TimAllen.com
 FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 

Can Albert's Fudge Factor & Repulsive Force be One &

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TimAllen.com Forum Index -> New Discoveries
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
D. Rice



Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Location: SW Michigan

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:41 pm    Post subject: Can Albert's Fudge Factor & Repulsive Force be One & Reply with quote

I don't know If I'm seeing things clearly but, the recently identified Repulsive Force has an uncanny resemblance to Albert E's construction of a "Cosmological Constant".

I mean, if I'm going off the deep end here then - besides knowing that I couldn't have hoped for a better group of people to go berserk with - I hope one of you trusty hyper-intellectuals are willing to slap me around if I start getting to far outta line.

Here's the way I understand it: Two teams of university intellectuals have confirmed one anothers findings. It seems that a certain type of Supernova explosion is known to be of a precise and consistent magnetude no matter where or when it occurs in the universe. After using Keck in Hawaii to identify a pretty good handful of these particular Supernova's, the two teams whittled the sample population down to only the most solid and reliable objects. These precise measurements were then compared with the amount of red shifted (Doppler effect) Supernova data captured in the Hubble lens. The Result: The Doppler effect and the apparent location - or distance - of these Supernova just didn't square with one another. With the amount of Red Shift seen, there either should or shouldn't have been the magnetude -- er somthing -- However they did it, the result appears to be within slivers of Einsteins troublesome Fudge Factor: The Cosmological Constant; a doinky little number that he would insert into his conjectured "Theory of Everything" as a means of avoiding the dreaded "infinities" that would otherwise emerge from his mathematical attempts at integrating the four fundemental forces into one elegant "Dancing Wu Lee" mega-equation for all time. The tendency for "infinities" to emerge was so confounding that I've heard he spent a few YEARS learning some sort of obtruse mathematical construct referred to as "Tensors" in an attempt at making the numbers work without the use (misuse?) of his conjectured Cosmological Constant.

New Scene: Year 2000, Cosmological Constant has gone by the way-side; Al's been pushing up tulips for nearly three decades and suddenly a nearly identical set of numbers emerge from these Supernova studies. Cosmological Constant masquarading as Repulsive Force or just uncanny coincidence?

Am I alone here or could Albert have been awarded another Noble in 2005 if not for all that nasty Rigor Mortise and such?


Last edited by D. Rice on Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Klatu
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:01 am    Post subject: Al's Fudge Reply with quote

D.Rice,

I have'nt been keeping up on the latest in astrophysics... too busy trying to find a job.
In my opinion the 'fudge factor' seems to be the scientists that try and fit the observations to their current thinking about how things should be in the universe. Because of the vast distance and unknown properties of supernovi and the mysterious repulsive force (if it exists) it maybe some time before any valid understanding can be acheived.

The hypothesis for the mechanism of gravity is not even understood, even now no one knows if it's an attractive or repulsive force, they only know that it have something to do with mass and rotational speed.

It could be entirely possible that given the magnetude of the forces envolved during the stars death throws that the resulting implosion could turn gravity inside out. This would account for the unexpected doppler shifts and non-homogenous speed and directions of some supernovi.

Since Albert made us aware of gravity's ability to bend light, it makes sense that if light was being emitted from the core of a hyper dense (collapsing) star that the hyper-gravitational forces acting on the emitted light would shift to a lower frequency, giving a kind of 'false' reading as to the stars speed.

I have a feeling that Albert finished his unity theory and it troubled more people than it satisfied. Keeping it in secret serves only those who can keep it a secret. If it were revealed to the public it would change everything radicaly. Albert knew more than he told.

Should we thank those who keep the truth from us?

Good post D.

K
Back to top
D. Rice



Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Location: SW Michigan

PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 2:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Al's Fudge Reply with quote

Klatu wrote:


Since Albert made us aware of gravity's ability to bend light, it makes sense that if light was being emitted from the core of a hyper dense (collapsing) star that the hyper-gravitational forces acting on the emitted light would shift to a lower frequency, giving a kind of 'false' reading as to the stars speed.


Klatu,

A couple of things about the above:

1) Damn if you don't have a point there. Now ya got me wondering whether such a reasonable potential was considered by the people running the data?

2) One thing's fersure: As I was reading your reminder that electromagnetic energy (be it in the form of Photons or otherwise) are "stretched" in the presence of a strong gravitational field, I found that my jaw muscles were like relaxing all on their own to the point where, by the time I got to the end of your post/reply I found myself becomming what we call "Slack Jawed" here in Michigan. It sure would be luxurious to be able to pose that question to those who actually crunched the numbers.

D.


Last edited by D. Rice on Mon Mar 07, 2005 9:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:51 am    Post subject: Al's fudge Reply with quote

D.Rice,

Do you think the "star heads" would appreciate a logical conclusion without a Phd to back it up?
It has been my experience that Phd's spend more time defending current thinking and there own views than to accept someone elses opinion who is not degreed in that subject.
My opinion is still just an opinion, I would be hard pressed to provide a proof or an example for an inverted gravitational effect.... I guess that's one of the benefits of being an arm chair physicist.

Perhaps if you could pose this hypothesis to the right person they could make the final adjustments to call it their own and present it to the other 'star heads' for their opinion. It does'nt matter whose idea it was originally, the proofs are all that matters.
The completed picture is what we all get from it and it could have far reaching effects.

K
Back to top
lg
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:38 am    Post subject: reply Reply with quote

Hi, D and K...(aren't you a fashion line?)

I leave the physics to you guys who are versed in such. (I understand your writing, but don't feel I have 'intelligent' input) I do want to comment on the Ph.Ds' and those of like ilk, though. Having several of these in my circle, I've found (that) if I ask a question, it has to be reduced to the most finite point, before responding 'we don't know yet'. Such as, (and this is a bad example) any question about the speed/force of a tire flying off of a vehicle going 90mph on a road with ten hairpin turns, it's possible landing site from an altitude of 1000 ft., rolling area, etc., their conversation actually begins with the invention of the wheel. By the time we're up to date on the actual question, I'm asleep.

This created thought in terms of the spiritual/psychological things written on this site. I often will take someone's question, retrace its historical significance, put it in the colander of psychology, then the one on theology, then any other necessary sieving I think is necessary, roll it around a few times, and see what's left in there to write about. So, my boring people to tears is a new discovery (of my own)! There's really no difference in approach. You are a patient people, and my greatest apologies...geez, who knew? L.
Back to top
D. Rice



Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 28
Location: SW Michigan

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:00 pm    Post subject: Re: reply Reply with quote

lg wrote:
I often will take someone's question, retrace its historical significance, put it in the colander of psychology, then the one on theology, then any other necessary sieving I think is necessary, roll it around a few times, and see what's left in there to write about.


Lg,

Yea, it's almost compulsive with me, cross referencing a question between different schools of thought. Not much has changed for me over the years in this regard and it's delightful to hear there's someone out there that does something similar. Theoretical physics and Quantum hullabaloo has always been just a fascinating hobby for me while the theology piece primarily became focused on the Eastern mystical traditions. It seemed like every twist and turn could be viewed either within the context of modern physics or eastern mysticism or both. The psychology piece began to unfold over half a lifetime ago and from my pespective it is the 1 out of the 3 that is unduly obscure and in need of a pie (think Soupy Sales)

As our guest suggested in the posting above, people into Physics as a profession seem to be rather territorial. I suspect the tendency for them to start way BEFORE the begining and then drone on and on is a reflection of this. I've also come to believe that Physicists tend to be inherently analytical while Psychologists tend to be more intuitive. Credibility in either field consumes almost half a lifetime in education. Thus, we become one or the other but never both.

I've a hunch that someday Physics will become a unifying paradigm for the field of Psychology. I've also a hunch that a Unified Field Theory, the "theory of everything" that has eluded Physicists to date, has remained elusive because the element of consciousness figures into the equation, and consciousness is one of the realms of Psychology where Phsicists fail to tread.

I like to think that maybe there is a grand scheme to all of this, just waiting for you and I to come along and post it on timallen.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
lg
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:59 am    Post subject: physicists/psychologists Reply with quote

Hi, D...I agree with your hunches and experiences.

After nearly two decades of studying religions, which you cannot do without seriously diving into the Eastern thoughts, I was nearly in shock when my particular search led me back to Western tradition. My questions then became completely different than before; in the same way a daily diet of certain things is good for people of certain ethnicities, but nonconsequential to people of other races, I am closely examining the possibility that 'faith' follows certain natural states.

In the same way a clock has different times, but a core that regulates it, so I believe in 'God' and religions. There is the core ("God") known by many names, and there are the hours (religions) making up the whole. I believe it is the identification of the 'hour' that speaks the groups name ('God' made), the tenets (man made) behind the identifications that speak what they believe, and their actual movement (action between Man and God) in the world that speaks volumes about themselves. Today, I use the word 'hour'; before I've called motivations 'caravans'; there are many ways to describe the same thing. It is by their work they are known. Pretty simple. So, I believe we would be better off chosing our 'religions' based on their output in the world, rather than their tenets/leaders/edifaces/etc. The 'belief' of a particular religion is sort of like learning about the wheel, as referenced in another post. All we have to do is read those, rather than discuss them, ad infinitum. They're pretty absolute, and 'the church' isn't going to change them, if I disagree. The truth of any system is in the work they do, and what it accomplishes, out into the world. Pick a job, and do it, I say. Look over your shoulder; I'll bet there will be a 'religion' there, just waiting for you...you may just then find a 'home'. Too many of us have been brought up in faiths that don't work, and spend a lifetime trying to explain why they don't. In the meantime, we don't have anything to hold onto, just things to let go of. I think its more productive to go outside of yourself, look at the work in the world, then find the yourself in it.

I believe there is the same one finger pointing, whether it be in physics, psychology, or any 'science', even the craziest 'branch'...its all the same tree. People state their belief (tenet) because something worked for them in there. It made sense. Period. They put on brakes when someone threatens to crack open the nut they've stored for winter. That is fear, not belief. If they can't stretch their minds to see the possibility of the next branch because they are afraid of heights, then so be it. If my understanding frightens someone, or makes them think I might be crazy because its too far out there, that's okay, too. If I had to live this life confined to the tiny things we can prove, I WOULD go crazy.
Back to top
lg
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:13 am    Post subject: stuff Reply with quote

This thread has certainly moved away from 'new disoveries'...my fault.

Just this one thought, D...you mentioned physics might one day be the basis for psychology, or something like that...it's already crept into that space, but I am yet to see it bleed over. I've heard numerous physisists talk about Jungs' idea of 'synchronicity', but they leave it as a sort of unexplained 'understanding' that the unexplainable can be explained (accepted) via Jung. (Got that?) They talk about it rather tongue in cheek, but they use it to explain what they can not yet understand. I adore Jungs' 'collective unconcscious' and his work with synchronicity. Ah, sweet mystery of life...to everything there is a season,and a time for every purpose under Heaven. L.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TimAllen.com Forum Index -> New Discoveries All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.