Aireal

Well I have not received much feedback from forums like this, but I have started getting e-mails from civil engineering professionals in the field of earthquake design. Several professors have shared my paper with others in the field and one is gave all his students a copy for this semester. So at least I am happy that the word is getting out about my I.R.A.M. masonry system.

My concept for an earthquake resistant construction method called I.R.A.M. Interlocking Reinforced Ashlar Masonry. This wall design offers freedom of movement during a quake that would damage solid walls. http://www.scribd.com/doc/102044738/Earthquake-Resistant-Design-for-Masonry-Walls-Utilizing-a-Mortar-Less-Construction-System What do you all think?

Gordon I am very aware of the mess in English translations like the NIV, which is why I worked from the Hebrew texts. English has very little in common with ancient Hebrew. Context is very important in the Hebrew, which is part of the problem with translations. I use history in my book, so I fail to see the where you get that I say it has no historical value or context, but then you can’t read the whole thing from the excerpt, so I can see how you might get that. In fact I point out that an understanding of history is needed to view the Bible in the proper context. So no recursive logic failure that I can see. I do not look at the New Testament, I have not worked on it, and don’t comment on texts I have not examined. But for my book, Jesus is not a factor as it is solely on the Old Testament Hebrew.

Polymath Yes it is a book against organized religion. In genesis at first faith is a personal thing, up until exodus when the priesthood takes over and turns personal faith into a religion. Which they then use for their own personal power, wealth, control over the people and kings, and as a way to take revenge on their enemies. Not a pretty story, full of death and crimes against humanity. I even point out that many in the Bible said the same thing, but that is overlooked by religion today, as they still seek control and power over others.

The Polymath You hit upon the heart of the problem, God can not be proved, and I don’t even try. But physics is not without its creation problems, where did all the energy for the Big Bang come from, “Does it just magically appear?” But believers have many definitions for the concept of God, non-believers tend to have just one view. But if there is a God, a believer must ask themselves some hard questions. Does their view of God work through the Laws of science, or does it act like a spoiled child with magical abilities. If there is a God, and creation did not magically appear, then there must be some process, some material that God used to form the universe, and before time and matter existed, the only material God had was himself, his energy. Physics tells us that time starts at the Big Bang, how then can physics ask, What came in time before time existed? Till science can answer these questions, we are stuck with religion. Plus there is debate among physicists if the universe is indeed a closed system. Gravitational effects from outside our universe are currently being debated. Moontanman While 64 posts in 4 years is not a lot to many people, it was for me at the time. I was on the forum almost daily. But as a post often requires a reply, I seldom posted if someone else could answer the question. I was a Moderator on another forum at the time, and working, so yes, I did not post a lot, sorry. If you think my thread is spam please report it and have it removed, no skin off my back, less work and posting for sure. Plus I am willing to discuss it, or at least 90% of it. As for trying to reconcile science and faith, I am not the first. Einstein tried to reconcile his faith with science, as did many other scientists over time. Deism arose in the Renaissance because scientist tried to do the same. So I am not a radical in this, it has a long history. Of course it does not make sense to someone who does not believe in a God, and that is fine, not out to convert anyone. From their point of view, it is a waste. But my book was not aimed at them, but believers looking to reconcile their faith in a modern scientific world. Every sect thinks they have the CORRECT view of what the Bible says. I tell people in my book not to listen to them or me. I can be just as wrong as the next guy. People should read, learn and answer these questions for themselves and not depend on others, like me. Faith should be a personal thing between them and God. When that personal faith turns into a religion with doctrines and laws, it has went too far. For me, the story of the Bible is a story of the struggle between these opposing views of God, one personal and private, the other religious and public.

The Polymath You are quite correct, most world religions have a Theist view of God. Panentheist. God used part of his energy to create matter. Science E=mc2 Both have energy being used to create matter, so the views are not too hard to reconcile. Many native cultures had a Panentheist view, partly because it is more logical than a Theist god who magically creates stuff out of nothing. As a Native American, I was surprised to find the Hebrew gave a Panentheist view, till the priesthood took over and created religion.

