ADDENDUM TO TALK
0 views
Skip to first unread message
ESKI
Jun 22, 2010, 4:56:25 PM6/22/10
to Oscillator/Substance Theory
In thinking about it, particularly realizing that the criticism, "You
are asking an awful lot!!!" (In a justifiable criticism of the
temerity of an admittedly average person operating rather jokingly as
a "pretend genius" daring to say, in effect, "some of the geniuses
were possibly wrong, Eski, has decided that he should probably go
ahead and point out some of the very definite differences in what he
is saying and what the conventional wisdom says.... Get some of it out
in the open and "let the brick bats fly."
So here is a possible addendum for near the end of the "London Talk."
Criticism and comment are, of course, invited. How about some of you
who haven't had much to say chiming in??
Addendum to talk...
This is called a "Framework" as it is a simple start toward new
construction. The model, developed essentially independent of
consideration of theoretical models from a thought that communication
should be consistent whether the information be carried by by Pony
Express Riders or Electromagnetic Waves, turns out to be definitely in
contrast to most scientific attitudes. In fact, we might say that it
is usually anywhere from 90 to 180 degrees out of phase.
Where the standard view seems to be that what is needed is somehow a
theory to unify many diverse parts, this model takes the view that
there is a "unity," " a Substance/substrate of undefined extent and
undefined basic unit." This may be paraphrased, " There is a Fact of
Existence which we may never be able to totally understand or define,
let us accept that and move on to what we can do.l"
Where the general concensus is that there is nothing in a "vacuum,"
this model postulates that there is an all pervasive substance, even
in "vacuums" from which the vortex aggregates which we call "matter,"
have been removed.
Matter and "void" are considered, in this model, as being composed of
different "arrangements" within the same basic "substance/substrate."
Where the usual view of electrons is as some sort of probability
cloud, this model sees them as rotating, inverting vortex
oscillators...similarly, reality of size and shape are given to other
subatomic units.
Where the conventional picture is that electrons and positrons combine
to annihilate converting totally to "electromagnetic radiation," this
model says that they combine to another type of oscillator with
dissipation of half of their total motion in the form of
"radiation." Whereas, conventionally, "pair-production" is some sort
of a mysterious conversion of "Energy" into "particles" in the
presence of matter, in this model, pair production is simply the
splitting of the "parent oscillator" when supplied with enough excess
motion...
Much of conventional physics theory is based on an idea similar to
Einstein's supposed comment, " Mathematics is the reality." It is even
assumed by many that if theoretical ideas are not expressed in
differential equations, they have no validity. The view here is that
math. is a tool, and that it is probably best to work with the
simplest tools possible. Although advanced math. could have been used,
this entire presentation has used nothing that was beyond grade school
level.
Where Mass and Energy are accepted as being somehow fundamental and
inter convertible, without truly defining either; this model defines
both with respect to motions relative to a point.
Where the "Unification of the Four Forces of Nature" is considered
conventionally as a major theoretical problem, this model almost
cavalierly dismisses the situation by pointing out that none of the
"Four So-Called Forces" meets the definition of a force, whereas
pressure does.
The Matter of the Missing Anti-matter has been discussed earlier.
Clearly the view is very different from the conventional.
The problems of the "Missing Mass" of our Universe, Dark Energy, and
some of the other related concepts may turn out to be due to several
factors, one could be the semantic confusion between the use of the
term, "Mass," as describing a "physical body," and "mass" as a
scientific term describing an attribute of that body. This
differentiation clearly shows in this model.
Where, conventionally, there are many constants of nature, this model
implies that there should be few, and those will be not absolute
limits of any sort but are more likely to be statistical averages.
Furthermore, combinations, multiples, and roots of "constants" are
logically also "constants" which may furnish information. For
instance, the square root of the speed of light, (c)^0.5, about 173 Kc/
sec., might be a very interesting frequency, as it is the value at
which frequency and wave length will have the same "Absolute value."
This model does not consider positive and negative charges as
mysterious, accepted things of nature, but as manifestations of the
rotation, inversion senses of vortex oscillators. As such, they are
not constant values....
\
Where the Standard Model considers the units found as results of atom-
smashing experiments as somehow being fundamental particles released
by the experiments, this model would imply them to be different,
alternative states of matter created in the experiments. That is
artifacts, rather than fundamentals.
This is by no means a conclusive listing of the differences in
philosophy and attitude of this model from the conventional
situations.
In presenting this framework, this person, is not asking that all the
ideas and information collected by all the geniuses who have
contributed in the past be discarded. He is simply suggesting that
this model may be a frame work into which profitable re-examination of
data and ideas could be fitted,
Remember the Oscillator/Substance Google Group is an open membership
group where you can post "Kudos" or "Boos." I hope that this
presentation will receive feed back.
are asking an awful lot!!!" (In a justifiable criticism of the
temerity of an admittedly average person operating rather jokingly as
a "pretend genius" daring to say, in effect, "some of the geniuses
were possibly wrong, Eski, has decided that he should probably go
ahead and point out some of the very definite differences in what he
is saying and what the conventional wisdom says.... Get some of it out
in the open and "let the brick bats fly."
So here is a possible addendum for near the end of the "London Talk."
Criticism and comment are, of course, invited. How about some of you
who haven't had much to say chiming in??
Addendum to talk...
This is called a "Framework" as it is a simple start toward new
construction. The model, developed essentially independent of
consideration of theoretical models from a thought that communication
should be consistent whether the information be carried by by Pony
Express Riders or Electromagnetic Waves, turns out to be definitely in
contrast to most scientific attitudes. In fact, we might say that it
is usually anywhere from 90 to 180 degrees out of phase.
Where the standard view seems to be that what is needed is somehow a
theory to unify many diverse parts, this model takes the view that
there is a "unity," " a Substance/substrate of undefined extent and
undefined basic unit." This may be paraphrased, " There is a Fact of
Existence which we may never be able to totally understand or define,
let us accept that and move on to what we can do.l"
Where the general concensus is that there is nothing in a "vacuum,"
this model postulates that there is an all pervasive substance, even
in "vacuums" from which the vortex aggregates which we call "matter,"
have been removed.
Matter and "void" are considered, in this model, as being composed of
different "arrangements" within the same basic "substance/substrate."
Where the usual view of electrons is as some sort of probability
cloud, this model sees them as rotating, inverting vortex
oscillators...similarly, reality of size and shape are given to other
subatomic units.
Where the conventional picture is that electrons and positrons combine
to annihilate converting totally to "electromagnetic radiation," this
model says that they combine to another type of oscillator with
dissipation of half of their total motion in the form of
"radiation." Whereas, conventionally, "pair-production" is some sort
of a mysterious conversion of "Energy" into "particles" in the
presence of matter, in this model, pair production is simply the
splitting of the "parent oscillator" when supplied with enough excess
motion...
Much of conventional physics theory is based on an idea similar to
Einstein's supposed comment, " Mathematics is the reality." It is even
assumed by many that if theoretical ideas are not expressed in
differential equations, they have no validity. The view here is that
math. is a tool, and that it is probably best to work with the
simplest tools possible. Although advanced math. could have been used,
this entire presentation has used nothing that was beyond grade school
level.
Where Mass and Energy are accepted as being somehow fundamental and
inter convertible, without truly defining either; this model defines
both with respect to motions relative to a point.
Where the "Unification of the Four Forces of Nature" is considered
conventionally as a major theoretical problem, this model almost
cavalierly dismisses the situation by pointing out that none of the
"Four So-Called Forces" meets the definition of a force, whereas
pressure does.
The Matter of the Missing Anti-matter has been discussed earlier.
Clearly the view is very different from the conventional.
The problems of the "Missing Mass" of our Universe, Dark Energy, and
some of the other related concepts may turn out to be due to several
factors, one could be the semantic confusion between the use of the
term, "Mass," as describing a "physical body," and "mass" as a
scientific term describing an attribute of that body. This
differentiation clearly shows in this model.
Where, conventionally, there are many constants of nature, this model
implies that there should be few, and those will be not absolute
limits of any sort but are more likely to be statistical averages.
Furthermore, combinations, multiples, and roots of "constants" are
logically also "constants" which may furnish information. For
instance, the square root of the speed of light, (c)^0.5, about 173 Kc/
sec., might be a very interesting frequency, as it is the value at
which frequency and wave length will have the same "Absolute value."
This model does not consider positive and negative charges as
mysterious, accepted things of nature, but as manifestations of the
rotation, inversion senses of vortex oscillators. As such, they are
not constant values....
\
Where the Standard Model considers the units found as results of atom-
smashing experiments as somehow being fundamental particles released
by the experiments, this model would imply them to be different,
alternative states of matter created in the experiments. That is
artifacts, rather than fundamentals.
This is by no means a conclusive listing of the differences in
philosophy and attitude of this model from the conventional
situations.
In presenting this framework, this person, is not asking that all the
ideas and information collected by all the geniuses who have
contributed in the past be discarded. He is simply suggesting that
this model may be a frame work into which profitable re-examination of
data and ideas could be fitted,
Remember the Oscillator/Substance Google Group is an open membership
group where you can post "Kudos" or "Boos." I hope that this
presentation will receive feed back.
Hugh V
Jun 28, 2010, 11:26:02 AM6/28/10
to Oscillator/Substance Theory
Yep, Doc,
You certainly do end up very much out of step with the conventional
situation. It's about time someone did. What a confused mess
scientific theory is in!
Have you noticed that the two experimental results that you focus in
on, "MM" and Planck are where Einstein's Space Time, Quantum
Mechanics, and String Theory all have their start, except that you're
interpreting from the opposite side from where they are?
In an old copy of Astronomy Magazine there is a comment about
something called the space ship mystery or some such thing. Seems
there is some mysterious force that is braking space ships that are
going away from Terra in opposite directions by the same amount. Seems
this would fit, the ships if they don't get destroyed in the meantime
by collision with something else would be eventually turned around and
sent back to their origin?? Seems to fit with the idea of a substance
which tries to balance. Maybe?
Good luck with the talk. Who knows, someone might actually listen.
HAV
You certainly do end up very much out of step with the conventional
situation. It's about time someone did. What a confused mess
scientific theory is in!
Have you noticed that the two experimental results that you focus in
on, "MM" and Planck are where Einstein's Space Time, Quantum
Mechanics, and String Theory all have their start, except that you're
interpreting from the opposite side from where they are?
In an old copy of Astronomy Magazine there is a comment about
something called the space ship mystery or some such thing. Seems
there is some mysterious force that is braking space ships that are
going away from Terra in opposite directions by the same amount. Seems
this would fit, the ships if they don't get destroyed in the meantime
by collision with something else would be eventually turned around and
sent back to their origin?? Seems to fit with the idea of a substance
which tries to balance. Maybe?
Good luck with the talk. Who knows, someone might actually listen.
HAV
ESKI
Jun 30, 2010, 12:29:56 PM6/30/10
to Oscillator/Substance Theory
Hugh,
You point out an interesting fact that I had sort of overlooked. The
currently fashionable, or at least for the last few years,
fashionable, theories, all have at their base information from the
Michelson-Morely and Planck's work. It would appear that they, and we,
are agreed that there are basic answers hidden there, However, the
others all interpret the results in one way, we use an almost opposite
version. \
They were trying to invent a theory while we were just following up a
string of logic to see where it would go.
It could be that there is a definite point in this that needs to be
somehow gotten across,,,the answers are probably in front of our
noses, if we are looking in the right direction, in the right way.
Maybe that "Theory of Now" is somewhere around what we are talking.
It seems to me that what has developed so far seems to explain more
things and make more sense than what the "real geniuses" have come up
with in the last 100 years or so.
The idea from Astronomy Mag.is interesting. We could use some good
astronomers in this group , or an astrophysicist or two.!!
I just sent in for a "Great Courses" copy of "The Joy of Mathematics"
which is a popularization of math. which takes one up through Calc.
I'm hoping that I can go thru it and get some of my old math. training
back in focus. I was quite good with Calculus for about 6-7 years
after I took the course, but that course was about 1952-53. l..don't
know if any of that will help with fitting the work to the cosmos, but
it can'[t hurt....
You point out an interesting fact that I had sort of overlooked. The
currently fashionable, or at least for the last few years,
fashionable, theories, all have at their base information from the
Michelson-Morely and Planck's work. It would appear that they, and we,
are agreed that there are basic answers hidden there, However, the
others all interpret the results in one way, we use an almost opposite
version. \
They were trying to invent a theory while we were just following up a
string of logic to see where it would go.
It could be that there is a definite point in this that needs to be
somehow gotten across,,,the answers are probably in front of our
noses, if we are looking in the right direction, in the right way.
Maybe that "Theory of Now" is somewhere around what we are talking.
It seems to me that what has developed so far seems to explain more
things and make more sense than what the "real geniuses" have come up
with in the last 100 years or so.
The idea from Astronomy Mag.is interesting. We could use some good
astronomers in this group , or an astrophysicist or two.!!
I just sent in for a "Great Courses" copy of "The Joy of Mathematics"
which is a popularization of math. which takes one up through Calc.
I'm hoping that I can go thru it and get some of my old math. training
back in focus. I was quite good with Calculus for about 6-7 years
after I took the course, but that course was about 1952-53. l..don't
know if any of that will help with fitting the work to the cosmos, but
it can'[t hurt....
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages