Time - the Real Zero-Point Energy, Not Virtual Particles!

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433


And the statement above by Angelic Resurrection is not completely correct. While we model them as remaining as the same species, they become relativistic and essentially have an effective mass far greater than at rest. Do you suggest that they fundamentally change? If so by what mechanism and how? Because this change has to be smooth, if it is abrupt, particle accelerators would not work.
edit on 23-2-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

These accelrtd protons are like wilted zuchinis and may fundamentally change due to co ordinates tilting,
which opens out 3 additional extra spatial dimensions ( well inside a wormhole anyway ) and cause physical and chemical properties to change.
Wonder if an expt of some sort ( light spectrum ) can be conducted on these moving protons in an accelerator to find out if indeed they are as original species.




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Interesting concept.

The concept of infinite mass makes me think of the entire universe.

From all concepts of time, we seem to look at it as DC, moving forward in one direction, but what if time moves like everything else we have observed, as a frequency.

If time moved at an infinite frequency, with infinite length, and thus made its way forward, then the idea that something could cross the entire universe, instantly doesn't seem that hard to grasp.

Time starts on one side of the universe, and crosses to the other side of the universe and then reverses direction, and crosses back across the entire universe. We only see this as time moving forward,



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433

Decay occurs via the W+- and Z0 and the weak decay is something that has been studied at great depth. W+- and Z have also been created in the lab as we can also predict how such a boson will decay.


What determines whether in a decay a W+ or W- will appear?



And the statement above by Angelic Resurrection is not completely correct. While we model them as remaining as the same species, they become relativistic and essentially have an effective mass far greater than at rest. Do you suggest that they fundamentally change?


So particles in the same family are really the same "particle" just with a higher energy level? A tau is really an electron that is traveling a lot faster then electrons normally travel?



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by swan001
 



If time moved at an infinite frequency, with infinite length, and thus made its way forward, then the idea that something could cross the entire universe, instantly doesn't seem that hard to grasp.

Time starts on one side of the universe, and crosses to the other side of the universe and then reverses direction, and crosses back across the entire universe. We only see this as time moving forward,


It does seem hard to grasp because distance seems real. It really seems like there is energy and space in between me and you right now, I can not instantaneously slap you, It would not even be instantaneous for me to shine a light at you, and a light can travel much faster then a slap. This is only the distance on earth... now think of the distance between earth and our moon, now think of the distance between earth and a planet, the nearest star, the next nearest star, the nearest galaxy, the next nearest galaxy,... and you think its not hard to grasp something crossing the entire universe instantly...



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
From all concepts of time, we seem to look at it as DC, moving forward in one direction, but what if time moves like everything else we have observed, as a frequency.

If time moved at an infinite frequency, with infinite length, and thus made its way forward, then the idea that something could cross the entire universe, instantly doesn't seem that hard to grasp.

Yeah, exactly! And as this frequency is interacting with space, it would lose energy, thus radiate that energy as "dark energy", which would fill all space, even "perfect" vacuum.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Wow angelic, that did just sound like a few lines of buzzwords that don't really seem to put forward any plausible explanation, i am sorry to say.

What determines if a W+ W- or Z0 mediates a decay is based entirely on conservation of charge and quantum numbers.

beta decay is mediated by W-, because the neutron becomes positive, the W- keeps the net charge neutral. When the electron is produced it then carries the -ve charge. It is the same comparatively with the other species.

The different generations are distinctly different particles**** so a tau is a lepton like an electron but it is extremely heavy, and will decay in a specific chain.

**** neutrinos exhibit a mixing behavour similar to that of the quarks which allows when energetically possible, for them to oscillate in flavour. ie, you can produce an electron neutrino and detect a muon neutrino at a detector positioned far away from the source.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


But this is causality, that time appears to move forward and two objects separated by some distance are only causally linked if their distance is less than ct (speed of light * time passed), now i believe that all fields are also mediated by this limit also. This includes gravity.

This would mean that if you were to instantly remove the Earth, the moon would not instantly react and move on its on path only after a delay of about 1.2 seconds. Now this thought experiment is just that, it is i think impossible really to do any such experiment as quickly converting mass into energy is by any natural means, impossible.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 

I've had a old theory banging around that time and gravity are the same thing. Which is why there are no gravitons. Time itself defines the attraction, for the same as time not existing but exists so that everything doesn't happen at once, so it is with dimension and attraction of objects - a false mental construct but quite fun to play within.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
Wow angelic, that did just sound like a few lines of buzzwords that don't really seem to put forward any plausible explanation, i am sorry to say.


Ok noted.
No issues, is prolly safer to ignore it



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Interesting but the problem I see with that idea; is gravity assist; using barycenters if the moon were to lose the earth it would behave the same as Mariner 10 the first to use the gravity assist sling shot effect...now if the earth and moon were almost the same size; then nothing much would likely occur at all; because the barycenter is outside both bodies in that case.

This does make me wonder what effect would occur; if the electron cloud suddenly lost all the protons and neutrons at once...however.
edit on 25-2-2013 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Well the direction it would go and how it would end up would be completely different you are correct, as the Earths orbital location would not be viable anymore. My point really was that the experiment of testing that would be impossible.

The gravitational assist still works regardless of the 'speed to gravity'



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Well the direction it would go and how it would end up would be completely different you are correct, as the Earths orbital location would not be viable anymore. My point really was that the experiment of testing that would be impossible.

The gravitational assist still works regardless of the 'speed to gravity'


What do you think the mechanism of gravity is?

Do you think gravity works at light speed because it is a function of space-time, and the reason light moves at light speed in space-time is the same function of space-time?
edit on 25-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
ImaFungi; I know you were asking someone else the question of what the gravity mechanism is.

But I have the feeling that a gravity particle is probably the slowest moving particle there is. So slow that all sorts of particles gather to it creating mass, increasing the gravitational effect the larger this mass becomes.

The reason I think this: Is the depth of gravity wells, the denser the body the deeper the gravity well...the larger the body the more difficult it is to achieve escape velocity but also create a faster barycenter sling shot effect around such a large mass.

Perhaps the only reason it seems things accelerate towards a body; is the space time curve caused by the gravity well is much larger on some bodies due to mass, much like the larger the hill the faster the object gets as it rolls to the bottom. That would suggest however; that space time also has a fluctuation depending on the size of the body. The deeper the well the more fluctuation of space time; since particles accelerate faster towards larger bodies.

Of course light moves so fast; the ripple effect may be from it's constantly, being pulled but escaping gravity wells as it passes by; like a rock skipping on the surface of a pond, but light is so fast; all we see are the ripples created by the skip left behind after the light has already passed...unless of course it encounters a black hole, then it's skipping days are over.
edit on 25-2-2013 by BigBrotherDarkness because: fix address



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Well you mention gravity and space-time curvature... what does gravity have to do with the curvature of space? Does this imply space-time is something material/physical? Could the gravity particles really be a network/fabric of space-time? the true nature of space is a mystery to me, when things are said like curvature of space-time and spatial expansion, and then say that space is not physical/material, that makes no sense to me:/ .... I know they may be preferring strictly to the mathematical manifolds, but if the model supposedly depicts reality, and the model is saying space has to have distortion in order for gravity to occur, and in order for something to be able to distort, it must first be something which can be distorted...

Another mysterious thing is light, and how it travels at all, the description of it being an oscillating E and B field, I dont get how the energy is conserved in a vacuum, how it can travel so far and long, without hitting particles and stuff.. I dont get how if its an oscillating E and B field how that even works or makes sense, being that light contains no charge.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I honestly don't know; I just make the best logical assumptions based on data and theory, and try to visualize the mechanics involved from the concepts by other things found in nature and make a stab of a guess. I think of space similar to the air around us; different in the amount of it's composition of course. If there was no vacuum then it's likely we could stay out in it a lot longer, some space accidents have occurred where people have been unprotected in space the guess is; we can survive approximately 6 minutes in it.

Like the air around us; it can have hot and cold spots, clouds of gas and particles, even simple sugars, there are also vortexes of sorts called gravity wells and black holes. (which makes me wonder how a vortex in a vacuum would behave)

Here's a video that helps conceptualize gravity wells:



The space time curve business came from Einstein and has been expounded on. There are concepts that are hard to visualize no matter what...like what is between galaxies? Is there really some fabric in space of sorts that can tear? To myself that is a very bizarre whacked out concept to consider; I think of it more as a colloidal suspension in whatever that is between galaxies is composed of...

Like our own root origin we will most likely pass away before ever knowing a concrete answer...so no harm in thinking about the possibilities; fun stuff. Here's a video that's fun to watch it's not to scale but shows space interactions very well; it's a simulation of Space Debris orbiting Earth. Created by the Institute of Aerospace Systems of the Technische Universität Braunschweig.




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I honestly don't know; I just make the best logical assumptions based on data and theory, and try to visualize the mechanics involved from the concepts by other things found in nature and make a stab of a guess. I think of space similar to the air around us; different in the amount of it's composition of course. If there was no vacuum then it's likely we could stay out in it a lot longer, some space accidents have occurred where people have been unprotected in space the guess is; we can survive approximately 6 minutes in it.

Like the air around us; it can have hot and cold spots, clouds of gas and particles, even simple sugars, there are also vortexes of sorts called gravity wells and black holes. (which makes me wonder how a vortex in a vacuum would behave)

Here's a video that helps conceptualize gravity wells:



The space time curve business came from Einstein and has been expounded on. There are concepts that are hard to visualize no matter what...like what is between galaxies? Is there really some fabric in space of sorts that can tear? To myself that is a very bizarre whacked out concept to consider; I think of it more as a colloidal suspension in whatever that is between galaxies is composed of...

Like our own root origin we will most likely pass away before ever knowing a concrete answer...so no harm in thinking about the possibilities; fun stuff. Here's a video that's fun to watch it's not to scale but shows space interactions very well; it's a simulation of Space Debris orbiting Earth. Created by the Institute of Aerospace Systems of the Technische Universität Braunschweig.




I havent watched your second link yet but i will, it looks promising.. but the first link... I think as helpful and mathematically predictive as knowing the force of gravity and envisioning that way a 2-d plane with a 3-d dimple, is the wrong idea... I think the dimple is like a 3-d whirl pool/vortex (like a bullet shot through water) but I think the rotation of the earth plays a big part in the ability to have the moon orbit it ( like if that bullet was shot through water and rotating very quickly, it would create a pocket of less dense region of water which it was displacing also because of its rotation move water out of the way 360 degrees, and an object would be urged to follow the angular momentum of the 'merry go round' like whirlpool it is creating... this way of looking at it of course would be ruled out if there is a non-rotating planet with an orbiting moon.. which i am not familiar enough to know if there is or not)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Fungi, unless you seperate the 2 entities space and time, you will remain confused.
Time existed b4 space was born.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Fungi, unless you seperate the 2 entities space and time, you will remain confused.
Time existed b4 space was born.


Did the time of the universe/materials of the universe/space of the universe exist before the universe was born?

Do you believe in the big bang model?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Fungi, unless you seperate the 2 entities space and time, you will remain confused.
Time existed b4 space was born.


Did the time of the universe/materials of the universe/space of the universe exist before the universe was born?

Do you believe in the big bang model?

Time and point mass existed but no space.
Big bang = yes



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Fungi, unless you seperate the 2 entities space and time, you will remain confused.
Time existed b4 space was born.


Did the time of the universe/materials of the universe/space of the universe exist before the universe was born?

Do you believe in the big bang model?

Time and point mass existed but no space.
Big bang = yes


How long did this point mass exist before it went bang?





new topics
 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join