The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is the past annihilating?  (Read 4501 times)

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Is the past annihilating?
« on: 02/09/2012 20:26:36 »
 Since particles and antiparticles are created in equal numbers and annihilate each other on contact, there should be no particles in the universe, as there are no antiparticles. My theory to explain this discrepancy is that the particles are moving forwards in time while the antiparticles are moving backwards. Since time only moves forward, we experience the particles which then annihilate with antiparticles when we are past them in time. So the past is continually annihilating while we continue to surf ahead, experiencing the future. This would explain why time only moves in one direction (there's no past to go back to).


 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #1 on: 02/09/2012 21:41:06 »
Since particles and antiparticles are created in equal numbers and annihilate each other on contact, there should be no particles in the universe, as there are no antiparticles. My theory to explain this discrepancy is that the particles are moving forwards in time while the antiparticles are moving backwards. Since time only moves forward, we experience the particles which then annihilate with antiparticles when we are past them in time. So the past is continually annihilating while we continue to surf ahead, experiencing the future. This would explain why time only moves in one direction (there's no past to go back to).

There were never any anti particles, during the time of Universal Science. Universal Science built everything we have today, everything. Benjamin Franklin's work to stop lightning was actually done with the creation of the transistor. Benjamin Franklin discovered the particle of electricity as well. He was able to isolate the particle of electricity as one particle, no matter the polarity. Using pointed and flat electrodes. Something that no one else was able to do, or get pushed through. He did away with Du Fays two fluid theory of electricity, or two particle theory of electricity. "Modern colleges" have reverted back to it. I would get my money back from them.

After World War Two they tried to hide the atom. To hide the atom you have to confuse electricity, and the bomb. It is not a conspiracy, because the government announced that they would be hiding the bomb. The public did not know that hiding the bomb meant, hiding the atom and electricity as well. For many years wrong information has been recorded as science. So today we have libraries filled with garbage, in the science section. The older books that could have been used to find your  way back to truth have pretty much been removed from the shelves. I have a few of them, but I have even stopped collecting them, because it seems that no one is interested in the truth, except for myself and few friends, and we already know the truth.

After the government took control of science, some fifty particles that do not exist have come into existence. All never having been proven, none having any real value to understanding anything.

If you consider that we could have put men on the moon in fifties, in four hours, and today we cannot go back to the moon. You might get an idea of where we live. The dark ages are upon us.

 

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #2 on: 03/09/2012 23:19:42 »
God called: He wants his gap back.
 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #3 on: 03/09/2012 23:45:16 »
God called: He wants his gap back.

Don't worry no one is taking anything from God. We cannot even keep what we had a few years ago. Maybe God is taking everything away from us. 


                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #4 on: 04/09/2012 02:56:43 »
What have we got to lose?
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #5 on: 06/09/2012 11:06:46 »
This would explain why time only moves in one direction (there's no past to go back to).

  "time" does not move in any direction.   Time is observation, based on the observer. 

  it does not exist, as a "thing".....

   time is the observation of -- 
  expansion, progression, growth, aging, decay,  movement, orbits, planetary spins, seasons, etc.etc.etc.
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #6 on: 07/09/2012 03:45:17 »
Certainly if time stopped you wouldn't expect to see any of these things. And if nothing moved or changed or aged etc. you would expect that time had stopped. So it's logical to expect that time is moving and that we call that movement forward, unless we see any contrary measurement.
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #7 on: 07/09/2012 06:10:37 »
Certainly if time stopped you wouldn't expect to see any of these things. And if nothing moved or changed or aged etc. you would expect that time had stopped. So it's logical to expect that time is moving and that we call that movement forward, unless we see any contrary measurement.

    yes, time is not a thing, but observation of things.  and yes, the expansion continues and so does progression, the universe is not being pulled back into itself, there is only progression and expansion......

  you can not go back into time, maybe into the future, but only if you could travel close to light speed, you can never go back to a point in the past, because the past does not exist anymore............

  going back in time, is like trying to get back into your body after you die....not happening, cause you cease to exist after you die..
« Last Edit: 07/09/2012 06:12:11 by Emc2 »
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #8 on: 07/09/2012 12:44:33 »
Einstein showed that spacetime is an entity. Even in an empty universe special relativity would apply.
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #9 on: 08/09/2012 05:46:40 »
Einstein showed that spacetime is an entity. Even in an empty universe special relativity would apply.

