Korg Forums Forum Index Korg Forums
A forum for Korg product users and musicians around the world.
Moderated Independently.
Owned by Irish Acts Recording Studio & hosted by KORG USA
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

John Hendry Proves CERN Neutrino Data Correct
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korg Forums Forum Index -> Off Topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
John Hendry
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 423
Location: America

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:08 am    Post subject: John Hendry Proves CERN Neutrino Data Correct Reply with quote

©JFH^^ O=E=W=T Unified Field Theory equation exposes constant time dilation due to looking at photon generation creating a speed of light clock with the asymmetry of the weak force {a} adding the time we experience needed for motion with the neutrino space created transfering time/photon energy from W to T in the forward arrow of time. Weak Force Asymmetry time occurs in T = Strong Force so equation is in balance via the Fine Stucture Constant (e{a})/t=E showing E=T and time like energy must be conserved via the reverse arrow shown in the E158 data ratio reduction calculations below. SLAC's BaBar experiment data later confirmed the .20e-5 asymmetry in time exposed by the CERN/E158 data match using a 3rd experiments data to confirm it.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly - End results

"On July 12, 2012 the OPERA collaboration published the end results of their measurements between 2009–2011. The difference between the measured and expected arrival time of neutrinos (compared to the speed of light) was approximately 6.5 ± 15 ns. This is consistent with no difference at all, thus the speed of neutrinos is consistent with the speed of light within the margin of error. Also the re-analysis of the 2011 bunched beam rerun gave a similar result.[9] However one thing remained unanswered by the researchers: the fact that SLAC's E158 asymmetry of the weak force data @ 2.48×10−5 sec in 453.6 miles matched CERN's neutrinos @ (v-c)/c=2.48×10−5 sec creating the needed 0.20×10−5 sec for the asymmetry time added. After this was made known the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory confirmed the Time Asymmetry the E158 data revealed after going back and looking at almost 10 years of data from the billions of particle collisions collected in the BaBar Experiment and confirmed the claim of a violation of time reversal symmetry. SLAC reported the discovery on November 13 in the journal Physical Review Letters, stating "the results are impressively robust, with a 1 in 10 tredecillion (1043) or 14-sigma level of certainty – far more than needed to declare a discovery."[25]

“This is a fresh way to understand data we had already used to measure CP violation,” said BaBar physics coordinator Abner Soffer, associate professor at Tel Aviv University. “By looking at it slightly differently we were able to undeniably see time violation as well. What’s nice is that the effect was there the whole time, but nobody had thought about it the right way before.”

Important Note: It is just as impossible for a particle with mass like the neutrino to travel at the speed of light as it is to exceed the speed of light so something very "impossible" is shown happening here. Someone needs to explain how the greatest scientists on Earth can see well enough to do such amazing experiments and then turn around and use a well known impossibility to disprove another impossibility because it's "impossible".


Verification of CERN’s Neutrinos created at the Speed of Light and Confirmation of added spacetime due to asymmetry of the weak force. Sept 24, 2011

“The feeling that most people have is this can't be right, this can't be real,” said James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research.

The following facts and figures are a result of UFT research by John F. Hendry with credit to the Korg Forum members that helped push me in the right direction. ^^

Weak Force Asymmetry {a} adds 1hour/3600 seconds every 1000 years/3.6 seconds a year: Re: SLAC E158


CERN Neutrino’s speed past light speed of light: @ v-c/c = 2.48e-5
Weak Force Asymmetry {a} time added to speed of light: 2.48e-5

Lesser diesis: (Einstein’s Comma) = 0.20e-5


3600sec / 1000 years

3.6 sec x 186282 speed of light = {a} time added past speed of light in one year

670615.2 / 365.2425 year = {a} time added past speed of light in one day

1836.082055072999 / 24 hours = {a} time added past speed of light in one hour

76.50341896137498 / 60 minutes = {a} time added past speed of light in one minute

1.275056982689583 / 60 seconds = {a} time added past speed of light in one second

0.021250949711493 / 410.6746031746032 = 186282/453.6 miles {a} percentage of one second gain

5.174644243208279e-5/ 2 {a} forward/back total neutrino oscillation time gained in 453.6 miles

