|
"More you
know, more the universe shrinks" |
HyperFlight
Deep Space
Scouting Party
In addition to
monthly Topics,
the results are summarized as Reports
while Questions
are the inbox.
|
|
Get this page out
of frames
DSSP
topics deal with gravitation, free energy, photons, and atomic tractability |
|
|
2008
Topics for the month of: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May:
Synapse, the opposite of lapse? |
April:
Matter attracts. Yes, analyze that |
|
March:
Did Archimedes beat Newton-Leibniz duo in the calculus fight? Was
Kepler on the sidelines? |
February:
When and how does the photon's energy become real? |
January:
The diff between the photon's undulations and its frequency -- one
changes but the other doesn't |
|
2007
Topics for the month of: |
|
|
|
December:
Zero-Dimensional point is the fourth dimension |
November:
Cellular automaton is dumb |
October:
What if geometric computing treats the irrational number just as any
real number, the infinite mantissa and all? |
|
September:
If a circle is a transcendental number, why would anybody make a
star in a circle? |
August:
Science guys do have myths, for there are normal experiments they
just will not touch |
July:
Is a zero dimensional point infinitely small? |
|
June:
Point is a point and line is a line. So what's the difference. Oh,
and how much |
May:
Is square but a number multiplied by itself? If so, why is energy of
a moving body proportional to its velocity squared? |
April:
In the shade of the pyramid the geometric mean is cool |
|
March:
When you divide an apple you make two halves. When a cell divides,
it makes two cells. Now what |
February:
No way no how to cut a photon |
January:
Global warming is a problem only if we let the scientists do
something about it. But there may be a real solution -- send them to
the moon |
|
Hi,
You have just
downloaded a very large page. Large pages have lots of data, which is
good. (This page has lots of good data, which is great.) However, if
you reached this page directly from a search engine, I'd bet 20:1
your query has at least four keywords in it. Zo, my friend, you will
need to sharpen your focus if you wish to arrive at a specific
answer. Having said that, you are welcome to read the whole thing.
Select the topic
of interest or search this page (Ctrl-F)
with your keyword. All of our pictures have their filename
right next to them.
Some browsers have highlighting
for your keywords.
Mike Ivsin
We also have
site search at home Portal
New
book you will thoroughly enjoy
QUANTUM
PYTHAGOREANS
More .. |
|
2006
Topics for the month of: |
|
|
|
December:
All this talk about small and big particles is not about the size.
It's about momentum and wave-momentum duality |
November:
Bang, bang goes matter and nothing is left for the black hole |
October:
Newton defined inertia to establish the dynamic property of mass.
But there is so much more to inertia |
|
September:
If photon has no momentum, what is absorption about? |
August:
Photon is bouncing between parallel mirrors. Will mirrors move? Forever? |
July:
You know that energy given to an object is conserved; but how? |
|
June:
New Australian Star. Can you do vibration through geometry? Yes indeed. |
May:
So you chopped off the tail of the irrational number. If that's all
there is to it, why does the irrational number have the infinite
mantissa to begin with? |
April:
If a photon disappears at absorption, what's left of it? Can you
make a new one? |
|
March:
Helium by symmetry. Forget about the silly guess of exclusion. Inclusion
builds atoms |
February:
Fibonacci sequence has golden property -- but so do others |
January:
Particle-wave duality is about transformation -- think energy. Is
mass getting messy? Okay, it will vanish |
|
2005
Topics
for the month of: |
|
|
|
December:
King's Chamber and Balmer's formula make sense together |
November:
Michelson-Morley: Take results of the classic experiment any day |
October:
Yet another dead end project from NASA -- and it all came tumbling down |
|
September:
Time is confusing if you don't know what leads and what follows |
August:
Red shift or blue shift can be applied to measure absolute speed |
July:
Relativistic presumption is a dud, then and now |
|
June:
Intractable math is math but it does not reflect nature |
May:
Point cannot be parted -- and the electron knows |
April:
Events separated by distance can be proven to be simultaneous --
that is, absolute |
|
March:
If it is irrational it is constructible but it cannot be exact |
February:
Recombine photon by splitting it twice. This is not your Newton's
prism but he likes it anyway |
January:
Moon number two |
|
|
Select another
topic from the gold post 
HyperFlight home Portal
in new window |
|
|
|
2004
Topics
for the month of: |
|
December:
Planets play notes |
August:
Golden Ratio is Divine but it needs to be a triangle |
April:
Do a square root rosette |
|
November:
How's your photon going |
July:
Time is always a derivative, and.. |
March:
Square the circle by looking at the pyramid |
|
October
Gateways between real and virtual are zero-dimensional |
June
Mass has inertia but light has neither. New definition of inertia |
February
Glue that makes continuum a continuum |
|
September
Pythagorean Zero |
May
Real numbers' finite precision |
January
Microgravity that never was, elevator that never will be |
|
|
2003
Topics for the month of: |
|
December
The composition of incomposite numbers |
August
Atomic versus free electron. Compton effect is a defect |
April
Get prize with photons |
|
November
Construct non-atomic Absolute clock: Newton got absolute space
and time just right |
July
Relativity postulate is neither |
March
Reading old records |
|
October
Chi, from China with life |
June
Spectacles before they were glasses |
February
Light mill moves and rotates |
|
September
What's wrong now -- algebra? |
May
Big deal about irrational numbers |
January
Electron on the move |
|
|
Archived
monthly 2002
Topics: |
|
December: Draw
your own star in the heavens |
August: Photon sparks |
April: Pluto's cool |
|
November: From
black hole to conspiracy |
July: Electrons
for Newton |
March:
Antiatom fantasy |
|
October:
Electron absolute reference |
June: Saturn
is gas |
February:
Hydrogen pop |
|
September:
Chaos workout |
May: Earth
isn't missing |
January: Royal split |
|
|
Archived
monthly 2001 Topics
Archived
monthly 2000 Topics
Archived
monthly 1999 Topics
 |
|
Here is what our scouting
parties report |
|
Every star is a sun-planets system (a solar system) or a sun-sun
(binary sun) system |
|
Any sun's mass can significantly decrease or increase in less than a decade |
|
Any sun's angular momentum which, for our solar system is about 2% of
the total, can increase significantly as well |
|
Star color or size is not linked to star's age |
|
If a galaxy's axis of rotation is nearly identical to another
galaxy's axis of rotation (two galaxy subsystem) then these two
galaxies will spin in opposition — one cw and the other ccw
— and, in addition, both galaxies will rotate in a plane
perpendicular to the axis. Both galaxies will cup slightly forming
two caps of a sphere |
|
Planet is created when it spins off the sun after a 2D solar angular
momentum buildup |
|
Planetary (and moon) separation orbits are in ratios of notes of the
musical octave. (Real numbers have finite mantissa and notes of the
octave have the smallest/shortest mantissa.) |
|
The ability to interchange linear and angular momentum within each
solar system and among neighboring solar systems accounts for the
stiffness of a galaxy — that is:
¤ Flat galaxies are
rigid in x-y and pliable in z
¤ Spherical galaxies
are rigid in x-y-z and its solar systems are symmetrically periodic
in r as a f(theta) |
|
The expansion of the universe is a direct reflection of its increase
in organization |
|
|
|
Deep Space Scouting Parties
get into questions such as: |
|
|
|
|
-
Why is Venus the most stable
planet, orbit-wise? If Pluto was "lost," Venus cannot take
much of the momentum loss because Venus' orbital interlock with earth
precludes Venus to move to another orbit to compensate for Pluto's
loss. If Pluto was lost, what gives? [Think Pluto in orbital
interlock with Neptune. How many independent orbits are there
altogether? Are orbits maxed out?] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
Is pulsar an example of
Gödel's Undecidable Proposition? Is this proposition something
that is inevitable or is it a misapplication of available resources?
Is it analogous to the obvious the likes of "Don't drive your
car into that sinkhole" or "Don't connect the inverter's
output to its input?" If you concluded this question is not
worth your while, you are on a right track. [There is no need to
figure out how to fix Gödel's brain, but you still may need to
figure out the supernova because it leads to this dead end] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many answers
are simple. None of the answers, however, presume collisions or
directed disturbances
©1998
-- 2008 Backbone Consultants. Copyrights Information |
|
|
|
Deep Space Scouting Party |
|
DSSP Topics for May '08
If a synaptic gap
is a connection, what's the big deal?
What if the
synaptic gap is not a connection? |
|
Background
The synaptic gap
is, without exception, considered an on-off switch. Just like your
electrical switch, the current or the signal flows or it does not.
All books on neuron or brain workings [I've seen or heard of] take
the synapse and use it as the switch to build more and more and more
complex systems until we got the brain. The brain is just like a
computer we all know and love. After Cajal's work on the clinical
aspects of the synapse, Sherrington coined the name for it around 1900.
So now the experts
have a lot of fun of counting the brain cells or synapses and
comparing it to the gates on a computer chip. The phrase Artificial
Intelligence comes up often, although to some of us it is more
artificial than intelligence.
But
We still do not
know why the computer cannot figure things out by itself even though
the signals in a PC are million times faster than the signals running
down the axon. So, the science writer puts it in the category of
musings and, of course, they need more money for research to close
the gap, so to speak.
Ah, bring in
the quantum mechanics
The 21st century
is upon us and the brain cells could now have something to do with
the quantum. The synaptic gap is measured, scanned, and analyzed.
There are chemicals that can influence the gap in general and that
can help people with mental problems (or healthy people to acquire
mental problems) and it all fits the equation. Not only the equation
about power, control, and money -- but it also fits the scientific
equation about the synaptic gap: Quantum mechanics has no role
to play because the gap is too wide for the quantum entities such as
the electrons to reach out and tunnel through the gap -- and thus
make the closure of the switch. This is all very rational and proper,
and this is the result of a broad scientific consensus from UTrue to UCon.
But
The model of the
synaptic gap-equals-switch is really about our own cultural bias,
albeit from the 21st century. The gap is not an on-off switch simply
because every synaptic gap has a very unique and different profile
and, moreover, the gaps have two different modalities of reaction:
the chemical and electrical. Now what.
