It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Finally an answer to EVERYTHING - Quantum Field Gravity - BRAIDS

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by robertfenix

Originally posted by devilwasp
but "TIME" or more so the passage of time is the same in two places.

nope wrong again, if 12 hours passes on Mars where is the sun compared to where it is on earth ????

Firstly I would like to say that I welcome posts to my thread by anyone who wants to contribute, though I am totally confused where you are coming from robertfenix, it appears to me that you want to contribute but you seem to have a total inability to agree with anyone else’s point of view other than your own.

You are, just as every one else is, welcome to their opinions but please refrain from stating "YOU ARE WRONG" or "THIS IS IGNORANT" or anything along those lines. If you don't want to think about Reality in any other terms than your daily experience that’s fine by us.

Though science is not opinions it is facts and physics is a way of proving opinions about facts right or wrong. for example, some would say the sun is hot and others would say it is not. But the truth in that matter is what is the frame of reference. Both are correct just that their frame of reference is different.

Loop quantum gravity simply put is a unifying theory that brings together quantum / string and astrophysics. I might add that no other theory put forward has ever even come close to managing to do that.

The white paper in my original posts has some very astute equations, that are proofs that this theory has its feet very firmly sat within reality.

The fact that the Maths add up is exciting enough to state that loop quantum gravity is a theory well on the way to becoming a law of physics.

I would also like to draw your attention to the question I ask you directly earlier...

"What do you personally think the most fundamental building block of the universe is???"

Loop Quantum Gravity is attempting to answer that Question; can you answer it in other terms??

Your posts on Schrödinger’s Cat are very interesting though, but that is a thought experiment used by quantum physists to demonstrate the duality that exists within quantum theory. The cat is both alive and dead until someone opens the box and observe it. In quantum physics this is called superposition.

Anyway, I will come onto superposition and indeed time in another post, as I too have run out of time here, will be back later,

All the best,

NeoN HaZe

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Neon Haze]

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by yeahright
We choose to refer to our time intervals as seconds, minutes, months, etc. as a universally agreed upon standard.

Humans concept of time is far from universal. Humans concept and denomination of time is only relevant on earth. Because a "day" is determined by the rise and set of our sun. The cycles that break down a day into hours or that extrapolate a day out to weeks and months and years is dependant upon the earths orbit around the sun.

Humans "time" is therefore not universal and is only relevant when you are discussing the earth and the sun. Anything outside of those two conditions and "time" is of a different value and meaning.

60 seconds on your stop watch is a measurement from a start and a finish. It is only a rate that tracks the progression from the number 0 to 1 to 2 to 3 and a set interval. A stop watch does not measure a "force" a themometer measures something outside of itself, "thermal energy" or the transferance of thermal energy. There are plenty of measuring devices that "measure" an external force, altimeter, accelerometer, speedometer, radiometer etc they all measure an external input.

But not a clock or a stopwatch. Time is not a force or input that you can measure, you assign a value for time and then monitor the rate of which that value changes as indicated by the progression of numbers.

It is only an abstract concept that when applied to the universe has no meaning.

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Neon Haze

What do you personally think the most fundamental building block of the universe is???

The "electron" and the "anti electron".

Because they determine the atomic stability of every atom in existence. They are also independant of atoms, can jump between atoms, be exchanged, be absorbed and then radiated. Without electrons atoms can not retain their nuclei.

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:31 PM
[edit on 18-8-2006 by Neon Haze]

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:53 PM

Originally posted by robertfenix

Humans concept of time is far from universal. >SNIP< Humans "time" is therefore not universal and is only relevant when you are discussing the earth and the sun. Anything outside of those two conditions and "time" is of a different value and meaning.

Okay I mean't "universal" as in everyone on Earth agrees what a second is. And a(n Earth) second on Planet X is still a second.

And since gravity isn't the same throughout the universe, does this mean that since I weigh more on Earth than on the moon, that property doesn't really exist either? It isn't universal.

Originally posted by robertfenix
There are plenty of measuring devices that "measure" an external force, altimeter, accelerometer, speedometer, radiometer etc they all measure an external input.

How can I measure speed or acceleration without a time component? If time doesn't exist other than as an abstract meaning, then doesn't speed and/or acceleration also not exist since it has time as a component?

Now if we were talking about "color" I could grasp it. Color doesn't exist other than as a way we perceive the visual electromagnetic wavelength of an object. It doesn't exist outside of observation. (I think). Well, okay the wavelength exists, but color is just the way humans have to perceive it.

Anyway, don't mind me. I don't think I have the capability to understand this any more than a cave fish can see a rainbow.

Now I REALLY gotta get some work done.

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 01:09 PM
"weight" is a measure of the gravitational effect on mass based on a paticular body in space.

Your MASS remains the same but the "weight" changes based on the gravitational constant on any given body in space.

Therefore your "weight" is less on the moon where the specific gravitational pull is less (1/6th I believe) then on earth. Yet your MASS remains the same.

There is no law or rule of physical theory that is being broken by your "weight" changing due to the exertion or lack thereof of gravity.

In space your weight is zero. But you still have mass, therefore "weight" is a component and net affect of gravity on your mass.

Speed and acceleration are independant of "time". Can speed be affected by the time of day. Does your acceleration change at 5pm compared to 8pm...


Speed is the rate at which you travel a given distance. We add "time" to say how long in terms of our "time" it takes to cover that distance.

Acceleration is the rate at which your velocity in any given vector increases. Normally stated in terms of G forces. If you pull 3 positive G's the rate at which you are increasing simulates three times the normal "pull or force" exerted on you by gravity.

When dealing with such things like cars on a skid pad, the normal G vector is down pushing the car to the ground. As you turn and the centrifigual force caused by lateral motion then can produced what is called lateral G force. Which is the force being vectored on the side and is independant of the top down normal G force.

if you are talking about saying things like 0-60mph in 5 seconds.

That is not accelerating, actually talking about acceleration, that is just saying from one rate of speed to another rate of speed in some term. Could be 0-60 in .00005 hours or 0-60 in .000000001 months etc

the first two seconds you could cover 10 feet and the last 3 seconds you could cover 60 feet. while a different car may cover 20 feet in the first 2 seconds and 30 feet in the next 3 seconds.

Both acheiving 60mph in 5 seconds, but neither traveling the same amount of distance and neither having an equal rate of acceleration to each other.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by robertfenix]

[edit on 18-8-2006 by robertfenix]

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 01:33 PM
Okay, last post then I'll leave it to the brainiacs. Thanks for your patience with a physics goob. I don't see the difference between the non-universality (if that's even a word) of physical properties like weight and the non-universality of time. I weigh more here than on the Moon. A day on Mars is longer than an Earth day. (Longer, as in more time). It doesn't mean that these properties don't exist. I mean, even if weight is different on Earth than the Moon, it's still a physical property that exists, right? (As I recall, I wasn't my high school physics teacher's favorite pupil either, although shockingly, I did pretty well).

This seems to be more about semantics, but maybe not. If it's necessary to conceptualize the non-existence of time, then I'm afraid this stuff will probably forever be beyond my grasp.

Now I'll bow out (promise) and lurk to observe those who know what they're talking about. Don't stop now, I'm fascinated and might actually learn something.

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 01:48 PM
so this is the grand unification element?

a twisted braid?

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:23 PM
"weight" and "time" are not the same.

Weight = mass + gravity

Time = ? ummm

See the difference. You can solve for weight, or not knowing mass you can solve for it by knowing weight and gravity.

Since there are no factors for "time" you can not therefor use two independant physical properties or forces to determine "time".

Because "time" can only be used as a reference.

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 03:51 PM
"You have voted robertfenix for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."

Thanks for bothering to think about this when there was so little of it happening. Instead of bothering with REAL science we have our worlds resources poured into this type of nonsense when we could have a cold fusion powered world 'off the shelf' if the ZPE/Vacuum energy turned our to be 'too complex'.


posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 09:34 AM
This is only new for quantum physists.

What I find funny is that modern physics is slowly coming full circle to exactly what the "ether" theory people stated around 100 years ago. These guys were way ahead of anyone else at the time and still are, at least conceptually. What the quantum people are at least doing is adding mathematical formula to the what conceptually is Karl Friedrich Krafft's "ether and its vortices" theory. So I applaud that.

It is funny. A couple of years back I browsed through one of Hawkin's books and he and another head scholar claimed that the "doughnut" shape was the basic elemental shape for physics. If only they had read Krafft's books 85 years ago. It would have saved them the bother of coming to that conclusion themselves. Unless, of course, they had already read his books

If you want to understand what the basic blocks of matter look like and a clear and more logical theory than fuzzy clouds of energy or the crappy nuclear theory, read Krafft. It's a logical and conceptual based read without the math.

Everything is the moving ether, with matter just being more dense, circular doughnut shape moving ether. It's more than that, but it is essentially the same thing.

posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 09:43 AM
EVERYTHING in our universe has a counterpiont. Weather it be matter, energy, space, time. Without a counterpoint nothing would exist. The univers is all about semetrical balance.

matter-anti matter
possitive time- negative time
positve energy - negative energy
light matter- dark matter
inner matter- outer matter

Even variables should theorictly have their own counterpoints

Take this number system for example.

-1,-0, absolute nothing, 0 ,1, infinaty, absoulte something, -infinaty, -1,-0 absolute nothing, 0, 1

deflection of light, defraction of light, reflection of light, refraction of light, locationary focal point

absorbtion of matter, movement of matter, subversion of matter, stopping of matter.

posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 09:55 AM
Btw.... An article about this very topic appeared in the latest New Scientist mag.

You are made of space-time

Physical particles may seem very different from the space-time they inhabit, but what if the two are one and the same thing? New Scientist investigates

LEE SMOLIN is no magician. Yet he and his colleagues have pulled off one of the greatest tricks imaginable. Starting from nothing more than Einstein's general theory of relativity, they have conjured up the universe. Everything from the fabric of space to the matter that makes up wands and rabbits emerges as if out of an empty hat.

It is an impressive feat. Not only does it tell us about the origins of space and matter, it might help us understand where the laws of the universe come from. Not surprisingly, Smolin, who is a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, is very excited. "I've been jumping up and down about these ideas," he says.

This promising approach to understanding the cosmos is based on a collection of theories called loop quantum gravity, an attempt to merge general relativity and quantum mechanics into a single consistent theory. ...

posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:57 PM
so theoretically i can bend space and time on our physical plane just enough to be able to erase my college loan debts?

posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 03:14 PM

Originally posted by krossfyter
so theoretically i can bend space and time on our physical plane just enough to be able to erase my college loan debts?

Haha that is funny.

What I would say though is that if you had the ability to write braids into space-time, you could write yourself a billion pounds or dollars or any currency you liked... but I would say that it would be pointless since you could have almost anything you wanted free of charge anyway.

But your post does raise the question of responsibility, as this technology if or when we get it, could be used for evil as well as good.

to briefly answer a question earlier on time, time can only be thought of as movements of braids within space time. The smallest measurement of time would be the smallest movement of a braid. If you like a bit like a slip knot on a piece of rope.

I will go into all this in more depth, just right in the middle of marking some papers at the mo.

Will be back later.

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by Neon Haze]

posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 03:50 PM

Originally posted by krossfyter
so theoretically i can bend space and time on our physical plane just enough to be able to erase my college loan debts?

Only if you apply quantitative fractal geometrics. You wouldn't want to erase teh education.

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by PeeWeeHerman
This is only new for quantum physists.

Agreeing with that is so very easy. All good art/science is plagiarism as they say and it really is fascinating to watch the science community retard progress by hiding scientific breakthroughs from general view only to (re-) 'discover' it a few decades later. I tell you i am more worried about the damage our science establishment is inflicting than i am about the religious maniacs clamoring for the 'end times' as our science community has far better means to accomplish said goal by keeping us in this perpetual ignorance.

Thanks for your post!


posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by robertfenix
What ? Time does not "pass", how can time pass if you dont measure it ???? Your statement makes no sense. For something to pass you have to have a start and a finish. How would you know you finished ? its arbitrary, how would you know when you started if you did not "measure" it when you started.

Well you may not measure it but it does pass, think about it if a tree falls in the woods but no ones there does it make a sound?

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by robertfenix
nope wrong again, if 12 hours passes on Mars where is the sun compared to where it is on earth ????

after 3 days on mars with your "earth clock" where do you think the sun would be at 3pm on your earth clock ???

Do you know ??

And the following day, do you think the sun would be in the same position at 3pm on your "earth clock".

What relevance would your "Earth clock" have then on Mars, if the "time" on your watch was never the same, ie never coresponding to the same point of the day night time day time, lunch dinner etc. Your time would have no meaning at all.

What is the point in this?
Do you deny that we pass through time no matter where we are?

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 12:42 PM
the tree falling produces a sound wave, even if no humans were around the sound wave would propegate until the energy of the wave was depleated. Animals having different sonic perception ranges would hear the "sound" of the tree falling in various ways.

if you had a micrphone to pick up the sound wave when you played it back a human would hear a sound that would sound like a tree falling and smashing into the ground.

But how can you possibly compare that to something that has no specific form ?

sound is an energy wave

time is ????

as for the rate of movement of a space time braid, how can you have something moving rhat relies on its prime component to "move" itself at a third rate.

Under your acceptance of time there must be a force that is time/time.

Since using your skewed logic

Where B = to space time braid

matter = S + T (B)

rate = (S+T) per T

rate= (S+T) per S+T/S

rate/S= (S+T) per T

Now try and isolate either the positional place in Space or the increment of time that no longer carries a factor of matter or space in determining the rate of which your space+time (B) Braid can move.....

[edit on 20-8-2006 by robertfenix]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in