[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 1, Issue 2

Sun Nov 13 08:01:27 CET 2016

Hello Mike.

I recall that you wrote on October 19 WE ACTUALLY DO LIVE IN A HOLOGRAPHIC
UNIVERSE MADE ENTIRELY FROM IMAGES .
Just this week there was presented a theory written by Erik Verlinde. In
this theory a holographic description plays an important roll. I don't
understand his theory, but perhaps you will find it acceptable. In this
lecture <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1rxAhUl5BE> Erik Verlinde
explains his theory.
He is in the list of my overview on   <goog_1579665679>
http://human-dna.org/5-3-overview-of-interesting-theories-about-gravitation/

You can read it on https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269v1.pdf
Erik Verlinde is on the list of dissidents of Jean Climont. In the
Netherlands the theory of Erik Verlinde was big news and presented as the
most important discovery since Einstein.

On the website of the University of Amsterdam you read about Prof. Erik
Verlinde, renowned expert in string theory at the University of Amsterdam
and the Delta Institute for Theoretical Physics:
http://www.uva.nl/en/news-events/news/uva-news/content/press-releases/2016/11/new-theory-of-gravity-might-explain-dark-matter.html
the
article ends with:
*"On the brink of a scientific revolution.*

*Gravity is in dire need of new approaches like the one by Verlinde, since
it doesn’t combine well with quantum physics. Both theories, the crown
jewels of 20th century physics, cannot be true at the same time. The
problems arise in extreme conditions: near black holes, or during the Big
Bang. Verlinde: 'Many theoretical physicists like me are working on a
revision of the theory, and some major advancements have been made. We
might be standing on the brink of a new scientific revolution that will
radically change our views on the very nature of space, time and gravity'."*
I don't know if he got much awards in the rest of the world. But the first
negative opinion is already here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/erik-verlinde-why-gravity-cant-be.html

Best regards.

Ruud Loeffen
human-DNA.org

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:15 PM, MIKE EMERY <1948emery6 at gmail.com> wrote:

> WE ACTUALLY DO LIVE IN A HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE MADE ENTIRELY FROM IMAGES
>
> THE CIBA GEIGY EFFECT PROVES THAT  -  IT'S A PATENTED IRREFUTABLE PROCESS
> https://www.academia.edu/11025988/PROOF_OF_GOD_VIA_SCIENCE_TECHNOLOGY
>
> EVERYTHING STARTS AS AN IMAGE THAT IS CONCEIVED IN DARKNESS BY THE WAY
>
> WHAT DO YOU SAY TO AN IMAGE?  YES OR NO??
>
> ANSWER:  NEITHER  - THE IMAGE SIMPLY IS
>
> WHAT NUMBERS HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE IMAGE?
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:41 PM, <cj at mb-soft.com> wrote:
>
>> Message 3
>> I suspect that you were never a Physics student, who was required to do
>> Lab Experiments.  I DID have to do many such experiments in the 1960s.
>> I was very  impressed that "little me" could CREATE an electron and a
>> positron, out of "nothing" except a specific amount of energy.
>> (Constructive interference).  We also did experiments with both electron
>> beams and photon beams passing through "Double Slit apparatus" where
>> (destructive interference) occurred where the electrons or the photons
>> "vanished" as black line patterns on the rear screen.
>>
>> As to the "fourth" experiment I referred to, I am not sure that I
>> personally did that one, but being around Professor Richard Feynman was
>> handy, as he developed the Feynman Diagrams based on "time being able to
>> pass in either direction" where he even occasionally mentioned to us
>> students about a photon and an out-of-phase photon could "appear" out of
>> "nothing", like in a "backwards double slit experiment" (his comments
>> really impressed me).
>>
>> That is the entirety of the "concept" I present, a group of rather
>> mundane Physics student experiments.
>>
>> NO "assumptions or speculations" are needed at all, and it all fully
>> complies with the Laws of Physics.
>>
>> In contrast, the "accepted" Big Bang claims require many assumptions
>> where the entire history of Physics had to be abandoned.  Even time and
>> space was abandoned, because they could NOT keep nearly any parts of
>> Physics and still make their claims.
>>
>> All of Euclidean space and logic was also abandoned, where some
>> proponents claim that "Hyperbolic non-Euclidean Geometry" is the basis of
>> their claims, while others claim  that "Elliptic non-Euclidean Geometry" is
>> the basis for their claims.  I happen to be familiar with Riemannian and
>> around 40 other variations of non-Euclidean Geometry, and I have found that
>> the majority of proponents of each Big Bang variation is NOT familiar with
>> how to do the math FOR THEIR OWN approach.
>>
>> In addition to all this, I have always been troubled with the claims of
>> the Inflationary Theory, where 10^-32 second is claimed as the timem
>> involved for the Universe to expand to billions of light years in size.
>> Whenever I bring up that they require "solid objects" would have to
>> accelerate to countless billions of times faster than the speed of light
>> (and then slow back down), they invariably change the subject.
>>
>> I consider this to be VERY simple, and easily comprehensible.
>>
>> "I" did not develop ANY of the "four basic Physics experiments" upon
>> which my concept is based.  I was merely a STUDENT who had to do those
>> experiments.
>>
>> I am not aware that ANYONE has ever considered any Double Slit experiment
>> to be "mathematics", except for the Geometry that we students had to apply
>> in determining path-lengths.
>>
>> I guess I ask you to consider a NON-EXISTENT universe (BEFORE their big
>> bang) and a Physics student doing a SINGLE experiment which resulted in an
>> electron and a positron, or in a proton and an anti-proton.
>>
>> All "Big Bang" claims ignore the fact that they REQUIRE a massive amount
>> of energy to start with.  I don't need any energy at all.  I start off with
>> an empty Universe, and soon have two identical photons heading out in
>> opposite directions, one of which is out-of-phase with the other.  NO
>> energy to begin with, and now a single pair of photons (which still add up
>> to exactly zero energy).
>>
>> The very end of your note finally explains to me that "you have your own
>> theory" so it is unlikely that you could ever accept mine.  Can YOUR
>> concept exist in a Euclidean Universe?  Which of the 40 non-Euclidean
>> Geometries do you use?  Are you prepared to provide proof regarding any of
>> the dozens of inconsistencies in all the Big Bang ideas?  I would certainly
>> be interested in anyone who can actually solve mathematical problems in
>> hyperbolic space.
>>
>> Carl Johnson
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>

-- 
*Ruud Loeffen*
Paardestraat32
6131HC Sittard
http://www.human-DNA.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161113/690985f0/attachment.html>