somewhere in science literature it says that one's sub-conscious knows more than
one's so-called self. a silly example is if you are in a untidy room looking for
someone it is better to grop around until one finds it (via the sub-conscious) than
to consciously look for it..until the sub-conscious finds it.
somewhere science has always laid claim that many inventions are based on natural phenomena
also, so most things man has invented already exist in some form somehow in nature. this may
be difficult to prove or not depending on which invention it is, but it is almost certainly
too true on closer examination. some results from such an inspection may be temporarily perplexing.
so does a sub-conscious sensing of something have any impact on normal consciousness, like say
so-called subliminal stuff?
P.S. Sorry for bickering about a bit with this, but our goal is also to produce our own equations and even though
a sensible alpha may finally be printed near the bottom of this page, we still wish to be aware that it is not
really-really a constant.
Developed a formula:
Well can't list it here cause the program (down-loadable from the main page) is full of "hula hoops", but
one thing that came out of an equation feed with maybe a reasonable integer; 800 gave 0.007259073842302879
but that is still not any close to any established definition of alpha, albeit maybe it could have that value
under certain conditions since they have proved that is possible it can be 1/128 sometimes (which to say again
is Schumann Resonance), etc, and 800 of course since is 2*2*2*100..binary too..
The reciprocal of this though; 137.75862068965517, into Cathie Equation 3 give 69.63295622783191 a light reciprocal
(1/0.014361016021323326)..and the established "Alpha" (137.7586206896551) in this case give harmonics that exceed
maximum speed of light: 0.014416696830727535, don't know if that is good...
Well below here is the formula, note that harmonic(x) always returns 2.9 and is a product of some formula involving
2 and 5..
....for x in range(1,n):
So it is a bit complicated, it runs around 800(n) times..adding this and that in the process (y) etc..to get
this one try at alpha..and maybe this procedure is like some type of spiral..not unlike electron orbit and
energy levels maybe..
But finally maybe a definition of Alpha: "The number 137 is known as the so-called fine-structure constant,
which is the probability factor controlling whether an electron will emit or absorb a photon. Experiments have
shown this value to be around 137 but there are no absolute boundaries, only fuzzy edges, when dealing with
But in the process / formula above, sometimes y at a certain point will be a natural number. When x is 144 then
y will be 3600 and that could mean something. Though one does not get a natural number when x is 288
(14350.344827586208) but when x is 289 we get the natural number 14450 for y, and when x is 290 (which we can get from
Synergetics 2nf**2+2 also) then y will be 14550, though it seems no other fit with that way, except suddenly 580..
Also it seems every time x equals a whole number, then two will come straight in a row, inside this procedure...
then another value found on the net (seem it is full of these values); 137.036.(Approximation of the established
value shown above) 136.036+0.216==137.252. The "missing" 216 has been noted elsewhere earlier.
It is not really the point here to "drag about" and to prove why above 136.036 have been used and not the
latest hip approximation have been used, but scientist them selves say different things affect the measured
result (momentum vs spin, can not measure both at the same time etc?) or at least according to Bruce Cathie
something about relativity is involved in the measurements. At least it fits the calculations here, but they
added 0.216 for the nuclear blobs...
Synergetics, ++ v Quantum Physics:
Unfortunately due to things, we are in very slow progress with Buckminster Fuller's "Synergetics" books and also
Benoit Mandelbrot's fractal-stuff to see if it relates with Quantum Physics..on the bright side though got some
nice book on so-called Vedic Math.
It does seem though that with at least these different mathematical stuff it may yield something interesting
eventually. And it is difficult to say if that idea is new or not..
Looking at 137.252 we wonder: Running the program sequences reveal that most likely it should be divided by
a binary number / exponent of two (like 16=2*2*2*2) and also a multiple of 5 like 25 or so..thus we get
x/32/5 which is 0.857825 and then -> *216 = 185.29 equal to field A; 1850
Sub-string or whatever. 1/2187.
A "castling" (as in chess) of 288 give us 2187. 1/2187 give us a repeating decimal with 243 integers/numbers...-
Nuclear Reaction v Lightning strikes. Plus some calculations.
So what kind of reaction would equal 1/0.288. A note though, since it's 1/x maybe 0.288 would be weaker than 0.0144
the nuclear blast. The equal brain-wave would be ~3.4722222 just above the threshold for sound sleep. It does also
show that 0.29 has some use, but what is uncertain. It is not possible to x/0.29 one has to use
- According to previous calculations in mathematics 1/0.0144 represents speed-of-light while 1/0.128 is
the Schumann Resonance which somewhere says is related to lightning storms.
- Thus there is an exponent magnitude of 10 between the two in addition to S6 (128*1.125=144) and explains
why a nuclear blast is so much powerful than Schumann Resonance or Lightning Strikes. It's a different vibration
and more force.
- Even the Higgs Boson has been defined as 125=5*5*5. 1/0.144 == 625/9, so this Boson has a exponent of
additional 5 to light. 125*5=625. A confusing calculations is 1/(125/9) == 0.072..but we don't know if it's
megawatt or mega-ton-watt with this one yet, though it can be calculated if 0.0144 is equal to 144.000.000
geodesic distance/something in this math.
- Previously we came across a number so to speak 7.25. If we exchange the above with this? 7.2/7.25 seem to
give a harmonic ~1.00694444444444444..and there are others like this 7.2*0.29=2.088, and of course 1/(7.2/7.25/0.29)=0.288
- 1/(125/x)=0.0725. x=9.0625 and we should have seen this according to the above. It looks like some kind of number
Though there seemed to be an error in our programing language. 0.29 was not the right multiplier according to
another software where it was shown it should be 0.286014 though the difference looks like a speed-of-light harmonic:
Dead Fine-Structure Constant Alpha and Schumann Resonance. The math of physics.
Science is trying to make a use-able / applicable system out of the math of physics. This seems possible even though
everyone have heard the joke "it just BEHAVES as protons and electrons" but that's for someone else to figure out though
read the rest of this this site. We are also complaining about the "thought patterns" used to explain things.
We bought professional software at discount on something called "pi day" save us £50 of £200 and this was to check
if our results matched the data base included in the software ("mathematica" / Wolframalpha.com something). Neither
of our two first constants presenting below here as a beginning matched in their database. But Satan forbids us
to read the manual for the software e.t.c...also..
- E=1/0.0144, 144 here would be the 144.000.000 geodesic speed of light (as opposed to 300.000.000 km/s).
- Schuman Resonance = 1/0.0128.
- Apparently you can Google "Wadsworth constant" and get a bit of fun but it is useful when you square "Liebs
square ice constant": 8/9*sqrt(3) == 1.5396007178.. -> **2 == 2.37037037037037 which is also the result of
(2**6*10)*(3/10)/81, where 3/10 is the Wadsworth Constant.
- If you 1/x this one notice it is 27/64. 27 is supposed to be geodesic grid-time (as opposed to 24 hour clock-time..)
and 64 is of course 2**6 what we call a binary number.
- But one can end up in circles with this: 144/27*6=32. Though that could be a hint of something.
- 27*32*2.370370..== 2048 (2**11) then -> (1/x)*2**11=1.125 is Synergetics Constant #6 but try working backwards
from say #4, it can't happen because all the other one probably had to be re-arranged; the constant that is (N.B.
Bruce Cathie use the concept of multiplying by 6 and so are synergetics constants derived ((9/8)**(x/6)):
- S4/216 == Power[3, (3)^-1]/288. Very wonderful, it did happen and we have another link between Bruce Cathie
and Buckminster Fuller. What is used in the formula here is a cube-root of 3 times 3 and then divided by 288.
Further ? Some error here at the last entry starting over again.
