Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: there are 6 fundamental forces not 4...

  1. #1 there are 6 fundamental forces not 4... 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1
    take a look at nature. Almost everything comes up in the factors of 12. Mathematician, you know what the factors of 12 are. There are six. The most common factors of 12 that you see in nature are three, four and six. When you crystallize water on its own, it comes up with a six-arm pattern [a snowflake]. The crystallization formations are base-12 with the factors of 12 clearly showing, mostly with six. We have told you for many, many years that the elegant science of physics should be base-12. It is an interdimensional math that includes a zero that doesn’t mean nothing or infinity. A zero in universal base-12 math means the potentials of all the answers probable. It’s not an empirical math as in 3D, yet this math will bring you some realizations when you begin to use it. For instance, does it make sense to you that one of the most profound equations that you have, being that of the circle - called pi - is an irrational number? It goes forever! Does that make sense for one of the most profound formulas of the Universe? We happen to know that on one of your spacecrafts to communicate with anybody who might find it, you put that number pi right on the plaque on the spacecraft. It’s like a communication in math, in case any intelligent life-force should find it, they would then say, "Oh, Humans have pi! Therefore, they must be intelligent." Let me tell you what an intelligent society will know when they see that. They will look at it and say, "These creatures are flying in space, and they don’t even have base-12! Look what they think pi is! They must still be in base-10." It’s like finding an advanced society with black and white TV. π as expressed in base-12 is not an irrational number.

    There are six forces of nature. Although four is a factor of 12, six and 12 are the ones that appear the most, and are most nature-like. Look at the chemistry of DNA and behold the factors of 12 in the chemistry. It’s everywhere. Before I tell you what the other two forces are, let me tell you about naming things. I will give them attributes, not names, because they will be named according to what science wishes to name them later, and they will then explain dark matter.

    There’s a difference between the galaxy and the solar system - a big difference. Newton, listen up. At the middle of a solar system is ordinary mass. No matter how big or how small the sun is in any solar system, it represents ordinary, consistent mass. When you get into the giant systems such as galaxies, that’s where the magic is, and that’s where the discoveries are. Years ago, we told you what was in the middle of each galaxy that would cause the rotation, even before it was notated in science. We said there is something in the middle that is interdimensional - a black hole. Some years ago, we then gave you the rest of the story; we said there are twins in the middle of each galaxy. There are two quantum attributes. One that you call a black hole, and one you cannot see that is its twin. They are a push/pull system of interdimensional energy. They represent the missing piece of the named forces of the Universe and the energy that surges back and forth.

    Now, stay with me. I’m going to give you some pictures in your mind for this. Let me tell you what happens when you have this kind of interdimensional energy in the center of anything. Newton’s law no longer applies, since the center is not ordinary mass. This interdimensional energy has a cohesion to it. It creates a flat, rotating galaxy because of this cohesion. There’s a whole set of laws that must be developed for a strong and a weak interdimensional force. These are the last two, and now you have the six. You have gravity, you have electromagnetics, you have strong and weak nuclear, and now you have number five and number six, which are strong and weak interdimensional force.

    New Information about the center of the galaxies

    Every galaxy has a push/pull system at its center. This is a twin energy system, but you only are aware of one. You’re convinced it’s invisible, and it’s a black hole. No light escapes, but you think it’s singular - one thing. How 3D of you! It is not one thing. Instead, it’s a beautiful, double eye of a needle. Now listen. When you start mapping the Universe and you see how the galaxies are really laid out, you already know they’re not random. Isn’t that interesting? Wasn’t what you called The Big Bang supposed to be something that randomly distributed everything from almost nothing? So why is there a pattern? This is the beautiful part, dear Human Being. There is a pattern in the seeming chaos of the interdimensional event that the Big Bang was. As we have told you before, your Big Bang was really a big, interdimensional collision with another interdimensional force. Interdimensionality seems to be chaos with a hidden pattern.

    Picture with me for a moment a giant needle and thread, two of them. One goes into the black hole and one comes out of it. These threads are interdimensional strings of force that connect themselves to the other galaxies, weaving in and out of their centers, which are all double-eyed black holes. A push and a pull - an interdimensional force of which you are not aware of yet, threading the galaxies one to another and to another. Now, picture in your mind that quilt work having a symmetry and a purpose. If you could look down the middle of it, into the middle of the Universe from a certain angle, you would even have the symmetry of a mandala. The galaxies are shaped beautifully together in an elegant dance. The symmetry makes sense, and it’s base-12. We challenge you to find this. And those seeming threads that go in and out of those galaxies’ centers with this new force I have just described are a lattice. It’s a lattice with symmetry and purpose... the cosmic lattice. It has beauty. And it’s the missing energy of the Universe, as seen by those who are looking for it. The dark matter that everyone looks for is not in the empty spaces between things. It’s in the strings of the interdimensional force between galaxies, purposely put there. Oh, it’s a wonderful system. You want the dark matter to make 3D sense, but it can’t. It deals with the two interdimensional forces of the Universe that are quantum, and therefore out of time and out of the preview of your 3D formulas.

    The next big discovery... quantum sight

    OK, there is one more. I want to give you this hint. Again, this information is in the ethers. That is to say that it is available for discovery and imminent. Humans must discover these things on their own, but we give hints. When the discoveries happen, you’ll know you heard it here first.

    This is technical. Don’t worry, my partner. I’ll give you the picture. For years, astronomers have been putting special lenses on telescopes in order to give them different kinds of views of the Universe beyond normal light. The collection of ordinary light is passé for real astronomy. They now wish to collect radiation. They wish to have the spectrometry so that they can have an analysis of what things are made of. They like to measure the coming and the going of the speed of objects so they will have red shift or blue shift to know if objects are advancing or retreating from the observer. For years, they have been putting special lenses on their telescopes so they can analyze what common light cannot show them. Most of you are not even aware that many of the telescopes of the planet don’t even let you look through them anymore! It’s all about computer-controlled collection of what is hidden in the light, or what is available through other measuring methods. They know how hot things are, what they are made of, where they are going and their trajectory anomalies.

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone on Earth came up with an interdimensional astronomical lens? And if they did, what would they see? They would see exactly what I’ve described. First, they would be able to see the twin black holes that appear to be one. An interdimensional lens is looking at gravity and time, and the warping of them into patterns.

    If you were looking at the Universe with this lens, you’d see how the twins relate to each other, the pulse of them, and you’d see the strands connecting the galaxies very clearly. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? It would explain the missing energy, wouldn’t it? It would give the scientists the reason to increase the four forces to six! And... it’s doable.

    Now I’m going to tell you what it looks like... almost. Number one hint: You cannot put it on the lens. It must go as close as it can to the receiving device. In the case of an optical telescope, that is the mirror. In the case of a digital telescope, that is its digital eyeball. That is to say that this lens cannot go anywhere but the focal plane. That will be meaningful to those who build telescopes. It must go there where the focus is collected. Hint two: This lens is not physical. This lens is plasma. The plasma is held together by incredibly strong magnetics. Oh, and it’s very cold. And those are the hints.

    And when you develop it and when you turn it on and work out the adjustments to the magnetics that allow the plasma coherence, you will have the next step in astronomy - a revolution and a revelation. Physics will change; your reality will change; and I will tell you why. This is the last point I make in science before I close. I’ll tell you why. When you look at interdimensional things, one of the unexpected things you’re going to see is life! Life sticks out, because of life-force. You can look into a galaxy and the stars that glow will have life around them! How about that one? And everybody can get scared. It’s inevitable, you know? That is our science channel.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Ummm..... Ooookaaaay..... I didn't think an irrational number could become a rational number simply by changing the base... learn something new everyday! This is one heck of an interesting post, not sure how to take this theory though. :?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    15
    I feel dumber after reading only half of that unnecessarily long post.

    If you are going to make claims like this, at least do it in a way that makes it sound like you have an idea, not like it is fact.

    I really hope this post gets deleted before anyone comes to this forum seriously looking for help in physics and sees this crap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Hello kyron. So far I feel more inclined to agree with Street Physicist than arcane mathematitian. Here are some of the reasons why.

    take a look at nature. Almost everything comes up in the factors of 12.
    What about pi?
    What about h?
    Or five of Martin Rees' famous Six Numbers, N, epsilon, Omega, lambda, and Q.

    It seems to me that most of the numbers we see in nature are not factors of 12. Would you explain why you think they are?

    The most common factors of 12 that you see in nature are three, four and six.
    What about bilateral symmetry in many animals? What about radial symmetry that in echinoderms often expresses itself in a five fold form? Perhaps her you could argue this is covered by your almost qualifier in almost everything.

    The crystallization formations are base-12 with the factors of 12 clearly showing, mostly with six.
    Here I will grant you that the thirty two crystal classes fit your argument.

    We have told you for many, many years that the elegant science of physics should be base-12.
    Who is we? This sounds disturbingly evangelical and as such is very off-putting. And you have not told me anything before today.

    It is an interdimensional math that includes a zero that doesn’t mean nothing or infinity.
    You will need to explain things to me slowly and carefully - I am not too bright.
    What is an interdimensional math?
    If zero doesn't mean nothing or infinity in this math, what does it mean?
    Are there any maths where zero does mean infinity?

    π as expressed in base-12 is not an irrational number.
    I'm mainly interested in why this has not made the main nightly news every day for a year. Can you explain that? pi and all irrational numbers are irrational in every number base system. If this is not the case then I am much more ignorant than I thought. I eagerly wait for your reply to find out if I am.

    That should be enough to be going on with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    3rd time deja vu for this post. Better read it.

    Read it.

    Are you Pleiade? (like you'll check this out anyway because interdimensional pattern folding will render you amnesic to this whole event. )
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Ok kryon, what I see in this thread are quite a number of assertions that are not being backed up with references to empirical evidence. For example, at one point you suggest that the galaxies are arranged in a non-random pattern, yet you provide no evidence to back up this claim which is not common knowledge as far as I'm aware. Your core assumption, that "nature" conforms to factors of 12, seems to be immediately incorrect. You have chosen examples that support your position, but you seem to be ignoring an almost infinite number of contradictory examples. That indicates a significant confirmation bias. You also seem to be jumping between topics without there being an genuine logical connection between them. So, although your initial assertion might be considered an hypothesis, it seems to be one immediately falsified by trivial observation. The assertions which follow it are not suggested by this hypothesis nor supported by it. And finally, in your closing section, you seem to be suggesting that some of your ideas are not objectively verifiable.

    Unless you can clarify your ideas and provide some empirical support, I'm going to have to consider moving this thread to pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    to be fair, my sarcasm didn't translate well, guess I should have added a to my post
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Move it to pseudoscience then Biologista. A new theory doesn't need evidence. Thats why its called a Hypothesis and and IDEA. Hypothesis don't need evidence, all they need is logic and this is perfectly logical to me.

    Contradictions are relative also Biologista, you of all people should be aware of that...
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    Move it to pseudoscience then Biologista. A new theory doesn't need evidence. Thats why its called a Hypothesis and and IDEA. Hypothesis don't need evidence, all they need is logic and this is perfectly logical to me.
    An hypothesis requires a foundation in prior evidence as well as a testability which the poster seems to be denying is possible by my reading of his post. That testability would be a bit of a deal breaker as to whether the idea is science or not. I may be misunderstanding so I'm waiting on clarification before I make a move.

    I'm afraid the logical flow of the original post has eluded me, but if you find the post to be logical, perhaps you could explain it to me in your own words?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    Contradictions are relative also Biologista, you of all people should be aware of that...
    I'm not sure what you mean by this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    This is a science forum, not a science tribunal. You're the moderator though so whatever your choice is up to you, I think this 'person' was simply helping us one step in the right direction. They say clearly though that these are 'hint's so I wouldn't exprect any prior evidence at all, even if I would say that this theory would be very interesting to research.

    I'll respect your choice even though I would personally wait a week and see if they post something to this extra so that we can delve a little deeper.

    I'm afraid the logical flow of the original post has eluded me, but if you find the post to be logical, perhaps you could explain it to me in your own words?
    Well, just that time is imperial with base 12, gravity works in shape to and shape works best in bases to 12 so I just thought it fit.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Actually, I believe everything should be in ternary.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    This is a science forum, not a science tribunal. You're the moderator though so whatever your choice is up to you, I think this 'person' was simply helping us one step in the right direction. They say clearly though that these are 'hint's so I wouldn't exprect any prior evidence at all, even if I would say that this theory would be very interesting to research.
    This isn't the "hints" subforum, it's the new hypotheses subforum. Foundation on some prior evidence is a requirement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    I'll respect your choice even though I would personally wait a week and see if they post something to this extra so that we can delve a little deeper.
    I haven't made a choice as I am waiting for more information. I don't see much by way of "respect" for my choice (which I have not yet made) in your post. If you want to make an argument against my decision making, please take it elsewhere. It will not be entertained in someone else's thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    I'm afraid the logical flow of the original post has eluded me, but if you find the post to be logical, perhaps you could explain it to me in your own words?
    Well, just that time is imperial with base 12, gravity works in shape to and shape works best in bases to 12 so I just thought it fit.
    That makes sense to you? How is it a logical assumption that time works in base 12? As I understand it, time is essentially unitless beyond how humans divide it, which is essentially arbitrary in the grand scheme of things. How does shape work in base 12? As I understand it the cited example, the pi ratio is irrational in all bases including base 12. How are these two points logically connected to one another?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    If Kyron doesn't come back I suggest you move it to the trash can.
    (And if hypotheses have to be (imminently) testable that kind of puts the kibosh on string theory.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    If Kyron doesn't come back I suggest you move it to the trash can.
    (And if hypotheses have to be (imminently) testable that kind of puts the kibosh on string theory.)
    No, just hypothetically testable. "Sheep generate tachyons" is an hypothesis that may be tested pending some means to detect tachyons (which are relatively well-defined). "The soul enters the body at conception" is not an hypothesis as there's no way to test a thing which has not been defined with measurable traits.

    You may be right about the trash can, but I'd much rather let the OP continue his speculative discussion somewhere rather than silence him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    I wondered why stop at six, today, almost everyday, it seems there's another dimension to our universe (when I say everyday I mean metaphirically or even metaphorically speaking and not actually EVERY day) personally I think color should be upgraded to a dimension, it puts a nice finish on the normal 4.... and certainly a lot more visible and easily understood than all those other 'theoretical generated' ones.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Do what you want Biologista. Your the sub-mod. But consider the bigger picture. Listen to what the post says.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Since we have heard nothing more from the OP, I'm moving this to pseudo. Good sources or evidence may convince me to reverse that decision but any further debate on the decision itself should be directed to me by PM, brought to Feedback or sent to an Admin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •