Ophiolite Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I will gladly answer specific questions Good. Then, for the third time of asking, please answer these specific questions: 1. Do the resonant frequencies increase in frequency with greater stimulation, or decrease? 2. In either case, why does that happen? 3. Are there more resonant frequencies when stimulation is greater, or do the number of resonant frequencies remain the same? 4. Does the resonant frequency with the greatest energy change to a different resonant frequency as the degree of stimulation changes? 5. What kind of energy will induce the stimulation? but when you say where is the proof, that is not the point. If we are going to progress in this discussion I must insist that you take me seriously. Choosing to glance at what I have written rather than reading it properly is not a way of doing so. I have not asked for proof. I have asked for evidence. Surely you understand the difference between these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Good. Then, for the third time of asking, please answer these specific questions: 1. Do the resonant frequencies increase in frequency with greater stimulation, or decrease? 2. In either case, why does that happen? 3. Are there more resonant frequencies when stimulation is greater, or do the number of resonant frequencies remain the same? 4. Does the resonant frequency with the greatest energy change to a different resonant frequency as the degree of stimulation changes? 5. What kind of energy will induce the stimulation? If we are going to progress in this discussion I must insist that you take me seriously. Choosing to glance at what I have written rather than reading it properly is not a way of doing so. I have not asked for proof. I have asked for evidence. Surely you understand the difference between these? 1. Do the resonant frequencies increase in frequency with greater stimulation, or decrease?. . . No resonance is maintained until you add more U1 Particles or gravity can no longer maintain the group integrity. . . 2. In either case, why does that happen?. . . Because resonance is the balance of gravity energy and matter. . . 3. Are there more resonant frequencies when stimulation is greater, or do the number of resonant frequencies remain the same?. . . The only time resonance changes is when you add U1 particles or gravity can no longer maintain balance. . . the excess energy is lost or absorbed as heat, light or both 4. Does the resonant frequency with the greatest energy change to a different resonant frequency as the degree of stimulation changes?. . . A different group resonance happens when more U1 particles and Gravity reach an unsustainable level of balance, then the group evolves into a new different resonant structure. . . 5. What kind of energy will induce the stimulation?. . . Rotational (mainly heat) energy from neighboring U1 particles. . . (remember no such thing as empty space) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Thank you for your replies. I am considering them. I have one further question at this point. Why are you equating rotational energy with thermal energy? They are definitely not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Thank you for your replies. I am considering them. I have one further question at this point. Why are you equating rotational energy with thermal energy? They are definitely not the same. U1 particles rotate slower as the universe gets cooler that is why it is expanding. . . heat energy has a direct effect on rotational speed of U1 particles. . . in the Logical Universe energy is defined as the movement of matter. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 You are not making sense. I accept that if U1 particles exist that thermal energy might increase their rotational speed. (Later I will want you to explain the mechanism.) However this does not mean that rotational energy and thermal energy are equivalent. Thermal energy is about random motion of particles, not rotational motion. So, I ask again, why are you equating thermal energy with rotational motion? NB:I shall be offline shortly for two days +. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I think Max Planck understood your theory better than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 You are not making sense. I accept that if U1 particles exist that thermal energy might increase their rotational speed. (Later I will want you to explain the mechanism.) However this does not mean that rotational energy and thermal energy are equivalent. Thermal energy is about random motion of particles, not rotational motion. So, I ask again, why are you equating thermal energy with rotational motion? NB:I shall be offline shortly for two days +. In the Logical Universe U1 particles are lightly touching each other. . . There is no such thing as empty space therefore no random movement, only rotational,wave or oscillating energy. . . Rotational energy does equate to heat energy. . . you can also have heat from oscillating and wave motion but it is much much smaller. . . Einstein says that E=MC2 where's the heat? It is in the motion of matter. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 In the Logical Universe U1 particles are lightly touching each other. . . There is no such thing as empty space therefore no random movement, only rotational,wave or oscillating energy. . . Rotational energy does equate to heat energy. . . you can also have heat from oscillating and wave motion but it is much much smaller. . . Einstein says that E=MC2 where's the heat? It is in the motion of matter. . . How do you figure a U1 particle? Like a sphere ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 How do you figure a U1 particle? Like a sphere ? Good question. . . it has to do with all forces being equal at all points at rest. . . equilibrium . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 Good question. . . it has to do with all forces being equal at all points at rest. . . equilibrium . . . This will help the forum understand the Logical Universe Theory better. . . Definitions on which this theory is based There is no such thing as Empty Space. . . Matter. . . Substance that displaces Space Time. . . (composed of U1 Particles with Energy and Gravity) Cold Matter. . . Substance that displaces Space Time. . . (no U1 Particles, no Energy, no Gravity) Energy. . . The movement of Matter. . . Gravity. . . The attraction of Matter with Energy. . . Resonance. . . A balance of Gravity, Energy and Matter. . . U1 Particles. . . The smallest Spheres of Matter. . . Black Holes. . . Spheres of ultimate, concentrated Matter, with Energy. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I'm going to ignore your definitions for the time being. You say about these U1 particles touching. What do you mean by this? How does this work with quantum mechanics, surly they must be in this regime? Are these things purely particles if so where does the wave properties of say electrons come from? When touching is discussed classically this is an electrostatic repulsive force, what are you talking about here? Nothing you've said makes any sense when related to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 This will help the forum understand the Logical Universe Theory better. . . Definitions on which this theory is based There is no such thing as Empty Space. . . Matter. . . Substance that displaces Space Time. . . (composed of U1 Particles with Energy and Gravity) Cold Matter. . . Substance that displaces Space Time. . . (no U1 Particles, no Energy, no Gravity) Energy. . . The movement of Matter. . . Gravity. . . The attraction of Matter with Energy. . . Resonance. . . A balance of Gravity, Energy and Matter. . . U1 Particles. . . The smallest Spheres of Matter. . . Black Holes. . . Spheres of ultimate, concentrated Matter, with Energy. . . I hate to ask but as so often repeated in this thread, numbers please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 I'm going to ignore your definitions for the time being. You say about these U1 particles touching. What do you mean by this? How does this work with quantum mechanics, surly they must be in this regime? Are these things purely particles if so where does the wave properties of say electrons come from? When touching is discussed classically this is an electrostatic repulsive force, what are you talking about here? Nothing you've said makes any sense when related to reality. U1 Particles are the smallest spheres of matter The U1 Particles are lightly touching because there is no empty space. . . It is true that this theory doesn't conform to quantum mechanics. . . Electrons are grouped U1 particles that have evolved into a stable resonant structure because of the right amount of energy, matter and gravity. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 U1 Particles are the smallest spheres of matter Why are they not governed by quantum mechanics then? The U1 Particles are lightly touching because there is no empty space. . . How are you defining touching? As I stated above this is normally an electrostatic interaction. What is the interaction here? It is true that this theory doesn't conform to quantum mechanics. . . So it's wrong then? Or are you saying that all of the experiments are wrong? (I'll give you a hint, they're not) Electrons are grouped U1 particles that have evolved into a stable resonant structure because of the right amount of energy, matter and gravity. . . That doesn't answer my question. How can your very particle like particles add up to make something that is firstly pointlike and secondly not a particle but a wave? "Right amount of" you're trying to use mathematical language yet hate maths and everything associated with it, you can't have it both ways, that's a mathematical statement you're either making it up/pulling it out of the air, or are hiding the maths. You claim to not have any maths so you must just be making it up, it therefore can happily be disregarded again your ideas fail. I strongly suggest yo re-read this entire thread, several times it appears that you have not read or taken on board what people have said to you, that is poor form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Why are they not governed by quantum mechanics then? How are you defining touching? As I stated above this is normally an electrostatic interaction. What is the interaction here? So it's wrong then? Or are you saying that all of the experiments are wrong? (I'll give you a hint, they're not) That doesn't answer my question. How can your very particle like particles add up to make something that is firstly pointlike and secondly not a particle but a wave? "Right amount of" you're trying to use mathematical language yet hate maths and everything associated with it, you can't have it both ways, that's a mathematical statement you're either making it up/pulling it out of the air, or are hiding the maths. You claim to not have any maths so you must just be making it up, it therefore can happily be disregarded again your ideas fail. I strongly suggest yo re-read this entire thread, several times it appears that you have not read or taken on board what people have said to you, that is poor form. This is a theory. . . You can say it doesn't conform to quantum mechanics there fore it is wrong. . . I say that assumption is wrong. . . Mathematics is not useful in describing this theory because there are no formulas that describe the complexity of trillions energetic U1 particle interactions in a 3 dimensional matrix. . . In the future it will be possible. . . This theory is compatible with any experiment or observation you can name. . . In free single U1 particle existence, they are touching each other because there is no empty space. . . In a Black Hole, they are compressed but still touching each other. . . In an electron, they are locked in resonance in support of the electron structure. . . The same for a Protons and Neutrons. . . Protons and Neutrons have many more U1 Particles. . . You keep referring to the standard model and stating that if it doesn't conform it is wrong. . . I say the standard model is flawed. . . To better understand, I don't think you are aware of the scale of U1 particles. . . I propose they are in the 10 to the -33 to 10 to the -35 range. . . I hate to ask but as so often repeated in this thread, numbers please... I hate to keep telling people these statements don't require numbers they require comprehension. . . Edited January 9, 2012 by knowerastronomy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Impressively you've managed to write a lot of text and not actually address any of my concerns, that is an achievement. This is a theory. . . If you want to talk science, first of all learn the language, theory doesn't mean what you think it does. You need to do a lot of background reading. You can say it doesn't conform to quantum mechanics there fore it is wrong. . . I say that assumption is wrong. . . Quantum mechanics matches experimental evidence, therefore any future theory will also match the experimental evidence, and will therefore agree with quantum mechanics. If an idea does not, it is wrong. Yours does not, it is wrong. This is again clear evidence that you need to understand the process of science. Mathematics is not useful in describing this theory because there are no formulas that describe the complexity of trillions energetic U1 particle interactions in a 3 dimensional matrix. . . In the future it will be possible. . . how do you know? You need the base equations before you can make such assumptions, you do not have these. This theory is compatible with any experiment or observation you can name. . . Wave particle duality of bucky balls, or electrons. To be compatible with an experiment it must make falsifiable accurate predictions, that requires numbers, no numbers no accurate predictions no conforming to experiments, you might as well say it's pixies doing it. In free single U1 particle existence, they are touching each other because there is no empty space. . . In a Black Hole, they are compressed but still touching each other. . . I'm still waiting for a description of what you mean by touching, it has to be some kind of repulsive interaction, but what? You are avoiding the question with a meaningless word salad answer, that won't hold in a science discussion. Further evidence that you do not understand even very basic physical concepts and therefore your claims that any experiment will work is flawed because you are not well versed in physics. In an electron, they are locked in resonance in support of the electron structure. . . That doesn't answer my question in any way. Electrons are pointlike, and wavelike, you need to describe this. The same for a Protons and Neutrons. . . Protons and Neutrons have many more U1 Particles. . . You keep referring to the standard model and stating that if it doesn't conform it is wrong. . . I say the standard model is flawed. . . Please see my above comments about quantum mechanics, they apply similarly to other areas of physics. The evidence wins, your ideas are wrong. To better understand, I don't think you are aware of the scale of U1 particles. . . I propose they are in the 10 to the -33 to 10 to the -35 range. . . Which makes me even more convinced that they should follow quantum mechanics. You need to explain why they do not. I hate to keep telling people these statements don't require numbers they require comprehension. . . And we hate telling you the same things over and over again, especially when you appear to be disregarding our comments without even reading them fully. You need to do some pretty basic physics background reading, and some reading on the scientific process. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 Impressively you've managed to write a lot of text and not actually address any of my concerns, that is an achievement. If you want to talk science, first of all learn the language, theory doesn't mean what you think it does. You need to do a lot of background reading. Quantum mechanics matches experimental evidence, therefore any future theory will also match the experimental evidence, and will therefore agree with quantum mechanics. If an idea does not, it is wrong. Yours does not, it is wrong. This is again clear evidence that you need to understand the process of science. how do you know? You need the base equations before you can make such assumptions, you do not have these. Wave particle duality of bucky balls, or electrons. To be compatible with an experiment it must make falsifiable accurate predictions, that requires numbers, no numbers no accurate predictions no conforming to experiments, you might as well say it's pixies doing it. I'm still waiting for a description of what you mean by touching, it has to be some kind of repulsive interaction, but what? You are avoiding the question with a meaningless word salad answer, that won't hold in a science discussion. Further evidence that you do not understand even very basic physical concepts and therefore your claims that any experiment will work is flawed