The Polymath Very few Christians believe in a literal 6 days, the Hebrew does not suggest a 24 hour day. Some rather vocal fundamentalists believe in a 6 24 hour day for creation, but they are a minority. Moontanman Sorry I did not post enough for you in the 4 years I was on here. I happen to have a life and only posted if I felt something deserved a post. The point in reconciling them has more to do with refuting the fundamentalist creationists, as stated in the excerpt from the book. They butcher science even worse than the Bible, would think you could see the value in that at the least. A quick google of Panentheism would clarify this as well, but here are the basics. There are 3 basic views of God. Pantheist, All of God is creation, the Laws of science that govern creation are the Laws of God, Nature worship is a primitive example of this, Einstein professed this view for most his life. At the other end you have the Theist view of a God completely removed from creation and works in a supernatural manner with no regard for the laws of nature. This is the view held by most modern religions, including many Christians. Panentheism fall in the middle of these extremes. God works through the laws of science, creation is part of God rather than all of God however. I am not the only theologian who is beginning to see this as the Hebrew is examined. Most English translations have not looked at the Hebrew in hundreds of years. I go into this deeper in the book, that that is the basics. Lastly, good question. In fact, there is nothing in my book that I have not posted about extensively for at least a decade, so I don’t mind sharing. Except in the second part which is pure physics, though some of the old related work was posted. On the other hand, I do need to sell at least some books to cover the costs of publication. So I will try to answer questions, and still hold back a few items of interest if I can.

As for being spam, I was a regular poster on this forum for years, till I took a break to write my book. The literary wording of Genesis is open enough that even if the Big Bang was disproved, other theories would fit just as well. The Hebrew shows a Panentheist view of God, which works through the Laws of science. So reconciling it with Genesis was no big deal, the problem was Evolution, especially when it comes to mankind. Without giving away too much, let me point out that Mankind is created in chapter one, and Adam and Eve in chapter two. This contradiction has long been a problem, but was the solution to resolving the conflict.

I got feed up with Creationists knocking science and twisting it all out of shape. So in my new book, http://www.simplylogicandreason.com/ I show that Genesis and current scientific theories like the Big Bang and Evolution are not in conflict with Genesis and that Modern Creationist have apparently not even read their own Bibles. Should cause some lively debates. What do you think?

DryLab I just noticed you provided a link to my paper in your home page. Thank you very much. I will also mention your home page in my posts on other forums. Thank you for your support Charles

DryLab This is an old thread I tested some of my early work on, so do not worry about hijacking it. I liked the 4 points you brought up also. Most of my work has been on the 1/2 spin particles, so I have delt with the photon no more than was needed. I factor I need to rectify. Charles

DryLab You are doing an excellent job yourself. I have looked at your site and was impressed. Good papers and links. It is nice to meet fellow researchers who are looking at the same things. Often a fresh perspective is all one needs to solve a problem. Charles

DryLab Thank you, I will have to check out your blog also. I tried to set my paper up where other theories could use it, not just mine. Plus my knowledge is limited, so I delved no deeper than I needed to. Charles

I have updated my paper and have a new link to it in my starting post. Comments welcome, if you agree or not. Charles

Sanctus Hi. Scalar does generally considered a force in one direction. So an expanding sphere can be described as a scalar quantity moving out from the center point. In practice however, it is not that clear cut. An object, like a sphere, can have one vector applied to it to describe angular momentum, and still be considered a scalar value. Gravity, because it is a force drawing things to a central location, can be described as a scalar force. The whole mess has had me confused for awhile also. Despite the difficulties of using scalar values and descriptions, it has provided me with some insights. I guess it is because I must pay close attention to every value rather than just solving an equation with many values at one time, without thinking about it much. Charles

I need some good critique of my theory. It is basic physics and does not delve too deep, but I want to make sure I have the basics right before I continue. Here is an abstract, followed by a link where you may view it. Thank you. Abstract. S.W.A.P. The General Theory provides a framework that allows various models to be used together in the search for a unified field theory by providing points of reference between them. This allows fields like, Q.M., to use some of their methods outside their normal range, helping in the search for a connection. A classical approach is used whenever possible as this leads to a more intuitive grasp of the model. But with the aid of reference points, it can be viewed from several perspectives at any point. Why do we need an intuitive model? "At the opposite extreme one can take a stand "against interpretation." and argue that none of these effects require us to think in terms of vacuum fields, or source fields, and that for the purpose of calculation all we need to know about is Schrödinger equation and the other tenets of quantum theory. Such an approach, though perfectly rational,...but also contrary to the way physics has for the most part developed - intuitively and with physical images...most physicists would agree on the value of a single concept that provides intuitive explanations...that the quantum vacuum is just as valuable when we broaden our perspective to include relativistic effects." p.295 [6] The base of this framework starts with the electron. Standard models are not used so that new ground may be covered in less space, but any model of the electron can be used instead. It begins by correcting the particle persistence problems common to standing wave theories so that classical intuitive framework can be established. Q.E.D. is also used to keep a balanced flow of logical connections to related fields. Connections are found that allows work in Q.M. to have relevance within this framework, and links to Special Relativity established. Even some non - mainstream theories like Mach's principle, of which there are many, are looked at if they have some relevance, and if they provide accurate predictions. The classic electron orbit model is reexamined and reconciled with the quantum model. Then Quarks and the nucleus are examined along with the strong nuclear force and the meson cloud. Gravity is touched on briefly towards the end along with some close thoughts on Mach's Principle. It ends with some implications for cosmology. This approach helps unite aspects of Relativity, Classical Wave and Quantum Theory, even Mach's Principle and others, that at first do not seem related into a basic framework. This is hopefully a first step in unifying these fields of study. It should also be a useful tool in comparing models, refining current models, or developing new ones. The end result is not a perfect fit for all the various models. It does broaden the range of each field’s application for future research. Some conflicts are solved, others remain. So it is hoped that a number of researchers from different fields of study may find this model useful. My first draft of my theory can be found here. http://www.wbabin.net/physics/laster.pdf Thank you Charles

