*Reference: ***Quantum weirdness proved real in first loophole-free experiment**

**Quantum weirdness proved real in first loophole-free experiment**

This experiment proves in my mind that space is not a set of dimensionless mathematical points, and that there is a dimension to a location in space. In other words. what appears as two different locations from the “dimensionless point perspective” can actually be the same location.

The location in space is elastic. It has converged toward a point when we consider the nucleus of an atom, but it is in the process of converging towards a point when we consider the electron. Space is a pointless continuum when we consider electromagnetic waves. We incorrectly assume this continuum to be a set of mathematical points.

**We base Mathematics on the postulate that everything is discrete. Therefore we look at the real space as a set of points. This is an error.**

We need a new mathematics based on the postulate of continuum where mathematical points can have a “dimensional density.” Imagine using a magnifying glass to focus the image of the sun on a paper. If we focus the image perfectly to a point it can burn a hole through the paper. This is like the space converged to a point. But when it is not focused, the image of the sun is out of focus and diffused over a region. This is like a point with a dimension. It is space that is moving away from being a “set of points” toward becoming a continuum.

.

## Comments

It seems that the dimension of a location depends on the wavelength of disturbance of space at that location. This disturbance is electromagnetic in nature. We identify it as electromagnetic wave.

At the level of the nucleus of an atom, this wavelength is very small and it approaches the “dimensionless point” model of mathematics.

In the electronic region of the atom, the location depends on the wavelength of the electron and it is more spread out.

Beyond the atom, the non-converged electromagnetic disturbance is more spread out, making the location much larger in dimension.

.

As I mentioned once, it may be interaction which gives space and matter their location and individuality. Without interaction, there is no location or condensation of reality. Any “thing”, by itself, completely alone, may just actually be an idea, waiting for some occurrence.

Mark

Yes. Definitely.

.

Strong evidence exists for space (spacetime) being quantized and that the minimum dimension is one Planck length. Here is a very understandable video that explains the evidence and interpretation:

Thank you for this video. I am listening to it. She is very good…

The granular structure could be precipitating from a space continuum. Anyway, I have to listen to the complete tape.

She says, “Black holes are formed by gravitational collapse of matter but they are “made” of pure spacetime.”

That is amazing. I vizualize spacetime as “disturbance” of zero frequency and infinite wavelength. On the other hand I visualize gravity as the property of extremely condensed “disturbance” of infinite frequency and infinitesimal wavelength.

What does “gravitational collapse of matter” means?.

Gravitational collapse of matter seems to mean that all nuclei that were hitherto separated by electronic regions seems to overcome that separation and coalsce with each other.

So the nature of the resulting black hole is same as the nature of the nuclei that coalsced.

She says, “A black hole is a region from which nothing can escape. The event horizon is a “causal” boundary.”

The reason that something cannot escape may lie in a spinning motion like whirlpool. I would conjecture that there is a great deal of spinning motion in a black hole.

.

V:”The reason that something cannot escape may lie in a spinning motion like whirlpool.”

This “whirlpool” is the vortex geometry that I have previously proposed.

(V 4:59 PM) She says, “Black holes are formed by gravitational collapse of matter but they are “made” of pure spacetime.”

My proposal has been that the gravity phenomenon results from a geometry of space that likely resembles a vortex. Because there is a time element associated with creating such a geometry, the space of that geometry could also be called a spacetime geometry.

(V 5:14 PM) She says, “Gravitational phenomenon is nothing more than the curvature of spacetime.”

A vortex creates a curvature in the “fabric” of the stuff that the vortex appears in, like the vortex created in water when the sink drain is opened. Of note is that the vortex not only curves the “fabric”, but empties it, i.e. in a strong water vortex there is a vortex shape (volume) with no water in it. This is like the “empty spacetime” that Fay mentions (V 8:22 “… The horizon is just a surface in empty spacetime….”)

(V 8:22) “Fay Dowker says, “Entropy is roughly number of “Planck” sized pixels on the horizon. The horizon is just a surface in empty spacetime. This suggests that spacetime itself is granular or “atomic” at Planckian scales.””

