Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Science Controversy over Speed of Gravity

Guest

EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
[quote]In sci.physics.electromag Bill
Hobba <rubbish@junk.com> wrote:

Rest of usual very long winded
semantic junk snipped.

I too think that this is semantics.
[/quote]
Yup, this is indeed "the study of meaning."
Unless your usage is the reprehensibly vulgar
"propaganda."

[quote]The definition of reality, for
example, limits the possibilities.
[/quote]
If we do not define reality... we are mad.
It is our social agreement on the purpose/use
(et al) of things (including ourselves)
which makes them sensible.

Think of a dog>s brain, and what he makes of
the items in his master>s house: Since most of
those items have no "dog use" they must not
register as they do to us. Therefore your dog
must think that you live in a heap of trash, a
clean, a synthetically perfumed dump. (Which
is why most dogs puzzle eternaly over their masters'
objection to their crapping all over the place, I>m
sure: "It>s just a dump, forheavens>sake! Wolf!")

Reality is all. And we can hardly go about
thinking everything at the same time, now can we!

[quote]Additionally, there is an underlying
assumption that human senses can
completely discern all existing dimensions,
which is an unproven assumption.
[/quote]
This happens when you come in late into the
conversation: You are assuming that there are
such things as mathematical dimensions in
the universe apart from "our" three! This is a
bum assumption [that our reality is confined
to three dimensions] ... but if you go back up
this thread of posts you will eventually reach
the part where I point out your insanity (that>s
my job). And then you too shall be cured!

[quote]I>d appreciate comments on these observations
by the OP.
[/quote]
OP
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

[quote]A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow
[/quote]
A nation of wolves will make a bloody mess of any/all
governments proposed for them. ---S D Rodrian

..
..
..

zookumar yelubandi · Guest

SDRodian - major junction of four to five great sage winds
of our time - why waste substrates and ATPs in trying to push elusive
concepts through rusted dendritic pipes, portals long estranged from
meaningful flow? But since you are here, please share with us your
opinion of 911/2001. Is the tale of Osama bin Laden and his Nineteen
Peeps tenable given the observable evidence? Or is it tall beyond any
finite elongation?

The sage winds are blowing. But you>re not like the others,
SDRodian - clone of no one and cyclone of wisdom. You>re not the
pinwheel that receives and angularizes for fanciful effect. Nay, show
them that you are, indeed, a windmill that generates understanding.
Explain to them that WTC7 did not fall without prejudice.

Help us restore faith in human intellect and integrity.

cheers
-zookumar-

Guest

EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:

[quote]I cannot agree that "social agreement ... makes [things] sensible".
[/quote]
Please talk it over with your dog. And you>llassie I>m right.

[quote]Additionally, that which is not sensible may nevertheless be real. Many
wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are not sensible, and were
unknown prior to the invention of certain machines. Nevertheless, they
are real.
[/quote]
I think you>re confusing cotton candy with radiation:

All that existed before man existed. And all
that will exist after Man will exist. But nobody
made change for a dollar before Man, and no-
body will laugh at a good joke after Man (nor
at a bad one, smarty pants). --SDR

[quote]The same may hold true for spatial dimensions in excess of 3.
[/quote]
May I speak with your dog? I think it might be
more sensible...

Could I be more specific about what I mean?
Let>s try:
NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO
"ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.

If one abstracts the least single dimension from ANYTHING
it effectivey removes that something from reality. And then
you are talking fantasy (science-fiction).

Self-evidently, this must include ANY/ALL "dimension(s)"
which EXCLUDE ANY OTHER "dimension(s)."

PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post!

String theory is marvelous mathematics. But if ANY part of it
depends on the existence of Santy Claus, then it has NO
connection with reality PERIOD. And since string theory
can only balance its equations by piling on extraneous (e.g.
impossible) "dimensions" it is pure FICTION--"pure/absolute."

[quote]Additionally, there is an underlying
assumption that human senses can
completely discern all existing dimensions,
which is an unproven assumption.

This happens when you come in late into the
conversation: You are assuming that there are
such things as mathematical dimensions in
the universe apart from "our" three!

No, not quite. I am assuming that the possibility exists that there are
more than 3 spatial dimension.
[/quote]
And I am telling you there ain>t nothin' that ain>t made up
of all the innumerable (look up that word in a book called
The Dictionary) dimensions of our reality.

IF SOMETING LACKS EXISTENCE IN ANY
DIMENSION (or part thereof) IT CANNOT EXIST.
(And if something exists in one or more dimension
than those of our reality... then those so-called other
"dimensions" are superflous: PURE FANTASY.)

String Theory is pure mathematics ONLY. Get over it.
Rejoice, in fact. Now you won>t have to waste your life
trying to figure out how string theory governs life!

[quote]? I have no strong opinion on whether such
dimensions are real.
[/quote]
Then prey tell, what be U doing in this conversation?

[quote]I concede that they are not presently sensible. I
hold open the possibility that, with unknown technology, they may become
sensible.
[/quote]
What about ghosts? And pixies? And gods? And
those beings that consist only of unglued eyes with ears
stuck to them...?

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

Kilmir · Guest

sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com schreef:

[quote]EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
snip
Could I be more specific about what I mean?
Let>s try:
NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO
"ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.

If one abstracts the least single dimension from ANYTHING
it effectivey removes that something from reality. And then
you are talking fantasy (science-fiction).

Self-evidently, this must include ANY/ALL "dimension(s)"
which EXCLUDE ANY OTHER "dimension(s)."

PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post!

String theory is marvelous mathematics. But if ANY part of it
depends on the existence of Santy Claus, then it has NO
connection with reality PERIOD. And since string theory
can only balance its equations by piling on extraneous (e.g.
impossible) "dimensions" it is pure FICTION--"pure/absolute."
[/quote]
Well String Theory, as far as I can grasp it, tries to also explain
how quantum particles exist and how gravity works. Both are things
of this reality, yet are beyond any models we can create in this
3-dimension reality.

To be more precise, quantum particles appear to us as to simply
pop into existance. What some people tried as a hypothesis was
that there is a place where they come from, just not perceivable
to us; hence extra-dimensional models.

As for less then our "reality" dimensions, inside a black hole time is
nullified (again, as far as i understand physics), which puts it out
of "our reality" according to your words because you>d lose one of
the 4 dimensions.

The problem is that we are pretty much unable to experience those
phenomenon ourselves because our brain, or better said: our
collection and structure of atoms and the sequence of timeslices
that gives them casuality, is a 4 dimentional feature and cannot
exist/survive in lesser dimensions.
For instance if a 3 dimensional phenomenon would exist, we would
not be able to perceive it because we would rush past it along our
4th dimension, time. Our only option is hoping to find enough
circumstantial evidence as we do with black holes where time is
slowed to a crawl in the perifery to conclude that a phenomenon
has less dimensions. Tracking down a 2 dimensional something
would be near impossible. With the singularity concept applied you
even have a 1 dimensional item "inside our reality", but there is no
way we could actually look at it and say "look that>s a one
dimensional object right there".

Our brain is molded to the 4th dimensional universe, we can>t even
phantom how we would perceive a 3 or even less dimensional
environment. But if intelligence would be there and for instance one
of us would put something in the 3d environment it would appear as
if by magic to the 3d intelligence because it has no grasp of
progression of the 4th dimension time.

If you then apply the same to us we can see that some things
basically appear "by magic" (quantum particles). Simple
extrapolation of the 3d-4d concept would mean a 5th dimension
from where the particles come from.

But to get back on the original subject, the biggest flaw in String
Theory is that no workable experiments or even predictions can be
created to possibly falsify it. As long as that major problem exists,
String Theory can not be accepted as the theory-of-everything, or
even as a full theory at all.

S D Rodrian · Guest

EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
[quote]sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com wrote:

Could I be more specific about what I mean?
Let>s try:
NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO
"ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.
[/quote]
Conversely: Reality consists of ALL possible
dimensions, and is NOT really "3" dimensional:

YOU CAN NOT HAVE MORE
DIMENSIONS THAN ALL OF THEM.

Once you state, "This is 1 dimension above/beyond
ALL OF THEM" you are talking gibberish.

Pure mathematics allows for gibberish BECAUSE pure
mathematics need not have ANY connections with
anything other than itself (its equations balance
themselves alone, using NOT reality but its own set
of imperfect/incomplete/mortal rules/principles).

[quote]If one abstracts the least single dimension from
ANYTHING it effectively removes that something from
reality. And then you are talking fantasy (science-
fiction).
[/quote]
This is true of anything termed "three-dimensional"
(no purely "3" dimensional anything can really exist).

And it is just as true of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING
assigned ANY (whatever) purely arbitrary "number" of
dimension(s).

.... Reality consists of a never-ending infinity of
possible ways to describe the dimensions of ANY
and EVERY object that exists. There can exist NO
manifold, however complex, which is not already
part of our so-called "3-D" reality (because the
term "3-D" is not a pure description of reality but
merely/purely "short-hand" mathematics--it ONLY
makes sense in mathematics: out in the real world
it is pure gibberish). And every time one attempts to
describe the universe in terms of mathematical
gibberish, one must eventually be forced to pay a
high price indeed for one>s blithering foolishness.

In pure mathematics it is quite acceptable to speak
gibberish: Our children often use "(infinity + 1)"
in their "equations" while understanding that while it
may make a kind of perfect mathematical sense, IN
REALITY it>s really senseless (meaningless/nonsense).
And this "mathematical gibberish" is not confined to
"(infinity + 1)" or "reality as purely 3-dimensional."

The trick is not being led to believe that
"mathematical gibberish" HAS ANY REALITY.

If one does, then one might begin to sprout on about
time-travel, and "other dimensions," and every other
kind of gibberish in the universe. And then either we
must confine such gibberish-sprouting chaps to the
lunatic asylum as soon as possible or we are all mad.

Trying to advance the process,

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

RE:

[quote]Self-evidently, this must include ANY/ALL
"dimension(s)" which EXCLUDE ANY OTHER
"dimension(s)."

PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post!
[/quote]
"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/tree/browse_frm/thread/207d22acd7b50bab/9004a8405b2b8dd7?q=rodrian+%22The+Achilles+Heel+of+String+Theory%22&hl=en&rnum=1&lnk=ol

"

[quote]String theory is marvelous mathematics. But if ANY
part of it depends on the existence of Santy Claus,
then it has NO connection with reality PERIOD. And
since string theory can only balance its equations
by piling on extraneous (e.g. impossible)
"dimensions" it is pure FICTION--"pure/absolute."

I am assuming that the possibility exists that
there are more than 3 spatial dimension.

And I am telling you there ain>t nothin' that ain>t
made up of all the innumerable (look up that word in
a book called The Dictionary) dimensions of our
reality.

IF SOMETHING LACKS EXISTENCE IN ANY
DIMENSION (or part thereof) IT CANNOT EXIST.
(And if something exists in one or more dimension
than those of our reality... then those so-called
other "dimensions" are superfluous: PURE FANTASY.)

String Theory is pure mathematics ONLY. Get over it.
Rejoice, in fact. Now you won>t have to waste your
life trying to figure out how string theory governs
life!
[/quote]
RE:

The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

I don>t mind the use of fantasy in mathematics because
mathematics concerns the harmonizing of equations in
the same manner that a science-fiction story must be
purged of story-line self-contradictions (anomalies).
My objection is when either mathematics or science-
fiction tries to pretend that it has a greater hold on
reality THAN does reality.

One can say that a hollow sphere has two dimensions,
but that does not remove such a sphere from our
reality. And in the same way ALL imagined manifolds
("a topological space in which every point has a
neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the interior of a
sphere in Euclidean space of the same number of
dimensions") can never exist apart from our reality.

The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
reality."

It>s not really a matter of the gimmick we observe in
animation where the RoadRunner runs into the "reality"
of a painting, which painting then seen from behind
proves to "really" be nothing more than a "two-
dimensional" painting. The fact is that even
theoretically it would be hard to conceive of anything
being even one-dimensional:

Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would one
even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
to look at it from a little to the side).

Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
Your floating arm is describing an impossible
journey through an infinite number of (certainly
more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
circumference such as the earth>s...

And because all it would take would be a very tiny
"little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
we are talking strictly theoretically here.)

The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let>s say that a Planck>s
Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
lengths as small as a Planck>s Length to our Planck>s
Length, although I do not know of any objection to
that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck>s
Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
Planck>s Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
any side it would have to look at it from a second,
third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it>s
much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
believe the fiction that it>s a two-dimensional
drawing... even though we know that no true purely
two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]

HINT: It>s your mind agreeing to "go along with"
the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
graphic is two-dimensional.

And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
our reality. And if you can>t see this, you>re not
really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
(and not even though you be even as clever as a
checkers-playing computer).

The same thing with "time," which is strictly a notion
in the human mind. In reality the universe consists of
changes (most of which are oscillations, an electron>s
or a satellite>s orbit). If the universe is considered
to be "one thing," it may be possible to say it runs
through a time-line from beginning to end; but the
universe is not really "one thing" (in fact, it is not
possible at this point in human history to point to
anything which is absolutely "one thing" except we use
the term loosely as a point of reference). Therefore
each item (with the proviso that each item consists of
sub-items each with its own "time"), each item has its
own "time" apart from the "time(s)" of every other
item in the universe. [Set ten identical tops spinning
at the same time and most of them are all likely to
stop spinning at the same time, all things being
equal. But we>re really talking coincidence here,
since nothing demands that they--or all the tops in
the universe--be set spinning at the same time.]

Strictly on principle, because energy is neither
created nor destroyed, some scientists may be
therefore obliged to believe that "time" fluxes
between the objects/items of the universe, neither
going forwards nor backwards in sum. But thereby
they also being forced to give up the notion of
"time" as we>re known it to this time. [Others see
in this the sinister absence of enough anti-matter
to harmonize the "timing' of the universe... and
suspect that time indeed does go marching on.]

This is why not all the atoms of a given element in
the universe decay at once. But one thing is true: The
matter of atoms which may have decayed may again be
reconstituted into their original form inside a star>s
furnace or explosion. And then where does that leave
the time-line of matter that has gone from old age
(and even death) back to youth!

In any case, our description of time is always quite
superficial. And we usually limit such a description
to a small fraction of a number of related changes, as
the notion of a "past" (or a "future") are merely
conveniences we use to "make sense to ourselves" of
the human condition: In "Caesar>s time" he was both
child and man, but what we conveniently agree to
overlook is that Caesar is still right here "in our
own time" as well, just in some other form than either
child or man. And yet every last atom that was Caesar
is still here with us.

see: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

Kilmir · Guest

S D Rodrian schreef:

<snip>
[quote]Pure mathematics allows for gibberish BECAUSE pure
mathematics need not have ANY connections with
anything other than itself (its equations balance
themselves alone, using NOT reality but its own set
of imperfect/incomplete/mortal rules/principles).
snip[/quote]

I just wondered, only a 100 years ago the notion of time being relative
to speed or that matter could be converted to energy and vica versa
seemed quite preposterous outside mathematics.

Yet now we have atomic bombs and satelites with clocks that are
constantly adjusted for time-delay.

Your whole post (and website for that matter) sounds very much like an
argument from personal incredulity, and not so much a constructed
counterargument.
IMHO ofcourse.

Kilmir

Guest

Kilmir wrote:
[quote]
I just wondered, only a 100 years ago the notion of time being relative
to speed or that matter could be converted to energy and vica versa
seemed quite preposterous outside mathematics.

Yet now we have atomic bombs and satelites with clocks that are
constantly adjusted for time-delay.

Your whole post (and website for that matter) sounds very much like an
argument from personal incredulity, and not so much a constructed
counterargument. IMHO ofcourse. Kilmir
[/quote]
There is no way to prove reality beyond all doubt,
if for no other reason than that the prover may be
insane, the one to whom the thing is proved may be
insane, or they both may be insane... This is why
it is pointless to argue religion (unless sportingly
as I do every now & again). HOWEVER:

Here is a bit of wisdom for you, so you don>t waste
too much of your life: If somebody tells you he/she
has an elephant in his/her pocket... don>t hang around
to hear out the physics of it: Sanity trumps Science.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

Marco Licetti · Guest

PRICE CHANGED to $149 (auction) - 169 ("buynow")

Thomas Walker · Guest

Dear David,

I think you have replied in a nice and balanced way and I look forward to
end as friends in this issue.

Yes, I did spray my thoughts around as I have been a bit frustrated on
getting older and older without being able to come to grips with things
which are close to my heart. [astrophysics etc.]

Life has taken me through Electrical,Electronic & Computer Engineering in
the Air Force, Corporate and Institutions not allowing much time to my
passion.

Yet, my confidence is sky-high as to my own ability to analyze and
synthesize.

If only I could have a few hours of detached total concentration and a
providential drop of an apple on my head setting off my thoughts!
Sometimes [in bathroom tubs] such situations do develop.

I would like to be a crank or nut in the Archimedes mould rather than an
unsung Philosopher, though it will be presumptuous to preempt candidature to
such status at my current level of achievement. Prof. Hawking is an
astounding inspiration to me when I think of the disadvantages he has
overcome to achieve what he has done. It proves no one should give any kind
of excuse for not achieving his goals with God-given Time on Earth and
Faculties.

A quantum tempo can be added in such pursuits with an environmental setup to
experiment [particles and space views]

Otherwise only hobbies such as 'Duplicate Bridge' will continue to eat up my
time.

Thomas Walker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"dlzc" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1157563007.977898.153820@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Dear Thomas Walker:

Thomas Walker wrote:
Dear David,

I agree ; it reminds me of the Biblical saying 'casting
pearls in front of ......'

You can say swine, it is not a dirty word, and no one here will be
particularly insulted, considering the clientelle that comes here.

I still wonder whether you read my proof which is
posted in the site.

Why? I also wrote to Prof Hawking, to ask questions about his book. I
was an idiot, and largely still am. I sometimes think that I can "fix"
people, which is clearly not possible.

Someone calls me presumptuous but you tell me he is
kind to me and I am rude.
You call me a crank and you think you are not rude.

R. Buckminster Fuller was considered a crank. He died rich and
respected. Many of Nicolai Tesla>s ideas are considered "cranky", yet
almost every country in the world uses his inventions everyday in every
home that has AC power.

There may be 1000 cranks that have changed history. There are millions
of cranks that only serve to twist each other>s nipples, and anything
else they can get their hands on.

To misquote Feynman: "They laughed at Einstein, but they laughed at
Bozo the Clown too."

Listen, when I untangle the truth about 'matter' and
'Energy' amidst all this current confusion, I>ll publish
it if needed.

OK. Make sure you can make a quantifiable prediction that hasn>t
already been covered more succinctly. Then it is Science. Otherwise
"Truth" is unobtainable to Science and lies in the realm of
"Philosophy", so shouldn>t be posted here.

This Equation of mine can be at the most
considered a beautiful arithmetic equation and I
myself do not consider it as any breakthrough.
But, I have every right to claim what I found as my
own particularly as I have derived it and proved it.

Doesn>t mean it hasn>t been "invented" before, so your claim is simply
that, an empty claim. I can claim that spacetime is produced by matter
and energy. Doesn>t mean I said it first, doesn>t mean it is right,
and doesn>t provide any means to quantify it (within my skills of
formulation and resolution).

Your warning about not posting ideas / innovations
in this open forum is well taken by me and I
appreciate your suggestion. I took a risk in spraying
my ideas because of my own general approach in
such matters as I believe in sharing of ldeas with the
underlying confidence that if I am good at something
sufficiently, I>ll certainly reach milestones and goals
and no one can take it away from me.

They will be personal milestones and personal goals. We don>t really
need to hear about this, until you can make a quantifiable prediction
that works where other theories cannot/do not.

I really don>t know what you are in this 'groups' and
you seem to be someone in-charge or something.

No. These groups are unmoderated. They have rules of use, and
violating the rules can get one reported to their ISP. You have
violated no rules here.

I have nothing against you, but I>ll not tolerate being
called names etc. next time

You will not like this place. This place is like the Old West, and
name calling is the least of your worries. When you go public, you
will potentially be confronted with your own ignorance, and the
confronter is under no compulsion to be "nice".

Ignorance is not a vice. Ignorance is simply blank pages in a personal
diary.

As far as Mr. Davidson>s remarks:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.weemba/msg/cae0052cc23ab2dd
... down to Corporate Lesson #5. Mr. Davidson is *not* the cat, nor is
he the bird. You could study the search term he provided to fill in
some pages in your personal diary.

David A. Smith
--------------------------------------[/quote]
A summary of what has so far trnspired following my email to Prof. Hawking :
from the latest backward
Dear David,

I agree ; it reminds me of the Biblical saying 'casting pearls in front of
.......'
I still wonder whether you read my proof which is posted in the site.

Someone calls me presumptuous but you tell me he is kind to me and I am
rude.
You call me a crank and you think you are not rude.

Listen, when I untangle the truth about 'matter' and 'Energy' amidst all
this current confusion, I>ll publish it if needed.
This Equation of mine can be at the most considered a beautiful arithmetic
equation and I myself do not consider it as any breakthrough.
But, I have every right to claim what I found as my own particularly as I
have derived it and proved it.

Your warning about not posting ideas / innovations in this open forum is
well taken by me and I appreciate your suggestion.
I took a risk in spraying my ideas because of my own general approach in
such matters as I believe in sharing of ldeas with the underlying confidence
that if I am good at something sufficiently, I>ll certainly reach milestones
and goals and no one can take it away from me.

I really don>t know what you are in this 'groups' and you seem to be someone
in-charge or something.

I have nothing against you, but I>ll not tolerate being called names etc.
next time

Best regards
Thomas
----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Thomas Walker:

"Thomas Walker" <wincowalker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44fe924e$0$19719$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
[quote]"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
news:1156974446.384070.293620@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Wg Cdr Thomas Walker wrote:

In maths I did find an equation 'Walker>s Equation' as given
in
http://www.wincowalker.com/

Google "zeta function"

Zeta(p) = 1 + 1/2^p + 1/3^p + 1/4^p + ...

Your "Walker equation" is simply saying

1 = sum[p = 2,inf](Zeta(p) - 1)

The following relation may be of some interest:

Zeta(p+1) = 1/2[1 + Zeta(p)]

Taking your little algebraic relation to Stephen Hawking is as
conceited and presumptive as going to a neurosurgeon about
an itch. The teaching assistant for any college algebra
class is more likely to have the time to help you, and is just
as well equipped as Prof. Hawking to respond informatively
to your message.

There is NO physics content in your algebra.

Quite surprisingly this kind of replies I am getting from many.
[/quote]
This should be a hint that perhaps you are treading ground that
is already well understood.

[quote]Have I used zeta function = No
Then what is being said.

See my proof which is given and then talk
[/quote]
This is what a crank says. He drops names. He refuses to
consider anything other than what he wrote. He expects the whole
world (or only important people) to come to his door, hat in
hand.

[quote]1=1 is known to everyone, not to you alone

No one has taken this to Prof. Hawking, it was only
mentioned in the personal email.
[/quote]
I have moved your response to the end of the thread. It is
considered rude to top post. It also makes what you say
difficult to relate a response to the statements/questions that
triggered it.

If you feel you have made a breakthrough, publish it in a peer
reviewed journal. These are unmoderated newsgroups. Anything
you post here goes into public domain, and you potentially lose
control over them.

Mr. Davidson was being as kind as he could be, under the
circumstances.

David A. Smith
------------------------------------------------------------
Quite surprisingly this kind of replies I am getting from many.

Have I used zeta function = No
Then what is being said.

See my proof which is given and then talk

1=1 is known to everyone, not to you alone

No one has taken this to Prof. Hawking, it was only mentioned in the
personal email.
-------------------------------------------------------
Wg Cdr Thomas Walker wrote:

[quote]In maths I did find an equation 'Walker>s Equation' as given in
http://www.wincowalker.com/
[/quote]
Google "zeta function"

Zeta(p) = 1 + 1/2^p + 1/3^p + 1/4^p + ...

Your "Walker equation" is simply saying

1 = sum[p = 2,inf](Zeta(p) - 1)

The following relation may be of some interest:

Zeta(p+1) = 1/2[1 + Zeta(p)]

Taking your little algebraic relation to Stephen Hawking is as
conceited and presumptive as going to a neurosurgeon about an itch.
The teaching assistant for any college algebra class is more likely to
have the time to help you, and is just as well equipped as Prof.
Hawking to respond informatively to your message.

There is NO physics content in your algebra.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Prof. Sergey,

Thank you very much for your response.

Yes, indeed I was thrilled and satisfied when I stumbled upon the beautiful
relation between 1 and all possible elements of rational numbers in 1998. I
understand it could have some unique application in 'signal processing' with
the tools of matrix added.

Also, the 'paradox on color' I mentioned is imprinted in my mind from
college days though the practcal application of this truth may be nothing.

I realised of late, that I must take the bull by horn on issues like
understanding of 'gravity' 'our universe' etc. as the number of years left
in my own life may be insufficient unless I work hard and fast.
So far, I humbly submit I have a long way to go in Physics to reach the
sublime understanding.
Of course I am a great admirer of people like
Euclid,Archimedes,Galeleo,Kepler,Newton,Einstein etc. and what they have
achieved.
Sometimes, instead of blindly accepting the concepts propunded by them I
would like to act as a typical 'doubting Thomas' which is the hallmark of my
approach.
Whether it is the need of ether, or the 'inability for force to act at a
distance' or the speed limit matter can reach, curvature of space, Existence
of Blackhole or understanding and interpreting Michelson Morley experiment
or Hubble>s findings or 'lorentz transformation' [even] I don>t want to make
any assumptions to reach a result or jump into any conclusions of expanding
universe or big bang or 11 dimensional string theory etc.
I would like to have my take by assimilating and understanding everything
[observations,measurements and their interpretation,every step in the
mathematical simulations and derivations and conclusions]

My dream is to have a unified understanding of
matter[atoms,molecules,particles,quantum mech,effect of force[weak &
strong],solids,liquids,gases,heavenly bodies forming entire universe] and
its relationship with unified Energy spectrum [heat,EM,Mechanical ,nuclear
or any other] during the lapse of Time [past,current and
future,relative,cyclic,repetitive] in the face of Actions
[Experimental,Automatic,Cause or Effect way,Natural,cosmic etc.]

Thank you for forwarding useful links and materials which I will study in
depth and get back to you.

Sometimes, I read to understand every point of view ; Occasionally one needs
to work out the problems afresh to avoid bias setting in.

I had a feeling that Prof. Hawking was the currently best scientist as far
as cosmic theory goes, so I thought of associating with him.

Opportunities in the sense : I would like to set up experiments such as 'a
set of light weight gears arranged in sequence with say 1:10 or 1:100 teeth
ratio to increase the speed of rotation of the last gear in the sequence to
achieve a periferal speed of the 'speed of light' etc.

with warm regards
Thomas Walker
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Professor Walker,

Congratulations! The mathematical solution that you have found is beautiful,
of course. But it relates rather to the theory of numbers than to physics
that is my occupation. In physics the problems are some other, and more
complicated than those which you describe. It is impossible to join the
relativity theory and its corollaries like black holes, big bang,
closed-loop universe ? with the mathematical and physical logic, as
Relativity is based on the distortion of modelling in the very its
underpinning. As far as I could understand from your post, you are applying
to Dr Hawking, suggesting, on one hand, some mixture of their understanding
with the understanding inadmissible for them, and on the other hand you are
seeking from them an opportunity to experiment. Nothing of surprise that
Hawking did not reply. The more that he knows our paper on black holes

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#blackhole

in which we showed not only that black holes are basically impossible but
that Hawking?s computations are incorrect. So he is sits tousy and pensive
and needs already not the corroboration of black holes but the way out.

Though, truly, having read your physical declaration, I also would not reply
you, if not your reference to an interesting mathematical solution. I can
say in response, before experimenting, one has to resolve in physics several
basic problems, and very complicated problems. With account of your
mathematical ability, I would suggest you to read attentively the basic
paper by Schwarzschild ?On gravity field of point mass in the Einsteinian
theory? (Schwarzschild K., Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Akad., 1916, S. 189) and to
pay attention that in the final expression (14) that describes
Schwarzschild?s metrics he did not do the reverse passing to the initial
coordinates which he had to. If one does this operation, the whole BH theory
dies without a sigh. Furthermore, the BH theory is much based on the idea of
collapse of the dust sphere which is unphysical. In our paper on entropy

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v6_1/entropy/p23/p23.html

we have mathematically described the real processes which take place there.
Nothing to say of any collapse. Mere geometrisation of general relativity
disregards the thermodynamic balance of action and counter-action that takes
place in compression. Of course, this is far from being all what I would
have to point. But if you really want to undertake physics, kindly analyse
these aspects.

Best to you,

Sergey Karavashkin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,

Why in the world did you expect to receive a personal reply from
Stephen Hawking? You are aware, aren>t you, that Hawking suffers from motor
neuron disease? It takes the guy a half hour just to program his voice
synthesizer to say, "Would you prefer cream or sugar with your tea?"

How long do you suppose it would take for him to compose personal
letters to everyone who wants him to read their theories? Even people who
are in perfect health haven>t enough time in their short lives to handle
such a volume of correspondence. Stephen Hawking is a very, very busy
person.

-Mark Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From i [anonymous reply]
[quote]AFAIK, due to te nature of vision processing in primates, color
perception is highly subjective. Each person will perceive a given wave
legth in a different way. Even the eyes of a same person can produce
different perceptions.
The norm sees the same colors.[/quote]
Methinks you might be considering the many ways the human eye can be
tricked, where colors appear to be different depending upon juxtapositions
with other colors. That>s not idiosyncratic. It is testable and repeatable.
In addition, the human eye has some strange discontinuity so that certain
colors can be made by mixing entirely different primary colors.

You might enjoy reading Margaret Livingston>s "Vision and Art: the Biology
of Seeing", and for strictly hands-on practical experience try some of
Joseph Albers' exercises.
-----------------------------------------------------------
asaguiar wrote:
[quote]What makes the color constant between viewers and equivalent to all is
its
frequency [EM wave] which remains same for a particular color.
Thomas
"j" <whomever@wherever.es> wrote in message
Unless one has an abnormality, we really do see the same RED, or any
other
primary color. It>s hardwired.

AFAIK, due to te nature of vision processing in primates, color
perception is highly subjective. Each person will perceive a given wave
legth in a different way. Even the eyes of a same person can produce
different perceptions.
However, I know of a research (no longer have the paper or the
reference) in which physiological parameters of neonates changed with
exposure to a red object. Red perception may be hardwired.

Alexandre
[/quote]
The chemicals in the retinal nerve endings which absorb light,
stimulating the optic nerve (or not, depending on quantum mechanics)
are the same for all primates (save a few well characterized cases of
genetic differences in the production of those chemicals).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/colviscon.html#c1
is an informative keystone page with links to a lit of fascinating
detail about color vision.

The absorbtion spectra of those chemicals are the same regardless of
the source of the chemical (your retinae or mine).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/colcon.html#c1

Google "tristimulus values"

The traditional sophistry that perceptions are highly idiosyncratic
ignores the vast body of data regarding sensory percepption amassed by
clinicians in a strained effort to support an untenable philosophical
position.

Unless, like my two brothers, one has defective color vision, my pink
is your pink and is perceived that way. {They have 'red-green color
defect' vision, and perceive a color they call 'pinkish green' because
they cannot readily distinguish pink from green.] Granted this variance
from the generalization, we all perceive light of the same wavelength
under the same conditions in the same way.

Philosophically, a shared reality is consistent with the data and is
unimaginably more parsimonious than allowing for unique "realities" for
all beings capable of even the most limited perception.

As an empiricist, I have to go with the most parsimonious hypothesis
that gives consistent and repeatible results.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
----------------------------------------------------------
[quote]What makes the color constant between viewers and equivalent to all is its
frequency [EM wave] which remains same for a particular color.
Thomas
"j" <whomever@wherever.es> wrote in message
Unless one has an abnormality, we really do see the same RED, or any
other
primary color. It>s hardwired.
[/quote]
AFAIK, due to te nature of vision processing in primates, color
perception is highly subjective. Each person will perceive a given wave
legth in a different way. Even the eyes of a same person can produce
different perceptions.
However, I know of a research (no longer have the paper or the
reference) in which physiological parameters of neonates changed with
exposure to a red object. Red perception may be hardwired.

Alexandre
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Simply put : wyswyg : What you see is what you get
So, What you see no one else can see or have the equivalent stimulation.
What makes the color constant between viewers and equivalent to all is its
frequency [EM wave] which remains same for a particular color.
Thomas
------------------------------------------------------------
From i [anonymous reply]
"Wg Cdr Thomas Walker" <wincowalker@gmail.com> wrote

[quote]Even when I was in college 40 years ago, I thought about the following
paradox. The color we see from objects around us comes from perception
from
our own eye triggered probably by the frequency of the light. I might see
a
color say 'red' only as I might perceive which could be quite different
from
what another perceives or say what a dog or other animal sees as.
Even if somebody sees red the same way as I might see 'green' both will
point to that object and say that it is red. For each would have been told
from childhood that it is 'red' and it doesn>t matter what hue it creates
inside the eye. May be the preference of color occurs due to this.
[/quote]
Unless one has an abnormality, we really do see the same RED, or any other
primary color. It>s hardwired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Posting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Hi, I sent the following email to Prof. Hawking,but got only an automated
reply.
Would like to share with others too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
**Automatic Reply**

Your email regarding "My interest in Physics" has been received.

Professor Hawking very much regrets that due to the severe limitations he
works under, and the huge amount of mail he receives, he may not have time
to write you a reply. All e-mail is read. We do not have the facilities
in to deal with the specific scientific enquiries, or theories we receive.

Please see the website http://www.hawking.org.uk for more information
about Professor Hawking, his life and his work.

Yours faithfully

David Pond

Graduate Assistant to
Professor S W Hawking CH CBE FRS

Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics,
University of Cambridge,
Cambridge,
CB3 0WA.
United Kingdom.

http://www.hawking.org.uk
Hi Prof. Stephen Hawking,

I have been wanting to contact you for sometime.

I have a lot of interest in physics which has attracted me most from
childhood. However, I became an electrical engineer, then a software
professional and had a career in the Indian Air Force and then at the
Central research Laboratory, Bharat electronics Bangalore etc.

My strength has been my ability to analyze and I am looking for still the
solutions that may exist for the Mysteries of the Universe.

I would like to discuss with you and seek to further my knowledge/clear
doubts if possible and if it is OK with you.

I am of course an amateur as far as Physics is concerned though my ideas may
be radical and following an unbending logic.

In maths I did find an equation 'Walker>s Equation' as given in
http://www.wincowalker.com/

In short I believe : The solution to what>s matter is not found or
adequately explained.
My Ideas :
It is ridiculous to think of Big Bang with the whole universe as 'one
point' as the start of the universe. Why should there be any start at all.
And why anticipate an end? When even the number of 'rational numbers' are
countless why can>t the universe be endless. We have solar system and
similar systems,Galaxies and similar galaxies and may as well have our
universe and similar universes even if each one came from some big bang.
I do agree that I may not be able to follow an euclidian straight line as
the straightness may not be possible to physically create, but still I dont
see an end to the theoretical 'straight line' which will always be endless.
If something is limitting it what is beyond this limit. Therefore I don>t
agree that space may have an end or limit.

The matter and universe is likely to have a 'steady state' behaviour of
matter creation and transformation and energy matter conversions.
In a radical way, I seem to think that at the heart of any bit of matter has
to be an equivalent of a 'Black Hole' because the gravitational attraction
being proportional to the inverse square of the distance, and therefore
infinite when the distance is zero and no matter can escape this attraction.
Only a nuclear force can break this and convert the entire mass into energy.
I need to find this unifying way of explaining this phenomena of Matter.

Another paradox :
Even when I was in college 40 years ago, I thought about the following
paradox. The color we see from objects around us comes from perception from
our own eye triggered probably by the frequency of the light. I might see a
color say 'red' only as I might perceive which could be quite different from
what another perceives or say what a dog or other animal sees as.
Even if somebody sees red the same way as I might see 'green' both will
point to that object and say that it is red. For each would have been told
from childhood that it is 'red' and it doesn>t matter what hue it creates
inside the eye. May be the preference of color occurs due to this.

I have similarly lot of ideas on various things and would like to experiment
on all these until the last of my life. I need opportunities.

with best regards

Thomas Walker
---------------------------------------------------

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Kate · Guest

"Rodney Blackall" <rblackall@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4e776f17c4rblackall@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk...
[quote]This probably not the best place to post this, but I don>t want to
subscribe
to another group for a single question.

Last week we bought some red potatoes from Tesco and have had a long
weekend
break from eating them. This evening three of the remainder were
found to
have large soft patches and to be oozing an evil smelling, thin
brown
liquid. One of these had only a small bad patch so I thought to cut
it away,
the cut revealed a cluster of brown spots rather like lettering in a
stick
of rock. The spots ran the whole way through the quite large potato
so it
was discarded.

I have never seen the like in 70 years; can anyone tell me what
would cause
this (NOT global warming please!)

--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j

[/quote]
Maybe uk.rec.gardening can help?