2.58732212160414e-5{a} distance (Subtract 0.10e-5) oscillation time in forward arrow of time in 453.6 miles 2.48e-5

2.58732212160414e-5 {a} distance (Add 0.10e-5) oscillation time in second arrow of space in 453.6 miles 2.68e-5

CERN Neutrinos past Speed of Light v-c/c = 2.48e-5 60 Nano seconds or 60 billionths of one second

Lesser diesis (Music Comma) = 0.20e-5 (0.10e-5 + 0.10e-5) Everything is made of time, and time is always getting longer as a measuring stick so if you measure something oscillating at the speed of light to move forward the rearward oscillations will expose a true inertial frame of reference and measure longer and use more time than when going forward. The “lesser diesis” is the length of difference (0.20e-5) from forward (shorter 2.48e-5) and rearward (longer 2.68e-5) neutrino oscillation distances in real time. The comma is an important observation in music theory that is based on time applied here to measure SLAC’s E158 data and compare it to CERN’s to prove E=m+{a}c2. Einstein’s equation E=mc2 just needed a tune-up, but it changes physics by adding the weight of the Observer. Consciousness has Mass. JFH^^
_________________
Think Peace...


Last edited by John Hendry on Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:53 am; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xmlguy
Platinum Member


Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 3605

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is not news and it's entirely off topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Asena
Approved Merchant
Approved Merchant


Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 2525
Location: Sweden/Malmoe

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WHAAAAAAT, Is this a new Keyboard or what? Idea
_________________
www.globalsound.se

KORG PA 5-X/YAMAHA GENOS 2/YAMAHA A 5000
LIONSTRACK X 76 & GROOVE XR
MEDELI AKX-10




MacbookproM2-Ssd/Logic/Neuman/Kali Audio8/Komplette14SDD/ Apollo Twin/PIONEER XDJ RX 2
LOTS OF SAMPLE SOUNDS!
KorgPaManager V 5
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
John Hendry
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 423
Location: America

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:30 am    Post subject: CERN: Speed of Light Claim Confirmed Reply with quote

Greetings Forum Members,

I guess you all know by now 4 days after the University of Washington announced that the AIDS DNA family virus code was cracked in 3 weeks by gamers playing “Foldit” CERN upped the ante and announced they accidentally discovered the Speed of Light was being broken by neutrinos. The last 26 days have really come up with some amazing breakthroughs in Science that are all related to the laws of Music at the core and extremely unlikely to happen. CERN’s announcement is generally regarded by scientists as “less likely than Aliens landing on Earth and giving free rides to the moon and back.”

If CERN’s data is correct and is confirmed, which I just did using SLEC E158 Weak Force data, then this is the biggest discovery since Einstein introduced Special and General relativity and Korg is in for a surprise and some free advertising. The top science reporters say if it turns out to be true it’s the biggest event in the history of Science period due to the known and unknown implications. But most say it’s just a measurement error of some type because it’s basically impossible after so much confirmation all based on E=mc2 as even a few billionths of a second over the Speed of Light and Einstein’s theory is changed forever. It’s not a measurement error and SLEC E158 confirms that. So here's to forever.

Nature seems to be on quite a roll….down a cliff it seems. On October 3 three scientists, Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess won the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe. Now this is old knowledge going back decades but it highlights something very important related to the circle of fifths, old and new. Something is pushing space apart called "dark energy", but we all know that is short-hand for saying they don’t have a clue what’s happening….like the “missing” dark matter. The important news here is, unlike unexplainable dark matter many scientists believe it is likely related to the “cosmological constant” that first appeared in Einstein's general theory of relativity where he added it to stop gravity causing the universe to collapse in on itself. He later removed it and called it the biggest mistake of his career after Hubble showed the universe was expanding…but not accelerating, big difference.

Relativity predicted expansion, but Einstein got it backwards because everyone back then thought the Universe was static. If you get one thing backwards that is relative to everything else you want to always remember to look at what else might be backwards as well, like the symmetry in time. The cosmological constant is back with a vengeance and it’s the biggest problem in quantum field theory as well. But here’s the thing, there’s an obvious answer to it in music theory and I’m talking BC here. It deals with the expansion of “tonal space” which the New Circle of Fifth’s has set relative to time and you will see 00:00 o’clock at first C before there was a sea.

From: http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Perlmutter-Nobel/index.html “The nature of dark energy is unknown and has been termed the most important problem facing 21st century physics.”

When I read about CERN’s announcement and saw the figures my hair stood up on end because I knew exactly what caused it: the Asymmetry of the Weak Force. It is the natural cosmological constant being created artificially by mathematicians trying to figure it out. Understanding this gain in time will change physics and I just pulled two pages of what changes go with it;-) In summery this will help humanity by adding an understanding of Life to E=mc2 that was missing. Like the individual notes of a well-tuned piano every observer has to learn to give a little to play together in tune and that’s the current lesson Nature is providing on a large scale with CERN center stage. It’s called tempering in music theory and it can be applied to everything especially nuclear energy to clean it up and is more than just a theory dealing with time. Music theory is real because it works all the time over and over again. It’s beyond well proven…it’s what is real and everything is based on: harmonics. And it connects energy to Consciousness using time and space to do it.

Anyone can buy a book on physics but few can tune a piano built by Einstein although many claim to have done so by cutting the strings connecting time and adding more dice and unrestrained math void of an inertial frame of reference for ballast. I added a single page above to the book proving the Speed of Light was exceeded by CERN showing the Major event CERN announced is real. But don’t worry the “casual set” that determines the order of cause and effect is well protected by the reality of time with the addition of the Cosmological Constant, another name for the Asymmetry of the Weak Force and it’s comma which is caused by Mass in Oscillation being observed from a second frame of reference running slightly faster than it’s speed of light clock rate cycle. This is what caused the neutrinos to break the speed of light expressed as v-c/c=2.48e-5. It’s the coolest trick in the Universe and the key to opening up the doors to space travel.

I couldn't prove the Asymmetry of the Weak Force was causing the error detected in Newton’s law after I corrected it because I couldn't’t Google up the data needed so I can’t say anything about my exigent math skills and what was actually required to prove it using the data if I had obtained it. But when I saw CERN’s data I about fell on the floor because I realized the math to prove the weak force asymmetry was the culprit causing the speed of light to be broken was nothing. It was just knowing what to do with it and where to find the data to prove CERN’s neutrinos had exceeded the Speed of Light. So that’s exactly what I did using SLAC’s E158 data that had absolutely nothing to do with the Speed of Light as far as CERN and the physics community at large was concerned.

I had a cold chill running up my back hitting the enter key for the last calculation because it was now or never, right or wrong. I had to come up with 2.48e-5 to match CERN’s finding of (v-c)/c = 2.48e-5 (60 Nanoseconds over the speed of light) using SLAC’s E158 value of Weak Force Asymmetry and create a proper Comma with it. If I did it, I’d change physics and prove the Weak Force creates time and that God does not play dice with the Universe….he’s a card player that can always shuffle one card faster than the speed of light to keep it ahead of the next. But to do it I must come within an acceptable margin of error no more than 20 Nanoseconds (20 billionths of one second) for the two completely unrelated sets of data to match up. I knew when I hit the final enter key if the numbers don’t match I am 100% wrong on everything I think I know and it’s in the pond with the frogs. So I hit the key.....:-0

Wow….that was a rush. I didn't know the pond was so cold…I'm kidding of course. For the first set of calculations I used SLAC’s E158 figures I had adjusted.

I got 2.301869965134783e-5 (4.603739930269565e-5 total WFA time added divided by 2 showing forward and rearward mass oscillation directions connected to time, the two arrows of space) because I changed SLAC’s E158 data from 3.6 to 3.2 sec gain @ year. Remember I am talking about CERN’s 2.48e-5 matching it and that’s well within CERN’s 10 Nanoseconds of error not taking in to account SLAC’s E158 margin of error. Anyway that was a rush like I said but I knew I was right so I expected it. But here comes the real rush.

