(AaronB) wrote in message news:
(snipped)

If you use two rectangles, I believe you can generate a both a unique
ellipse or circle by connecting their verticies, so long as the
rectangles do not have any identical verticies. I suppose if you were
to take a limit case, you might be able to generate some equation that
would give the result you're looking for.

Eg:
/================/
|-/----------------/-|
| / / |
|-/----------------/-|
/================/

Connect the eight outer verticies, and you get an ellipse. As the
verticies converge on each other, you maintain the ellipse. If you
took the limit as V1 - V1', V2 - V2' etc, you might be able to
generate a single equation for the ellipse in terms of the verticies
of the rectangle(s).

Also, I wonder Aaron, if your suggestion of 2 rectangles to make a
unique
ellipse. I wonder why the 4 corners of a solo rectangle is unable to
make
it unique. I do not see the mechanism for why 1 rectangle was not
sufficient.

Perhaps the answer is that with 2 rectangles the one rectangle
provides the
major axis and the other is the minor axis. So I really do not get
away from
axis. I suppose there is a Projective Geometry theorem then that would
say something to the effect that 8 points of the 8 corners of the 2
rectangles
is the equivalency of a major axis and minor axis.

Question: since a unique circle is formed from a rectangle that
circumscribes
the rectangle. Then a unique ellipse formed from 2 rectangles has 2
unique
circles. What relationship do those 2 unique circles have with the
ellipse???

A.P.

(AaronB) wrote in message . com...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
Unlike the Stringtheories that make no predictions, the Coulomb Unification makes a
ocean full of predictions. One of them is that the neutrino and antineutrino are the
carrier particles for the antigravity and gravity forces respectively. Not the
mythical graviton but the neutrino is the carrier particle.

And since the Antigravity force is localized to regions of the cosmos where
Gravity is local to our group of galaxies. That would predict that we see a
huge number of antineutrinos but rarely neutrinos. And that where astronomers in the
1990s saw Antigravity force, that such places would have a huge number
of neutrinos and that antineutrinos would be rare in that part of the cosmic
skys.

So I wonder if astronomers have observed this sort of imbalance that near
Earth there is a huge number of antineutrinos and few neutrinos and where
Antigravity was observed the reverse is true?

Another prediction of the Coulomb Unification is that the forces of StrongNuclear is
paired to WeakNuclear. And so these two dual forces
should have a carrier particle in common to both. I believe it is the neutron.
But since the neutrino and antineutrino are the antigravity and gravity force
particles, it would seem as though there should be two different types of
neutrons to keep the symmetry. Question: can we separate neutrons into
two classes just as neutrinos and antineutrinos are two classes? Perhaps when a
radioactive atom is on the threshold of decaying, that the neutron becomes
different? Not sure... but the Coulomb Unification demands symmetry.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Does it present a problem for your theory, then, that there are
approximately 10^10 neutrinos/cm^2/s bombarding the Earth at any given
time? Or are there just a LOT more antineutrinos doing the same?

Aaron, not sure of your question.

I am under the belief or understanding that Earth is bombarded by
mostly antineutrinos and that neutrinos are few or paucity. Are you
telling me that the
observations near Earth are about 50% antineutrinos and 50% neutrinos?

I was not concerned above as to the density flux of antineutrinos near
Earth.
What I was concerned about was the variety of neutrinos in that Earth
should
have nearly all one type of neutrino--- the antineutrino. And in deep
space where
astronomers observed this "Antigravity force" in that region of space
there
should be a predominate neutrinos with a paucity of antineutrinos.

If my understanding is incorrect that Earth receives nearly 50%
antineutrinos
and 50% neutrinos, then I have to start over on that issue.

