Jump to content

Prof Reza Sanaye

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Prof Reza Sanaye

  1. So the next time that you read an experimental writeup saying that we test SR against earlier theory by proving the existence of a transverse component that wouldn't be there unless SR was right, and that any excess transverse component results are explicable by recoil effects, and have no deeper significance because there's no other theories redder than SR ... you'll understand that not only did the author not have a clue as to what they were doing, neither did the journal referees, the journal editors, or the authors of the earlier works cited in defence of that position.
    Because of the way that the SR-testing literature developed, with incompetent analysis inflating or manufacturing the "significance" of results, if you are an experimenter, in order to be able to compete with those existing peer-reviewed "inflated" claims, you pretty much NEED to use the same illegal tricks to inflate your results, or you won;t get published.
    The use of convenient untrue comparisons in SR testing is like the use of performance-enhancing drugs in athletics ... once their use becomes endemic, the honest athlete can no longer compete, and either has to cheat in the same way, or has to give up and find some other sport.
    In athletics, being caught cheating results in bans and maybe medals being taken away. In SR testing, being caught using bad assumptions to make your figures better carries no penalty. Not only will the community not censure you or downgrade your results, they will not even report that something has gone wrong. As long as your dodgy result favours SR and disfavours possible competition, the community will actually defend your dodgy result, and will try to prevent others from revealing what went wrong.
    5 minutes ago, studiot said:

    Why before ? what is wrong with if  ?

    If there was a hundred foot banana could a 500 foot gorilla eat it ?

    She could  OR   she  could not. .  .. It is not for our scholastic presuppositions to determine that .  .. It is for the Lady Gorilla herself to decide for her own stomach . .. . 

  2. Of course, it is debatable like all ideas or concepts, but it seems logical to me that before defining where and how "something" is likely to exist and move, this something must first be conceived of as possessing physical properties that will explain how it can exist in a stable manner as a material object, and only then attempting to define where it moves (involving the space concept), which motion involves a delay between its presence at a given location in space and then at another location (involving the time concept) because once defined as a material object, this something cannot conceivably be present at both location at the same moment.

    The ladies & gentlemen at CERN only have to be expert in getting their hardware to work under a specific theoretical system. They do not need to be expert (or even to have competent newbie-level knowledge) of how that hardware might work under some parallel system of theory.
    When it comes to knowing how to compare SR and Newtonian results, in a scientifically correct way, they don't know how to do it. Because they've been trained on a set of literature that's incompetently written and mathematically wrong, and they've internalised a load of those wrong results.
    Mainstream educational resources will tell you that E=m0c2 is unique to SR, that transverse redshifts only happen under SR-based systems, that if SR wasn't right, particle path-lengths before decay would be shorter by gamma, and that there's no theory that predicts redshifts stronger than SR.
    All of these statements are provably sub-amateur garbage.
    In real life, E=m0c2 is an exact result under SR, Newtonian theory, and any other relativistic system ... Lab-transverse redshifts are expected under any theory that includes some influence of the state of motion of the emitting mass on the properties of light (ranging from "no transverse effect" for "no influence" to a Lorentz-squared effect for emission theory) ... SR, Newtonian theory and every other potential relativistic theory agree exactly as to the decay positions of particles, given an agreed energy or momentum and rest frame decay time ... and Newtonian theory predicts motion-shifts that are redder than SR, rather than the other way around.
    Don't take my word for it. Try a really basic calculation:
    Under SR, the recession redshift is E'/E = sqrt[ (c-v) / (c+v) ], while under C19th Newtonian theory, it's E'/E = (c-v)/c
    Plug in any sensible value of v (say, half lightspeed). With SR, that gives E'/E = sqrt(0.5/1.5) = sqrt(1/3) = ~0.577.. With "Newtonian" Dopppler, we get E/E=0.5 .
    0.5 is a smaller number than 0.577 .
    The Newtonian predictions are redder than the SR predictions.
    In fact, they are always redder than the SR predictions, for a given "nominal" velocity value, by an additional Lorentz factor.
  3. 2 minutes ago, Eise said:

    This makes no sense. We know 'Newton' is no valid for velocities that are comparable with light speed.  So at one side you apply 'Newton' (E = 1/2mv^2), on the other side you apply relativity by saying that the speed of light is speed limit. You need to use relativity from the beginning, and then you will see that a proton accelerated to 7 TeV flies just a tiny fraction slower than c.

    We know 'Newton' is no valid  etc   etc {Quote  // by the kind permission of Senior Member Eise}


    this makes no sense when we see Newton is all of a sudden proven right with/without the Conditionalized  Habit of Relativity. Fresh Data speak for themselves in case we do not distort them or misinterpret them or do not make claims not dissimilar to WE KNOW EARTH IS FLAT.

    11 minutes ago, MigL said:

    Newton is not applicable at relativistic speeds.

    Wiki on Kinetic Energy

    Kinetic energy - Wikipedia

    Especially relevant is the section on 'Relativistic Kinetic Energy of Rigid Bodies'.

    Do a little research before posting nonsense and embarassing yourself.


    You are  NOT  supposed to be embarrassed at receiving new data . . . . No , Mr Genius , You are not . . ..  . . . I , too , wish we could push our Most Respectable Heads into sand . .. Alas ! Alas ! We simply can't  ;;;;;;;;;;;;

  4. 22 hours ago, swansont said:

    Moderator Note

    You are directed to back this claim up with citations and/or links. Absent that this is soapboxing in addition to hijacking.


    Moderator Note

    Quite agree. It has been split


    I always thought a moderator has the obligation to guide interlocutors not to write extremely impolitely . . .. 

    17 hours ago, beecee said:

    Excuse me, the original author certainly meant that, which would be obvious in examining other comments of mine regarding this subject. 

    And your following statement is also wrong...space and time evolved at t+10-43 seconds...without one, there is not the other

    Indeed it is correct that  Space and time are both variable quantities and two opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak...without space, there is no time, without time, there is no space." 

    Please dont ask me to refute your general take on science at this time...I'm typing with one eye, having just yesterday had a catarct surgery on my right eye and it is still covered until later today, after examination by the surgeon. 

    If it indeed is true that CERN tested Newton’s equation for the kinetic energy (E = ½ mv^2) by accelerating a charged particle (proton) to 7 TeV instead of the maximum possible energy of 470 MeV limited by ½mc² possible according to Newton’s equation; then is it possible that they are getting FTL velocity for the accelerating protons without any limit; violating SR?
    It could be very interesting in light of the fact that quasars are reported to be ejected at velocities even at few orders of magnitude of c! 
    Of course, it may be true that a charged particle like proton would be more difficult to accelerate than the ejection of a (possible) neutral mass of a quasar. An accelerating charged particle would lose energy through bremsstrahlung radiation   ; ; ; ; ;
    23 hours ago, iNow said:

    Yes, but what about:

     Order !!  . . . .. .  . . . . !!!

     . .. . and  . .. .

    rec    omm end  . . . .. .  . . . . . . . .. .  . . . .





    😲   !!!!!

  5. 5 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    You are correct that the original author did not say so, but in discussions concerning light it is generally understood by the scientifically lieterate that referring to the speed of light as a constant, is a reference to its speed in a vacuum. There is precision of speech and then there is irrelevant, provocative pedantry.

    Edit: cross posted with @swansont

    Ok , Area . .. .  

    So Sorry  for  elucidating . . . 

    We now deem it as both  Provocative   and   Irrelevant  . . . .. .  . . . . 

  6. Quote from  beecee :  

    "The speed of light is a constant and always travels at "c"." [ End of Quote ]  


    This statement has experientially proven to be incorrect. 



    Quote from beecee

    Space and time are both variable quantities and two opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak...without space, there is no time, without time, there is no space." [ End of quote ] 


    It is not so. We cannot categorically asseverate that without space , for example , there's no time. Refer to Bergson's detailed discussion of the issue of time. Nor may we be absolutely  certain that space can never exist  without time. Refer to QM's way of handling this.





  7. Wiki



    Much of the legislation dealt with by Congress is drafted at the initiative of the executive branch.[35] In modern times, the "executive communication" has become a prolific source of legislative proposals. The communication is usually in the form of a message or letter from a member of the President's Cabinet, the head of an independent agency, or the President himself, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.[36] The president may personally propose legislation in annual and special messages to Congress including the annual State of the Union address and joint sessions of Congress. If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.

    Beyond these official powers, the U.S. president, as a leader of his political party and the United States government, holds great sway over public opinion whereby they may influence legislation.

  8. 2 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Again, I feel the need to give commenters here a remedial civics lesson. Congress makes laws, not presidents. 

    That's quite a claim, but really conspiracy theories have no place here. Please support or retract it. 

    Hyperbole, much?

    You should consider looking into his history and past experience. It's not hard to understand "how such a person" can grasp and connect with the suffering of others. 

    He(Obama) didn't do it as per conspiracy theory. He committed the crime right in front of all glaring eyes under the  very wide sunshine. Just one instance is the service he did to American car industry.  



    Congress makes legislation. Which party's Congress men and C-women suggest those legislations to Congress ? Both !  And one more :  In what manner is Biden enabled to spend that amount of nearly 2 trillion $  ??  


    Quote from Wiki



    The powers of the president of the United States include those explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution as well as those granted by Acts of Congress, implied powers, and also a great deal of soft power that is attached to the presidency.[1]

    The Constitution explicitly assigns the president the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. The president shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed and the president has the power to appoint and remove executive officers. The president may make treaties, which need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, and is accorded those foreign-affairs functions not otherwise granted to Congress or shared with the Senate. Thus, the president can control the formation and communication of foreign policy and can direct the nation's diplomatic corps. The president may also appoint Article III judges and some officers with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. In the condition of a Senate recess, the president may make a temporary appointment. 



