somewhere in science literature it says that one's sub-conscious knows more than one's so-called self. a silly example is if you are in a untidy room looking for someone it is better to grop around until one finds it (via the sub-conscious) than to consciously look for it..until the sub-conscious finds it.

somewhere science has always laid claim that many inventions are based on natural phenomena also, so most things man has invented already exist in some form somehow in nature. this may be difficult to prove or not depending on which invention it is, but it is almost certainly too true on closer examination. some results from such an inspection may be temporarily perplexing.

so does a sub-conscious sensing of something have any impact on normal consciousness, like say so-called subliminal stuff?

 Writing more..:

P.S. Sorry for bickering about a bit with this, but our goal is also to produce our own equations and even though a sensible alpha may finally be printed near the bottom of this page, we still wish to be aware that it is not really-really a constant.

Developed a formula:

Well can't list it here cause the program (down-loadable from the main page) is full of "hula hoops", but one thing that came out of an equation feed with maybe a reasonable integer; 800 gave 0.007259073842302879 but that is still not any close to any established definition of alpha, albeit maybe it could have that value under certain conditions since they have proved that is possible it can be 1/128 sometimes (which to say again is Schumann Resonance), etc, and 800 of course since is 2*2*2*100..binary too..

The reciprocal of this though; 137.75862068965517, into Cathie Equation 3 give 69.63295622783191 a light reciprocal (1/0.014361016021323326)..and the established "Alpha" (137.7586206896551) in this case give harmonics that exceed maximum speed of light: 0.014416696830727535, don't know if that is good...

Well below here is the formula, note that harmonic(x) always returns 2.9 and is a product of some formula involving 2 and 5..

def yzz(n):
....y=0
....for x in range(1,n):
........y=y+(x/harmonic(x))
....return(y/n)

So it is a bit complicated, it runs around 800(n) times..adding this and that in the process (y) etc..to get this one try at alpha..and maybe this procedure is like some type of spiral..not unlike electron orbit and energy levels maybe..

But finally maybe a definition of Alpha: "The number 137 is known as the so-called fine-structure constant, which is the probability factor controlling whether an electron will emit or absorb a photon. Experiments have shown this value to be around 137 but there are no absolute boundaries, only fuzzy edges, when dealing with electronic fields..."

But in the process / formula above, sometimes y at a certain point will be a natural number. When x is 144 then y will be 3600 and that could mean something. Though one does not get a natural number when x is 288 (14350.344827586208) but when x is 289 we get the natural number 14450 for y, and when x is 290 (which we can get from Synergetics 2nf**2+2 also) then y will be 14550, though it seems no other fit with that way, except suddenly 580.. and 724..

Also it seems every time x equals a whole number, then two will come straight in a row, inside this procedure...

then another value found on the net (seem it is full of these values); 137.036.(Approximation of the established value shown above) 136.036+0.216==137.252. The "missing" 216 has been noted elsewhere earlier.

It is not really the point here to "drag about" and to prove why above 136.036 have been used and not the latest hip approximation have been used, but scientist them selves say different things affect the measured result (momentum vs spin, can not measure both at the same time etc?) or at least according to Bruce Cathie something about relativity is involved in the measurements. At least it fits the calculations here, but they added 0.216 for the nuclear blobs...

Synergetics, ++ v Quantum Physics:

Unfortunately due to things, we are in very slow progress with Buckminster Fuller's "Synergetics" books and also Benoit Mandelbrot's fractal-stuff to see if it relates with Quantum Physics..on the bright side though got some nice book on so-called Vedic Math.

It does seem though that with at least these different mathematical stuff it may yield something interesting eventually. And it is difficult to say if that idea is new or not..

Looking at 137.252 we wonder: Running the program sequences reveal that most likely it should be divided by a binary number / exponent of two (like 16=2*2*2*2) and also a multiple of 5 like 25 or so..thus we get x/32/5 which is 0.857825 and then -> *216 = 185.29 equal to field A; 1850

Sub-string or whatever. 1/2187.

A "castling" (as in chess) of 288 give us 2187. 1/2187 give us a repeating decimal with 243 integers/numbers...-

Nuclear Reaction v Lightning strikes. Plus some calculations.

So what kind of reaction would equal 1/0.288. A note though, since it's 1/x maybe 0.288 would be weaker than 0.0144 the nuclear blast. The equal brain-wave would be ~3.4722222 just above the threshold for sound sleep. It does also show that 0.29 has some use, but what is uncertain. It is not possible to x/0.29 one has to use (((1/(n*5/2))+1/(n*2/5))*n)

Though there seemed to be an error in our programing language. 0.29 was not the right multiplier according to another software where it was shown it should be 0.286014 though the difference looks like a speed-of-light harmonic: 0.143496/36.

Dead Fine-Structure Constant Alpha and Schumann Resonance. The math of physics.

Science is trying to make a use-able / applicable system out of the math of physics. This seems possible even though everyone have heard the joke "it just BEHAVES as protons and electrons" but that's for someone else to figure out though read the rest of this this site. We are also complaining about the "thought patterns" used to explain things.

We bought professional software at discount on something called "pi day" save us £50 of £200 and this was to check if our results matched the data base included in the software ("mathematica" / Wolframalpha.com something). Neither of our two first constants presenting below here as a beginning matched in their database. But Satan forbids us to read the manual for the software e.t.c...also..