DSSP: Deep Space Scouting Party

"More you know, more the universe shrinks"


Select another topic from the gold post
HyperFlight home Portal in new window


DSSP topics deal with gravitation, free energy, light, and atomic tractability

2012 Topics for the month of:

December: Neutrino is not .. (Concluding with Part 3)

November: Neutrino is .. (Cont'd with Part 2)

October: Neutrino is .. (Part 1)

September: Unit distance -- a new standard for geometric stars

August: Odd symmetry is masculine

July: Even symmetry is feminine

June: Science and Politics are not about the same things

May: Motion is easy. Is it, now

April: The Eye of God. Just another April entry

March: Computer computes the force but it doesn't move?

February: (Self)Organization is out there

January: An electron at the two slits

2011 Topics for the month of:

December: When a university does not have it


October: Clockwise and CCW stars

September: Octahedron, a Platonic solid, maybe not solid

August Definition of a star -- the NC Star: The Non-concentric Star aka The Hyperstar

July Definition of a star -- the CC Star: The Concentric Circles Star

June: Definition of a star: Concentric Star -- the fundamentals

May: Can you make a 24 point star and 16 point star from but one construction?

April: Moving energy between objects and dimensions

March: Continuing with energy classification (from Feb)

February: Sorting out the energy classes the Pythagorean way

 January: Taking a five or ten pointed hyperstar and making art out of it

2010 Topics for the month of:

December: When counting points on a star we say the star is convex or concave. But the hyperstar is neither.

November: Direct a laser beam at something, but ..

October: Modulo math is also about orbital harmony

September: There is more to waves than up and down and sideways

August: If God is all-powerful then ..

July: Refreshing your knowledge on inertia. Move a body and include your mind

June: Two waves can add up to zero and that bothers a lot of people

May: Can you talk to an atom?

April: Sending an eye reserved for gods?

March: The Virtual Domain

February: Create a new pentacle -- it's gas

January: You want to know how to create

You've 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.) If you reached this page directly from a search engine, chances are your query has at least four keywords in it and you are a person with broader and deeper interests.

Select the topic of interest or search this page (Ctrl•F) with your keyword.

Mike Ivsin


The book you will thoroughly enjoy
 To Publisher... More ..


2009 Topics for the month of:

December: Frequencies do it alone and together

November: The electron spreads in up to 3D with and without energy

October: The electron spreads and shrinks over and over

September: The electron spreads and shrinks

August: Photon branches and half of it rotates

July: Time of the future

June: Time, memory, and the truth

May: Time travel is and is not

April: Sphinx, the physics symbol of ..

March: Tarot and geometry

February: Mirror symmetry is the even symmetry

January: Left hand is right in the mirror

We also have site search at home Portal

2008 Topics for the month of:

December: Light is an even function

November: Energy is an even function

October: Irrational number is not a real number and that's good

September: Brown's gas future up to you

August: Brown's gas is green in more ways than one

July: Brown's gas isn't brown

June: Free running magnetic motors. And the energy is coming from ..

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 a 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 a 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

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? Can you make a photon systemic?

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

Particular sun's mass can significantly decrease or increase in less than a decade

Particular 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 multiple 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 function of theta

The expansion of the universe is a direct reflection of its increase in organization

©1998 -- 2011 Backbone Consultants. Copyrights Information



Deep Space Scouting Party

DSSP Topics for December 2012

Neutrino Part 3 (last)

Last month we said two bits about neutrinos. Inherently, neutrinos are no-big-deal photons but because they also come about during an atomic explosion, they became a big deal.

Scientists are so bored and so boring, they cannot leave neutrinos where they found them. So they rush to tell us neutrinos have mass. The way they "prove it," is by bringing up the fact that neutrinos slow down below lightspeed when passing through the earth and then, "they cannot reach lightspeed on account of mass." Duhh. Light slows down routinely when passing through matter the likes of glass or water -- neutrinos are photons and do not slow down any differently than any other photon. Of course, the scientist then claims that the whole universe is made from neutrinos. Well, they cannot waste my time because their credibility is gone, but I sure wish they would not waste the money. Better yet, I think the people who pay them should know when scientists are talking nonsense.

Happy New Year!

DSSP Topics for November 2012

Neutrino Part 2

Last month we said a bit about neutrinos. This time we should add that scientists must call everything a 'particle,' but we don't have to.

Neutrinos are
photons. Yes, they are not visible to the human eye but that's okay. They are high energy photons because they come about during the core's (really neutron's) decay. We know that X-ray and Gamma rays are not only high energy but dangerous as well. This is because X-rays and Gamma rays get absorbed by our bodies' water molecules (and create free radicals). Neutrinos, however, are not absorbed by our bodies and go right on thru. That's nice. The probability of neutrino's absorption is very low. After so many encounters with atoms the neutrinos finally get absorbed and make enough of a change in the atom's core we detect the change. Neutrinos are most likely spinning photons in the shape of a corscrew. Certainly the neutrinos have a different geometric shape from the conventional (transverse-oscillating wave) photons and they do not readily get into a context where they would be absorbed.

So what's the big deal about neutrinos? 
Because neutrinos behave differently from ordinary photons as a result of an atomic explosion, neutrinos are not just a curiosity. But if the scientists drop their 'particle' attachment we would learn something new about light, too.

DSSP Topics for October 2012

Neutrino Part 1

    Neutrino is

    • a tiny particle
    • a weakly interacting this or that
    • a mountain that is really a molehill
    • anything but a particle

During a neutron decay two particles come apart but their momentum does not add up. To make the momentum -- and therefore energy -- to come out even, a missing particle is postulated. So far so good. At  this point the scientists make a big deal out of it because there is a large number of these things -- now called neutrinos -- all over the place. It does not take long to claim the whole universe owes its existence to this thing because that is how the scientists get the bombastic funding to look for these things. There is even a guy who can fish out a single Argon atom out of a swimming pool.

And then there were three
Three different neutrinos. Duly recorded. All coming from different kinds of electrons.

So now
Every time the funding is about to run out, big shifts happen. Maybe they can detect Ruski A-bombs being tested. Maybe the neutrinos suddenly have mass and that is something that should be investigated. Maybe they change from one to the next and kinda vibrate, you know, isn't this exciting?

What can you say
All neutrinos behave just like photons of light. They are massless and propagate at c and are not affected by electromagnetic fields. Neutrinos do not have charge just like photons. Don't worry that neutrinos go right on through mass -- many wavelengths of light can do that too. Another big one is that neutrinos at times interact and change while at another time they interact and reduce -- just like the photons we see. Of course, neutrinos are not affected by gravitation and that is also consistent with light once you know how to purge Albert from your system. The three neutrinos are just like many different wavelengths of light. Even if there is but a limited number of them, there are also a limited number of wavelengths coming out of hydrogen, too.

Hone in on neutrinos
Yes, think geometry and how it rules in the sub-subatomic world.  After that you'll also figure out that the absence of charge means that neutrinos are massless -- think symmetry. There is a second part to this topic next month as well.

DSSP Topics for September 2012

Unit distance is the new star building standard

When you build something you start with the smallest unit block. You use the smallest bricks and cutting them to even smaller bricks is silly because it would be easier to get such smaller bricks in the first place. When building stars geometrically we use a compass and straightedge, and then we want to know the distance between the star's points in terms of the radius (or diameter) of a compass so that we can tell how big the dimensions of a star would be for a given circle radius.

This works dandy if there is only one circle needed to make the star. But there are stars that use two circles, sometimes concentric, sometimes not. Math guys love to concentrate on the one-circle polygon but going just a little distance and include Venus in the computations we need two circles for the two orbits. It makes no sense to implore the mainstream math guys to help out with a new kind of modulo math because arm chair science is their cup of tea. Going micro, interlocked multiple orbitals also make up stars and the radii become quantized subject to the circles' separation. Mainstream science cannot even dream about this one while some impresarios the likes of Levi have nothing but bad dreams of the devil to talk about.

So now
The idea here is to establish a unit distance as the smallest distance needed for a particular star construction. It would then make no difference how many circles of how many radii would be considered because we would be building everything based on the unit distance. This then establishes an important mental precedent that there are many ways to build the stars that are identical to what the nature puts out.

On this site there is a hyperstar, a five pointed star built from four rings -- two pairs of concentric and both pairs intersecting. A point to point distance can be done mathematically in two different ways. One via the Unit distance and another one via the mainstream method. The mainstream method requires a creation of a new circle just to get the reference and, of course, the reference circle has nothing to do with the orbitals the hyperstar represents. The distances between points are then computed but the hyperstar is not constructed through such reference circle. This throws the math out of sync with the physical reality the hyperstar is about. If, however, the unit distance is used, the point-to-point distance on the hyperstar is exceptionally easy to compute. The distance between points on the five pointed hyperstar is twice the unit distance. This makes the unit distance reference a worthwhile standard to adopt.


DSSP Topics for August '12

Odd symmetry is:

Going around in circles
Geometric construct for dimension zero
Masculine, but so what

The odd symmetry is symmetry about a point. A point is a 0D construct. Odd symmetry is also called the point symmetry. The point about which an image in the Cartesian system is rotated (by Pi) is at the intersect of horizontal and vertical axes and is called the Origin. Every piece of some image is rotated about a point (about the Origin) one-half circle and then the original as well as the rotated image have odd, or point, symmetry.

The circle quadrant pairs 1&3 as well as 2&4 have odd symmetry. A nice part is that pairs 1&2 as well as 3&4 have even symmetry and so the circle is not exclusively even or odd. Lao Tzu (the author of Te Tao Ching) goes as far as to call a circle the 'undifferentiated whole.' This also works but, as is the case with Tao, it takes a lot of right brain work. [Yes, scientists do not have the right brain.]

The odd symmetry
engages a 0D point. So, all orbits, orbitals, and spins use the 0D point. Everything in the universe spins and orbits and it is then easy to arrive at the importance of the dimension zero. Yet, some mainstream scientists have big holes in their heads and they don't even count the dimension zero. This could be because dimension zero is the most complex dimension of all. In the East, for example, a point and infinity are the same. It takes some work to figure this out [try Tao?] but a good start is that a point is a virtual point. It is not real and I like to use a tiny circle to denote a point -- the geometric point is inside the small circle.

Oh, if you ask a scientist they will count 1D, 2D, 3D and then some of them toss in the time as the 4D. Although 0D is about spin and orbits, and although the spinning energy has 99% of all energy in the universe, the scientist will not count 0D -- these scientists are complete idiots and beyond help.

Entities subscribing to odd symmetries are exclusive: they do not occupy the same space and then they displace each other. There are many entities that do that --  an atom or your car or you, for example, but there is more to it because the odd and even symmetries must interplay to make something that is organized. An electron is a good example of that. The exclusivity is what gives the odd symmetry its masculine character.

DSSP Topics for July '12

Even symmetry is:

Feminine, but so what
About energy

The even symmetry is symmetry about an axis, the axis being usually shown vertical, and the even symmetry is also called the mirror symmetry or twofold symmetry. Every point on some image is rotated one-half circle (180 deg) about the axis and the resulting as well as the original image are now evenly symmetrical. You'll note the heart is evenly symmetrical. The number 3 is evenly symmetrical but the axis of symmetry is now horizontal. A circle is also even but read the next month's topic about the odd symmetry because a circle is very special. One unique aspect of even symmetry is that the left/right handedness reverses during rotation, which is the same thing as the mirror's reflection.

Esoteric Background
The wand is the defining tool of magicians. Yes, the wand defines the axis of symmetry every magician needs. Ditto for swords, which are about power, and here we also encounter the feminine as the Lady of the Lake.

In the East the axis is not shown, for this axis is virtual and in the East the invisibility of virtual aspects are quite acceptable. So, in Eastern practical mysticism (read magic) we encounter the evenly symmetrical images directly as, for example, the two humps resembling the number 3 in Reiki healing energy or in the Aum symbol.

This part needs some thinking. Take a photon's shape and and you'll find it symmetrical. Evenly symmetrical. Reflect it (bounce it), refract it, split it and it remains evenly symmetrical. [How this enters the creation of matter you'll find in the forthcoming late-2012 book, title not yet selected. For example, even symmetry creates inclusiveness.] What this means are two things: 1) Even symmetry cannot be broken (for a photon at least) and this makes the even symmetry a very principal component of physics; and 2) It is very likely (a fact, in fact) that all energies have even symmetry.

Feminine tie in
The axis of even symmetry is a virtual line. It is an empty slit. Just don't get huffy about this -- you'll lose if you do.

Oh, energy can become organized and then the energy is also about knowledge. And so you want to return the sword to the lady if you borrowed it in the first place. There are other entities that have the virtual axis but you are on your own now.

DSSP Topics for June '12

Science as the component of politics

Al Gore might be the first person who made some inroads under the American system to introduce a political imperative under the scientific pursuit of global warming. The fact he got as far as he did is remarkable, yet it is not remarkable that the use of science for political ends is -- or was -- the standard fare of the Soviet style leadership. One would not think Lenin would write science papers but he did and he was very serious about it. One of the discussions he joined was 'can matter disappear,' and this was at the time quantum mechanics was entering mainstream at the beginning of the 20th Century. Lenin's argument was that matter can indeed disappear and he took on those who thought otherwise.

Politics can get personal
The principal dimension of politics is power. The more absolute the power, the more personal it gets. The use of science papers by Lenin is no other but gathering of allies with the same persuasion to get to the top. But of course, voting by the population has nothing to do with it. The gory part is that if matter were to disappears as a natural outcome, then the bodies of your enemies can disappear as well and without going against nature. A person seeking power writes, reads, and understands things in a very different context. Perhaps you've heard the riddle: "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, will it make a sound?"

The bottom line
is that the use of science by politicians is suspect. In countries without direct elections the use of science by politicians is a directive.

How is it with that disappearing matter?
Matter can indeed disappear but it is not gone. Matter can transition from being real to being virtual. The art is to transition between the real and the virtual domain -- and back -- at will. While virtual, matter can move at superluminal speeds.

Enjoy the summer and think free energy.

DSSP Topics for May '12

Movement is easy, except .. ..

We walk effortlessly. We just push off and off we go. That's how the world is to a kid. Throw a ball and the ball will hit and move something else. By the time you grow up you find out it is not so simple. You want to step off a canoe onto a pier -- and end up wet. The canoe just slides off backward as its friction is low. Yes, there is the conservation of momentum going on here. Not just for a canoe but for a rifle bullet that must share its moving energy with the rifle. The same also hold for the rotational motion. A helicopter needs a second propeller that keeps it from spinning just like the main propeller.

So now we all know that in any creation of motion we have really two opposing motions: In the opposite directions for linear movement and in the opposite rotations for angular movement.

What's the big deal?
The thing is that the conservation of momentum holds for photons, too. A photon that bounces cannot impart motion to anything it strikes if the photon's speed after the bounce is the same as the speed before the bounce, which is indeed the case. There would be excess energy if the thing that is hit by a photon were to move. Waves are different but the conservation of energy holds for waves, too. In the real world the ball that rebounds is moving slower but such is not the case for a photon.

The big deal is
that even if the photon is absorbed and its energy utilized, such energy must move (or spin) two things in the opposite direction (or in opposite rotation). Somehow, this guy Einstein got it all wrong with the photoelectric effect because you know that there must be two things -- and not just one electron -- to move in the opposite direction, and that is how the momentum is and must be conserved. Yes, kiddo, this is a test.

DSSP Topics for April '12

Horus, after beating up Seth good, went to the court of the gods to be declared the ruler.

One of the oft-repeated arguments was that Horus' eye was undamaged. Are the hereditary rights based on geometry and not on, say, blood?

The ancient Egyptian story has it that Seth killed Osiris and took his kingdom. Isis gave birth to Horus after finding the body of Osiris, Horus' father. Yes, Isis had to do some magic to bring Osiris back to life and conceive Horus. After Horus grew up he engaged Seth in a fight and both scored significant victories onto each other. The case then ended up in the court of gods that decided Horus was to get his father Osiris' kingdom back.

The case is closed, except
that during the trial the argument in Horus favor was that Horus' eye was undamaged. Another argument was that if Seth gets the kingdom, "the heavens will touch the earth" (with destruction). This is strange considering that "here on earth" we argue about the blood lines when it comes to claiming the properties of the deceased. (I know, owning people is about slavery and presently that's not specifically enforced -- especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall.) The eye, however, plays a pivotal role in the exercise of power, both constructive and destructive. Although not explicitly stated, the undamaged eye is understood as the fundamental requirement. Yeah, the gods know this stuff but we don't.

The eye
is a geometric construct analogous to the focus of a lens. It is not focusing the light (e-m radiation) but focuses something else and additionally is able to contact, interact with, and collect the infinities. This is not terribly strange if we accept that intelligence is 'out there' and intelligence is organized energy. There are descriptions of gods such as Thoth using the eye to do what they need to do. More recently, eyes appear to either create of examine the crop circles.

But, hey, this is also the month of April and this topic is posted on, you guessed it, April 1.

DSSP Topics for March '12

The computer computes the forces but, even so, the computer cannot move
What's the computer good for?

So the wonderful computer cooks the numbers really fast, but so what? The computer can estimate a trajectory of something moving, but then it needs to burn fuel to get there. This is something we do not question very deeply. It is "obvious" the computer cannot move by itself by executing an instruction and without actually controlling an engine.

Why not?
That's how we are programmed. The computer computes, rocket moves. So there.

Are there structures that can actually move as a result of internal computations?
Yes there are. The question is, really: 'Can you move without propulsion, too?' Some free energy devices move as if by themselves, and it is then conceivable to compute something and, as you do, you begin to move as well. Except that the computer is no longer electronic but geometrical. Yes, just as you can compute the SQTR(2) on a machine, you can compute the SQRT(2) on a geometric structure and the result is a particular and actual distance having the result of the SQRT(2). If there are geometric structures that convert a wavelength to a frequency, you just actually converted a wavelength to energy. So there.

DSSP Topics for February '12

The real methods are those of a computer
The virtual methods are those of waves
Each bring something to the table, but then -- what to do with it?

The computer is great because we can specify the behavior of a system and then let the machine rip. The waves come up as probability waves. If the system is a car, there are all kinds of options, preferences and performances one needs to consider before making the car. After the car is made there arise new probability waves because the car is getting old and some customers want new things -- from a coffee holder to sat navigation and WiFi.

Real Methods
Right away we see that the car does not get better on its own. The real method uses the 'IF-THEN' logical construct to define the system. (IF we offer a 6-cyl engine THEN our sales go up by 20% and our cost by 1%.) In fact, our present computer works the way it does by implementing the IF-THEN construct and a human has to fill it in.

Virtual Methods
go by our own feel because the computer cannot handle "maybe." If you bring a computer to a brainstorming session you could take notes so that you don't forget the stuff, but the computer cannot suggest answers. The brainstorming has no rules other than an objective of increasing sales or decreasing defects, but after that the discussion points are limitless. The virtual methods use the 'WHAT ELSE' method, which asks: "What else is relevant to the objective?"

In summary,
the real methods specify what is inside the box and how things inside the box could be made more efficient. The virtual methods redefine the box itself.

So What
You always want to ask this question because there is always a lot of noise in everything. The thing is that the real methods are used by your left brain whereas the virtual methods by your right. You can be dominant in one or the other but you need both.

Then What
When you use both methods you self-organize. So now you have to figure out how the actual left and right brains do it. You will need geometry. Think of the box as the context. "Left" is the finite, "right" is the infinite.

DSSP Topics for January '12

An electron cannot be split.
But can the electron be parted -- that is, branched, just as a photon?

The dual slit experiment nicely shows what a photon does when it encounters two (or multiple) slits. A photon parts and both branches coherently leave the slits (yes, we've got a primer on that). Branches then superpose to different degrees at the point they reach a different parts of a screen and that is how the undulating superposition pattern of light forms.

A problem, if you can call it that, is with an electron. Our image is that of a solid particle and, even though an electron does produce qualitatively the same superposition pattern as a photon in a dual slit experiment, we are kind of stumped on the explanation. We know an electron can and does have a probabilistic distribution (that can vary, too), but somehow the word 'particle' sits in our mind and it is tough to see an electron becoming a wave. This is a spot the academia reaches and here it stops for them. There is no academic (that I know of -- and let me know if there is), who would claim an electron parts just like a photon when encountering two slits.

A Wave
is something that has energy. Unlike a photon, an electron can be imparted with energy. An electron can be shaped as a wave and such shapes are not confined to 1D (straight-line velocity) à la photon, but can also be in 2D or 3D. The "big" step is the realization an electron can spread and become a virtual electron. In such state, moreover, an electron can become larger than the distance between the two slits.

an electron can indeed pass through a plurality of slits as one entity and you'll observe self-superposition ("self-interference") once the superposing waves reach the screen on the right (not shown). For those of you who paid good money (yours or parents') for your education, you've got to undo your work, although you would not be as successful in getting your money back. There are the doozies the likes of Feynman who don't understand waves and feed you particle nonsense. Not all of academia is as screwed up as Feynman, though. Both Schrödinger and Dirac are on track.

the question that needs answering is what happens when the tail (leftmost part in the illustration) of the electron reaches the slots. The thing is that indeed the electron cannot be split -- in half or otherwise. The answer is not that difficult and you can also find it in the upcoming book (mid 2012). Think along the lines of a photon.

DSSP Topics for December '11

A big public university doesn't get it in more ways than one

I think I can say that all of us at one time or another strongly disagreed with statements coming from universities, usually plastered on the web as if they were the most current and objective research results your tax money can buy. I think of it as silly ideas one grows out of. But then there are times I take notice because the school not only gets the science wrong but is also totally ignorant about this country's heritage of fairness. As if suddenly the university professors got empowered to say anything and do it with public money to boot.

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1424 site talks and discusses the pressure a beam of light is supposed to put on a mirror. The moderator is anonymous. Wow. The questions and answers are one sided. No opposing views are posted. A challenge question by the moderator puts you on a page to report sites you think are baloney. Geez. All this on a public nickel.

is something that is not supposed to be questioned because it just is that way. It seems the University of Illinois is getting money for work that could be just plain nonsense and then they need the political arm that would tell us we should see the world the same way as their funding. Not bad for a nice piece of fraud. Well, okay, they hide people behind some Mike W. who tells us we should listen to him and 'beware of other ideas.'

is something used heavily by academia. The anonymous author/moderator in response to one of the 'light has momentum' questions says that "It's been measured in countless experiments." Not only does he not furnish a single reference, but in fact there is no single experiment that would measure the light's pressure on a mirror in, say, Newton/m2. For fifty years scientists are hiding behind equations and when they lie about the measurements they do so anonymously and in this case with public money as well.

if you think the economy is bad because America is not competitive, you are right. But before that changes you'll have to be honest. There is absolutely nothing wrong about booting the professor, too.

As for me, I reported their own site as baloney. My guess is that they were never really honest about being honest and so ..

Happy New Year. Think Free Energy

DSSP Topics for November '11

And then it disappears

A thing is a thing because it stays that way. A piece of a rock, a planet.

that it must have been put together somehow. Perhaps with the help of the Pythagorean tetractys/tetrahedron.

But then
it can be unmade as well. If it was made from nothing then it could be made back into nothing. In a way this would be okay because there would be no trash, no poisons.

that the knowledge that has put things together and taken them apart would not be unmade and in fact be available.

But now,
would it be possible to have that piece of the rock disappear and then reappear again without being remade?

Yep, it would. Now, how about you?

DSSP Topics for October '11

Clockwise and counter-clockwise stars have always made a diff. But why?

Drawing a star clockwise or counterclockwise has always made a big difference in Wicca. Scientists don't care because it does not mean anything to them. In Wicca, CCW is also called 'opening' while CW is 'closing' or 'banishing.' This could be nice and handy to witchcraft folk, but if there is more to it, I'd want to know.

It turns out
there are harmonious and disharmonious tones, and the nice thing about that is that we can agree on which are which. The harmony in music, then, is absolute. If you could plot the dual tones as geometric stars, you could find out why some (dual) tones are harmonious. Correspondingly, some stars would then be harmonious and some not. Hearing disharmony and seeing disharmony are presently easier to percieve audially than visually. The details and the reasons of harmony are in the Quantum Pythagoreans book, and the idea is that the clockwise pentacle is not harmonious while the counterclockwise pentacle is harmonious. So now we give Wiccans a big credit, for their 'closing' is the same as disharmonious while their 'opening' is the same as harmonious.

There is more
because any CC star (CC star is made on Concentric Circles) can be classified as harmonious or disharmonious, other stars -- besides the five pointed ones -- can be also found as 'opening' or 'closing.' Indeed, there is one ten pointed star that, if drawn counterclockwise in a particular sequence, is harmonious. Yes, we have a picture. I count the points in a convention that goes clockwise starting at the top and then you have to skip six points to get this harmonious ten pointed star. In Wicca or on this site, this ten pointed star could also be classified as "couterclockwise," because connecting the first two points looks as going CCW.

Is the cw or the ccw the key?
No. A decagon is disharmonious cw or ccw. A pentagon is harmonious cw and disharmonious ccw [bomb them to the stone age]. The counterclockwise octagon is harmonious but both of the ways of doing the octacle -- cw or ccw -- are disharmonious. The octacles are used heavily in the Muslim world and if they don't know what's going on they just thrash about.

DSSP Topics for September '11

Octahedron, third of the five Platonic solids

There are five and only five so-called Platonic solids: Tetrahedron (three sided pyramid), Cube (six squares), Octahedron (double four sided pyramid, base-to-base), Dodecahedron (twelve pentagons), and Icosahedron (twenty triangles). They are called solids because they are in 3D. Even Pythagoreans get a part coming up with some of them, according to Proclus [and I like Proclus].

is a solid that, since antiquity, has been shown as the double pyramid. But by giving it a slight tilt a different octahedron emerges. It is made of eight triangles that, however, make a "triangular drum." When folded out, the sides look like the ones shown on left.

In this Octahedron
top and bottom triangular sides are labeled as such. The other yellow triangles connect to the top triangular side and point down. The other blue triangles are connected to the bottom triangular side and point up. Logically and topologically it is very similar to a cube except that instead of squares it uses triangles for all of its sides. So I call it the triangular cube. It can also be called a triangular drum, much the same way a cube could be called a square drum.

Folded Up
It looks like a pyramid on its side. It is really a double pyramid. Being solid, it may be difficult seeing inside it, but it can be done. Drawing the edges makes the drawing below. This topic is related to projections and the geometric makeup of a virus. A virus has the shape of an icosahedron but before it gets to that it goes through several "construction stages."


DSSP Topics for August '11

Star classification -- Non-concentric Circles Star, the NC Star aka the Hyperstar aka the Molecular Star

The last two months dealt with the stars created from concentric circles, or CC stars. These issue from orbits around a single sun. The non-concentric star is in a different category. At this point it would be difficult (for me) to completely describe the orbits in a dual sun system but in the micro the situation is easier for the five pointed star. This is all new.

The Hyperstar
is a five pointed star that is created from non-concentric circles. Without the circles it is a good ol' pentacle or a pentagon or a five pointed star. With circles it becomes a pentacle that, however, does not have a precedence on this planet -- mathematically or culturally. So you can imagine why I like it very much. Details of its geometric construction are here.

While the basic hyperstar is five pointed, two of them can be put together 180 degrees out of phase by overlapping the circles. The result is a ten pointed hyperstar. Technically, this star is not regular. However, it is quite useful and that is one reason why I am proposing the NC Star category here.

Geometry Rules
Now, if the orbitals are the circles, the hyperstar will divide each of the two circles into exact tenths of a circle. In other words, although the star is not regular as far as the distance(s) between points, it is regular as far as the exact and even angles are concerned. Yet the most important part here is that the hyperstar actually enables the creation of molecules from atoms. This is because each of the circle's center is a spot for an atomic core. Geometry allows the growth of the atom into a molecule. The hyperstar has a particular and non-arbitrary separation of the circles, namely SQRT(5)+1, which is the numerator of the golden ratio. (The denominator is 2.)

At this time I don't know if, for example, two eight pointed stars can be put together to form a 16 pointed NC hyperstar.

The NC Hyperstar, The Definition
The Non-concentric Circle Hyperstar divides each of the two non-concentric circles into equal and exact angular segments.

Other Stars
What's left from the stars' categorization are the regular stars, the R Stars. These are covered by Gauss and depend on the exact division of a circle. These further divide (subdivide) into harmonious and disharmonious stars. Such subcategorizing is addressed by the Quantum Pythagoreans book.

DSSP Topics for July '11

Star classification -- The 2nd and last installment for the Concentric Circles Star, the CC Star

Last month we kicked off star classification. Fundamentally, we are in the macro and derive the stars from planetary orbits. Two planets, when merged into one, will create a trace of a star, a CC Star. And then it also happens that a trace of a star would not skip one point and then two points because such trace does not happen for planetary orbits -- but it could be a fancy star anyway.

What's left
is the difference in points of a star. One kind of a point is made when the trace moves outbound and changes to inbound. The other kind of a point is the reverse -- the trace changes from inbound to outbound. The application tie-in comes from planetary conjunctions. When the two planets are closest together (inferior conjunction) the outbound-to-inbound point is made. This kind of a point is the most visible on a star -- it is furthest away from the center (sun). But when the two planets are the furthest apart (superior conjunction), the in-to-out point is made. This point is closest to the center of the star (closest to sun). So now, the furthest away points can be called 'exterior' or 'outside' or 'extreme' points but I would not adopt the 'inferior' terminology from astrology. Similarly, a point closest to the center could well be called the 'inside' point.

Harmony again
It is also easy to imagine the two planets disturbing the sun through their angular momentum and introducing a wobble onto the sun. If you were a physicist or an engineer you would see it as a problem because a wobbling sun is a "problem." It is not a problem because we want to create the orbits to begin with and we like planets to live on (I say this because scientists are not very bright). Certain orbit frequencies are harmonious and so you want to know how to get there and make the orbits stable.

Here is a pentacle. The two circles are concentric with the sun in the center. Yes, they are the orbits of actual two planets. If drawn as shown with the sequence 1-2-etc., the star is harmonious. In our definition it is a CC star with five extreme points. CC (concentric circles) star means it skips the same number of points during its creation and, in this case the star's construction skips 2 points going (always) clockwise. The numerical characterization (explained in the book) is (5+3)/5 and this also tells you whether the star is cw or ccw and if it is harmonious. Now, this picture is a simplification of a real two-planet merged orbit because the points are connected in straight lines (in order the points are made). So how does a real and actual merged-planet orbit look like? Glad you asked. But of course, different planets make different CC stars.

DSSP Topics for June '11

Star classification -- first installment: CC Star (Concentric Circle Star)

The classification of stars comes from math people who think they got every aspect of a (geometric) star covered. They get carried away and ignore possible applications such as music. They ignore nature altogether: The Venus-Earth pentacle shape, having a curlicue, would not qualify as a star Wikkily speaking. People on the mainstream scientist websites compile trivia, references and circular references, one paragraph not at times agreeing with the next. To top it off, math guys get nonlinear if you suggest they should include examples of applications with their fancy definitions. In summary, mainstream math guys do not lead and get offensive if you suggest they ought to back it up with an application. At best they try making a virtue out of a need.

