| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Douglas Eagleson" |
| Date: |
13 Jan 2005 07:38:50 PM |
| Object: |
An Altered String as a Theory. |
How was that Mr Thorne?
by Douglas Eagleson, 2005
A quanta has a relative location probability. A well is defined
and the wavefunction determines location.
A well in the third abstraction allows material interaction to be
represented by the relative quanta.
ps1(1)=psi(2) a third abstraction well.
Making solution the means of discussion. An energy is calculable.
An energy of the relative quanta. Making the resonance state this
kind of theory.
And ten abstractions in experimental systems are envoked, to make
the new system. An experimental device to measure both superposition,
the energy of this resonance, and the size of the local well
uncertainty.
A shuffled dot determines sufficiency of location for the well.
And the size of the dot determines the resonance, or energy to
move the dot, where the mere symbol causes the dot's movement.
A self organizing set is proposed.
A certain kind of set of atoms will self organize.
Or rearrange to the lower state, through emission.
Infer this geometry. (Here the slight of hand is invoked.)
I would just copy nature. And place one atom near another.
Then reduce the separation distance until an emission is seen.
And then make the dot, by adding another atom.
A third atom, and have the atom move without being able to
tell which one is moving. A boiling dot is produced and the
molecule juggles accross the cold copper plate.
Fix one of the atoms in place and the shuffling atom
computer may be produced.
THe self organizing molecule is creatable in example, by
taking the single added atom and adding the second. And the
size is then determined by the state.
This allowed state may be calculated. A well's uncertainty in relation
to the quanta's emmission energy. A series of wells is to be caused,
and not the series of emissions. A Ha!
A single example would defined a constant. Examples for all
atoms would define a set of constants unless the symmetry of the
series was used.
An apriori of a chain self-assembly.
And here the size of the atom in relation to all quanta defined
a constant. Most theorists would simply envoke the coherence
length here.
And the exact answer is the energy of all quanta in relation
to the uncertainty in inertial change. Making either the strong or the
weakly bonded self-assembly the issue.
What constant would have the property of force relative to
its own uncertainty?
And all molecules have bond strength relative to the heat of the
copper plate, now.
Making the constant the temperature of boiling.
Where does this answer appear? Atom size independent.
Mass independent.
How to infer self-assembly is this difficult.
And the answer appears to be resolved by a symmetry
variable of space itself.
Now we talk of background dependent theory versus
background indepednet theory.
What is to be held the cause of self-assembly?
No quantum loops are allow to digress from the subject.
A constant of space can be postulated and interpreted
as background causality. And because symmetry causes, topology
differential constants would apply.
And what is the difference of topology differentials relative
to geometric differentials? Or abstract functions relative
to their derivative?
A simple relation of set theory is the difference, and physical
interpretation of topology or abstract sets is the issue.
I can self-assemble assuming a space constant exists.
And loop gravity theory still hand waves with the necessity
for the archane physical interpretation to apply.
Background is the environment. Allow our environment to
determine the forces allowed. In this interpretation a simple
relation of symmetry to allowed force is to be discovered.
Make the string define the dot system. It is that simple.
Immediate background dependency is the desired for this
transformed string.
A single S-matrix of two dimensions. One defines the well,
while the second the emission strength. And inverted
emission defines bond strength!.
Time symmetry exists.
Why do worm holes and black hole have to exist as force
field? Well, maybe to calculate the local space. It is small
with little atoms and quite large with gravity.
I will send this to Kip Thorne and see if background is truely
that objectionable.
I mean a small and compact string is a completed theory as stated
here.
Why scoof at universal constants just because they appear to have
space cause the form of the contents?
While the exact state is left to local discovery. Implying the
self-assembly as truely symmetry caused.
BACKGROUND! Why let calculatable answers lie unaswered?
One lousey assembly of the abstract wormhole? If I
objected to all wormholes as defining any wormhole
I would have the analogy to Mr. Thorne's problem
with background.
Mr. Thorn make the abstracted wormhole with this formulation.
Allow force independence. A blackhole wormhole must not
define the mathematical wormhole!
Remove the event horizon and allow the time symmetry.
I hope Mr. Thorne likes to read his email.
An event horizon caused by the time inverse.
A third abstracted event is demanded and the any
event in relation to the next event is not this
kind of event.
A space sufficiency of any kind as a function will
define any wormhole. Sufficiency being background
events. A background horizon unrelated to the speed of light
relative to relativity?
No, a force appearance for space sufficiency. Place the
atom and a force will appear.
And event is the emission inverted. A spatial movment,
as would be the third abstraction of all quanta transissions.
Invert this event, time symmetry dependent, so
all space is a four abstract event holder. Holding
both transsissions and temperatures.
Defining a space temperature as allowing self-assembly.
And the wormhole would be allowed force geometry.
A ha!
So wormholes for all quanta may be defined.
And the size of the local space determines all
events in space of the allowed wormhole kind.
We are now allowing only wormhole events.
A four abstract well.
A fairly limited theory that can not predict the
particles existence, but can predict its behavior
in space.
Why not get this simple theory to use first, and then
worry about the realm of cause to all these kind of wormholes.
Or maybe modularize the s-matrix and allow the mass apriori
with a brand new cause to the abstract wormhole.
And begin the search for the constant after the smaller theory
of the string is completed.
Implying a matrix state as the wormhole.
Making background now such an arbitary looking cause to your abstract
wormhole. Implying the question, why use wormholes to
cause the state of their contents?
Making you have to answer Mr. Hawkin's question. Can information
ever leave the event horizon? Does time symmetry restrict all
events?
Background as defined in common science is this difficult a concept.
A four abstract space.
I needed a single lousey abstraction beyond four to cause
a completed theory. Answer me this question.
Why is background space movable, but not with time
causality?
In four abstraction time does cause space to appear.
In five abstractions with symmetry of time as a constraint,
strings may now osscillate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I read that in Scientific American last year. Why must
time cause?
That is your question now and given a completed theory is to
be obvious.
I inverted quantum theory just for your reading pleasure.
The answer is because, time symmetry truely exists.
Implying the relation of background to space as constraint
of theory only.
Allow the modular space to exist. Allow the completed
universe and the larger incomplete.
Defining all transissions as independent of the cause.
Making your new question. What is the temperature
of complete space relative to incompleted?
And of course the answer is the constant to cause completed
spaces state.
And yes one abstraction of the set is always to cause your final
theorist's dilemma.
"What set may cause?"
Is is that simple now that the entire theory was inverted and
applied.
Begging the larger question of functions of the universe.
"And background is equated to?"
That simple is the question of set theory in real analogy example.
I equated background to another variable of theory in this
discourse.
A single lousey hidden variable of theory I used.
Yes, background temperature is held to exist in this analysis.
Do you think you can answer the question of the cause to
its existence?
Hear is the last question, but it is a philosopher's question.
Is the existence functionable?
I would suggest making part of what we call existent given to
function, first. And then trying to do the whole thing.
Now a pholsophers joke. I write in a completed fashion
and the entire theory is transformed here. So follow the relation
of the big bang class theory.
A set.
Answer the implied question. Was that a real question?
What comes before?
In the implied analysis, "A set" begs a time causality.
Does it exist?
Does the universe osscilate or does it have a more
complicated structure.
Now the larger philsophers question.
Do hidden variables exist?
Yes, Mr. String in his quite unique reorganzied
string has an implied question left unanswered.
Is a hidden cause still a memeber of a set?
Is a completed theory?
Yes.
.........I have a million jokes of the
set kind.
Sincerely, Douglas Eagleson
How was that Mr. Thorne?
*************************************************************************
Post log star date 2005. Wormholes in five event causality is good
stuff.
Dial in the next sector Mr Zulu.
*************************************************************************
HOw scientists become attracted to the big bang is because the smarter
scientist's delight exists. And the level of completeness is
astounding.
I would really hope a small complete theory would be justifiably
ammenable to some delight.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: An Altered String as a Theory. |
13 Jan 2005 07:53:51 PM |
|
|
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
How was that Mr Thorne?
by Douglas Eagleson, 2005
A quanta has
already Dead on Arrival.
a relative location probability. A well is defined
and the wavefunction determines location.
*****.
A well in the third abstraction allows material interaction to be
represented by the relative quanta.
ps1(1)=psi(2) a third abstraction well.
[snip 300 lines of bloviating crap]
Prolix idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: An Altered String as a Theory. |
13 Jan 2005 08:12:34 PM |
|
|
You need to say why it is crap exactly, and not
generally.
Otherwise you paint yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: An Altered String as a Theory. |
13 Jan 2005 08:47:10 PM |
|
|
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
You need to say why it is crap exactly, and not
generally.
Otherwise you paint yourself.
No probem.
A quanta has
already Dead on Arrival.
and
A well in the third abstraction allows material interaction to be
represented by the relative quanta.
ps1(1)=psi(2) a third abstraction well.
Prolix idiot.
for instance. "Quanta" is a plural noun, you hopeless ignorant
dysfunctional fucking imbecile. The next entry from your spew isn't
even competent shannonization.
You are a boring idiot, Eagleson.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: An Altered String as a Theory. |
14 Jan 2005 07:32:30 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
You need to say why it is crap exactly, and not
generally.
Otherwise you paint yourself.
No probem.
A quanta has
already Dead on Arrival.
and
A well in the third abstraction allows material interaction to be
represented by the relative quanta.
ps1(1)=psi(2) a third abstraction well.
Prolix idiot.
for instance. "Quanta" is a plural noun, you hopeless ignorant
dysfunctional fucking imbecile. The next entry from your spew isn't
even competent shannonization.
You are a boring idiot, Eagleson.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
I use it to define the word. A topic called the quanta implies the
reader to read it as the abstract quanta. And when the plural is
abstracted it becomes singluar. And using the same word allows the
reader to correctly assign it singlar.
How would y
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
