• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Another brief 'spin' on 'it all'

The primary criterion by which the results of these interpretive activities are judged is how well they account for, and agree with, the relevant observational data. But astronomical data are relatively scarce, and often conflicting. Opinion and judgment therefore play a very large part in the decisions that are made between conflicting theories and interpretations.
Click to expand...
...

that's talking about CURRENT theory....and later ....

The Reciprocal System of theory is like an instrument in that it, too, is independent of existing scientific thought. Stars and galaxies composed of matter appear in this theory, but neither these objects nor the matter itself are put into the theory; they are consequences of the theory: results that necessarily follow from the only things that are put into the theory, the postulated properties of space and time. The astronomical objects that appear in the theory are subject to the basic physical laws, they exert gravitational forces, they emit radiation, and so on, not because these things were put into the theory, but because they are products of the development of the theory itself. All of the entities and relations that constitute the theoretical universe of motion are consequences of the fundamental postulates of the system
Click to expand...
.

The E8 model which is a unified theory, like Larsonian physics, predicts the observable phenomenon in nature. It is a Tool.
 
Last edited:
'Units' of energy lets call them... they spin at varying degrees, emitting radiation as they do so as well as compacting equally gravitationally. They interact, compact, and combine as elements and everything else we see. They only interact in perfect balance or symmetry. Thats the 'jist' of it I think. May be the balance is always slightly off... 'nothing in this universe is perfect'
 
Last edited:
TheSoupyOne said:
...

that's talking about CURRENT theory....and later ....
Click to expand...


The astronomical data is huge, it is NOT relatively scarce at all.

Except there are not really any huge controversies in astronomy and astrophysics.

The red shift is well established, every attempt to knock it down looks more foolish each time.

The theory of dark matter is well established, there is less controversy then you might think.

Stars are powered by nuclear fusion, there is no controversy.

So what controversy does the author think that they are addressing? In astronomy and astrophysics

We need go no farther than the first deduction that is made from the assumed existence of the hydrogen conversion process to encounter a glaring example of the way in which this pure assumption is allowed to override the astronomical evidence. In application to the question of stellar ages, this hypothetical process leads to the conclusion that the hot, massive stars of the O and B classes are very young, as their output of energy is so enormous that, on the basis of this hypothesis, their supply of fuel cannot last for more than a relatively short time. It then follows that these stars must have been formed relatively recently, and somewhere near their present locations.
No theory that calls for the formation of stars within the galaxies is plausible so long as the theorists are unable to explain how stars can be formed in this kind of an environment. One that, in addition, requires the most massive and most energetic of all stars to be very young, astronomically speaking, converts the implausibility into an absurdity. Even some of the astronomers find this conclusion hard to swallow, For instance, Bart J. Bok once observed that
It is no small matter to accept as proven the conclusion that some of our most conspicuous supergiants, like Rigel, were formed so very recently on the cosmic scale of time measurements12
Click to expand...
Wrong, and wrong and wrong, and a citation from 1958

In the context of the theory of the universe of motion, the formation of single stars, or small groups of stars, by condensation from galactic dust or gas clouds is not possible.
Click to expand...
Wronger

In addition to all of the other problems that have baffled those who have attempted to devise a mechanism for this purpose, the new theory discloses that there is a hitherto unrecognized force operating against such a condensation, the force due to the outward progression of the natural reference system, which makes condensation still more difficult, No known force other than gravitation is capable of condensing diffuse material into a star, and gravitation can accomplish this result only on a wholesale scale, under conditions in which an immense number of stars are formed jointly from a gas and dust medium of vast proportions.
Click to expand...
Wrongerer

On this basis, the globular clusters are the youngest aggregates of matter, and the stars of these clusters are the youngest of all stars.
Click to expand...
Wrong 3
This author’s understanding is zero so his debate is less than zero.

No data, no real evidence, just a bunch of crap
 
OK fine may be Dewey B Larson is a crackpot but what about this E8 Model... I'm pretty sure Larson was onto the same geometry. The E8 Model is a breakthrough I think. It has yet to be PROVEN, but it will be exciting if it predicts the existence and charge patterns of the higgs particle. A universal pattern to follow. I really don't see Garrett Lisi as a crackpot.
 
Last edited:
String theory is unprovable at this time, you would have to wait until the boffos say it is confoirmed.

I could not say okay about Lisi's theory.
 
TheSoupyOne said:
Here is another view of the ancient problem.... The example to be made is 'how to make fractals without a computer' -search for that on youtube in case this link fails: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj9pbs-jjis
A loop of electromagnetic (visual) feedback creating a fractal pattern. The math is 'not there' and therefore is abstract. This is a perfect model of how energy in a reciprocal system will appear to fractalize. For every force, an equal opposite. Every choice, an opposite. Charges seek balance in this system. The E8 model from the quantum physical viewpoint which seems the most promising, Dewey B. Larson physics and the Universe in Motion, string theory... a unified one... They seem to be getting at the same natural phenomenon that is evidently powering the cosmos. The most beautiful logical shape? What is the essence of this original 'thought'?(If we can even use that concept) One can only beg to question the mysteries of it all. Moreover, consciousness may be a pattern in the creation because it has conceived itself naturally and evolved further through the system, able to focus conscious energy patterns and fractalize further into conscious beings. The energy is cyclic and intelligent. It designs according to its natural design, striving for uniqueness.
Click to expand...

I can make fractals without a computer. Artists have done it long before the term "fractal" was even coined and before mathematicians even studied the things. Paint a tree.

The rest is really illucid and consists of various seemingly unrelated ideas blended into a stew.
 
Dancing David said:
Wrong, and wrong and wrong, and a citation from 1958
Click to expand...

I'm curious. Would you like to explain why these things are wrong? For example with this one -- I thought that very massive and hot stars would be relatively newly-formed as otherwise they would have exploded by now.
 
TheSoupyOne said:
OK fine may be Dewey B Larson is a crackpot but what about this E8 Model... I'm pretty sure Larson was onto the same geometry.
Click to expand...

Not even close.

The E8 Model is a breakthrough I think. It has yet to be PROVEN, but it will be exciting if it predicts the existence and charge patterns of the higgs particle.
Click to expand...

Nope, E8 has basically been shown to be a dead end. http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658

I really don't see Garrett Lisi as a crackpot.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. He is a non-crackpot who took put forward a surprising and interesting non-crackpot hypothesis, which was shortly disproven by the normal non-crackpot scientific method.
 
Here is another charged point of view on a yet to be solidified theory of everything: see if you can follow this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WjSC99ih9Y&feature=player_embedded#at=114

It is very difficult to view the universe in this way, it takes an extremely 'open mind' (or may be imaginative is a better word) which is why this theory of everything is so controversial: it pretty much links science/math to the concept of a 'creator'. It is extremely difficult to understand but gives the creator a 'mathematical template' so to speak. This is nonsense to many but makes too much sense to more and more others. At the end of the day: More overall testing of this 'template' needs to be done because we don't want to be teaching our kids nonsense. I personally believe there is an effort to keep this information in the shadows. We are trained to think anyone talking about this kind of stuff is a lunatic. It has always been the authorities who have given us our 'rules' as well as our thought patterns. Think critically but think for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Anytime we get 'excited' about something... whatever that thing is.... a higher electrical charge runs through the cells in our bodies. If you surrender yourself to this electricity generated from within your brain, become excited to the Nth degree about every breathe, every moment, every shared thought... the more you eliminate fear... you will be lifted higher into natural euphoria through your own rediscovery of your natural self and desires. Others will be naturally attracted to your 'charge' simply because you make them smile. We are electrical beings naturally 'designed' to simply be as alive/motivated as we choose to be.

I 'woke up' recently and here is my experience: I visualized a fractal pattern in my mind (while sober) that looked like a disc around my vision of extreme complexity and as I was perceiving this in my imagination I had an intense rush of a feeling of limitless information and universal connection. It felt like 'all the other viewpoints'. It made me feel as if I was receiving much much more information than I was able to understand and my brain hurt for a while after (the good growing hurt). I became so overly excited about this experience because it gave clarity to all previous experience and I had more energy than I had ever had in all of my life for 3 days... with NO drugs! Everyone at work thought I had gone a little crazy but after my best friend (an atheist) helped me 'snap back to reality' so to speak I have tried to live my life in loving balance and my relationships and connections with others are blooming more than ever. The point is that we were 'designed' from this 'template' and we can access it through mental focus, tuning brain frequencies... meditation. We all can be empowered/inspired by this universal thought pattern. I personally believe that this was root of all religious teachers in the past including Christ to set the most familiar example, but the message was distorted through language, naturally.

Another interesting fact I heard... not certain of the validity... but it would explain Crick's ability to 'see it in a different way' and get an idea about DNA from nowhere. LSD 'opens a portal' so to speak to an extremely creative state of mind, music from the 'hippie era' makes that apparent.
"The author suggests that Nobel Laureate Francis Crick experimented with small quantities of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) during his days at Cambridge, and that these experiences played a role in his discovery of the double helix."
http://brainvat.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/francis-crick-and-lsd/

I am NOT promoting the use of drugs in ANY WAY!! This psychodelic phenomenon is built in to us. It is closely associated with DMT. Altering natural levels and ingesting chemicals is not healthy.
 
Last edited:
mike3 said:
I'm curious. Would you like to explain why these things are wrong? For example with this one -- I thought that very massive and hot stars would be relatively newly-formed as otherwise they would have exploded by now.
Click to expand...

That is correct and they say that it can't be.

One that, in addition, requires the most massive and most energetic of all stars to be very young, astronomically speaking, converts the implausibility into an absurdity. Even some of the astronomers find this conclusion hard to swallow, For instance, Bart J. Bok once observed that
It is no small matter to accept as proven the conclusion that some of our most conspicuous supergiants, like Rigel, were formed so very recently on the cosmic scale of time measurements12
Click to expand...

Now globular clusters are some of the oldest aggregates but they also can have some of the oldest stars as well.
 
Last edited:
TheSoupyOne said:
Here is a Link to Dewey B Larson's book "The Universe in Motion". I have yet to read it and make sense of it. But I think it is pretty accurate compared to the E8 Model, or the universal 'template'.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute. You've not read Larson's book but your prepared to favorably compare its content to some other items? Really? Isn't that a bit bassackwards?
 
Most of this can be explained as a migraine as well.

TheSoupyOne said:
I 'woke up' recently and here is my experience: I visualized a fractal pattern in my mind (while sober) that looked like a disc around my vision of extreme complexity and as I was perceiving this in my imagination I had an intense rush of a feeling of limitless information and universal connection.
Click to expand...

All it takes for me is a painless migraine with aura. More than enough fractals emerge even from eating the wrong food. I believe even Joan of Arc is a historical figure presumed to experience migraine auras.

grabbed a reference:

•Famous migraine sufferers include Julius Caesar, Joan of Arc, Nietzsche, Tchaikovsky, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, Karl Marx,
http://www.northeasternmigrainesurgery.com/migraine.html
 
This may give more clarity to confusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxPR0pjGuYw&feature=player_embedded

The strange relationship between order and chaos is self similarity: 1.618: The Golden Ratio, Phi. Energy waves/vibrations catalyze the organization of matter according to the most efficient method of organizing spirals within spirals. There is always a flow of electric energy running through the earth keeping DNA in working 'self organized' order. The more energy over time life experiences the more intelligent and complicated it gets in reflection to the environment. The earth teaches life and life teaches itself to evolve through biofeedback. I think he nailed it at 57 minutes about how the most clever creator would set it in motion then sit back and let it create itself. In my humble opinion the 'creator' is merely the overall cosmic energy that connects all. It is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom