Is Dark Energy and the Effects from Dark Matter just large scale Quantum Effects?

Hi all,

Relativity is a subject I find fascinating. This uber interesting subject concerns Time and Space and its relation to itself at different levels of integration.

At this point in our history we have the ability to zoom particles to 99.9% light speed and smash them together and we are able to build clocks that ticks at 1.1 quadrillion times a second and can accurately record time down to within a second every 3.7 billion years.

Relativity teaches us that from the particles perspective it is us that is moving at 99.9% light speed and its standing still and that for time period of one every 1.1 quadrillion, we are the ones moving fast...

So lets now relate this to quantum effects at the well... quantum level...

We see Quantum entanglement, Tunnelling, some form of Quantum gravity etc. etc...

Now here is the bombshell...

What if we are as relativity suggests observing quantum effects in what we believe to be large scales but in reality we are just smaller than the effects being shown??

I hope this is clear.

So for example...

Spiral Galaxies should shed most of their matter according to Newtonian physics, because there is not enough mass to attract the matter at the outer edges of the solar system and the matter would literally be flung off...

Scientists puzzled over this and came up with the idea of Dark matter...

Then they discover that the universes expansion is not slowing down as would be predicted by the standard model but is in fact speeding up.

Scientist puzzled over this and came up with the idea of Dark Energy. (an idea taken originally from a scrubbed equation of Einstein).

But....

what if these so called dark effects are in fact just quantum effects of what is perhaps in relation to each other small quantum size distances, but because we are so small in relation to these objects see the effects differently??

I wonder if anyone is following my vision??

Korg.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Korg Trinity]

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I think I follow what your saying-

Are you saying, we know about small-scale quantum effects, but we dont take into account how those effects play out as a large scale system?

I could see some truth in that. and the problem would be our current quality of computer/processing. I would imagine it would take a lot of processing power to simulate the quantum flux field. what we need is more processing power and a "bigger" microscope. when they study the quantum field, they must be focusing in on a very very tiny small part of space. Now imagine if they could observe/simulate a field the size of a couple thousand miles, but at the quantum level. That would take some serious processing power, but I imagine we would begin to see the "bigger" ripples in the wave!

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

I think I follow what your saying-

Hehe I'm glad someone one does. It's incredibly difficult to describe something you can clearly visualise in your mind’s eye.

The basic principle of what I'm saying is this.

We are large sale relative to a sub atomic particle. We can observe quantum effects that the particle responds to.

However..

We are small scale relative to a galaxy.

Maybe the strange effects of dark matter (should really be dark mass) and dark energy are the very same quantum effects occurring at large scales relative to us?

If you were much much much larger than a galaxy wouldn't the effects of dark matter and dark energy look the same as the quantum effects we observe in sub atomic particles??

It's so easy for me to visualise. I wish I could vocalise my mind easier!!!

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


The whole thing fascinates me, too.

Matter and antimatter form different types of parallel universes. Some are separate dimensional planes governed by succinctly different sets of physics, geometrics and physical laws. Others duplicate your universe quite closely. Some parallel universes exist in subspace within parameters of 'formless geometry' and are completely different quantum realities. Some universes are smaller than a molecule, such is the paradox of spacial enigma. Physical universes such as yours are the exception, not the rule. Indeed there are highly evolved Beings in the Cosmos that are quite unaware that realms of physical universes even exist. Indeed there are distant components of your own Beingness, quite unaware of your physical self.

The visible physical matter that is understood within your current limited level of technology actually makes up less than 4% of the multiverse. Approximately 20% of your universe is composed of what is called "dark" or invisible matter. The remaining 76-80% is anti-matter. That you refer to as the crystalline light body, or MerKaNa interfaces within & without all three. Indeed you journey within dark matter and anti matter every night in what you term the lucid dream state, in an etheric state of ultraviolet, within etheric bio plasmic energy bodies.

spiritlibrary.com...

When you understand that quantum mechanics as well as general relativity are just approximations of reality, and not precise representations of it, then the need to combine the two really becomes a moot point.

General Relativity is simply wrong, I hate to say it. We don't understand gravity at all. On the quantum scale our theories break down. On the large scale of galaxies and galaxy clusters, it again breaks down. The fact that observations do not follow GR's predictions is self-evident. That right there should tell you that "dark matter" is a completely ad hoc fabrication. We need to go back to the drawing board, because we've been led astray.

I see it like this, there are really 7 phase states:

Dark Energy
Dark Matter
BEC
Plasma
Gas
Liquid
Solid

These are the 7 days in Genesis, Dark Energy is the first day aka Zero Point Field, when vacuum fluctuations decohere they can either blip back or undergo "Branefall" where they complexify and fuse. We see kinetic quantum effects on very small and very large scales but inbetween this inertia is disguised in/as classic, Newtonian physics of everyday matter.

Korg Trinity,

Dark matter falls completely into a whole different category of space phenomenon no one has yet to catch on to - at least nothing that I have seen.

My work with what may be correctly called a revelation to the sciences clearly indicates that the dark matter we are discovering has nothing whatever to do with particles in the traditional sense of being part of the constituent parts of atoms themselves.

Hawkings Radiation, in all that I have seen, comes the closest to being able to place dark energy/matter in its observable relationship to temperature and pressure for that is what it responds to. But what it responds to and what it is are very different questions.

All matter in the universe is electronic, in one form or another. However, Dark energy is not a particle and it is not electronic and it is not matter. An atom's nucleus is bound by quanta but there is no nucleus to dark energy so there is no quanta. It references pre-matter as its source- something outside of its own simple organization. Matter references forces within its own system to remain organized.

Great minds are continually hampered by circumscribing themselves inside the sides of a box walls science has placed on its ideas about how the universe is energized. Dark energy or zero point energy lies outside of these too-sweeping assumptions and a whole new way at looking at energy is required to get to the secrets of this phenomenon.

Your list name contains the word "Trinity". While the existential Trinity has little to do with the actual appearance of dark energy, it is implicated in its design. The pattern for matter is arranged in such a way that what is being observed as dark energy (or whatever else it will be called) becomes part of the composition of particle energy through transmutation. One hundred segregated dark energy packets forms one electron under the right space conditions. The other atomic organs are likewise composed of these dark energy packets which have many variations as defined by their spin rates and axial tilt.

I am uncomfortable to detailing much more but I would suggest that your mind be given an opportunity to contemplate that what you are actually working on is worth the trouble if you can crack the difficulties of obtaining the right approach to it. My work is not to spend a lot of time finding a practical solution to learn how to use dark energy-- not right now at least-- , but to learn even more about its nature.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Aronolac
Hawkings Radiation, in all that I have seen, comes the closest to being able to place dark energy/matter in its observable relationship to temperature and pressure for that is what it responds to.

Hawking radiation is associated with black holes. What does dark matter (in the context this concept is used in modern science) have to do with black holes?

All matter in the universe is electronic, in one form or another.

What does "electronic" mean?

An atom's nucleus is bound by quanta

What quanta?

Great minds are continually hampered by circumscribing themselves inside the sides of a box walls science has placed on its ideas about how the universe is energized.

It's energized?

Your list name contains the word "Trinity".

In this case, it refers to a shiny electronic keyboard manufactured in Japan. Pretty sweet instrument, actually.

While the existential Trinity has little to do with the actual appearance of dark energy, it is implicated in its design.

Holy Trinity is implicated in the design of dark energy? Oh come on, we know that holy entities do not deal in anything dark.

The pattern for matter is arranged in such a way that what is being observed as dark energy (or whatever else it will be called) becomes part of the composition of particle energy through transmutation.

What is this process?

One hundred segregated dark energy packets forms one electron under the right space conditions.

Are you sure it's not 102? What are the right conditions?

The other atomic organs are likewise composed of these dark energy packets

Atoms have organs?

I am uncomfortable to detailing much more

I understand! Anybody can be uncomfortable having written what you wrote.

Two Part Answer

Hawking radiation is associated with black holes. What does dark matter (in the context this concept is used in modern science) have to do with black holes?

Answer: Hawking radiation is the effect of a cause. The cause is the transformation of these dark energy packets into radiation when they move from one state to the other. The radiation is what is left over after the transformation. Black holes are conditioned by a profound collapse of matter thereby restricting atomic activity to the extent of causing near absolute zero conditions. The packets themselves prevent absolute zero from occurring. Black holes, to use an analogy, could be called the mineral in which gold (dark matter) appears. Black holes cause the conditions that attracts what Hawking calls black hole radiation - energy left over from transformation and not from the black hole itself.

All matter in the universe is electronic, in one form or another.
What does "electronic" mean?

Answer: Electronic is a general term to indicate the state of a system which operates by resistance or attraction to electrical properties or polarities such as negative and positive. Particles of matter break up and recombine using these principles. However, black energy derived from black matter is eventually disrupted by the dynamics of its own creation of gravity waves that destroys the atomic system from which the black hole matter is composed. That disruption frees the constituent parts of the atom from which they are made. The observed radiation is seen as “more” energy available then what is contained in the old matter that created the black hole in the first place.

An atom's nucleus is bound by quanta
What quanta?

Answer: Insofar as I understand what is going on in these disrupted systems, during the normal operation of an atom, the core (nucleus) of matter is changing states constantly. As atoms are constituted, neither electric nor gravitational forces could hold the nucleus together. The integrity of the nucleus is maintained by the reciprocal cohering function of the mesotron, which is able to hold charged and uncharged particles together because of superior force-mass power and by the further function of causing protons and neutrons constantly to change places. The mesotron causes the electric charge of the nuclear particles to be incessantly tossed back and forth between protons and neutrons. At one infinitesimal part of a second a given nuclear particle is a charged proton and the next an uncharged neutron. And these alternations of energy status are so unbelievably rapid that the electric charge is deprived of all opportunity to function as a disruptive influence. Thus does the mesotron function as an “energy-carrier” particle which mightily contributes to the nuclear stability of the atom.

These instant atomic transformations create an active energized state. To use an analogy again: If an atom were an animal, the live animal (a normal functioning atom) has a vibrancy, an energy state we can not measure but we sense when we are in its presence. The dead animal (a shattered atom) has no tension and its parts are in decay. Quanta of such high frequencies are emitted by the live atom and maintain the integrity or cohesion of such a state described.


Great minds are continually hampered by circumscribing themselves inside the sides of a box walls science has placed on its ideas about how the universe is energized.

It's energized?

Answer: Yes. Few understand this very basic and simple fact. If the universe existed as science so far has determined, it would run down. It would collapse. These packets of energy referred to in this post are part of the secret of the inexhaustible re-energizing of the universe. Pre-matter is not electronic but it creates the electronic varieties of the different elements that make up the universe. Matter has an atomic nucleus; dark matter/energy has no nucleus or polarity.


Your list name contains the word "Trinity".
In this case, it refers to a shiny electronic keyboard manufactured in Japan. Pretty sweet instrument, actually.

Answer: Yes, but I could not resist using the accidental use of the word Trinity since it is the agency through which matter (and pre-matter) is controlled, but not directly.


While the existential Trinity has little to do with the actual appearance of dark energy, it is implicated in its design.
Holy Trinity is implicated in the design of dark energy? Oh come on, we know that holy entities do not deal in anything dark.

Answer: Do not let your emotions about words disrupt your inquiry into the cosmology of energy. The existential Trinity is in actual control and coordination with an energy force some have called the Unqualified Absolute which permeates space with its primordial sustenance that maintains the vibrancy of universe building and reconstruction. I do not expect anyone just walking off the street to comprehend such a mystery much less know that it exists. But if any scientist wishes to persist in order to uncover the secret of energy, he or she or they will bump into the Unqualified Absolute.

//continued in the next window//

Part 2 of 2 Part answer:

The pattern for matter is arranged in such a way that what is being observed as dark energy (or whatever else it will be called) becomes part of the composition of particle energy through transmutation.

What is this process?

Answer: Transmutation is a process whereby one thing becomes another without destruction. In medieval Europe kings and queens would hire the scientists of the day to transmute lead into gold (via the philosopher’s stone). It was a dream and not a viable reality, but its history shows that man is quite familiar with the process of transmutation. In nature, transmutation occurs in common experiences such as the transmutation of white light into sugars and starch by a plant.



One hundred segregated dark energy packets forms one electron under the right space conditions.
Are you sure it's not 102? What are the right conditions?

Answer: No, I am not sure it is not 102, but 100 is the probable correct answer. That is for two good reasons: 1) The universe of electronic matter is built upon a decimal construction - base 10. 2) Numbers of cohesive elements such as these energy packets are attracted to each other by the lack of heat - they clump with like kinds of spin and specific velocities. A construction of 102 over states a stable condition by some small factor. That means that if 100 will do the job (to form an electron) then 102 is unnecessary. The universe designer goes with the simple, elegant solution to construct everything from a beautiful peacock to a bolt of lightning. There must be stability for dependability of these constructions to prevent the failure of “what is”.


The other atomic organs are likewise composed of these dark energy packets
Atoms have organs?

Answer: Organs in the sense of poetic license. I am referring to the other parts of an atom such as the neutron, positron, and so on.

I am uncomfortable to detailing much more
I understand! Anybody can be uncomfortable having written what you wrote.

Answer: And there is your problem with understanding. Get out of your box of “it has to be this way or not at all” thinking. No one will understand what they want to know if they are not prepared to take the consequences of the answer to their question. You have no basis for criticism except it is new to you. The universe of energy is much more sophisticated than man imagines.

#

“If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you'd have the key to the universe" -Nikola Tesla

"Trinary" - 3, 6, and 9:


The Americanist

You'll find information inside those blogs (view all).

As additional reference (youtube or google search terms):

Dale Pond - Keely, SVP
Marko Rodin - (look for a 44pt Lecture Series) Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry

I tend to think this maybe possible, I stated such to a friend that was unsure about dark matter really even being possible and he seemed to be shocked when I presented such an idea, I guess to him it seemed counterintuitive cause of the bias of studying only the subatomic scale, the reason I though of such a thing was cause, well I had never heard anyone else say such and it seemed rational to suppose it maybe possible on scales so great that we have not the tools to measure them.

the reason I thought of such an experiment was due to recent experiment where some reasearchers were able to create quantum effects at the level of the naked eye, which was previously for many decades thought impossible, now I only know of the one study but it seems plausible and hopefully most likely more data and experiment will prove the hypothesis correct, the question now maybe who's going to build the massive microscope to mesure such phenomena? It sure wouldn't be cheap, so then we are left with computer models and simulations.

Also relativity does matter so to speak, it draws into question even the most fundamental concepts. Whenever we think our mathematics refer to realtiy we forget we are using only tools to describe what someone might see at a given moment in spacetime circa july 2010. Now linear time vs a world of non-time are different realities and both possible, we have lived through both and still do in various parts of the world, the very idea of a direction seems also a mistake. It seems as a simulation, much like a hologram of reality, since we can time bind we can build upon past achievements and many things in the past are yet to come in the future, they were already dicovered yet forgotten or lost, so yes one can discover in reality infinite possibility but linearity seeks to bottle up something that occurs everywhere and at all moments of time irrespective of whether we care or even know about such things. The universe simply awaits our discovery of its secrets that happen to reveal themselves every day, in a non linear space anything and everything can occur and in a linear space it all depends on the observer and the tools and moment in time in which it was measured, that maybe why I say these are thoughts circa july 2010 since they will have to take on some form of revision as time moves along and I acquire new informtions to plugin to my equations.

Hello BubbaB....

You mention the linear universe - the time sequence universe. In my experience with this information coming as it does from very high sources, I am told over and over again that because this matter/energy is not of the material kind, time mathematics are not going to work on quantification of these findings. You will not be able to calculate their influence though you might be able to calculate the number of these packets per square kilometer of space. For instance my sources indicate that there is one of these "packets" per cubic inch of space - empty space. Closer in and around super cold black bodies they are found as dense as possible and collect in great swarms as they float and drift through space. This presents quite a definition dilemma to many who know only finite mathematics.

By this I mean that while these packets of super-energy are everywhere - seemingly unlimited - they do arrive in the linear universe which is finite and therefore, I would say by definition, these packets are not infinite in number.

Their source is hard to describe only because we limit our language to time concepts. They appear in space at the end of a series of conversions from the central universe (they actually are attracted to the central gravity regions and bend around it rather than circulate around linear gravity bodies as they are not attracted by normal gravity). The best we can describe this matter/energy is that it "materializes" at the end of an emergent energy process beginning as cosmic force, then becoming a large but discrete force field, which science can not see. It might be able to measure emerging energy by indirect evidence and probably has already observed it and does not know what to make of it. I don't know.

Nonetheless, these packets do give off quanta. That happens when they are converting to a particle. The quanta, while it is not the radiation itself, gives rise to the radiation observed by Hawkings for one. Otherwise you do not know they are there until they are forced to convert by extremes of heat or cold. I realize there are huge gaps in this knowledge but even this little bit of information is very helpful when attempting to visualize how the universe is energized. Understand these strange fellows will help give rise to that age old dream of coming up with a unified field theory because they are at the very beginning of the materialization process in time/space.

I find it ironic that Einstein stopped looking for absolutes mainly because mathematics could not account for them. However in one of his relativity theories, he actually left room for the unexplained which if I understand properly helps to correct calculations from having minor errors. His intuition was right on but his intellect could not quantify what seemed to be a hopeless contradiction of a material universe being subject to an unknown elasticity within its creation. Dark energy/matter/zero point energy, and so on are one and the same and they arrive in the material universe through the actions of the Unqualified Absolute. Pure energy of this nature does not occur in time, and if it could be observed in time, you and I could not tell much difference between pure energy and something almost alive. We have no language for it. These packets partake of their source while electronic matter - materializations - are at least two generations removed from emerging energy.

Originally posted by Aronolac

Hawking radiation is associated with black holes. What does dark matter (in the context this concept is used in modern science) have to do with black holes?

Answer: Hawking radiation is the effect of a cause. The cause is the transformation of these dark energy packets into radiation when they move from one state to the other.

Hawking described this radiation without reference to dark matter at all. Why do you need to drag a concept into your exposition that has no bearing in same?

Black holes are conditioned by a profound collapse of matter thereby restricting atomic activity to the extent of causing near absolute zero conditions.

Black holes do not have "near absolute zero" temperatures.

Black holes cause the conditions that attracts what Hawking calls black hole radiation

So instead of emitting this radiation, the black holes attract it? That sounds a bit nonsensical.

All matter in the universe is electronic, in one form or another.

What does "electronic" mean?

Answer: Electronic is a general term to indicate the state of a system which operates by resistance or attraction to electrical properties or polarities such as negative and positive.

That's a really bizarre answer. Electronic means "having to do with electrons" in English language. You, however, seem to be inventing a language of your own.

However, black energy derived from black matter is eventually disrupted by the dynamics of its own creation of gravity waves that destroys the atomic system from which the black hole matter is composed. That disruption frees the constituent parts of the atom from which they are made.

"Black energy"? What "Black Energy"? What gravitational waves?

An atom's nucleus is bound by quanta

What quanta?

Answer: Insofar as I understand what is going on in these disrupted systems, during the normal operation of an atom, the core (nucleus) of matter is changing states constantly.

Seems like you mean the atomic nucleus, and it's obvious that your description if wrong. If it were changing states, every nucleus would be radioactive. What a scary idea.

As atoms are constituted, neither electric nor gravitational forces could hold the nucleus together. The integrity of the nucleus is maintained by the reciprocal cohering function of the mesotron

Mesotron is a very obsolete term for "meson". I would say the picture of strong interaction as we know it now is a lot more rich then the archaic exposition you presented.

It's energized?

Answer: Yes. Few understand this very basic and simple fact. If the universe existed as science so far has determined, it would run down.

How so?

I do not expect anyone just walking off the street to comprehend such a mystery much less know that it exists.

What do you mean "walking off the street"? And what's the opposite of that?

[Part 1 of 2 Parts]

I am replying in general to all of your (BubbaBudha] concerns.

You state: Hawking described this radiation without reference to dark matter at all. Why do you need to drag a concept into your exposition that has no bearing in same?

Reply: I think you may be wrong in the above statement. In fact, Doctor Hawking does associate dark matter/black holes with absolute zero as that is where and why this radiation may appear. It does not appear to an observer anywhere else.

I am well aware of what a black hole is caused by and that their presence acts as a catalyst for this radiation to appear. Black holes and the dark islands of space do not have absolute zero but within the proximity of black holes you will find near absolute zero temperatures. Black matter is very cold because the condensation of the atomic structures within prevents the formation of the radiation spoken to. It appears in proximity to black holes and dark islands of space.

Matter classification pretty well follows this list of quick definitions for reference:

Pre-electronic matter [black hole associated radiation is one type]—these are the prime physical units of material existence, the energy particles which go to make up electrons and other particles within the atom.

Sub-electronic matter—the explosive and repellent stage of the solar super-gases.

Electronic matter—the charged electrical stage of material differentiation—electrons, protons, and various other units entering into the varied constitution of the electronic groups.

Sub-atomic matter—matter existing extensively in the interior of the hot suns.

Shattered atoms—found in the cooling suns and throughout space.

Ionized matter—individual atoms stripped of their outer (chemically active) electrons by electrical, thermal, or X-ray activities and by solvents.

Atomic matter—the chemical stage of elemental organization, the component units of molecular or visible matter.

The molecular stage of matter—matter as it exists in a state of relatively stable materialization under ordinary conditions.

Radioactive matter—the disorganizing tendency and activity of the heavier elements under conditions of moderate heat and diminished gravity pressure.

Collapsed matter—the relatively stationary matter found in the interior of the cold or dead suns. This form of matter is not really stationary; there is still some pre-electronic activity even electronic activity, but these units are in very close proximity so their shells are collapsed and rates of revolution are greatly diminished

Dr. Hawking participated in a discussion with Lawrence Krauss and others concerning the mystery of how this energy appears as though it was being added to the universe. While Hawking I doubt will ever agree at this stage of knowledge that it is possible to show the connection between what he observes as this extra energy-radiation and black holes, the truth of the matter will someday be taught in physics. Look at the definitions I am using and published above and you will see a logical gradation of universe energy moving into states from pre-particle to gross materialization in collapsed matter.

In July 2006, Dr. Lawrence Krauss published (in the journal “Edge” article titled “The Third Culture”) the results of a conference held in the Virgin Islands of that year where Stephen Hawking and John Peebles attended with a list of notable others to review and discuss zero-point energy.

[Reference web site Third Culture:“Edge” www.edge.org... Video available on site]

The topic of the meeting was "Confronting Gravity."

For Krauss, what came out of the conference was the over-riding issue that "there appears to be energy of empty space that isn't zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won't be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem."

These complexities enunciated by theoretical physicists are too difficult for the layman to grasp in detail, since the complexities require one to be trained in advance mathematics. However, it requires more than mathematics to grasp how something can be observed yet not be matter! That goes beyond linear math and into intuitive thinking which will have to be the additional tool to approach the truth of these discoveries. It has to be done outside of the box of calculation if man is ever to going to utilize the cause of this radiation to energize transportation.

Radiation energy fluctuations described by Hawking is an index clue to where to find pre-matter just before it converts to a particle. Because these packets have become real through the black-hole maturation process, a clue is given to know where to look (the index) where science may find similar conditions in space. This radiation is a tracer. Time can not define it until it transforms itself into an atomic particle in time.

You write:
So instead of emitting this radiation, the black holes attract it? That sounds a bit nonsensical.

Reply: No. Black holes cause the conditions around them that transforms pre-matter into particles.

[Part 2 to the above post]

[However, black energy derived from black matter is eventually disrupted by the dynamics of its own creation of gravity waves that destroys the atomic system from which the black hole matter is composed. That disruption frees the constituent parts of the atom from which they are made.]

You write: "Black energy"? What "Black Energy"? What gravitational waves?

Reply: I mis-spoke in part. What I am attempting to tell you is that the total collapse of a black hole results in several products, one of which is the conversion of matter back to some of its pre-electronic states - in other words, the packets or pre-matter bodies I sometimes refer to are broken out of the material matrix of the black hole and are freed back into the universe for other material constructions.

When I speak of gravity waves I am speaking of the pulsations emitted that redistributes cosmic energy in a way that often influences star systems even far distant from the black hole. It is these waves or a series of pressure fronts moving outward from the disrupted black hole that other stars capture and use to revivify themselves.

I have spoken of dark islands too. These are similar to black holes but are even more massive and one exists I believe in the Sagittarius center of our galaxy, the very point around which our part of the galaxy orbits. Dark islands are more stable than black holes and it is likely if we could get a close up view of one there would be viewed multiple star systems orbiting around them. They can be disrupted but rarely so since their energy transformations are so vital to the universe promulgation of stabilizing influences - they act as brakes in other words to what would otherwise be other destructive gravitational influences at work.

You write:
An atom's nucleus is bound by quanta
What quanta?

Answer: Insofar as I understand what is going on in these disrupted systems, during the normal operation of an atom, the core (nucleus) of matter is changing states constantly.

Seems like you mean the atomic nucleus, and it's obvious that your description if wrong. If it were changing states, every nucleus would be radioactive. What a scary idea.

Reply: I see the why of your thinking, but that is not what really happens in the back and forth changes within an atom. Because every particle in an atom is composed of pre-electronic packets the change of one type of “tron” to another “tron” in a split moment of time is like changing the chip processor of a computer completely every time you want to process input differently. That allegory of changing of the chip releases energy within the interior of the atom which I have called quanta - for that is what I believe it is. The constituent parts of particles - all particles - are made up of these pre-material packets. An electron has 100 packets. A neutron has thousands more. And so on. But the difference in packets is what makes a difference in the kind of particle you get.

There are, I am told, 100 different kinds of packets - pre-matter bodies. The electron has 100 of one type of pre-matter body - defined as a discrete rotating force at a particular rate and tilted at a specific degree off the perpendicular. The clumping of these same-type bodies forms the particle. They interlace by mutual attraction and give the particle its properties.

You write:
What do you mean "walking off the street"? And what's the opposite of that?

Reply: By that expression I meant that when a student comes to a new explanation about universe energy there will be questions. Hitting anyone with a different perspective will just cause difficulties. While I do not expect acceptance of such a radical theory on first blush, I do think that if students are going to ask these kinds of questions they need to have the courage to maybe revise some of their assumptions about the energy state of the universe.

The universe is a very strange place when compared to what we accept as its reality. It has quirks and foibles not even dreamed of in science fiction literature, but does that make their appearance untrue because it is hard to believe? Logically, no, it should not make any difference to an unbiased mind, but no mind I have ever run into is without its bias as to what the truth is and even about what it should be. It is when a theory is presented which exceeds the possibilities of what a mind holds currently and progresses beyond what a mind thinks is likely to be true, that such a reality can not be at once grasped. There is to much opposition to be expected and challenging to get out of the way. Some theories just take getting used to. In this case, I give it 50 years to come into its own, but that should not be an excuse for those minds which can already calculate the possibilities that are opened by such a new theory and pursue its promises to open many other doors.

reply to post by Aronolac


All right, I really don't have time to write up a whole page just to refute your nonsense. I sense typomania in your behavior and am in no position to offer help.

Giving up is fine, but it is un-necessary to make a judgment about something you can not grasp. How could you possibly help when you do not know the concept? Perhaps you are not used to being helped yourself?

The appearance of what appears to be excess energy from no where is the mystery. It can be visualized by observing the few examples we have to go on, namely the Hawking radiation find/prediction.

The energy cycle has two distinct systems it ties together. Pre-material energy is derived from system one which is not organized with charges and electrical polarities. It leaks into the second system where we deal with linear events and materializations that operate using polarities and dualities. The bridge between the two systems concerning energy are these basic energy packets described above.

You may not apply the usual ideas about energy and explain what is happening to cause the appearance of what seems to be greater energy presence than calculations say should be there. It is not the mathematics that are the problem, it is how science is trying to apply them.

Throwing your hands up does not solve a thing except maybe remove some frustration. The mystery will not be explained by insisting on predicting energy behavior in this instance with a model that does not apply - namely looking to compare matter in the time universes having anything to do with pre-matter energy. The two energy systems are not only different from each other; they are incompatible.

Originally posted by Aronolac
Giving up is fine, but it is un-necessary to make a judgment about something you can not grasp.

Nobody can grasp a pulp of science-sounding terms which combined mean to instill awe in those not trained in physics, and which in reality carry no meaning.