Before I even computed the comma for 2.30e-5 I noticed I would come closer if I used SLAC’s E158 data without changing it. So I repeated the calculations without changing it and got 2.48732212160414e-5 (5.174644243208279e-5 total time with 0.20e-5 comma). CERN’s data must match within an acceptable margin of error which it did not because THERE WAS NO ERROR AND BOTH CALCULATIONS ARE IDENTACAL BASED ON CERN’s POSTED DATA OF 2.48e-5 if you accept the Comma at 0.20e-5 it produced. That’s almost impossible for these two “unrelated” sets of data results to come so close (even if you throw the comma away) but based on both SLAC’s E158 data and CERN’s that’s the final figure and I am posting it so everyone can see what I did and how I did it to check it. They are undeniably in agreement and I was absolutely flabbergasted at the accuracy. I just proved CERN’s data is not a measurement error by showing v-c/c=2.48e-5 is correct and because I used SLAC’s E158 data to do it I also proved an entire new theory of physics based on the Unified Field Theory and the work of Albert Einstein and showed that relative to T= the Strong Force E=m+{a}c2. I just tuned the piano the Great Professor built and while I was at it I added poly AT midi triggers under the keys with 2 Kronos and a Core I7 laptop running voice command software hidden away with 2 Wave Drums that swing out with everything powered by off phase atomic key generators except the subwoofers. ribit …..Wink

CERN ran over 1600 test runs to average out their figures over the past two years and they believe the result has a significance of six-sigma so I am calling the Comma @ 0.20e-5 for now which has the potential to hide some error affecting it’s “exact size” and I’m sure it does but not much. CERN did not post the figure of the Speed of Light exceeded past the second decimal point so there’s almost certainly some disagreement hidden there affecting the comma past it’s second decimal point as well. But in comparing the two sets of data there is no detectable error because the exact size of the Comma has the final say and I don’t know what that is as it derived from these two sets of data and limited to their accuracy which I would expect to have some minute degree of error to throw off the size of the comma produced. But is also possible getting CERN’s full figure past the second decimal point could make it more accurate. And remember the size of the comma was a free bonus as a result of proving the Asymmetry of the Weak Force is what caused the neutrinos to achieve v-c/c= 2.48e-5. It shows both SLAC’s E158 data and CERN’s are almost (if not) perfect and error free and I bow down in awe to both teams of researchers for such impeccable accuracy allowing me to prove this.

I hope everyone understands this, it is certainly music related as understanding the Comma brought out in the open is 50% of it and the math is 9th grade. I pulled a section out directly dealing with the circle of fifths to shorten this. I posted how I did it above and it’s quite simple and gives great insight into what happens to tonal space in the Circle of Fifths. If you do it yourself following my figures you will see there’s nothing to it. Mathematically all I did was compute the distance the Asymmetry of The Weak Force added in 453.6 miles to prove it was same as CERN’s v-c/c =2.48e-5 and E=m+{a}c2.

BTW I posted two posts on it hastily in far less detail on illustrious Nature’s forum (right up there with Korg Forum;-) were posts are “screened” and all names are real mostly known scientists and I’m now 4th from the bottom with first post next to Dario Crosetto who worked at CERN on the trigger of the Delphi experiment. Before Oct 3 a Google search on SLAC E158 used to bring up 2 web addresses on one page as I recall…not much at all but now 11 days later you get 97 pages full of SLEC E158 stuff. I think I got the message out;-) No one can steal my work…..the truth is too radical and I have to leave most out.

John^^
_________________
Think Peace...


Last edited by John Hendry on Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:59 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karmathanever
Platinum Member


Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 10393

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stick a Korg badge on what ever this is (didn't have time to read it all) and I'll buy it....

Me?
Obsessed with Korg?

NEVER.....

Wink

No disrespect John H but you definitely surfed into the wrong forum.... Confused
_________________
PA4X-76, Karma, WaveDrum GE, Fantom 8 EX
------------------------------------------------------------------
## Please stay safe ##
...and play lots of music Very Happy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John Hendry
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 423
Location: America

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:03 am    Post subject: I'll take two... Reply with quote

I put 2 Kronos in there...Wink Korg's got to love this. I just proved CERN is right on the biggest claim they could ever make....that's as close to impossible as is likely to ever happen.

John^^
_________________
Think Peace...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hugo
Platinum Member


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 809

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

VERY interesting findings, these. On a Side note; does anyone know if Saul Perlmutter is related to the guy in psy-trance act Astral Projection?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sharp
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jan 2002
Posts: 18197
Location: Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Certainly is news, some of the most exciting news that man has ever discovered, but I’ll move it to the Off Topic section since this is a music forum.

Smart people can be so stupid.
Cracks me up when they say things are impossible. Given time, anything is possible.

Regards
Sharp.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
John Hendry
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 423
Location: America

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:17 am    Post subject: Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow Claim CERN Wrong Reply with quote

Greetings Forum Members,

An amazing thing has happened. If you asked me what Physicist I would say could understand my work to grab its core of understanding, that is 100% music theory based I might add, on Weak Force Asymmetry I would say very few but some would and Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow (Nobel Prize winner) would be my first choice because they came up with VSR for "Very Special Relativity" that has elements of the UFT's Real Relativity in it despite not adding the observer's Mass to describe what the weak force is to describe and understand time and how it creates our reality out of space and energy.

This is because although they came out of college deeply trained without being given a complete picture of what's going on in the head to connect it with the outside world, they have seen so much of the picture in pieces in high detail that they can put groups together that fit, just not in the right order and context of the whole picture that relies on time to keep it all together. Because I rely on understanding and description using mental scale modeling instead of the deep math these guys live in where they use it so well they can guess till they get pieces to come together, there is a language communication gap between us. My goal has been to get the message to them while absorbing their facts to create more knowledge for myself setting up a loop that increases information on both sides.

The UFT creates a completed template they desperately need, and they have tons of little pieces, some well connected with others, that fills it in so I can see in greater detail, and wouldn't you know Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow turned out to be the team to come forward in a huge media circus and say CERN was wrong using a weak link in their VSR theory that had them say what the UFT says happens to a neutrino....backwards.

Here's my post in reply after something caused Nature's forum to have technical difficulties and go down for a day with not a single scientist responding to Natures news article on Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow's claim CERN is wrong in support of it when the form came back up. It would seem something changed the odds of possibility right after my posts started going up.

Witold S said:

"This cannot change the validity of the CERN-OPERA findings, since the ICARUS report depends on an unsure theoretical prediction (that superluminal neutrinos would disperse). The report can be interpreted conversely: as a probable refutation of this theoretical prediction.

Thus the CERN-OPERA detection of superluminal neutrinos remains unchallenged."

I agree. The Cohen–Glashow effect is not a valid prediction. Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow's conclusion is theoretical and their own Very Special Relativity theory comes closer to being in direct contrast with their resent statement than being supported when you examine the published facts and look at the research findings of SLAC E158 on the Asymmetry of the Weak Force. This is something they obviously did not look for but hopefully my pointing out Einstein's Comma will bring it to light.

I've been referencing SLAC E158's data for years ever since I found it applying it to Newton's Law found to be in very slight error thanks to Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong the heroic Astronauts of the Apollo 11 who placed the first Lunar Laser Ranging Retroreflector Array on the Moon on July 21, 1969, a date we should all remember leading the way for Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 to place two more sets.

It is quite easy to prove CERN's findings are accurate by using Stanford University's (and other partners) SLAC E158 research data on the Asymmetry of the Weak Force. The neutrino has a function in Nature. The Weak Force and the Strong Force must be connected and that is the mechanical function of the Neutrino and it cannot lose energy/time under any circumstance as Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow have proposed. With due respect however their identification of what parts would be created if time ran backwards is absolutely correct and I hope they read this. Based on reading their article Spinning Einstein published in the January 2007 New Scientist, SLAC E158's data supports elements of VSR more than they are discrediting it by making this assumption.

The neutrino is used to transfer time/energy (E, photon) from the Weak Force into the Strong Force and that takes an exact measured amount of time and this causes what has to be the most beautiful act in Nature: an increase in time relative to the Strong Force of 2.48e-5 with a lesser diesis of .20e-5 that adds up to 5.17e-5 total Mass oscillation time gained in 453.6 miles due to the Asymmetry time of the Weak Force gained exposing the Two Arrows of Space required to create the Arrow of Time.

In confirming CERN's findings the calculations using SLAC E158's data I have revealed an expected lesser diesis of .20e-5 to clearly expose an Initial (true) Inertial Frame of reference by exposing the asymmetry occurring in Timespace relative to the Two Arrows of Space showing Space has a set direction relative to Time which I believe Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow will both agree on after they examine my findings and take the time to take E=m+{a}c2 into account.

We are witnessing the next step in physics created by including the weight of the Observer and the correct Cosmological Constant to the Universe which is a huge step to take but a sorely needed one in all fields of science.

So let me ask: If CERN's findings are incorrect then how can anyone possibly explain the mathematical fact that v-c/c=2.48e-5 = SLAC E158's Weak Force Asymmetry value of 2.48e-5 + a lesser diesis of .20e-5 ?

I want to point out that my use of the term lesser diesisÂť and greater diesisÂť I borrowed from music theory and the commonly applied ratio used in music theory has no relationship to its term use in physics in relationship to the Weak Force. The same applies to the term commaÂť which is the same concept as the diesis without distinction until named hence Einstein's Comma named after the Great Professor in reference to the lesser diesis.

In physics the term use of the lesser diesis references the 3.6 seconds gained per year past the speed of light in the Mass oscillation cycle of the Weak Force. The greater diesis references the entire Mass oscillation cycle, quite a stretch from its musical counterpart.

In Greek diesis means leak or escape. The Asymmetry of the Weak Force is the time it takes to transfer time/energy into the Strong Force. So the name is well suited and shows just how far music theory goes to support physics because that is what music theory is and it requires an Observer in Instance to listen. This part is not new science: it is old science that has been ignored by most in the field, but cannot be ignored anymore if we are to accept the reality of physics and Life, our DNA connected to it, and the Gene Ensemble and Instance Summery location wheel that gives us a map based on time that mirrors the mechanical concept of the New Circle of Fifths created in working on it. How this got past the Great Professor who played the violin shows how easy it is to become compliant and not pay attention to what is right in front of us.

E=m+{a}c2 does not rewrite the laws of Einstein's Special and General Relativity, it adds a needed correction to the theory in the form of a new Cosmological Constant needed to deal with the accelerated expansion of Space now observed to explain Dark Energy. It's reverses the symmetry of time.

Well, I think that is enough for now. Just remember:
v-c/c=2.48e-5 = SLAC E158 2.48e-5 +.20e-5 lesser diesis = Verification

My Best Regards to All,
John F. Hendry^^
_________________
Think Peace...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SanderXpander
Platinum Member


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 7860

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A little too much math and wild philosophy, and too little actual scientific physics, for my tastes. I would sooner dig into the measurement process than conclude universe-shifting paradigms.
But I suppose they said the same about Einstein at some point, so it's all good Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aciphecs
Platinum Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2010
Posts: 558
Location: Biblical Proportion, Michigan

PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:25 am    Post subject: Re: Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow Claim CERN Wrong Reply with quote

John Hendry wrote:
Well, I think that is enough for now. Just remember:
v-c/c=2.48e-5 = SLAC E158 2.48e-5 +.20e-5 lesser diesis = Verification


Got it! If I remember one thing today, it'll be this Wink
_________________
BP Soundcloud Page

BP Facebook Page

BP Youtube Channel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John Hendry
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 423
Location: America

PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:01 am    Post subject: Measurements rule..... Reply with quote

Hay SanderX,

If you look you will see there is absolutely no philosophy involved and this is strictly a process of two measurements being compared. Measurements obtained by the best "actual scientific physics" known to man.

And the math is not nothing, it's using a calculator (Win 7's) to reduce an hour gained in 1000 years into the time gained in 453.6 miles.....at the speed of light.

Notice I am showing the weak force creates the speed of light and they did not notice that, and said "if you did the experiment with clocks". LOL That is an awfully funny thing to say about the time coming out of a clock because it has a pendulum caused by Mass in oscillation. SLAC E158's team did not say "here is the speed of light being created". I said that and because CERN came along and gave me a straight line of the simplest possible measurement with the asymmetry value added to it I was able to prove it using no real math skills at all.....I just knew what to do, how to do it, and what to look for. This is cool past belief as odds of this happening are so remote.

And it does a lot more than just show the Weak Force creates the speed of light. I just proved the Unified Field Theory equation is correct (it showed me there had to be a comma due to an asymmetry) and a lot, lot, more to a physicist because it created a diesis or comma (just like in music) and this miracle proves there is a true inertial frame of reference which is the most important thing in physics to be acknowledged right now because it creates a reference to measure from.

