Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: variationz on 23/11/2009 12:56:12
-
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
1. Zero can not exist as denominator.
2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
6. There are finite absolute laws.
7. Velocity of light is relative.
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
9. Time Travel can not exist.
10. Tan 90 can not exist.
11. God(s) can not exist.
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
Let us consider x, y and z as any three numbers. If we take an equation such that x / y = z then x = y * z. 4 / 0 is said to be infinity. If 4 / 0 is equal to infinity, 4 / 0 = infinity then 4 = 0 * infinity, that is 4 = 0 but 4 is not equal to 0 therefore 4 / 0 is not equal to infinity. What is infinity? Infinity means not finite. If infinity means not finite then infinity can not be a number. Therefore infinity is not a number. When we divide a finite number with another finite number we get a finite answer but not infinity. Therefore any finite number divided by any finite number is equal to some finite number. For example 4 divided by 4 is equal to 1. The numerator is 4 which is a finite number. The denominator is 4 which is again a finite number. Now 4 / 4 is equal to 1 and once again 1 is a finite number. Therefore the result of dividing a finite number with another finite number is also a finite number. 4 / 0 is sometimes said to be undefined or not defined. If it is so then let us define it. We already know that 4 / 0 should give us a finite number. 0 / 4 means we are dividing the numerator 0 with the denominator 4. Zero means nothing. Dividing 0 with 4 means dividing nothing into 4 parts, it means we are not dividing anything. Therefore 0 in the numerator means we have nothing to divide. What does 4 in the denominator mean? 4 in the denominator means we are dividing the numerator into 4 parts that is we are converting the numerator into 4 parts. Now that we know what denominator means we will discuss 4 / 0. 0 in the denominator means dividing the numerator that is 4 into zero parts. Mind you, 0 in the denominator does not mean we are not dividing. Zero in the denominator actually means we are converting the numerator into zero parts. If we can divide the numerator into zero parts then each part is equal to zero. But sum of zeroes does not give us 4. Therefore 4 can not be divided by 0. In fact numerator can not be divided by 0. Therefore 0 can not exist as denominator. It is true that the numerator can not be divided into zero parts and it is also true that sum of zeroes does not give anything but zero. If we take Y = 1 / X ( Y = 1 / X is Rectangular Hyperbola ) then we get different values for both X and Y that are other than zero. The values of X and Y are never equal to zero and that means that the curves never intersect the X - axis and Y - axis. Therefore
1. Zero can not exist as denominator.
The fact that the numerator can not be divided into zero parts means anything that exists can not be destroyed into nothingness. And the fact that sum of zeroes gives us zero alone means anything that does not exist can not be given existence out of nothingness. Therefore
2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere. Once again we need to know what infinite means. What does infinite mean? Infinite means not finite and not finite means unlimited. By now we know that creation and destruction are impossible. If creation is impossible then there is no other way new things can add up to the World that already exists. If new things can not add up to the World then there is no way anything that exists in this World can be infinite. Space can not be infinite. Therefore
4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.
Numbers are infinite but number of apples ( existence ) can not be infinite. Now, we know that creation and destruction are impossible and we also know that the existence of anything can not be infinite. We are part of the world we live in. In our world existence of anything can not be infinite. That is Space, Mass, Energy, Density, Gravity, Force,... etc; can not be infinite. Also, in our World creation and destruction are impossible. Creation is impossible means no new things can add up to the World that already exists and it also means what already exists can not come out of creation. Creation is impossible, creation is completely ruled out. We also know that destruction of the World is impossible. Space is timeless. Therefore
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
According to the fourth postulate space can not be infinite and according to the fifth postulate space is timeless.
We know what an equation means. An equation is a law of equity. If creation and destruction are possible then all laws have to fail. In a World where creation and destruction are possible laws can not exist, only Chaos exists. We know what infinity means. Infinity means not finite and it means infinity is something that is unlimited, something that is ever increasing. Positive infinity is ever increasing and negative infinity is ever decreasing. It is said that, infinity + 2 is equal to infinity, then 2 = infinity - infinity which implies 2 = 0 which is wrong, also 2 times infinity is equal to infinity and that implies 2 = 1 and 2 = 0 which is once again wrong. What is wrong with the above equations? Infinity is the answer. Infinity means unlimited and it can not be used in equations. If creation is possible, equations will fail. Therefore
6. There are finite absolute laws.
E = M C2 has another side to it. E stands for the energy of the electromagnetic radiation, M is the intrinsic mass of the electromagnetic radiation and C is the velocity of the electromagnetic radiation. Any ordinary body can be moved and therefore its velocity is relative at constant gravity. Electromagnetic radiation travels on its own, it can not be moved like any ordinary body by moving the source of the electromagnetic radiation. Therefore velocity of electromagnetic radiation is observed to be constant at constant gravity. When there is considerable change in gravity there is change in velocity of the electromagnetic radiation. Therefore velocity of electromagnetic radiation is relative to change in gravity.
We know that... Energy is equal to the product of mass and square of the velocity of light.
E = M C2
F = M g
E = ( F/g ) C2
7. Velocity of light is relative.
Everything is well defined in three dimensions. Space too is three dimensional. String Theory claims more than three dimensions. Time is an imaginary dimension. Existence of anything short of three dimensions is impossible since anything that exists can not be destroyed into nothingness. If more than three dimensions can exist, they have to exist everywhere and always. Since anything can not be created out of nothingness more than three dimensions can not be given existence out of nothingness. Therefore String Theory can not be true.
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
Therefore anything short of three dimensions and more than three dimensions is impossible. Time is an imaginary dimension. Time Travel is impossible since Time is an imaginary dimension.
9. Time Travel can not exist.
There are no infinite parallel Worlds with infinite parallel changes and we can not Time Travel. Time Travel is meaningless.
10. Tan 90 can not exist.
If two angles are 90 degrees then it is not a triangle. If any angle is equal to zero then it is not a triangle.Please visit the below website.
The sum of all the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. No two angles can be 90 degrees. Also no single angle can be zero. Tan 90 can not exist. If Sin 0 exists it means two sides are overlapping (without any angle between them) and it means that it is a straight line. We live in a three dimensional World where everything is three dimensional and three dimensions only. We neglect the third dimension for our convenience. Sometimes we neglect two dimensions and continue studying as if everything is occurring as a single dimension.In a right angle triangle one angle is 90 degrees and the sum of the other two angles is 90 degrees. The sum of all angles in a triangle is 180 degrees. Therefore in a right angle triangle ( One angle is already 90 degrees ) the other ( two ) angle(s) can not be 0 and or 90. For a straight line Sine 0 is 0, we can observe that in the Sine graph. For a straight line Sine 0 is 0 ( Does not exist ), and Cos 0 is 1 ( Cos 0 exists and is equal to unity ), and Tan 0 is 0 ( Tan 0 does not exist ), and Tan 90 can not exist. Therefore Tan 90 can not exist for a right angled triangle. Tan 45 ( Tan theta = opp/adj and for Tan 45 opp=adj - Tan 45 is clearly equal to one ) is 1 and
tan(A+B)=(tanA+tanB) / (1-tanAtanB)
Tan 90 = (Tan 45 + Tan 45 ) / (1-Tan 45.Tan 45 )
Tan 90 = ( 1+1) / ( 1-1.1)
Tan 90 = 2 / 0
Also Tan 90 = Sin 90 / Cos 90 = 1 / 0
Since zero can not exist as denominator Tan 90 can not exist. If a right angled triangle exists then one of its angle can not be zero!?
In any triangle two angles can not be 90 degrees therefore Tan 90 degrees can not exist. For a straight line Tan 0 is 0 ( Does not exist ), and Tan 90 can not exist.
11. God(s) can not exist.
God(s) can not create and God(s) can not destroy and God(s) can not change laws.
God(s) can not create laws and also can not destroy laws...
Therefore God(s) can not exist.
-
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
1. Zero can not exist as denominator.
2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
6. There are finite absolute laws.
7. Velocity of light is relative.
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
9. Time Travel can not exist.
10. Tan 90 can not exist.
11. God(s) can not exist.
So far so good. [:)] Maybe rethink zero; in a radian defined circle, zero and 2 PI are the same.
Number 7 I would not agree with. The velocity of light is absolute. We think it is relative because the construct of matter causes our measuring devices to distort with movement.
-
So far so good. [:)] Maybe rethink zero; in a radian defined circle, zero and 2 PI are the same.
Number 7 I would not agree with. The velocity of light is absolute. We think it is relative because the construct of matter causes our measuring devices to distort with movement.
Like any other velocity, I would assume the velocity of light to be influenced by the medium thru which it travels. Because the vacuum of space has the character of permittivity and permeability, it appears to me that these attributes of space itself limit the speed of light to it's observed value. My question is this:
Might it be possible for these values to change with time resulting in a change in c also? May the value for c remain only constant so long as the character of the vacuum dosen't change? And is it even possible for this character to change by any other means?
-
As far as I know the character of the vacuum is only permittivity and permeability. And that alone gives us our electromagnetic universe. It is quite possible that there might be another character of the vacuum that does not react electromagnetically. If so we could never be aware of it because we can only sense electromagnetic phenomena.
-
Velocity of light is observed to be constant to different observers from different frames of reference. Why? Is velocity of light constant? Einstein said in his Theory Of Relativity that velocity of light is constant, he also said that gravity bends space so, light travelling in a straight line actually appears to be bent but, its not true, he made mistakes and here is the truth... Let us take Michelson–Morley experiment---- in this experiment it was proved that velocity of light is observed to be same in different directions and hence they proved Ether doesn't exist ( Scientists proposed that Ether might exist and velocity of light is relative to Ether... ) and they got Nobel prize for their discovery. Why is velocity of light constant in different directions?
I will explain why velocity of light is observed to be constant even though it is relative to " Change in Gravity ".
When we move source of light on a moving car or on a much faster train we don't move light... light is generated at the source and it moves from point of origin to other places in space... that is; it propagates from point of origin to other places...
We don't move light... we can't move light therefore velocity of light is observed to be constant to different observers from different frames of reference.
Why is it constant in the Michelson–Morley experiment? If gravity has its hold on light's velocity - then it should be different - where there is change in gravity... yes its different.
In the Michelson–Morley experiment if we take the dimensions of the apparatus it is not big enough..what do I mean?
In this Michelson–Morley experiment there is no considerable change in gravity from one point to other point where velocity is measured... therefore velocity of light is observed to be constant...
Velocity of light on Earth is 3 into 10 power 8 kilometers per second
and
on moon velocity of light will be greater than on The Earth and it will be even greater in Space...
Velocity of light is greater in Space than on Moon and is still greater than that on the Earth.
Einstein said gravity bends space... How true is this statement? It's not at all true. Why?
Space is something that gets occupied by rest of the World.
Our World/Universe consists of Space and Everything else in Space. Gravity can not bend space.
Light has intrinsic mass ( inherent mass ) or relativistic mass
E = m into square of c
E stands for energy released and m stands for mass annihilated and c stands for velocity of light
it is also true
that
" E " stands for " Energy of Light ".
" M " stands for " Light's intrinsic/relativistic mass ".
and
" C " stands for " Velocity of Light ".
Gravity can't bend space. Space has boundaries.
Distance travelled is equal to product of Velocity and Time.
Distance travelled is relative
also
Velocity of anything is relative
and therefore
time is also relative
There is no such thing as absolute when it comes to time. Time is a local phenomenon it is not Global...
Time is never absolute it is always relative.
Time is relative, always and also
velocity of light is relative.
Gravity can't bend space.
-
Velocity of light is observed to be constant to different observers from different frames of reference. Why?
We have known for about 200 years now that matter could possibly be made of light. We discovered at the turn of the century that if matter were made of light (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html) relativity phenomena would exist in flat space-time.
That alone provides enough variables to make the odds that it is so be astronomical. All of us have been trying to show why this can not possibly be so. No one has yet found even one piece of evidence that it is not so.
So we keep making up weird schemes to explain the nature of the universe. We may finally have to accept what nature is telling us.
-
Velocity of light is observed to be constant to different observers from different frames of reference. Why?
We have known for about 200 years now that matter could possibly be made of light. We discovered at the turn of the century that if matter were made of light (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html) relativity phenomena would exist in flat space-time.