    Incidentally , How is it that  power is  exchanged every now and then only in between Democrats and Republicans and no third part ? No fourth party ??   !! 


    And one more last : You are not obligated to be so very very scared of conspiracy theories. .  . .. though this is not my original line here . .  , , ,.,. , . . ,.  , ..

  9. I cannot convince myself that Democrats are/will be doing much better than the former republican one . Democrats & Republicans both are either directly or indirectly almost always playing into the hands of corporate America + Wall Street. During the process of electing Obama , especially the 2nd term , much interest and enthusiasm was aroused for doing something in favor of a semi-radical reform to return America back to some simulacrum of normalcy : especially over the issue of  abject poverty  //  but also over the slavery that is called a lifetime job or a long-life job. Then you see what Obama did to all those crowds of truly willing young people ? He simply told them to go home -- now that they have trusted him -- and to put everything at his own hands to make a really better America. The youth put their trust in him and said bye-bye  and went home. Then what deep-rooted fundamental change did he bring to America ? He acted more like a traitor. Started connecting with  corporate America + Wall Street , for the very simple reason that he had no original intention of making America over.  His plan was to slowly turn American corporate debt nationalized. A grave sin  . . . . . .. Which , of course , he did very well to accomplish . . . . 


    Alas ! Alas ! 


    Now Biden himself is a zillionaire. And his son. How can such a person feel the calamity of office workers and truck-drivers doing many many hours of drudgery for only maintaining a minimal level of decency throughout their lives ??? Biden's team  say they wanna transform US economy somehow fundamentally. Biden has a $1.9 trillion economic rescue plan—But question is : out of whose pocket are these Dollars to come ??  

  10. 5 hours ago, awaterpon said:

    The ratio between the alternative mass and the actual mass is constant. I can use Newton's laws separately one for a person pushing himself and the other is another person pushing him. Newtonian equation F=ma deals with any mass ,acceleration and force ,I have separate equation one has actual mass ,force and actual acceleration, the other is for alternative mass,force and alternative acceleration.



    This when a person pushes himself


    This is when another external force pushes him.




    Excuse me Awaterpon ; 

    How can I be made to understand an alternative for mass and yet another alternative for acceleration  ??  !!  




    @ everybody ; 

    I am real open to plough back the whole physics from the very beginning 

    I am NOT talking rhetorically or metaphorically 

    I am , rather , talking REALLY 

    In case there  IS  anybody here offering any alternative brand of classical and/or modern physics , then I shall certainly be more than glad to read and learn ....

  11. On 4/2/2021 at 12:15 PM, Glaydon said:
    Why are mathematicians afraid of contradictions? In my opinion, contradictions should be afraid of physics, and mathematicians study everything that can be imagined. So why not head into the world of prohibitions and experiment with "absolute mathematical completeness"? In this article, I will briefly try to describe the results of my observations. Here you will not see the hard evidence on which my assumptions are based. All the same, they will not be interesting to anyone. I just want to get people interested in looking for new ways to code. Binary classical and quantum systems are not the only ways of ordering information, and for some reason no one talks about this, and does not attempt to find other, larger-scale options. The geometrical interpretation of information theory, recently considered here, is the origin of such a view, but it boils down to the probability of the occurrence of events under conditions of entropy.
    Take a look at my artistic version of full diversity, which I sometimes tell my little brother instead of a bedtime story.
    A bonus awaits you at the end. I will show you how you can encode the volume of normal air !!! To do this, you only need a cylinder and a piston, which, with the help of the correct combination of back-and-forth movements, generates a full-fledged, self-sufficient algorithm. The structure of this algorithm is not only particles, but also the voids between them.
    For some systems, I had to give my own names, which may scare you away, but take this as a child's fantasy. It is not my fault that these systems are still not open. No work is being done in this direction due to internal contradictions between the unification of higher order logics. But, can you prove that it is impossible to identify a consistent system from a contradictory system? I doubt it.
    Mathematical completeness (Everything that exists)picture1. Mathematical completeness (Everything that exists)
    Assam's system is a second-order logic, an integral part of a higher-order logic, the Dyki unification. It consists of two types of vectors. Constantly tapering and expanding. In the Assam system, three (four, taking into account two neutrals) are possible relative types of motion, carried out by the method of shifting vectors from one area to another. The displacements are a consequence of the compression of the red vectors and the stretching of the blue vectors indicated in Figure 1. The arrows indicate the general direction of motion of the array of some combination.
    picture2. Types of movements.
    Neutral, between the first and second types of variability. As in the non-existent world of the Dambi system, in the neutral there is no interaction, of any internal system with the external one. Because there is no relativity, and, therefore, there is no time, mass, speed, temperature and other calculated values arising from the impossibility of comparing something, analyzing one local variability relative to another, due to the lack of such internal operations as integration and differentiation between maternity and continuous values. The neutral, in turn, is subdivided into two levels of constant dependence. More on this below. The variety of the third case can only be obtained from the first and second. The displacements in the first two cases are carried out in the full range from a single shift of the minimum value to a specific array of the maximum value. The sequence of shifts is strictly relative. The more often the values x and y alternate on a given scale (segment), the faster the changes will take place there, because regardless of size, each vector moves in both directions at the same infinite speed.
    In the universe, an increasing rate of change can be observed at the atomic level of the microcosm, and at the intergalactic level of the megaworld. This happens within the framework of quantum mechanics, and for a number of other "mysterious" reasons associated with dark energy, dark matter, and God knows what else is dark. When physicists do not understand something, they begin to invent phenomena with the "dark" prefix. The main factor is the vantage point.
    Let's imagine all the possible options for alternating rows of continuously converging and diverging, which personify vacuum and pressure, respectively.
    picture3.Neutral "no const"
    picture4.Neutral "x,y = const"
    picture5.Anti-universe and universe
    What constants are, why are they needed and where do they come from.
    For the Assam system, the following set of constants is valid:
    Antiuniverse: y = const = 1, → ∞ x > ∞ y;
    Universe: x = const = 1, → ∞ x < ∞ y;
    Neutral1: x, y = const (0; ∞), → ∞ x = ∞ y;
    Neutral2: not const, → ∞ x = ∞ y.
    Constants are fixed values. These are the reference points for pinpointing local contraction or expansion. They determine the approach to zero or infinity. Thanks to the constants (and their absence in the fourth case), Assam's system can be divided into four types of movements.
    picture6.Four types of minimum values (vectors), existing and non-existent representations of geometric variability and non-variability. Possible combinations of infinity.
    The figure shows the Assam system (x + y), together with the Dumby system (x, y + 0). The depicted two straight lines from compound colored lines, which can be extended indefinitely, and combined with each other in a complete enumeration 2 ^ x. If, in the case of an infinite increase at any point x, there can be y, then x = y. Accordingly, in the general Assam system, the pressure is equal to vacuum. They differ only on a specific, relative scale.
    Conditions under which the value of y grows into the value of x:
    picture7.∞x = ∞y
    Let us choose an arbitrary section on a continuous continuously narrowing vector y (emptying) and increase it many times, for example, by a factor of 100. Then the points x will emerge that were not there before. At large scales, they were ignored by the system. A limited computing system cannot perceive values less than its own minimum value, relative scale. After repeating the enlargement operation, new, smaller X's appear on the second line from the top. Moreover, they can be in various places, but the important condition is that all black lines should always be longer than red ones. It turns out to be a funny situation. The red vector of expansion can be located at any infinitesimal point of the black vector of contraction, which means that in a non-relative system, it is it. However, even in a non-relative system, the common vector will narrow at all infinitesimal points.
    If, y is not taken into account, then the site will turn into a full-fledged infinite extension of x. And, the most interesting thing is that not one vector is not initially determined by the properties of compression or expansion. This means that not one infinity clearly prevails over the other. The original red expansion vector may be a black contraction vector, the prevailing values of which are lost at infinitely rapidly changing scales. And vice versa. This may seem inconceivable. It turns out that any converging series is divergent, under conditions of infinitely fast approximation. One and the same infinity can become larger, or it can become smaller, relative to another infinity.
    The mere formulation of such an assumption, in its complexity, can surpass all the "Millennium Prize Challenges" in the field of mathematics.
    Take, an arbitrary vector y, which is the minimum value of some system. The range of x, y ratios inside it will look like this:
    if x = 0.0∞1, then y = 0.9∞9,
    if x = 0.49∞9, then y = 0.50∞1
    I do not want to dwell on the Dumby system for a long time. Let us take into account only the fact that, like the Assam system, there are two opposite types of variability. An infinitely large point is obviously also infinitely small, as it contains an infinite number of small points, and vice versa, at each infinitely small point, there is a set of infinitely large ones. The minimum values of the Dambi system are isolated from each other and cannot be calculated using the Assam system. It is a non-relative view, with the opposite computational process of variability. During this process, changes do not occur. In this case, it is impossible to accept the influence of the external system to the internal system until the internal system itself embraces the external one.
    The logical union of Dyki is the basic logic of a higher order, which is built on eighteen dimensions, with a minimal, tetrahedral form. Of the myriad of other non-logical associations of Homeopolo, with minimal forms, based on dimensions, from zero to infinity. Homeopolo is a "super-highest order" logic. It cannot be calculated, not by one other system of unions, since it has infinite types of infinities, respectively, and an infinite difference between them. However, in its absolute completeness, Homeopolo can calculate itself, which means that it does not contradict the law of perfect mathematical versatility, on which the postulate of general representations of this concept is based. Dyki is a special case.
    Setting the speed of directional movement is carried out by entering ⸎ and three conditional cycles. To move arrays of a certain scale in a given direction, you must set the following conditions:
    In front of the vector place the cycle y = const, and behind the array, place the cycle x = const. The array itself has all three cycles, as it is an equilibrium zone.
    Vector mesh. Unbalancing the array.
    At y = const = 1, → ∞ x > ∞ y - the common section expands;
    When x = const = 1, → ∞ x < ∞ y - the common section is narrowed;
    For x, y = const (0; ∞), → ∞ x = ∞ y - the common section does not change;
    At not const or x = n, y = n, → ∞ x = ∞ y - the common section does not change.
    Let's designate the zone of the array. It will be an arbitrary vector, the "Gladon frame".
    In order to keep the algorithms of the given sequences, a continuous cycle of transformation of x pressure into y discharge is needed and vice versa.
    Algorithm transformation on the example of a three-sector vector. Move up for the middle section.
    From this figure, you can see exactly how the system looks in equilibrium (left), and what changes need to be made in order, for example, to move upward (right). When entering the program of holding algorithms, the array of the lower section will begin to create continuous pressure, predominantly by the dimension x. An array of the upper section, having a continuous discharge, usually having y. In the middle section, the array remains unchanged. It is assumed that this area, or rather what is in it, will move upward, but the partitions should not be insulating.
    Code outline:
    For the first section (vacuum):
    x = const = 1, y > 1;
    y = const = 1, x < 1;
    x, y = const = x < y;
    x, y = not const = x < 1, y > 1;
    t0 = (x / n + y / n) * n = 0;
    t1 = (x / n + y / n) * n = 1;
    t0 + t1 = const x, const y = 1;
    n (1; ∞) is the dimension of x, y;
    N (1; ∞) is the number by which the sum of x or y is divisible.
    if x = const >, < 1; y <, = 1 then
    y n = t0 = (sum 0 < y n <0.5) + (sum 0.5 < x n < 1) = 1,
    y n = t1 = (sum 0.5 < x n <1) / N = (sum 0 < y n < 0.5) = 1,
    if t0 + t1 > 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n + +
    if t0 + t1 < 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n - -
    if y = const>, <1; x>, = 1 then
    y n = t0 = (sum 0 < y n < 0.5) + (sum 0.5 < x n < 1) = 1,
    y n = t1 = (sum 0.5 <x n <1) / N = (sum 0 < y n < 0.5) = 1,
    if t0 + t1> 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n + +
    if t0 + t1 <1, then (x / n + y / n) * n - -
    if x, y = const = x >, = y then
    x, y = const, x n = y n, then x = 0, y = 0; and if x, y = const = x n > y n,
    y n = t0 = (sum 0 < y n < 0.5) + (sum 0.5 < x n < 1),
    y n = t1 = (sum 0.5 < x n < 1) / N = (sum 0 < y n < 0.5) = 1,
    if t0 + t1 > 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n + +
    if t0 + t1 < 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n - -
    if x, y = not const = x >, = 1; y <, = 1 then
    x, y = not const, x n = y n, then x = 0, y = 0; and if x, y = const = x n> 1, y n <1,
    y n = t0 = (sum 0 < y n < 0.5) + (sum 0.5 <x n <1),
    y n = t1 = (sum 0.5 < x n < 1) / N = (sum 0 < y n < 0.5) = 1,
    if t0 + t1 > 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n + +
    if t0 + t1 < 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n - -
    For the second section (pressure):
    x = const = 1, y < 1;
    y = const = 1, x > 1;
    x, y = const = x > y;
    x, y = not const = x > 1, y < 1;
    t0 = (x / n + y / n) * n = 0;
    t1 = (x / n + y / n) * n = 1;
    t0 + t1 = const x, const y = 1;
    if x = const >, < 1; y >, = 1 then
    x n = t0 = (sum 0 < x n < 0.5) + (sum 0.5 < y n < 1) = 1,
    x n = t1 = (sum 0.5 < y n < 1) / N = (sum 0 < x n < 0.5) = 1,
    if t0 + t1 > 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n + +
    if t0 + t1 < 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n - -
    if y = const>, <1; x <, = 1 then
    x n = t0 = (sum 0 < x n < 0.5) + (sum 0.5 < y n < 1) = 1,
    x n = t1 = (sum 0.5 < y n <1) / N = (sum 0 < x n < 0.5) = 1,
    if t0 + t1 > 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n + +
    if t0 + t1 < 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n - -
    if x, y = const = x <, = y then
    x, y = const, x n = y n, then x = 0, y = 0; and if x, y = const = x n <y n,
    x n = t0 = (sum 0 < x n < 0.5) + (sum 0.5 < y n < 1) = 1,
    x n = t1 = (sum 0.5 < y n < 1) / N = (sum 0 < x n < 0.5) = 1,
    if t0 + t1 > 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n + +
    if t0 + t1 < 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n - -
    if x, y = not const = x <, = 1; y>, = 1 then
    x, y = not const, x n = y n, then x = 0, y = 0; and if x, y = not const = x n> 1, y n <1,
    x n = t0 = (sum 0 < x n < 0.5) + (sum 0.5 < y n < 1) = 1,
    x n = t1 = (sum 0.5 < y n < 1) / N = (sum 0 < x n < 0.5) = 1,
    if t0 + t1 > 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n + +
    if t0 + t1 < 1, then (x / n + y / n) * n - -
    The simplest example of creating a one-dimensional environment for coding by the "pulsating membrane" method.
    In order to capture all the states of the source, compiling, and final code, conditions must be created to simulate such relative positions. The figure clearly demonstrates the fixation of all cases of sequences (except for x> y, and y> x, which combine the three above cases). Having placed atmospheric pressure in a cylindrical vessel, it is also necessary to place in them movable membranes (pistons) indicated in green, under the control of a microcontroller. In this case, atmospheric pressure, or simply air, will be the object of coding, and the pistons, with the help of backward translational movements, impulses assigned to them, cyclic conditions, are coding tools. The principle of this coding is somewhat similar to the coding of CNC machines. The only difference is that the initial, conditional operations, contributing to the binding of air to the necessary conditions and cycles, are carried out mechanically in a standard way (using signals from an electronic microcontroller). But, when the program is ready, the cause-and-effect relationships must independently continue to generate a cyclic compilation, from eight conditions and eight decisions, based on replacing the variables x and y with each other locally and in full. The whole difficulty lies in the injection of the code. It is necessary to force unmanaged algorithms to respond to the commands given to them. How can this be done? We know that in a neutral environment, taken as a relative reference point, or zero point, there are all possible algorithms. The following actions are such that from logical completeness, it is necessary to single out several special cases. And, to do this in such a way as not to ignore the wrong (unnecessary) sequences, but to rebuild them into the necessary ones using the previously considered cycles that simulate decoupling from scales and relativity. Having set the timings, to 1, in non-relative local loops, we set them the execution time, for the fastest relative value.
    Vacuum zone coding algorithm.
    The numbers in the figure indicate the amount of air injection (in blue squares) and air evacuation (in red), in cm ^ 3. To obtain a valid algorithm, you must strictly follow the sequence of actions. Even when writing these values, it is important to write constants in the first step so that in the fourth step, when a floating value y (1-2) is received, start from one, and not from zero, as in the previous cases. The first action is needed in order to borrow 1y from there, x is not needed, it is written just like that, there is no need for it. The first step is to create a backup data store. The sixth action, for example, requires an initial y - 4, but it is taken from 2,3,4 actions, so there is no need to create additional reserves. The fifth action is the sum of 2,3,4 actions. Actions of the 0-1 format take place directly at the moment of movement. That is, if 0-1 is specified, this is an infinite number of values in this interval. To obtain such an effect, it is necessary to reduce the volume of the cylinder (when dividing), without affecting at all the density, pressure / vacuum values. When, for example, the selected area tends to zero, it must maintain the overall ratio of x and y densities.
    The first function, arising from the contradictions of the first condition, directs the algorithm to correct it, rebuild or “cyclical balancing”. If the initial conditions are not met, then, in the minimum value, const = 1, x prevails over y. Let's equate x to y so that y occupies most of the const, and tends to 1. For this, the funniest fraud is performed, catching y (0-0.5) on all x (0.5-1). After that, it remains to set the time to create a fixed time for performing cyclic balancing. Bind the initial time to 0, and the final time to the minimum const value. If the time conditions are not met, due to the low speed, then the alternation throughout the volume increases, in the direction of cyclical balancing, thus accelerating the rate of variability. If, on the contrary, it is necessary to slow down the speed, as indicated in the lower right corner, the increase in the alternations is carried out in the direction of unbalance. Also, the time depends on the number of algorithms in the volume of the cylinder, which are set separately. Similar to the first function, the other 3 functions are generated. The sixth action completely decouples from the scale, and only after it can functions be built on any site.
    Do you understand anything? Ask questions.

    First, I should appreciate you for expatiating upon your thesis in so much detail and figures and illustration etc  etc   ..........

    Other questioners generally don't do that to this extent. 


    Second , You want us to ask Qs. 

    I have gotten a Question : 

    You have written at the very beginning

    Why are mathematicians afraid of contradictions? " 

    Have you ever read any of the writings of Kurt Godel  ??


  12. 2 hours ago, studiot said:


    You seem not to have picked up my points.

    The article claims an observed anomaly in the Euler Axes.

    These are purely mechanical. Gyromagentic ratios and random quantum fluctuations are outside this framework.

    I noted that both you and the 'prof' mentioned curvature in your discussion.

    However my point is that curvature has nothing to do with the fundamental sub atomic viewpoint of forces and particles.
    The relativistic view of gravity is additional Physics and does not have the same effect on the other three conventional members of 'the four fundamental forces'.

    As Joigus says , the article has nothing to do with Euler Axes.  

    Dear Studiot ! Euler Axes are for applicatory cases regarding what some people call "Macro" and others might prefer to call "Mega" or something like that. 

    The second point Joigus is correct on , is that both of us are a bit too spread "thin" . .. . I do agree with that. . .. It is not precisely a disease ; however , gives quite much probability for getting/being distracted. I hope we two do not have this latter characteristic. Or rather , I hope we two help one another out as and when it does occur to us. 

    Third point Joigus is asserting rightly , is that it was me who brought over the issue of curvature. Joigus talked sort of against it.  

    Forth point is that under the circumstances this new phenomenon/force is being discussed , I did right to make mention of curvature. Joigus is wrong , I'm afraid to make clear , when he says that I am suggesting that curvature is a 1-rank tensor. I am not suggesting that curvature is a 1-rank tensor. Nor have I done so in others of my seminars , classes , letters , lectures , etc.  

    The intended force is , of course , on particle-scale. We cannot , nonetheless ,  rule out as yet , that somewhere in the "Mega" or "Macro" , the said force evolves/devolves on the boundary with Mega. By saying this , I am in no way contradicting myself. Reason is that (very fortunately !) we have not gotten-- parallel to GR  VS  Q  physics --  the dichotomy of Toposes comprising them. We understand that the net impact is that of a macroscopic object because each specific particle curves spacetime according to general relativity and has its own "gravitational field." When considering how you might perform such a calculation, you must exercise caution , however. Because the field equations for GR aren't linear (unlike, say, the field equations for electromagnetism). I mean  you can't just "add" the spacetime curvatures of all of the distinct subatomic particles to get the curvature of an object like the a ball , for example. Simply note that gravity is not an emergent phenomenon, but that it does exist on extremely minute Toposes. Also bear in mind , please , everybody , that


    "The force of gravity and one of the dimensions of space might be generated out of the peculiar interactions of particles and fields existing in a lower-dimensional realm."

    link :  


    There are still other points that I would have wished to explicate here ; however , Joigus has written so lucidly and informatively about them that I feel absolutely no reason why I should start typing and writing things here that will most likely turn out to be mere paraphrases from Joigus' statements. 

    Last issue : we are (when talking of a fifth force) on the brink of discovering something totally outlandish/queer/strange to normal standards of (and inhabitated calculations of) both rut-of-the-way Relativity and rut-of-the-way Q Physics. Let us go the golden middle way :  

    that is to say :

    Let us not get involved in radically ideatic phantasmagoria rumination  AND  at the same time  not  be completely shut/clammed to the not-foreseen frontiers of science that are in the process of opening  themselves to us all . .  . .. . .




  13. 22 minutes ago, joigus said:

    (My emphasis.)

    Curvature can be a 4-rank tensor (Riemann curvature tensor), a 2-rank tensor (Ricci curvature tensor), or a 0-rank tensor (curvature scalar). Watch out for 1-rank curvature tensors (vector fields); they're mean!! ;) 

    You took the words right out of my keyboard!

    What else can I say ? 

    You two are well-experienced guys here in these scienceforums.  . . .  .  . 

    I would have been just too glad to sit down with both of you , especially with joigus ,  and re-read some good informative textbook(s) on all that vector and tensor and curvature stuff. 

  14. 19 hours ago, joigus said:

    This is the part I do not understand:

    And this is the part I do understand:

    Very Dear Joigus ; 

    Any complete biharmonic submanifold with non-positive sectional curvature must needs be  the mean curvature vector field in between the submanifold and the manifold where the submanifold belongs in. 

    Moreover ,  any complete biharmonic submanifold inside a manifold of at most polynomial volume growth whose sectional curvature is non-positive must  be/remain  minimal.

    Since there is no clearly distinguished  “centre”  of  radiation modality here , therefore the angular frequency cannot in any way be in accord with any of the imaginable angular coordinates in the ambient manifold.

    There MUST necessarily be new radiative modes engaged.

    One very important hint to me AND to all of us here ;  is that :

    We have had  previous abruptly arriving reports in science generally , and in physics more particularly , of phenomena never arrived at or observed before. Like when charlatans announced they had been doing fusion in a lab tube in room temperature. With all due respect to the author(s) of this breaking piece of news we are discussing here , and without ANY intention to possibly disrespect them , all of us ought to wait a little bit more to further see what is confirmed in the (near) future , and what is not. What is re-doable and what is not.


  15. 6 hours ago, exchemist said:

    I think a distinction can be drawn between religion and pseudoscience. Astrology and  crystal healing  are pseudoscience, in that they make claims about observable physical phenomena, based on theories for which there is no evidence and which conflict with science. Attacking pseudoscience is fair enough, I would say, for anyone with a scientific education.

    Religion, at least in its more reasonable manifestations, is something different from pseudoscience. It is mainly a guide for living one's life, inspired by stories and ideas that don't make testable physical claims. However one can certainly dismiss these ideas and stories, and anyone in a liberal democracy is free to do that. 

    Your objection seems to be that figures who rely on the support of the wider public tend to refrain from ridiculing religion. That's a pragmatic choice they make, so as not to alienate believers. It is not forced on them. In fact, the same applies to pseudoscience, in that a politician who ridicules crystal-healing, or homeopathy, risks losing the crystal healers' vote or the homeopath vote. (I recall the elder Bush made the error of saying how much he disliked broccoli, causing consternation in his campaign that he had lost the broccoli farmers' vote!)

     So I don't really see that "fairness" comes into it. 


    " I think a distinction can be drawn between religion and pseudoscience. Astrology and  crystal healing  are pseudoscience, in that they make claims about observable physical phenomena, based on theories for which there is no evidence and which conflict with science.


    Christianity and Islam do very similar healing claims . . ... 

  16. 17 minutes ago, studiot said:

    There is a difference between nutation and precession.

    The article describes the effect as a wobble which implies nutation.

    Wiki offers the following diagram that shows the difference clearly.


    Dear Friend ! 

    I wrote that comment or elucidation or whatever :

    Simply  'cauz  nutation and precession are NOT the same . . .

  17. 19 hours ago, swansont said:

    The naming isn’t the issue. This is just moving the problem around, but not solving it. You’d need a model that predicts this imbalance, whichever way you label it. 

    Surely this  canNOT  be the standard model  .. . .

    8 hours ago, joigus said:

    I'm more inclined to assess this as incontrovertible evidence of new physics beyond the standard model. But I'm reluctant to salute it as incontrovertible evidence of a "fifth force" just yet. For a fifth force to be there beyond any doubt, there would have to be evidence of new decay modes revealing brand-new gauge bosons, with new quantum numbers.

    But it is true that it's very difficult to conceive of a different gyromagnetic ratio of higher-generation leptons without anything dynamical being involved. The calculation of g-2 involves radiative corrections, essentially sums on all the gauge bosons "virtually flying around", and it's a dimensionless factor. If the gauge bosons are the same for different families, I see no reason why the gyromagnetic ratio should differ unless there are new radiative modes involved.

    New radiative modes  ARE  involved. In case the  nutation talked of here has possibly anything to do with the rate of precession of the magnetic moment  around the external magnetic field , then the engaged angular frequency may not in any way pulse thru a non-local submanifold whose fiber vibration does not come in full synchronization with the pulse transmitted thru a  flip-angle or tip-angle manifold.

  18. Christianity and Islam are responsible for some of the most heinous crimes in human history for their perseverant attempts to "proselytize". Judaism is much much less so. In point of fact , Jews themselves have been repeatedly subject to pogroms and holocausts many places around the globe.  

    Rights of minority believers ought to be preserved. Be they soul-worshippers or wizards or Yezidis or Druses or whatever. Semi-organized/Organised  Groups that persecute them have to be prosecuted themselves. 

    there must be a difference between the world before UN Charter of Human Rights  and after that. 

  19. I see  Quazi_Scientists here have awarded me 2 negatives,,,,,,,, Many  Thanks !


    seems they (whoever they are/ I don't know) just only wish the scientifically faulty system to be never ever criticized . . . .only to be blarneyed and flattered and cajoled....... 


    People's lives are in real danger ,,,,,,,,, Some groups totally unaware of the biology of the thing  are fooled into believing firm in the present defective vaccination system . . .  . ..  Other than we--truly expert biologists--who is responsible for the deaths and injuries incurred ? 

    Are we not to openly warn non-biologists of the malfunctioning of the whole agenda ? 

    Are we duty-bound to be always yes-men who repeatedly  affirm and confirm what Authorities decide to be the best for our elders , for our kids , for the military , for the rank and file  ??  !! 

    Lord Almighty alone help the negative-givers re-think what is happening in our local and international communities .  .. . . . . 

    Nature of  in-depth  apolitical  non-biased   science is NOT hasty. 


    Highest of Respect  

    Best of Regards


  20. 4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Right, you need at least 6000 posts, iirc, before the forum software gives you the title. Right now, you're a Lepton. 

    You see how nearly everybody is duped into the Desire Machinery for socio_lingual titles  ?? ! 

    Works  ALMOST  like a system ......... Something like systems theory  ...........

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.