Re: Center of Mass of the Universe?

From: hanson (hanson_at_quick.net)
Date: 11/13/04 

Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:40:46 GMT

"EL" <hemetis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.0411130006.625971a6@posting.google.com...
> "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:<bt8ld.24942$KJ6.22707@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > .....maybe there are points and DOTs,
> > where many points make up a dot. Dancing angels come to mind.
> > A sum of many points may amount to a dot that acquires some non
> > zero dimensionality. This is similar to the issue in the basis of calculus
> > where the second term is ignored and one dimension vanishes.
> > Such a trick might get us out of the current bind.....ahahahaha...
> > But from a pure point of logic, (which you so highly price) such an
> > attempt is still dirty work..........
> >
> > There is another totally different pov one can begin with. That is the
> > assumption that there is nothing absolute, except for one "artificial,
> > purposely created/selected" standard. This quasi-absolute standard,
> > this arbitrated unit can then be taken to COMPARE everything else in
> > the naturally world to it, and from these comparisons we then may
> > construct any desirable theory, simply by attaching dimensions
> > to it. --- The current standard procedure is to set up field equations.
> > But then, as soon as you introduce (mostly ad hoc) the metric,
> > immediate embarrassment does set in.......ahahahaha......
> >
> > Perhaps even more intriguing is the notion to get away even from
> > units and use pure only numbers, ratios like pi, Alpha and N_A as
> > the basis to describe our natural world in an honest hierarchal
> > game of comparisons. But, even there on that rarified basis, logic
> > still does not flow pristine.............which finally brings up the
> > specter.....the grand heresy....is LOGIC is the right tool to use in
> > the first place? ............dunno, don't ask me!...dunno!
>
> [EL]
> In fact you have pinpointed the magic through which nature is acting.
>
[hanson] (1)
ahahaha......How did I do that?.......I said, "dunno". Twice.
You give me too much credit here, broser. You may know the magic,
but I don't. So, enlighten me here. What is it that I said, that struck
some resonance with you. Like I said, I was just pontificating.
>
> [EL]
> The ratio "PHI" is so fundamental in spirals, vortexes and spacetime
> anchors that we may say that nature is founded on ratios.
>
[hanson] (2)
What's the numerical value of "PHI"? What ratio does "PHI" represent?
Can you define "PHI" in a corollary that is as simple as "pi" = length of
cirum/length of dia? How is yor "PHI" expressed in such terms?
>
> [EL]
> OTOH, "pi" and "N_A" are artificial (man-made) ratios that does not
> concern nature.
>
[hanson] (3)
OK, if "pi", the circ/dia ratio, and N_A, the unit/bag ratio, are man-made
(logical) ratios then by what (non-human logic) primordial reason
does "PHI" occur and exist?
** Who is the arbiter to judge and/or determine if not human logic?**
** Who is the arbiter to judge and/or determine what is primordial?**
By your reason and construct it can't be done by/thru/with human logic.
So, WHAT is "it" that functions here on that level of discrimination?
This notion of yours is profound and heavy duty, and IMHO you should
first totally, to full satisfaction explain it, BEFORE you apply it. Explain
this tool to me, but NO human logic is allowed for the explanation .
>
> [EL]
> The dimensionless ratio "Alpha" is not primordial but simply a complex
> natural relation between observed quantological dimensions.
> Phi is the only primitive ratio that has a physical tactical meaning.
> If every vector has the chance to be added to its immediate neighbour
> in a set, then the "last" vector shall find a new neighbour to which
> it may be added.
> Very soon the ratio "phi" is reached and a stable spiral is born.
>
[hanson]
You are running off and away from me here, Hemet. I can only
reconnect if you give me opinions/facts/examples about [hanson] (1) to (3)
>
> [EL]
> It is the coupling of a collapsing spiral and an expanding anti-spiral
> that creates a closed-loop vortex.
> Since it is impossible for both spirals to occupy the same plane, a
> conical shell is soon acquired and a soliton is created.
>
[hanson]
ASSUMING, that you speak here of physical entities,
= what is a collapsing spiral? Is collapsing when the spiral
(a) "disappears" down its own center or
(b) when the spiral flattens out and dissipates in energy into the
surrounding medium?
= What is an anti-spiral?
(a) Are you referring to its clock/anticlock rotation?
(b) Are you referring to the parallel/antiparallel directions/alignment
of these spiral I image to look like subnano tornados?
= Is this conical shell, a standing hollow cone, presumably the term
you use in your terminology for stable particle?

In any event, you are way too fast for me here. Your leaps are way
to big for me to follow. Can you fill them in and explain it to
me, as if I were your little son asking you: "Daddy why is it light
when there is a light"...Slow and easy, baby steps or shuffling.
No running. --- Let's have some fun, bro!........ahahahaha.....
ahahaha......ahahahanson

Relevant Pages
Quantcast