Truth is Timeless

[kwlyon]

I....have no idea what grey is talking about. I'm pretty sure he is back into the "shoot the shit" mode. This is a fine state to be in but it is not particularly productive. Nor is actually trying to respond to technobabble. I'm not even sure if he is arguing against or for the big bang model. Grey, care to clarify what this conversation is about?

Also, Grey, regarding that article, I don't keep up with the papers and I did not read it. I assume it is regarding the cern cloud formation paper. If so, that paper was completely misrepresented by most media that ran the story. I have seen some serious crazy on youtube about it. I don't want to comment without knowing what the news article asserted however I would caution you to be aware that it is entirely possible that it is utter babble having little to nothing to do with cerns findings.

Kevin

[kwlyon]

So science pretends that electrons are particles but I am not allowed to pretend they are vortexes of energy.

Science does not pretend that electrons are particles. The particle model is exceedingly useful even though it is, at this point, abundantly clear that it is ultimately physically incorrect. In some sense particles can be thought of as quanta of fields or possibly as simi-localized wave-functions however exactly WHAT matter is remains something of an enigma...to me at least. Regardless, often we treat electrons as particles (little billiard balls). When we can get away with this classical approximation problems are easier to solve. But the point is, non-physical as the particle model is, it has utility. You are certainly free to think up your own model however it will not be of much use unless it helps to accurately model some real world physical system and make testable, verifiable predictions and/or allow for a simpler path to an already solved problem.

There is no evidence that the electron is not a vortex.

There is no evidence that it is. I don't really understand what you are envisioning when you assert that it might be. But you might want to try to explain this to me over a beer some time as you can likely express your thoughts better in an environment where you are not getting verbally battered. I think you kinda like to come on here to "play" with these guys. Sometimes I think you say things just to get a rise out of them....and me for that matter:)

"The rest of the electronic organization story is how the electrons join together and create an atom. I talked about this before, how vortexes would join together and accumulate energy at a central point creating a + charge and a nucleus. "

How atoms are formed is reasonably well understood. There are still a lot of details to work out but it does need to be pointed out that electrons do not collectively build up to make a nucleus. Again, I would be glad to walk you through what we know about particle formation over a beer. I am not an expert, this is not my field, but I have a basic undergraduate understanding of particle physics. Suffice it to say that Sufficiently energetic interactions give rise to many different types of particles. So far as we can yet tell, electrons are one type of particle unrelated to quarks which make up our neutrons and protons.

"This is the prediction of my experiment...That I can first, create 100 or so small vortexes that will create and feed a larger and more powerful vortex, powerful enough to create its own gravity. Second, join two of these vortexes together creating a shere of intense energy confirming that creation is indeed ultimatons collapsing into electrons. "

I'm going to show my ignorance.....what is an ultimaton?

kevin

[kwlyon]

One more thing grey, if you figure out what charge is, you will have a nobel prize as well as a personal ball washer. This is something I very much want to understand. But that is the thing really...I want to UNDERSTAND. As in hold understanding that allows me to gain insight into the way things are, not the way things may be. The difference lies in the ability of an explanation to predict a wide variety of physical phenomenon. A useful theory or explanation must pull together the strings of our understanding.

[graybear13]

"

How atoms are formed is reasonably well understood. There are still a lot of details to work out but it does need to be pointed out that electrons do not collectively build up to make a nucleus. Again, I would be glad to walk you through what we know about particle formation over a beer. I am not an expert, this is not my field, but I have a basic undergraduate understanding of particle physics. Suffice it to say that Sufficiently energetic interactions give rise to many different types of particles. So far as we can yet tell, electrons are one type of particle unrelated to quarks which make up our neutrons and protons.
kevin[/quote]


Thanks Kevin I'll take you up on that beer...Name the watering hole and time and I'll show up. I would love to have a discussion about particle formation with you'

I don't mean to be controversial but, it's just the nature of the beast. No offense. I don't want anyone to think that I'm here to just sling bull shit around and I don't take what I say seriously.

I am on a path to the 'UNDERSTANDING' of what charge is but I don't see any 'ball washers' in my future unless and until I can convince someone like you that everything started with the creation of an electron. Then gravity and mass (charge) build up from there. The 'electronic organization of matter', all the way from the formation of an electron to the formation of the entire universe itself, is a perfect continuum of charge being manifest by gravity. It explains creation and evolution.

gray

[graybear13]

I'm not even sure if he is arguing against or for the big bang model. Grey, care to clarify what this conversation is about.
Kevin

Hey Kevin, got a little jag on, here's to wishin' you were here.

Please understand that I believe that the "Big Bang Theory of Evolution" is a complete hoax. Sure it claims that it explains a set of facts but the big ones are still left on the table unexplained, for example...

The fact that somehow everything is mysteriously stabilized and held into this structure,
The fact of charge (the electronic organization of matter),
The fact that the incessant pull of gravity affects all matter,
Now we have the facts of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter",
The 'Big Bang Theory of Evolution" is not capable of explaining any of these facts so there should be, at least, a healthy amount of skepticism about this hypothesis or IMHO it should be simply rejected.

The truth has found me and I can see the future...Hopefully awakening will come soon.

It's not about me, It's about 'understanding' the gravity of creation.

gray

[kwlyon]

The fact that somehow everything is mysteriously stabilized and held into this structure,

What structure? I don't understand what is being stabilized into what structure.

The fact of charge (the electronic organization of matter)

It also doesn't explain protein folding or why all turtle shell cats are female. Why would you think this theory would explain "charge"...that is really more of a field theory problem.

The fact that the incessant pull of gravity affects all matter
Now we have the facts of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter",

Again these things have nothing to do with the big bang theory itself. In fact gravitation has a lot to do with the supporting evidence for the big bang. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are different issues...but they certainly do not constitute a challenge to the big bang theory. In order to better address this misunderstanding I really need to know how you think charge, or gravitation or dark energy WOULD stand as contrary evidence for the big bang theory. Try to explain to me your understanding of the issue and I will hopefully be able to better address you.

The 'Big Bang Theory of Evolution" is not capable of explaining any of these facts so there should be, at least, a healthy amount of skepticism about this hypothesis or IMHO it should be simply rejected.

Quantum field theory does not explain the diversity of life on this planet...should [we] reject it? That statement was ripe with logical fallacy.

Kevin

[graybear13]

The fact that somehow everything is mysteriously stabilized and held into this structure,

What structure? I don't understand what is being stabilized into what structure.

The fact of charge (the electronic organization of matter)

It also doesn't explain protein folding or why all turtle shell cats are female. Why would you think this theory would explain "charge"...that is really more of a field theory problem.

The fact that the incessant pull of gravity affects all matter
Now we have the facts of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter",

Again these things have nothing to do with the big bang theory itself. In fact gravitation has a lot to do with the supporting evidence for the big bang. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are different issues...but they certainly do not constitute a challenge to the big bang theory. In
order to better address this misunderstanding I really need to know how you think charge, or gravitation or dark energy WOULD stand as contrary evidence for the big bang theory. Try to explain to me your understanding of the issue and I will hopefully be able to better address you.

The 'Big Bang Theory of Evolution" is not capable of explaining any of these facts so there should be, at least, a healthy amount of skepticism about this hypothesis or IMHO it should be simply rejected.

Quantum field theory does not explain the diversity of life on this planet...should be reject it? That statement was ripe with logical fallacy.

Kevin

The gigantic horn antenna at Bell Laboratories detected "Ultimatonic Rays" not a relic or fossil of the Big Hoax.

"Ultimatons do not describe orbits or whirl about in circuits within the electrons, but they do spread or cluster in accordance with their axial revolutionary velocities, thus determining the differential electronic dimensions. This same ultimatonic velocity of axial revolution also determines the negative or positive reactions of the several types of electronic units. The entire segregation and grouping of electronic matter, together with the electric differentiation of negative and positive bodies of energy-matter, results from these various functions of the component ultimatonic inter-association."

"...the positive particles of radium fly off into space at the rate of ten thousand miles a second, while the negative particles attain a velocity approximating that of light."

"Local or linear gravity becomes fully opperative with the appearence of the atomic organization of matter." TUB

The structure 'is' gravity. The formation of a minute black hole of energy, in its primitive state, collapses inward and forces the ultimatons closer together creating an electron...charge and mass. This is all caused by gravity! The action of collapse is gravity.

This organization of matter is what created hydrogen in the beginning without the need of
great heat. Then came star ignition and all the rest.

The truth has to find 'you'.
Timeless truth cannot come to you
if it cannot see you.

gray

[kwlyon]

Grey buddy....I have....no idea what you are on about.....

***Edit: Okay I googled that phrase you quoted above (as you did not cite it). We already chatted about this I thought. That book is a hella lotta crazy talk. So far as we know, there is no such thing as an "ultimaton" or whatever that presumed sub-electron particle thingy was. If you want to know a little something about particle physics, let me suggest I send you the first chapter of Griffiths. I have a pdf of it. It is an undergraduate level book however the first chapter is well written, easily approachable history of particle physics that should be accessible to anyone.

"The gigantic horn antenna at Bell Laboratories detected "Ultimatonic Rays" not a relic or fossil of the Big Hoax. "

No that particular piece of equipment is sensitive to electromagnetic radiation around the microwave region. There is really no uncertainly about what type of radiation they were receiving.

Kevin

[David Franks]

This seems germane:

[/URL]

Hope it helps.

[kwlyon]

Yeah....and the biologist get all the really fun crackpots....Our crackpots are on par with Paul Simon groupies....

[graybear13]

This seems germane

Hope it helps.

It reminds me of the story of John the baptist crying in the wilderness and how the 'self-importance' of the church rejected him and led to his death.

You shouldn't be so quick to judge. The proof's in the pudding...remember?

grey

[Doug]

You shouldn't be so quick to judge. The proof's in the pudding...remember?

grey

But you have produced no pudding, just a vague recipe that doesn't make sense.

Produce the pudding and the proof will be in the eating.

Your kitchen is all recipe and no food!

[graybear13]

Grey buddy....I have....no idea what you are on about.....
Kevin

I am only interested in how the first hydrogen atom was created and what the role of gravity was in that organization of matter. While I am not surprised that you don't understand what I am saying, I am disappointed in your effort to even try. It can be uncomfortable and even dangerous to open your mind; some have found themselves in a nervous hospital drooling on their jammies.

Science has taken the easy route. They just use the occultation of mathematics to create another shadow of reality that feels comfortable and safe.

The Big Bang Theory of Creation has a missing boson or a fantastic Super String, sought after by a math cult, standing in the way of an explanation of that first hydrogen atom.

Primitive energy and ultimatons organizing into a hydrogen atom by the influence of gravity makes a lot more sense but you have to let go to see it...some scary shit!

What science can see and measure in QM is being seen through the 'rose colored glasses' of the math cult, big bang, nonsense.

It's funny to see a group like this clinging to a false God just like the christian churches do. It's just a security blanket. I'm really not surprised at this groups reaction to me; I'm trying to take away that security blanket and it makes you cry.

grey

[kwlyon]

I am only interested in how the first hydrogen atom was created and what the role of gravity was in that organization of matter.

I could recommend a reading list. You might start with universe in a nutshell. It does a reasonably good job of explaining how we know what we know without the rather in-depth mathematics behind it all. Again the first chapter of Griffith’s particle physics is probably worth reading. I am pretty sure I can get a pdf for you. There are loads of great books written for lay audience. You really aught to pick a few of them up if you really have interest. The study of the early universe is a fascinating field.

While I am not surprised that you don't understand what I am saying, I am disappointed in your effort to even try. It can be uncomfortable and even dangerous to open your mind; some have found themselves in a nervous hospital drooling on their jammies.

The fact that a physicist, albeit not a particle physicist, but a physicist nonetheless, doesn't understand what you are on about should induce some introspection. Is it not just the least bit possible that you have read a book comprised entirely of malarkey and are now spouting nonsense? I assure you, there is no evidence for this ultimaton you have spoken of. It just doesn't seem to be a part of this universe. That book is total rubbish. You really aught to open YOUR mind a tad to what is currently known about our universe. It would likely blow your mind.

Science has taken the easy route. They just use the occultation of mathematics to create another shadow of reality that feels comfortable and safe.

Could you explain this assertion a bit more? I really don't understand what you are saying here. Specifically what do you mean by "the occultation of mathematics".

The Big Bang Theory of Creation has a missing boson or a fantastic Super String, sought after by a math cult, standing in the way of an explanation of that first hydrogen atom.

How hydrogen would form in the early universe is actually rather well understood. We have witnessed hydrogen forming in environments of sufficiently high energy density. It has taken a great deal of effort but the puzzle of how the elements have formed is rather well understood. Hydrogen is among the easiest to explain. In any universe where you have a few GeV of energy to spare you will find hydrogen cropping up. The DYNAMICS of these interactions are not understood to my satisfaction. However that is not a conversation for the laity...unless they are just up for shooting the shit.

Primitive energy and ultimatons organizing into a hydrogen atom by the influence of gravity makes a lot more sense but you have to let go to see it...some scary shit!

How does this make more sense than current theory which is readily verified in any collider of sufficient energy? We have seen exceedingly solid evidence for the existence of quarks and gluons but have yet to see a shred of evidence, nor even the necessity for this ultimaton. I only have an undergraduate level understanding of particle physics however I can tell you with great certainty this ultimaton just does not fit into the universe we see around us. It should also be noted that GRAVITY has absolutely no role to play in the formation of protons or any other particle for that matter. At these extreme energies and low masses gravity is the very epitome of negligible.

You remind me of a fella I used to converse with all the time. His name was Ralph Rene. He was a good guy but certainly a little arrogant. He believed he had the answers, most often to things that were not even open questions, and every physicist on the planet was just too stupid to recognize his genius. One of my goals as I continue my career in physics is to work to make our current understanding of the universe as approachable as possible for non-scientist. It pains me when I see someone who claims to have an interest in understanding the nature of the universe to the extent we currently understand it however chooses instead to indulge in wacky pseudo-scientific idiocy. I can only assume it stents from an inability to see the REAL universe for the marvel that it is. Though in Rene's case I think it was mostly poor self-image and a need to feel important. Everyone says the man was a total douche but I, for one, miss our chats greatly. I still have a letter I never got around to sending him.

What science can see and measure in QM is being seen through the 'rose colored glasses' of the math cult, big bang, nonsense.

The math cult? Are you implying that this is all some kind of conspiracy. That perhaps scientist want you to believe in their pet theory so much they have contrived it in such unintelligible mathematical jargon that you can not possibly understand it....and none of their fellows dares call them on it for fear of appearing the fool?

It's funny to see a group like this clinging to a false God just like the christian churches do. It's just a security blanket. I'm really not surprised at this groups reaction to me; I'm trying to take away that security blanket and it makes you cry.

I won't speak for the group, but science is not a security blanket for me. In fact there are days when I wish I could believe in something more comforting. I look at the power our species wields even in the midst of our breathtaking idiocy and it scares me. I know our species must go extinct some day. And long before that I will no longer exist. But I would die more comforted if I could know that we would have a good run of things. Even if we never see heaven, at least to know we could create a good existence for ourselves until such time as existence becomes untenable. I also find it fascinating that you recognize the Christian mythology for the falsehood that it is.

You are a fascinating person Grey. Though you are nothing like Rene, for one you are far more eloquent even if confusing and certainly more polite, I must say I rather like chatting with you.

Kevin Lyon

[graybear13]

You shouldn't be so quick to judge. The proof's in the pudding...remember?

grey

But you have produced no pudding, just a vague recipe that doesn't make sense.

Produce the pudding and the proof will be in the eating.

Your kitchen is all recipe and no food!

I am not in the business of making and serving pudding.

It's right there in front of you all dished up and ready for your consumption...

The truth 'is' the pudding!

gray

[graybear13]

The math cult? Are you implying that this is all some kind of conspiracy. That perhaps scientist want you to believe in their pet theory so much they have contrived it in such unintelligible mathematical jargon that you can not possibly understand it....and none of their fellows dares call them on it for fear of appearing the fool?




Kevin Lyon

This is not about conspiracies, I am not suggesting that there is some evil intent by mad scientists to use math to create a false God just to confuse everyone, but mathematics has become an 'exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric interest', an esoteric cult. And it does create a false God that confuses everyone.

What I am suggesting is to take a step back in an attempt to look at 'it' from a new perspective. I always think of Plato's cave and how we are all 'prisoners' of this world. It takes a leap of faith to turn away from the wall of shadows and have Timeless Truth shine on your face. When you turn back around 'it' makes a lot more sense.

My only hope is to leave this world a better
place for having lived my life here.

gray

[kwlyon]

This is not about conspiracies, I am not suggesting that there is some evil intent by mad scientists to use math to create a false God just to confuse everyone, but mathematics has become an 'exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric interest', an esoteric cult. And it does create a false God that confuses everyone.

I am quite capable of understanding most mathematics. Yes, it does require a LOT of dedication and time to learn however mathematics is not some exclusive cult. Anyone can learn. But yes, one must put out the effort. I don't know what you mean by "create a false god". This seems like unintelligible babble to me. Can you explain what you mean?

What I am suggesting is to take a step back in an attempt to look at 'it' from a new perspective. I always think of Plato's cave and how we are all 'prisoners' of this world. It takes a leap of faith to turn away from the wall of shadows and have Timeless Truth shine on your face. When you turn back around 'it' makes a lot more sense.

I don't know about "timeless truth" however this is a rather apt analogy for the sciences. Though we can not see some things directly they can be inferred if one will put the effort into understanding. Other things can be seen directly however it requires the mathematical tools to understand what you are looking at. I really am not following you. I don't think I know what you are trying to communicate here.

My only hope is to leave this world a better
place for having lived my life here.

gray

Agreed.

[Doug]

I am not in the business of making and serving pudding.

It's right there in front of you all dished up and ready for your consumption...

The truth 'is' the pudding!

Consumed.
Verdict: No nutrition, left a bad taste in my mouth. And the recipe had nonexistent ingredients.

[graybear13]

I am not in the business of making and serving pudding.

It's right there in front of you all dished up and ready for your consumption...

The truth 'is' the pudding!

Consumed.
Verdict: No nutrition, left a bad taste in my mouth. And the recipe had nonexistent ingredients.

Something's wrong Doug, pudding is sweet and wonderfully delicious.

I'm afraid you have been consuming something, thanks to your own ego, that only looks like pudding.

gray

[kwlyon]

I'm afraid you have been consuming something, thanks to your own ego, that only looks like pudding.

gray

I love you guys.....Saariously:) But Doug has a point...there is no such thing as ultimatons...so far as anyone has been able to tell. Not even a suggestion that there SHOULD be such a thing.