Saturday, September 24, 2011

Thoughts of the Notion of Tachyonic Neutrinos (Teleoms)




Thoughts of the Notion of Tachyonic Neutrinos (Teleoms) L. Otto September 24, 2011

If there are tachyons (my position welcomes the idea as it falls into themes of my long time discussion- and I have trusted my intuition enough to be surprised I welcomed and internalized some idea as if proven almost without a doubt or taking thought only when other people with my humility to respect their experience, expertise and position- or their work) but as this illustration suggests the idea of yesterday of the Borg cube can be generalized- so such particles in the span and depth of space will show various perspectives and perceptions to formalize the higher physics. But it is not that we have to abandon certain ideas. That may include certain reasoning's about the paradoxes of two photons in opposite directions and their relative speed- something I call displacitivity (is this not a question of virial laws?- considering the one who accelerates solves this simple paradox, that is can in the next level of gravity like concerns we exceed the two player game of 2c? Some particles are invisible yes in terms of some exotic particles proposed in the new particle zoo? Is it not fundamental that we simply cannot add to the maximum invariant velocity of signals? That is can we say that any formula that c + v can make sense without caveats of the grounding physics? The implied next dimension idea or the implied numbers not only has reasons for the need for more than x colors but this drives the teleology into the indefinite past future structurally which makes for an open or extend aspect of a universe.

It is not enough to raise the issues of the uncertain in quantum fine effects for say a thought experiment nor to do so with appeal on some scale to relativity although both things are possible to do- save maybe doing both as unification of the physics. But enough of this, I did not mean to continue post as much yet the news of this tachyonic neutrino has certainly attracted the attention of a dozen diverse people in the coffee shop even if only a couple of them can begin to see the implications. For my readers, what few there are, I have to emphasis there the philosophic implications of all this from the creative science view. I make a few assertions in these three papers above which I post raw because of the value these may have. I am asking myself this moment- even as eye candy- will anyone realize what this picture of the 6x6x6 hypercubes mean here as it does not seem that different from other graph drawings- when we consider these as the surfaces and depths of hypercubes then we have the 8x8x8 (x8) case.

Perhaps the idea, not a new one really, again finds resistance and caution by the established scientists and science writers which to me takes a lack of imagination and sober thinking, classical or not. But even if tomorrow an error was found that was not one of theory- the systems I have described will still stand and be still more general than even the concept of a pure string theory.

I note that Kea mentions 26 and that keeps coming up usually as condensations of 13 and certainly multiples of 120 come up many places especially in four space. So now I see someone else beginning to speculate on the idea this somehow explains how supernovas may indeed create the elements (up to the 92 in 3D or 120 in four space Z number). The creative scientist can see such ideas before some news or rumors of news from concrete experiments break- and the true scientist will not believe certain things no matter what overwhelming magazine or journal makes the claims loudly but retracts quietly in the back pages- the 200 year bicentennial birth of the USA has been a few decades back now-that the unintentional hoax of bicentinuum is past while no one yet has seen elements even to 120.

What this probably means is simple that at the other end of this communication process are rather ordinary people, albeit with exotic interests and in strange concepts of our generations and ideas of time. We have in the end a human enterprise.

But perhaps there is nothing to judge how we have spent our light.

* * * *


http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superluminal/#comment-10699

I saw the usual crowd I follow and decided to post there today.


From a more general view scale matters on this higher space effect, That is space scales. The idea of such relativistic invariance applies in the higher reaches of analogs to relativity. This reminds me more of old Steady State Cosmology of Hoyle's creation fields of which the materials of a planet are much the same near that more general event radius. These were in their day Minkowski derived. It does imply a certain directionality based on the string theory mentioned in Kea's post update recently from 2002. As many suggest this solves the new problem of how certain higher elements are made in the novas. This is a whole new world that needs more imagination and awakening to the simplicity and greater relaxed freedom of the views. If we restrict ourselves to what seems to make sense of how dimensions and group can be applied no matter how impressive the formulas and arguments we will miss a lot of the physical and the philosophic implications. Do we not imagine that stars go nova in the first place via the rapid emission of neutrinos whereas the photon from a stars center takes an order of time equal to that to the so called Big Bang?

It is time that the rest of the academic world climb up from the sea and walk upright with some of our alternative bloggers- and they too should clear their eyes and ponder the stars.

The PeSla

* * *

A stray thought I will include here: The black and white of things, like a television transmission, can be easily decoded into the colors PROVIDED THE COLOR INFORMATION WAS TRANSMITTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. A way to decode it is to have a motion of alternating black and white changes- without this qualitative effect of which one half the brightness is reduced so is also a quantitative effect- we have nothing but the random background white (or pink) noise. While in theory in the white noise on a television screen turned down we can occasionally see specks of light evidently from the big bang background radiation- I wonder if something forbids that these specks can contain color information from all deeper space structures based on information and persist on some level on the whole positive where the universe has created and vanished quantum field real and virtual quasi-continuous physicality of the vacuum. Or is this a frontier where this question itself remains as open as it is closed? Does information exist even in the case where no sentient creature has seen even a single photon of it? In the wider picture of the Omnium is philosophic color as vague to qualitative measure as sentience itself?

It is hard for me, even in the slow struggle to comprehend existence and the world, not to rejoice at the awakening and almost certainty of the new in this great enterprise of enquiry we are perhaps driven as if upon the calling to the arrow of the positive in time that may ground our consciousness as much as that faculty we seem to have a little more than the lower animals- to imagine and plan, reason out, something in the future- and yes, literally by the stability of our evolved dreams imagine and change what we so can see. But such things while less than some greater concept of Heaven are still a little more than our science and philosophy can now imagine. If God is thought of as all knowing in this sense- the radical grounding and guaranteeing of ideals by sentience, this to me is but evidence in our claims of omniscience that we are still shaking off our shells and skins of the past- for only a mortal would think to coin the term all-knowing and think there is all there is even if they need the faith to assert one day we will explain and know what it is. Science can progress and thrive on such faith- but it cannot long endure with blind dogma.

* * *

Dear Lubos:



* * *

1 comment:

  1. That was the funniest proof I have ever seen. LOL.

    ReplyDelete