((1/(((9/8)**(4/6))/(2**11)))/((8/(3*sqrt(3)))**2))/32/27 == 4/(3*3sqrt(3)) ~= 0.924481699134179606 but
maybe 1/x == (3*tri-root(3))/4; lots of 3's and finally a 4...if we did this right. So making some art now:
We made it into a haphazard equations rather because reverse engineering from above didn't work but got these artworks
with 1/(((1/(((9/8)**(4/6))/(2**11)))/((8/(3*sqrt(x)))**2))/y/27). Unfortunately we are only allowed to work in three
dimensions so this is as far as it gets. We also had a point about things there are from the alpha-1 article:
We think we see a light beam "bending" here or maybe a "gravity well..". Maybe at the intersection acceleration stop.
Also we tried to make a list of various harmonics:
1.0069444444444444, 1.0009027777777777, 2.007847222222222, 1.0136003472222221, 2.0205447916666666, 2.013888888888889
2.0018055555555554, 4.015694444444444, 2.0272006944444443, 4.041089583333333, 3.020833333333333, 3.002708333333333
6.023541666666666, 3.0408010416666666, 6.061634375, 4.027777777777778, 4.003611111111111, 8.031388888888888
4.054401388888889, 8.082179166666666, 5.034722222222222, 5.004513888888889, 10.039236111111109, 5.0680017361111105
10.102723958333332, 6.041666666666666, 6.005416666666666, 12.047083333333331, 6.081602083333333, 12.12326875
7.048611111111111, 7.006319444444443, 14.054930555555554, 7.095202430555555, 14.143813541666667, 8.055555555555555
8.007222222222222, 16.062777777777775, 8.108802777777777, 16.164358333333332, 9.0625, 9.008125, 18.070624999999996
9.122403125, 18.184903124999998, 10.069444444444445, 10.009027777777778, 20.078472222222217, 10.136003472222221
20.205447916666664, 11.07638888888889, 11.009930555555554, 22.08631944444444, 11.149603819444444, 22.225992708333333
12.083333333333332, 12.010833333333332, 24.094166666666663, 12.163204166666667, 24.2465375, 13.090277777777777
13.01173611111111, 26.102013888888884, 13.176804513888888, 26.267082291666664, 14.097222222222221, 14.012638888888887
28.10986111111111, 14.19040486111111, 28.287627083333334, 15.104166666666666, 15.013541666666665, 30.11770833333333
15.204005208333331, 30.308171875, 16.11111111111111, 16.014444444444443, 32.12555555555555, 16.217605555555554
We have x=3625/3600 which give "harmonic" x=1.0069444444444444, the reciprocal of this devided by another factor
2*(225|144^256)/1000=0.994 gives another "harmonic": 0.993103448275862/0.994 = 1.0009027777777777. You can see
they are this "harmonic" of the construction of the digits or integers if you will, even if the reciprocal of x
does not look like a "harmonic". Physics seem to constantly obscurr any logical representation of it's science-stuff.
To never link it with geometry.
What can we do further with 1.00090277777777..? x36 = 36.0325 -> x6 = 216.195. This another figure probably
216.195/216= 1.0009027777777777 and this looks like a logical loop..The difference between the two is 0.195 ->
1/0.195*6**4=6646.153846153846 which could be close to volume of a Helium atom or maybe Alfa particle, or any isotopes..
or we can have 0.195*2*36=14.04 a castleing of 1440.
Wien's constant, what is all this?
Finally this dose not always make any sense, and it is not meant to make sense yet as it's evolving, as this is an
evolving survey of standard physics, geodesics and geometrics, geometry and etc, etc. (Try google.com with "The Complete
Work of Physics and Gemoetry). We are trying to see where all this comes from. There are many "viewpoints" to this i.e.
Bruce Cathie's harmonics, and the following:
Wien's displacement law or constant is defined as ~2.9 micrometers, which can be obtained from
(((1/(n*5/2))+1/(n*2/5))*n). If one break down this expression into three parts it looks like it makes sense:
1/(n*2/5) where n is 3600 == 0.0006944444444444445 (If n is 3625 we get another one, that looks irregular
but turns out to be the 1/x of 1450), so it is a displacement. Conversivily the equation (1/(n*5/2)) produce
displacement allso, and then it's the *n added to produce 2.9, which may be bad for science for good for engineering.
Main-pag / In-dex.