Einstein Used His Mind To Visualize Mathematically

“….. forget “bosons”, mass is “illusion”…..”

“… Einstein used his MIND to VISUALIZE mathematically, much more accurate than chucking rocks at pebbles to see where they bounce to on an irregular surface, quantum physics is just the prop of inaccurate minds”

CERN Celebrates As Higgs Signal Reaches Significance

Particle physicists have settled on a specific measure of significance called five sigma (or five standard deviations) before they’re willing to accept that we’ve spotted a new particle. When the LHC wrapped up last year, its detectors both saw a signal near 125GeV that reached nearly three sigma—tantalizing, but not enough to claim discovery. At the time, CERN’s director basically said “wait until next year,” when the hardware would gather far more collisions, enough to provide a greater degree of statistical certainty. To make sure that next year was worth waiting for, the LHC operators planned on running the machine both with a high number of proton bunches (which increases the total number of collisions) and at a slightly higher energy (which increases the probability that a collision will produce a heavy particle).

“…..if your “measurements” suggest it’s a TINY mass, that is only because you aren’t measuring the mass of the particle, just the external edges of its gravitational field (that inverse square law of gravity again), ie, the outside of it’s “event horizon” (that “decay” thing again, energies released by dissintegration of matter, just as at/within the “spagettification” zone of ANY singularity) really, do the math”

Billie:

uh,ALL “matter”, including sub-atomic, near lightspeed nears infinite mass, also nears zero-“time”(relative to observer of course) and the inverse square law of gravity applies, if this not taken into account you’l get anomolies such as (eg) neutrinos nearing infinite mass at near lightspeed appearing to travel faster than light, as their gravity field folds space/time around them not only in EVERY “direction, but (duh) in the linear as well, like shrinking a piece of string towards its gravitational center, i’d surmise that with mass being just energy anyway, that near infinite mass would be all the “force carrying particle” you’ld need

forget “bosons”, mass is “illusion” caused by the only existing “instantaneous particle/wave” intersecting with itself from different “directions” (in both “space”&”time/places in space”), where it’s beside itself in same “time” it creates illusion of mass, where “in front/behind (etc)” itself in “time” it gives illusion of continuity, as it “fills in” Einsteinien Space/Time multiverse it is like a “tachyon”(for want of better name) soup/drop of mist in a cloud of mist, where it “splashes” into its own soup it slows from instantaneous velocity to below lightspeed, exchanging velocity/momentum for “mass”&”light boom” (think sonic boom, but “colourful” Rainbow Bridge )

As it slows down through intersections with itself as it constantly splashes into its own “soup” it eventually reaches zero velocity at “TRUE singularity” zero size/infinite mass and becomes too”heavy” for below lightspeed space/time to contain, thus “falling” back out of Einstein’s realm as fabric can no longer “support its weight/infinite mass at zero volume/size”and re-exchanging infinite mass for instantaneous velocity at zero “volume”, inverse square law of gravity still applies (like how neutrinos appear “faster than light”) though all they really do is contract “space” around them as they near light speed (&hence infinite mass) relative TO their near infinitely small “area/volume of gravitational effect from their center thus “shortening” distance they travel and seeming to get places before they should be able to (ALL “matter” nearing infinite mass as approaching lightspeed, even sub-atomic matter

anyway, heaps more, but that’s basic gist, that and that “tachyon” is actually more “wave-like” and “thickens” harmonically as crosses own path below lightspeed “droplet multiverse” in “cloud of multiverses”, njoi, mange tak,

“quantum physics” pshaw, is side effect of trying to physically measure tiny bits with other tiny bits (eg,electron microscope, or even radio waves) ie, ANY momentum collision affects deflection, and y’all just don’t have accurate enough tools to NOT deflect “wrongly relative to postulated”, eg, “ug have rock, ug brain surgeon”, or, like a poor pool player,”the cue’s bent, there’s a speck of dust on the table, not enough chalk on the tip” etc. Einstein used his MIND to VISUALIZE mathematically, much more accurate than chucking rocks at pebbles to see where they bounce to on an irregular surface, quantum physics is just the prop of inaccurate minds.

really see nothing in the “decay” factors that aren’t simply the result of matter approaching the gravity field range of a singularity, ie, more noticeable when you check exo-sphere of “black hole” in space, but the actual TRUE singularity there-in is still sub-atomic, the bulk is still “less than infinite mass” decaying in gravity field towards center of “star”, ie, just an “add mass to create collapse to singularity”vs sub-atomic”add velocity/momentum to create near infinite mass at near lightspeed singularity”, the distance that gravity falls off over and hence has noticeable area of effect over is just a much smaller area around the sub-atomic particle at near lightspeed, than around the stellar mass at near infinite mass at center that has already incorporated/decayed much greater amounts of mass from area around it in space, ie, sub-atomic particles balanced by many many OTHER near infinite masses and thus have less available mass to grab, in space.(is not as “circular argument” as sounding here, just i dont speak monkey) and, point, “slingshot” math all that’s needed once you note Einstein is right re ALL matter becoming near infinite mass at near lightspeed, quantum, as mentioned previous comment is because you appear to have neglected to apply that “ALL matter” basic premise of Einstein’s, think, slingshotting tiny infinite mass at near lightspeed to intersect passing around another near infinite mass near lightspeed particle and crossing gravity fields within the parameters of inverse square of field “power/extent”

oh, ps, an early commentor here notes y’all don’t know mass of neutrinos? oh, you haven’t heard of Einstein’s theory of relativity then? how quaint…


matthewslyman:

  • Quote from the article: “Some of the decay channels we’re using involve the production of neutrinos and, since we don’t know how much they weigh, we can’t tell how much mass and energy they carry away when a Higgs decays. That helps broaden out the mass peak. More data, particularly from those channels that don’t involve neutrinos, will narrow that down”

Does this mean they can use LHC to indirectly weigh neutrinos?


Billie:

  • Quote: “Some of the decay channels we’re using involve the production of neutrinos and, since we don’t know how much they weigh, we can’t tell how much mass and energy they carry away when a Higgs decays. That helps broaden out the mass peak. More data, particularly from those channels that don’t involve neutrinos, will narrow that down. Does this mean they can use LHC to indirectly weigh neutrinos?”

um, as Einstein pointed out (&quite well i thought) ALL matter becomes closer to INFINITE mass the closer it gets to approaching lightspeed, as recent “do neutrinos travel faster than light” gobshite would imply, neutrinos at least travel at near lightspeed, which means they have NEAR INFINITE MASS, which, incidentally, means they, having near infinite mass at near lightspeed, and inverse square law of gravity “diminish” still applying as with ANY mass, draw/fold/shrink space/time around them within their range of effect including in the linear of -eg- speed measurements in lengths of “tunnels”, thus seeming to arrive at “other end” before observer believes they should), ie, what part of that simple relativity do y’alls fail to comprehend? ie, you DO (or should) know the mass of neutrinos and other near lightspeed sub-atomic particles, it’s NEAR INFINITE, and if your “measurements” suggest it’s a TINY mass, that is only because you aren’t measuring the mass of the particle, just the external edges of its gravitational field (that inverse square law of gravity again), ie, the outside of it’s “event horizon” (that “decay” thing again, energies released by dissintegration of matter, just as at/within the “spagettification” zone of ANY singularity) really, do the math (or as i prefer to view it as “muthafukka please,look,my shit is Custom”

Dr. Jay:

  • Quote: “ie, you DO (or should) know the mass of neutrinos and other near lightspeed sub-atomic particles, it’s NEAR INFINITE, and if your “measurements” suggest it’s a TINY mass, that is only because you aren’t measuring the mass of the particle, just the external edges of its gravitational field (that inverse square law of gravity again), ie, the outside of it’s “event horizon” (that “decay” thing again, energies released by dissintegration of matter, just as at/within the “spagettification” zone of ANY singularity) really, do the math”

Somehow, you think physicists are incapable of calculating how mass changes as they add energy to particles moving near the speed of light? Really? Einstein lets us calculate pretty precisely how much a given particle will weight at a specific energy. The entire operation of the LHC is based on getting these calculations right with a staggering efficiency. There’s a difference between having heard of Einstein and actually knowing how to use the equations Einstein gave us. You’re apparently on the wrong side of that dividing line. Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn’t help place you on the right side.


Billie:

  • Quote: “Somehow, you think physicists are incapable of calculating how mass changes as they add energy to particles moving near the speed of light? Really? Einstein lets us calculate pretty precisely how much a given particle will weight at a specific energy. The entire operation of the LHC is based on getting these calculations right with a staggering efficiency. There’s a difference between having heard of Einstein and actually knowing how to use the equations Einstein gave us. You’re apparently on the wrong side of that dividing line. Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn’t help place you on the right side”

actually, you are just sidestepping my point (a common approach of parrots) ie, that at near lightspeed, ALL particles are at near infinite mass/zero time relative to observer, and AT lightspeed achieve INFINITE mass and thus are unsupportable by the fabric of lightspeed and below matter/energy/void Einsteinien space-time continuum and thus “fall out” of it ..try not just READING, but CONTEMPLATIN/comprehending MY main POSTINGS 1ST.


HalationEffect:

  • Quote: “um, as Einstein pointed out (&quite well i thought) ALL matter becomes closer to INFINITE mass the closer it gets to approaching lightspeed”

Yes, but when physicists talk about the mass of a particle, they are talking about its *rest* mass.


WhitneyLand:

Halation, is it ever productive to reply to a post containing all caps words? Have to admit I occasionally reply to them also.


HalationEffect:

Yes, but when physicists talk about the mass of a particle, they are talking about its *rest* mass. Yeah, I should really know better than to feed trolls by now. It’s just so hard to resist sometimes!


Billie:

  • Quote: “Yes, but when physicists talk about the mass of a particle, they are talking about its *rest* mass”

not my point, my point is that in “the real world”, sub-atomic particles are NOT at rest, and in fact, tend more to be near lightspeed, ie, near infinite mass, near zero volume, and near zero (plus distance of influence of their gravitational field) “event horizon” that, just as in stellar “black holes/singularities”, decays to energy any matter caught WITHIN/on its area of attraction “event horizon”, ie, try using simple sling-shot fly-by math to then explain inconsistencies in photon/particles positions/trajectories (tho still case of “ug have rock, ug brain surgeon” re actual physical measurements) and equate decay/energy release/”missing bits”/deflected (fly-by) particles to same found in macrosphere of space in form of “event horizon” around stellar near infinite masses. ps, the reason space-time can’t contain a TRUE singularity is that it is actually ZERO volume and just “falls through” space-time like a soap coated (“event horizon” around true singularity) pin point through a soap bubble (lightspeed visualized as “meniscus”) with the spiral of asymmetry considered too (of course) into “null” between multiverses where it then exchanges its infinite mass for infinite speed, instantaneous particle that where it intersects with itself deflects/slows/forms “tachyon”soup of matter/energy (see my earlier posts)


Billie:

  • Quote: “is it ever productive to reply to a post containing all caps words? Have to admit I occasionally reply to them also”
  • Quote: “Yes, but when physicists talk about the mass of a particle, they are talking about its *rest* mass. Yeah, I should really know better than to feed trolls by now. It’s just so hard to resist sometimes!”

hmm, i’d call definition of “troll” someone that contributes absolutely nothing to the thread other than disparaging and pointless comments, such as your post for example, oh, and ps, most of my “caplock” words were mere accidental turning on of caplock (cursed fingernails) apart from an obvious few for simple emphasis, now, having said that, get back under your bridge.


dimhue:

Guys, he’s not a troll. He’s a crank.


Billie:

  • Quote: “Guys, he’s not a troll. He’s a crank”

well, some say “crank”, some say “240+ immeasurable iq”, funny, seems only lowbrows opt for the “crank” description


Dr. Jay:

  • Quote: “Yes, but when physicists talk about the mass of a particle, they are talking about its *rest* mass”
  • Quote: “not my point, my point is that in “the real world”, sub-atomic particles are NOT at rest, and in fact, tend more to be near lightspeed, ie, near infinite mass”

Again, repeating something that’s wrong does not make it right. Moving near the speed of light does not mean having near infinite mass. We can calculate the mass of these particles (and have experiment evidence that our calculations were right), and we know what the masses are. They are not anywhere close to infinite. You can say otherwise all you like, but it just makes your claims of “immeasurable IQ” just seem like Dunning-Kruger in action. Please stop distracting from the discussion of the topic at hand.


dimhue:

  • Quote: “Guys, he’s not a troll. He’s a crank”
  • Quote: “well, some say “crank”, some say “240+ immeasurable iq”, funny, seems only lowbrows opt for the “crank” description”

Let’s see what signs we have: Claims extremely high, ‘immeasurable’, IQ. Claims mainstream understanding is fundamentally wrong and only he truly gets it. Zero backing up of claims. Rampant use of quotations and caps-locking of random words. Posts are a stream of consciousness styled rant. Yep, that about sums up to a typical science crank.


Billie:

  • Quote: “Yes, but when physicists talk about the mass of a particle, they are talking about its *rest* mass”
  • Quote: “Again, repeating something that’s wrong does not make it right. Moving near the speed of light does not mean having near infinite mass. We can calculate the mass of these particles (and have experiment evidence that our calculations were right), and we know what the masses are. They are not anywhere close to infinite. You can say otherwise all you like, but it just makes your claims of “immeasurable IQ” just seem like Dunning-Kruger in action. Please stop distracting from the discussion of the topic at hand”
  • Quote: “Let’s see what signs we have: Claims extremely high, ‘immeasurable’, IQ. Claims mainstream understanding is fundamentally wrong and only he truly gets it. Zero backing up of claims. Rampant use of quotations and caps-locking of random words. Posts are a stream of consciousness styled rant. Yep, that about sums up to a typical science crank”

try thinking outside your funding box, simply putting me down without even contemplating my ideas makes YOU the crank, and, (yes, yet again) re your “Moving near the speed of light does not mean having near infinite mass”, no, ALL matter at near lightspeed has near infinite mass, ie, “approaching/getting closer to”, of course with TRUE infinite mass being immeasurable you don’t measure it, and anything below it, no matter HOW much mass it has courtesy of its speed, is still infinitely below that infinite mass, regardless, you are only measuring the weak field/apparent mass of the surrounding “event horizon”, thus getting much lower mass readings than ANY near lightspeed mass actually possesses, now, i’m bored (for now) with feces flinging, chest thumping, fang baring, territorial de-marcated cling-monkeys, i’m sure that in a millenia or so you’ll “eureka” same..once one of your hierarchical “zaius’s” has ok’d it with whatever church/department/autocracy your parroting at time, ciao, mange tak


Avid Computer User:

“E/c2=m”. Basically the particles used then are throttled together to create a c2 example. So that the speed of a particle would be twice its proportional speed,and since there is a decay,there ‘should’be mass at the construct of this. There is an entrance (to c2),and there is the exit (the result),but there would be differences in record between them for the difference of the result or properties of consitencies in the recording. Thus displaying the particles in question. “M” in E=mc2 is ‘matter’? or “Mass” ? It is by the ‘reads of these other particles that the “boson’is said to occur being it has the better ‘exit strategy’.Then when the experiment is replicable the particle is said to exist. And the variable being the amount of energy said of a given amount,to the known particles. For some reason,in the past I do not like the caloric scale. Dont remember the reason exactly.In comparison would like a descovery in something such as ‘cryogenics’. To be as signifigant. How quick you can slow something down in most pretenses be the same as speeding them up with a somewhat same result.A certain energy is neither created or destroyed. But your doing this with a certain particle,speed and known particle. Guessing the pretense would be first to collect what is seen as slowing down,so that constructing what could be speeded up. Since would be no guess work then. But a full stop is as much or more than the actuall mass itself. Then being so,first to identify what is speeding up.Then slowing it down we only see its exit.Boson.  …. just talking out loud here. err a brainstorming..Geuss this is a thought of the ‘Relativistic’vrs. It isn’t that the energy is needed,it is that the particle has that given trait. Gas,liquid,solid. Supposing the ‘mass is everything,but that a given particle is conceptualized as known metric from the same measurement mechanism.- E=Mc2. Saying that light is constant. Howebeit in the same vein,it is also as the same variable say the distance of a ray over the top of h20,is usually just as constant as the notice of the measure in the distance of which it is also noticed. Rather than the heat of the container considered for H2o. The distance measured would be the same,no matter the tempurature of the container – or not. Same ray with ice cubes has no signifigance. C2 .. or light uses a certain metric,that has a scale as well. It is interesting to not that ‘Atlas,is star system ,that is aproximately 360 light years. The earth takes 360 ‘days’to travel the sun.


Avid Computer User:

  • Quote: “darkshade wrote: Guys, he’s not a troll. He’s a crank”
  • Quote: “well, some say “crank”, some say “240+ immeasurable iq”, funny, seems only lowbrows opt for the “crank” description”
  • Quote: “Let’s see what signs we have: Claims extremely high, ‘immeasurable’, IQ. Claims mainstream understanding is fundamentally wrong and only he truly gets it. Zero backing up of claims. Rampant use of quotations and caps-locking of random words. Posts are a stream of consciousness styled rant. Yep, that about sums up to a typical science crank”

Its not about torque,its where you put it. BTW John T thanks for excellent coverage. I’ve enjoyed reading these posts today.


HalationEffect:

  • Quote: “hmm, i’d call definition of “troll” someone that contributes absolutely nothing to the thread other than disparaging and pointless comments, such as your post for example, oh, and ps, most of my “caplock” words were mere accidental turning on of caplock (cursed fingernails) apart from an obvious few for simple emphasis, now, having said that, get back under your bridge”

Your posts haven’t exactly helped the signal to noise ratio in this thread… just saying. Anyway, I’m done feeding you. With you being both a crank and a troll, I expect you’ll reply to this post anyway, just so you can have the last word.


