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.

 

A dissertation on Space and Time

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I wish I had a lab with the necessary equipment to play around with these concepts and either confirm or debunk these weight reduction effects.

Regarding the potential for patents, I feel that that is one of mankind's core issues. Everything is centered around money - and therefore - power.

If I made a discovery how to make free electricity, or how to cancel gravity and create new propulsion systems, I would give a shirt about patents. I would try to get it out there - make it known - spread it.

Money will lose all meaning in a world where we can control these things. Money is pointless anyway. I wish we could finally discard it and just simply share the resources and share services so everybody could get everything.

Money is necessary only to some who like the idea of being better than the majority. But money isn't necessary at all.

Hmmm.....I am going off-topic, sorry. Maybe I should start my own thread about why money is pointless and obsolete




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by C-JEAN

No, it is not sci-fi. I have studied the work by Townsend Brown profusely. His work has somehow been beset by so many disasters (mainly concerning funding) that one must question whether or not these events were coincidence. I strongly suggest anyone who is interested in this subject read up on Townsend Brown if they have not already done so. That link you gave to his work would be a pretty good place to start.

There is so much we do not understand about gravity. The reason is obvious to me: we do not understand gravity! I can remember the first day I realized that there was something weird about this invisible force pulling everything in the Universe together that everyone around me just seemed to accept as 'normal'. Normal it may be, but understood is quite another subject. My only hope is that the little presentation I posted gets some other minds to thinking as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reply to post by posterboy
A lab to work in is not really that big an issue. I use a 16' x 16' shop that i built myself, with a few specific design considerations to allow for expected future work. I stocked it with a complete all-in-one machine shop, woodworking tools, and room for all my electronics prototyping and chemical apparatus. Yeah, it cost a little something to build, but that is exactly why I expect to somehow someday make a living off of it.

You have to remember that money is indeed important. All those motors I linked for you cost money. All of the electronics I use in my testing costs money. Steel, plastic, wood all cost money. The tools cost money; just yesterday I broke a 3/8" end mill, for a cost of about $15 to replace. A single set of gears for one project 9sitting in mothballs due to financial reasons) have already been priced at $150.00.

Then there is food, electricity, Internet, phone service, school supplies for the kids... yes, one needs money to survive. Perhaps one day we won't, but for now we do.

That doesn't mean that I won't take steps to make sure my work reaches the public; I intend to do just that. After all, I just published a work that has literally been decades in the making into an open forum with no expectation of any 'payment'. I also just pointed you toward resources I personally use. I regularly give out advice on how to set things up for experimentation and survival strategies at the lowest possible cost, again without any expectation of profit. But please don't ask me to work for decades and spend my life savings to produce something for nothing in return, just as I don't ask you to work at your job for free.


(Don't misinterpret that last paragraph; I take no offense from your post. Just pointing out a similarity.)

If you start that thread, please let me know; I'll be happy to post in it.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
My intention wasn't to ask you specifically to work for free. What I meant is that we need a money-less society. If you didn't have to pay for all the things you mentioned, then you didn't have any reason to make any money either.

I understand it's an advanced concept hard to grasp for many. But it will eventually happen. Probably not in my life time.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Wow, I think it will take me some time to digest all of this information and I have only read about half of your OP. Right off I have several responses and I wanted to post them before I forget so I apologize if they are redundant for some reason or posted by another member.

First off your describing the Equivalence Principle at the start, interesting thought experiment BTW. I would also like to point out my opinion on gravity. Gravity might be a push or pull force, Personally I think it is a pushing force. Einstein and Newton described it as an attracting force intentionally avoiding the question.


Now, energy in its broadest sense can be used to describe anything that can affect matter, be it kinetic (motion) energy, potential

My opinion, Energy is a force that causes motion, energy is motion. Motion is time and both of these can be measured. Energy=Time=Measure (or the ability to measure).


"Why haven't we detected this energy?"

I believe we have, it's called inertia, which is derived from the word "impedance" or "to impede". Since the equivalence principle makes accelerations and gravity indistinguishable from each other then the gravitational acceleration is in the opposite direction of inertia just like accelerating. Inertia being the resistance to both (opposite not the same).

ADD: Impedance is a term that is now used to describe electrical resistance, ironic I think.


The most obvious answer is that it isn't there,

Now remember that gravity waves have not been found neither using the same idea that was used to look for this energy in space, laser interferometers. Does that mean gravity is not there?


what is matter?

Matter is the storage of energy or momentum, a potential energy.


That indicates that it is entirely plausible that matter is a trapped wave of electromagnetic energy

This idea is heading in a wonderfully different direction for most accepted science and sounds like the Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM). It has been a long time since I looked that site over. A tonne of information there that is for sure.


therefore they [electrons] are an estimation rather than an observation.

Even the images of atoms are a computer representation of what energy the device is detecting. They are not what we would consider real pictures since they are too small to reflect any light of their own, kind of a weird thought. Maybe "size" is an incorrect analogy due to the limitations of my understanding.


Light cannot, then, have rest mass

Nothing is ever at rest (remember E=T=measure) and because of this I say newtons law of inertia is simply; Inertia is the resistance to acceleration.

Rest is a relative perspective and light can be "at rest" relative to our perspective (or inertial frame of reference), meaning we can stop or freeze light. I think this is what holograms are.

Light has been slowed in supper cooled gas and the interesting thing is that after to exits this gas it speeds back up to 'c'.

I like your thoughts here, very interesting and inspiring. There is so much more that I would like to add but I need time to gather my ideas pertaining to this stuff. I have a link to a free pdf E-book "Finding God in Physics" by Roy Masters. I have read several books written by him and I found them easy to understand and I enjoyed reading them.

ADD: Now that I think about Holograms I believe that they dissipate slowly over time. This would mean that even inside glass as a holographic image light is still moving.

[edit on 11/5/2009 by Devino]

[edit on 11/5/2009 by Devino]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Bicent76

A helicopter gains altitude using wings, just like an airplane. The difference is that the wings (or blades as they are called on a helicopter) are not fixed to the vehicle and move independently. That means they can be smaller since they can have more velocity.

We do indeed know how a helicopter works; we just cannot explain all the turbulent conditions that develop due to the speed of the blades in air and their circular motion as opposed to that of fixed wings (engineers are getting pretty close though). The principle, however, is that of aerodynamics as opposed to astrophysics and quantum mechanics.

So yeah, it's off topic, but I don't mind answering.


TheRedneck

The current description of Bernoulli's principle for lift is incomplete, here is a link to A physical Description of Lift.
Basically lift is buoyancy (just as in water), an aircraft is displacing its 'Load' with an equal weight of air from the "Scoop" (above the wing) to what's called the down-wash (behind and below the wing).

Oh, and this description allows bumble bees to fly...they're so happy now.


[edit on 11/5/2009 by Devino]

[edit on 11/5/2009 by Devino]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino

Wow, I think it will take me some time to digest all of this information and I have only read about half of your OP.

It took me decades to finish the information I summarized in the OP. I think a few days to read and digest it is doing pretty good.



First off your describing the Equivalence Principle at the start, interesting thought experiment BTW. I would also like to point out my opinion on gravity. Gravity might be a push or pull force, Personally I think it is a pushing force. Einstein and Newton described it as an attracting force intentionally avoiding the question.

As I understand the Equivalence principle, yes I am. Many of the concepts I have mentioned are also considered by others under differing names. I did not point these out for a reason: as they were all considered independent of any outside research, and since there may therefore be slight (but meaningful) differences between my work and that of others, I chose to present the entire concept without such references.

Later in the OP, you will see where I also describe gravity as pushing force, actually attributing that push (or gravitational current as I call it) to the action of anti-matter. I believe this concept is the answer to the riddle of 'dark matter'.


My opinion, Energy is a force that causes motion, energy is motion. Motion is time and both of these can be measured. Energy=Time=Measure (or the ability to measure).

I suppose that could also be a definition of energy.

The thing that had always bothered me was the inability of mankind to even meaningfully define matter or energy. How can we understand a thing (or say we understand a thing) when we cannot even define it without resorting to circular logic?

I would consider energy, in the broadest sense, to be the stuff that comprises the Universe, matter, and the continuum that holds it all together. Just as water is the thing which makes up the ocean, energy is the thing that makes up the Universe.

That definition, however, is probably too broad to be applicable in everyday use, such as in engineering for example. Energy is useless if there is not a potential difference in energy levels. There is no known way under present understanding of science that we can tap into the energy inherent in the continuum, although it is completely possible that we could discover a way to make use of the motion of that energy (gravity) or the waves that it produces (electromagnetic). Perhaps it is telling that as a society, up until now, we have used heat and kinetic energies as our primary energy source, both of which are motion-based and therefore merely a symptom of the inherent energy around us; now we are beginning to use waveform motion, which is closer to the actual source. Perhaps this trend will continue and we will learn to use the gravitational current itself, or perhaps I can be proven incorrect and some way to actually tap the energy inherent in the continuum itself could be found.


I believe we have, it's called inertia, which is derived from the word "impedance" or "to impede". Since the equivalence principle makes accelerations and gravity indistinguishable from each other then the gravitational acceleration is in the opposite direction of inertia just like accelerating. Inertia being the resistance to both (opposite not the same).

'Inertia' is more akin to the word 'inert', which means 'unchanging'. Therefore inertia is the resistance to change (in motion). I'm no linguist, but I don't see the connection to 'impede'; can you elaborate?

The Equivalence Principle is an offshoot from Einstein's thought experiment which I alluded to in the opening of the OP. I am still intrigued that after all these years, no one followed through with that thought experiment to further understand the nature of gravity. Instead, it would appear that science did an end run around this simple yet effective tool for understanding and arrived at some of the same conclusions through different means.

Just as in mathematics, where the correct answer is always the same regardless of the methods used to arrive at it, I believe in physics the correct answer must be the one that is always correct, regardless of the means used to derive it. Thus, if I come up with an answer using one method (the OP) and you come up with the same answer using different methods, the fact that our answers coincide lends credibility to their accuracy.


Now remember that gravity waves have not been found neither using the same idea that was used to look for this energy in space, laser interferometers. Does that mean gravity is not there?

You mistake my attempt to bring complex principles into simpler terms for an absolute statement. The sentence you refer to was simply a means to lead the reader into asking a question I was about to answer.

We have discovered 'gravitational waves', although not the kind that some physicists would like to believe exist. A waveform in the gravitational field (continuum) is simply electromagnetic radiation. The type that is being sought would be akin to the gravitational current alternately speeding up and slowing down in a regular fashion, something I do not see as being possible (or at least common). It would be like regularly alternating surges of current in the ocean; no such phenomenon has been found to exist, and there is no theory to explain why such a phenomenon would exist.

Given the elastic nature of the continuum, I won;t go as far as to say such waves would not be possible; I simply cannot fathom a situation where they would be created.


Matter is the storage of energy or momentum, a potential energy.

It could indeed be seen that way, understanding the inherent equivalence between matter and energy.


This idea is heading in a wonderfully different direction for most accepted science and sounds like the Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM). It has been a long time since I looked that site over. A tonne of information there that is for sure.

Exactly correct!


Even the images of atoms are a computer representation of what energy the device is detecting. They are not what we would consider real pictures since they are too small to reflect any light of their own, kind of a weird thought. Maybe "size" is an incorrect analogy due to the limitations of my understanding.

Some success has been achieved in measuring the physical size of protons and neutrons, although all the empirical data I have seen has a relatively large margin of error. The calculations I performed to verify my assumptions as to this aspect of matter hit very close to the measured results, well within that margin of error. My first thought after comparing the two was literally "someone did a pretty good job of measuring". I had expected more of a discrepancy.

But when I began investigating the electron (since the equations I had derived made it abundantly clear that the more massive a particle was, the smaller it had to be physically), I discovered that no one had ever been able to measure an electron's physical size! All of the estimations were exactly that: estimations based on the measured mass of the electron as compared to the mass of a neutron/proton. There was no actual empirical size information.

We are taught in school to consider the atomic structure similar to that of a solar system... the sun represents the nucleus made up of protons and neutrons, while tiny planetary-sized electrons spin around in shells (if memory serves, this is the Bohr model). This is simply not true. The nucleus may indeed be as described, but the electrons are physically huge yet light quasi-particles, concentrations of standing wave energy trapped not only by standing wave characteristics of the continuum, but also by the energy emanating from a proton (which we would call electrostatic energy). Without this electrical charge, the electron would be as elusive as many of the other theorized particles.


Nothing is ever at rest (remember E=T=measure) and because of this I say newtons law of inertia is simply; Inertia is the resistance to acceleration.

Rest is a relative perspective and light can be "at rest" relative to our perspective (or inertial frame of reference), meaning we can stop or freeze light. I think this is what holograms are.

Rest mass is a term used in relativity to describe the mass of an object when it is at rest relative to an observer. Remember Einstein's equations: the observed mass of an object increases with the observed velocity relative to the observer. Therefore, there can be no absolute mass of an object without considering its relative velocity. To communicate this concept mathematically, the term 'rest mass' is used.

The physical barrier to faster-than-light travel is contained in this very idea. If the observed mass of an object increases as it approaches the speed of light, in compliance with the expression √(c²-v²), then it is easy to see that as v approaches c, √(c²-v²) approaches √0, or simply 0. Dividing any value (possibly excluding 0 itself; there is mathematical disagreement on that one) by 0 gives ∞ (infinity). Thus, since the rest mass of an object is divided by the expression √(c²-v²) in Einstein's equations, the mass (or inertia) of an object approaching the speed of light relative to the observer becomes infinite. Infinite mass requires infinite energy to change its velocity, thus it can never accelerate further.


Light has been slowed in supper cooled gas and the interesting thing is that after to exits this gas it speeds back up to 'c'.

And to my knowledge, the observed 'mass' of the light has never been shown to vary, regardless of its relative velocity. Thus, light itself must be massless, just as a water wave does not itself contain water, but rather contains energy which is moving the surrounding water in a circular fashion.


I like your thoughts here, very interesting and inspiring.

I thank you for your kind words. I am looking forward to your views on the rest of the OP.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
OK, I'll bite.


If matter is producing a pull on the continuum, it follows that matter would not be a separate entity form the continuum, but rather a part of the continuum itself.


I don't see how that follows. You imply interaction, but that in no way leads to same identity.


Experiments have produced rough estimates of the physical size of protons and neutrons, which make up the bulk of matter as we know it. The measurements are far from precise due to the obvious problems when dealing with something as small as a subatomic particle.


Modern physics does not have any problems measuring sizes of protons and neutrons. It also asserts that due to their structure (a sea of quarks and gluons, not unlike an atom) you can't consider it a hard sphere, so the matter is "exact size" is entirely moot.


Yet, should one calculate the energy that would be inherent in a waveform of the same wavelength as the measures size of a proton/neutron


Wave of WHAT? Seriously.


with the amplitude to make the waveform fit inside a circular area, one determines that the energy inherent in such an electromagnetic wave is consistent with the mass of a proton/neutron according to the equation E=mc².


What circular area? How does "amplitude" relate to it? Why is it electromagnetic wave? None of these assertions make any sense. Neutrons and protons aren't even elementary particles to begin with, they are composite.


That indicates that it is entirely plausible that matter is a trapped wave of electromagnetic energy, trapped by some harmonic resonance inherent in the continuum.


It's not plausible at all. Why on Earth should I try to imagine that a neutrino is a trapped electromagnetic wave? What about gluon? Quark?


If there is one such harmonic, it stands to reason there would be others, and this would account for the existence of other particles: quarks, muons, neutrinos, electrons, etc.


To the best of our knowledge, the particles you listed here are point-like, there is absolutely no sense in trying to assign a size to them.


The main harmonic of the Universe would seem to be the proton/neutron wavelength


Well even I accepted this nonsensical theory of your "harmonics", I'd still have to note that proton and neutron have different masses, hence the above statement is incorrect no matter what.


with other particles existing sporatically at other harmonics. It also explains the quantum nature of matter, since particles could only exist at these harmonic frequencies.


What is, pray tell, "quantum nature of matter", and how the alleged harmonics explain same?


One aspect of this theory is intriguing, however, and does not align with traditional thought.


...or with solid knowledge, for that matter.


In everyday life, it is simple judgment that the bigger someting is, the more mass it has.


Huh? A helium balloon is heavier than a lead sinker?


But the reason for this observation is that the small sliver of steel contains many fewer particles of matter than the large block of steel does. It is the quantum effect of particles of identical size and mass comprising the steel.


Why do you call simple particle count a "quantum effect"? Just to make it sound scientific?


When one enters the subatomic realm, however, this relationship is reversed. We are no longer dealing with quantity of particles, but rather with individual particles themselves.


But we do! A nucleus with a larger number of nucleons is heavier than nucleus of the same element, which is a lighter isotope.


Of course, we were all taught in science class that electrons, which are much lighter than protons/neutrons, are also much smaller. But science has yet to be able to effectively measure the physical size of an electron


So far it seems negligible, i.e. infinitely small.


the sizes accepted are based on the mass as opposed to the mass of a proton/neutron


Where did you get this notion?


In actuality, an atom is a tiny group of small particles in the center, surrounded by huge (but light) electrons that are so light they tend to act in many cases like energy rather than like mass.


Again, completely false.

JUNK SCIENCE ALERT



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Seriously, it's hard to believe that OP collected more than a few stars...
Sheesh.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

I believe the simple answers are usually the best and this is certainly true in a cosmological sense.
It is very useful to forget the dark matter/energy idea, it is based on the failings of the big bang theory and does not exist. There is a force that makes everything happen but I don't consider it a force that holds everything together, more like the origin of rotation. This idea is the start of a very simple understanding of matter and energy as far as I can tell (the origin of rotation).


Many of the concepts I have mentioned [equivalence principle] are also considered by others under differing names.

I have found this principle in other examples as well but I consider them to be the same thing. It is like the inverse square law, I came to understand it in a very simple way and it eventually appeared to me as an inverted pyramid. Double the height of a 1 square pyramid and you get a 4 square base, double that and you get a 16 base and so on. This works to become infinitely large, infinitely small and also works for thicknesses of material (like the skin of a balloon) and the amount of energy (electro-magnetic, light and sound).


Perhaps this trend will continue and we will learn to use the gravitational current itself, or perhaps I can be proven incorrect and some way to actually tap the energy inherent in the continuum itself could be found

I think that we are heading in the correct direction yet we are still missing a full understanding.


'Inertia' is more akin to the word 'inert', which means 'unchanging'. Therefore inertia is the resistance to change (in motion). I'm no linguist, but I don't see the connection to 'impede'; can you elaborate?

I don't think I could find the original link but a few years ago I was reading about inertia and I came across the definition of "impedance" which came from a Latin term that Newton and others were using in their day which means to stand in the way or resist. I added to my earlier post about the connection to the term how it is used to day, Impedance; "A measure of the total opposition to current flow in an alternating current circuit..."
Here is another definition; "An analogous measure of resistance to an alternating effect, as the resistance to vibration of the medium in sound transmission." Inertia is impedance, electrical impedance is inertia.



But when I began investigating the electron (since the equations I had derived made it abundantly clear that the more massive a particle was, the smaller it had to be physically)

I have a question about this part, I would consider electrons to be a force rather than a little ball. When dealing with atoms I think their size is proportional to their weight, separate water and we would get 4 times more volume of Oxygen than Hydrogen since Oxygen is 8 times heavier yet there are two Hydrogen per water molecule.

As you are describing I view electrons (and atoms for that matter) as standing waves and not little balls nor mini solar systems. Actually I don't consider solar systems celestial balls neither yet I do think they follow the same rules as do atoms, "as above, so below".


To communicate this concept mathematically, the term 'rest mass' is used

I still consider this to be an error. Something else, Math is one of the few things in the Universe that can actually be incorrect. Facts cannot be disputed, they are what they are, belief in religion is never wrong, unless you believe your wrong (as per my sig), and philosophy, opinions and concepts are just that so cannot be wrong neither.


the mass (or inertia) of an object approaching the speed of light relative to the observer becomes infinite. Infinite mass requires infinite energy to change its velocity, thus it can never accelerate further.

Here is another boundary for relative thinking like in the equivalence principle, Objects can accelerate faster than the speed of light but the Observer would never know it. It is like falling into a theoretical black hole. For you, when you fall in, things get bad real fast and quickly your life comes to a crushing end. For me I see you forever on the event horizon and think that this means your still alive. In a way you have become the hologram.

Stormy weather threatens a power failure so I'll have to continue later.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I just know I'm going to love reading the OPs and this thread. What a lovely, massive wall of textual science. Just my luck that it's gone 2 am here and I've been staring at a screens all day.

I will be back tomorrow to read them, and the extra pages that will no doubt have been added by then.

S&F just because of the title of this thread.

My only concern is that you may be a fan of...I can barely say his name...I won't say his name! You're not a fan of that bloke who wrote that book about how great he is and about all the awards he'd won and engagements he'd been invited too. What was that book of his called? A Brief History of...

[edit on 5-11-2009 by sharps]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
To the best of our knowledge, the particles you listed here are point-like, there is absolutely no sense in trying to assign a size to them.

Point-like is the key phrase not to be considered a point in any real terms since there is no such thing. If you cannot understand the concept of wave forms of matter then that is your error not this concept. Maybe TheRedneck has some better links to this theory then I do but it does have some proven scientific merit. This thread would be an attempt to introduce you to these observations in the hopes that you might understand this concept, right or wrong.

As for "no sense in assigning size" I would say your missing the entire point. Everything in existence has measure and the "Point" is in trying to assign size in length, volume, mass and time. This is a nonconstructive argument, unless you actually do have a point, no pun intended.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Originally posted bt TheRedneck
So what does i, the square root of negative one, mean?

My calculator says the square root of -1 = Error, this is what I meant by the "Error" in mathematics.
i actually stands for infinity since the concept of Zero is the mathematical event horizon. The same thing happens with pi, geometry, and phi, biology. These are the three infinite points that we know of in the middle. Mathematical on the high end is the infinite energy and the low end is the infinite void and here we are stuck in the middle. I know this concept is beyond math but it is a crucial point IMO.

I would like to point out another concept that is often missed, the difference between velocity and acceleration from a relativistic view. Inertia is the resistance to acceleration not velocity, so velocity becomes momentum. Inertia becomes mass from the energy of the force that is accelerating it. Inertial mass is mass, length contraction is a crushing force from the resistance to acceleration and time dilation is due to the increase in gravity from the increase in mass. Here again I see the Equivalence Principle, gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration.


The Pythagorean Theorem can be visualized via a circle around the origin of a graph, with both the 'x' axis and the 'y' axis representing real numbers.

At first this appears to be describing angular motions and hinting (I was hoping) at a possible origin. But then;

Einstein's equations, with d representing c and x representing v. In other words, every object is moving at the same total speed at all times, with that total speed being the speed of light.

Is 'c' at a right angle to ' v '? In an 'x', 'y' axis the numbers intersect at a right angle which creates orbital or rotational motions.

I have often thought about the idea that all motions can be described as either circular, parabolic or hyperbolic. We can imaging an object moving in a continuous straight line by itself but this does not happen because nothing is by itself (the only 'Thing' that is by itself is 'No-Thing').


If we mentally rotate the line segment around the origin of our graph, remembering that the length of the line segment is d, our physical speed is y, and our speed through time is x

I think I see an error in this thought, our speed through time is related to three things and you have only represented one of them. They are speed (either in acceleration or velocity), mass and the observer (we have to observe this happen).


As it [the particle] approaches the speed of light, its apparent time to an observer in this plane would approach zero. At the speed of light it would stop all movement through our time. After that point it would cease to exist in our observation.

I am following your point but I think you might be forgetting something, "inertial frame of reference". This is something that is not taught in math, astronomy nor physics. Some call it a personal perspective, point of view, the "seer", our ego, etc... and is a spiritual or metaphysical part to this equation. The particle would enter a different point of observation, not unlike the one it left, yet we would continue to 'see' this particle as its image would be imprinted in that spot throughout time. It would not disappear but appear to stop "think of a hologram". By the way scientifically this whole "Black Hole" stuff has gotten out of hand, it is a theory that has been described very poorly. What is actually taking place I feel is close but rather quite different.


if all matter is continually pulling on this continuum, where is the continuum coming from?


Matter is being pushed omnidirectional by this continuum (or what I am beginning to think off as the Luminiferous Aether) and due to a gravitational shadow effect the force becomes inward. This concept took me quite a while to understand but it was worth the time. This is not a new idea by the way.
The pushing effect causes gravitational pressure because mass is in the way, it is similar to the Bow shock and Eddies created by a rock in a river, buoyancy in water and air (and buoyancy in Aether) and wave oscillations (compression and rarefaction). I call this "Medium Elasticity and Equilibrium", based on action/reaction and the laws of thermo-dynamics.


Scientists have successfully created antimatter particles. Anti-protons, anti-neutrons, and positrons (anti-electrons) are known to be physically possible.
It is also known that energy equal to the mass equivalent of both particles can produce a particle and its anti-particle.


This sound too much like creating cold or darkness to me. Anti-particles would be the absent of particles so if you were to take away an equal amount of energy that is contained in a particle it would be annihilated and if you were to add an equal amount you would double it. There is still some profound reasoning here but it's more interesting than simply making ice cubes.

Nothing is ever at rest and it is quite possible that the concept of "Anti-Particles" is the point of "at rest" for a particle. To consider this in a more common manner it is the absolute zero of temperatures, absolute darkness of light and absolute void of space. It is the low end limitation of E=MC^2, a point of infinite non-existence.

Continued....



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

A burst of energy equal to the mass equivalent of two protons is used to create both a proton and an anti-proton. The proton continues to exist, while the anti-proton quickly intercepts another proton. Both the anti-proton and the newly-encountered proton then vanish, releasing the same amount of energy that was used to create them.


I understand this as taking the energy of 2 to destroy 1 and you are left with one (or 2 - 1=1).


That proton, now observed in reverse as an anti-proton, then encounters an amount of energy equal to twice its mass and again reverses its direction in time. It is now observed as a proton, the same proton we originally stated was 'created' along with the anti-proton. Since we the observers are viewing things happening in a forward motion through time, we observe this 'anti-proton; moving backward

I think I am beginning to understand how a wave structure can create matter, nice! However, keep in mind that the only way we could view an anti-particle (or anything else) moving backward in time is if we were to become anti-particles that were moving backward in time. Of coarse if we did that the 'Anti-' and 'Back' would be candled in us both and observation would cease between 'us' and those we left behind.


Thus, this alternate reality is an inverse of this one, a conduit if you will, to channel continuum from matter to anti-matter. Inversely, our reality exists to channel continuum from anti-matter to matter. What is matter here is anti-matter there, and vice-versa. Thus, time itself would operate in reverse.

There are many different 'realities' of time but they might all seem normal to those that are observing inside. Outside observation cannot exist simply because one cannot be in more than one place at a time. Omnipresence is truely ineffable.
I believe that this is beginning to open the understanding of different dimensions but to travel amongst these dimensions could have grave side effects.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
It is very useful to forget the dark matter/energy idea, it is based on the failings of the big bang theory and does not exist.


This is wrong. There are manifestation of dark matter/energy that have nothing to do with stipulations of the Big Bang hypothesis.


This idea is the start of a very simple understanding of matter and energy


I read you. Sciences are hard, and some theories (no matter whether supported by fact or otherwise -- the latter typical) that can be "understood" by 4 year olds are welcome by certain percentage of the public.



[edit on 6-11-2009 by buddhasystem]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino

Originally posted by buddhasystem
To the best of our knowledge, the particles you listed here are point-like, there is absolutely no sense in trying to assign a size to them.

Point-like is the key phrase not to be considered a point in any real terms since there is no such thing.


OK, you stage a series of scattering experiments and the particle behaves like a point charge. What do you call that?


If you cannot understand the concept of wave forms of matter then that is your error not this concept.


I did fairly well in quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics classes, so I think my grasp of these concepts is at least as good as yours, and in all likelihood vastly better.

My (long) critique of the OP still stands. The "theory" does not explain many of the things we know, and does not predict jack. As such, it's worthless.


***** JUNK SCIENCE ALERT *****



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I have taken the time to read this entire thread and I think the theories postulated by the OP are based in very possible accepted laws of quantum physics but with a novel twist. Thank you OP! Also I do not think you know as much as you think you do about quantum physics and your responses to what he said are narrow minded and incorrect.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redwookieaz
Also I do not think you know as much as you think you do about quantum physics and your responses to what he said are narrow minded and incorrect.


Try me. Take my critique of the OP (above) and pick it apart. Also explain how electron has a finite size and that fact still hasn't been detected in experiment. Have a field day.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Try me. Take my critique of the OP (above) and pick it apart. Also explain how electron has a finite size and that fact still hasn't been detected in experiment. Have a field day.


I think that you need to go and do some more research before you try to critique his work and your question to me that I quoted here just proves that. I am not interested in getting into a who has the bigger brain fight with you. You had no problem posting on his thread what you thought was incorrect with the OPs and thus I will have no problem doing the same for what you have said. Indeed you took a great deal of time to pick his post apart, and without sounding too mean I feel that based on what you have already stated it would not be worth my time play this game with you or your critique. But again if you are going to pick a post apart be sure to have a firm grasp on the subject matter going in. Now please feel free to insult away or challenge my manhood all you wish.

I hope there is some more productive rapport in this thread to come as this is very fascinating material!

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Redwookieaz]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Redwookieaz]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Redwookieaz]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Just a reminder good manners are expected. Civility and decorum are required; debate the topic not each other.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redwookieaz
I am not interested in getting into a who has the bigger brain fight with you.


It's not about the brain size and you know that.


You had no problem posting on his thread what you thought was incorrect with the OPs and thus I will have no problem doing the same for what you have said.


Yes, and a meaningful argument involves backing up your assertions with facts, and/or elementary logic. Why does want one to declare the "proton/neutron frequency" (whatever the heck it means) the fundamental harmonic of the Universe? If you agree with this 0.00001%, be ready to back it up or admit it's voodoo.


Indeed you took a great deal of time to pick his post apart, and without sounding too mean I feel that based on what you have already stated it would not be worth my time play this game with you or your critique.


It won't? How come? Look, I said that post XYZ is wrong because of such and such. You are saying post ABC is wrong just because it's wrong. Do you see the difference?


But again if you are going to pick a post apart be sure to have a firm grasp on the subject matter going in. Now please feel free to insult away or challenge my manhood all you wish.


I have no idea why you had to bring up you manhood. My knowledge of Freud is sketchy at best, I give you that. However, you summarily accused me twice of having a poor grasp of the subject and in fact, I do know some physics.

Now, strictly on topic, why are proton and neutron fundamental particles whereas they are indeed composite? Why does the OP state that the size of these particles is not well known whereas it is, to the limits imposed by the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics? Why is it that according to the best data we have, we don't see any size of an electron while the author claims something else? Where is my grasp of subject matter failing in bringing up these questions?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join