  Einstein also believed that the past, future, and present all existed at the same moment....((  BUNK !! ))

  he was a genius and exceptional thinker, but he "did not" understand or know everything.....
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #10 on: 08/09/2012 20:04:09 »
I'll stick with Einstein (as long as he agrees with me :-))
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #11 on: 10/09/2012 01:55:02 »
I'll stick with Einstein (as long as he agrees with me :-))

  LOL, only picking ppl that believe as you do, leads on to a closed mind.. read many opinions...
 

Offline bizerl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #12 on: 10/09/2012 03:53:54 »
  Einstein also believed that the past, future, and present all existed at the same moment....((  BUNK !! ))

  he was a genius and exceptional thinker, but he "did not" understand or know everything.....

As opposed to the forum writer who names himself after Einstein's famous theory? :)


  "time" does not move in any direction.   Time is observation, based on the observer. 

  it does not exist, as a "thing".....

   time is the observation of -- 
  expansion, progression, growth, aging, decay,  movement, orbits, planetary spins, seasons, etc.etc.etc.

Emc2, I still find your definition of time frustrating and unhelpful. Whether it is a measureable quantity or an abstract concept, it is the title given to what pretty much everyone will agree is the changing of the past into the future. I personally believe it is a dimension of space perpendicular to the other main three, as I have stated in other posts.

Since particles and antiparticles are created in equal numbers and annihilate each other on contact, there should be no particles in the universe, as there are no antiparticles. My theory to explain this discrepancy is that the particles are moving forwards in time while the antiparticles are moving backwards. Since time only moves forward, we experience the particles which then annihilate with antiparticles when we are past them in time. So the past is continually annihilating while we continue to surf ahead, experiencing the future. This would explain why time only moves in one direction (there's no past to go back to).

This raises headache-inducing concepts. What happens to anti-matter particles that are created in a laboratory and exist for a finite amount of time? Does this then mean that some (non-anti) particles could actually slip back in time?
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #13 on: 10/09/2012 05:56:25 »
  Einstein also believed that the past, future, and present all existed at the same moment....((  BUNK !! ))

  he was a genius and exceptional thinker, but he "did not" understand or know everything.....

As opposed to the forum writer who names himself after Einstein's famous theory? :)

  LOL  a genius, but a genius that still had so much to learn....


  "time" does not move in any direction.   Time is observation, based on the observer. 

  it does not exist, as a "thing".....

   time is the observation of -- 
  expansion, progression, growth, aging, decay,  movement, orbits, planetary spins, seasons, etc.etc.etc.

Emc2, I still find your definition of time frustrating and unhelpful. Whether it is a measureable quantity or an abstract concept, it is the title given to what pretty much everyone will agree is the changing of the past into the future. I personally believe it is a dimension of space perpendicular to the other main three, as I have stated in other posts.


     Yes, everyone says time means many things....and my definition is my belief..

Since particles and antiparticles are created in equal numbers and annihilate each other on contact, there should be no particles in the universe, as there are no antiparticles. My theory to explain this discrepancy is that the particles are moving forwards in time while the antiparticles are moving backwards. Since time only moves forward, we experience the particles which then annihilate with antiparticles when we are past them in time. So the past is continually annihilating while we continue to surf ahead, experiencing the future. This would explain why time only moves in one direction (there's no past to go back to).

This raises headache-inducing concepts. What happens to anti-matter particles that are created in a laboratory and exist for a finite amount of time? Does this then mean that some (non-anti) particles could actually slip back in time?
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #14 on: 11/09/2012 10:32:13 »
This raises headache-inducing concepts. What happens to anti-matter particles that are created in a laboratory and exist for a finite amount of time? Does this then mean that some (non-anti) particles could actually slip back in time?


Possibly the future we attain is one wave of many. This would be an efficient use of the universe. Maybe we should inspect those antimatter particles for messages from some future wave of time. Or we could encode messages to the next wave in them, some Bob Dylan, perhaps ("The Times They Are A-Changin'"), or maybe New Wave would be more appropriate.
 

