reply to post by BlackPoison94
A most interesting thread
Physics is also one of my favourite subjects-i use it all the time. That is to say, i apply the scientific method in my everyday work, but it is only
the results based on OBSERVATION and MEASUREMENT that are of interest to me as a machine builder.
Classical physics has many loopholes, especially EM & gravity theory, this was just a hunch i had, 30 years ago, that something didn't add up. They
can't marry QM & gravity, Einstein's explanation of 'curved spacetime' sounds cute but i don't think it's the real deal.The gaps are still there, & i
am still looking.
Being open minded i will watch the films etc, and read all the comments (you have to, with threads like this)
So i have a question for you (well, 2 actually).
Are these strings merely energy itself? Mass & energy are mutually exchangeable, the prescence of mass being that a force will act on it, the
prescence of energy itself is not measurable unless it interacts with a mass.
I tend towards the ZPE or 'new aether' theory to be a step in the right direction, which is why i beleive they won't find the Higgs particle. ZPE (and
i'm not talking thermal here, before you all start posting
)-can and does explain an awful lot of things QM & the other theories can't. I refer you
to people like Tom Bearden & Harold Aspden.-i posted some of his papers on ats
Second question concerns gravity, not being OF mass but working UPON it, of all the fundamental forces the least understood, even today. Is there an
electro-gravitic link? There definitely seems to be evidence for it, but without knowing the actual mechanism of conversion, not much can be done in
the form of a demonstrable device (although stories abound, rodin coils etc
Gravity also works much faster than light, some stuff i have read placed this as much as 60,000 times faster, although Tesla maintained, for some
reason, that gravity was only 6 times the speed of light....
Certainly the multidimensional nature of energy (& therfore also mass) has not escaped me, what do you think of charge? it is also massless in nature
& (i suspect) multidimensional, or even possibly a dimension itself!
The usual explanation for charge being this or that quark behavior or being related to the surface of an electron doesn't fit. Particles merely 'hold'
a charge, they are not the charge itself.
OK so if we think of these theories in terms of the 'strings'-could they not be energy itself. Energy may be expressed as having 2 components, a power
component & an information component (think of an FM radio station running 50Kw of power, that's the 'power' part of the energy, the music is the
Strings, then (if they exist screams my sceptical alter ego) may be seen as energy, and depending on the information component, will have different
charactaristics, like the Quark diagram you posted.
The 3rd diagram 'closed strings' certainly looks to me like a transfer of energy (part of a string) from A to B.
The basic universal rule in classical physics that energy will always flow from an energy-rich to an energy-poor environment, doing work, & be
realised as 'power'-which is work done/unit time-holds true, however, it holds true for n dimensions, right?
One more thing, Bearden predicted that if they fired 2 protons with anti parallel spin (both turning opposite ways) that they will pass right through
each other, which they did just that in a lab a few years back. This contradicts many laws of classical physics
Food for thought
edit on 18-4-2011 by playswithmachines because: Typeset