Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:24 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 474 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:37 pm +0000
Posts: 1471
Location: Hawaii
I work with Astronomers from around the world... Imagine if I were to take a image to them re: the Master's Universe......they'd peg me as Ka-Ra-Zee :)

_________________
A fellow Agondonter...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:24 am +0000
Posts: 168
Bart wrote:
People may desire power and riches and may have delusions of an evil spirit entity that may help them get it.


People may desire power and riches and may have delusions of a loving God that may help them get it. They desire Caligastia's wicked presence because they desire their delusional God that curses them with selfishness and greed cloaked in the name of Jesus and steeped in vanity.

regards gray


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:24 am +0000
Posts: 168
Israel wrote:
Bart wrote:
kahanyah wrote:
53:8.6 The last act of Michael before leaving Urantia was to offer mercy to Caligastia and Daligastia, but they spurned his tender proffer. Caligastia, your apostate Planetary Prince, is still free on Urantia to prosecute his nefarious designs, but he has absolutely no power to enter the minds of men, neither can he draw near to their souls to tempt or corrupt them unless they really desire to be cursed with his wicked presence.



It is the same with world governments and political systems "they really desire to be cursed with his wicked presence" because he is the power they seek. They have lost their hearts and the heart of Jesus by letting their minds be swayed by Caligastia's gift of great self-importance and vanity.

regards, gray


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:24 am +0000
Posts: 168
Caligastia's seduction of the church and political leaders led to the persuasion of science to go along with the churches view of creation, Lemaitre's "Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation" or "Primeval Atom". I believe that Caligastia used his influence to create this false notion of the creation of space-time because he knew that quantum mechanics would take us down the destructive path of using fossil fuels and atomic reactions to supply our energy needs.

It seems like the best way to foil Caligastia's plan is to scientifically prove TUB's explanation of creation...An ocean of ultimatons condensing by gravitational and mesotronic force into mass and electromagnetism...We should not be afraid of understanding the true power of creation, we should be very afraid to let Caligastia's plans continue.

regards, gray


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:40 pm +0000
Posts: 2565
(610.5) 53:8.9 In general, when weak and dissolute mortals are supposed to be under the influence of devils and demons, they are merely being dominated by their own inherent and debased tendencies, being led away by their own natural propensities. The devil has been given a great deal of credit for evil which does not belong to him. Caligastia has been comparatively impotent since the cross of Christ.

(610.2) 53:8.6 The last act of Michael before leaving Urantia was to offer mercy to Caligastia and Daligastia, but they spurned his tender proffer. Caligastia, your apostate Planetary Prince, is still free on Urantia to prosecute his nefarious designs, but he has absolutely no power to enter the minds of men, neither can he draw near to their souls to tempt or corrupt them unless they really desire to be cursed with his wicked presence.

(610.3) 53:8.7 Before the bestowal of Michael these rulers of darkness sought to maintain their authority on Urantia, and they persistently withstood the minor and subordinate celestial personalities. But since the day of Pentecost this traitorous Caligastia and his equally contemptible associate, Daligastia, are servile before the divine majesty of the Paradise Thought Adjusters and the protective Spirit of Truth, the spirit of Michael, which has been poured out upon all flesh.

(610.4) 53:8.8 But even so, no fallen spirit ever did have the power to invade the minds or to harass the souls of the children of God. Neither Satan nor Caligastia could ever touch or approach the faith sons of God; faith is an effective armor against sin and iniquity. It is true: “He who is born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one touches him not.”

(610.5) 53:8.9 In general, when weak and dissolute mortals are supposed to be under the influence of devils and demons, they are merely being dominated by their own inherent and debased tendencies, being led away by their own natural propensities. The devil has been given a great deal of credit for evil which does not belong to him. Caligastia has been comparatively impotent since the cross of Christ.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:24 am +0000
Posts: 168
coop wrote:
(610.5) 53:8.9 In general, when weak and dissolute mortals are supposed to be under the influence of devils and demons, they are merely being dominated by their own inherent and debased tendencies, being led away by their own natural propensities. The devil has been given a great deal of credit for evil which does not belong to him. Caligastia has been comparatively impotent since the cross of Christ.

[color=blue] (610.2) 53:8.6 The last act of Michael before leaving Urantia was to offer mercy to Caligastia and Daligastia, but they spurned his tender proffer. Caligastia, your apostate Planetary Prince, is still free on Urantia to prosecute his nefarious designs, but he has absolutely no power to enter the minds of men, neither can he draw near to their souls to tempt or corrupt them unless they really desire to be cursed with his wicked presence.


Do you think they mean "comparatively impotent" like the Urantia Papers are "comparatively impotent" today? Perhaps some mysterious papers by unknown authors showed up in the Vatican and influenced the Church to support a big bang theory of creation. That would be fairly impotent, just a subtle suggestion. I don't know where Lemaitre got his inspiration from specifically but the timing of Einstein's acceptance of Lemaitre's explanation of creation and the universe was at a time when the Urantia Papers were being written if I am not mistaken, circa 1920. If Einstein and Hubble had been influenced by the science of the Urantia Papers instead of Lemaitre, we probably would not be on the brink of self destruction.

Here we are about 100 years later and the science of TUB lays mostly dormant. It is still being dominated by mainstream physics and their big bang nonsense. Quantum mechanics has swelled their egos so much they find it very hard to admit that they are wrong about aether, creation and gravity and were also wrong to ignore the importance of the Strong Force...the Mesotron .

regards, gray


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:21 pm +0000
Posts: 313
Location: London, England
graybear13

I completely agree with everything you said in the past two posts. So, know that you are not alone.

Moreover, I think it would be futile to try to "convince" the so-called physicists of anything. The real scientists cannot compete with the orthodox "priests" of science falsely so called. We have completely different methodology and so our work must await a new generation living in a new society based on the principles of brotherhood and unselfish service.

_________________
http://www.bibles.org.uk - The Living Jesus Movement


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:03 pm +0000
Posts: 528
tigran wrote:
graybear13

I completely agree with everything you said in the past two posts. So, know that you are not alone.

Moreover, I think it would be futile to try to "convince" the so-called physicists of anything. The real scientists cannot compete with the orthodox "priests" of science falsely so called. We have completely different methodology and so our work must await a new generation living in a new society based on the principles of brotherhood and unselfish service.


Hi Tigran. Glad to hear from your again. I've been working on new ideas and I agree there is an inertia of scientific dogma standing in the way of progress in physics. Let me offer some more ammunition to combat this dogma.

The entire edifice of our mathematics lies on the foundation of space as a fixed background of a boundless cube (the Cartesian coordinate system).
TUB states that space is not a boundless cube and we are told of the space motions. Current science at least agrees with space expansion. If space moves, then it cannot be absolute. TUB states this but this is an argument for the mainstream physicists to grapple with. The Cartesian graph does not expand and those little arrows on the ends of the x,y,z lines tells us we are calculating on a representation of space that is inconsistent with reality. No wonder the math of QED is such a mess. The speed of light cannot be constant in a non-absolute expanding space.

The pattern for all motion seems to be logarithmic. Space and time must be related orthogonally but the only way this is possible is if time is circular and space is hyperbolic (1/x). In 2 dimensions, the only equations at play in motion are y=1/x, y=e^x, y=nlogX.

I have discovered that motion is governed by the natural logarithm. These equations above are not calculable. The integral of 1/x is 1/0 or undefined. The derivative of e^x is itself. Motion is existential and self-derived.

I have also discovered that the derivative of nlogX has been falsely given. I have proof of this if you should want it and I can take you step by step in its derivation where I can show how the nlog was separated from its number and this is an illegal manipulation.

For how long have we been falsely told that the derivative of the nlogx is 1/x? For how long have we assumed that the integral of 1/x is nlogx?

Gravity controls matter-energy and we still have no theory of gravity that explains the forces of an elliptical orbit.

My theory does explain elliptical orbits and it involves a field that really has been disguised as the magnetic field. Please look up the Apollonian circles to observe the field I have used to explain the elliptical orbits. Solar axial tilt accounts for the varying pull of gravity throughout the orbit. The poles of axial rotation are the two foci of the field. I have found the missing foci of the ellipse. The relationship of the distance from the poles of a rotating sphere to the circles of the field is the nlog.

The clue from TUB that led me to this was "gravity act preferentially in the plane perpendicular to mass".

A plane cannot be perpendicular to a 'point mass' but a plane (the equatorial plane) can be perpendicular to a line that connects the poles of a rotating sphere. Think of a toy gyroscope where the inertial mass is at the poles, resisting changes in axial tilt. Let me know what you think.

Regards, Louis


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:21 pm +0000
Posts: 313
Location: London, England
Hi loucol,

You say that we have no theory of gravity that explains elliptic orbits, but this is not true. Even Newtonian theory (let alone Einstein's GR) explains elliptic orbits, as well as parabolic and hyperbolic. It doesn't explain the nature of gravity force or why it decreases as 1/r^2, but given this rate of decrease it explains the shape of orbits perfectly.

You say, that the derivative of ln(x) is not 1/x and the integral of 1/x is not ln|x|. This is, of course, not true and no proof to the contrary can possibly exist. However, what I think you are really saying is that the concept of "derivative" and "integral" accepted at present in the Mathematical Analysis ought to be modified and in your proposed alternative definitions of "derivative" and "integral" the derivative of ln(x) is not 1/x and the integral of 1/x is not ln|x|. This I am well prepared to believe. Moreover, in my own work I too had to abandon the accepted definitions of "derivative" and "integral" as very limited, i.e. to generalize them with something more generic that works well also in the case of infinite-dimensional entities _and_ turns back to ordinary definitions in the case of finite dimensions and ordinary functions. What they (orthodox mathematicians) are taught and teach as "Variational Calculus" is just a tip of the iceberg --- the whole "iceberg" being called "Nonlinear Functional Analysis" and it is this iceberg that I have now to construct almost from scratch (there are a few bright papers here and there in the false ocean of "orthodoxy", but really it is non-existent) as a tool for constructing a better theory of gravitation, compatible with what is revealed in TUB.

Btw, even Gelfand/Fomin in their standard book (I.M. Gelfand, S.V. Fomin, Calculus of Variations, Prentice Hall, 1963 --- btw, this is a brilliant book!) admit that the entire analysis of functionals (comparable to the analysis of functions) is yet to be constructed. I.e. the well-known concepts of weak (Gateux) and strong (Frechet) derivatives only work well in the rather narrow class of local functionals and that is why, as you say correctly, QED (and QFT in general) is such a mess: because it naturally leads one _out_ of the class of local functionals (even Feynman knew this when he discovered "Feynman integrals formulation of QM") but the modern mathematics does not offer any clue as to what to do with these entities.

Now, you also say something very interesting about gravity acting preferentially in the plane perpendicular to the mass (cf. 11:8.9 in TUB) and on this issue, yes, please, I would like to know more about your thoughts and theory. It is very interesting because I have not yet reached the point where I could analyze a specific real dynamical system --- I am still redefining/rewriting the entire body of mathematics (starting from logic and set theory and on to analysis and algebra, topology, geometry, etc).

_________________
http://www.bibles.org.uk - The Living Jesus Movement


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 964
Hi Louis and Tigran,

If you can deal with partial differential equations you might find some interesting things to consider in E. T. Whittaker's 1903 and 1904 papers which show how potentials (that generate 1/r^2 force manifestations such as gravity and EM force) are equivalent to a combination of 2 or more standing waves coming from orthogonal directions.

I'm not sure what the author of the page here means by "super potential" but both of Whittaker's papers are available here:

http://krwjones.com/wordpress/2013/08/2 ... potential/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:21 pm +0000
Posts: 313
Location: London, England
Thank you, Riktare. I have now read both papers by Whittaker and learned something new. I was not aware of such beautiful forms of a general solution of both wave and Laplace equations in 3 dimensions (of course I knew about the 2-dimensional case) and also about the representation of a general solution of Maxwell's equations via two scalar potentials. I suspect the latter result will become more meaningful and revealing when it is reformulated in the language of Clifford algebras ("geometric algebra") because in the vector notation given by Whittaker (and even worse in the explicit coordinate component notation) the connection between the electromagnetic field and the scalar potential is so clumsy, that it is hard to see the meaning hidden somewhere deep in it.

_________________
http://www.bibles.org.uk - The Living Jesus Movement


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:03 pm +0000
Posts: 528
Hi Tigran and Steve. Thanks for the interest. I am not a physicist nor a mathematician so I will have to defer to you guys, but indulge my interest in the subject and allow me to be a devil's advocate for the sake of discussion.


The following is the current method of finding the derivative of the natural logarithm function.


dln(x)/dx = lim d→0 [ln(x+d) - ln(x)]/d =



lim ln[(x+d)/x]/ = lim(1/d) ln(1 + b/x) =




lim [ln(1 + d/x)^1/d]




Set u=d/x and substitute⎯


Lim u→0 [ ln (1 + u)^1/u ]

= 1/x ln [ lim u→0 (1 + u)^1/u ]

= 1/x ln(e) = 1/x


That derivative is false.

The step⎯ lim as u→0 [ ln (1 + u)^1/ux. ] = 1/x ln [ lim u→0 ( 1 + u)^1/u

Pulling the 1/x down from the exponent and putting it in front of the ln is permissible, but there was also a shifting of the lim u→forward, so that it is now in front of the ln, and this most certainly is not permissible. One cannot separate the ln from its number. The reason this is important is that because, as confirmation of the last step, we are sent to the definition of e⎯

e = lim n→0 (1 + n)^1/n

Take note that this does not read⎯

e = lim n→0 ln (1 + n)^1/n

These two equation are not the same and this invalidates not only the derivative of the natural logx , but invalidates the integral of 1/x as the nlx as Lebniz asserted.

The integral of 1/x according to the integrating method of Leibniz results in a contradiction; the undefined expression ‘1 divided by 0’.

∫1⁄x dx = x^-1+1 / -1 + 1 = X^0 / 0 = 1/0

This is naturally unacceptable for mathematics to have this embarrassingly undefined expression. A so called ‘reasonable solution’ was accepted as the natural log x. The false derivation shown above was offered up as the solution. Because of the mathematical step of integrating the inverse function (1/x) is the most frequently used mathematical operation in physics (reflection), one can only shake one’s head at the sloppiness with which this science has ignored the natural logarithms. I came to the realization that motion is not calculable, if in fact, all motion is logarithmic.

Apollonius of Perga was a renowned Greek geometer most famous for his treatise of the conic sections we. Of interest in solving this problem of the impossible ellipse we can turn to another of his discoveries, the Apollonian circles. I cannot get a diagram of these circles on this forum but please Google it on Wiki for visual assistance.

These are two families of infinite circles such that every circle in the first family intersects every circle in the second family orthogonally. To better make the case, we must imagine this set of circle rotated 90 degrees and only then will it become obvious what we are revealing. The red circles all intersect at two points we will call F1 and F2. One type of polar coordinates is defined based on the Apollonian circles.

Algebraically, the circles in bipolar coordinate (σ, τ) is⎯

x = a [sinh τ ∕ cosh τ − cos σ]

y = a [sinh σ ∕ cosh τ − cos σ]

τ= ln (d1/d2)
[When d1 = d2, τ is zero] I will refer to Wiki depiction of one of the infinite circles as d1 and d2 are the respective distance to any point on the circle from foci 1 and foci 2 (the poles of diagram).

Equivalently, the two equations above become⎯

x + iy = ai cot (σ + iτ / 2)

The take home lesson is that these circles are related to the hyperbolic functions and to the natural logarithm and, therefore to Euler’s number e, its base. The transcendentals π and Φ, as well as √-1, the imaginary, are all included in this function. These functions are, therefore, not subject to the calculus. They are not derived from other functions nor can they have a defined integral.

These discoveries make the Apollonian circles clearly related to the family of infinite ellipses, our modified form of Euler’s Formula⎯

e^i∏ + Φ^2 + Φ = 0

It is time to take the circles of Apollonius and rotate them 90 degrees and see if we can visually identify this geometry with anything known in nature so that we can further reinforce its role in motion. Its shape is identical to a magnetic field of a rotating sphere.


You can see that the red circles of the Apollonian family look strikingly similar to the magnetic field lines of the Earth and the bar magnet. We have to wonder as to who really decided that these circles were due to a magnetic field and not a gravitational field. The poles of the Earth and the bar magnet correspond to the foci of circles in red. I think we have finally found the missing second focus in our ellipse!

I am going to suggest that the only field is the gravitational field and that these so called magnetic field lines are motions of charged particles controlled by the gravitational field. This new and improved gravitational field will indeed explain the infinitesimal changes in curvature (radius) of the elliptical orbit. What we have long held as a magnetic field was a gravitational field in disguised and in plain sight, somewhat like the Lone Ranger in his mask. The Sun has two foci from which its exerts its gravitational influence as do all other rotating orbs. The two foci form a gravitational field that is not spherical but conforms to the shapes of the Apollonian circles. This allows for a differential pull that controls the motion of the orbital. Gravity is thus greatest in the plane perpendicular to mass. This corresponds to the equatorial plane of the rotating spheroid. Mass can no longer be viewed as center and there is no center of gravity but a field generated by two foci of mass at the poles of our gyroscopic orb.

The orbital feels an ever changing pull of gravity at every point along the orbital path because the axes involved are fixed and the objects are oriented differentially as their axes are revolving in orbit. In this way, an orbital at aphelion can be pulled back as it experiences greater pull. At perihelion, a lesser gravitational force allows the orbital to escape its nearness to the Sun. The spheroidal field of Newton cannot do this because gravity cannot be allowed to fluctuate, so the inverse square law only compounded the problem of the orbital returning from aphelion and, conversely, crashing into the Sun at perihelion. My new theory of the gravitational field modeled geometrically by the Apollonian circles provides a very viable explanation of elliptical orbits and unifies the motion of the ellipse, welcoming it into the family of logarithmic spiral motion.

When we examine these field lines in light of my new theory of gravitation, we must conclude the these lines represent actual currents of charged particles moving from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere. The Earth is a charged body and this charge creates potential. When there is an imbalance of motion across the equator, motion must seek balance with motion in the opposite direction. Because polarity exists, there is most definitely a differential in motion between hemispheres. More mass is in rotation below the equator than above it. Remember that the
hemispheres are in counter rotation and this maintains the charge separation that creates polarity and potential. Because it is difficult for motion to balance across the reflective plane of the equator, particles of matter travel paths of least time in order to take motion (mass) away from the southern hemisphere and add it to the northern hemisphere. These electronic particles travel is these circumscribed paths showing the gravitational field in all of its glory. They even travel far out into so called empty space from the southern to the northern hemispheres. These particles, along with our atmosphere, form a protective shield to incoming solar winds and other harmful radiations of space which are shunted to the polar regions somewhat but mostly to open space. We recognize this as the polar lights and these particles interact in our ionosphere. Thus is the southern hemisphere slightly cooler than the northern hemisphere. Heat is the measure of electronic activity and electron showering down on the northern hemisphere has a heating effect. Hemispheric warming and cooling are occurring simultaneously and periodic warm ages and ice ages can be explained by precession (wobble) in the Earth’s axis and shifting of crustal and core mass in the giant gyroscopic dynamo we call home.

Newton flatly rejected the logarithmic spiral ellipse for reasons that had to do with his contention that the orbits would spiral into the Sun or out into space. Newton provided a rigorous proof in Principia that disallowed a logarithmic ellipse owing to his proof that an inverse cubic law would have to be in effect and this would not be inconsistent with Earth-Moon observations. It is true that the poorly understood gravity attenuating properties of space provide the inverse square of distances between masses to roughly approximate the lessening in gravitational force. Newton provided a description of the elliptical orbit but failed to explained the forces involved in the motion.

42:11.5 Linear-gravity response is a quantitative measure of nonspirit energy. All mass—organized energy—is subject to this grasp except as motion and mind act upon it. Linear gravity is the short-range cohesive force of the macrocosmos somewhat as the forces of intra-atomic cohesion are the short-range forces of the microcosmos. Physical materialized energy, organized as so-called matter, cannot traverse space without affecting linear-gravity response. Although such gravity response is directly proportional to mass, it is so modified by intervening space that the final result is no more than roughly approximated when expressed as inversely according to the square of the distance. Space eventually conquers linear gravitation because of the presence therein of the antigravity influences of numerous supermaterial forces which operate to neutralize gravity action and all responses thereto.



The differential axial tilts of the sun and planets in this gravitational field that acts preferentially in the plane perpendicular to the axes of rotation allows for infinitesimal changes in the radius of curvature of the elliptical path of the orbital.

Examine the catenary and see it as a visualization of gravity. The catenary is a logarithmic curve. Place a diagram of a true ellipse hanging on the wall with some tape. Get a fine linked chain and you see that you can fit the chain to the curvature of the chain. Wow!


Please let me know what you guys thing about all of this.

Regards, Louis










Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:21 pm +0000
Posts: 313
Location: London, England
loucol,

First of all, very easy matters: derivative of logarithm. The reason you seem to be a bit confused about it is because you may have forgotten the theorem about the limit of composite function. The function ln(x) is continuous in the vicinity of the point e. Therefore, assuming that you already know that the lim u->0 (1+u)^1/u = e you _can_ switch the places of "ln" and "limit", i.e.

lim u->0 ln(1+u)^1/u = ln lim u->0 (1+u)^1/u = ln e = 1

Don't worry about this. We all make mistakes. I assure you it is no big deal.

Now, please continue to read for something far more interesting than these elementary calculus exercises with limits.

The connection you have described between Apollonian circles and gravitation/electromagnetism is extremely important and, imho, has very strong link to reality. Basically, you have grasped something REAL. I feel this because I too, independently from you or anyone else, came upon something very similar. And, believe it or not, I also asked the question "what 'is' in the other focus of an elliptic orbit of a planet?" or "why all orbits are conical sections?" and so on. Now, how do I know that these ideas are REAL? Because they come to my mind directly from the Cosmic Mind. I think the same happens to you as well. Yes, I suspect you are sufficiently spiritually developed to be functioning far beyond the level of "advanced age of light and life" of a normal evolutionary planet and you are now freely accessing the vast stores of universal knowledge.

But, utterly lacking in mathematical education, you are unable to express the deep mysteries that you are privy to, to anyone. If I view what you say through the "orthodox scientist" glasses I must say that everything you say is "laughable nonsense". But what is important is not the ability to convey your results to the "orthodox scientists" (they are not worthy of it anyway). What is important is that you should at least try to gain the ability to make some progress with your ideas and bring them out of the domain of pure intuition to the realm of solid knowledge. Saying "I am not a mathematician or physicist" is just being lazy and finding excuses. Don't worry, you won't lose or diminish the contact with the Cosmic Mind by learning the "worldly" matters like mathematics.

Hmmm, I find myself defending orthodox mathematics and physics here. But this is hardly surprising --- I dare say that I do not deny the orthodox science as the ignorant people do, i.e. by being too lazy to study it. No, rather I have spent decades studying and have simply outgrown it and chose the path of replacing it with something more real, more solid, based on the realization of deified level of reality, as opposed to the total denial of everything connected with divinity as is the foolish course of the orthodoxy and materialism. It is like this: there is one thing in denying that the Bible is the word of God by an atheist (i.e. lazy fool destined to utter destruction) and quite another thing to do the same after having spent many years in studying it in the original ancient languages and even having published original critical editions thereof. Science is just like the Bible. One can deny it either by knowing too little of it or by knowing too much of it :)

_________________
http://www.bibles.org.uk - The Living Jesus Movement


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:03 pm +0000
Posts: 528
tigran wrote:
First of all, very easy matters: derivative of logarithm. The reason you seem to be a bit confused about it is because you may have forgotten the theorem about the limit of composite function. The function ln(x) is continuous in the vicinity of the point e. Therefore, assuming that you already know that the lim u->0 (1+u)^1/u = e you _can_ switch the places of "ln" and "limit", i.e.


Hi Tigran. Thanks for your response and encouraging words. But I must respectfully disagree on this. I simply cannot ignore the man behind the curtain.

You say that the function nl(x) is continuous in the 'vicinity' of point e. The function y=nl(x) and y=e^(x) are inverse functions, in other words, mirror images across the identity function y=x. The rectangular hyperbola y=1/x is symmetrical to all three functions. Please put these functions on a graph to see better what I am saying. The calculus is wrong when it claims that anything happens at a 'point'. e is a number, Euler's number. A quantity cannot be a point. A 'point' is not in time-space. Euclid defined a point as that with no parts. No parts, no motion. It has no meaning in a method of calculation that is supposed to be about motion. Since when has a coordinate points (position) been confused with a real point? Real in the sense that it is an infinity. Since when has 'position' had any real meaning in a universe where space moves? Calculus pretends that it can tell us what a velocity is at a point in time. This is utter non-sense. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says nothing to this. Both velocity and position are unreal

The fallacy is that one can draw a tangent to a point on a graph and have it mean something real. The reality is that infinitesimals are infinite. You can chop up a line segment infinitely and the segments remain of infinite length. Remember, the cartesian graph is a boundless cube and that makes any line on the graph of infinite length. Only logarithmic motion can bound space by reflecting, a cyclic Universe. TUB tells us clearly that space is not a boundless cube. But our cartesian graph is just that! Subsequently, the calculus is a metaphysical mess.

Show me on a graph how the integral of y=1/x is nl(x) or the derivative of nlx is 1/x. I was taught that the integral of a function is the area under the curve. The area under the curve 1/x (reflects at one, unity) is infinite not nl(x)! In my estimation this a colossal problem. I hope you see it.


Now let me address some thoughts on time-space.

Please follow along in a thought experiment. Do you ever recall seeing a structure in a science museum where one puts a coin on the ridge of a hyperbolic cone funnel and set it rolling? It great fun to watch for the kids but you lose your coin in the end as the coin rolls along elliptical paths around the plastic funnel and eventually drops into a hole at the center due to friction and a decaying orbit. This illustrates the relationship between gravity and time-space and matter.

The hyperbolic funnel is space. The coin is matter. The rolling motion orthogonal to the hyperbolic funnel is circular time. The motion of the coin around the center of the funnel is elliptical. Notice that the hyperbolic funnel is what Einstein was seeing in his gravitational theory. However, Minkowski space-time, has a concept of time as linear and in the light cone space is a plane. But explain how a linear time and a tree dimension space can be orthogonal. The light cone diagram shows space only as a 2 dimensional plane because how else can they place linear time in the imaginary plane. A line can be perpendicular to a plane but not an unbounded cubic.

Conclusion: Space is hyper-cubic, a bounded cube or tesseract that moves (rotates and expand and contracts).
Time is circular simultaneity.
Earths gravity act on matter in time-space to produce elliptical motion.

Hyper-cubic space is 4 dimensional. This extra dimension bounds space. Time is circular and 3 dimensional (past, present, future)
Therefore, time-space is 7 dimensional. This is all very consistent with TUB.

Regarding Newton and the inverse square law. F= G [M1 * M2 / d^2] In an elliptical orbit only F and d vary. The Earth at is furthest from the Sun experiences the least gravitational force? Gravity is a pulling force so what keeps us from flying out of orbit? And the opposite question also needs an answer. That is what the gravitational field whose geometry is the Apollonian circles address. The shape of the ellipse is easy, the forces behind the shape is what I am concerned with.

Regards, Louis


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:21 pm +0000
Posts: 313
Location: London, England
loucol,

You have no idea how close our ideas are!

You mention Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Excellent! In my "new analysis" this Principle is actually part of Mathematics, not Physics! Listen to this: a function cannot have a value f(x) and a derivative f'(x) simultaneously. If you know the value f(x) absolutely certainly, then the derivative f'(x) is totally undefined and vice versa. This is a mathematical principle (even in signal processing and Fourier analysis they know something similar) and when applied to the concepts of "position of a particle" and "momentum of a particle" (or position in momentum space) leads to what physicists know as "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle". But here I am careful to disclaim that by "derivative" is meant something completely different from what modern analysis calls "derivative". Something that works for arbitrary (non-local non-linear) functionals defined on rather large functional spaces (not just Banach or Hilbert spaces). Can I reveal the definition thereof here? No, the hour has not yet come. Why? Because when one has managed to generalize something then the existing problems (posed in non-generalized setting) are solved easily, almost trivially. But I have not come into this world to give the solutions to the existing so-called problems of the so-called science and thus allow (or in any case being powerless to prevent) the use of the results for evil. I aim for something much greater --- the salvation of mankind from slavery. When that is done, all the other little bits and pieces (like solving energy "problem" etc) will come freely, if it is my Father's will.

The real science is like "holy grail" --- only the "knight with a pure heart" will know the secret of the ultimatonic structure of matter and will then command matter on that level.

_________________
http://www.bibles.org.uk - The Living Jesus Movement


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 474 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Majestic-12 [Bot]


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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group