 Two point star -- the Catseye More examples
Here is what happens when Neptune and Pluto are gravitationally combined. The trace shows how the Sun sees both planets as a single body. It is a shape that resembles a (rotated) cat's eye having two distinctive points ("corners"). You guessed it, mainstream science does not have a two pointed star because they see "two pointed" reduced into a circle's diameter and they do not give a damn about possible real-world applications. They also happily ignore the 3:2 orbit ratio that produces this eye shape -- a very well known musical ratio (and a harmonious one at that). It is then easier for the scientists to either ignore the application connection or, if they cannot find an explanation, try to remove the application by declaring Pluto a non-planet.

It is perfectly okay for scientists to give up on any part under their purview, just as they did with ether. They can also claim photons are just like little meatballs and play with them in their own sandbox, but I would not pay them for such nonsense.

It is then time to come up with our own definition of what a star is.

New Definition of a Star: 1) Concentric Circles Star or CC Star
All stars need circles for their creation. Applications-wise, circles are orbits and so we are in the macro. Because there can be more than one orbit there could be several circles. Initially, circles will be concentric, as there is but one sun in the center. A CC star is a star having its points appearing on one or more concentric circles, although an orbit circle and the points circle are not usually the same. A star's point happens when a shape changes radial direction -- that is, when a shape changes from going outbound to inbound. Going the other way -- from inbound to outbound -- also makes a point but of different kind. In our Neptune-Pluto example, all points lie on a straight line and there are four points: two for outbound change and two for inbound change. At least two orbiting planets are needed.

Unicursal Star
All concentric stars are unicursal. This means the trace goes on without stopping or jumping and eventually ends up at the starting point. This is yet another outcome from the orbital application and the planetary real world tie-in. A trace can take any-some-such path to get from one point to the next. However, because the star is tied to the real world application the path from one point to the next will always have the same distance. Another way of saying it is that if a star's trace skips a point then it continues skipping but one point going around the circle (and cannot suddenly skip two points). In yet another way of saying it, the star is regular during its creation, which means that going from one point to the next will take the same angle. The star can then be simplified by connecting the points in the sequence they are reached but much information can be lost. For example, if we were to connect the above Neptune-Pluto points, they would end up on a straight line.

In the illustration on the left, there are two CC stars, both pentagons. Each star comes from nature but overlaying two of them cannot make one ten pointed CC star. Yet, there are ten pointed CC stars.

is about two or more frequencies being played together. Taking the orbit frequencies from our solar system the tones will be harmonious. In general, however, some combined frequencies could be disharmonious and some -- even if they are not present in our solar system -- could be harmonious. The full explanation of harmony's conditions is in the book.

Last edit July 7, 2011

DSSP Topics for May '11

Yes, the 24 pointed and 16 pointed stars can be made via a single geometric construction

The 12 and 24 point stars are mostly reserved for time keeping. The 16 point stars are about navigation and the 16 point nautical or magnetic stars or rosettes bring you the fine resolution of North by Northwest, for example. The 24 point star starts as a 3 pointed star and by continuous doubling eventually reaches 24 points. The 16 point star starts at 2 points (a diameter) and by doubling gets to 16. In both cases we can continue on and on but the points ratio will always be in 3:2, which is the musical "fifth." How they got to calling it a "fifth" you have to research on your own, for I get flustered by the music people's strange complications. The ratio of 3:2 is just fine by me and very descriptive, too, because frequencies of 300 and 200 Hz being played together are just in the 3:2 ratio and I don't know why anybody has to complicate things by calling it a "fifth." The musical "fifth" has nothing to do with 3+2 and the last time I checked it had nothing to do with a fifth of a gallon, as in BYOB. It is also easy to make a connection between a three-point star and three wavelengths wrapping about the center and, consequently, the points of a star are directly related to frequency. We have now ventured into applications but in a strict sense we are talking about the exact geometric constructions as related to the exact division of a circle.

The construction
starts with the cardinal X-Y coordinates and uses circles of but one radius. The construction is so simple I was fairly certain I would find it on the Internet. After a short search I did not even find a 12-and-8-point common construction, which is simpler and precedes the 24-and-16-point common construction. The central circle marks the 24 points star intercepts as well as the points for the compass centering of other circles of the same radius.

Here is our own construction for both the 12-and-8-point star.

Frequencies, again
Standing at the center and rotating about it, at each revolution you will encounter 24 points following one star and 16 points following the other.

This construction procedure can be used in ever-increasing star point count. Circle radii stay the same and the circles grow denser around the central circle but they do not expand outward. The next point of the compass for the 48 and 32 point combo star would be at the NNW and WNW intercepts with the center circle -- and repeated for the corresponding intercepts at the other three quadrants.

DSSP Topics for April '11

Energy classification in dimensions, continuing with dynamics

Last two months we delved into energy classification based on dimensions. So far each the 0D, 1D, 2D, and 3D energies have their own "niche" that is easier to understand than saying chemical energy, for example.

Is there the most important dimension?
Yes, there is. When it comes to all kinds of energies doing their thing in various dimensions, the most significant is the dimension zero. This is not difficult to see because spin and rotation and orbits are about the point symmetry. We also need a point in a very esoteric aspect of transforming energies, for the real and the virtual domains can interact only through a 0D point. The thing is that the dimension zero is very much ignored outside of geometry and so the scientists have their gaming universe to themselves. In other words, you have to appreciate that scientists know very little. The degree of specialization is not moving us forward, really, because everybody is right in a narrower and narrower field.

Moving among dimensions
This is not about faster-than-light travel but it is close. Energies can move from one dimension to another and then, for example, transforming rotational energy to linear energy results in straight-and-forward 1D motion we love so much. But now the thing moving in 1D could have its energy detached and applied onto something else. Yes, but so far we can understand this only through collisions. Something transfers energy onto something else and makes it spin. So now, can this energy transfer be done without a collision? Yes, it can. And that is the best part of energy. An accelerating body is accepting energy. Once we figure out the energy attachment mechanism, we can then figure out the detachment mechanism -- and stop moving bodies at a distance -- but then attach energy to something else again, without a collision of course.

DSSP Topics for March '11

Energy classification in dimensions, continued

Last month we proposed the classification of energy based on dimensions. So, as there are 0D to 3D degrees of freedom, we will use this schema to talk about the energy. We also said the scientists are clueless when it comes to classifying intelligence and this month we will see where the smart energies are.

The Chinese,
interestingly enough, define several intelligent energies. I will stick to calling 2D based energies the 'free energy,' in line with the general pursuit of harnessing these space borne energies. The existence of 'free energy' is presently being denied by the mainstream and taxpayer-paid scientists, but, you know, it's a matter of you figuring it out rather than waiting for a handout.

2D and 3D energies.
2D energies are not exactly free, for the energy is diverted from the Earth's orbital momentum or by deconstructing matter, for example. 3D energies have nowhere near the physical oomph of 2D energies but what they do have is their infinite uniqueness. 3D energies are sculpted in 3D and, being a wavefunction (a virtual energy), 3D energies are difficult to read. The energy has to reduce and an appropriate 3D physical construct must exist to intercept it. When you study you memorize certain things and such things have a geometric representation in your brain. Such representation, then, is capable of intercepting space borne intelligence. A motion of your physical body has a similar memory component and, well, you have get into Tai Chi to move from just talking about it to actually feeling it. 3D also deals with energy storage that has a 0D component.

Healing energies are also in 3D. Our structure is in the aura and there are intelligences the likes of angels that can deal with fixing your body. Everything you do is stored and some say everyone has a plan that's stored in there as well. Technically, things can be denied but that could make it worse. After all, you would not want your knowledge to disappear if you were to lose your diploma.

1D energy
is your everyday photon. On this planet the linear kinetic motion of automobiles and rifle projectiles dominate but 1D energy is pretty rudimentary and in the long run not very effective.

DSSP Topics for February '11

Energy classification

Energy is presently classified along the easy-to-visualize lines -- such as, kinetic, potential, thermal, chemical, photonic, etc. Not bad. Actually, the visualization aspect is important. Yet, if we don't understand what energy is and where it could come from and how it looks like, we are limited to descriptions such as healing energy or harmonious energy, which is not very revealing. For some people it is apparent that knowledge, intelligence, and information are also forms of energies. The scientist, however, is clueless when it comes to explaining intelligence or information, and there is then a need to delve into energies along different classification lines.

The Chinese
differentiate energies associated with a human body into about four categories. Chinese health and Martial arts literature is available and abundant in the explanations, but now I don't want to expound the Chinese reasoning when differentiating chi and ch'i, for example. I don't need to, actually.

baseline to energies is very forthcoming. It issues from geometry and, in particular, from the 0, 1, 2, and 3 dimensions of independence. An atomic electron is in an orbital and carries 2D and 3D energies but not 1D energy. A free electron, when moving, carries 1D energy while its spin is 0D energy. Light is 1D energy, and so on. The dimensions of independence give us an excellent framework, which is particularly revealing during energy transformations. For example, a photon of light issuing from an atom receives 2D energy from an electron's orbital but the resulting photon is in 1D. The squaring of a circle comes in and our hyperstar is very useful in this regard. (Hyperstar is treated on this page in the Jan 2011, Dec 2010, and Feb 2010 DSSP topics.)

DSSP Topics for January '11

Hyperstar art

The hyperstar is our particular creation of a pentagon and consequently a pentacle and a five point star. It comes about from a direct construction of the golden proportion. The end result is the hyperstar, which can be rendered with five or ten points. You will note the hyperstar is not made from just one circle.

Picture filename: hyperstar_5-point.gif

Last month (below) we highlighted one unusual property of a ten pointed hyperstar: Some points lie on a straight line and do not curve as we would expect on a conventional star. Yet, the hyperstar contains a large number of design elements in addition to the star itself. Lunes (moons), circles, and rings and triangles -- all relating in particular proportions and angles. The triangles are golden, too.

By putting and keeping the elements in their original proportions you and I can create art that is specific to -- yes -- atomic and cosmic constructions. Here is but one example but you can see many selected designs here. Enjoy.

Picture filename: pentagon-moon.gif

DSSP Topics for December '10

When the star is neither concave or convex, what kind of star is it?

A: The Hyperstar

All polygons are convex. The trace moves from one point to another and the direction (curvature) does not reverse. It is the same thing when riding a race car on an oval -- you steer in one direction only. On a concave track you reverse the direction from right to left and vice versa etc. So, an octagon below is convex and so is the octagram if you trace as indicated.

Picture filename: convex_octagon.gif

an octacle can be both concave and convex if we count the inside bends as points -- or if the minor points cause a concave trace:

Picture filename: convex_and_concave_octacle.gif

Picture filename: convex_and_concave_octagon.gif

That is how things stand.
The scientists classify all possible stars and everything is covered. Well, not our Hyperstar:


Picture filename: hyperstar_not_convex_not_concave.gif

The Hyperstar
When moving from point 1 to 2 to 3 there is no bending. The hyperstar is neither convex or concave. Classifying this star could be a real pain. But, at the end of it, it is a star that has nothing to do with counting points. So there.

Oh, the lines 1-2, 2-3, and 1-3 each form a side of two golden triangles.

Happy New Year.

DSSP Topics for November '10

When you direct a laser at something and observe a motion, you

    a) Write a new theory about it
    b) You know some light got absorbed
    c) Never get a motion in a vacuum without consumables

Lasers are nice to work and play with. So we point them at just about anything. They heat up a surface so much they cut right on through. And because most of the people think photons carry momentum, they also think the laser beams can push things.

But they don't.
A laser beam cannot push anything by reflecting from it. This fact does not subscribe to equations the scientists have, but never mind that. They, the scientists, love equations and if you ask one to build a laser beam perpetual motion machine by bouncing a light beam back and forth between two parallel mirrors, they really cannot do it -- but they love their equations so much they don't care the equations don't describe reality. They point their lasers at liquid bubbles or shoot a laser through a bent fiber optic cable. Bubbles extend, fiber bends some more or less. That would be okay, for people like to invent a new instrument that can pick a small object with a laser, say. The bottom line is that the light from a laser must reduce into heat if some movement is to be observed.

So now
the scientist makes different conclusions about light. They bring in theories that support or contradict this or that scientist. They toss in Nobel prizes to improve the scientist's credibility, but light is not a stream of little bouncing balls and so they go back and forth arguing the same premise of how many angels can fit on a head of a pin. Everybody makes a point but all of it is irrelevant because -- from Compton on through Einstein -- they cannot go past the little billiard balls when it comes to the photons of light.

How can you tell
where the truth is? On reflection, from a mirror say, a photon remains a photon -- that is, energy. There is no momentum transferred to a mirror when light bounces from it. When a photon reduces into heat or electrical energy then the photon is no longer a photon and is gone: one form of energy transferred to another. In the vacuum of space it is impossible to create motion from a laser because the absorption opportunities just aren't there. I suppose you can evaporate some material and make it move but when the material is gone so is the motion. You can move in the vacuum of space through other means but gravitational forces are not photonic. To move in the vacuum you will need to understand gravitation and this becomes a different topic altogether.

What's wrong?
There is nothing wrong writing about a so-called science even if it has no merit and no return on investment. But if NASA thinks they are doing breakthrough science they are just showcasing their stupidity. It would also help if the Nobel committee were to toss out Compton and Einstein, and admit both the committee and the scientists botched it up. I've no problems leaving the scientists behind, along with their baggage. Yes, there are links to all the right angles on light.

DSSP Topics for October '10

Modulo math is about rotation and recycling. Is there more?

For two thousand years modulo math was in the esoteric category. Pythagoras first brought up the decad -- or modulo-10 -- when HE spoke of the decad in that after the decad of ten one returns to one to start another decad. This was picked up by the Greeks and Hebrews who assigned numbers to letters up to nine, the next letter restarting with zero. Gauss picked up the modulo math formally and showed how to predict divisibility of very large numbers with simple digit summation. Not long ago in the 1980s modulo math was applied in the public key cryptography.

In essence, our clock is modulo-12 because after the 12 the hand restarts at one. And so we can pick any whole number N and apply the modulo-N math.

Can modulo math be advanced?
But of course you knew this is a rhetorical question. In the present modulo-N setup the reference stays put. The 12 o'clock position stays on top. Yet if you forget about the 12 o'clock position and include the small hand of the clock as a modulo reference, which is now allowed to move, we will have a modulo in the 12-to-1 ratio. For every 12 rotations of the large hand the small hand makes one rotation.

There could be other ratios.
In the 8-to-5 ratio the faster hand would make 8 revolutions for every 5 of the slower hand. Isn't it nice the Venus-Earth revolve around the sun in this ratio? And Earth-Mars in the 15-to-8 ratio? In the book Quantum Pythagoreans the notion of orbit rationing is applied in the explanation of harmony and disharmony. To top it off, orbit ratios open up a new chapter on modulo math, which as yet does not deal with a modulo of two numbers such as the modulo-8/5.

DSSP Topics for September '10

Bring on the waves
Adding an axiom or two to Euclid can help with free energy

Axioms are axioms because they need not be questioned. They are common sense obvious kinds of things that need no proof, say. If we take the Euclid's axiom saying that through two points one can draw but one line, it does not make much sense to argue for or against it: It is just right just the way it is. Or is it?

This guy Euclid
was not really up on irrational and transcendental numbers. He proves that irrationals such as the square root of two cannot be obtained by rationing and leaves it at that. Euclid has no clue on what the irrationals or transcendentals can do for you and he just leaves them on the side-lines.

A solid line
from this point to that point is about the magnitude. It has some length we can measure exactly. So we cut a two-by-four to some exact length and feel good about it. But if the distance between two points is irrational there is no way we can cut a stick or a piece of something to be exactly the same distance because we do not know where to make the cut. An irrational distance has an infinite number of nonrepeating sub-unity digits (called mantissa) and even the expert measurer cannot decide where to make the cut because the decimal digits go on and on and on. Yes, I know you will say the third decimal place will not make a diff in the height of a door, but the idea is that in nature no real thing can exist where the irrationals live.

The pesky irrationals
Okay, so we give up on the irrational distances because no real thing will fit in there and ignore them the same way Euclid did. Hey, we can even ignore those math guys who say there are more irrational numbers than rational numbers. They are theoreticians, you know. But what can actually fit in the irrational distance? Better yet, is there something that's happy about irrational distances?

The waves can fit the rational or irrational distance. Waves can span the irrational distance just fine and do so exactly. But you have to give them space because, as you know by now, a rational piece of something fills in the rational length and, by excluding the irrational distance, excludes the waves as well. And so the waves need an empty space to form and to exist across any distance.

The transcendentals
are in the same boat except they do it in the geometry of a circle. A circle cannot be squared as a whole and so one cannot make a perfect circle from wood, say, because a real thing is made from real numbers and no circumference of any circle can be a finite number. So, similarly, it is up to the waves to make a perfect circle of 2Pi.

It just might be good time to add to Euclid's axioms and fold in the waves. They are important because they are everywhere and we want to work with them. But of course, waves are about energy.

DSSP Topics for August '10

You know the argument about the nonexistence of God: If God were all-powerful He or She could build a wall .. ..

If God were all-powerful He or She could build a wall such that nobody, God included, could get over it. If He could not get over the wall then God would not be all-powerful. If He could then God would not be all-powerful because He did not build the wall that would stop everybody.

Some people
stand back with a smile waiting for your reaction. Some think a man's brain can put an end to God. And then you say, 'Can you make the biggest dwarf? You can make him out of concrete and put it in your garden, you know, but it has to be the biggest.'

something also calls for excluding something else -- for otherwise the spec would not be a spec. By specifying going straight we exclude going in circles. By requiring getting wet we exclude being dry. By requiring building a wall we deny passage. You can ask God to resolve a conflict but you can show but your poor thinking if you want two contradicting things to happen. Things happen for a purpose and a wall can be created -- but for another purpose the wall can be uncreated. There are many, many purposes -- one better than the other.

When you enter the infinity you will see God.

DSSP Topics for July '10

How is force linked to inertia and mass?

Newton defined inertia as force (vis inertiae in Latin) that resists a change in direction and/or speed some mass body may have. A body may be at rest or moving linearly or spinning or orbiting but to affect any change to the path or speed, the inertia is and must be engaged. Newton, then, defines a dynamic property of mass and calls it inertia. The good thing is that inertia works for any body and is the same everywhere in the universe. Inertia appears linearly proportional to mass: a body with twice the mass has twice as much inertia. This linear proportionality is confirmed in a laboratory or in your backyard.

Same other background
An electron has mass. When accelerating electrons to a higher and higher speed, we would expect the electron's inertia linearity to hold and we could technically achieve any speed we want. Such is not the case, however. Adding more and more energy to an electron speeds it up a bit but the speed does not exceed the speed of light. Energy conservation continues to hold -- that is, even though the electron's speed finds a limit at lightspeed, any amount of energy imparted onto an electron can be recovered in full.

So now
you have to decide on the mechanism that is taking place here. Some took an easy way out and declared that the mass of the electron is somehow increasing and that is why we are up against a higher and higher resistance and thus a higher and higher inertia. But then the conclusion is that a mass of an electron would then have to increase to infinity as the lightspeed is reached. Yet, letting an electron to acquire mass just like that is somewhere between pseudoscience and stupid science because it does not deal with the mechanism of inertia, which is about the mechanism of the conservation of energy.

Inertia is about the conservation of energy
When a mass body speeds up the energy put into it can be recovered in full, sooner or later, gradually or suddenly. You can speed up a body but to do so you will need to push it some distance and with distance you get a direction. It is this direction that is also being conserved, for if you speed up a real thing going North, say, the body will continue to go North. Now, the only entity that has speed and direction is a wave because a wave is nonlocal and must have spatial distance. Inertia must be a wave-based mechanism and the conservation of energy is also wave based.

How it works
Speeding up a real object imparts frequencies to the atoms comprising the object. Higher frequencies have higher energies and that is how the work that is put in to speed things up is stored. Yes, the energy speeding up an object is stored with the object. Big deal? You bet. By affecting the frequencies at a distance you can speed up or slow down an object at a distance.

Mainstream science
is in the stupids category for about 100 years now. Einstein is okay for keeping the reductionists in their black hole. Sooner than later, though, Einstein and the reductionists will have to go. Lack of truth gives rise to many opportunities and I see the success of Tai Chi in Europe and Canada as a rejection of the status quo. Tai Chi is in the area of health and self-improvement but it has a geometric foundation. In physics, the idea is that you can work this month's topic without the so called scientists and make some real progress, too. The wave mechanics dealing with the conservation of energy is limited by lightspeed but the frequencies are unbounded. Perhaps you see now why the speed of a real object cannot exceed the speed of light but can accumulate higher and higher energy because the frequencies are unbounded. At lightspeed the frequency and thus the energy goes to infinity (but the mass stays the same).

DSSP Topics for June '10

When two waves add up to zero, where does the energy go?

It is easy to visualize two ocean waves adding up to a bigger wave. One half of the new wave gets higher and the other half gets lower, but the overall feel we get is of a wave that has twice as much energy. After all, a boat on top of such wave would be lifted up twice as high. But if the two waves do not come together at the same time (coherently, in phase) but instead meet each other one half the wavelength later (180º out-of-phase), the waves add up to zero and there is no visible wave action. The energy of a wave seems to have disappeared.


Picture filename: wave-phase-addition-gif

Energy and Geometry
Yet, we also know that the keys are with energy and geometry. When the boat goes up it receives energy and when the boat goes down it gives up energy. The net (or average) energy is zero. Yes, the net energy is zero even if the height of the wave doubles. In practical terms the up and down motion does not take away or give this wave energy. What this also means that the ocean waves do not push a boat along -- that's up to the wind, for example. If such is the case, where is the energy of a wave?

Geometric split
The height of a wave can be visualized as an even polarizing split happening in the second dimension. Exactly one half becomes positive, the other half negative -- but such is only the case for the up and down direction called the transverse direction.

Can you visualize the creation of a wave as creating something out of nothing? After all, the net energy is zero before and after the creation of a wave. (Careful, think transverse vs. longitudinal. Transverse is at a right angle to the longitudinal.)

You supply energy when you create a wave. Such energy can be real or it can be virtual. In either case the energy must be imparted in some direction that ends up being the direction of the wave propagation and that is the longitudinal. Technically, force must happen over (some direction) of a distance to speak of energy. When you plink a stone on water you use real energy. Self-test:-) If you agree that ocean waves are real waves, continue. But photons are made with the virtual energy -- all photons are wavefunctions based on the SQRT(-1). Wavefunctions, being virtual, cannot push a real object such as a boat but they do interact logically with the environment they encounter. Wavefunctions also cannot push a mirror ("boat," load) longitudinally although they could reflect from it, and this is the manifestation of the difference between the real and virtual energies.

So now you know
that the energy is along the longitudinal. Even if two waves add up to zero they do so transversely and the energy remains in the longitudinal.

There is more
to this and we have a bunch of photons of light topics on this site. Say, can we keep adding photonic energy in a very small space and do so without limit?

DSSP Topics for May '10

Is matter smart?

The atom could be smart considering its ability to stay together under some pretty extreme conditions. The atom will stay essentially complete even though it loses some electrons from its orbitals and becomes ionized -- only to revert to its original state when the electrons become available again. Some atoms can withstand high temperatures without breaking up -- and we can only compute the millions of degrees it would take to break it up -- and ooh and aah about it.

The atom relies on radial symmetry -- the core being at the center -- and the radial symmetry is a concept worth exploring. In the micro we also find radial symmetry in the free electron, which has a propensity to spread -- yes, in the radial fashion. The radial symmetry also exists in the macro in a way our solar system is organized. Now, the concept of the radial symmetry could become embodied as a form of intelligence that is "out there." So far it seems simple but consider that the orbits and orbitals need to resolve the squaring of a circle problem to reconcile the linear (photon) and the rounded (electron) energies for an atom or a molecule to remain unbroken. Perhaps now you might agree that, just maybe, the atom might be smarter than most of us.

So what
if one could actually talk to or interact with such intelligence? It would not be a person all right but I think an interaction could be had. For example, if you had an idea of a new power source, you could conceivably get a feedback on whether this new source is agreeable to the "Principle" of the radial symmetry that subscribes to the atom's stability, for example. In the esoteric department such principle could actually manifest and act in support or against the new power source.

Can this get weird?
Yes. As tempting as it is, take it easy and get well grounded before making conclusions. It's nonlocal out there. Oh, it could have something to do with the Philosopher's Stone.

DSSP Topics for April '10

What happens when God sends an eye ..
 1) You've got to be kidding
 2) He/She has but one left
 3) It's a figure of speech
 4) It's the magic of geometry

We keep an eye on things or someone keeps an eye on a kid. Yeah, there is the evil eye that's supposed to give you the jinx and the jibbies. A private eye keeps an eye on others, but that is not what God would do. If He of She would have to pay someone for snooping then He would not be God. But there are stories of ancient Egyptian gods 'sending an eye.' The idea behind such operation is to find someone and cause something to happen.

Thoth did it
He sent an eye after Tefnut when she ran away to Nubia. The story has Thoth and Tefnut's partner Shu doing magical things to find Tefnut. Thoth sends out an eye, in effect a zero-dimensional construct of a focus, to find Tefnut. Such focus is not optical but logical. Technically, it could find Tefnut wherever she is. 'The Eye' is a geometric construct of a point and you will find it on the AUM symbol, too. It is "a link" to the intelligence of the universe which is, nontheless, subject to the (subjective) objective of the person doing the extraction and using it locally. So much for the technical side of things.

The story has a happy ending in that Tefnut and Shu are reunited and after purification and reconciliation they both return to Egypt. They get married, too. This sounds like a really good bedtime story for kids or for farmers relaxing after a long day in the fields. Except that the story continues and says that a human race could arise after that. Okay, so this must be one of the creation myths then -- yes, the world is full of them. Except that this story is from the funeral texts and at that time reserved for but the Pharaohs.

Re did it
He sent an eye after all of the humanity. It was not supposed to be in anger but it had almost the same effect. Quite an adjustment considering it worked as planned. Two Goddesses received the message through Re's eye and went on a rampage. Humans' faculties got reduced considerably and new agencies were inserted between the divine and us. Supposedly we lost the direct link to the divine.

If you think this is too much of bad news, chalk it up to April 1. If you know a bit about the ancient Egyptians, you know about Hawthor and Sekhmet and Re and Thoth. We can still reach the divine but it will take some learning work. You've got the Internet, this site, and you just might be in position to figure it all out. Actually, I have a theory about Re adjustment: Humans are, really, pretty smart -- and it has to do with Corpus Callosum.

DSSP Topics for March '10

The virtual domain is imaginary and ..

 1) We can enter it with imaginary numbers
 2) It is about the infinities
 3) It can get very confusing
 4) It can be very creative

In the recorded and unrecorded beginning the irrational numbers sprung to our consciousness through the geometric root. Pythagoras and HIS school were the source. Soon, however, the infinite part of an irrational number started giving other people problems. So much so the stories were written saying the irrational numbers were an embarrassment to the Pythagoreans and that's why they swept it under a rug. This is not so, simply because if you discover something new and if you are in discovery business to begin with, you keep it close to your chest: The treasure chest of the Pythagorean School. Let the outsiders think what they may.

the irrational numbers are not the virtual numbers. This took another thousand years until the workings of the cube root, which led to the square root of a negative number. Presently, the square root of minus one begun to find some applications and it evolved into a new word: wavefunction. Mathematically, the root of -1 is called i, the imaginary unit number. But we prefer the word 'virtual.' Saying 'imaginary' is not bad, it just does not have the application associations we think it deserves.

The strange get-together
of irrationals and virtuals happens with a photon. The photonic wavefunction moves but because it can be at any spot (at any 0D point), a photon can span an irrational distance and be or move infinitely smoothly at any possible spot. Now, the scientist continues to have a problem with that because he uses algebra to arrive at specific answers and when it comes to a photon they cannot get the exact answer. Have you ever heard that a photon carries virtual energy until it is absorbed? On this site you did, but the scientist sweeps the virtual photon under a rug.

The virtual domain
is about waves. These waves are not real but that's okay because in the virtual world the waves superpose and the full infinity of them can do that. On top of that, the superposition is instantaneous and so working with infinities may not be that difficult, for it can be done in finite time. As a Pythagorean you are not only into discovery -- you are also into creation. But of course, it is creation that uses waves and the numbers that stand behind them. You want to know how to entice the virtual energies to curve and an electron can become virtual and carry virtual energies as well. Once you know how to make them curve you can make an atom. Imagine.

Oh, don't forget the irrationals the likes of the root of five.

DSSP Topics for February '10

So you think there is something special about the pentacle. Pick the best one:

 1) Pentacle is but a pentagram in a circle
 2) Pentacle is witchy
 3) Pentacle is the source of the pentagram and there is more than one pentacle
 4) Pentacle is about the atom
 5) Pentacle and the human body have more than correspondences together
 6) All of the above

For a while there was just one pentacle -- a five pointed star drawn with straight lines called the pentagram surrounded by a circle that looks like this . And the men painted a person (yes, a man) over the star and wrote micro and macro cosmic stuff about it. A few hundred years ago this guy Agrippa surrounded the pentagram with two circles, others with three. Even king Solomon broke off a point on his seal trying to butt in post mortem on the fame of the pentacle. The occult guys took up swords in ceremonial fashion, stepped into the double circle pentacle, and begun conjuring the spirits. As it happens, the division of a circle into five is doable exactly geometrically and everybody likes this so much the five pointed star is truly worldwide.

this month we are dealing with creation and staying in the micro. The atomic orbital must have an integer quantity of waves if such waves are to close about the nucleus -- and the number five will do nicely. There is more to this and it is about stability. The atomic orbitals can change incrementally and in the new closure of the orbital the numbers are important. So, the ability to create a pentagram using various orbits is important as well.

A new star is born illustration filename: hyperstar_free_spirit.gif
More specifically, a new root of creating a pentagram is born. It takes non-concentric yet interlocking circles and a new pentacle is created from them. Because the pentacle is free to rotate in space, a double-pentacle of a ten-pointed star is possible with the result that all intercepts making triangles, trapezoids, pentagons, and a center diamond are golden -- that is, all their lengths are in the golden proportions. This is very nice, especially if you think about orbital change and the squaring of a circle -- the exchange between the electron curving energies based on transcendentals and the straight photonic energies based on irrationals.

 All triangles, pentagons, trapezoids, and the diamond are golden illustration filename: hyperstar_north-south_escape.gif
There is more in the micro

It's gas
Two non-concentric circles show the ability to create valence orbitals in a molecule, for the two atoms are physically separated. Gas such as helium, oxygen, and nitrogen are all pairs of atoms and the valence orbitals hold the molecule together. But there is more to it if you can apply it in the macro. I call the non-concentric circle pentacle the hyperstar:

The points of two hyperstar pentagrams form a North-South axis that can explain a lot of stuff such as spin, crystal formation, and the shape of the core. You can fancy up the hyperstar, too. Oh, the radii of the hyperstar are in the golden proportion and there are three of them.

