except for the polar dips in incoming mediumenergy neutrons (repelled by polar jets)
For Jupiter, polar `hotspots' of radiation are signs of stronger jets, and for much larger bodies we see jets of hard radiation and even plasma from pulsars, quasars etc. That is, bodies ranging from neutron stars to galactic cores of varying masses and speeds of revolution. [See "jets" page again]
Applying this to your question: a nonmoving pendulum or gyro is simply ordinary mass. Whether cyclic mechanical forces can begin an oscillation depends on feedback circumstances, as it does in planetary synchronizations and perturbations.
Once oscillating, then UEF forces apply to a pendulum (`Coriolis' or `conservation of angular momentum' is merely reaction of moving mass to a change in intensity of surrounding UEF), therefore placing another mass  or gyro/pendulum  close to it will influence it and _appear_ to contravene the "Conservation of Angular Momentum" law.
Note: I've got to start at first principles when thinking of questions like this. Our textbook views of "gravity" oppose reality but are so deeply ingrained that UEF is counterintuitive and easily slips outofgrasp when making a thought experiment. Personally, I keep checking my perceptions of gravity  "push" is OK, but if it's slipped back to "pull" that means I have to go back to first principles and start again.
Vriendelijke regards
sci@percs
Sun, 15 Aug 2004 06:00:20 +0100 (GMT/BST)
Wow.
I've just recently been introduced to your site and, exploring it a bit further today, I find it pretty awesome, in particular the bits about the UEF. This is a topic which I have always found very interesting. But I do find your judgement of old model scientists (those having created the older models and the ones trying to hold on to them today) a bit harsh.
Myself I find the idea of a fluid field of energy very convenient in thinking about certain problems. It helps me in understanding (I'm no physicist, but relative to my knowledge it is an 'understanding') certain phenomena. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that my untrained mind isn't weighed down by too much study of other models.
Scientists on the other hand, have to deal with their knowledge, those of their employers, etc. On their behalf I would just like to say that any impetus for change will always meet with inertia. As this is true for bodies of mass, so too for bodies of knowledge. When scientist cannot except revolutionary models this may be for a variety of reasons, but many of them are honestly felt.
Suppose one would lose their job over making a revolutionary claim. Then it would be only natural to think about making it twice, as the consequences are indeed very 'real' (or perceived as part of the scientist's lived reality, or life).
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Now for a question. We know pendulums are influenced by rotating masses. Well, the way I get UEF theory (or don't get it) is that a rapidly accelerating (or decelerating) mass will have exactly the same influence. Is this true? Is the whole point of the rotation of the mass that rotation is constant acceleration, only 'on the spot' so the effect on the pendulum can be constant? Would this then also mean that a mass orbiting a still pendulum will cause the pendulum to swing or start rotating?
If you could answer these questions for me, I would be very grateful.
Best regards,
Sjoerd Hoek
skhoek@****.com
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:27:23 +0200
But, in fact, I also think the way the site is set up and the remarks in it reflect the excitement of its author in a very stimulating way. Putting much effort into toning it down may take away some of its sponaneity.
Vriendelijke groet (friendly greeting)
Sjoerd
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 22:29:58 +0100
Hello Paul,
Thanks for your message   Think you're right about physics of "black holes"  they're untenable.
[My] unease started 90's when a girlfriend recommended "A Brief History of Time" and [I] found a logical contradiction about 3/4's thru. [He'd (maybe deliberately) confused types of `infinite' or concepts of `infinity']
Wrote to Hawking but he declined to answer even one or two logical questions, claiming illhealth [via his secretary].
That provoked further investigation and discovery. Result: no physical realm can be perfectly symmetrical therefore the practical possibility of a "singularity" or black hole is zero.
Theoretically, a "black hole" could arise only in a symmetrical universe but necessarily only at center of symmetry. [Symmetry requires deadness  because life grows and moves, hence loss of symmetry].
Let's hope that more folk begin to think independently, as you have done, and quash the self justifying hype of these overblown, overpaid `elite scientists'.
best regards
sci@percs
[Maybe check updates in physics  i) fairly recent & ii) most recent  Ray
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 03:32:20 +0100 (GMT/BST)
Dear Sir,
I happened across your site while searching for information on opponents of black hole theories in Einsteinian physics. I was very pleased to find your website and the information on black holes and other topics.
I am not an astrophysicist but there are many things about the black hole theory which do not add up for me. If black holes are what orthodox science maintains that they must be, then the universe would be one huge, unstable, writhing mass of black holes that would easily be visible.
There should be dozens of them nearby, assuming of course that we could even survive in such a universe long enough to see them.
Since we cannot detect them even with the most supersensitive equipment, it would seem to me that such objects either do not exist or are extremely rare and not of the nature that mainstream science maintains.
Thanks again for the great website and please keep up the good work!
Paul
(Nexus email)
Tue. 03 Aug 2004 0552 GMT
Hello KeeTai,
Thanks for your mail, and for writing in English, it's appreciated,
The answer to your question  if you've come from coriolis page or centrifugal page  is "YES."
Combinations of those " C forces" _will_ affect trajectories, especially when turning from EW to NS and wider, then manual scoring unavoidably varies at medium / longer ranges.
Hey, only one `Perceptions' my friend, & it tries to get to everybody.
Best wishes  hope you get to read this (no email address).
sci@percs
Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:14:29 +0100 (GMT/BST)
Dear Sir,
For a long time i`m an airgunner and a question always accur when shooting airgunbullits at differend distences.
The bull of an target strikes left, right, north or south of the bull further away or closer seems to impact at different places while i`m sure i hit the target deathon.
Please forgive my English I`m not used to wright English ofthen.
Please let me know if there`s an Perception here also.
Best regards,
KeeTai
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:45:52 0700 From: Kastl John F KPWA <kastl@kpt.nuwc.navy.mil>
Ray,
I would pleased if you would review the attached paper, which is a massive refinement of previous work.
Thanks.
John

Cosmic Deflation: A Dynamical Model for a Dynamical Universe
Abstract: A cosmic expansion hypothesis is presented. This hypothesis would replace the Inflation Theory, account for the Horizon Problem, and explain the currentera acceleration. A Wolframtype algorithm for the dynamical model is presented, along with a brief description of the theoretical foundation for the algorithm.
In the Beginning ... Deflation.
As evidenced by observations from the Hubble Telescope, the expansion of the Universe appears to be accelerating. Current theory does not easily accommodate this finding and a dynamical model for cosmic expansion appears to be needed.
Tacking currentera acceleration onto the Inflation Theory creates an UpDownUp scenario for cosmic expansion. The hypothesis described here would replace that with a simplified DownUp expansion sequence.
As envisioned by this hypothesis, expansion begins with H*t=1, in a state of quantum nonlocality, and with L=Planck length at t=Planck time (figure
1).
With a recession velocity of c, and space quickly outrunning its origins, H*t immediately edges lower. After sliding past H*t equilibrium (E), H*t falls to its lowest level before asymptotically climbing back towards E (figure 2).
In quadrant I of figure 2, the expansion is in a mode of deflation and deceleration, since both (H*t)' and (H*t)'' are negative. In quadrant II, (H*t)'' turns positive and the expansion, while still deflating, is now accelerating. In quadrant III, (H*t)' turns positive and the expansion
mode changes to inflation with continued acceleration. H*t never enters quadrant IV.
Four points worthy of note:
1. Given the initial nonlocality condition, there is no Horizon Problem.
2. There is no need for the Inflation Theory.
3. H*t will not exceed E, let alone 1, and no Big Rip is predicted.
4. The current accelerated expansion is predicted.
5. The Universe is a selfregulating, nonlinear system.
The Algorithm.
The algorithm shown in figure 3 is remarkable in a number of ways. First, the algorithm has a simple elegance. At the core of the iterative process are the four steps for determining F, L, v, and Z. The iteration number is shown here only for clarity, but was not used in the actual calculations. The actual calculations were further abbreviated by a judicious selection
of units.
Second, because tbb was set at Planck time and Lbb was set at Planck length, vbb=c, Z=1, and Hbb*tbb =1. Most remarkable is that Hbb*tbb =1. What may now appear obvious was not foreseen by the author and was not forced or planned.
Last, but not least, time is not fundamental to the calculations. Except for setting tbb at Planck time, time is wholly derived.
What might be the most unfamiliar, and inexplicable, aspects of the algorithm are the variable F, the contents factor, and the expansion exponent, x.
The author initially set x at 1/3, believing that the exponent should be the inverse of the number of observable dimensions. An x of 1/3 produced an E of 1/4, when a value between 2/3 and 1 was expected. Subsequent calculations revealed the relationship x = E/(1+E). To generate figures 1 and 2, x was set at 10, corresponding to an E of 0.91.
Because of the uncertainty in selecting an appropriate value for x, figures 1 and 2 are not quantitative. Additionally, the theoretical foundation for the algorithm, stated briefly below, is presented secondarily.
The simulation effectively follows a Higgs Boson, or whatever it is that space is made up of, starting at the Big Bang. As the messenger particle moves along at the speed of light, the observable universe at that point in time and space increases. The observable universe here includes the Big Bang and everything in between.
The author believes that the expansion of space is a reflection of the increasing content within the observable universe. With an increasing size of the observable universe, the content increases, the inertial information about that content increases, and space expands. The author assumes that inertial information density is constant.
The content factor, F, starting with a value of 1 at the Big Bang, increases with each iterative step by an additional 1/(Z+1). For the first iteration, with Z starting with a value of 1, F = 1+1/2 = 1.5. Z here is the forward looking redshift, increasing with the age of the Universe, as opposed to z, the lookback redshift, which increases as we look further into space at an
increasingly younger Universe.
With a value for F, the scale factor length, L, is then the product of Lbb and F. Please note that L'/L = a'/a = H. The algorithm goes about the calculation a little differently, in that it first finds vn (=c(LnLn1)/Ln) from Ln and Ln1, and then finds Hn (=vn/Ln).
To calculate a new F for the next iteration, Zn is calculated (= vn/c+Zn1) from vn and that number is fed back up to Fn.
Time is calculated separately (tn = tn1+tn/c) before combining with Hn to obtain Hn*tn. These calculations and the calculation for Hn are not primary to the algorithm.
Conclusions.
The computer simulation presented here appears to generate plausible results that are largely consistent with our knowledge, speculations, and observations. The question is then, assuming the hypothesis does hold up, what does this tell us about the true nature of reality?
Aside form the previously stated remarks concerning the current acceleration, the Inflation theory, the Horizon Problem, and the Big Rip, this computer simulation may have significant implications for Brane Theory.
The selection of x=10 resonates strongly with Brane Theory's 10 spatial dimensions.
If x is, in fact, the number of spatial dimensions, the theoretical foundations for this hypothesis is complete, and the hypothesis and Brane Theory appear to be consistent and selfsupporting.
Additionally, and not insignificantly, this simulation goes a long way towards refining the description for an inertial mechanism first put forth by Ernst Mach and later amended by Albert Einstein and Peter Higgs.
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 10:37:48 +0100 (GMT/BST)
THEORY OF ANISOTROPIC MECHANICS
When I was studying on Anisotropic Space and Times, I constructed Theory of Anisotropic mechanics for them. We can apply with them for every anisotropic fields. I proved this field equations.
AXIOMS FOR ANISOTROPIC SPACE :
DIMENSIONAL DESCRIPTION :
Anisotropic space has integer, fractional, irrational dimensions.
SPACIAL DESCRIPTION :
RATIONAL SPACE :
It has integer dimensions.
