[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 1, Issue 2

[MIKE EMERY]

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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161019/538f9f31/attachment.html>