# Has E=MC^2 been replaced by Gravity=Light*PHI^n?

Gravity=LightPhi Power^n , (G=CPHI^n)

Inertia (or mass) becomes a wave attractor (or gravitational) when it is recursive.

Gravity=Charge become fractal.

Gravity=permission for waves to create the centering force which happens in the PHI geometry of embedding.

The amount of gravity in any wave system=the amount of recursion between it’s macro and it’s micro structure.

E=MC^2 only showed us that light traveling in a circle stores the inertia we had labeled mass.

G=C*PHI^n shows us that recursion creates the (implosive) centering force which drew that light into the circle in the first place.

We have now learned that Gravity is created when light becomes recursive, or self-embedded, or enters into PHI geometry.

cite?

Would you mind explaining a few points of this theory?

Gravity has been thought of as a force (mass x acceleration) since Isaac Newton was around. How do you get a usable quantity of gravity (preferably in newtons from your G = c.[sym]f[/sym][sup]n[/sup]? What units is your magical [sym]f[/sym] in? What’s n (shouldn’t it be a constant, lest your gravity change to something other than a force)?

Maybe the other parts will become clear once I’ve worked this out… recursion? macro and micro structure? [sym]f[/sym] geometery?

[sub]Nice symbol font this… :)[/sub]

I think s/he’s refering to this.

Yeah. And when I was younger, I learned that you could put the Enchantment “Lure” on a Thicket Basilisk, and you’d be able to kill all your opponent’s creatures in a single attack.

Please, Mr. Hiyruu… you’ve been showing your hardon for this “PHI” for quite some time. It’s almost becoming painful watching you. Like seeing a senile old man trying desperately to chase an imaginary butterfly.

Hey Hiyruu:

I want your take on an exciting new theory that will soon be accepted by peer-reviewed journals and should win the inventor a couple o’ Nobel prizes.

I came up with myownself and it’s posted over here

It should be right up your alley.

Fenris

Gentle friends,

I wonder whether, given that Hiyruu has posted here in Great Debates, those among us who are capable might actually formulate a debate with him, sans the jabs, jibes, and jokes. I, for one, as a lay person who does not understand why there is allegedly no basis for this phi geometry, would appreciate observing some argument about this.

Lib,

In some of the other “hiryuuics” threads, people have pointed out various refutations of his theories describing how his theories are flawed. He attributes properties to things that simply do not exist. For example, he claims that

We have not learned anything of the sort. His entire theory relies on Phi. ask him about it and he will undoubtedly go into Golden Ratios, Increasing Spirals and Love.
He makes up his own physics, and I wouldnt even call it theoretical, Lib. and I, for one, am getting tired of it.

Okay, Twist. I trust your judgment in this matter. Still, I regret not being able to hear him out over the din of ridicule, particularly in this forum. And I’m not sure whether making up one’s own physics is necessarily bad in and of itself. Is there not precedent for this in math, physics, logic, and other branches of philosophy? Has not progress been made before when a rebel enters the field and makes a contribution, even when that contribution is not wholly satisfactory, but merely needs some tweaking? Isn’t this what happened when — who was it? — Bose was ridiculed and sent his findings to Einstein?

True, Lib, but this is why I took the time to differenciate between Theoretical physics (Bose) and Made up Physics (Hiyruu).

If he had a little more clarity in his postings, perhaps people would listen to him, and there would be more people explaining to him where he is going wrong.

Feel free to look at the threads in MPSIMS he started. there are several proper answers to his points. He just makes keeps running without realising there is no ground beneath him. More like Wile E. Cyote, less like Dedalus.

Okay, Twist. I take your word. […sigh…] More’s the pity that the Phi people could not offer up a capable representative.

Hiyruu: I believe I addressed this nonsense when you posted the exact same concept in MPISMS some time back. Thank you for removing the quotes from Dan Winter, but you still have proved nothing.

This seems to apply that inertia is mass. Incorrect. [sym]r[/sym]=mv, they are related by velocity, and there is no credible evidence to label either of them with the undefined and misleading term ‘wave attractor.’

Please show me a cite from an accepted physics authority suggesting that gravity has a ‘fractal charge.’

Permission? Centering force? Geometry of embedding? Define these terms as they relate to your premise using credible physics cites. I humbly submit you are trolling with pseudo-scientific doublespeak.

Wrong. Show me where Einstein’s formula only applies to circular motion; and why in hell would you label inertia as mass when they are two separate concepts.

…nothing, because you have not proven that relationship to exist, have not properly defined the terms, and have not submitted a mathematical proof.

Please provide further proofs of this nature in thread I started for you: Hiyruu Physics

I took the article Lib referred to and began reading it. I have a basic background in physics, especially theoretical physics. I had to stop reading when I got to this

Is anyone else seeing shades of the “Law of Fives” here? For anyone unfamiliar with it, the Law of Fives(slightly paraphrased) says “Any and all physical and sociological occurances can be related to the number five given enough ingenuity on the part of the observer.”

From a purely scientific standpoint, anyone who uses two different values of the “sacred Pythagorean constant PHI” in the same equation is on very thin ice. I’ll wait for a more coherent arguement. As much as I like giving people the benefit of the doubt and expanding my horizons, I’m not up to letting someone drop an assertion and then expect me to prove it. Fermat did that and messed with the minds of mathemeticians for hundreds of years. Sure it might end up being right, but at the moment there are more important/viable theories which need the brainpower.

Steven

It’s true that there is something like this in math and logic (i.e., take a bunch of axioms and see what you can derive). However, the whole point of physics is to invent theories that accurately predict the behavior of the physical world. So if hiyruu can provide data from an experiment that proves his theories offer better predictions than the accepted theories, we’ll take him seriously.

However, his theories are very numerological in nature, and lack mechanisms of any kind, let alone sensible ones. Like I said, I’m waiting for hard data, but I’m not holding my breath.

Understood, Ultra. And I checked out the links in Waverly’s post. I think I’m beginning to get the picture.

He reminds me of A bian (space inserted to avoid attracting attention.)

This crackpot hung around sci.physics in the late 80’s/early 90’s and spewed theories like “TIME HAS INERTIA” and “TIME EQUIVALENCY OF MASS”.

He would avoid any kind of mathematical rigor, and just say “All your laws of physics can be derived from the statement TIME HAS INERTIA”.

So, I asked him to calculate the distance a ball would travel if thrown at a certain angle and velocity, using just his TIME HAS INERTIA principle. He came back showing no work, but with the correct answer to 7 significant figures.

Is it more likely that he used Newtonian physics to arrive at the answer, or that TIME HAS INERTIA somehow allowed him to calculate this in his head so he didn’t need to show any work? Why would he choose not to show his work? Because he’s a freaking crackpot.

Anyway, I grew weary of trying to engage these guys in any kind of conversation, it is far more maddening to me than any creationist. At least creationists define their terms and can be hemmed in to some degree - crackpots make up their own words so you can’t even understand what they’re trying to say, and then refuse to define those words.

Libertarian, having a discussion with someone like this is like trying to thread a needle with an oyster.

douglips: As has been pointed out to me by new visitor not long ago: failing to discredit these arguments sends out the wrong message. It may be taken to imply we condone the crackpot theories, and could leave casual passers by with the notion that there were no fundamental flaws in them.

You have every right to be irritated (I know I am), but it should be seen to that half-baked ideas are debunked prior to, or along with, any ranting, joking, or head shaking.

No.
What? Oh, I thought this was GQ…

There is no such person. No debate can be formalized. There is nothing to debate. No statement of any meaning was made in the OP. If Hiyruu wishes to have a debate, it is his responsibility to provide one, not ours to try to figure out what he’s saying.

What crrackpot theories? For something to be a crackpot theory, it has to first be theory. “Gravity=Light*Phi Power^n” is no more a theory than “blue music ten saxophone eat trees” is a theory.