Pincho Paxton

No, my comment is completely relevant. I'm saying that you can't make physics work with aether, the premise is flawed right from the start.

Then your wording was wrong, you said established physics based on both theory and observation does work with aether. Which includes the words DOES WORK.

But QM works without an aether. If you add one, you need a compelling reason for it.

Do you think nothing can be solved from unifying physics? It is a window to observing the invisible materials out there, and maybe using them. Time, and dark Matter are two examples of unifying physics to Quantum Physics. I'm not sure what science would do with them, hopefully improve space travel, and maybe by understanding atoms, and biology science can solve a few biological questions. You would be amazed at the clarity of the Universe when you know what is out there. How the brain works.. it's all just amazing.

But it had been exhaustively demonstrated that established physics based on both theory and observation does work with aether.

I don't think your reply works to....

Replying to Why the quantum world appears weird?

Because you are talking about standard physics. I was talking about making Quantum Physics work with the Aether.. and then changing it to standard physics.

You had not read the discussion topic "drawback of conservation energy?" fully. There mainly two question remained without getting satisfied answer.

 

1) "Why" conservation takes place?

 

 

 

2) Is there any rule exist in present science, from which we are able to say with "perfection" (by not an assumption) that "this universe will be invariant (and conserved) always" .

 

For first question swansont given answer as invariance rule. Second question is answered with "no". (You have to read this discussion once http://www.sciencefo...nservation-law/)

 

 

 

Starting of this topic I have said that by "assumption" we may say this universe will invariant (conserved). But for saying with "perfection" we are not able.

 

If you have positive answers for this question please give with reply.

 

(My theory give satisfied answers to both questions.)

 

Before I had planned that again I have to come here (sfn) for giving answer (what is exist outside universe?) for my above question. But I came here, I hope this will not divert the discussion and I request to the member again, for giving answer for my above question.

 

 

Yes I can answer the questions. currently mathematicians use high level maths to describe the universe, but you can break maths down to very simple forms like binary code. You can say that switches are either on, or off, or you could say that particles are either apart, or overlapping. You can break all of the Universe into a very simple mathematical formula...

+1 + -1 = 0.

+1 would be a particle membrane.

-1 would be the hole in the middle of the particle.

0 would be the vacuum that they are surrounded by.

From this particle you can create the entire universe, because the total of the membrane, the hole, and the vacuum will work together to create Trinary code results.

But not only that, but their average is zero.. and the average is therefore energy conservation.

No, they aren't, and while hypothesizing is fun, at the end of it all you have to be able to test the hypothesis before you accept it as valid science. The ball is in your court regarding the aether. Come up with tests to show that it exists.

 

The HUP says you can't simultaneously measure the conjugate variables to arbitrary accuracy. The observer effect says you will change the system when you observe it, and a later measurement will not tell you what the variable used to be because you have changed by an undetermined amount. That's a huge difference. IOW, if you have a sample of identically-prepared particles, you can measure e.g. the momentum of half and the position of the other half, and you will still satisfy the HUP. There is no observer effect here at all, because you aren't relying on a subsequent measurement.

You don't have to prove the Aether is there to make Quantum Physics work. All you have to do is say that Quantum Physics CAN work. And then you make any sort of possibility that would work physically. So long as you use physics to make Quantum physics work it doesn't matter if it is proved or not, it just means that people are not trying hard enough to make it work.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the observer effect are not the same thing.

I think they are the same thing. I don't really have time to study everything, but from what I can gather you just have a missing particle... the Aether. It becomes a lot easier to get an understanding of what is happening then. Scientists just tend to get over-excited about things that they don't understand, and start throwing out nonsensical words.The only real problem is "Why is the Aether so hard to detect?" Well it is half negative mass, and this makes it equal zero most of the time, especially over an average distance which is the scale that we would see. So it could be very spiky in places, but it is tiny, so the spikes are averaged out. You nearly always end up with a flat wave.The photons travel through these spikes, be we average them out.The spikes lock the Aether to the Earth for a very brief moment, so the Micheal Morley experiment was just observing the Aether locked to the Earth.

When you can make a rational explanation like that, it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. It matters that you can make sense of Quantum physics.It matters that there are explanations that work that haven't been tested yet.

Ok, let's say for simplicity that we are 1 billion particles.. say atoms. We are 1 billion atoms for simplicity. When we die, we become dust.. 1 billion atoms of dust. Our electricity becomes static electricity. The total is what we were, nothing is lost. So conservation works no matter how you decide to propose it. I believe in the Aether, and we become Aether, still nothing lost. In fact, nearly any proposal you can make will work. It's very easy to attribute conservation of energy to most situations.

Actually what you said is not logical. It is in fact a logical fallacy (that is false logic). Specifically: http://en.wikipedia....acy_of_division

 

Therefore it is not logical to say that because the macroscopic world is deterministic, then the quantum would has to be as well.

 

 

But, as your arguments rely on logical fallacies, and there is a lot of data that show the quantum world is less deterministic than the macroscopic world, then your arguments seem to lack much in the way of support.

 

 

But, that residual force would be the product of a non-classical effect (specifically due the law of quantum physics: that particles don't have a specific place and energy). If it was a "classical" explanation, then we would see the effect of gravity being stronger (and detectably so - it would be the gravitational equivalent of magnetism) in one direction than another. As we don't see this we can rule out classical explanations. We would have the ability to effect gravitation as we do the electromagnetic force (because the magnetic force comes from a residual electric field moving around).

 

 

Yes: Reality wins. We know what is real by measuring it (and making repeated measurements and trying to find errors in the measurements). According to all measurements taken so far, quantum reality is very non-deterministic and non-classical. This is in direct opposition to your argument.

Particles do have a specific place, and energy, but when you try to observe that position you blow them out of the way like a wind. Say you were trying to measure the static electricity of two balloons touching. The only instrument you have to measure them is the reflection of wind off their surfaces. Each time you did a measurement the wind deflection would blow the balloons apart. That's what happens when you measure electron positions. So today, scientists try to use high speed laser impulses. Grab an image before they move apart, and I think it will work.

Philosophy..eh. The thing about philosophy is that it isn't really a theory of anything. I feel it belongs on philosophy forums.

That is correct Michel. The concept that I have been examining is that where a four dimensional sphere is expanding through all dimensions.

 

 

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear in explaining how we perceive this four dimensional sphere. But to try and respond to your statement, it is true that we are enclosed locally in an expanding three dimensional sphere. The 4D distance that you are referring to, only explains why massive bodies do not speed up or fall behind us temporally. If this 4D distance was not uniform for all observable bodies, then these bodies would either appear or disappear from our view of the universe.

 

Take a look at the aberration of light, and see if you find something new. Add your massive body misalignment idea to it. Maybe you get a new idea, maybe you don't. Personally, I thought about changing the word light to possibly time.

Of course it's true, you don't need maths to apply this to every theory in the book. It is just written illogically in the way that everything is enclosed at a distance in 4D. Everything is enclosed locally and polarised.

His/her mind was altered by drugs to make this thread!

so,

 

the orbital diameter of an electron is *larger* than a proton.

 

the protons mass is from its deviation from the 2D plane

take an infinity sign and spin it about its long axis - then put a squiggly disc (electron) *around the center*. There's your neutron.

 

the missing axis from 2D is attracted to the crosing point of the 3D curve.

 

two ways to get there - axially or radially.

 

 

 

I think that is it. it's done.

 

Electromagetism is all time and charge - now you know what "charge" is.

 

 

 

Back in March I started with figuring out dark energy at the scale of the universe and dark matter on a galactic scale. With that answer I have marched down to building the smallest permanent object in the universe, answering major mysteries along the way (gravity, time, particle/wave, quantum, etc.)

 

Nary a physicist has acknowledged it or answered their e-mails.

 

Science *is* a religion.

 

 

 

I'll be off writing this all up in a single document - though I'm not sure I should bother.

 

 

---

 

 

WooHoo!

 

 

 

Found the other side of Einsteins equation.

 

It is the distance that the 2D loop extends into 3D space connected to the radius of the orbit.

All loops are the same length. The rotational "speed" is tied to how far it extends into 3D space - their mass is that distance.

 

The "bent" space is there.

 

 

 

!!

 

---

 

 

 

I should never say "well that about wraps it up"

Biggest and best fotr last:

 

Einstein was right.

 

 

 

But all the math applies to the 1D time quanta.

 

He equated it with "light" - but it lives in a different dimension.

 

Once the quanta loops it is in Newtonian space. As either a 2D thing or a 3D thing.

 

 

 

Whew!

 

Am I done?

I don't know if you are done. I don't know if you have any physics in there at all.

Yup.

 

Math is *supposed* to be the symbols that represent the map of the logical path that you made.

Not the projection of logical extrapolations to *define* the universe.

 

 

 

I made the path - need some help with the symbols and the mapping.

Yeah, well I try to replicate what the Universe does.. it's just an experiment.

so,

 

your new mysteries are;

 

 

 

What is a "time quanta".

what is the mathematical relationship between the 3 coordinate systems.

 

 

 

We know that time quanta will "stack".

 

We know that 3D matter can change its movement vector.

 

!D coords pushed around by 2D and 3D structures. Well, everything pushing everything.

 

Sorry, need math help here.

 

Three simultatenous equations but each in their own coordinate system and affected by the location and momentum of the others.

 

I figured I'd have to share the "Universe" Nobel with a mathematician . . . but this is a Nobel all on it's own.

And remember that the Universe does it without maths.

So ... does the Law of Conservation all of a sudden become invalid, or are the hidden particles just considered Unobserved?

They are flat waves. Consider an Igloo, it starts as flat ice, flat wave. You dig a hole, negative wave. Build the dome, positive wave. The dome fits exactly in the hole.. zero wave. So what you have is a total of zero, and yet you have a structure. Your eyes looked out across the ice, they did not pick up a signal. Now they look across the ice they pick up a dome. but you haven't changed the quantities.The positive energy that pops up, is taken from the negative energy that pops down.

Just because we think (or fell) that something should be a certain way does not mean that is has to be that way, or is that way. Just because it would make more sense to you that quantum reality is deterministic, does not mean that it has to be (or is) deterministic.

 

Remember, we are product of reality, reality is not a product of us.

 

 

The reason I was using that assumption is that you had use the assumption that because the macroscopic world is deterministic, then that means that the quantum world must be too.

 

Actually, if you look at the macroscopic world, it is not completely deterministic, there are certainly events that occur due to probability. This is partly because some events are so sensitive to initial conditions that quantum variability does play a part.

 

Actually such phenomena are used in some Charged Coupled Devices to allow them to pick up very low levels of light. By exploiting "noise" an element in a CCD can pick up a signal far weaker than it could normally pick up. If a CCD element needs a certain amount of energy from photons to activate (say around 100), but you want to pick up a signal of just 1 or 2 photons, this might just be impossible. But by exploiting the noise from random events around it, the CCD element hovers near the point of activation (say at the equivalent of 99-98 photons). Then when the 1 or 2 photons you are after hits the CCD, it is enough to trigger the element and send the signal to the electronics.

 

Also there are phenomena that are not attributable to any classical (ie: deterministic) cause. One such is the "Casimir Effect". This is when you bring 2 electrically neutral conductive plates close together. What occurs is the forces on them can be ascribed to known forces (gravity, electromagnetics, etc), but when they are about 1mm or so apart a new force appears attracting the plates together.

 

As all forces can be controlled with these plates and external forces can be eliminated, there needs to some explanation of what causes this effect. There is no classical explanation. The only explanation is that particles are appearing randomly and non deterministically everywhere. However, between the plates there is less chance of them appearing (due to the fact that only certain wavelengths can fit between them where as outside any wavelength is allowed). Because less particles are appearing between them plates than outside them, the force from outside is greater than the force inside and the plates are pushed together.

 

As no classical, deterministic explanation can allow for the random appearance of particles form nothing (and they subsequent disappearance back to nothing), then this means that the quantum world is not only fundamentally different than the macroscopic world (for one we don't see things popping into and out of existence), but also must be non-deterministic.

 

In other words, this one effect completely disproves your claims that the quantum world must be deterministic and operate as the macroscopic world does.

 

Now, faced with evidence against your claims (and you can easily find research papers - and even wikipedia articles - so this is not just idle claims by me), how does this effect your belief that the quantum reality must be the way that makes sense to you, rather than your understanding or quantum reality having nothing to do with how it actually is.

 

And that is the point I am making. You think that reality has to make sense, but because we are a product of reality, not the creators of it, it does not have to make sense to us at all.

The problem with you argument here is that my theory predicts all of these behaviours. Even before I found out that particles pop into existence I had a theory that was based on that assumption. I even know why, and how they pop into existence.Quantum physics may be as complex a system as the weather, but it is easily understandable still, and is based on physics.Similar rules to The Game Of Life in fact. Particles pop into existence like ear drums flutter around. We have no senses to detect the flat wave, and we also hardly ever interact with the negative wave. But we have evolved to sense the positive waves pretty well. The problem with negative waves is that they head away from us, so if you want to sense them you need to pick them up in the other direction.. or mirror them. The flat waves we call nothing, and ignore completely, but they are ready to bulge in either direction, so they are not a stable state of zero. Even when you have figured out all of the flexible properties, you still get them overlapped, and also interconnected. It's complex, but not as weird that it doesn't make sense.

But, relative to what?

To my understanding, Δtime its relative to Δposition and Δspeed. (v=d/t)

Which in this case time is relative, and ever-growing in relation to position of the point, and the speed is constant: 1 unit/frame

 

Unless if you meant the perception of time is relative between 2 objects, which wouldn't matter at all for my topic, since there is only 1 object represented by 1 point.

It was the scale that I forgot about. Once you get to the building blocks of all materials you need a shape that folds, and loops like a twisted elastic band, or a constant in/out flow of material.

The vacuum is not really the empty quiet thing you expect classically. Quantum mechanically it is more like a pot of boiling water bubbling away spitting water droplets everywhere.

 

Particles can appear and disappear on the smallest of scales. These particles do not really have a well defined number per volume of space and are thus appearing and disappearing all the time. These are known as virtual particles and are analogous to our boiling water spitting out droplets that fall back into the pot.

 

Although virtual this "boiling vacuum" has observable effects like the Casimir force. Here we have a small attractive force between metallic plates places micrometers apart in vacuum and without the presence of any external electromagnetic field. The virtual particles create this small force.

Quantum particles popping into existence isn't all that surprising really is it? They would hardly amount to anything, just beyond nothing at all.

If you have spin, you have rotation around the black hole don't you? And you get spin from the fact that it is hardly likely that particles will cross collide. Or what do you have?

The Quantum World isn't strange at all, it is just misunderstood.

This must be the basis of your program that I watched. It was fun to look at, wondering what it's going to evolve into

//

 

I don't know, I was surprised at the amount of movement in that. I didn't add the negative mass either. I just wanted to see what would happen. I should really do the full test. I tend to move on to other things though. I am currently working on a Neural Network of an ants nest.

Time is shaped like a neverending, curved, 3-dimensional line.

Maybe at the quantum scale, yeah probably.

Time is relative. Your shape is absolute. The shape wouldn't even work around a body, because the moving body would stretch the shape. If you want to see the shape of time look in a mirror facing a mirror then meta morph that shape to give it a motion bow shock.

You got me beat on the math concerning simplicity; that's for sure. My own math concerning theoretical physics is different but no simpler than the standard model The math in my gravity model is a MOND like formulation that has at least 3 variables. In my overall cosmology model math does not represent reality, it is simply an estimation of it for the purpose of prediction. A mathematical model of gravity with 3 variables is no better than the dark matter hypothesis. All of it is simply a matter of retrodiction and accordingly the degree of accuracy might improve as knowledge improves, but such equations or the use of dark matter accordingly could never be better than a poor step-child concerning a representation of reality.

 

Unfortunately in math, complexity is often needed. But I think simplicity concerning any explanation of reality or the related math, is infinitely better if you can make it work

//

I think of it as a kind of physical trinary code. Where energy is pushed into containers, and when the containers overlap the energy can cross from one place to the next, expanding, and shrinking the containers. We evolved with these eyes, and senses to look through millions of these containers in one go. As we look through them we get results. As the two slit experiment travels through them it alters those containers. When we try to observe those containers we alter those containers by allowing them to overlap, and pass their information along.

In my own model, aether is a simpler thing than matter. It is made up of the same simple strings/ springs of particulates as matter but less complex and shorter strands of it. I have at one time read Masreliez material. In my own model there is a simply "why" answer for every question. Why would matter get bigger seems unanswerable, but why matter/ field material would get smaller is not the same. It gets smaller because it accordingly has internal windings that cause it to unwind which also explains the particle spin of matter. If matter is getting smaller, then it would have been larger in the past. Larger matter would have produced longer wavelengths of EM radiation, hence the observed redshifts.

 

Such a simple aether field is still hypothetical but I believe it is a far simpler idea than a pure energy background field (the ZPF) which to me requires reality to be much more complicated. In my model everything in reality is relatively simple, including gravity as a simple mechanical pushing force

//

I have a matter gets bigger, and matter gets smaller. I have broken maths down to the simplest form that I could get to work...

+1 + -1 = 0

+1 is the Aether membrane.

-1 is a negative mass hole inside the membrane.

So scaling happens in my theory when the membrane of two Aether particles overlap. The edges overlap, and the area of those edges increases the +1 to say 1.00000000000000000000001. And that is the electron. The electron energy then reduces the +1 down 0.9999999999999999999999. The hole in the middle -1 now raised slightly. To scale the negative mass down there is an internal negative bump, cause by a polarized layer of negative particles... Dark Matter.