As for the flux density, that too is important in a Coulomb
Unification because
the antineutrino would be the carrier particle of the Force of
Gravity. And there would be some sort of mathematical derivations for
a minimum flux density of
antineutrinos if they really are the gravity particle and not the
graviton.
I suppose no-one carried out a flux density for gravitons
to see if they should have a minimum of 10^10 neutrinos/cm^2/s. And
whether
antineutrinos with such a flux density of 10^10 neutrinos/cm^2/s
agrees with
Nature better than does the graviton.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

someone wrote:


If you are looking for a unique elipse defined only by an inscribed
rectangle, you are out of luck. Four points arranged as the corners of
a rectangle define a whole family of elipses including one circle.

You have not read yesterday's suggestion of 2 inscribed rectangles.

I am not sure if 2 inscribed rectangles defines a unique ellipse or if it
even creates an ellipse.

Anyway, if it does then 9 points uniquely define a ellipse where 8 are the
corners of 2 rectangles and 1 point is what I call the *center of the ellipse*.
And in keeping with this method then 5 points uniquely define a circle
where 4 corners and the center of the circle which coincides with the center
of the square inscribed.


An elipse is not a 'squashed` circle, it is a rotated one.
("Conic Sections" - remember?)

In some meaningful sense a rectangle is a squashed square. Likewise,
a ellipse is a squashed circle and now I have to engineer and create the
mathematics to conform to that idea.

This is important for physics in that the Unified Force is one force
where all the other forces are broken symmetry (the squashing). In three
dimensions the circle becomes a sphere and the ellipse becomes ellipsoids
or lobes. Thus the hydrogen atom is the nearest to the unified force and
the uranium atom far away in broken symmetry.


Whether you like it or not, I believe that the relationship you are
looking for
does involve the rotation posted earlier.

I have not thrown out the rotation. I simply am saying that I can get at it
in a simplier method than rotation. An equivalent but much more simple
method.


Consider the circle with its inscribed square. (You didn't say you
had trouble with that.) If you rotate this figure about one side of
the square, and project it, you get a rectangle, (the square with one
set of opposite sides forshortened), and a unique circumscribed
elipse, (the circle rotated).

This is Projective Geometry. I think a simplier method, but equivalent
will be inscribed and circumscribed. I studied Projective Geometry for
one year in college and know that points can be equivalent to rotations.


Hint: if you wanted to graph this elipse, you could multiply one set
of ordinates from the graph of the circle with its center at the
projected intersection of the diagonals of the square by the cosine of
the angle of rotation.

This is High School stuff. If you have trouble with these concepts,
you are wasting your time in attempting to understand, much less
modify, string theory.

With regards to your last comment of a mild ad hominem. I put it to you, that
your mind is too restless with the creation of new ideas or the assembling of
a new method of looking at things and as a result, your mind bulks and then
tosses out these ad hominems. If you cannot stand new ideas or new approaches
then just do not ever respond to any of my posts and stick to your "teaching"
in schools, for you do not belong in any of my adventures which invariably seek
new ideas, new methods.

I have made this detour of ellipse,sphere,spheroid, ellipsoid because the original
intent of String theory in the 1960s was that the Euler Gamma Function seemed
to clarify some rules of the StrongNuclear Force, or the nucleus of atoms. And since nuclei are
symmetrical in spherical or ellipsoid directly implies that the mathematics of the geometry of nuclei
involve distorting spheres into ellipsoids.
Why the s orbital makes precisely p orbitals or d orbitals or f orbitals. So if we link up Schrodinger
Equation with Euler Gamma Function that broken symmetry
becomes squashing.

If the StrongNuclear force is really NuclearElectrons and that the StrongNuclear
force is paired to the WeakNuclear Force as a Coulomb Unification then this
ellipse defined by 2 rectangles where one rectangle is the StrongNuclear force and the other rectangle
is the WeakNuclear Force.

When all is said and done, I expect to link and tie Schrodinger Equation with
Euler Gamma Function with circle/sphere/ellipse/ellipsoid for the StrongNuclear
paired to the WeakNuclear Force.

