it doesn't have enough "equations"
What are the equations of biology? Either this criticism is denying the phenomena or it is accepting the phenomena and choosing to ignore them. Not knowing the equations that describe phenomena is not a basis for rejecting or ignoring them.
The importance of plasma phenomena is obviously underrated as there is a "terrestrial bias" within modern science - the tendency to assume that the most important physical facts are the physical facts we can observe in our local environment. Upwards of 99% of the mass in the universe exists in the plasma state, IIRC. Does 99% of astrophysics concentrate on plasma phenomena? I think it's completely the other way around.
Clayton -
^^THIS.^^
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Upwards of 99% of the mass in the universe exists in the plasma state
How do you know? ;)
@Andris: I don't know how they have figured that number but it is uncontroversial with mainstreamers. Of course, mainstreamers also believe that 95% of all mass in the Universe is only visible through its "gravitational effects", aka Dark Matter/Energy. Go figure.
That's exactly my point. Why do you choose to believe one figure, but not another?
Oh, because I know how they arrived at the figure for Dark Matter/Energy and it's just... pure bullshit.
Standard astrophysics/cosmology is almost entirely garbage:
Dark matter/energy is embarrassing science. Why do they keep pushing this stuff??
As an example, I've watched at least a half-dozen videos of sundiving-comet-CME events. There is a definite pattern. The comet is pulled in to the Sun and moments later (in fast-forward time), a massive CME erupts on the 180-degrees opposite side of the Sun. Standard model says "that's not possible, a comet isn't big enough to significantly affect the Sun and whatever effects the comet does produce could not have traveled to the other side of the Sun in such a short time". Their excuse for the pattern is that "CMEs happen all the time... it just so happened that the comet hit at about the same time as a CME was firing off for unrelated reasons."
But this is based on the non-electrical theory of comets... that the electrical charge of comets is immaterial. The EU theory, on the other hand, shows that even a small body - such as a comet - can accumulate a massive charge, particularly as it rapidly moves through the electric field of the Sun. The electrical discharge of the comet in the EU model will be immense and its effect on the Sun will be considerable. Being as the cometary impact is primarily an electrical event and that electrical energy travels nearly at the speed of light, the effect of the comet can move to the opposite side of the Sun almost instantly. The charge disturbance requires equalization to bring the Sun back to equilibrium... this is what the comet-induced CME is, it is the Sun returning to electrical equilibrium.
I'm a non-expert. I am no physicist, let alone astrophysicist. But the correlation is so obvious that even a child can see it. Yet the gray-faced establishment scientists insist that you're just hallucinating. What the hell is going on!
On the prior post - why are they pushing this? - I'm going to reiterate a theory I've posited before. I think that the atomic bomb is made up. It's science fiction. The conception of the Sun as a gigantic fusion reactor is part and parcel of reinforcing the myth of the atomic bomb. This is why the Establishment is suppressing science that will lead to the deconstruction of this basic error. There is no price too high for their precious one world government.
Radioactivity, of course, is very real. So where's all that energy coming from, if not the "decay" of the matter itself?
We know that the decay rates of several elements vary with the sunspot cycle. Whoa! I was taught that radioactive decay is the result of the gradual decomposition of an "unstable" element into a "stable" element... so that means that an element chooses how stable it is based on the solar sunspot cycle?? Something doesn't add up. If radioactivity is solely a structural phenomenon (a consequence solely of matter changing from one configuration to another and emitting energetic particles in the process), then the sunspot cycle should factor nowhere into it.
Everything resonates based on its geometry. If you cut a string to some length, stretch it taught, then pluck it, it will vibrate the air and cause sound waves to move through the air. This is resonance. And it works backwards, as well (so-called sympathetic vibration): If you sing the same pitch that the string produces when plucked, the vibrations in the air caused by your vocal cords will impart energy to the string and it will begin to vibrate.
Electrical resonance is no different. If you cut a quartz crystal to just the right thickness, it will vibrate sympathetically to a specific electrical frequency. This is the basis of a "crystal radio". Similarly, crystals are used in "reference oscillators"... such as the quartz oscillator in low-end watches. Radio antennas - such as the antenna in your cellphone - are also resonant and, when coupled with special oscillator and detector circuits, allow the reception and transmission of electromagnetic waves.
We know that atoms are not actually atoms, that is, they are not actually indivisible (the meaning of the Greek word "atom" is ... indivisible). Atoms can be split and they have an internal structure. In particular, atoms have geometry, that is, dimensions. They resonate on the basis of those dimensions. This is, in fact, the basis of the atomic clock. It uses the same principle of resonance as a quartz oscillator... only at much higher frequency as the atoms being excited are of much smaller dimensions.
So here's my theory: radioactive phenomena are the consequence of the fact that certain elements (the so-called "unstable" elements) act not only as extremely high-frequency antennae but also as frequency transducers. A frequency transducer can convert energy from one frequency to another. All atoms are ultra-high-frequency* antennae (if you vibrate them at their resonant frequencies, they will absorb energy and begin to throw off electrons and photons) but what makes the "unstable" elements unique is that they can spontaneously convert the ultra-high-frequency radiation in the environment into radiation that we can observe (radioactive particle emissions).
So what causes radioactive decay? Well, as the "unstable" atoms are transducing energy from ultra-high-frequencies to frequencies we can detect, they are "rattled around" and become less efficient transducers. The decayed form of the atom - lead or whatever it may be - is when its transducing capacity has been reduced to zero and is now "stable", that is, not a transducer anymore (like any non-radioactive element).
What are these ultra-high-frequencies? Well, they are just like any other frequency... just too high to detect with modern equipment. They are generated by the Sun and emitted in all directions. They may also be generated by the Earth's core and the cores of the other active planets. They may play a not-yet-understood role in gravitation.
Why believe in ultra-high-frequencies? Isn't it better just to explain the phenomena in the standard way? The advantage of the frequency explanation is that it reduces the entities in accordance with Ockham's razor. In the ultra-high-frequency theory, we just have higher frequency vibrations of the same sort we're already familiar with and we do away with the nonsensical idea of matter "turning into" energy or matter being "the same thing as" energy.
*Note that UHF is already an in-use acronym and denotes a specific band of RF below microwaves but above VHF (very-high-frequency)... I mean to denote frequencies that are much, much higher than anything already part of the standard model.
Note that UHF is already an in-use acronym
I suggest über high frequency, with ÜHF as acronym, for the frequencies' range you meant :)
Clayton,
Thanks for the positive feedback.
I'm only just getting started on the EU stuff but the entire Universe makes a hell of a lot more sense once placed in the electrical context.
I haven't really explored it yet but Thunderbolts has a forum which you might find interesting.
Why anarchy fails
@AJ: I have contemplated that idea and I wonder if we could mix both models - perhaps Uranus and Neptune are prior anti-Suns? That is, perhaps the primary of our solar system hasn't gone "... Sun, Saturn, Sun, Saturn..." but has gone "... ?, Sun, Neptune, Sun, Uranus, Sun, Saturn, Sun, ... " Or, perhaps there has been a more complex alternation.
I really believe that we need to extend the theoretical work that Kepler began in his Harmonies of the World. This would be a far more worthwhile investment in the theoretical physics front than this absurd pissing contest over who can find the smallest, most bizarre particle... or "shadows" thereof. Basically, I'm thinking of applying Fourier analysis or other, more complex forms of analysis (Markov, even algorithmic) to analysis of a) orbital resonances, b) the heliospheric current sheet and the magnetospheres of all the planets and their moons to the extent we can reasonably estimate them and c) RF, X-ray and other emissions from the planets (also, the roles of asteroids and comets). The goal would be to discover the "electrical circuit diagram" of the solar system. How is energy stored? Where is it coming from and where is it going to? Can we discover any very-long-period resonances? Finding a credible explanation of the equinoctial precession would be a good starting point.
Basically, I'm thinking of applying Fourier analysis or other, more complex forms of analysis (Markov, even algorithmic) to analysis of a) orbital resonances, b) the heliospheric current sheet and the magnetospheres of all the planets and their moons to the extent we can reasonably estimate them and c) RF, X-ray and other emissions from the planets (also, the roles of asteroids and comets).
Do not forget to use HMM and MCMC. Seriously, where would you get the raw data? Just curious.
Well, I think that the solar observatories give us a great starting point and the terrestrial magnetic and ionospheric observatories (HAARP, etc.) give us a great picture of the Earth. So, we have very detailed pictures of the Sun and the Earth. We can receive RF signals from Jupiter a lot of the time and I believe we can also pick up signals from Saturn. My understanding is that these are the "big hitters" - Sun, Earth, Jupiter and Saturn.
At this point, we understand so little about the workings of the Solar system that I think that mere statistical correlation studies could glean a lot. For example, tracking the incidence and nature of CMEs versus sun-diving comets. But I think there are lot of potential correlata that we haven't even thought of - perhaps there are correlations between Jupiter's radio emissions and solar activity? At the very least it seems like the Sun should influence the processes responsible for Jupiter's RF emissions. The Earth also is very RF active so it might be useful to record Earth's RF emissions from a satellite (or perhaps it's possible to record them from the ground, I don't fully understand how they capture these emissions).
We can't directly observe the electric or magnetic fields surrounding the planets but I was just reading on Thunderbolts that light passing through magnetic fields is perturbed... perhaps you could track the magnetospheres of Jupiter and Saturn by observing the spectra of background stars as the planets pass near them. This would be an investment but orders of magnitude less expensive than LHC.
Another place to look is pulsars - do "radio-bright" pulsars have any detectable influence on the solar system? I'm thinking that we should just plot all of this kind of data into a gigantic database and start doing NxN searches for correlations with supercomputers. For example, we know sunspots go up and down in an 11-year cycle... can we find any other signals that move up and down in 11-year (f) or 22-year (1/2f) or 5.5 year (2f) cycles, etc, etc. Most importantly, we should be looking for cross-phenomenal correlations... a change in X-ray patterns over here correlates with a change in magnetic field patterns over there. This has nothing to do with building a causal theory but, rather, building the raw data required to begin to construct a causal theory. We haven't even taken the first baby steps yet. Somebody needs to start, IMO.
a mathematically smooth shape of the variety that atomic physicsts like to draw
Last time I've seen a drawing by an atomic physicist it was a Feynman diagram - and it was not smooth at all. Did you mean pictures of atomic orbitals? Those are smooth for sure. But they are not intended to illustrate an atom... You didn't mean Bohr model, did you? :)
Sorry about nit-picking, I enjoy this thread anyway.
atomic orbitals? Those are smooth for sure. But they are not intended to illustrate an atom
Yes. I believe they do give the geometry of the atom depending on how the electrons resonate in the outer-most shell.
Working through this:
It's fantastic!
Yet another guy who understands the incoherence of infinity, the Axiom of Choice, and so-called real numbers.
Interesting, "my views and opinions" link from his homepage, which I hoped would lead to some texts on this issue, is broken. I hate videos when it comes to learning ideas :(
ON EDIT: ha, the wayback machine to the rescue: http://web.archive.org/web/20110725051201/http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/views.htm
I skipped part I because I'm already familiar with the problems in standard theory but I watched the part II. He's right that we don't have ways to do generalized operations on numbers specified as algorithms (e.g. to compare equality) but part of that comes with the territory (deciding if two functions compute the same value is an uncomputable problem). He is very even-handed in acknowledging the possibility of resolving these issues and that is actually the whole reason I am studying this guy's theories on universal hyperbolic geometry. I'm convinced that there is something "natural" and/or "fundamental" about hyperbolic geometry (in the complex plane, however... but first I need to learn hyperbolic geometry in the real plane). Basically, I think we need to build the equivalent of a Turing machine... but made out of waves. My interest turned to hyperbolic geometry because of the astounding relationship:
ex = sinh x + cosh x
The exponential is the only function whose derivative is itself. And it is composed of two functions who are mutual derivatives:
d/dx sinh x = cosh x
d/dx cosh x = sinh x
Why does this matter? Because if you want to build a computer purely out of mathematical objects, you need a geometry that exists in two states simultaneously, not one. The problem with ordinary geometries is that they describe dead, eternal, static form - like the floorplan of a house. But that is not how computation is. Computation "moves", like time moves. What makes a digital computer move is its table of "next states" that are based on the present state.
The derivative is a natural kind of "next state" function - it is a function itself and implied within it is the "future" of its antiderivative. If you have f'(x) = x, then you know the future of f(x)... it is x2 (+c, of course). But then, that function has to have a "next state", as well. So the most compact way to represent this is a pair of functions that are mutual derivatives. Say hello to cosh(x) and sinh(x), who happen to sum to the most remarkable function I believe in all mathematics... ex.
One caution on citing 0.5 as evidence of "5 in φ"... while 5 is present through the square-root of 5 and through the fivefold symmetry of the pentagon (which has phi built into its geometry), the 1/2 = 0.5 is purely happenstance based on the choice of a base-10 numeral system... in base-16, for example, 1/2 = 0.8
I wasn't aware of the beautiful relationship sinh(ln φ) = 1/2... that's amazing. There are also links between φ and pi (something that the Egyptologists always pooh-pooh in connection to the possibility that the pyramids encode both pi and phi):
Phi = 1 - 2*cos(3*pi/5) (there's that 5!)
Not to mention that the arctan function encodes the Fibonacci numbers (which, as you well know, converge to phi in the limit of their successive ratios), while arctan(1) can be used to construct the most beautiful definition of pi (the Leibniz formula):
arctan(1) = pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 ...
In my view, there must be a very fundamental connection between these objects that is obscured by our often klunky and obtuse mathematical methods.
One of the subjects I want to better understand is p-adic numbers. I'm pleased to find that Wildberger takes a favorable view of p-adic numbers, despite his (well-founded) rejection of the so-called real numbers, which are actually contradictory and irrational.
One of the connections that I suspect is that perhaps these beautiful expressions are actually conveying numerical relationships in a more fundamental numbering system than what we use today... something like p-adics. 3.14159... 2.7182818... 1.618... there is no connection in the numerical expressions themselves. But perhaps in a more basic, natural, fundamental numbering system these relationships would be nearly "geometrical"; visualizable in the numerical expressions themselves.
What originally motivated me to consider this is the use of two's complement arithmetic in computers. Anyone who's worked with two's complement for some time can attest that it is, in some deep sense, more "natural" than ordinary binary (which is the base-2 equivalent of decimal real numbers). You do not need two separate definitions of addition and subtraction... you only need to know how to negate a number and then add. Basically, it gives you "negative numbers without the need to use a minus-sign". Negativity is encoded right into the numbers themselves. The benefit is that this cuts the circuitry in half in an ALU (that's why it's used). If that's all it bought you, that wouldn't be reason enough. But it turns out that when you multiply and divide two's complement numbers, they retain their proper meanings.
But then, two's complement is really just a subset of 2-adic numbers. The 2-adic numbering system allows you to express not only positive and negative whole numbers without a minus sign, but arbitrary precision fractional numbers without a decimal point. Now, there is a "decimal point" (or binary point, to be pedantic) but it turns out that you can put 2-adic numbers in a "canonical form". Furthermore, the standard division algorithm requires a "guess and try again" approach to finding the answer. The 2-adic division algorithm is deterministic... first, you invert one operand, then you multiply (both operations are deterministic and require no "guessing").
But I want something more than this... I believe that the complex domain is, in some sense, the most natural mathematical object. So, what I would really like is a numbering system that allows you to not only add, subtract, multiply and divide in a natural manner (2-adic gives you this), but also allows you to take the square root of -1... then multiply that thing by itself and give... -1. All with exactly one multipliaction algorithm.
I believe that ex is somehow tied up in this, particularly as it decomposes into the sin() and cos() functions, and the sinh() and cosh() functions.
F0(x) = x0/0! + x4/4! + x8/8! ...
F1(x) = x1/1! + x5/5! + x9/9! ...
F2(x) = x2/2! + x6/6! + x10/10! ...
F3(x) = x3/3! + x7/7! + x11/11! ...
Euler's identity:
eiπ+1=0
This makes me wonder if an entirely visual representation of mathematical language could be the answer.
entirely visual representation of mathematical language
I think this is essentially what classical geometry really is. However, quantization is undisputably useful. It's almost not an exaggeration to say that the modern era is little else but the expression of the power of quantization. Sadly, standard decimal arithmetic is fatally flawed.
Since I think that humans are designed to think fundamentally in terms of the visual/spacial mechanics of physical objects (and agency, but that's probably irrelevant to math), the ultimate in clear and concise mathematical representation - the clearest possible system resulting in the deepest understanding for humans - seems it would be one where everything was represented visually/mechanically, to whatever extent this may be possible.
So how do you denote the difference between a 30-60-90 and a 15-75-90 triangle? People can't be expected to eyeball the difference nor to apply calipers to a page in order to read it.
But in the spirit of your ideas...
As for quantities, yes, nothing can beat arabic numerals for that, so there's no reason to discard them in a visual system.
Someone in the comments said that visual proofs can never really be full proofs and that they can only sketch the way toward a proof, but the same is true of word proofs. ... most of the visual proofs on that page were more like sketches (the 2pi>6 proof is an exception).
Yeah, I hate that kind of pedantry - a proof is something that is sufficient to convince a human brain. You can reduce proofs to rigorous formal steps leading from axioms to propositional theorems but you don't have to.
Actually, I think some visual proofs are so compelling that they essentially convert what would be a "proof" if constructed with propositional deductions into a definition. A common visual proof of the Pythagorean theorem is what I have in mind:
Just stare at it for a few minutes and you'll convince yourself that not only is it correct and not only does it prove the Pythagorean theorem, but you can tell merely from visual inspection why it must prove the theorem.
Tooling around with sinh and cosh this afternoon:
ez = [ cosh(z) ] + [ sinh(z) ]
ez = [ F0(z) + F2(z) ] + [ F1(z) + F3(z) ]
Now, it turns out that:
e-z = [ cosh(z) ] - [ sinh(z) ]
Although a picture can deceive (like that one with colored triangles in the above link), physical objects cannot so easily.
Oh, but they can. Especially, soft objects, like sofas. I am willing to bet you could not tell if sofas had 89 degree angle or 90.
Hilbert rallied the troops with his battle-cry "No one shall expel us from the paradise Cantor has created for us!" To which Wittgenstein responded "If one person can see it as a paradise for mathematicians, why should not another see it as a joke?"
Hilbert rallied the troops with his battle-cry "No one shall expel us from the paradise Cantor has created for us!"
To which Wittgenstein responded "If one person can see it as a paradise for mathematicians, why should not another see it as a joke?"
There is something incredibly compelling about Cantorian set theory. Modern set theory is a joke.