Moontanman Marijuana when applied as a liniment as I mentioned above, behaves slightly different. When applied locally, its pain killer power is increased while its mental effects are lessened. Thus it helps with the problem of getting too high, just to kill the pain. However since Regan started the "War on Drugs", the price of marijuana has climbed to where it is too expensive to make homemade liniments from. Regan was a great man, worthless as a president, but a great man. You are correct in that I have never seen pot lead to violence unless mixed with other drugs. Freeztar I can't agree more. How advanced would we be now if the great library at Alexandria had not burnt. The Inca books had not been burnt by priests, and so on.

Orbsycli Thank you for the kind response. I did not know if others were aware of this method for extracting the active compounds in marijuana or not. I am an old fart, and liniments and other homemade cures were quite common in my youth. Parts of Kentucky, were I live, and Tenn. were the largest producers of hemp during WWII. The last time our family farm was in production was as a hemp farm at that time. Like many poor people, you used what you had to get by. A number if cures using marijuana date from that time, but grandpa's was the only one that used just marijuana in it. It also worked wonders, I wish I had a few gallons of it now that I am getting on in age myself. Ancient Chinese scrolls and Sumerian tablets may shed even more light on how to use it as a medicine. It was a commonly used medicinal plant in ancient times in that part of the world. I do not think anyone has looked into this, if so I have just not heard of it. On the number of ways it can be absorbed by the body. Once the active compounds have been extracted by alcohol, it can then be incorporated into a salve. To take orally, it can be incorporated into a syrup. A pill made from all the extracted active compounds should prove more useful than the current pill form which has just one of twenty some-odd compounds. Charles

Smoking or otherwise inhaling Marijuana, it can even be absorbed through the skin. My step-mom's dad made liniment with it. Marijuana buds would be soaked in alcohol for several days, then pressed. The now green alcohol could be rubbed on sore muscles for pain relief, and on joints for relief from arthritis. So would the other health benefits also be received from absorbing it in this manner? Research, we need research. Inquiring minds want to know.

Little Bang Milo seems to have redone his site. Here is his home page. http://www.quantummatter.com/ I am looking through it to find his paper now. Thanks for letting me know.

There are several theories based on Milo's work. Here is my humble effort. My theory of the atom. The Electron. Any discussion of the atom must start with the electron. I use this description of the electron by Milo Wolff. http://www.quantummatter.com/body_point.html Milo gives a description of the electron as a Standing Wave Center formed by the intersection of two scalar waves. These are referred to as the In Wave and the Out Wave. The only addition I can make to Milo's electron happens after it's creation, Milo only dealt with how it was created. As Milo pointed out, the Standing wave center will have a higher energy density which is the observed energy density of the electron. The out wave of the electron starts at the center and will encounter a change in energy density at the boundary of the Standing Wave Center. This will cause partial reflection of wave energy at the boundary, creating its own In Wave. The partly self sustaining action of this process accounts for the electrons more particle like behavior. The Obit of the Electron. Bohr defined the orbit of the electron as a result of the angular momentum of the electron. It can also be described with Mach's equation. http://www.wbabin.net/wahlin/wahlin.htm This gives us a slightly different picture. The electron is not at rest in its orbit. The electrons orbit matches a wave node so that the energy gained and lost by In and Out Waves equal each other. Bohr's method can be considered the electrons Out Wave to the universe, describing its current internal state. Mach's method then is the electrons In Wave from the universe, adjusting its current internal state to match current conditions. Mach's method shows that as the mass of the atom increases, the angular momentum of the electron will change, affecting its orbit. This is why Bohr's method when used alone, did not work with larger atoms. Mach's method provides a way for the electron to adjust to changes in mass within the atom. Without the In and Out waves of Milo's electron, Mach's method would not work. The Nucleus Protons and Neutrons are composed of quarks. Quarks are sub-harmonics of the electron wave. The electron's wave would have its amplitude changed when entering a denser region of space. Any Standing Wave Centers formed at this time would reflect the change in amplitude. This is why they have 1/2 spin like the electron, and why there are anti versions of every quark. This also accounts for their fractional charge in relation to the electron. Asymptotic freedom and quark confinement are explained also, for details see my paper here. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/what-is-a-proton-quarks-a-w-s-m-approach-vt483.html it is a work in progress, but a good start. More importantly, it shows where all the anti-matter went to. Milo showed how, and experiments confirm pair production, so where are all the positrons? They still exist as the positively charged quarks in their sub-harmonic form. Well don't be shy and let me know what you think of it so far, it is a work in progress.

Durgatosh Now I think out of the box all the time, and I still agree with Maddog. The point is, YOU ARE NOT THE ONE THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX. In everything you have said, THERE IN NOTHING NEW, NO NEW THOUGHTS. IT'S ALL BEEN SAID BEFORE. At first I complimented you for thinking deep thoughts, but now I see I was wrong. I thought you were just young and did not have great knowledge of history. Now I see that you could care less about history and what the great minds of the past thought. You have latched onto an idea and fell in love with it to the point you can not see anything else. This has been the downfall of many great and not so great minds over time. But it is sad to see it happen to anyone. Now I just feel sad for you, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. So I will not respond to your posts any longer, it is a waste of my time to revisit thoughts that have already been covered by the greatest minds of the last 7000 years. If you are too lazy to read, I am not going to spoon feed you the knowledge, especially when you could care less.

Durgatosh Your last reply did shed some light. When you spoke about approaching zero in terms of size or magnitude at scales smaller than quanta, this is not new and it has been covered pretty well. It would be very hard to say something in that has not already been stated and explored extensivly in the last 7000 years on that topic. Your example ot the electron/positron is approaching zero in time, as the electron and positron are created togeter at the same moment in time. This subject has been explored extencively by the greatest minds of the last 90 years and is at the heart of the Big Bang model. Again, it would be hard to add to the work they have already done. Lastly zero as a math concept has been explored since the time of ancient sumer some 7000 years ago. So you have taken on quite a challenge if you wish to add to the base of knowledge in these fields. Like the TheFaithfulStone pointed out, it is more playing with language than anything else. Of course that is not your intention. In this modern world you are using words the ancients did not have, but the concepts are the same. Do not let words confuse and dulude you.

Durgatosh and Shoushou I just caught the topic you all were discussing. Nice to see young minds thinking. However TheFaithfulStone makes a good point. All the evidence to date points to the conclusion that the closer to zero the more stable something is. The electron does not decay, the proton is also very stable, so stable it bothers many physicists. So your conclusion does not fit the evidence. But you are questioning and exploring, which is good. We have a long running discussion about infinity here. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=444 if you wish to check it out. Infinity can be considered the opposite of zero, but I do not know of any one discussing the topic of zero. But maybe taking a look at the subject of infinity will shed light on what you seek. Feel free to check it out, but you may not want to post there yet. The site is devoted to work on a specific theory and is not an open forum like this. I only mentioned it as I felt it may be of help in your understanding of these concepts. Good luck and take care.

Hello Everyone I have been through this conversation on many differant forums over time, the results are often the same. I have given links to articles by Nobel Laurates about the censorship in physics most claim do not exist. Endless links to problems with the "evidence" in support of the Big Bang. If nothing else, the Pope's support of the Big Bang as proof of the book of Genisis should at least cause scientists to pause and consider. It is not the only theory that supports the facts, I have a list of over 30 at the moment, some good, some not so good, but at least as vaild as the B.B. theory. If you think the B.B. is the only decent model, than you have not looked very hard. Of course if you are a supporter of the Big Bang, you will not "waste" your time going to those links and take a serious look at such "crack pot" theories to see if they have anything to them. And my list of crack pot theories is far larger than my list of over 30 so so ones. So I do not even bother to list them anymore. Or even try for that matter, to convince B.B. supporters that their model is in error. If they wanted to, the could have done the same research I did. They don't want to, and all the links in world will not change their minds. I do not take others word in any thing as I am a natural skeptic. It was that natual skepticism that lead me to the belief that the Big Bang was faulty, and so I am not likely to be swayed by the crackpot theories that are also flawed, and don't do as good of a job at hiding it. The future of physics lie in those young minds that have not been indoctrinated to the B.B. as the only vaild theory, and have not been set in their ways by a lifetime of work in support of it. You can not blame current researchers for their staunch support of a theory they grew up with, and spent a lifetime trying to prove, its human nature. So I have decieded that my time would be best spent in devloping the best of the alternate theories to the point it can compeat with the big bang. This is no easy task as most research funding is given to work in support of the big bang, so it is no wonder that the alternate theories are not as developed and robust as the B.B. model. If some of them had millions in funding over the years, they may be more advanced than they are. So please excuse me for not having a list of links to support my view, it would be time consuming to find them all, and would probably do no good anyway. I have grown pestimistic lately about such things. Besides I need to get back to my research, forums are a nice break from it, but my time is limited, I ain't getting any younger.