because you are not well versed in physics. That doesn't answer my question in any way. Electrons are pointlike, and wavelike, you need to describe this. Please see my above comments about quantum mechanics, they apply similarly to other areas of physics. The evidence wins, your ideas are wrong. Which makes me even more convinced that they should follow quantum mechanics. You need to explain why they do not. And we hate telling you the same things over and over again, especially when you appear to be disregarding our comments without even reading them fully. You need to do some pretty basic physics background reading, and some reading on the scientific process. After reading your comments it is clear you do not have a basic understanding science. . . You are incapable of comprehending new concepts. . . You are stuck in the past and are surrounded by outdated rules and mathematics. . . Your logic is at the very basic level and needs improvement if you are to move forward in this ever changing environment of science. . . Why do you speak using the terminology of we? Do you speak for everybody and not yourself? Why have you totally disregarded the definitions the theory was based on? How do you know electrons are point and wave like? Where did you get that from? I for the life don't understand what is so complicated about particles touching each other. . . How come you have so much trouble with this? Is it a problem that you have to have explained mathematically? I have been talking science but all you want is numbers? Forgive me but that sounds like you are avoiding a meaningful discussion of science. . . Please don't bother me with semantics. . . Bother me with Science. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 After reading your comments it is clear you do not have a basic understanding science. . . You are incapable of comprehending new concepts. . . You are stuck in the past and are surrounded by outdated rules and mathematics. . . Your logic is at the very basic level and needs improvement if you are to move forward in this ever changing environment of science. . . I'm genuinely concerned for you if you actually believe this to be true. Why do you speak using the terminology of we? Do you speak for everybody and not yourself? I speak as a professional physicist, speaking for the scientific community. Why have you totally disregarded the definitions the theory was based on? I was trying to understand some of your previous points before muddying the water with trying to fight through word salad. How do you know electrons are point and wave like? Where did you get that from? Experimental evidence. If you measure them as particles you measure them to be pointlike particles. If you measure them as if they were waves they turn out to be waves. They are neither, they are something else with both particle and wave nature. We don't really have the language for this, our brains were never designed to comprehend the universe, which sucks but is true, with effort you can get through it though. This is pretty basic quantum mechanics, as you are claiming to be able to overthrow all the theories you really should understand them first don't you think? I for the life don't understand what is so complicated about particles touching each other. . . How come you have so much trouble with this? Is it a problem that you have to have explained mathematically? No, you have not explained anything. Touching is a classical macroscopic event, which is an electroastatic interaction. I'm trying to understand what you mean by touching, because form what you've said of these U1 things you're talking about they would not have the same electrostatic interactions that create what you or I would call touching say a table. I want to understand what this interaction is. It appears you don't have an answer, which isn't that surprising given the word salad you've supplied so far. I have been talking science but all you want is numbers? Forgive me but that sounds like you are avoiding a meaningful discussion of science. . . Please don't bother me with semantics. . . Bother me with Science. . . Maybe you should do some reading into what science actually is? It's not sitting around and making pretty stories about how the universe works and going for the one that sounds the best, because the universe doesn't care what sounds the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 I'm genuinely concerned for you if you actually believe this to be true. I speak as a professional physicist, speaking for the scientific community. I was trying to understand some of your previous points before muddying the water with trying to fight through word salad. Experimental evidence. If you measure them as particles you measure them to be pointlike particles. If you measure them as if they were waves they turn out to be waves. They are neither, they are something else with both particle and wave nature. We don't really have the language for this, our brains were never designed to comprehend the universe, which sucks but is true, with effort you can get through it though. This is pretty basic quantum mechanics, as you are claiming to be able to overthrow all the theories you really should understand them first don't you think? No, you have not explained anything. Touching is a classical macroscopic event, which is an electroastatic interaction. I'm trying to understand what you mean by touching, because form what you've said of these U1 things you're talking about they would not have the same electrostatic interactions that create what you or I would call touching say a table. I want to understand what this interaction is. It appears you don't have an answer, which isn't that surprising given