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.

 

Strings are made up of energy.....

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
TL

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
what makes up that energy? And what makes up the stuff that makes the thing that makes up the strings energy? And so on....? Does it infinitely go on??




posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I noticed your earlier post about life and energy and boy oh boy you are asking a lot about a big subject. I suggest that you try and learn a bit of basic elementary physics. Nothing too deep or difficult at first. Quantum mechanics and astrophysics can be difficult for some to understand, but fortunately there are some truly great book that are aimed at your every day person, yet contain a great deal of information.

I would highly recommend "A Brief History of Time" By Stephen Hawking, perhaps one of the smartest people alive today and many call him a successor to Albert Einstein. No worries, this book is not full of mathematical formulas, and will give you a great understanding of the universe we live in. There is also a film as well. I am certain you can get that book from your library. It is easy to read and understand and not just a science text book. The only mathematical formula it contains is E=MC 2

A second book I highly recommend is "The Tao of Physics" No, it isn't a religious book on Taoism, but rather it is a look at physics and how it relates to our every day lives. It is full of interesting topics on Physics that are easy to understand while at the same time being quite complex in nature.

I hope this helps.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TL
what makes up that energy? And what makes up the stuff that makes the thing that makes up the strings energy? And so on....? Does it infinitely go on??


I've always found it odd and somewhat annoying how science mainly only try's to deal with how things work and not what they actually are or how they exist at all, things like consciousness and how an atom just happens to exist and what it really is at any level baffles them just as much as it does us, they over do the maths making it often very hard to understand by the average joe, while thats all very nice and useful for the most part in making technology and gaining a better understanding of various processes, it sadly just isn't good enough at really giving good explanations to most people and always seems shy of finding real meaningful truth to the how and why of things.

[edit on 28/1/07 by just theory]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Hi,

What we do have is "theories" about those things, and they are the 2nd Theory of Relativity and Planck's Constant. The science of it is Physics and the fields of that are, basically, Particle Physics, Quantum Physics, and Astrophysics.

There is a pretty hot discussion thread on the topic of Matter and Energy and the theroies here if you want to read them.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Hope this helps you.


[edit on 28-1-2007 by Ed Littlefox]

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Ed Littlefox]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by just theory
I've always found it odd and somewhat annoying how science mainly only try's to deal with how things work and not what they actually are or how they exist at all, things like consciousness and how an atom just happens to exist and what it really is at any level baffles them just as much as it does us, they over do the maths making it often very hard to understand by the average joe, while thats all very nice and useful for the most part in making technology and gaining a better understanding of various processes, it sadly just isn't good enough at really giving good explanations to most people and always seems shy of finding real meaningful truth to the how and why of things.

[edit on 28/1/07 by just theory]


YES! You know, i really wish there was more people like you in the world. Sorry if that creeped you out, but whether your aware of it or not, the line of thinking you displayed is exactly what others need to realise.

All science has done is create a smokescreen infront of the majority of mankind, apart from those who are "smart" enough to understand all the equations and the like. This has put the discovery of the answers to the big questions in the hands of a few select people, and thus limited our chances of finding the truth.

The most important thing you can possibly realise about science is that not only is it a smokescreen, it keeps humanity focused on the PHYSICAL. It always talks about "matter", and now there is even dark matter to try and fix the dilema they have created (how to explain reality whilst maintaining the physical connection).

It all begins with the textbooks in school. "Solid little spheres" are atoms, yet, in reality, 99% of an atom is empty space. This is the start of the conditioning of science, and it makes you think just how dark our schools and institutions are, they are effectively lying to our faces about reality.

As i have said in other posts, science has done NOTHING to explain human consciousness. Why? Because if they did, it would blow open the truth of our existence and end the status quo. Its that simple. The New World Order is not about physical imprisoning, it is spiritual imprisoning.

the big bang for example: No matter how complicated science makes this event, it is the one thing that ANY human can figure out with a bit of logic (and also if they have the guts to realise they have been lied too/manipulated). Everything doesn't just explode from nothing, into nothing, to create everything for no apparent reason. The laws of chance don't even figure in this event, it is an event which happened for a purpose. cause and effect. im not saying "god" created this event, oh no.. im saying WE created this event, consciousness did it itself. all that happened is we created a playground for ourselves to have fun in, a blank canvas if you will, for consciousness to be diverse and experience itself.

Despite how much people praise science, any person can find the answers to reality if they look inside themselves enough, if they examine their own consciousness. Science can never reach the truth because ultimately it is trying to observe a process we created and that it is a part of. There is no point of referrence for science to measure consciousness, because it does not have to have a time and place in space, unless it is incarnated in a physical being, eg a human.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Yeah thats pretty much my thinking, thanks for expanding on it better than I could.

Science has for quite some time now been reaching a point where they are resorting to more far out ideas and theories than most spiritual beliefs have and to me that seems a little odd, its also suspicious and not good science to ignore such questions as no matter what the truth is, its the truth, i firmly believe most things can be explained in easy to understand terms and textbooks often do not really help the creative side, it seems theres a suppression of creativity and true understanding with cold logical maths and hard facts, theres little smooth flowing knowledge that’s easily understandable it seems.

Like i myself find learning by a well made educational documentary style video far far better than a lifeless textbook set out in a categorised logical layout, this is a massive problem with education today, such learning techniques don't stimulate or make it easy to flow through the knowledge and actually understand it which is most important thing, knowing facts and the individual workings of a piece of the puzzle doesn't make the puzzle.


TL

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
Hi,

What we do have is "theories" about those things, and they are the 2nd Theory of Relativity and Planck's Constant. The science of it is Physics and the fields of that are, basically, Particle Physics, Quantum Physics, and Astrophysics.

There is a pretty hot discussion thread on the topic of Matter and Energy and the theroies here if you want to read them.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'


Hope this helps you.


[edit on 28-1-2007 by Ed Littlefox]

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Ed Littlefox]
That thread is saying the gravity is instant, though it's the same speed as light. Watch the video " A New Picture of Gravity" at www.pbs.org...


TL

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   


the big bang for example: No matter how complicated science makes this event, it is the one thing that ANY human can figure out with a bit of logic (and also if they have the guts to realise they have been lied too/manipulated). Everything doesn't just explode from nothing, into nothing, to create everything for no apparent reason. The laws of chance don't even figure in this event, it is an event which happened for a purpose. cause and effect. im not saying "god" created this event, oh no.. im saying WE created this event, consciousness did it itself. all that happened is we created a playground for ourselves to have fun in, a blank canvas if you will, for consciousness to be diverse and experience itself.


The string theory does explain the big bang, watch www.pbs.org... 2 branes or multiverses floating in the 11th dimension collide creating a massive explosion. In the 11th dimension there is an infinite amount of multilverses/branes floating so the big bang will happen to our multiverse again.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TL

The string theory does explain the big bang, watch www.pbs.org... 2 branes or multiverses floating in the 11th dimension collide creating a massive explosion. In the 11th dimension there is an infinite amount of multilverses/branes floating so the big bang will happen to our multiverse again.


Riiightttt...that explains it SO well


It is nothing more than a substitution for what science said already, but now its been made 10x more complicated so the majority of peopel can't even picture it in their minds, and also been made more whacky without any real proof of it, just a bunch of mathematical equations.

It also maintains the "we are just spectacular accidents" stream of consciousness, so theres no need to care about what we do to ourselves, each other and the planet.

The Big Bang was the birth of consciousness into this dimension. Cause and effect. Energy follows intent. We (consciousness) intended to create a playground for ourselves, thats all.


TL

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by TL

The string theory does explain the big bang, watch www.pbs.org... 2 branes or multiverses floating in the 11th dimension collide creating a massive explosion. In the 11th dimension there is an infinite amount of multilverses/branes floating so the big bang will happen to our multiverse again.


Riiightttt...that explains it SO well


It is nothing more than a substitution for what science said already, but now its been made 10x more complicated so the majority of peopel can't even picture it in their minds, and also been made more whacky without any real proof of it, just a bunch of mathematical equations.

It also maintains the "we are just spectacular accidents" stream of consciousness, so theres no need to care about what we do to ourselves, each other and the planet.

The Big Bang was the birth of consciousness into this dimension. Cause and effect. Energy follows intent. We (consciousness) intended to create a playground for ourselves, thats all.



Maybe it doesn't make sense to you because you clearly haven't researched it?


In the cyclic model, two parallel orbifold planes or M-branes collide periodically in a higher dimensional space. The visible four-dimensional universe lies on one of these branes. The collisions correspond to a reversal from contraction to expansion, or a big crunch followed immediately by a big bang. The matter and radiation we see today were generated during the most recent collision in a pattern dictated by quantum fluctuations created before the branes. Eventually, the universe reached the state we observe today, before beginning to contract again many billions of years in the future. Dark energy corresponds to a force between the branes, and serves the crucial role of solving the monopole, horizon, and flatness problems. Moreover the cycles can continue indefinitely into the past and the future, and the solution is an attractor, so it can provide a complete history of the universe.


Originally, ekpyrotic models described two branes separated along a fifth dimension which collide once. Crucially, both the ekpyrotic and cyclic models create the fluctuations we observe today in a contracting "ekpyrotic" phase. However, in the ekpyrotic model, while a future collision with a different brane could conceivably happen in the future, ending our epoch in a conflagration, this happens randomly, not periodically. There were problems with the old ekpyrotic picture having to do with the very special, nearly supersymmetric initial state required in order to end up with a nearly homogeneous universe: the problems solved by cosmic inflation, such as the monopole, flatness and homogeneity problems were shifted to a set of fine-tuned initial conditions. The ekpyrotic picture was not connected to the issue of dark energy.

There are other technical differences having to do with the nature of the branes. For example, in the ekpyrotic model, they are D-branes; while in the cyclic model, they are orbifold planes.


TL

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   


Brane cosmology refers to several theories in particle physics and cosmology motivated by, but not rigorously derived from, superstring theory and M-theory.

The central idea is that our visible, four-dimensional universe is entirely restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the bulk. The additional dimensions may be taken to be compact, in which case the observed universe contains the extra dimensions, and then no reference to the bulk is appropriate in this context. In the bulk model, other branes may be moving through this bulk. Interactions with the bulk, and possibly with other branes, can influence our brane and thus introduce effects not seen in more standard cosmological models.

As one of its attractive features, the model can explain the weakness of gravity relative to the other fundamental forces of nature, thus solving the so-called hierarchy problem. In the brane picture, the other three forces (electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces) are localised on the brane, but gravity has no such constraint and so much of its attractive power "leaks" into the bulk. As a consequence, the force of gravity should appear significantly stronger on small (sub-millimetre) scales, where less gravitational force has "leaked". Various experiments are currently underway to test this.[1]

The Randall-Sundrum, pre-big bang, ekpyrotic and cyclic scenarios are particular models of brane cosmology which have attracted a considerable amount of attention.

The theory hypothesises that the origin of the big bang could have occurred when two parallel branes touched.



Quotes from Wikipedia.org

EDIT: Also,as I said earlier, I'd suggest watching www.pbs.org...

[edit on 28-1-2007 by TL]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
So tell me, how does this theory answer the question of "where did we come from?" any more than what was known before?

Lets just say there are 11 dimensions and colliding universes... where did they come from in the first place?

You see, it doesn't tell us anything new. All its done is take an event which can be explained with simple logic, and turned it into a amazingly complicated bunch of formulae.

Which is what i stated before..

And gravity is weak? What utter rubbish. Evidently this "scientist" has not heard of a black hole before, nor has he actually pondered as to why the cosmos is held together, and not just a soup/chaotic mess.

Evidently you have researched string theory, but i doubt you even understand half of it! I think you've just taken this to be the truth because this is what the top bunch of nerds (scientists) think is true.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I tried to sit through the "string theory" documentry, but either im not that smart (most likely) or i'll need to watch it a few more times to even start to understand it.

shrunkensimon, you have made an interesting point, are you saying that we were a living consciousness before we had a physical form? like life energy just floating in space looking for something to do?


TL

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
So tell me, how does this theory answer the question of "where did we come from?" any more than what was known before?

Lets just say there are 11 dimensions and colliding universes... where did they come from in the first place?

You see, it doesn't tell us anything new. All its done is take an event which can be explained with simple logic, and turned it into a amazingly complicated bunch of formulae.

Which is what i stated before..

And gravity is weak? What utter rubbish. Evidently this "scientist" has not heard of a black hole before, nor has he actually pondered as to why the cosmos is held together, and not just a soup/chaotic mess.

Evidently you have researched string theory, but i doubt you even understand half of it! I think you've just taken this to be the truth because this is what the top bunch of nerds (scientists) think is true.




Ask ANY scientist, or watch the video please. You have earth pulling down on you, yet a small electromagnetic magnet can pick up metal. Gravity is weak, all scientists have been wondering why is it so weak compared to electromagnetism. Gravity is made up of strings that are open ended,allowing them to travel through dimensions, where other strings are tied down to a brane causing them to stay in the same dimension, meaning gravity is leaking from other dimensions. Black holes? Imagine how strong a magnet with it's density would be. Compe objects with the same mass. What are you comparing the black hole to? , obviously it would have a strong pull. Compare a rock to a magnet the same size. Which has a greater pull, the magnet or the rocks gravity?

[edit on 28-1-2007 by TL]

[edit on 28-1-2007 by TL]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom goose
shrunkensimon, you have made an interesting point, are you saying that we were a living consciousness before we had a physical form? like life energy just floating in space looking for something to do?


Sort of, let me explain further;

IMHO energy is consciousness (thus everything is consciousness). Rather than consciousness floating around in something else, consciousness is itself. There is nothing outside of consciousness: Nothingness can only be nothing when it is not being observed, therefore everything outside of consciousness (everything) is nothing, simply because consciousness is not observing it, if that makes sense. Think of "everything everywhere" as a single sphere, which is the total consciousness, everything that exists in every dimension etc. Whats outside of that sphere is true nothingness, there are no laws, no forces, no light, nothing, simply because consciousness is not present there.

Humans are merely the most dense portion of our true form (energy/spirit). We exist on several dimensional levels at once, although we can not percieve these levels unless we have enlightened ourselves, taken drugs like '___' or '___', or developed schizophrenia, which is where a person has unlocked the total perception of himself before he/she should have, and they struggle to pick apart the MASSIVE amounts of information flooding into their minds.

We created ourselves in human form for fun, yes. But also to see if we could ultimately make it back to the source (total consciousness). Reality is an illusion, it is merely God (total consciousness) playing with itself (duality).

This video puts it into pictures very well, although for it to be correct the sphere should be pure white light; www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TL

Ask ANY scientist, or watch the video please. You have earth pulling down on you, yet a small electromagnetic magnet can pick up metal. Gravity is weak, all scientists have been wondering why is it so weak compared to electromagnetism. Gravity is made up of strings that are open ended,allowing them to travel through dimensions, where other strings are tied down to a brane causing them to stay in the same dimension, meaning gravity is leaking from other dimensions. Black holes? Imagine how strong a magnet with it's density would be. Compe objects with the same mass. What are you comparing the black hole to? , obviously it would have a strong pull. Compare a rock to a magnet the same size. Which has a greater pull, the magnet or the rocks gravity?
[edit on 28-1-2007 by TL]


OK, way to avoid the question "how does string theory present anything new, anything that we did not already know".

You can't compare gravity and electromagnetism by using mass, mass is irrelevant.

Light, which has no mass or charge can not be bent from its course by electromagnetism, but can by using gravity.

Yet, apparently gravity is the weaker of the two forces


TL

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by TL

Ask ANY scientist, or watch the video please. You have earth pulling down on you, yet a small electromagnetic magnet can pick up metal. Gravity is weak, all scientists have been wondering why is it so weak compared to electromagnetism. Gravity is made up of strings that are open ended,allowing them to travel through dimensions, where other strings are tied down to a brane causing them to stay in the same dimension, meaning gravity is leaking from other dimensions. Black holes? Imagine how strong a magnet with it's density would be. Compe objects with the same mass. What are you comparing the black hole to? , obviously it would have a strong pull. Compare a rock to a magnet the same size. Which has a greater pull, the magnet or the rocks gravity?
[edit on 28-1-2007 by TL]


OK, way to avoid the question "how does string theory present anything new, anything that we did not already know".

You can't compare gravity and electromagnetism by using mass, mass is irrelevant.

Light, which has no mass or charge can not be bent from its course by electromagnetism, but can by using gravity.

Yet, apparently gravity is the weaker of the two forces


How is mass and density irrelevant? And do you not know the basics of electromagnetism? It doesn't attract light. Kind of like how it doesn't attract paper. Gravity does. What force is stronger, (lets pretend you are metal), a rocks gravity pulling you, or a magnet that's the same size/density as the rock pulling you?


TL

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   

A small magnet can pick up paper clips. This means that the magnetic force applied on the paper clips by the tiny little magnet is more than the gravitational force the entire earth can muster.


www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

Just watch www.pbs.org...

[edit on 28-1-2007 by TL]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TL

How is mass and density irrelevant? And do you not know the basics of electromagnetism? It doesn't attract light. Kind of like how it doesn't attract paper. Gravity does. What force is stronger, (lets pretend you are metal), a rocks gravity pulling you, or a magnet that's the same size/density as the rock pulling you?


Again, mass is IRRELEVANT.

The relationship of electromagnetism and gravity changes depending on what perspective you are currently observing from, whether it be from a point in outer space observing galaxies and stars, or on an atomic scale observing atoms (the values aren't changing, just the relationship)

"A small magnet can pick up paper clips. This means that the magnetic force applied on the paper clips by the tiny little magnet is more than the gravitational force the entire earth can muster."

What absolute rubbish. What it fails to state is that the entire Earths gravity is not only trying to hold the paper clip down, but everything else on the planet at the same time.

Add up the potential energy of gravity for the entire Earth (the amount of force being exerted on everythign within Earths gravitational field), and it will be infinitely larger than the magnet.

The reason why the person who came up with that analogy is wrong is because they haven't taken a vantage point, or perception level. What they should have wrote;

"A small magnet can pick up paper clips. This means that the magnetic force applied on the paper clips by the tiny little magnet is able to overcome the force of gravity acting on the paper clip, but not gravity itself."

There is also the point to make that the magnet itself is immersed within Earths gravitational field, yet you don't see the magnet flying skyward and out of Earths gravity do you. Don't place the magnet near something metal, and it will fall straight to the ground like any dense object.


TL

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by TL

How is mass and density irrelevant? And do you not know the basics of electromagnetism? It doesn't attract light. Kind of like how it doesn't attract paper. Gravity does. What force is stronger, (lets pretend you are metal), a rocks gravity pulling you, or a magnet that's the same size/density as the rock pulling you?


Again, mass is IRRELEVANT.

The relationship of electromagnetism and gravity changes depending on what perspective you are currently observing from, whether it be from a point in outer space observing galaxies and stars, or on an atomic scale observing atoms (the values aren't changing, just the relationship)

"A small magnet can pick up paper clips. This means that the magnetic force applied on the paper clips by the tiny little magnet is more than the gravitational force the entire earth can muster."

What absolute rubbish. What it fails to state is that the entire Earths gravity is not only trying to hold the paper clip down, but everything else on the planet at the same time.

Add up the potential energy of gravity for the entire Earth (the amount of force being exerted on everythign within Earths gravitational field), and it will be infinitely larger than the magnet.

The reason why the person who came up with that analogy is wrong is because they haven't taken a vantage point, or perception level. What they should have wrote;

"A small magnet can pick up paper clips. This means that the magnetic force applied on the paper clips by the tiny little magnet is able to overcome the force of gravity acting on the paper clip, but not gravity itself."

There is also the point to make that the magnet itself is immersed within Earths gravitational field, yet you don't see the magnet flying skyward and out of Earths gravity do you. Don't place the magnet near something metal, and it will fall straight to the ground like any dense object.






Gravity is NOT divided among other things. Watch the video......



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join