Truth is Timeless

[Dardedar]

Graybear asks to be considered an emperor as he walks down main street while handing out invisible pudding and telling us he is wearing the finest garment made of beautiful ultimatons. But since everyone can plainly see his twig and berries, it's clear he isn't wearing anything at all.

[graybear13]

Graybear asks to be considered an emperor as he walks down main street while handing out invisible pudding and telling us he is wearing the finest garment made of beautiful ultimatons. But since everyone can plainly see his twig and berries, it's clear he isn't wearing anything at all.

I stand naked before truths unchanging light,
You are fully clothed and truth is blind to you.

I hear the children crying in the darkness for salvation,
You are trapped in a silence that demands proof
for there to be understanding.

I can feel truth calling me to action,
you are numbed by your judgmental animosity.

"Judging someone else does not define who they are,
but it does define who you are."

gray

[graybear13]

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 don't know what you mean by "create a false god". This seems like unintelligible babble to me. Can you explain what you mean?

The false God is the notion of a singularity becoming real in the big bang. The mathematical concept of a black hole leading to a singularity does not justify a singularity exploding into a universe.

Roger Penrose showed that the inward collapse of matter predicted by Einstein's equations was not only theoretically possible in certain cases; it was an inevitable consequence of Einstein's mathematics that these collapses must happen and must end up with all the matter involved crushed down into a singularity. The mathematics simply did not allow for any other possibility. This is the perfect model for the 'big inflation'; ultimatons collapsing inward to create electrons but then, instead of creating a singularity, creating the inflation of a universe.

Then Stephen Hawking had a moment of insight. Oops! Hawking showed that Penrose's picture of a singularity could be 'reversed in time'. Instead of something huge collapsing to a singularity, a singularity could expand to the largest possible thing...the universe. By reversing the direction of time, and running the event Penrose and Einstein were describing backward he established the big bang cult with himself as the founder and leader.

gray

[Truthiness]

*

[*An unfortunate soul put a bit of off topic wank in this spot, but it's been relocated to it's proper location:]

Troll Smear Goes Here

[graybear13]

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.

Hi Kevin,

Neutrinos are ultimatons/ultimatonic rays. The electron neutrino is the ultimaton itself, it has mass but no local gravity; it does not obey any local attraction. When these neutrinos begin to congregate and condense into quarks, gluons and eventually electrons, gravity is born and they are pulled toward larger masses. The rays associated with these neutrons project out in all directions and have no mass. These intense vibrations in space, that we can measure, keep us from seeing and understanding their source, but hopefully not for much longer.

The neutrinos coming from the sun are a result of the breakdown of the electronic organization of matter inside the sun. When the electron breaks down and it looses it's gravity/mass the electron neutrinos are released, and are projected at earth riding sun beams. When the solar energy is reflected or absorbed the neutrinos keep going until they interact with other electron neutrinos coming from all directions and begin the process of creation all over again.

gray

[David Franks]

Neutrinos are ultimatons/ultimatonic rays.

Then why not call them neutrinos so people will be led to think that you know what you're talking about?

[graybear13]

Neutrinos are ultimatons/ultimatonic rays.

Then why not call them neutrinos so people will be led to think that you know what you're talking about?

Hi David,

I thought I did.

gray

[Savonarola]

Neutrinos are ultimatons/ultimatonic rays.

Oh, good. There's been lots of research done with neutrinos. Where is the experimentation that shows that electrons are formed by neutrinos?

[Dardedar]

The real scoop on Ultimaton:



Ultimaton is the latest living weapon created by Weapon Plus, the anti-mutant supersoldier program that created Captain America, Wolverine and Fantomex, and was designated by his creators as Weapon XV. Like Fantomex (Weapon XIII) and Huntsman, Ultimaton was born and was artificially "evolved" in The World, a man-made environment designed to create super-soldiers using Sentinel technology. Due to the time manipulation capabilities of the World facilities, Ultimaton was several generations more advanced than the preceding living weapons.
Ultimaton was created to be the powerhouse of the Super-Sentinels, a team of mutant hunters conceived by John Sublime as a publicity stunt to make the extermination of mutants acceptable to the public. Fantomex and Huntsman were intended to be his teammates, but Huntsman had been destroyed and Fantomex had gone rogue.
Ultimaton was released from the World when the facilities were attacked by agents of Advanced Idea Mechanics, who wanted to recoup the technology Weapon Plus had stolen from them. Ultimaton wiped out the attackers and later fought Wolverine while Fantomex and Cyclops escaped to the Super-Sentinels orbiting base, which was constructed in a remnant of Asteroid M. At this point, Ultimaton had begun to wonder about his purpose in life, questioning his fate of being a mutant-hunting killing machine...
Ultimaton has since been resurrected as the "guardian of the World", specifically guarding a special chamber in the World that apparently contains a child Apocalypse being grown in a cloning vat.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimaton

Oh wait, that's Marvel comics, wrong comic book franchise. Graybear prefers this one which makes claims that are much less believable:

http://encyclopediaurantia.org/ultimaton.htm

[Doug]

Ultimaton wiped out the attackers and later fought Wolverine...

The Marvel one is the more believable Ultimaton.

[graybear13]

Neutrinos are ultimatons/ultimatonic rays.

Where is the experimentation that shows that electrons are formed by neutrinos?

That is an excellent question; Where are those experiments that try to understand how atoms are created by neutrinos condensing and storing energy? This Einstein/Penrose concept of inward collapse of matter is focused on super massive black holes out in the cosmos by science.

Science can measure neutrinos spewing off decaying atoms. How about a moment of insight...just reverse the math in time and try to observe neutrinos interacting with each other and forming vortexes of gravity/mass. This is the unification of gravity and electromagnetism as atomic forces. The problem is that science does not believe mass can be created in this way because of the big bang nonsense, and its misunderstanding of the role of gravity in creation.

gray

[Dardedar]

My theory is simpler: when you pull Ultimaton's finger, he lifts his leg and out comes a blast of neutrinos.

[kwlyon]

Neutrinos are ultimatons/ultimatonic rays.

Well then they don't make up electrons. They are the neutral leptons. They may be the product of weak decay, for example a neutron may decay into a proton, electron and electron-neutrino. One could therefor be tempted to say that neutrinos "make up" or at least are a constituent part of a neutron however I'm quite certain this would be an incorrect assessment. Electrons, however, never decay into a neutrino....not gonna happen...so I don't understand how anyone could say they are "made" of neutrinos. Again that first chapter of griffiths explains particle families and their relations quite well in layman's terms. Would you like the pdf?

The electron neutrino is the ultimaton itself, it has mass but no local gravity; it does not obey any local attraction.

the electron neutrino does not behave as this ultimaton you have described. It does appear to have mass but yes, this does imply it has "local gravity". Anything with mass curves space-time around it however small the distortion may be. That is the very definition of what it is to have mass. The gravitational attraction due to this mass, however, will not be so pronounced as most events that lead to the creation of neutrinos tend to give the particle quite a bit of kinetic energy thus its tiny gravitational field is not going to lead to interactions that are measurable. The Weak interaction is all one is likely to ever see and even then...it is hard to detect.

When these neutrinos begin to congregate and condense into quarks, gluons and eventually electrons, gravity is born and they are pulled toward larger masses.

That chapter of griffiths would really help here. It would help you a lot to understand what quarks, gluons and leptons are, or at least to the extend of knowing their role in such interactions. Neutrinos do not congregate nor condense into anything. In fact once created it is very difficult to get them to interact with anything. If the universe were once in a state of pure neutrinos we would not be here discussing them.

The rays associated with these neutrons project out in all directions and have no mass. These intense vibrations in space, that we can measure, keep us from seeing and understanding their source, but hopefully not for much longer.

No idea what you are talking about....are you trying to bring up gravitational waves? Cause I think you are likely looking in the wrong place....

The neutrinos coming from the sun are a result of the breakdown of the electronic organization of matter inside the sun. When the electron breaks down and it looses it's gravity/mass the electron neutrinos are released, and are projected at earth riding sun beams.

Not exactly. They are the result of weak interactions. H-He fusion produces electron neutrinos. This is actually a rather complicated interaction but I can draw you the diagram for the interactions if you like...it is cetainly undergraduate level particle physics. The field theory behind it I am not so solid on but I assure you the neutrinos are not the result of the electrons breaking down or loosing it's gravity/mass. I will assume "riding the sun beam" is just poetry.

When the solar energy is reflected or absorbed the neutrinos keep going until they interact with other electron neutrinos coming from all directions and begin the process of creation all over again.

The cross section for a neutrino-neutrino interaction is sooooooo incredibly infinitesimal it has likely never happened in the life of the universe. Now I have not actually calculated this cross section...but damn....I can tell you it is hella small. There simply is no phase space for this interaction to occur. In english that means M=0....not gonna happen...neutrinos do not interact with themselves. As a matter of fact I am reasonably certain that M is exactly zero...I mean they can't couple to a Z on their own...I see no way for this interaction to occur except MAYBE by some graviton coupling which would be ridiculously improbable and not currently a part of our understanding of particle physics.

Kevin

[graybear13]

Again that first chapter of griffiths explains particle families and their relations quite well in layman's terms. Would you like the pdf?

Yes Kevin I would, thank you. I promise to read it and try to understand what you are saying. I'm sure it is worthy of a deep ponder.

If you don't know what something is, how can you know what it is made of?

Neutrinos obey a different gravity until they condense and become local gravity.

gray

[graybear13]

Mathematics is reliable when limited in its application to physical things. When it is applied to non material things, such as 'big bang', it is nothing more than blind faith.

What's it going to take for science to admit their mistake? Maybe the cost of rewriting all the physics books on the planet is just to much to take, not to mention being shown up to be bankrupt for any new ideas about creation.

The incorrect mathematics of 'big bang' is holding back new ideas and causing a slow down of emergent truth.

When creation reveals her secrets I believe there can be understanding without proof but mathematics can only be a part of this unproven understanding/faith. Mathematics alone is blind.

Mathematical proof is really just faith until the experiment is successful...right?

gray

[Dardedar]

Mathematical proof is really just faith until the experiment is successful...right?

And "Big Bang" theory has repeatedly withstood those experiments that could have falsified it. And it has repeatedly made testable predictions that proved correct. Do you need me to post them for you again?

Believing things based upon evidence is the opposite of believing by faith. Believing without good evidence is what you do. And that is precisely believing by faith.

[graybear13]

Mathematical proof is really just faith until the experiment is successful...right?

And "Big Bang" theory has repeatedly withstood those experiments that could have falsified it. And it has repeatedly made testable predictions that proved correct. Do you need me to post them for you again?

Believing things based upon evidence is the opposite of believing by faith. Believing without good evidence is what you do. And that is precisely believing by faith.

I think you have it backward Darrel, It's the other way around, "testable predictions" that have been proven mathematically correct have made big bang theory of creation, with the help of some run away blind mathematics.

I think we all know on some level that our faith in 'big bang' has been misplaced, but it's hard to let go.

"We live in a special time,
when young and old are
educated in a lie and he
who dares to tell the truth
is called a madman or a fool." Plato

gray

[Savonarola]

Mathematics is reliable when limited in its application to physical things.

I have an idea. This idea is that ideas are not physical things.
I have another idea. This idea is how to prove that graybear doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

How many ideas have I espoused here?
1+1=2
Thus, math applies to non-physical things as well.

When it is applied to non material things, such as 'big bang', it is nothing more than blind faith.

When having two ideas is possible only by "blind faith," I reject your characterization of "blind faith."

I'm also quite tired of putting up with this nonsense.

[graybear13]

Mathematics is reliable when limited in its application to physical things.

I have an idea. This idea is that ideas are not physical things.
I have another idea. This idea is how to prove that graybear doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

How many ideas have I espoused here?
1+1=2
Thus, math applies to non-physical things as well.

When it is applied to non material things, such as 'big bang', it is nothing more than blind faith.

When having two ideas is possible only by "blind faith," I reject your characterization of "blind faith."

I'm also quite tired of putting up with this nonsense.

Arithmetic says that, if one man could shear a sheep in ten minutes, ten men could shear it in one minute. That is sound mathematics, but it is not true.

If an idea is not attached to a material thing, math and logic cannot reliably describe it because math and logic are blind without the circumstances of mass.

gray

[David Franks]

Arithmetic says that, if one man could shear a sheep in ten minutes, ten men could shear it in one minute. That is sound mathematics, but it is not true.

No, people who solve arithmetic word problems say things like that. Arithmetic says that ten times one equals one times ten, which is both sound mathematics and true.