• [deleted]

  • Post #165

Vladimir,

The fact that the speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational potential, cannot be denied. In 1911 Einstein adopted the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light, then in the final version of general relativity the speed of light became even more variable: c'=c(1+2phi/c^2).

Yet Einsteinians never discuss this for a simple reason: if photons slow down as they leave the gravitational field of a star, then they come here on earth at a decreased speed c' lower than c. Einsteinians exercise themselves in crimestop in such cases:

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

    • [deleted]

    • Post #166

    Dear Vladimir,

    I have just put up a link to a web site giving further explanation of the RICP explanatory framework on my essay thread. I really appreciated your response to my essay and thought on the basis of that you might be interested. So here is a link to it for your convenience foundations of the new building 'prototype' you talked about?

    I do need to add further links to that site, giving more information and relevant scientific papers and need to do something more with the recent discussions of truth.It is, I hope, still a useful introduction.

    Kind regards Georgina

      • [deleted]

      • Post #167

      That was me -Georgina : )

      Pentacho

      Thanks for the explanation - I have to study more how to formulate my views on these issues.

      Vladimir

      Dear Georgina -

      Thanks for sending me the link to your cool website. Not only the cool bluish background, but it is refreshingly simple and focused, and your great graphic has pride of place in it.

      If you ever re-do the graphic perhaps the vertical texts can be made a bit more legible with more space between words, font size etc.

      Please remind me of further developments in your interesting ideas. I like your term "unitemporal now" it describes well my own conception of an essentially timeless universe but where one can compare various states in the causal sequence as as episodes in 'time'.

      Best wishes from Vladimir

      Dear Vladimir,

      I find interesting your beautiful universe paper, as well as this essay, both original and well illustrated. I also appreciate that you used as inspiration some of Kenneth Snelson's ideas.

      Good luck,

      Cristi Stoica

        Vladimir

        Beautiful essay, and so many fixes. It IS broke and does need rebuilding, from the ground up.

        Matt

        Thank you Cristinel for reading my papers. As you see the ideas therin need a lot of development so I am glad a number of experts in various fields of physics have read them. Indeed I was very interested in Snelson's beautiful experiments with rotating circular magnets - it demonstrated how matter can retain its structure even while each element in it is rotating at a certain spin. I still have to study his electronic models which are beautifully conceived as well.

        Vladimir

        Thank you Matt its been fun writing this essay. Good luck to you.

        Vladimir

        On Lawrence B. Crowell's page, where the above link leads, I answered:

        "Lawrence it give me no joy that the rating system is flawed and that serious competent work by you is rated less than the sort of papers, mine included, that you criticize.

        Having said that, I agree with Edwin's responses about your attitude. In a remark above you say that "The solution might in part be under our noses.". But as long as mainstream physicists turn up their noses on anything new however simplistic or amateurishly presented, and stick to ossified concepts enshrined in century-old textbooks, quibbling only on details and footnotes, physics cannot possibly advance. There are many journals, conferences, textbooks and universities open to highly qualified physicists like Lawrence.

        It will be nice if he leaves us this fqxi as a forum to express our hopes and dreams and half-cooked ideas for a more coherent less disjointed physics. Ideally the professionals might one day sniff out a good idea or two here that they can develop to their heart's content. Respectfully and with best wishes,

        Vladimir"

        Stephen

        I look forward to the mathematics you are developing for the microscopic level. However it is not mainly the density of particles that I am interested in but rather a way to formulate the very basic interactions in the lattice of my Beautiful Universe theory. Since the vacuum nodes are the same as those that make up radiation and matter only one sort of basic interaction is needed - summated of course in the case of complex particles.

        The basic idea is that each node has spin in units of (h) and that this momentum is transmitted to the next node at a velocity proportional to the recepient node rotation (also in units of h). Since a node is also assumed to be a dielectric and its rotation creates magnetic moment and an electric field, this would be the basis for computing the permittivity and permeability. I guess I am repeating myself - but that is what needs to be done and I need to think it out some more. Thanks for any input along these lines.

        Best wishes, Vladimir

        Congratulations Vladimir,

        I imagine the fact that your essay was fun to read had to be a factor in your becoming a finalist. I wish you luck in the final evaluations.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        Thanks Jonathan, yes the 'fun factor' must have played a part in the rating. I just hope I will not be considered merely a sort of jester in the court of physics because, as you know I have serious underlying ideas behind my paper!

        On the other hand your remark reminds me once again that I have yet to write a short non-technical description of my Beautiful Universe Theory for the general reader. Good luck to you in the final judging with your excellent essay.

        Vladimir

        5 days later

        Let me laugh Jonathan and friends, you are ironical. My Theory of Spherization is not to sell ok dude.Your strategy shows us your limited mind.You are simply a frustrated full of hate.The jealousy probably or your taste for monney. Your vabity eats you in fact. You confound the marketing with the sciences in fact.Even the competition you do not understand it.Your tools are bad simply.You are ready for all with your stupidities.You are simply a band of ironical thinkers. Let me laugh. Your faith even does not exist.I have pity for you Vallet.And you delete poor thinker in function of your strategy. You have not the competences to understand my works.You are simply a kind of pseudo illuminated thinking that you are right. The infinite light is more than your stupid extrapolations poor thinker. And you speak about who? Dante now and the extradimensions , doors ? frankly return at school and learn from my theory of spherization. Higher dimensional math?.Well I am dreaming in live there, if you you undertand the maths, me I am the future president of China. You want my books of maths or what? bronstein and semendiaev, or you want a course about the study of functions. I know my maths ok dude, your maths are not deterministic maths but just pseudo parrallelizations. The maths are tools and like all tool, it must be well utilized.with universality, determinism and rationality about our pure universal axiomatization. You confound a lot of things about our universal sphere.

        My theory of spherization is not a play ok. The theory of this or that are not my probelm. My theory unifies a lot of things with or without the approvements of pseudos ! I have pity , really. Your strategy of discriminations shows us your limited mind in fact.How can you understand so my theory of spherization in 3D. quantum 3D spheres serie of uniqueness.....cosmological 3D spheres....Universal 3D sphere .....eureka in 3 dimensions of course.

        Sphericaly yours .

        Steve

        19 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #180

        Hello Vladamir,

        Very nice essay.

        How is your Japanese?

        Have you ever read and considered the implications of the paradigm shift that CIG Theory offers?

        www.cigtheory.com

        THX

        doug

        Hello Doug

        Thanks for your nice remark. "My Japanese" is to Japanese as "my physics" is to physics - problematical!

        I looked at your website page which is visually very appealing, and skimmed through your Coney Island Green Theory - a great name by the way. While I can say I do not agree with some of your basic premises - that Space is a product of Matter and Time, for example, yet your approach is not very different from mine in the sense of challenging accepted norms. Your quest for an explanation of how Nature works points to a fundamental unification of the simplest kind - you talk of a single godparticle - perhaps there is one...in my Beautiful Universe Theory everything is made up of just one type of particle - I think that is how it works. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

        I recognize the value of thinking and research for their own sakes - also good to distract when things like Sandy struck your Coney Island areas. Good luck.

        Vladimir

          • [deleted]

          • Post #182

          Hello Vladamir,

          Thanks for the comment, and I will try to persuade your thinking here: RE: the basic premises - that Space is a product of Matter and Time, which you currently disagree with.

          The equation MTS where M = matter, T = % "c" (and as a forward/reverse vector quantity), and S = Space offers that as matter approaches the speed of light it turns into a new spatial quantity. The "product MT" and as a mathematical equation only works if one uses the quantification (CUPI) offered in the theory.

          In other words, the equation is conceptual until the units are defined : (i.e. CUPI, rate of travel, mass [then Spacial quantity may be obtained] or conversely, if decreasing rate of travel is known [reverse vector "T"], again using CUPI, and if a spatial volume is known, the mass may be calculated]). Think: Virtual particles appearing from the vaccuum.

          This can be used to calculate red shift anomalies, predict Expanding Universe rates (using stellar masses), etc.

          %"c" determines how "dark" matter is. Think crayons here!

          I just can't apply the math and don't have time to access all the cosmological data.

          Anyhow, maybe I didn't persuade you but it was worth a try.

          Enjoy the day.

          THX

          doug

          Hi Doug.

          Thanks for the explanation. It is not so much that I find your ideas 'wrong' as finding them so different from my own theory's that I am unable to shift gears and give them a proper evaluation. For example I have concluded that time is not a dimension at all in a Universe that exists in a single 'now' state if you like.

          Math is not my forte either, but that is no reason why you should not develop and express your ideas in language, as you are doing. The danger here though is that your thoughts may be more precise than the language you use (or vice versa) so that clarity may suffer.

          Anyway I wish you luck and have fun.

          Vladimir

          Dear Vladimir Tamari,

          As the wave mechanics described in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe differs, the phenomena of diffraction and interference are also expressional differently.

          In this paradigm, the 'source' is a group of string-segments in holarchy, with different eigen-rotational frequencies that contributes a wave spectrum observational by a tetrahedral-brane of eigen-rotational string. As time emerges with dimensionality, the state of 'now' is expressional with the eigen-rotations of string-segments and in this paradigm, the space-time is discrete rather than continuum, instead the matters are string continuum. Gravity emerges with space and time as a tensor on eigen-rotations of string-segments and not warps space and time.

          Thus, fundamental matters are string like structures rather than point like particles and an eigen-rotational string-segment itself is expressional as a quantum of tetrahedral brane, as the quantization of point like photons is not dimensional with wave function collapse.

          With best wishes

          Jayakar