Coulomb Unification of Forces in Physics:

Coulomb force, perfect and spheriod, region of existence is the
nucleus protons to the electrons
/ \
/ \
StrongNuclear to WeakNuclear, broken coulomb symmetry, and
region of existence is the nucleus of atoms
/ \
/ \
Gravity to Antigravity, again a coulomb force when combined and
region of existence is the electronic-space of atoms

Trouble with Stringtheory is that they never really applied it to the nuclear
region of atoms and to fully garner the understanding of the strongnuclear force,
and instead they tried to overblow stringtheory as some theory of everything.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote in message . com...
(AaronB) wrote in message news:
(snipped)

If you use two rectangles, I believe you can generate a both a unique
ellipse or circle by connecting their verticies, so long as the
rectangles do not have any identical verticies. I suppose if you were
to take a limit case, you might be able to generate some equation that
would give the result you're looking for.

Eg:
/================/
|-/----------------/-|
| / / |
|-/----------------/-|
/================/

Connect the eight outer verticies, and you get an ellipse. As the
verticies converge on each other, you maintain the ellipse. If you
took the limit as V1 - V1', V2 - V2' etc, you might be able to
generate a single equation for the ellipse in terms of the verticies
of the rectangle(s).

Also, I wonder Aaron, if your suggestion of 2 rectangles to make a
unique
ellipse. I wonder why the 4 corners of a solo rectangle is unable to
make
it unique. I do not see the mechanism for why 1 rectangle was not
sufficient.

Perhaps the answer is that with 2 rectangles the one rectangle
provides the
major axis and the other is the minor axis. So I really do not get
away from
axis. I suppose there is a Projective Geometry theorem then that would
say something to the effect that 8 points of the 8 corners of the 2
rectangles
is the equivalency of a major axis and minor axis.

Question: since a unique circle is formed from a rectangle that
circumscribes
the rectangle. Then a unique ellipse formed from 2 rectangles has 2
unique
circles. What relationship do those 2 unique circles have with the
ellipse???

A.P.

My guess would be that the diameters of the circles correspond to the
major/minor axis. I think there will always be a major/minor axis in
some form for your problem, since they are part of what defines the
ellipse.

it takes five points to determine a conic section, not four ...
I'm not sure if that's correct, but
an infinity of conics will pass through the vertices
of a ractangle, as they're not in general position. so,
the use of two rectangles on the same center (?) is "overdetermined,"
in a way, but it seems to work.
obviously, any 3 of the corners of a rectangle determine the circle.

(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote in message . com...

/================/
|-/----------------/-|
| / / |
|-/----------------/-|
/================/

ellipse. I wonder why the 4 corners of a solo rectangle is unable to
make
it unique. I do not see the mechanism for why 1 rectangle was not

--ils duces d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net/bush8.htm
http://www.wlym.com/PDF-SpReps/SPRP13.pdf

(AaronB) wrote in message . com...
(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote in message . com...
(AaronB) wrote in message news:
(snipped)

If you use two rectangles, I believe you can generate a both a unique
ellipse or circle by connecting their verticies, so long as the
rectangles do not have any identical verticies. I suppose if you were
to take a limit case, you might be able to generate some equation that
would give the result you're looking for.

Eg:
/================/
|-/----------------/-|
| / / |
|-/----------------/-|
/================/

Connect the eight outer verticies, and you get an ellipse. As the
verticies converge on each other, you maintain the ellipse. If you
took the limit as V1 - V1', V2 - V2' etc, you might be able to
generate a single equation for the ellipse in terms of the verticies
of the rectangle(s).

Also, I wonder Aaron, if your suggestion of 2 rectangles to make a
unique
ellipse. I wonder why the 4 corners of a solo rectangle is unable to
make
it unique. I do not see the mechanism for why 1 rectangle was not
sufficient.

Because the differences between the first and second rectangle provide
the slopes at the points of contact.
To put it another way - the relationship between the aspect ratios of
the two rectangles determines the aspect ratio of the elipse.

