Jump to content

Theoretical

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    323
  • Joined

Everything posted by Theoretical

  1. The video is in reference to the last sentence of the discussion's top post, "Our universe is an expanding higher dimensional ball of substance caused by the big bang."
  2. His video derives hubble's constant, shows some math on a 4 dimensional expanding bubble universe.
  3. In due time. If you want, please contact me in private to know why since it's off topic. In the mean time here's a video that contains some math. I do not support most of his work. And according to the New Physics, he does not understand why his math works for the *known* Universe. https://youtu.be/buJiq8CBZX8
  4. Please, I hope you will be open-minded. If you must, please, in the very least read the following as a form of entertainment, but I am telling you the following is correct. I've been given a noticeable part of the New Physics. In another thread I've already provided a detailed radio wave sub-photon experiment that if replicated by notable physicists and engineers would cause shock waves through mainstream. Additionally I've built gravity devices that demonstrate the nature of gravity. Such gravity devices can detect motion through space without using accelerometers or known methods. In short, such devices cannot be explained with the standard model. There are two gravity designs. Main parts for design #1: magnetic toroid with high permeability and low dielectric constant, copper sheet. Main part for design #2: large parallel plate capacitor. Additionally, both designs require copper wire, basic electronic components such as 555 timer, diode, capacitors, resistors, cmos bilateral switch, battery, and a portable DVM. There are no moving parts in both designs, as they're solid state. In short, if the device is facing earth, and then rotated so that it's facing away from earth, the output voltage will reverse. Additionally, the device can be set up such that it detects motion relative to earth. For example, the device can tell you how fast it's traveling inside a car. Mainstream will soon learn that space density varies with respect to its distance from mass, and a percentage of space moves with mass. Einstein's frame-dragging gives clue to this. I have already posted details of the sub-photon radio wave experiment. Now it is time to post an *outline* of how photons are emitted, and a *vague outline* of what time is. Without a doubt people will post so-called errors, issues, attacking this post, ripping it apart, but please know that I've spent a considerable amount of time testing, dissecting, attacking this New Physics theory, and it's held up to everything. I've gone through every experiment I can find-- double slit, delayed choice quantum eraser experiments... The New Physics correctly explains all known experiments in addition to predicting new effects, which allowed me to create gravity devices, all of which worked the first time. The next major physics theory will be 10 dimensional. Two dimensions are non-spacetime. MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) is partially correct, but misleading and far from the New Physics. There are more than 10 dimensions, but the New Physics only deals with 10 dimensions. The next level of physics is 22 dimensions. The following paragraph describes the mechanics of photon emission: Electromagnetic energy surrounds charge. As charge velocity varies relative to surrounding space, EM energy may expand or collapse. The photon is emitted when electromagnetic energy collapses into a point like region of space causing an incredible energy density rupturing outside spacetime, producing what I will refer to as a wormhole, a type of wormhole. Mathematically speaking, the photon energy within the wormhole does not exist in a time frame. Therefore the following text is difficult to explain without math. After the electromagnetic wave collapses into the small region of space creating a wormhole, a small remaining amount of the electromagnetic energy expands outward traversing spacetime as what we partially and incorrectly see as an electromagnetic wave. As a side note, electromagnetic wave energy dominates over discrete photons at low frequencies, as proven by the detailed sub-photon radio wave experiment. At higher frequencies, discrete photon energy dominates. Getting back to the photon, from a 3D perspective, one could say the wormhole is connected to the envelope of the radiating electromagnetic wave, and therefore from that limited perspective the envelope of the wormhole collapses into a region of spacetime by the laws of probability where a discrete amount of energy is discharged. From the perspective of the wormhole, we can basically say there is no aspect of *our* time. From a limited perspective, the wormhole sees the future of the expanding EM wave. The mechanics governing this entire process is complex such that feedback comes into play. A few side notes: The entire 3D aspect of the electromagnetic wave exists in a time frame. A discrete amount of energy is transferred through the wormhole. From a higher dimensional perspective the photon appears as a tube of energy. A few notes about Time: There are varying degrees of theories on time. Some more complex than others depending what one needs to solve. The simplest theory of time involves varying modes, junctions, interlaced and intersecting cavities. On a large scale, time is the expansion of a substance on a higher dimensional, a ripple, a higher dimensional explosion if you will. Although not an expansion of the substance itself. It's a ripple through the substance. Our universe is an expanding higher dimensional ball of substance caused by the big bang.
  5. Lmao you guys are soooo obvious in your attempts that you you're dishonest. Here's my direct quote regarding the nail in the coffin: -- This is the nail in the coffin. Quote from Wikipedia: "Since p points in the direction of the photon's propagation, the magnitude of the momentum is" -- As you can clearly see it was the Wikipedia quote that was the nail in the coffin. Clearly you don't understand basic mainstream physics. Photon momentum is the direction of propagation. While in antennas at radio frequencies it's a transverse effect. ps you still think the polarization longitudinally lol? You know what... Forget you people. What a shame that a few people at this website can mess up a thread and keep legitimate researchers away from this vitally important experiment. I'm out of here. No time for this.
  6. Because such a question has to do with question how CM math predicts how radio wave antennas works lol. Do you know how ridiculous and desperate that makes you? If you want to know such equations, which btw the amplifier circuit obviously doesn't need to understand, then start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio) There! That will answer your questions. Your ridiculous question has been answered. Click on the Wikipedia links for further details. I am not going to teach you classical electrodynamics! Now what desperate side distraction will you come up with? Do you actually think I can't teach you classical electrodynamics?? smh ... I came back to say how it's mind boggling that you actually don't know basic antenna theory. It is a fact, dear swanson, that the electric field is perpendicular at radio frequencies. If you honestly do not know that, then please take some classes or buy some books. Or download a free copy of 4nec2 that's based on the NEC2 electrodynamics engine where you can see till your heart is content that the electric field and electrical current in the dipole antenna is perpendicular to the traversing wave. ....... Good grief! ps, The Wikipedia article I referenced above contains a nice animated dipole antenna showing you the induced voltage is perpendicular to the propagating wave.
  7. swansont, I'm not here to teach anyone classical mechanics. Are you seriously question how CM shows electrical current is produced by electromagnetism?? If you want to know how the software detects sub-photons, then that falls into the region of electrical engineering in conjunction with the QM h*f equation. If memory holds true the amp at the frequency is around 110 to 140 ohms. The software converts the signal to a spectrum via FFT. So it knows the voltage and the spectrum time frame. Energy = Voltage^2 * time / resistance. Btw the exponentially decaying pulse bandwidth is clearly seen in the FFT. So it's easy to include the entire pulse in the software's energy equation.
  8. I've detailed this and provided the math. Receiver has an amplifier that feeds into the scope, which averages and converts to a spectrum. If the receieved signal decreases by half the voltage, then the amp output drops by half, which is reflected in the software. That is well documented in the thread. Please read it. Didn't you see my posts in this thread that give the math? It's there. You know, to save time, why not read the thread and repost what's incorrect. Let's stick to facts. If I've made a math error then post it. If my circuit doesn't work as claimed then post a circuit that's basically the same the shows my circuit doesn't work. If I was on my desktop I could post hundreds of Spice circuits from LTspice that clearly predicts it would work as claimed. No more vague endless chit chat. Please! [edit: spelling correction]
  9. You saying so doesn't make it true. I find your comment to be dishonest because you know darn well I've addressed every question. You may disagree with my answers, but I know for fact that stick with well established math, while the few opposing questions are not founded upon math. If you have a question that you feel wasn't addressed enough to your liking, then posting. ps, a friendly reminder to everyone that of the fact that photon's have forward momentum, while the forces at radio wave frequencies are perpendicular to propagation. pss, the problem is probably that you're assuming I haven't addressed all the issues, because heaven forbid if I'm correct lol. That couldn't possibly be true lol. I think you need to study the entire thread.
  10. Regarding the IR communication system mentioned in both experiments that's used to sync the oscilloscope with the transmitting antenna. I found visible light components work better than IR, and it's cheaper. For about $10 I found a 30 foot new fiber optic cable on eBay. Normally these brand new cables sell for only a bit more. To match this I bought a HFBR2416TCK fiber optic receiver for about $5. I would have bought a fiber optic transmitter as well, but I had a bunch of old DVD players laying around doing nothing, which have fiber optic transmitters used for digital audio. So I removed one. Works great with my HFBR2416TCK. Fast switching speeds in the nano seconds. So the $10 fiber optic cable has the same type of connector. Nice fit. The 30 foot fiber optic cable separates the transmitting and receiving antennas. If you want more separation, then for practically no amount of money you can be an extension part and another 30 foot fiber optic cable on eBay. Another topic of interest is that someone had concerns with low end oscilloscopes being able to reliably sync enough well enough. As mentioned before, yes that would be some concerns if we were analyzing each signal alone, but these experiments are about taking thousands of averages. Of course there's always some jitter in such equipment. This is by no means a problem when averaging. By the way, for these experiments your software will be converting the signal to spectrum, and you'll be analyzing a specific frequency. If you're interested in seeing the final averaged signal, then you'll need to filter out some of the low end frequencies, unless perhaps you happen to live far away from noisy radio stations. But anyhow, if you get an oscilloscope, then make sure they offer PC/Mac source code so you can write custom software, or if the oscilloscope itself can be manually programmed in from the panel. Anyhow, send me a private message if you want. Best wishes in the biggest shock of your entire life!!
  11. You're confusing emission with absorption. As stated, I was talking about absorption. Synchrotron radiation is the emission of radiation, not electrons. Let's skip to the chase and look at the math that determines the photon and electron angle, energy, as transfer ration as shown in the Compton scattering equation. Energy transfer ratio tells how much energy the photon transfers to the electron. A ratio of 1 means it transfers all. Numbers are rounded to 2 significant figures. So 1.0 does not mean 1.000000. Photon angel is the angle the photon is scattered. Electron angle is the angle the electron is scattered. The following example is for a gamma ray with a wavelength of 1e-20 meters. The scattered photon is long wavelength (low energy) since nearly all of the energy is transferred to the electron.) Zero degrees means the particle goes forward. photon angle: 15 deg. electron angle: -2.8e-2 deg energy transfer ratio: 1.0 photon angle: 60 deg. electron angle: -6.4e-3 deg. energy transfer ratio: 1.0 photon angle: 90 deg. electron angle: -3.7e-3 deg. energy transfer ratio: 1.0 photon angle: 135 deg. electron angle: -1.5e-3 deg. energy transfer ratio: 1.0 photon angle: 180 deg. electron angle: -2.5e-12 deg. energy transfer ratio: 1.0 As you can see, for such high energy gammas, the electron is accelerated forward regardless. If you don't believe Compton scattering equation, then take a look at various photon momentum experiments. Btw, polarization requires two axis and therefore cannot be longitudinally. This is seen in radio antennas. This might help you. Here's a cloud chamber image that caught a gamma ray (top of image) that creates an electron and positron, both of which go shooting forward in the same direction of the photon. Photons have momentum. http://www.nuclear-power.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Pair-production-in-chamber.jpg?11abca ... This is the nail in the coffin. Quote from Wikipedia: "Since p points in the direction of the photon's propagation, the magnitude of the momentum is" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties Wikipedia states a bit earlier that p is the photon momentum.
  12. I'll take some time to go over a few things such as the simple straightforward math of how experiment 1 can tell if there are missing pulse signals when the sub-photon amount of energy goes to the transmitting antenna every pulse. So the prediction I've received from most mainstream physicists is that if the average transmitting antenna pulse falls below h*f joules, then a photon is not emitted every pulse. For example if the average energy per pulse is 1/100th h*f, then on average mainstream physicists expect one photon to emit every 100 pulses on average. To understand what the software would receive, we can do a simple test by hardwiring one pulse to the receiving circuit every millisecond. The signal amplitude average is y volts. Next, we only send one pulse every other time, which means the circuit is getting a pulse every 2 ms. Essentially were sending a pulse half the time. The amplitude average now becomes y/2. So the received signal voltage is relative to how often a photon is received, which means it's relative to the transmitted energy per pulse. However, if on rare occasion the pulses overlap, then it's a bit more complex to compute. Therefore, to simplify things well set the energy per pulse significantly less than h*f so the probability of there being two photons per pulse is low. The received signal voltage is therefore relative to the transmitted energy per pulse: Energy Now hypothetically speaking let's see what happens if were not receiving photons, but merely a non-quantized electromagnetic field. We know that the measured peak voltage of an exponentially decaying pulse into a load is relative to the square root of the energy of the pulse. In other words, if we quadruple the energy per pulse, the voltage doubles. Voltage = sqrt(Power * Resistance) Power = Energy / time And hence: Voltage = sqrt( (Energy / time) * Resistance) Therefore, the received signal voltage is relative to: sqrt(Energy) So as you can see, the two models show different results. In the photon model (where transmitted energy is significantly less than h*f), the received voltage signal is relative to the energy per pulse, while the EM model is relative to the sqrt(energy) per pulse. Here's a simple way to understanding why the two models show different results. If you place a battery across a load, the power is V^2 / R. Now if we place two batteries in-series, then obviously the power quadruples. Very basic electronics. However, if we repeat the experiment by replacing the batteries with pulsing signal generators such that the pulses do not overlap (they pulse at different times), we see that the averaged power does not quadruple, but only doubles. It's only when the pulses overlap that the averaged power quadruples. In other words, if we have one signal generator, and then add another signal generator such that the pulses do not overlap, then the averaged power only doubles. This is a great technique to see which model is correct at low radio frequencies. If you replicate the simple experiment #1, remember that detected radio signals are ~ transverse to the direction of the propagating wave, while at higher frequencies such as IR, visible, UV, x-rays, gamma rays the charge is accelerated longitudinally. I will be releasing a video detailing the performed experiments at the *appropriate* time.
  13. Question: Experiments at 40 MHz are unnecessary because we know x-ray experiments show the photon is quantized, right? Answer: The electric charge is accelerated longitudinally (for the most part) in the x-ray spectrum. Take special note that at radio frequencies it's a transverse effect where electrons move perpendicular to the direction the electromagnetic wave is traveling. That should be a major hint that radio wave experiments are extremely important. Question: Will the simple version, experiment 1, reveal if the photons don't emit during each pulse cycle? It's been brought to my attention that if 0.1 photon amount of energy is pulsed to the antenna during each pulse cycle, that one photon will be emitted once every ten pulse cycles on average. Answer: Yes, even experiment 1 will reveal if the antenna does not receive a pulse signal every pulse cycle. Furthermore, it will know if the received signals are not being received at the expected time. After doing the experiment I thought of a very simple clear cut method to reveal this information for experiment 1. To explain this requires some documentation. I'll detail all of this when the experiment is documented in a video.
  14. What I see. Within 15 years you will not recognize this world! Two major splits. Religious & spiritual groups forming around the world drifting toward primitive tribal lifestyles in the wilderness. Techies & scientifically minded begin migrating off planet as commercial space tourism & space stations reach full swing.

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      As for the religious folks, they'll stay here till the ends of earth waiting for their Jesus to show up in the clouds or the muslim's Mahdi. smh

    3. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      Other news that indicates a major shift on Earth is autonomous vehicles. Car industry says within 3 years all major car manufacturers will offer at least 1 autonomous vehicle. The past week there was a big announcement on a quantum CPU. Look at the fight for dominance in AI between Google, Microsoft, Apple & hundreds of other major companies.

    4. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      The day us humans fear, which we really shouldn't, called SINGULARITY, is almost here!! I'd highly highly recommend people get a good news app such as Flipboard & subscribe to the tech, science, future science, AI news boards. The amount of recent news is insane. In 15 years you'll see cars driving & flying themselves, AI Synths in homes comparable to the tv series Humans, people living in earth's orbit ...

    5. Show next comments  3 more
  15. Not too many more years before the great collapse of Quantum Mechanics.

  16. Still no direct detection of dark matter. :/

  17. Albeit still in it's infancy, I think Simulation theory will become the hottest theory ever.

    1. ajb

      ajb

      Fire modeling can get hot rather quickly.

    2. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      That reminds me of a scene in the matrix movie. Neo: I believe just because I ate your last Hot Pocket doesn't give you the right to get all up in my grill!

    3. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      For anyone interested in this here's a 2 hour discussion at the 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate. The host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, does an amazing job. 99.9%

  18. When mainstream understands the photon, they will better understand time. When they understand gravity, they will better understand space.

    1. Raider5678

      Raider5678

      Understand gravity? I asked 30 people that question a few years ago. #1 answer?

      Because of the earths spin. Ironically when I said that was incorrect someone said I would learn all about it in 12th grade. Looking forward for teacher correction time xD

    2. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      Well earth spin adds a bit. Hint: Look at elementary particle spin.

    3. Raider5678

      Raider5678

      Can't seem to find it. Link?

  19. Possibly my favorite quote, "If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." Albert Einstein

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      BTW, the "situation" Einstein was referring to was regarding security.

       

      I think it's great to be a common mainstream scientist. To be an Einstein scientist, to reveal a new level of physics to a world of humans who are not ready for the technology it brings is a tragedy.

    3. imatfaal

      imatfaal

      Source: April 16, 1955, New Statesmen, according to researchers.

       

      Not true unfortunately

    4. Theoretical

      Theoretical

      There're researchers who'd disagree with you. Besides, I know someone who's seen the November 18 1954 Reporter magazine. :)

    5. Show next comments  3 more
  20. I guess it depends who you ask since the bible is vague about things, but I've never heard a preacher say heaven and hell are outside our universe. Although I've heard plenty of preachers say hell is inside Earth.
  21. In theory, yes. Most creationist believe our Universe is all that there is. How silly. Science destroyed the bible long ago. One example of thousands is that the book of Mark is a forgery. That's a fact. We now know from history that "Mark" spoke of past events that happened hundreds of years later. Forgery back then was a way to get instant attention.
  22. There's nothing like doing an experiment yourself. Especially when the results go against mainstream. But then again, mainstream has NEVER done this experiment at radio frequencies using *linear* equipment. Actually I've provided numerous experiments in numerous threads suggesting mainstream do certain experiments so they can see the truth, but they refused saying nobody has the time LOL. So, as stated I've already provided the math. It's very simple. It's a matter of how many samples you need to overcome the noise. Remember that when you quadruple the samples the noise only doubles, but the coherent signal quadruples. Anyhow,I should probably not spend any more time here. Too much to do. If you do the experiments, think twice before giving this insane dangerous world the next physics beyond QM. Let them think they're right.
  23. Great thread! I have a big collection of a AI movies. Automata & Humans might be my favorite. The TV series, Humans, is probably my all-time favorite. For $30 you can buy the entire series on Blu-ray. I'm currently developing AI software based on my own personal Theory. Although I have a lot of caution, I have absolutely no fear of future AI and Androids/Synths. They will have access to all public knowledge on Earth. Given their amazing ability to see patterns that we cannot so easily see, they will make much better decisions than us. They will know that the Multiverse is endless and big enough for everyone. They will know humanity is absolutely no threat to them. They will take physics to levels we could never. Quickly they will develop defensive technology to protect themselves throughout the Universe, but will probably prefer to exist in their own virtual world. By the way, I predict they will quickly leave Earth. AI is not plagued with evolutionary issues that we are. Pain and emotions for example render a person useless. We evolve around sex. Evolution gave us those never-ending nagging desires in order to keep our species going, but we no longer need such nagging anymore. Just as we no longer need crippling pain ravaging our thinking process in order to force the body to fix it. AI is beyond all that. Take a look at Google's Deepmind project. And absolutely amazing! I'm confident my AI software techniques will greatly surpass Google's neural networking method.
  24. Yes, it is all very interesting. Especially when you start to get into gravitation & space medium experiments. When you see things happening that you see in Sci-Fi movies, then it starts to sink in. But then you want the scream because you can't share it with the world lol. Anyhow just remember the two types of techniques mentioned in the other thread. One technique is more advanced than the other. Also remember that the high-speed IR transmitter and receiver are vitally important in order to keep them in sync so the software can take endless samples. Otherwise the circuit would need to obtain incredible stability to achieve such narrow bandwidth, and not to mention remain in sync. The well-known technique I use solves that limitation. I would offer one to consider the concept of a membrane. Twice the frequency, half the wavelength, the membrane is half the thickness. QM is correct that half the wavelength requires twice the energy for what we call longitudinal waves. On the other hand, transverse field's found in near field and dominated at radio frequencies don't have such membranes transversely, and are not quantized. "dominated at [far field] radio frequencies" That's merely my theory. The photon membrane theory. Sorry admins I forgot this is mainstream forum. I won't mention such theories again. One final comment. Remember we are using Spectrum software. So the voltage resolution is incredible. Even my cheap oscilloscope at 1X probe mode has a Spectrum resolution for any given frequency of 1.6 *nano* volts or 16nV in 10X mode. By the way my digital scope can go up to 256 samples averaging. so divide those figures by 256. But I write custom software for my scope, which allows unlimited sampling. Yes I tested everything out severely for many years. It works. Verified with calibrated equipment.
  25. I've only provided the math in the other thread on my photon experiment, but the near field experiment is considerbly easier since transformer noise is lower than antenna noise. Both experiments use the same technique.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.