Ant Sinclair Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Please look over my ideas, Best regards, Ant 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 30, 2014 Author Share Posted March 30, 2014 Is the sphere spinning inside the cube? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Looking quickly at the material in post#1 I can't see any reason for awarding a -1 vote, so I am going to add a +1. The material itself does seem to refer to highly suspect mystic nonsense. I had to look up 'sonic-geometry' on google to get an inkling of what you are discussing. I watched the beginning of a half hour video of challengeable claims about geometry and stopped at the point where they claim 'The basis of all angle measure is 60.' Which is, of course, just not true. I suggest you look for material that has been much better studied, developed and more rigorously tested such as group and symmetry theory. This is utterly fundamental to our current best way of viewing and understanding Nature. And the best part is that, compared to most branches of mathematics, it is really simple. That is it's great stength and beauty. You do not have to try to get your head round something like relativity to understand it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 30, 2014 Author Share Posted March 30, 2014 I wasn't interested in the 'mystical science' side of sonic-geometry just how structures are formed and at the beginning of the work was just detailing what had led to my ideas. You said you would look over it and you replied so thank you Studiot 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Then I suggest you summarise your ideas (or at least the main one) in 5 lines or so in a direct post. That will attract the best attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 30, 2014 Author Share Posted March 30, 2014 I've been powering-up and commissioning power stations and chemical plants for the last 28 years and so rusty on my academic side so any directional help from the guys here would be helpful and appreciated! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Is the sphere spinning inside the cube? I think your ideas are amazing! Science is all about exploring different ideas concepts and most importantly exploring one's own mind and thinking out of it. We would never in a million years come to know what we know now about light frequencies had it not been for a simple number and that being the quantum of action which is very virtually used in our modern time. Unfortunately now in a rigid structure our concepts and models for now are only a generalizations of the unknown forces of nature, do you what I mean by that??? A mathematical concept is only an idea approximation of how something " invisible" such as light frequencies may appear to behave in a given experiment. Math models don't prove much until it holds up to its theory and its rigorous experimental testing... However, math and geometry still prove to have the upper hand in modeling anything invisible! There is a math called quanternion mathematics of which is used in robotics. "Field axioms" meaning the laws of algebra don't apply with your concept due to how x^2 = -1 Your ideas rely on complex numbers, such as like a wave function.. The most important thing is the idea's Theory and Predictability on what it is that you are trying to discover achieve or prove. This can be a very hard task because in our world their have been many many attempts to prove one theory wrong over the other causing much " not so much" debate but I would say fame and gain! Its best to be someone whom just desires to know greater than you already know, that is when ideas start flowing in like the speed of light. I only skimmed through your work in the photos, and already I can say this: You appear to be on the right track for resolving an issue of a static universe and a non static universe. And already I know that many here "Will Disagree With Me On This!" But I assure you, there are not too many scientist out there that have passions strong to keep then indoors studying something for 20 years non stop! The speed of light is known to be everywhere at once leaving us with only the " unseen" elements of nature IE, electro magnetism to name a few..This is why we live in a static universe and one that appears to move through it IE magnetic waves... Your cube and sphere describes " Space and Time." One is static and the other moves through it. I am not sure which one as they seem to be both = 1 in a balance of equilibrium of which again remains something that in our current time is not understood. Unless someone here has new information I am not aware of then this remains something that is not fully understood. There are gaps in science and it is up the real thinkers to find them. Their are many issues in science one being the gravity problem: By Particle physicist -->Dr Brian Cox What on Earth is Wrong With Gravity? http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/what-on-earth-is-wrong-with-gravity-video_eda079a64.html That is to name a few, there are dozens, and until science can start relating and stop debating we may never ever know anything past our preferred 1/x method when 1 is undefined! Rather this be Mystical Science, Quantum Mechanics, Astrology, Religion and or Human Emotions. They at-least all have something in common and that is: THEY ARE OPINIONS, ALL INVISIBLE AND INTANGIBLE...That being said how can we event think to name them? Good job and please keep me informed of your progress.. Sincerely the person here that has a bad reputation of - 1 HA! Edited March 31, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 Thanks for taking the time to look over this thread Iwonderaboutthings and thanks for the comments. I was going to have a few nights off of the subject but your words about ideas spurred me on for a couple of hours tonight which I have attached, it makes it easier to that energy release through mass to energy "kicks" the axis round - overcoming magnetic forces in the process? Best regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 Light Constants, Matter and Anti-matter - Does Light have any more Constants than 5 - I don't believe so at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) Here is a short extract about the Bergman experiment with waves confined to a glass