Perhaps the answer is that with 2 rectangles the one rectangle
provides the
major axis and the other is the minor axis. So I really do not get
away from
axis. I suppose there is a Projective Geometry theorem then that would
say something to the effect that 8 points of the 8 corners of the 2
rectangles
is the equivalency of a major axis and minor axis.

Question: since a unique circle is formed from a rectangle that
circumscribes
the rectangle. Then a unique ellipse formed from 2 rectangles has 2
unique
circles. What relationship do those 2 unique circles have with the
ellipse???

A.P.

My guess would be that the diameters of the circles correspond to the
major/minor axis. I think there will always be a major/minor axis in
some form for your problem, since they are part of what defines the
ellipse.

You got it. Did Arch?

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
someone wrote:


If you are looking for a unique elipse defined only by an inscribed
rectangle, you are out of luck. Four points arranged as the corners of
a rectangle define a whole family of elipses including one circle.

You have not read yesterday's suggestion of 2 inscribed rectangles.

I am not sure if 2 inscribed rectangles defines a unique ellipse or if it
even creates an ellipse.

Anyway, if it does then 9 points uniquely define a ellipse where 8 are the
corners of 2 rectangles and 1 point is what I call the *center of the ellipse*.
And in keeping with this method then 5 points uniquely define a circle
where 4 corners and the center of the circle which coincides with the center
of the square inscribed.

Arch,
It only takes two points to define a circle if one is the center,
three if they lie on the circle.



An elipse is not a 'squashed` circle, it is a rotated one.
("Conic Sections" - remember?)

In some meaningful sense a rectangle is a squashed square. Likewise,
a ellipse is a squashed circle and now I have to engineer and create the
mathematics to conform to that idea.

This is important for physics in that the Unified Force is one force
where all the other forces are broken symmetry (the squashing). In three
dimensions the circle becomes a sphere and the ellipse becomes ellipsoids
or lobes. Thus the hydrogen atom is the nearest to the unified force and
the uranium atom far away in broken symmetry.


Whether you like it or not, I believe that the relationship you are
looking for
does involve the rotation posted earlier.

I have not thrown out the rotation. I simply am saying that I can get at it
in a simplier method than rotation. An equivalent but much more simple
method.


Consider the circle with its inscribed square. (You didn't say you
had trouble with that.) If you rotate this figure about one side of
the square, and project it, you get a rectangle, (the square with one
set of opposite sides forshortened), and a unique circumscribed
elipse, (the circle rotated).

This is Projective Geometry. I think a simplier method, but equivalent
will be inscribed and circumscribed. I studied Projective Geometry for
one year in college and know that points can be equivalent to rotations.

Didn't do too well eh?

Hint: if you wanted to graph this elipse, you could multiply one set
of ordinates from the graph of the circle with its center at the
projected intersection of the diagonals of the square by the cosine of
the angle of rotation.

This is High School stuff. If you have trouble with these concepts,
you are wasting your time in attempting to understand, much less
modify, string theory.

With regards to your last comment of a mild ad hominem. I put it to you, that
your mind is too restless with the creation of new ideas or the assembling of
a new method of looking at things and as a result, your mind bulks and then
tosses out these ad hominems. If you cannot stand new ideas or new approaches
then just do not ever respond to any of my posts and stick to your "teaching"
in schools, for you do not belong in any of my adventures which invariably seek
new ideas, new methods.

I have made this detour of ellipse,sphere,spheroid, ellipsoid because the original
intent of String theory in the 1960s was that the Euler Gamma Function seemed
to clarify some rules of the StrongNuclear Force, or the nucleus of atoms. And since nuclei are
symmetrical in spherical or ellipsoid directly implies that the mathematics of the geometry of nuclei
involve distorting spheres into ellipsoids.
Why the s orbital makes precisely p orbitals or d orbitals or f orbitals. So if we link up Schrodinger
Equation with Euler Gamma Function that broken symmetry
becomes squashing.