Kate

Keith Edkins · Guest

Wireworms? (and whatever fungus or bacteria that gets in to the holes they
make)

"Rodney Blackall" <rblackall@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4e776f17c4rblackall@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk...
[quote]This probably not the best place to post this, but I don>t want to
subscribe
to another group for a single question.

Last week we bought some red potatoes from Tesco and have had a long
weekend
break from eating them. This evening three of the remainder were found to
have large soft patches and to be oozing an evil smelling, thin brown
liquid. One of these had only a small bad patch so I thought to cut it
away,
the cut revealed a cluster of brown spots rather like lettering in a stick
of rock. The spots ran the whole way through the quite large potato so it
was discarded.

I have never seen the like in 70 years; can anyone tell me what would
cause
this (NOT global warming please!)

--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j

[/quote]

Bob Hobden · Guest

"Rodney Blackall" wrote
[quote]This probably not the best place to post this, but I don>t want to
subscribe
to another group for a single question.

Last week we bought some red potatoes from Tesco and have had a long
weekend
break from eating them. This evening three of the remainder were found to
have large soft patches and to be oozing an evil smelling, thin brown
liquid. One of these had only a small bad patch so I thought to cut it
away,
the cut revealed a cluster of brown spots rather like lettering in a stick
of rock. The spots ran the whole way through the quite large potato so it
was discarded.

I have never seen the like in 70 years; can anyone tell me what would
cause
this (NOT global warming please!)

[/quote]
That sounds like Blight, what caused the Irish Potato Famine, normally you
get dark sunken areas and the inside is discoloured with a dry brown rot.
Other pathogens then cause secondary soft rots with the nasty smell.
There are other possibilities like Potato Gangrene but with that the tuber
turns pink as it rots. Spraing causes brown area of discolouration within
the potato but not normally rot, looks nasty though.
We have never suffered with it on potatoes but the same disease attacks
tomatoes (same family) and they get attacked every year unless I spray with
Bordeaux mixture to prevent it.
--
Regards
Bob H
17mls W. of London.UK

C R Fishwick · Guest

"Rodney Blackall" <rblackall@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4e776f17c4rblackall@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk...
[quote]This probably not the best place to post this, but I don>t want to
subscribe
to another group for a single question.

Last week we bought some red potatoes from Tesco and have had a long
weekend
break from eating them. This evening three of the remainder were found to
have large soft patches and to be oozing an evil smelling, thin brown
liquid. One of these had only a small bad patch so I thought to cut it
away,
the cut revealed a cluster of brown spots rather like lettering in a stick
of rock. The spots ran the whole way through the quite large potato so it
was discarded.

I have never seen the like in 70 years; can anyone tell me what would
cause
this (NOT global warming please!)

--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j
[/quote]

Try:

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/prm8938?opendocument

Regards
Chris
--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Bird watching in and around Craven & Pendle.
North Yorkshire and East Lancashire.
http://craven-and-pendle-birding.org/

Bob Hobden · Guest

"Rodney Blackall" wrote after Bob Hobden replied
[quote]
That sounds like Blight, what caused the Irish Potato Famine, normally
you > get dark sunken areas and the inside is discoloured with a dry
brown rot.
Other pathogens then cause secondary soft rots with the nasty smell.

That sounds nasty; I wonder the spuds got into the food chain at all! I
shall have to let Tesco know.

Thanks also to Chris for the website.

[/quote]
If only one or two plants in a field had been infected then I could
understand it and they won>t do you any harm to humans not that anyone would
want to eat them, although by the sound of it they had become badly infected
and the blackening of the hulms would/should have been obvious to the
trained eye.
Blight can overwinter in potatoes that are left behind after cropping so
that field could continue to be infected.
There are some very good Blight resistant potatoes these days, the Sarpo
strains from Hungary, but ime they are very susceptible to other diseases
like scab and slugs. I will certainly not be growing Sarpo Axona again after
this years trial.

--
Regards
Bob H
17mls W. of London.UK

C R Fishwick · Guest

"Bob Hobden" <bobh@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:4q4sj7Flf6hfU1@individual.net...
[quote]
"Rodney Blackall" wrote after Bob Hobden replied

That sounds like Blight, what caused the Irish Potato Famine, normally
you > get dark sunken areas and the inside is discoloured with a dry
brown rot.
Other pathogens then cause secondary soft rots with the nasty smell.

That sounds nasty; I wonder the spuds got into the food chain at all! I
shall have to let Tesco know.

Thanks also to Chris for the website.

If only one or two plants in a field had been infected then I could
understand it and they won>t do you any harm to humans not that anyone
would want to eat them, although by the sound of it they had become badly
infected and the blackening of the hulms would/should have been obvious to
the trained eye.
Blight can overwinter in potatoes that are left behind after cropping so
that field could continue to be infected.
There are some very good Blight resistant potatoes these days, the Sarpo
strains from Hungary, but ime they are very susceptible to other diseases
like scab and slugs. I will certainly not be growing Sarpo Axona again
after this years trial.
[/quote]

If it is blight, then there isn>t a problem;-) Humans can>t be infected IMO.
The Irish/French famine due to blight because that>s the only thing peasants
had to eat. Mass starvation was the cause of the deaths;-)

Although I personally wouldn>t eat an infected one;-)
--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Bird watching in and around Craven & Pendle.
North Yorkshire and East Lancashire.
http://craven-and-pendle-birding.org/


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Miscelaneous	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11 Next
Page 10 of 11