|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Time Machine | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
The only way is forward, and you can fast-forward, this is times arrow, a dreadful term but one that for the time-being I'll leave alone and intact.
why are you so sure of this? I am not sure if it has been mentioned yet(I don't feel like going back) Have you ever hear of Wormholes? it is speculated areasif we Expand one they can lead to other areas of the Universe and times in the Universe or even other Universes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5585 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
Because everything thing that can be said to have existence has energy either bound or un-bound. Everything else is imaginery.
For example, I have in my mind an image of the Horse-head nebula, you too have this image now I hope, is what you are seeing in your minds eye real or imaginery, does it have substance? A dream is no different, speculation too for that matter, now take that image and change it to the image of God, do it slowly incrementally and what have you done? You have done exactly the same thing as some people do when they imagine time is real and space is real. A construct can be manipulated all you wish, physical things can't be. In reality you cannot change what is not there, outer-space is as close as we get to having a nothingness, it is not a complete nothingness as it has energy passing thru it. [that is what differentiates outer-space from the great void] That energy is the purest and least 'tainted' of all, light.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Percy writes: You are asserting much and explaining little. It would help if you would frame your arguments in familiar terms. For example, EMR is photons, while the strong force is gluons. Why do you believe they're really both EMR? In reply V-Bird writes: Both are forms of energy, do you agree with that? That isn't what you said, though. If you'd like to make a different point about the energy of photons and gluons then please go right ahead, by all means, but this particular subthread is about your statement in Message 47 about the four fundamental forces being different expressions of EMR:
V-Bird writes: So, this pure energy is called Electro-Magnetic Radiation, EMR can be found as the four forces, they are the 'Strong force' the 'Weak force' the 'Electro-magnetic force' and 'Gravity' This is wrong. Right? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5585 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
I was trying to take it step by step in an attempt to see where the chasm is.
Both are forms of energy, do you agree with that? '' That isn't what you said, though. '' It is what I have been saying all along. The four forces are part of EMR. They are in balance within EMR. See my message '53'. In light, the wave is a simple sine wave, now the strong force is held in check by being at 180deg to the movement, this is the 'spin' of quantum maths, the dips of their movement coincide and the crests depart. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\= EMR\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/= the strong force held in check. The above ignores the weak force and gravity for the moment. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\= EMR/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\= the strong force. This turn or spin creates matter, by bending it. So light looks like this head on... || matter looks like this || gravity loks like this |_ or _| The weak force is merely the 'phasing' of the sine wave. [Which I can't contrive to form in the above manner.] Any clearer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
V-Bird writes: Any clearer? Shrug. It's just wrong. You can't make up your own meanings for terms, or just string together random terms and expect to be profound. The four forces are not a part of EMR. EMR is a well defined term, and it does not include the weak force, the strong force, or gravity. EMR is light radiation, made of up photons. You don't get the other forces by altering phase or polarity, or incident angles, or any of those other things. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5585 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
In what respect is this 'wrong'?
I am trying to explain a multi-dimensional phenomena in just two. I know that spin etc are more complex, but in the final picture what I have explained here is what happens. There is no profundity in this, it is merely an explanation. If, the four forces are not part of EMR, please tell me where you believe they derive their energy from to form matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Melchior Inactive Member |
How do you come up with those answers? Shouldn't the first combination of waves cancel eachother out, and the second amplify eachother? Or do you have some really strange math that you feel you should show us?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5585 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
If they were the same thing yes, but the strong force is the equal and opposite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Perhaps we can approach this another way.
Do you believe you're describing current accepted views within physics? If so, could you point us to a website or book that explains the same things you're trying to explain? Or are you actually presenting your own particular physics theories? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5585 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
I am fascinated as to where Sylas believes the four forces eminate?, where do they appear from?, how do they turn EMR into matter?
The four forces in my model are within and journey with the EMR. They have to journey with it as they certainly can't 'catch up' with it and then manipualte it, now can they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5585 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
I am describing exactly what Einstein and Feynman produced a long time ago.
Neither, if they were alive and up to speed with modern Physics, would have too much trouble with anything I have stated, the former would probably be aghast at my simplifications the latter would do it a whole lot better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
V-Bird writes: I am describing exactly what Einstein and Feynman produced a long time ago. What you're doing is avoiding explaining your views. I've read much by Einstein and Feynmann, as I'm sure have many others here, and nothing you've said sounds familiar. If you believe you're presenting currently accepted views within physics, then I suggest you provide a reference to a website or book you believe is saying the same thing. Perhaps once your statements are placed in a familiar context they won't look so wrong. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5585 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
I think I have explained much more than anyone here has so far their opposing views.
So far I have had 'bullshit' succinct but valueless, 'some nut called Zharkov' wrong but no withdrawal, 'plain wrong' with nothing more so far... altho I do believe that Sylas won't leave it there.---- Reading is not always understanding. If, after all this you believe that time exists as anything other than a construct or that space is something real and mutable then sadly you will not have understood either Einstein or Feynman, no matter how much you may have and still do read their work. [This message has been edited by V-Bird, 03-29-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
V-Bird writes: I think I have explained much more than anyone here has so far their opposing views. We don't have any opposing views. The vast majority of us here accept the current views of modern physics, which you claim to also be expounding, except that no one can make sense of anything you're saying. You've only been asked for a reference to material saying the same thing you are. Your refusal to do so is the typical response of someone who's blowing smoke, which is just what everyone already suspected anyway. I didn't expect you to so quickly or unambiguously confirm suspicions. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5585 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
OK, you just don't understand what I am saying?
So... let's return to the blow by blow method of finding the chasm... Do you understand that Time has no physical substance? ...that Space has no physical substance? ...that everything that exists is formed from energy? ...that energy is acted upon from within to make matter, gravity and decay? ...that the four fundemental forces are present within EMR? ...Energy is simply movement? If you answer all those positively then there is no opposing views just a difficulty in language.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024