If the StrongNuclear force is really NuclearElectrons and that the StrongNuclear
force is paired to the WeakNuclear Force as a Coulomb Unification then this
ellipse defined by 2 rectangles where one rectangle is the StrongNuclear force and the other rectangle
is the WeakNuclear Force.

When all is said and done, I expect to link and tie Schrodinger Equation with
Euler Gamma Function with circle/sphere/ellipse/ellipsoid for the StrongNuclear
paired to the WeakNuclear Force.

Coulomb Unification of Forces in Physics:

Coulomb force, perfect and spheriod, region of existence is the
nucleus protons to the electrons
/ \
/ \
StrongNuclear to WeakNuclear, broken coulomb symmetry, and
region of existence is the nucleus of atoms
/ \
/ \
Gravity to Antigravity, again a coulomb force when combined and
region of existence is the electronic-space of atoms

Trouble with Stringtheory is that they never really applied it to the nuclear
region of atoms and to fully garner the understanding of the strongnuclear force,
and instead they tried to overblow stringtheory as some theory of everything.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote in message . com...
(AaronB) wrote in message . com...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
Unlike the Stringtheories that make no predictions, the Coulomb Unification makes a
ocean full of predictions. One of them is that the neutrino and antineutrino are the
carrier particles for the antigravity and gravity forces respectively. Not the
mythical graviton but the neutrino is the carrier particle.

And since the Antigravity force is localized to regions of the cosmos where
Gravity is local to our group of galaxies. That would predict that we see a
huge number of antineutrinos but rarely neutrinos. And that where astronomers in the
1990s saw Antigravity force, that such places would have a huge number
of neutrinos and that antineutrinos would be rare in that part of the cosmic
skys.

So I wonder if astronomers have observed this sort of imbalance that near
Earth there is a huge number of antineutrinos and few neutrinos and where
Antigravity was observed the reverse is true?

Another prediction of the Coulomb Unification is that the forces of StrongNuclear is
paired to WeakNuclear. And so these two dual forces
should have a carrier particle in common to both. I believe it is the neutron.
But since the neutrino and antineutrino are the antigravity and gravity force
particles, it would seem as though there should be two different types of
neutrons to keep the symmetry. Question: can we separate neutrons into
two classes just as neutrinos and antineutrinos are two classes? Perhaps when a
radioactive atom is on the threshold of decaying, that the neutron becomes
different? Not sure... but the Coulomb Unification demands symmetry.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Does it present a problem for your theory, then, that there are
approximately 10^10 neutrinos/cm^2/s bombarding the Earth at any given
time? Or are there just a LOT more antineutrinos doing the same?

Aaron, not sure of your question.

I am under the belief or understanding that Earth is bombarded by
mostly antineutrinos and that neutrinos are few or paucity. Are you
telling me that the
observations near Earth are about 50% antineutrinos and 50% neutrinos?

I was not concerned above as to the density flux of antineutrinos near
Earth.
What I was concerned about was the variety of neutrinos in that Earth
should
have nearly all one type of neutrino--- the antineutrino. And in deep
space where
astronomers observed this "Antigravity force" in that region of space
there
should be a predominate neutrinos with a paucity of antineutrinos.

If my understanding is incorrect that Earth receives nearly 50%
antineutrinos
and 50% neutrinos, then I have to start over on that issue.

As for the flux density, that too is important in a Coulomb
Unification because
the antineutrino would be the carrier particle of the Force of
Gravity. And there would be some sort of mathematical derivations for
a minimum flux density of
antineutrinos if they really are the gravity particle and not the
graviton.
I suppose no-one carried out a flux density for gravitons
to see if they should have a minimum of 10^10 neutrinos/cm^2/s. And
whether
antineutrinos with such a flux density of 10^10 neutrinos/cm^2/s
agrees with
Nature better than does the graviton.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Ok, let me be more specific. (Electron) neutrinos are produced during
nuclear fusion processes [1], such as those in the sun. Electron
neutrinos can transfrom into tau/muon neutrinos, seemingly at will.
These three types of neutrinos bombard the Earth at a rate of 10^11
neutrinos/cm^2/s [2]. Their equivalent anti-neutrinos are produced
during nuclear fission [1], and consequently are quite rare in this
part of the galaxy.

[1] See paragraph 9 of the following:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sio120602.php

[2] See paragraph 2-3 of the following:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/P...merican69.html

AaronB wrote:
(snip what I wrote)


Ok, let me be more specific. (Electron) neutrinos are produced during
nuclear fusion processes [1], such as those in the sun. Electron
neutrinos can transfrom into tau/muon neutrinos, seemingly at will.
These three types of neutrinos bombard the Earth at a rate of 10^11
neutrinos/cm^2/s [2]. Their equivalent anti-neutrinos are produced
during nuclear fission [1], and consequently are quite rare in this
part of the galaxy.

[1] See paragraph 9 of the following:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sio120602.php

[2] See paragraph 2-3 of the following:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/P...merican69.html

Thanks Aaron, I was looking in both of your [1] and [2] for some sort
of quantitative measure of how rare anti-neutrinos are. In one of these
reports it mentions doing the count on anti-neutrinos near a fission power
plant in Japan rather than on the Sun's neutrino count. Of course the difference between neutrino and anti-neutrino is a
mirror image difference in that one is
antimatter and the other matter. And thus we can say that the neutrino is different from the antineutrino as a righthand is
starkly different than a lefthand just for
analogy sake.

Does someone have a figure as to the Solar System population of neutrinos
versus antineutrinos excepting the manmade antineutrinos. (Funny idea that humanity, if antineutrinos/neutrinos are the
gravity particle carrier then humanity
through its daily business is increasing or decreasing the force of gravity
in our Solar System with his technology.)

But I wonder, Aaron, if someone has surveyed a population count of neutrinos,
antineutrinos, and the muon and tau neutrinos.

Based on what has been discussed in this thread so far, Aaron, I would have to
say that the force of Gravity is due to Neutrinos and the AntiGravity force found
in some distant galaxies in the late 1990s must be due to AntiNeutrinos.

Question: anyone know where the Antigravity force was found? Was it the Virgo cluster???? I need a specific region of the
cosmic skies where the Antigravity or Accelerating Cosmos was discovered.

Then I would need to think up some means of measuring whether that Antigravity region produces predominantly Antineutrinos
and rarely neutrinos,
whereas in our SolarSystem it is the reverse.

But, Aaron, I may have the above wrong in that Gravity and Antigravity may not
exist upon neutrinos and antineutrinos but rather instead on the Muon-neutrinos
or the Tau-neutrinos and their respective antineutrinos.

I am confident that the force of gravity and antigravity are due to particles of the Neutrino family, but whether the
neutrino or muonneutrino or tauneutrino I am not sure of.

So can someone tell me what region or placemarker it was that in the 1990s was found Antigravity or cosmic acceleration???
Was it the Virgo cluster region????

And can someone give us a summary of the neutrino family population in our SolarSystem excluding of course manmade neutrinos
or antineutrinos.

For most of the 1990s decade I believed that a photon was 2 neutrinos put together. But in the decade of 2000s I changed my
mind and believe that a neutrino is 2 or more photons put together. If that is true, it would also deeply muddy the waters
of all the above ideas.

Happy Plutonium Day 2003 to all !!!

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:39:34 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:



For most of the 1990s decade I believed that a photon was 2 neutrinos put together. But in the decade of 2000s I changed my
mind and believe that a neutrino is 2 or more photons put together. If that is true, it would also deeply muddy the waters
of all the above ideas.


It would also be, by definition, quite wrong! Tell me how a fermion
can be made up of bosons? Surely you don't really believe that, do
you?