The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: science thinks in one dimension.  (Read 1881 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
science thinks in one dimension.
« on: 09/01/2016 12:39:11 »
Hello, a very simple theory, that science can't stop thinking in 1d and can not think in 4d.


My proof a wave of light,




science seems to do this with trains and all sorts.



 

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #1 on: 09/01/2016 17:00:47 »
Where did you see this? I've never seen this in any textbook.
Anyway your diagram shows 3 dimensions.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #2 on: 09/01/2016 18:24:30 »
Where did you see this? I've never seen this in any textbook.
Anyway your diagram shows 3 dimensions.

text book?  I use my own head not text books, the diagram is a flat 1 dimensional view, I showed you this before in the third doodle

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=60238.0



 

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #3 on: 09/01/2016 18:52:36 »
text book?  I use my own head not text books, the diagram is a flat 1 dimensional view, I showed you this before in the third doodle
Never saw it.
Anyway it is your view, not science's.
And it is not one dimentional it shows 3.
And it's wrong.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #4 on: 09/01/2016 21:49:24 »

Never saw it.
Anyway it is your view, not science's.
And it is not one dimentional it shows 3.
And it's wrong.

Then you can explain why it is wrong?


and where do you get three dimensions from?   
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #5 on: 11/01/2016 18:38:58 »
You are correct it is only two dimensions but what is a photon? If it always travels at c we have no c+ way of finding its physical makeup.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #6 on: 12/01/2016 00:00:01 »
You are correct it is only two dimensions but what is a photon? If it always travels at c we have no c+ way of finding its physical makeup.

A photon is a ''drip''.

Consider a kitchen tap, in the pipes is a ''solid'' stream of water that is stopped by your outlet valve/tap.

If we open the outlet valve full the water flows out in a constant stream,  if we close the valve and not tighten the valve fully we can create a dripping tap.


So imagine I have a light source, the light is a continuous stream/pulse. If I wanted to create a ''drip'' of light, I would need to add a cover to the  light with a small peep hole in it with a very fast reacting shutter,   creating a ''drip'' rather than a drip existing.   

So in answer your Photon is a drip of light created rather than existing naturally, because natural light is not drips, it is an ocean made of energy that is neutral until it touches something. Em radiation is live and dead at the same time, and notice I did not say alive.




 

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #7 on: 12/01/2016 14:58:02 »

Never saw it.
Anyway it is your view, not science's.
And it is not one dimentional it shows 3.
And it's wrong.

Then you can explain why it is wrong?


and where do you get three dimensions from?
You obviously haven't worked it out yet!

Ok,
The view at the top of your picture shows a wave, which goes up and down (1 dimension)
The plan view you show below is a straight line, but even though you don't show any movement it is still a dimension (2nd dimension)
The left to right in your diagram shows time (3rd dimension) because the wave you show is only a graph of how it varies with time at any point in space.

I say your diagram is wrong because light waves consist of an electric field and a magnetic field at right angles to each other, so your front and plan views should both show waves to indicate how these 2 field strengths vary with time.
 
The following users thanked this post: Thebox

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #8 on: 12/01/2016 15:19:34 »

Never saw it.
Anyway it is your view, not science's.
And it is not one dimentional it shows 3.
And it's wrong.

Then you can explain why it is wrong?


and where do you get three dimensions from?
You obviously haven't worked it out yet!

Ok,
The view at the top of your picture shows a wave, which goes up and down (1 dimension)
The plan view you show below is a straight line, but even though you don't show any movement it is still a dimension (2nd dimension)
The left to right in your diagram shows time (3rd dimension) because the wave you show is only a graph of how it varies with time at any point in space.

I say your diagram is wrong because light waves consist of an electric field and a magnetic field at right angles to each other, so your front and plan views should both show waves to indicate how these 2 field strengths vary with time.

Ok , I understand your points but I am not sure if you understand my points,


we will start with a 10 cm length, and from a 1d aspect we will draw several different wavelengths in/of the 10 10cm.



We will then look at the plan view the 2 dimension, (from above),


we observe ten 10cm straight lines because in the 2d view we can not observe the troths or peaks,

so if 2d is a Y axis and 1d is an X axis, Y+X=3d?




I lost my original thought, but now have a new thought. Something you must have said.

Light is a linearity until an opposing force?



« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 15:21:28 by Thebox »
 

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #9 on: 12/01/2016 23:18:07 »
we will start with a 10 cm length, and from a 1d aspect we will draw several different wavelengths in/of the 10 10cm.

We will then look at the plan view the 2 dimension, (from above),

we observe ten 10cm straight lines because in the 2d view we can not observe the troths or peaks,
Not sure what you are trying to describe here.
What are the lines Y?
Remember what I said, light wave is peaks and troughs when viewed from top or side so you never see a straight line.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #10 on: 13/01/2016 07:01:12 »
True linearity does not occur in quantum systems. The only possible way for linear resonance to occur is in the ether matrix underlying quantum forces. Only in the setting of elemental units do conditions exist in terms of matching-sized units, plus their intimate proximity, for them to resonate linearly (as they vibrate.)
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #11 on: 14/01/2016 04:41:12 »
I just remembered my original thought,

a wavelength does not change

take two equal lines A and B

A=..................................................

B=..................................................

Both lengths are equal


we will now add  two different wave formations


A=....-...............-...........-.........-......


B=..-...-...-...-..-...-...-....-...-..-....-....


The length is still the same, we now have wave-width though,....a Y axis or x axis relative to view.




 

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #12 on: 14/01/2016 14:40:00 »
I just remembered my original thought,

a wavelength does not change

take two equal lines A and B

A=..................................................

B=..................................................

Both lengths are equal


we will now add  two different wave formations


A=....-...............-...........-.........-......


B=..-...-...-...-..-...-...-....-...-..-....-....


The length is still the same, we now have wave-width though,....a Y axis or x axis relative to view.

For the top 2 lines we don't know what the wavelength is as you haven't put a wave in!
The wavelength is just the distance for a complete cycle so if the waves A and B both complete a cycle in the same length then they are equal.

In the bottom example, yes you are showing pulse widths. If the pulses show a repeating pattern then they will have a wavelength, you could also take the average wavelength.
The 2 pulse trains A and B would also be described as having different duty cycles. That is the proportion of time that the pulses are either +ve or -ve. For example a square wave would be described as having a 50% duty cycle.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #13 on: 14/01/2016 14:56:23 »
I just remembered my original thought,

a wavelength does not change

take two equal lines A and B

A=..................................................

B=..................................................

Both lengths are equal


we will now add  two different wave formations


A=....-...............-...........-.........-......


B=..-...-...-...-..-...-...-....-...-..-....-....


The length is still the same, we now have wave-width though,....a Y axis or x axis relative to view.

For the top 2 lines we don't know what the wavelength is as you haven't put a wave in!
The wavelength is just the distance for a complete cycle so if the waves A and B both complete a cycle in the same length then they are equal.

In the bottom example, yes you are showing pulse widths. If the pulses show a repeating pattern then they will have a wavelength, you could also take the average wavelength.
The 2 pulse trains A and B would also be described as having different duty cycles. That is the proportion of time that the pulses are either +ve or -ve. For example a square wave would be described as having a 50% duty cycle.

In the top two the lengths are equal, if we measure a 10cm section of light, the waves may be different but the 10cm remains 10cm no matter what the wave is doing.

 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #14 on: 15/01/2016 05:42:40 »
Waves represent a quantum system's behavior reacting to "up-resonances" emanating from an underlying ether matrix.

Quantum systems do not produce linearity on their own. -Our earth-world's quantum setting allows us to observe quantum wave effects, but they are not the answer to understanding linear transmissions. Quantum systems are composed of units of varying size, and behave according to spin/vector dyamics, which do not lend themselves to linear transmission.

The only possible mechanism for linear transmission is that it occurs within an underlying etheric matrix, where the matching size of the elemental energic units, plus their intimate proximity, produce linear transmissions, as  entrainments (as elemental units vibrate and form loose connections with each other.) 
 

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #15 on: 15/01/2016 10:42:58 »
In the top two the lengths are equal, if we measure a 10cm section of light, the waves may be different but the 10cm remains 10cm no matter what the wave is doing.
Ok, so 10cm=10cm.
However if the second wave is 15cm wavelength all you have done is measure part of the wave.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #16 on: 15/01/2016 12:40:39 »
In the top two the lengths are equal, if we measure a 10cm section of light, the waves may be different but the 10cm remains 10cm no matter what the wave is doing.
Ok, so 10cm=10cm.
However if the second wave is 15cm wavelength all you have done is measure part of the wave.


HUh?  any wave formation can fit within the 10 cm where do you get 15 cm from?  if it was a 15 cm length then any wave could still fit within the 15 cm.


The length does not change so to say different wave lengths doesn't sound right, different wave compressions maybe.  Or a wave-width sounds right.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #17 on: 15/01/2016 12:45:24 »
Waves represent a quantum system's behavior reacting to "up-resonances" emanating from an underlying ether matrix.

Quantum systems do not produce linearity on their own. -Our earth-world's quantum setting allows us to observe quantum wave effects, but they are not the answer to understanding linear transmissions. Quantum systems are composed of units of varying size, and behave according to spin/vector dyamics, which do not lend themselves to linear transmission.

The only possible mechanism for linear transmission is that it occurs within an underlying etheric matrix, where the matching size of the elemental energic units, plus their intimate proximity, produce linear transmissions, as  entrainments (as elemental units vibrate and form loose connections with each other.)

An ''ether'' would have to be alike to silica.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #18 on: 16/01/2016 14:34:39 »
The waves that are seen in quantum systems represent a "shoreline effect" when up-resonations, starting from the tiniest scale units, elemental etheric units, filter up to etheroidal, then finally to the largest scale units, the quantum units.

This wave effect is analogous to the waves appearing when ocean systems send breaking waves to the shoreline. The "shoreline" in the case of energy resonances would be where the vibrational property of etheric resonances transition fully to the spin-vector dynamics of quantum systems.

Occasionally, an etheroidal unit "escapes" suddenly and prematurely from its vibrational mechanism and unexpectedly appears in specially-designed quantum energy systems. That would account for so-called "quasiparticles."




















 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #19 on: 16/01/2016 15:58:36 »
The waves that are seen in quantum systems represent a "shoreline effect" when up-resonations, starting from the tiniest scale units, elemental etheric units, filter up to etheroidal, then finally to the largest scale units, the quantum units.

This wave effect is analogous to the waves appearing when ocean systems send breaking waves to the shoreline. The "shoreline" in the case of energy resonances would be where the vibrational property of etheric resonances transition fully to the spin-vector dynamics of quantum systems.

Occasionally, an etheroidal unit "escapes" suddenly and prematurely from its vibrational mechanism and unexpectedly appears in specially-designed quantum energy systems. That would account for so-called "quasiparticles."


We do not know that light is a wave, by strict definition we can not say that our measurement is not the cause of a wave effect, we  can not actually measure light in space, we can measure light hitting something and can measure the compression .
This is called observer effect,

''In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: science thinks in one dimension.
« Reply #19 on: 16/01/2016 15:58:36 »

 

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