Aatch:

  • Quote: “Guys, he’s not a troll. He’s a crank”
  • Quote: “well, some say “crank”, some say “240+ immeasurable iq”, funny, seems only lowbrows opt for the “crank” description”

I like the term “immeasurable IQ”, it is so open to interpretation. For example, immeasurable merely means that the IQ cannot be measured, this could suggest that it is too low to be measured with standard tools, much like you can’t measure an atom with a desk ruler. Of course, that would be silly, I mean he says 240+, indicating it has been somewhat measured. And we should all respect him, I mean he is literally one in two hundred nine sextrigintillion, or 2.09e111 when it comes to IQ. We can’t expect another ‘him’ in the next one quattuortrigintillion years (assume constant birth rate between now and then), or about one quattuortrigintillion years after the most likely end of all life on Earth (I’m rounding). This makes him literally the most intelligent person to ever have, and ever will, live. Oh, wait that is ridiculous, the chances of a random person having an IQ greater 140 is only 0.3%, and Mensa will accept anybody with an IQ > ~130. I hate people saying what their IQ is, because they normally don’t know how IQ is calculated for large populations (e.g. the planet). IQ is measured in such a way that the distribution of IQ for a large population follows a normal distribution with a mean of 100, and standard deviation of 15, so the average IQ is always 100. In short, stating your IQ at all generally kills all credibility, unless you have specific reason to (e.g. an article about IQs: “My IQ generally comes to about 120-130 in most tests, but I’m not sure about how accurate that is”), and stating unrealistic IQs is just inviting this kind of response. If you notice, you never see IQ listed in great people’s notable achievements and features. Alan Turing was gay, Nikola Tesla was celibate, Linus Torvalds is Finnish. None of their Wikipedia pages states their IQ, you can go check, I’ll wait. If you have to use your supposed IQ to present a credible image, then firstly, you clearly don’t have much to back up your claims, and secondly, you aren’t a particularly good troll, since you didn’t even make up a fake qualification and current research project.


WhitneyLand:

Seeing trolls/cranks is part of life, but once someone tosses out IQ for credibility the wheels have officially fallen off. This post is all in a bit of fun but I must first give propers – John, beautiful article on a beautiful subject. Other guy, if your argument was in good faith no hard feelings I wish you success with it. Regarding Tesla – I think you make an unintended point about IQ – My money would be on Telsa having had a higher IQ than Edison, but who got their ass spanked? (at least financially and in popular opinion).


JAlfredPrufrock A:

  • Quote: “try thinking outside your funding box, simply putting me down without even contemplating my ideas makes YOU the crank, and, (yes, yet again) re your”Moving near the speed of light does not mean having near infinite mass”, no, ALL matter at near lightspeed has near infinite mass, ie, “approaching/getting closer to”, of course with TRUE infinite mass being immeasurable you don’t measure it, and anything below it, no matter HOW much mass it has courtesy of its speed, is still infinitely below that infinite mass, regardless, you are only measuring the weak field/apparent mass of the surrounding “event horizon”, thus getting much lower mass readings than ANY near lightspeed mass actually possesses, now, i’m bored (for now) with feces flinging,chest thumping, fang baring, territorial de-marcated cling-monkeys, i’m sure that in a millenia or so you’ll “eureka” same(once one of your hierarchical “zaius’s” has ok’d it with whatever church/department/autocracy your parroting at time, ciao, mange tak”

Crrrraaaaaaannnnnnnnkkkkkk. Crankity-crank-crank-crank. This guy gets crankier by the second.


Torbjörn Larsson:

Regarding the hilarious “I Q(an too)” crank, this is what Wp says: “But in the test manual’s norms, the Binet does not permit IQs to rise above 170 at any age, child or adult. … the psychologist who came up with an IQ of 228 committed an extrapolation of a misconception, thereby violating almost every rule imaginable concerning the meaning of IQs.”[10]” Meaning if you do a test that IQ testers acknowledge, you will see 170 as highest measure. Extrapolating will invalidate the very concept it is supposed to measure (adhering to a norm, which may or may not correlate to traits). Supposedly those other tests will work as Binet, or they too would be invalid for higher IQ. What is that called when you put up an unrealistic, or even invalid, number… oh, right, pulling it out of your ass.


00000000:

“Billie Reid, YOU ROCK!!!!”

Ode Square