NOTEPAD for RANDOM IDEAS

[kevin.b]

Mikado 14,
You will have to obtain your ticket to ride in time,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UkbNlTAIPI
Dr Who?
Kevin

[Paul S.]

So, Kevin, what? Your first destination is Liverpool ca. 1962 or thereabouts?

I'm going straight back to 1776 and hang with Jefferson. After a stop by a certain river in New Jersey in 1956.

But I guess we all line up behind Mikado, huh ?

--PS

[flowperson]

Food for lots and lots of thought. Still no word from anyone on Fossett's fate I've noticed.
flow....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycgegp0KdE4

[Trickfox]

Can the trickfox's actions be part of an HMM?

Trickfox

[twigsnapper]

Trickfox,

We are both individuals so I can not say the flippant " I know how you feel"

Just know that I have known the moment when I have tried to look into the future and have not been able to see what my part in it was going to be. Specifically I remember having my knees in some mud. I was more lost than I had ever been at that time and I believe to that point I was a lost boy entirely. Dr Brown put his hand on my shoulder.

Now he did not tell me what the future would hold. He did not give me any guarantees as in " Join me and everything will be alright" He just asked for my help and I said yes.

I know that you have already said "yes" and now you wait. And wait. And wait. Can I tell you what the future will be for you? No.

My moment with Dr. Brown might have ended thirty minutes later when a snipers bullet pinged off of our fender. But I just kept doing whatever it was that I could do at that particular moment. And its turned into an interesting life.

All I can tell you son. Gather around you those that you love, keep your spirits up and live in the present as entirely as is possible for a human to do. Only advice I have for you at the moment. It worked for me. twigsnapper

[Mikado14]

Mr. Twigsnapper,

First off, I haven't a clue where in the hell to put this sooooooooo...here it is, as random as it is.

Perhaps we are rapidly approaching a time where these names might be of interest. I have been sitting on some info I dug up a bit ago and with all this talk of Adamski and such and the time span Paul is currently at, it might just be appropriate.

Do you know of these names:

Erb
Robert Cutler
J. Patrick Coyne

German saucers indeed or was it referred to as a soup dish?

Mikado

PS: You whoooo? Grinder?

[Mikado14]

Perhaps it really isn't ElectroGravitic as much as Magnetic Hydro Dynamic.

Perhaps it is not Ion or Plasma or a change of Mass.

Perhaps it is something entirely different.

Perhaps there are no Extraterrestrials.

Perhaps we are the Extraterrestrials.


Mikado

[flowperson]

As the the young Priest called out in the Church basement to the patient and elderly players who all had their hearing devices turned all of the way up..."BINGO !"

flow....

[Trickfox]

From a recent google discussion group on singularity

C is a LOCAL speed limit for timelike objects. The expansion of 3-space
in the FRW manifolds is a global phenomenon and is not so limited. It is
rather difficult to define "expansion of 3-space", but one can easily do
so for the expansion of the distance between dust particles in those FRW
manifolds (using simultaneity wrt the cosmological time coordinate), so
in these manifolds such global concepts are well defined (even though in
general they are not).

The symetrical viewpoint of "Macro-singularity verses Micro-singularity" is a logical way to breakdown the dimensional barriers which prevents us from seeing beyond the "Flatland" viewpoint. Let's adopt it just as we would if we were comparing 1+1=2 verses 1+i=2. In reality they are both the same singularity... just as a Macro-singularity is the same as a Micro-singularity! However both are still symetric viewpoint to us as observers in 3space.

Note that collapse into a black hole depends not only on the mass-energy
density, but also on the initial conditions; for times immediately after
the initial singularity in the FRW manifolds such collapse cannot occur
even for the arbitrarily-high density at arbitrarily-small times after
the singularity.

Yes, however "displacement itself implies that;-as one is approaching the event horizon of a black hole there is a orthogonal shift in the gravity refference point, and such a point happen well before the "event horizon", and this point is where Euclidean geometry is still valid relatively to the point of depart in our displacement journey towards that very black hole.

Yes. There are several singularity theorems, due primarily to Hawking
and Penrose. It is clear that the universe we inhabit satisfies the
conditions of several of them, directly implying that if GR applies to
our world then there was a singularity in the past of every timelike
object (think elementary particles, as most atoms and nuclei except
Hydrogen were not present anytime near the big bang, according to
current theories of nucleosynthesis).

the same singularity occurs in the future of every timelike object as well and these include all the macroscopic objects including living beings planets and star systems.

At another level, however, it is clear that at a singularity all of our
current theories of physics must break down. So we don't know what
happens there....

Actually, what if the orthogonal shift in the gravity reference point of a black hole is just invisible until you are "illuminated" by it's Euclidean line (the axis line of a black hole rotation)

The singularity theorems are discussed briefly in most GR textbooks,
such as:
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_.
Wald, _General_Relativity_.


If you want an elementary introduction to GR, I suggest:
Geroch, _General_Relativity_from_A_to_B_.


The canonical reference for the singularity theorems is:
Hawking and Ellis, _The_Large_Scale_Structure_of_Space-Time_.
(this is a quite advanced book)

Damned, another book I need to buy

Food for lots and lots of thought. Still no word from anyone on Fossett's fate I've noticed.
flow....

Yes Flow I'm concerned a bit also
Trickfox (perhaps eventually I'll become just another extraterrestrial?)

[flowperson]

EVENTUALLY ???

flow....

[Mikado14]

Let's adopt it just as we would if we were comparing 1+1=2 verses 1+i=2. In reality they are both the same singularity... just as a Macro-singularity is the same as a Micro-singularity! However both are still symetric viewpoint to us as observers in 3space.

The logical assumption when one first looks at the first order equation you have posted is that i must be one.

What if it isn't? or what if i is the sum/product/etc of something entirely different?

Just throwing about a thought.

Mikado

[Trickfox]

Mikado it does not matter if all you have to work with is Clifford space. You are crusing through SUBSPACE, The rest is all three dimensional "ten based"integers which live in normal space and has no value in a binary system. Navigation in Clifford space requires a simple polydimensional transposition. You just have to constantly compare the hyperspacial information graciously provided by a wise hobbit navigator.
There is only 1, 2, and i. I even managed to drop the empty set (0) out of my equation. Do you see Keats' truth and beauty as I do.

Trickfox

[flowperson]

So Trickfox...would "i" be the notation for imaginary numbers ? If we are calculating movement about in imaginary spaces, then this would make some sense to me. I seem to remember something of this sort of discussion when studying the generational aspects of chaotic systems. Reimann geometry, Hilbert Space...anything similar to Clifford space ? Remember you're dealing with a mathematical novice here, but I do understand the generation and degredation of forms in space. But usually in the context of supercomputer -generated animations.

flow....

[Mikado14]

Mikado it does not matter if all you have to work with is Clifford space. You are crusing through SUBSPACE, The rest is all three dimensional "ten based"integers which live in normal space and has no value in a binary system. Navigation in Clifford space requires a simple polydimensional transposition. You just have to constantly compare the hyperspacial information graciously provided by a wise hobbit navigator.
There is only 1, 2, and i. I even managed to drop the empty set (0) out of my equation. Do you see Keats' truth and beauty as I do.

Trickfox

Ok Mr. Trickfox now correct my deficiencies. Clifford Space is related to the concept of the configuration space associated with the extended objects, which are the so called branes of the Lady Randall. Therefore, you are implying a subspace condition where the base 10 is no longer applicable and a base 2 is. Are we talking about the the application of C-Space geometry/algebra which replaces the normal 4 dimensions into.....is it 11 or is it more?......I believe it is more.

I know this is general but I am attempting to understand you with what few brain....brane...oh, whatever, cells I have left.


Mikado

[greggvizza]

Is that the physics i, as in imaginary, which is the square root of negative 1? The electrical world uses j for the imaginary term because i can get confused with current.

Or is this i something entirely different?

GV