Offline mirormimic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Phonetics= picture owing idios
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #15 on: 11/09/2012 22:45:55 »
I do not believe that all particles have an anti-particle. I believe this error is a product of human thinking.
If I am standing in a room I am a particle. If I am standing in a room in front of a mirror..I am a particle. However the image in the  mirror bears a striking resemblance to me. A relative observer who was watching all of this unfold and could not discern a mirror relative to me..would think that there were two of me. Yet I know that I am the real me( real particle) the mirror reflected image of me is a "Anti-particle" of.. me ..the particle.
This would say that particles are innately self existent with no dependency upon any reflected image in order to exist. This would say that the particle can make a choice whether to be reflected or not. If it decided not to it would remain a self contained particle. If it chose to reflect then at the point where the reflective medium is there will appear a likeness of the particle. The likeness will be so similar ( or opposed exactly as to motion, revolution or spin and direction) as to fool an unbeknownst relative observer that it is a particle too. Rather..the image is an Anti-particle. This would mean that all particles or masses observed in a reflective universe are reflections of particles ( photons). Thus the universe and all of its points would represent the anti-particles or virtual particles or images of the real particle.
This would mean that particles ( energy photons) remain infinite and at no time will be diminished due to  reflecting itself to other points No diminishing of the sum of its energy. This would also mean that if an anti-particle is "annihilated" ( stops reflecting or being reflected) the particle that reflected to the anti- particle would remain. Remain un-reflected at that point in space or time. Actually when we refer to the "contact" between particle and anti-particle we are really referring to the singularity of a real particle to its reflective image located at the point of the anti-particle. Thus this singularity is not an annihilation..because photons are never truly annihilated..rather it represents the disappearing of the energy or mass that formally was seen( anti-particle)..due to the fact that it is now unseen because the particle ceases to reflect to that point any longer. This would explain the reality that there will never be the absence of particles..even if all anti-particles ( reflections) ceased simultaneously and the lights of the universe went out. We cannot see the light of the photon in its purest  energy state anyway..so even if the lights we do see in the universe ( reflections of the light of the photon) went out this would not mean that the light and energy existing on the proton side ceases or is annihilated.
If a particle were illustratively represented as a ball stationed in front of a mirror then when the ball moves forward toward the mirror the image in the mirror moves toward the ball. This represents two vectors approaching one another ( necessarily going two different directions) yet their path as observed in the whole experiment are opposed to one another. That is to say the ball moves left to right toward the mirror surface as the "image ball" moves right to left toward the .......singularity. Where singularity = the exact point where a reflection meets is reflector. Or vise versa. The only other way to annihilate an anti-particle is if the reflector( particle) stops reflecting to the plane. The plane represents that which results in the reflected image anti-particle of particle.
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #16 on: 12/09/2012 06:11:01 »
YOU are not a particle, you are a collection of particles and waves combined through complexity and YOU have mass.

  Sub-Atomic particles have miniscule mass, that's a dilema ( see higgs field )

 You do not behave like a particle, because you are not a particle...but a collection of Trillions of particles and waves
 

Offline mirormimic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Phonetics= picture owing idios
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #17 on: 15/09/2012 02:00:51 »
First I would respond: What is your definition of mass?

Secondly: Wave theory is a …theory.

I may or may not have a “mass” as well I may or may not be a product of a “wave phenomenon. “

I will not engage you in a discussion of what mass is. We all have done our research and form our own conclusions about this quirky…concept. Suffice to say there are a variety of definitions of what mass is.. In my personal opining after considering THIS dilemma (not any less ambiguous than the understanding of the Higgs Field) and after sifting out all the lingo and interpretation’s. I do not ascribe to “mass theory.” I do not feel that there is any such thing as real mass or weight as opposed to those things considered as not having mass.

You refer to the sub-Atomic level as having “miniscule mass”…I would say that you came to this conclusion because you or someone else simply “measured something.” and derived from that o measurement what you call “mass”. in reality all you discovered was a “force of resistance” relative to acceleration. You did not discover a “mass of resistance” nor a “mass of acceleration” but a “force of resistance”. Their in lies the contradiction. At what point in that experiment did you equate mass with energy or force?  Rather. Mass IS energy that apparently is being acted upon by weaker or stronger .other energy. A mass is not a force rather may be acted upon by a force.  A force is not a mass rather may be perceived as either greater or lesser in strength. Thus your experiment would more describe “mass” as a force or an acceleration of force verses any having of weight or acquiring more weight. Weight is not an appropriate concept relative to an understanding of a “measurement” of “a body.” Whether at rest or acted upon resulting in perceived acceleration. When we say it is getting more or less mass (weight) we are really saying it is getting more or less energy or force or acceleration. The concept of weight or mass as defined nowadays is superfluous. So-called mass is a… magnitude …measured relative to the energy side. If this were true then the real and greater mass would be found on the greater resistance or greater acceleration side verses a mass that is obviously less capable of resisting or acceleration if the force isn’t there.  Thus it is the force of resistance or acceleration that describes the side where the energy dwells and as subsequently acting upon the other lesser energy form (mass). This seems to be describing E=mc2. However I think we could rewrite this equation to read EI2=EF-R(EF)=EIC..where the squaring of light speed (reflection of light) occurs before the right side comes into existence. And that: The right side existing is contingent upon the squaring of light. Where the left side exists independently and at the constant speed of light. And where the right side begins to exist when the left side decides to square itself (reflect itself..in part) at that particular point.

 (Where I=Infinite; and where F=finite of infinite; and where R=reflect; and where E=energy; and where C= constant speed of light; and where 2 = the Higgs field illusion of the squaring of the speed of light)

 Light speed squared.  Represents the HIGGS FIELD.

What do I mean when I describe the Higgs field as producing the relativity between the infinite energy and the finite energy? First I am saying that neither side has or acquires any real weight. But both sides have volume of force (resistance) as opposed to the force of the other side. As well both sides can be relatively observed as either accelerating this force or not.  Such “measuring” ideology or conclusions I think are erroneous. Rather each side is a force that can either be perceived as yielding to (consistent with) or perceived as resisting (contrary to the direction) the perceived acceleration of the other side. I am speaking of energy (on both sides) as being entropic! Where “acceleration” =progressing one direction verses another direction as opposed to the direction of another.
Here I am saying that though both sides may be traveling at the same speed they can choose which direction to go at that speed. They can choose to go toward each other or away from each other in any and all possible directions. If they are traveling the same direction and same speed then a relative observer would perceive no relative accelerations or decelerations. If they are moving away from each other then acceleration will appear to be more or less. The exact direction (angle or degree) of one as opposed to the exact direction of the other will determine how a relative observer will perceive the speed of one relative to the other.

The Higgs Field allows this entropic energy exchange. Thus the Higgs Field is neither a particle nor a wave; it is neither EI nor EF. The Higgs field is that medium that creates the relativity of both sides to each other. The Higgs field could be stated as being the reflective scenario..allowing all energies to reflect each other. Remove the Higgs field and no relativity reflecting exists. No relativity exists between the Infinite energy (reflector) side and the finite (of infinite) energy side. (Reflectee)

I would condense this postulate and simply say that the Higgs field is the very reflective plane or aether that exists in the universe that results in the relativity of energy to what we call mass. The EI side reflects to this field and thus its energy source is represented upon the plane and produces copies of its energy and quality to the screen. This would represent a qualifying of the “Holographic scenario“ proposed by Verlinde. Here I am referring to holography as expressing the relationship between real energy and reflected energy. Or ..for for the sake of not totally invalidating your desire to cling to “mass thinking”: The relationship between the bulk mass of all that is and the plane mass that is derived from the bulk mass.

As in my former post illustrations ( as well responses to other threads) I will continue to broaden the ball mirror(s) analogy to now show where the Higgs field fits in. The ball = EI. The mirror(s)=Higgs Field. The objects in mirror=EF.

And where: Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear.

Or: E2=HG(mc)xmc=E2..divided by HG=EC
Where E= Energy source of all “other” energies.
Where the =(equal sign) expresses the relativity of E to mc.
Where HG= causes the relativity of the left side to the right side. (Reflection)
Where 2= the reflection of E to a reflective plane ( the Higgs field)
Where mc= the speed of the reflected image ( 186,000) (a form of light that travels the same as and the same speed as the speed of light.)
Where E2= EC x EC(C2 via higgs field) =m(constant speed of light….. reflected)x EC(Constant speed of light=E@

Does a mass have mass BEFORE it is influenced by the Higggs Field? What is it about the higgs field that causes the mass to acquire its mass? What is the mass before it acquires its mass?  Mass is energy. Energy is mass. Thus mass” is energy before it intersects with the Higgs field. Energy is mass when it intersects with the Higgs field. Thus the Higgs field is that which converts one form of energy to another form of energy. The Higgs field is that which converts one form of mass (gigantic: comprising all that is) to other forms of mass (miniscule in comparison the whole of which it is part.)