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
It has fractional dimensions.
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
It has irrational dimensions.
PHASE SPACES
RATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 3 dimensional rational space, phase space is 6 dimensional rational space.
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
It's on 4 dimensional fractional space, phase space's 8 dimensional fractional space.
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 4 dimensional irrational space, phase space's 8 dimensional irrational space.
QUANTITY SPACES
RATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 3 dimensional rational space
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
It's on 4 dimensional fractional space.
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
It's on 4 dimensional irrational space.
PHASE SPACES :
RATIONAL SPACE :
nr(p,x) = 6.pi.sinh^3(p/3).6.pi.sinh^3(x/3) / h^3
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
nf(p,x) = 8.pi.sinh^4(p/4).8.pi.sinh^4(x/4) / h^4
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
ni(p,x) = 8.pi.sinh^4(p/4).8.pi.sinh^4(x/4) / h^4
QUANTITY SPACE :
RATINAL SPACE :
k1 is a constant in rational space for distributing of the particles.
Er = 3.k1.T / 2 = h.f1
E1 = 3.k1.T1 / 2 = h.f11
E2 = 3.k1.T2 / 2 = h.f12
E3 = 3.k1.T3 / 2 = h.f13
FRACTIONAL SPACE :
k2 is a constant in fractional space for distributing of the particles.
Er = 4.k2.T / 2 = h.f2
E1 = 4.k2.T1 / 2 = h.f21
E2 = 4.k2.T2 / 2 = h.f22
E3 = 4.k2.T3 / 2 = h.f23
IRRATIONAL SPACE :
k3 is a constant in irrational space for distributing of the particles.
Ei = 4.k3.T / 2 = h.f3
E1 = 4.k3.T1 / 2 = h.f31
E2 = 4.k3.T2 / 2 = h.f32
E3 = 4.k3.T3 / 2 = h.f33
EQUATION OF ANISOTROPIC ENERGY :
E = Er + Ef + Ei
= 3.k1.T / 2 + 4.k2.T / 2 + 4.k3.T / 2
= h.f1 + h.f2 + hf3
ANISOTROPIC DISTRIBUTING EQUATIONS
MAXWELL BOLTZMANN FUNCTIONS
RATIONAL SPACE
nr = g / e^( Er / k1.T )
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k1.T1 )
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k1.T2 )
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k1.T3 )
FRACTIONAL SPACE
nf = g / e^( Ef / k2.T )
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k2.T1 )
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k2.T2 )
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k2.T3 )
IRRATIONAL SPACE
ni = g / e^( Ei / k3.T )
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k3.T1 )
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k3.T2 )
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k3.T3 )
FERMI DIRAC DISTRIBUTION
RATIONAL SPACE
nr = g / e^( Er / k1.T )+ 1
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k1.T1 ) + 1
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k1.T2 ) + 1
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k1.T3 ) + 1
FRACTIONAL SPACE
nf = g / e^( Ef / k2.T ) + 1
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k2.T1 ) + 1
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k2.T2 ) + 1
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k2.T3 ) + 1
IRRATIONAL SPACE
ni = g / e^( Ei / k3.T ) + 1
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k3.T1 ) + 1
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k3.T2 ) + 1
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k3.T3 ) + 1
BOSE EINSTEIN DISTRIBUTION
RATIONAL SPACE
nr = g / e^( Er / k1.T ) 1
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k1.T1 )  1
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k1.T2 )  1
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k1.T3 )  1
FRACTIONAL SPACE
nf = g / e^( Ef / k2.T )  1
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k2.T1 )  1
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k2.T2 )  1
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k2.T3 )  1
IRRATIONAL SPACE
ni = g / e^( Ei / k3.T )  1
n1 = g1 / e^( E1 / k3.T1 )  1
n2 = g2 / e^( E2 / k3.T2 )  1
n3 = g3 / e^( E3 / k3.T3 )  1
Sincerely
Ozan Hasimi
[new window] 
