From: "David Lynch" <dnl1960 at yahoo.com> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: The Information Paradox
To: tysonwebquery at mac.com
Neil,
You are most kind. Thank you for the response.
My bad. I could have been more clear.
I was asking you to read the letter that I sent to the MIT guys.
Your most recent letter says that when I provide a list of testable predictions then you will comment on them.
If you did not read the letter to the MIT guys, then you would not have seen that I provided one such a testable prediction.
My understanding of the KnoWell equation suggests that if the guys at MIT use different materials to make the item that has the two slits cut in it,
that there will be a slight variance in the pattern of photons hitting the collector.
Suggesting that the slit material is absorbing the original photon and releasing a pair of photons from the edge of the slits. A harmonic.
I agree that ideas are cheep. That many people have lots of great ideas, and I am sure that a many of them create equations from their ideas.
I trust that if I am correct, that my equation will bubble to the surface in due time.
I may not see it in my life time, so I have handed out hundreds maybe a thousand peaces of artwork with a hand drawn KnoWell on the back.
Thank you again for your time, and I appreciate your responses very much.
Best wishes,
Dave
tysonwebquery at mac.com wrote:
Sorry, I misunderstood your phrase:
"... read the below letter to the guys at MIT" which sounded like you
wanted me to convince the MIT fellows of your ideas,
like " ...read curious George to your children"
"Ideas are cheap. Detailed predictions of unknown phenomena from those
ideas is the real testing ground.
When you produce such a list of testable predictions I will be happy to
comment on it."
-NDTyson
On Dec 18, 2007, at 1:19 AM, David Lynch wrote:
Neil,
You are welcome, but I did not ask you to control nor influence the
behavior of anyone.
Did you actually read my letter to you, or did you jump to a conclusion
by reading the fist sentence? How Descartes of you.
Maybe one day I will get a rational comment from you on my equation,
the KnoWell, that uses Socrates, Newton, and Einstein, to describe a
moment in time.
Science is Newton blinded by fundamentalism, and religion is Jesus
blinded by extremism. Something has got to give. Soon..
Till then,
Dave
tysonwebquery at mac.com wrote:
Thanks, but I claim no control over the behavior of others. -NDTyson
On Dec 17, 2007, at 7:15 AM, David Lynch wrote:
Neal,
Below is a letter that I sent to a couple of guys at MIT. They,
as you, were on the Science channel program about the top science
stories in the year 2007.
Newton's observation that lead him to the BLeaf that objects fall to the
center of the Earth due to gravity revolutionized the world.
The mathematics that show the rate at which object fall have been
refined with great accuracy.
Our universe can be described by its gravitational effects.
Over the years, the concept of gravity has been widely accepted to be a
pull due to the law of attraction proportional to mass.
The theory of attraction is so widely accepted, that if a person
questions the laws of gravity they are seen as a fool.
Over the years many great minds have failed to bridge the gap between
the quantum and relativistic systems.
Suggesting that something is not yet discovered, or a theory is wrong.
For a single moment in time, flip the pull of gravity around. Make
gravity a push....
What would change if gravity is a push? Not much. All the same math that
defines the effect of gravity would be the same..
That would not change one bit. The big leap would be that the law of
attraction would no longer be a law, much less a theory.
But a grand mistake. Black holes become seeds, and Hawking radiation is
more like pollen.
Looking at atoms in their elemental form, the atoms are spaced apart
from each other..
Not lumped together as one mass. Could it be they are trying to push
away from each other... Not attract to each other.
Since they do not run away from each other, something must be pushing
the atoms near each other creating a matrix with a force relational to
their density.
Releasing energy as they go.
My theory, Gravity is a push.
My experiment, None as of yet.
My data, The Universe
My conclusion, The Knowell
Just as with the big bang and evolution, the experiment to prove my
theory is outside the grasp of true science.
An experiment cannot be set up to replicate the complexities of the
universe. Nor evolution.
Getting a scientist to admit this is like getting the pope to say Jesus
cannot return. Yet the KnoWell strongly suggest that a Christ can.
But that is another story.
Just as Science looks to other indicators to strongly suggest that the
big bang is a fact,
my KnoWell equation for time logically expresses a moment with such
clarity that the push of gravity is strongly suggested.
Quantum loops of particles forged by super strings of waves.
If gravity is a push, then the big bang did not happen. Puts our
universe into a near steady state.
For cracking the reason behind gravity with the KnoWell equation, it
makes me more famous than Newton and Einstein combined.
Yet science is so blinded by the big bang, I wonder why I even try.
I leave you with in this letter asking you to read the below letter to
the guys at MIT.
To try and grasp the KnoWell, read the information in the hutchison link
below.
Ego gets in the way of ID so,
Put Descartes, "I Think, therefore, I am", out of mind.
Keep Socrates, "All I Know is that I Know Nothing", in mind.
Laters,
Dave
David Lynch <dnl1960 at yahoo.com> wrote:
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:15:39 -0800 (PST)
From: David Lynch <dnl1960 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Your Science Channel Program
To: Franco Wong <ncw at mit.edu>
CC: Seth Lloyd <slloyd at mit.edu>
Franco,
The Science channel has a program that you are on.
The program mentions an experiment that uses two slits to show that a
single photon can cause multiple hits on a collector.
I have an equation that uses Socrates, Newton, and Einstein to describe
a moment in time that strongly suggests
that your conclusion that the two photons are the same photon in two
different places to be a mistake.
Two photons yes, but same photon no... The below graphic shows that I,
Split the Photon.
Mass at the top under infinity symbol with a particle photon to the
bottom left and a wave photon to the bottom right.
http://www.lynchphoto.com/avignon.html
If you use different materials to make the item that you cut the two
slits,
do you get a variance in the pattern of the photons that strike the
collector?
If you do, that would suggest that the single original photon is
disturbed by the material.
Then the edges of the silts are emitting new photons harmonically
aligned with the material the slits are made from.
Think tuning fork. You have to hit it and hold it just right to get it
to vibrate.
Below is a letter that I wrote to John Hutchison using the KnoWell
symbol to describe how his levitation effect may be working on objects.
John responded with, "thank you this could be.." Key words, this could
be..
http://www.lynchphoto.com/hutchison.html
When Einstein merged time into one letter, T, equations became logically
easier.
Such as the equation for energy (T(l+w+h)c^2). Mass being (l+w+h). This
is an error in thinking.
Using the logic of the KnoWell there is on the particle leg
(Past(l+w+h)c) and on the wave leg there is the inverse,
(Future(-l-w-h)c) thus the future is inversely proportional to the past
as the past precipitates from the future.
Only at the infinite of the moment the two combine into one,
(T(l+w+h)c^2) the Ein Sof point of creation.
Where Einstein thought... Where Science measures. Where humans live.
Think me a fool, or let me come draw you a KnoWell in front of one of
your classes.
Put my concept to a jury test.... In five minutes, I will draw you a
KnoWell that may change the way you look at time forever.
Best wishes,
Dave