Dear David,

I think you have replied in a nice and balanced way and I look forward to
end as friends in this issue.

Yes, I did spray my thoughts around as I have been a bit frustrated on
getting older and older without being able to come to grips with things
which are close to my heart. [astrophysics etc.]

Life has taken me through Electrical,Electronic & Computer Engineering in
the Air Force, Corporate and Institutions not allowing much time to my
passion.

Yet, my confidence is sky-high as to my own ability to analyze and
synthesize.

If only I could have a few hours of detached total concentration and a
providential drop of an apple on my head setting off my thoughts!
Sometimes [in bathroom tubs] such situations do develop.

I would like to be a crank or nut in the Archimedes mould rather than an
unsung Philosopher, though it will be presumptuous to preempt candidature to
such status at my current level of achievement. Prof. Hawking is an
astounding inspiration to me when I think of the disadvantages he has
overcome to achieve what he has done. It proves no one should give any kind
of excuse for not achieving his goals with God-given Time on Earth and
Faculties.

A quantum tempo can be added in such pursuits with an environmental setup to
experiment [particles and space views]

Otherwise only hobbies such as 'Duplicate Bridge' will continue to eat up my
time.

Thomas Walker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"dlzc" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1157563007.977898.153820@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Thomas Walker:
>
> Thomas Walker wrote:
> > Dear David,
> >
> > I agree ; it reminds me of the Biblical saying 'casting
> > pearls in front of ......'
>
> You can say swine, it is not a dirty word, and no one here will be
> particularly insulted, considering the clientelle that comes here.
>
> > I still wonder whether you read my proof which is
> > posted in the site.
>
> Why?  I also wrote to Prof Hawking, to ask questions about his book.  I
> was an idiot, and largely still am.  I sometimes think that I can "fix"
> people, which is clearly not possible.
>
> > Someone calls me presumptuous but you tell me he is
> > kind to me and I am rude.
> > You call me a crank and you think you are not rude.
>
> R. Buckminster Fuller was considered a crank.  He died rich and
> respected.  Many of Nicolai Tesla's ideas are considered "cranky", yet
> almost every country in the world uses his inventions everyday in every
> home that has AC power.
>
> There may be 1000 cranks that have changed history.  There are millions
> of cranks that only serve to twist each other's nipples, and anything
> else they can get their hands on.
>
> To misquote Feynman:  "They laughed at Einstein, but they laughed at
> Bozo the Clown too."
>
> > Listen, when I untangle the truth about 'matter' and
> > 'Energy' amidst all this current confusion, I'll publish
> > it if needed.
>
> OK.  Make sure you can make a quantifiable prediction that hasn't
> already been covered more succinctly.  Then it is Science.  Otherwise
> "Truth" is unobtainable to Science and lies in the realm of
> "Philosophy", so shouldn't be posted here.
>
> > This Equation of mine can be at the most
> > considered a beautiful arithmetic equation and I
> > myself do not consider it as any breakthrough.
> > But, I have every right to claim what I found as my
> > own particularly as I have derived it and proved it.
>
> Doesn't mean it hasn't been "invented" before, so your claim is simply
> that, an empty claim.  I can claim that spacetime is produced by matter
> and energy.  Doesn't mean I said it first, doesn't mean it is right,
> and doesn't provide any means to quantify it (within my skills of
> formulation and resolution).
>
> > Your warning about not posting ideas / innovations
> > in this open forum is well taken by me and I
> > appreciate your suggestion.  I took a risk in spraying
> > my ideas because of my own general approach in
> > such matters as I believe in sharing of ldeas with the
> > underlying confidence that if I am good at something
> > sufficiently, I'll certainly reach milestones and goals
> > and no one can take it away from me.
>
> They will be personal milestones and personal goals.  We don't really
> need to hear about this, until you can make a quantifiable prediction
> that works where other theories cannot/do not.
>
> > I really don't know what you are in this 'groups' and
> > you seem to be someone in-charge or something.
>
> No.  These groups are unmoderated.  They have rules of use, and
> violating the rules can get one reported to their ISP.  You have
> violated no rules here.
>
> > I have nothing against you, but I'll not tolerate being
> > called names etc. next time
>
> You will not like this place.  This place is like the Old West, and
> name calling is the least of your worries.  When you go public, you
> will potentially be confronted with your own ignorance, and the
> confronter is under no compulsion to be "nice".
>
> Ignorance is not a vice.  Ignorance is simply blank pages in a personal
> diary.
>
> As far as Mr. Davidson's remarks:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.weemba/msg/cae0052cc23ab2dd
> ... down to Corporate Lesson #5.  Mr. Davidson is *not* the cat, nor is
> he the bird.  You could study the search term he provided to fill in
> some pages in your personal diary.
>
> David A. Smith
--------------------------------------
A summary of what has so far trnspired following my email to Prof. Hawking :
from the latest backward
Dear David,

I agree ; it reminds me of the Biblical saying 'casting pearls in front of
......'
I still wonder whether you read my proof which is posted in the site.

Someone calls me presumptuous but you tell me he is kind to me and I am
rude.
You call me a crank and you think you are not rude.

Listen, when I untangle the truth about 'matter' and 'Energy' amidst all
this current confusion, I'll publish it if needed.
This Equation of mine can be at the most considered a beautiful arithmetic
equation and I myself do not consider it as any breakthrough.
But, I have every right to claim what I found as my own particularly as I
have derived it and proved it.

Your warning about not posting ideas / innovations in this open forum is
well taken by me and I appreciate your suggestion.
I took a risk in spraying my ideas because of my own general approach in
such matters as I believe in sharing of ldeas with the underlying confidence
that if I am good at something sufficiently, I'll certainly reach milestones
and goals and no one can take it away from me.

I really don't know what you are in this 'groups' and you seem to be someone
in-charge or something.

I have nothing against you, but I'll not tolerate being called names etc.
next time

Best regards
Thomas
----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Thomas Walker:

"Thomas Walker" <wincowalker@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44fe924e$0$19719$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
> news:1156974446.384070.293620@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> Wg Cdr Thomas Walker wrote:
>>
>> > In maths I did find an equation 'Walker's Equation' as given
>> > in
>> > http://www.wincowalker.com/
>>
>> Google "zeta function"
>>
>> Zeta(p) = 1 + 1/2^p + 1/3^p + 1/4^p + ...
>>
>> Your "Walker equation" is simply saying
>>
>> 1 = sum[p = 2,inf](Zeta(p) - 1)
>>
>> The following relation may be of some interest:
>>
>> Zeta(p+1) = 1/2[1 + Zeta(p)]
>>
>> Taking your little algebraic relation to Stephen Hawking is as
>> conceited and presumptive as going to a neurosurgeon about
>> an itch.  The teaching assistant for any college algebra
>> class is more likely to have the time to help you, and is just
>> as well equipped as Prof. Hawking to respond informatively
>> to your message.
>>
>> There is NO physics content in your algebra.

> Quite surprisingly this kind of replies I am getting from many.

This should be a hint that perhaps you are treading ground that
is already well understood.

> Have I used zeta function = No
> Then what is being said.
>
> See my proof which is given and then talk

This is what a crank says.  He drops names.  He refuses to
consider anything other than what he wrote.  He expects the whole
world (or only important people) to come to his door, hat in
hand.

> 1=1 is known to everyone, not to you alone
>
> No one has taken this to Prof. Hawking, it was only
> mentioned in the personal email.

I have moved your response to the end of the thread.  It is
considered rude to top post.  It also makes what you say
difficult to relate a response to the statements/questions that
triggered it.

If you feel you have made a breakthrough, publish it in a peer
reviewed journal.  These are unmoderated newsgroups.  Anything
you post here goes into public domain, and you potentially lose
control over them.

Mr. Davidson was being as kind as he could be, under the
circumstances.

David A. Smith
------------------------------------------------------------
Quite surprisingly this kind of replies I am getting from many.

Have I used zeta function = No
Then what is being said.

See my proof which is given and then talk

1=1 is known to everyone, not to you alone

No one has taken this to Prof. Hawking, it was only mentioned in the
personal email.
-------------------------------------------------------
Wg Cdr Thomas Walker wrote:

> In maths I did find an equation 'Walker's Equation' as given in
> http://www.wincowalker.com/

Google "zeta function"

Zeta(p) = 1 + 1/2^p + 1/3^p + 1/4^p + ...