That alone provides enough variables to make the odds that it is so be astronomical. All of us have been trying to show why this can not possibly be so. No one has yet found even one piece of evidence that it is not so.
So we keep making up weird schemes to explain the nature of the universe. We may finally have to accept what nature is telling us.
What do you mean?
-
God(s) can not exist and this theory proves my point and, it also answers several other important issues...
What is infinity?
Can apples be infinite?
Can space be infinite?
Can gravity bend space?
What is the nature of light?
That is; Is velocity of Light relative or Obsolute?
Is creation of anything possible?
Is destruction of anything possible?
This theory has it all, you name it and here are the answers...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26911.0
Please do visit the website and don't forget to participate in the discussions...
Have a nice day.
-
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
1. Zero can not exist as denominator.
2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
6. There are finite absolute laws.
7. Velocity of light is relative.
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
9. Time Travel can not exist.
10. Tan 90 can not exist.
11. God(s) can not exist.
So far so good. [:)] Maybe rethink zero; in a radian defined circle, zero and 2 PI are the same.
Number 7 I would not agree with. The velocity of light is absolute. We think it is relative because the construct of matter causes our measuring devices to distort with movement.
Hi, Vern. Very interesting. Somewhere I have read that a woman has actually stopped "Light" and then started it again after which it accelerated back to 186000/sec. She was paid $500,000 tax free to spend as she liked. Thanks for your information. Joe L. Ogan
-
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
1. Zero can not exist as denominator.
2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
6. There are finite absolute laws.
7. Velocity of light is relative.
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
9. Time Travel can not exist.
10. Tan 90 can not exist.
11. God(s) can not exist.
So far so good. [:)] Maybe rethink zero; in a radian defined circle, zero and 2 PI are the same.
Number 7 I would not agree with. The velocity of light is absolute. We think it is relative because the construct of matter causes our measuring devices to distort with movement.
Try the "Big Rip Theory" Regards, Joe L. Ogan
-
Ask any mathematician ...
stuff related to 0 and infinity is still a debate.
no proof in practical.
we made those rules.
do trust math for finding god or fundamental theory.
trust physics.
-
Ask any mathematician ...
stuff related to 0 and infinity is still a debate.
no proof in practical.
we made those rules.
do trust math for finding god or fundamental theory.
trust physics.
This is very true.
-
Velocity of light is surely relative to change in gravity. I think nothing can escape the effect of gravity that is gravity has its hold on everything ...
-
What do you mean?
Nature is telling us that it is a simple construct of electric and magnetic phenomena and nothing else. If we explore nature while keeping a firm commitment to cause and effect (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26456.0) as I did in the linked New Theories thread, we arrive very quickly at the final solution.
-
Nature is telling us that it is a simple construct of electric and magnetic phenomena and nothing else.
I absolutely agree with this Vern but, I would suggest that the permittivity & permeability of space are a direct result of a universal geometry that we don't fully understand as yet. I've brought this up in another thread but it recieved little attention. Nevertheless, I'll present it again.
I contend that there are more than 3 spatial dimensions. And I'm not joining the string theorists here, my understanding is much less complicated. Standard physics allows for 3 spatial dimensions and one of time. However, we have observed the path of various particles moving through space in spiral patterns. For this to occur, the particle must differentiate between left and right and up and down. This will not set well with most physicists but please think about it for a while and you may understand what I'm proposing. Because the particle has chosen a sprial path, I submit that there are not only 3 spatial dimensions, there are 6. Some will argue that these are only 6 degrees of freedom and not dimensions. Ask yourself; What exactly is a dimension if not a degree of freedom?
I submit that there are 6 spatial dimensions and 1 of time. Seven in total and no more. Some will suggest that we need 2 for time also because nothing disallows for it's reversal. If that is so, I guess we can throw out the concept of Entropy.
From the point of origin, and this concept is important. Between the point of origin and the following:
One dimension forward.
One dimension backward.
One dimension left.
One dimension right.
One dimension up.
One dimension down.
One dimension thru time.
Seven in all.
...........................Ethos
-
Nature is telling us that it is a simple construct of electric and magnetic phenomena and nothing else.
I absolutely agree with this Vern but, I would suggest that the permittivity & permeability of space are a direct result of a universal geometry that we don't fully understand as yet. I've brought this up in another thread but it recieved little attention. Nevertheless, I'll present it again.
I contend that there are more than 3 spatial dimensions. And I'm not joining the string theorists here, my understanding is much less complicated. Standard physics allows for 3 spatial dimensions and one of time. However, we have observed the path of various particles moving through space in spiral patterns. For this to occur, the particle must differentiate between left and right and up and down. This will not set well with most physicists but please think about it for a while and you may understand what I'm proposing. Because the particle has chosen a sprial path, I submit that there are not only 3 spatial dimensions, there are 6. Some will argue that these are only 6 degrees of freedom and not dimensions. Ask yourself; What exactly is a dimension if not a degree of freedom?
I submit that there are 6 spatial dimensions and 1 of time. Seven in total and no more. Some will suggest that we need 2 for time also because nothing disallows for it's reversal. If that is so, I guess we can throw out the concept of Entropy.
From the point of origin, and this concept is important. Between the point of origin and the following:
One dimension forward.
One dimension backward.
One dimension left.
One dimension right.
One dimension up.
One dimension down.
One dimension thru time.
Seven in all.
...........................Ethos
There are three degrees of freedom. If there where seven, then a full circle would not equal 360 degrees in all. Time is a dimension, but there are many different interpetations.
-
There are three degrees of freedom. If there where seven, then a full circle would not equal 360 degrees in all. Time is a dimension, but there are many different interpetations.
I give up.......................
-
There are three degrees of freedom. If there where seven, then a full circle would not equal 360 degrees in all. Time is a dimension, but there are many different interpetations.
I give up.......................
The dimensions above
''One dimension forward.
One dimension backward.
One dimension left.
One dimension right.
One dimension up.
One dimension down.
One dimension thru time.
Seven in all.''
Is what we percieve conceptually; just because this is more notion than motion, you need to reconsider why up and down, left right forward and back all indicate the existence of a three dimensionsional realm (see pythogoreans Theorem) It's a proof alone that three dimensions suffice the theory of physics.
-
There are three degrees of freedom. If there where seven, then a full circle would not equal 360 degrees in all. Time is a dimension, but there are many different interpetations.
I give up.......................
The dimensions above
''One dimension forward.
One dimension backward.
One dimension left.
One dimension right.
One dimension up.
One dimension down.
One dimension thru time.
Seven in all.''
Is what we percieve conceptually; just because this is more notion than motion, you need to reconsider why up and down, left right forward and back all indicate the existence of a three dimensionsional realm (see pythogoreans Theorem) It's a proof alone that three dimensions suffice the theory of physics.
Consider the spiral path of a particle. If right and left are the same, how does the particle know which one to take? A right handed spiral and a left handed spiral involve two different dimensions. They cannot be judged as the same, and the path the particle takes, whether left or right spiral, proves there is a difference in geometry. From point of origin, the left handed spiral knows the difference between the right. Therefore, right and left bare a particular distinction one from the other.
-
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
1. Zero can not exist as denominator.
2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
6. There are finite absolute laws.
7. Velocity of light is relative.
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
9. Time Travel can not exist.
10. Tan 90 can not exist.
11. God(s) can not exist.
So far so good. [:)] Maybe rethink zero; in a radian defined circle, zero and 2 PI are the same.
Number 7 I would not agree with. The velocity of light is absolute. We think it is relative because the construct of matter causes our measuring devices to distort with movement. Some woman stopped light in suppercold sodium. Restarted it with a laser beam. It started out slowly and then accelerated back to the speed of light. She received $500K, tax free, to spend as she wished. Joe L. Ogan
-
There are three degrees of freedom. If there where seven, then a full circle would not equal 360 degrees in all. Time is a dimension, but there are many different interpetations.
I give up.......................
The dimensions above
''One dimension forward.
One dimension backward.
One dimension left.
One dimension right.
One dimension up.
One dimension down.
One dimension thru time.
Seven in all.''
Is what we percieve conceptually; just because this is more notion than motion, you need to reconsider why up and down, left right forward and back all indicate the existence of a three dimensionsional realm (see pythogoreans Theorem) It's a proof alone that three dimensions suffice the theory of physics.
Consider the spiral path of a particle. If right and left are the same, how does the particle know which one to take? A right handed spiral and a left handed spiral involve two different dimensions. They cannot be judged as the same, and the path the particle takes, whether left or right spiral, proves there is a difference in geometry. From point of origin, the left handed spiral knows the difference between the right. Therefore, right and left bare a particular distinction one from the other.
The spiral path of a photon? In what path is this relative too?
Plus, when working with zero-dimensional systems you make it harder on yourself to define the terms you use. As a bit of advice, stick to geometrical things... and ask yourself why the gemetry allows the path of matter to take the forms you have persisted, then ask yourself whether the dimensions angles are any different.
For an upcoming answer, i can tell you they will always represent a three-dimensional spatial coordinate without the superfluous need of a physical time coordinate.
-
The spiral path of a photon? In what path is this relative too?
And here we have the focus of the point I'm trying to make.
For the observer, we ofcourse view only the three dimensional co-ordinates. A measure of distance between two points in space. However, to understand the reality of our existence, we must view this not as an observer, but as a participant. Let me explain:
When we observe any area of space, we naturally view it in the perspective of height, width, and depth. We therefore reason that three dimensions make up the space we see. However, for the object of our attention, it sees space as a place in which to make decisions. Will I go left, or will I turn right and travel, let's say for arguments sake, 100 feet. We assume from our vantage point of observation that in either case, the object will traverse a dimension of 100 feet which ever way it decides to go. Let's say for an example that the object travels at right angles to us the distance of 100 feet to the left. If it had chosen to travel to the right of us, it would have still traveled 100 feet. Now here is the problem with saying it travled in the same dimension, at least in the small mind of my own. By traveling 100 feet to the left, it did so in an entirely different space. The space, while still being 100 feet in measure can't be regarded as the same dimension. I realize that by using the term "dimension", I may be confusing the issue. Maybe there is another term which would be better suited to explain what I'm trying to say. Right now, I don't know what that term would be.
Now I refer back the photon. Because the photon has no mind and can't make decisions like we humans, when it spirals in one direction or the other, it does so because physical issues demand it. And I believe these physical issues are the geometric dimensions thru which it travels. Left and right spin occupy two different dimensions, they cannot be the same space even though they are measured the same distance. And not only must we segregate right and left, up and down must also be introduced into the equation for the spiral to form.
I realize this is not accepted within popular physics and I may be misunderstanding the reality of things myself. Nevertheless, for me to understand the why and wherefore of particle spin, I cannot limit spatial dimensions to only three.
This idea is very difficult for me to explain, hopefully I have done so this time so that either, someone else will get what I'm saying or someone will help me correct my thinking on the matter.
-
The spiral path of a photon? In what path is this relative too?
And here we have the focus of the point I'm trying to make.
For the observer, we ofcourse view only the three dimensional co-ordinates. A measure of distance between two points in space. However, to understand the reality of our existence, we must view this not as an observer, but as a participant. Let me explain:
When we observe any area of space, we naturally view it in the perspective of height, width, and depth. We therefore reason that three dimensions make up the space we see. However, for the object of our attention, it sees space as a place in which to make decisions. Will I go left, or will I turn right and travel, let's say for arguments sake, 100 feet. We assume from our vantage point of observation that in either case, the object will traverse a dimension of 100 feet which ever way it decides to go. Let's say for an example that the object travels at right angles to us the distance of 100 feet to the left. If it had chosen to travel to the right of us, it would have still traveled 100 feet. Now here is the problem with saying it travled in the same dimension, at least in the small mind of my own. By traveling 100 feet to the left, it did so in an entirely different space. The space, while still being 100 feet in measure can't be regarded as the same dimension. I realize that by using the term "dimension", I may be confusing the issue. Maybe there is another term which would be better suited to explain what I'm trying to say. Right now, I don't know what that term would be.
Now I refer back the photon. Because the photon has no mind and can't make decisions like we humans, when it spirals in one direction or the other, it does so because physical issues demand it. And I believe these physical issues are the geometric dimensions thru which it travels. Left and right spin occupy two different dimensions, they cannot be the same space even though they are measured the same distance. And not only must we segregate right and left, up and down must also be introduced into the equation for the spiral to form.
I realize this is not accepted within popular physics and I may be misunderstanding the reality of things myself. Nevertheless, for me to understand the why and wherefore of particle spin, I cannot limit spatial dimensions to only three.
This idea is very difficult for me to explain, hopefully I have done so this time so that either, someone else will get what I'm saying or someone will help me correct my thinking on the matter.
Bolded by me. This is not a good start. What is visual to us isn't even the real world. You have also neglected the visual percpetion which allows us to experience a new vector of time.
-
Bolded by me. This is not a good start. What is visual to us isn't even the real world.
That's my point exactly Mr. Sci.
You have also neglected the visual percpetion which allows us to experience a new vector of time.
Quite true, Mr. Sci. Right now, I'm just trying to understand the why and wherefore of particle spin. My small mind can only take it one step at a time.
-
Bolded by me. This is not a good start. What is visual to us isn't even the real world.
That's my point exactly Mr. Sci.
You have also neglected the visual percpetion which allows us to experience a new vector of time.
Quite true, Mr. Sci. Right now, I'm just trying to understand the why and wherefore of particle spin. My small mind can only take it one step at a time.
Particle spin? How did the angular momentum of particles come into this..? Are you asking the strange nature in which eigenstates (which are observable properties of particles - such as an atom, or even an electron) appear when we are involved?
Is this what you ask?
-
Bolded by me. This is not a good start. What is visual to us isn't even the real world.
That's my point exactly Mr. Sci.
You have also neglected the visual percpetion which allows us to experience a new vector of time.
Quite true, Mr. Sci. Right now, I'm just trying to understand the why and wherefore of particle spin. My small mind can only take it one step at a time.
Particle spin? How did the angular momentum of particles come into this..? Are you asking the strange nature in which eigenstates (which are observable properties of particles - such as an atom, or even an electron) appear when we are involved?
Is this what you ask?
In a round-about way, yes. I don't know all the particulars about spin, the 1/2 spins and so on. What I'm confused about is why exactly the particle chooses to spin one way or another. As I said before, the spin must be a result of the physical nature of space itself. The geometry I'm trying to explain with the 6, if I may be allowed to use the term, dimensions. I realize that "dimension" may not be the correct word to use here. Nevertheless, particle spin must involve the geometric character of space itself. If this is true, then the right or left spin is showing us a different character of that space and IMHO, cannot be regarded as the same dimension. I would really like some help here to understand why left and right spin are considered to opporate within the same dimension.
-
Maybe I'm just too hung-up on the idea that permittivity and permeability are the physical measures we get from the basic geometry of space. And I seeking to undestand this geometry in a more detailed way.
Hopefully I haven't taken this thread too far off topic. I think I'll leave quietly out the back door and start a new thread..............sorry if I caused any confusion.
-
These are eigenstate values... not necessery on the scale of consciousness. There is a process aslo known as decoherence... if you will... decoherence gave rise to the possibilities we see today... unless consciousness drove the very initial set-up conditions of big bang.
-
These are eigenstate values...
Eigen,.........German word for strangeness. Spin is certainly a strange quality. Is the geometry of space the major cause and how do we undestand this geometry?
My major concern is this: I don't think we currently understand the geometry of space correctly.
-
These are eigenstate values...
Eigen,.........German word for strangeness. Spin is certainly a strange quality. Is the geometry of space the major cause and how do we undestand this geometry?
My major concern is this: I don't think we currently understand the geometry of space correctly.
We understand the geometry because of high energy physics which deals with some singular region in the past. The vacuum which was made mostly flat during inflation, is in fact where (we are led to believe) that zero-dimensional particles make a three dimensional world of matter and gas, among different forms of energy.
-
My friend, how then does a black hole capture light and not let it travel through the massive gravitational pull?
Webo
-
My friend, how then does a black hole capture light and not let it travel through the massive gravitational pull?
Webo
A place in spacetime, where there is all the vacuum sucked into a vortex. A vortex is a little like a wormhole, except it has a spherical structure, or rotating black holes have non-spherical structures due to the centrifugal force.
A photon cannot escape this boundary of this object simply because the vacuum itself is being dragged closer and closer to the speed of light itself as you reach the singular region near the center.
-
Gravity has no effect on space. Space can't be bent by gravity... space is empty ness, it doesn't contract or expand, it doesn't occupy something else ( If space can expand and contract - does it imply space occupies something else? ). Light can't escape black holes but X- Rays can, Why? E/M ratio of x-rays is far greater than E/M ratio of light therefore light can't escape black holes and x-rays can. Law of conservation of energy states that ( E is constant ) energy inside a system can't be created or destroyed. Einstein's E=MC² states that E/M is constant. The truth is E/MC²is equal to one and is the only quantity that is constant. E is variable, M ia variable and also C is variable. Therefore E/MC² = 1. E/MC² is constant.
Good news...
From 8th to 14th December I am going to attend a ( 13 Nobel Laureates to attend Science Conclave in Allahabad - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/allahabad/IIIT-A-to-host-Science-Conclave-from-Dec-8-14/articleshow/5293206.cms )Science Conclave and Nobel Laureates will be present and I hope I present my theory to them with success.
-
Gravity has no effect on space. Space can't be bent by gravity... space is empty ness, it doesn't contract or expand, it doesn't occupy something else ( If space can expand and contract - does it imply space occupies something else? ).
On this we agree: good luck on trying to convince anyone who has been smitten with Quantumania; they have given up the capability to recognize reality.
It might be useful sometime for us to compare ideas to see where we diverge. I notice that you do have some notions that seem unnecessary to me. For example, could you accept these two postulates within your concepts. The postulates are at the very heart of the Reality Theory that is developing here on this forum (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26802.0).
Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
and
Postulate: Space and time are invariant.
-
Gravity has no effect on space. Space can't be bent by gravity... space is empty ness, it doesn't contract or expand, it doesn't occupy something else ( If space can expand and contract - does it imply space occupies something else? ).
On this we agree: good luck on trying to convince anyone who has been smitten with Quantumania; they have given up the capability to recognize reality.
It might be useful sometime for us to compare ideas to see where we diverge. I notice that you do have some notions that seem unnecessary to me. For example, could you accept these two postulates within your concepts. The postulates are at the very heart of the Reality Theory that is developing here on this forum (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26802.0).
Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
and
Postulate: Space and time are invariant.
A bit harsh vern. I do try to keep an open-mind.
-
Number 7 I would not agree with. The velocity of light is absolute. We think it is relative because the construct of matter causes our measuring devices to distort with movement.
A good physicist once pointed out to me that if the speed of light suddenly doubled everywhere, we would not notice. It is so fundamental that all distances would double and there would be no detectable change.
-
Number 7 I would not agree with. The velocity of light is absolute. We think it is relative because the construct of matter causes our measuring devices to distort with movement.
A good physicist once pointed out to me that if the speed of light suddenly doubled everywhere, we would not notice. It is so fundamental that all distances would double and there would be no detectable change.
Yes... he's right... but in doing so you'd need to expect that somehow the energy density of universe can loose half its Volume/Mass.
-
A bit harsh vern. I do try to keep an open-mind.
Yes; perhaps it came out a little wrong. Maybe it should be more like: We give up the ability to comprehend Reality Theory when we think of it in terms of Quantum Theory.
And to me Reality Theory is the same as reality. It is just not yet complete.
-
Today I met two Nobel Laureates and gave them my theory papers in IIIT Allahabad Second Science Conclave and hopefully they will reply tomorrow. Thanks to all of you for being here.
-
Tough luck.
-
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
1. Zero can not exist as denominator.
2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
6. There are finite absolute laws.
7. Velocity of light is relative.
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
9. Time Travel can not exist.
10. Tan 90 can not exist.
11. God(s) can not exist.
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
======= .
Fundamental Theory 0f Existence :
1. The infinite vacuum: T=0K,
2. The particle: C/D = pi, R/N= k , E = Mc^2 = kc^2 , h = 0 , i^2= -1
3. The spins: h =E/t , h =kb, h* = h/2pi ,
4. The photon, the inertia,
5. The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , electromagnetic field
6. The gravitation, the star,the time,
7. The proton,
8. The atom(s),
9. The cell(s),
10. The Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
11. Testing.
============================.