Mosheh Thezion's cosmology

[Gillianren]

MT:
Yes.. fusion can be done.. but it has never yielded over unity...

What does that mean? Just what the heck does that mean? I have no idea what that means. Can someone (besides MT) tell me what the heck that means?

"over unity"="perpetual motion machine." it means getting more out of the system than you put in. for obvious reasons, we will never acheive over unity--at least not in a universe obeying the laws of physics we have observed in this one.

[Mosheh Thezion]

I am only responding since you used so many words...

Double ugh... #-o

Here we go again.

This is all in your head as you have no calculations that provide a model of the beginnings of the universe. We already have a model of what happened after the big bang. While it isn't perfect, it's light-years beyond yours because I don't even see a 1+2=3 in your words, much less calculations that show how these particles and forces interacted the way you claim.
And when seeing such means its true??????
history is full of math, that turns out to be wrong...

Mosheh Thezion wrote:
2) Galxies: the Hubble has shown galaxies do evolve from a small cloud which spirally expands.. eventually forming the arms we commonly see....

I've never heard of this. What's your source?

My SOURCE??? HUBBLE?? IT WAS BIG NEWS.
I THOUGHT YOU PEOPLE STUDIED ASTRONOMY?

You say that the Hubble is the source of your information. Did you apply for time on the Hubble and observe galaxies "expanding". The Hubble shows us galaxies as they are now, and clues to how they formed. And since gravity is attractive and not repulsive, there was definitely no "expanding" involved. It appears that your source isn't the Hubble, but your own jumped-at conclusion that you like because it fits your hypothesis.
NO.. its data collected by hubble, why dont you go to the hubble site, and read up on all that it has shed light on. WHY DO YOU COMMENT ON THAT WHICH YOU HAVE NO IDEA?

Mosheh Thezion wrote:
3) everyone now believes in super large black hole thinger at the center of our galaxie and probubly all galaxies...

Well, I've never heard it described in quite that way, but yes, that's the mainstream position.

Well, sir i propose to you that indeed that simple believable fact serves as one of the bed rocks of my proposal, for in theory it should be there.. its the left over chunk of the mass that exploded to form our galaxie...

Give us some proof that the big black hole at the center of our galaxy is left over from the mass that exploded to form our galaxy. Why is it left over? Why didn't it explode like the rest? You can say it happens but just saying so isn't evidence. Like I said, we already have models of how galaxies formed and they're all backed up by math that matches observations. You have nothing but, "I say so." So how does that make your hypothesis better than current models?
Another example of you throwing stones, like a child.
i was asked to discuss the evidense as it relates to my theory and i have done so.. if i give you a recipe for pizza do you need the dna of the cow who made the cheese?

Mosheh Thezion wrote:
4) we are all aware of the left over nucleons... yes i did say nucleons, we call dwarfs and pulsars and so forth... left behind when stars explode and decay......

Utter nonsense. Stars are not particles.

I speak not of stars.. i speak of dwarfs and pulsars and nuetron stars.. which while being the size of planets, may have the density of a nuetron.... literally.. they can be giant nuetrons.

We have mathematical models that predict the way stars collapse into neutron stars (which aren't pure neutrons, anyway). There is no dwarf at the center of our star, it is powered by fusion. Since we've created fusion in the form of fusion bombs, we understand the math. The sun accurately matches the way a fusion reaction works. There is no dwarf there.
you mean fusion reactors that dont work...
the math that says the fusion reactor should work...
i didnt say dwarfs were nuetrons.. i said they are as dense as...
which in itself.. is evidense that matter is not limited to existance as only protons and nuetrons...

and what i said.. is that the exiatance of dwarfs serves to back up my theory... as do galaxtic core black holes... as does the spiral motions of all heavenly bodies.

MT:
Yes.. fusion can be done.. but it has never yielded over unity...

What does that mean? Just what the heck does that mean? I have no idea what that means. Can someone (besides MT) tell me what the heck that means?
getting more out that we put in.. like fission.
fission works.. smashing helium into lithium to cause fission into three heliums yields energy.. but making lithium from helium and hydrogen doesnt.. niether does helium from hydrogen.
Concerning the moments after the big bang, we have fantastic mathematical models that show how the elementary particles released from the singularity beginning became hydrogen. The mass expanded from the velocity given it by the initial explosion. It was not evenly distributed and some parts were more dense than others. Because of this, over the first part of our universe's life, gravity began to lump the denser parts together to form solid bodies.
And you say my ideas are wacko.. you just swallow that tripe and say thankyou, its yummy... you are always jumping on me, and critising me.. well now its your turn.. everything you just said is as baseless as all my 0D-3D proposals.. they are purely theoretical and serve to explain what should of happened to make things the way you believe it to be.. which of course is still questionalble.. or should be...
Do you ever question what they have taught you? fault line?? do you ever look for the possible faults? cause it doesnt seem like it.
Do I really have to go on? I think I know what you're trying to say now, but you have nothing to back it up.
But i can connect all the dots.. from moment zero to today... big bang cannot do that.. it cannot unify all.
my proposal does unify it all, and that is why i try... try... try.. to share its simple logic with you all.
That the big bang exploded into chunks which you called "particles" which expanded into galaxies because of some type of dimensional stretching. Each chunk had the mass of a supercluster (or at least the mass of a galaxy). You're dead wrong.
prove it.. you cannot.. just as i cannot prove i am right.. all we can do is point and say what if.. well i am pointing now.
If such chunks existed, they would have been so massive that their own gravity wouldn't let them expand into ANYTHING! Do you know how much mass is in a supercluster? I doubt you do. Because it doesn't take that much mass to make a black hole.
Based on math we cannot actually prove is based on proper values and ratios.... history is full of bad math.
It only takes about 2 or 3 solar masses. You mean to tell me that a chunk with the mass of a thousand trillion solar masses could EXPAND against its own gravitational field?
History.... Math.
Heck no! Nonplausible, unproductivish, and ineffectivoid! Not even the exclusion principle could hold up against that much mass concentrated into a chunk. Your chunks would have collapsed into singularities in a picosecond.
says who?? not your research... maybe you should read more.
Am I right?