cube. Edited April 1, 2014 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 Having a quick look studiot is this the photons mag field playing with the 'elastic membrane'(energy field)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Yes I suppose you could say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) Light Constants, Matter and Anti-matter - Does Light have any more Constants than 5 - I don't believe so at this point. Kicks magnetic forces around??? You must be talking about " magnetic waves"? I am not sure if they alter magnetic forces, this force appears to be " again" constant." It is said that waves pass through an object at rest and after the wave passes through the medium, the medium thus returns back to its rest position rather " equilibrium." This equilibrium is held together by yet another force, I assume that to be gravity, but not sure because its not really clear to me what is what as per science. One article or book says one thing about gravity, the other book or article denotes gravity. It not only gets frustrating, but it also creates speculation. On the notion they say that matter tells light how to bend and vise versa, I don't know how that is possible, but it is.. The whole issues is trying to see something that is invisible, and what we only have to describe them are constants and numbers linked to this invisibility...This reply may not be focused on your OP, however given the issues in science could any other explanation be?? Constants are something that is way out of scope here, are you familiar with hidden variable theory? Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory It describes how light appears to follow a pre-defined path. This "animation" of Snell's law should really be of use in your models. In this you see that frequency is never altered it remains the same... This is why I would love to know why everything is always divided by 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell's_law Then their is the issue with 1 as multiple copies of 1 to infinity, I am finding exponential decay very interesting because of this.That would mean that infinity has an end for every second of time. There is not only one way nor method to ever prove anything, from what I am seeing, there just appears to be a better explanation dealing with the same nature of nature Also, get familiar with the esoteric and intuitive mind frame of your approach. Regardless of what others may say about this, for me it would be " teasing and childish." The great scientist from the past were all involved with some type of " mystical subject" In this field we are in it is unavoidable! and! you should get incredible with the generalization of Quantum Mechanics. Edited April 2, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 The 6 Light Constants and Dimensions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 Time Cycles ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted April 5, 2014 Author Share Posted April 5, 2014 The Frequencies attached. Is 0.0000000009 one degree of the circumfrence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted April 8, 2014 Author Share Posted April 8, 2014 If billions are gigas then this looks like F4! The attached gif is Plancks' CMB Spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) If billions are gigas then this looks like F4! The attached gif is Plancks' CMB Spectrum. I kinda agree with a reply that states "summarize your ideas" How will your contribution and work add to science discoveries?? It seems you have great insight, but you can't expect anyone to figure out your models without some direction and or explanations in detail and in words... Are you saying that the h constant's value is wrong? Does your model prove this? What do you know about: frequencies and period cycles? can you show a "simple" numerical example? Edited April 8, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted April 13, 2014 Author Share Posted April 13, 2014 Quarks, Gluons and the tables attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Are you working towards a form of string theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted April 14, 2014 Author Share Posted April 14, 2014 My honest answer studiot is I don't know of what format you would call this work, I've had a quick look at string-theory this morning and at my level of comprehension at present and with limited time looking at it seem to think string-theory is clever people making clever but inaccurate guesses! My goal with all this is to keep my eyes open. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Quarks, Gluons and the tables attached. can you show a "simple" numerical example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted May 3, 2014 Author Share Posted May 3, 2014 The End of Part 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted May 4, 2014 Author Share Posted May 4, 2014 For those who don't see it, see attachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) For those who don't see it, see attachment. If you don't understand String Theory, then how do you expect to understand your models, what they can achieve and how science can benifit from your knowledge? It looks like theoretical mathematics??? At least to me, your model is very and extremely complex... I would recommend you to describe every number with a " written description" of what " it means." Do this line by line, step by step with everything on your photos.. It looks like you will need to re-write them " over again to." This will give others a clue in how to formulate a response and grasp the mental visualization of what you are trying to describe through your work here.. I have found that science becomes easier when you apply " visualization and concept examples" to your theories and or questions about your work especially dealing with other scientist of whom may describe something different but still under the guidelines of the physical laws of nature . Do you understand??? Remember, mathematics and modeling physical phenomena is based solely on a generalization of the idea. It is a generalization of physical phenomena... Remember when I asked if you could give a simple numerical example???? I asked twice already... Sometimes it best to be simple, versus extreme.. Edited May 6, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts