|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 03:48 AM by tobiascore
|
Originally posted by mikesingh
Mind boggling science fiction!! The theories that scientists come up with! Jeeez! So, we can't ever see those nutrinos, can't ever hear them, can't
ever feel them, but hey, they exist somewhere out there! Oh yeah. We're probably living inside one right now and what we're seeing with our eyes and
those giant telescopes is not the actual universe, not reality but some weird holographic projection or a faint reflection of reality that exists
within our little nutrino! (They must come in all sizes!  )
And then this theory relies upon another THEORY that the universe started off with a big bang. Because of the so called doppler red shift, we
conveniently deduce that the universe is expanding only to collapse again to produce another huge big bang! Huh? 
Is it scientifically prudent to base ones theories on still other theories that have not been scientifically proved? This nutrino theory relies on the
theory of the expanding universe which may not be the case at all! Let the scientists prove that first before going ahead with such bizarre concepts!
I don't dig this though it's top-of-the-rung science fiction stuff! Wish Arthur C Clarke were around!
Cheers! 
[edit on 13-6-2009 by mikesingh]
Agreed. Isaac Asimov basically wrote a story describing this story in "The Last Question". It's purely doesn not describe the data. It is a poor
human description of the universe that does not hold any...weight. hahah
seedmagazine.com...
Physicist David Bohm has the most logical theory on QM. But he has been shunned. These modern theories of the universe are old and boring.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 05:14 AM by DangerDeath
|
reply to post by Romantic Rights
From here: plato.stanford.edu...
Yet since I can predict either x1 or p1 without interfering with the system No. 1 and since system No. 1, like a scholar in an examination,
cannot possibly know which of the two questions I am going to ask first: it so seems that our scholar is prepared to give the right answer to the
first question he is asked, anyhow. Therefore he must know both answers; which is an amazing knowledge; quite irrespective of the fact that after
having given his first answer our scholar is invariably so disconcerted or tired out, that all the following answers are ‘wrong.’
What Schrödinger showed was that if two particles are prepared in a quantum state such that there is a matching correlation between two
‘canonically conjugate’ dynamical quantities — quantities like position and momentum whose values suffice to specify all the properties of a
classical system — then there are infinitely many dynamical quantities of the two particles for which there exist similar matching correlations:
every function of the canonically conjugate pair of the first particle matches with the same function of the canonically conjugate pair of the second
particle. Thus (Schrödinger, p. 559) system No. 1 ‘does not only know these two answers but a vast number of others, and that with no
mnemotechnical help whatsoever, at least with none that we know of.’
Schrödinger coined the term ‘entanglement’ to describe this peculiar connection between quantum systems (Schrödinger, 1935; p. 555):
It seems to me that the "problem" is that this experiment shows there is no causality in time/space continuum. In order to determine spin of an
electron you rather have to "decide" what its spin is. Only when you "know" the spin of one electron, then you can know the spin of the other one
(it is the opposite of the first one's spin).
So this element of decision is confusing those who believe there is an eternal logic behind all phenomena in the Universe.
Einstein didn't accept this conclusion and he said that "God doesn't play dice". For him, everything was determined from the beginning and there
was no "chance". In my opinion, this experiment proves that a decision making is "free". It is not "determined".
The observer must decide what he observes, and only from that point things "start happening" in a logical way.
So, "objectivity" is preceded by "subjectivity". Tricky thing which destroys the concept of the empiric, because the reliable knowledge exists
before it has been observed.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 05:21 AM by DangerDeath
|
Originally posted by synyster.
reply to post by shortest man walking
its called entanglement theory, to answer your question.
And this is a pretty amazing find... tons of subatomic particles stretched to the point where they are almost as big as the universe themselves.
I wonder how this applies to multi-dimensions?
To stretch something that is just a point (neutrino) is actually talking about the "principle" of space. Space, as principle, has no size. It is
just a "potential". And existing in space is by means of movement. Movement simply means difference, discerning (principle of reflection). In this
"neutrino" there is no differentiation, so its size can be anything (immeasurable, not simply "huge").
The same applies to concepts of "bending space" and such. How can one bend a principle? Scientists often freak out when it comes to understanding
something in a metaphysical way. Then they come out with these silly ideas that "space is objective" or that "vacuum exists objectively".
They are trying to apply their perception (which is differentiating of objects) to something which is a singularity. It cannot be done. One must make
a "quantum leap" to understand this. It cannot be deduced from the "observable".
Since they have "observed" the "potential", I must say that they are actually talking about neutrinos as of the force itself. Force is the
immeasurable potential without which nothing physical can move, yet force is not physical (has no physical properties). All physical world cannot
exist without this metaphysical principle which cannot be observed directly. All science of physics is very ambivalent 
[edit on 13-6-2009 by DangerDeath]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 05:25 AM by DangerDeath
|
Originally posted by Thinker_1
Does this imply that the entire universe could be encapsulated within a single, stretched (or evolved) neutrino? Could that mean we're sub-sub
atomic? Are we really an atom within the fingernail of God?
Scientists wouldn't dare mention God
That's why they're so "entangled" 
Metaphysics easily deals with this problem which inevitably arises from attempts to explain everything in causal, linear way, while in metaphysical
reality everything is still in the state of singularity (before the Big Bang).
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 05:58 AM by debunky
|
*slaps dangerdeath*
*punches dangerdeath*
*takes a gun and shoots dangerdeath in the foot* (don't want to kill him)
*Accelerates dangerdeath to 0.6c and slams him into earth obliterating him *and* the planet*
4x force applied to your body. Immesurable? No physical properties?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 06:03 AM by DangerDeath
|
Originally posted by debunky
*slaps dangerdeath*
*punches dangerdeath*
*takes a gun and shoots dangerdeath in the foot* (don't want to kill him)
*Accelerates dangerdeath to 0.6c and slams him into earth obliterating him *and* the planet*
4x force applied to your body. Immesurable? No physical properties?
Debunky, force is only "relatively" measurable, as need be. The decision making is applied to the scale of perception, as an assumption.
Only the effects of force are measurable and observable.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 06:05 AM by boaby_phet
|
s+F ... great post! just what i need for this time in the morning. my brains not fully active and thats just stretched it to the limit.
the more i hear / read about teh universe the more it gets weird.. if we are made of particles, yet their are particles the same size as a galaxy. my
thoughts on this, if their are particles that big, who's to say their are not bigger particles, and we are inside them ... dam, we could all just be
quarks!
the mandelbrot set seems more logical every day ..
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 09:18 AM by ::.mika.::
|
that study is matching the ummo theory about the additional dimension with infinite mass
WAAM - WAAM The WAAM -
WAAM, translation: pluri-cosmos. To understand this vision of the universe, we should quickly discard all our S.F. novels (even though the Ummite file
can be compared to the world's greatest role playing game). In fact, it is not a question of a multitude of parallel universes, but rather of
universes with different physical properties.
These properties being related closely to the orientations of the multiple vectors of the IBOZOO UU. We recommend you read and understand this concept
before going any further in " the exploration " of the cosmos. Thus to some extent, the WAAM resembles Hawking's theory on "bubble-universes"
(see the Champs / Flamarion collection for a simplified explanation) but he did not build a logical system that would make such universes possible...
Returning to WAAM-WAAM, the Oummites say that we are plunged in a multidimensional universe which exists in multiple combinations within its
structure. But for the Ummite, dimension is not a vector or scalar, dimension is a three-dimensional frame in which properties specific to that frame
EXIST, these properties being related to the orientation of the vector axes of the IBOZOO UU. First example, since you may already be overwhelmed, a
positron does not exist in a natural state within our three-dimensional frame (it is a position, not a demonstration), but is in its natural state in
another three-dimensional frame, and its specificity in the latter is the same one as the electron within our frame. WAAM- WAAM consists of an
infinite number of three-dimensional frames with two well defined limits,which will be developed further. The difference with our concepts lies in the
definition of dimension. We saw in the chapter on the IBOZOO UU that everything we call particles or waves is defined by the angular variation of the
axes of the vectors of two dependent IBOZOO UU. A photon, an electron, a " graviton ", can thus be defined by the amount of variation of the
orientations of the vectors of the I.U. Space-time plunges us into a 4-dimensional frame, or 4 vectors, in Ummite terms..
The IBOZOO UU has 10 vectors. Our frame or our dimension is defined by the orientation of its vectors, and since there are an infinite number of
possible angular orientations of these vectors, there is an infinite number of tetra-dimensional frames. It's now easier to understand why one cannot
really speak about parallel universes, but could draw an analogy between the universe (the WAAM - WAAM) in the diversity of its frames, and the
different possible physical states of water (gas, liquid, solid); all these states coexist, but it always remains a substance made up of H2O
molecules. We live in water in its gaseous state, but other beings can only exist in water in its solid state...(it is an analogy!). Another example:
any image on a monitor is made up of three constutuent signals: Red, Green and Blue. If the whole screen is green, you will not be able to see a
single green point. On the other hand, if your screen is yellow, you will be able to distinguish a single green point on this background...It is all
just a question of one reference frame defined by another reference frame, the RGB signal. It is not about the distance between the various universes,
about time, or other things; it is a question of the specific characteristics of the IBOZOO UU which define these universes.
The oummites say to have been able to" plunge themselves " into ten different frameworks by means of a a simple variation of THEIR IBOZOO UU (which
ones????) but the framework that is more interesting to us is the U-WAAM or anti-universe ; it differs only by the vector which characterizes the
mass; it is thus symmetrical to us, mathematically speaking. One of its effects would be to contain our galaxy in a kind of cocoon and to thus
counteract the effect of centrifugal force not compensated for by the famous "missing mass" which always eludes observation. In the same way, this
universe " skirts " ours in its pluri-geometry, and its uniqueness lies in the fact that the speed of the light in its centre could be 50 times
higher than in our universe, thus providing the possibility of traveling very quickly from one point to another in our space at very high speed. We
would no longer need hundreds of years to go to the nearest star. (This is what astronomers such as Ribes proclaim, at least that is his official
position).
We spoke to you about the boundary universes, which they are in terms of the state of their IBOZOO UU. These universes are the BUAWA and BUAWE BIAEI.
On one hand, the universe of Souls ( or spirits), on the other, the universe of the Souls' souls.
Their defining characteristics are:
* BUAWA Universe: zero mass, photon velocity zero, time is thus "frozen", and a constantly expanding radius.
* BUAWE BIAEI Universe: infinite mass, photon velocity infinite, constantly expanding radius. It is surprising to see how much those who revealed
these texts have integrated physically what for us is nothing but pure speculation...The oummites have no reason to manufacture religion since they
have modeled our intuitions.
In this respect, such a society is inherently stable. At least from this point of view. Once again, we would say that we only observe the universe
from our seat....PLATO! Here is the man who should have been listened to in the sciences, PLATO and his cave....Pure objectification!
feastofhateandfear.com...
[edit on 13-6-2009 by ::.mika.::]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 09:47 AM by zooplancton
|
wow. i love being floored like this.
the more you "zoom-in" OR "zoom-out", it all just seems like one big interconnected brain.
or living organism.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 09:57 AM by ressiv
|
i'll wouldend be surpriced if all the galaxies in our know universe will form (at s distance vieuw) a DNA structure....
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 11:45 AM by debunky
|
Originally posted by DangerDeath
Originally posted by debunky
*slaps dangerdeath*
*punches dangerdeath*
*takes a gun and shoots dangerdeath in the foot* (don't want to kill him)
*Accelerates dangerdeath to 0.6c and slams him into earth obliterating him *and* the planet*
4x force applied to your body. Immesurable? No physical properties?
Debunky, force is only "relatively" measurable, as need be. The decision making is applied to the scale of perception, as an assumption.
Only the effects of force are measurable and observable.
F=m*v
There are devices to measure m
there are devices to measure v
there are even devices to measure F
m=0 then F=0
v=0 then F=0
F=0 either m or v or both=0
No relativity here. The only decisionmaking is in the units, and those are and must be arbitary. They don't enter into the principle.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 11:57 AM by Primordial
|
I don't know, I'm a little skeptical of some of these theories that rely solely on mathematical formulas with no verifiable, observable facts. Not
saying all theories are crap, just that more info is needed before we all start ooohing and ahhing over a theory with no facts.
Well, the numbers don't lie some might say. To that I would say they most certainly do. I've seen it. A simple example would be when at a previous
job a fellow worker was cheated out of some commission by some 'creative accounting'. Same numbers, same sales, different formula = different
outcome. When I protested (I was his manager) I was shown by the CFO how it was done. His formula was legit, just different, and there was nothing I
could do about it.
Given enough time I could devise a formula that proves without doubt that you are in fact a tree.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 01:02 PM by DangerDeath
|
reply to post by debunky
No relativity here. The only decisionmaking is in the units, and those are and must be arbitary. They don't enter into the principle.
That is what I am saying. Arbitrarily comes when calibration of senses is decided, or else we'd be lost in an endless Mandelbrot-like infinity
without beginning or end.
Since the Force is what affects matter, it can only affect it after calibration, which means the force is relative, adapted to the "measures". The
act of creation is calibration, the "logos".
It is not for nothing that some famous Greek said: Man is the measure of all things, and Niels Bohr said: Nothing exists until it's measured.
Force itself, has no physical properties.
No color.
No size.
No weight.
No tangibility.
etc...
Force can not be perceived directly. It can only be known, because force is knowledge. That's how it operates, it knows.
The saying: Force is knowledge, is true.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 01:26 PM by jkrog08
|
Okay, I read it again and apparently these still exist today, I was confused at first because they compared it to the WMAP analysis, which was from
billions of years ago. So it makes one wonder if we are encompassed within on of these 'neutrino realms' and if so what kind of benefits or cons
will arise from this?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 04:05 PM by Soylent Green Is People
|
Originally posted by reugen
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
If these "stretched neutrinos" are single particles, could they provide an instantaneous information link across vasts distances?
I thought the idea of communication over vast distances in space was related to quantum entanglement ? What makes one giant neutrino so fit for the
task?
I simply wonder if somehow stretched neutrinos are the medium by which quantum entanglement operates.
If a neutrino is one single 10 billion light year-long homogeneous particle , can what's happening at one end be "felt" instantaneously at the
other end? -- And not because of quantum entanglement per se, but because that is the very nature of these stretched neutrinos.
[edit on 6/13/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 04:21 PM by jkrog08
|
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
I was thinking that too, maybe these super neutrinos are actually what many thought were world volume membranes all along?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 04:39 PM by masqua
|
Neutrino's are created by our own sun.
The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) results have provided revolutionary insight into the properties of neutrinos and the core of the sun. The
detector, shown in the artist's conception below, was built 6800 feet under ground, in INCO's Creighton mine near Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. SNO was
a heavy-water Cherenkov detector designed to detect neutrinos produced by fusion reactions in the sun.
www.sno.phy.queensu.ca...
From another page on the same site:
You could argue that all the experiments are simply wrong, but this is highly unlikely. The different experiments all use diverse detection
techniques, overseen by large collaborations, and have been calibrated with a variety of sources. *
Now is a good time to introduce another fact about neutrinos; there are actually three types of neutrinos (six types if you count the anti-neutrinos).
The three types (called flavours) are the electron-neutrino (ne ), the muon-neutrino (nu ) and the tau-neutrino (nt ); they correspond to the three
known "generations" of particles that make up the known roster of elementary particles. Normal "earthly" matter is made from first generation
particles, protons, neutrons and electrons. The higher generation particles can be created in particle accelerators (that is how they were
discovered), but they rapidly decay back to the first generation due to their larger mass.
www.sno.phy.queensu.ca...
*bolding mine
The findings in the OP are interesting in that neurtrinos created when the universe began are so stretched that they have become gargantuan  (love
that word).
Fascinating stuff.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 07:55 PM by suigeneris
|
I know this is probably way off topic and maybe I am a little crazy now. But, hear me out. I lost my son yesterday. I have cried and puked and done
all the things you would believe. I have another child. We were sitting outside and I was just looking into the sky, kinda in a trance. For awhile I
see nothing but sky and clouds. Then I see a head with an arm and a hand raised with five fingers in the clouds. The hand raises up off the arm and
turns into a perfect heart. The heart floats away and the entire cloud formation turns into an eagle. Not just a cloud eagle, a perfect cloud eagle
flying. I know it was meant for me. I know he is okay now. I do not know what forces there are in this world. I come here almost everyday and
really feel too stupid to comment on subjects I really love and research. This is real. This is real. My favorite song is Fly Like An Eagle by
Steve Miller Band. It was real and it was meant for me. Thank you God.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 11:20 PM by yellowcard
|
Originally posted by shortest man walking
the first thing this made me think of is (i am way wrong here, just trying to explain what i am talking about since i cant think of its name) the
effect of two plasma balls being made from one object, then one ball of plasma is spun. the neat part is the other ball of plasma regardless of how
great the distance between the two, it will spin immediately, , even if say it were on the other side of the solar system, greatly surpassing the
speed limit placed on light.
i cant help but think maybe these neutrinos are responsible.
if anyone knows the name of the experiment i am talking about, please let me know, its really buggin me 
I'm pretty sure you're talking about Quantum Entanglement,
en.wikipedia.org...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 14-6-2009 @ 05:02 AM by AzraelTheBold
|
Wow, this is truly amazing. It shows how little we as humans actually know about the universe.
You think you know somethin, and stuff like this appears that completely blows our mind.
Awesome find, starred and flagged
|
copyright & usage
|
|
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
|
|
|
