It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Geometry of String Theory and Dark Energy

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on May, 28 2007 @ 12:09 PM
This post is again an attempt to encourage everyone to study Geometry of folded dimensions and String Theory as it is the key to the UFO puzzle.
The following PNU report is a good example that the answers to many field questions and the manipulations of those fields via amplification and technology is always based in geometry.

Can String Theory Explain Dark Energy?

A new paper by Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog of CERN ( suggests that it can. The leading explanation for the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe is that a substance, dark energy, fills the vacuum and produces a uniform repulsive force between any two points in space -- a sort of anti-gravity. Quantum field theory allows for the existence of such a universal tendency. Unfortunately, its prediction for the value of the density of dark energy (a parameter referred to as the cosmological constant) is some 120 orders of magnitude larger than the observed value.

Source Link

Mod Edit: Removed large portion of copy/paste external source material, members and guests can click the full article link to read the full text.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by UM_Gazz]

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 12:57 PM
Good post, Jungle Lord. I am not surprised that there is a wave pattern here. I find that this seems to be constant in most applications of theory to experiment.

And the "repulse" factor, from a logical standpoint, is more or less understandable in the idea of a fluctuation between "twinned" or connected/closely similar universes.

This would also tie in with the idea, lately accepted provisionally by Hawking. of the White Hole vs Back Hole concept. As "light" mass/energy exits our universe, it inters the "twin" and as it exits the "twin" it feeds our universe with "dark" mass/energy.

Symbosis, the structure of living things.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 01:03 PM
Dark Matter/Energy is bunk, as is string theory. Mainstream scientists trying a last ditch attempt to maintain the "matter" philosophy that has been pushed on us since Einsteins days.

Even blackholes are not what Hawking thinks they are. Shame, he is a smart guy obviously, but he is following the wrong ideas/people.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 01:12 PM
shrunk, sorry. You're attempting to make a broad claim, with nothing except your "say so" on the matter.

Are you interested in telling how you KNOW that one of the most intelligent people on the planet, is wrong, and you are correct?

And please, don't get into mysticism, this is about science.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 01:50 PM
hahaha "science"..

The conclusions i have come too are not my own, nor are they new. The truth has been known long before Einstein or Hawking came on the scene. The simple fact is, reality is an illusion. Once you have seen things beyond the physical, it becomes very difficult to believe the current scientific paradigm of "we are spectacular accidents" and that "matter is solid" etc..

Hawkings etc have no experience in the realms of consciousness, which is what reality is all about. How one can come to conclude how reality works without taking into account ones own awareness is just silly..

Dark matter, string theory... they are all futile attempts to grasp how reality functions. They still both come back to the assumption that "matter" is matter, and is real/solid, when infact it is niether.

The reason why they have these theories is that they are trying to fill all the holes in the mainstream scientific paradigm they have created!.. ie gravity being the most important force in the universe, explaining how the universe is expanding etc..

Blackholes are interesting, because some display "jets".. tell me how something which supposedly lets nothing out can let out these lightyear long streams of intense energy..The fact that these jets occur at the POLES of the blackhole should be hinting something to you.

Sorry, but science is weak when it comes to explaining reality. Id rather go talk to a shaman or Yogi than speak to Hawkings if i wanted to know how reality works.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 02:55 PM
Now I understand your board name better, you shrink science to a level you can feel superior to.

First, you still show no reference of recognizable authority for your tirade, other than the ramblings from the hollows of your own mind.

Second, by virtue of being alive, and in a non comatose state, Steven Hawking is in fact experiencing reality, the same as you and I. Therefore your pronouncement on this is in error.

Third, you further estrange yourself from understanding the subject of string theory, and quantum mechanics in general, by insisting that this branch of science is an attempt to reduce everything to a basis of matter. In actualy, this science does almost exactly the opposite.

Fourth, no one is seriously saying that gravity, which is not matter itself, but a property of matter, is the basis of anything. Again, string theory includes it as a part, not a basis.

And the hint at Hawking being unable to understand the "light shine" at the poles of some black holes is amusing at best, given your overall understanding of this subject so far displayed. He might need a chuckle, so feel free to e-mail him with your profound wisdom.

And at last we come to your source of understanding. Now try to follow me here. I am a Native American, and I follow the old ways, so I have the deepest respect for shamans. But non of them seek to explain science, nor are we trying to explain mysticism. The two are separate realms. They are views of the universe from two separate perspectives. Neither is at odds with the other, and neither explains the other.

Oh, and you might want to stop using the caps on the word 'yogi' because I was almost sure you were referring to the old cartoon character. And then again, maybe that is where you got your understanding of physics.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 04:13 PM
Haha, take my name and make a joke.. so mature of you.

Why do i need to provide a referrence? I don't know you, thus i don't care for you, therefore why should i prove myself to you.. im not here to change peoples views, im here to put my information out there and hope that it enables others to come to realise the human potential, amoungst other things.

Yes Hawking is experiencing reality, but that doesn't mean he understands it! He observes the material world very well, like all scientists, but reality is not material.. reality is an illusion. I can not prove that to you, that is something you must learn for yourself. And you will eventually. You can't escape death/the unveiling of truth.

No, science does stick to the material Einstein/Newton/Darwin line of thinking. Many scientists have proven that there is more to reality than meets the eye. You just don't hear from them, because the mainstream does not accept their views!! For instance, its proven that humans can affect subatomic particles through intention/thought. Its proven that plants can feel other plants pain.. when you cut your lawn, all the blades of grass are in instantenous communication with each other, they know they are about to get chopped!

You avoided the question i posed to you (how jets can be, when Blackholes supposedly don't let anything out). Hawking merely updates his theory when new info arises... Castles made of sand, fall into the sea, eventually.

A shamans views are very different to a scientists views. Mainly because one is good at viewing the outside world, and one is good at viewing the inside world. Im not saying there views aren't compatable, because ultimately there is only one truth, but right now, they are very different from each other.

Although they won't be for long

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 04:19 PM
I do not accept that reality is an illusion.
Neither do I accept that the world you speak of is none existanent but its not the whole truth.

Your concept of the greater reality being the only true reality is just one of perception.

Its not a full or complete view.
The material universe is very real.
It may come from a quantum foam of seathing possiblities and virtural particles, but its very real.
Strings are real, banes are real, dimensions are real, light is real, geometry is real, spin is real, antimatter is real, dark energy and dark matter its all real.

Consciousness is the ultimate reality but not the only one.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by junglelord]

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 04:33 PM
Shrunken, old chap, I am proud of the fact that you don't care for me, I view that as a compliment.

Your nonsense, however viable to you, is not a matter of science. If you have nothing intelligent IN THE REALM OF SCIENCE, then you're in the wrong forum for your BS.

Be proud of the fact that you are the first person here that has been so inane as to cause me to use the ignore button.

Have a nice day.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 04:39 PM

Originally posted by junglelord
I do not accept that reality is an illusion.
Neither do I accept that the world you speak of is none existanent but its not the whole truth.

I never said that this world doesn't exist. Yes we are here, yes the physical "exists", but if you could see it from a greater perspective, you would realise that the physical universe is no more real than the place you visit in your dreams.

Just because you can't put your hand through a wall does not mean that the wall and yourself are real/solid.

I can't prove to you that there is more to reality than meets the eye. Its like asking someone to explain what tripping on a psychadelic is like to someone who has never done it before. As Morpheus says "You can not be told what the Matrix is, you have to see it for yourself".

The inherrent problem with your material viewpoint is that you still can not come any closer to explaining how reality came into existence. All that string theory does is try to take it into mathematical forumla so that the layman can not understand it. At the end of the day, you still can not answer the question of why existence exists, or why we are aware of our own awareness. Not only does it not say when everything began, but it doesnt' even attempt to provide an answer!

Your still left with that nagging problem. At least religions give an answer to the question (god), even if they are only half way there to explaining the truth.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 04:56 PM

"This is what three Italian physicists have recently asked. In a paper in the August 3 online edition of the Institute of Physics' peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, they put forth the idea that scientists were forced to propose the existence of dark energy and dark matter because they were, and still are, working with incorrect gravitational theory."

This article comes close to what i was trying to imply.."Castles made of sand.."

The foundations on which these theories have been built is not solid. That is the problem. We can't even fully explain how gravity works, yet we are already creating new theories using our old/half correct data!

If Tesla were still around he would teach you a thing or too about how reality works!

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 07:51 PM
They have a picture of dark matter now from Hubble.
The Dark Matter Ring
Its real both dark matter and dark energy.

String Theory is much to mathematically elegant to not be true.
Since no one knows what gravity really is the link you provided is just another drop in the theory bucket and not correct by any means.
It certainly does not prove your point either.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by junglelord]

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 07:53 PM
one of my heros is Ed Whitten
watch the segment on M theory

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:46 PM
I'm with shrunkensimon on this one.
The physical world is held together by the frequency at which matter vibrates, the denser the object the lower the vibrational field to which matter is contained.
So with this in mind all matter is simply defined by the frequency at which it vibrates, no object is solid in scientific terms, the only reason we find objects solid is that the matter is vibrating at a lower cycle than ourselves.
Everything on our planet has it's own unique vibrational signature, this is what maintains our physical existence.
When you understand this then you find then you can find that the spoon bends just with thought, because our minds are that powerful we can change the nature of our physical existence.
But there is also a world that exists without thought, that you can only be aware of when thought is absent.

I found a webpage when searching a minute ago & it explains what I think Simon is eluding to & explains the high frequency self that exists right alongside our low frequency physical self’s.
Once you explore these non physical realms then it becomes apparent that there is more than just our physical existence.
This is what science is not exploring & hence why we are not getting any closer to the truth of existence.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:48 PM
Its much more then vibrations my dear friend.
Its spin and geometry.
spin is essential.
You do not even mention spin and that is way to simplistic a theory to be valid.
Besides real science does give room for magic.
11 dimensions, 3D Branes, 7D Branes, Dimensional Topography and Geometry and Strings are magic and the real life answer to the fluffy pillow talk.

The size of those dimensions is always of interst to the lay person and most of them only conceptualize a large extra dimension, not a small one, thats why I made this post.
If space time is curved enough then those extra dimensions will not necessarily be small.
they are real, we are real, consciouness is real, no pillow talk needed.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by junglelord]

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:08 PM
Junglelord, I agree there is much more in our physical existence than just magnetic fields & vibrations. I am not a scientist so I’m not going to go into it further, you obviously have a greater understanding of science than myself.
You mention fluffy pillow talk a couple of times, which i am assuming is meant to be in reference to the non physical or etheric realms I am discussing.
The only reason I can see you dismiss this is because you are so focussed on our physical realm or science as you might call it.
This is why we will never get any further in our understanding of existence, there is more than just the physical side of existence but because it is ridiculed it will never be taken seriously, which is unfortunately quite sad.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:29 PM
You are the physical and the non-physical, you are existence and non-existence, you are science and shamanism.

There are 3 dimensions and there are 0 dimensions. The three we know are height, width, and depth. There can not be more and there can not be less.

To take one dimension away from a 3 dimensional object would cause the entire 3 dimensional object to diss appear. All things are 3d in the finite, and in the grand scheme, that which is infinite in space and time, all things are 0d. Existence is now-here and no-where. It is local and non local. It is measurable and it is immeasurable.

shrunkensimon is right on, kudos to you

Mathematics are illusional. There is only 0-9. 0 meaning eternity and 9 meaning eternity. 10 is an illusion. 0 means nothing. Existentially nothing is eternally immeasurable. Thus 10 only Exists so that the bankers and current unenlightened religious evils of the world can rule the planet like a cancer. There is no such thing as 1 nothings(10), and 2 nothings(20). The entire planet has been and is being deceived, and is deceiving its self.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:38 PM
No I disagree completely
math is real and numbers are real, very real

I have seen your stuff on the number conspiracy.
I dont buy it.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:39 PM

You also mention in your opening post that you think that this could be the key to the UFO puzzle.
I would recommend watching David Sereda & his "Case for the NASA UFO's" video as it explains what he believes is a UFO craft being only visible in the UV spectrum, it also shows that these craft come out of a non visible spectrum into the UV spectrum at which the camera films them appearing.
These craft appear to be vibrating at a higher frequency than UV because they appear translucent on a UV camera, if a craft were to vibrate it's matter at a frequency in the higher frequency range then travelling at the speed of light would not have the same effect on the matter & friction would cease to be a big issue when discussing interstellar transport.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:43 PM
Sure I have seen those.
The ability to quantize the ship is like a solid bose enistein condensate in solid form.
here is an example of a solid BEC with magnons based on a high magnetic field.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in