A point to note is that when “mass” falls into a black hole, the radius of the horizon increases. IMO, this indicates that it is not the entire massy particle that goes into the hole but perhaps just the vortex component that associates with mass, i.e. a particle with mass would have an associated vortex component and that vortex would have its horizon in 3-space but its vortex would not be in 3-space but rather in some hyperspace.

“Fay Dowker says, “Entropy is roughly number of “Planck” sized pixels on the horizon.”

An elementary particle also has an amount of 3-space associated with it and this 3-space is what would be “added” to the surface horizon of the hole, i.e. the massy particle gets shredded by the hole into its component space geometries and any 3-space components remain in spacetime at the horizon while componets (like the vortex) add to the hyperspace volume that begins on the “other side” of the event horizon. It could be that also in this hyperspace will be the geometrical components that give the attribute of charge since she notes that black holes have gravity, spin and charge as attributes.

She says, “Gravitational phenomenon is nothing more than the curvature of spacetime.”

It seems that spacetime is being confused with disturbance in spacetine. Curvature of spacetime would actually be the curvatute of high frequency disturbance traveling through spacetime.

.

An extremely high frequency disturbance will definitely give the impression of a fabric… the event horizon separates two very different types of spacetime…

Black holes seems to be a giant nucleus of an atom. I don’t see the nucleus of an atom containing particles. Particles may be generated at the time of nuclear interactions.

The nucleus of an atom seems to be an extremely condensed disturbance of very high frequency. It is rotating very fast, and it is this rotation that is creating gravity.

Quantum Theory seems to be dealing with the convergence and condensation of the disturbance.

Could there be a black hole at the center of each heavenly body?

Fay Dowker says, “Entropy is roughly number of “Planck” sized pixels on the horizon. The horizon is just a surface in empty spacetime. This suggests that spacetime itself is granular or “atomic” at Planckian scales.”

“Spacetime” is spread over the whole electromagnetic frequency spectrum. It is granular only at the high frequency end..

Fay jumps from spacetime being granular on the surface of the black hole to it being granular everywhere. She does not provide any logic for making this jump. This is around 37:32.

In my opinion, a black hole has the same characteristics as the nucleus of an atom. It is disturbed space of very high frequency, and this disturbance has very high density. The spacetime in the background is undisturbed with zero frequency.

So the granularity of space may depend on the density of its disturbance. It does not apply to the background spacetime.

.

V: “Fay Dowker says, “Entropy is roughly number of “Planck” sized pixels on the horizon.”

Perhaps the minimum “mass” unit is a vortex one Planck length in diameter. Massy particles would then have vortex horizons that would be scalar multiples of Planck units, reflecting integer increments of mass, i.e. mass is quantized.

The Schwarzschild radius (pretty much the same as the black hole event horizon) is directly proportional to mass, i.e. for every unit of increase of mass there is a unit increase of radius (Schwarzschild radius).

This poses an interesting relationship as the black hole is more of a black sphere and spherical surface area, A = 4*pi*r^2. This surface area would represent the event horizon, which, per Schwarzschild should have a radius proportional to the mass of the black hole. Thus the Schwarzschild radius and the pixelated Entropy idea would seem to be at odds.

This brings us close to the Firewall considerations of the black hole, a larger topic.

It seems to me that motion is the fundamental basis of all phenomena, including gravity. The following is my opinion.

(1) SPACE and GRAVITY seems to lie on the two opposite ends of the electromagnetic spectrum.

(2) The electromagnetic spectrum is essentially a spectrum of motion. It shows the disturbance in space.

(3) Pure spacetime has zero frequency, infinite wavelength and no curvature.

(4) Gravity is disturbed spacetime of extremely high frequency, infinitesimal wavelength, and extreme curvature.

(5) Gravity as described above forms the nucleus of an atom.

(6) Black hole is formed by the coalscing of the nuclei of atoms.

.

Interesting set of theories, Vin.

Good to see you are still a ciphering with that powerful brain. Thought I would throw out a few ideas, just conjecture really.

I am still pondering the Idea that space is a somethingness, not just a framework for matter and energy to exist. This seems to be a common opinion. But as I have mentioned before, it looks to me that space has the property of constantly increasing in quantity, expanding, part of the theory of dark energy. This, when combined with the idea that gravity is kinetic, that all mass is collecting space at a rate proportional to it’s quantity, seems to explain the curvature of space according to celestial bodies. That space is not curved by gravity in a stationary sense, but is actually in motion and that mass follows that motion as though it were curved.

I never thought of the event horizon as a surface, but as a measurement, where the escape velocity becomes greater than light speed. But once light speed is reached would not time stop and the distance to the center or singularity become infinite, or zero. How can the size or speed of the swirling vortex inside the horizon be calculated or imagined when space, velocity and time become skewed beyond any existing reference?

Newtonian calculus would not suffice when trying to calculate the “size” of a black hole. It may also be possible that no singularity exists at the center. That all mass, once it passes the horizon, is on an endless journey to the center which will last beyond the life of the universe.

Just some thoughts.

Mark

MNR:”But once light speed is reached would not time stop and the distance to the center or singularity become infinite, or zero.”

This is essentially the same point I’m trying to make.

If space were continuous past the horizon then light passing beyond should be going faster than light outside the horizon. So we’d be left with a speed of light paradox. The same would hold with matter.

To handle that, there should be a discontinuity at the horizon, i.e. spacetime should end at the horizon and the vortex should be a hyperdimensional space. This should be a real possibility as gravity curves spacetime and the black hole gravity should curve it enough to bring time to zero at the horizon.

This would mean that light would not pass the horizon but would smush up against the horizon just as iron filings would pile up against a magnet. However, since light is bosonic, spin 1, you should be able to “pile up” the light (have it occupy the same space as other light bosons) with no change to the horizon radius, unlike iron filings piling up against a magnet which would change the apparent size of the magnet (horizon).

Fermionic matter (like the iron filings) would act differently (not be able to occupy the same space as other fermions) as Pauli exclusion would apply. Thus fermionic matter should increase the surface area of the horizon if it doesn’t pass the horizon.

Since matter should obey the same rule as light about not going faster than the speed of light, then matter should not be able to pass the horizon.

In other words, it should be accelerated towards the horizon up to the speed of light then suddenly screech to a stop as it hits the speed of light and the horizon. It should be able to do that as the mass component of that matter – the gravity vortex of that matter – is what should go through the horizon and combine with the singularity vortex.

Since the gravity vortex of the matter hitting the horizon is essentially hyperdimensional to begin with, this should violate no common sense logic. Remember, the premise is that the vortex that gives matter its “mass” is a hyperdimensional vortex with its own event horizon being its only common connection to spacetime.

So when matter (with mass) comes screaming up to the horizon and hits light speed, it would seem to have to shear from its own gravity component and essentially at that point behave as a massless particle and smush up on the horizon, which is the edge of spacetime. As previously stated, at that edge, the intense gravity of the black hole vortex would have curved space to the degree that time would go to zero, so the apparent deceleration of matter as it hits the horizon wouldn’t actually violate any laws of motion.

It is just a conjecture that light speed can ever be reached by a mass partcle. When we talk about the speed of light we we are looking at a disturbance in space. We do not think of it as a distinct particle moving from one location to another location.

Many people are getting mixed up here with apples and oranges.

A mass particle is a very condensed piece of space. One may say that the disturbance within a mass particle is moving at a speed of light. But that is not the same as the speed of the mass particle.

But remember, the speed of light is relative to the space it is traveling within. If mass is free falling into the B. hole, it is at rest, relative to the space it is occupying, which is also falling into the hole at the same speed. As far as the particle is concerned, it is simply free falling toward a gravitational object. Time is only skewed relative to some object (observer) that is outside the gravitational well, or some object that is at some other point in the gravitational attraction. No matter where you are, time is advancing at 1 second per second, one minute per minute.

No matter how fast or slow you are going, one foot equals one foot. It is everyone else who appear to be screwed up.

In my opinion, if you could magically peer into the horizon as a particle fell, it would appear to accelerate to .999r light speed and appear to gain in mass until it appeared to reach .999r infinite mass until it reached the singularity, at which point it’s mass would become infinite and it’s size would reduce to zero.

MNR:”…which point it’s mass would become infinite and it’s size would reduce to zero.”

A black hole has neither infinite mass nor zero size. It is small and dense, but not infinitely dense.

