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.

 

What powers the universe?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
does the same force filter though all systems in our physical universe to power everything?

What powers the universe?
I have been looking for systems that are able to be scaled up and down from the macro to the micro in size, but have a common source providing for the energy required in each scale of the larger system.




One thing occurred to me there was a greater source of energy than the best-known source for energy, the sun. At some point, energy was coming into the system from the outside, so what is bigger than the sun?




Our galaxy has a force at its centre of immense energy release, and in my opinion is recycling energy back into the system that holds the galaxy together,




but this also implies a larger system delivering energy into it from an exterior source. At that point i ask what powers the galaxy from the outside?




And again a larger and more powerful energy source must be present to provide the energy required to hold a cluster of galaxies together and feed their individual energy requirements for an outside power source as well as binding them together into a cluster.




Mmmmmmmm
Super clusters of thousands of galaxies all together in a lattice like network of galaxies like pearls on a necklace, in filaments and from an electrical point of view connected in a circut.





So energy travelling along the filament has an aligning effect on the super cluster and as electricity does, it follows the path of least resistance (along the filament) and interacts with the black hole at the centre of the galaxies it encounters. “i figure if light can be effected by black hole gravity then the energy is properly attracted to the black hole and is inducing a “local” feild by way of transition though from outside the galaxy and through to the next “path of least resistance”.




This allows for an external energy to flow along the polar field lines directly through the galaxy using the power of the black hole as a “ark point”. an attractor to the charge and as the energy overpowers the black hole, it jumps out almost like a capacitor charging and discharging in a continuous but fluctuating “pulse” that induces energy into the galaxies “local bubble” and imparts energy into the mass inside the galaxy from the outside.





The energy that is induced into the galaxy pours from the poles of the black hole and “loops through” the area of the inside of the bubble and on its path to the other pole of the originating black hole. the energy interacts with our “local bubble” or heliosphere and because the density is different inside the “bubble”, it provides the “path to least resistance” for the energy to take so the energy connects the opposing poles through the “heliosphere bubble” and outside energy is entered into the solar system from outside the system.
The sun receives the energy through the poles and energy is induced as the energy flows through sun in the “local system”(solar system). The induced energy in the sun loops out from the sun and fixes on planets and mass and energy is transferred through the poles of the earth to the centre of the earth were the energy is again induced and the local effect is induced, to us is gravity.
Then on the atomic scale “the micro”




the atom is spherical and as each scale size is reduced, so to is the amount of induced energy, at each scale. The energy induced from the earth provides the “local” external energy input the atom (at the poles). Energy transverses across the diameter of the sphere of the atom and enters the system by way of induction of energy as the energy transitions through the atom, the energy comes and goes with little effect on the energy but the induced energy is residual in the atom.
This would mean that direct emotions from the sun could have the energy to “stir” the atoms and provide the energy required for radioactivity and other material specific effects observed from our environment. The induced nature of the “local” loops attract gas like a light bulb and the gasses are attracted the discharge of large amounts of discharging energy =sun.





xploder




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Very interesting indeed.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

Consciousness powers the universe.

If you can learn to mechanically imitate the patterns originally created through conscious intention, then you can do some very interesting things with matter, energy, space and time.

I personally think this is being a bit irresponsible. Why build another machine when you can learn to do its work yourself? In a way, it's "lazy."

But good luck to whoever wants to try it. I hope you'll come back some day to proudly show off your new inventions!



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
It's called Gravity on the large scale, but it doesn't translate well to the small scale, or at all.

The universe, as it is everything, is a closed system so you can't put energy into it or take it out, And you can't create or destroy energy just make it switch between forms,

As far as I know there is no force that scales from micro to macro, if there is one to be found then the ultimate problem in Physics has been solved.




edit on 22-4-2011 by MagnitudeZero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
It is looking good. Have recently come across another theory with time and space as the core elements from which all propagates library.rstheory.org... . The end of chapter 20 has some conversions with SI units to see how it works. Within it (magnetic = electric × t/s). I have not gone right into to but getting the feeling that (gravity = magnetic × t/s), could be wrong and just an idea.

Another interesting thing I have come across recently when looking into if time is speeding up, is along the plane where the polar field lines meet, the galactic plate. Some comments have said there is a few trillion electron volts flowing in this region of the galaxy and is part of the freak out for 2012 and the galactic alignment. Apparently the earth with be bathed in massive light to torch everything on the surface. I am not aware of any similar effects between the sun and the solar system in this regards.

I am not inclined to accept these doomsday theories after getting disappointed with my first one. However I have come across one free energy device that used this region of a magnet to extract it's energy. There are other ways to do this with the potential of magnetic energy really kicking butt compared to its electrical counterpart.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


You ask what powers the universe, and of course, you mean what physical (material) energy source is at the root of energy materialization and system drive.

I do know a lot about it, and I have provided a lot of information on it even on this forum some years ago, but the problem almost everyone has is they want their answers in terms of today’s theories or knowledge, and one really has to think outside of the present box of understandings to grasp just what is in play. The truth is rejected over and over because it is so radically different from present thinking.

I promise not to hold forth, but the first thing that must be comprehended is that the universe has a central core, and that pre-material energy is supplied from the core first as a force and is transmuted by Absolute design into space regions we live in to metamorphosize into particles and radiation.

But that is only a tiny glimpse of what is going on with how the universe is powered. There will be in time a whole new study about particle physics when the basic information is finally absorbed by professionals and all others that life and matter are intertwined in ways totally unsuspected at the moment.

I wish you success in your quest.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Aronolac
 


Well I'm sure this truth wouldn't be rejected if you could provide something to back it up?

How do you know there is a central core to the Universe? What is this "Absolute design" that allows energy to metamorphosise into particles and radiation (There's an explaination for it in the standard model of Physics, but assuming this is radically different from what we know today)? What exactly is the Core?

Although Stars do pretty much exactly what this Core thing seems to be doing, they're fairly explainable.


Look, I honestly don't understand why people can't be happy with the fact that the universe is so mind boggling and unfathomable as it is without essentially making things up, it's such a bizzare fantastic place - and I can't say with 100% certainty that anything of what we know about the universe is true, but there's data to back it up.

How many times on ATS has there got to be posts with people making bizzare claims with nothing to back them up with, it's fine to be kooky and a bit out there when it comes to theories, because this is a conspiracy theory website and they're fun to read - but this is the board labelled "Science and Technology"

So if you have evidence for your claims then present them and I'll gladly apologise for being so brash and quick to sneer at what other people believe - but there's a philosophy & metaphysics board for anything lacking scientific basis,



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Funny you should ask. My model meets your requirements. The universe is a fractal driven by expansion, and expansion is self-perpetuating.

The cosmic foam of our universe is the ether foam of a super-universe, and the ether foam of our universe is the cosmic foam of a sub-universe. These are just three in an infinite sequence of universes.

Space can be measured in median-size ether-foam bubbles. As the space of our universe expands, the voids of our cosmic foam grow; this moves the galaxies farther apart, putting strain on the fabric of the cosmic foam. When the strain exceeds the strength of a wall of galaxies, the wall pops (taking perhaps a billion years to finish one pop). Galaxies near the middle of the wall end up colliding with the surrounding galaxies clusters; conservation of energy and momentum requires that pressure waves must radiate thru the cosmic foam. Those pressure waves are the dark energy of the next larger-scale universe. The same thing happens in the sub-universe, generating the dark energy of our universe.

When a cosmic-foam bubble wall pops, two bubbles become one. That makes one less bubble of space in the next larger-scale universe. For space to expand, the number of bubbles must increase. Therefore, the arrow of time reverses from one universe to the next. Dark energy pressure waves converge to a point, where an ether-foam bubble un-pops, creating a new bubble wall and adding a Planck volume (10^-105 m³) of new space to our universe. This happens about 10^88 times per second per cubic meter, accounting for the Hubble expansion of 2.5 x 10^-18 /s. Thus, the expansion of space in one universe drives the expansion of space in the next universe.

Regular energy is ethereal shear waves, which propagate at the speed of light. Pressure waves are many times faster than light. The ultimate source of shear waves is from pressure waves changing speed as they encounter tiny variations of bubble size in the ether foam. This shakes the region of different bubble size, radiating shear waves perpendicular to the path of the pressure wave.

All the forces of nature result from exchange of momentum between shear waves and pressure waves. Each shear wave distorts the flux of dark energy in a peculiar pattern (relative to phase and polarity) around it. Shear waves sense the flux distortions generated by other shear waves, resulting in forces of attraction and repulsion, depending on the relationship of the two shear waves relative to each other's phase and polarity.

One such force, the Higgs force, causes pairs of shear waves to orbit one another. When a pair of shear waves encounter the Higgs force, they fall into a deap potential well of zero point energy. This blueshifts their wavelength and multiplies their energy many fold, creating the rest mass of a particle. The flux distortion around each orbiting shear wave in a particle is spun into a spiraling pattern which interacts with other particles in a variety of ways to produce all the other forces.

Each species of particle is a strange attractor in the chaotic mix of shear waves and pressure waves. God is Chaos. Einstein was right, in a way; God doesn't play dice; God IS dice.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


this idea is a continuation of the thread you participated in
and trys to find a connection with the elipticals from the galaxy scale
a work in progress
glad you liked the read

xploder



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


i have read some of your link and it is a very interesting mecanism
and process to power the universe
star for bringing a complete thesis to the table

xploder



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phractal Phil
 


that makes for a very interesting read
the interesting thing is my opinion
the universe is full of lense shaped bubbles
of all sizes and densities

well done with your work
very good read

xploder



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I wonder if by "power" the universe the op is not referring to time itself. In that case, the mysterious arrow of time might be a good place to start.

In the past, there was a state of great order and improbability. Since then, the 'water' has flowed downhill and it is what we know as time.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GalacticJoe
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I wonder if by "power" the universe the op is not referring to time itself. In that case, the mysterious arrow of time might be a good place to start.

In the past, there was a state of great order and improbability. Since then, the 'water' has flowed downhill and it is what we know as time.


well if we take time into account,
the amount of induced energy entering the system the energy would be directly propotional to the amount of energy "induced" into the system. so if the energy was the source for all of the energy we see in subsiquent systems, galaxy, solar, atomic scales and each dirived its own internal energy, then relitive to its size time would also be proportional to the scale size of the system we were looking at and the induced charges at each scale.
what this means is each galaxy, solar system and the atoms contained within would be dependant on the amount of energy tranversing the systems to provide a feild effect or energy effect that would permeate the system with a energy density or constant of energy that would relate to what we perceive as time. there would be to an observer a clock, like the clock speed of the computer you are using, and depending on the scale of what you were observing.

the total amount of energy is the volume of energy
the base rate at which the energy is induced is the frequency
the clock speed is the passage of time from the systems scale point of view (internal to system)

depending on if we look macro or micro
looking down scale we are looking into the micro
our clock speed is in a different scale than the atom we are looking at.
so the frequency is out of scale to us from our observable position.
this means time by our scale travels much faster for atoms than for solar systems.
this make locating objects that are moving in a different reference time frames very different (super position)

when we look at the macro universe we are again looking at a system from the outside using our own scale clock speed to measure the passage of time in the macro sence. so in this instance we are using our "induced" energy volume to calculate time as a reference for a system that is outside of the "local" induced energy.ie the galaxies volume of energy.

the clock speeds dont match so we observe strange and confusing things in the macro.

so in a round about way you are correct,
but the energy is not strictly time,
the energy density of each induced system is scaled in size and the energy density is propotional to the "induced" energy. so as the volume of the energy decreases, so does the clock speed for each scale.

the amount of induced energy does not scale down at a perfect ratio to the observer (clock speed) so the information is either observed too fast (micro)
or too slow (macro)

imho
there is not a single clock speed (time frame of reference) for us to use
and the clock speed is defined from the induced energy inside of each system.
if we had two watches one here on your computer
and one inside an atom at the atomic scales your computer clock (time clock) would appair to stand still and the one on your arm inside the atom would appair to work correctly.
but if you were then scaled back up to your normal size the clock on your arm would be way to fast and the computer clock would look normal.
take both your wrist watch and computer out of the galaxy and your comps clock would be running way to fast
and your wrist watch hands would be spinning at the speed of light. (super position)

but the main point is there is a diference between the energy and the effect of time

xploder
edit on 22-4-2011 by XPLodER because: corrections to spelling and grammer

edit on 22-4-2011 by XPLodER because: another correcction to grammer



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Beams of Electrons Link Saturn With Its Moon Enceladus
linky


ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2011) — Data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft have revealed that Enceladus, one of Saturn's diminutive moons, is linked to Saturn by powerful electrical currents -- beams of electrons that flow back and forth between the planet and moon.





Another Universe Tugging on Ours? Maybe Not: Data from Exploding Stars Contradicts Earlier Study

link here


The findings contradicted the standard model of the universe, which predicts that, as a whole, mass within our universe should flow randomly, in all directions, relative to the background radiation of the cosmos.

The one-way "dark flow" that the NASA-led group discovered created a mystery. What could account for the unexpected motion? Maybe another universe existed beyond the bounds of ours, dragging our stars ever closer through the pull of gravity.

Then again, maybe not.

A new study from the University at Buffalo contradicts the dark flow theory, showing that exploding stars in different parts of the universe do not appear to be moving in sync.


so if clusters are moving around in a non random way and instead looked to "travel together" then how can the random nature of matter after a big bang account for the order we are seeing?
shouldnt all matter and galaxies be scattered about the place coliding into each other in a random gravity based system, instead we could be seeing differnt parts of the universe traveling in different directions in a seamingly random group of galaxies as a whole?

so if everything is not in sync does that mean time? or relitive position and direction of inertia?
could they be saying that the universe is more static than we thought?
does this news change the way we see the universe age?

can a more steady state universe be the reality?

interesting info

xploder



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Great thread OP s/f! I love reading these theoretical threads that are well put together.

my thinking is along the same line as yours. The universe works like a power grid. But then we have to ask, where does the external power come from?



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MagnitudeZero
 


MagnitudeZero (MZ)

MZ writes: Well I'm sure this truth wouldn't be rejected if you could provide something to back it up?

Aronolac: The truth is not always understood as a physics lesson either. A backup of information requires that information to be explained in present theory and understanding. That is where the rub comes in because present understanding does not comprehend the universe as it is created. So there is no language that is acceptable in present circumstances. I will respond to your post below:

MZ: How do you know there is a central core to the Universe? What is this "Absolute design" that allows energy to metamorphosise into particles and radiation (There's an explaination for it in the standard model of Physics, but assuming this is radically different from what we know today)? What exactly is the Core?

Aronolac: The core universe is further understood if you would keep in mind the design criteria of an atom. The nucleus (core universe) controls the forces of the space system and balances the reactive consequences of space forces with absolute gravity control, for instance, to localize disasters in a building universe. In actual fact, science will discover that the weak and strong nuclear forces in the atom are the result of the functional behavior of ultra-small energy packets that make up (actually construct) the different atomic particles of an atom. These small energy packets are not affected by space (linear) gravity, but only by absolute gravity of the core from which they sprang. For instance, 100 of these energy packets clump together to form an electron. Similar derivatives of the electron such as muons and leptons have slightly different configurations but are built from the same basic concept. Other particles known to us must have other space conditions available to form them unlike electrons which can be produced just with extreme cold present.

The pre-basis of that which becomes matter depends on understanding the function of this core universe. The process is indeed metamorphic and transformative. Absolute energy emanates from the nether core regions in prodigious quantities, first as raw force. As the wave of pre-matter passes through the massive gravity bodies (which obscure the core) toward the space regions of planets and stars, the nature of the force field begins to breakdown into discrete energy packets neither charged, unreactive to linear gravity, and not subject to electro-magnetic influences. These energy packets emerge into the fringes of our space universe in great, drifting streams of disorganized clouds of energy packets. The conditions of space then act upon these drifts to create the entire spectrum of particles and radiation known.

There is a name for this Absolute referred to as the Unqualified Absolute which is the source control of all pre-physical matter, and which is that force that will mitigate (adjusts) all other forces in the total system (space) by design. It is both active and reactive to the changes in space even while pushing the outer fringes of space forward.

Proof of these designs and conditions can be found in the mystery of stray radiation around black holes mentioned in the conjectures of Hawking which has come to be called Hawking radiation. While his observations bring to attention that matter/energy seems to exist where it should not be found, it is also somewhat confused by the attempt by others to explain the processes by which it got there. It really got there by the conversion of the energy packets which emit energy/radiation under extreme condition as they pass from one form to another when creating a particle. The reason the black holes are of particular interest in these conversions is that they represent extremes in temperatures and in the condensation of matter. Without absolute gravity in control of these energy packets, all atomic motion would cease as it nearly does in these dark bodies. Absolute zero is prevented by the infraumatonic motion of these energy packets (a coined word to explain the motion of these energy packets within atoms in spite of the shells being collapsed in the atoms).

MZ: Although Stars do pretty much exactly what this Core thing seems to be doing, they're fairly explainable.

Aronolac: Stars and the similar actions of the core are two different systems of influence in space. Stars represent matter in mass while these energy packets represent pre-matter without mass - they are not anything until they form a measurable particle or radiation. Stars are more explainable because they represent the normal situation of matter forming complex structures. The core provides the energy from the outside of space that builds matter, but everyone must understand that the atom in any type of matter is actually a hybrid which is composed of these energy packets reacting only to the core and of atomic particles reacting only to linear gravity and other forces in space. Until this dual construction is mapped and understood, man will not be master of what it takes to form a material universe.

MZ: Look, I honestly don't understand why people can't be happy with the fact that the universe is so mind boggling and unfathomable as it is without essentially making things up, it's such a bizzare fantastic place - and I can't say with 100% certainty that anything of what we know about the universe is true, but there's data to back it up.

How many times on ATS has there got to be posts with people making bizzare claims with nothing to back them up with, it's fine to be kooky and a bit out there when it comes to theories, because this is a conspiracy theory website and they're fun to read - but this is the board labelled "Science and Technology"

So if you have evidence for your claims then present them and I'll gladly apologise for being so brash and quick to sneer at what other people believe - but there's a philosophy & metaphysics board for anything lacking scientific basis,

Aronolac: Your complaint is duly noted, but it is only fair to remind you that the word “bizarre” connotes anti-establishment behavior, something beyond the norm, and the universe is odd in many ways because its mechanisms are unreliably known. Persons such as myself to learn anything have to remove the patina of conformity placed on so many thing when using the sometimes poorly constructed theories as to why the universe behaves as it does. I do not mind calling all I have said here a theorem, but what I said is not to be automatically dismissed because it comes at you from an unknown source. There are observations “out there” which fit what I have said quite nicely although there is no way to conform all these observations into the theorem I propose here.

Thank you for your questions too.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I'm finding it very difficult where to begin with responding to your post. Explaination on the structure and interactions of the Universe will always be a Physics lesson - even if the explaination is far above our knowledge of Physics.


Originally posted by Aronolac
 

The core universe is further understood if you would keep in mind the design criteria of an atom. The nucleus (core universe) controls the forces of the space system and balances the reactive consequences of space forces with absolute gravity control, for instance, to localize disasters in a building universe. In actual fact, science will discover that the weak and strong nuclear forces in the atom are the result of the functional behavior of ultra-small energy packets that make up (actually construct) the different atomic particles of an atom. These small energy packets are not affected by space (linear) gravity, but only by absolute gravity of the core from which they sprang. For instance, 100 of these energy packets clump together to form an electron. Similar derivatives of the electron such as muons and leptons have slightly different configurations but are built from the same basic concept. Other particles known to us must have other space conditions available to form them unlike electrons which can be produced just with extreme cold present.


Firstly, Muons aren't derivatives of Electrons, and Lepton is not a particle in itself, but the collective name of a group of fundamental particles that include Electrons and Muons.

For the rest of the point, there's nothing i can respond to - Gravity is an entirely negligable force on subatomic particles anyway, but what is this Absolute Gravity that is produced by the "core"? Gravity is an attractive force, so surely if these particles come from the "core" then they'd just be attracted straight back towards it?

How do you know that it takes exactly 100 energy packets to create an Electron?

And since when can Electrons just be produced with extreme cold present?


The pre-basis of that which becomes matter depends on understanding the function of this core universe. The process is indeed metamorphic and transformative. Absolute energy emanates from the nether core regions in prodigious quantities, first as raw force. As the wave of pre-matter passes through the massive gravity bodies (which obscure the core) toward the space regions of planets and stars, the nature of the force field begins to breakdown into discrete energy packets neither charged, unreactive to linear gravity, and not subject to electro-magnetic influences. These energy packets emerge into the fringes of our space universe in great, drifting streams of disorganized clouds of energy packets. The conditions of space then act upon these drifts to create the entire spectrum of particles and radiation known.


It's so much face palm reading this. Well the initial contradiction would be that you said in the part I quoted earlier that only electrons can be formed with extreme cold present, and in space it is extremely cold, so using this logic all you would end up with is electrons.



There is a name for this Absolute referred to as the Unqualified Absolute which is the source control of all pre-physical matter, and which is that force that will mitigate (adjusts) all other forces in the total system (space) by design. It is both active and reactive to the changes in space even while pushing the outer fringes of space forward.


I just want to start banging my head against the desk at this point.



Proof of these designs and conditions can be found in the mystery of stray radiation around black holes mentioned in the conjectures of Hawking which has come to be called Hawking radiation. While his observations bring to attention that matter/energy seems to exist where it should not be found, it is also somewhat confused by the attempt by others to explain the processes by which it got there. It really got there by the conversion of the energy packets which emit energy/radiation under extreme condition as they pass from one form to another when creating a particle. The reason the black holes are of particular interest in these conversions is that they represent extremes in temperatures and in the condensation of matter. Without absolute gravity in control of these energy packets, all atomic motion would cease as it nearly does in these dark bodies. Absolute zero is prevented by the infraumatonic motion of these energy packets (a coined word to explain the motion of these energy packets within atoms in spite of the shells being collapsed in the atoms).


You cannot give proof for your theory, based on something else which is also an unproved theory.



Your complaint is duly noted, but it is only fair to remind you that the word “bizarre” connotes anti-establishment behavior, something beyond the norm, and the universe is odd in many ways because its mechanisms are unreliably known. Persons such as myself to learn anything have to remove the patina of conformity placed on so many thing when using the sometimes poorly constructed theories as to why the universe behaves as it does. I do not mind calling all I have said here a theorem, but what I said is not to be automatically dismissed because it comes at you from an unknown source. There are observations “out there” which fit what I have said quite nicely although there is no way to conform all these observations into the theorem I propose here.


This is nothing about conforming or being anti-establishment. It's about your lack of a Theory. It is based on quite literally nothing, the only "evidence" you brought forth was that maybe there was a different explaination as to why theoretical radiation might be emitted by black holes.

What you have to understand is you're making massive leaps in logic (or lack of), this is not how scientific theories are formed - you have to build them on a wealth of facts, and you have no facts.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnitudeZero
 


MZ - Firstly, Muons aren't derivatives of Electrons, and Lepton is not a particle in itself, but the collective name of a group of fundamental particles that include Electrons and Muons.

Answer: I am aware that science does not consider muons as derivatives of electrons, but I am also aware they are related to electrons because the same type of energy packet referred to before make up muons too, and therefore they are related by content. Lepton is a classification including the electron and the other familiar atomic particles and what is interesting about the classification is that the energy packets are similar in this classification.

MZ - For the rest of the point, there's nothing i can respond to - Gravity is an entirely negligable force on subatomic particles anyway, but what is this Absolute Gravity that is produced by the "core"? Gravity is an attractive force, so surely if these particles come from the "core" then they'd just be attracted straight back towards it?

Answer: When I talk about gravity I am referring to the influence it has on particles whether they react to it as themselves without much response or whether particles in the atom itself react to it. Linear gravity collects particles, atoms, shattered matter into streams and clouds in the universe to orbit some mass. Stars in particular can override linear gravity to eject some of these streams between themselves which some stars use to help power their nuclear reactions. However, the energy packets themselves have no debt to linear gravity and if ever released from the particle, they respond to the core’s absolute gravity . In other words they can just move away from massive bodies on their own ignoring everything but the core’s pull.

How do you know that it takes exactly 100 energy packets to create an Electron?

Answer: The universe is of decimal construction based on tens and multiples of ten. There are just 7 types of energy packets (hence they are not derived from the space universe but from the core universe based on the number 7 and multiples of 7) with the base particle, the electron, representing the approximation of the first unit of tens necessary to build a particle. That is not so convoluted as it sounds for if we take the electron design by content as the starting point, it will have 100 energy packets, other particles will show designs of 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 energy packets and so on to bring them into existence. I have had my lessons with highly advanced teachers who know the cosmology and what it takes to materialize the 100 elements found on earth. Elements above 100 are unstable; I am referring to the naturally occurring elements for comparison.

MZ - And since when can Electrons just be produced with extreme cold present?

Answer: That is the secret of the universe to behold when man realizes he can convert particles to energy packets by heating certain particles up to release “ these things” to produce an energy discharge creating endless flows of power for transportation and industry. To understand how cold produces electrons one needs to understand the nature of the energy packet involved and its reaction to cold. Muons are of particular interest in the conversion even more than their cousin the electron as they release the energy packet easier than the electron when disrupted.

MZ -This is nothing about conforming or being anti-establishment. It's about your lack of a Theory. It is based on quite literally nothing, the only "evidence" you brought forth was that maybe there was a different explaination as to why theoretical radiation might be emitted by black holes.

What you have to understand is you're making massive leaps in logic (or lack of), this is not how scientific theories are formed - you have to build them on a wealth of facts, and you have no facts.

Answer: The question has been asked: What powers the universe?

The answer is that the universe is powered by a flow of continuously refreshing energy from outside of space that begins as a non-material force to be transposed and transformed when it reaches the edge of time-space. It is these emerging energy packets which convert from puissant energy to new energy that is circulated through the vast cosmos as building blocks for all matter, living or dead. Atomic particles are huge compared to the discrete energy packet that builds them. They have no mass and exhibit anti-gravity behavior when they exist as discrete packets.

The details of the answer to what powers the universe is light years ahead of the ability of science to comprehend the nature of energy and its organization even in this part of the universe, much less how it behaves in the outer regions. You are arguing with the messenger rather than examining the message. He is not going to provide you the formula for their emergence as particles from clusters of energy packets since the energy packets themselves are not mathematical. They can not be calculated until they become a particle. Please understand regardless how you grump about how much you do not like the approach, you can take something away from this contact just by knowing that energy has its basis in the creativity of the First Source and Center and released through the Unqualified Absolute, and that, in the final analysis, allows universe power to arise from seemingly no where.

Time is an endowment! Space is a thing! The thing and time are mathematical, but the core itself can not be so quantified, but it can be qualified as to its function and extent of influence.

Proof is either experiential or mathematical and the question that is asked can not find the answer experientially and the energy source is not mathematical, so we either must dismiss what we want to know or allow the explanation to remain theoretical but possible until experimentation will prove things like Hawking radiation to be what I have said it is.

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   


That is the secret of the universe to behold when man realizes he can convert particles to energy packets by heating certain particles up to release “ these things” to produce an energy discharge creating endless flows of power for transportation and industry.


Yeah I wonder when we will realise about stuff like that? It's not as though we've learned about anything such as Nuclear Fusion yet.




The details of the answer to what powers the universe is light years ahead of the ability of science to comprehend the nature of energy and its organization even in this part of the universe, much less how it behaves in the outer regions.


And yet you know about it, why are you frivolously giving the answer to the origin and the source of the universe away here, on ATS - when surely the wider world deserves to know? You'd even receive Nobel Prizes and grand titles bestowed upon you, history would forever remember you. Oh wait, I know why - it's not true, it never happened, you're making it up.

And you're still avoiding the most important question otherwise your post remains invalid - How do you know any of this?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


What Powers The Universe?

Xploder asks:
Does the same force filter though all systems in our physical universe to power everything?

What powers the universe?

I have been looking for systems that are able to be scaled up and down from the macro to the micro in size, but have a common source providing for the energy required in each scale of the larger system.

Response: The difficulty in answering questions like this is the difficulty of running into types on this list who insist they are guardians of the gate to knowledge and will not listen to what has to be said regarding how the universe is energized. They will have to wait for years for proof, but meanwhile, there is a good answer. I think such traditionalists owe the theoretical ones some courtesy of expression to set the case of where power comes from. I think the message is too important to accept being shouted down at this juncture.

I want to answer your question by taking a slightly different tact then explaining about energy packets that convert to particles under certain space conditions. The concept of these energy packers is highly controversial and some in physics have labeled them “God Particles” . They exist but explaining how I know they exist requires even more explanation than I am willing to give at this moment.

Let me then say to your question, “does the same force filter through all systems . . . to power everything?” The answer is “yes”, but qualified with the word “mostly”. The “mostly” refers to a few small exceptions. All atomic particles are composed of these energy packets also identified as God Particles which science knows something about but does not know how to classify them. Some will make fun of the concept because it involves qualitative analysis which they say is foreign to the usual methods of scientific research. However if I say that the packets involved do not exist discretely as material particles then you will understand that no amount of sophisticated mathematics will uncover and produce them to be experienced by scientific instruments. Hence the title "God Particles" which truly over emphasizes "God", but they are not easily identified as material either.

You say you have been looking for existing systems to scale up which have a commons source of energy. The problem you will run into is that just scaling existing space systems up as you find them does not reveal the process by which they utilize the same basic energy. You will find secondary and tertiary causes of energy, but not the primary one. That is because there are a few steps in between the primary cause and the secondary effects which have to occur before the transformation of these energy packets is useable.

These energy packets or “God Particles” form sub-atomic particle under space conditions which vary. Depending on the type of variation in space is present, they will provide the particular material to the particle to be produced. I draw your attention to the Hess boson listing - a classification of speculative particles thought to exist but which have not all been found. Among the boson particle's classification is the photon. It has no mass. But others in the boson classification do have mass. It could be that the classification of particles in this family are not properly listed in the family - i.e. they do not belong there.

God Particles produce sub-atomic particles with mass. If there are exceptions I do not know them. However, there is another type of particle which has recently been examined which disintegrates into photons. The memo, posted by an anonymous writer on mathematician Peter Woit’s blog, is authored by four ATLAS members who say they have discovered an excess number of photons produced at an energy of 115 GeV that could be caused by the decay of the Higgs particle into photons. The level of the excess is 30 times that expected for a standard model Higgs. It appears to be quite an extraordinary result. This large enhancement over the standard model rate implies that the present result is the first definitive observation of physics beyond the standard model.

Two things should arrest our attention on this. Higgs lists several types of unfound particles to have particular spins. The God Particle “spins” and is classified to types by the type of spin (some tilt, some have higher velocities than others). The photon results from another type of core-universe packet never directly experience in time-space. Photon energy composition spin but always at the same velocity and materialize without mass. The other energy packets we call God Particles have highly variable spins and only form sub-atomic particles which have mass.

Watch developments and what comes out of some surprises to show up with the CERN accelerator (the large Hadron collider)in the coming years as the experiments using this powerful new tool will begin to open the door to consideration of the God Particle underlying the material universe.

Your question about what powers the universe should be expanded to also ask how does the universe exist to be powered at all? Why is it being continuously refreshed? What energy is causing the expansions between galaxies as space appears to be moving apart? How is energy being utilized to prevent the collapse of star systems which do not use fusion? It is exceedingly difficult to examine totality of energy unitization from inside the furnace of the universe itself. An overview of the entire universe would disclose a discrete center from which energy is distributed over vast pathways of circuits which eventually are used up by the many different kinds of materializations.

Thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join