Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pa, USA
  • Interests
    Science, problem solving, and making a difference in the world
  • College Major/Degree
    2 engineering degrees
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
    The son of a NY firefighter, I spent most of my life happily watching science documentaries and reading anything I can that can teach me something. The one goal I have had since childhood, and still have, is making a positive difference in the world
  • Occupation
    Contract Administrator

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

GaryV's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. The real problem is that we cannot see things that small, therefore, we cannot view exactly what is happening on the test we can run. That is why the equations are probabilistic. We can count up the amounts of each type of result and compare them to the predicted probability. That is also why classical viewpoints are not comparable. Classical equations predict the motions of individual objects and QM just gives a probability of many outcomes. In spite of this, I believe we can understand it. However, without the ability to test and witness the act of an individual quantum particle, no one will believe the theory. I wonder if someone can build a simulation based on such a theory and run multiple sims to test the probabilities based on it? If this is possible, I think there is a way to explain QM by linking String Theory's many spacial dimensions, the idea of a fluidic space, and idea that such particles are actually both a wave and a particle. However, I have not yet talked to, read about, or heard quotes from someone else who claims to be able to visualize the universe in more than three spacial dimensions.
  2. MigL, you may be correct. What I was trying to refer to was something I learned a while ago; that all particles quanta of energy are multiples of a specific number. It was my understanding that the number was the quantum of energy and the place I learned it referred to it as the Planck Energy. No I don't remember where.
  3. I think that the real reason that it tends to take so long to see a benefit from new research is because the people that have the minds and resources to use that new research have to justify it with those that have the funding. Those that have the funding tend to only be willing to use it for proven topics (understandably). In that way, new research needs time for people to find a way to prove it to the funding people before many of us see the benefit. Here is a personal example. I was reading about gravitational lensing years ago and had an idea. I wrote to researchers to ask if the idea could be used to make microscopes better. Could we make a ring of heavy atoms (such as gold) that create the same effect and help to magnify the extremely small; use mass to create a molecular scale lens? I understand that I am a nobody. There is no reason for anyone to take my ideas seriously. I am not floating this idea for personal benefit - it is just for example. Whether or not it could be useful, no on will know until a professional comes up with the idea him/herself and finds a way to test it. This is a common story that was illustrated in many well written books. My favorite was "Einstein's Dice and Schrodinger's Cat." It very adequately highlighted Eerwin Schrodinger's fight to find funding for the research he really wanted to do and how that cause the extended timeframe from when he had ideas to when he could prove/disprove them.
  4. It is disturbing how much people read into comments and questions. For example, I never claimed this would allow FTL travel. My main question is purely related to the ability to warp space without the need for exotic matter. The reason most people don't want to seriously take on this topic is the need for exotic matter. If that was not needed, Warp Theory would become a serious discipline. If warping space (I.E. causing a gravitational field) with only energy were possible, smarter people could use it for many things. For example, such a point could be placed in the center of a ring shaped, or spherical, space station and create a small gravity on said station. While never likely 1G, any field would be better than no gravity for the health of the inhabitants.
  5. I am not well versed on the Alcubierre or Krasnikov work. I just have a related question. Why couldn't someone use a standing wave to create the warp? If you used many different synchronized wave emitters to create a point of constant high energy in front of the ship, as per Relativity, the amount of energy at that point would have the equivalent effect as the corresponding amount of matter. That means that you would warp space as much as that amount of matter would. If such a thing is possible, I could go further to postulate that someone could create a device that would turn such an effect on and off in a way to create gravitational waves. The same as above could be used to create a standing gravitational wave. Since all waves have both a crest and trough, it should be possible to create the negative point with no exotic matter. While I realize that it would not generate faster than light travel any time soon, a proof of concept device (for the first paragraph) should be possible with current technology. The enormous power demands could be mitigated somewhat by utilizing super conductors. If using a craft in space is assumed, such a craft could have the electrical system shielded from electromagnetic radiation, but open to the vacuum of space. In this way you could keep the temperature of the material low enough to have super conductivity with current level metals.
  6. Look. I don't now, nor have I ever, claimed to have discovered anything new. There are two ways to do Physics. One is to have an insight, then do the math to prove it. The other is to purely do the math. I have read dozens of books, seen dozens of documentaries, and seen dozens of interviews. The one thread that keeps coming out, but is never easy for people to admit (most, not all. Some do admit it and I respect them for it) is that there are many areas where the math and test prove the theory correct, but we don't understand why or how. Yes I am paraphrasing heavily. All I am trying to do is provide a plausible physical mechanism for what is not understood. That way, someone smarter can take the math to the next level.
  7. Ghideon To give you the full picture, I would need several pages. However, I will try to condense it. Afterward, if you are interested, e-mail me and I will send you some PDF's The fabric of space-time is a fluid in a fourth dimension of space. The "molecules" of this fluid are represented as the curled up dimensions of String Theory. Matter in our four dimensional space is an energy wave in the extra dimensional fluid. Space-time has a resonance equal to the Planck Energy. Any part of the energy wave that is greater than (and a multiple of) the Planck Energy manifests as a particle in our four dimensional space. The universe as a whole began with the creation of a black hole in another universe. That black hole is a highly spinning, toroidal black hole. While our space-time is not inside it, it is tied to it. The rotation of the black hole, and the fact that all space-time is bent back on itself inside a black hole, means that our universe is as such. The space itself is not curved back on itself, but the progression of time is. This means our universe is cyclical. As each iteration begins, time moves slowly, then rapidly increases. Eventually the flow of time will begin to slow until it stops. Then it will reverse and the universe will collapse inward. This explains the missing anti-matter. Matter and anti-matter is the same, with time flowing in opposite directions. The missing anti-matter is on the other side of the looped time of our universe. With respect to the initial universe and its black hole, both were created at the same time, however, anywhere in out universe we will only see matter. If you were to calculate this probability, and plot the curve, you could see how the universe would appear to change its rate of expansion with respect to the previous part of the curve and find where we would be on this curve. Then you could predict the age of our iteration and see how it line up with accepted estimates. Because Relativity permits time travel, but we cannot do it, explains how Relativistic Mass attenuation works. As elementary particles gain energy, they will be kicked above the speed of light and move backward in time for a short distance as the extra energy dissipates. Then they would return to normal. From our perspective, we would see an anti-matter particle appear, move toward the original matter particle and annihilate. Because this will, for a short time, mean that there are more particles in a given space-time, the more energy mass absorbs, the more mass it will have. This means that all complex matter will not be able to move faster than light because it will constantly gain mass as Relativity predicts. Someone could calculate the rate of attenuation based on this concept and see if it agrees. This concept should look just like what the LHC saw as they recorded the color glass condensate. This is not everything, but I hope this also answers your question, "Can you provide the insights in such a way that it makes sense to try to apply mathematics to them?"
  8. I have heard that, and understanding it. However, I find it extremely short sighted. All the best breakthroughs came from insights through analogies. In all the descriptions of Einstein I read, his insights stopped being useful when he delved deeply into the mathematics. Why couldn't someone like me, be paired with a master of mathematics? I would provide the insights, and he/she would find the math to describe it. Phi for all, unfortunately all I have (after my engineering degree) is popular books. I can't afford to go back. However, since I have been seeing my conclusions paralleled by real work, it tells me I am on the correct path. I have also been invited to a NASA conference and a neuroscience conference based on my concepts that were equally developed. In the past I tried to write more properly. I got responses from professionals, but many got angry when they found out I was an amateur. The other amateurs said I was talking over their heads.
  9. The number of competing theories has always intrigued me. When I started reading and studying, it always annoyed me to see professionals say, "we don't understand it. We just know that is the way it is." It always seemed like a defeatist attitude. I made it my mission to learn every theory I could and try to piece together the big picture. After twenty years, I have created a picture where the extra dimensions of String Theory explain parts of Relativity. The quirks of Relativity explain the effects of Quantum Mechanics, and more, in an M-Theory style concept. However, I cannot find anyone who is willing to consider such a wide ranging concept. I really want to see this studied formally because I have seen some successes with it. Some of the conclusions I have drawn from my concept have paralleled recent findings that have had nothing to do with me. For example, a concept that uses the fact that Relativity does not exclude time travel as both an explanation of QM effects and as a physical mechanism for Relativistic mass attenuation. My conclusion mirrored perfectly the recent confirmation of Color Glass Condensate by the LHC, even though I had written my concept before the article about the CERN result. My question is, is it possible that we have found enough puzzle pieces to get a big picture, but haven't yet found the perspective? Also, how does an amateur like me find someone to work with?
  10. I think all the information is already there. No one has been able to put all the pieces together. If you merge a new interpretation of String Theory with QM and Relativity, you can explain things. String theory proves that the universe exists in more than 4 dimensions. Relativity shows us that the universe works in a fluidic manner. If you assume that the extra dimensions of string theory is the missing fluid fabric of the universe, and the curled up dimensions are the molecules of the fluid, you explain a lot. With this concept quantum particles are in fact both particles and waves. They are waves in the extra dimensions. At the points where the wave reaches a resonance with the Planck Energy, the wave manifests as a particle in our 4 dimensions. In this concept, the double slit experiment is explained as such. As a particle passes through both slits, the energy continues onward and is absorbed by the detector. The detector only recognizes points where the energy exceeds the Planck Energy. So as the individual particles impact the detector, the rest of the wave interferes and only the points where the energy is not conflicting will be great enough. This is my explanation. I have seen some new research parallel the conclusions I draw from this concept. What do you think?
  • 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.