In this scenario both sides are energy. Both sides are mass. It is the Higgs field that allows the invisible mass/ energy of the left side to be represented on the right side as visible geometric representations.

If we want to know the quality and infiniteness of the left side all we have to do is observe the invisible side  by seeing what it looks like when it is made visible ( due to the Higgs field) . We can do this by looking around us everywhere and realizing the infinite reflections of the left side. By so doing we can come to understand the infinite beauty, elegance, intelligence, shape, quality, purpose and entropic choices that describe the left side. We may ..in such observations see evidence of how visible the left side really is.

 
 

Offline Emc2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
  • <-- free thinker ..
    • View Profile
    • getting there
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #18 on: 15/09/2012 05:33:48 »
First I would respond: What is your definition of mass?

  mass : http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_jp.html#mass
( A measure of the total amount of material in a body, defined either by the inertial properties of the body or by its gravitational influence on other bodies. )

Secondly: Wave theory is a …theory.

  NO it is not..   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

  ( This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules  )

 

I may or may not have a “mass” as well I may or may not be a product of a “wave phenomenon. “

  You HAVE mass, there is no may or may not.....


  I ain't even reading the rest, too long....but Mass exists, and you have it, Photons DO NOT ... Period..

I will not engage you in a discussion of what mass is. We all have done our research and form our own conclusions about this quirky…concept. Suffice to say there are a variety of definitions of what mass is.. In my personal opining after considering THIS dilemma (not any less ambiguous than the understanding of the Higgs Field) and after sifting out all the lingo and interpretation’s. I do not ascribe to “mass theory.” I do not feel that there is any such thing as real mass or weight as opposed to those things considered as not having mass.

You refer to the sub-Atomic level as having “miniscule mass”…I would say that you came to this conclusion because you or someone else simply “measured something.” and derived from that o measurement what you call “mass”. in reality all you discovered was a “force of resistance” relative to acceleration. You did not discover a “mass of resistance” nor a “mass of acceleration” but a “force of resistance”. Their in lies the contradiction. At what point in that experiment did you equate mass with energy or force?  Rather. Mass IS energy that apparently is being acted upon by weaker or stronger .other energy. A mass is not a force rather may be acted upon by a force.  A force is not a mass rather may be perceived as either greater or lesser in strength. Thus your experiment would more describe “mass” as a force or an acceleration of force verses any having of weight or acquiring more weight. Weight is not an appropriate concept relative to an understanding of a “measurement” of “a body.” Whether at rest or acted upon resulting in perceived acceleration. When we say it is getting more or less mass (weight) we are really saying it is getting more or less energy or force or acceleration. The concept of weight or mass as defined nowadays is superfluous. So-called mass is a… magnitude …measured relative to the energy side. If this were true then the real and greater mass would be found on the greater resistance or greater acceleration side verses a mass that is obviously less capable of resisting or acceleration if the force isn’t there.  Thus it is the force of resistance or acceleration that describes the side where the energy dwells and as subsequently acting upon the other lesser energy form (mass). This seems to be describing E=mc2. However I think we could rewrite this equation to read EI2=EF-R(EF)=EIC..where the squaring of light speed (reflection of light) occurs before the right side comes into existence. And that: The right side existing is contingent upon the squaring of light. Where the left side exists independently and at the constant speed of light. And where the right side begins to exist when the left side decides to square itself (reflect itself..in part) at that particular point.

 (Where I=Infinite; and where F=finite of infinite; and where R=reflect; and where E=energy; and where C= constant speed of light; and where 2 = the Higgs field illusion of the squaring of the speed of light)

 Light speed squared.  Represents the HIGGS FIELD.

What do I mean when I describe the Higgs field as producing the relativity between the infinite energy and the finite energy? First I am saying that neither side has or acquires any real weight. But both sides have volume of force (resistance) as opposed to the force of the other side. As well both sides can be relatively observed as either accelerating this force or not.  Such “measuring” ideology or conclusions I think are erroneous. Rather each side is a force that can either be perceived as yielding to (consistent with) or perceived as resisting (contrary to the direction) the perceived acceleration of the other side. I am speaking of energy (on both sides) as being entropic! Where “acceleration” =progressing one direction verses another direction as opposed to the direction of another.
Here I am saying that though both sides may be traveling at the same speed they can choose which direction to go at that speed. They can choose to go toward each other or away from each other in any and all possible directions. If they are traveling the same direction and same speed then a relative observer would perceive no relative accelerations or decelerations. If they are moving away from each other then acceleration will appear to be more or less. The exact direction (angle or degree) of one as opposed to the exact direction of the other will determine how a relative observer will perceive the speed of one relative to the other.

