It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: King Seesar
a reply to: cooperton
But Duality is a flawed concept in general, let me explain more then two forces make up our quantum equation, as we speak i am studying what constitues a third force...hence the macro> the micro< and what i call the midro, i am certain there is even more then three forces but i am studying the third one, so the idea of just two forces (duality) is not a correct equation as far as i am concerned, but i get what you were getting at.
The terms or the equation i am gathering is that adding on to vectors of dimensions for the possibility of multi is not properly done by adding more numbers to the designed eight or ten mold, in factoring in the apptitude of multi i think a splitting off of the core eight or ten vectors into smaller sub designs with each core split is what we are looking for, then and only then is the multi equation possible.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: King Seesar
a reply to: cooperton
But Duality is a flawed concept in general, let me explain more then two forces make up our quantum equation, as we speak i am studying what constitues a third force...hence the macro> the micro< and what i call the midro, i am certain there is even more then three forces but i am studying the third one, so the idea of just two forces (duality) is not a correct equation as far as i am concerned, but i get what you were getting at.
Perhaps the union of the two constitutes this third aspect: which is neither + or -, but 0 (midro)? Proton and electron unify to form a neutron (the mass of proton + electron = neutron [their charges add up too]). Here we see three entities; 0, -, +
This rule is no exception for humans: it is male, female, and the union of the two
The union of the two is 0. Male/Female are +/- The original human was a unified male/female: 0
One of those promoting the idea that “dark flow” was evidence for a multiverse was Mersini-Houghton, who in a 2008 paper with Holman wrote:
Our contention, then, is that these observations of bulk flow can be construed as evidence for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse imprinted on the super horizon sized nonlocal quantum entanglement between our horizon patch and others that began from the landscape. When we calculate the size of the induced dipole in our theory and convert it into a bulk velocity dispersion, we will see that for the constrained values of our parameters we arrive at a velocity dispersion of order 670 km/sec, remarkably close to the observed value of 700 km/sec.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: King Seesar
Consider that c2 can be calculable to t2 as in time squared. We often assume that time does nit have space but the problem with that is Einstein, as he defines "space/time".
Time takes of space.
There was some research years ago where due to curvature dimensions exited within dimensions.
Actually relevant.
To be clear DJW001 has a point.
You need to elaborate your position beyond the "Pale Blue Sky".
originally posted by: Kashai
Multiverse theory is relatable to a fundamental problem in Chemistry.
This relates to the "Electron Cloud".
Beyond that....
One of those promoting the idea that “dark flow” was evidence for a multiverse was Mersini-Houghton, who in a 2008 paper with Holman wrote:
Our contention, then, is that these observations of bulk flow can be construed as evidence for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse imprinted on the super horizon sized nonlocal quantum entanglement between our horizon patch and others that began from the landscape. When we calculate the size of the induced dipole in our theory and convert it into a bulk velocity dispersion, we will see that for the constrained values of our parameters we arrive at a velocity dispersion of order 670 km/sec, remarkably close to the observed value of 700 km/sec.
www.math.columbia.edu...
originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: King Seesar
If you really want to understand science you have to look at it through the lens of magick or creation and not through the lens of discovery.
Looooooonnngggggg way to go.
I hope you keep going though.