Info
What if each gap
intercepts but a particular -- that is, specific, information. Uhh,
the info would then come in from the outside rather than through the
brain's internal wiring. Telepathy? How unscientific can you get?
Yep, this is no science for the scientists but for the rest of us it
makes extra sense. |
|
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for April '08
The matter of
gravitation is so simple it is complicated |
|
Background
There is a lot
that has been said about matter. This thing can put a dent in your
car, moves about in sort of circles of the heavenly orbs, consumes
gas on acceleration and wears out your brakes on deceleration. It
weighs a ton here, not even close on the moon. Matter attracts other
matter in the act of gravitation and does it so persistently it
readily warps any theory trying to explain the strange attraction:
Out of nowhere, across vast distances, instantly, silently. Even
though masses attract each other, matter does not cluster in one
spot. This, this thing attracts but does not cause jams. As much as
we think about it, the collision is not the norm for the matter out there.
Possibly the best
thing we know about gravitation is that it is a core behavior, rather
than the electron orbital, that deals with gravitation. Well, this
does not fit in the background category.
So now
As far as we can
tell, electrons do not get bothered by gravitation. Gravitation does
not produce photons that are in the regime of the electron and does
not ionize matter. Gravitation does not reduce electrons into one
spot because it does not interfere with the dual slit experiment. So,
let's just take the electron out of the gravitational mechanism.
So now
What do protons
have that electrons don't? Charge polarity, for one. For another, a
significantly larger mass. But that is not the whole story because
neutrons are a component of the gravitational pull and neutrons do
not have a net charge. If the gravitational force is formed by waves
-- really wavefunctions, then the wavefunction must reduce to realize
the momentum. But what would be the periodically reducing mechanism?
So now
A wavefunction is
a virtual entity and one of its characteristics is that it can span
rational and irrational distances. The movement or the spreading of
the wavefunction is infinitely smooth and (that is nice, but) there
does not seem anything in the way that would reduce the wavefunction
when bodies move away or closer together. The smoothness, however,
works well to recalculate the wavefunction as a function of distance
via the geometric mean, for example, because we need the square root
to compute the force.
So now
It seems that one
way of figuring this thing out is that the core must be spinning. A
spinning thing must deal with the angular vs. linear considerations
and then a quantization comes in that periodically reduces the
wavefunction. This would also fit the creation mechanics for both the
linear and angular momentum. Yes, gravitation is not only about attraction. |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for March '08
Archimedes
got to Pi, but did he get to the derivative?
Was
Newton-Leibniz duo really the first? |
|
Background
In the early
1700s, Newton and Leibniz fought it out for the priority of the
invention of calculus. But was Archimedes there 2000 years before
them? Besides, Archimedes is alleged to write a book The Method,
which was lost. We know that Archimedes was doing well applying the
limit via his method of exhaustion and got beyond the Pi of the
circle by calculating the parameters for the sphere, cylinder and
cone. A proposition could then be made that Archimedes discovered
calculus -- way in the ancient times. Kepler also took a stab at
calculus by estimating the volume of a beer barrel.
Then again
Besides taking
limits to infinity, the critical juncture in arriving at the
derivative (aka tangent) of calculus is -- the even older and the
really ancient Pythagorean practice of rationing. Yes, the
only way to get to the derivative is to put two variables in a ratio
and then applying a limit to that ratio. It seems Archimedes
did not put variables in a ratio. Kepler, for his part, did put
variables in a ratio and did apply a limit to it but he was working
with the Fibonacci series (and got to the golden ratio) but he did
not do the same with a mathematical function in general. Both
Archimedes and Kepler have worked the curving distance in
ever-smaller increments -- Archimedes on a circle, Kepler a bit more
general on a beer barrel -- but the idea of a tangent eluded them.
Who was really
the first?
Leibniz published
first but Newton thought Leibniz took his ideas and jumped the gun.
Newton circulated some of his papers among his trusted associates,
but the real purpose was to get a broader consensus and maybe a few
comments prior to publishing. Leibniz, on the other hand, had his
process down pat and was comfortable publishing without a peer
review. So they had a row but with some distance it is apparent
Leibniz got to the integral portion of calculus first. Newton was
ahead on the derivative side but only technically, for Leibniz
published first. A derivative is sufficient when working the
gravitational acceleration, but for a volume of a beer barrel you
really need the integral. My vote is for the beer -- with a toast to Pythagoras.
Today..
Once a while
something is published only to be announced that somebody figured it
out earlier. One example is (the Czech guy) Mendel, who was able to
get full credit posthumously and 30 some years after his publishing.
Others may not be that "lucky" and so perhaps having a peer
review is not such a bad idea.
Note: {April
5, 2008} Leibniz discovered that during a
collision the direction as well as energy is conserved. Leibniz did
not get much credit for that and today it is just called the vector
law, rather than, say, Leibniz vector law or Leibniz force linearity.
Yet, Newton's gravitational law relies on vector linearity because
the gravitational forces are vector-added. I did not do any research
on this but if Leibniz formulated the vector law first then Newton's
claim to the universal gravitational law weakens considerably and
narrows to the "square of the distance" component. |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for February '08
Can you
split the photon's energy? |
|
Background
Last month's topic
alluded to a particular mechanism carrying the energy of a photon.
