Prev: HOW EINSTEIN ABUSED MAX WELL. CHARGES PENDING.
Next: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 1 Apr 2010 15:35


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Alright, I do not want to get too far into the Atom Totality theory
> > for this is still a mathematics
> > book. So I do not want to go far beyond the Geometry Principle.
> >
> > As I wrote earlier, it is easy to explain the strangeness of the
> > Double Slit so that it becomes
> > even teachable to grade-school kids. That the electrons are both
> > particle and wave, both share
> > elliptic geometry and hyperbolic geometry. So as they hit the slits,
> > the electrons still behave
> > as a wave component-- the hyperbolic component and as a particle
> > component the elliptic geometry component.
> >
> > But then again to explain the Macroworld double-slit of the Bell
> > Inequality. Here the strangeness is not particle wave duality, but
> > rather the instantaneous change of one system
> > that is at opposite ends of the Cosmos by a second system. So how does
> > the Geometry
> > Principle:
> >
> > Eucl == Elliptic unioned Hyperbolic
> >
> > How does that principle make commonsense of the Bell Inequality whilst
> > keeping maximum
> > speed that of light and no superluminal speed?
> >
>
> Ah, this post gets better all the time.
>
> > Well, here we have to ask intriguing questions as to where the Nucleus
> > of an Atom Totality is
> > situated. In the Big Bang theory, there is never this question because
> > in that theory, the Cosmos has no center and has no edges. But in the
> > Atom Totality theory, there is a Nucleus
> > and it must have a central location. And this center relates to why
> > the speed of light has to be
> > 3 x 10^10 cm/sec and not some other number.
> >
> > So, now, if we define instantaneous as the largest positive finite
> > number as 10^490 sec
>
> Nay, I am wrong there, I should have said 10^500 sec
>
>
> > and define the largest distance as 10^500 cm, then the maximum
> > possible speed in the
> > Cosmos would be 10^10 cm/sec. Now I do not know how we can reconcile
> > time with distance,
> > like that. But let us say time and distance are askew for some
> > physical reason or other.
> >
>
> I do not need time and distance askew, I need them the same. What
> brings out
> the difference between them of a 10^10 cm/sec disparity of the 10^500
> cm
> and the 10^500 sec, is that the centimeters are on a circle and the
> seconds
> are on a logarithmic spiral. Time is ultimately defined as a
> rearrangement of
> the total number of atoms in the Cosmos. The distance is on a circle
> and the radii are all the same. The time, however is on a opened
> circle that spirals.
>
> So when the Cosmos has a maximum distance of 10^500 cm and a maximum
> time
> of 10^500 seconds, the speed of 10^10 cm/sec is the disparity or
> askewity between the open
> ended logarithmic spiral and the closed circle, both of 10^500.
>
> Here is a question that maybe helpful in what I am driving at. We take
> a Logarithmic spiral of
> 1 winding and a circle that matches that log winding. And since pi is
> 3.14... and "e" is 2.71...
> We ask the question of where in that windings of comparing the pi with
> the "e" does the
> difference between the circles and log windings make a difference of 3
> x 10^10 cm/sec
> starting from 3.14... cm and 2.71... sec. The speed of light in the
> first winding would come
> to be 3.14 cm /2.71 sec = 1.15 cm/sec. So how many windings before the
> disparity or askewity become that of 10^10 cm/sec rather than 1.15 cm/
> sec? Is it at 10^500 or thereabouts?
>
> So here I have reconciled time with distance by saying the skewity is
> solved by the fact that
> the logarithmic spiral is open ending whereas the circle is closed.
> And the logarithmic
> spiral is Hyperbolic geometry whereas the circle is Elliptic geometry.
>
> Now if I can link the speed of light at 10^10 cm/sec with that of the
> disparity between
> the value of pi at 3.14.... whereas "e" is 2.71....., that tiny
> disparity between the two,
> becomes a big disparity of 10^10 cm/sec after say perhaps 10^500
> windings.
>
>
> > And since the Atom Totality requires there to be a center for the
> > Nucleus. Then the speed of
> > light reaches all points or corners of the Cosmos, instantaneously. So
> > that when the Bell
> > Inequality asks for how can system A alter system B when separated by
> > the entire Cosmos
> > in distance, is because the Nucleus of the Atom Totality which is
> > controlling everything
> > via superdeterminism, adjusts everything "in an instant" because the
> > speed of light from
> > the Nucleus is instanteous at all points.
> >
> > Metaphor Analogy: suppose you are on a surface of a sphere and that
> > you wanted instanteous
> > changes in points A and B, whereever A and B are located on the sphere
> > surface. The way to
> > achieve that instanteous change is to have a control at the center of
> > the sphere and where
> > the communication to any point is at the same speed. Since the radius
> > from the center to any
> > point are all the same radii distance, and thus creating instantaneous
> > change.
> >
> > So here I am trying to explain how the Geometry Principle which is the
> > inverse of the Uncertainty Principle, explains both the Double Slit
> > paradox of particle wave duality, but
> > also the paradox of the Bell Inequality of its intantaneous changes in
> > system A and B
> > no matter how far apart.
> >
> > Now the above probably needs tweaking, but the bare essentials are
> > there.
> >
>
> If I can derive the speed of light from the windings of the
> logarithmic spiral
> versus the associated circle, it would be the very best derivation of
> the speed
> of light since Maxwell found it from the Maxwell Equations.
>

I think I hit upon something extremely important. I have found a way
of computing
the speed of light from just mathematical ideas and without using
Physics experimental
results. When Maxwell determined the speed of light he had to rely on
experimental
numbers, but here I am going to use purely mathematical numbers such
as "pi" and
"e". And I am going to use the Geometry Principle:

Eucl geom == Elliptic geom unioned Hyperbolic geom

With the Geometry Principle I am going to say that distance in Physics
is the elliptic geometry and the radius of the circle involved in 2D.
And for time I use hyperbolic
geometry of the logarithmic-spiral. So I compare the circle radius to
a logarithmic spiral
radius. I want the number 10^10 cm/sec. The circle radius will be in
centimeters and the
logarithmic spiral will be in seconds.

Now the question comes up, of how many turnings or windings of the
logarithmic spiral
versus the circles associated with the spiral windings do I get the
number 10^10 of
a disparity or skewing between the two curves? Is it the number 10^500
of windings that the
disparity between the associated and connected circles with the
logarithmic spiral fetches
the number 10^10?

Now Wikipedia, although doing a horrible job on Bell Inequality or
anything having to do with
John Bell, does a fine job on showing pictures such as the picture of
the logarithmic spiral
with its associated circles.

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

So here is the question and the sought for answers. The question is
that in mathematics
we have two curves of the circle in Elliptic geometry and the
logarithmic spiral in
Hyperbolic geometry. We have the circles as purely distances in
centimeters and we have the
logarithmic spirals in purely time as seconds. And we have the circles
and spiral out to
10^500 in centimeters and 10^500 in seconds. We want to know where the
number 10^10
cm/sec popps into view as the speed of light. Do we have to go all the
way to 10^500 to reach
10^10 ?

In other words where in this picture of the spiral nested in circles
does
the number 10^10 cm/sec become realized?

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: HOW EINSTEIN ABUSED MAX WELL. CHARGES PENDING.
Next: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math