The Higgs Field allows this entropic energy exchange. Thus the Higgs Field is neither a particle nor a wave; it is neither EI nor EF. The Higgs field is that medium that creates the relativity of both sides to each other. The Higgs field could be stated as being the reflective scenario..allowing all energies to reflect each other. Remove the Higgs field and no relativity reflecting exists. No relativity exists between the Infinite energy (reflector) side and the finite (of infinite) energy side. (Reflectee)

I would condense this postulate and simply say that the Higgs field is the very reflective plane or aether that exists in the universe that results in the relativity of energy to what we call mass. The EI side reflects to this field and thus its energy source is represented upon the plane and produces copies of its energy and quality to the screen. This would represent a qualifying of the “Holographic scenario“ proposed by Verlinde. Here I am referring to holography as expressing the relationship between real energy and reflected energy. Or ..for for the sake of not totally invalidating your desire to cling to “mass thinking”: The relationship between the bulk mass of all that is and the plane mass that is derived from the bulk mass.

As in my former post illustrations ( as well responses to other threads) I will continue to broaden the ball mirror(s) analogy to now show where the Higgs field fits in. The ball = EI. The mirror(s)=Higgs Field. The objects in mirror=EF.

And where: Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear.

Or: E2=HG(mc)xmc=E2..divided by HG=EC
Where E= Energy source of all “other” energies.
Where the =(equal sign) expresses the relativity of E to mc.
Where HG= causes the relativity of the left side to the right side. (Reflection)
Where 2= the reflection of E to a reflective plane ( the Higgs field)
Where mc= the speed of the reflected image ( 186,000) (a form of light that travels the same as and the same speed as the speed of light.)
Where E2= EC x EC(C2 via higgs field) =m(constant speed of light….. reflected)x EC(Constant speed of light=E@

Does a mass have mass BEFORE it is influenced by the Higggs Field? What is it about the higgs field that causes the mass to acquire its mass? What is the mass before it acquires its mass?  Mass is energy. Energy is mass. Thus mass” is energy before it intersects with the Higgs field. Energy is mass when it intersects with the Higgs field. Thus the Higgs field is that which converts one form of energy to another form of energy. The Higgs field is that which converts one form of mass (gigantic: comprising all that is) to other forms of mass (miniscule in comparison the whole of which it is part.)

In this scenario both sides are energy. Both sides are mass. It is the Higgs field that allows the invisible mass/ energy of the left side to be represented on the right side as visible geometric representations.

If we want to know the quality and infiniteness of the left side all we have to do is observe the invisible side  by seeing what it looks like when it is made visible ( due to the Higgs field) . We can do this by looking around us everywhere and realizing the infinite reflections of the left side. By so doing we can come to understand the infinite beauty, elegance, intelligence, shape, quality, purpose and entropic choices that describe the left side. We may ..in such observations see evidence of how visible the left side really is.
 

Offline mirormimic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Phonetics= picture owing idios
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #19 on: 15/09/2012 22:59:07 »


Thank you for showing me the theoretical definition of mass. In doing so you help one to appreciate that “mass” is a …“measurement of material. “The word material means: “the substance used to make things. Since we know the so-called material universe is made of energy as well explicitly functions relative to the use of such energy then we see that mass is a measurement of energy. What does energy weigh?

We also realize that so-called “mass” is really and truly DEFINED by so-called inertia and so- called Gravity. Thus it is energy that defines “mass” and not the so-called “weight.” Unless you can weigh energy. To reiterate: What does energy weigh.

I would ask what the definition of weight means. However if I do so and you post the definition we will arrive back at the tangent reality. Mass is energy. As energy is energy. The only difference would be the strength (verses weight) of the perspective energy. Unless of course if we equate the word strength with the word weight. I am agreeable to this. If we did so how would we write the equation? My guess is E=mc2! This equation defines not the weight of “mass” rather the volume of energy a “body” has or acquires (or loses).
Any “mass” (energy magnitude) can effect any other energy magnitude (“mass”). That is when two masses are relative to one another ( two objects explicitly defined by the energy they possess at any given point along a linear or curved path) we will be able to deduce which mass has more energy than the other. This “force” would be measured due to attraction or repelling.

