Soft Particle Physics

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 



Two mathematicians, Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken, at the University of Illinois were striving to prove this theorem. Their work was considered to be of sufficient importance and so they were granted unlimited use of one of the most sophisticated computers in the country. After years of hard work and 1600 hours of computer use, they finally announced a successful conclusion to the project. The October 1977 issue of Scientific American featured an article about this milestone in the history of mathematics. This article included a complex map of hundreds of regions successfully four-colored to illustrate the validity of the theorem. Each of four different colors appeared along the outline of the map a minimum of 12 times, thereby making it a five-color map with the addition of the surrounding region.


Read this statement very carefully, please.




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Reply to freedom Commander's of 24/8/2012, as to how "novas" could be correlated with evidence favoring the true existence of neutrons (as in neutron stars): There is more to this model I have than I gave in my Post. To describe it more fully, it's a model of the cosmos based on magnetic resonances. In the case of the star which gets "tired" (inner energy wearing down) the star begins resonating more strongly with outside resonant forces of similar magnitude (another star). At a certain point the two stars are attracted to collide with each other. The force of this collision is so great that it erases the atomic signatures of the star systems. This produces neutronic, protonic, and electronic energy units which are "free" (no longer bound as atoms). The neutronics aggregate via like-to-like resonance into a neutron star, the protonics aggregate into a "nova," and the electronics aggregate into gamma rays and other space rays. The neutron star resonates with neutronic attractors in space which are diffuse, and becomes a space wanderer. The nova resonates as it did before, with other stars in its region of the galaxy. The gamma rays go off into space similarly to the neutron star.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Yeah, I've read it at least 5 times, and I understand it.

I'm just questioning, what is your statement? What are you pointing out, that I don't see?



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelanteski
 


Some how I feel like what you've said is a violation of the law of redistribution of energy.

A star can never get tired. Why? Cosmic radiation. There is always an outside source that the, for example, Sun takes in and radiates it out to our Earth.

All we see is this burning ball of light in the sky. Does anyone know how it works?

I mean, in order to prevent heat/infrared radiation from damaging stuff, I might as well go into Firewalking.
edit on 25-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by DJW001
 


Yeah, I've read it at least 5 times, and I understand it.

I'm just questioning, what is your statement? What are you pointing out, that I don't see?
I'll point out something. On page 106 of the source you linked to, Joseph Cater draws a map with 4 areas. If you color those 4 areas, plus the border, you will have 5 colors, which would be consistent with the four color theorem.

Cater makes a reference to one of those 4 areas in his diagram containing more areas, yet he doesn't bother to draw them, and then goes on to make a rambling incoherent hand-waving argument about how the four-color theorem is invalid, even referring to as many as 6 or 7 colors.

All he would need to do to prove the four-color theorem false is to draw a map that requires 5 colors, plus the border for a total of 6 colors, and he does draw a diagram but it only shows 4 areas, so he fails to show how five colors plus a border color are needed.

Clearly literary "handwaving" and incoherent arguments are all he has. His diagram does not disprove the four-color theorem as he claims. He would need to show that five different colors are needed plus a border color, and he hasn't done this. Have you got a map produced by the premise of the four-color theorem that requires 5 colors (or more) plus a border color? If so, where is it? Cater failed to produce one. I'm guessing you can't produce one either as you haven't been able to back up any of your claims so far. But if you have such a map, show it.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 



Yeah, I've read it at least 5 times, and I understand it.

I'm just questioning, what is your statement? What are you pointing out, that I don't see?


It says that the Four Color Theorem is proven. The border is not a part of the definition of the problem, is it?



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


But if it's a theorem and proven, why is it called a theorem instead a proof?

Why isn't it called "The four-color proof"?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
To freedom Commander's last reply: That stars gradually lose their inernal energy is generally accepted. They have calculated that our Sun will lose its critical "maintenance" amount of internal energy in about ten billion years from now. -In my "cosmic resonance" model, this would mean that a star's internal vibratory forces which come from its internal dynamic makeup gradually wear down, so that the resonances derived from these vibratory energies gradually diminish. Relatively, the resonances the star senses from other stars become stronger relative to the internal resonances. Thus eventually, the weaker star becomes forcefully attracted toward another star and they collide, leading to the rest of this theoretic model, involving how neutron stars result, and so on.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


Because contrary to popular misconception theories are not weaker than laws they coexist but theories in scientific lexicon are actually some of the strongest "arguments" there are. This site explains it better than I can so I'll quote it.



he Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law

Notjustatheory.com


As it states here theories do not ever become laws they are two different and mutually supporting concepts that work together to form the framework of scientific knowledge on a given subject.

And with the 4 color theorem it clearly states that the border will have to be a 5th color so that guy trying to refute it is not quite up to snuff.

Now just to clarify at one point you say planets can become nova's or implied as much, I'm pretty sure this cannot happen except maybe in the case of a gas giant or something, although don't quote me on that.

All i'm saying is your refutations are taking us down all of these side paths but we're still not addressing the core issues while all the time adding in even more issues which need correction. Maybe it would be best if we narrowed our focus back to trying to iron out one specific portion of your theory of how things work and putting evidence and etc to support just that narrow slice of the big picture.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by roguetechie
All i'm saying is your refutations are taking us down all of these side paths but we're still not addressing the core issues while all the time adding in even more issues which need correction. Maybe it would be best if we narrowed our focus back to trying to iron out one specific portion of your theory of how things work and putting evidence and etc to support just that narrow slice of the big picture.
As FreedomCommander stated here the ideas come from Joseph Cater, and the core issue is that Cater is a person with extreme cognitive deficiencies, otherwise known as a "quack".

The following review of the book "The Awesome Life Force" by Joseph Cater provided some insight into the phenomenon we are dealing with regarding claims which have no evidence to support them:

We laughed so hard we cried

...I laughed a lot at some of the ideas presented as fact with no signs of experimental data or study to back them up, lots of his evidence is anecdotal and second hand, fractured and poorly constructed.
This lack of experimental data sounds familiar, doesn't it?


...I thought initially that the book was a satirical jab at 'alternative' science and conspiracy theories fans, but eventually realised that Cater was serious about everything he writes. While his publishers say he is accademically discredited as a quack to hide the truth, the real truth is that he IS a quack. It is a real shame, as the line between genius and insanity has been crossed, and what otherwise might have been a brilliant scientist has lost his path.

I rate the book two stars. I'd like to give it more and I'd like to give it less. I'd hate to encourage the ignorant to read it, as it might be taken too seriously. I'd give it 1 star as a book for people interested in science and understanding of the universe, for laymen in physics, mathematics chemistry or philosophy. I give 3 stars for gnostics hoping to find hidden truths, some insights gleaned from the depths of madness. I'll rate it 5 stars for conspiracy buffs and for scientifically minded people after a good laugh, it's too crazy for words and must be read for full enjoyment.
There is a caution about some people taking Cater's work too seriously in that review, and I fear that FreedomCommander either didn't see that warning, or did see it and failed to heed it. Or he missed the part that "While his publishers say he is accademically discredited as a quack to hide the truth, the real truth is that he IS a quack." The reviewer seems like a somewhat open minded person but to use Carl Sagan's phrase, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. Some of these Cater ideas are of the "brain falling out" variety as we have seen in this thread.

Cater wrote other books called "The Ultimate Reality" (the book FreedomCommander referenced as his source) and "Advice from an Alien", and while only the latter was promoted as fiction, even the books that don't claim to be fictional contain claims not supported by evidence, consistent with the book review.

So it's pointless to ask for evidence supporting these ideas....there isn't any.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 



But if it's a theorem and proven, why is it called a theorem instead a proof?

Why isn't it called "The four-color proof"?


Because someone could easily create a whole system of internally consistent mathematics in which it is not true. All triangles have angles that add up to 180 degrees, right?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


I won't quote you on anything, it's just I can't accept theories as laws.

But I can accept them as opinions and nothing more.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Not unless your a savant and you only see math in everything.

And yes, because that has been proven, and it's a mathematical law. It's a action/reaction deal, move one point of the triangle, you move the whole triangle's angle, but it'll still be 180 degrees.
edit on 27-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


But that is from one customer's review, when other's have read it deeply and began to question on a unbiais viewpoint.

True, it's hard for me to prove to you, who is on the other side, that they are true. I can't change one persons view, and all I can do is influence on how things are seen from my point of view.

But there is one that I can show to you on what he's said, it's the traveling of UFOs.

If you say he's a quack, then that is your opinion. If I say he's one to think outside the box, that is my opinion.

UFOs use gravity to travel faster than light. To you, how do they travel?
edit on 27-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: incomplete



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 



And yes, because that has been proven, and it's a mathematical law. It's a action/reaction deal, move one point of the triangle, you move the whole triangle's angle, but it'll still be 180 degrees.


Please google "non-Euclidean geometry." You have much to learn before you take it upon yourself to preach "the Truth" to others.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
UFOs use gravity to travel faster than light. To you, how do they travel?
Is that a trick question?

U in UFO means "Unidentified", so if we don't know what it is, how can we possibly know how it travels?

One means is that many sightings initially reported as UFOs were researched and later identified. Once identified, then we can say how the object traveled, but at that point it's no longer a UFO, it's an IFO. You can guess what the "I" stands for, right?

So we can say how an IFO travels. Stating how a UFO travels is in the category of "making stuff up", isn't it? How can you say how it travels if you don't even know what it is?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 

Please google "non-Euclidean geometry." You have much to learn before you take it upon yourself to preach "the Truth" to others.


I was more implying a flat 2-d surface, wasn't implying a surface with a curve.

But that is the beauty of learning, people bring stuff to your attention and you go at it. Like you just did now, I've worked with Non-Euclidean geometry before but didn't know it, I didn't know the name of it.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I was more like asking, do you know how do they fly? Well I do know how they fly, want to know?

Popular scientist can't accept the idea that UFOs are real, because if they did, then their entire thinking curriculum would tumble to the ground.

Why? Gravity is a EM Force. Looked around for the popular answer and it said that it's a natural phenomenon.

UFOs, Forget it, Flying saucers, are a lot older than you think and it's amazing on who built them.

We, humans, built them. No ETs, it's just us for now. Proof? Manuscripts from India called the Vaimanika Shastra, and surviving artifacts that can been seen from the air for example, the Nazca plains in Peru.

There are so many things that are missing from history, and most of the people are willing to deny it on spot because it's a violations of their life style.
edit on 28-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Proof? Manuscripts from India called the Vaimanika Shastra, and surviving artifacts that can been seen from the air for example, the Nazca plains in Peru.
The claim that there is a "UFO landing strip" in Nazca is probably one of the funniest claims I've ever seen. Why would the flying saucer with it's claimed "anti-gravity" need a landing strip? Even a helicopter doesn't need a landing strip!


People made some big drawings to honor their sky-gods, and what does that prove? That religion has been around a while? That has nothing to do with UFOs.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm not saying that the Nazca plains is a landing strip, that was your saying. What I'm saying is that you need to be on the air to see them, and I don't think you could make them by being on the ground the whole time.

If one looks at the inventions of the past, your more likely to come up with new things of the future, take for example Japan, they looked to the past, and look at them now, they are chillin'.

And have you even read the Vaimanika Shastra?

edit on 29-8-2012 by FreedomCommander because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join