Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wulphstein

  1. The scientific community’s understanding, at present, is that the spacetime continuum exists, but there is no clear understanding of how or what it’s made of. One of the major objectives of physics is to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity in a theory of everything. All expectations are that some very abstract mathematical equation will solve everything. However, it is possible to reason out the mechanism that causes QM and GR by considering some facts and their implications. Let’s start with an event and then consider the spacetime interval. The spacetime interval is a mathematical formulation that starts with an event that is seen by two observers on two inertial reference frames, x-ct and x’-ct’. It is written as, [latex] (\Delta s)^2 = (\Delta x)^2 + (\Delta y)^2 + (\Delta z)^2 –(c \Delta t)^2 = (\Delta s’)^2 = (\Delta x’)^2 + (\Delta y’)^2 + (\Delta z’)^2 –(c \Delta t’)^2 [/latex]. When an event occurs, it starts at a point. In order for the event to be observed by multiple observers in multiple inertial frames, the information has to travel outwards, in all directions, at the speed of light so that the rest of the universe can be updated. The fact that all observers in their inertial reference frames have clocks and rulers that are tied to the speed of light is an indication that nature created those inertial frames with mechanisms that travel at the speed of light. The speed of light is [latex] c = \lambda_i \nu_i [/latex] for each observer i. The wavelength is the ruler and the frequency is the clock for each reference frame that started at a point and travels outward at the speed of light. It is an accepted fact that all physics information propagates at the speed of light. But physicists don’t specify what they mean by “physics information”. I will define physics information to be the quantum states of the form [latex] \phi = k_x x + k_y y + k_z z - \omega t [/latex] such that a wave [latex] \psi = e^{i \phi} [/latex] emits from the point of an event in spacetime. Since anything and everything can be an event, these waves are being emitted everywhere, all the time. Most of the time, these waves are empty of matter-energy; the one time they were full of mass-energy was the big bang, which also started from a point. They are vacant states that facilitate the geodesic. The [latex] \phi [/latex] term is the electromagnetic oscillation as a phase that exists everywhere in space; it is conserved. Does this mechanism have anything to do with the virtual photon? Maybe, but so little is known about virtual photons. We can call this mechanism a pre-photon and identify it as the cause of spacetime geometry. Quantum mechanics solves for solutions to differential equations involving kinetic and potential energy. Why does nature work this way? Pre-photons already have permittivity and permeability built into them, as [latex]c^2 \epsilon \mu = 1 [/latex]. Pre-photons are readily available everywhere and will easily conform to the potential energy of a quantum system. When this happens, the quantum states of the pre-photon are shaped in a way that is described by the solution to the Schrodinger differential equation. The pre-photon expands at the speed of light, with a volume of [latex]V = \frac{4}{3} \pi (ct)^3 [/latex] and has a surface area of [latex]A = 4 \pi (ct)^2[/latex]. It only takes a second for a pre-photon to become two light seconds wide. By that time, it is no longer a point, it is a large volume of space and can behave like a field. Gravity is not implemented by gravitons. Instead, the positive mass energy described by the stress-energy tensor casts a negative energy reflection in spacetime. When the wavelength states of all of these pre-photons (which implement spacetime) reaches an equilibrium of negative potential energy, the result is the curvature of spacetime. That’s how gravity works.
  2. Ghideon, Its Tyson's mistake.
  3. Now hold on. Let me explain. , There are some logical inconsistencies with the current understanding of physics. 1. Were told that the mechanism of gravity travels at the speed of light. But then, event horizons form when light can't escape the gravity well. So how can a mechanism make gravity work, trap light, but also moves at c. 2. Why is the speed of light invariant for all inertial reference frames, as if the mechanism of time and space also moved at the speed of light. But then we're also told there is no medium. Just looking at the derivation for SR, it looks like something is moving at the speed of light in the stationary frame and the moving frame. 3. The spacetime interval has a starting point, where the first event happened. Then it looks like something expanded at the speed of light, for each reference frame. I am getting the impression that the mechanism that creates spacetime is expanding from a point, like an event, and expanding at the speed of light. How is information always transmitted at the speed of light? Because, imo, there are wavefronts starting at a point, and expanding as spherical wavefronts at the speed of light, 4pir^2 = 4pi(ct)^2. These spherical wavefronts have 3d geometry built into them. If there is always a flow of these spherical wavefronts starting at a point, then it would like a flow of action is running continuously, running like a program, not a crystalized set of math equations. It creates the effect of a light cone and also the holographic principle. Didn't mean to take up so many paragraphs, but the concept is so crisp, and simple. There is more to say.
  4. I don't necessarily disagree with the "computer simulation" theory. I just need the physics community to tell us what the mechanism is. How is time and space implemented. If they can't, then they should work on that. I have a guess, but I can't get the math to work.
  5. Do you think he was talking about the movie? I don't understand what you're saying. So, in the video that you posted, in which the audio of the video that I watched comes from, Tyson spends 15 minutes bashing eye witness testimonial from near death experiencers. But then, we are supposed to believe that superstring theory exists, based on zero evidence. It requires ten dimensions to exist, but the existence of 3+1D of spacetime and 10+1D are just assumed to exist without a mechanism. We get this "you have no soul" propaganda from "theoretical science" which says that the lowest form of evidence is testimonial science. Well that is WRONG! The lowest form of evidence is NO EVIDENCE.
  6. The title of the video I posted is: This will blow your mind: how we could be living in other dimensions without knowing it. It has Degrasse Tyson's voice talking about 4D aliens. But I'm supposed to conclude he wasn't trying to interest people who think about aliens, because he was referring to the movie Monsters Inc. Is that correct?
  7. You're right. I read the description. Tyson does talk about the limits of what an ant can perceive, and comparing to the limits of what we could perceive if a 4D lifeform, like an alien, were to interact with our dimension. As to the propaganda that there is no afterlife because science can't prove it, I am not moved. One can infer that by talking about 4D aliens, he was trying to attract the interest of people who think about aliens.
  8. Well, technically everything is part of a quantum field, whether it's weird or not. So your comment that it's a fallacy,...is a fallacy. What do you mean by "distributed"? Like a newspaper?
  9. If Degrasse tyson did not create this video, then why do I recognize his voice? I can't think of any possible reason why Degrasse would mention aliens taking packages from a closet and moving them into a 4th dimension of space, if he wasn't trying to attract the attention of people who think about that kind of stuff. The video that you posted, he's bashing "eye witness testimony", which has nothing to do with 4th dimension aliens or the 4th dimension.
  10. At 13:05, he talks about the visual binding problem where colors stimulate one part of the brain, and shapes stimulate another part, but they're never combined. It seems to suggest that consciousness is a non local phenomena. Where have I heard the words "non locality" before?
  11. This video talks about how neurosurgeons can stimulate parts of the body to move, but states that there is no way to effect the will or to cause the patient to make a decision, just by activating circuits within the brain. The video suggests that consciousness is not created by the brain.
  12. Niel Degrasse Tyson posted this video. He mentioned aliens taking packages out of our closet and moving them to another dimension at 1:47. Does this mean that popular science thinks that aliens could be living in a 4th spacial dimension?
  13. You remind me of a conversation I had with a friend at work, very talented kid. He has an uncle who is schizophenics, experiences hallunications of the wall telling him things about his wife, the turn out to be true. I do look at schizophenics as people who probably have certain sensitives open, and they pick up "information" . Besides the intense scientific growth, I am fascinated by, and love to listen to, people who are developing skills related to Astral projection, lucid dreaming, and those skills. The experiences themselves are very rich and beautiful to hear about. Evidence is also nice when it does happen. I've never been comforted by fire ladders. You think I live in a comfort zone? I wish I did. Truth be told, I live in an uncomfort zone. It is just not my lot in life to be comfortable. The result is that I will say things and do things that I hope will have an impact, even if that means locking horns with others, even if saying what needs to be said makes me unpopular. You can tell by my score that I am unpopular. I have really irritated some people on this forum because what I had to say was important. But you think I live in a comfort zone. I would love to live in one.
  14. I am not going to get into the argument of having to prove mathematically what my instincts tell me, but when I went beyond "spacetime/speed of light is invariant" as scientific dogma, in pursuit of a mechanism, I got smacked down. In fact, I got pummeled. LOL Advancing technology will always make people uncertain and uncomfortable. But in my personal belief, technology and spirit will always be in balance; if they're not in balance, a civilization will suffer. I know about all the mechanisms and brain chemicals, but I personally think there is something more fundamental to coming close to death, then just some chemicals and some hallucinations. I think the the spirit can start to break out of the biological limitations of the body, and see the ultimate reality for what it is. At least that is what I believe and what experiencers corroborate with their experiences. There are so many ways that people can be flat earthers, that I do sympathize. And I still remember my own limited point of view, the comfort I found in the Cold War dualism that made the world so simple.
  15. I don't think consciousness is something that has to be explained, especially by philosophers and scientists; it is something to be developed. And why would we feel obligated to accept something that goes against our gut feelings? I don't understand that, at face value, unless some greater good "that could be clearly explained" was to be achieved. What do you mean "exist objectively"? And what is wrong with "very comforting"? Do you want to make everyone miserable for some virtuous reason? Please explain. I can't understand somebody with your point of view who doesn't grasp the immediate reality of death, and coming back from the edge. There are literally people who are adrenaline junkies who will do dangerous sports just to get that close to death, to get the rush of adrenaline. I totally understand that. If I grasp the metaphysical implications. It is a shame that you dismiss it so casually. Huge difference between experience and objectively true? I can't identify with what sounds to me like some medieval belief system or flat earth theory that flies in the face of common sense. I know all about physics, down to the standard model, fields, all that stuff that physicists claim is the total reality. And I don't buy the belief that it is all of reality. Because it has so many logical inconsistencies that it looks like brainwashing. Materialism looks like brain washing. And I couldn't live with myself if I tried to embrace such a limited, closed minded view of reality. All this NDE, consciousness, transcendentalism is like the ocean. One doesn't know how deep it goes until one jumps in and descends to the bottom where truth lies.
  16. There is a lot more that science can't explain. It does seem to lead to the transcendental, metaphysical. I am so glad that people have come back from their near death events and told us what they experienced.
  17. That is the most intelligent question I've heard all day from this sciforum community. I can't do it myself because it involves a periodic burst of high energy laser of duration, about a microsecond, to travel through a beam splitter, and then travel to hit a fiber optic cable on a one meter radius disk spinning at over a hundred revolutions per second, come out the other end, get focused and directed to the next disk, and do this repeatedly. It is far beyond my technical ability.
  18. If you have to assume than do the !@#$% experiment!!!! If you have to ask, then it means you don't know. Do the experiment!!! You don't know what the spacetime continuum is made of. You won't bother to use common sense. If spacetime is made out of ??? and quantum entanglement is called spooky ??? action at a distance, is it really beyond your ability to think rationally that space-time could be made out of quantum entanglements? Or is that too metaphysical for you? Should you perform an experiment? If you don't know, and it's never been performed before, then only an incompetent physicist would say: don't do the experiment.
  19. Do you think that redshift/blueshift and gravity might have anything to do with each other? Maybe we should use the scientifiic method!!! Do you see that big picture of gravitational redshift? I am going to make this clear. I am asking if I can take two entangled photons; blue shift one, redshift the other. If I do that, can I get back gravity. I am sure that even a super genius PhD in physics can understand that this is step 1 of the scientific method. Has that experiment been performed? If not, then what is the problem?
  20. Does this science that you think you're doing include the scientific method? Can you refer me to the experimental data that shows what happens well you artificially blueshift/redshift entangled photons? You can do that. It would be another way to understand quantum entanglement. A reasonable person would want to try an experiment that has never been done before.
  21. It proves nothing. It is irrelevant to the conversation. Furthermore, there is something "funny" about the reasoning of certain kinds of people who think that trying to explain how space and time work mechanistically is beyond the scope of physics, that it's metaphysics. I don't want that kind of "funny" thinking to rub off on me. It's the kind of thinking that flat earth people engage in. Prove it. I am shocked that physicists don't want to understand how space and time actually work. So how are you going to figure out how to curve spacetime without black holes? You can't make black holes. For that matter, you can't verify gravitons. You can't verify superstrings. You can't verify E8 crystals. Half of the theoretical crap you physicists come up with is fantasy that has no foundation in reality. And the one experiment that could be performed, you don't want to because explaining it gets us into "metaphysics". You physicists have your heads on backwards. Just because you can write up some complicated mathematical model doesn't mean that nature implements the universe that way. And if you're doing your own thing, and not modeling how nature counts time and measures distance, then your model will be pretty limited. Even an average person could figure this out. "Hey, let's perform an experiment on something we find mysterious in a way that has never been tried before. " But then a flat earther comes along and says, "No, you have to make it fit one of our crappy models before you can use the SCIENTIFIC METHOD" Here is a refresher for you of what the scientific method is. You should watch this video. It asks the question that I am trying to answer, the question that certain "funny" thinking people think is metaphysics. Watch the first 2 seconds.
  22. Okay, I want to take entangled photons, p1 and p2. I want to blueshift the p1 photons using centrifuges and redshift the p2 photons, just to see "how it behaves". Don't ask me why I want to do it, because that would get us into metaphysics and we're not allowed to talk about that. There has never been a spacetime without photons. So Mordred cannot claim to know what happens. According to you, I don't have to. Because that would be engaging in metaphysics. Swansot, I am saying this in the nicest possible way. But your reasoning is funny. It's the kind of funny that blocks innovation.
  23. A photon, being a spin 1 boson, can occupy the same state as other bosons. Fermions can't overlap the same quantum states. And gravitons, which are never seen in nature, still don't keep time or measure geometry.
  • 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.