 Hyperstar of your fancy illustration filename: hyperstar-pentacle-fancy.gif

There is more in the macro {Mar 6, 2010}
The fancy hyperstar on the left has many connotations. In Tai Chi, particular movements are named after animals the likes of tigers, snakes/dragons and storks but on this site we'll stick to the terms of the Pythagorean School. When you think of the hyperstar illustration in the Martial arts context, there is one mind-body movement that offers a close fit. It has the fist of one (right) hand moving to the (right) hip while the other hand is extending forward, palm out. So now I'd call this movement drawing three bows. The couplex (dantien) is not shown but it is in the center of the intersecting cirles. (Movements named after animals are nature inspired and are not indicative of inferior understanding. In China, then and now, Martial arts needs to be disguised for fear of reprisals. Tai Chi is great for health and most schools do not emphasize the fighting dimension. A bureaucrat, however, just does not take a chance in distinguishing one from the other.)

DSSP Topics for January '10

Frequencies create, mostly

Frequencies tend to engage a system and at times a resonance is found. The New Age types like to say resonances are good but in physics the resonance can damage or even destroy a system. Not everything and everybody is powerless, however, because some frequencies will be absorbed and then reradiated -- and so the energy does not build up to the point of destruction (think photons). If a frequency is in 1D while the structure is in 3D, the energy-carrying frequency does not necessarily become resonant -- that is, absorbed, and the waves of such frequencies go right on through. If the memories in your brain are 3D structures, it just might not be easy to match that and mess with it logically on a signal level.

So now
You are a creator and want to make something. You will forgo the familiar kids stuff Lego block construction because that just makes bigger things out of smaller things. We now want to create the small things and so we get into the micro to see what's available to us. We start with the alchemy of the ancient Egyptian texts and move on to Pythagoras. From the Sphinx we find out how to make electrons. From references to Pythagoras (Aetius) such as: ".. and for him [Pythagoras] one of the first principles tends toward the creative and form-giving cause, which is intelligence, that is god, and the other tends toward the passive and material cause, which is the visible universe."

The Form (the Style, the Character)
is the logical image of what the creator wants. The materialization (the "passive") requires the new system to be systemic to be stable and self-perpetuating -- that is, to be a monad, and right away we know things have to happen in a circle. The logic of the virtual energy has to close in a circle and here is where multiple frequencies come in. With two or more frequencies we create a harmonious interplay if we know what frequencies are harmonious together -- and usually we want to know why. The frequencies used for creation have no absolute value because we are dealing with ratios (which is very Pythagorean). So we have linear 1D energies such as light but have to make a circle out of them, and for real things we need 3D constructs such as the pyramid geometry (angular momentum is in 3D). To square a circle we must use infinities and superpose them tractably. Tractability is via the superposition mechanism of waves (wavefunctions) that is inherently without delay.

There isn't much to it, is there? Happy New Year workings ..

DSSP Topics for December '09

Frequencies are loaded

Frequencies are all around us. They can be carried by sound or by electromagnetic radiation such as light or by electrons that move about the atom or in free space. Many sound waves can be heard, many photons can be seen. Electrons cannot be either heard or seen but can be felt or detected by instruments. Frequencies are the inverse (the reciprocal) of periods. So, planets in their periodic orbits also have frequencies.

So now
we compile various frequencies and find some more important than others. We talk about frequencies coming out of the pyramids or resonating inside their chambers. We compile frequencies that kill viruses just as Rife did. During the Renaissance we talked about the tones of the heavenly spheres. There are the frequencies of the shaman's drum and there are the tones of AUM. There are frequencies captured by geometric structures. There are changes from linear to circular frequencies of creation and permanence, and then we think of it as putting fire into water -- and all that esoteric and alchemical stuff. Frequencies also differentiate by their transverse or longitudinal oscillation. Most recently (last month), we talked about frequencies that happen in up to 3D and for that you need to appreciate that local, solid and real things are not the only things that vibrate or orbit.

Creation and destruction
It is easier to destroy something because there are many things around us we can experiment with. Destroying cancer causing viruses is good, too, but, ironically there are people bent on destruction that do not want you to know about Rife frequencies. And so you got to find out for yourself. When it comes to creation of real matter and in healing we need to understand what makes harmony and disharmony and then you need more than one frequency. Creating matter can be good but creation also tells you something about destruction, although, as always, precise and effortless cutting of the stone is a great example of the dual use of any technology. Shiva is dancing.

In all, single and particular -- that is, absolute, frequencies are about resonance and potential destruction. Multiple frequencies are about creation as well as destruction and we'll get into that next month. It turns out the work of creation is not about particular frequencies.

DSSP Topics for November '09

An electron spreads in more ways than one but what happens when it shrinks

We are at our last part of the triple topic on electrons. In the last two months we said the electron spreads and shrinks and does so over and over. There is also a linkage to the Sphinx here but that part is somewhat mysterious. It is not a mystery per se but the idea of a Sphinx is that it speaks through the alchemical language, which, though strange, is used for the most general understanding of the electron behavior. So now the electron can become a cloud and, as we like to say,

Where is the energy?
The electron spreads without the energy input and you don't have to believe that. When an electron is accelerated we indeed add energy to it and the electron retains such moving energy -- that is, the electron acquires momentum. But the electron also spreads and regardless whether or not it is being accelerated. When a moving electron hits a target, it gives up its energy as heat and it also shrinks.

So what
is the big deal that the electron can behave as a particle? When an electron is decelerated linearly it gives up linear energy. When an electron acquires the shape of an orbital in an atomic (or molecular) structure and when such electron acquires another orbital, the circular (2D) energy exchange takes place. The linear energies carry rational or irrational numbers while the circular energies carry transcendental numbers. So that's the first difference. But,

What if
the electron can carry 3D energies? This becomes very interesting and here is where Tai Chi comes in as well. If you like the ancient Egyptian stuff, think Shu and Tefnut and their respective symmetries. And then you can fully answer the question of this topic.

DSSP Topics for October '09

An electron spreads again and
 A) Goes through two slits simultaneously
 B) Wait a minute, an electron cannot part into two

Last month we claimed that an electron spreads. It has to because the electron has position uncertainty (Heisenberg) and it can then form an orbital as well. In an orbital the electron has odd (point) symmetry. In a two slit experiment we are working with a free electron and not an atomic electron. Either way, an electron can spread.

Two slits (We showcase the two slit experiment in Dec '08 DSSP topic.)
are closely spaced and an electron is accelerated toward them. When the electron encounters the two slits in its spread out state, it enters the slits as one entity that can be visualized as a cloud enveloping the partition between the slits. Left alone, the electron will form self-superposition (some say self-interference). At this point the scientist just scratches his head because the electron was never shown to split into two -- and then they just ooh and ahh about it.

the electron does not have to split into two as it enters the slits simply because it remains spread out as a cloud and exists as one entity. Dumb scientists the likes of Feynman call on intractable "point electron travels in many and all possible ways" description to explain self-superposition, but it is only because they hold on to the electron-is-a-point-at-all-times proposition.

don't bother with Bohrs and Feynmans. Instead, imagine the electron spreading and conforming to certain geometric structures. Symmetries have an important part. Last month we suggested you sign up for Tai Chi. It's a big hint. Maybe the electrons, being able to spread and shrink again, can work with you in a way you want them to work with you.

DSSP Topics for September '09

An electron spreads and
 A) Goes on spreading
 B) Wait a minute, an electron does not spread at all
 C) An electron also shrinks

And so you thought you knew everything about an electron: It is small, it has a charge, it has mass, it can be managed in a vacuum like a little ball. It lives in an orbital of an atom and does not radiate energy despite its charge. Then comes Planck, de Broglie and Schrodinger, and an electron becomes a wave. Then comes Bohr and an electron is forbidden to do this or that. In a nice piece of political science, Bohr's electron is not allowed to become nonolocal. In a nice piece of science ficton, an electron acquires an enigma of mixed up complementarity. Fortunately, an atom goes on just as before not caring if some dumb scientist forbids the electron to do this or that.

The scientists
look at a piece of the rock and it just stays there. A rock also does not spread. So now the scientist is sure that an electron, having some mass, cannot spread. To be fair, they will stake their reputation on that. But you and I know there are macro and micro domains and before you can put a rock together you wll be working with waves -- and waves are nonlocal. Yes, the electron can become a wave and as it does it also becomes nonlocal.

There is more
to an electron. It can spread in a linear or circular geometry. In a linear world the electron produces superposition (aka interference) but in order to do that the electron needs to spread and go through the dual slits as one entity. In a spherical geometry the electron also spreads in an orbital but then you also have to work with the squaring of a circle as the linear energies of a photon need to be reconciled with the curving energies of an electron. Finally, an electron can also become localized and we get a nice dot on a screen when we measure its position.

don't worry about the scientist. Sign up for a Tai Chi class and put electrons to work on your health and strength.

DSSP Topics for August '09

A photon of ligh hits the half-silered mirror with Up polarity (0°), and the photon ..
  A) Splits: half goes through (transmits) and half rebounds (reflects). Polarity inconsequential
  B) Branches into two half-waves while remaining interconnected -- but -- polarity changes at reflected branch
  C) Sometimes it transmits and at other times it reflects. Polarity changes only at reflection.

Photons behave counter-intuitively but only if you think of them as mass-carrying particles. If you think of a photon as a wave -- things are easier. If you think of the photon as a wave that cannot be physically split into two parts -- things are much easier. If you are slowing down at this point because your well earned money bought you different and inferior education, you want to review our photon analysis when the photon enters the half-silvered mirror in our Feb 2007 DSSP Topic (where the question of a photons' polarity is not consequential in photon's detection).

This month we want to look at a photon's polarity because a change in polarity is important when we recombine previously split photon and produce photon self-interference. You are ahead of the game if you know a photon cannot be split but only branched into, say, two half-photons. You are really ahead if you use the term self-superposition instead of self-interference and you've probably read our QM Primer.

Tracing the photon
as it enters from the west is easy. It has Up polarity -- that is, its polarity is 0° and at the center of the illustration below the photon encouners the half-silvered mirror. The transmitted branch continues on to the east ('A' branch in the illustration) while the reflected branch goes back to west ('B' branch in the illustration). So, the illustration shows the photon after is has been branched.

 Single photon branching illustration filename: photon-transmit-reflect-in-half-mirror.gif

What happens is that
the transmitted half of the photon does not change its polarity and continues with Up polarity. The reflected half of the photon, however, branches and its polarity rotates 90 degrees counter-clockwise. It is CCW because we want to predict which way the photon's polarity rotates and use the thumb of the left hand to allign it with the incoming (unparted) photon.

The Prize Behind a Proven Experiment
You might have heard of a photon that is branched twice and then recombined into one. This experiment is well established by now and you are in a position to understand this photonic phenomena.You will never think of a photon as being subject to gravitation and other some such nonsense.

Below is the illustration of a photon that is branched twice and made whole again. If you need additional details on this, go to our Feb '05 DSSP Topic.

   Photon rotation = polarization  illustration filename: photon-split.gif

DSSP Topics for July '09

The future gets fuzzy, but ..
How you can tell the future
Can you change the future?

Time is always a dependent variable (see the last two months' topics below). We cannot enforce time as a variable such as the variables of length or distance -- that is, we cannot set some particular time and subordinate other variables to it. If we want to see the future, we want to pick independent variables for the forecasting, the idea being that independent variables will hold on into the future. We cannot pick time to do forecasting because time always subordinates to other variables. The scientist might disagree because he or she has the equation for a planetary orbit and, by plugging in some future time, he can tell now where the planet will be in the future.

However, the equation the scientist uses is a particular solution that links specific movement to a repeatable path and time is but an overlay that lines up with the tractable forces, distances, and mass. Similarly, we could use time to predict the start of the baseball season, but this is only because the repeatable system is in place (solution exists already). In the middle of the winter we cannot declare the start of the baseball season and expect the weather to comply, for time is not enforceable. We could direct a plane to particular coordinates and enforce such decision.

Independent variables
can also be called the leading or "strong" variables. Such variables will prevail in the encounter with a dependent variable. In physics, momentum will prevail in the collision and the path will subordinate: bodies in a collision will change their path. Similarly, variables such as inflation have strong leadership value and we might need even stronger variable(s) to keep inflation in check.

Okay, the future
To forecast what is going to happen in the future you need to take all variables, the full infinity of them, determine their leading and following values, and let them evolve on ahead. Easier said than done, we will need infinite superposition (available in the quantum mechanical environment for physics applications). Consider that your mind, more specifically you right brain, can deal with infinities. Also consider the pyramid as yet another computing structure. [Of course, consider buying the Quantum Pythagoreans book.] As the variables are interacting there is some delay and this is the future time. Such delay is not easy to quantify and so we may know what happens but not necessarily when. The difficulty is in that the leading and following variables change their strength as these interact and the future time is highly nonlinear.

So now you know
the future and you don't like it. And so you decide to improve it. The problem is that you do not know the timing and it is then difficult to impart changes now while guaranteeing a better outcome. You are also dealing with infinities and with a possibility that in the future time you won't be around the physical plane.

DSSP Topics for June '09

Time can be manipulated
Time can be zero
Can recorded events be erased
Can recorded events be corrupted

Time travel is not possible (see May's topic below) but there are things we can do with time. Time is always a derivative -- that is, time always follows other variables. Moreover, even though some variables can reverse their independent-dependent modality, time cannot become an independent variable.

An independent variable can also be called the leading variable. Economists understand this pretty well but physicists likely never will. This is because physicists confine their math to the arithmetic of algebra and the equal sign allows them to reverse the relation. And so the physicists are free to reverse reality into nonreality and don't think much of it because they defer to their inadequate tools.

Time can readily become zero
In the quantum mechanical environment the instant action makes time zero because time subordinates to other variables. If an event happens instantaneously then time is zero and time has nothing to say about the event. Time, in and of itself, does not enforce anything. Superluminal space travel calls on quantum mechanics at macro scale and works with variables that interact instantaneously.

Time is defined by orbits
Periodic movement happens through orbits. This is a movement having symmetry about a (geometric) point. [Point symmetry is masculine.] It is then more appropriate to say that time is about the period. We can keep adding periods to get time but such time is specific to a particular orbit as it issues from some specific orbit. Planetary orbits are generally stable and the time derived from their orbits is not possible to corrupt.

The memory
Ether can be energized and the energy, being a function of frequency, can range from zero on to infinity. All knowledge is stored associatively as energized ether and can technically stay that way forever. All knowledge is inherently formed via associative linking with other knowledge and can also be read associatively. Knowledge cannot be erased but because other information can be linked to it post factum, memory can appear to be corrupted. Time is but one of myriad variables that is linked within the interconnected web of energized ether. When knowledge is read, any variable can be followed and this includes time, If time is not followed -- that is, when time is not in focus, time becomes irrelevant and different time periods can appear as overlays.

To get the truth
To corrupt knowledge, a vast amount of contradicting or misleading data is linked associatively with some knowledge. Reading such knowledge will then read all data, true or not. Yet, just as any good detective, other associative paths exist that lead to the truth. The corruptor would need to deal with infinite quantity of associative paths to completely mask or corrupt the truth. The corrupting data is added at a later time and so the time is important when searching for the truth.

Next month: Using variables to look into the future

DSSP Topics for May '09

Time travel is possible:
 (a) physically
 (b) mentally into the past
 (c) mentally into the future

Time travel is easy to get excited about and this hasn't been lost on Hollywood. Why, even the so called scientists are joining the act by producing equations as if equal signs and multiplications are sufficient proofs for time travel. The basic premise in time travel is that the time is a bona fide dimension -- that is, the value of such dimension could be increased or decreased at will -- much like a dimension of spatial distance. The idea behind the dimension is that it is an independent, or leading, variable and by establishing a value for such variable the other things will simply fall in place and in accord with our value. So, if you wish to enforce the variable of distance you punch it in the computer and the sensors will tell you when you get there.

time is not an independent variable. Time always issues from other variables and could be zero during nonlocal events we find in quantum mechanics -- at macro scale no less. There is no way we can lock onto time and make other things subordinate to it.

So what about the past
The memory comes into play here. You would first need to accept that all things that ever happened are in storage. By accessing the storage you will be able to read or "see" the past.

So what about the future
Here, you'll need to differentiate the leading and following variables. The leadership of the leading or "strong" variable will continue into the future fore some time interval. Yes, you can see the future but only to the extent you follow the leading variables and even then you will be limited by the dominating reach of the variable -- for every variable fluctuates in its strength and thus its influence diminishes into the future. Of course, variables interact and influence each other and then the forecast is really an art.

If you think time travel is physically possible and that, for example, we are being visited by beings from the future, you want to start with the fundamental assessment that the time is not a dimension to begin with. Time isn't and never was the 4th dimension, and such claim is:
1) a fantasy
2) wishful thinking
3) an attempt at corruption
4) any of the above

DSSP Topics for April '09

The ancient Egyptian texts are:
 (a) religious texts
 (b) magic texts
 (c) physics texts

The ancient Egyptian texts aka The Book of the Dead seem to cater to the afterlife of people and especially to the Pharaohs. But they also spring to life talking about the sun and the waters. The complexities of various gods include human and animal forms, supporting/protective and detracting/dangerous relationships, and plain aspects -- all put together with stories and adventures. And the props: the ankh and the scepter the most prevalent.

You would think the snakes and serpents are in it just to scare kids but once you start to see these entities as waves, everything changes. You take the props as geometric forms and then, could it be -- well, yes, the Ancient Egyptian texts are about physics and one could also say that the quantum mechanical world has magic in it too. The interesting part is that the alchemical form of the stories makes it a nice read and you really do not feel you should try to explain how you got to this or that conclusion.

Da Sphinx
What makes this a difficult decode is that the Sphinx is not specifically mentioned in the text. But it has a lion type characteristics and god Shu is at times depicted as (or with) the hind part of a lion. Perhaps not the best part but there he is. Then there is his sister goddess Tefnut who has a form of a lion head (with a wavy mane). So now you put them together but you know you are not done yet, for Shu is male and dry while Tefnut is female and wet. But you also know you are on the right track because both Shu and Tefnut are called the twin lions having one soul. Is there such entity in physics? Yes, it is a free electron. So now you have some fun because in the text Shu and Tefnut take a trip and get lost. Ra sends an eye after them and they are found, brought back and get married -- and the human race can arise after that. But of course, an electron must be made in some fashion and it could have happened inside the Sphinx, at least initially. Oh, the eye is the 0D geometric point in which the energy component of Tefnut is joined with the charge component of Shu. In another story Tefnut has a problem and runs away from Shu to Nubia. All hell breaks loose and disasters are happening. A good guess is that we have antimatter on our hands because the two components of matter are separated. Thoth and Shu step in and after finding Tefnut a reconciliation takes place -- that is, antimatter can be healed. (Music and baboons play a role here and you may get to like the role of baboons after this.) Now you can leave the text and have even more fun with odd (Shu) and even (Tefnut) symmetries.

I am posting this April 1, so that those who don't get it will have a way out. I stand by it any day.

Yes, we have a page on alchemy.

DSSP Topics for March '09

Tarot card deck has four suits, so there

Tarot has the swords, wands, pentacles (coins), and cups suits. Divination using the Tarot has been with us since the 14th century. Some believe it, some don't. Some think it works even if you don't believe it. So there is a mystery and mystery is something everybody likes. Demystifying something is okay but would you want to turn mystery into something mundane? Fortunately, when it comes to explaining the Tarot we run into infinities and the mystery remains a mystery, but you might get more out of it.

Ah, the geometry
So now the sword has a point, the wand is a stick of a line, the pentacle (coin) is flat, and the cup holds the volume. Are we, really, talking about the zero-dimensional point when it comes to the sword, a one-dimensional line in case of the wand, a two-dimensional area for the pentacle (coin), and a three-dimensional volume held by a cup? Could it be as simple as the 0D, 1D, 2D, and 3D -- the four dimensions of freedom? Even if that is so, does the geometry in these four dimensions dominate our environment to the extent that geometry rules? Better believe it.

When we perceive the various dimensions the brain makes unique contexts. Some things work in 0D and that is when the spin comes in. In 1D the even symmetry and linear motion come up. In 2D the energy arises as squares and orbits of the circular motion begin as well, and in 3D we start to reach out and diffuse and penetrate the environment.

Pythagorean Tetractys is a triangular numeral ten. It has ten dots: one on top, two below, three below that, and four dots on the bottom. From the very beginning of 500 BC, Tetractys dots stood for a point (0D), a line (1D), area (2D), and volume (3D). So there. Take it from here.

Note {March 8, 2009}: And so it happened I picked up a book Magic of the Celtic Otherworld by Steve Blamires and there, under 'greater magical weapons' are pictured the spear, sword, shield, and cauldron. Well, happy workings!

DSSP Topics for February '09

Handedness reversal is no big deal
The even symmetry of the mirror is a big deal

Most of the Internet answers on the left hand & right hand reversal in a mirror are okay but they tend to get wrapped around the axle in the blogs. Last month we kicked off this topic with a suggestion that the thickness has something to do with it because for a purely 2D thing -- such as the up/down and left/right -- there are no problems and no reversals.

So the reversal is in the depth, that is thickness, and that is the 3rd dimension. As you move your hand away from you (North) the hand's image in the mirror moves toward you (South). So far so good, and here is where the other Internet sites end.


Picture filename: left_right_hand_reversal.gif

Variant and Invariant
Now you bend the fingers of your right hand and the counterclockwise movement of you right hand's fingers becomes the clockwise movement in the image. If you stick your thumb up you know the Up is invariant under mirror symmetry and now your right hand becomes the left hand in the image.

You don't have to get bogged down with "how do you know which hand is the right hand" kind of thing. In 3D the left and the right handedness are uniquely and absolutely differentiated and then you declare which hand's thumb is pointing Up -- and now you are consistent throughout the universe because you know your x--y--z's.

A math guy
can see the even symmetry as the even function when placing the axis of symmetry at the mirror -- shown as the dashed line in the illustration (usually vertical). But, if you are really good you can put the two and two together, for the even symmetry is about energy. The construct of symmetry has priority, and then .. .. happy workings.

you are working the feminine.

DSSP Topics for January '09

Your left hand becomes your right hand in the mirror and vice versa

I picked up a book titled, appropriately, 'Mirror.' A nonfiction piece. So I went through it to find their explanation for this month's topic but, while the book was just about everything you could imagine, the left hand -- right hand reversal was not in there. Then I came across a related article but that one did not explain it either. It concluded with '.. it depends how it is defined.' Well, I just don't need another theory trying to prove that something cannot be done.

But why would this simple topic be so difficult?

Background s'more
You might think there is not much about explaining this hand reversal thing if you are used to seeing images upside down in the "old" film cameras. In the new digital ones you get it right right on the display, so why is a mirror doing this?

It may be worth your while to figure this out by yourself -- it sure makes for a great mental exercise and symmetries are big in atomic physics and free energy, too.

If you got to this point you decided to read on but it could get darker before it gets easier. We understand that, in a camera, the 'up' and 'down' get reversed on the focal plane and when you move your hand up, the hand in the image moves down. Similarly for the right and the left. Through the camera lens your movement to the right becomes the movement to the left (because it moves through the point of the focus).

However, with the mirror it gets stranger. When you move your hand to the right, the hand in the image also moves to the right. When you hop up in front of the mirror the image also hops up. So, if the up and down do not reverse and also if the left and right do not reverse, how come the watch you are wearing on you left hand is being worn on the right hand of the person in the image? You always wear your watch on your left hand! How come the up and down are normal but your left and right hands reverse? I mean, taking the mirror back to the store is not going to solve this.

You might have heard that a mirror symmetry rotates about an axis. And so you might get an idea that if up and down do not reverse, you could lay down horizontally in front of the mirror, for if your head and your toes do not reverse then your outstretched arms in the up and down direction should become normal again. Go ahead and try it. If that doesn't work, stop by again and we'll finish off this topic in February.

Okay, here is a hint:
If you cut out an outline of your hand on a piece of paper, would another person be able to tell if you used your right hand or your left hand as the model?

Another one: If you left pencil markings on the paper after cutting the outline of your hand, would the other person be able to tell which hand you traced?

Note {Jan 30, 2009}: The symmetry about a point is the odd symmetry and metaphysically it is masculine. A camera lens has the odd symmetry, in 3D no less. The mirror symmetry is the symmetry about the virtual line (axis) and metaphysically it is feminine, in 3D no less.

DSSP Topics for December '08

Light is energy
Light is pure energy
Light is an even function

No disagreements that light is energy. Light can be converted to heat, electrical energy, and motion. The conversion of light, however, calls for the light's (photons') absorption and then the photon is gone. Cannot get photonic energy without photon's absorption also called reduction or collapse. If we are in agreement at this point then there is no problem in agreeing that light cannot impart pressure at reflection, for that would mean we get energy while the photon goes on its merry way without regard to the conservation of energy.

Even function
Last month we just said that any and all energy is an even function. What that means is that the energy is evenly distributed about the axis. Yeah, but can we prove it? But of course.

Young's dual-slit experiment
got many people excited about the wave nature of light. Presently there aren't too many problems with this experiment, particularly since light has no mass and photons can part and then self-superpose. Since then the phrase 'interference pattern' slowly yielded to 'superposition pattern.'

Picture filename: Young_shield_dual_slit_normal.gif

Asymmetric blocking
is also a part of the experiment that shows some deep properties of light. Young inserted a partition and was astounded to discover that the shield blocked the superposition pattern from both sides. Now what.

Picture filename: Young_shield_dual_slit.gif

There are no easy interpretations of this phenomenon, but we gave you some pointers in the title and in the last month's topic. Light is an even function and it will always remain an even function, in spite of anybody's attempts of warping light through optical or other means. Light will always maintain its even symmetry (symmetry about an axis) no matter what. The shield can reduce the particular photon in its entirety or the photon instantly reworks its wavefunction if the shield does not reduce the photon while maintaining its even symmetry construct. Nice to know the even symmetry is a construct that is invariant during optical (and other) photonic interactions.

Surprise in all this is that the axis of symmetry serves to halve the photon's energy when the photon is absorbed. Well, one half of the photon's energy is imparted one way while the other half the opposite way and we get to conserve momentum when light's energy transforms into the moving energy. Didn't Newton say something about the equal and opposite..?

Happy New Year.

DSSP Topics for November '08

Is there more to energy than 'more' or 'less' energy?
Can we generalize energy?
What is energy, really

Energy is something that moves things. It is then easy to see energy as "more of it you have, faster you can move." We know that energy costs money and we can buy it in the form of oil, gas, or electricity. So far, it is deeply engrained in our brains that to get energy we need something that is consumable. Not only that, we consume materials to create energy but we always get heat in the process as well.

Energy is about movement and it is the force that feeds the movement. So, where do you find the force or how does the force come about? You can take something that is moving already and get energy from it by slowing it down: A running stream or a spinning planet, say. Or you could figure out how the planet gets to spin in the first place and engage that mechanism.

It turns out
that the force appears when the organization increases. This seems ambiguous but the idea is that increased organization contains energy in the form of the virtual energy. The good part is that heat does not result from the movement that increases organization. Energy can thus be harnessed from superior knowledge. Matter has the innate knowledge for increased organization and this is based on the Pythagorean Tetractys. Alternatively, energy can be had by decreasing organization where the upside is that not only the oil or gas can be used as consumables. The downside is that heat will result whenever consumables are used -- that is, when matter with the higher organization changes to one with lesser organization.

Organization synonymous with intelligence
Energy always exists as an even function. Energy is always symmetrical about an axis and its reduction will create forces. A photon of light is the most obvious example of an even function that is energy. Since the electrons can become virtual they can also acquire even function characteristics and can also be used for energy extraction. The universe is full of virtual and energized electrons.

So how do we manifest the energy? The axis of symmetry could be a stick, an antenna, a post. You will also need to understand the rotation and orbitals, which is really about the symmetry about a point and the squaring of a circle. Happy workings.

DSSP Topics for October '08

Irrational number is not a real number
Even if that is so, what's the big idea?

Irrational number has its decimal fraction going to infinity without any of the numbers repeating as a group. The most common example of an irrational number is the square root of two. It is well established that rationing of any two integers will not create an irrational number. That is, starting with two finite numbers and placing them in a ratio will not result in an irrational number. Put another way, if you have two finite numbers, their ratio will also be a finite number.

Along comes this guy Dedekind and he goes about proving that one can cut any distance between two numbers in half and if you were to go about it doing it forever, you will eventually reach any number, including the irrational number. His conclusion is that irrational numbers are really rational, that is real, numbers. The sad part is that math textbooks today all classify irrational numbers as belonging to the domain of the real numbers.

What's wrong, or, who cares
Technically we could object to incorrect classification and duke it out on the turf of academia. This site, however, is also about free energy and it is then important to show that the benefits of irrationals have something to do with free energy. Academia, then, has nothing to do with it and they may as well print any nonsense they want.

Dedekind proof is invalid because it becomes true at infinity. The proof is "right" but only at infinite time in the future, which is never. This is very much the same thing as when the computer calculates the square root of two, for example. We all agree that the computer can technically produce the square root of two because the machine keeps spewing out the numbers that all belong to the square root of two. However, no matter when the machine stops the result is not the square root of two because the square root of two has an infinite number of digits and the computer can produce them only at infinite time in the future.

Geometry produces the square root of two in finite number of steps (in finite time) and does so exactly.

picture filename: Square_root_of_two.gif

In the illustration above the distance between the two zero-dimensional points is exactly the square root of two. Geometry is once again superior to arithmetic but the real bottom line is that you need geometry with its inherent exactness if you ever wish to capture the wave.

DSSP Topics for September '08

Brown's gas vs (almost) everything else

Background (Continued from August and July '08)
Brown's gas so far is a mix of hydrogen and oxygen made from water. On its own these two gasses burn or implode back to water. Brown's gas torch is interesting because the flame is relatively cool and the fire shows as a plume going into the nozzle even though the gas is going out. Different materials react differently with the flame and, for example, tungsten can be melted while a piece of brick can acquire a hole -- sometimes.

What is this thing
Brown's gas can be energized even more while in its gaseous state. The way Stan Meyer worked this gas is by adding energy to it via particular light frequencies and then mixed it with the atmospheric air before injecting it into the car's cylinders. The idea -- apparently a successful one -- is to get the Brown's gas to burn with other gas by explosion rather than implosion. He even recycled some of the exhaust gas into the intake to keep Brown's gas in the expanding mode so to speak.

Is that all?
No. As the Brown's gas is being formed, excess electrons appear. This is part of the free energy "equation" and it moves Brown's gas into the fantastic category. Here is also a point where you are on your own, at least in the foreseeable future. If you want to pursue Brown's gas to its full potential you may have to become the Fool of the Tarot. A person who goes on, looking kinda strange but feeling there is a way there somewhere -- that there are indeed higher forces helping you along the way.

DSSP Topics for August '08

Brown's gas vs petroleum
 One has hydrogen and oxygen
 The other just hydrogen and a lot of excess baggage

Background (Continued from July '08)
The chemical composition of Brown's gas continues to be debated and there are not many who would go for H4O2. The majority sees Brown's gas as a short-term-stable monatomic hydrogen H and oxygen O rather than the molecular form of H2 and O2 found in the atmosphere. When Brown's gas burns as a flame it turns to water. Brown's gas is also called hydroxy or HHO.

What is this thing
Brown's gas is made from water and is added by many to the air intake of their car. With as little as one half liter per minute, the car runs smoother and emissions go way down. In our mind the fuel burns cleaner -- that is, more thoroughly, and there is then, literally, more bang for the buck.

The linear approach
If a little bit of Brown's gas helps, let's put in more. Maybe even run entirely on Brown's gas, just like Stan Meyer. Now the engine starts to run rough -- but -- the ignition timing can be changed to smooth it out again. Sometimes you may look at the timing -- only to find out that for the smooth running engine the spark is firing way off the top of the cylinder's position and that just does not make sense. Sometimes the Brown's gas explodes and at other times -- it implodes! Almost as if Brown's gas does what it can and when it can to help you run the car. Here is where the linear guys get amazed because they really would not want to admit they are confused. For pure Brown's gas, the volume of the resulting water is much less than the volume of Brown's gas and we can also have an implosion. To add to the mystery the car also runs cool.

Can this thing be stabilized
Yes. There appears to be a range where Brown's gas -- produced via straightforward electrolysis -- gives consistent results, particularly if it is introduced into the engine in small quantities. Brown's gas intrigues the mind and there will always be people tinkering with it. Brown's gas reacts dramatically with a spark or a flame but, because Brown's gas is made on demand under the hood, the setting off of Brown's gas (if bypassing the safety "bubbler" to begin with), is confined to the area the gas is produced. Even then a safety plug blows off and without damage to the container holding the water from which the Brown's gas is produced.

What do the scientists say
They are busy making hydrogen from -- you guessed it -- the oil, to be ready for the so called 'hydrogen fuel cell' in the car.

It takes energy to produce hydrogen from oil or gas. If the hydrogen does reach a fuel cell in the car via a pipeline infrastructure, the hydrogen fuel cell makes electricity to power the car but in the process makes a lot of heat. So much heat, in fact, that the fuel cell of "the car of the future" cannot power the car directly and is primarily used to charge the battery. The fuel cell of "the car of the future" also burns oxygen from the atmosphere. Brown's gas has both the hydrogen and oxygen and there is no net burning of oxygen from the atmosphere.

Back to Stan Meyer
This guy showed that Brown's gas can be produced at over unity. That is, the Brown's gas that is created through a particular on-board (on-demand) process has three or more times the energy that was put in to make it. This gets into the free energy arena very quickly and so don't expect scientists to embrace it. Yet, the scientist can be, and likely will be, left behind once the hydrogen-from-hydrocarbons becomes more expensive than the on-demand hydrogen from water. There are four keys: Cost, safety, oxygen depletion, and heat. On all four (ac)counts the Brown's gas is the way to go.

Note1 {Aug 12, 2008}: A neat tradeoff in near-term Brown's gas application is the catalytic converter. Even small amounts -- possibly as small as 1/4 liter per minute -- can take out the polutants to below the present standards and consequently dispense with the catalytic converter altogether. Technically, the heat energy produced in the catalytic converter is now moving your car. If you remember Smokey the Bear and his "You can prevent forest fires," you want to see the catalytic converter go.

Note2 {Sep 15, 2008}: Hydrogen can be imparted with additional energy giving it additional and unusual properties. (For one it changes the burn character of hydrogen.) Yes, there is a name for it, parahydrogen, but no ready explanation. My guess is that the electron's orbital does not enter the consideration but that the core (proton) acquires additional vibrational frequencies and with it new fusion properties, which could conceivably aid in transmutation.

DSSP Topics for July '08

Brown's gas is:
 (a) Fractured water
 (b) Energized water
 (c) Just hydrogen and oxygen mixed together
 (d) None of the above

This guy Yull Brown is a Bulgarian-Australian-American (All Slavs are euphemistically called East Europeans) who generated and worked with this gas that -- through an electrical process -- bubbles up from water. Heavy set with a heavy accent, Yull championed the gas for many applications and it is then named after him. Brown's gas burns or explodes and in the end becomes water again. No problems so far. On its way to coming back to water, however, Brown's gas reacts with the surrounding atoms in a funny way. Brown's gas breaks down all kinds of hydrocarbons as it reacts (burns) with them. Brown's gas is the first thing you run into when you want to improve the mileage on your car and lower the car's emissions. It's a win-win additive.

That should have put heat on the automakers -- and it did -- but it did not set them on fire. It could have evolved into a nice little additive but there is more to Brown's gas. What happened was that Stan Meyer from Ohio (heartland-American) took the Brown's gas to the next level and built a car that runs entirely on Brown's gas. To make matters completely wacky, Stan's claim is that the energy to produce Brown's gas will power the car and make more Brown's gas to power the car some more while making more Brown's gas to .. the bottom line is 22 gallons of water coast to coast.

What is this thing
The first step is the spectroscopic analysis. Brown's gas is not hydrogen and oxygen mixed together and neither it is a fractured or broken up water. It is an entity (molecule) of its own. It does not condense at room temperature. It bubbles up nicely through cold water but does not condense as the steam would. It is heavier than air. Some say it returns to water spontaneously after a while, a molecule at a time. Having many unusual properties, Brown's gas is commonly used for specialized welding but many of its properties are kept under wraps.

All matter is computational in nature and the Brown's gas appears to be yet another gaseous state of water -- likely H4O2. (If it is H4O2 then its density should be between the carbon monoxide CO and carbon dioxide CO2 gases.) Everyday water that is H2O gets to Brown's gas mathematical solution by addition of energy and such energy is then recovered upon its return to water. But that still would not explain the over-unity claim of Stan Meyer. So, here is where the zero-point energy comes in and as the Brown's gas is being created it absorbs extra energy from the surroundings to reach its new state and consequently returns over-unity upon return to water.

Not every process that generates Brown's gas is over-unity. The basic process uses your car battery's DC current and produces Brown's gas at some energy cost -- but -- this cost is less than the cost of gas. 20 to 50 percent mileage improvements have been reported and, in addition to a dramatic decrease in exhaust emissions, 20-50% is your net energy savings -- which also means that 20-50% of the energy does not end up as heat.

What else
Can we link Brown's gas to other things? If we accept Schauberger's results when he squeezes ("implosion" is his term) energy out of water or air, it appears that Brown's gas is present in small quantities all around us. It is also likely that Brown's gas plays a role in our bodies' metabolic processes when we convert food to energy.

It is said we don't really drink beer -- we just borrow it. Well, we can say the same thing about water in general and Brown's gas in particular. Water is really a carrier for energy. Water, perhaps, can be seen as a form of a liquid crystal.

DSSP Topics for June '08

Some claim magnetic motors violate the conservation of energy and leave it at that
Some claim magnets can be made into self-running motors and don't leave it at that
Some make self-running magnetic motors and don't care one way or another

Much discussion has been had on the conservation of energy and why self-running magnet-based electric motors would not or could not work. Then YouTube appears and everything changes. You may not even want to watch the classical tube anymore (you know, the one where they serve you what they want to serve you). At first the discussion is on trick photography. Then some showcased products suddenly disappear. Instead of thinking that the trickster was exposed, the fundamental reality flip makes you think that somebody is getting rich on free energy. Then a bunch of scientists make a video on zero-point (free) energy and in their classical bombastic fashion they claim that one cubic foot of space has a lot of energy -- hey, they actually calculated it! The scientists do not speak about the inventors as pyramidiots anymore. (The term pyramidiot took hold after the pronouncements of a British aristocrat.) We begin to feel that if the earth were to flip its axis the scientist could agree with it but only after the fact. We file the scientists into the 'have degree -- will insult' category.

Magnets attract or push away. Forces being equal (really equivalent), one magnet can be made to pivot and spin by a static magnet but when the rotating piece comes around, it gets repelled and stops. So now you have to move the static magnet that did the pushing just a little bit away so that the spinning magnet gets over that repelling moment -- and then quickly move the magnet back so it can do more pushing and speed up the spinning magnet a bit more. You may imagine some simple oscillating arm that would move in and out -- and we have a self-running motor. The logic here is that once the motion arises we got real moving energy and if the oscillating arm arrangement takes less energy then we have over-unity. The fundamental logic is that the movement gives us energy but the implementation of switching of a polarity could conceivably take no energy.

The Model
If the magnetic motors self-run (and many do) we do not need a model -- that is, we don't need a theory. Yet, sometimes we need a model so that we can improve on what we've got. Saying that space is loaded with energy does not help us with the work because it contains no mechanism and it is, therefore, no model and no theory. Saying that space has a lot of energy is the same thing as saying the ether exists -- it means nothing.

So we want to look at how the magnetic phenomena happens in the first place. We guess it has something to do with atomic orbitals and the flow of the charge that becomes symmetrically organized. But I would not leave the atomic core out of it. It is quite possible that the core formation and its gravitational interaction allows the unique orbitals to form and it is happening on an ongoing basis. If so, the permanent magnet owes its existence to gravitationally influenced cosmic scale behavior and the "over-unity" energy is then an extraction of the energy that exists in the larger context rather than being local to the magnet.

You may want to cancel some of your science classes. The world is a-changing.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

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?

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,

  1. You cannot take an everyday string and make a perfect circle out of it. And also,

  2. 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

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

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.)

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) and then the photon has transformed into another form of energy and in its entirety, too.

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?

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.

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 ½mv2 is conserved then momentum is conserved because it is mv (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

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 = x1x2 holds. The Geometric Mean h is then SQRT(x1x2)
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.

In the Quantum Pythagoreans book we have an analysis of the Great Pyramid where the geometric mean is prominent. See a sample.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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, partitioned 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.)

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!
Of course, you could put the scientist in charge of cleaning it up and finish off this planet in a hurry

Science stands ready to explain everything and anything. BGW (before global warming) were the good old days when we could wake up to a good cup of coffee only to be told that coffee is not good for you. Once you got over that, the next month's coffee would be responsible for yet another ailment. After a while, coffee would be scientifically proven to be okay after all. Coffee got filed in the same category as alcohol: It's good and it's bad, it depends really, use in moderation, no truth to coffee grinds foretelling your future but roughage is okay, pay more for decaf, don't forget water. The bottom line: consult your doctor.

Now that we know that all this bugaboo is about keeping doctors in business, global warming arrives. You might even figure out you don't need a doctor.

Load up all scientists on a ship and take them to the moon. Al Gore will lead them. The mission, of course, is to research GW from high up. We know ahead of time what will happen. Scientists will report that because the moon has no atmosphere, there is no GW problem on the moon. And then the lead scientist says to the rest of them: "Hey, let's go back and apply our findings to the earth!" Problem solved.

Scientists on the moon will be supplied by platforms being pushed by lasers -- but if that does not work, well, scientists all said it would. Once they find themselves without supplies they could all come back (can you hear me?) by pushing the G button on that space elevator -- it was their brilliant idea, too.

Happy New Year. Oh, think free energy.

Note {Nov 1, 2007}: You do not need to be a scientist to see that the greenhouse gas model for global warming is intellectually weak. Every weatherman will tell you that on clear nights the atmosphere cools off in less than a couple of hours and no amount of greenhouse gas such as CO2 will slow this radiation cooling. On cloudy days the heat stays in and, again, CO2 has nothing to do with it. Besides, you may have noticed there is no glass in the atmosphere and without glass the whole greenhouse model falls apart. (Glass reflects and re-radiates some of the heat back and does not allow cooling through air movement that is convection. Glass is transparent to visible wavelengths but absorptive for heat wavelengths.) If you want to get involved, work on free energy; It's bit more difficult than protesting in the street or voting for a clueless politicial party but it is far more rewarding.


A book by Mike Ivsin
 To Publisher...

Quantum Pythagoreans book describes and applies the real and the virtual aspects of our environment. While these aspects are separated, the book takes on the task of bridging the two, which leads to organization and self-organization.

More ..

DSSP Topics for December 2006

Wave-particle duality really isn't about the particle
Get on board with momentum and think big

Science writers like to tell us that the reason atoms are different is because they are small. Atomic components are small all right but that is not the whole story. Mainstream scientists say that inside the atom things get weird because the small size of the atomic components enables them to unbecome classical by acquiring a wavelength -- that is, electrons and protons cannot be treated as everyday objects the likes of apples, billiard balls, and planets. Professors readily pull out the equation and tell us the wavelength of an electron and then quickly tell us that a comparable wavelength of an orange is infinitesimally small. The orange, they say, cannot pass through two slits and appear on the other side unsliced and unjuiced. What they ignore is that the very de Broglie equation they use has nothing to do with the particle's size but has everything to do with the particle's momentum.

More Background
De Broglie's equation is not wrong. People calling themselves scientists, however, do not get it. The equation relates momentum p to the wavelength lambda through an inverse relation that also includes the Planck's constant h, that is:
p = h / lambda. Momentum p, moreover, is a product of mass m and velocity v. So, the equation m v = h / lambda deals not only with mass (or size) but also includes the particle's velocity.

The point is that you and I can give any size particle any wavelength we want. The point is that an everyday object, even a toaster, can acquire a wavelength comparable to the electron inside the atom. So there. The wave-particle duality the modern scientist talks about for close to a hundred years is really wave-momentum duality.

It is easy to speculate about the scientists and whether they are really stupid or just pretend to be. My guess is that their herding instinct puts them all onto a plausible and simplistic platform they each can defend. For your part, however, you may want to get educated quickly, for the scientist is not going to help you with real things such as the global warming or free energy. Scientists are useless to explain neither the perils or the opportunities -- it's all swamp gas to them.

DSSP Topics for November '06

Supernova goes bang and it is all about the conversion of matter to energy.
What, pray say, happened to the black hole?

The so-called scientists think that sun starts to shrink and then it bounces back in an explosion called supernova. But these guys don't bother to explain that the energy does not add up because the sun expands to a much greater diameter than the one from which it started. They would like you to think it is just like a ball bouncing but do not know why the ball bounces to a greater height than the starting one. In all, they do not have a clue and feed you nonsense.

There is space between electrons and protons because these components need spatial distance to remain in a tractable relationship -- that is, maintain mathematically computable states. If spatial distances are reduced through pressure or collisions, the atom ceases to remain computable and its components disengage. But that, in and of itself, does not a nova make.

What happens next. Each component of matter such as the electron and the proton can be broken up into other components that results in corrupted matter -- that is, antimatter. (Details of the mechanism, which is conditionally reversible, can be found in the Quantum Pythagoreans book.) The antimatter annihilation, however, irreversibly transforms matter into energy. How much matter is destroyed at any one time then makes the bang into nova or supernova.

What this also means is that matter undergoes conversion to energy and cannot accumulate without bound into such thing as a black hole. Not all is lost for the scientist: If you really believe in black holes, have a picture taken with Hawking and -- smile.

DSSP Topics for October '06

If you release a body from a tower (of Pisa, say), would it begin to spin?

Newton defined inertia as force that resists a change in the velocity of an object. Conceptually it works. The ball, the bullet, the train, the ship -- all mass objects put up resistance to change from either their present speed or their present direction of movement. (Speed and direction could also be combined into a vector parameter called velocity.)

If you were to think that the property of mass inertia has some computational intelligence, you would model it by saying that there must be a "gyro" in there somewhere because that is one way of figuring out something is trying to change the body's direction. You would also arrive at a conclusion that there must be the absolute reference because a change in speed gives rise to a force (of inertia) that has nothing to do with some arbitrary reference. That is, some people can be fooled but a dumb piece of the rock cannot be fooled by an external reference that will pretend that the speed is now different and that there is no need to put up resistance to the change in speed. All this should be pretty clear to many and the unfortunate part is that we are not going to try to persuade the rest, for we are building on that and are ready to move ahead.

Does inertia have more intelligence? Can Newton's model be extended?
If (the force of) inertia resists the (external) force being applied unto a body, what are other available mechanisms that would do just such resistance? If inertia is smart, it could come up with other things to do and resist the change to the external force even more. If, for example, the mass body could begin to spin, the energy from the applied force is converted to the rotational energy in addition to the linear energy. If inertia were intelligent, it would have the body commence spinning and resist the change in velocity even more. And that is indeed what happens. Two bodies being gravitationally attracted to each other speed up toward each other and in addition commence spinning to further slow down their mutual acceleration.

Of course, there are no limits on intelligence. Can you think of another thing that could be done to increase the resistance (increase inertia) of a body? Think of a "body" as a possible assembly of many bodies and definitely think geometry. [That pancake tastes good this morning -- wonder why.]


DSSP Topics for September '06

If our body would not absorb hard radiation, we could be in good shape
There is a big difference between reflection and absorption
To reduce the photon we need a particular context

Photons of light have energy called the virtual energy. At reflection, photons impart no momentum and, if you were to do the experiment, you would find zero pressure at mirror surface. When a photon reduces, however, a transformation takes place and many different forms of real energy can arise.

Which molecule or atom reduces X-rays and Gamma rays in your body is the place to start. It turns out it is the atom of hydrogen inside the molecule of water that gets whacked and that changes water into a free radical. This is fairly recent and there is more on this in Nick Lane's Oxygen (or in our review of the book). Classically there is not much we can do because the photon just slams into the molecule and some shield, it seems, would be the only way to stop the ray. Fortunately, the truth is more complicated but far more interesting.

The mechanism
The picture you see below is from the Quantum Pythagoreans book. It shows the mechanism by which the molecule of water is broken up by a photon. The key is in two bodies (components, sub-atomic particles) receiving momentum in the context of the conservation of momentum. Photon is absorbed by transforming its virtual energy to real energy (and mo is conserved). You are also seeing the creation of the free radical, an electron-deficient (odd count) but electrically neutral almost-water.

Picture filename: water_breakup_free_radical.gif

Now, how would you or could you stop the photon from reducing inside your body:

    • Wear a shiny hat or a suit to reflect X-ray photons

    • Get in the bunker and stay there
    • Use your strong will
    • Modify photons in some way so that they do not reduce -- their energy would stay the same but would not reduce inside the hydrogen and go right on through your body
    • Use another form of a shield that absorbs X-rays (reduces them and creates heat) that would not rely on heavy metals or piles of dirt
    • Transition to the virtual domain. Admittedly high tech but if your body has no real parts the photon could not reduce in the framework of momentum conservation. (The high tech part is in the ability to transition between domains repeatedly)
    • Modify the charge relationship between the proton and electron and disrupt the nominal + and - field inside the atom
    • Provide abundance of electrons so that even if some water molecules are broken up they cannot do further damage through the free radical electron-snatching mechanism. That is, repair the water molecule or the consequent damage quickly

Note1: The ejected component (electron and proton) cannot each have more than 1/2 of the photon's energy because (you guessed it) the mo is conserved. Does this mean that photoelectric cells cannot have greater than 50% efficiency?

Note 2: {June 3, 2008} The photonic mechanism shown here is not the same one that produces the HHO (Brown's gas).

DSSP Topics for August '06

Send photon bouncing between parallel mirrors and see what happens?

You learned at school that photons of light have itsy bitsy momentum and push a mirror just a teensy weensy bit when they bounce from it. You have this piece of information on great scientific authority, including NASA.

Then you grew up and learned the same thing in college, except then you were fed the equations for the actual photonic (radiation) pressure and you also paid good money for every credit hour you were investing in yourself.

Pal, you got the mind implants in all right
Or something similar Arnold Schwarzenegger would say, borrowing the idea from Total Recall.

Sorry, pal, but you do not want to defer to the authority. You cannot just sit there without asking questions. How many of you asked the teacher, the professor: "But if the photon bounces between parallel mirrors, we got ourselves a perpetual motion machine! Could you explain where the logic fails?"

Well, your logic is just fine. But there could be several answers coming from the suddenly beleaguered teacher:

    • The bounces in time stop because the photon is eventually absorbed and, you see, there is no perpetual machine. (This is the actual response from a scientist -- poor mirror saves bad science!) (Note: {Jan, 2007} If you go through the math and, since the light's wavelength (energy) does not change after a mirror bounce, you will see there is energy over-unity right after the first bounce under the presumption that the mirror received energy and moves.)

    • Well, the photon loses its effective mass as it bounces and slows down, you know -- just like you and I and the soccer ball

    • Theoretically, there is a light color shift. Photons do not slow down but because their frequency changes they have less and less of a punch

    • You got me. Light does not impart pressure at reflection. (This is the truth but it has yet to be spoken [but what will they teach then?])

Yet, light has energy and light is known to move things, cut things, and vaporize things. So where is the catch? Light can become a mover and shaker but it first must be absorbed -- that is, transformed. At bounce there is no absorption and there will be no pressure at reflection -- ever. At absorption the photon is transformed to real energy and the photon is gone.

Next month we will look at ionizing radiation and how light breaks up a molecule of water -- the mechanism that messes up our bodies during hard radiation. Once you know the mechanism, there could then also be a way to counteract it.

DSSP Topics for July '06

Give object kinetic energy but now you have to conserve it. The question of how

You give energy to a stationary object or add energy to a moving object -- and you can do this every day with the same result: the energy is conserved. Fine. But now you have to figure out how it can be done and how it is done by nature.

First, you make a (good) guess that the energy you gave the object needs to be attached to the object as a form of vibration that, however, is not visible. You are not miffed by its invisibility. Light, for example, is not visible unless it enters your eye and reduces at the retina. And so you call the energy the virtual energy

Second, you will need to arrive at some energy computational framework because you will need to understand and explain what happens at the collision of two objects. The wave is natural here, for waves can add and subtract nicely just as energy can speed up or slow the object down.

Third, you will figure out the granularity at which these energy waves operate. You will quickly settle at the atom, giving preference to protons and neutrons.

Finally, you get all excited because the wave could be conceivably imparted at a distance and psychokinetics, if amplified, could be applied to stop moving bodies at a distance.

By the way, increase in momentum changes the energy waves within the atom and -- if the core is unstable (radioactive) -- its half-life will be impacted. You just came up with the mechanism that explain the increase in half-life as the object's speed increases -- and absolutely at that.

DSSP Topics for June '06

New Australian Star
What it means and where it comes from

Australians are looking for a star to call their own. It is important to them, of course, and the discourse is par for the course. The Australians may be looking deep into their soul and they will want to ask the aborigines for advice as well. The eight pointed star may be a favorite of some, but there are eight pointed structures that are harmonious and there are the eight pointed stars that are disharmonious. There is also a question of the meanings of the horizontal, vertical, and the diagonal.

So, here is our contribution: The New Australian Star issues from the constellation of the Southern Cross. Each star of the cross now enlarges into arms that form two sets of diagonals. One set has the right triangle in the 3:1 proportion, which produces the diagonals of the square root of ten. The other, closer-together stars on the horizontal produce triangles in the 2:1 ratio, which produces the diagonals of the square root of five. The point to be made is that the diagonals should not be obscured by solid structures because the diagonals are about vibrations. Spirals or waves can be pretty much anywhere, for these get along with vibrations just fine.

The Australians will need to figure out why there are two separated lines for both the horizontal and vertical direction. The (big) hint comes from your bones, which have "empty" space. (The Great Pyramid also has empty spaces, really virtual structures, that some people call "shafts" but they are axes for vibrational formation.) Enjoy.

picture filename:

DSSP Topics for May '06

Are irrational numbers not rational -- that is, not reasonable?
If irrationals are not reasonable, does it make them bad? Is "wow" bad?
If you truncate irrational number, did you solve a problem or did you create one?

The best example of an irrational number is the square root of two, but sticking to arithmetic to discuss irrational numbers quickly runs out of steam. This is because irrationals issue from geometry and not from the everyday experience of counting. How many times did you need a square root in a restaurant? If you need to deal with space, chances are quite good you will deal with the square and the square root of two.

We all know that the diagonal of a unit square is SQRT(2). Unit square's side is 1, but if your square happens to have the side of length b, then the diagonal is SQRT(2). Either way, the diagonal is a number that has an infinite mantissa. This is "no problem" for scientists because they just chop it off -- just at the point where it would not fit in the computer -- and declare it, say, close enough.

There is no need to lament over the chopped off number but what has happened is that the irrational number was converted into a rational number by being chopped. Chopped number now becomes a real number because it is finite and the act of chopping transforms the irrational number irreversibly into a real number.

The subject of this month's topic is number chopping -- or rounding or truncation. How many decimal places do you need? Is there a point where the chopping of the irrational number is good enough? In other words, is there "close enough" that would make it "good enough?"

Take two squares as shown here. Which of the two do you like better?

picture filename:

    • If you were to explain why you like one square or the other, would you use different words for each?

    • If you were to change your mind about the square you like, would it reflect different ways you are perceiving the liking of the square and the explaining of liking it?

    • What do irrational numbers have to do with any of this?

In Summary
The square on the left is a solid square and reflects the truncation of the irrational number. The diagonal distance of the solid square is exact and finite. The diagonal of the non-solid square is open and there is no limit on the expression of the irrational number of its diagonal.

Both squares will be described differently [think left and right brain]. It is for this reason that the truncation of the irrational number does not have a measure of adequacy. The irrational number is in a category of its own -- a category that requires the mantissa of the irrational number to be infinite. As a Pythagorean you know that a number can become, and the act of number (mantissa) chopping does not actualize the irrational number. As a Pythagorean you know that if the Good Lord carved a square as a groove into the stone it would not and could not glow.

Throughout this topic you could substitute 'incommensurable' for 'irrational.' In that case the transcendentals are included along with irrationals in this month's topic.

DSSP Topics for April '06

You were told the photon knocks the electron off its path but what happens to the photon?
Okay, if photons could move other things without being absorbed, where do the tired photons retire?
The absorbed photon may create heat but what happened to the photon?
What happens to the photon that we see and register as light?
How is a photon (re)created?

Scientists tell us all about the interesting things photons do but they don't tell us what happens to the photon after it does its thing. Chances are good scientists do not know. Even the so called 'Compton effect' erroneously presumes that a photon pings an electron and loses energy, but the scientists' brain is so limited they cannot conceive what would happen after the second, third, and the next "collision" because then the answers do not come out as readily. If we take scientists up on Compton -- who is fortified with the Nobel something or another -- then the world would be full of but beaten up and tired out photons zombily clunking their way around. The fact is, scientists cannot think beyond the second bounce. Inside the scientists' mind it is not unlike the proverbial Johnny Carson fruitcake -- the next fruitcake you see is the same one you sent to somebody else.

Photons cannot and do not bump and displace electrons because photons and free electrons are both waves. Photons are created with a fixed amount of energy that stays with the photon for the life of the photon. That is also why a reflecting (or refracting) photon cannot and will not create pressure at reflection.

When a photon is absorbed, its energy -- which is also a virtual energy -- transforms into real energy, but only if the photon finds two things to bump into. Two things are needed because two things can then move in the opposite direction while conserving momentum. So there, Compton, you can "bombard" free electrons with photons all day long but none will change its path. Scientists can bombard us with Compton's Nobel Prize but that will not impress the mind of those who ask simple and obvious questions.

The photon needs systemic description -- that is, the photon exists in a cycle from its creation to its absorption to its recreation. Once a photon is absorbed it is transformed from the virtual and into the real energy and the original photon is gone. Photon's energy lives on in another form.

 Photon life cycle

Picture filename:

A photon is created when a charge is accelerated. For one reason or another the charge does not keep its energy the same way a real particle such as a piece of the rock does. As long as the charge is not accelerating, no energy -- in the form of the photonic virtual energy -- is being produced but as soon as the charge becomes accelerated, the charge begins to radiate virtual energy that is the photon. For your homework, you want to figure out what geometry of the atomic electron does not accelerate the electron's charge. If you like homework, recall that thoughts in your brain are charges (potassium ions?). Does this mean you could create photons in your head? [What?]

Note{4/13/06}: If a scientist suggests that light can also increase in frequency as it collides with bigger things such as molecules, the scientist is again not thinking past the second bounce. If a photon were to acquire higher energy as a result of hitting something bigger, photons around us would be in the X-ray region very soon. Again, the photon's energy does not change during non-reducing interactions such as reflection.

DSSP Topics for March '06

Flip over hydrogen and get helium -- introducing the Inclusion Principle
Who supplies the mirror?

Pauli noticed that the two of helium's electrons always have opposite spin and he quickly called it the "exclusion principle." In the early and QM-heady years of the last century, everybody was getting in on the act by naming things, and since nobody observed the two of the helium's electrons to have the same spin, Pauli just said -- without rhyme or reason -- that that's the "principle" and no explanation is necessary. Bohr did something similar when he could not explain the discrete quantized atomic orbitals that matched Balmer's equation: he called the space between orbitals the "forbidden orbitals." Geez. It is not unlikely Bohr happened one day to walk by the sign saying 'Swimming Forbidden' and that was good enough for him -- forbidden it is. Why, Pauli has it even better. If a new quantum number is discovered, as when the magnetic field split the hydrogen orbitals some more, it all continues to fit the "principle" because each electron gets a new extra quantum number. Pauli's exclusion principle does not explain anything and does not predict anything -- it is self-defining and it fits after the fact. You can make your own principle such as the "human water exclusion principle." When there are no humans living under water just like the fish, your principle is good. If you scratch your head on this, the best way of thinking about this high science is that each atomic particle gets its own set of rails and no particle can then collide with another particle. This is the best invention since, but of course, the railroad!

New Proposal
Then again, the real question deals with explaining why the two electrons of helium have opposite spin. The mirror symmetry makes it possible. If there exists a two-dimensional symmetry (symmetry about a plane), the reflected clockwise spin of one electron becomes the counterclockwise spin of the other electron. The way of creating helium out of hydrogen is to include the second electron and also the second proton with the plane symmetry. So, you see, it is really the inclusion principle that is at work here, for the idea is to grow helium from hydrogen by allowing new components by rules such as symmetry that makes sense computationally or geometrically. And the only way of including a new component across the mirror plane of symmetry is to reverse the spin. (That is how your left hand becomes the right hand on the other side of the mirror, too.) Now, we can make a prediction using the new principle: the spin of the second proton inside the helium core will have its spin reversed as well.

Thinking Big
The mirror of symmetry exists because it simplifies the computational aspects within the atom. The next question deals with "where is the doubling of helium" manifesting -- and this is perhaps worth some study. The doubling could be on the molecular level -- for gasses anyway. It is apparent that the doubling cannot go on forever. All computability concepts reach limits such as the octave for the outer orbitals, which may need additional computing geometries in addition to two-dimensional symmetry. Whether the plane symmetry of helium is linked in some way to the angular momentum and the flat geometry of the solar system is a big jump, but awfully tempting nonetheless.

Note{May 5, 2006}: Balmer is the guy who tied quantum behavior of the electron to math, constants and all. Can you tie Balmer to the King's Chamber, atomically speaking?

DSSP Topics for February '06

Golden Ratio is not exclusive to Fibonacci numbers
The key is in the infinite addition (read superposition) mechanism

Fibonacci series starts with numbers 1, 1, and each consecutive term is formed by adding the previous two terms. As the Fibonacci sequence unfolds, the ratios of two consecutive terms of the Fibonacci series converge closer and closer toward the value of (1+SQRT(5))/2, which is the Golden Ratio and expressed as ratio of two numbers a/b. We do not want to reduce a/b any further and so a=1+SQRT(5) and b=2. Fibonacci series acquired some mystique because of its Golden Ratio convergence property, a property discovered by Kepler.

It turns out that any numerical series having the next term generated by summing the last two of its terms will also converge toward the Golden Ratio by rationing the two consecutive terms. The mathematical way of saying it is that the convergence is not a function of the initial conditions. The general proof is straightforward. We start with two numbers representing some positive lengths, say j and k. The next term is, by definition, the sum of the two

S0 = j + k

All partial sums Sn contain numbers j and k. Next terms are:

S1 = S0 + k

S2 = S1 + S0

.. ..

Sn-1 = Sn-2 + Sn-3

Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

Now, the Sn/Sn-1 ratio should converge toward the Golden Ratio a/b if our hypothesis is correct. Then, as n increases toward infinity

a/b = Limit of Sn/Sn-1

Substituting for Sn

a/b = Limit of (Sn-1 + Sn-2)/Sn-1 = Limit of (1 + Sn-2/Sn-1)

a/b = 1 + Limit of Sn-2/Sn-1

Expression Sn-2/Sn-1 is a ratio of two consecutive but inversed terms and, as n increases toward infinity, the ratio converges toward the reciprocal of a/b, which is b/a. Then,

a/b = 1 + b/a

This equation is not a function of any partial sum Sn and, therefore, a or b is not a function of j and/or k. Any value of j or k can be used in the construction of the series that results in the equation a/b = 1 + b/a. Finally, does a solution exist for a/b?

a/b = 1 + b/a

Multiply both sides by a/b

(a/b)2 = a/b + 1

(a/b)2 - a/b - 1 = 0

For positive solution of spatial distance:

a/b = (1 + SQRT(5))/2

a = 1 + SQRT(5) and b = 2

(1) So what's the point in generalizing a particular sequence while "demoting" Fibonacci and his cool sequence of numbers? A lot, if you think Golden Ratio is in some ways related to free energy. One could -- but does not have to -- work with structures that subscribe to Fibonacci.
(2) As a Pythagorean you always know the operational representation in nature, and addition or subtraction is about the superposition of the wavefunction
(3) {Feb 10, 2006} This month's topic has a great implication for the number zero. Some people include zero in the Fibonacci sequence and that works fine for addition (superposition of the wavefunction). As soon as we get into ratios, however, zero needs to be excluded. We start Fibonacci sequence with 1, 1 to avoid the exception but -- if we were to generalize -- zero can be included as a real number as long as it is subject only to addition. Only virtual numbers can be subject to infinite acceleration, which is none other than the instant light rebound.

DSSP Topics for January '06

Particle-wave duality started with deBroglie a hundred years ago, and it is still making waves
Particle-wave duality may seem weird, but only if the interpreter does not see the picture
Particle-wave states are mutually exclusive and, for this particular transformation, reversible
Finally, the correct way of saying it is 'momentum-wave' duality

It started as a purely mathematical relationship in deBroglie's head. Momentum, which is a moving energy of a real thing, could be equated with frequency, for frequency also relates to energy. On the one side of the equation is mass and velocity -- that is, momentum p, and on the other side is frequency f and Planck constant h. Altogether it is p = f·h. What holds this relation together is the conservation of energy. The conservation of energy states that energy can be transformed from one form to another, but the overall energy cannot increase or decrease.

 really 'momentum-wave duality'

Picture filename:

If it transforms then it must be exclusive
In the framework of the conservation of energy, for every bit (quanta) of energy on the left side, there will transform an identical amount to the right side. As a result, the electron cannot be both a particle and a wave because the electron either transforms or does not transform. A moving particle's energy (that is, a momentum) and a wave (wave is the reciprocal of frequency) cannot exist simultaneously. If you wish to do an experiment, you will be able to measure momentum or a wavelength but not both at the same instance. So, if you bind an electron as a real particle, it will not do the wave tricks going through the dual slit, for example.

The most potent question since day one concerns the parameter of mass of the moving electron. If we could detect -- that is, measure, electron waves, we do not need (to know) electron's mass, for the energy is conserved and the conservation of energy is upheld by the wavelength measurement alone. Moving free electrons do indeed have wavelength and the wavelength was measured and validated by Davisson and Germer in 1927. This outcome is at the center of the "quantum weirdness" because mainstream scientists hold on to the electron's mass at all times. Even though mass is not needed because the conservation of energy holds without it, the present mainstream science guys -- really all of them: Feynman, Hawking, Wheeler, Penrose .. -- hang on to electron's mass as the last straw the classical mindset wants to take along to the domain of quantum mechanics. You cannot, and in a way you do not want to, take mass with you to the virtual domain of quantum mechanics. [If you do hang onto mass, you will never get there. Of course, if you cannot go there you may as well hang on to mass.]

In the picture above, then, the mass of the electron on the right hand side is really not there and the mass of the electron dissolves and "disappears." The good news is that the transformation is reversible and the electron reappears upon measurement. The measurement is at times called the reduction or the collapse of the wavefunction, and in actuality it is the transformation going from right to left. The particle must be moving to have momentum and thus enable the transformation into a wave. The transformation of the particle into a wave and vice versa is a 'momentum-wave reversible transformation.' If you were to get deeper into this, consider the following:
(1) The movement of the particle is about momentum and about imparting energy onto a particle -- particle does not need to carry charge, etc.
(2) The 'wave of a particle' deals with the conservation of energy and manifests through the wave's property of nonlocality.
(3) The conservation of energy is absolute. Energy is local to the particle and -- on the other side of the transformation -- nonlocal with the wave [happy tunneling in the New Year.]

Are there some transformations that are not reversible? Yes, the "celebrated" E=mc2 is not reversible. The transformation of momentum is reversible but the transformation of mass (matter) is not. (You will need intelligence in addition to energy to make matter.)

There is no need to chastise mainstream scientists even though they do not get it for one hundred years. Just let them know that whatever ideas they have, they are not coming back.

Finally, if you like this topic, give QM primer a read.

DSSP Topics for December '05
Say hello to Balmer, just another cool math guy
King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid beckons to Balmer

In the last quarter of the 19th century, Johann Balmer (taught math in girls' school where he) came across the experimental findings that hydrogen radiates light of only certain frequencies. The quantum aspect of the radiated wavelengths intrigued all. Many math guys set out to come up with a formula -- we can say in the tradition of Kepler -- to match some equation, any equation, with observations. Balmer succeeded by making the wavelength lambda = b·m2/(m2-n2). Number b is a constant (could be called Balmer's constant) and contains the Planck constant h, which was not proposed for another fifteen years. Numbers m and n are integers while m is always greater than n. The observed wavelengths matched the formula and Balmer also successfully used the formula to predict other hydrogen wavelengths that were unobserved at the time. Balmer thus tied natural numbers (positive integers) to the atom and Pythagoras suddenly became relevant on the atomic scale.

Moreover, the Pythagorean theorem should by now jump right out at you, just as soon as you see the m2-n2 term. This term is about two lengths of the right angle triangle. (Bohr's formulation includes Planck constant but the geometric relations are not apparent.) Balmer's equation is in the simplest and visually powerful format.

 North indicated by arrow. Why are vertical distances dashed?

Picture filename:

It is now becoming apparent what you need to do when you want to work the atomic orbitals. One ingredient is missing, but the King's Chamber is but one component of the Great Pyramid.

Among the many questions: Is the 'squaring of the circle' about building orbitals from linear, or straight, components? If so, what's the big idea? When we mutilated the Great Pyramid, does it show that the creation could never be as intelligent as the Maker? Is operational pyramid existential? Can we, could we, would we, shape the stone without hammer or heat?

DSSP Topics for November '05
Lightspeed is absolute
A photon of light leaves its source and propagates at 'c' in the direction the source is pointing
Velocity of the light source cannot slow or speed up light
Velocity of the light source cannot give light a sideways speed component

Michelson-Morley experiment has shown conclusively that a round trip of a photon is of the same duration regardless of the direction the photon is launched and regardless of the velocity (speed and direction) of the launching platform. Presently, however, the prevailing -- that is mainstream -- understanding is that the sideways velocity component of the launching platform is added to lightspeed. It is asserted that light's forward velocity is c and constant, but if the launching platform (the source of light) has an additional, say downward, speed then such sideways speed is added to that of lightspeed. Not so.

Agreed: The launching platform (light source) does not and cannot add its own forward or backward speed to that of lightspeed. In other words, a light source such as a flashlight or a laser moving forward or backward does not affect lightspeed and light coming out of the laser is always, and for all observers, propagating at c.
However, and incorrectly, the light source "is allowed to" add its own speed that is in direction other than the light's direction. The flashlight, then, does not add its forward or backward velocity component but "is allowed to" add its sideways component to that of light. There is no good reason why the velocity of the light source not be additive to light in the parallel direction, but be additive in another direction.

Furthermore, the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proves that the earth velocity -- being introduced as the forward or the sideways component -- is not and cannot be added to lightspeed. Michelson-Morley apparatus as a whole was rotated to release light parallel with, or perpendicular to, that of the earth velocity, but no change in light's arrival was detected. Regardless of the rotation of the apparatus, light's round trip delay was always the same. Michelson-Morley apparatus was purposely designed with enough accuracy to measure the change in light's arrival if earth velocity was added in any which way to lightspeed -- and the expectation of the experimenters was that they will be able to measure the delay in arrival. The earth velocity, however, was not and cannot be added to lightspeed in either the parallel or the perpendicular direction (and anywhere in between).

 Lightspeed depends on medium (not its launching speed)

Picture filename:

In the illustration above, two candidate paths of light are traced while the light source is moving down -- that is, perpendicular to light's path (and along with earth velocity). Trace AB is the actual trace because the Michelson-Morley apparatus did not measure any delay in light's arrival. The physics theories of Einstein ignore Michelson-Morley experimental results and claim that light takes the AC path. Not so. Light always takes the AB path, which is the path that is in the direction the light source is pointing at the instance of light's release. Lightspeed is absolute and independent of the speed or direction of the light source that releases the light. Space, and whatever 'space' is, cannot and does not treat light differently as a function of direction.

Note that, as the sideways light source velocity keeps on increasing, the detector will at some point miss the returning light (photon) -- and this is yet another way of confirming that the velocity of light and its source is not additive in magnitude or direction.

Finally, Einstein's general theory of relativity may be a hopeless artificial theory, but the idea of the absolute lightspeed lends itself to building the absolute clock. That is, the clock as a whole may be traveling fast or slow, but because its timing component is built on lightspeed (rather than on the unstable and decaying matter), the clock's ticks will be absolute. We have the design for the absolute clock. The absolute clock then also resolves "the issue" of simultaneity, for observers can use the absolute clock to synch their watches -- absolutely.

NASA projects whose primary mission can be directly invalidated through the Michelson-Morley experiment are gravitation waves, gravitational lensing, and black holes. Other NASA projects would also change their focus because the present theories would no longer be in line and supportive of the project, i.e., dark matter, dark energy. Solar sailing efforts are based on the nonexistent light's pressure, which are addressed in topics about light. The "Space Elevator" spending may be relatively low, but what is high is NASA's travesty of High School physics that is sending a corrupting message to our kids. See below.

DSSP Topics for October '05
"Space Elevator" is NASA's example of not understanding basic physics and math

NASA has no leadership -- both managerially and scientifically. This is most likely due to NASA being a US monopoly. In the US, NASA leads in mattress materials and that's about it. On the world scene, however, NASA deficiencies begin to show, for no longer can NASA dictate the space spending of other countries including Japan, Russia, European Union, China, India, and possibly Canada. Solar sailing is an example of unworkable and PR-driven technology, and any country that has validated the fact that light (photons) cannot put pressure on mirror can laugh-out-loud at NASA stupidity.

This month we take on NASA's "Space Elevator" once again, for this structure will never work as advertised and will always require active rocket propellant with each and every payload. This fact is easy to establish with High School or introductory college math. It is about the angular momentum that is conserved, and no payload can be hauled into an orbit without giving it additional angular momentum.

 Space elevator is neither

Picture filename:

As the payload is being raised from r1 to r2, it begins to trail because its orbital velocity is decreasing with increasing elevation. This puts a sideways pull on the rope, which then pulls the geostationary "anchor weight" from its position. The end effect is that the rope will break or the "anchor weight" will be pulled down to earth -- there is no in-between. This effect is similar to the breaking of the payload tether from the NASA space shuttle experiment a few years back because the angular momentum of the shuttle was not changing but the angular momentum of the payload was.

Fundamentally, linear and angular momentum can be exchanged only through transformation. Classical mechanics deals with it by separating the linear and the angular momentum -- that is, the law of the conservation of momentum applies individually and separately to the linear motion and to the angular (orbit, orbital, spin) motion.

As for recommendations, there are none. NASA is so ignorant of its own lack of merit and there will be no changes forthcoming as a result of our posts. NASA has a closed shop mentality and their contracting practices are not only unfair but outright insulting. In time, however, it will be easier to split up or eliminate NASA because of our posts.

Note {Oct. 6 and 22, 05} When an object is moving in a straight line and comes in proximity to another (larger) body, it begins to orbit it. Linear momentum has changed to the angular momentum. So, how come that a payload being hoisted straight up needs rocketry to get angular momentum? Without the sideways-firing rocket, the payload being hoisted up the "Space Elevator" acquires the angular momentum by taking it away from the Elevator's angular momentum -- and that's the only way of conserving momentum. The payload being hoisted up can be visualized as as follows: by moving (walking) from the inside to the outside of the merry-go-round, the angular velocity (rotation) of the merry-go-round will decrease. This is okay for the merry-go-round but the "anchor weight" will tumble down or, if the tether breaks, the "anchor weight" will move into a lower orbit that is no longer geostationary.

Note#2 {Jan 6, 06} The latest NASA spin on the space elevator is to put the anchor weight beyond the geostationary orbit and thus keep the tether tight. This appears to muggle the discussion, for tightness is supposed to invoke the image of 'rigid.' Tight tether is not rigid to torque, however, and the first load that is being hoisted up will take the angular momentum from the "anchor" weight just as before. The not so amazing thing of this NASA in-your-face-fraud-in-progress is that they do not offer computer simulation. This is simply the 'tow the line' political project that will go on for as long as the funding holds and regardless of the technological corruption this endeavor carries in its wake. It is also likely that the "damn the physics" approach will negatively permeate other NASA projects, for technical merits are taking second seat to PR or the power to lie. Politically, NASA does not want this project to go to completion because it will not work anyway, and we should expect "technical problems" or "budget priorities" several years from now as explanation for the cancellation. Makes you wonder if the shuttle was not flight worthy and NASA knew it.

Note#3 {Jan 1, 07} NASA is mouthing away trying to keep this project in the budgets. The new year spin of 2007 is that NASA agrees that the angular momentum needs to be supplied to the load but that "the earth will supply it." This goes way beyond 'duh' and even beyond the tower of Babel. The tether is not a rigid rod and the torque will not be delivered to the load. When going up the Eiffel Tower (or the Tower of Babel) the tower will supply the angular momentum to the climber but only because the tower is a rigid structure. Names of NASA officials and NASA scientists should be taken for likely criminal prosecution -- that is our latest and the best recommendation.

DSSP Topics for September '05
Time is always a dependent variable
Pythagorean says: Time is a derivative
Buddhist says: Time is obtained by convention
Hollywood says: Time machine, yo baby!

Time keeping and record keeping has been with us so long we take time as something that exists as if time were a variable having its own existence. Planetary position can be forecast by time alone, but the value of stocks or the parameters of weather cannot. Scientists stay away from relationships that cannot use time for prediction and, for better or for worse, developed only those elements for which time-dependent equations exist. The scientist cannot use time going backward and calculate the value of a stock one month ago, but scientists do not mind telling those who listen that they can go back billions of years and arrive at "the beginning of time." The scientist cannot go back in time and validate, among millions of things, where a person was a week ago, how much change he or she had in their pocket yesterday, and what weather parameters we had in Boston the first of August. Without the actual minute by minute record, the only way the scientist can compute where a runner was during the race, the poor runner is confined to a particular track running at a particular constant speed. The runner cannot speed up or slow down because the scientist would not be able to reconstruct the position of the runner on the track.

Your clock is as good as the system that derives it
Each and every clock has a system behind it that derives the time. The calendar time comes from planetary motion. "Atomic" clock comes from unstable matter that decays at certain rate but such rate varies as a function of temperature, pressure, and -- perhaps not surprisingly -- velocity. Light or laser clock can derive its timing from the constant velocity of light and its time is then not dependent on velocity. Regardless, there is no time as a standalone variable because different systems produce their own time. When a system from which time issues is changed, the time follows. It is not possible to manipulate time by itself and, for example, change the orbit of a planet. That is what it means that time is always a derived variable where the always part means that the dependency is not reversible and time can never become an independent variable. Actually, you can try an experiment on yourself: slow down your watch and put it in your pocket -- perhaps you will live longer. Time, then, will accept the strengths and limitations of the system from which it is derived, including being the absolute time if derived from light's constant velocity.

Variables are usually reversible as to dependency. Time is not
Scientists, of course, are free to fool each other. Scientists can take decaying matter and put their money on that but everybody else understands that the derivation of a particular variable may not be reversible. An object casts a shadow which may indicate the position of the object, but it is not possible to move the shadow by itself and thus cause the object to move. There exists a one-way causal relationship between the object and its shadow in the same way there is a causal relationship between a system and the time that is issuing from such system. This particular relationship between the system and its time (or object and its shadow) is not reversible.

Variable's reversibility is fundamentally tied to transformations
The next part is about the reversibility of mass and energy. Scientists would like to think mass and energy are reversible but they can only talk about it with their hands in their pockets because nobody succeeded in taking some photons and making mass out of it. The scientist, not unlike the five year old, can break matter into matter and antimatter, but they have no clue, and presently do not care, how to make a real matter, and perhaps new matter, and possibly even different matter.

DSSP Topics for August '05
When light shifts toward red or blue, it confirms the change in speed in absolute terms
'Refraction Shift' is more descriptive than 'Light Shift'
Photon's energy remains the same

All of the above

An object emitting certain color may be at some spot in the universe but if the detector moves toward the object, the color of the object will shift toward blue. There is symmetry in this phenomena and if the detector is moving away from the object, the object's light will shift toward red. The object's color, however, does not and did not change. Fundamentally, your eye will register the identical color regardless of the speed you are moving toward (or away from) the object. Physically, the 'light shift' refers to the increased refraction of light as light enters the prism of the detector. The color -- that is the inherent energy of light -- does not change, but light enters the incoming prism faster and refracts along a path that is usually a path of different color. With your eyes as your detector, the colors will remain the same but will become slightly out of focus.

 Refraction changes - but not the wavelength

Picture filename:

When the distance between the light source and detector remains the same, no refraction shift (light shift) could ever be detected. Therefore, the absolute calibration can be achieved in the laboratory and a prism based detector can map any and all energies (colors) of light in absolute terms. Refraction shift is a great mechanism that is worth exploring and exploiting. The next step is to pick the best colors available from cosmos. Balmer's hydrogen lines have much potential. For example, if the refraction shift changes with seasons but always returns to the same value then a solid conclusion can be reached that the interplanetary hydrogen is stationary, and absolutely so. Now, Earth's velocity can be calculated in absolute terms and, therefore, any other object's speed could be known in absolute terms as well.

Refraction shift is a fairly complex phenomena that calls for differentiation between energy and light's property of refraction. Yet, the information presented this month is adequate to take on any and all warp brains that could be out there. For example, you could make a successful case that the energy of the photon is absolute because, regardless of the speed of the source or the detector, the photon's energy remains the same.
{Aug 2, 2005} Another way of appreciating the differentiation between the refractive attribute of light and the energy of light is by taking prisms with different indexes of refraction. Each prism will refract the same light differently but the energy of light going through any of the prisms and leaving the prism will remain unchanged. The prism separates photons based on the intrinsic and absolute energy photon has even though the separation distances between colors may be different.

DSSP Topics for July '05
Relativistic presumption is presumptuous.
Energy of a body stays with the body but the change in reference "takes it" away and "gives it" to another body: Cannot take and give energy through reference alone and all energy references are and must be absolute

The relativistic presumption has been with us for 100 years. It was built from the everyday observation that a watermelon being struck by a car causes just as much damage as when the car is parked and the watermelon is thrown at it. People calling themselves scientists extended this simple observation to the entire universe. This happened even though Newton could not appreciate imparting energy to an object and then removing the energy at a whim of shifting the frame of reference -- shifting the reference disregards energy conservation because energy was indeed imparted onto a particular body and not on another body. Scientists were able to go mainstream with the relativistic mindset by saying "it's the same thing" and made relativistic presumption into relativistic postulate.

It may be time to look at the relativistic presumption again because the dual slit experiment proves that the frame of reference placement is not arbitrary. In other words, the energy of every individual body must be respected in absolute terms.

 Dual slit experiment not commutative

Picture filename:

Every moving particle has a wavelength that is commensurate with the moving energy (momentum) it was given. Greater momentum gives the particle more moving energy and shorter wavelength. Indeed, the ability to mathematically calculate the superposition (interference) pattern is one of the fundamental victories of quantum mechanics because it is the wavelength that is being used in calculations. Moving electron has momentum (velocity) and this translates, through Planck constant, into wavelength. See Louis de Broglie for details.

In the dual slit experiment the particle is released from its source at zero velocity. The particle is then speeded up with particular amount of energy and acquires velocity ve -- and that is why the frame of reference must be at a spot that recognizes the velocity ve particle acquired. If, for example, the frame of reference is shifted to the electron, ve becomes zero and the wavelength associated the the particle is now different (zero). The particle, after the frame of reference change, has no wavelength because it has zero velocity and the mathematical result does not match what is being observed. Moving the frame of reference corrupts reality.


  • From the dual slit experiment it is apparent that each particle conserves the energy it was given. Energy translates (transforms) into a wave that can be measured when particle goes through the dual slit. Therefore [all answers are loaded]:

    • Newton says: "Yeah, I can find out if somebody threw that watermelon. There is a causal aspect that comes with the absolute frame of reference."

    • Einstein lives on as the shining example of pathological science

    • If energy and a particle form a continuum (moving energy continuum that is momentum) then no reference can take the energy away from the continuum

    • If the electron is not accelerated but the dual slit is, then the superposition (interference) pattern cannot form

    • If the energy stays with the particle then de Broglie wave stays with the particle.

    • If the wave stays with the particle then ether must negotiate the conservation of energy

    • Okay, what if I can add to the wave but without pushing the particle

    • Okay, what if I can subtract from the wave..

    • Okay, what if..

DSSP Topics for June '05
The first test of mathematical soundness: Is the solution tractable?

The math guys make two things quite clear. The first is that any math is good math. The second is that math operators we use presently, such as addition and multiplication, are complete and adequate. The first one is so-so, the second is not so. What complicates things a bit is that some operators such as square root are tractable in geometry but intractable in arithmetic.

The best example of the mathematical intractability pretending to be a solution arises with the dual slit experiment performed with electrons. The path each electron takes is by some modeled as "sum over all possible paths," or "sum over all possible histories." Mathematically, however, this model leads straight to the intractability that is analogous of the traveling salesman problem. Unfortunately, intractable solutions continue to be proposed even though no computer can execute such solutions in real-time.

 Electron becomes nonlocal

Picture filename:

One 'left brain' model that describes the dual slit experiment with electrons is based on the presumption that the electron cannot be split. (If the electron cannot be split with a hammer, it cannot be split -- that's the rationale.) This, in turn, ushers in the intractable model of the traveling salesman problem because the experimental results call for the electron to also go through both slits and then the electron's path needs to be tracked in every possible way.


  • Dual slit experiment with electrons could be mathematically modeled as tractable or intractable because (pick what you like):

    • It gives us a sense of power that we can see nature as being confused -- tractability has nothing to do with it

    • It gives professors importance in being able to show that something is intractable and, even though they cannot apply it, they continue to make theories with it

    • Each and every intractable solution is not a solution because all experiments reflect nature that is demonstratively, and therefore inherently, tractable

    • It may not work with a hammer but did you try honey, dear?

    • If the electron becomes virtual electron in the atom, it could become virtual outside the atom. Look at the electron as a wave or go ask Schrödinger because the wave solution is tractable

Note: Any and all intractable solutions are not real or practical solutions. Intractability is not an approach nature takes and alternate model/solution should be sought. Feynman's explanation of the dual slit experiment is not worth the work. Neither is Dedekind's "proof" that irrational numbers are real numbers because he relies on intractable methods taking infinite amount of time. In fact, Dedekind's proof never ends (and it is still going on). Adopting tractable-only baseline also means that you cannot use the parameter of distance when going from one solar system to another -- spatial distance parameter becomes intractable because it takes unbounded amount of time to traverse cosmic distances and "you cannot get there from here" by using the parameter of distance. [For the projection operator, think of the dependent parameter idistance after transformation.]

DSSP Topics for May '05
You cannot cut a point in two, and only geometry lets you figure it out
Electron takes advantage of the truth
What math is and is not

You can cut the area of a circle exactly in many different ways. You could cut the circle into halves, thirds, quarters, fifths, sixths, or any multiples thereof such as twelfths. No problem. Yet, every time you do so, you cannot include the center point in the cut. You could invoke Euclid and say that Euclid said: "Point is that which has no parts," but that's the easy way out because you argue on the basis of a definition rather than on the basis of merit. [If you are a bureaucrat then you are right and you need not go any further.] You could say that area is an area and point is not an area because point is zero-dimensional. That's much better. Pythagoreans through the Tetractys differentiates between zero, one, two, and three-dimensional entities.

 Knowing what physical parameter is the area helps

Picture filename:

The best way of looking at cutting the circle is that if the center point is included in the division then the point would belong to each and every part of the cut. This would allow the point to be separated and then the point would no longer be zero-dimensional, which goes against the definition of a point. If you succeed in cutting a point then you cut something else (and maybe created polarity) but you did not cut a point. A point, then, truly cannot be cut. Some may think we are going back and forth "splitting hair," wallowing in the theoretical this or that mumbo jumbo that any self-respecting samurai would scorn at. ("Off with their heads!" shouts the Queen.)

When an electron becomes constrained by measurement or by physical structures it instantly reduces -- into a point. As a point the electron cannot be subject to division by any force. Nobody succeeded in cutting the electron (or proton) into pieces.

The best part of this month's topic is that only geometric reasoning will arrive at the indivisibility of a point. Only geometry can make a link between a reducing (collapsing) electron and its indivisible foundation. Arithmetic can be applied to prove some things but only after the geometric percept establishes the indivisibility of a point. Shake hand with a Pythagorean.

(1) The underlying foundation of reality may be mathematical but that does not make mathematics a panacea. Mathematics is but an umbrella term for many diverse pursuits, and math can be corrupted just as any thinking process can be. There is a way of working numbers rationally, irrationally, geometrically, under different degrees of freedom, with and without symmetry. Such workings are separate and interactive, transformative (reversible or irreversible), logical, physical, symbolic, and mythical (numerological and magical). Each category has unique advantages and that is why each category exists. You can possibly lose your head in more ways than one. Enjoy.
(2) {Feb, 2006} Metaphysically, the exclusion of the center point can be worked with Isis and her putting Osiris together: She could not find his centerpiece and so she fashioned one.

DSSP Topics for April '05
Memory makes you smarter
Empower the observer and leave relativity in the dust for black hole enthusiasts to kick around
You can see the promise and get there, too

The illustration below is used by science writers to "prove" that the observer C cannot determine the precedence of events. If the event happens simultaneously at A and B and if the observer C is on a moving train then, they say, C cannot recognize the event as simultaneous event. The argument is that, while lightspeed is constant (that is, absolute), C is moving toward the message sent by B and receives it from B before he receives it from A -- and there is "no way" of figuring out when events really happened.

 Freebie illustration for those who can

Picture filename:

The problem of simultaneity is solvable in several different ways..

Conductor C could know or figure out how fast the train is going and use a calculator. Even without measuring the train speed, observers A and B can meet conductor C anywhere on the train, synchronize their timepieces, and move to their stations at the ends of the train. When the event happens, conductor C receives messages containing the time stamp of the event's happening. The very existence of absolute lightspeed allows the construction of absolute clock that keeps absolute count during motion by both A and B. After all, the (parallel or anti-parallel) round trip of light is always the same regardless of the train speed. The formal system is saved once again by a regular guy who is the chief conductor and the captain of his ship.

    {August 2005} This "problem" can be also stated as the 'problem of synchronizing watches.' As the light-based clock moves from A to C to B, the light-based clock synchronizes all observers to the same and absolute time thus allowing the time stamp method to resolve this "issue."

To claim relativity theory as proven, the scientist deliberately takes the resources away from observers until they just do not know. So, by taking the boat away the scientist can prove it is not possible to get across the ocean.

Why, you could even discover that intelligence is needed for this problem. You could also figure out that the knowledge of simultaneity and the answer regarding event precedence is inherent in the problem, and it takes a bit of smarts to bring it out. It should not be unusual for the universe to develop concepts such as memory and get to the solution that is contained within the problem.

In addition to memory, a solution can be obtained through measurement, computation, and movement. Memory, measurement, computation, and motion could well be the first four tools to begin understanding the universe.


  • The differentiation of precedence and the recognition of simultaneity may be easy for some, but what else is there that can be derived from this (cross out the silly ones)

    • No time travel -- that is, time travel is not forbidden, it just does not work because time is always a derived variable (or, as Buddhists would say, time is a variable obtained by convention). A math guy could figure out that a variable that is a derivative cannot be hidden or, better yet, cannot lead (cannot have priority over) other variables. Time, being always a derivative, can also be called time overlay. [The impossibility of time travel does not invalidate the possibility of superluminal travel -- but that's another topic.]

    • Go time travel -- that is, time is recorded in memory and it is then possible to associate past time with past events just as when reminiscing from old photographs, newspapers, paintings

    • Nature manifests addition as superposition

    • Nature manifests multiplication as force (always), energy, or transformation (sometimes)

    • Nature manifests memory as

      • conservation of energy/momentum
      • closure in
        • angular geometry such as planetary orbit and/or atomic orbital
        • linear geometry of standing waves (specific vibrations or vibration mix between nodes)
      • unique structures that reduce unique photons (content addressability) [grand prize of computing, possibly for Pythagoreans]

    • Nature manifests movement as

      • inertia/acceleration
      • Doppler shift

    • Nature manifests computing as

      • spatial geometric forms (formations) of atoms, solar systems, galaxies
      • multidimensional computing [for Pythagoreans]

Note: Absolute photonic undulation of hydrogen radiation can be measured. The absolute speed can then be measured through Doppler shift if the interplanetary hydrogen is stationary

DSSP Topics for March '05
Points exist in a plane but the constructed distance between some of them cannot be exact
Euclid's first amendment: "You can draw but one line between two points but don't ask me how long that line is."
Pythagorean says: "Incommensurable numbers are loaded."
Schauberger says: "Virginia, if you looked in my bag you could figure out I not only look like Santa Claus, I am Santa Claus."
The 'number line' is for underachievers

The incommensurate (irrational) number is usually discussed in a context that "this number cannot be obtained by rationing." A real mathematician may well be complaining about the computer that does division but still cannot portray the world around us. A mathematician, of course, would not be complaining about a number.

Irrational numbers are constructed with good ol' integers but you may as well leave the computer at home. Irrational numbers are constructed only geometrically in 2D or 3D space. Irrational numbers exist in 1D but they cannot be created by staying in 1D -- or measured in 1D after they've been constructed with the Pythagorean Theorem. Pythagoreans like to construct a pentagram and they like the pentagram because it has a lot of incommensurable golden proportions. Pythagoreans like the golden proportions because .. there is a lot of concurrency and dimension mixing happening inside certain pyramids.

Mario Livio in his Golden Ratio categorically states there is no linkage between the Great Pyramid and the golden ratio. He dismisses the connection because there is a 0.1% golden ratio measurement discrepancy with the pyramid, which is by now rough at the edges. The author does not know where to take it if there is a connection, and it is then easier to deny it. Once you become familiar with scientist-speak, you will understand it as, "I have no clue but if somebody does, I got that 0.1% keeping me warm."

Let's take a look at the (square) root of ten

 Inexact has benefits

Picture filename:

You construct the exact length of three (horizontal), the exact right angle, and the exact length of one (vertical) -- and get two points in space. However, the diagonal (straight, 1D) line between these two points is not exact. Actually, the length of a straight line spanning these two points can never be exact. We can have a line that is exact and shorter -- or exact and longer -- than the root of ten, but there exists no solid line that is exactly the length of the root of ten. There now exists a gap that cannot be closed if you wish to construct the distance exactly.

The right angle construction is exact but the straight line (diagonal) construction is not exact. You, (sort from best to worst)

    • Write a very unkind letter to Dedekind

    • Take advantage of the truth

    • Write a letter to Noether and tell her the space symmetry and space homogeneity has real problems because there are 'holes in space' and 'distance gaps,' and some spatial directions, angles and distances are inherently not deterministic. After all, the conservation of energy is exact, not just "close enough for government work"

    • Connect the two points with a solid line and

      • muse about it
      • forget about it

    • Connect the two points with a dashed line and

      • reflect on it
      • build a gallery over it

    • Keep away from all irrational numbers and construct only the 'clean and rational' triangles the likes of 3, 4, 5

    • Keep squeezing the gap until you get to zero at infinity and declare irrational numbers with infinite mantissa a subset of real numbers [caution, those who took this path are still squeezing the gap]

    • Differentiate between constructible (two points exist) and executable (length and angle implementation is exact)

    • As every Pythagorean knows, what works in 0D may or may not work in 1D or 2D. Because you cannot divide an area of a circle into three exact parts unless you exclude the center point, then the reverse is also true: What works for 2D does not necessarily work for 0D. (Euclid said a long time ago that a point is not divisible, but he said it as a definition.)

(1) It is not possible to place the root-of-ten (or any irrational number) on a number line. The line you think is root-of-ten long is not exact and can never be exact. You cannot mark a line at a spot that has infinite number of decimal places, just as you cannot store the infinite mantissa number on your computer. Real number is unbounded but finite, and once you truncate the irrational number you'll get a real number but this number is no longer an irrational number. Irrational numbers are irreducible because the conversion of the irrational number into a real number is not reversible. [You would not catch a Pythagorean reducing incommensurable numbers into real numbers.] The idea, then, is to forget about the number line and think of some nifty applications for irrational numbers. If you are a hard core reductionist and must keep on reducing, that's fine -- black hole beckons..

(2) There is a way of thinking about the irrationals through the number Pi. Pi is transcendental and is composed of infinite series of components. Pivoting around a fixed point and pointing in all possible directions cannot always result in the exact angle. If it did, Pi could be an exact number as well. This is more fundamental than you might think.

(3) Root of two is the most mysterious of all because the diagonal construction angle of 45 degrees is executable while the length of the diagonal is constructible but not executable. {Dec 1, 2009}: Even though the diagonal is not constructible, diagonals of any and all squares can be placed on the number line -- but only as two points of a distance in space. This gets interesting in the Great Pyramid since the SQRT(2) diagonals can overlay the centerline in the Grand Gallery. (A transcendental such as Pi cannot be put on a number line even as two points.)

Notes {3/31/05}
(1) Euclid's axiom stating that there exists but one line that can be drawn between two points is not incorrect. Such axiom, however, is also incomplete because it makes no statement regarding the length of a segment between the two points -- some segment lengths are rational and have finite mantissa while others are irrational and have infinite mantissa. The irrational segments, then, cannot be drawn without truncating the mantissa. Some mathematicians define irrational numbers as real numbers but there is no rhyme or reason for doing so. You can define anything anyway you want, but the fact remains that irrational numbers are always infinite in mantissa while real numbers are always finite. The idea is that there are certain advantages to keeping the infinite mantissa with irrational numbers and if you think of irrational numbers as real numbers you will never figure it out.

(2) There are some funny looking symbols that nevertheless make sense in their own way. One of these is 'Tibetan Master' symbol, which is shown in one book on Reiki healing and is relevant to this month's topic.

 It's coming to you

Picture filename:

[This particular irrational number application is likely a significant East-West divide, which will be bridged with one addition to Euclid's axioms. This is the second enhancement. The first is the understanding and inclusion of Dantien (Hara) from September 2004 Exercise.] This particular property is discussed in the Quantum Pythagoreans book.

DSSP Topics for February '05
Some mirrors give some people a splitting headache
Religious Photon: "Once I was split but now I am found"
James Bond Photon: "Parted, not split"

The illustration below shows that in the A1&B1 path all photons are always detected, while in the A2&B2 (dashed) path the photons are never detected.

Photons are best visualized as paper-thin wave crests -- that is, as two-dimensional waves that, nonetheless, can rotate about the axis of propagation while maintaining its flatness.

You may have heard that the reflecting photon rotates 180 degrees and becomes out-of-phase. But if you apply it in the illustration, something is not right because both paths (A1&A2 and A2&B2) would have photons propagating in-phase (together) and, therefore, photons should be detected in both paths. Actually, reflected photon rotates 90 degrees CCW during splitter reflection but rotates full 180 degrees during fully coated mirror (regular mirror) reflections.

The incoming photon P approaches the half-silvered mirror (splitter) with, say, Up polarity. You define which way is Up. When the photon rotates 90 degrees CCW from Up then the result is Left polarity, while 180 degree rotation results in Down polarity. During transmission there is no rotation and no change in polarity.

 Photon rotation = polarization

Picture filename:

The reflected photon rotates 90 degrees CCW during splitter reflection but rotates 180 degrees during fully coated mirror reflections. Rotation difference leads to this month's exercise.


  • Photon "splits" at the half-silvered mirror. Its reflected component (branch) rotates 90° CCW because (check all that makes sense)

    • Reflecting photon thinks it has the perfect impedance match. Between 0° for transmission and 180° for perfect reflection is 90°!

    • It's the same thing as perfect optical coating and the angle of incidence (45°) does not matter. Photon rotates 90° regardless of the angle of incidence

    • Polarizing filter can make the rotation any number of degrees. The splitter is designed for 90°

    • Who cares. Just tell me how many degrees. Besides, why do I have to use my left hand if the world was created for the right handers

  • Photon (or photon branch) rotates by 180° when it is reflected by a regular mirror. This is because:

    • Photon is an even function and multiplying by -1 (or twice by i) results in the reflection about the axis: f(x)=f(-x) [Tricky, leave for last. Think what axis we are talking about.]

    • Reflecting photon sees infinite impedance. It must rebound 180° out of phase (Up becomes Down, Left becomes Right, and vice versa)

    • When I look in the mirror, right becomes left but top stays on top. Something's fishy. [Not so. Think how the direction of propagation does or does not affect the Up/Down and Left/Right definition.]

    • This is all about snakes and snakes are creepy. And snacks make me fat, and ..

Even though the photon can be detected in but one path, the photon is really not recombined. For every photon, 25% + 25% of its wavefunction continues on A2+B2 path but since the polarities on this path are always out of phase, the photon will never be detected there. The photon is still parted in both branches (1 and 2) and unless the photon is reduced it will stay parted that way, forever. There is still one question you may want to answer: What is the wavefunction amplitude in both branches? [Advanced. Think about the difference between superposition and self-superposition. Photon polarity by itself does not affect the probability of detection/reduction.]

DSSP Topics for January '05
Say hello to the extra moon

A quick check on Mars' moons shows these two (Phobos & Deimos) are two octaves apart: Their measured orbital ratio is 0.253, which is pretty close to the ideal 0.250 (or ¼) for two octave difference.

A quick check on Jupiter's moons shows one and two octave separation: Jupiter's Io and Ganymede periods are measured at 0.247, which is close to the perfect two octave separation of 0.250. Io and Europa have a single octave separation, which is measured at 0.498 orbital periods ratio (close to 0.500 or ½ ratio for a single octave).

Last month I was lowering Newton's contribution in proving Kepler's equations. I've been reminded that the easy part is only in cases of the circular, or idealized, orbits (Zembrowski A History of the Circle). For Newton to prove that the solution holds for the elliptical orbit, he needed and developed the concepts of calculus (fluxions, infinitesimals), which took a good part of a decade and a priority tangle with Leibniz.

New Orbit for the Extra Moon
The best orbit ratio appears to be ¼ (two octaves). This ratio is found with the moons of Mars as well as with Jupiter's moons. Moon in the inner orbit (closer to Earth) will be the best as it could be used for staging. The new moon should be about 1/10th the mass of the present moon if the new moon were to have but a moderate influence on tides. (This may continue to be an issue.) Applying Newton's enhanced Kepler equation:

P12/P22 = (M+m1)/(M+m2) · R13/R23

    P1, P2 .. Period of moon1(2)
    m1, m2 .. mass of moon1 (current) and moon2 (new). M is Earth's mass, R1 is moon1 average distance of 384,467 km. (M+m1)/(M+m2) is very close to one since the present moon's mass is only about 1.5 percent of the Earth's mass

P1 = 4P2 (2 octaves). New moon's period is 4 times faster than the present moon (new moon will have about 7 days orbit period). Substituting numerical values,

16 = R13/R23

R23 = R13/16

R2 = R1/(2·21/3) = 384,467/2.52 = 152,566 kilometers

The average distance to the new moon would be 153 thousand kilometers or about 40% of the existing moon's distance. The new moon will exert gravitational force on Earth that is about 64% of the existing moon's force (use Newton's force equation) and tides would change significantly. Another way of mitigating the rise in moons tides is to put the new moon in the outer orbit using the same, 2 octave separation. In that case the tide increase due to the second moon would be negligible but the second moon would not be of much use.

Note: The influence on earthquakes may be difficult to asses. Assuming the moon does affect earhquakes to begin with, the inner orbit moon can have a calming influence because it averages the existing moon's forces. On the other hand, at times the forces would be additive and earthquakes could increase.
{2/28/05} Earthquake analysis needs to consider both force and duration. Increase in force due to the combined influence of both moons is of some duration. Decrease in force due to subtracting influence is comparatively much longer in duration. Overall, it is most likely that earhquakes would decrease with the presence of the second, and particularly the inner, moon.
Constructing the outer moon to mitigate tides would make it more distant but only under the presumtion of applying the current (propulsion, inertial) transport technologies.

DSSP Topics for December '04
In search of planetary musical notes,
  Kepler is cool,
  Pythagoras makes it true and pleasant, and
  Most planets (all terrestrial) stay within two octaves

Pythagoras claimed planets make sounds. During the Renaissance this became the music of heavenly spheres and each planet got a note. This month it is about the orbits that are indeed musical.

Kepler is the most cool guy from a simple perspective. After 2000 years of geometry Kepler comes up with equations that allow the actual mathematical prediction of the planet's position -- you do not need lookup tables, you want a PC. Kepler coined the word satellite (and focus as well). Kepler's equation is used to get orbit times for any satellite or a planet. Newton later derived Kepler's equation from a more fundamental relationship. But as any math guy will attest, once you know you are dealing with the right answer the individual components are easy to put together. In other words, it is much easier to disassemble and reassemble a puzzle than to put it together from individual and possibly incorrect pieces. Kepler's result is that any planetary orbit period P has a relationship to the orbit radius R according to
P2 = k · R3 where k is a constant. [If you think of 'doubling the cube' problem, there is Pi in the k.]

Yet, there is still something missing because neither Kepler nor Newton say anything about planetary separation. Technically, we can go right ahead right now and validate Kepler's equation for all planets, but planet-to-planet interactions are important. It is easy to dismiss interplanetary interactions as "way too weak," but the periodic nature of orbits makes such interactions repetitive. Disturbances would add up and that is why there is not only a large separation between planets, but also there are particular orbital ratios between planetary orbit times. For example, Venus-Earth orbit ratio is 8:5. You did not learn about this ratio in a public or private school, in part because your teacher would not know what to make of it, and also because the school committee cannot deal with too many implications. When 8:5 is reduced to 1.6 it becomes just a number and school committees can deal with that. Unreduced, however, 8:5 is (a) composed of integers, and (b) it is a ratio corresponding to particular notes of the musical octave, and (c) the unreduced number of a ratio remains true to its ratio while the numerator and the denominator are translating and/or rotating (and geometry is what you need -- reduced ratio is one number and it's just a point).

A particular planet does not have a particular musical note (as was thought during the Renaissance) but pairs of planets share musical notes because the orbital ratios match the vibrating ratios of the notes of the octave. We need musical ratios of Pythagoras because rational numbers (numbers having integers in numerator and denominator), and notes of the octave in particular, have little or no harmonics. We don't want too many overtones and we surely don't want irrational numbers because we want the new orbit to be stable for years to come. So, we can play the orbits just fine, but we need to use only particular tones -- we need to use the notes of the octave for the ratio of Earth and another planet's orbits.

The Construction
The following table gives the orbital periods calculated with ratios from the musical octave and the actual planetary orbit times (periods). All ratios are with respect to Earth's period:

Planet (Earth and..)

Musical ratio

Calculated (Reduced)

Actual (Measured)










1/4 (2 octaves)



You may want to look up the actual notes (do, re, mi.. or C, D, E..) for the above ratios. Two other planets, Neptune and Pluto, orbit in a musical ratio of 3:2 as well. You can also calculate the orbital distance R using the musical ratios and, applying Kepler's equation, compare the musical and the actual results. You want to stay with ratios because you will not need to know the value of the constant k.

Next month we will look at what it takes to build a new, second moon for Earth. We don't need to know k for the planets of Oss (our solar system) but we will need to know the guts of constant k to do the extra moon -- and so we'll bring Newton along just for that. So far, 5:3 (la, A) musical ratio for the outer moon seems fine and makes for a unique note because this ratio is not used by the planets (but it is close to Mars' B).
Happy and musical Pythagorean New Year!


 Credit: University of St. Andrews, Scotland Pythagoras on a Greek coin (date of coin unstated).

    On the coin, Pythagoras:

    • Helps out with modeling of a planet or another moon
    • Levitates a stone ball
    • Keeps warm by creating a ball lightning
    • Divinates 2,600 years into the future
    • Has good time posing for the coin maker
    • Strikes a note of the heavenly sphere
    • Empowered by Apollo, Pythagoras directs the divine spark to get the solar furnace going
    • All of the above

{September, 2005} Orbit and musical ratios are alse addressed in the Venus, Mars, and Pluto orbits through the construction of multi-pointed stars.

DSSP Topics for November '04
Does photon always have the same energy regardless of the observer's motion -- that is, is photonic energy absolute?
Planck constant remains a constant while becoming virtual
Photon's wavefunction has positive and negative probability
What if superposition is instantaneous?

If all observers measure the same value then such measurement is said to be absolute. As you move toward the photon of light its frequency (of the undulation of the wavefunction) increases because the wave crests are coming in faster. You also know that frequency is proportional to the energy of light and so you think that photon's energy increases as you approach the photon. Not so, amigo. It is true that frequency increases but photon's overall length also becomes shorter. What gives?

Exercise Questions

  • Observer moving toward a photon may register increase in photon's frequency. If observer recedes from photon's source then frequency may decrease. So, photon's frequency is not absolute but is photon's energy absolute?

    • Frequency increases and so energy of the photon increases. Done deal. Finished

    • When a photon slows down inside the glass, for example, its length shortens as in the left picture above but the photon has not lost or gained any of its energy

    • It's relativistic. Put your faith in the equation and don't you worry about it (or, let me worry about it)

    • When photon exits glass it speeds up again, its wavelength lengthens as in the right picture above, but the photon still has the same energy. Use your reason. (Watch for change in speed, however)

    • If the photon has 10 units of total energy and if the observer has 1,000 units of total energy, why would photonic absorption result in more (or less) than 1,010 units of total energy? Why would the sum be different if the photon catches up with the observer who is either coming or going? The conservation of energy holds and the photonic energy is absolute

    • Make up an answer pretending to be NASA spokesperson, such as: "All photons in the universe are the same and they come to us as the uniform background radiation. All other photons were taken out through the diligent work of like-minded scientists. If you cannot see any of the scientists here, that's because you cannot tell them apart from the woodwork."

    • Photon, once created, has the same and fixed amount of energy in absolute terms for the life of the photon. Photon can be passed through slits resulting in self-superposition (self-interference) and its frequencies (shape) may change significantly but its energy stays the same irrespective of the speed of the source or the observer

  • Does the photon as shown above move in the horizontal or vertical direction?

    • Of course it is horizontal. That's how all texbooks show it

    • If photon is an even function then it must be symmetrical and, therefore, propagate in the vertical direction while always presenting its even symmetry to the environment

    • Diana's bow has an arrow that shows the axis of symmetry. It is apparent that the photon moves vertically [Heads up to all guys -- Diana's on the hunt.]

    Note: If you are ready to apply Planck relation E = f·h to this month's DSSP topic, consider that Planck did not (have to) use this relation in the moving source-observer context or light-moving-through-matter context. Planck reached his number constancy (h) conclusion because the experimental results matched his equation. In fact the match is so good his equation drove the change of the atomic model from 'part-time oscillator' to 'electron radiates when orbitals change.' If the frequency f in Planck relation is in fact tied to the orbital period (1/f), and it sure looks like it is, then Planck constant remains a constant. The orbital is a real thing (eigenstate, if only for a moment) and, since photon's energy and momentum are both virtual (light cannot push mirror), Planck constant is to become a virtual number or be multiplied by i. Planck also coined the word quantum.

    As far as the moving source-observer context is concerned, think of the energy density as being a function of an area consisting of positive and negative segments of a curve, in 2D.

    Dirichlet is right on when it comes to photons coming from materia(ls). The most interesting thing about Dirichlet function is that it has positive and negative values inherent inside the function. Mathematically it is trigonometry but the interesting connection to physics is that photon's wavefunction takes on negative values. (Photon is pure energy and it is nothing but a wavefunction.) This means that the positive probability of a wavefunction alternates and combines with negative probability. Because the positive probability starts off larger at the center, the total probability is never negative -- even if there is a running sum that happens during reduction (absorption). The positive area is the energy that comes from the higher orbital while the negative area comes from the lower orbital -- that is, lower orbital's lower energy is subtracted on the fly from the higher orbital's energy. Multiplying by photon length (or integrating all the way) then yields the total and absolute energy. The sum, of course, will be the same if you integrate slow or fast. Also, the quantity of photonic undulations (frequency) can change, but the positive and negative areas stay in the same ratio and then the energy stays the same. [Light is pretty smart after all.]

    Note {11/30/04} The probability of the photonic wavefunction alternates between positive and negative values. The energy at reduction is never negative but is proportional to the square of the net area, which is positive and constant. Photon always reduces as a whole. [Euclid defined a point as that which has no parts. Photon has no parts.]

    If you work the moving observer context and find there is energy left over, you may have strayed (photon carries all of its harmonics with itself and photon's geometry is [for now] linear..). Dirichlet also worked the polarity in general, which is relevant in the explanation of the existence of the electric charge

    Nature can integrate during instantaneous photon reduction and this also means that the creation of superposition is instantaneous. Of significance is that the operation of superposition is not the limiting factor in light propagation.

      More the wing you spread
      Weave the waves ahead
      A friendly squeeze

        and in a breeze
      You're there, instead

DSSP Topics for October '04
Gateways between the real and virtual domain are at points where both domains touch
Another way of looking at independent (or leading) variable: Independent variable is enforceable

You do not need to get involved with Gödel's problems to see how someone could get totally mixed up in a formal system.
Taking the output of the inverter and routing it to its input is an allowed combination that has indeterminate and confusing outcome. The inverter, as the name suggests, inverts true logic level, say 1, into false level that is 0, and vice versa. When connected as shown below the inverter's output cannot make up its mind.

 Allowed and can be reconciled

Picture filename:

Reconciliation of the conflict arising from formal procedures is through enhancement in context, which, in turn, facilitates completeness. [Completeness, however, cannot be achieved at the expense of tractability. Should intractability arise you will need to tackle it by engaging the dragon -- but not in this article.] In the case of the inverter connected as shown above, once the frequency response of the inverter is included as the new parameter of the real system the problem is resolved. Frequency (or vibration) is also to be found in the virtual domain and some people may see such coincidences as gateways or windows or 'points of contact' between the real and the virtual domain.

but less conflicted gateway happens with Euclid's 5th proposition of his Elements. This proposition postulates there exists but one line that passes through a point while parallel to a given line. If, however, spatial distance is allowed to bend, another line or lines can snake around the given line in a spiral fashion while being equidistant from ("parallel" to) the given line.
The resolution here is somewhat more complex. (To merge/differentiate parallel and equidistant you need a flat/curved plane.) In the real domain, spatial distance is the absolute construct and distance bending can be disallowed simply because any amount of spatial distance bending can be measured and only one line is then a straight line. Euclid's 5th proposition is thus correct because when Euclid calls for a straight line he can have it in absolute terms. In the virtual domain, however, spatial distance parameter is a dependent parameter. A wave can be a straight standing wave as well as a wave of the distance-curving orbital, and computable solutions exist for both or one or many or none, depending on vibration and geometry. Nonetheless, Euclid's Elements is valid and complete in the real domain because a line is defined and enforced as infinitely straight. The gateway in this case is the parameter of spatial distance, which in the quantum mechanical environment (in the virtual domain) becomes dependent on other variables. Nonlocality of the wave in the virtual domain does not allow the parameter of spatial distance to be the independent variable and, therefore, spatial distance is not enforceable in the virtual domain.

The finger.
Science writers oftentimes bring up the example of a triangle being drawn on a spherical surface where the internal angles of such triangle exceed 180 degrees. This is, rather, an example of feeble science writing because the curvature of the sphere is easily measured. Euclidean geometry is applicable to the real system that is also a formal system that is also an unambiguous system. The sum of internal angles being 180 degrees holds for a flat plane triangle and the flatness is enforceable. To say that triangle's angles on a curved sphere exceed 180 degrees has as much intellectual weight as the claim that overloaded truck's tires may not hold out. The weight of the truck is a real parameter in the real domain and can be enforced in the real domain.

If, however,
you find the virtual domain to be a significant component of the universe and want to pick organization out of chaos, then welcome to the ride -- it starts at the point of contact. Point is zero-dimensional and that's another way of applying zero. In fact, real and virtual domain can contact only at a point.

    Note: {10/2/04} Riemann used "his own" version of non-Euclidean geometry. His triangles always exceed 180 degrees because they are always on a sphere. His lines were not only not infinite or unbounded, but finite. It turns out Riemann was working the atomic geometry where modulo math always makes lines into finite segments and incomposite (prime) numbers help out with the orbitals.

    Note: {1/31/05} Gödel could not prove he is sane or insane, and so he ended up .. nuts.

    Note: {2/28/05} Euclid understood irrational numbers as numbers that cannot be obtained by rationing. If he did know that the irrational numbers have infinite mantissa, he could appreciate it is not possible to exactly determine the length of a line formed by an irrational number. For 2,600 years irrational numbers are truncated as "close enough," but the 'infinite mantissa problem' provides for yet another gateway from within the Euclidean geometry.

DSSP Topics for September '04
Zero is emptiness to some, infinity to others
Pythagoras keeps it simple with magnitude and multitude

Real numbers represent real things. Real things cannot be zero because real things must be something tangible to be real. An argument can be made that zero is not a real number because in the absence of real things zero becomes nothing, absence, void, or vacancy -- and none of these are real things. The total number of real things in the universe is finite but unbounded.

Virtual numbers represent virtual variables. Virtual numbers can be positive or negative and pass through zero. Virtual numbers are about pairs of opposites that include zero. The total number of virtual variables in the universe is infinite. Since there is infinity of virtual variables then there is infinity of zeroes.

Exercise Question
Zero is not a real number but there can be infinity of virtual variables that can have a value of zero. You conclude:

  • All real numbers are single ended and exclude zero

  • All virtual numbers are double ended and include zero

  • All virtual numbers can be centered about zero. Centering results in balancing of all virtual variables and centering is a subjective operation

  • In the Pythagorean tradition, the pursuit of real numbers is about magnitude while the pursuit of virtual numbers is about multitude

 Real numbers don't need zero

Picture filename:

Bonus question: How would you map the human spine as the zero axis? [Start with Leonardo and think three vs. four plus dantien]

Notes {8/30/04}
Dantien (Hara in Japanese) is a point in a human body that presently has no English equivalent. In time, this point will be explained as the 'second point of balance' and generically called the Couplex. Yes, there is the 'first point of balance,' which is also Couplex but in a different part of the body.

Real variables are always single-ended. At times, pressure and temperature may be said to be negative but both the pressure and temperature are real variables issuing from real parameters that are vibrating real things. Temperature and pressure are single-ended because they have a limit at absolute zero (but they do not reach absolute zero).

    Real variables are not zero but they come close to zero. What is this close-to-zero parameter and how is it quantified? [think Planck].

DSSP Topics for August '04
Golden ratio is everywhere but it is mostly shown as linear proportion
Modern Pythagorean definition of irrational numbers
Introducing the Golden Triangle that is the Cosmic Triangle

Golden ratio is also called the Divine ratio. It is found in nature and the ratio of two consecutive Fibonacci numbers converge toward the Golden ratio -- a property discovered by Kepler.

Golden ratio is constructible, which immediately sets it apart from (Pi) and e. Golden ratio is irrational (incommensurable) but, unlike Pi, Golden ratio is not transcendental. Because Golden ratio is a ratio, sometimes called proportion, Golden ratio is best expressed as, well, a ratio a/b.

Keeping along with our May '04 exercise we are not going to reduce a/b into a number because incommensurate numbers are "in potentia" as irrational numbers. In modern Pythagorean classification, irrational numbers are not reducible. Reduced irrational number undergoes transformation into a real number that has finite mantissa. Irrational numbers comprise a unique class of numbers and irrational number is not a real number. If we give the Golden ratio one number such as 1.6180 it becomes a real number and unbecomes the Golden ratio.

For a/b to result in the Golden ratio, we take distances a and b and require that they maintain proportional relationship such that the greater distance a is related to smaller distance b in the same proportion even if the length changes. Then, a/b = (a+b)/a. This relation results in (a/b)2 = (a/b) + 1. Solving for a/b we get two roots (1 ± 5½)/2, and we are not going to reduce these roots any further.

Pentagram is possibly the richest source of Golden ratios. However, pentagram's Golden ratios are mostly linear -- that is, a/b may be in Golden ratio but geometrically a and b are in-line.

Golden ratio happens all over the pentagram and some writers get excited about it. Some make a rectangle having a and b on each side and get excited about it. Fine, but let's look at the general equation:

(a/b)2 = (a/b) + 1

Squaring the Golden ratio is the same as adding 1 to it. This means no fancy computer is needed to do squaring because we just add unity. So, by adding 1 we can do some quick and easy squaring! [Self-test: You are a Pythagorean if you are excited now. You know squaring is about force (acting on a string, etc.).] If you are "totally cosmic" you know which entities can only add and which can only multiply. (Question: What is the general form of addition?)

Note {8/31/04}: Construction of an irrational (incommensurable) number facilitates its transformation into a (finite mantissa) real number.
Note {10/30/04}: Pythagoreans called irrational numbers 'unspeakables.' Other than the apparent literal meaning of secrecy, the unspeakable aspect is that the irrational number is not to become real (not reducible into real number in today's terminology). Golden ratio in particular allows superposition of certain vibrations Pythagoreans though harmonizing and, therefore, healthful. The irrational number is to remain irrational while being useful without becoming real, as in the case of exactly, rather than just precisely, doubling the area of the square. While the incommensurate (irrational) numbers could not be spoken they could conceivably be sung or chanted. Incommensurate numbers, no doubt, had divine meaning for Pythagoreans. Visualization may be yet another way of keeping the incommensurate numbers unspoken and useful. The unspeakable property, then, does not mean that irrational numbers should not be spoken or spoken about but, instead, that irrational numbers cannot be (fully) described by words. You can talk about irrational numbers all day long and without necessarily breaking Pythagorean secrecy rules but the point of the Pythagoreans is that you will never be able to describe them.
It is difficult to say all Pythagoreans shared in all of their knowledge. It is known their knowledge was separated into at least three levels or grades of study and 'initiation.' With Pythagoreans' emphasis on friendship it is not likely their knowledge was compartmentalized, but no knowledge was available to outsiders. With so much misunderstanding concerning irrational numbers the Pythagorean secrecy certainly works, and those the likes of Cantor never figured out the meaning of the unspeakables.# Incommensurable numbers carry in their core the infinite superposition and calling them irrational, for example, corresponds to the lowest level of understanding of these numbers. Having said that, we shouldn't have a problem calling Tarot#0 The Fool, for we've all been there.
# Cantor never understood that real numbers have finite precision and, therefore, finite resolution. He could certainly define a new class of infinite numbers and do his work there but he though his work was applicable to real numbers and that is where he failed. Our left brain operates in the emulation of the real world and the left brain needs to stay true to that world (which is unbounded but finite). Cantor has gone insane and died insane. All state committees approving math teaching material may need to realize Cantor is attacking the intractable problem with sequential methods. Then again, math committees may not have access to Pythagorean teaching

Exercise Question
a and b can be any number and as long as the a/b is the Golden ratio, the relation (a/b)2 = (a/b) + 1 holds. The number 1, or unity, compared to any number that a or b can represent means that

    • There exists the absolute one, the monad, God, unity

    • There is the absolute unit of measure that is the length of one

    • Get with it. Everything is normalized to the shortest distance. a and b relate to that shortest distance that becomes the length of one. Mayans did not use fractions because everything can get normalized to the shortest distance. [But unfortunately Mayans did not get into modulo math, which is about harmonics and harmonics are about fractions.]

    • Whatever the units of measure for a and b, there exists the one of that unit of measure. [But only if you do not divide anything. It's okay to divide by two or more, even for Pythagoreans.]

    • There is no such thing as the shortest distance and the Golden ratio equation is a mystery

Right and Golden Triangle
Take the linear Golden ratio and rotate segment a clockwise until there is a right angle triangle. You get:

 Golden triangle

Picture filename:

Right and Golden Triangle is the Cosmic Triangle

In addition to (a/b)2 = (a/b) + 1 there is now also h2 = a2 - b2. Working these equations you find h2 = a x b.

Much better than, say, a triangle having sides 3, 4, and 5. This is Cosmic [very cool] even though you have to think about it. Ancient Egyptians got involved here and it appears they knew about the Golden ratio and put it in the pyramid but they were mum about it and did not identify or disclose Golden ratio. Rhind papyrus has fractions approximating Pi but nothing on Phi, the Golden ratio.

if we presume that the height of the Great pyramid is the same as the radius of a circle that has a circumference equal to the perimeter of the base (8b), then 2h would equal 8b. (For more details see Mar '04 Exercise.) Carrying out the calculations will give us from (32/(1+5½))½ that is within 0.1% of the actual . A discussion can now be had whether the ancient Egyptians were going after Pi or after Phi in the construction of the pyramid. Since construction tolerances and aging/settling are greater than 0.1% the discussion can go on and on and either position can be justified. However, since many other dimensions within the pyramid were targeted at Phi, the true answer is not that difficult to figure out.

Note: {April, 2996} We now also have a page on Golden Proportion

DSSP Topics for July '04
Even if time is not inherently absolute the construction of the absolute clock is possible
If time is always a derivative then time cannot dictate what will happen

Time is derived from periodic orbits, initially the moon and the sun (earth). If these orbits were to change then our time reference would change as well.

Atomic clocks may appear to be a more stable time reference than planetary orbits but temperature or pressure will change such clocks as well. Some even claim mental influence can change atomic clocks. Can we then say that, since time always depends on other things, absolute time cannot happen? But if time is derived from a source that is known to be absolute, can you construct absolute clock that counts absolute time? [Yes] Absolute time stays the same for all stationary or moving observers -- that is, time is not a function of the clock's velocity. (See last month Note on speed approaching lightspeed.)

Exercises (Dealing with derived properties -- and what it does and does not mean)

  • If time is derived from a source that is known to be absolute, absolute clock is constructible. Additionally, can you construct Newtonian framework of absolute spatial distance and time? If so,

    • Will absolute clock get rid of chaos?

      1. Guaranteed

      2. Only helps
      3. Neither guarantees nor helps

    • Is relativity postulate correct? [Yes, but only in the most trivial context.]

    • Are instantaneous events consistent with absolute time? Is instantaneous event the same for all observers in the framework of absolute spatial distance and time? (Instantaneous event is a nonlocal event during quantum mechanical reduction.)

  • Having established absolute space (spatial distance) and time, can you make a case for absolute gravitational force? If so, can you use conventional (Turing machine) computational means to..

    • Describe the universe?

    • Construct the universe? That is, construct formal systems while avoiding chaos?

    • Grow the universe? That is, add new formal systems on top of existing systems while avoiding chaos?

    • Repair the universe? That is, reorganize a subset of a formal system that has gone chaotic?

  • If time is a derivative and absolute time can be constructed, can you

    • Reverse the relationship where other things subordinate to time? For example, can you physically travel in time in absolute terms?

    • Send out absolute time pulses and expect the universe to organize?

  • If time is a derivative then the "arrow of time"

    • Follows the nonlinear increase in entropy if time is derived from a closed system

    • Follows the nonlinear increase in entropy if time is derived from Eddington's proposition: 'Universe is a closed system -- all you get is increasing entropy.' (Since universe has no physical or thermal barriers that would make it a closed system then 'Entropy in the universe is increasing' proposition is intellectually so weak Eddington's competence and motives are issues here.)

    • Keeps repeating periodically if time is derived from a periodic system such as orbits. The mathematical solution exists and is periodic. (Pretty much what is observed when you look up.)

    • Keeps repeating asynchronously when considering electron's time-based evolution and asynchronous reduction. Time arrow moves forward but gets reset from time to time as a result of electron's interaction with photons or physical structures. (Electron's propensity to evolve fits nicely with Aristotle's potentia.)

    • Moves forward in the computer under program control but human interaction can have the arrow of time jump back and execute the same or another program again. (Fits nicely with Aristotle's causality.)

    • Points in backward direction if time is derived from nonreversible transformations but only after the fact (only after supernova in fact happens). Matter is destroyed and there is a setback because matter cannot be rebuilt readily

    • Points in forward direction if time is derived from the expansion of the universe, which, in turn, is correlated with the increase of organization in the universe [fits nicely with yours truly]

    • If time is derived from reversible transformations, time can be defined to go forward or backward, be periodic, point randomly, be event-driven, or be human defined. Yet nothing can be inferred from such time behavior and the arrow of time can be anything for all reversible transformations

    There is uncanny lack of understanding regarding derivatives -- as if scientists were somehow bounded and petrified of derivatives. Science writers can spell the word but they have little knowledge on what can and cannot be done with derivatives. Business writers do a bit better.

    Once we establish that time is always a derivative then this means that time is not intrinsically independent and we cannot make conclusions based on time alone. If time is derived from a variable that is independent then time can be treated as independent variable for as long as the variable from which time is derived remains independent. Time cannot be manipulated with the expectation that something else will change in the present or in the future. Time can be used as a reference to go into the past and recall memories only (things that already happened).

    Derived property is a subordinated property of an entity. As example, a shadow is a derived property of the object's position -- object's movement moves the shadow but the movement of the shadow cannot move the object. Mathematical differential is also called a derivative. However, a mathematical operation that is a differential (derivative) is different because mathematical differentials deal with changes -- need to distinguish between a mathematical differential and a derived property. If scientists became more educated about derived properties they would use fewer equal signs (=) and more derivation pointers (—>). Algebra is (becoming) inadequate.

    Another example of a derivative is the frame-of-reference. Frame of reference is a derivative of a spatial position or a movement of a real thing because the frame of reference has no mass and its position does not become nonlocal as it should be in the quantum mechanical environment. The frame of reference, just like time, is an inferior/subordinated parameter of a real-only object.

    Note {July 30, 2004}
    In summary, time can be found in various relationships with the observed physical phenomena but such time relationship is specific to the phenomena and time cannot be generalized by removing (disconnecting) time from the phenomena

DSSP Topics for June '04
Keep mass and inertia together because inertia is a characteristic of mass that is derived from the behavior of mass
If there is no light here then this must be hell
Inertia gets enhanced description (below)

Newton took the static definition of mass based on volume and density -- mass weight -- and gave mass a dynamic characteristic -- mass inertia. Inertia is the dynamic property of mass because every mass object will resist the change in the object's velocity and more inertia (resistance) there is more mass there is in the object. Inertia's unit of measure is force.

Newton did not endow light with mass or inertia and he characterized light as being corpuscular. Newton knew light has no material property and picked a unique name to describe light. It turns out light is quantized into packets of energy now called photons.

At the time of the Michelson light speed experiments in the 1880s it was well established that light's repeated bouncing between mirrors does not slow light down. Light, then, has no mass. Light is a wave and wave is by definition nonlocal, for light's energy is distributed over the presence of the entire wave. Light is a wave that can be branched at lightspeed in infinity of ways, and it is for this reason as well that light has no mass. The massless nature of light, however, did not stop some people from asserting that light has inertia.

Exercises (something to consider -- or not)

  • Light slows down instantly when it enters glass and light also speeds up instantly when it leaves glass. How could somebody assume light has inertia if light speeds up on its own?

  • If light has no inertia how can light cause electrons to be ejected from atoms/molecules? [Think conservation of energy when photon is absorbed and ceases to exist as photon of light.]

  • Why nobody performed the experiment (theXperiment) that would measure the presumed pressure laser light imparts on mirror as it bounces from it? That is, why nobody measured the presumed inertia light is supposed to have?

  • Although inertia is defined through mass (it is a property or a derivative of mass), one scientist

    • Split inertia from mass and claimed that reflecting photons have inertia and push objects without slowing down and without having any mass

    • Confused himself so well he called light schizophrenic at times, and as having spooky action at other times

    • While holding on to photon's inertia he backfilled light with "effective mass" and proclaimed light subject to gravitation

    • Single-handedly launched a branch of pseudoscience that worships black holes

  • Light is energy. Light has no mass and no inertia, and light's momentum is virtual. Light is not subject or party to gravity. Light's unique property is that it can take on infinitely many shapes. Light can push things only when light becomes real energy at absorption, at which point the photon is gone but its energy lives on in another form (electrical, heat, motion, pressure). It is the infinite multitude of photonic shapes that enables the creation of many different types of energies when photon is absorbed.

Having fun with light includes asking your teachers questions they will not have good answers to. Try our Stump Your Teacher.

    New Definition of Inertia is based on the conservation of energy:
    Inertia is the ability (property) of a real mass to accept work, store it, and return it in equal measure. The capacity of mass' inertia to store work is unbounded. Inertia is the agent (arbitrator, mechanism) of the conservation of real, in this case moving, energy. Moving energy is linear and/or angular. (Energy and work is the same thing -- they have the same units of measure of Newton (force) x meter (distance).) Often ignored aspect is that any distance must include direction because the force must be expanded in some direction.

    Work is force x distance. Mass body changes its speed or direction if mass inertia is to store the energy as work. The measure of work includes direction and inertia's ability to return work in equal measure includes magnitude and direction (it's a vector). Inertia mediates and facilitates the conservation of energy -- a mass object receiving energy in one part of the universe is able to conserve and return such energy in equal measure at another part of the universe. Because the direction is the component of energy that is being conserved, the directional aspect of the universe is absolute (agreeable to all observers).

    Movement of the frame of reference, linear or not, does not and cannot engage mass' inertia -- something Newton is quick to point out (Principia).

    At near the speed of light, matter offers greater and greater resistance to the applied force. Although real matter's speed cannot exceed the speed of light, matter's inertia has the ability to store unbounded amount of work. Rest mass or mass' gravitational force does not increase at such high speed but inertia continues to accept and save work without bound [obvious but not taught at regular schools].

    [For Pythagoreans the operation of multiplication or squaring (matrix multiplication in general) facilitates transformation that gives rise to forces.]

    Note {June 30, 2004}
    Inertia negotiates the conservation of energy and at speeds approaching lightspeed the accumulated energy improves core/particle stability. Core/particle's half-life constant is no longer constant but increases without bound as lightspeed approaches. Near the speed of light the momentum of an object increases without bound (even though the speed is bounded by lightspeed) and the half-life parameter increases without bound as well.

    Atomic clocks based on half-life property of matter cannot be used to make accurate clocks because such clock's accuracy is a function of its absolute speed. However, using absolute clock as a reference, atomic clock can be used to determine the absolute speed of the ship. Yes, atomic clock will stop at lightspeed but absolute clock will not. The construction of the absolute clock is below (November '03 DSSP Exercise).

    Note {2/28/05}
    Newton defined inertia as force (that resists ..). Newton also made force responsible for the change in movement (velocity). However, it is not force but work (work is energy) that is responsible for the change in movement of a real mass body. What saves Newton is that force cannot arise for a zero time duration. What saves Newton is that, quantum mechanically, force arises as a non-zero amplitude (and opposite) pair from a reducing even function. Because force manifests and engages the body over some non-zero distance, every time one speaks of 'force acting on a body,' one also speaks of work in consequence. Technically, however, force is not energy and a cup on a table is subject to force but not to energy. All said, it may be worthwhile to restate Newton's conservation of motion in terms of work (or energy). While at it, the conservation of direction should be formally stated as well.

    Note {2/23/11} Yes, the conservation of direction comes from Leibniz (and my version of the law of the conservation of direction is in the Quantum Pythagoreans book).

    Note {April 14, 2011} In July 2010 DSSP topic I put forth the inertia mechanism conserving the moving (real) energy.

DSSP Topics for May '04
If a number is called a real number then it must represent real things. Quantum just may be the inevitable consequence
Looking for nodes on a planetary musical string

Last month's square root rosette is attributed to Theodorus of Cyrene (~400 BC) of the Pythagorean school. It is apparent Theodore wanted to show that a square root of a number such as two, while irrational, can be constructed as a real thing of a stick of a particular length.

Presently, one can enhance on that by making a case that any irrational number such as golden ratio can become real (rectangle, flower, spiral) only if it has finite precision (finite mantissa). The irrational number, then, can be realized and its real representation (exact measurement) is possible. When irrational number becomes real it becomes necessary for its numerical representation to have finite precision. Reality always seeks a definitive (localized, particular) answer. Present day math guys then also need to refine the definition of a real number by making all real numbers subject to finite precision. Some sophistication may be called for when translating irrational numbers into real numbers, for simple truncating or rounding may not be sufficient.

The exact measurement of an irrational number, however, is not possible and irrational number remains "in potentia" or "in waiting" much the same way a+b remains a+b. In the Pythagorean tradition the irrational number is incommensurable (not in accord -- think music). Square root of 2 is irrational number but 1.4142 is real number.

The (non-Pythagorean) kicker is that rational numbers can become subject to finite precision if their decimal fraction goes on for many decimal places without repeating in cycles. The open problem is then showing whether all rational numbers have repeating fraction. Or is it, perhaps, that only the rational fractions of the pleasant-sounding octave (1/1, 9/8, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2, 5/3, 15/8, 2/1) are easy to translate into real numbers of particular real force and nodal length. The fact is that all rational fractions and the geometric mean (square root of a product of two numbers) are constructible, but the important part is the finite precision that happens in the act of construction (realization).

 Exercises (school text worth changing -- or not)

  • Every real number is bounded in precision (mantissa is of finite length)

  • Collectively, real numbers are unbounded in quantity but there cannot be infinite quantity of real numbers (quantity of real things is finite though unbounded)

  • There can be infinite number of virtual numbers because there is infinity of virtual variables

  • Ancient Egyptians expressed fractions as harmonics. Explore this to see if there are advantages

  • God may have created integers but it is up to the humans, if they can figure it out and improve on it, to harmonize with the universe. (There are prominent roles for near-integers.)

  • The transcendental aspect is that the bounded precision of a real number leads to the digital (quantitative) nature of the quantum mechanical environment. Physical quantities realizing (albeit temporarily) at the atomic scale will have finite precision values and this environment then cannot be fully continuous. [It can get pretty unusual here.]

    Note: Rational fractions 1/3 and 2/3 are special because many (though not all) angles, including 360, can be divided by three exactly. Think of the angle as rotation and think of the 360 degree angle as the orbit; now use compass and straightedge (real tools) to divide the orbit by three exactly and realize these fractions with quadratic methods -- this is the ancient Egyptian's "secret" on why fraction 2/3 was not written out in terms of the harmonics series. One can visualize this by having a ship navigate a route but being able to calculate its exact position only at particular points along the way -- the ship can navigate successfully even though it cannot make continuous exact adjustments. During the orbit the planet having 2/3 orbital relationship with another planet can make out (calculate) the exact mutual position at a very large number of angles (3, 5, 15, 18, 30, 40, 45, to name a few). It is likely Kepler was getting into this area when he proposed additional angular planetary relationships for astrology charts. Kepler stated he did not know why some angular relationships were more harmonious than others and Gauss was yet to come with his constructible polygons. [Some occult writers explain the mystery of the Sphinx as being based on thirds. Sphinx, however, has two pairs of legs and is but a messenger -- one of many at that.]

    Note{May 31, 2004}: Present day mathematicians are quick to point out that an arbitrary angle cannot be divided by three exactly using quadratic methods (compass & straightedge). Delighted in telling us what cannot be done, they may want to consider that the solar system is using quadratic methods just fine and regardless of their arm chair conditions. [Are three pieces of rock smarter than all mathematicians? More practical, for sure.]

    Note{June 7, 2004}: The bounded precision of real numbers has implications that go well beyond arguing about the Pythagorean rational numbers foundation and Pythagoreans were mum about incommensurable (irrational) numbers for mystical reasons. First, put aside Cantor's much admired pole-sucking nonsense of mapping all numbers onto a line. The mysterious quality of bounded precision of realized irrational quantities comes to light if you desire to take the U out of the UFO.


DSSP Topics for April '04
Get square root of any integer and then pick systemic subset

Some infinite sums are bounded -- that is, even though the number of summing components is infinite, the sum itself is finite. If, say, the summing components are energy the total sum of energy would be finite. The finite (or bounded) nature of the sum then also allows to address the entire system computationally -- even in the instantaneous (quantum mechanical) environment.

Picture filename:

Take a stack of right triangles that have unit distance (distance of one) on a side. We get a square root of any integer we want. Mathematically, since the basic harmonic series Sum(n-1) is unbounded, Sum(sin-1 n) for n=2 to infinity is likely unbounded as well. To apply the rosette, if you think in the gravitational context the squares of radial distances are inversely proportional to forces, which then form a square harmonic series. But there is more

Exercises (ideas worth developing -- or not)

  • The angle for each n½ is a sequence of unitary pendulum periods (length = 1) under unitary acceleration forces normalized under 2. (Pendulum periods are independent of weights placed at the ends of the n½ distances.)

  • Radial distances of all integers in a sequence n½ represent the linear progression of unitary angular momentum. (Angular momentum is energy.)

  • Unit weights placed at the ends of the n½ distances will have the same (unitary) angular momentum if the angular velocity is a multiple of n (divide by n if going to a larger orbital, multiply by n if going to a smaller orbital)

  • Weights placed at the ends of the n½ distances can conserve energy exactly if the angular velocity is constant and if the weight is finite-divisible by n. Finite divisibility is defined as a property of any fraction that results in finite decimal mantissa. [The idea is that in the atomic environment the conservation of energy must be exact during orbital changes, which are instantaneous and quantized -- that is, energy cannot be approximated or averaged once photons are created (transformation is exact). This could also shape electron's mass into a particular and fixed mass value.]

  • Unit weights (fixed masses such as electrons) cannot jump to those lower/higher orbitals for which the difference in energy does not have finite mantissa values

  • If the elimination of those orbitals that do not have finite mantissa values results in convergent sum of all remaining orbital momenta then the total energy is finite and the problem (atom) becomes systemic and manageable through computational means

  • Pick an incomposite number like, say, 137, and see what happens

DSSP Topics for March '04
Squaring the circle: From Greeks to alchemy to Great Pyramid, with the mention of present lam science

Squaring of the circle was a great pastime of Greek geometers, who tried to construct a square from a particular circle using but a compass and a straight edge such that the area of the circle equals the area of the square. In addition to exploring the constant (3.14..), this exercise acquired a particular mystique because it could not be done exactly with the instruments provided. The Creator, then, needs to have other tools besides a compass and a straight edge to square the circle or, in reverse, make a circle of the same circumference given the square. One can also reach the conclusion that since the Creator can deal with limitations, the exact solution is not necessary and the value of any real variable will then also need to have its mantissa (precision) trimmed at some finite length. Real things, the Creator may decide, will not be infinite.

Alchemists of the Renaissance picked up on circle squaring and added additional challenge: The man is the creation in the image of the cosmos and, therefore, circle squaring has a lot to do with man's existence and spiritual growth. The square is supposed to represent the spiritual (virtual) aspect of man but others say the square really represents the real part. [Nothing to get hung up about.]

The measurements of the Great Pyramid in the past (19th and 20th) centuries revealed that the circumference of the pyramid's square base is equal to the height of the pyramid multiplied by 2. That is where it rests. However, the obvious interpretation is that the circumference of the base of the pyramid is the square of the circle that is formed by taking the height of the pyramid as the radius of such circle. The ancient Egyptians wrote as a fraction equal to about 3.16. (Rhind Papyrus, 1,600- BC.) Note that most square-the-circle problems deal with equality of the area of the square and the area of the circle. Archimedes addresses the circumference because he uses rotation. In all, the problem of the squaring of the circle is applicable to either the area or the circumference because both problems are qualitatively the same.

The present day science is so close to engineering it does not see many implications in the squaring of the circle. After a short Internet (Google 'squaring circle') and Borders bookstore search, I was not able to find any published associations between the Great Pyramid and the squaring of the circle. {Did find an association by Farrell in the Occult-Speculation section.}

Exercises (True or False):

  • The squaring of the quantum mechanical wavefunction results in the realization (reduction) of the wavefunction. The intangible thus becomes tangible

  • The "pyramid power" rests on the outside (the skin) of the pyramid rather than on the inside (volume)

  • The "pyramid power" rests on the skeletal (one-dimensional) geometry, which enables materialization inside the pyramid

  • The pyramid glows when viewed in "frequency" domain. Alien ships use it as a beacon

  • The pyramid of certain proportions allows materialization of intangible cosmic energies into organized structures such as molecules of water and gases

  • Pyramid's materializing characteristics can be (or are) reversed: Tangible can become intangible and the pyramid acts as cosmic "pump"

  • Materializing pyramid calls for three-sided pyramid of tetrahedron. [Where is Pythagoras when we need him.]

Squaring The Circle
In constructing the square-base pyramid that has its height the 2 multiple of its base circumference, there is but one azimuth angle x that the edge of such pyramid can have:
  x = sin-1(2/8 +1)

The resulting angle is not a function of the size of the base and this means that any horizontal cut of the pyramid leaves a pyramid that retains the circle squaring geometry.
You will recognize the term 2/8 as the limit of Euler's sum of all odd square harmonics.
The azimuth angle x is almost exactly 42°. Working with the exact angle of 42° the value of is computed at 3.14128 versus the 3.14159 for the real . If the 42 degree angle can be constructed (by adding 12 to 30 or subtracting 3 from 45, for example), you can then make a circle from a square to the accuracy of three parts in ten thousand, which is better than 0.01%. In reverse, you can also make the square from the circle by constructing a 48 degree angle. One source (Kazarinoff via Gauss) claims that any angle satisfying 360/3n (n is integer) is constructible and the 3 degree angle would then be constructible.

Picture filename:

If you are making the actual pyramid and have four pieces for a base, get the pyramid's edge length by multiplying the base by 0.951. (5% is one part in twenty and Mayans would then subtract one part because of their vigesimal counting system. Ancient Egyptians would use 1/18th but 1/20th is much more accurate.) If the base of the pyramid is four units on a side then the area and the circumference of the base are the same. To be "totally cosmic," use a particular distance that is derived from actual cosmic dimensions and apply it for a base. For example, four meters is 1/10,000,000 of the Earth's circumference along the longitude.

    Present day mathematicians have no idea why ancient Egyptian mathematicians expressed fractions as a sum of only those fractions in which the numerator is 1. Thus, 5/8 was written as 1/2 + 1/8. A good reason for doing such elaboration can be found in the harmonics series Sum(1/n). The sequence number n is not repeated in the harmonics series nor was it repeated by the Egyptians.

    For extra mystique you may include the destruction of Fourier memorials by the (Nazi) Germans, Fourier proof that all frequencies fit into 2, and (of course) the UFO post-crash environment. Also consider what it means to have 90 degree rotation (if you are 100% real then this means nothing).

    The orbital ratio of Earth and Venus is 5/8. If you know details on ancient Egyptians' fractions, you will also know about the only exception Egyptians made for fraction 2/3. That is the ratio of Neptune and Pluto orbits. In mainstream magazines most present day astronomers show that they 'have credentials -- write trash' when they question Pluto's purpose as a planet. For more on harmony of the spheres link up to New Star In The Heaven.

    Note {Mar 31, 2004}:
    All pyramid references calculate the angle at the midpoint of the base going up the face of the pyramid. The idea is to present the pyramid in the framework of pyramid construction from a solid material rather than building the frame of the pyramid. The ancient Egyptians had called this angle the seked, which is the cotangent of the base and the side planes. The angle at the midpoint of the base is the steepest one possible and, (maintaining the circle-squaring geometry) such angle should be 51.8539.. degrees. The pyramid-writers, however, fail to examine this angle in its general format:
     x = sin-1(2/16 +1)
    Comparing this solution with the one for the edge of the pyramid, we will find that the
    Euler's harmonics series term 2/8 is still there but it is now halved. By taking a walk [or dance] around the pyramid the Euler's term diminishes by half at the midpoint of the base and goes back up to its full value at the pyramid's edge. There is one point in each quadrant on the base of the pyramid where pi is not needed but at this point the construction angle is most likely [better be] transcendental.
    Looking at circle-squaring from the proper perspective: We would be in a real pickle if was not transcendental.

    {April 30, 2004}:
    Squaring of the circle by geometric (quadratic) means is impossible. The impossibility, however, is but an interim step. Squaring of the circle is the koan of Western origin, which, as any koan, surfaces the transcendental aspects of nature.

    {June 30, 2004}:
    All three pyramids at Giza have a straight pathway from the mid-base to the edge of water but each pathway has different direction. At the end of each pathway there is a highly symmetrical structure dedicated to a particular deity. These partly subterranean structures seem to have a transducer/impedance match/resonator function. What stars are rising from the horizon annually for the first time at these pathway directions? Pumping cosmic energy or just pretend-cosmic-vapors?

    Pi, the golden ratio (Phi), and e are all related. It seems ancient Egyptians liked the golden ratio (Phi)(Phi-1)=1 but Pi allows the substitution of Euler's series, which gives additional insight.

    {September 1, 2004}:
    In DSSP September '04 Exercise, additional work on Golden ratio makes a case that the tie-in of Pi to the Great pyramid may be incidental, for primary purpose of the Great pyramid geometry was the tie-in to the Golden ratio Phi rather than Pi.

    {January 10, 2007}:
    Squaring of the circle now has a page of its own. It's about the energy and what needs to get done if infinite components are superposed to complete the circle's construction in finite time.

    {May 5, 2007}:
    Constructing the outline of the Great pyramid is easy. First, construct the golden proportion.

      a book by Mike Ivsin
      Direct link to Printer

Quantum Pythagoreans book establishes the foundation for the understanding and application of energy. Because the energy can be multidimensional and exists in superposition -- it is mutually inclusive -- certain geometric structures are needed for the organization of energy. The pyramid forms a computational construct for dealing with and applying such energy. My job was to put all this in a simple, cohesive, and systemic manner for the reader's understanding and appreciation. More ..

DSSP Topics for February '04
Why would things hold together in a continuum? Just add energy.
Introducing space-energy continuum as a gateway to reversible transformations

Continuum has a nice ring to it. Continuum just keeps going and forever doing whatever it is we wish for. Momentum is a continuum of mass and velocity because mass-velocity product continues to be conserved regardless of the size and the number of colliding bodies. Space-time continuum would have you believe that spatial distance and time cannot be separated. However, all nonlocal events ignore space-time continuum and if you were the inventor of the space-time continuum you would have no choice but to ignore anything that deals with nonlocality: transistors, lasers, electron microscopes, Bell experiments and, of course, UFOs.

As an advocate of space-time continuum you could divide the universe into macro and micro, and pretend you know the macro part. Even though there is money, fun and survival to be had in integrated circuits and communications, the best anyone can offer the believers in space-time continuum is that you cannot get anywhere from here in less than a million years.

One thing that is proven is the conservation of energy. For example, momentum is a moving energy and momentum -- the continuum of the mass-velocity product -- is conserved because the energy adds up to the same value before and after some operation such as collision.


  • Neither spatial distance nor time contain energy, individually or in combination. You conclude (pick all that apply):

    • Space-time continuum is really arithmetic equivalence of spatial distance and time that arises in simple systems such as two-body systems. Time and spatial distance are related through an equation in a rather narrow subset of the real world. More often than not, real parameters such as temperature, pressure, humidity and density must be held constant to simplify the system and coax space-time continuum to hold and behave tractably (if not linearly)

    • Space-time continuum is derived from certain relationships but such derivative cannot then be applied to constrain other relationships. Scientists treat all variables symmetrically and they have no clue how to differentiate the leading and the following variables. All fish are swimmers but swimming will not make you into a fish. 'Swimmer' is the derived (dependent) variable and, therefore, 'swimming' cannot constrain you to be or become a fish. [Even Aristotle would understand this.]

    • Space-time continuum advocates find solace in the belief that if they cannot get there from here, nobody can get here from there. [Besides, you have free will and to prove it you get yourself a beer.]

    • If you stand in an elevator and turn the lights off, you will not be able to prove what planet you are on! [One of the ideas for Adventures In Pseudoscience, 20th Century edition.]

  • Moving electron contains energy and becomes a wave. Therefore:

    • When electron spreads (per Schrödinger evolution, de Broglie wave, and Heisenberg uncertainty) the electron becomes a vibrating entity, which can now be described as space-energy continuum. Energy keeps the electron together even though, as a wave, the electron reaches out nonlocally in up to 3D and on macro scale, no less

    • Credit JJ Thomson who was the first to suggest that atomic particles can spread and become nonlocal [the proof is in the pudding]

    • Spatial distance and time cannot form a continuum because neither distance nor time contain energy that would hold the continuum together

  • Transformations can and do happen. When a particle changes into a wave (or vibration), particle unbecomes local because it has a reach well beyond its original spot. In fact, the spreading of the wave is unbounded. During transformation some things change while others remain invariant. You may conclude:

    • By transforming into a wave, spatial distance is no longer a leading (dominant, priority) variable. Spatial distance becomes a following (subordinated) variable because spatial distance is not energy. Electron-as-wave can now behave nonlocally

    • Some transformations are reversible while others are not. Reversible transformations are the way to go for traveling, while nonreversible transformations are for the one-way street. Matter and antimatter annihilation is a nonreversible transformation. Other transformations are easy to do, but difficult to reverse. (Absorption of a particular light quanta is easy but radiation of a particular quanta is difficult -- it just looks easy for the atom.)

Note 2/28/04:
Energy and frequency are related through de Broglie relation. Space-energy continuum can also be called space-frequency or space-vibration continuum.

DSSP Topics for January '04
Microgravity is a term used by NASA to describe the space station environment. Being weightless does not mean gravity is gone.
The issue of angular momentum
Show-stopper? No problem. Bring in the clowns

It is easy to put Newton in his pajamas running around in the middle of the night screaming "The moon is falling, the moon is falling!" Yet Newton's apple is falling the same way moon is. The moon has additional velocity component and while moon is indeed falling it is also missing the earth and so the moon stays in one orbit -- falling toward and perpetually missing the earth.

In the absence of gravity you just point your rocket anywhere you want to go, and go there with the thrust of your engines. The thrust can be as short as you want and eventually you'll get there. In the earth's orbit, however, gravity is continuously pulling you in and if you aim your rocket at the moon, the brief firing of your thrusters will not send you on the way to the moon but will put you in a more elliptical orbit. If you point your rocket at the moon and fire your thrusters when the moon is receding, you may end up coming back to earth.

Another way to appreciate gravitation is with a beach ball. The ball will deform under acceleration from the rocket's thrust but the ball will remain nice and round under gravitational acceleration, as every part of the ball is accelerated with the same force.


  • In the weightlessness of the orbiting space station (pick all that apply)

    • Gravity is near zero (microgravity)

    • Gravity is nearly the same as on earth's surface

    • All objects in the space station are being accelerated at the same rate and that is why objects in the space station appear to be floating

    • No experiment on the space station can ever be performed in microgravity (or in absence of gravity)

  • To escape earth's gravity and end up with microgravity, you

    • Dig a hole to the center of the earth

    • Go about four-fifths of the way toward the moon (where the earth's pull is the same as the moon's pull)

    • Go to geostationary orbit

    • Two of the above

  • If you still think NASA understands gravitation then consider the past (and failed) NASA's experiment of reeling out a piece of weight out of the space shuttle. NASA thought the weight was going to go straight up -- in defiance of angular momentum and radial gravitational acceleration

  • If you still think NASA can learn from its mistakes then consider the space elevator where NASA continues to ignore the angular momentum of the load as the load is being moved up -- it's a show-stopper. (Space elevator strings strong microtubules from ground to space and NASA claims to be able to haul a load straight into orbit.) You recommend that:

    • NASA stop space elevator parade of clowns because the future as portrayed by NASA is nothing but a delusion. The load must acquire angular momentum and space elevator will always need rocketry propulsion to supply angular momentum to each and every load

    • Transfer microtubule development to another agency such as DOT. Enhance DOT objective to apply microtubules in compression (tension strength, suitable for bridges, is a given)

    • Beat up on NASA engineers and make them do a bang up job while ignoring fundamentals such as angular momentum and the absence of light's pressure at reflection

Gravitation Fact
The easiest and simplest way to prove that all bodies subject to gravitation fall at the same rate (Credit Benedetti):

Two objects that have the same weight are falling at the same rate. Because neither object gets ahead of the other these two objects can be joined together and, although the joined object is now twice the weight, the new object is also falling at the same rate. [Need right-brain for joining operation.]

Notes 1/31/04:
There is likelihood that matter that is not subject to gravitation will disappear (become virtual) but will not disintegrate. At minimum, matter's inertia would decrease in microgravity. Something worthwhile to look into. (Quite the opposite of what guys like Mach and Puthoff would say.)

Pythagorean numerology does not give the number two any positive properties. Number two (or division into two equal parts), however, becomes central when proving certain gravitational relationships. Ditto in the context of momentum creation. [Will be fixed.]

Note {Apr. 30, 2008}: We have an update on the space elevator in our Oct. 2005 DSSP topic (this page).

DSSP Topics for December '03
How can Incomposite numbers, today called prime numbers, be composing anything if they are incomposite.
Riemann [a guy from Wendland] hypothesis has its basis in physics

The Incomposite numbers of Pythagoreans are today called prime numbers. They are incomposite because they are not composed of any other number. The composition, you note, also refers to a musical score and you know that with Pythagoras discovery of the musical octave the Pythagoreans were into music of all kinds. Nice part about incomposite numbers is that, while no other number can divide into them, they make all other numbers by multiplying among themselves. Although prime numbers are indivisible they are also included.

Free moving electron can acquire any energy it wants and thus its wavelength can be anything it wants. Atomic electron wavelength fits smoothly around the core wherever it can -- in particular increments. The problem comes when there is more than one electron because electrons need to stay away from each other and work with the core on the balancing act as well. Balancing assures that the electron can be a real electron at times and a virtual electron at other times while conserving energy at all times. Virtual electron is the electron state that allows it to spread as a wave, while the real electron state is needed when electron must find another orbital as things get hot or cold. [If you want to get deeper into this, do electron guessing under Gauss and compute a few matrices with Riemann. You will be ahead because you now know the real numbers come from the electron while the virtual numbers come from photons. Here is also a mechanism that takes random photonic values and selects only those that subscribe to a particular structure.] When photon is absorbed by the atom, one half of its energy goes to the core and the other half goes to the electron because that is the only way of conserving momentum during energy transfer (really a transformation). In fact, the ½ term of the Riemann's Zeta function comes from the law of the conservation of momentum. It would be cool to show that the physical law of the conservation of momentum can be proven through numerical analysis alone but what also needs to happen is that the energy imparted on two bodies is not only split 50-50 but that the split is always in the opposite direction. (Linear momentum can acquire but one degree of independence.)


  • When photon enters the atom then the electron may need to move into the next available orbital, and [pick the third one below]

    • Electron adds half of the absorbed photon's energy to its own energy and tries to make an orbital with the new energy it has. If that does not work then the electron leaves the atom [our goal here is not ionization, which deals with core's computability]

    • Electron computes the energy of the photon (half is available) and absorbs the photon only if the new orbital does not bump into another electron

    • Electron computes the energy of the photon (half is available) and absorbs the photon only if the new orbital is OK (in harmony) with all electrons already present

  • Atomic electron cannot just add any photonic energy to form its own independent orbital because

    • That's the way it is and I like Rock and Roll just the way it is

    • The orbital wavelengths of multiple electrons interact (superpose) with each other and if their mutual orbital ratios do not add up to a full wavelength across all orbitals in the octave then there would be peaks of instability

  • Electron orbital must harmonize with other orbitals in the octave or across several octaves. To do that,

    • Compose all prime numbers that multiply out to multiple orbitals. If there are no compositions available then that is where the gap is going to be for sure (forbidden orbital, Zeta function is zero)

    • More multiples a particular orbital may share with other orbitals the better. [Pythagoreans call numbers having a large quantity of divisors the abundant numbers.]

    • Orbitals seem to fit series (n+1)/n, which has a triangular pattern, numerically speaking. [Orbital is not the same thing as radius but they are related. See Kepler in the macro dept.]


  1. Using the photon that has just arrived, electron computes energy up and down (Gaussian distribution being symmetrical) and if it finds a computable orbital going down, you just discovered how laser and laser cooling works. Happy New Year!

  2. Work with two (twin peaks) distributions and the highest octave to emulate a molecule. Perhaps even come up with a brand new molecule. Happy conjugating! [about the diagonal, too]

  3. Using 'incomposite' terminology instead of 'prime' helps with visualization because it connects in more places. 'Prime' has only the exclusivity component [the verboten part] and that is not the whole story

Notes 12/31/03:

  1. Energy states in the atom have a wonderful progression of integer squares. (For thorough, clean, clear, and most understandable primer on quantum numbers and how they relate to orbitals consider


    [Big deal? Some energy exchanges are direct transfers rather than transformations.]

  2. Gauss introduced the Modulo math, which is intersted in the remainder after the division. The physics basis of Modulo math is that the electron orbitals are stable if the remainder is zero or if the remainder repeats. If more orbital periods are required before the remainder repeats the less stable the orbital

DSSP Topics for November '03
Absolute clock yields local and absolute reference. Feynman does not get it. Greetings, John Harrison.
Causality is back in the formal system

Background and Construction of The Absolute Clock
Newton first postulated the existence of absolute space (spatial distance) and absolute time. Newton could not prove absolute space and time because the absolute rest (absolute reference) were to be proven first. If, however, absolute velocity is available instead of absolute rest, could absolute space and time be constructed from that? You bet. With the advent of light's invariant velocity, absolute clock can be constructed with a mirror. Light propagates at constant and known speed and the round trip from its source and back to detector will yield absolute clock.

 Absolute clock from lightspeed

Picture filename:

The outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment is that the velocity of light is constant because the velocity of the light source is not added to, or subtracted from, the velocity of light c. If the clocking device is moving forward (to the right) and light is also sent forward then the velocity of the clock device is not added to light's velocity. Some interpret the Michelson-Morley experiment as proving the velocity of light has the maximum velocity at c. However, if the clocking device is moving to the left and light is sent to the right, the velocity of the clock device is not subtracted from light's velocity and c is the only velocity light has in a particular environment (usually vacuum). Light's velocity is c and independent of the velocity of the clock device. The round trip between source and detector will remain constant regardless of the velocity of the clock device. The same is true if the back and forth path of light is perpendicular to the direction of movement because the velocity of the source of light is not additive to the velocity of light -- forward, backward, or sideways. With constant round trip period the absolute clock can be constructed. Any and all absolute clocks moving about will always show the same time.

Picture filename:

Newton's absolute time postulate is thus proven. Absolute space (distance) is now easy to prove as well because any distance between any two points in the universe is determined with lightspeed and by using absolute send and receive times. With absolute distance comes absolute gravitational force. Also, absolute space and time does not dictate space-time continuum. An object can disappear at one point and appear at another point without violating absolute space and absolute time constructs. Further, absolute space (distance) and absolute time are absolute overlays onto space and movement in excess of c is not in conflict with the absolute space (distance) and time overlay -- movement in excess of c, even if discontinuous, yields unambiguous path while preserving formalism and causality because 'event A before event B' is valid for all observers.

Feynman claims that absolute clock cannot be had but he treats only the case where the path of the light beam is perpendicular to the velocity of the clock device. He then claims that the round trip time changes with clock device velocity but it is only because he adds the (downward) velocity of the light source to the velocity of light.

Historical Note
It is said V. A. Fock tried to get general relativity published in the Soviet Union despite their objections that, according to the reading of their proletariat scriptures, forces there were absolute. While all cultures strive to perpetuate themselves and call on the heaven and the sciences for auspicious developments, the fact remains that the script, any script, will change from time to time. It is the pursuit of the truth that becomes right and not the other way around. Newton's "I frame no hypothesis" is possibly the most democratic expression of his scientific leadership.

Exercises [multivariable analysis]

  • Feynman claims that absolute clock cannot be had, but, in addition to misinterpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment, he also ignores the simpler case of the light path being parallel or antiparallel to the velocity of the clock device. You conclude (pick all that apply):

    • If Feynman were to put light's path (anti)parallel with the direction of movement then general relativity is out. [Fortunately for students the perverted clock is in his first chapter on general relativity.]

    • Classic communist science. Feynman tows the party line while wrong or false has nothing to do with it. ["My children, follow me to the black hole."]

    • California is going to be carved off and sunk for trying to pervert supreme science [if you like Atlantis and the wrathful God angle.]

    • Feynman was upset because he could not sell his ideas for the Final Fantasy

    • Feynman was the agent of the aliens and the Deuce of Darkeyes was his handler. [If you like conspiracy then ignore Menzer because he was brainwashed at Harvard's INH branch (It Never Happened branch).]

  • If you were a tenured professor and discovered that the absolute clock can be constructed, you could:

    • Be a debunker of your fancy and enjoy it. [Cool if you do not use public funds. You get afflicted with swamp gas if you do.]

    • Decide that since it is easier to corrupt science than to advance it then let the hell run with it. [Eddington seconds that and Einstein sleeps like a baby.]

    • Tell students there are great mysteries in the universe, particularly if one cannot make up his own mind

    • Realize that if we can get there from here, they can get here from there. This gets you so riled you travel to Puerto Rico to see if you could blow up the alien base there. [Neah, with attitude like that you would never get tenure.]

    • Publish the truth. (Among the benefits is a reference clock for com networks allowing yet faster and more reliable transmissions because the reference can be decentralized. GPS can improve to inches.) You may want to have a new (and beneficial) explanation for the experimental result where subatomic particle's decay time slows down with increasing speed. This is a fundamental question and you:

      • .. publish only on the absolute clock and allow someone else to work on unstable cores and particles

      • .. focus on what locality and nonlocality can and cannot do for you. [Start with pendulum. Yep, there are not many people who understand pendulum mechanics and there are no scientists among those -- fixed pivot or not.]

    • Write Dear Colleagues letter to Hawking and Penrose and tell them where they can find their black holes

    • Write Dear John letter to the Pope to let him know that the falling into the space-time continuum resulted in the you-cannot-get-there-from-here syndrome. You indicate that the falling out with the Creator has now been fixed and request to be taken off the original sinner list

    • Remember John Harrison

Other References
Michelson-Morley experiment and the absolute velocity of light link up to: Here, have some light with ether on top

Notes 12/1/03:
Even if absolute rest could be found it would be difficult to extend such reference to a point where it may be needed. The ability, through lightspeed, to derive absolute time and space (distance) at any point in the universe and thus making it local is a much better way of building the formal part of the universe.

Just because the absolute clock can be constructed does not mean a human is the clock maker the same way the Creator is. Creator makes the clock by creating formal systems through the application of informal -- that is virtual, methods.

Because the absolute clock can be constructed at will by deriving it from the constant velocity of light, time is always a derivative and as such can never be a leading, or independent, variable. By itself time has no independent dimension and time appears independent only when derived from a periodic -- that is organized, system.

Note 4/30/05
Present atomic clock reference is based on half-life property of unstable materials such as Cesium. The claim that the time of such clock is affected by gravity is correct inasmuch the gravitation affects the stability (half-life) of the material. Gravity does not affect time per say and laser-based clocks that derive time from repeated bouncing of light across fixed distance are not affected by gravity and remain absolute clocks.

DSSP Topics for October '03
Chi. Life energy from China. Serious fun is had by all

  • Chi energy is supposed to be a life force permeating all things. Chi energy concept originated in China and, you guessed it, there is Yin Chi and Yang Chi. Chi (Yin form) enters human body along points that are acupuncture points. This is all very mysterious to the Western mind but, after some serious if quick thought you conclude:

    • Because Chi manipulation is happening at different monasteries in China with some degree of secrecy, there are many flavors in the use of Chi

    • If Chi can help then Chi can also hurt. Chi could be turned into a deadly force

    • If Chinese communists had their way they would want everyone to apply to have their Chi registered. But if either side refuses the registration then the person would have to leave the country. That is how Chinese lost neikung

    • Acupuncture needles are but little antennas that entice Chi to enter the body

    • Chi are photons but they are smart photons [okay, smart photons can slow down]

    • Chi are electrons [okay, if everybody believed this then the Tao symbol would not work]

    • Chi are both photons (Yin) and electrons (Yang)

    • Chi is a new particle or vibration that has polarization to explain Yin and Yang

    • Yang is real and Yin is virtual (i, square root of minus one)

    • Two of the above

    • Take two aspirin and call me -- I mean my nurse -- call my nurse in the morning

DSSP Topics for September '03
What's Wrong Now, Algebra? What the..

  • The definition of i is a square root of minus one, or i2=-1. Dividing both sides by i gives i=-1/i.

    Yet last month we also said that i=1/i. We have two different equations, both claiming to be correct but they differ by a minus sign. What gives? Algebra?

    Take both equations:

    [1] i=-1/i and
    [2] i=1/i

    Use proper algebra rules as follows: In the first equation multiply both sides by i. In the second equation, square both sides. You get:

    From [1]: -1=-1
    From [2]: -1=-1

    By using proper algebra rules (multiplying both sides by equal amount), two different equations are now the same and correct.

    Simpler way of seeing it is as follows:

    Take i=1/i. If you square both sides the equation is correct. If you multiply both sides by i the equation is incorrect.

    You conclude:

    • Algebra is too old by now because it was done by somebody named Al in the 12th century

    • This guy Al also copied Indian numerals to be passed on as Arabic numerals but he did not copy zero at first because he thought zero was not needed. Maybe Al did not copy the algebra rules in full

    • Save this example to explain low SAT scores, Mars probes and shuttle crashes, etc.

    • Teacher does not have a clue. Make a bet?

    • Algebra rules should be changed. Somebody ask Al Gore, the inventor of algebra. [Or was Al Gore the inventor of the algorithm? -- with apology to Al Khowarizmi.]

Note {12/1/04}: So far nobody figured out what breaks the algebra. What kind of number i is? Or, what makes you think i is a number? [If you are familiar with ancient Egyptians, think eye of Horus. If you are into Mayan mythology, think Hunab-Ku.]

DSSP Topics for August '03
Atomic versus Free Electron -- Get electron straight and get photon straight, too

  • Compton effect is the central reference for photons presumably hitting electrons and exchanging their momentum in the process. Is that so? There is a remnant of a conspiracy here because Compton effect was improperly claimed as an example of a photon carrying the real punch of the real momentum.

    If you take a physics course you will get the dose of 'photon-has-momentum' doctrine via the Compton effect. Compton effect is invariably described as a lone electron being whacked by a photon, each going their separate ways with classically apportioned and modified momentum. But you know that Compton effect results from photons being directed at a piece of crystal and you know atomic electron is bound to the core and can behave differently than a free electron. You also know that free electrons were available in Compton's time inside the early CRT (Crooke's tube). You now walk up to your teacher and have him pick the right answer(s) out of the following:

    • Compton could not afford free electrons and so he used atomic electrons

    • Compton effect would never work with free electrons and that is why Compton used atomic electrons -- but he did not mind claiming it makes no difference

    • Photons do not scatter from free electrons. Nobody performed scattering on a free electron experiment (using a beam in a CRT, for example) because, you guessed it, photons and free electrons do not scatter when they interact with each other. There are cloud chamber experiments by R.T. Wilson but cloud chamber is not vacuum and photons, particularly X-rays, move electrons by ionizing molecules -- photons stripping electrons from atoms has never been the same thing as hitting a free electron

    • Photon can move atomic electron to higher energy state (orbital) by being absorbed and then the same or another electron drops to the now-vacant state issuing another (weaker or stronger or the same) photon -- different mechanism than the presumed whacky billiard ball photon

    • Free electron has de Broglie wavelength, Heisenberg uncertainty and Schrödinger evolution. Photon cannot possibly whack free electron

    • Oh no, Dr. Bill! Free electron is a wave. NASA thinks this is too complicated for college kids and NASA preference runs for sling shots anyway. [No joke, NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts likes their sling shot really big -- and institutional.]

    • You the teacher were taught photon is nothing but a little mass ball and that is where physics ends [It's your lucky day. If nobody understands quantum mechanics then you are included]

    • Free electron is a wave and photon interacts with it as another wave [pick this one -- it's close enough for partial credit]

    • Photon cannot be divided. So how can photon suddenly have a different energy value unless it is an altogether different photon

    • Compton got his prize and you are now stuck with his erroneous interpretation. But the students are paying for it and that takes the pain away..

    • Bottom line: Compton effect is a case akin to the photoelectric effect where the atomic electron is displaced by absorbed photon and a neighboring electron fills in the empty state while emitting another photon [Don't worry about Nobel -- they either fix it or they'll merge with Oscars, the Royal Swedish flying meatballs chefs]

    • We can talk about Compton all day long but directing a laser at a mirror could measure the photonic pressure directly -- and this has not been done because.. [A: Light's pressure does not exist; B: NASA is busy putting out their version of the story that the shuttle is still flying and pictures to the contrary are a hoax -- besides, they have equations to prove it; C: All of the above]

    • But what if somebody sees through the hype and goes after the truth? There are some cool opportunities in QM

Ivsin's question with an answer and then some: Which number is the same as its reciprocal besides 1 and -1?
A: i . 1÷1=1, 1÷-1=-1, 1÷i=i (square both sides)
Big deal? Sure is if Planck constant h is really a virtual number hi [Hello!]. Then, suddenly {Aug 1, 2003}, the momentum of a photon becomes virtual, as it has always been

DSSP Topics for July '03
Relativity Postulate Is Neither -- It Is Not Even Wrong

  • General relativity postulates that all motion is relative and, therefore, a person cannot tell the difference between a stationary and a moving object. At the very least the relative motion is supposed to be sufficient. Well, every accelerating electron radiates electromagnetic field and all things wireless work because of that. If you apply the relativity presumption (that all motion is relative) then the accelerating frame of reference passing a stationary electron will elicit electromagnetic radiation from such electron. Also, frames of reference accelerating at different rates elicit different amounts of energy from the electron the references are passing by. This is such an obvious nonsense you conclude:

    • Simplistic and incorrect assertions of general relativity not only make the theory a farce but those who accept it got suckered into doing pseudoscience [governments make good suckers because they see nonsense as power exercise]

    • Relative motion is a special case of motion that cannot be generalized and can lead to erroneous results. [Newton has it right. Poincaré could do singularity with math and he was looking for something physical to back him up -- doing science as fantasy first and looking for reality second.]

    • General relativity is not even wrong, it is fraud. You can get a refund and a smart lawyer can get plaintiff triple damages on the fraud part

    • Physics, both particle and astro, has become politicized with broad streaks of fraud. For instance, solar sailing is easy to prove as fraud, both through faulty and purposely corrupted logic, by willful abstention from validation, and by active avoidance of validation (NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts an excellent example). This can escalate if human lives were endangered -- not necessarily by faulty engineering but by fraudulent science and management

    • Proposals to government that are based on general relativity are fraudulent. Gravitation mechanics are quantum based and require unique and straightforward approach. Proposals to measure gravitation waves, for example, are but a cover story to get, spend and possibly divert funds

Note {Aug 1, 2003}. I got a note on how Newton explained the need for absolute reference. Newton used a spinning bucket with water moving up the sides and the idea is as follows: If you are on a merry-go-round you know you are spinning and when you stop you know you are not spinning -- while the stationary or spinning frame of reference has nothing to do with it. The spinning object accelerates toward the center of rotation and so any acceleration can be used to disprove the relativity postulate. Linearly accelerating object or linearly accelerating frame of reference can thus be differentiated -- with a bucket full of water no less. (If the bucket overflows you are accelerating. If not, it is the frame of reference that is accelerating.)

  • Now you have two choices. Spin it or go quantum. The spin starts when somebody tries to explain UFO-like behavior in general relativity terms. When a ship (used to be called a rocket) disappears, some may say that the ship just goes into a black hole and then it can appear somewhere else. You know that:

    • It is only a story because black hole's definition is infinite mass that crushes everything and nothing can survive, including the theorist. Appearing suddenly someplace else also violates the [are we there yet] space-time continuum

    • It is only a story because some people just like to get confused and love to blabber on. General relativity is built on light's pressure that never existed and one can be truly confused for a long time -- a lifetime, hundred years perhaps

    • Academia can be a keeper and defender of nonsense

    • General relativity proponents have way too much invested in this and they do not mind breaking the rules of the theory while being its proponents at the same time. These guys cannot deliver because they know their foundation is fraudulent but they are looking for a story to sell [Let me see those comics..]

    • Challenge any and all funding based on general relativity. Money available for space work is well spent someplace else and by people who can validate what they espouse. Gravitation waves measurement, solar sailing, and neutrino detection are all duds. It is easy to challenge all programs that at some point rely on light's pressure at reflection such as 'light has momentum' or 'energy has inertia' [Tell Hawking Newton wants his chair back]

    • Anybody who argues anything based on general relativity can be trashed at any time

    • It is time for NASA breakup -- a sight to behold

    General relativity also builds on the presumption that light carries real momentum and exerts pressure at reflection. Light is then presumed subject to gravitation (black hole, etc.). This is not possible (Light Cannot Push Mirror, But..).

    {July, 2005} In this date's monthly topic, relativity postulate is being disproved even for objects that are moving at linear (constant) speed. The energy imparted on particle stays with the particle. The proof is in measuring different wavelengths that are commensurate with energies imparted onto particles. Change in the frame of reference causes loss of mathematical ability to describe reality.

DSSP Topics for June '03
Spectacles Before They Were Glasses

  • When Galileo introduced the telescope with glass lenses and encouraged everyone to look (he made several telescopes for local pols and even sent one to Kepler in Prague), the academia skeptics derided the whole optical enlarging idea of the telescope as something as unproven as the spectacle lenses. It is now circa 1610. One would think the learned men of academia have something relevant to say about new things. So, you are to guess how long the spectacles were around and used by people who did not give a damn about academic (dis)approval of spectacles:

    • 50 Years

    • 150 Years

    • 300 Years

  • It is apparent that the lag between the invention and its approval by academia is very long. In the spectacles case it is at least 300 years -- yes, 1280 is roughly the year of the spectacles introduction. ("..by the [end of] 13th Century they [spectacles] were common enough both in Europe and China." The Story of Light by Ben Bova.) You conclude:

    • Academia is irrelevant to economic growth. They are the last to come on board

    • Academia does not or cannot validate their equations because it can turn out the equations are wrong

    • Academia equations are in areas that are not practical or that are pure fantasy because that is yet another way equations cannot be validated [In billion years, ..]

    • Academia is but a priestly class that can make those who believe them feel good

    • Academia teaches mostly trash while making money on the side with other things

    • Academia's skepticism is the devil's advocacy here on Earth -- with every tenure the academic gets bad breath and a spatula for flipping other people's hamburgers

DSSP Topics for May '03
Big Deal About Irrational Numbers

  • Over two and a half Millennia ago the integers and their ratios were thought to explain everything. Then it became apparent that some numbers could not be made by rationing and there was a crisis of sorts because of these -- irrational -- numbers. You, being knowledgeable in the ways of the world, had a meeting to resolve the problem. You reach one of the following conclusions:

    1. Keep the irrational numbers the way they are and let them have the infinite magnitude (mantissa, precision) they ask for. There are rational people and there are irrational people, and it takes all kinds

    2. All irrational numbers must be bounded before they manifest in the real world as real numbers. Why, even the easiest example of a diagonal of a square must be bounded in magnitude before anyone could possibly draw it on paper!

  • There was this guy named Cantor and he thought the answer #1 above was correct. He set out to prove it, and:

    • Had gone nuts

    • Proved that one kind of infinity could fully contain another infinity with room to spare for more infinities

    • All of the above [If he did not go nuts he would still be at it today]

More on Numbers: Living With Numbers

DSSP Topics for April '03
Get Prize With Photons -- Or, How Science Went Terribly Wrong But The Carrot Was There To Cash In On It

  • Around 1900 it comes to pass that light's energy is proportional to its frequency. (Higher frequency corresponds to higher energy.) Also, electrons are released from certain metals when exposed to light but only if light has frequency (energy) of at least f0. It then becomes apparent that each electron was released by an individual pocket (photon) of light. What partitions light into photon pockets (or Newton's corpuscles) is the Planck constant h and so the energy of each photon that is imparting energy onto each electron is proportional to hf0. To win the prize, you:

    • Formulate the equation that says the kinetic energy of the ejected atomic electron is not more than hf0 and you subtract a bit of work w to explain heat. You claim that photon knocks the atomic electron out of orbit but you do not mention the fact that light can never impart kinetic energy to free electron(s). This fibs the government (and Nobel committee) into believing that they can push payloads with photons. Government is on a hook for a myth. It's early Twentieth Century and the prize is yours. [If you are into mythology you would say: 'The corrupted mind spoke the corrupted word. And the word was willed to make it so because the damned said it was so! The gateways of hell creaked open with black holes offering to crush the light in the onslaught of infinite masses.' Wars, communism, etc.]

    • Formulate the equation in the framework of momentum conservation where the imparted photon energy is shared equally between the electron and the atomic core. Kinetic energy of the ejected atomic electron is then not more than ½hf0 where the other half is imparted to the core and accounts for heat. Also mention the fact that light cannot impart energy to free electrons or onto mirror surface because light has virtual momentum. You say there is nothing spooky about light, nature, or virtual momentum. In fact, the conservation of momentum framework allows you to explain selective absorption of photons by gas. [Did not happen then. If it did there would be no black hole legacy.]

  • After you get the prize you write a [strangely out of character] paper that says one can trigger emission of light (lasing) with photons that match the energy of a normally (spontaneously) emitted photon. Later you say that nonlocality of light is spooky. You get some academic credit for inventing a laser, although other people fight it out for the laser (and maser) profits. Meanwhile:

    • NASA continues to spend money on photonic pressure projects such as solar sailing. This will never work but you are dead by then

    • NASA cannot figure out that the absence of photonic pressure at reflection is the same thing as absence of photonic pressure at radiation (emission) and this means that laser has no recoil. NASA goes on pretending nothing has changed because pretend-physics is now a part of NASA heritage

    • NASA uses lasers and after directing laser at mirror NASA cannot validate the photonic pressure on mirror. NASA announces that light cannot push mirror, which challenges physicists to advance understanding of light. [Very straightforward and so it did not happen. After hundred years academia would have to stop collecting teaching and consulting fees while perpetuating a myth. Gravitation may be NASA's middle name but by now NASA managers know how to be sincerely ignorant and keep the status quo.]

DSSP Topics for March '03
Reading Past Records

  • Some people can describe an event or a place that can be verified to be historically correct -- even though the person had no previous knowledge of the event or the place. Oftentimes such readouts can be repeated by another person. These phenomena are:

    • Fraud or conspiracy. People make up the story for fun or profit

    • Proof of time travel. People go back to some point in time and can mess it up for us here in the present

    • Proof of many worlds or parallel universes. There are a large number of independent realities going on and some people can hop between them

    • Knowledge or data is in a form of energy that is indestructible. Some people can read the data but it is read-only -- much as if you were looking at old movies

DSSP Topics for February '03
Light Mill Moves and Rotates

  • When the light mill is illuminated by sunlight or bright lamp the mill rotates such that the dark paddles recede. When you place the mill in the freezer the mill reverses rotation and bright paddles recede. This can be explained as:

    • Light is absorbed more by dark paddles and gas trapped in the surface shoots out as it outgasses. In the freezer, gas is reabsorbed and as it does the molecules pull on dark paddles.

    • Gas flows up along the dark side of paddles and this creates little vortices at the edges where dark and bright surfaces meet. In the freezer something else is happening

    • Dark paddles are hotter and neighboring gas molecules absorb more heat. Heat absorption expands gas when atoms in molecules bounce away (while conserving momentum) and push dark paddles away. In the freezer gas molecules radiate heat into dark paddles more readily that into bright paddles. Gas cools off quicker at dark paddle surface and gas contraction pulls dark paddles (atoms in molecules bounce together). [Think Ampere: Every molecule has two atoms. Ampere was French but the Brits can give a little. It's the bouncing atoms in a molecule that account for gas pressure, not bouncing molecules.]

  • When the mill is left in the freezer to cool down and then removed, it begins to rotate such that dark paddles recede even though it is not illuminated. If the mill is moved the paddles rotate much faster. When the mill no longer moves its rotation returns to previous speed. The mechanism is:

    • Gas molecules move closer to the surface and the expansion of gas at dark paddles happens faster

    • Light bounces around and gets utterly confused. The mill then rotates like crazy

DSSP Topics for January '03
Electron On The Move

  • Free electron is represented by a wavefunction described by Schrödinger equation. Since the coefficients are composed of virtual numbers,

    • Electron is a (zero-dimensional) dot with attributes described by the Schrödinger equation.

    • Electron diffuses according to Schrödinger equation and electron's position is in a superposed state.

  • Because the electron wavefunction is the electron's probability of appearance, a change in wavefunction changes electron's final destination (changes electron's path). Therefore,

    • One can move the electron with electromagnetic field.

    • One can move the electron by modifying its wavefunction computationally -- that is, logically.

Go or select another topic from the gold post
HyperFlight home Portal in new window

©2003-2011 Backbone Consultants. Copyrights Information