If i say yes, will you stop picking on me?
-MT

[Van Rijn]

There could be some confusion on fusion terminology. For fusion power production, a key issue is to have a reactor that runs "over breakeven" - that is, it produces more energy then it takes to maintain the fusion reaction. Apparently, there was one experiment where that did happen, though many practical issues remain before we get to commercial power reactors.

A quick google on "over unity" does turn up a lot of perpetual motion machine and cold fusion references, though sometimes it seems to be in reference to real fusion. But obviously, in a real fusion reaction, mass is converted to energy. You aren't getting something for nothing.

The physics of nuclear fusion is extremely well established. We do it every day. There's no doubt that it is physically possible to build an over break-even fusion reactor, though it will be a few decades before we have practical power reactors. In any event, limitations of earthbound techniques have little to do with the fusion reactors in the sky.

[Faultline]

I'll not pick on you, but I will pick on your hypothesis, MT.

So you're saying that black holes, neutron stars, and dwarf stars are leftover fragments from your version of the big bang. You can't explain why some of your fragments expanded into galaxies against their own immense gravity. You can't explain why there are fragments (the black holes, etc...) that failed to expand. Should the same physics not apply to your remnants?

As for black holes and solar masses, you say that the current model is wrong because history is full of math that is wrong. You're simply brushing it aside without saying why THIS math is wrong. It is a logical fallacy to state that you're right because sometimes scientists get math wrong.

Here is a link that may help you understand how a body of mass becomes a dwarf, a neutron star, or a singularity.

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~ggeorge/astron/blackholes.html

Stephen Hawking's work is reflective of this link, also. you can find chunks of his lectures on the subject just by typing his name.

So how did your supergalactic cluster chunks that escaped the big bang also escape similar gravitational collapse as described in the link? If it only takes 1.4 solar masses to crush a star into a neutron pudding, what chance does a hunk of your big bang material have when it contains enough matter to build an entire cluster of galaxies?

[Mosheh Thezion]

I'll not pick on you, but I will pick on your hypothesis, MT.
hummm
So you're saying that black holes, neutron stars, and dwarf stars are leftover fragments from your version of the big bang. You can't explain why some of your fragments expanded into galaxies against their own immense gravity.
Actually i can.. thats my point.. the dimensional progressive pattern explains for all of it... and i should express that if you read alittle more broadly.. you would know that not all serious scientists actually believe in black holes..
You can't explain why there are fragments (the black holes, etc...) that failed to expand. Should the same physics not apply to your remnants?
Who's to say they didnt along time ago...
Well.. it is obvious, isnt it.. since galaxies still have a core, and stars leave them behind... i cant give you every answer.. all i can give you is unifying field theory, and let you geniuses work out all the finer details..
As for black holes and solar masses, you say that the current model is wrong because history is full of math that is wrong. You're simply brushing it aside without saying why THIS math is wrong. It is a logical fallacy to state that you're right because sometimes scientists get math wrong.
No, im not saying its wrong cause of the math... but the math is only as good as the model.. and so if the model of fusion is wrong.. then the math must be wrong.. no matter how good the numbers look.
Here is a link that may help you understand how a body of mass becomes a dwarf, a neutron star, or a singularity.

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~ggeorge/astron/blackholes.html

Stephen Hawking's work is reflective of this link, also. you can find chunks of his lectures on the subject just by typing his name.
Steohen Hawkings himself proposed mathmatically upto 25 dimensions.. but cannot explain them.. i can.. i have.
So how did your supergalactic cluster chunks that escaped the big bang also escape similar gravitational collapse as described in the link? If it only takes 1.4 solar masses to crush a star into a neutron pudding, what chance does a hunk of your big bang material have when it contains enough matter to build an entire cluster of galaxies?

Again those estimates for the behavior of mass are based on models which are totally different from the one i use..
if we change the model.. we must change all the math.

-MT

[Faultline]

MT, your argument makes too many assumptions. Scientists try very hard to NOT to make assumptions where possible. Assumptions are the weak point in any hypothesis and have been the doom of many.

The first assumption is the manner in which the big bang threw out matter. You assume YOU know how it happened (in big chunks which expanded into galactic superclusters). If you're wrong, your whole argument is wrong. Your opponents in this field are the scientists who have mathematically modeled the BB theory already. You have no math, so I'll believe them first.

Second, you assume that these chunks that hold enough matter to build entire galactic superclusters were able to ignore well known existing laws of physics and "expand" against their own gravity field into galaxies upon galaxies. Did the laws of physics take a pause during this phase?

Then you claim that neutron stars are evidence of your hypothesis. That they were left behind after the chunky BB. Neutron stars, dwarfs of various colors, the supermassive black holes at the core of galaxies, they're all explained with other great scientific theories that have nothing to do with a chunky BB.

And your model is internally flawed, because if your chunks of the big bang were able to expand into galaxies, why didn't the same mechanism cause the neutron stars to expand as well? What happened? Simply pointing to something doesn't offer proof that your model accurately describes how it came to be.

At one point, you argue that there are black holes at the center of galaxies. Then you say this:

Actually i can.. thats my point.. the dimensional progressive pattern explains for all of it... and i should express that if you read alittle more broadly.. you would know that not all serious scientists actually believe in black holes..

Why mention that there is doubt cast on black hole theory if part of your theory includes them?

And now you claim that the model we use for fusion is wrong, so the math is wrong also. How is the model for fusion wrong? If it is wrong, then how were we able to build a fusion bomb? On earth, we can't build a sustained fusion reaction because we can't find a way to contain the heat. That doesn't mean that fusion reactions aren't real.

Lastly, you've argued that no one can prove you are wrong. But that's not how scientific peer review works. YOUR model is the one that challenges current models. You must prove that your model accurately describes the current state of reality better than other models. You're not doing that, you're only saying, "I'm right because no one can prove me wrong!"

Example:

prove it.. you cannot.. just as i cannot prove i am right.. all we can do is point and say what if.. well i am pointing now.

[-X

[Mosheh Thezion]

MT, your argument makes too many assumptions.
No.. it is you who are making assumptions and drawing conclusions about what i am saying, before i have said it..!
i give you page one.. and you automatically assume the next 100 pages are meaningless crap.. it is you who assume to quickly.. and it annoys me.
Scientists try very hard to NOT to make assumptions where possible. Assumptions are the weak point in any hypothesis and have been the doom of many.
No really???
The first assumption is the manner in which the big bang threw out matter. You assume YOU know how it happened (in big chunks which expanded into galactic superclusters). If you're wrong, your whole argument is wrong. Your opponents in this field are the scientists who have mathematically modeled the BB theory already. You have no math, so I'll believe them first.
Actually sir, you are wrong... for if you understood the proposed dimensional progressive pattern, you would realise that indeed you could use it to argue for a rapid breakdown to nucleon levels right away.. as a first step.. but to do so would be ignoreing the shape and motions of galaxies around superclusters.. and the shape of galaxies.. and their motion and development... and the motions of stars, and planets... not to mention electron orbitals around atoms which begs the question of more levels of complexity that you might know of.
so.. no.. either way.. the concept of a natural progressive pattern in levels of stored potential energy manifested as dimensional motions or states on the original spatial ether, and its possible ying/yang properties, holds.
Second, you assume that these chunks that hold enough matter to build entire galactic superclusters were able to ignore well known existing laws of physics and "expand" against their own gravity field into galaxies upon galaxies. Did the laws of physics take a pause during this phase?
Yes.. for the laws of physics we use is based on matter as we know it.. of atoms.. besides when we have applied energy.. all bets are off.
Then you claim that neutron stars are evidence of your hypothesis. That they were left behind after the chunky BB. Neutron stars, dwarfs of various colors, the supermassive black holes at the core of galaxies, they're all explained with other great scientific theories that have nothing to do with a chunky BB.
Yes.. as you said.. many other theories.. while i am showing you one theory that covers them all.. a unifying field theory.
Don't you get it??? thats the point.. unifying field theory!!!
And your model is internally flawed, because if your chunks of the big bang were able to expand into galaxies, why didn't the same mechanism cause the neutron stars to expand as well? What happened? Simply pointing to something doesn't offer proof that your model accurately describes how it came to be.
well like i said... all the nuetron stars that we see came from what??? the cores of nova'd stars.... but believeing in fusion, tells you it must be formed in the explosion... but i propose that the core is always there always was.. and there being left over after explosion is evidense of that... thus the neutron stars we see are ones that allready birthed its cloud... but either lost it or nova'd and again lost it.
At one point, you argue that there are black holes at the center of galaxies. Then you say this:

Actually i can.. thats my point.. the dimensional progressive pattern explains for all of it... and i should express that if you read alittle more broadly.. you would know that not all serious scientists actually believe in black holes..

Why mention that there is doubt cast on black hole theory if part of your theory includes them?
Many scientists have eluded to the idea of megastars or something named to that effect, where in mass can exist as nucleon dense bodies even of massive sizes.. and possibly of a range of densities.. i am not the first to propose such, but i have made sense of it, as by alluding to my proposals for unification.
And now you claim that the model we use for fusion is wrong, so the math is wrong also. How is the model for fusion wrong? If it is wrong, then how were we able to build a fusion bomb? On earth, we can't build a sustained fusion reaction because we can't find a way to contain the heat. That doesn't mean that fusion reactions aren't real.
Do you even know how the H-bomb works?
Lastly, you've argued that no one can prove you are wrong. But that's not how scientific peer review works.

YOUR model is the one that challenges current models. You must prove that your model accurately describes the current state of reality better than other models. You're not doing that, you're only saying, "I'm right because no one can prove me wrong!"
If i was before the world top minds then yes... but im talking to you arent i? and all i want to do is share my wacko proposal, and allow you to fully understand the wide and far reaching implications of a dimensional progression, and how, with any number of variations, it serves to literally unify all the evidense and theory into one simple concept which in my opinion unifies the forces of nature and explain for space time, matter, energy and why it all behaves the way it does...
im trying to share.. and be nice... if you stop throwing stones, then maybe we can actually talk about it, and the idea can be clearly understood for what it is... an idea..
Example:

prove it.. you cannot.. just as i cannot prove i am right.. all we can do is point and say what if.. well i am pointing now.