Your "Walker equation" is simply saying

1 = sum[p = 2,inf](Zeta(p) - 1)

The following relation may be of some interest:

Zeta(p+1) = 1/2[1 + Zeta(p)]

Taking your little algebraic relation to Stephen Hawking is as
conceited and presumptive as going to a neurosurgeon about an itch.
The teaching assistant for any college algebra class is more likely to
have the time to help you, and is just as well equipped as Prof.
Hawking to respond informatively to your message.

There is NO physics content in your algebra.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Prof. Sergey,

Thank you very much for your response.

Yes, indeed I was thrilled and satisfied when I stumbled upon the beautiful
relation between 1 and all possible elements of rational numbers in 1998. I
understand it could have some unique application in 'signal processing' with
the tools of matrix added.

Also, the 'paradox on color' I mentioned is imprinted in my mind from
college days though the practcal application of this truth may be nothing.

I realised of late, that I must take the bull by horn on issues like
understanding of 'gravity' 'our universe' etc. as the number of years left
in my own life may be insufficient unless I work hard and fast.
So far, I humbly submit I have a long way to go in Physics to reach the
sublime understanding.
Of course I am a great admirer of people like
Euclid,Archimedes,Galeleo,Kepler,Newton,Einstein etc. and what they have
achieved.
Sometimes, instead of blindly accepting the concepts propunded by them I
would like to act as a typical 'doubting Thomas' which is the hallmark of my
approach.
Whether it is the need of ether, or the 'inability for force to act at a
distance' or the speed limit matter can reach, curvature of space, Existence
of Blackhole or understanding and interpreting Michelson Morley experiment
or Hubble's findings or 'lorentz transformation' [even] I don't want to make
any assumptions to reach a result or jump into any conclusions of expanding
universe or big bang or 11 dimensional string theory etc.
I would like to have my take by assimilating and understanding everything
[observations,measurements and their interpretation,every step in the
mathematical simulations and derivations and conclusions]

My dream is to have a unified understanding of
matter[atoms,molecules,particles,quantum mech,effect of force[weak &
strong],solids,liquids,gases,heavenly bodies forming entire universe] and
its relationship with unified Energy spectrum [heat,EM,Mechanical ,nuclear
or any other] during the lapse of Time [past,current and
future,relative,cyclic,repetitive] in the face of Actions
[Experimental,Automatic,Cause or Effect way,Natural,cosmic etc.]

Thank you for forwarding useful links and materials which I will study in
depth and get back to you.

Sometimes, I read to understand every point of view ; Occasionally one needs
to work out the problems afresh to avoid bias setting in.

I had a feeling that Prof. Hawking was the currently best scientist as far
as cosmic theory goes, so I thought of associating with him.

Opportunities in the sense : I would like to set up experiments such as 'a
set of light weight gears arranged in sequence with say 1:10 or 1:100 teeth
ratio to increase the speed of rotation of the last gear in the sequence to
achieve a periferal speed of the 'speed of light' etc.

with warm regards
Thomas Walker
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Professor Walker,

Congratulations! The mathematical solution that you have found is beautiful,
of course. But it relates rather to the theory of numbers than to physics
that is my occupation. In physics the problems are some other, and more
complicated than those which you describe. It is impossible to join the
relativity theory and its corollaries like black holes, big bang,
closed-loop universe ? with the mathematical and physical logic, as
Relativity is based on the distortion of modelling in the very its
underpinning. As far as I could understand from your post, you are applying
to Dr Hawking, suggesting, on one hand, some mixture of their understanding
with the understanding inadmissible for them, and on the other hand you are
seeking from them an opportunity to experiment. Nothing of surprise that
Hawking did not reply. The more that he knows our paper on black holes

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#blackhole

in which we showed not only that black holes are basically impossible but
that Hawking?s computations are incorrect. So he is sits tousy and pensive
and needs already not the corroboration of black holes but the way out.

Though, truly, having read your physical declaration, I also would not reply
you, if not your reference to an interesting mathematical solution. I can
say in response, before experimenting, one has to resolve in physics several
basic problems, and very complicated problems. With account of your
mathematical ability, I would suggest you to read attentively the basic
paper by Schwarzschild ?On gravity field of point mass in the Einsteinian
theory? (Schwarzschild K., Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Akad., 1916, S. 189) and to
pay attention that in the final expression (14) that describes
Schwarzschild?s metrics he did not do the reverse passing to the initial
coordinates which he had to. If one does this operation, the whole BH theory
dies without a sigh. Furthermore, the BH theory is much based on the idea of
collapse of the dust sphere which is unphysical. In our paper on entropy

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v6_1/entropy/p23/p23.html

we have mathematically described the real processes which take place there.
Nothing to say of any collapse. Mere geometrisation of general relativity
disregards the thermodynamic balance of action and counter-action that takes
place in compression. Of course, this is far from being all what I would
have to point. But if you really want to undertake physics, kindly analyse
these aspects.

Best to you,

Sergey Karavashkin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,

     Why in the world did you expect to receive a personal reply from
Stephen Hawking? You are aware, aren't you, that Hawking suffers from motor
neuron disease? It takes the guy a half hour just to program his voice
synthesizer to say, "Would you prefer cream or sugar with your tea?"

     How long do you suppose it would take for him to compose personal
letters to everyone who wants him to read their theories? Even people who
are in perfect health haven't enough time in their short lives to handle
such a volume of correspondence. Stephen Hawking is a very, very busy
person.

-Mark Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From i  [anonymous reply]
>AFAIK, due to te nature of vision processing in primates, color
> perception is highly subjective. Each person will perceive a given wave
> legth in a different way. Even the eyes of a same person can produce
> different perceptions.
The norm sees the same colors.
Methinks you might be considering the many ways the human eye can be
tricked, where colors appear to be different depending upon juxtapositions
with other colors. That's not idiosyncratic. It is testable and repeatable.
In addition, the human eye has some strange discontinuity so that certain
colors can be made by mixing entirely different primary colors.

You might enjoy reading Margaret Livingston's "Vision and Art: the Biology
of Seeing", and for strictly hands-on practical experience try some of
Joseph Albers' exercises.
-----------------------------------------------------------
asaguiar wrote:
> > What makes the color constant between viewers and equivalent to all is
its
> > frequency [EM wave] which remains same for a particular color.
> > Thomas
> > "j" <whomever@wherever.es> wrote in message
> > > Unless one has an abnormality, we really do see the same RED, or any
other
> > > primary color. It's  hardwired.
>
> AFAIK, due to te nature of vision processing in primates, color
> perception is highly subjective. Each person will perceive a given wave
> legth in a different way. Even the eyes of a same person can produce
> different perceptions.
> However, I know of a research (no longer have the paper or the
> reference) in which physiological parameters of neonates changed with
> exposure to a red object. Red perception may be hardwired.
>
> Alexandre

The chemicals in the retinal nerve endings which absorb light,
stimulating the optic nerve (or not, depending on quantum mechanics)
are the same for all primates (save a few well characterized cases of
genetic differences in the production of those chemicals).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/colviscon.html#c1
is an informative keystone page with links to a lit of fascinating
detail about color vision.

The absorbtion spectra of those chemicals are the same regardless of
the source of the chemical (your retinae or mine).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/colcon.html#c1

Google "tristimulus values"

The traditional sophistry that perceptions are highly idiosyncratic
ignores the vast body of data regarding sensory percepption amassed by
clinicians in a strained effort to support an untenable philosophical
position.

Unless, like my two brothers, one has defective color vision, my pink
is your pink and is perceived that way.  {They have 'red-green color
defect' vision, and perceive a color they call 'pinkish green' because
they cannot readily distinguish pink from green.] Granted this variance
from the generalization, we all perceive light of the same wavelength
under the same conditions in the same way.

Philosophically, a shared reality is consistent with the data and is
unimaginably more parsimonious than allowing for unique "realities" for
all beings capable of even the most limited perception.

As an empiricist, I have to go with the most parsimonious hypothesis
that gives consistent and repeatible results.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
----------------------------------------------------------
> What makes the color constant between viewers and equivalent to all is its
> frequency [EM wave] which remains same for a particular color.
> Thomas
> "j" <whomever@wherever.es> wrote in message
> > Unless one has an abnormality, we really do see the same RED, or any
other
> > primary color. It's  hardwired.

AFAIK, due to te nature of vision processing in primates, color
perception is highly subjective. Each person will perceive a given wave
legth in a different way. Even the eyes of a same person can produce
different perceptions.
However, I know of a research (no longer have the paper or the
reference) in which physiological parameters of neonates changed with
exposure to a red object. Red perception may be hardwired.

Alexandre
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Simply put : wyswyg : What you see is what you get
So, What you see no one else can see or have the equivalent stimulation.
What makes the color constant between viewers and equivalent to all is its
frequency [EM wave] which remains same for a particular color.
Thomas
------------------------------------------------------------
From i  [anonymous reply]
"Wg Cdr Thomas Walker" <wincowalker@gmail.com> wrote

> Even when I was in college 40 years ago, I thought about the following
> paradox. The color we see from objects around us comes from perception
> from
> our own eye triggered probably by the frequency of the light. I might see
> a
> color say 'red' only as I might perceive which could be quite different
> from
> what another perceives or say what a dog or other animal sees as.
> Even if somebody sees red the same way as I might see 'green' both will
> point to that object and say that it is red. For each would have been told
> from childhood that it is 'red' and it doesn't matter what hue it creates
> inside the eye. May be the preference of color occurs due to this.

Unless one has an abnormality, we really do see the same RED, or any other
primary color. It's  hardwired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Posting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Hi, I sent the following email to Prof. Hawking,but got only an automated
reply.
Would like to share with others too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
**Automatic Reply**

Your email regarding "My interest in Physics" has been received.

Professor Hawking very much regrets that due to the severe limitations he
works under, and the huge amount of mail he receives, he may not have time
to write you a reply.  All e-mail is read.  We do not have the facilities
in to deal with the specific scientific enquiries, or theories we receive.

Please see the website http://www.hawking.org.uk for more information
about Professor Hawking, his life and his work.

Yours faithfully

David Pond

Graduate Assistant to
Professor S W Hawking CH CBE FRS

Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics,
University of Cambridge,
Cambridge,
CB3 0WA.
United Kingdom.

http://www.hawking.org.uk
Hi Prof. Stephen Hawking,

I have been wanting to contact you for sometime.

I have a lot of interest in physics which has attracted me most from
childhood. However, I became an electrical engineer, then a software
professional and had a career in the Indian Air Force and then at the
Central research Laboratory, Bharat electronics Bangalore etc.

My strength has been my ability to analyze and I am looking for still the
solutions that may exist for the Mysteries of the Universe.

I would like to discuss with you and seek to further my knowledge/clear
doubts if possible and if it is OK with you.

I am of course an amateur as far as Physics is concerned though my ideas may
be radical and following an unbending logic.

In maths I did find an equation 'Walker's Equation' as given in
http://www.wincowalker.com/

In short I believe : The solution to what's matter is not found or
adequately explained.
My Ideas :
It is ridiculous to think of Big Bang with the whole universe as  'one
point' as the start of the universe. Why should there be any start at all.
And why anticipate an end? When even the number of 'rational numbers' are
countless why can't the universe be endless. We have solar system and
similar systems,Galaxies and similar galaxies and may as well have our
universe and similar universes even if each one came from some big bang.
I do agree that I may not be able to follow an euclidian straight line as
the straightness may not be possible to physically create, but still I dont
see an end to the theoretical 'straight line' which will always be endless.
If something is limitting it what is beyond this limit. Therefore I don't
agree that space may have an end or limit.

The matter and universe is likely to have a 'steady state' behaviour of
matter creation and transformation and energy matter conversions.
In a radical way, I seem to think that at the heart of any bit of matter has
to be an equivalent of a 'Black Hole' because the gravitational attraction
being proportional to the inverse square of the distance, and therefore
infinite when the distance is zero and no matter can escape this attraction.
Only a nuclear force can break this and convert the entire mass into energy.
I need to find this unifying way of explaining this phenomena of Matter.

Another paradox :
Even when I was in college 40 years ago, I thought about the following
paradox. The color we see from objects around us comes from perception from
our own eye triggered probably by the frequency of the light. I might see a
color say 'red' only as I might perceive which could be quite different from
what another perceives or say what a dog or other animal sees as.
Even if somebody sees red the same way as I might see 'green' both will
point to that object and say that it is red. For each would have been told
from childhood that it is 'red' and it doesn't matter what hue it creates
inside the eye. May be the preference of color occurs due to this.

I have similarly lot of ideas on various things and would like to experiment
on all these until the last of my life. I need opportunities.

with best regards

Thomas Walker
--------------------------------------------------- 




-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com