the word salad you've supplied so far. Maybe you should do some reading into what science actually is? It's not sitting around and making pretty stories about how the universe works and going for the one that sounds the best, because the universe doesn't care what sounds the best. Are you English or are you using translation software? I think you are lost. . . -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Mathematics is not useful in describing this theory because there are no formulas that describe the complexity of trillions energetic U1 particle interactions in a 3 dimensional matrix. . . In the future it will be possible. . . Have you even tried? Mathematics is pretty good at using 3-dimensional matrices (tensors) to describe the complexity of 3-D turbulent fluid flows composed of trillions of trillions of fluid molecules. Mathematics is also pretty good at using 3-dimensional tensors to describe the behavior of gases made up of trillions of trillions of gas molecules. Mathematics can be a pretty powerful tool you perhaps shouldn't be so quick to dismiss. Are you English or are you using translation software? I think you are lost. . . Are the insults really necessary? because they don't help. People are taking some of their time to try to urge you to think about different points of view about your idea. Most people would be thrilled to have other people critique work for them, and get ideas on how to make their work stronger. Why such a reluctance to consider what most everyone else in this thread is saying? Edited January 10, 2012 by Bignose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Are you English or are you using translation software? I think you are lost. . . Yes, I am British, my first language is English. Which part of my post are you having trouble comprehending? Or is this another tactic to avoid the problems with your ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Have you even tried? Mathematics is pretty good at using 3-dimensional matrices (tensors) to describe the complexity of 3-D turbulent fluid flows composed of trillions of trillions of fluid molecules. Mathematics is also pretty good at using 3-dimensional tensors to describe the behavior of gases made up of trillions of trillions of gas molecules. Mathematics can be a pretty powerful tool you perhaps shouldn't be so quick to dismiss. Are the insults really necessary? because they don't help. People are taking some of their time to try to urge you to think about different points of view about your idea. Most people would be thrilled to have other people critique work for them, and get ideas on how to make their work stronger. Why such a reluctance to consider what most everyone else in this thread is saying? I agree insults are counterproductive I only use them when Bullied. . . What part of the science of The Logical Universe do you want clarified? The theory is a theory not an established proven fact. . . It uses other criteria to come to its conclusions. . . Mathematics doesn't prove anything it only adds a measure of credibility. . . Mathematics is a science in itself but has limitations. . . It complicates ideas with rules and procedures. . . As I said before but was totally ignored, can mathematics explain the birth of a human baby?. . . I think not. . . The math hasn't been done on this theory because it is brand new. . . The math will be done in the future but it takes time and money. . . This has been explained time and time again. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Have you even tried? Mathematics is pretty good at using 3-dimensional matrices (tensors) to describe the complexity of 3-D turbulent fluid flows composed of trillions of trillions of fluid molecules. Mathematics is also pretty good at using 3-dimensional tensors to describe the behavior of gases made up of trillions of trillions of gas molecules. Mathematics can be a pretty powerful tool you perhaps shouldn't be so quick to dismiss. I agree insults are counterproductive I only use them when Bullied. . . What part of the science of The Logical Universe do you want clarified? The theory is a theory not an established proven fact. . . It uses other criteria to come to its conclusions. . . Mathematics doesn't prove anything it only adds a measure of credibility. . . Mathematics is a science in itself but has limitations. . . It complicates ideas with rules and procedures. . . As I said before but was totally ignored, can mathematics explain the birth of a human baby?. . . I think not. . . The math hasn't been done on this theory because it is brand new. . . The math will be done in the future but it takes time and money. . . This has been explained time and time again. . . I have to admire your persistance but not your understanding of what THEORY means. At best this idea can be considered a hypothesis, which in science would be tested and IF it conforms to ALL the known evidence THEN it would be considered a THEORY not before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I simply refer you to post #108. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowerastronomy Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 I have to admire your persistance but not your understanding of what THEORY means. At best this idea can be considered a hypothesis, which in science would be tested and IF it conforms to ALL the known evidence THEN it would be considered a THEORY not before. I call this a theory because 90% of it is known and verified with multiple experiments and observations. . . 10 % is new to science but is not beyond the realm possibility. . . It is meant to explain the unexplained science of the Universe. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts