New Quantum Theory Discovered "GODDESS WAVE" could prove existance of GOD/GODDESS/ONE

page: 9
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Wouldn't the transmitter have to be moved faster than light? How would you do that?




posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So where is the equation? I don't see one. Do you?


No, I don't.

However, I feel that if one reads his entire OP, the gist of what he's saying is that he is very confident of his theory, which came to him in a dream, and that he is reaching out, and already has reached out, to others for help with the experiment and the math.

I think that if you read the entire OP, you know that he's not really saying he has the math to prove the divine now.

Yes, he is jumping to conclusions. He's excited about his idea. But I don't think he's trying to pull one over on us.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal

There's no chance, even with technology way beyond what we currently have, to catch a photon "half way out" of an emitter.


This is where the debate is from physicsforum. They admit it is possible now.
They just need tech that is way,way past what we have now.

Seeing our tech is advancing exponetially it should not be long until it is possible to
do by their own admission.

We only designed the experiment a few weeks ago so I think this
judgement a little hasty. I havn't even given much thought to how to do the experiment yet.
So there is no way I'd say it was impossible to do now until people had thought
about it for a bit, then still had no answer.

This discussion is a matter of how, not if.

If anyone would like to help, any ideas for moving a light source at high speed?




You are quoting me from PhysicsForum.

I also explained that there is no such thing as "half" a photon.

I clearly stated that your experiment is not possible. Let me add, "not possible, ever, with any level of technology".

Additionally, the only thing we know about that moves at light speed is a photon. So, to move the emitter at light speed, we'd probably have to make the emitter out of Photons. We'd then have the difficulty of making the emitter send out a photon at 90 degrees to the direction of travel of the emitter. This is further complicated in that light travels in as straight a line as is permitted by space-time.

The photon itself would not curve. We also have direct observational evidence verifying that light travels in straight lines. The only caveat to that is that gravity distorts space-time and light follows the "shape" of space-time.

The whole premise of your "experiment" is based upon a misunderstanding that you have about the nature of light. Your premise is contradicted by theory, by existing physical descriptions, by mathematics and observation. Face it, it was a fun idea, it refines our understanding of physics by revealing what light isn't but it is now time to move on.




edit on 14/10/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Are you participating on the "Curving light waves" thread also?

In this post I've asked about the thread on the PhysicsForum "Is a photon an EM wave packet?"

It appears to me that the mainstream scientific community can't agree on the definition of "photon."



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Are you participating on the "Curving light waves" thread also?

In this post I've asked about the thread on the PhysicsForum "Is a photon an EM wave packet?"

It appears to me that the mainstream scientific community can't agree on the definition of "photon."



The best way I can say it is that a photon is the minimum size into which you can cut electromagnetic energy.

The photon can be said to have the same characteristics of the EM that they are "cut" from (i.e: polarization, frequency and wavelength), but is always the same size, regardless of that frequency or wavelength, etc.

This means for very high frequency EM (like Gamma radiation) a photon can hold more than one wavelength (i.e: several full oscillations) of the particular energy. For low frequency EM, a photon may only hold a segment of the full waveform.

EM also has wave/particle duality and therefore, the photon has it too.

The problems physicists have in describing a photon probably relates more to the non-specificity of language, rather them having different concepts.

edit on 14/10/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
oh dear. this all has been taken waaaay over the top. but, since i am being quoted anyways, i may as well try to clear up some of this mess....

i have prepared a sequence of images which i was gonna post here, but i made a new thread HERE.

it is especially important for the op to understand that some type of fractional or virtual state are likely what will be measured during his experiment.....if you measure anything at all. THEY ARE NOT (and will never be) PHOTONS!!! i did not say (and would not say) that it would be possible to have a photon with fractional spin. it MAY, however, give rise to virtual particles if it is perturbed as the OP describes.

anyways. i am fully in favor of the revolutionary and metaphysical perspective that quantum theory elicits in people. but i am fully NOT in favor of people "discovering" things for which they do not have a foundation of understanding. in other words, op, you have a lot of learning to do!!!



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 



However, I feel that if one reads his entire OP, the gist of what he's saying is that he is very confident of his theory, which came to him in a dream, and that he is reaching out, and already has reached out, to others for help with the experiment and the math.



If you read the entire OP, then you already know that what you're saying is at odds with his claims. If he didn't have the math, he never should have stated that he can "Mathematically prove the divine NOW." He didn't just say he could; he said he could do it now. Furthermore, he never applied any conditions relating to us performing his experiments for him - he asked us to make some noise.

He asked us to spread his research and his discovery. WHAT DISCOVERY?? Strictly speaking, according to what he has posted, he has explicitly implied that he has a mathematical formula to prove the divine, that he has it in hand, then he backpedaled and said, "Wait, there's no math involved, but this picture should explain everything!" And now we have to do his experiments for him?

This is more and more ridiculous. The OP lied. Plain and simple. I don't have the time or the patience for an OP who is so overenthusiastic about a discovery that may or may not exist that he promises proof that has thus far failed to appear in the capacity that was promised, before leading his readers to conclude that the experiments leading to said discovery must be performed by the readers. How much more unauthentic and unhelpful can one get without flat-out admitting their mistake?

Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. OP, if and when you decide to take my interest as seriously as I mistakenly took your claims, message me with the facts of your so-called "new quantum theory". Until then, good day and good riddance.

edit on 15-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So where is the equation? I don't see one. Do you?


No, I don't.

However, I feel that if one reads his entire OP, the gist of what he's saying is that he is very confident of his theory, which came to him in a dream, and that he is reaching out, and already has reached out, to others for help with the experiment and the math.

I think that if you read the entire OP, you know that he's not really saying he has the math to prove the divine now.

Yes, he is jumping to conclusions. He's excited about his idea. But I don't think he's trying to pull one over on us.



Not true he categorically states twice that he has the math and can prove it NOW

you cannot conduct experiments that he is proposing, as stated above its impossible with technology now or in the future due to the nature of the experiment...

if your gonna come on ATS and tell us to make 'some noise' you must tell us what we are supposed to be shouting about or we will go quiet very very quickly.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I was told that there was math for this theory. So if they were mistaken then I believed them. I find this quite unlikely but it is possible though.

At the rate tech is progessing it will be doable sometime. I cant see a way to do it yet either, but I've only thought about it for a few weeks so I wont give up quite yet.

The idea that its not possible at all is clearly wrong from the picture.

Was a bit overexcited but not trying to mislead anyone. It is a new idea that hasn't been anaylsed or thought of before. Sorry to offend, it was not my intention.



Sure, there are some details about the nature of light and subatomic particles in general that we cannot describe in any situation, including your image experiments



edit on 20-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
People are STILL wasting their time with this person?

The OP is obviously Role Playing. Can the mods PLEASE move this topic to the appropriate section?



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
I was told that there was math for this theory.


Does one have to have the math to express the theory before doing the experiment?



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by primalfractal
I was told that there was math for this theory.


Does one have to have the math to express the theory before doing the experiment?


You guys sound like kindergarteners.

"i was told there was math for this theory"

Who arbigator? Who knows about as much as you do, but just does a better job of not sounding like a loon? There is math for everything in the universe. Even oranges like the one im eating now. With the mathematical notation, I can describe almost everything about this orange. Doesn't mean it has any importance to reality. Feynamn used to design entire "bit" universes with their own sets of physics. He didn't make a computer simulation, or draw it, he built it mathematically. Doesn't mean they resemble anything to do with our universe. Thats the same issue here. I could describe everything to do with your experiment with relative ease. The problem is, its pointless. It will teach us nothing new. And your hypothesis of light bending is just is not possible.
So what your left with is some ideas that sound cool ideologically, may fit together logically but are completely useless.
Now what I don't understand is if I and others have wasted so much time arguing with you trying to fix the fundemental flaws in your under ideas, why have you not picked up on this? That shows a real lack for wanting to improve. You have to know your not a physics guru, which is obvious to all, much less educated. But this doesn't mean you cant learn. You should learn. There isn't enough scientists out there. But what there is enough of, is people with internet access who watch a documentary about consciousness and then fill their weak minds with a quantum version of religion.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


You sound like you're dancing around the question.

Care to answer it now?



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


You sound like you're dancing around the question.

Care to answer it now?



Your over simplifying the issue. No, if the result of the experiment was unknown then you could just as easy perform the experiment and then you will have data to construct a mathematical proof or equation to describe whatever action or effect was produced afterward. But science is not in a box like that. You need the math to even get to the understanding what we know about light propagation.
The point here is, he has nothing to support his hypothesis, and he can't because it violates BASIC fundemental physics. So in this context he would need to provide proof that his supposed hypothesis is even possible. Which he cant.

Edit: What ive been trying to say, hes not gunna overturn established ideas because they have arithmetic proof and he doesn't.
edit on 20-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)


If you could prove you had a basic understanding of guage theory or fields in general then I might take you seriously primalfractal. That is were I would start if I were you.
edit on 20-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


  1. The result of the experiment is unknown; otherwise, the physics forum would have named the experiment and the result as interpreted by mainstream physics.
  2. Basic fundamental physics is very much under attack nowadays. There are lots of alternative theories challenging basic, fundamental physics.
  3. Obviously, this experiment will have to be done by the open-source community. That's why I posted earlier about the need for posts on that topic.



edit on 10/20/12 by Mary Rose because: Format



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose


  1. The result of the experiment is unknown; otherwise, the physics forum would have named the experiment and the result as interpreted by mainstream physics.
  2. Basic fundamental physics is very much under attack nowadays. There are lots of alternative theories challenging basic, fundamental physics.
  3. Obviously, this experiment will have to be done by the open-source community. That's why I posted earlier about the need for posts on that topic.

reply to post by ubeenhad
 




LOL.
Your right. That exact experiment has not been done because the physics was discovered over 60 years ago when the technology to set up this exact experiment would not be available. But the world is not black and white. As they say, theres more than one way to skin a cat. There will be no unkown quantum effects produced that we could detect. There is nothing we could learn from firing photons out of a moving source. His ENTIRE basis for the arguement is the non-real wave packet would be halfin half out of the source. This itself violates basic relativity. Which is something anyone interested in this type of physics should learn before making themselves look like fools.

You guys are incredible. Rose here doenst even know what primalfractical is trying to say yet she is defending him.

He then tried to bring in quantum hall effects. Were in his picture is he set up to creat a hall effect? Its cartoonish. Hes been refuted 100x. Real science would re-hit the drawing board, not continue to beat this same horse.
edit on 20-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Rose here doenst even know what primalfractical is trying to say yet she is defending him.


Rose here is an independent thinker who is not intimidated by claims of authority in the mainstream.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Rose here doenst even know what primalfractical is trying to say yet she is defending him.


Rose here is an independent thinker who is not intimidated by claims of authority in the mainstream.


No Rose is just another new age kid person with internet access and figurative blinder sun glasses on. you know like the ones kayne wears with only 50% visable thru the plastic lens?

Thats the difference between science and what you two go on about. Science has to take ALL the facts. Not just the ones that support their claims. If you spent half as much time researching what I have said and forming your own conclusions of the known basics, instead of the fringe, you might be halfway decently off. But instead, your trying to count cards in poker, when you dont even know the rules to the game yet. Maxwells equations, General and special Relativity(not just the laymen version. Go thru the steps Einstein did. Follow his conclusions. If you get to something you dont understand then stop, take the time needed(in some cases it will take years)to learn it correctly. Your getting all this armchair information;From me included. I have rarely taken the time needed to explain something thoroughly enough to present it clearly. Its just not possible on a forum in most cases, and in the others, well, I dont think you would listen so why bother? I believe in this topic I have atleast shown that his use of the term "quantum hall effect" was complete clownery and he had no cognitive clue whether it be in dream state or awake, what he was talking about. He simply took an abstract quantum mechanical effect and referenced it. That fact alone should push all intelligent, independently thinking people away.

There is only three possible conclusions.
1. Your primal fractal on a side account.
2. There are atleast two extremely delusional people loose on ATS
3. You just pretend to read my posts, so you never actually read the still unrefuted debunking of his use of the term "Fractional Quantum Hall Effect" located a few pages back.
edit on 20-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
3rd potentially delusional person here;

Is it Goddess because it's curved?
In Sacred geometry and magic symbols,
straight lines represent male energy and curved female.

Computer code 0's and 1's is male it's monotonous until
it gets hit with female number, this is hypothetical , of course
Binary code isn't randomly attacked by the numbers
But one like the so called virgin number 7, create interesting results.
(try to make a perfect 7 sided star)

So is that like a wobble or catalyst or harmonic
in what would normally be stagnant world?
Is this the creation energy?

I don't know WTF I'm talking about.

I have studied Sacred Geometry less in the sense of Geometry and more
Golden Ratio and Fibbonacci numbers and their fractal nature.
And it indeed it seemingly occurs in everything .



*And just because we don't have equipment quick enough to measure
a photon halve way out of an emitter, doesn't mean something
odd isn't happening
edit on 20-10-2012 by sealing because: Paragraphs



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
I don't know WTF I'm talking about.


Don't put yourself down.

edit on 10/21/12 by Mary Rose because: Hit the wrong button. More later.





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join