[-X

Yes, i am pointing, but you grab my hand and say... hea dont be stupid.. without math its just stupid.. dah.. don't bother.
but i say its written on the wall so to speak, and if you think about it, soon you may come to realise how simple it is to understand, but how very difficult it is to quantify as it is a dimensional progression.. i.e.. the nature of reality changes at each point in the progression, thus it requires mathmatics which can transcend dimensional levels of complexity.
-MT

[Faultline]

MT, I question your assumptions and all you say is that I am the one making them!

If I'm the one making assumptions, it is only because I am trying my best to comprehend what you are saying. For a moment, I thought I had a grasp on it. When I asked you to clarify or explain the more bizzare parts of your hypothesis, you seem to get angry and frustrated. You seem to think I'm ignoring the obvious evidence. I just point out that you don't have any.

I'm a layman compared to a master's degree student, but I know more than your average Joe. I know the fundamentals of how a Hydrogen Bomb works, it uses fission to create the temperatures that induce hydrogen to fuse into helium. That's about it. But I know it works through fusion. I understand that the model matches the math otherwise we couldn't make it work!

And then, your argument came about and bit itself in the butt. You're back to the "big picture." And, "If you just understood the dimensional thingamajigs, the hoowatsis will be clear!" You ask me to believe in things that are so far against known laws of physics.

Anyway, I'm done with this for a time. I need a break from it.

Can someone take over where I leave off? I need to tag out.

Please?

Faultline

[Mosheh Thezion]

MT, I question your assumptions and all you say is that I am the one making them!

If I'm the one making assumptions, it is only because I am trying my best to comprehend what you are saying. For a moment, I thought I had a grasp on it. When I asked you to clarify or explain the more bizzare parts of your hypothesis, you seem to get angry and frustrated. You seem to think I'm ignoring the obvious evidence. I just point out that you don't have any.

I'm a layman compared to a master's degree student, but I know more than your average Joe. I know the fundamentals of how a Hydrogen Bomb works, it uses fission to create the temperatures that induce hydrogen to fuse into helium. That's about it. But I know it works through fusion. I understand that the model matches the math otherwise we couldn't make it work!

And then, your argument came about and bit itself in the butt. You're back to the "big picture." And, "If you just understood the dimensional thingamajigs, the hoowatsis will be clear!" You ask me to believe in things that are so far against known laws of physics.

Anyway, I'm done with this for a time. I need a break from it.

Can someone take over where I leave off? I need to tag out.

Please?

Faultline

Faultline:

Why don't you try asking direct questions..
1)
2)
3)
4)
and so forth... and i will try to address them.. if you make long statements mixed with question and place them in paragraph form, it maybe possible that i missed the question. i am only human.

you say you almost understand.. it maybe true..
i realise its not easy, and as your mind is filled with counter views, it is like trying to see clearly while wearing sunglasses...
i ask you to forget all you know.. take the sunglasses off, and let me show you something.
Something wonderful.. its just an idea.. it can't hurt you..
and i believe that once i have made the dimensional progression clear then you will, perhaps still have serious resevations about it..
but knowing it.. you can begin to look over all the data yourself, and soon you will realise that indeed, it can fit, and explain for just about everything..
one concept, one theory.. one simple idea.. which if followed apon explains for all the universe and everything in it..
and its not like ive ended science.. since quanitification is still far off, and its usefulness will be found in the endless avenues of research it suggests which were never suggested in a big bang, curved space mind.

-MT

[Van Rijn]

[snip]

Anyway, I'm done with this for a time. I need a break from it.

Can someone take over where I leave off? I need to tag out.

Please?

Faultline

Faultline:

Why don't you try asking direct questions..
1)
2)
3)
4)
and so forth... and i will try to address them..
[snip]
-MT

I predict all answers would involve "quality of applied energy" "dimensional progression" and drawings. No terms would be defined, no explanations, no evidence or math provided. At least, that's what happened when I asked.

And there would be much humming.

[Samara]

For the love of all that is holy and scientific - WHAT IS MT TRYING TO EXPLAIN!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[JohnW]

Anyway, I'm done with this for a time. I need a break from it.

Can someone take over where I leave off? I need to tag out.

Please?

Faultline

Faultline, I'd love to, but I think it's just hopeless. Mosheh is just not on the same page as the rest of us, or even the same book. Until he learns some science, some English, and a little humility, I'm out of here.

[Mosheh Thezion]

For the love of all that is holy and scientific - WHAT IS MT TRYING TO EXPLAIN!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

For along time everyone has sought after a unifying field theory...
I sought for it.. and i found something... i hope to share it with you.