With regard to …………Wave theory:

The source reference reminds us of the following:
“postulates….concept….classical concepts….Standard interpretations….paradox…alternative interpretations..aspect of the concept..”

Need I go further?

My next post will equally postulate what I believe represents…Wave.
 

Offline mirormimic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
  • Phonetics= picture owing idios
    • View Profile
Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #20 on: 16/09/2012 00:34:02 »

With regard to wave-particle duality.

The particle originates with the ultimate source of energy found at every point in infinity. Particles represent small bits of energy in relation to the whole of energy. Particles can either be invisible or can represent themselves visibly. When particles are invisible they represent the innate nature of Light. Light is the same as the energy source. Or : The ultimate source of energy is described as Light exactly proportional to be described as energy. We could say that the entity Light is that which is comprised of particles. The sum of all particles represents the full embodiment of Light.

When Light does not reflect itself it remains invisible. When light reflects itself it represents its invisible nature to visible geometric forms. Matter! Some people confine the definition of matter to anything which has “mass and volume. “ If we do not ignore Einstein we will equate matter with energy. Thus in the strictest sense Light is the invisible mass or volume of everything. Thus light is the invisible matter from which all things originate and are comprised of.  In this we see that as light is matter so to all things that materialize inherit this energy matter. The only difference would be that Light is the bulk matter of all that is…everything else NOT innately Light would represent plane matter of bulk matter. The plane would be the Higgs Field and would represent the reflective medium that represents part of the quality of bulk light: at that point. In this we realize that “mirror matter” represents emergent, reflective, visible images of a certain volume of energy of light. No material body represents the whole of Light or the whole of energy. In fact all of the matter in all universes and every point combined would not wholey represent the energy matter of Light.  If we consider that all of this material mass is reflective of Light then in the fullest sense …all of the matter in finite space is merely reflecting thus has NO true weight or heaviness.

Illustration. If we adopt the mass mentality then I have a question: If I stand in front of a mirror what weighs more my real body or the reflected image of my body. If a relative observer is watching and is not aware of that one of us is a mirror reflection what would he conclude? No doubt he would conclude that we both weigh about the same.  Reflections have no mass! However reflections can and often do reflect a volume of space, reflect speed, reflect spin, reflect revolution, reflect motion, acceleration and reflect energy processes. Actually reflective surfaces can reflect about anything that does can or will happen.

I favor Newton in describing Light as particle(s). I do not agree with Huygens that INNATE light is a wave. Rather inherited light (reflected light) is that which results in the wave phenomenon. I believe that all innate particles CAN be represented as a wave. Yet as soon as the particle is reflected as a wave the resultant anti-particle it is no longer truly a particle. Rather! It becomes a reflected anti-particle. Where “Anti” represents emergent mass geometries; and occurs due to the relativity of a; or the Higgs field. This conversion of true particle to wave particle occurs on the surface of the Higgs field..and all formerly un-reflected particles are now transferred to reflected particles or Higgs Bosons. It will be hard if not impossible to discern the Higgs boson because they are not part of the material world rather creating the relativity of the material bodies to the immaterial body. In a sense I would say that in order to see the Higgs field as differentiated from the particle representations one must realize that the Higgs boson (verses the “field”) is merely the product of particles reflecting. Thus discovering the Higgs boson may be possible if we realize that all anti-particles are reflections occurring in a field. I believe the key to discovering the field is to discern patterns of palindrome as found throughout nature and the universe then approach the study of these patterns as representing continual symmetries reflected from a surface or horizon. If we could arrive at a way of discerning any and all differences between a real body and a reflected body we may be able to perceive these phenomenon’s. I have studied this for 10 years utilizing mirrors, lights, measurements and still have yet to discover the decisive differences. These differences (bosons) are occurring in a neutral field (Higgs) relative to a bulk charged mass entity called light.

Perhaps a good start would be in more closely examining the neutron. Or possibly the free neutron.  Perhaps studying silver or mercury may prove beneficial. iI will be speaking more on the subject of wave and particle relative to my own thread.( so as not to clutter this one or usurp the intent of the author of this thread. I am enjoying this thread.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is the past annihilating?
« Reply #20 on: 16/09/2012 00:34:02 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums