Notices
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 308
Like Tree10Likes

Thread: A timid attempt to the Unifying understanding of Nature

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    what type of device are you using to access the site and what is the primary language of the device?
    The device is known here as a computer and the primary language is binary via C++ . Beyound that you'll need to contact mother ship , many thanks !
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    NEW : as you know CERN just ( seen on TV ) announced neutrinos slightly faster than light observed at LHC .
    Small point. This experiment was conducted at CERN but it had little or nothing to do with the LHC. It was the OPERA experiment, not the LHC.
    .............. I want to make sure I understand your point : are you saying that my error of confusing OPERA with LHC is small ( I;m tone-deaf anyways ) , or that putting the RelativityéQuantum to bed is a small point ...Of course is a retorical question , putting the Relativity-Quantum to rest is an event proportional in importance with one;s understanding of physics , sometimes , as you said , very small Cheers
    Last edited by TheBiologista; September 25th, 2011 at 03:46 AM.
     

  3. #103  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    what type of device are you using to access the site and what is the primary language of the device?
    The device is known here as a computer and the primary language is binary via C++ . Beyound that you'll need to contact mother ship , many thanks !
    WTF? What type of OS? PC/Mac? Mobile device? What is the primary language you are using on your keyboard (English/french/Swahili/Japanese/etc...) (neither of these were obtuse questions, so I dont appreciate the mothership comment >:-/ )
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  4. #104  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    what type of device are you using to access the site and what is the primary language of the device?
    The device is known here as a computer and the primary language is binary via C++ . Beyound that you'll need to contact mother ship , many thanks !
    WTF? What type of OS? PC/Mac? Mobile device? What is the primary language you are using on your keyboard (English/french/Swahili/Japanese/etc...) (neither of these were obtuse questions, so I dont appreciate the mothership comment >:-/ )
    Professor , you should not use ( 2011 ) ::::: 1) calling a computer's OS a 'device' ------------- 2) asking for the 'language of the device' meaning ( My choice of ) the keyboard layout ---------- 3) using 'WTF' in front of the students ------------- So no wonder I thought you were clowning around ........ Please , now that the Relativity/Quantum theories are dead , let's go back to the UPN and get bussy extracting the basic formula for moving a Micro-vortex , thank you !
     

  5. #105  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,249
    Urod I am trying to help you with the "formatting problems" that you are having. The questions are very relevant to that and are not hard to understand.

    What is type of operating system are you using?
    What type of device are you using? (eg mobile/pc/mac)
    Is your system set to english as it primary language or is it set to another language? (which could possibly result in conflicts with the english based forum software)


    And the "professor" thing is a tag which changes in direct proportion to the number of posts one has on the board. so I jibes about language in front of the class are pointless.


    If you dont want help, and instead like posting blocks of incomprehensible text with random symbols and fairly bad spelling then just let me know and I will spend my time elsewhere.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  6. #106  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Thank you Paleo for your help , the problem appears After using the Forum for a while so it is not the 'system' ..... Sorry all for the still unresolved issue with my text formating ........`Now to the exciting part : as we kiss goodbye the Relativity/Quantum theories , take a look at how the UPN shows that at the centre of galaxies there must be a collection of 'black-holes' due to the limit size of a single black-hole , idea supported by observations showing the stars very close to the centre of galaxies have an erratical orbit that can be caused by multiple black-holes spinning and changing the gravity waves in the imediate vecinity .................. Further more , the UPN concludes that stars are at least made of one black-hole ! ........ ..............The reasoning is extremely simple , tipical of the UPN ( Nature ) : matter is spun SuperFluid ( micro-vortices ) and only black-holes can create them , hence a star cam lose matter in CMEs yet have fairly constant masses is due to the continuos replanishment of matter inside the star by a black-hole ............ Even me can understand that so it must be true ! ............... As you see , once you start thinking in terms of micro-vortices , waves and harmonic fields , all start looking trivially simple ............................... BTW , talking about music to the ears of the UPN fans ( just four so far ! ) , the OPERA announcement of neutrinos slightly faster than light can be easily explain by the UPN since the micro-vortices the neutrino is made of can have their spin accelerated by Harmonic field if positioned just right . ............................ Start thinking micro-vortices , waves and harmonics in a SuperFluid and Nature will reveal to you in simple forms and principles ................. BTW , the spontaneous forming of Fundamental Micro-vortices , FMV , in the SuperFluid -- not the matter micro-vortices MV -- ( see UPN text for science press release ) explains not just the 2.7 K CBR but also explains precisely why radiation ( light ) diminishes with distance --- it is disipated by the FMVs .
     

  7. #107  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    The Coronal Mass Ejections and their connection to Black Holes as explained by the UPN : . . . . Our Sun ( stars ) and its connection to Black Holes to Predict CMEs : - --- Applying the observed phenomenon regarding our Sun to the UPN concludes the following and explains the CMEs , the erratic orbit of Mercury and a way to predict the CMEs : .......... a) only Black Holes ( BH ) inside the Sun can explain the continuous loss of the Sun’s mass during Coronal Mass Ejections without actually influencing the average mass of the Sun . The BH continuously spin the SuperFluid into matter and energy/movement hence replenishing the heavy loss of Billions of tonnes of matter during CMEs . ............ b) only Multiple BHs entangled by their own gravity and spinning together therefore continuously changing their relative positions to each other explain the “erratic” orbit of Mercury . The common Gravity Point of all the BHs involved is a Vector Resultant moving inside the Sun and determining Mercury’s orbit from moment to moment .........c) the relative position of the BHs to each other will determine also how their gravity wakes will interact and therefore determining the predictable occurrence of their Harmonics . Those harmonics are the CMEs . By keeping track of the Sun’s BHs collective Gravity Point as it moves about the interior of the Sun we can predict the CMEs and their intensities as they are just harmonics ............Having nothing to do with being humble it has ALL to do with our survival as we approach a very high solar activity and the fact that only the UPN expalins it , hence let's pay attention and see if we can apply it to protect our lives ..........---------- Correction to Physics Terminology as per the UPN : Black Holes are actualy Bright Vortices : ..... a) they are Not 'holes' but spinning Vortices ...... b) they are Not Dark but Super Bright since they are spining the SuperFluid and creating Matter and Eneregy/Movement hence a LOT of Light ! ....... c) you can Certainly Excape their gravitational pull because gravity is just a wave in the SuperFluid , matter of fact you can use it like we do it today with space craft , as a sling-shot .... Therefore the Black Holes are now officially caled Bright Vortices ( BV ) . ....... Please forward to me , the author , any FAULTS that you may find with the Logic describing the UPN , so far NONE could be found ...... Please forgive the text formating , can not be fixed as per the Science Forum ....... Cheers ?? Will 2013 produce the Mega CME seen on a paper via a primitive telescope in circa 1800s by Issac Newton ?? Doru
     

  8. #108  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    What a crock.
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    What a crock.
    Nice to meet you Wayne and BTW you have a great self-description , a Crock !Here we use Logic , Wayne , a strange thing to you , so go ahead , prove the UPN is wrong , show arguments or you are looking silly ( not to use the other S word ) .Go ahead , I am waiting !
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Urod, the UPN cannot be proven wrong. It is not even wrong, because it is not a science hypothesis at all. It makes no predictions that can be tested. There is no mathematics involved. It is your ad hoc description of something only you can understand. You use scientific terms like superfluid, black hole, vortices, etc., without any understanding of what those words mean. It is the epitome of pseudoscience.
     

  11. #111  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Urod, the UPN cannot be proven wrong. It is not even wrong, because it is not a science hypothesis at all. It makes no predictions that can be tested. There is no mathematics involved. It is your ad hoc description of something only you can understand. You use scientific terms like superfluid, black hole, vortices, etc., without any understanding of what those words mean. It is the epitome of pseudoscience.
    Harold , you tell me what , in your oppinion , I don't understand like the vortex in the bathtub , yet you were NOT able to find ONE SINGLE fault with the UPN !! ...... Do you have problems understanding the SuperFluid ? The Bright Vortices ( ex Black Holes ) ? The fact that Nothigness doesn't exist HENCE all around us is Somethigness ?? Are you kidding us ?? It doesn't and it Can't get any more basic , just as the seed of a Fractal , that from Simplicity the Variety can expand . ....... But let's go to the Very First step Harold : describe the Fault that You found with the Logic in the UPN ! You never did AND you will Never be able to do it . Period ............. Go ahead post your Logic Harold ! P.S. : I appologise to the rest of Normal humans for wasting your time with Haroldismals ! He asked for it !Cheers !Doru
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Urod, how can you say I did not find a fault? I said your UPN does not make any falsifiable predictions and therefore is not a science hypothesis. Don't you find that a problem at all?
     

  13. #113  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Urod, how can you say I did not find a fault? I said your UPN does not make any falsifiable predictions and therefore is not a science hypothesis. Don't you find that a problem at all?
    Falsifiable ?? Of course not in the UPN ! .... The UPN describes the Reality around and explains it in the most simple way , what Else do you want to predict , Harold ?? ..... What do you say about the UPN being the Only theory that explains : - CBR , Gravity , the Dual Slit experiment which is recognized as the most crucial , - it also expalins Bright Vortices ( ex Black Holes ) , it explains the woble of Mercury and the iregular orbits of stars near-by the centre of galaxies , it explains the 'un-seen' mass , it explains why galaxies move as such speeds , it expains how matter and energy is created ...... Harold , do you want to ignore all those ?? How can you , if you want to be fair ! .......... But the UPN Acid Test is , no doubt , that after more than a year on the Net , Nature Magazine , etc. plus the Science Forum , and with its Logic in full view , NOBODY , including you Harold and Meteor Wayn et all , were able to show ONE SINGLE FAULT with its logic . ........ Therefore , like it or not Harold , you Are Approving of the UPN !!
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    UPN Predictions ! : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From : Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia " When Thomas Young first demonstrated this phenomenon, it indicated that light consists of waves, as the distribution of brightness can be explained by the alternately additive and subtractive interference of wavefronts.[3] ......................................... Young's experiment played a vital part in the acceptance of the wave theory of light in the early 1800s, vanquishing the corpuscular theory of light proposed by Isaac Newton, which had been the accepted model of light propagation in the 17th and 18th centuries. However, the later discovery of the photoelectric effect demonstrated that under different circumstances, light can behave as if it is composed of discrete particles. These seemingly contradictory discoveries made it necessary to go beyond classical physics and take the quantum nature of light into account. ......................................A double-slit experiment was not performed with anything other than light until 1961, when Clauss Jönsson of the University of Tübingen performed it with electrons.[4][5].................................................. .................... In 2002, Jönsson's double-slit experiment was voted "the most beautiful experiment" by readers of Physics World.[6]In 1999, objects large enough to be seen under a microscope — buckyball molecules (diameter about 0.7 nm, nearly half a million times larger than a proton) — were found to exhibit wave-like interference.[7][8]The double-slit experiment (and its variations) has become a classic thought experiment for its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of quantum mechanics. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Feynman was fond of saying that all of quantum mechanics can be gleaned from carefully thinking through the implications of this single experiment.[9] " ... ............... The UPN shows how Bright Vortices ( ex Black Holes terminology ) spin the SuperFluid in micro-vorticers that represent the fundamental units of matter and energy ( their combinations result in sub-particles and so on ) ...... As they spin they create a weake/wave in the SuperFluid which causes the micro-vortices to interact with each other ( gravity ) hence there is NO straight line motion in the Universe . ----------------- As the micro-vortices pass through the Slit experiment they will interact with the slit walls/edges , among themselfs plus any other micro-vortice or existing weakes/gravity waves present . ...This interaction changes the Direction of the micro-vortices as they pass and move away from the slits causing the observed variation in the light exposure ( bends of alternating dark and bright on the Target surface ) .... IN other words there is no cancelation of Light ( loss of 'photons' ) as the slit result is generally explained but rather a variation of the direction of movement exibited by the interacting micro-vortices resulting in diferent locations where the micro-vortices land on the observed target ........... ************************************* P R E D I C T I O N : .. Here Harold , a Prediction of the UPN regarding this classic Slit experiment : UPN predicts that even the Light areas observed on the target will contain Photons ( hits ) even though in fewer numbers . The reason is because there are no photon restricting fields present in the experiment hence Any trajectory is possible because Any interaction is possible among micro-vortices ( or their assembly of larger sub-particles ) even though the largest number of 'events' is affected by the geometrical and dimenssion particulars of any given slit experiment . This also implies that changing the number , shape or size of the slit arrangement will also change the dark/light pattern observed , something that is more intuitive .... ...... ************************* >>>>>> .... P R E D I C T I O N 2 >>>>>>>>: .... Here Harold , A Second prediction of the UPN : the resulting light/dark patern produced by a given unchanged mechanical arrangement of the Slits WILL BE - slightly - DIFFERENT IN THE Space Shuttle ( lower gravity weakes ) than on the surface of Earth . Fortunately THIS experiment CAN be done , please contact NASA or better yet the Russians ...... .......................( P.S. Harold , any problems with this , please ? - be explicit , not like Meteor Wayne ) .
     

  15. #115  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    FYI Science Forum : Submission to NASA for Experiment ........... Wednesday, December 14, 2011 ...... Dear NASA , ................................. Please consider my request for this very simple Space experiment to determine two things : ************* 1) the validity of the Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) , aka the Grand Unifying theory of physics , attached and found at the end of the Recipe for a Nation . ************** 2) My proposed Gravitometer to measure gravity and which would function based on the UPN The Experiment requested has already being done , it is the Younge or Double Slit experiment showing the duality wave/particle of matter . In my experiment what counts is that the mechanical system to be extremely stable in dimensions as not to influence the results . *********************** The Methodology is very simple : do the experiment on Earth and then repeat it in Space to see the difference in geometry and dimension of the Slits generated diffraction pattern under the two conditions . Any difference will be caused by gravity hence confirming my UPN theory . A strong electron microscope will be needed to see the differences . ------------------------- This also can be developed to have the Double or Triple Slits devices used to measure both the intensity AND direction of gravity waves Plus to Sense gravity waves in Real Time ! ----------------------------Further observations : my UPN theory also predicts that the Light areas of the Slit pattern will also contain Hits ( photons , electrons , whatever used in the experiment ) . ************************* UPN predicts that even the Light areas observed on the target will contain Photons ( hits ) even though in fewer numbers . The reason is because there are no photon restricting fields present in the experiment hence Any trajectory is possible because Any interaction is possible among micro-vortices ( or their assembly of larger sub-particles ) even though the largest number of 'events' is affected by the geometrical and dimension particulars of any given slit experiment . This also implies that changing the number , shape or size of the slit arrangement will also change the dark/light pattern observed , something that is more intuitive . ************************** A Second prediction of the UPN : the resulting light/dark pattern produced by a given unchanged mechanical arrangement of the Slits WILL BE - slightly - DIFFERENT IN THE Space Shuttle ( lower gravity wakes ) than on the surface of Earth . Fortunately THIS experiment CAN be done in space now . >>>>>> Best regards ,
     

  16. #116  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Have you ever>>>>>>>>>>>thought...........about***********t rying;;;;;;;;;;; to ---_-p_-_-_----_-_ make &&&&&&&&&&&sense%%%%%%%%%in^^^^^^^^a !@#$%^&*() single """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""post?
     

  17. #117  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Urod,

    So far, you have not predicted any results that differ from standard quantum mechanical theory. Of course there is a probability of a photon striking anywhere, because that is what quantum mechanics says. It is a probability function. Yes, light is affected by gravity. We know that already. All you are doing is reading about experiments that are already done, then weaving a story about it to fit your "UPN." We see religious zealots do that kind of thing all the time here on the Science Forum.
     

  18. #118  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    There is indeed a model in existence using the basic idea of a "superfluid vacuum" to construct a consistent theory of quantum gravity :

    Superfluid vacuum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Note however that the details of this theory are different from the model proposed in this thread, and I am afraid to say, the maths needed to construct such a model are somewhat less than trivial and straightforward, to say the very least. The SVT is, however, considered to be a potential candidate for a viable theory of quantum gravity.
    On this thread, even though the basic idea may be workable, I am sorry to say that many of the conclusions drawn and statements made are mere conjectures at best, and utter nonsense at worst ( black holes inside sun ???? ).
     

  19. #119  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    What happened to the "timid" in the title?
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    There is indeed a model in existence using the basic idea of a "superfluid vacuum" to construct a consistent theory of quantum gravity :Superfluid vacuum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNote however that the details of this theory are different from the model proposed in this thread, and I am afraid to say, the maths needed to construct such a model are somewhat less than trivial and straightforward, to say the very least. The SVT is, however, considered to be a potential candidate for a viable theory of quantum gravity.On this thread, even though the basic idea may be workable, I am sorry to say that many of the conclusions drawn and statements made are mere conjectures at best, and utter nonsense at worst ( black holes inside sun ???? ).
    Black holes as described by my theory are different from the black holes of the quantum theory .They are called Bright Vortices and they actually Create ( spin ) matter as we know it . Hence ONLY the UPN Bright Vortices ( black holes ) can contibiously generate NEW matter that the Sun can eject over million of years Without losing significant Mass ! I would GREATLY appreciate if you would find the time to analyze in detail each Logic step in the UPN and give your approval .Furthermore , I want to Thank you for taking the time to let me know your oppinion , it is important to me .Now , all the Super Fluid math in existance refer to a different Super Fluid as the one described by my UPN . All the super fluids known are Granular , made of particles . My SuperFluid is non-granular , it is continious , a different state of 'matter' , the Fundamental state of nature .I am looking forward to your reply , thank you . But , Please , first read the UPN ( no math to argue about , just pure Logic ) .P.S. Hey Harold , here , loging under a new name gave instant access to text formating proving that ....
     

  21. #121  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    What happened to the "timid" in the title?
    It supposed to gain confidence based on the public READING first the UPN Before criticizing it !! ....... But NO , they surprised me ! ................ How about YOU ?? Did you read it ... first ? ------------ Hey Harold , no doubt , the faulty Text Formating is following my computer IP , no doubt , THAT PROVES THAT THE SCIENCE FORUM PEOPLE ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO SABOTAGING MY POSTS ! SHAME !------------- You still NEVER found a single fault with the UPN , AND you know it ! Einstein , kiss goodbye your theory of 'illusions/relativities/BS ' ....
     

  22. #122  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    NOTICE ( to Lynx_Fox )as well : I received questions about my Urod 2 sig . I had to re-register last year when my original sig was banned and I wasn't able to log in . But also proves that my IP is targeted and my posts text formating is Sabotaged Plus 'Urod' does not get Notifications of private or public postings in this thread , that's why you seen me answering late ( no notification of your post ) ... Sorry to divert .... ------ about the Bright Vortex , aka Black Holes ...... as deduced by UPN they are no where as big as we think today yet they are numerous and can assemble in rotating structures just as vortices would ( please read the details in the UPN text or ask me for a copy ) --------- --- in UPN the Bright Vortices spin the surounding SuperFluid creating matter and movement ( energy ) as we see it , that's why the BVs are very bright ----- here is the startling confirmation ( see text for links ) : .... 1) The Sun loses so much matter every day that only BVs can replanish it on the go for million of years , and ............ 2) the observed trajectories of stars very close to the Centre of a galaxy display a Random pattern easily explained by a rotating agregration of BVs ( black holes ) , hence their Centre of common gravity wakes will vary in location as the BV structure rotates in space , hence affecting the star's orbits giving an apperant random aspect ( I have seen it also on HDTV animation as the astronomer provided the comments ) . --------------- So here two observation that support multi BV structures , hence support the UPN .
     

  23. #123  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    NOTICE ( to Lynx_Fox )as well : I received questions about my Urod 2 sig . I had to re-register last year when my original sig was banned and I wasn't able to log in . But also proves that my IP is targeted and my posts text formating is Sabotaged Plus 'Urod' does not get Notifications of private or public postings in this thread , that's why you seen me answering late ( no notification of your post )
    Ok....so you were banned from here and started a new name. Creating sock puppets is against the rules as well. I don't see where you were banned but it might have been temporary for some infraction.
    You never answered my question...which one do you want to keep. I'm banning the 2nd one since you seem to get getting in fine with Urod.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    NOTICE ( to Lynx_Fox )as well : I received questions about my Urod 2 sig . I had to re-register last year when my original sig was banned and I wasn't able to log in . But also proves that my IP is targeted and my posts text formating is Sabotaged Plus 'Urod' does not get Notifications of private or public postings in this thread , that's why you seen me answering late ( no notification of your post )
    Ok....so you were banned from here and started a new name. Creating sock puppets is against the rules as well. I don't see where you were banned but it might have been temporary for some infraction.You never answered my question...which one do you want to keep. I'm banning the 2nd one since you seem to get getting in fine with Urod.
    Well , OK , cancel ' 2 ' , but if have the 'powers' than how about restoring my text formating which doesn't work for neither sigs conforming that my IP is 'tracked' . 'Urod' doesn't get Notification either besides the format problem , would you please fix that too . Can you , please ? 'Harold' couldn't ...
     

  25. #125  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,249
    were you using the same computer for both accounts?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  26. #126  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Well , OK , cancel ' 2 ' , but if have the 'powers' than how about restoring my text formating which doesn't work for neither sigs conforming that my IP is 'tracked' . 'Urod' doesn't get Notification either besides the format problem , would you please fix that too . Can you , please ? 'Harold' couldn't
    Not really understanding your problem.

    I suggest you do your best to describe the problems, with examples if you can, and post on the site feedback sub-forum. Other users might have the problem, or there there might be a glitch that admin can fix.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    were you using the same computer for both accounts?
    Thank you for trying to help !.... Last year the SF went down and when it came back next day my registration was not recognized , so I re-registered as Urod 2 ------ I didn't tell this to _Fox because I wanted to see the behaviour at hand ,.... sure enough all I get is static , read the _Fox reply above -------------- Never the less , two days or so after the SF came back on line ( last year's incident ) my original registration start being recognized again so I didn't use any longer ' Urod 2 ' ................ Now , the text formating since then is gone Plus that I do not get Notifications anylonger , AND I complained repetedly and up to date their help from the SF Admin was ZERO !!! ----- the proof is right here , still no text formating and no notification , and act of Sabotage ...............Coming to your question , I have the same result/problems posting from Three different computers with Three diferent MS Windows OS versions ..... Thanks again for help dear !....................... Geeee , no physics discussion here , darn ....
     

  28. #128  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    By text formatting you mean hmtl tags, or the menu bar above the post entry?
    Not sure what you mean by notification? If you mean PMs, how do you know any are being sent?
    Who, specifically did you notify with the problem? And did you break it down in an understandable way?

    Claiming an act of Sabotage isn't going to get you much help. If there's a problem member, we don't mess with them (it takes too much time and would be boring anyhow), we warn, suspend and ban; not even with people from Calgary (kidding)

    And this is still the wrong forum to get anything technical resolved.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  29. #129  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod 2 View Post
    I would GREATLY appreciate if you would find the time to analyze in detail each Logic step in the UPN and give your approval.
    I can't give you any approval for this model in it's current form. For one thing there is no proper mathematical formulation, so no quantitative predictions are possible; in other words, we really don't know how your model would behave in the real world, so to speak.
    The other thing then is that there is a fundamental inconsistency in your basic postulates - you say your proposed fluid is both inelastic and uncompressible, and furthermore the universe is static. If this was the case then no dynamical processes could take place within this fluid, so no vortices, waves, wakes etc etc would be possible. Lastly then of course some of the most basic premises, like the universe being stationary, are completely contrary to observational evidence.
     

  30. #130  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    ....And this is still the wrong forum to get anything technical resolved.
    Thank you for your honesty , it answered all my questions without nothing being new ...
     

  31. #131  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod 2 View Post
    I would GREATLY appreciate if you would find the time to analyze in detail each Logic step in the UPN and give your approval.
    I can't give you any approval for this model in it's current form. For one thing there is no proper mathematical formulation, so no quantitative predictions are possible; in other words, we really don't know how your model would behave in the real world, so to speak.The other thing then is that there is a fundamental inconsistency in your basic postulates - you say your proposed fluid is both inelastic and uncompressible, and furthermore the universe is static. If this was the case then no dynamical processes could take place within this fluid, so no vortices, waves, wakes etc etc would be possible. Lastly then of course some of the most basic premises, like the universe being stationary, are completely contrary to observational evidence.
    Observational Evidence at our scale Markus , i.e. like saying that the Earth is the centre of the Universe , they already tryed that ...... By Static it is meant as not expending , are you sure that you seen it in the UPN Text ? It doesn't appear so because it is explained at lenght , Markus ...... Once you'll go back and see that actually it refers to size and its expenditure than you'll see also there is no reasons to worry about the concerns you brought up , an appreciated gesture though . I am glad this is just a glitch in 'complete reading ' of the UPN . ....... BTW , the same is said about the inelasticity and uncomressibility of the SuperFluid I described , other way no vortices would happen in water , so again this you will solve by complete reading of the UPN , I am sure you are Diligent ..... ---- But indeed , the math is missing .... WHY , you didn't asked but Just assumed ...... Because , I dare you arguing , we Must First be sure of the validity of the UPN before Matematicians will bother working out the formulas . Apperantly you are not aware , Markus that ... 1) Most formulas were Empirically derived ( Google meaning ) , and .... 2) Outside the UPN , THERE IS NO Grand Theory of Physics , Markus !! so what ARe you so confident in ? ..... The Logic Steps in the UPN are exposed one by one and numbered for your ease of making a point ...... Any Reasons , Markus , that you didn't mention not even one single Logic Step from the UPN that you can prove is wrong ? Because you can't .... Try again .... after Diligently Read ( not Speed ) and Understand the simple UPN , I am looking forward to your reply with the Numbered Logic Steps that you can prove wrong , not the misunderstood generalities that you brough forward . ..... Cheers !
     

  32. #132  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    So let me get this straight :

    Outside the UPN , THERE IS NO Grand Theory of Physics
    You did not come here in order to engage in a meaningful discussion...really all you are here for is to proliferate your model, and no criticism that anyone gives will ever be considered by you. And why should you ? Your so-called model is so vague that anything can be molded to fit into it.

    Because , I dare you arguing , we Must First be sure of the validity of the UPN before Matematicians will bother working out the formulas .
    Unacceptable ! Are you not the author of this model ? It is your responsibility to give a proper formulation, without which the validity of your model cannot even be evaluated. No one will do it for you. How can someone tell whether this UPN of yours is of any use if no numerical predictions can be made from it ? The language of physics is mathematics, whether you like that fact or not. We already know that you cannot do maths, but that's your own problem. Sit down and study, and once you can produce a valid formalism for this, then we will be more than happy to sit down and discuss this further. Until then you are just wasting everyone's time.

    BTW , the same is said about the inelasticity and uncomressibility of the SuperFluid I described , other way no vortices would happen in water
    This only goes to show how little you actually know of physics. Water is not inelastic. Do you even understand the concept of elasticity ?
    Furthermore, you say your fluid is not composed of any particles, it is a continuous medium. As such it is nothing like water, and would behave in a completely different way. In fact, come to think of it, a fluid that isn't composed of any constituents would actually have a viscosity of zero, and wouldn't be a fluid at all.

    Any Reasons , Markus , that you didn't mention not even one single Logic Step from the UPN that you can prove is wrong ?
    I did and you didn't reply. An uncompressible, inelastic fluid that isn't composed of any constituents cannot have non-zero viscosity, and neither can it have dynamic processes like vortices etc. You have not even attempted to explain this.
    Oh, and just to make this clear to you - the onus is on you to prove the validity of your model; it is not up to me to prove you wrong on anything, or to defend already establish theories. Don't forget that. You challenge standard theories, so you must bring forward the appropriate evidence.

    the misunderstood generalities that you brough forward .
    Hilarious !
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; January 21st, 2012 at 09:43 AM.
     

  33. #133  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I refer to the most basic premise upon which your entire model is based :

    Nothingness doesn’t exist
    Prove to us that "Nothing" cannot exist ??
     

  34. #134  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Nothingness is not around and can not be created
    Prove it. As you present it, it is mere conjecture, an unsupported claim. This isn't science, but rather belongs to philosophy.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; January 21st, 2012 at 09:30 AM.
     

  35. #135  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Atoms and sub-particles explained ( see Logic Road # 12 ) . Sub-particles as we know them are single micro vortices of spinning SuperFluid at the speed of light ( naturally ) . They were created by the SMAVs ( Black Holes ) , see Property # 9 .
    The Atoms are vast arrangements of interlocking micro vortices of spinning SuperFluid . The larger the atom the larger the number of vortices involved . The shape of the structure formed by interlocking micro vortices can be determined using Fluid Dynamics .
    So your explanation of how elementary particles emerge and behave is based on Fluid Dynamics, as you yourself say above. A vortex in fluid dynamics can be fully described by choosing a coordinate system, and defining a field of velocity vectors for each given point. An elementary particle, on the other hand, needs to following degrees of freedom to be fully described :

    - Energy ( rest mass )
    - Momentum
    - Charge
    - Spin
    - Chirality
    - Helicity
    - Colour ( QCD ! )
    - Flavor numbers ( isospin, charm, strangeness, topness, bottomness, baryon number )
    - Lepton number

    Can you explain which properties of your vortices each of the above corresponds to ?

    Also, how do you explain particle decay ? In fluid dynamics, vortices can combine to form larger vortices, but the reverse is not true - you cannot split one already existing large vortex into several smaller ones. There is no such process in fluid dynamics, to the best of my knowledge.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; January 21st, 2012 at 09:29 AM.
     

  36. #136  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    A good approach would be to use Fluid Dynamics and computer models to see in what configuration micro vortices can self assemble and the properties of those structures .
    Well, we can't, because you have not given us a mathematical description of your model.
    As for standard fluid dynamics - just Google it, you will find all the info you need.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; January 21st, 2012 at 09:35 AM.
     

  37. #137  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    No math is necessary to understand it , common sense will do alone .
    Complete rubbish. Any useful theory needs a mathematical framework, or else no quantitive predictions are possible.
     

  38. #138  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    "No math is necessary to understand it , common sense will do alone "

    The standard claim of pseudoscience
    Strange likes this.
     

  39. #139  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    "No math is necessary to understand it , common sense will do alone "

    The standard claim of pseudoscience
    My thoughts precisely
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Atoms and sub-particles explained ( see Logic Road # 12 ) . Sub-particles as we know them are single micro vortices of spinning SuperFluid at the speed of light ( naturally ) . They were created by the SMAVs ( Black Holes ) , see Property # 9 .The Atoms are vast arrangements of interlocking micro vortices of spinning SuperFluid . The larger the atom the larger the number of vortices involved . The shape of the structure formed by interlocking micro vortices can be determined using Fluid Dynamics .
    So your explanation of how elementary particles emerge and behave is based on Fluid Dynamics, as you yourself say above. A vortex in fluid dynamics can be fully described by choosing a coordinate system, and defining a field of velocity vectors for each given point. An elementary particle, on the other hand, needs to following degrees of freedom to be fully described :- Energy ( rest mass )- Momentum- Charge- Spin- Chirality- Helicity- Colour ( QCD ! )- Flavor numbers ( isospin, charm, strangeness, topness, bottomness, baryon number )- Lepton numberCan you explain which properties of your vortices each of the above corresponds to ? ........Also, how do you explain particle decay ? In fluid dynamics, vortices can combine to form larger vortices, but the reverse is not true - you cannot split one already existing large vortex into several smaller ones. There is no such process in fluid dynamics, to the best of my knowledge.
    .................................................. ......... ---------------------------- First of all Thank you for taking the time , However , most of your questions were already answerd by the UPN text , I BEG you to read it completly , such as : ......... a) the fundamental "particles" as described by UPN are micro-vortices ( MVs ) spining the non-granular SuperFluid ( that makes everithing ) .... Hence PArticle Decay AND "dark " matter mass are simply vortices that slowed down for what ever reasons ( either interactions or just the viscosity of the SuperFluid ( as extremely small that may be ) .................. b) in UPN the "particles" ARE made out of Vortices ( which explains the Duality wave/particle , the famous Double Slit experiment BTW ) . Now you see that we need to Mix the math ( vortex/wave & particle ) which makes things even more complicated for me specialy since I am not a matematician nor a phisicist . I would be very happy to have the UPN Logic solid and accepted , we'll wory later about squeezing out the helpfull Formulas ................. c) Properties of the micro-vortices ( MVs ) : .......... 1) Energy : the MVs spin at the speed of light hence their movement represents their energy . When the size of the MVs will be worked out , their energy will be calculatred more accurately . BTW , there is no Resting energy , we need to realize the difference between MVs and how we interpret today particles . ............... 2) The spin direction is dictated by the Bright Vortex ( a.k.a. Black Hole ) that generated that particular MV .................. 3) the rest of the properties that you listed I'll need your help to translate from the present view of particles to the combination of spining wave ( vortex ) and Unit ( particle ) that the Micro Vortices ( MVs )are . But this implies you'll give your blessings to every step in the UPN chain of logic , hence you need to read the darn thing , but then consider the goodies if you'll do so .But until then please take a look at the UPN text , all logic steps are numbered so I made it easy to troubleshoot .--------------- ANd keep in mind , we are looking at a non-granular SuperFluid which is spun at the speed of light in sub-Fempto size micro-vortices ( the fundamental sub-sub-particles ) . I called them Micro-Vortices ( MV ) . Try hard to imagine them ... ..............What I appreciate in your reply is the reference to merging vortices and also spliting a vortex . From the UPN the micro-vortices representing the fundamental sub-sub-particles stay Separated due to their extreme rotational speed that creates a Weake in the churned non-granular SuperFluid . This wake is the means of vortices interaction/association . Those combined properties do keep the MVs separated yet able to join and even form Harmonics ( expressed in either Structures or Movement/Energy ) . Now you see why ALWAYS Logic Precides Formulas/Math in a solid theory ( i.e. the formulas were Not found Empirically - by experimnt/chance - instead they were dervided from the logic of the phenomenon ) . This is the trade-mark of a true Unifying Theory of Nature , all is derived from its logic , formulas included , without empirical experimentation . There is one good reason that supports this : the Universe IS LOgic ! .........................By all means , I do need your skill in math and building correct formulas , but first you must agree with the Logic , so pleasae disect the steps provided .................... Many thanks to all participating !
     

  41. #141  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,249
    So you are not able to add paragraphs to your posts? you should be able to add space between the comments by hitting the space bar several times, no need for the very distracting periods/dashes. I still think the problem lies at your end to be honest.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  42. #142  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    However , most of your questions were already answerd by the UPN text
    No they were not, that's why I was posting them !!

    Hence PArticle Decay AND "dark " matter mass are simply vortices that slowed down
    Decay means that a particle decays into a other particles. Since you are saying that particles are vortices, that would mean that one vortex splits into several other vortices. There is no process in fluid dynamics that corresponds to this.

    the rest of the properties that you listed I'll need your help to translate from the present view of particles to the combination of spining wave ( vortex ) and Unit ( particle ) that the Micro Vortices ( MVs )are
    Well, this cannot be done, that's exactly my point. Particles as we can observe them have far too many degrees of freedom to be explainable by vortices. Fluid dynamics just can't be used to model particle interactions !

    But this implies you'll give your blessings to every step in the UPN chain of logic
    What the...?! Are you here to get blessings, or are you here to receive constructive feedback from the forum members regarding your model ? Well, from me you will only get the latter.

    we are looking at a non-granular SuperFluid which is spun at the speed of ligh
    This is the basic problem ! An inelastic, incompressible, non-granular fluid would in essence be a perfect solid, and no dynamical processes like vortexes etc could take place in it. You have not yet explained this, by the way.
     

  43. #143  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;303114][QUOTE] ..... An elementary particle, on the other hand, needs to following degrees of freedom to be fully described :- Energy ( rest mass )- Momentum- Charge- Spin- Chirality- Helicity- Colour ( QCD ! )- Flavor numbers ( isospin, charm, strangeness, topness, bottomness, baryon number )- Lepton number.... Can you explain which properties of your vortices each of the above corresponds to ? QUOTE] Furthe more to my reply : the MicroVortices that the UPN describes as the Fundamental sub-sub-"particles" , are in your world of physics the equivalent of Quarks ( which so far are considered fundamenta particles in the Quantum theory ) ........ So Markus , would you ask about ALL the Properties you listed above regarding a quark ... Of course not , so than , if you understood the UPN , why did you ask the same about the MicroVortices ... ............. That`s why I am encouraging you to read First the UPN , specially since it so simple that you`ll answer your own questions much better than me who I am not a scientist ...............Heck , you even may derive the Formulas ! ( keep in mind that the UPN SuperFluid is non-granular unlike the super fluid we use in the lab , hence it will differ in properties , hence the math will be different ------ .... Now you see why it is sooo important to work the Propertie First ........... I am looking forward to your constructive criticism , Thank you !
     

  44. #144  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    we are looking at a non-granular SuperFluid which is spun at the speed of ligh
    This is the basic problem ! An inelastic, incompressible, non-granular fluid would in essence be a perfect solid, and no dynamical processes like vortexes etc could take place in it. You have not yet explained this, by the way.[/QUOTE]................ In contrary , I explained it Step by Step in the UPN but you do not want to read it , you are just picking up `stuff`and try to match it to what you believe as current theories . BTW , that`s exactely what they were saying when they believed the Earth was flat , the same mentality ..................You are talking from the top of your head because you did not read the UPN first , and the Silly part of your judgement can be seen by anyone observing the UPN text and how the logic steps are easily presented , yet you , up to date were not able to point to on sigle step in the logic chain as faulty .....Go ahead Markus , NAME THAT STEP ! And , of course , explain why is wrong ...
     

  45. #145  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Oh , BTW , since I can not update the original text here ( the first post ) due to lenghth issues , please make a note that the Updated UPN is available at the end of this web site : TheRecipeForaNation.WordPress.com ......................... Also , further SABOTAGE of my posts is taking place , now my Signature does not get posted any longer !!! But , justice is here eeventhough the ignorants do not realize = Google saved this thread and I am looking forward to the day I will present it to the world and bring to light the saboteurs .......................................... What makes my day everyday is the realisation that there is ONLY ONE correct theory describing the Universe , not even the ScienceForum can change that
     

  46. #146  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    keep in mind that the UPN SuperFluid is non-granular unlike the super fluid we use in the lab , hence it will differ in properties , hence the math will be different ------
    Then why are you calling it a superfluid?
    up to date were not able to point to on sigle step in the logic chain as faulty .....Go ahead Markus , NAME THAT STEP ! And , of course , explain why is wrong ...
    People have done that, including Markus. You just haven't responded. Note, in post 133 he asked you to prove that nothingness cannot exist.
     

  47. #147  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Urod, I suggest you go to Settings (top right of the forum page), scroll down to select General Settings (in the menu on the left) and then scroll down to set the Text Editor to either "Basic" or "Standard" and see if that fixes your formatting problems.
     

  48. #148  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Urod, I suggest you go to Settings (top right of the forum page), scroll down to select General Settings (in the menu on the left) and then scroll down to set the Text Editor to either "Basic" or "Standard" and see if that fixes your formatting problems.
    You are much Kinder than the 'mediators' , Thank you for your thoughts of help ! .....I followed your adviced and under my ' Settings' there is no option .... Thanks again , you are one of a Kind , dear !Cheers !
     

  49. #149  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    keep in mind that the UPN SuperFluid is non-granular unlike the super fluid we use in the lab , hence it will differ in properties , hence the math will be different ------
    Then why are you calling it a superfluid?
    up to date were not able to point to on sigle step in the logic chain as faulty .....Go ahead Markus , NAME THAT STEP ! And , of course , explain why is wrong ...
    People have done that, including Markus. You just haven't responded. Note, in post 133 he asked you to prove that nothingness cannot exist.
    .................... 1) Markus's post 133 ... Proving that Nothingness Can not Exist : I just send you a $ 1 million check , it's in the mail ..... that will prove you that Nothingness doesn't exist and without using insults ..... ...2) the UPN is made of consequtive Logis steps , prove one wrong and use its Number to call it ..... ...3) Harold , don't you see Why I call it a SuperFluid ? ...... It is Similar yet not identical to a granular laboratory super fluid ..... it's for ease of Understanding its properties and behaviour ...... 4) Are you aware of 2 inch Steel cutting tools using Water jets ? .... Hence it will help understand how a fluid can be as hard as Diamonds ....... Open a beer ( to open the dogmatic mind ) and enjoy the UPN .....
     

  50. #150  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    "No math is necessary to understand it , common sense will do alone "The standard claim of pseudoscience
    My thoughts precisely
    Here two 'scientists' saying that : ............ 1) Common sense is not good enough to understand the UPN ! ..... there is no math in the UPN , do you guys understand it ? None of you two so far brought forward one single Numbered Logic Step in the UPN and prove was wrong , including the lame atempt at 'Nothingness' that should have been understood since kindergarden .......2) If you need math to understand the Universe it means that math is an intrinsec part of the Universe , hence show me the math outside your own brain ..... You guys need to correct your Reversed understanding of Nature : its phenomenons are interpreted by us using math , Not the Phenomenons using math !! ............. 3) Furher disclosing your misunderstandings of Nature/Physics , you both failed to realize that Most formulas in Physiscs were build observing , I said OBSERVING ! , Nature's phenomenons ..... it is called Empirical formulas ....... hence math/formulas Followed Observations ! ..... At this time both of you lost ALL the credits in this forum , it is clear how shallow your overall understanding of the present science is , yourselves proved it with your comments ...... you both even didn't take a Hint from the present Physics theories that are universally accepted as not explaining all the Observations , hence outside the UPN there is no accepted GRAND UNIFYING Theory of Physics , never mind one generating All the formulas Ahead of Experiments ! ...... ........... *** 4) Please refer to the Updated UPN ( as it happens ) by reading the Original at the end of the Recipe for a Nation web site .. ( TheRecipeForaNation.WordPress.com ) . ..... The reason is because I can not modify my original post here due to document Size issues with TheScienceForum software ......
    Last edited by Urod; January 28th, 2012 at 09:04 PM.
     

  51. #151  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    I followed your adviced and under my ' Settings' there is no option ....
    No option for what? no "General Settings" (that is in the box labelled "My Settings") or no "Message Editor Interface" option (under "Miscellaneous Options")? What browser are you using?
     

  52. #152  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Any Reasons , Markus , that you didn't mention not even one single Logic Step from the UPN that you can prove is wrong ?
    ....I did and you didn't reply. An uncompressible, inelastic fluid that isn't composed of any constituents cannot have non-zero viscosity, and neither can it have dynamic processes like vortices etc. You have not even attempted to explain this.,,,[/QUOTE] But I did , it's in the UPN text that you missed , .... among others , the SuperFluid ( that makes up the Universe and us ) occupying the smallest possible Space does it by having a viscosity close to minus infinte ! ...... it is in the Text , How did you miss it ?? ... see the Detailed explanation there .
     

  53. #153  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    a viscosity close to minus infinte ! ...... it is in the Text
    Maybe you need to read what you wrote. Your text says "infinitely low", "low", "extreme low", "towards small infinite or nil" (whatever that means).

    It doesn't say "minus infinite" (whatever that means).

    You just need to understand that your "theory" is just an incoherent pile meaningless sentences with no connecing logic or physical meaning.
     

  54. #154  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    ... Nothingness is not around and can not be created
    ... Prove it. As you present it, it is mere conjecture, an unsupported claim. This isn't science, but rather belongs to philosophy.
    ................... ==== . ... Here it is , always was around : Nothingness means by scientific definition the absence of everything , including Space it self ........ To eliminate everything around the area of Nothingness including Space you need at least as much energy as the Space it self has in order to be able to 'modify' it , change it and most importantly to keep it away from the area of Nothingness ,...... Since Nothingness represents a total absence of energy including the Space it self , it would not have the energy required to Repeal the Sorounding Somethingness that we Observe in existance ........ hence Nothingness could not exist ..... Further more , since nothing can be create from Nothingness means that Somethingness IS the Default because Nothigness NEVER existed !! And look , even math agrees : 1 + 0 = 1 . .... Do you feel like is a QED ? Objections ?
    Last edited by Urod; January 28th, 2012 at 08:34 PM.
     

  55. #155  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    [QUOTE=Strange;304662]
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    a viscosity close to minus infinte ! ...... it is in the Text
    Maybe you need to read what you wrote. Your text says "infinitely low", "low", "extreme low", "towards small infinite or nil" (whatever that means).It doesn't say "minus infinite" (whatever that means).[QUOTE] ....................... Well , If you heard about + infinite when things go UP in size or numbers , than will be easy for you to assimilate the concept of things going Smaller , towards Minus infinite , it gives the Direction , smaller , lower , see the Thesaurus ..... Thanks for your contribution !
    Last edited by Urod; January 28th, 2012 at 08:38 PM.
     

  56. #156 READ the darn TEXT in the UPN !!! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;302942]
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod 2 View Post
    I would GREATLY appreciate if you would find the time to analyze in detail each Logic step in the UPN and give your approval.
    The other thing then is that there is a fundamental inconsistency in your basic postulates - you say your proposed fluid is both inelastic and uncompressible, and furthermore the universe is static. If this was the case then no dynamical processes could take place within this fluid, so no vortices, waves, wakes etc etc would be possible. .....[QUOTE] ................................. Aren't you self-aware you are talking from the top of your head , again , without first reading the UPN text ?? ........ Here , again , you missed by not reading , the fact UPN describes the Fundamental Vortices ( FV ) that represent the Cosmic Background Radiation of 2.4 Kelvin and the reason why Absolute Zero doesn't exist . ...... They are Spontaneous and the Fundamental source of MOVEMENT , hence Energy , even "black holes" in the Universe ........ Similar Spontaneous vortices were already observed in granular Super Fluids in the lab , google it BUT also see the links I provided in the UPN - showing that indeed you didn't read it - about Bosse Condensate . ............ I am getting tired of your shallow ways of approaching science , never mind a fair way to understand the UPN ........ If you want my attention read the UPN first , than come back with the Step Number and your explanation ( see my previous answer to your amazing non-knowladge of Nothigness , kindergarten material ) .
    Last edited by Urod; January 28th, 2012 at 08:51 PM.
     

  57. #157  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    [QUOTE=Urod;304609][QUOTE=Markus Hanke;303114]
    ..... An elementary particle, on the other hand, needs to following degrees of freedom to be fully described :- Energy ( rest mass )- Momentum- Charge- Spin- Chirality- Helicity- Colour ( QCD ! )- Flavor numbers ( isospin, charm, strangeness, topness, bottomness, baryon number )- Lepton number.... Can you explain which properties of your vortices each of the above corresponds to ? QUOTE] Furthe more to my reply : the MicroVortices that the UPN describes as the Fundamental sub-sub-"particles" , are in your world of physics the equivalent of Quarks ( which so far are considered fundamenta particles in the Quantum theory ) ........ So Markus , would you ask about ALL the Properties you listed above regarding a quark ... Of course not , so than , if you understood the UPN , why did you ask the same about the MicroVortices ... ............. That`s why I am encouraging you to read First the UPN , specially since it so simple that you`ll answer your own questions much better than me who I am not a scientist ...............Heck , you even may derive the Formulas ! ( keep in mind that the UPN SuperFluid is non-granular unlike the super fluid we use in the lab , hence it will differ in properties , hence the math will be different ------ .... Now you see why it is sooo important to work the Propertie First ........... I am looking forward to your constructive criticism , Thank you !
    Well actually, since you say your vortices explain all particles, then yes, you do need all of these degrees of freedom.
    But let's keep it - for arguments sake - just to quarks. In this case you will need to incorporate the following degrees of freedom :

    - Flavour
    - Electric charge
    - Colour charge
    - Spin
    - Baryon number
    - Mass

    They're just the basic properties. In addition you would need to explain the strong interaction between the quarks, and of course the fact that quarks exhibit something called confinement, which means that they only occur at least in pairs, but never on their own. I am quite curious to know how you explain this in terms of fluid dynamics.
    Perhaps, just for this simple case, you could tell us which property of the vortices corresponds to each of the above properties. It would be a good start, and we can take the discussion from there, then.
     

  58. #158  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    [QUOTE=Urod;304633]
    Markus's post 133 ... Proving that Nothingness Can not Exist : I just send you a $ 1 million check , it's in the mail ..... that will prove you that Nothingness doesn't exist and without using insults ..... ...2) the UPN is made of consequtive Logis steps , prove one wrong and use its Number to call it
    Firstly, just for the record : I don't use insults. Sometimes I get passionate about things, but that's not the same.
    Secondly, I repeat myself in saying that it is not up to us to prove you wrong in your theory, it is up to yourself to prove that your theory is valid and correct. Do you see the difference ?
    Lastly then, I see it this way - suppose we take it for granted that "nothing" cannot exist ( a contradiction in itself, btw ); this means only that current mainstream theories are correct in saying that the universe started off as a quantum fluctuation within a chaotic quantum background. A good classic analogue would be boiling water - within a chaotic volume of boiling water perfectly symmetrical bubbles spontaneously form due to phase transitions. This sounds perfectly logic to me.
    As for space-time itself - vacuum has a non-vanishing zero point energy, and spacetime then has curvature, thus it can very well be regarded as "something". No fluid filling all of space is needed, nor does it follow from your initial supposition that nothing cannot exist - your superfluid is mere conjecture, it does NOT follow logically from your first principle at all. Why ? Because even completely empty space is not "nothing" since it has internal degrees of freedom, like curvature for example. Thus nothing doesn't exist, but neither does your superfluid - it just simply isn't needed.
     

  59. #159  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    [QUOTE=Urod;304668]
    The other thing then is that there is a fundamental inconsistency in your basic postulates - you say your proposed fluid is both inelastic and uncompressible, and furthermore the universe is static. If this was the case then no dynamical processes could take place within this fluid, so no vortices, waves, wakes etc etc would be possible. ..... ................................. Aren't you self-aware you are talking from the top of your head , again , without first reading the UPN text ?? ........ Here , again , you missed by not reading , the fact UPN describes the Fundamental Vortices ( FV ) that represent the Cosmic Background Radiation of 2.4 Kelvin and the reason why Absolute Zero doesn't exist . ...... They are Spontaneous and the Fundamental source of MOVEMENT , hence Energy , even "black holes" in the Universe ........ Similar Spontaneous vortices were already observed in granular Super Fluids in the lab , google it BUT also see the links I provided in the UPN - showing that indeed you didn't read it - about Bosse Condensate . ............ I am getting tired of your shallow ways of approaching science , never mind a fair way to understand the UPN ........ If you want my attention read the UPN first , than come back with the Step Number and your explanation ( see my previous answer to your amazing non-knowladge of Nothigness , kindergarten material ) .
    Urod, you are completely ignoring my point - I told you that a fluid that is both inelastic and uncompressible ( your very own "Logic Road #8" !!!! ) cannot have any dynamic processes like vortices and wakes. It would essentially be a perfect solid. You have not responded to that at all.
    I can't comment on the rest of your post because background radiation and "absolute zero" wasn't part of my post. Don't know where you got that from.
     

  60. #160  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Aren't you self-aware you are talking from the top of your head , again , without first reading the UPN text ??
    Will you stop saying that please, it is starting to really irritate me ! I have read your OP ( otherwise I wouldn't be commenting in the first place ), and I am giving you my honest feedback. Do you want to hear it ? If so than I suggest you take abord what the members of this forum are trying to tell you, and respond to the critisicms we present with regards to your model. If on the other hand you aren't prepared to listen, and you are here only because you expect all of us to sing halleluja and praise your revolutionary new "Theory of Everything", than...well you get the idea. Think about it.
     

  61. #161  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Oh by the way, I have just looked up the exact definition of "Viscosity" here :

    Viscosity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In this article, under Molecular Origins, it says ( quote ) :

    "The viscosity of a system is determined by how molecules constituting the system interact."

    plus the appropriate maths. What this mean is that a non-granular fluid ( one with no constituents ) actually has infinitely large viscosity. Once again, this means that dynamic processes in such a medium are not possible. This is yet another problem for your model, it seems...
     

  62. #162  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Oh by the way, I have just looked up the exact definition of "Viscosity" here :Viscosity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In this article, under Molecular Origins, it says ( quote ) :"The viscosity of a system is determined by how molecules constituting the system interact." plus the appropriate maths. What this mean is that a non-granular fluid ( one with no constituents ) actually has infinitely large viscosity. Once again, this means that dynamic processes in such a medium are not possible. This is yet another problem for your model, it seems...
    1) Wikipedia does not desc ribe the UPN ...........2) Please understand ( my Last attempt ) that the UPN describes Nature in a totally different way that the Quantum theory , HENCE it is not a conversation to compare the two ....... stop comparing the Quantum theory with the UPN , it is silly , is like comparing apples and oranges .......... 3) I asked you many times to use the Logic Steps in the UPN to point to faults . ...... Instead you keep hiding behind the Quantum skirt without being able to point to one proble in the UPN Logic Steps ......4) Here is the viscosity Logic , IT IS IN THE UPN TEXT , not at Wikipedia ! : ................................7-2 : , a Property of Somethingness derived from the Fundamental Law : it has to be Fine/small enough in structure to occupy Every space in the Universe in order that Nothingness will not exist . Its fine structure has to go towards negative infinity but without completely disappearing ( nothingness doesn’t exist and can not be created ) . ................ Hence its Viscosity has to approach minus infinite , JUST AS WE OBSERVE IT IN DEEP SPACE !! ........ Now Markus , prove that wrong .....
     

  63. #163  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    ( my Last attempt )
    Yay!
    Hence its Viscosity has to approach minus infinite
    Except when you say "viscosity" you are inventing your own word that has nothing to do with the "viscosity" that everybody else understands. So we have no way of knowing what you mean or what behavior it implies.
     

  64. #164  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    1) Wikipedia does not desc ribe the UPN ...........2) Please understand ( my Last attempt ) that the UPN describes Nature in a totally different way that the Quantum theory , HENCE it is not a conversation to compare the two ....... stop comparing the Quantum theory with the UPN , it is silly , is like comparing apples and oranges .......... 3) I asked you many times to use the Logic Steps in the UPN to point to faults . ...... Instead you keep hiding behind the Quantum skirt without being able to point to one proble in the UPN Logic Steps ......4) Here is the viscosity Logic , IT IS IN THE UPN TEXT , not at Wikipedia ! : ................................7-2 : , a Property of Somethingness derived from the Fundamental Law : it has to be Fine/small enough in structure to occupy Every space in the Universe in order that Nothingness will not exist . Its fine structure has to go towards negative infinity but without completely disappearing ( nothingness doesn’t exist and can not be created ) . ................ Hence its Viscosity has to approach minus infinite , JUST AS WE OBSERVE IT IN DEEP SPACE !! ........ Now Markus , prove that wrong .....


    It's like talking to a wall...

    1) Would you like me to give references other than Wikipedia ?
    2) My friend, you say your UPN explains all phenomena in nature, thus it needs to be able to explain all observed quantum phenomena as well !
    3) I have pointed out numerous problems with your steps...you have responded to none of them
    4) Wikipedia article on viscosity is based on established, observed and verified science. Your own definition of viscosity if based on imagination. I leave it up to the reader to decide which one to follow...
    5) There is no such thing as "negative viscosity". There you go, I have proven you wrong.

    And once again you have completely ignored all my points from posts 157 - 159.
    This is not a discussion anymore because you don't respond to any criticisms presented.
    I think we are finished here.
     

  65. #165  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    At this time both of you lost ALL the credits in this forum , it is clear how shallow your overall understanding of the present science is


    Hey, at least Strange and myself we understand the physics of the Relativistic Unicorn Field...
    We shall soon elaborate further on a common thread. Unicorns are much better suited to explain the universe. Strange has already established that they are the true source of gravitation !
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Urod, if you understand your theory well enough, why don't you address our questions directly? Why should we have to go back and read the text by ourselves, when we have many questions and need some direction? When I am reading a text, and I get to a part I don't understand, I can generally find somebody knowledgable and interested in the subject well enough to answer my questions. Why are you not willing to help us along with your own text, considering you are the author?

    Also, instead of focusing on how your theory solves all sorts of strange esoteric phenomena in nature, why don't you argue how it explains regular everyday phenomena, such as properties of materials, kinematics, ect.

    Using the modern theory of gravity, knowing the position of a planet at any time in a telescope, we can predict exactly where it will be at any other time, look there, and find it. How does your theory do this? I mean, if you have a theory of gravity, it should at the very least explain what gravity was originally investigated to explain no?
     

  67. #167  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Urod, if you understand your theory well enough, why don't you address our questions directly? Why should we have to go back and read the text by ourselves, when we have many questions and need some direction? When I am reading a text, and I get to a part I don't understand, I can generally find somebody knowledgable and interested in the subject well enough to answer my questions. Why are you not willing to help us along with your own text, considering you are the author?

    Also, instead of focusing on how your theory solves all sorts of strange esoteric phenomena in nature, why don't you argue how it explains regular everyday phenomena, such as properties of materials, kinematics, ect.

    Using the modern theory of gravity, knowing the position of a planet at any time in a telescope, we can predict exactly where it will be at any other time, look there, and find it. How does your theory do this? I mean, if you have a theory of gravity, it should at the very least explain what gravity was originally investigated to explain no?
    Thank you TheObserver, I couldn't agree more !
     

  68. #168  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Technically, you need many measurements of position over a long time to firmly extablish the orbital parameters so that you can accurately predict the future position. A single position measurement tells you nothing at all unless you have a well established orbit. Each new measurement reduces the uncertainty in the orbit. Trust me, I've watched the process many times with new NEAs. In addition, in anything more than a two body system, after a period of time, the uncertainty in initial positions (since none are ever perfect, with no error) leads to a chaotic outcome. For the solar system, the predictability lasts only 4 billion years or so, which is sufficient for our needs, since our planet will be toasted or toast by then. In fact, the earth's orbit never repeats exactly the same path, as the barycenter of the solar sytem is a moving target. That's why orbits are described as osculating.

    None of this is due to a misunderstanding of gravity, but rather the interactions between the body's orbits, and even their obliquity makes perfect precision impossible.

    For a two body system, the orbits are indefinately predictable, which confirms current gravitation understanding, but once you add a third, things bet messy in a few billion years.

    Asteroid Wayne
     

  69. #169  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Urod, if you understand your theory well enough, why don't you address our questions directly? Why should we have to go back and read the text by ourselves, when we have many questions and need some direction?
    Did you ever Study in school ? Did you pick up the Text and read it First to Learn , THAN ask questions while Quoting the paragraph or item that you didn't understand ? Because OTHERWAY the teacher and the Rest of the class would think you are stupid ? You say you did ? Than you'll have NO problem NOT being fed with a Silver Spoon ( 'cause you guys are Special ) BUT GET to read the text First ... Your teacher would tell you the same ........ Note that when I help Markus and offer an example ( see point 7-2 above about Viscosity that he never / could answer ! ) ..... Markus even didn't know ( just like his side kick Meteor Wine ) to define Nothigness nor able to put toghether the Logic behind it ....... And , Harold , a Moderator , responds to minus infinite viscosty as something that he can not understand , YET it is explained in the UPN text that he JUST like the rest of you guys , are too LAZY to read , no wonder you are all mixed up and not Understanding ..... You want to make a Real contribution ? Start by understanding the very first step : UPN is not the quantum theory ......2) Read First the UPN Text so you'll not ask questions that were Already answered in the Text ..............3) if you have issues than Point to the Logic Step Number , Paste its text ( so other can relate ) and Than post your argument ............... But if you can not define Nothigness or not imagine an extreme low viscosity you might as well ask your teacher for help , please .
     

  70. #170  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    it is explained in the UPN text that he JUST like the rest of you guys , are too LAZY to read
    Why do you think no one has read your text? People have quoted from it, asked questions about it, and pointed out problems with it. How could they do that if they hadn't read it? It looks like you are the one who has trouble understanding what you read.

    And please sort out the set up on your browser. You obviously need to change the editor option because it looks like Javascript is not working properly. If you are smart enough to produce a Theory of Everything, surely you can fix your browser.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  71. #171  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    it is explained in the UPN text that he JUST like the rest of you guys , are too LAZY to read
    Why do you think no one has read your text? People have quoted from it, asked questions about it, and pointed out problems with it. .
    ............... Nobody has to read this ...... and NO , read the previous posts , they did Not Read the UPN text , they asked questions which were already answered in the Text and tryed to understand the UPN via the Quantum theory which is wrong and uterlly Silly ... ..... HOW do you converse with people that can not define Nothingness nor extreme low viscosity ??? .... So , this brings us to you , all that I said above applies to you too , you just proved it by your comments were you stated they " Quoted " ,.... no they did not , they quoted Wikipedia and the Quantum theory , LOL , like Wiki is aware of the UPN !! All that I want and is Needed for an intelligent and Fruitful conversation , is to quote the Logic Step and ....*^3@ what the hell am I wasting my time , obviously you didn't read my reply above where all is explained , again ........ Here is what I will answer to from now on : 1 ) provided the logic step Number ..... 2) Paste its content so everyone else will relate ....... 3) Make your point ..... THAT simple ........ Now , unless you guys need more directions , I am looking forward to explain you again what the world understands by Nothingness and extreme low viscosity .... even the UPN . .......... BUT , I will not waste my time explaining you this all over again for the third time because you know what they say about people that do not get it Second time .
     

  72. #172  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Good grief.
    This has long ceased to be a discussion since Urod does not respond to any of the questions posed to him.
    I say lock it. We are done here.
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Fine. Lets go over my concerns as I encounter them in this second read through. And yes, I have read the entire post here already. So,

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    The Fundamental Property ( ‘Law’ ) of Nature , aka the Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) : Nothingness doesn’t exist ( as the name implies ) hence Somethingness ( whatever it may be ) is replacing it .
    You claim that this is a text not requiring either math nor experiment, that this is a theory based on logic alone. This little piece here is what the ancient greeks called a syllogism. 2 premises and a conclusion, but you have hidden the second premise. This argument here goes as follows.

    Nothingness doesn't exist.
    If nothingness does not exist then somethingness must replace it.
    Hence, somethingness is replacing nothingness.

    If you want these 2 statements to be the postulates of your theory and the conclusion to be the primary result then fine, but at least recognize the foundation of your theory, it is based on 2 postulates, not 1. Even so, the statement nothingness doesn't exist is not really a falsifiable statement so I'm not really sure how we would test it. But that is fine, there is nothing wrong with starting your theory somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    This also implies ( and explains ) that since Nothingness can not be created ( absolute void ) than its counterpart , the Somethingness also can not be created nor destroyed further than its present existence . In other words , wherever Nothingness could be ‘ present ‘ ( abstractically ) the Somethingness already had replaced it , there is nothing more left.
    I'm a little unsure about this part, if somethingness must be replacing nothingness, then how did the universe decide exactly what kind of somethingness that it would replace it with? To my knowledge this is never addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    This confirms what we learned in high school , that “ Matter can not be created nor destroyed but only change state “ , the concept of both matter and mass conservation .
    This is not what I learned in high school. Matter can most certainly be destroyed, it is the principle behind the atomic bombs. Energy is conserved, and mass is a form of energy, but it is an observed fact that matter can in fact be destroyed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    This also unifies the concept of ‘ space ‘ with Matter or Somethingness , hence ‘ space ‘ can not be a separate entity , it is the same and one with Somethingness filling whatever there is available around and forming the known Universe . Hence referring to ‘ space ‘ is the same as referring to ‘ matter ‘ , and therefore ‘ space ‘ can not be associated with void which - because it doesn’t exist - doesn’t occupy/has any space.
    I am also unsure as to exactly how this unifies the concept of space with matter, but I think this is mainly a result of a misunderstanding of the word space. In what sense are you using the word here? It does not appear to resemble the concept of space I am personally familiar with. Matter moves, through what does it move in your theory? The superfluid? Is this some form of aether here, like an ocean? I am not really sure I understand the picture here, you claim it is different from the idea of the aether but never explain how.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    Now watch below how the rest of Nature’s Properties start appearing straight from this single Fundamental Unifying Property in a totally common-sense and un-forced way . Note how the whole structure is self supporting solely on the Fundamental Property , never needing math , formulas or even scientific experiments .

    Logic and the Fundamental Unifying Property of Nature exist independent of observations hence , carefully , we can truly discover the Universe from our arm-chair , and sure enough , here we are doing it with success :
    By studying nature for the past few hundred years, it has become apparent that our intuition often leads us astray. Perfectly airtight and logical arguments have been observed to be false. Regardless of our opinion about how things should be, there is nothing we can do when our ideas disagree with nature. There is no a priory reason to assume the universe only follows perfect logic, it may be irrational in some ways. You need to understand that the strength of scientific theories comes from their making predictions, ones that we can go out and check exactly. Falsifiability is the most important part of science. If any part of a theory is untestable, i.e. does not give an opportunity to show that it isn't quite right, then it is no more useful than any other explanation that does the same. That the universe is run by little elves who do everything in their power to make it appear as if the universe works exactly how our theory predicts, is not a helpful addition to our theory. If we have an explanation for gravity say, adding in extra untestable information does not add anything to the theory. We dispose of it, because it doesn't actually matter. Maybe its true, maybe its not. If we can't test it, who cares! Leave it to the philosophers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    * The Stability of the Universe derived from the Fundamental Law : since Nothingness can not and doesn’t exist , than Somethingness will always be present in the amounts existing today ( and since for ever ) and therefore Somethingness can not be created , destroyed , disappear or be reduced to Nothingness ( which can not exist ) . Hence the fabric ( Somethingness ) of the Universe is Absolutely stable in amount and forever lasting , filling all the possible spaces already .
    Hence there is no Expansion of the Universe and a Big Bang could not possibly be the Creation of the Universe .
    This isn't fully clear but I think I have it. The expansion of the universe is impossible because space, or the superfluid whatever, cannot be compressed or stretched in any way and so the total volume of the universe is unchanging? And then since no matter or space can be created, is there no notion of density in UPN?

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    * The Age and Future of the Universe derived from the Fundamental Law : because Nothingness doesn’t exist since For Ever ( beyond infinite ) and it will also non-exist For Ever , its counterpart , the Somethingness also exists since For Ever and also will exist For Ever . Hence we can conclude that the Universe has no beginning and no end on the time scale . This concludes that a Big Bang was not the creation of the Universe .
    The impossibility of the big bang was already addressed. It would do your theories reception well to be concise. Do not keep repeating the same things over and over because it becomes tiresome to the reader. You are trying to present an important idea, do your best to ensure the quality of the presentation itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    * The Size of the Universe derived from the Fundamental Law : since Nothingness is universal than its counterpart , the Somethingness is also universal and hence the Universe has no limits , its size is beyond infinity . Its size is better described by saying that it occupies everything that it is possible without leaving any empty spaces .

    Is the Universe Expanding or changing size ? No , the Universe is Stationary ( see Logic Road # 5 derived from the Fundamental Law ) .
    Same problem as above. You have already covered this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    * The Micro Structure of Somethingness derived from the Fundamental Law : it has to be Fine/small enough in structure to occupy Every space in the Universe in order that Nothingness will not exist . Its fine structure has to go towards negative infinity but without completely disappearing ( nothingness doesn’t exist and can not be created ) .
    You mean it's fine structure goes towards zero? A large negative number is not small. In terms of length +100 is the same as -100 just in an opposite direction. The smallest number is 0. Negative numbers are not used to represent "smallness" but a difference in direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    * The Somethingness is a single component super-fluid like substance . Let’s call it the SuperFluid or just SF to replace the previous ‘ dark matter ’ and ‘ ether ’ ( see Logic Road # 7 derived from the Fundamental Property ) .
    If the super-fluid (Or is it SuperFluid?) is a single component substance then what is that makes different materials that are supposedly the same, behave differently?


     

  74. #174  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    * The SuperFluid is Uncompressible ( and not Elastic nor plastic ) as derived from the Fundamental Property . This means that certain types of Vibrations will travel instantaneously across the Universe . Also it means that all pressure points occurring within the SuperFluid will be dispersed around uniformly in a 360 degrees sphere – just as electromagnetic waves are occurring ( see Logic Road # 8 ) .
    A non elastic non compressible fluid. I'm sorry but I don't know what that means. Are you telling me that the medium of the universe is completely rigid? As in cannot move? Then how do things move around? By the sounds of it your universe is a solid homogenous block with nothing in it. How does it even vibrate if it is inelastic??? What meaning of elastic are you using? If a wave travels through the SuperFluid then parts of it will be slightly perturbed creating a very small volume of compression which you yourself claim to be impossible. Also, why does it mean that it will be dispersed uniformly in the shape of a sphere you seemed to have left that out. (I also don't know what you mean by 360 degrees in a sphere. There is 360 degrees in a 2-d circle, that doesn't really apply to a sphere sensibly. At this point things are falling apart. It is becoming difficult to trudge through your work. It isn't organized well. I want to keep reading but things are confusing and not really explained in the kind of depth I am accustomed to. However, I'll keep going.


    The next section doesn't go into any detail and just refers to later in the article so I'll skip a bit
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    * Magnetism , all atomic/nuclear forces , electricity , static electricity and all other phenomena involved in interactions : all are interacting micro vortices assembling in different shapes , sizes and spatial configurations .
    Their interactions will depend on their relative spin direction leading to attraction or repulsion ( static electricity , magnetism ) .
    The Harmonics generated by the wake of their spin creates magnetic and electrostatic fields .
    The way micro vortices self-assemble via spins and wake interactions questions our picture of electrons : they may not be circling in orbits around a nucleus but be attached to it and just oscillating as they spin around their own axes at the speed of light .
    It is sections like this that are the main cause of all your criticism Udon. None of this section is addressed later on. You don't appear to have the theory for this part yet. The theory is not the idea or the fundamental properties, its the DETAILS! What different shapes? Which shapes determine which behaviours? How are the shapes determined? Sure electrons may not be circling in orbits but how will we tell? What results does an orbiting electron predict that a strapped on electron does not and vice verse? And why rotating at the speed of light? Light doesn't seem to have any sort of special speed based on your theory anyways, so why would an electron "spin at the speed of light" And what does that even mean, angular speed and linear speed are not measured/understood to be the same thing anyways.


    Quote Originally Posted by Udon View Post
    A good approach would be to use Fluid Dynamics and computer models to see in what configuration micro vortices can self assemble and the properties of those structures .
    Being able to handle and assemble individual micro vortices will enable intelligent species to create anything they need including food and perpetual life ( see my book ‘ Recipe for a Nation ‘ , future shocking ) .
    But you told me that logic alone was good enough? You told me that no experiment was necessary? You told me no math, all a computer knows how to do, was involved? Do you not see how heavily this contradicts everything that your theory stands for? And why all of the sudden does your theory have implications in biology to create perpetual life, you haven't even worked out how vortices combine, and have not given a single argument for how we could deduce something as advanced and technical as this. You have not up to this point provided a model for computers to check. Really without this, you have no theory. Just a piece of logic, which by the way says nothing about its reality. We can make logical arguments about unicorns without any unicorns existing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Udon View Post
    Principle : thankfully , the Universe is 100 % Logic , therefore logic alone can decipher every detail and variations of what the Universe is and can be .
    No math is necessary to understand it , common sense will do alone .
    But you just told me I should test it on a computer.
    Also, understanding it is not the concern. We want to use it. Science isn't the business of explaining metaphysics. We want results, that is all. If I can't use your theory to do any science then how is it science? Common sense will not do alone, we are trying to build detailed explanations not unuseful generalizations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Udon View Post
    Ironic Confirmation of Understanding the Universe and its simplicity : we’ll be confident that we understand the Universe when we’ll be able to explain it to a ten year old in a half an hour or less … Are you practicing yet ?
    Why is this the case? Why do you get to decide the criterion for confidence in our understanding of the universe? I see no reason why the explanation of the universe, the most complicated thing I know of, should be understandable to a child in less than a half hour. There is probably a good chance that the universe is not understandable on the most fundamental level to a human being. Either way, we have no grounds to be making claims on this topic.


    The entirety of logic road 5 was covered above in nearly identical wording and with no elaboration. Just repeated from above. If you want us to read your theory then please please please do us a favour and do not repeat yourself over and over. It does not do much to the enthusiasm to come across the same text over and over. In general the organization of this entire body is nonsensical. It would do you very good to start simple and develop your theory from first principles and not jump around so much. Also, what happened to log roads 1-4? 6 seems to be missing too.
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    5-7 : Note : the vast moving currents of SuperFluid within the Universe , carrying along stars and galaxies , is currently misinterpreted as an Expansion of the Universe .
    You cannot use currents as an explanation before you bring up how your theory deals with currents? Currents of what? It certainly isn't waves propagating through a SuperFluid as you have already addressed their incompressibility and inelasticity above. Do you know realize that vast moving currents, before you have explained what that means, is not an acceptable explanation for the expansion of the universe? How do vast moving currents make the light from distant stars experience red shift? I honestly want answers to questions like this, your theory cannot skip details. The details are the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    7-4 : Conclusion : considering the three points above - even though just point a) would have been enough – a Structure will Always be larger than a corresponding single component hence it can never be as small as the smallest possible Nothingness , hence the Fundamental Property ( ‘Law’ ) is broken .
    Therefore the Somethingness must be non-granular but a super fluid without individual components .
    Now we can add to the list Property # 7 of the Universe : the Somethingness is a single component super-fluid like substance . Let’s call it the SuperFluid or just SF to replace the previous ‘ Dark Matter ’ and ‘ ether ’ . Based on its properties , the SuperFluid moves and interacts according to known hydro-dynamic observed principles .
    You say it is non granular, but a super fluid (SuperFluid? super-fluid?) without individual components. Well what does that mean? We understand fluids in terms of their granular nature. There is no such thing as a non granular fluid and you can't assume I know what that means because you never explained it, and there is no known analogy in science.

    Also, and I cannot stress moments like this enough, You have claimed to me that your theory is 100%, non just partly but entirely 100%, logic based. No need for experiments. But now you claim that the SuperFluid moves and interacts according to known hydro-dynamic observed principles. Observed was your words not mine. How could we possible observe this if we didn't perform an experiment to investigate these principles? Where in this entire theory is the behaviour of the superfluid worked out? You haven't shown any of its principles yet, and yet you claim based on its properties this is a fact.

    Logic road 8 is another exact repeat and is in even less detail than your treatment of it above. Are you honestly surprised that most people never made it this far?
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    9-1 : According to the Fundamental Property of nature or the Universe ( the Unifying Property ) the SuperFluid has to occupy every space that exists because Nothingness – or absolute void – doesn’t exist . This means that the SuperFluid needs to be able to occupy spaces as small as negative infinite but not being able to disappear completely ( matter and SuperFluid can not be created nor destroyed ) . Hence it is correct to say that the smallest space that the SuperFluid can exist ( or occupy ) it will never be Zero but it will always be somewhat above Zero .
    Wouldn't it, just going off what was stated above, be somewhat incorrect to say that the smallest space that the SuperFluid can occupy is somewhat above zero?? You have already argued above that the SuperFluid can occupy nothing less than the entire universe. This argument has already been made, why are you wasting my time with an even weaker version of the same result? I suspect, although I hope its not true, that the reason you keep repeating yourself is to make it look like you are saying more than you are, but I am not accusing you of this, just recommending you avoid as much of this as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    9-2 : Since Nothingness is not constrained by dimensions ( it doesn’t exists ) , it is correct to say that its dimensions will always be Zero .
    Wrong, it would be correct to say that dimension is not defined for nothingness, it can't have a dimension if it doesn't exist. If you are using a different meaning of the word dimension than I currently understand, it would do you good to explain these things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    9-3 : From 9-1 and 9-2 and Property # 2 ( both matter/void can not be created further than present , nor destroyed ) and Property # 6 ( the extreme fluidity of the SuperFluid needing to fill infinitely small spaces ) and since the smallest space the SuperFluid can occupy will never be Zero , it is clear that the smallest space that the SuperFluid is capable of filling it is a real Constant number , not what the negative infinite implies in math , i.e. a Changing number becoming smaller and smaller .
    9-4 : If the SuperFluid would go to negative infinite and hence changing in order to fill smaller and smaller spaces ( that was not able to fill before ) it would also imply that Space ( which is SuperFluid/matter ) would be created in the process , something that would contradict the Fundamental Unifying Property of nature .
    I know. You already said that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    9-5 : Hence we can state with confidence that the Smallest space that exists ( filled by the SuperFluid ) , as small as it is , it has a Finite and Fixed size ( number ) . This is also a representation of how fine or Fluid the SuperFluid is ( a representation of what we call viscosity ) .
    9-6 : Not being able to flow/occupy a space beyond/smaller than a fixed number ( which is higher than Zero ) and not being compressible means that the SuperFluid must Move continuously in order to avoid the creation of pockets of absolute-void ( or Nothingness ) . It can be visualized as how water spirals in the most minute gas bubbles to fill them up or like a continous simmering soup .
    Ok let me roll this out there. The super-fluid is incompressible. It is not granular. It is homogenous. It fills space now some how(This by the way confused me way to hell). It has finite and fixed size, and yet early was stated to be infinite in extent. It must move continuously...I don't get it. Visualized by water spirals? Water is granular compressible and elastic. Look maybe you did manage to convince a 10 year old in of your theory in 20 minutes or so but for a skeptical adult trained in details, its going to take more than this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    However , in the case of the SuperFluid the ‘ gas ‘ bubbles represent both the smallest space it can occupy ( always bigger than zero ) and its drive to occupy any void places , hence the spontaneous creation of this microscopical Perpetual Dynamo due to the difference in pressure ( SuperFluid Vs. almost absolute void ) , causing the micro motion of the SuperFluid ( Cosmic Background Radiation ) .
    This is the only and the basic source of Energy in the Universe and the perpetual Engine that eventually and patiently creates Black Holes over millions of years .
    This micro motion is very gentle ( as we observe it in deep space ) , it’s size approaching negative infinity , yet , just like Velcro , in huge numbers becomes space tornadoes , the Black Holes .

    You just said velcro is like space tornadoes.
    Also I'm not very familiar with the process of "spontaneous creation of microscopical Perpetual Dynamo". Also size is a magnitude, it can't be less than zero. It is not made smaller by being negative.
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    This micro movement of the SuperFluid is just another Property of nature derived from the Fundamental Unifying Property .
    9-7 : This movement occurring at the smallest possible scale can be envisioned as a stirring or micro-bubbling process that the SuperFluid does continuously and since for ever .
    9-8 : This movement it is the Dynamo that drives and gives the total available/existing energy to the Universe ( energy that can not be further created nor destroyed ) .
    9-9 : This movement of the SuperFluid ( or quiescent , un-spun SuperFluid ) at the micro level it is the 4.3 ( ? ) degrees Kelvin observed as the omnipresent ‘temperature’ of the Universe , also known as the Cosmic Background Radiation .
    I think you have a grave misunderstanding of the process of measuring the temperature of the universe. It's not a bubbling I assure you. I am so unsure as to where all this bubbling is coming from. You said this was completely logic, 100% if I recall. We can't throw in bubbling as a convenience. Also, what does it mean to "drive" energy anyways.
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    9-10 : This on going movement ( stirring mostly in a spiral form ) of the SuperFluid at the micro level produces wakes in the SuperFluid mass which leads to the creation of larger aggregates of micro vortices , eventually creating the SuperFluid Mega Vortices , SMAVs , known as Black Holes .
    You have proceeded to talk about aggregates of micro vortices, and SuperFluid Mega Vortices without explaining what exactly you mean by a vortex in the first place, it doesn't have any of the properties I'm familiar with. And how does logic alone dictate its existence?
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    9-11 : The size of the Black Holes can not exceed the minimum size that the SuperFluid can achieve as its fluidity approaches negative infinite yet never becoming zero . This implies that a very large Black Hole can not form but a number of micro Black Holes can aggregate and lead to vast volumes of tightly packed micro Black Holes , Mega Vortexes , with a net effect similar to just one large Black Hole . This Property is the one that actually is instrumental in giving us birth , by spinning the SuperFluid .
    9-12 : the SuperFluid Spinning action : keep in mind that the individual size of those micro Black Holes approaches negative infinity , they are like Virtual Points , and it is that size that forces the uncompressible SuperFluid to zoom through without being able to stop or decelerate : the SuperFluid being forced by the collective mega vortex to converge towards the centre and the Black Hole(s) like through a narrowing funnel , gets spun and accelerated close to the speed of light before it storms through the micro Black Hole that it is so small that the SuperFluid has no time to slow down . As a result , spun even faster as it passes through the Black Hole , the SuperFluid gets eject through the other side as a variety of micro vortices spinning at the speed of light representing the foundation of matter and energy as we observe it .
    How do you know any of these things?
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    9-13 : Those micro vortices of SuperFluid churn the surrounding SuperFluid and actually puling it through just like a fan would draw in air . The maximum amount of SuperFluid that those micro vortices can pull through is , naturally , directly proportional to their speed of rotation .
    In nature this speed is that of light so if the spin of a vortices is aligned with its axial direction of moving , the linear speed of the vortices can reach the speed of light . Under this condition increasing the spin of the vortices will enable them to move proportionally faster than the speed of light .
    How do you know it's the speed of light without measuring it (Experiment). That isn't logic alone.
    Proportionally, faster, speed...guess what! That's math! If you can make claims like these, which are mathematical statements, then surely there are mathematical parts to your theory you are keeping in the dark.

    The rest of your post was loosely worded mathematical statements without and actual real calculations and references to experiments and stats, completely contradicting everything you had said in your introduction. I have been patient, thorough, fair and I have not insulted you. I have not referenced relativity or quantum mechanics. I have given it my honest time and effort. But this is your theory, you have have to provide the details. The same level of scrutiny is applied in my understanding of the things I accept. And guess what? I have just as many questions! If you attended and struggled with a physics, or probably more importantly a math class, at a decent university, and you had difficulties then that is your fault, nobody else's. It is entirely up to you to learn. Go see your professor. Ask him the kinds of questions that I have asked you. Dig deep into the root of your issues with the material. No professor will back down from that, I have never had a professor in a class who was not open to deep questions, as long as they were well formed and thought out. He isn't there to talk philosophy, remember that. As far as high school is concerned, that's more of a different matter. High school science education is terrible, but at least it only teaches fully accepted concepts.

    I'm unsure whether or not you even understand the process of science. We go outside. Look at nature. Work out an idea to the point that we can make precise statements. Falsifiable statements. This is so important. You need to say something about your theory that might be wrong, exact statements that are either true or false under your assumptions. You do not have a theory otherwise. I still have no idea what a superfluid is or what vortices are.

    And above all, the most important question(s) I have...
    What is the point of your theory? Actually, what does it do? What is it for? What problems does it solve? How can we use it?
     

  77. #177  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Hey TheObserver, nice detailed analysis but why didn't you READ the text!
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  78. #178  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Nice work TheObserver. You summarized all the points which I had tried to bring up in the space of those 160 posts or so. As you have probably noticed Urod hasn't really responded to any other them, except referring everyone back to the OP !
    Like I said, I don't think this is even a discussion anymore, it's more like a monologue, because you get no responses out of the OP
     

  79. #179  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Hey TheObserver, nice detailed analysis but why didn't you READ the text!
    Ha ! Brilliant !
     

  80. #180  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    ......... I still have no idea what a superfluid is or what vortices are..... And above all, the most important question(s) I have... What is the point of your theory? Actually, what does it do? What is it for? What problems does it solve? How can we use it?
    I am happy that you are honest in realizing what you need to learn , such as the SuperFluid ........ Question : would you like me to tutor you ? ..... If not take advantage of the UPN , it;s Free and ready to read ! Bon Appetite ! ..... P.S. : just How do you expect to make a contribution if not understanding the Subject specially since it's right here , no effort necessary except engaging your Neurons ....
     

  81. #181  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Hey TheObserver, nice detailed analysis but why didn't you READ the text! :)
    Ha ! Brilliant ! :lol::lol:
    Concrete Facts about some posters : Mixing the UPN with the Quantum theory , not being able to understand a super low viscosity ( they confuse small numbers with Negative numbers ! ) , not being able to explain Nothingness ( !! ) And not having the mental power to Concentrate , read and Understand the simple UPN theory : keep it coming , I thank you Marcus et al for the fine examples of why we need a better Education system ! …………. I am looking forward to your future examples ……….. For everyone else please follow this simple procedure if you want to contribute : 1) Show the Logic Step Number … 2) paste it’s text so all can understand the subject ….. and 3) post your arguments ( don't follow the Observer/Marcus/Strange/MeteorWine/etc. system , " I don't understand " is Not an argument :) ………… Thank you !
     

  82. #182  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    ......... I still have no idea what a superfluid is or what vortices are..... And above all, the most important question(s) I have... What is the point of your theory? Actually, what does it do? What is it for? What problems does it solve? How can we use it?
    I am happy that you are honest in realizing what you need to learn , such as the SuperFluid ........ Question : would you like me to tutor you ? ..... If not take advantage of the UPN , it;s Free and ready to read ! Bon Appetite ! ..... P.S. : just How do you expect to make a contribution if not understanding the Subject specially since it's right here , no effort necessary except engaging your Neurons ....
    he/she DID read the text, as have the other posters in this thread. The common theme all the readers of it have is that its not clear on a number of things. As such they have asked a number of times for your clarification on specific points. All you have done is told them to "read the UPN", which they already have and are wanting clarification.

    Please answer the questions being asked of you or I will nominate this as a spam thread for the sole purpose of driving traffic away from the forum.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  83. #183  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Here is the best comment so far on a subject that is occupying my mind for a long time : I know I had to pick from the blue ( measurements ) the speed of light but of course I am not happy ............. As the Observer pointed out , the UPN should provide ALL the info , formulas , speeds , dimensions ( all that Marcus at al spell more punkishly , such as ‘flavour’ and ‘colour’ of sub-particles trying to assimilate the UPN via the Quantum theory , not a good idea ) .............................. So how does logic connects the dots to determine with Absolute precision the formation of Bright Vortices , BV , ( formerly known as Black Holes ) , their rotational speed/size and the speed / size / characteristics of the Micro Vortices , MV , ( formerly known as the absolute sub-particle ) that the BV produces ( spins ) continuously until it disappears ? ...................... So far the level of the UPN is just cracking the door and since I am not a genius I posted it here so more can try to open it wider , hence is a Collective Fun . .................................. BUT , besides that first one has to read all the Logic Steps and be confident they Stand , my direction of explaining how BV are formed ( which if we do we demonstrate how the MV – sub-particles – are formed + their properties , i.e. everything around us ) follows the foundation that I already set and confirmed so far as solid ( still open to scrutiny as long as you don’t waste time comparing it with the Quantum theory ) .............. .Therefore , based on the foundation so far , the BV can only be Harmonics , i.e. an Amplification of the 2.7 Kelvin motion ( energy ) that we see all around us , and I am happy with this little yet firm step ............. Going further on this logic path , only waves that coincide in their Picks can add their motion ( energy ) to induce Harmonics ( amplification ) , and the intensity of those harmonics is directly proportional with both the number of coincident waves and their intensities .......................... Continuing to reverse engineer the creations of BV the last question is How do those waves in the SuperFluid occur ? ...................... Shamelessly referring to Granular Super fluids already observed in laboratory ( see links in the UPN ) I take a hint towards the reported Spontaneously Occurring Vortices !! ... Jeee , should we take the bait , Markus Observer ? ......................As I pointed in the UPN text , I suggest analysing the fine point of the ( UPN ) SuperFluid having to be extremely fine such as its viscosity is approaching minus infinity YET not possible to disappear ( hence there Must be a Bottom level ) ...................... So what does it mean such an extreme small viscosity in a non-granular fluid ? INSTABILITY ! Hence Waves … QED !..................... But that’s just a gut-feeling ‘logic’ , guys , How do you explain this Instability ? ................. Because explaining it is a Major Achivment , since it will demonstrate the existence of the Spontaneous Waves in the SuperFluid , hence the guaranteed possibility of them Harmonizing , hence the creation of the BV , therefore their spun creation of MV ( matter and energy as we sense it , i.e. EVERITHING ) ................ . Again , I suggest ( please confirm acceptance ) to focus on this instability due to the extreme low viscosity of the SuperFluid .
     

  84. #184  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Urod: FIX YOUR BROWSER.

    Either turn on Javascript or go to "Settings" and select the "Basic Editor" option.

    Your inability to do this makes everything you write even harder to understand (as if it weren't incomprehensible enough to start with).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  85. #185  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    So how does logic connects the dots to determine with Absolute precision the formation of Bright Vortices , BV , ( formerly known as Black Holes )
    It doesn't, because those vortices don't exist, and neither does the fluid they are supposed to be occuring in.

    follows the foundation that I already set and confirmed so far as solid
    You have ? News to me. The only thing here that is actually solid is your fluid

    Going further on this logic path , only waves that coincide in their Picks can add their motion ( energy ) to induce Harmonics ( amplification ) , and the intensity of those harmonics is directly proportional with both the number of coincident waves and their intensities
    Complete gibberish.

    Shamelessly referring to Granular Super fluids already observed in laboratory ( see links in the UPN ) I take a hint towards the reported Spontaneously Occurring Vortices !! ... Jeee , should we take the bait , Markus Observer ?
    Except your proposed UPN "SuperFluid" is

    a) not compressible
    b) not elastic
    c) not granular

    and thus nothing like the superfluid Helium referred to in the article ! In fact, yours isn't even a fluid at all, it's a perfect solid !

    As I pointed in the UPN text , I suggest analysing the fine point of the ( UPN ) SuperFluid having to be extremely fine such as its viscosity is approaching minus infinity YET not possible to disappear ( hence there Must be a Bottom level )
    Your proposed stuff is not granular, thus its viscosity is inifitely large - it is a solid.

    How do you explain this Instability ?
    Simple : it doesn't exist . For crying out loud, the stuff is a solid !!

    Because explaining it is a Major Achivment , since it will demonstrate the existence of the Spontaneous Waves in the SuperFluid , hence the guaranteed possibility of them Harmonizing , hence the creation of the BV , therefore their spun creation of MV ( matter and energy as we sense it , i.e. EVERITHING )
    Word salad.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; February 3rd, 2012 at 03:28 AM.
     

  86. #186  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Marcus et al
    Ha ! I like that, it has a cool ring to it
    I must have made an impression after all !
    If only Urod was able to spell my name correctly...
     

  87. #187  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Jokes aside, if you want to see what a real superfluid vacuum model looks like, then take a peek at this paper :

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0005091v3.pdf

    A very interesting read, definitely recommended !
     

  88. #188  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Urod, you really aught to look at that paper, look at how organized it is!! If your theory looked like that, people would probably take you a lot more seriously.

    Although I found the introduction to be a little too wordy, I could follow the beginning for awhile and things were making pretty good sense to me. I'm only just learning lagrangian mechanics now for the first time in school and I'm also in my first partial differential equations class, so I have to take his word on some of the math here haha. It's neat to know that fundamental symmetries are direct products of those groups. I've gotten to prove some theorems about them in group theory, and we showed SU(R) was a manifold in my analysis class. What would I need to know to show that these correspond to symmetries? And when they say SU(3) does that mean 3x3 over the complex numbers?
     

  89. #189  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    I've gotten to prove some theorems about them in group theory, and we showed SU(R) was a manifold in my analysis class. What would I need to know to show that these correspond to symmetries? And when they say SU(3) does that mean 3x3 over the complex numbers?
    Ah, group theory, my old nemesis Never really completely got my head around it !
    Anyways, SU(3) would be the group of 3x3 unitary matrices with determinant equal to 1. The main area of application would be QCD, where it is used to describe the symmetries of the quark model.
     

  90. #190  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    I find symmetry fascinating. Noether's theorem was the kind of thing that made me choose to go to school. I promised I would prove that theorem for myself, before I even really knew what a math proof was. I still hold myself to that, but I'm still a ways away I think. I least I understand the formal statement of it now!
     

  91. #191  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Jokes aside, if you want to see what a real superfluid vacuum model looks like, then take a peek at this paper :http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0005091v3.pdfA very interesting read, definitely recommended !
    ............................Thank you Markus , sorry I am late with a reply but I don't get notifications anylonger .My comment to you is valid for theObserver as well .I share the dificulty in comprehending a Non-Granular Super Fluid . I try to imagine How it would differ from a particle-type super fluid ( the laboratory type ) ...............................If it took us two thousand years to get used to the Greeks idea of A-Tomic ( indivisible ) type of Universe Structure , how long it will take for a non-granular type ?............................. I strugle with my ten Hertz brain to comprehend a non-granular SuperFluid and the Fundamental Vortices that occur spontaneously into it ( just as Granular laboratory superfluids do ) ... Please , have Patience !Please , refer to the individual Logic Steps ( not in 'bundles' ) and be Specific with your point ( not like " I don't understand " argument , because it isn;t ) ............................................... --- Again , the last fortress of Logic is describing step-by-step what Causes the imbalance within the non-granular SupeFuid to lead to Spontenious Fundamental Vortices ( the fundamental source of Movement / energy in the Universe ... harmonics can amplify them ) ............................... Keep in mind , I do not like the concept of 'Spontaneous' just as I do not believe in 'chaos' at Any level of the Universe ...............At the snail-pace , in sheer Stupidity , my brain is Insanely slowly inches its way towards the Answer !! .................... Please , help !! There is Plenty of room under the UPN title for more than one Author .
     

  92. #192  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,249
    Add paragraphs to your comments.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  93. #193  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Add paragraphs to your comments.
    He is not smart enough to sort out the problems (with his computer or his "theory").
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  94. #194  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Jokes aside, if you want to see what a real superfluid vacuum model looks like, then take a peek at this paper :http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0005091v3.pdfA very interesting read, definitely recommended !
    ............................Thank you Markus , sorry I am late with a reply but I don't get notifications anylonger .My comment to you is valid for theObserver as well .I share the dificulty in comprehending a Non-Granular Super Fluid . I try to imagine How it would differ from a particle-type super fluid ( the laboratory type ) ...............................If it took us two thousand years to get used to the Greeks idea of A-Tomic ( indivisible ) type of Universe Structure , how long it will take for a non-granular type ?............................. I strugle with my ten Hertz brain to comprehend a non-granular SuperFluid and the Fundamental Vortices that occur spontaneously into it ( just as Granular laboratory superfluids do ) ... Please , have Patience !Please , refer to the individual Logic Steps ( not in 'bundles' ) and be Specific with your point ( not like " I don't understand " argument , because it isn;t ) ............................................... --- Again , the last fortress of Logic is describing step-by-step what Causes the imbalance within the non-granular SupeFuid to lead to Spontenious Fundamental Vortices ( the fundamental source of Movement / energy in the Universe ... harmonics can amplify them ) ............................... Keep in mind , I do not like the concept of 'Spontaneous' just as I do not believe in 'chaos' at Any level of the Universe ...............At the snail-pace , in sheer Stupidity , my brain is Insanely slowly inches its way towards the Answer !! .................... Please , help !! There is Plenty of room under the UPN title for more than one Author .
    Look, the viscosity of a substance is determined by how freely its constituents can move. A substance that has no constituents has no internal decrees of freedom, and its viscosity is infinitely large. That is the definition of a perfect solid, and it is impossible for any processes to occur in such a substance. That is why your model cannot work. That's all we're saying. It's not personal, it's merely physics.
     

  95. #195  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Fine. Lets go over my concerns as I encounter them in this second read through. And yes, I have read the entire post here already. So,
    Quote Originally Posted by Urod View Post
    * The Micro Structure of Somethingness derived from the Fundamental Law : it has to be Fine/small enough in structure to occupy Every space in the Universe in order that Nothingness will not exist . Its fine structure has to go towards negative infinity but without completely disappearing ( nothingness doesn’t exist and can not be created ) .
    You mean it's fine structure goes towards zero? A large negative number is not small. In terms of length +100 is the same as -100 just in an opposite direction. The smallest number is 0. Negative numbers are not used to represent "smallness" but a difference in direction.
    ....................... Brace your self , here is the proof that the SuperFluid is UN-COMPRESSIBILLE ! --- see Logic Step # 2.3 below ---- .............. Spontaneous movement in the non-granular SuperFluid : .............Here is demonstrated that the non-granular SuperFluid ( SF ) is in continuous micro-motion behaving like a dynamo producing motion that represents the Fundamental Vortexes ( FV ) which are the fundamental source of energy in the Universe surrounding and happening non-stop all around us ...........................Those FVs however are extremely small and weak . However , by association they can form the equivalent of Harmonics , amplifying their power collectively .................... ( Talking about Spontaneous formation in a highly organized Shape – sphere - 'Ball Lighting ' the size of a soccer ball , as I seen it my self from one and a half meters in a small room as an early teen during a summer night electrical storm , had the surface strikingly moving like the patterns on soap bubbles , the colors were orange and red . That motion is still in my mind today ) ............................Over time , by haphazard , the FVs can occur in a pattern or formation that triggers the formation of Bright Vortexes ( formerly named ' black holes ' ) ............................. Logic Step 2.0 ......... 2.0 - Why is the SuperFluid continuously moving at its most fundamental level :................ In the UPN has been shown that the SuperFluid has an extreme low viscosity besides being UN-compressible and non-granular . The details are in the body of the UPN , I'll save space here and just pick-up the conclusions ...................... 2.1 ) The extreme low viscosity of the SuperFluid ( SF ) as a property necessary to satisfy the complete absence of Nothingness means that the SF can fill the smallest possible 3-D volume/space but without disappearing ( Nothingness can not be created and Somethingness can not disappear or became nothingness ) ...................... 2.2 ) This means that the final space , the absolute smallest space that the SF can fill is Finite . The Logic says that if Somethingness is not Nothingness than it has , or it occupies Space . Hence the smallest possible space is not an abstract number ( going towards minus infinite in Size , i.e. Smaller , the Smallest , not negative space as someone interpret it ) but it is a number representing the limit at which the SF can fill a space ................... 2.3 ) This smallest yet finite space also Explains the UN-compressibility of the SF : it can not be Squeezed any further , it can not became any smaller , hence it is not compressible . This has many consequences concerning other properties and the Behaviour of the SF ............... ....... Please address the Logic Step when troubleshooting ..... Thank you and more to come on this issue 2.0 above , I am not done yet as you can see , so you still have time to jump in and demonstarte Why the SF is in continous micro-motion ..... Untill then ponder how Huge is to demonstarte this simple that whatever makes up the Universe is un-compressible and its Consequesnces as I described them in the UPN ....... Also Wonder Why my demostration is classified as Pseudoscience ??? ... Step 2.3 is absolutely solid and Beats ANY known Accepted theory , none of them proves the above ! ........... Cheers !
    Last edited by Urod; February 22nd, 2012 at 08:18 PM.
     

  96. #196  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    I don't really care if the super fluid is incompressible. There is no super fluid to be incompressible.
     

  97. #197  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    I don't really care if the super fluid is incompressible. There is no super fluid to be incompressible.
    It makes no difference if the fluid is incompressible or not. It's not granular, thus its viscosity is infinity large. It is not a fluid at all.
     

  98. #198  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    As far as I can tell from his description, the superfluid is an unbounded completely homogenous continuous block with absolutely no properties whatsoever.
     

  99. #199  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    As far as I can tell from his description, the superfluid is an unbounded completely homogenous continuous block with absolutely no properties whatsoever.
    Precisely. There are no internal degrees of freedom in such a substance, hence no processes can take place.
     

  100. #200  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    131
    About the Relativity theory , the UPN theory proves it wrong , right here in this thread ........... Matter of fact proving that the 'fabric' of the Universe is un-compressible immediately disqualifies the Relativity because the 'fabric' can not be stretched nor compressed as the Relativity claims . QED . ...................2.1 )* The extreme low viscosity of the SuperFluid ( SF ) , as a property necessary to satisfy the complete absence of Nothingness , means that the SF can and must Continuously fill the smallest possible 3-D volume/space but without disappearing ( Nothingness can not be created and Somethingness can not disappear or became nothingness ) . .................. 2.2 )* This means that the final space , the absolute smallest space that the SF can fill is Finite .The Logic says that if Somethingness is not Nothingness than it has , or it occupies* Space . Hence the smallest possible space is not an abstract number ( going towards minus infinite in Size ) but it is an extremely small *number representing the limit at which the SF can fill a space ( before it would ‘vanish’ becoming Nothingness which would be impossible since Nothingness can not be created nor Somethingness can became Nothingness ) . The difference between Somethingness and Nothingness is absolute ................. 2.3 )* This Smallest yet finite space also Explains the UN-compressibility of the SF : it can not be Squeezed any further , it can not became any smaller or disappear , hence it is Not Compressible . .............. Take the time to read the UPN and see its simplicity : ............ Http://www.TheRecipeForaNation.WordPress.com , future shocking .
     

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
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
  •