Okay. We also know that a photon can eject an electron from an atom.
To make things more complicated -- but more interesting -- the
ejected electron's energy is always less than that of the photon
doing the ejecting. What's happening?
To make things
even more complicated -- but far more interesting -- we also made a
case in our February '07 DSSP topic that a
photon cannot be physically split. Can all these things be reconciled?
But of course!
To get something
to move we need to conserve momentum. To conserve momentum, two
things must be moving (or rotating) in the opposite direction with
equal energy. This is easy enough when we consider the recoil of a
rifle or when moving from a small boat and onto a dock without
getting wet. Right off, a photon that ejects an electron must also
impart the same and opposite energy to the core. The electron, then,
cannot have more than 50% of the photon's energy.
We are down to the
last step. If a photon cannot be split, how could its energy be split
-- as it must if it is to move something (in the framework of mo conservation).
Absorbing vs Non-absorbing
photonic interaction
The absorbing
photonic interaction reduces the entire photon and the photon's
energy transforms to other forms of energy. In the non-absorbing
photonic interaction, which could also be called the optical
interaction, no energy exchange takes place. Once the photon is
absorbed it is gone and only its energy lives on in other forms. In
the optical (non-absorbing) interaction the photon can be stretched
and its shape changed, but its energy always stays the same.
So, how
could a photon impart 50% of its energy to one thing (the core) and
the other 50% to the other (the electron)? The photon is always an
even wavefunction and its energy is always symmetrical in the 50-50
fashion about its axis of symmetry. Photon's energy can be split
50-50 but only at absorption.
(Self-test:-) If
you figured out that a photon cannot impart its energy when
interacting with but one object, you are doing really well. Why, you
might even be a Pythagorean. |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for January '08
The photon's
energy is its frequency.
If the photonic
frequency is the same as the photonic shape then we can change the
photon's energy by reshaping it. What?
Wheeere is the
photon's energy? |
|
Background
So you've been
told -- or perhaps you paid money to be told -- that the photon's
frequency is its color and its energy. So far so good. Then they
showed you a picture of a photonic shape and everybody assumed the
shape is the photon's frequency. But then the photon is sent through
double slits and acquires a different shape. Then the photon is sent
through three slits or through a crystal and acquires other and
different shapes. The number of the photonic shape undulations
changes in each case; yet, the color -- that is, the photon's energy
stays the same. What is going on here? You certainly want your money
back if the teacher does not have an explanation. Chances are they don't.
Picture filename: photon_frequency_energy_shape.gif
Where is the position?
The photon's
undulations are not about the photon's energy but that of the
photon's position. When we reshape the photon through various
geometries we change the probabilistic distribution of the photon,
for the photon is a virtual entity and exists as a nonlocal whole.
Yes, this is not difficult to understand even though the teachers
hate to say the word virtual. And so it is the probability of seeing
the photon in a particular spot that changes. Bouncing off a mirror
changes the position of the landing photon as well, but with slits
and other geometries each and every photon can also be stretched.
Where is the energy?
The photon can be
stretched and undulated in an infinite variety of ways. But if the
photonic undulations do not reveal anything about the energy, where
is the energy? You may want to pose this question to a teacher before
you pay for your next course. If you do not get a satisfactory
answer, look up some math of Dirichlet and consult the illustration
above. To understand it, you want to ask a question: "If the
energy stays the same even though the shape can be shaped and
re-shaped, what is the mechanism that would keep the energy the same? |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for December '07
If line is
one-dimensional and area is two-dimensional and volume
three-dimensional, is a zero-dimensional point the fourth dimension?
Is 0D just a
point of no interest? |
|
Background
Somehow the
zero-dimensional point has receded into the background. Some writers
like to call the time the fourth dimension, as if the
zero-dimensional point is too small to be mentioned. Then again, we
could not construct a line or a circle without a point or two. So,
why is a point relegated to obscurity in Western science?
Well, the
reason the zero dimensional point is ignored is because the 0D point
is not easy to understand and because the reductionists are running
amock in Western science. In Eastern science the point is not only
some geometric abstraction, it is right in your body. Dantien
(Chinese) or Hara (Japanese) has its place just below the navel and
it is a geometric point that has its own applications setting.
Rotation.
You need a point to rotate about it. If 99% of all moving (real)
energy in the universe is in the form of rotation, a point is used
all over. It can be said that a point must be used for orbits. If a
linear dimension (is straight and) allows the freedom of movement in
a particular direction, then a point is a pivot that allows movement
about it to create rotation and orbits. And, if a point allows the
circular motion to arise, isn't the point -- that is, the 0D, the
fourth dimension? You bet.
Freedom of
movement is just that. We can move there if we can, should, or ought
to. That is what 'independent' means when we say the independent
dimension. Time is not an independent variable nor it is a dimension.
Time always depends on other things and that makes time dependent.
Yep, time can never be an independent variable.
Pythagorean Tetractys
is about the 0D, 1D, 2D, and 3D contexts of geometry. Together they
are the tetra or the quad -- the four dimensions of space.
Happy New Year |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for November '07
Cellular
automaton follows rules but so what |
|
Background
Some scientists
use cellular automaton rules to make pretty pictures. They show the
formation of leaves, stems and even things you have not seen before.
All cellular automatons follow the 'If-Then' rules just as computers
do. Usually, a particular and simple black and white squares (cells)
on a grid starts the whole thing off and the creation of neighboring
and empty squares are filled in using simple rules. If, for example,
the east and the north squares are black then the center square will
be white but otherwise it will be black. The squares fill in and we
might get some interesting two-dimensional shapes if somebody manages
to stop the machine in time. Sometimes the machine ends with a
particular pattern and sometimes the machine cycles through a group
of patterns.
The extension
Because some
cellular automatons make shapes that resemble leaves, many scientists
jump with joy and do not mind trying to convince you they discovered
how God makes leaves on trees. Then they make the extension that
since they can make similar things as found in nature, who needs God?
Wow, they can even make more varieties than God -- if God were to
exist, that is.
The nonsence
The thing is that
the cellular automaton does not do any more than any rule based
system. Somebody supplies the rules and the computer just follows it.
The cellular automaton does not and cannot finish any different next
time around and so it contains no intelligence that would improve the
speed of the pattern formation. There is nothing in the cellular
automaton that would improve anything and the scientist is then left
with changing this or that to see where it goes. The programmer than
tweaks the rules just as any programmer could. There is nothing
innate in the cellular automaton that would change anything, short of
random processes, which the scientist likes to substitute for lack of
intelligence. The cellular automaton is as smart as a five-year old
and it cannot get any smarter. And so it happened that the only
person who likes a cellular automaton is another scientist. They love connect-a-dot.
There are no applications
for cellular
automatons and now the scientist has but one choice: Argue
that the cellular automaton is somewhere, somehow, useful. What
utility there could be they do not say. The mind job they do is good
for doing it on each other. |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for October '07
What is
geometric computing? |
|
Background
So you construct
the square root of two by constructing the square. The diagonal is
the SQRT(2). Nice. You are done in no time. But so what? Well, your
PC cannot do that. You can get SQRT(2) to many, many decimal places
but sooner or later it's time for dinner and so you declare the
result close enough. You can come up with many, many good reasons why
close enough is good enough. You really do not have much choice but
come up with some excuses because otherwise you would have to deal
with the real question: Why is that so?
The irrational
Geometry deals
with irrationals as just another number. Infinite mantissa included
all the way. In finite time. Tractable.
Energy it is
If you construct a
geometric structure and have, say, the SQRT(5) as one of the
distances, the distance having the value of 5 is there and waiting.
What if something that represents energy is now inside the unit 5.
What is going to be across the distance of the SQRT(5)? All
wavelengths that form the infinity that is the SQRT(5), that's what.
Maybe add a few things to make the golden ratio out of it. (If you
are not excited now you might be later.) |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for September '07
No string can
be made into a perfect circle
So what's the big
deal about the circle? |
|
Background
As you pursue the
geometry of a circle you may discover that a circle's periphery is a
transcendental number and, consequently, if you take pieces of ropes
or wires you will find out that the length of any string is a finite
-- that is, a rational, number. Therefore,
-
You cannot take an
everyday string and make a perfect circle out of it. And also,
- You cannot
make the perfect circle from any real thing such as wood, clay,
metal, plastic, stone, glass, or rubber bands
So what is it
about the circle that fascinates people and why people make stars
inside a circle? Why have ancient Greeks pondered over dividing a
circle geometrically and discovered numbers that can and cannot
divide a circle exactly?
More background
What entity can
exist in the circumference of a circle? Because a circle consists of
an infinite number of points along its periphery, we are looking for
something that can exist in every conceivable point in space. A real
thing will not do, for a real thing occupies but distances that have
rational lengths and, therefore, real things have incremental lengths
that skip some spatial points.
Energy it is
Energy exists as
waves and waves have periods that can span any spatial distance. An
energy wave, then, can exist between any two points. You are catching
on fast if you realize that a standing wave can exist in both the
straight and the curving geometry and, therefore, an energy wave can
close in a circle exactly. You should have no problem seeing that
wave energies such as those of light or those of virtual electrons
are not real energies but are the virtual energies. (Actually, even
the scientists figured that out -- albeit in a limited way -- and
call them wavefunctions.)
Making stars
The number of
points of a circled star tells you how many wavelengths can make up a
circular standing wave. You will then need to know something about
geometry to see whether such star truly represents a standing wave,
for some numbers do not fit in a circle exactly. It is easy to
dismiss ancient Greeks as ancient. It is also easy to belittle your
neighborhood witch but my guess would be your scientific mind has
been successfully reduced and is missing some points. |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for August '07
The myths of
the Western science: The good, the bad, and the pretend
When does a myth
work against you |
|
Background
As a way of a
definition, a myth is something that has no ready explanation. A myth
could also be a belief that requires no explanation. A myth has no
verifiable foundation. The myth rests on a presumption that is
impossible to verify and the only reason for the myth's continuing
existence is that people will hold on to it as the truth and that's that.
Science has myths
If there are
people who think are myth-free, they are the scientists. They surely
love to say that the first benefit of science is the absence of
wishy-washy myths of one kind or another. But it is not all that
clear cut. If you cannot or if you refuse to acknowledge the
existence of something, that certainly fits the belief in a myth.
There is a myth of disbelief, too. Outright disbelief in the face of
evidence is excusable if the scientists have impaired brain
functioning and so we can leave it at that.
The first myth of
science is that there exists but one form of energy -- the real
energy from coal or oil or uranium. The second form of energy, the
virtual energy, comes from light and ether. Scientists have a myth
that a beam of (say laser) light puts pressure on a mirror as it
bounces from it, but this is only because scientists must work with
something real and so light "must have" a real punch of
momentum. Yet the beam of light does not put pressure on a mirror as
it bounces. So now the myth is growing -- not only do scientists
believe the myth that the beam of light puts pressure on a mirror,
but now they mustn't do the experiment that would resolve it one way
or the other. Would you say that a myth and a taboo are closely
related? [Don't look at the man behind the curtain!]
For the rest of us
It makes no
difference if scientists refuse to work with ether or with light as
forms of the virtual energy. Somebody else will do it. We do not
insist veterinarians get an extra license to treat people in addition
to animals. What has happened, though, is that people calling
themselves scientists are really not competent to speak or work on
global warming. Scientists cannot even begin to address the shortages
of energy, for they see the energy as something that just keeps on
depleting. Meanwhile, we will think free energy -- and if you happen
to have a garage, tinker. |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for July '07
How small or
how big is a zero-dimensional point?
This gets Zen-y
and possibly zany, so take a relaxed attitude and use your right brain |
|
Background
Last month we
settled for Euclid's definition of a point. A geometric point is
something that cannot be divided. Fine. A zero in the numerator will
then remain a zero even if we do try to divide it.
Moving On
A geometric point,
being a zero, then also has no length. This means we cannot use a
point to measure distance with it. Is it true that no matter how many
points we stack up we end up with zero length? Yes. even though a
circle or an irrational distance each exists across some nonzero
distance, such distance is not composed of some length that would be
a multiple of some rational -- that is finite, number.
An incommensurable (irrational or transcendental) distance cannot be
composed of some minimum-lenght magnitudes, but even though such
distance can be filled with points, there would be an infinity
of such points spanning an incommensurable distance. A geometric
point is then a true zero.
But we also
know that zero can get tricky
If we delete a
point from the end of a line then that should mean we did not shorten
it because a point has no length. But by deleting the point we also
do not have a tangent going through such point and, conceivably, the
last possible tangent value our line (or a curve) should have is now "missing."
So what's the
point of all this
If a tangent
connects the two closest points on a curve and one point is missing
then the tangent cannot be drawn. Does the length still have the
original value? We answer this as yes and label the missing point as
the virtual point. This is similar to the division of an area of a
circle. A circle can be divided axactly in half -- or by any
circumpositional number into exact multiples of a circle -- but the
circle's center point cannot be divided. The center of a circle then
becomes a virtual or "empty" point but the area value for
the circle still holds. This is important if energy is proportional
to an area (and it is) because the energy is conserved exactly even
though the center point is not included in either half of the now
divided circle.
Probability math
supports these assertions. If we plot energy distribution across some
spatial distance and ask "what is the energy at this point?"
the answer will be 'zero' because energy is proportional
(commensurate) with area and a point times any height yields no area.
(For example, the number of people who are exactly six feet tall is
zero, for 'six feet' is but a single point on the population
distribution curve.)
Concluding
Any energy that is
a virtual energy (photon, virtual electron, gravitational
wavefunction) can be split exactly in half. This is important
for a photonic reduction, collisions, and gravitation. You will note
that (on this site, anyway) the photon cannot be split. You will also
note, though, that we allow the photon's energy to split exactly
50-50 but only at reduction (absorption). |
|
|
DSSP Topics for June '07
The difference
between a point and a line might be easy to see, but ..
How could you
actually and objectively tell the difference between a point and a line? |
|
Background
A nice definition
of a point comes from Euclid. A point is that which has not parts. A
point, then, cannot be divided. This is somewhat abstract but so far
it is sufficient. Euclid goes on to define a line as that which has
no width. Perhaps we can say that a line is something that has a
width that cannot be divided. Similarly, a plane is that which has no
thickness and so the thickness cannot be divided.
Is there more
to this?
If a point is so
small it is zero then if we try to divide such zero we also get zero
-- that is, we get the same result and that's the end. Okay, so a
point is zero-dimensional and "zero" refers to
dimensionality. But for a line we need two points. Right away
we have a question: What is the minimum distance the two
zero-dimensional points have to be separated by to get a line? Here,
the answer is also not very difficult. We can draw any number of
lines through a single point but we can draw but one line through
two points. So, if the result of our computation or analysis
results in but one line then we have two points.
How do we get
but one line?
A tangent! 
Picture filename: tangents_merge_but_points_do_not.gif
When two tangents
are approaching each other along a curve they each touch a line. In
our example there are two tangents, t1 and t2,
each touching the curve in A and B. If A and B were just single
points, we could not claim we have tangents, for a tangent needs two
points that give us direction. We cannot say that A and B
are 0D points in the strict geometric definition, so we define A- as
a point which is a part of A and, similarly, we define B+ as a point
that is a part of B. What is new is that when the two tangents merge
-- that is, when they obtain the same value for a slope, the two
points A- and B+ do not merge. The two points A- and B+,
moreover, reach the smallest possible separation (distance) that defines
the shortest possible line geometrically speaking. So, we can
actually obtain (derive) the absolute shortest possible length of a
line using geometry.
Formalizing
All along a curve,
a point A- is the leftmost point touched by t1 while B+ is
the rightmost point touched by t2. In a correction to the
science and math books, a tangent is a line (curve in general) that
always touches a curve in two neighboring points. In a
possibly better definition, a tangent is a direction of the next
geometric point a continuous curve is
allowed to have.
(Yes, Bunky, allowed by geometry.}
Where do we go
from here?
Any two points
give us direction while a single point does not. This could be
another, though technical, differentiator between a point and a line.
As for the real world -- and because geometry rules -- two atoms
would need to be separated by at least the absolute shortest distance
if these were to have and be able to apply 1D geometry. Such molecule
would then have the geometric and the computational property of a
line -- and not that of a point. My guess is that this would be the
separation of two hydrogen atoms of a hydrogen gas molecule at
absolute zero. Yes, there could be other applications. Think of
situations where you need a distance for something..
Discovery of the
infinitesimal by Newton and Leibniz isn't all that strange after all.
Tangent dy/dx is a direction we can obtain from
the smallest possible separation between two zero dimensional
points. And it is absolute, too, although each curvature has specific values.
If you want to get
into the meaning of 'continuous,' think of constructing or creating
something that is real.
Note: Also
recall that zero divided by zero is indeterminate. This makes sense
if you think of an entity subject to a construct of
'zero-divided-by-zero' and thus being or spreading anywhere
[and I mean anywhere while remaining an entity].
Note2 {Aug.
3, 2007}: A 3D surface also can have a tangent
that is a 2D plane. Can we say that such tangent plane must be formed
by at least three geometric 0D points? The answer is yes
because such tangent plane is unique and there exists but one tangent plane. |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for May '07
Is there more
to square besides square dancing? |
|
What's
the big deal about squares and
square numbers?
Energy of a moving
body is proportional to v2,
where v is its
velocity. We could show energy of a moving body as an energy square
(having velocity for its side) that is attached to the body. When the
energy increases or decreases as the body is speeding up or slowing
down, the square follows that. What becomes apparent is that:
(1) Energy
variations are continuous because both the rational and irrational
sides of the square are accomodated, and
(2) Because the
moving energy of ½•m•v2
is conserved then momentum is conserved because it is m•v (m
is mass). Momentum is thus obtained in a single operation via the
geometric mean even though the velocity could at times be an
irrational number. [This is about stopping moving bodies at a
distance but, as always, you are welcome to disbelieve that.]
(3) When the path
begins to curve and the distance (as well as velocity) becomes a
transcendental number, something else will have to give if the
geometric mean does not hold for transcendental numbers [and my guess
is that it does not]. Think virtual domain and possibly G. |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for April '07
The geometric
mean comes from a formula that relates vertical distance h
to two horizontal distances on a semicircle
Constructing a
square root from a line of any length is not obvious but it is easy
with the geometric mean
Think geometry and
get closer to the golden proportion |
|
Background
The best way to
visualize the mathematical property of 'mean' is to think of
centering or balancing. The arithmetic mean comes up when a
party of people wants to even out -- that is to center, a bill in a
restaurant. You add up all charges and divide it by the number of
people taking part. The arithmetic mean is then the average. The geometric
mean comes up when we have several lengths or distances and we want
to get their mean. The geometric mean, however, is not the average of
distances. Geometrically, the mean value of two lengths is such that
the square of the mean gives us the same value as the product
(area) composed of the two lengths (or distances).
The geometric mean
hails to us from ancient Greeks. It's a nifty relation because we can
get the geometric mean through geometry using a semicircle. (It is
said Pythagoras started his studies with a semicircle.) As it turns
out, we will not want to use arithmetic to get the geometric mean
because geometry works for irrationals whereas arithmetic does not.
We are going to start with the formula and prove it via the
Pythagorean theorem. The geometric mean is height h
shown in the illustration that reaches its max when the height
becomes the radius of the circle
Picture filename: Geometric_Mean_Semi-circle.gif
Prove that for
any height h
on a semicircle the relation h2
= x1•x2
holds. The
Geometric Mean h is
then SQRT(x1•x2)
From the
Pythagorean theorem we can write:
z12
+ z22
= (x1 + x2)2
= x12
+ 2•x1•x2
+ x22
We can also express z1
and z2 individually
as:
z12
= h2 + x12
and
z22
= h2 + x22
Now add the above
two equations together:
z12
+ z22
= 2•h2 + x12
+ x22
The equation above
and the very first equation have the same left sides. So now we can
equate their right sides:
x12
+ 2•x1•x2
+ x22
= 2•h2 + x12
+ x22
After canceling
terms and dividing by 2, we are left with:
x1•x2
= h2
We make a quick
check for the case when h
is at its max and then h, x1,
and x2 all
reach the length of the radius. It holds.
What does it mean?
The geometric mean
shows that we can take the area of any rectangle (with sides x1 and x2)
and equate it with the area of a square. Having a square we also
have its square root, which is the side of the square and in our case
it is h.
Also, if the x1
is a unit distance and x2
is some length (or distance) then the geometric mean gives us the SQRT(x2).
Yes, in geometry we need unit length. (If you are good you can prove
that the smallest length x
is the infinitesimal of x
or dx.
If you are really good you can prove that the infinitesimal of x
is the distance between two hydrogen atoms of the H2
molecule at absolute zero.)
Okay, so the
question is: What to do with it? Or; How to apply it?
Put your brain in
gear. Could the sides of the rectangle be irrational numbers and, if
so, does the geometric mean equation hold? If it holds that means we
are multiplying two numbers with infinite mantissa and get the result
in finite time! Not a bad start, particularly since your PC or the
government's mainframes cannot do that.
Now, put your
brain into overdrive [no drugs needed] and equate z1
and x1
with the golden
numbers a and b
respectively. The golden number a
is 1+ SQRT(5) and b
is 2. Yeah, h is
the height of the Great Pyramid, a is the length (distance?)
of its side and b is one half the length of its base.
Note {Jan
2008}: If you think the brain is
geometry-based (and it is), you could keep x1
as unit 1 and by imagining the semicircle instanly obtain a
square root of just about any number. |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for March '07
Cutting can be
physical or logical.
If you double
something while maintaining a symmetry about the vertical axis you
duplicate it. Would you call it a division? |
|
Background
Scientists call it
cell division but what they really mean is that when a biological
cell 'divides,' one cell becomes two cells. Cell division is really
cell duplication. We are not going to quibble about inadequate
wording, for scientists oftentimes misname things because they do not
understand it anyway. When scientists say they divide something they
really only understand that after the division you have two halves.
Last month we made a case that a photon cannot be cut or divided into
parts. That is certainly the case but this month the topic is about
another possible division; not the one that cuts but the one
that doubles.
Discussion
The
"division" that doubles reflects some object about the
vertical axes. While it is easy to see that the reflected object is
very close to the original, it becomes difficult to actually double
an object that is real. In a real object, every piece and every atom
needs to be reflected and duplicated. In the virtual domain
the duplication is easy because you are reflecting and duplicating
only the information that is on one side of the axis or a (mirror) plane.
The creation of
new or existing things happens in the virtual domain first. You will
also need geometry to establish the axis or the plane of symmetry.
Summary
So, you might
think this is no big deal. If you are heavily reality-oriented --
that is, left-brain dominant, you will have reached a conclusion that
the world is a zero-sum game. You might also think that in order to
get something you would have to take it from somebody else. Sure
enough, you will have learned more about the destruction than about
the creation, for the creation and growth happens only through the
virtual domain of the infinite. Would you be brave enough to say that:
The tangible --
that is real, world was created from an idea?
The tangible
things are secondary, in that they can be created at will?
The tangible
things we know of are not necessarily the only, or the best, tangible
things that exist?
The tangible
things can be destroyed or uncreated and dissolved back into the
virtual domain? |
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for February '07
So you split the
photon in a half-silvered mirror. Do you get two halves or what?
You cannot cut
a photon, baby! |
|
Background
This guy Compton
whacked an electron with a photon and, because he measured a lower
energy photon, he thought that the photon got split and a part of its
energy changed the electron's path. For that he got a prize from the
Nobel committee. This might be good Swedish meatball politics but
that is not why you are here. Compton never used free electrons in
his experiments and as he whacked the atom's core with a photon, many
things could and did happen. There is a bit more on this if you put
your money on the Compton effect and got
yourself cornered. Once you understand his effect is a defect, you
are ready to look at a photon by itself.
Setup
After a photon
encounters a half-silvered mirror, it is reflected and (or?) transmitted.
Picture filename: branch_or_split_photon.gif
At this point,
however, we do not know if the photon is:
(a)
Physically split -- that is, parted or cut. This would mean that each
half goes its own way;
(b)
Branched -- that is, one branch goes one way (reflected) and the
other branch goes another way (transmitted) while both branches are
interconnected; or
(c)
Reflected as a whole while the next photon could be transmitted as a
whole. This would mean that some 0/1 (or heads/tails) randomizing
action does the steering.
Experimental Results
If two photonic
detectors are placed in each of the possible paths (in both
branches), neither detects a half-energy photon. The possibility (a)
is quickly eliminated. To decide between (b) and (c),
you will need to get a bit into the instrument called the
interferometer. It measures distances along each path (in each
branch) and, if the possibility (c) is accepted, the
interferometer could not work the way it does. (More on this is in
the Quantum Pythagoreans book, including multi-path, instant
reduction, and of course gravitation.)
Summary
A photon of light
cannot be split (cut) into two individual sub-photons. A photon,
however, can be branched. Compton effect is wishful thinking by the
latter day scientists. |
|
|
|
|
DSSP Topics for January '07
Global warming
got you down? Thank the scientists!
|