If you look at Nature's forum where I posted it you will see my posts stopped the rebuttals to CERN's finding and if you Google SLAC E158 you will see it's off the hook with over 98 full pages on it. I watched as the Google pages on it went up each day from 2 or 3 entries with other things using E158. Kind of spooky since no one has said anything. I'm sure they are waiting to say "look what I discovered!" themselves. But they'll never understand it well enough to carry the ball very far or they would have seen this too and said something immediately as it was obvious.

John^^
_________________
Think Peace...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SanderXpander
Platinum Member


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 7860

PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you said you base your entire understanding of physics (and thus UFT) on music theory? That sounds like wild philosophy to me.
You used math (complicated or not) to "prove" your conclusion. That is not science. Scientific would be to try and disprove their findings by setting up your own measurement process and running a series of experiments specifically targeted to their observed effect. Alternatively, you could scrutinize their measurement process (rather than the results) - you would almost have to, since their results go against our understanding of physics up to this point. Choosing between measurement error or universe-shifting paradigms... Which seems more likely to you?
In fact, these exact arguments have been made by most people on those Nature forums. Them not replying to your revolutionary, but sadly somewhat off-the-hook mathematical wizardry doesn't mean that they agree with you, just that they don't consider it worth arguing about.

But like I said, this is the same stuff Einstein experienced with his famous formula. So you could be the world's next great mind, and one-up us all. I'd still try to hedge my bets, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John Hendry
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 423
Location: America

PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you said you base your entire understanding of physics (and thus UFT) on music theory?

JFH^^OK, I never said that...ever. I said they were exactly the same where the physics was applicable but music theory goes way past my current understanding and I would never say something like that. ^^

That sounds like wild philosophy to me. JFH^^It's a good thing I didn't say it then.^^

You used math (complicated or not) to "prove" your conclusion. That is not science. Scientific would be to try and disprove their findings by setting up your own measurement process and running a series of experiments specifically targeted to their observed effect. Alternatively, you could scrutinize their measurement process (rather than the results) - you would almost have to, since their results go against our understanding of physics up to this point. Choosing between measurement error or universe-shifting paradigms... Which seems more likely to you?

JFH^^ Universe-shifting paradigms. You said I used math to prove my conclusions. This is absolutely true and I used CERN and SLAC's E158 data that when PUT TOGETHER show they are as solid as any known to man and I trust the math more than your or anyone else's opinion when it is as simple and obvious as the math I posted. Putting it all together like that confirms far more than I stated BTW.^^

In fact, these exact arguments have been made by most people on those Nature forums. Them not replying to your revolutionary, but sadly somewhat off-the-hook mathematical wizardry doesn't mean that they agree with you, just that they don't consider it worth arguing about.

JFH^^There's only one Nature forum where scientists that worked for CERN and others post and there was a lot of that due to the claim made but you need to go back and read what I said because I said they stopped challenging CERN's finding all of a sudden, not my posts. The only replies to my posts are agreement and compliments. I took a 1000 yr value and broke it down into the time slot of 453.6 miles at the speed of light and it fit. This is the kind of thing that gets people's attention. It changes physics just like they said it would if CERN's findings turned out to be real and they did based on SLAC's E158 data. Do the math and see for yourself. If not I am sure by now a few have so chill out I'm not Einstein but I know who I am and what Mass is.

John^^
_________________
Think Peace...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SanderXpander
Platinum Member


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 7860

PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John Hendry wrote:
If you asked me what Physicist I would say could understand my work to grab its core of understanding, that is 100% music theory based I might add, on Weak Force Asymmetry I would say very few but some would and blablabla

Sorry if I was supposed to take this any other way, but I read it to mean that you based your core of understanding of these physics 100 percent on music theory. Seems pretty out there to me.

And again, calculating something out of the data does not mean you're doing any science.

I'm not a physicist by the way, I'm just a little neurotic about bogus scientists with outrageous claims. Perhaps you're not in that group. But somehow, if you were honestly so brilliant a scientist and so serious about this work, it seems to me you'd have no time or interest in writing even one of these long-@$$ posts on Korg Forums (of all places).

But I suppose I'll remain the relativist for now - I could be way off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korg Forums Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group