Hiyruu,
I read your Rick Anderson post, and I will wait to comment until after someone refutes it. But I must say that I consider it rude, particularly given that I defended you, that you ignored my question. I’ll even overlook Waverly’s ad hominem fallacy for now. But if you won’t answer inquiries that are sincere, then you leave me no choice but to abandon this debate. Between your mystical expressions and their taunting, I’m not getting anything out of this.
Waverly guilty of a logical fallacy? Impossible. Well, perhaps not impossible. Please expand and I will clarify or correct if necessary.
Lib, I am not on here 24/7 I try to answer as many questions as possible.
Waves converging refers to two or more waves in pos or neg interference, i.e (becoming a new wave) or cancelling eachother out.
Phi-geometry allows waves to both add and multiply non-destructivly (perfect heterodyning).
Yes Phi can be expressed as a geometry, as can any number.
I’ll quote Dan Winter on this one:
What a refreshing attitude from a debator! I admire your willingness to examine your own argument for error.
Whenever you dismiss a man’s argument simply because in some other argument he has angled his chin, contracted his sphincter, or traveled at the speed of light, you are presenting one form of argumentum ad hominem called “poisoning the well”.
Also consider:
Since gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration (Einstein), and compression is indistinguishable from acceleration (Winter), and Golden Ratio wave nests are the ONLY successful way to collapse / compress non-destructively (philotactics) - THEREFORE: Gravity is caused by waves nesting in Golden Ratio.
<hijack, because logical fallacy arguments are always interesting>
Two points, Lib
This is the same argument, or a continuation of the same arguement, (Hiyruu is still going on about Golden Spirals, “Phi” theory, etc. Waverly pretty thoroughly demolished Hiyruu in the previous debate, as far as I could follow) so it’s not entirely accurate to say it’s “some other arguement”.
From that link (great site…thanks for the link!)
Thoughts/opinions?
Fenris
Nevertheless, a man might be mistaken about a hundred matters not under discussion but correct about this one. Thus, the radio frequency and amplitude arguments might hold despite whether their author has been shown to be a nutcase in other arguments.
The proper thing to do is to address the argument, not the man.
That’s correct. It won’t.
Is there anyone here that wants to have a scientific debate, or are you just going to make slanderous remarks that add nothing to this debate?
Don’t delude yourselves into thinking I have been disproven by someone who doesn’t even provide evidence for the point they are making.
Think for yourselves, and look at the facts, I will provide more links to back up my point of view, I hope the rest of you will do the same.
Lib: Ah, I had been careful with my words when addressing Hiyruu, but as Dan Winter was not in the discussion [or is he?] did not elaborate on why I would dismiss him so quickly. I don’t think ‘dispense’ was a very objectionable term, but I can certainly expand on why I used it.
From the description and terminology we see that Dan is spiritualist, not a physicist. Does the preclude him from working in physics? Of course not, unless he makes the mistake of…
Oops, now he has done it: confused spiritualism with physics. The “wave form of perfect self awareness”? What is the wavelength of this type of wave? But surely Dan is not always so far out on the fringe? What is he selling here? The Physics of Love and Compassion For only $79 we get learn,
Too many gems to list, browse on your own. Does ‘Spiral of the Golden Mean’ look familiar? Dan’s site is down, but here are some words from Dan himself in an (http://www.mkzdk.org/globalrecursion1.html ). He refers to oft debunked new age maven Dr. Chopra in the first sentence. He goes on the espouse on many topics including Hiyruu’s unified theory model.
This is why I ‘dispensed’ with Dan Winter. I realize it may not have been obvious at first, but hopefully this now makes sense. It is not always necessary to take any theory which can be formed into words seriously. This is why we peer-review findings. This is why we perform experiments to test our ideas. This is why we say ‘incredible claims require incredible proofs.’ I will re-assess Dan Winter when his finding have been submitted to a credible journal with peer reviewed.
As you wish, but here is my worthless advice: do not assess Dan Winter; assess Dan Winter’s argument.
And not the other ones; this one.
Waverly, what is your point?
I never said I believed everything Dan Winter talks about, otherwise I would of quoted all of his work.
I am focusing on a specific topic, nameley that of waves nesting in a golden ratio vortex to create gravity.
You can’t just type “Dan Winter” into a search engine, pick something at random, and then try and attribute it to this arguement.
Waverly, If you want to argue my point, then talk to me directly ok? Don’t go off on tangents.
I think I am being more than reasonable, asking for such courtosy.
So, everyone, can we agree that waves can only continue to nest non-destructivley (add and multiply) when the wave attractor is a golden spiral?
Please dispense with attitudes and opinions, and stick to facts and figures!
Well I say that stuff falls down because it would look funny if stuff fell up.
Lib, when a man claims anyone can learn how to create gravity by force of will, I say he’s deluded. I say he’s deluded because of his claims.
If Dan Winter got anything right, it was by accident. Even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then.
OK… first off, this is not a theory it is a hypothesis. Second, hypotheses must be tested. Design an experiment which will show the mathematical relationship you describe and then tell us how to perform the experiment so we can verify your findings. When your findings have been verified by multiple experimenters then we can start to look for predictions your hypothesis relates to and try to see if the predictions are accurate as well.
If you can show that gravity can be described, understood and predicted in terms of light (or speed of light) and a geometrical constant then you will surely rock the physics world as we know it and probably be eligible for a Nobel prize or at least be known as the Einstein of this century. As of today… gravity can not be universally described in relationship to the other four known forces. Light can. Thus your equation if it were correct would amount to nothing less than a Theory of Everything, and we all know those don’t exist 
If a persons work is going to be submitted as a cite under the premise that they be taken as an authority, it is relevant if someone wishes establish their credentials or lack thereof. This is not to say every debater need have credentials, but work used as source material (cites) should be of a credible nature. In sum: it is acceptable to consider the source. I appreciate Lib’s input, and understand Hiyruu would like to get back on topic, but I don’t believe I have been on a tangent. That being said, I believe I can make the rest of my points from quotes within this selfsame thread.
Hiyruu, here you are using him as a cite. Please tell me why it is not relevant to question his work? Einstein’s work is widely reviewed and studied, please provide similar support for Mr. Winter’s assertion that “compression is indistinguishable from acceleration” from an independent source.
Please provide mathematical constructs in the context of a pier reviewed article for the terms: ‘perfect self-reference’, ‘self-embeddedness’, ‘perfect compression’, and most interestingly ‘perfect self-awareness. All of the above were brought into the discussion by Hiyruu, not though my web search, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask that such nebulous terms be defined, proven, and found credible by relevant authorities.
Form earlier posts, Hiyruu has still not provided mathematical proof that ‘gravity’ and ‘inertia’ are one and the same concept despite their differing accepted definitions. Once again I must insist that such a proof would be significant enough to warrant publication in a physics journal. Please point me towards it. I’ll also ask that we not use Dan Winter as an authority until we find his work has been similarly published.
Where are the terms for period and amplitude, as they are essential to a discussion on constructive interference? It should be possible to graphically and mathematically demonstrate the wave behavior inside the spiral. My question on which wavelength of light we are using was also unanswered. They differ, and whatever causes one to constructively interfere in a quantifiable way will not work with another.
An finally
No, Hiyruu, I cannot. You are a long way from reaching this waypoint.
Well, most of what Hiyruu has said has been gibberish, not false because to be false something must be a meaningful claim, but one of the few meaningful claims that Hiyruu has made is (surprise, surprise) false:
EInstein never said that gravity is indistinguishible from acceleration. They are easily distinguished by tidal forces.
To expand on The Ryan’s excellent point, this was illustrated by the elevator frame of reference thought experiment. It describes indistinguishable effects, not causation in my understanding. Mildly helpful link I’m sure someone can explain this better than I.
Lib: You are correct, I meant to convey that I would assess the arguments, not the person.
That portion of General Relativity explains (!) why observations made in an accelerating frame of reference will not differ from observations made in a gravitational field of equal strength. It does not mean that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. And unless you are locked in an elevator, it’s easy to see what’s going on around you, and you are able to tell whether you are in a gravitational field or whether there is another force causing the acceleration in your frame of reference. However, they are indistinguishable by an objective experiment, such as observing the curvature of a light beam. The light beam will curve the same amount on earth as it would in space if you were accelerating at 9.8 meters/sec^2. Thus, you can not distiguish gravitational acceleration from acceleration by another force unless you can observe the thing causing said force. That does not mean that everything that causes acceleration is gravity, which I think is what you’re trying to say.
I don’t know what you mean by “compression is equal to acceleration”, but I think you (and Winter) are simply misunderstanding an effect which is also explained (surprise!) by General Relativity. I’m probably going to kick myself for making this gross oversimplification, but it basically means that relative velocity is proportional to the compression observed along the velocity vector in an object or wave. Relative velocity being the operative term there, not acceleration. This explains how the cops catch speeders among other things. It does not mean that light waves cause gravity – whether they’re in the presence of a golden spiral whatever the heck that is, or not.