Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. (Nikola Tesla)

Tesla was wrong. He didn't understand quantum mechanics one bit.

QM is difficult and not intuitive, but in the end scientists did connect the mathematics to experiment. It is not easy, but it can be done. Like it or not, quantum mechanics predicts the periodic table (though multi-body effects are extremely hard to compute). The multiplicity of solutions the PDEs for the Schroedinger equation in a central potential predicts the degeneracy and splitting of optical aborption/emission lines under electric and magnetic field.

Quantum mechanics---and in particular Albert Einstein---predicted the laser.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. (Nikola Tesla)

Tesla was wrong. He didn't understand quantum mechanics one bit.

QM is difficult and not intuitive, but in the end scientists did connect the mathematics to experiment. It is not easy, but it can be done. Like it or not, quantum mechanics predicts the periodic table (though multi-body effects are extremely hard to compute). The multiplicity of solutions the PDEs for the Schroedinger equation in a central potential predicts the degeneracy and splitting of optical aborption/emission lines under electric and magnetic field.

Quantum mechanics---and in particular Albert Einstein---predicted the laser.

Yea but I think what he was saying is also relevant to my attempted inquiry regarding the physical existence of fields. I am only concerned with how reality actually is. And I am not hating on theories and models that are abstractions, approximations, probabilities, and the best we can possibly do and know. I am just saying, if the models and theories are not exactly as reality is, then it should be further worked on developing an understanding of how exactly reality is.

Does the existence of the laser have to do with the pauli exclusion principle not being relevant to bosons?

if so thats pretty interesting. does that mean infinite Em radiation can exist in a single point, and infinite to the infinite power? or is there an upper bound?

a laser is just the optical focusing of photons? and so there can be spread out sources of the photons, but they are all optically drawn to a smaller point, and this is the production of a laser beam. So do photons interact with one another at all? or there is no limit to how powerful a laser can be, except it will become increasingly difficult to power it and feed it energy moment to moment, if you are trying to continually increase the EM energy density of the beam?

My theory?

• Gravity is the universal X plane.
• Time is a result of gravities resistant effect on energy through space. (And warping of such)
• Dimension and density of space is the resulting ‘field of motion’ of energy passing through gravity.
• ‘Gravitational force’ is energy passing through a gravitational ‘warping’ in space density
• Matter is the concentration of energy relative to space density
• Motion is caused by energy through time
• Energy is the cause of all motion in the ‘field of space’
• All motion in space is oscillation. The only true vibration exists in the axiom field.

Any astrophysicists drop me a line if you can please. I have a complete theory of cosmology I am putting together that I need assistance with.

Also the colliders are inherently dangerous as they represent a massive release of concentrated energy within a space density elementary particles should not exist in. I believe this translates momentary weakening in our gravitational field. They will never be able to learn the behaviour of these particles from colliders as it is a reverse-engineering of their composition and therefore will never act as they do when they are formed from the limitless energy of the axiom field.

Originally posted by BornOfSin
My theory?

• Gravity is the universal X plane.

What is "universal" and how can a phenomenon be a "plane"? What does "X" stand for? Is it just for the coolness factor? Well, it doesn't make it any less lame, sorry.

• Time is a result of gravities resistant effect on energy through space.

What makes you think that?

• Dimension and density of space is the resulting ‘field of motion’ of energy passing through gravity.

IMHO the syntax of this sentence is all screwed up.

• ‘Gravitational force’ is energy passing through a gravitational ‘warping’ in space density

Force and energy are different things, declaring them equivalent is silly if not worse.

• Motion is caused by energy through time

Bad syntax once again.

I have a complete theory of cosmology I am putting together that I need assistance with.

Oh, I'm sure you could use help.

Also the colliders are inherently dangerous as they represent a massive release of concentrated energy within a space density elementary particles should not exist in.

"Should not exist" according to who? Why?

I believe this translates momentary weakening in our gravitational field.

What is the cause of this belief? Is this some kind of religious revelation?

reply to post by buddhasystem


1) As it appears in the dictionary;
Universal: Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic.
'X plane' symbolising two intersecting planes in 3 dimensional space. When did physics become 'cool'?

2) What makes you think I'm wrong? Please explain how this is less plausible than existing non-explanations of this particular continuum.

3) Pictures might serve you better?.



Clearer?

4) Yes, it would appear that I did leave the 'created by' out of the sentence. Allow me to make this clearer for you.

• ‘Gravitational force’ is 'created by' energy passing through a gravitational ‘warping’. This is caused by changes of the spacial density of its path.

To be even clearer its actually the result of the 'pull/push' of the warping passing through spacial density. Positive and negative.

5) No it's not. As I explained in a previous statement. Time is a field. 'Motion' (oscillation) is the product of energy passing 'through' aforementioned field. Which in turn creates and sustains dimension and density of space through oscillating dispersal of motion.

6) For equations, yes. Based on the substance of your responses, I fear you don't qualify. I am certified as having spacial perception and nonlinear dynamics intelligence well above one in a million. Understanding complex systems is what I'm built for. I can see the system, it works and is more plausible than any model to date as it represents (fundamentally at least) a non-paradoxical cyclic system. I just need to be able to mathematically translate this to 'show others'. But I am sure the maths will work.

7) No, it's based on this same theory. Massive amounts of layered, concentrated energy is released in destroying particles within a spacial density that particular energy is not supposed to exist in. It produces anomalies in all layers of spacial warping. Including gravitational.

Also this theory was 'given' to me. But not through any religious (or worldly) means.

reply to post by BornOfSin

Lol you people are getting all gobbledygooky there

Originally posted by BornOfSin
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

1) As it appears in the dictionary;
Universal: Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic.
'X plane' symbolising two intersecting planes in 3 dimensional space.

a) then it's two planes, not an "X plane".
b) I have to ask again, how can gravity (a phenomenon) be a plane, or even two planes, in 3 dimensional space?

2) What makes you think I'm wrong?

Because I don't see how this choice example of word soup

Time is a result of gravities resistant effect on energy through space.

...can be right.

Please explain how this is less plausible than existing non-explanations of this particular continuum.

I'd rather have nothing in way of explanation, as opposed to some moronic concoction of sciencie important sounding nonsense.

3) Pictures might serve you better?.

Not really, I guess bullcrap looks like bullcrap from any vantage point.

Time is a field.

And Aristotle was not Belgian. And time is not a field. If you can demonstrate that it's a field, please do so. But you can't

'Motion' (oscillation) is the product of energy

What energy, specifically????????? Energy can exist in many different forms, and if it's related to a field, then again there are more than one field. And of course not every motion is oscillation. And why does it need to be an oscillation?

Which in turn creates and sustains dimension and density of space through oscillating dispersal of motion.

Motion is dispersed now. Great. "Dyslexia found for cure". And space has "dimension" that needs to be sustained.

I am certified as having spacial perception and nonlinear dynamics intelligence

I'm sure you are certifiable in certain ways.

Originally posted by BornOfSin
• All motion in space is oscillation.

So, the voyager probes on one-way trips outside the solar system have motion through space that's an oscillation?

I never heard that one before, and I don't see how that's an oscillation.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Yea but I think what he was saying is also relevant to my attempted inquiry regarding the physical existence of fields. I am only concerned with how reality actually is. And I am not hating on theories and models that are abstractions, approximations, probabilities, and the best we can possibly do and know. I am just saying, if the models and theories are not exactly as reality is, then it should be further worked on developing an understanding of how exactly reality is.

You will need to get much better at philosophy then, there's a few thousand years of studying to do.

What do you mean by this "how exactly reality is?"

Think carefully. How would you know when you have answered the question satisfactorily? If you do so, will other people agree with you? What do you do if they don't? Burn them? ("The true nature of reality is whatever the Inquisition says it is")

Scientists have been successful by adapting an operational version which does not depend on figuring out the philosophical issue first.

I don't know what's harder; describing what an EM field is or getting a physicist to say, "I don't know".
Seriously though, I've learned a lot just from lurking on this thread, I truly appreciate the well thought out explanations that many have given to try to explain what to most of us is unexplainable. It seems that to truly understand these concepts requires a dedication to grasping the complex math involved. Some things just cannot be explained in everyday terms that the "common" man can grasp.

I do however, think we all need to keep asking the hard questions. Who knows, maybe the next Einstein, Hawking or Feynman is out there just waiting for the right challenge.

I hope this thread doesn't die out. I work 12 hours a day and look forward to spending a few hours at the end of the day entertaining ideas and concepts that are truly stimulating. I wish I could contribute in a meaningful way but the best I can do is to thank all of you.

ATS can truly be a great site and I am proud to be a member of it.

Originally posted by mbkennel
What do you mean by this "how exactly reality is?"

Think carefully. How would you know when you have answered the question satisfactorily?

I think this video gives me some idea:

Richard Feynman on hungry philosophers (or do we see objects or only their light)

If I was unable to eat my steak with the light off, I'd have a different picture of reality.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Yea but I think what he was saying is also relevant to my attempted inquiry regarding the physical existence of fields. I am only concerned with how reality actually is. And I am not hating on theories and models that are abstractions, approximations, probabilities, and the best we can possibly do and know. I am just saying, if the models and theories are not exactly as reality is, then it should be further worked on developing an understanding of how exactly reality is.

You will need to get much better at philosophy then, there's a few thousand years of studying to do.

What do you mean by this "how exactly reality is?"

Think carefully. How would you know when you have answered the question satisfactorily? If you do so, will other people agree with you? What do you do if they don't? Burn them? ("The true nature of reality is whatever the Inquisition says it is")

Scientists have been successful by adapting an operational version which does not depend on figuring out the philosophical issue first.

edit on 28-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

I understand that. but when scientists say, atoms exist, this is the model of the atom, or molecules exist, molecules are made of atoms, this is the model of molecules, and then you can show me that material made of specific atoms, made of specific molecules indeed does exist. Then we can agree that the model correlates to something in physical reality that actually exists. I believe the sun exists, i believe my body exists, I believe these are made of molecules and atoms. Everything that can be described with models such as wind and pressure even as conditions, I have no problem with because there is a logical and rational explanation behind their reasoning for existing. All I am asking for, is how the leading physicists in the world, who believe that the concept of a field in some way relates to our physical reality, I am only wondering how it relates. And what I mean by that is how can it physically be described. So I think the reason it cant be explained, is because the concept of the field, touches into a new realm very foreign to ourselves, (im not talking new agey inter-dimensions), I mean that in all of our science and deductions, we have neatly ordered the constituents of the universe into our model of understanding, we can describe the macro things like molecules with our equipment and models pretty greatly. But now in our progression of science, and craving for knowing, we are scratching a new surface, we are digging deeper into the nature of reality, and we are running out of things to compare our findings too, where as we can compare this atom to that atom, and that atom to that atom, and this molecule to this molecule, what can we compare the vacuum to, or fields. what is a field? This little rant has gotten away from my core questioning related to how fields exist in space, I know there are models of fields lines, and they are evenly spaced, and have directions and paths of travel, but what is a field line, what is causing the field line to act the way it does, what creates it? Just a simple bar magnet with the diagram of the field lines heading separate directions, why are those field lines doing that, what are the electrons doing that cause those field lines to be like that, and why do two magnets attract when their field lines intersect in that way, what causes the magnets to be drawn towards each other, where is that energy of force?

You wanted to know why and how the Colliders (particle ray accelerators) energy releases were dangerous?? Well here you go. What happens to the uncontainable (we can't contain it .. no matter what we think or what they tell you) goes?

TERRESTRIAL GAMMA-RAY FLASHES

First High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program Research Station
Established 1993
Research type Unclassified
Field of research Ionosphere

Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes were first discovered in 1994 by BATSE, or Burst and Transient Source Experiment, on the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory, a NASA spacecraft.

They are probably *(idiots)* caused by electric fields produced above thunderstorms. *(cough - BULLCRAP)* Scientists have also detected energetic positrons and electrons produced by terrestrial gamma-ray flashes.

2 + 2 =

So where does the gamma ray energy (Which is not supposed to exist in our space density) come from? I don't know Mr Particle Accelerator .. where does this uncontainable energy come from?

What does this mean for our planet and its atmosphere? I don't know. Lets take a look at readings taken 2 day ago from an incoming burst from the centre of our Galaxy.

COSMIC RAY

SOLAR WIND

MASSIVE PLASMA PENETRATION

EXTREME AURORA

IONOSPHERE

So, basically it (the vortex, b-hole) is started to do it's intended job: trigger internal planet mechanisms, rise vibrations, etc.

I wonder, wether GOV (any) will admit it?
IF they do have (and I believe they are) evidence trough NASA research.. It might be that Hollywood movies are showing us, that there won't be any public disclosure about that.. unless it is far to late to do anything.

But I don't care anymore.

Better I try to live in peace with the planet, animals, plants, humans and everything else whats being materialized here on earth.. because (as far as my experience showed me and other theories tend to support) everything is conscious what is vibrating here.

All the things that was being shown to us, being given at schools, wether it is false or some piece of truth - it's primary purpose is to focus the individual to him self. But NOW I know, that the true purpose of living here is to care about everything that is around you first and then everything comes to its true place.

Peace to everyone.

I should point out for the sake of argument that the gamma ray coming from the centre of our galaxy is my theory .. its not proven.

Originally posted by Sparky63
I don't know what's harder; describing what an EM field is or getting a physicist to say, "I don't know".
Seriously though, I've learned a lot just from lurking on this thread, I truly appreciate the well thought out explanations that many have given to try to explain what to most of us is unexplainable. It seems that to truly understand these concepts requires a dedication to grasping the complex math involved.

No, it doesn't require complex math, it requires understanding physics.

You can describe what an EM field *does* (physics is about what happens not what 'is' in the end) with first year calculus. Math however is not the physical picture, it is a language to explain what specifically people mean when they describe the physical understanding.

I can't re-emphasize enough, read the Feynman Lectures on Physics. This explains physics not mathematics. You need nothing more than fairly simple calculus.

reply to post by BornOfSin


Gamma ray flashes have nothing to do with colliders. Just thought I'd point it out.

Originally posted by amfis
All the things that was being shown to us, being given at schools, wether it is false or some piece of truth - it's primary purpose is to focus the individual to him self.

I find this notion rather false and bizarre.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by BornOfSin

 

Gamma ray flashes have nothing to do with colliders. Just thought I'd point it out.

I was confused by that too.

Originally posted by BornOfSin
I should point out for the sake of argument that the gamma ray coming from the centre of our galaxy is my theory .. its not proven.

You talked talked about colliders, HAARP, gamma ray flashes, lightning as a possible terrestrial source which you apparently don't believe and then refer to the galactic center, but I think the detector can tell if the source is terrestrial or extraterrestrial, and if it's terrestrial (as your link referred to), then obviously it's not coming from the galactic center. Even if there was a gamma ray source on Earth's surface, the atmosphere isn't particularly transparent to gamma rays, which really only leaves something like high altitude lightning as a terrestrial source of what is detected by the RHESSI satellite, since high altitude lightning is above most of the atmosphere and will therefore not be blocked by the atmosphere.

And of course there can be cosmic sources of gamma rays too, but I don't see why you would suggest they can't tell the difference between cosmic sources and terrestrial sources, if that's what you're suggesting.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by BornOfSin

 

Gamma ray flashes have nothing to do with colliders. Just thought I'd point it out.

OK mate, I've listened rather politely so far as you've mocked my theories, my intelligence, called me crazy and continually tried giving me English lessons. I have no problem with you flexing your own sense of self-importance and massively disproportionate overestimation of your own intelligence.

But it becomes quite obvious after your fifteenth reply containing absolutely no intelligent input or contribution to the thread, that you only post in here to try and make yourself feel intelligent.

This was evident to me immediately with your repeatedly stated your belief that some of my sentences represented incorrect syntax, when the reality is that my predilection for superfluous diction (yes I did that on purpose), represents a literary 'readability level' which exceeds your cognitive capabilities.

By this; your repeated attempt to belittle me with this moot point, has actually only served to illustrate your intellectual shortcomings.

Listen carefully to what I am about to explain, cause I wont be wasting my time with a follow up post to water it down for you. I am referring to stupid questions like "What type of energy exactly??? There are many times."

EINSTEIN: "E=MC2" buddhasystem (trying to make Einstein seem unintelligent): "What type of Energy exactly??? there is many types.

Gamma ray flashes have everything to do with the Colliders. They produce massive amounts of axiom energy within our atmosphere. Energy that we cannot see, measure or contain. But it's there. Although the intrinsic energy itself cannot be detected and is therefore unknown to us, ionization of this energy produces measurable radiation gamma rays, positrons and electrons and by process gamma ray photons, which dictates that it IS there.

The intrinsic energy collects around the Ionosphere. Terrestrial gamma-ray flashing occurs through lightening plasma, creating positrons and electrons WITHIN our atmosphere.

Now combine this with the Gamma ray photons of this process, the major storm activity of our current extreme weather on Earth which perpetuates this cycle, and you all the elements of an artificial created spacial environment, similar to what is found at the centre of our galaxy, WITHIN our atmosphere.

Gamma ray flashes, photons and Gamma energy are carried through the density fields in space. All universal energies will always carry the path of least resistance, such as timespace densities directly relative to the fields in which they were created. Energy aggregates in attraction.

So basically, the inner lining of our Ionosphere is now acting like a nice big Gamma ray magnet funneling Earth directing pulses (not bursts, cause the the Energy is constantly passing) straight at us. We are creating an elemental ethereal stew in our atmosphere, which should not exist.

The reason that people thought there were 'errors' with the Ionosphere readings over the last week is because flashing was occurring on both sides of the shield. This is not an error, it is due to what I just detailed.

edit on 2-4-2013 by BornOfSin because: Spelling