What is difficult for me, is to precieve why you don't understand, as in my eyes, its complete simplicity..

that is why i need direct and clear questions...
we could start from any point along the line.. from 0D beginning to today.. but it is best if we start with the general evidense as i have tried to do...
and that is the simple idea... that if you look at the evidense, and ask yourself.. "what does the evidense suggest???"

you immediately get the idea of an orginal mass that progressively broke down somehow...
but everyone rejects that idea quickly.. as they have been taught to.

im asking you to not reject it... Im not asking you to give up on big bang.. or strings.... or curved space.. or space time...

i just asking you to realise that if you contemplate a dimensional progression as i have been trying to teach, then you would see that the big bang was the 8Th dimension... and strings are spatial tension, and gravity is neutral spatial flux, and that time, as the 4th dimension is 2 directional motion on space, which in passage directly drives the subatomic process of change within atoms, or atleast regulates them, and is the physical spatial mechanism for photons generally, and is why light speed is a constant.

its a long story, and it streaches from one side of the universe to the other.. but at the same time it is very simple.. is a natural progression.

First of all.
1) THERE ARE ONLY TWO THINGS IN EXISTANCE.. the applied energy and the ether... the ether may split in the 4th, but is still one ether.
2) Dimensions, are not other universes, or planes of existance, and they are not to be found in the very small micro levels of space.. or sub space nonsense...
Dimensions are levels of 90 degree vector force which is manifested as specific kinds of motion, motion on the same thing... a spatial ether... dimensions thus follow along the line of 1D, 2D plane.. 3D spatial volume.. each is literally a manifestation of force at 90 degrees to the lower dimension... 1,2,3... or 3,2,1
Therefore when we discuss further dimensions, they will all be manifested as levels of stored energy in this ether.. stored as spatial motions and changes of state..

and if allowed i will show you that this...







explains for this... the abundant general evidense.





and that means, i have presented you with a unifying field theory, albeit, not a perfect one by any means...

-MT

[Maksutov]

[edit]Yes, Moshe, Maksutov was making fun of you...

Actually I wasn't making fun of Moshe.

Instead I was having some fun with his unsupported speculations. My counter-hypothesis showed that one can take a series of pictures and build a pseudo-hypothesis around them just as well as one can take a pseudo-hypothesis (I'm being kind here) and create a bunch of pictures around it. The rest of your post alludes to this.

I respect the right of anyone to have their particular beliefs, speculations, etc. However if they want me to respect their beliefs, speculations, etc. (as opposed to their right to hold them), then they'd better provide some meaningful evidence.

Otherwise it's Avast! Man the whaleboats! Ready your lampoons, men!

[Mosheh Thezion]

[edit]Yes, Moshe, Maksutov was making fun of you...

Actually I wasn't making fun of Moshe.

Instead I was having some fun with his unsupported speculations. My counter-hypothesis showed that one can take a series of pictures and build a pseudo-hypothesis around them just as well as one can take a pseudo-hypothesis (I'm being kind here) and create a bunch of pictures around it. The rest of your post alludes to this.

I respect the right of anyone to have their particular beliefs, speculations, etc. However if they want me to respect their beliefs, speculations, etc. (as opposed to their right to hold them), then they'd better provide some meaningful evidence.

Otherwise it's Avast! Man the whaleboats! Ready your lampoons, men!

and so can you explain for all the evidense using one theory?

thats my point.. new theory... throw out the old, and lets re-write some books.. you seem to hold on to them as if they are scripture.

besides.. those pictures you used were meaningless, but the idea of color was quite fascinating.... intrigueing..
-MT

[Maksutov]

Mast-head, there! Look sharp, all of ye! There are whales of unfounded speculation hereabouts! If ye see a white elephantine one, split your lungs for him! All ye mast-headers have before now heard me give orders about a Whale of speculation, a White Elephantine One be that. Look ye! d'ye see this Spanish ounce of gold? -- holding up a broad bright coin to the sun -- it is a sixteen dollar piece, men. D'ye see it? Mr. Stargazer, hand me yon top-maul! Perchance in vain! cried AB; but, maybe, 'tis well. For did ye three but once take the full-forced shock, then mine own electric thing, that had perhaps expired from out me. Perchance, too, it would have dropped ye dead. Perchance ye need it not. Down lances! And now, ye mates, I do appoint ye three cup-bearers to my three pagan kinsmen there -- yon three most honorable gentlemen and noblemen, my valiant lampooneers. Disdain the task? What, when the great Pope washes the feet of beggars, using his tiara for ewer? Oh, my sweet cardinals! your own condescension, that shall bend ye to it. I do not order ye; ye will it. Cut your seizings and draw the poles, ye lampooneers!' Death to Antiscience! FSM hunt us all, if we do not hunt Antiscience to its death!'

[Arena]

Hi MT, I was thinking about doing the opposit: Explain to you why [for me] it is so hard to understand what you are saying. I'm not oposing your theory, only describing why I have trouble understanding it.

What is difficult for me, is to precieve why you don't understand, as in my eyes, its complete simplicity..

This is the premiss isn't it?, that it is easy to understand. If someone tells me that a concept is easy to understand, when in fact it is really hard, it gets harder [like in, what did I miss? I can see a lot of trees! But no forrest?]. For example take Maxwells equations: They are often [can't give you a reference, but in my mind they are] refered to as elegant, beautiful and simple. Yet, show it to someone who is unfamiliar with the maths and concepts involved they will get rather confused. In a similar manner [Im sure most people here grasp the physics involved] your theory is radically new and unfamiliar, thus not easy or simple to understand eventhough your theory may be simple.

that is why i need direct and clear questions...
we could start from any point along the line.. from 0D beginning to today.. but it is best if we start with the general evidense as i have tried to do...
and that is the simple idea... that if you look at the evidense, and ask yourself.. "what does the evidense suggest???"

For me, it would be more direct and clear if you too put your proposal in a format with direct and clear statements [no, not your drawings].
Speaking of clear questions: What evidence are you talking about? Big Bang? The whole Universe? measured parts of the Universe? Inconsistencies in mainstream therories? It would be easier to respond in a meningfull manner if the statement/question is limited to a single issue.

you immediately get the idea of an orginal mass that progressively broke down somehow...
but everyone rejects that idea quickly.. as they have been taught to.

im asking you to not reject it... Im not asking you to give up on big bang.. or strings.... or curved space.. or space time...

This I understand.

i just asking you to realise that if you contemplate a dimensional progression as i have been trying to teach, then you would see that the big bang was the 8Th dimension... and strings are spatial tension, and gravity is neutral spatial flux, and that time, as the 4th dimension is 2 directional motion on space, which in passage directly drives the subatomic process of change within atoms, or atleast regulates them, and is the physical spatial mechanism for photons generally, and is why light speed is a constant.

But you do realize that going from a Big Bang that is the 8th dimension to a 1 dimensional but bidirectional time, which is the 4th dimension to derive that the lightspeed is constant through an unspecified subatomic process is not at all easy but very hard to conceptualize?

its a long story, and it streaches from one side of the universe to the other.. but at the same time it is very simple.. is a natural progression.

But everything is a natural progression. So this does not tell me anything but me not understanding you.

First of all.
1) THERE ARE ONLY TWO THINGS IN EXISTANCE.. the applied energy and the ether... the ether may split in the 4th, but is still one ether.
2) Dimensions, are not other universes, or planes of existance, and they are not to be found in the very small micro levels of space.. or sub space nonsense...
Dimensions are levels of 90 degree vector force which is manifested as specific kinds of motion, motion on the same thing... a spatial ether... dimensions thus follow along the line of 1D, 2D plane.. 3D spatial volume.. each is literally a manifestation of force at 90 degrees to the lower dimension... 1,2,3... or 3,2,1
Therefore when we discuss further dimensions, they will all be manifested as levels of stored energy in this ether.. stored as spatial motions and changes of state..

This is what I meant by a format with direct and clear statements, however [this may be semantics] "applied energy" to me suggests a mechanism for applying the energy, thus not "first of all."

and if allowed i will show you that this...

Your drawings try to show to many concepts on a far to smaller paper with to little explanations. Looking at it is like taking an exam without having done any studying. I don't doubt everything is in there, but you are trying to explain the universe, not writing a VCR manual.


Edited for spelling
/Arena

[Kesh]

For the love of all that is holy and scientific - WHAT IS MT TRYING TO EXPLAIN!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

He's trying to explain gibberish. Apparently a few years back he was doing drugs, had an "epiphany," and these doodles & wild claims are the result. As far as I can determine, his whole concept relies on 0-dimensional spaces, "ether" and a whole bunch of nonsensical drawings that don't relate to the actual text in his pictures.

[Gillianren]

Mosheh--

let me chime in as to why I can't understand what you're talking about.

it's this little thing called the English language. you have one of the worst grasps of it that I've ever seen in a native speaker. I have a hard time reading your posts because there's so seldom a coherent English sentence in them.

this is not intended to be an ad hom; rather, it's a cry for help. please, please, please work a little bit on your grammar. by a copy of Strunk & White's Elements of Style, available cheap and almost certainly available at any used bookstore. running your posts through spell check would also help.

if you don't, I may feel obligated to start proofreading your posts, which might help people answer what you're saying. I don't proof scribbles, though, so you're on your own with the drawings.

[Samara]

Thank you Gillianren. I can't make head or tail of what he is trying to say, even when he "explains" it to me.

[Mosheh Thezion]

Hi MT, I was thinking about doing the opposit: Explain to you why [for me] it is so hard to understand what you are saying. I'm not oposing your theory, only describing why I have trouble understanding it.
Thank you.

What is difficult for me, is to precieve why you don't understand, as in my eyes, its complete simplicity..

This is the premiss isn't it?, that it is easy to understand. If someone tells me that a concept is easy to understand, when in fact it is really hard, it gets harder [like in, what did I miss? I can see a lot of trees! But no forrest?]. For example take Maxwells equations: They are often [can't give you a reference, but in my mind they are] refered to as elegant, beautiful and simple. Yet, show it to someone who is unfamiliar with the maths and concepts involved they will get rather confused. In a similar manner [Im sure most people here grasp the physics involved] your theory is radically new and unfamiliar, thus not easy or simple to understand eventhough your theory may be simple.
Yes, i understand, which is why no one thus fars gets my theory... it literally requires a new perspective on everything.

that is why i need direct and clear questions...
we could start from any point along the line.. from 0D beginning to today.. but it is best if we start with the general evidense as i have tried to do...
and that is the simple idea... that if you look at the evidense, and ask yourself.. "what does the evidense suggest???"

For me, it would be more direct and clear if you too put your proposal in a format with direct and clear statements [no, not your drawings].
Speaking of clear questions: What evidence are you talking about? Big Bang? The whole Universe? measured parts of the Universe? Inconsistencies in mainstream therories? It would be easier to respond in a meningfull manner if the statement/question is limited to a single issue.
there is no single issue.. thats one of the problems.. if you study physics for example.. its like studying a womans arm.. it will never lead to understanding the whole woman... to understand all of her..(nature) we must study all of the sciences at the same time.. one subject.. one question.. one nature.. it is when we focus on chemistry or astonomy but ignore many fact from the other sciences that we make errors, and have developed so many unrealated theories of everything...
thus the search for a unifying field theory.
but if it makes it easier... pick one issue.. and we can start from there.

you immediately get the idea of an orginal mass that progressively broke down somehow...
but everyone rejects that idea quickly.. as they have been taught to.

im asking you to not reject it... Im not asking you to give up on big bang.. or strings.... or curved space.. or space time...

This I understand.
Thank you.. now its a question of expalining how such a crazy idea could happen... thus my proposal for a dimensional progression.

i just asking you to realise that if you contemplate a dimensional progression as i have been trying to teach, then you would see that the big bang was the 8Th dimension... and strings are spatial tension, and gravity is neutral spatial flux, and that time, as the 4th dimension is 2 directional motion on space, which in passage directly drives the subatomic process of change within atoms, or atleast regulates them, and is the physical spatial mechanism for photons generally, and is why light speed is a constant.

But you do realize that going from a Big Bang that is the 8th dimension to a 1 dimensional but bidirectional time, which is the 4th dimension to derive that the lightspeed is constant through an unspecified subatomic process is not at all easy but very hard to conceptualize?
yes.. i know.. thats is why i express the dimensional progression over and over again.. for if you knew it, you would see that its all there.. big bang, time, space, gravity, mass, energy.. strings.. chaos... it all fits.. but requires us to trim all the worthless fat off those other theories, so that we can place it all together as part of one concept.
i.e. the big bang is fine.. but cut the fat about an expanding space with it.. and cut the fat of a hydrogen and helium beginning..
doing so.. we can still except big bang.. almost the same.. but leaner. the same thing goes for strings, and black holes.. etc... etc...

its a long story, and it streaches from one side of the universe to the other.. but at the same time it is very simple.. is a natural progression.

But everything is a natural progression. So this does not tell me anything but me not understanding you.
What you need to learn.. is that idea.. of a natural dimensional progression.. and how such a progression can work.. and how we can precieve and contemplate all the variables which maybe considered with it....

First of all.
1) THERE ARE ONLY TWO THINGS IN EXISTANCE.. the applied energy and the ether... the ether may split in the 4th, but is still one ether.
2) Dimensions, are not other universes, or planes of existance, and they are not to be found in the very small micro levels of space.. or sub space nonsense...
Dimensions are levels of 90 degree vector force which is manifested as specific kinds of motion, motion on the same thing... a spatial ether... dimensions thus follow along the line of 1D, 2D plane.. 3D spatial volume.. each is literally a manifestation of force at 90 degrees to the lower dimension... 1,2,3... or 3,2,1
Therefore when we discuss further dimensions, they will all be manifested as levels of stored energy in this ether.. stored as spatial motions and changes of state..

This is what I meant by a format with direct and clear statements, however [this may be semantics] "applied energy" to me suggests a mechanism for applying the energy, thus not "first of all."
yes.. the Mechanism for its application is still beyond my proposals, since such an action would occur outside our space and time.. i.e.. outside our universe, in a plane of existance which may have any number of varied properties.. we can suppose, based on the dimensional progression, that the applied energy varied in its own timming, with mathmatical presicion threw rising 90 degree angles of applied force... (i.e dimensional force)

and if allowed i will show you that this...

Your drawings try to show to many concepts on a far to smaller paper with to little explanations. Looking at it is like taking an exam without having done any studying. I don't doubt everything is in there, but you are trying to explain the universe, not writing a VCR manual.


Edited for spelling
/Arena

Well.. i could go over each detail in the drawings.. but no one wants me too..
they are to busy saying my grammer sucks... and my drawings suck.. and that they can't understand it..



It takes patience... it took me 10 years to get the basic idea.. 10 years of study wired out of my mind.. and its no wonder its so hard to grasp, especially by people who don't really care about my ideas....

-MT

[Samara]

Of Course we care about your ideas - we just want you to phrase and demonstrate them in a way that makes sense.

[Mosheh Thezion]

Of Course we care about your ideas - we just want you to phrase and demonstrate them in a way that makes sense.

Thankyou.. so please help me.. ask direct questions, so that i can try and answer them with my shotty grammer...

-MT

[Faultline]

I'd like to start by asking about the origins of the universe in your model. Further, I'd like to paraphrase you and ask if I have your ideas correct.

I'll be brief.

We start with a zero-dimensional point, with all mass compacted into it. A singularity.

It expands to have 1 dimension, then two, then three, then...

I lose you at that point because somehow you said that chunks of mass, each with enough to equal a supercluster of galaxies, left the singularity at the point of your big bang. I'm not sure which dimensional rise you say this event began.

But after that point, we have the rise of a fourth dimension that causes the superchunks of the big bang to expand spirally into galaxies.

Am I right in paraphrasing your "Chunky Big Bang"?

[Mosheh Thezion]

I'd like to start by asking about the origins of the universe in your model. Further, I'd like to paraphrase you and ask if I have your ideas correct.
Thankyou.. that will help alot.
I'll be brief.

We start with a zero-dimensional point, with all mass compacted into it. A singularity.
Not exacltly.. i propose that space... space.. had or was reduced to a ZERo ENERGY STATE.. not actually being zero dimensional, but lacking in all potential, thus seems like a zero dimensional state, or singularity.. but that doesnt mean.. zero point.. just zero energy for an Ether.... and there was no mass at that time.. just Ether.. which would form mass in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th dimensions.....
It expands to have 1 dimension, then two, then three, then...
Basically.. following the application of energy of transcending quality, which changes the vectors of force being applied, which first caused the rise of 0D to begin 1D expansion, which then at some point transcends into a 2d plane, which again at some point becomes a 3d space....
I lose you at that point because somehow you said that chunks of mass, each with enough to equal a supercluster of galaxies, left the singularity at the point of your big bang. I'm not sure which dimensional rise you say this event began.
i see the problem.. yes.. now..
0D, 1d, 2d, 3d, FORMED THE 3D spatial enviorment..
4D sets up time and forms the fundamental particle.. tension.
5D, 6D, 7D, energize that particle, or group of, into photons and higher levels of complexity, leading to an orginal mass by the end of the 7Th dimension.. as the first circle rise. 01,2,3 was an outward expansion, the second, is an inward compression. 4,5,6,7... thus again the 3rd circle rise, 8,9,10,11.. would be an outward expansion again.. resulting in the breakdown of said mass in 8D(big bang) and its continued break down and its distribution in the 9TH, 10TH, and 11th dimensions...
In this way, with one original mass, we explain for time, space, mass, what it is, how it connects to time and space, and the positions, motions and spiral aspects of all the heavenly bodies, to include the existance of supposive black holes, dwarfs, pulsars etc.. and the red shisft and relativity's time effect with velocity...
But after that point, we have the rise of a fourth dimension that causes the superchunks of the big bang to expand spirally into galaxies.
No.. im sorry.. the 4th makes tension, and time.. the tension is energized dimensionally in the 5,6,7th dimensions. to become a 3dimensional ball of spatial tension.. all rolled up. (mass) that explodes in the 8TH...
Am I right in paraphrasing your "Chunky Big Bang"?

i hope this clarifies things..
thus i present this image again.. in hopes that you can now follow it.





-MT

[01101001]

[...]and there was no mass at that time[...]following the application of energy[...]which changes[...]which first caused the rise of 0D to begin 1D expansion, which then at some point transcends into a 2d plane, which again at some point becomes a 3d space

"at that time", "following", "changes", "first caused", "to begin", "at some point transcends", "at some point becomes"

How do those events happen over time, in sequence, if:

0D, 1d, 2d, 3d, FORMED THE 3D spatial enviorment..
4D sets up time

Huh?

[Hamlet]

i hope this clarifies things..
thus i present this image again.. in hopes that you can now follow it.





-MT

How does posting the same doodles you've posted before clarify anything?

Perhaps you could help the less enlightened among us and pick one idea from your melange of scribbles and explain it in detail and with some rigor?

I hope you can see that a bunch of disjoint drawings with no context or explanation is not going to mean anything to anyone, except perhaps, for you. If you truly had a deep understanding of the subject then you ought to be able to communicate it in a manner that we can all understand.

[Joe The Dude]

After reading through six pages of this; six pages that flew over my head, I'm going to take my niece's advice...


Snack Time!

Perhaps he is actually BA having a bit of fun with us?

[Mosheh Thezion]

[...]and there was no mass at that time[...]following the application of energy[...]which changes[...]which first caused the rise of 0D to begin 1D expansion, which then at some point transcends into a 2d plane, which again at some point becomes a 3d space

"at that time", "following", "changes", "first caused", "to begin", "at some point transcends", "at some point becomes"

How do those events happen over time, in sequence, if:

0D, 1d, 2d, 3d, FORMED THE 3D spatial enviorment..
4D sets up time

Huh?

The only way any of it works, is if energy was applied from an outside source.. now as such, it would exist... "OUTSIDE" and is not limited to what we call time, and time flow... How long is a Day for God??

how could i know.. but in the making of the universe, when we consider a dimensional progression, we realise that everything has to follow a regular guided pattern of formation, from the transition of one dimension to the next, to the rate of transition relative to say the next dimensional rise's rate of transition...

I.e the theory is.. basically that the applied energy should be able to be broken down into just a number of simple equations representing different aspects of the applied energy, and like waveforms on a chart, they progress together or in what can be thought of as harmonic resonance...
and that as they progress they each effect the overall quality and nature of the appled energy at each point along our chart from moment one all the way to the end..
-MT

[Mosheh Thezion]

i hope this clarifies things..
thus i present this image again.. in hopes that you can now follow it.





-MT

How does posting the same doodles you've posted before clarify anything?

Perhaps you could help the less enlightened among us and pick one idea from your melange of scribbles and explain it in detail and with some rigor?

I hope you can see that a bunch of disjoint drawings with no context or explanation is not going to mean anything to anyone, except perhaps, for you. If you truly had a deep understanding of the subject then you ought to be able to communicate it in a manner that we can all understand.

NOW i have to ask you????


Am i some kind of super Genius???

Are you telling me that it is difficult for any of you to sit and look at a drawing, and follow the simple pattern represented there?

A picture is worth a thousand words...

are you telling me you need the thousand words, because you are unable to grasp something when your looking at it???

Its not a puzzle.. or riddle... we dont have to find waldo...!!!

it starts at zero... 0.... and goes to 1.. then 2.. then 3.. then 4...

if i must i will write the 1000 words.... but my fingers hurt.

-MT