The reason is simple, every time the fluctuations are caused by the collision the universe would be born of totally different values, the cosmological constant would be different and life may not be able to arise. But life has arisen and the only way to explain that is if the branes had collided enough times for the chances of life to come into being occur.

Is it not possible that space is consciousness and that the braids are the result of this consciousness willing them to be? Also since all matter and energy are connected and a part of space, our consciousness is derived from it as well. So in effect our individual existence could be one of isolation, perhaps an effort of this universal consciousness to understand individuality and frailty.

Please forgive me if anything I cover has already been covered, skipped from page 7 of posts to page 11, enough drama already.

OK, my 2 cents, for what it's worth (probably not quite 2 cents, no degree in math or physics, just an avid reader...)

TIME - Yeah, there's no real unit to measure, detect, etc. Time isn't a force of physics, it's a byproduct. We use time to measure speed, acceleration, etc. - it is the creation of man - deal with it - but, it is the same time everywhere all at once, and even noticeably here on Earth...GMT anyone?

Anyway, This is a theory, get over it, stop wasting all your TIME arguing that it's ridiculous, let those who want to discus it and its implications do so.

Ether, very nice term, the true fundamental building block. Sure, we can't prove it, a thousand years ago we couldn't generate electricity, didn't know what it was, look at us now, we can even stage moon-landings (joking guys, I know it was real).

Lets pretend there is a substance so small individually (we'll call each one a trebble just for fun) that nothing we have (or may ever have) can visibly see or detect in any way. Now lets assume this magical stuff is EVERYWHERE, literally. Now, lets give it a few 'states'. For shiggles and gits, lets call them up, down, left, and right. Now, lets say that each trebble is connected to at least one other trebble and perhaps that any given trebble could be connected to every other trebble in existance at any given time. This is all very abstract, I know, please bear with me. OK, now pretend that when a given number, say X, trebbles of the up state are directly connected to one-another and each is vibrating at frequency Y, the entire collection 'exists' in a particular 'location' in in our universe as a particular proton, neutron, electron, partical of some sort. Now...pretend this partical comes in contact with another partical, say a collection of trebbles equal in number to the first but in the 'down' state...completely different partical. Now pretend that on the 'plane' we can actually see these particals, they interact with one another, changing the state of the two particals, or merging to form a whole new partical (not a scientist, please understand, I have no idea how certain particals interact, simply trying to put this all in lamemans terms...my terms) anyway, now once this change between particals has taken place, if we could observe the trebbles, we'd see a 'mass' of trebbles twice the size of either of the first in a different state (or perhaps with each in any number of different states) vibrating at a new frequency.

That's a load of bull up there, mind you, I've got no idea what I'm talking about, just trying to explain things the way I 'understand' them.

Remember, we thought the atom was the building block of the universe at one time...then the quark...who's to say strings or trebbles don't exist all tied up together changing phases, states, connections, etc.

Don't just shoot a theory down because you don't think it's correct, not at least until you've done the leg-work to prove it wrong.

Hope this helps and doesn't start any new fights.

Neon Haze, you are a brilliant man - While I know it's not your theory, you understand it so well, explain it so deeply and most importantly, stand by it. Keep it up, great read through and through (and I did end up backtracking and reading all 11 pages )

PS, xEphon, if you're still checking this thread, I LOVE YOUR CAPTION, Please tell me I can use it...
"Human beings are capable of convincing ourselves that something is true long after the accumulated evidence would convince any reasonable person that it's wrong -G.O."

Sorry, sidetracked.

Again Haze, perfect post, look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

~Matt...

Sorry, quick follow up, real quick promise (girlfriend's wishing I didn't have a computer right now I'm sure )

Anyway, someone mentioned a while back that we couldn't manipulate the ether itself, wouldn't have the tools small enough to affect it. Think about it this way, we're not affecting it on the quantum level, but everything we do affects it. I move my hand, I create a flow of air, moving atoms, hence moving electrons and quarks (I know they're constantly moving, but no I'm actually displacing the atoms that they construct). I light a cigarette, I change the phase of a substance, create new gases (deadly of course, I'm trying to quit, but anyway,) as these new substances form and old ones go away, the ether itself is changing. Sure, I can't light a cigarette and breath gold dust, but hey, who's to say that through research we can't find out just what we need to do to change the ether the way we please. Lasers, partical accelerators, experimentations in space, we're doing big and bold things these days. Give us some time and a good theory and lets see what comes of it.

I'm done, promise.
~Matt

[edit on 11-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by robertfenix

Originally posted by xEphon
since the basis of both string and quantum theory is the measurement of underlying truths.

And what underlying truth is it that you are referring to ? You can only measure something that exists in substance or has a physical representation that causes an effect such as energy or mass.

You can not take measurements of theories, concepts or factless ideas.

Then by your very own view atoms don't exist (we can't after all really see them after all).

Very interesting theory. Star and flag.

I wouldn't get so excited just yet. This theory is wrong like all the others. At best it's an approximation whose range of validity has yet to be determined, just like the standard model. One thing that makes me skeptical is the total failure and damage that string theory has done to modern physics. String theory is not verifiable because there are too many free parameters giving as many string theories as there are atoms in the universe. Moreover no one has found a string theory that is consistent with current observables. But so much effort has gone into string theory that there has been no real progress in physics since the 1980s (Although who knows what is going on in the black world.) Physicists need to get back into the laboratory. All we really need are usable engineering models, we don't need a theory of everything.

As a matter of fact it's possible to fix classical physics to do the job that both quantum mechanics and general relativity do now. The big mistake was the rejection of the Weber-Gauss law for moving charges. If it is adopted the classical model of an electron orbiting a proton doesn't fail and in fact electrons can be modeled as spinning toruses of charge. Gravity can be approached in one of two ways, either it's a 2nd order effect of the higher order terms of the electric potential that cause an attractive force between pairs of dipoles, or one could go down the GR path and equate it to the electrical drag through the vacuum potential. To get propagation and the rest of quantum mechanics you do need to assume the existence of the vacuum potential. That's all you need to get pretty far with just a classical theory.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
I wouldn't get so excited just yet. This theory is wrong like all the others. At best it's an approximation whose range of validity has yet to be determined, just like the standard model. One thing that makes me skeptical is the total failure and damage that string theory has done to modern physics.

Interesting.....

Care to state your evidence as to why you think this theory is incorrect??

Quantum Loop Gravity expands on string theory. it doesn't advocate it.

The reason string theory has had a hard time is that it cannot predict accurately the world around us... or in fact how or why there are string sin the first place..

LQG accurately describes particles we can observe around us and explains how and why they are the way they are.

The Standard Model, String Theory / M-Theory, Quantum theory, GR & SR, None of them can explain that very simple thing. LQG does...

All the best,

NeoN HaZe

Very good NH! This is another thread to subscribe to and book to add to my library.

Neon,

Can you add any further information regarding the article which recently appeared in New Scientist which postulated the theory that a previous universe 'imprinted' our current one and is responsible for what we can currently observe?

best thread i've read on ATS....

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Gakus]

S&F, bump.

Forgot about this thread. It's amazing! ...and the S's and F's weren't here last I partook - so now I dunnit.

Will review for more on entanglement and get back to you.

Thnx, sofi

wow, I'm really glad I stumbled on this whole thread. It took forever to read it, but was worth every minute. So since this was orignally posted in 2006, NH, has more of the scientific community running with this theory? How is it holding up? Thanks again.

Is there anything further on this thoery?