<div dir="ltr">Hello Mike.<div><br></div><div>I recall that you wrote on October 19 <span style="font-size:12.8px">WE ACTUALLY DO LIVE IN A HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE MADE ENTIRELY FROM IMAGES</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> .</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Just this week there was presented a theory written by Erik Verlinde. In this theory a </span>holographic description plays an important roll. <span style="font-size:12.8px">I don't understand his theory, but perhaps you will find it acceptable. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1rxAhUl5BE">In this lecture</a> Erik Verlinde explains his theory.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">He is in the list of my overview on <a href="goog_1579665679"> </a></span><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a href="http://human-dna.org/5-3-overview-of-interesting-theories-about-gravitation/">http://human-dna.org/5-3-overview-of-interesting-theories-about-gravitation/</a> </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">You can read it on <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269v1.pdf">https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269v1.pdf</a> </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">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. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">On the website of the University of Amsterdam you read about </span><span style="color:rgb(35,31,32);font-family:metaweb,arial,sans-serif">Prof. Erik Verlinde, renowned expert in string theory at the University of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute for Theoretical Physics</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">: </span><a href="http://www.uva.nl/en/news-events/news/uva-news/content/press-releases/2016/11/new-theory-of-gravity-might-explain-dark-matter.html" style="font-size:12.8px">http://www.uva.nl/en/news-events/news/uva-news/content/press-releases/2016/11/new-theory-of-gravity-might-explain-dark-matter.html</a><span style="font-size:12.8px"> the article ends with:</span></div><div><i><font size="1">"<span style="color:rgb(35,31,32);font-family:metaweb,arial,sans-serif"><b>On the brink of a scientific revolution.</b></span></font></i></div><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px;max-width:680px;color:rgb(35,31,32);font-family:metaweb,arial,sans-serif"><i><font size="1">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 20<span style="line-height:0;vertical-align:baseline">th</span> 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'."</font></i></p><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">I don't know if he got much awards in the rest of the world. But the first negative opinion is already here: <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/erik-verlinde-why-gravity-cant-be.html">http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/erik-verlinde-why-gravity-cant-be.html</a></span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Best regards.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Ruud Loeffen</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">human-DNA.org</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:15 PM, MIKE EMERY <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:1948emery6@gmail.com" target="_blank">1948emery6@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>WE ACTUALLY DO LIVE IN A HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE MADE ENTIRELY FROM IMAGES <br><br></div>THE CIBA GEIGY EFFECT PROVES THAT - IT'S A PATENTED IRREFUTABLE PROCESS<br><a href="https://www.academia.edu/11025988/PROOF_OF_GOD_VIA_SCIENCE_TECHNOLOGY" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/<wbr>11025988/PROOF_OF_GOD_VIA_<wbr>SCIENCE_TECHNOLOGY</a><br><br></div>EVERYTHING STARTS AS AN IMAGE THAT IS CONCEIVED IN DARKNESS BY THE WAY <br><br></div>WHAT DO YOU SAY TO AN IMAGE? YES OR NO?? <br><br></div>ANSWER: NEITHER - THE IMAGE SIMPLY IS <br><br></div>WHAT NUMBERS HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE IMAGE? <br><div><div><div><div><br><br><br></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:41 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cj@mb-soft.com" target="_blank">cj@mb-soft.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Message <font size="3" face="Times New Roman">3</font><br></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">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 <font size="3" face="Times New Roman">1</font>960s. 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.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">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).</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">That is the entirety of the "concept" I present, a
group of rather mundane Physics student experiments.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">NO "assumptions or speculations" are needed at all,
and it all fully complies with the Laws of Physics.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">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.
</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">In addition to all this, I have always been
troubled with the claims of the Inflationary Theory, where <font size="3" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"></font></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">I consider this
to be VERY simple, and easily comprehensible.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"></font></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">"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.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"></font></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"></font></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">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. </font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"></font></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">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).</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"></font></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">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.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"></font></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">Carl
Johnson</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"> </font></div></div>
<br></div></div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/ma<wbr>ilman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Ruud Loeffen</b></font><div><font face="monospace, monospace">Paardestraat32</font></div><div><font face="monospace, monospace">6131HC Sittard</font></div><div><a href="http://www.human-DNA.org" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">http://www.human-DNA.org</a><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>