On 14 ÁÐÒ, 13:52, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"vps137" wrote in message

Lets start from the beginning and that is what was the BB.. Einstein's
pretty much nailed it when he explained that matter can be converted into
energy and energy could be converted into matter... So what was the Energy
of the BB before any of it was converted into matter. Well a writer Alun
Williams dubbed it a chaos Point (CP) in that energy without matter would be
infinitely chaotic and indefinable.

I have always refereed to it as a Quantum Point and would follow at least
one rule and that was Probability . Other than that the energy of the BB
before time 0 is non definable as there is no matter hence no laws of
physics can apply.

We have as a Quantum Point (QP) an amount of Unified Energy of a
unquantifiable amount and indefinable nature.

My postulate states that according to Probability that QP had the
probability of converting from none to all of its energy into matter or not.

"vps137" wrote in message
...
On 14 ÁÐÒ, 13:52, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"vps137" wrote in message

Lets start from the beginning and that is what was the BB.. Einstein's
pretty much nailed it when he explained that matter can be converted into
energy and energy could be converted into matter... So what was the Energy
of the BB before any of it was converted into matter. Well a writer Alun
Williams dubbed it a chaos Point (CP) in that energy without matter would
be
infinitely chaotic and indefinable.

I have always refereed to it as a Quantum Point and would follow at least
one rule and that was Probability . Other than that the energy of the BB
before time 0 is non definable as there is no matter hence no laws of
physics can apply.

We have as a Quantum Point (QP) an amount of Unified Energy of a
unquantifiable amount and indefinable nature.

My postulate states that according to Probability that QP had the
probability of converting from none to all of its energy into matter or
not.
That conversion could have been from one particle of matter to a billion
billion universes of matter. My contention is that all of the Energy of
the
QP need not be converted, only a small portion was converted at time 0
into
the matter we perceive as the universe around us.

The remaining energy exists all around us and is still indefinable. While
we
can finely define matter in relation to other matter the energy between
matter is still undefinable. We give it constant values as we can measure
it
and model it between any two massive objects so we seek the Grand Unified
Theory to explain the observed which we have yet to define. Gravity is
well
modeled and we can calculate to the Nth degree what its effect is on
massive
bodies we still can't define the cause of effect over distance of
gravitational
fields.

Lets try to get past the inherent Bias of the observer to better
understand
the concepts to follow. The Bias is Intrinsic in that after time 0 the
matter throughout the universe is connected by the remainder of the energy
of the QP when it converted some of its undefinable energy into definable
matter. So the Bias stems from every item used to measure or observe the
universe is connected to that being observed and the data gathered is
Biased
to the observer. This Bias causes us to observe what seems to be a
particle
with a material nature but actually be only energy signatures of waves
measured at a specific time with tools that are connected to that which
they
observe.

Lets consider converting a known amount of matter into energy completely
in
that there is 1X1X1 cube of matter and we magically find a way to convert
all of that matter into energy you would have a QP (Quantum Point, Chaos
Point, Singularity) that occupied no space an since it contains no matter
it
cannot be defined physically. It would have infinite energy density even
though it was converted from a finite amount of matter.

In our thought experiment we have a Quantum of Energy and we convert 2
Smallest Physical Particle (SPP) out of it. The remainder of the energy
exists as a field between those two particles. There is a massive energy
release at the conversion of matter from energy. My contention is that
converted from that Energy is a form of matter that I call a SSP or
Smallest
Physical Partical an that the energy release causes these SSP's to ring
and
produce a EM wave. It also causes the particles to move away from the
point
of origin. Note that the particles could be matter or antimatter in any
ratios as per probibility that would rules the QP before time 0.

With 2 SSP's produced as they move away from each other the Universe
exists
between those two SSP's. That Field has a value and we can define it once
we
have 2 physical particles moving in relation to each other.

Now Lets add 1 additional particle.. only this particle is Anti-Matter.
Its
still connected to the other 2 particles via the Quantum State (QS) But if
it runs into one of those other particles they vanish into a flash of
energy
and the single particle would collapse the universe into it. If there was
several +SSP's and 1 -SSP's you would have a large energy release as the 2
particles annihilate each other which would propel the remaining +SSP's
away
from each other at a higher rate.

This follows the standard theory of a short inflation period followed by
the
expansion period of the Big Bang Theory. At Time 0 the QP converted some
of
its undefinable energy into Matter in the form of +SSP's and -SSP's and
that
shortly after conversion +SSP's and -SSP's annihilated each other causing
the remaining +SSP's to expand at a higher rate.

Now we have lots of SSP'S in a group. They are connected to each other via
the Quantum State which is the same undefined unified energy that was the
Quantum Point (QP) the EM waves interact between each SSP. The EM Waves
heterodyne and interact causing a type of natural selection in that some
SSPs are producing EM Waves that combine with some other SSP's and cause
them to stabilize into bound groups and others have EM wave forms that
cause
them to separate further from some SSP's so over time you have groups of
SSP's that as a group produce a EM Wave that is a unified as a heterodyne
wave form. then these groups can become harmonically connected to other
groups and so on.

This QS (Quantum State) between particles has a variable that has been
dubbed the Universal Constant or the Gravitational Constant. I Know
..Constant Variable? These are the values we call constants as we can
measure and model matter and these values remain constant. I contend that
they are variable in that due to scale and the intrinsic bias of being
within the Quantum State we will always measure and validate them as
constants as we vary at the same rate.

In my view the Gravitational Constant of the Universe varies with the
expansion of the universe but is locally modified by groupings of SSP's.
This also applies to the value of c (The Speed Of Light). I contend that c
is a variable but varies on a scale as to be measured as a constant. Again
locally varied by local groupings of SSP's. The Quantum State acts as an
Inverse Tensor Field between all SSP's on a universal scale. It has a
Strong
attraction which we measure as gravitational or magnetic or nuclear force
effects aspects of separation distance of SSP's. These forces are but
effects of heterodyne waves of groupings of SSP's and the value of the QS
varies with the distribution of SSP's both universally and locally. We
have
modeled Photons taking centuries to escape from the lower sun to the
surface
and theorize that photons are absorbed by matter and re emitted causing
the
long trip . But in my postulate the value of c in reduced locally between
closely grouped SSP's versus widely separated SSP's. So in the dense sun
the
wave form we consider a photon travels at a slower speed locally and
faster
once it exits the mass of the sun.

Paul R. Mays

Your vision is interesting. The process of photon emitting is thought
by me in the same scheme, although without changing of c. It doesn't
need because the length of the particle vortex is supposed to be
rather long.

In my model there isn't BB and the galaxies running-away is explained
in more
plausible way imo.(vps137.narod.ru/article9.html by Russian whiles).
The idea is in following.

There was long ago the collision of the remote universes. The pieces
from the explosion plumped in our Universe. They made the galaxies
with parallel vorteces, tails, in the bulk of our 4D Universe. Due to
curvature of the 3D surface of the Universe they moved. The Habble
constant is equal then at the first approximation c/R, where R is
radius of the Universe.

Moreover, it explained the big dark side of Universe where there are
not any galaxies at all. There was other big universe which has being
between our Universe and explosion. It has shielded our Universe.

Really we can't know anything about other universes because the light
permeates only along the 3D border of Universe. But we really can do
some implied conclusions and "look" outside.

Valery S.

Guess I had a harder time following your logic than my own but your
view complicates that which we observe and the goal is to the simplest
yet compatible theorem.

In your view I would ask where did the matter come from, how does it
explain gravitational wells, and how does it explain expansion we observe.

I agree with SR, GR and QM because we predict then observer what we
predict so any theory must better explain those concepts than existing
theory and I content my postulate goes a long way to unifying those
theories.

In your view you only are seeing the Macro universe but in mine the
construct
is valid from Micro to Macro. It explains from the smallest physical
particle
all the way to the total universe seamlessly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't take myself all that serious. And I'm more than
likely
wrong. But if you try to really understand my postulate and its nuance it
is a TOE and
gives a logical GUT construct.

The basic postulate leads to a few predictions.

1. the universe will expand at an ever increasing rate of expansion.
2. c is variable but only percievable as a constant locally and
is independent of wave source or target.
3. the UGC is not a constant but will reduce as the universe expands

There are several more predictions but thats enough to get me yelled at
by many of the B'Lievers on this forum.

On 15 апр, 10:59, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"vps137" wrote in message

...
On 14 ��Ò, 13:52, "Paul Mays" wrote:



"vps137" wrote in message

Lets start from the beginning and that is what was the BB.. Einstein's
pretty much nailed it when he explained that matter can be converted into
energy and energy could be converted into matter... So what was the Energy
of the BB before any of it was converted into matter. Well a writer Alun
Williams dubbed it a chaos Point (CP) in that energy without matter would
be
infinitely chaotic and indefinable.

I have always refereed to it as a Quantum Point and would follow at least
one rule and that was Probability . Other than that the energy of the BB
before time 0 is non definable as there is no matter hence no laws of
physics can apply.

We have as a Quantum Point (QP) an amount of Unified Energy of a
unquantifiable amount and indefinable nature.

My postulate states that according to Probability that QP had the
probability of converting from none to all of its energy into matter or
not.
That conversion could have been from one particle of matter to a billion
billion universes of matter. My contention is that all of the Energy of
the
QP need not be converted, only a small portion was converted at time 0
into
the matter we perceive as the universe around us.

The remaining energy exists all around us and is still indefinable. While
we
can finely define matter in relation to other matter the energy between
matter is still undefinable. We give it constant values as we can measure
it
and model it between any two massive objects so we seek the Grand Unified
Theory to explain the observed which we have yet to define. Gravity is
well
modeled and we can calculate to the Nth degree what its effect is on
massive
bodies we still can't define the cause of effect over distance of
gravitational
fields.

Lets try to get past the inherent Bias of the observer to better
understand
the concepts to follow. The Bias is Intrinsic in that after time 0 the
matter throughout the universe is connected by the remainder of the energy
of the QP when it converted some of its undefinable energy into definable
matter. So the Bias stems from every item used to measure or observe the
universe is connected to that being observed and the data gathered is
Biased
to the observer. This Bias causes us to observe what seems to be a
particle
with a material nature but actually be only energy signatures of waves
measured at a specific time with tools that are connected to that which
they
observe.

Lets consider converting a known amount of matter into energy completely
in
that there is 1X1X1 cube of matter and we magically find a way to convert
all of that matter into energy you would have a QP (Quantum Point, Chaos
Point, Singularity) that occupied no space an since it contains no matter
it
cannot be defined physically. It would have infinite energy density even
though it was converted from a finite amount of matter.

In our thought experiment we have a Quantum of Energy and we convert 2
Smallest Physical Particle (SPP) out of it. The remainder of the energy
exists as a field between those two particles. There is a massive energy
release at the conversion of matter from energy. My contention is that
converted from that Energy is a form of matter that I call a SSP or
Smallest
Physical Partical an that the energy release causes these SSP's to ring
and
produce a EM wave. It also causes the particles to move away from the
point
of origin. Note that the particles could be matter or antimatter in any
ratios as per probibility that would rules the QP before time 0.

With 2 SSP's produced as they move away from each other the Universe
exists
between those two SSP's. That Field has a value and we can define it once
we
have 2 physical particles moving in relation to each other.

Now Lets add 1 additional particle.. only this particle is Anti-Matter.
Its
still connected to the other 2 particles via the Quantum State (QS) But if
it runs into one of those other particles they vanish into a flash of
energy
and the single particle would collapse the universe into it. If there was
several +SSP's and 1 -SSP's you would have a large energy release as the 2
particles annihilate each other which would propel the remaining +SSP's
away
from each other at a higher rate.

This follows the standard theory of a short inflation period followed by
the
expansion period of the Big Bang Theory. At Time 0 the QP converted some
of
its undefinable energy into Matter in the form of +SSP's and -SSP's and
that
shortly after conversion +SSP's and -SSP's annihilated each other causing
the remaining +SSP's to expand at a higher rate.

Now we have lots of SSP'S in a group. They are connected to each other via
the Quantum State which is the same undefined unified energy that was the
Quantum Point (QP) the EM waves interact between each SSP. The EM Waves
heterodyne and interact causing a type of natural selection in that some
SSPs are producing EM Waves that combine with some other SSP's and cause
them to stabilize into bound groups and others have EM wave forms that
cause
them to separate further from some SSP's so over time you have groups of
SSP's that as a group produce a EM Wave that is a unified as a heterodyne
wave form. then these groups can become harmonically connected to other
groups and so on.

This QS (Quantum State) between particles has a variable that has been
dubbed the Universal Constant or the Gravitational Constant. I Know
..Constant Variable? These are the values we call constants as we can
measure and model matter and these values remain constant. I contend that
they are variable in that due to scale and the intrinsic bias of being
within the Quantum State we will always measure and validate them as
constants as we vary at the same rate.

In my view the Gravitational Constant of the Universe varies with the
expansion of the universe but is locally modified by groupings of SSP's.
This also applies to the value of c (The Speed Of Light). I contend that c
is a variable but varies on a scale as to be measured as a constant. Again
locally varied by local groupings of SSP's. The Quantum State acts as an
Inverse Tensor Field between all SSP's on a universal scale. It has a
Strong
attraction which we measure as gravitational or magnetic or nuclear force
effects aspects of separation distance of SSP's. These forces are but
effects of heterodyne waves of groupings of SSP's and the value of the QS
varies with the distribution of SSP's both universally and locally. We
have
modeled Photons taking centuries to escape from the lower sun to the
surface
and theorize that photons are absorbed by matter and re emitted causing
the
long trip . But in my postulate the value of c in reduced locally between
closely grouped SSP's versus widely separated SSP's. So in the dense sun
the
wave form we consider a photon travels at a slower speed locally and
faster
once it exits the mass of the sun.

Paul R. Mays

Your vision is interesting. The process of photon emitting is thought
by me in the same scheme, although without changing of c. It doesn't
need because the length of the particle vortex is supposed to be
rather long.

In my model there isn't BB and the galaxies running-away is explained
in more
plausible way imo.(vps137.narod.ru/article9.html by Russian whiles).
The idea is in following.

There was long ago the collision of the remote universes. The pieces
from the explosion plumped in our Universe. They made the galaxies
with parallel vorteces, tails, in the bulk of our 4D Universe. Due to
curvature of the 3D surface of the Universe they moved. The Habble
constant is equal then at the first approximation c/R, where R is
radius of the Universe.

Moreover, it explained the big dark side of Universe where there are
not any galaxies at all. There was other big universe which has being
between our Universe and explosion. It has shielded our Universe.

Really we can't know anything about other universes because the light
permeates only along the 3D border of Universe. But we really can do
some implied conclusions and "look" outside.

Valery S.

Guess I had a harder time following your logic than my own but your
view complicates that which we observe and the goal is to the simplest
yet compatible theorem.

In your view I would ask where did the matter come from, how does it
explain gravitational wells, and how does it explain expansion we observe.

I agree with SR, GR and QM because we predict then observer what we
predict so any theory must better explain those concepts than existing
theory and I content my postulate goes a long way to unifying those
theories.

In your view you only are seeing the Macro universe but in mine the
construct
is valid from Micro to Macro. It explains from the smallest physical
particle
all the way to the total universe seamlessly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't take myself all that serious. And I'm more than
likely
wrong. But if you try to really understand my postulate and its nuance it
is a TOE and
gives a logical GUT construct.

The basic postulate leads to a few predictions.

1. the universe will expand at an ever increasing rate of expansion.
2. c is variable but only percievable as a constant locally and
is independent of wave source or target.
3. the UGC is not a constant but will reduce as the universe expands

There are several more predictions but thats enough to get me yelled at
by many of the B'Lievers on this forum.

I fully understand how it is hard for me to repersuade the community
and don't intend to do it. I only want to persuade myself. Seriously.

My variant of TOE covers Micro universe too. It's to be published I
hope.
Derivation of the Lorentz transformation and all I still have been
placed on my site is just a side effect. And I saw that SR is just one
special solution from the others. So I can't stand for SR.

I have some predictions too. The last is that the doppler formula is
to read as follows: f'/f = (1-(v/c)^2)^2/(1+v/c). It expands our
Universe in more scale than SR.

Valery S.

On Apr 14, 5:46 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
On Apr 14, 10:36 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:

Sometimes are discusions if radio waves are transversal
or longitudinal. Such are in the math only. In nature
each wave has the two components. Our knowledge of
waves is not enough to describe the light.

| So you keep saying. However, we have a lot of experience with light,
| and we can establish experimental results that disprove light as a
| wave. Similarly, we can establish experimental results that disprove
| light as a particle.

Yeah, like we can establish experimental results that disprove apples
grow on trees. Don't be ignorant all your life, crank, have a day off.

What are you saying, Andro? Are you saying you've got the "photon"
and it's known weird properties all "explained"? Great!
So tell us please just how light works. taps foot impatiently
Well?

On Apr 15, 12:11 am, vps137 wrote:

Really we can't know anything about other universes because the light
permeates only along the 3D border of Universe. But we really can do
some implied conclusions and "look" outside.
Valery S.

Actually , not true. Light travels only in straight lines. Because the
4D hypersphere of the universe is curved, light cannot travel in the
3D "border" and in fact takes a "shortcut" across the center of the
hypersphere. However most galactic light sources ARE located only in
the 3D border. Quasars are an exception and are located off the
surface within the 4D hypersphere. This "shortcut" that light takes
from 3D surface point to 3D surface point creates an angle of contact
that gives rise to the so-called "RedShift". Therefore, since
RedShift is NOT due to velocity, it puts the lie to the "Big Bang".

For more information see my Website: www.hypersphere.us

"Benj" wrote in message

On Apr 15, 12:11 am, vps137 wrote:

Really we can't know anything about other universes because the light
permeates only along the 3D border of Universe. But we really can do
some implied conclusions and "look" outside.
Valery S.

Actually , not true. Light travels only in straight lines. Because the
4D hypersphere of the universe is curved, light cannot travel in the
3D "border" and in fact takes a "shortcut" across the center of the
hypersphere. However most galactic light sources ARE located only in
the 3D border. Quasars are an exception and are located off the
surface within the 4D hypersphere. This "shortcut" that light takes
from 3D surface point to 3D surface point creates an angle of contact
that gives rise to the so-called "RedShift". Therefore, since
RedShift is NOT due to velocity, it puts the lie to the "Big Bang".

Well, that's a load of codswallop. Light travels
geodesics embedded in the 3D "surface" of curved
space. Witness gravitational lensing, and energy
conservation for reactions involving the generation
photons.

If light tunnelled through a 4D hypersphere we would
have access to that dimension simply by sending
signals into it and receiving signals from it; we
could take a tomograph of its interior.

"Autymn D. C." wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 7:59 am, dlzc wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:32 pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:

On Apr 8, 7:12 wrote:
...
Colliding very energetic nucleii. Already been done
at lower energy levels, and Hawking radiation resulted.
Search on "dual to black hole".

nuclei, retard

nucleii, 31800 hits

Just because others dick around with the language, doesn't mean you
have to follow them around like a little puppy. The meaning was
clear.

what around? what meaning? Do you know what a genitive case ending
is?

Hmmm...

A genitive case ending. Would that be a urethra?

Dear Bill Miller:

On Apr 15, 12:53*pm, "Bill Miller"
wrote:
"Autymn D. C." wrote in ...
...
Do you know what a genitive case ending is?

Hmmm...

A genitive case ending. Would that be a urethra?

I thought that was "labia minora"? 'Cause the other ending is
"ovaries", bladder, or prostate depending on path.

David A. Smith

Greg Neill wrote:

If light tunnelled through a 4D hypersphere we would
have access to that dimension simply by sending
signals into it and receiving signals from it; we
could take a tomograph of its interior.

Like a potential divider (Electronics)!? C'mon, stay 'Science' plaese
;-)



Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic

On Apr 15, 1:49 pm, "Greg Neill" wrote:

Well, that's a load of codswallop. Light travels
geodesics embedded in the 3D "surface" of curved
space. Witness gravitational lensing, and energy
conservation for reactions involving the generation
photons.

Says you.

If light tunnelled through a 4D hypersphere we would
have access to that dimension simply by sending
signals into it and receiving signals from it; we
could take a tomograph of its interior.

Yes!