The Alternative Science Physics Forum
New Alternative Theories Physics...
>"S. Enterprize Company" wrote:
>>
>> "The Most Significant Aspect Of The Smart Model" is that it was made
>> originally with no starting reference. In other words, from ((nothing)) at
>all,
>> it was then conceived to be ((something)) using a logical scientific
>structure
>> that explained atomic, sub-atomic etc... , structures that interact
>together to
>> form the universe you see right now.
>> The most significant aspect of the Smart Model is ((something)) made
>from
>> ((nothing)) to start with. The is the definition of creation in it's
>founding
>> form. In this form this universe remains pure and peaceful without someone
>> claiming it to be there own. Why? Because where did nothing come from? I
>> started the Smart Model from nothing to something. But nothing was already
>> there. Nothing is free for all in it's original form so it isn't
>individually
>> claimed by anyone. It is free. It is pure. You don't have to worry about
>> someone over you saying you can't do this or that because it is owned. It
>is
>> not owned and it stays that way. It is something shared. It is not claimed.
>By
>> observing it this way, we can remain at peace together in the universal
>fields
>> without war trying to claim it. This universe was made originally to be
>shared
>> by all freely. But as we observe this planet we see that humans fight over
>> territory, land, money and so on. This is caused by over population. Over
>> population causes the "have's vs the havenot's". So those that have, people
>> that have not want to fight to be able to have.
>> If we could reach the stars with new types of spaceships, this over
>> population wouldn't be there. This is plenty enough planets to go around
>for
>> everone. Just think you could have your own planet and be you own "adam and
>> eve" starter planet.
>> Going back to something from nothing discussion and showing that it is
>a
>> foundation of creation, we can observe that as I speak, it had to have been
>> already spoken by someone else before me, because we see things in the
>universe
>> already here, and we begin to discover what is already here. So I can't
>claim
>> anything or ownership in this universe. I can only say I saw it logically
>and
>> wrote down what I saw. This is where The Creator comes in. The Creator is
>the
>> First. The Creator is the Last. You then may say, where did The Creator
>come
>> from? We could say that He came from Himself as He created. The more He
>created
>> the more He was revealed to be a unique self-willed existence. The Creator
>> creates. The Creation points to The Creator. Is The Creator God? As far as
>we
>> are concerned He is. How did the Creator begin creating? There is no
>starting
>> point. It started from nothing. Then something occured. Just as I showed
>you
>> with the starting of The Smart Model. Where did the Smart Model come from?
>It
>> started from nothing. But it was not the first to start. Why? Because as we
>> observe the universe we exist in, this universe is ALREADY here. If this
>> universe wasn't ALREADY here, then you could say well maybe he started it
>or
>> they started it. So, this leaves only one starting point, The Creator, He
>> started it.
>> Am I being religious? No. I'm just making a logical deduction of where
>> this universe had to have come from. Is The Creator found in the bible?
>Yes. So
>> we can at least look at the bible as a historical correct record without
>the
>> use of religion.
>>
>> S. Enterprize Co. (Membership)
>> http://www.s-enterprize.com/
>> S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
>> http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
>
>"Nothing existed" means "No things existed". Had this ever been the
>case, then it would still be the case and forever be the case for lack
>(by definition) of a 'thing' called a mechanism of change.
Zero exists we use it in math everyday. Zero and nothing are the same. But,
zero in the absolute sense, doens't exist in reality.
approach 0 = .00000000000000--> infinitely small
We can have many new beginnings that start with nothing. But to start from
the absoluteness of nothing, I don't think ever existed. So when I say
something from nothing, I mean a relative new beginning.
>
>Back to the drawing board Smart.
My drawing board stays the same.
>
>--
>Richard Perry
>http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
>
S. Enterprize Co. (Membership)
http://www.s-enterprize.com/
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
Subject: Re: The Most Significant Aspect Of The Smart Model
Path: lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 114
X-Admin: news@aol.com
From: smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 16 Mar 2003 06:27:36 GMT
References: <3E735553.A15DCE12@yahoo.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Message-ID: <20030316012736.27138.00000070@mb-mv.aol.com>
Hello, This theory sounds as good as it gets in our new field stratagy.The harmonics and frequency propagations and reference points are answers or at least new questions in the right direction.I am working on the Idea that thermodynamic or pressure differences in the frequencies are cause for memory and transmision effects.The neverending source of energy for the unified fields must be on the level of twistors.Nothing to O is a long jump.
So, how does the Smart Model explain the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment?
"2. Right Experiment, Wrong Theory: The Stern-Gerlach Experiment[12]
The Stern-Gerlach experiment was regarded as crucial at the time it was performed, but, in fact, wasn't. In the view of the physics community it decided the issue between two theories, refuting one and supporting the other. In the light of later work, however, the refutation stood, but the confirmation was questionable. In fact, the experimental result posed problems for the theory it had seemingly confirmed. A new theory was proposed and although the Stern-Gerlach result initially also posed problems for the new theory, after a modification of that new theory, the result confirmed it. In a sense, it was crucial after all. It just took some time.
The Stern-Gerlach experiment provides evidence for the existence of electron spin. These experimental results were first published in 1922, although the idea of electron spin wasn't proposed by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck until 1925 (1925; 1926). One might say that electron spin was discovered before it was invented. (For details of this episode see Appendix 5)."
By observing the analogous fields in the universe at the micro and macro level we can observe that spin does occur in each levels observed. For example the sun spins, the planets spin, they spin and have orbital spin. The solar system spins, it spins in orbit around a spinning galaxy and so on.
There is a unification of fields at each level of the universe, whether it is small or large. The smart Model points out theoretically that spin is necessary and can also be accounted for in the energy relations found at the atomic level. Simple rotational energy equations can be used to make comparisons of the proton rest energy relative to this spin. It can also show this to be true using the electrons.
Uusally the Standard Model uses ssomething that really isn't spin but a static type form of spin frozen in time. Like for example, quantum 1/2 spin, or 1 spin and so on... .
(Basic energy relations using true proton spin)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ProtonAtRestV1a.jpg
(Basic energy relations using true spin analysis of the electron with experimental results.
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ElectronEnergyChange.jpg
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/ElectronAccelerated.jpg
Also see references of topics also found at my Website about electron spin.
http://www.home.zonnet.nl/microvita/articles/superluminal.pdf
Various internal and external theoretical structures animations are also shown at my Website.
http://members.aol.com/smart1234/SmartPage1.htm
Fusion analysis was also shown to be predictable and "designable" using the Smart Model and so has real atomic images been predicted accurately using the Smart Model.