The LHC accelerates protons up to a speed only about 20km/sec slower than light speed. A few more 9’s than .999r, but still a manageable mass.

“No matter how fast or slow you are going, one foot equals one foot. It is everyone else who appear to be screwed up.”

If space were continuous right to the singularity, then there still would be a stretching of space so that – if you were the mass going past the horizon and approached the singularity feet first – you would be stretched more at your feet than at your head. Physicists say you would be spaghettified by the stretching. so, if you could see your feet, you would observe that a foot at the feet was not the same as a foot at your mouth.

2ndxmr said “A black hole has neither infinite mass nor zero size. It is small and dense, but not infinitely dense.”

Ya got me there. I meant infinite density, not mass. But as for size, Einstein’s calculations reach the conclusion that at a certain point of mass density, space would reach the breaking point, at which time the mass would occupy 0 space. From the outside world it would appear as infinite density. His calculations have worked so far. Enough to keep the GPS system accurate.

You also mentioned speghettification to demonstrate that at slightly different distances from the B. hole center, space and time would skew differently. That has been tested correct by measurement. There are clocks which are accurate enough to discern the difference in the rate of time passing at ground level, and at one foot off the ground.

But that was not the point I was making. The point is that in whatever frame of reference you are in at the moment, time and distance are normal for you. That relativity works both ways. By that I mean that when two observers are in motion relative to each other, one may say that the other slows down, while the other may observe that the other speeds up. Neither is any more right or wrong than the other. When an astronaut observes that people on Earth speed up while he was in orbit, he was just as correct as those who observed that he slowed down while in orbit. To state that “every time I get in my ship and go, I cause the whole universe to speed up” is an entirely true statement.

Mark

You said: “This would mean that light would not pass the horizon but would smush up against the horizon”

This may be entirely true. Then again this may be true only according to our outside observation. From inside you may see the end of the universe pass by as you hurl toward the center. What slows for one speeds for another. This is what the principles as a whole seem to indicate.

Mark

MNR:” From inside you may see the

end of the universepass by as you hurl toward the center.”If, by “end of universe”, you mean something like “a sperical perimeter of curved spacetime”, then I’d agree that that could be a possibility.

The questions are:

1) does a gravity vortex have a hyperdimensional component?

2) can a b. hole create a vacuole of hyperdimension in a Minkowski space (spacetime)?

MNR:”I meant infinite density, not mass”

I think you’ll also have to revisit the idea of infinite density. All minimums in this universe are defined by Planck units, so no zeros of volume. And, if fermionic matter does stay intact in the singularity, then volume is ensured by the Pauli exclusion principle.

There certainly is a basis for some conflict in terminology, or meaning of “volume” with the idea of a singularity as the strong and weak nuclear forces are what give us nuclear matter (which does occupy volume) and there are thermal limits to at least the function of the weak force. In other words, in an environment of high temperature (which should be the case at the singularity), the weak force may fail to hold quarks together and you’d get a soup of fermions but not necessarily baryons (like protons) or other hadrons.

However, the since the soup would at least have charged fermions, Pauli exclusion applies and it will have volume.

But that brings us back to the point of:

Do elementary particles other than the graviton occupy the singularity? It would become very clean if they didn’t as that would definitely imply that gravity is hyperdimensional and that non spin-2 particles cannot occupy the hyperdimensions.

My mistake. The event horizon is the point where orbital velocity equals the speed of light, not escape velocity. An object or photon could be an inch or a mile outside of this distance and remain in orbit, outside the horizon, at less than light, thereby remaining visible and measurable from the ‘outside’ world.

Escape velocity is greater than orbital velocity, since an object loses energy as it travels in a straight line away from any massive object. Escape velocity is that speed at which the turn around point, that distance it would travel at which it would stop and begin to fall back, is equal to infinity.

Light, on the other hand, is different. It’s escape velocity is equal to it’s orbital velocity. Once orbital velocity becomes less than light speed, it is NOT slowed by gravity. In fact it will appear to accelerate as it travels farther from the horizon, until it will finally appear to reach the speed of light from an unaffected observer, once it is beyond the influence of the B, Hole. Or rather, once it is traveling through space which is not being collected by and traveling toward the hole.

Of course, light always appears at the same speed according to any observer, but when the observer is in the same space time frame of reference, a particle which is vibrating at the speed of blue, will appear blue to our eyes, or measurement.

Thanks for your comments 2ndxmr and MarkNR. I always get good ideas from you. The recent video by 2ndxmr was enlightening in terms of where the current thinking is in the theoretical physics field.

I think that real space should be looked at as a set of pixels and not as a set of mathematical points. These pixels shall have dimensions as opposed to dimensionless points. That makes more sense to me.

In extreme case of the black hole the dimension of space pixels may be close to the Planck length. In general, however, I would think that the size of space pixel shall equal the wavelength of the disturbance in space. This will be same as the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave traveling through that region of space.

So space consisting of only radio waves shall be made up of pixels of very large size. A mass object would be “space” of extremely small pixel size.

The pixels in the electronic region of an atom shall be much smaller than the pixels in the space outside the atom. And the pixels in the nucleus of the atom shall be still smaller by several magnitudes.

A mathematics should be developed, which uses pixels instead of points for location in real space. Mathematics applied to mass objects that have ‘center of mass” can successfully model their location by dimensionless points. But it cannot do so for quantum objects that do not have center of mass.

Mathematics applied to quantum objects should use space pixels of finite dimensions in place of dimensionless points.

.

Time exists for light that travels at light speed. Time is reflected in the period of the light wave. It ranges from an extremely large unit to extremely small unit from one end of the electromagnetic spectrum to the other end. The distance is refelected in the wave-length of the light wave that also ranges from infinite to Planck’s length depending on position on the spectrum.

Our sense of distance and time is determined by our matter-centric view that comes from having a material body that lives on a material planet. We evaluate all distances and times in terms of units determined by our matter-centric view.

When we take the viewpoint of the universe, we can see light traveling in space the same way that we see waves traveling in a pond. This viewpoint is not limited by the speed of light.

The current relativistic equations that are so popular depend on the conditioning of our matter-centric perceptions that depend on the speed of light.

The horizon of the black hole provides the same interface as the surface of the nucleus in an atom. Beyond that the surface of an atom is also interesting but it is not talked about much.

The speed of electromagnetic radiation seems to remain the same in spite of its frequency, only the disturbance is greater and it is curved upon itself in a tighter radius. So the light crossing the horizon does not change in speed. It only changes in its frequency and curvature. This black hole is the nucleus of matter. There is no other matter.

.

I have thought of a model for a hyperdimensional graviton and how that might beget the phenomenon of time.

If we you’ve seen a flip book you’ll have the starting idea for what I’m about to propose. Here’s a wiki link if you’re not familiar with the term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_book

The essence is that the passage of time can be shown by a series of 2-dimensional pictures.

In the case of our reality, one of these pictures would be like a slice of spacetime. (This model of spacetime is not a new idea.)

In the case of either the flip book or slices of spacetime, 2-dimensional pictures are a dimensional reduction of a 3-dimensional object and action.

Let’s now consider a specially made flip book with pages of nearly transparent velum-like paper. We can draw on the paper with a pencil.

This paper has the property that it has a short, timed life and at the end of a time interval the paper disintegrates.

A pencil drawing on the paper does not disintegrate along with the paper, but does become a cloud of graphite atoms.

This cloud is not disturbed by the disintegration of the paper, and so can fall onto the next sheet, giving us back the picture.

That is to say, the next image will be the same as the last drawn image, more or less. The last picture would be modified only by whatever external factors might have caused the pencil carbon to shift as it settles onto the next sheet.

For instance, a breath of air might be sufficient to cause some change.

Overall, though, the changes to the picture will be made by the artist adding to or erasing from the picture during the period of time that the paper remains solid.

This doesn’t quite sound like a flip book yet, but we’ll get to that. The idea is that we have a sequence of pictures that will change in time and present time is always the current picture. Our memory reminds us that there were past pictures. The future is as yet undrawn but we can make plans as to how future pictures will evolve.

Alright, because this paper is vellum-like, when we look at one sheet straight on it seems nearly transparent, but our flip book is made of a thick stack of sheets. When we look at the stack straight on it looks white and opaque. In essence, we can’t see the future but we can create it as we go by penciling our drawing.

Now we’re going to add an automatic page turner.

This page turner will be in the form of a vortex that has the opening on the current page and the tip (bottom) of the vortex 4 pages down. This vortex has 4 loops in its spiral.

The action of the vortex is to spin and dig through the sheets of paper. Every time the last point of the opening (top loop) of the spinning vortex goes off the current page, that page disintegrates and the current pattern of carbon (the drawing) falls through to the next page.

What we have here is a hyperdimensional construct where the vortex is ahead in time and is the time sequence controller. To anything on the paper, the vortex appears as only a line that starts off as a closed loop, or circle, that keeps getting shorter and shorter until the last point disappears, at which point the paper disintegrates and the carbon falls to the next page. Then we see the cycle of the top loop of the vortex repeat, get shorter and shorter until it disappears… and so on.

If the vortex was visible to the eye – say it looked like a nice black pencil line- then if you looked straight down at the page you’d see the apparency of a 2-dimensional spiral turning on the page and you’d probably notice the pencil line of the spiral getting fainter as it spiralled in to the center. You could see this effect if you could see through the next 4 sheets of vellum. But remember, each sheet of vellum is a representation of a unit of time, so really, we’d have to be able to see forward

throughtime in order to really see it. The point is that an action can occur that we can’t fully inspect.To take this vortex action a step further, we could have a tiny vortex associated with each carbon particle. Each vortex would still dig down 4 pages ahead. Thus the carbon would have a location only on the current page and could not be pulled through the pages ahead, except for a transition to the next page when the vortex loop passes from the current page.

OK, so that’s the basic model of action. There would be a lot of blanks to fill in, but the basic concept I wanted to convey was a construct for the vortex that did not suck matter (the carbon) into it because that matter was linked to a 2-dimensional construct only (the current page), not to the extra dimensions of the vortex.

This dimensional difference would account for why matter would not necessarily fall into a black hole and why spacetime could shear at the horizon of the black hole.

What an interesting analogy of the technicalities of the passage of time. A continuous set of slices of time in a sequence, stacking up, each present slice impressing it’s actualities onto the next.

Similar to Stephen Hawkins idea of the preservation of information stacking up on the surface or within a B. hole. But a little bit beyond that. Hmmmmm.

I’ll let you in on a little secret. If you want to know how B. holes operate, look and think about what problems are solved by black holes. What purposes do the serve. What do they do that produces some advantage of some sort. What product do they produce.

If you had a few thousand years to think about it and experiment with it, how would you make them work. What would happen if you made them do this, what would happen if you made them do that. Ponder on that for awhile. See if some impressions come to you that you may have pondered in the distant past. See what impressions just kinda catch your attention. You may discover some simplicities, and a few complexities that were thrown in, just for fun.

This exercise becomes quite enjoyable once you dig in.

Mark

MNR:”What purposes do the serve.”

I suppose one could have some fun inventing applications such as a “galactic Hoover”, or Xenu’s ultimate solution”, or “God’s black agate shooter”.

If one wanted a truly useful use, maybe they would be the harnessing agent of post solar-collapse transuranics that would otherwise poison the cosmos.

Or, since I’ve modeled it as a time-spanning dimension with a positive delta t(ime) between horizon and tip, maybe you could use it to protect the Imperial Palace of the Confederacy by locating the palace one spiral forward in time, thus making it impenetrable to any attack from normal spacetime. A guy could write tomes of science fiction based on a scenario like that!

On the other hand, what you recall may be even more bizarre than imagination or science fiction. That certainly happens.

Black hole.

The purpose of it’s original design, or rather the principles which led to it’s occurrence, were very simple. It is one of the tools which keeps balance and contributes to the longevity of this enclosed space. Accumulating mass to create ‘neighborhoods’ is one. It also serves the purpose of providing a finite end to universes in general. Nothing can be allowed to last forever.

It’s later uses were much more bizarre and spectacular. That’s where the Sci Fi crap comes in. There are a lot of things you can do with a gravity well, both good and bad. Throw some matter at it in just the right place, and badaboom, a death ray. Nothing directs and lenses large amounts of energy better than a polarized super gravity field.

Mark

“Throw some matter at it in just the right place, and badaboom, a death ray.”

That would be an interesting effect. I take it, then, that while the normal function of a black hole is to just absorb a mass, at a certain point on the horizon the black hole would behave differently and eject energy? So an anomalous surface location?

I suppose if you could manufacture a bunch of e+ e- pairs and tossed them at the spin axis then you could make something like a Hawking radiation beam that could be deadly if you could get a spray of e+ (anti electrons) as a result, i.e. a positronic death ray.

Of course, the big trick is to either get your enemy to line up with the spin axis, or be able to tow into place sufficient magnetic lensing to redirect the beam at the enemy.

Where are the antimatter torpedoes when you need them?

I’m surprised to not hear of any “cool” uses of the holes, such as execution and confinement zones.

Hi 2ndxmr.

Enjoyable conversation. Don’t get to talk Sci Fi very often. Most people just shrug and kinda think of it as a little nuts.

Keep in mind, though, that I recently sold a metal alloy production process to Marshal Space Flight Center here in Huntsville. I developed the process in my shop using a 50 ton press and a frequency generator that my brother built. I produced 3 new metallic alloys using principles completely unknown to metallurgists. This was completely from whole track memory. I gave a brief description of this a few months ago on Vin’s site. Mine and my brother’s grand children’s college is now paid for, and I’m taking vacation next week. A nice quiet tropical island.

You:

“I’m surprised to not hear of any “cool” uses of the holes, such as execution and confinement zones.”

Those things pretty much go without saying. But it was found that a few minutes or a few million years of meditation and relaxation and the individual just pops right out.

Death Ray? You’d be surprised how much you can alter the poles of a spinning mass field around a black hole with a few billion tons of well placed mass. The black hole doesn’t have a natural spin, all the mass which passes the event horizon breaks down to gravity energy, potential. The spin is the rubble field surrounding it.

Mark

Nice job on the metallurgy, Mark.

” The spin is the rubble field surrounding it.”

A rubble field, huh? You might have to explain the location of it a bit more for me to grasp where that would be.

Evening 2nd.

Thank you. I sold the details of the process for these materials, but I didn’t mention everything. As I said before, I recall metallic compounds with unusual magnetic properties. Just one problem, I don’t recall the metals and possibly ceramics that go into the process. And the applied frequencies are not as simple as the other alloys. Should keep me busy for awhile.

I’m just having fun. The money is just a bonus. I love experimenting with valence and emotional bonds of different materials.

The rubble field.

I meant the stuff orbiting a black hole. Farther out it’s rocks and metal and gas and stuff. Closer in it is hot plasma gas. Closer still it’s super heated elementary particles. Since you keep up with Vin, then you also understand that particles aren’t exactly particles, but more like postulates, intentions. Up against the horizon even those break down into more elemental forms of MEST, such as gravity.

Since the orbit of all this stuff is not precisely on the same paper thin plane, the stuff bumps and grinds, becomes super energized and loses much of it’s momentum by emitting EM radiation. As it loses momentum it falls closer and closer to the horizon, causing it to bump and grind more and more. It eventually all falls in. This is why black holes eventually turn dark, no longer feeding, until some new mass gets caught. Even stars with multi light year orbits around black holes will sooner or later succumb.

Sorry about the lack of mathematical details, but early on, it wasn’t done with math. If a galaxy didn’t balance just right, you’d add just a little tweak of gravity, or add just a smidgen of momentum, inertia. Most of this was worked out during the games universes era. A group of individuals began building larger and larger universes and invited more and more individuals to join. This group became known as The Builders. (best translation) Later terms used were Gods, Tyrants Prison guards, Mutha F***ers. (best translation)

Mark

PS: Universe. A finite system of MEST having no spacial relationship or connection to another universe. Mass cannot travel in any direction to reach another universe, in which case it would be the same universe. It’s like two separate people having separate dreams. There is no way to physically travel from one dream to the other. As Vin has emphasized, universe may not be the perfect word. He suggested Dimension, but that sort of implies a direction or aspect of a common space. Oh well, as long as you can duplicate what I”m saying, then it communicates.

It is my opinion that no matter how accurate mathematics is within itself, it is at best an approximation of reality. It does not have the capability to duplicate reality exactly.

An indication of the fact that mathematics is failing to duplicate reality comes about in its complexity. The more complex mathematics becomes in trying to model reality, the more it is failing.

That is what I see when mathematics is trying to define the quantum phenomenon. It is approximate at best.

You may not be perfectly up to date on the math. An equation has been evolved that makes predictions about the Standard Model and has been found correct to 8 or more decimal places. That rates it as being approximately correct.

Reference?

http://www.quora.com/What-does-the-equation-on-this-CERN-T-shirt-mean

Where does it say, “it makes predictions about the Standard Model and has been found correct to 8 or more decimal places,” and where is the proof?

V:”An indication of the fact that mathematics is failing to duplicate reality comes about in its complexity. The more complex mathematics becomes in trying to model reality, the more it is failing.”

If you want to ask for explicit proofs, you should be willing to support your own assertions with some of the same.

But assuming your reference request is a genuine interest issue and not just some attempt at a put-down, the next time I run into the exact reference I’ll paste it in here.

I just want to know where your claim for accuracy in prediction is coming from, and not necessarily your proof. Obviously it is not your equation or theory. And from what i have read such accuracy does not exist.

” So far, the Standard Model describes everything we have measured about elementary particles extremely well (in some cases, a precision of better than one in 10 billion). ”

Quora quote by Elizabeth H. Simmons, Particle Theorist, Dean, and Physics Professor at Michigan State University

https://www.quora.com/Are-fundamental-particles-of-the-same-type-all-identical-to-each-other-If-so-to-what-precision-and-why-should-that-be-the-case

The standard model is not a mathematical equation. It is a model.

Numbers are adequate to deal with the matter-centric world of mass type inertial objects. They can adequately model objects with a center of mass. We are conditioned to be matter-centric. Thus, mathematics has been more than adequate for classical physics.

But we start to see problems as we move beyond classical physics in dealing with phenomenon that does not have mass type inertia as its basis. Even Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has a matter-centric bias and one of these days it is going to be improved.

What is viewed as the limiting speed of light is actually a limitation due to decreasing inertia. For example, only particles containing inertia can be accelerated. When a particle has no inertia it cannot be pushed against because there is no resistance.

The error is to assume that a mathematical model can define reality exactly. It does not. Classical mathematics has reached its limit with classical mechanics and classical physics. It is being stretched to apply to non-inertial phenomenon but it is not that successful.

.

V:”The error is to assume that a mathematical model can define reality exactly.”

It is more of a problem of interpretation of the math. The biggest error I see is that “time” is considered a “thing” just as space is, and so we’ve been stuck with the idea of “spacetime”.

An alternate interpretation is to see space as the basic unit, and that time is an apparency due to a fundamental oscillation in space.

And what would define this fundamental oscillation? Well, if you strike a bell or a crystal glass you get a resonance that can tell you the quality of the bell or the crystal. Every resonant material has properties that determine the resonant frequency of the material.

In the case of space, these properties may come down to the properties identified by James Maxwell as permeability and permittivity. These two properties, alone, determine the speed of light. It is very likely that these two properties also determine the basic oscillation frequency of space.

Thus, the interpretation of the math can be that “space” is not continuous but is made of oscillating quanta of space “material” i.e. space is a material that has permeability and permittivity, and this space is not continuous but is granular, or quantized volumes.

The minimum size of the space granule sets the minimum length in the universe, as this is the Planck length.

The granule’s properties of permeability and permittivity likely set the maximum oscillation frequency of the granule.

The same properties set propagation speed for a wave that travels through space. Thus we get “the speed of light”.

The frequency of any EM radiation correlates to the energy of the radiation, and energy correlates to mass. Thus frequency correlates to mass.

Frequency correlates to a time period and that correlates to length.

Thus frequency correlates to mass and length, and therefore mass correlates to length.

So, all the properties of the universe that we hold near and dear – mass, energy, space and time – reduce down to one thing: space, and it’s ability to oscillate.

2X, your post reads like scripture. Seriously! That was the “wavelength” I got. And then the earlier-similar came to mind:

“Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.”

The above aside, what you wrote was an elegant expression of your theory. Nice!