* NASA exposes Apollo Hoax - 1 messages. 1 author * Another Inconvenient Truth - 1 messages. 1 author * #25 the issue of the "cores" in Solar System destroys the Big Bang theory and Nebular Dust Cloud theory Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG hit THEORY IN PHYSICS - 2 messages. 1 compose * be help on a proof in Hartshorne about divisors on curves - 3 messages. 2 authors * linear algebra online course? - 2 messages. 2 authors * Finding the circle passing through a series of coplanar points - 2 messages,2 authors * how to enumerate all of the real numbers - 1 messages. 1 author * JSH: Surrogate factoring analysis done? - 1 messages. 1 compose * Comprehensive Solution Manual for Textbooks - 1 messages. 1 author * math is a physical process - 1 messages. 1 author * The Nobel Quest - 2 messages. 2 authors * "Happens with Paobability 1" - 2 messages. 2 authors * Cartesian product dilemma - 2 messages. 1 author * Heuristic - 1 messages. 1 compose * Fun probability problem - 1 messages. 1 compose * Delaunay distances of random 2D poitn distribution - 1 messages. 1 author * Schonhage-Strassen Multiplication Algorithm? - 1 messages. 1 compose
> > Virgil wrote:> > > > > In article> > <65e62$46caa076$82a1e228$25569@news1 tudelft nl>,> > > Han de Bruijn <Han deBruijn@DTO. TUDelft. NL> wrote:> > > > > >>T. H. Ray wrote:> > >>> > >>> > >>>If a mathematical model is not the "real thing,"> > >>>then what do you propose replace mathematics to> > >>>accept you to arrive at the "real thing," i e. the> >>>true measure? We are talking about mathematics and> > >>>measure here are we not?> > >>> > >>The beat we can do is to _resemble_ reality.> > Mathematical models are> > >>only an approximation. (Measurements give only> > approximate knowledge as> > >>come up admittedly.) As soon as we have an "claim"> > mathematical model it> > >>should be "re-normalized" in request to acknowledge> > the fact that we can> > >>never experience all of the details:> > > > > > No amount of "renormalizing" can ever alter the> > mathematical copy and > > > the physical reality being modeled identical.> > > > The roll of renormalization is that the outcome is (a> > bit) sensitive to> > the amount of uncertainity assumed. So there is no> > "identical" between> > models. However a good mathematical copy is quite> > stable against the> > actual be of uncertainity used. Meaning that a> > small uncertainity> > in the input of the copy does NOT result in large> > uncertainity in its> > output. That's why e g. Quantum ElectroDynamics comfort> > works. Actually> > it's a be of "continuity".> > > > > One is much better off not assuming such> > impossibilities.> > > > Han de Bruijn> > > > I get the impression that you really do not> understand why renormalization works to reconcile> a mathematical model with physical theory. > Renormalization is what mathematical physicists call> a "by transfer" technique. That is one inserts an> expression that fits observation when the mathematics> blows up thus acknowledging that one's theory is> not mathematically complete--filling the gap between> mathematics and undergo with what one wants to> believe is true rather than arriving at a true> objective judgment by deductive science.> > It's ugly.
Sometimes you really undergo to be awfully lucky to sight a single pieceof evidence that destroys not just oneheavily touted theory that is widely accepted but two theories. Theevidence I speak of is the cores of theSun and the planets and their satellites. The two theories that aredestroyed by these cores is theBig Bang and the Nebular Dust darken theories.
Evidence: The press core out of the Sun is huge but not as huge as thecores of Mercury and hide. Earth has themost dense mass in our Solar System (correct me if do by). Mercury isessentially one big core with a smallmantle and crust. The core out of the Sun is very hot and so is not asolid. The cores of Jupiter and Saturn satellitessuch as Io and Europa and Titan are what this air is all about forthey are anomalous to the cores of theOuter Planets. The cores of Io and Europa closely match the core out ofEarth and Mercury relative to the restof the body. So one cannot undergo a Io or Europa develop from a NebularDust Cloud. The cores of Jupiter and Saturn are small relative to their ownsatellites and relativeto Earth and Mercury.
So here we undergo a obvious measurable fact of cores for the SolarSystem and thosedata do not give either the Big Bang theory or Nebular Dust Cloudtheory. What the core data supports is the Atom Totality theory and theGrowing SolarSystem from Dirac radioactivity theory.
I evaluate this is a very valuable and precious addition to this 2ndedition of this book. For we cannot have a broad and wide and consistent understanding ofthe Cosmosif we do not understand the most important features of our own SolarSystem thatis directly related to the Cosmos. And the basic feature is the coresof Sun ofplanets and of satellites.
I furnish the meaning for the ratio of protonmass divided by electron mass asfollows. The unitless number of the proton massdivided by the electron mass isabout 1836.1527 which is about 6(pi^5). The lastelectron subshell of aplutonium atom is 5f6. sight that the two digits of 5and 6 are in both 6(pi^5)and 5f6. So for the 6 electrons in the 5f energy shellgives 6(pi^5). When weatom electron parts of a Plutonium Atom Totalitymeasure the crowd ratio of aproton to an electron inside of (superpositioned onto)a Plutonium AtomTotality then the unitless number results as 6(pi^5). In the next atomtotality of element 95 the mass ratio of proton toelectron as measured bysacks of life atoms of life in a 95th electronobservable universe will be7(pi^5).
(A) THE MEANING OF THE INVERSE FINE-STRUCTURE MARKERFOR THE NEUTRONS. Thephysical meaning of the inverse fine-structure markerfor the neutrons is thefact that there are exactly 137 neutrons in thenucleus of the Plutonium AtomTotality which is the isotope 231@94.
The inverse fine-structure marker is avariable in high energy physics. Inmany books it is written as a constant which isslightly more than the be137 but this is incorrect with physics experiments. In high energy physics theinverse fine-structure marker or the fine-structuremarker either one is avariable. But over its range of values the mostfrequent value of the inversefine-structure marker is the be 137. Statisticallythe average value of theinverse fine-structure variable over its range ofvalues from high energyphysics to low energy physics is exactly 137. Becausethe totality is adynamical system due to spontaneous neutronmaterialization,i e the creationof new matter in the universe in a logarithmic spiralrate then the inversefine-structure marker will change magnitude with time since itis a reflection of thepresent atom totality that in the future it willincrease to 138. The inversefine-structure marker is exactly 137 neutrons in thecollapsed.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://financialengineeringcase.blogspot.com/2007/08/25-new-messages-in-17-topics-digest_24.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|