Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Ramin Zahedi: on 5/9/15 at 11:42am UTC, wrote I attached the article mentioned in my previous post.

Ramin Zahedi: on 5/9/15 at 11:18am UTC, wrote Thanks for your nice article. Regarding Prof. John W Barrett's expectation,...

Anonymous: on 11/6/13 at 20:37pm UTC, wrote BAEZ’ VERY INTERESTING CATIGORIFICATION OF PHYSICS SEEMS TO FOLLOW ON...

DR. EDWARD SIEGEL: on 11/6/13 at 20:19pm UTC, wrote BAEZ' VERY INTERESTING CATIGORIFICATION OF PHYICS SEEMS TO FOLLOW ON EDWARD...

doug: on 9/2/13 at 2:24am UTC, wrote Thank you.

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/1/13 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote The Reason for a Discrepancy Cosmological Constants (An Observation Vs....

doug: on 9/1/13 at 15:19pm UTC, wrote Hello There, OK then: CIG Theory predicts that if there is an electrical...

doug: on 9/1/13 at 13:25pm UTC, wrote Hello Again, I am attempting to resolve the Cosmological Constant Problem...



FQXi FORUM
June 24, 2017

ARTICLE: Classic Article: The Art of Math [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Frank DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 21:05 GMT
Dreams are quantum gravity. I already proved this. Mathematics involves detached and narrow thought/thinking ability. However, the integrated extensiveness of description is required to unify physics fundamentally.

There is (and can be) no direct, actual/real/true, and full experience (seen, felt, and touched) of outer space. Outer space destroys and precludes our thought and experience (including vision). The understanding of outer space is inherently and significantly limited.

There is (and can be) no true/real and fundamentally unified quantum gravitational description involving outer space.

Natural experience naturally and fundamentally unifies physics.

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 12:53 GMT
1) E = mc2

2) E = hf

3) mt = s (cig equation - mass multiplies by time = space)(using lower case letters)

4) m = s/t ( cig normalized to mass(matter) = space divided by time)

5) E = s/t c2 (substitution of eq. 4 into eq. 1)

6) f = 1/t (frequency equation)

7) s/t c2 = hf (equivalent substitution of eq. 5 into eq. 2)

8) Note in eq. 7 that both sides (f & s/t) are time consistent with the concept of frequency (i.e. 1/t)

9) h = s/t c2 all divided by f (solving for h)

10) does equation 9 suggest that h = rate of spatial expansion ???

11) Does equation 7 also represnt that, s c2 = h (i.e. does the /t & 1/t (for frequency) cancel out ?? (bad at math)

12) If s c2 = h, what does this conceptually mean ?

13) c2 = h/s

14) c = sq. rt. of h/s (what does this conceptually represent)

14) The equivalency of mass to space can be found at: www.cigtheory.com



PS - I thought that there were other postings on this site, prior to mine?

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 15:57 GMT
Hi Doug,

We may have lost the earlier posts in this thread due to site issues. We'll try and get them back. (But if anyone's posts appears to be missing for no apparent reason, please re-post.)

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 13:01 GMT
Clarification of Intent

1) E = mc2

2) E = hf

3) mt = s (cig equation - mass multiplies by time = space)(using lower case letters)

4) m = s/t ( cig normalized to mass(matter) = space divided by time)

5) E = s/t c2 (substitution of eq. 4 into eq. 1)

6) f = 1/t (frequency equation)

7) s/t c2 = hf (equivalent substitution of eq. 5 into eq. 2)

8) Note in eq. 7 that both sides (f & s/t) are time consistent with the concept of frequency (i.e. 1/t)

9) h = s/t c2 all divided by f (solving for h)

clarification ( all divided by f = all meaning left hand side of equation (i.e. h = s/t c2 /f)

9a) so, h = s/t c2 / 1/t (since f - 1/t)

9b) cancel out time : h = s c2 (end clarification) (don't ever trust my math)

10) does equation 9 suggest that h = rate of spatial expansion ???

11) Does equation 7 also represnt that, s c2 = h (i.e. does the /t & 1/t (for frequency) cancel out ?? (bad at math)

12) If s c2 = h, what does this conceptually mean ?

13) c2 = h/s

14) c = sq. rt. of h/s (what does this conceptually represent)

14) The equivalency of mass to space can be found at: www.cigtheory.com



THX

doug

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 13:04 GMT
Idiot

RIGHT HAND SIDE OF EQUATION !

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 15:04 GMT
Slightly off topic but :

terrible math below...

OK - so Dark Energy & Dark Matter should not just be looked at on the cosmological scale but the standard model as well.

Spatial density of Bohr orbitals. Electron field = Dark Matter proceeding to Dark Energy, etc. i.e. anytime mass travels)

Density of Magnetic fields as new spatial dark energies & volumes of new space

Black hole = nucleus, etc.

All taken in context of cig theory & it's offering that it is the matter (mass) that turns into this space (dark matter/dark energy & the in-betweens)

Turns into this space via the use of time (%"c") The MTS equation

All based on the theory's offering that it is the spacetime itself that turns into (is a manifestation of) the matter. [matter to space/space to matter]

That the raisins in the expanding loaf analogy become the space.

And so my night sky sees the space around the stars coming from the stars.



Look up and at least try to see what I am seeing.

Or, look down at the quantum and see the same thing.

CIG Theory - now an explanation of quantum tunneling (the classical particle becomes spatial enough to overcome the classical barrier) Vibrate quickly enough and turn spatial, then find yourself caught between the decks of the ship on the Philadelphia experiment.

Also now a quantum gravity theory - equates the two (the spacetime turns into the quantum/classical piece matter) All through %"c"

Thank you for understanding.

The insanity of being the only one to see a different night sky is troubling.

THX

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Aug. 26, 2013 @ 12:04 GMT
Charles Law and Boyles Law & the balloon experiment (see www.cigtheory.com), the MTS equation & cig theory all offer that it is "New Space" that is being created, not simply a re-positioning of existing space. That new space is created at the expense of mass and it is this aspect of cig theory that mantains the Conservation of Energy Laws.

Can the mathematicians play with the CUPI and confirm anything?

Reccommended:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yJBhzM
WJCc

off to work.

thx for allowing me to post here.

doug

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Sep. 1, 2013 @ 13:25 GMT
Hello Again,

I am attempting to resolve the Cosmological Constant Problem (CCP) where the theoretical value versus the observed value is some 120 orders of magnitude apart. First I need to understand how the values were obtained (I've been trying). Can someone direct me to the simplest site where a layperson can learn this, and if in an equation, where each variable is explicitly...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Sep. 1, 2013 @ 15:19 GMT
Hello There,

OK then:

CIG Theory predicts that if there is an electrical discharge the likes of lightening, the mass of the costituent photons (before they became photons) has turned into space, since mass at high rates turns spatial (CIG in a nutshell).

Then there should be an increase of a new spatial volume, which displaces the surrounding environment, at a very high speed.

That is thunder!

doug

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 1, 2013 @ 17:43 GMT
The Reason for a Discrepancy Cosmological Constants (An Observation Vs. Theory)

http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0191

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Sep. 2, 2013 @ 02:24 GMT
Thank you.

report post as inappropriate


DR. EDWARD SIEGEL wrote on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 20:19 GMT
BAEZ' VERY INTERESTING CATIGORIFICATION OF PHYICS SEEMS TO FOLLOW ON EDWARD MACKINNON'S CALL FOR AND JACK AND IAN STEWART'S[THE COLLAPSE OF CHAOS: DISCOVERING SIMPLICITY IN A "COMPLEX" WORLD, PENGUIN(1994)] CALL FOR WITHOUT IMPLIMENTATION OF "COMPLI-CITY"(BOTTOM UP MANY TO FEW INDUCTION) AND "SIMPLE-XITY"(TOP-DOWM FEW TO MANY DEDUCTION) BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY AUTOMATICALLY VIA EDWARD...

view entire post


attachments: GENERIC_ONLY_S.P.D.FUZZYICSCATEGORYICSCATEGORY-SEMANTICS_COGNITION.docx

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 20:37 GMT
BAEZ’ VERY INTERESTING CATIGORIFICATION OF PHYSICS SEEMS TO FOLLOW ON EDWARD MACKINNON'S CALL FOR AND JACK AND IAN STEWART'S[THE COLLAPSE OF CHAOS: DISCOVERING SIMPLICITY IN A "COMPLEX" WORLD, PENGUIN(1994)] CALL FOR WITHOUT IMPLIMENTATION OF "COMPLI-CITY"(BOTTOM UP MANY TO FEW INDUCTION) AND "SIMPLE-XITY"(TOP-DOWM FEW TO MANY DEDUCTION) BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY AUTOMATICALLY VIA EDWARD...

view entire post


attachments: 2_GENERIC_ONLY_S.P.D.FUZZYICSCATEGORYICSCATEGORY-SEMANTICS_COGNITION.docx, P_NOTNP_SIEGEL-CLAY-MENGER-ROTA-EUCLID_PROOF_IN_IEEE_2-COLUMN_FORMAT.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Ramin Zahedi wrote on May. 9, 2015 @ 11:18 GMT
Thanks for your nice article. Regarding Prof. John W Barrett's expectation, there is some hope. Because it is possible to derive all laws of the fundamental forces of nature, mathematically. It might be one of the most important steps to connect physics to mathematics.

Please see this recent article: https://www.scribd.com/doc/263420570/

report post as inappropriate


Ramin Zahedi wrote on May. 9, 2015 @ 11:42 GMT
I attached the article mentioned in my previous post.

attachments: 1_R.-a.-Zahedi1_the-fundamental-laws.of.nature.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.