Has E=MC^2 been replaced by Gravity=Light*PHI^n?

Hey, good point. Phi is a ratio, and therefore unitless. C, I assume, is the speed of light, and thus has units of velocity. G is…gravitational force? Acceleration due to gravity? Universal gravitational constant? It’s not clear what, but none of these have units of velocity, so the basic equation doesn’t hold up to even casual, do-the-units-match scrutiny.

Slight nitpick here. You are formally correct, but in engineering, I’ve heard (and used) “inertia” as shorthand for “mass and moment of inertia,” as in “it’s hard to accelerate that disk from rest because it has a lot of inertia.” Not mv-type inertia, but resistance to translational and/or rotational acceleration-type inertia. A sloppy use of terminology, yes, but not uncommon, and, as far as I know, well understood in context.

Thanks for your replies, I believe in constructive critisism, although I am convinced of the theory I put forth.

In terms of citing the entire theory from “credible” sources, I don’t think any journal has considered this point of view.

What I will do is to try and take you through the logic of the theory, and make statements that we can agree on. I understand how it may be perceived as “crack pot”, but you must understand that this idea is “new” at least in terms of mass audience.
1.) Let us agree then that the only geometry that allows waves to converge non-destructivley is phi. Phi allows converging wave fronts to both add and multiply non-destructivley, because in a phi-spiral the scale changes but the ratio does not. This is only true for the Phi-spiral, all other spirals will eventually cause two waves to converge destructivley, and thus interfere (cross eachother).

Sources: http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/phi2DGeomTrig.html#spiral

http://home.earthlink.net/~sroof/Abraxas/sar/phi/phi.htm#PHI’s%20Relations%20to%20itself

http://solstice1990.tripod.com/fonseca2.html
Weather you consider those sources credible or not is moot, the mathematics is correct.

Heh, I had a run-in with him on Usenet once way back when, over his insistence that the Earth was in an “evil” orbit that caused all bad things to happen on the planet. Therefore we must “BLOW UP THE MOON” to restore the Solar System’s proper “celestial parameters.” It’s all still there on Deja News/Google, I just checked!

(douglips, if you’re worried he himself might find this thread, I’m pretty sure he’s passed on within the past couple years.)

The math they have is correct. It’s also totally irrelevant to your assertion about the waves, cause there’s nothing on any of those pages that talks about that (if I missed something, feel free to point that out).

However, I also highly doubt that you understand the math you’re talking about. The statement that phi is a geometry makes no sense whatsoever, and if you’re spouting nonsense this early, I’m not looking forward to the rest of your theory.

Sadly, Alexander Abian has indeed passed on.

Archimedies Plutonium is still with us, and active on Usenet.

A wave will take the shape of its container, just like water takes the shape of its container.

In this case the container, is a phi-spiral that the wave has entered. Imagine a light wave entering a vortex.

Ok…so I’m imagining it. Doesn’t do a goshdarn thing. If you want us to believe your assertion, prove it. You’ve got the new theory, and we’re mostly happy with the old one. You have the burden of proof.

Errr . . .

So the next question is what happens to waves when they enter a vortex? How do they behave?

The answer is, either they will continue spiraling downwards infinitley, or they will converge upon themselves destructivley.

A vortex whos spiral is self-similar all the way down (phi-based) will allow the waves to spiral downwards non-destructivley (compress). This means that a vortex that is self-similar allows waves to be in-Phi-knitly compressable.

I just thought it might be as dangerous as whispering [sub] kibo [/sub]in a crowded newsgroup.

Mtgman wrote:

The introduction I was given to the Law of Fives was, “If you look for something hard enough, you’ll find it.”

And yes, I’m seeing that quite a bit. Not just “shades” of it, either.

Not directly.

Nor am I here to defend any or all opinions on websites dealing with similar topics, I am here to present my personal perspective.

Hiyruu

What exactly do you mean by waves converging?

And can anyone explain to me how a wave spirals? Waves to me always travelles in increasing concentric circles away from the source.

Curiouser and curiouser…

No, we will agree to no such thing. You must prove it.

In your last Topic of the Damned™ I explained to you that any 2 or 3 dimensional shape could be scaled up or down preserving ratio. Did you talk to a draftsman or architect as I suggested?

Err, Hiyruu A wave encountering itself will experience interference. Along it’s period the amplitude will increase or decrease as the interfering wave is added or subtracted accordingly. Amplitude – learn this word because it is the only thing that changes; not ‘compression’ which as I have explained to you before is a separate type of wave altogether. What type of light are we talking about here? Infrared, UV, x-rays? You understand in all your wisdom that each of these has it’s own characteristic wavelength and will constructively interfere differently. In fact, the absence of wavelength in any of your equations is most suspicious; since it, along with period, are critical parameters when wave interference is discussed.

By the way, you still haven’t addressed my ‘much appreciated criticism’ from my earlier post. I’m most interested in your inertia / mass substitution, which shows a complete lack of knowledge of the concepts involved.

Oh, c’mon, Twisty. Surely you’ve seen spiral waves in a vortex of N[sup]th[/sup] dimensional energy, causing a phrenological reversal of the wave’s weltschmertz.

In addition, the correlation between Planck’s constant and the Golden Spiral Ratio vs. the universe’s harmonic overthrusters would lead any rational person to conclude that waves travel in spirals (or occasionally, figure 8s).

True, waves appear to travel in increasing concentric circles, but that’s just an optical illusion caused that came from a byproduct of Phi’s effervescence intermingling with the fractal superstrings in the hypotenuse of light’s dark underbelly.

And I thought you were familiar with physics. :rolleyes: Sheesh. What are they teaching people in schools these days?

Fenris (“Bwahahaha…you call me MAD? They called Dr. Death mad too and…oh. um. oops.”)

And, for a second time you have failed to cite.

I am talking specifically about spirals, and only a self-refrent spiral can preserve its ratio as scale changes. The only such spiral is the golden spiral.

Other spirals may appear to be self-refrent at first, but one can calculate that they will eventually close up on themselves.

The sources I quoted above are evidence enough, here is further evidence http://pauillac.inria.fr/algo/bsolve/constant/gold/gold.html

So the whole theory of similar triangles is out the window, huh? Learn some geometry.

Oh, and since you’re asking for a cite, I suggest you pick up any high school geometry text. For a start, go here.

Mass/inertia/gravity - These terms are interchangeable.

Only the geometry of pefect embedding will permit converging waves to gain inertia.
Please take the time to read the following.

Quoting Rick Anderson’s comments on Dan Winter’s work.

[quote]

Basically, when you mix two waves “linearly”, you just sum their amplitudes together, point by point, so that the resulting wave is an algebraic sum of the original two waves components. If you have an oscilloscope you’ll see a new wave which is the sum of the two originals. Oscilloscopes display a wave’s “height” or “strength” or amplitude along the vertical axis of the screen, time along the horizontal; this is known as the time domain way of looking at waveforms.

An alternative way is to look at a wave or sum of waves in the frequency domain, which is amplitude vs. frequency, rather than time. To do that you need a spectrum analyzer. The spectrum analyzer won’t show you the sum of the waves, as did the 'scope. Instead, it shows you two “spikes”, each one corresponding to the frequency of its original wave along a horizontal spectral axis. So the 'scope shows you a new wave formed by adding the two originals, and the spectrum analyzer shows you what’s inside that summed wave, namely, the two original frequencies (that’s why it’s called an analyzer).

Well, linear mixing is what a DJ does when he mixes his microphone with the music; each sound wave co-exists and mixes smoothly into a summation of the originals; this is known as superposition of waves, and in essence it says, “though these waves co-exist, yet they don’t influence or control or change one another, though they do sum together.”

It turns out that this method won’t work when you want to broadcast your voice over a radio signal “carrier” wave. To do that, you need to vary the overall intensity or amplitude of the carrier with the lower-frequency voice… you need to modulate the carrier’s amplitude with the voice waveform. And the way to do that, mathematically, is to multiply the two waves together, instead of simply adding them. Just like we learned in school that you can multiply numbers by adding their powers or exponents, so when we add wave voltages against a nonlinear (logarithmic) background (in the PN-junction of a diode or transistor), we are actually doing the same thing as if we had multiplied them. Multiplication is nonlinear addition. In radio work this is called heterodyning.

Now they are interacting with each other, big time. The output on the 'scope is a high-frequency carrier wave, intensity-modulated by a low-frequency voice pattern.

What does this look like on a spectrum analyzer?

Here is where we find something unexpected. The analyzer now shows four separate frequency spikes! When we measure their frequency, it turns out that the original two frequencies are there, plus a new one which is equal to the sum of the original frequencies (not amplitudes), and one more, like a mirror image, which is the difference of the two frequencies.

We find that multiplying two waves together in the time domain is exactly the same as shifting frequencies up and down, simultaneously, in the frequency domain. These two new frequencies are called the upper- and lower-sideband, respectively. They appear whenever two or more waves intermodulate one another, and they are how low frequency audio waves get shifted up the spectrum to cluster around the carrier wave, which is way above the limit of audibility. This cluster of high (electromagnetic, not sonic) frequencies (the carrier, plus the upper and lower sidebands) is what gets transmitted out of the antenna of your favorite radio station. But on the 'scope, all you see is the sum of all three, which ends up looking like a point-by-point multiplication of the carrier and voice.

Here’s an example of AM frequency products:
You play a 1KHz tone into your microphone; that audio tone modulates a 1 MHz carrier frequency. The 4 outputs from the modulator are
1 KHz
1 MHz
1.001 MHz (the sum, or upper sideband)
0.999 MHz (the difference, or lower sideband).

The 1 KHz audio is too low in frequency to radiate from the antenna, so it is filtered out and the other 3 radio frequencies are transmitted.

Notice, too, that if you were to increase your audio signal to 10 KHz, the upper sideband would move up to 1.01 MHz, and the lower would move down to .990 MHz. Thus, the closer the audio is to zero Hertz, the tighter the two sidebands cluster in against the carrier, and vice-versa.

So as you can see, these new sideband frequencies are dependent solely on the addition and subtraction of the carrier and audio; there is no harmonic relationship at all between them.

So what’s Phi got to do with this?
Phi possesses the strange property of being able to automatically generate its power series when heterodyned successively with its own next-higher or lower powers! I believe this fact is a key to many fascinating areas yet to be discovered. As far as I can tell, this trait is not shared by any other number. Dan Winter seems to be on the right track on this one, for sure.

Powers of Phi
Phi^0 = 1
Phi^1 = 1.6180339
Phi^2 = 2.6180339
Phi^3 = 4.2360672
Phi^4 = 6.8541004
Phi^5 = 11.0901669
… etc…

Now, what do you suppose happens when we take two frequencies, f1 = 1 unit, and f2 = a frequency that is Phi times larger, or f2 = 1.6180339, and modulate them-- nonlinearly mix them-- in an AM modulator? The two new frequencies are the sum, which is 2.6180339-- hey, that’s the same as Phi^2, and the difference, which is .6180339-- hey, isn’t that Phi to the -1th power? Yup, it is. So we stumble upon the very interesting fact that powers of Phi are automatically generated whenever we “heterodyne” or modulate two frequencies that are related by a ratio equal to Phi.

If we use a slightly more developed form of AM modulator, we can suppress the carrier entirely (and the audio, too) and just get the sum and difference frequencies out. This is what is done in a balanced modulator, and this is called suppressed-carrier double-sideband transmission, just one step away from the single-sideband that Hams and CBers are familiar with.

So here’s what we can do: Wire up a string or sequence of balanced modulators; the next one will have the frequencies of Phi^1 and Phi^2 as inputs; the two outputs will be Phi^3 (USB) and Phi^0 (LSB). Feed this into the next one: Phi^2 and Phi^3 will give Phi^4 and Phi^1; etc. Eventually you could generate a very large series of frequencies related by the powers of Phi.

[quote]

I gave you a cite. I asked you to talk to a draftsman or architect. I thought we dispensed with Dan Winter? I know I did when I found him angling his chin, contracting his sphincter, and traveling at the speed of light when this topic was presented in MPISMS. In reality this a crosspost against UncleBeer’s advice.

This is all I needed to know. Thank you for making my point for me – you have no idea what you are talking about.

Mass - a fundamental property of an object, which makes it resist acceleration, and which determines its gravitational attraction. units: kilograms

inertia - the property of a material body which it resists any change in its motion unless it is overcome by force.

gravity - the force by which massive bodies are attracted to one anotherunits: Newtons

While the terms are interrelated, it is irresponsible and incorrect to merely interchange them.