Re: Center of Mass of the Universe?

From: hanson (hanson_at_quick.net)
Date: 11/14/04 

Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:48:04 GMT

Is Jack Sarfatti working in the same office as you?
Or is he the dude making noise on the upper or lower floor?
Compared to you guys, uncle Al works in the basement.

Or what about your mentor/reference Tom Davidson,
in "Why Phi?" on {alt . sci . physics} who said: "As to "why",
you'll have to ask yourself why *you* believe there has to
be a reason (implying the existence of phi is the result of the
action of a reasoning being). That is just the way it is."

AHAHAHAHA.....ahahahaha......."That is just the way it is"
ahahaha.....well, if you think that's physics, well, then you
guys have it made already , broser. The show's over......
Problem solved. Problems solved........ahahahahaha....

Thanks for the laughs. I shall have another laugh-in with you
another day.......of course not before I go first to Fibonacci's
barber shop to get me that Golden cut..... or perhaps I should
go across the street to get and sport a Dedekind cut instead....
At least that one will not just be "the way it is".....ahahahaha...

ahahaha......ahahahaha....ahahahanson

"EL" <hemetis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.0411132251.54c1d4ef@posting.google.com...
> "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:<2Wpld.25459$KJ6.17954@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > > > 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?
>
> [EL]
> You sung the magical word "ratio" in the correct sequence. :-)
>
[hanson]
> > .......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]
> What struck a resonating tune was singing "Logic" after singing
> "Ratio".
> Quantology is basically a quest of proportion and ratios in the most
> profound logical discipline.
>
> > >
> > > [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]
> Phi is the "Golden Ratio" of "Evolution", be that growth, or decay.
> In fact, Tom Davidson, posted a very concise post on the subject very
> recently. :-)
> The title was/is "Why Phi?" on {alt . sci . physics}
> There is no need to repeat what he said or what could be found in a
> verbose documentation on the Internet.
>
> > >
> > > [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?
>
> [EL]
> Firstly, one should admit that we can only reason using the mind to
> comprehend.
> Secondly, if I found merit in giving a name to the ratio of the
> perimeter of a square to its diagonal,
> then 3a / 2^(0.5) might be as much interesting as "pi".
> A geometrical construct may have observable "features" and we tend to
> exploit all possible relations to discover the "constant" ones.
> Avogadro's number is similar to that in that we arbitrated the
> quantological units of weight and counted the number of atomic units
> of mass in an equivalent unit of our preferred arbitrary system of
> units. There is nothing natural about an arbitration except that we
> tend to chose practical units of measurement.
>
> Phi is not an arbitration and not a geometrical construct but a
> discovered ratio in many natural processes. Read the thread "Why Phi?"
> please.
>
[hanson]
> > ** Who is the arbiter to judge and/or determine if not human logic?**
>
> [EL]
> Logic.
>
[hanson]
> > ** Who is the arbiter to judge and/or determine what is primordial?**
>
> [EL]
> Logic.
>
[hanson]
> > By your reason and construct it can't be done by/thru/with human logic.
>
> [EL]
> How did you arrive at such a prejudiced judgement?
> Please count for me the number of perfect circles and squares in
> natural phenomena.
> If you could find one single such natural square or circle, it is an
> achievement.
> OTOH, I can enumerate some of a countless parade of manifestations of
> Phi in nature.
>
[hanson]
> > So, WHAT is "it" that functions here on that level of discrimination?
>
> [EL]
> Logic.
>
[hanson]
> > 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]
> Give me back my mind to mind or else I can hardly mind your question.
> :-)
> I discriminate between man-made ratios and man-discovered ratios.
> We construct circles by rotating a length interval we called radius
> anchoring one limit and moving the other in one and the same plane.
> We construct unit conversion constants to evaluate an arbitrated
> quantity in more than one system of units.
> We do not construct snails, ferns, galaxies, flowers or solitons, but
> we simply stumble into them with our senses.
>
> > >
> > > [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]
> Read "Why Phi?", then take your set of numbers as an evolving
> infinite-dimensional binary-set of vectors and you have phi as the
> limit of the binary-set ratio.
>
>
> > >
> > > [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,
>
> [EL]
> Assuming that physical entities may be expressed in a vector space,
> then yes.
>
[hanson]
> > = 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?
>
> [EL]
> Just like the vector function {V = x&#309; - yî}, but with a twist.
> :-)
> There is nonzero curl but there is zero divergence, before the gauge
> transformation.
> Another vector function {V + lambda V'} would have both curl and
> divergence as nonzero values.
> A collapsing spiral can be represented in many ways, one if which is
> my choice as an evolving (Temporal rather than instantaneous)
> binary-set vector function such that by collecting all the temporal
> terms we end up having a nonzero convergence and curl vector function.
>
[hanson]
> > = What is an anti-spiral?
> > (a) Are you referring to its clock/anticlock rotation?
> > (b) Are you referring to the parallel/antiparallel directions/alignment
>
> [EL]
> Anti-spiral is a spiral with nonzero divergence rather than
> convergence.
> When you see the whole picture of the temporal path within two nonzero
> radial limits,
> the temporal loop is closed as well as the path and the set evolves
> only through repeating a full cycle of its component subset. There are
> two species of such a temporal vector function which may be
> interpreted as CW/CCW if the topology has the orientability flag set.
> If you were to look into a hollow cone from the side of its base, and
> if we could imagine the existence of an imaginary point on the
> circumference of the base of the cone, then such an imaginary point
> would "fall" into the cone following a spiral adhering to its shell
> then returning up to the starting point before it ever reaches the
> vertex of the cone keeping its angular momentum vector constant. The
> rules are generalized such that the base of such a conical double
> shell (inner and outer faces) is elliptical.
> However, there is no such point, and rather we have a force vector
> evolving along the temporal path describing the topology of a dynamic
> orbit. I have to admit if oversimplifying the description here because
> I have omitted the conical shell curvature cycle in the plane passing
> through its axis (the spacetime anchor) and because the vector
> function is continuous in all three dimensions of space with an
> adhering temporal dimension per spatial dimension and an encapsulating
> time dimension for the dynamic orbit as a whole. Thus, I am speaking
> of the evolution of a binary-set vector-function in a 7D superstring
> model, just to arrive to the primordial-topological building block of
> spacetime entities.
>
[hanson]
> > of these spiral I image to look like subnano tornados?
>
> [EL]
> You might say so to ease the imaginative representation, except that
> the tornado dynamics are of much higher order of world complexity yet
> of much simpler statistical ingredients.
> A tornado includes a multitude of molecular matter units moving along
> parallel time-lines.
> The primordial dynamic orbits are extremely different in that they
> contain no sub-entities, they are not instantaneous but temporal and
> the dynamic orbit does not even exist at any one instance of time. If
> we had had a logical camera with a shutter speed as fast as the time
> interval of a single binary subset of the interacting evolving
> vectors, all we can take in the picture is that binary set (two
> interacting vectors).
>
[hanson]
> > = Is this conical shell, a standing hollow cone, presumably the term
> > you use in your terminology for stable particle?
>
> [EL]
> Yes, you may say so, but with all degrees of freedom possible for
> shape-shifting.
>
[hanson]
> > 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
>
> [EL]
> I apologize because the list is growing and I have to finish writing
> the book or at least renew my old website contents and upload them. A
> seriously verbose documentation is beyond the scope that news-groups
> can handle. But keep asking questions and I shall do my best to answer
> them.
> Kindest regards.
>
> EL