Hi Guys
Let's see how close we can get to what we can actually observe. we KNOW that we are dealing with a closed system which behaves as if a single unit in two parameters.These are smallest and largest.
Even though we can never reach either of these to measure them we can logically assume they are there with enough conviction to look for a reciprocal behavior. We also know that we can only investigate this universe using a very closed methodology.
we need ALL FOUR of the current dimensions to make any measurement of it's parts. The question is how do we used what we know to be fact to agree with parameters that we cannot know. I agree with Laidback's assertion that we can readily see expressions is larger masses , however we should stick to pointers in logic to give a clearer definition of what to look for.
So using the four dimensions, what parallel expression can we see in the two known parameters. They cannot interact since one is the fulfillment of the other.
This means that all time is equal to no time
This means all Space is equal to no space
This means that no motion is equal to all motion
This means that all energy is to no energy
Why
For the reasons that Laidback has stated. Energy is an exchange of states and we cannot have a smallest state the has energy but no exchange.
If you look at the above list , it actually IS true.
WHEN all time is taken in one bundle....it is no time because it has no comparator. likewise the other three.But because we CAN do all the things within these parameters, We need to reverse our view of things.
The event that you are experiencing is there because the grid is conclusively fixed.For instance
If I had twenty blocks, I could arraigned them not in twenty ways, but twenty by twenty ways....But this is assuming I require them to form the same shape. I could just as easily have twenty other design shapes to place the blocks within (in twenty different arrangements of the same shape).
I can add to the complexity by varying the time I take in placing the shapes in every variation. Or I can make the blocks spin or be turned on one edge then another....In the end the twenty same blocks can have hundreds of thousands of variations with which to represent the blocks.
But we have only two parameters which are the same thing.So far there aren't any "energy" packets to work with.I still comer back to "the amount of energy you see is all you'll get." Meaning that If the detectable mass currently stands at ten percent, Then there was never a time that this wasn't so.
You can treat this as Smallest/Largest energy if you wish, as well as the undetectable 90 percent still being there to complete the universe. The ten percent is always in motion. (refer back to "This means that no motion is equal to all motion". Where all the universe is in harmonious motion all the time and so on the universal scale there is no motion.
Let's say that the 90 percent occupies every square inch of the universe and has no ability to move or interact with anything.Since the smallest thing we can detect has no rest mass , it goes across the universe EXPOSING the static universe rather than by exposing it.
All of the laws then apply . The ten percent is locked into a given pattern which will give a lifespan to multiple objects. But the objects are always in motion either through space in an orbit or simply the fact that all space is moving because it cannot be still.
So we come back to the original statement All energy is the same as no energy
All space is the same as no space
All time is the same as no time
And if all motion is in fact "all in motion" then All motion is the same as no motion.
In fact the variance that we detect in the universe is Motion within the motion of the universe.
Cheers
Iseason
YOU FRIGG~N WEEE RIPPER!
Going by what has transpired over the last set of posts, YOU, Bukh, and Ivars, we are all referring to a model that can be expressed in various ways, but importantly each can provide evidence to the same interpretation..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Ivars
17th December 2008 - 07:36 AM
QUOTE (bukh+Dec 16 2008, 10:09 PM)
Definition of scale is much better linked to Time I think. A scale is defined out from its computational speed - relative speed - speed compared to other scales.
hej bukh
i would say that the scale of any specie, of any atom, any information form at all down to the simplest chaotic oscillating "ball" is defined by the ability to compute future.
As Universe twists and untwists in each cycle from computational, information state to its physical expression , each part gets a computed position in next flash- but some complexities ( like humans) have the ability to compute the few next flashes ( zillions) so that thay can position themselves in a certain way before computational phase.
There are minds with greater ability to do that, and lesser, and also minds better than human to do that. In one and , you have the ultimate mind( perhaps) that can compute everything and therefore is 100% predictable ( for himself) .
On other end, YOu have the small 100% chaotic species which can not compute a SINGLE step forward.
QUOTE
and I have no idea whatsoever about how such shapes deep in the pixel can be visualized.
They can be visualized because we see the patterns of their expression covered with noise every day, everywhere. And that is the right way visualize them since it is the simplest.
I would also say, that hidden variables inside 100% chaotic imaginary "balls" are identical in principle- so a set of all identical variables make a distinquishable "mind".
iseason
17th December 2008 - 08:21 AM
Hi All
Keeping in line with the discussion, I was working out how the rule of two parameters can influence and change the environment we in habit.
at some level there are two options
An available connection
An unavailable connection
Depending on where and when you look you will only see available connections
Everywhere else ...unavailable connections.
Going back to the measurable mass of the universe as being all the energy there is all the time, The wave structure of a photon is what it is doing while it is searching out where it can find a connection or rest .
When you look at the two hole experiment, the photons that are not part of the experiment may be detectable via their being attempting to occupy the space that was just taken before them by the photon. Or in some cases, slightly after them.
If a space can only be occupied once, then the available spaces in a given parameter may be widely distributed and in the case of light from a star, almost completely unavailable because of what has already past through.
looking at a big bang model or a galaxy model, the central hub would have previously had a period of high occupation whereby even light waves cannot use it as a pathway across. Whereas a huge mass like a star in motion may have found a direction which has had little to make the connections unavailable to the individual photon waves, giving them the ability to jump from connection to connection within a solid arrangement.
So in free space light travels in waves until it can find a good connection. Since we can only detect it as light when it DOES find a good connection.
So what is a good /bad connection. the only difference is one has been occupied and no longer available. It seems light can traverse the regions of the universe from the other side of the universe without finding one.This makes good sense considering the amount of light that has already travel led that way before it, But only as a wave.
Cheers
Iseason
bukh
17th December 2008 - 10:06 AM
Hej Iseason
QUOTE: "So in free space light travels in waves until it can find a good connection. Since we can only detect it as light when it DOES find a good connection."
Yes - I agree on that - but why a QUANT - and like to explain it like this:
I like to see photon wave as this "quake" or tear in space-fabric, being a result of domino-like re-arranging pixels - and this ever ongoing re-arranging is being driven by Universe strive for achieving free-void to be distributed as EVENLY as possible all over universe.
The unevenness of free-void is the driving force in universe - is the fuel that drives the dynamic. So re-arranging pixels creating domino-like waves of free void is an ever ongoing process - free-void is all-over but just more or less unevenly distributed - and there will be gradients all over space-fabric of varying magnitudes that drives the free-void around.
The smallest change in free void that one can imagine (everything being in said scale that we are observing - and now we are in human scale - pixel scale) is just one pixel changing position relative to the neighbor - remember that free void is the same as the misfit between the pixels - and any and all such re-arrangements will cause the next and the next and the next - to change its position - domino-like. And this is a wave - but a wave that cannot be perceived - because it is a wave without any kind of harmonious repetition.
But sometimes space-time enters into harmonious repetition - when re-arranging patterns of such waves start to take form standing circular wave-forms, and this result in the "trapping" of a very well defined amount of free void - which is being kept at the position of this standing wave-pattern. Such a position is not contributing to either receive nor emit free-void for as long as the position is being held.
And the moving around of this standing wave-pattern will result in the moving around of an exact quant of free void, and a photon is such a quant.
Ideal vacuum - is areas of the pixel grid where all the pixels are playing non-harmoniously, and in such vacuum a photon quant can be propagated as a wave - but is not entering into "electron" configuration during its traveling - it is fast and not wasting time in entering into circular wave-patters. It is not being interfered with - so to speak. And it is looking for a place where it can find rest - and such a place is an area of the grid where an electron has moved position - and can be taken over by the first similar quant of free void to fill it out - the end result is that a quant of free void from one place of the grid has travelled to another place of the grid - there has been the exchange of such a quant emitted at one place and finding rest at another place.
Free void is unevenly distributed all over space and areas with relative surplus of free void are emitting this to areas with relative deficit.
I have previously said that free void is the equivalent to entropy - free void is the force that drives the dynamic of universe. We measure the net effect of all this as re-arrangements at situ, where "particle" wave-patterns - same as circular wave-patterns - change position, and gives us the impression of moving mass's - and that is what we define as energy.
Moving mass energy - is the same as thermodynamic 1 law - it is a constant because there will always be a well-defined amount of volume = dimension1 - to be changed at each flash of re-arrangement - but the way that the ratios of dimension1 can be arranged, so as to achieve the most even overall fit, that is thermodynamic 2 law, and the fit is getting better and better, the unevenness of free void is decreasing and the gradient for driving changes is decreasing, the force is decreasing - and eventually universe cannot change further - it ends up into another unit1 of sameness, and the unfolding with the creation of new ratios can start again.
Cusa
17th December 2008 - 10:58 PM
You can have an infinity composed of the infinitely small. The size of infinity relates to the finite size of physical things.
iseason
18th December 2008 - 08:54 AM
Hi all
Bukh. I agree with what you propose up to the reasons for the behaviors.
Try this for fun.
Atom seeding
Let’s look at the atom as a position which has value to both an electron and a photon.
Now we can tell what a star is by the breakdown of the light that travels from it. So we are bombarded by a wide variety of waves from many different photon wavelengths. Perhaps the reason we receive the light from distant stars has another , less obvious reason.
Atoms have an electron cloud which we assume is a permanent shell keeping the structure of the atom. But what if it were more intelligent than this.
Consider that somewhere back in it's past an atom was formed that came originally from a photon that had travelled from a star. Once the atom had received a signature of say "iron", It could only ever process iron behavior or energy.
Now. light waves contain lots of different parent sources. We know this because a star sends multiple signals in the beam of light which we break up with spectronomy.
A photon of any sort is seeking a form of rest and why do we think it is fussy as to where that is. On the either hand, An atom may be quite fussy as to the rest photon that it allows in.So a war develops. All atoms are hit by neighboring atom's photons in order to gain new territory. The defense mechanism of the nucleus of a formed atom is to meet an incoming photon which is not welcome with an electron"shield"
This can have the effect of "emitting" the photon or "reflecting" it . But the photon continues on until it does eventually find a place which is welcoming.
The behavior I'm describing finds it's similarity in nature. A flower will accept pollen from a "similar" neighbor, but everything else is rejected. Put more specifically, Human reproduction allows only the first arriving "parent " to claim the whole. Could it be that the valance of an atom is the limit that a defensive electron can be sent to protect the core of the atom, resulting in the reason we cannot follow an electron is that it may be able to "shoot" at a certain frequency, but the direction of the threat is either multiple, or varied.
Because we don't look at this as a defensive action, we are giving it different behaviors that make more sense to us. Think about the earth. We have a defensive ring around us. Would a distant observer be unable to detect our atmosphere , but be able to detect the destruction of an Meteor?
Cheers
Iseason
bukh
18th December 2008 - 12:27 PM
Cusa
QUOTE: "You can have an infinity composed of the infinitely small. The size of infinity relates to the finite size of physical things."
Or one can say that the size of infinity is something that we choose - we choose our accuracy - and what is beyond the chosen accuracy is being defined as "infinite" - or "not defined."
Laidback
18th December 2008 - 11:13 PM
QUOTE (iseason+Dec 17 2008, 06:21 PM)
Hi All
Keeping in line with the discussion, I was working out how the rule of two parameters can influence and change the environment we in habit.
at some level there are two options
An available connection
An unavailable connection
Depending on where and when you look you will only see available connections
Everywhere else ...unavailable connections.
Going back to the measurable mass of the universe as being all the energy there is all the time, The wave structure of a photon is what it is doing while it is searching out where it can find a connection or rest .
When you look at the two hole experiment, the photons that are not part of the experiment may be detectable via their being attempting to occupy the space that was just taken before them by the photon. Or in some cases, slightly after them.
If a space can only be occupied once, then the available spaces in a given parameter may be widely distributed and in the case of light from a star, almost completely unavailable because of what has already past through.
looking at a big bang model or a galaxy model, the central hub would have previously had a period of high occupation whereby even light waves cannot use it as a pathway across. Whereas a huge mass like a star in motion may have found a direction which has had little to make the connections unavailable to the individual photon waves, giving them the ability to jump from connection to connection within a solid arrangement.
So in free space light travels in waves until it can find a good connection. Since we can only detect it as light when it DOES find a good connection.
So what is a good /bad connection. the only difference is one has been occupied and no longer available. It seems light can traverse the regions of the universe from the other side of the universe without finding one.This makes good sense considering the amount of light that has already travel led that way before it, But only as a wave.
Cheers
Iseason
Having pondered on all the above, lets now consider, what and how is this seeking possible..
Also what and how does a wave present detection? what is its makeup or what does it consists of?, and what about amplitude and frequency, and what and how is all this possible and what is interacting with what? Another wave formation?
Is it best for a given inference, best referred to as mass, energy or some other interacting with err~ please insert definition here?
Is it all serendipitous or is there a logical order or are there strict rules in place?
Such as the basic rules of Force and Motion or if one finds potential and Kinetic energy rules easier to understand or follow, and what and how is it that the maths is able to present physics almost as if it is indeed as is? TRUTH?
Which to me it seems we are "INDEED" all much on the same page, but are each referring to different terms and references and importantly perhaps different aspects to a much grander jigsaw puzzle, that may be far to complex for any one individual to consider or contemplate at any given moment in time..
Time being just another consideration easily misunderstood if one doesn't understand its bound by quanta of change..
For example: With no change a time inference is best treated as void if ones motive is efficiency, but it should be noted without change allowed everything is then void, as nothing can exist, because for something to exist, it has to be acknowledged by whatever it presents itself to, and to present, some change or exchange is in order, and if change or an exchange is in order - Time is then in order, importantly if one advocates to basic Physics text books, most over look that all mass and its various densities is made up of opposing velocities, and as it so happens velocities are the result from mass implied via "A Potential or Particle" presenting itself via velocity and or said expression and or information, so if we go back to the basics of Potential energy is created and or increased by two small portions of Potentials with momentum from the act of a Potential presenting itself, having two opposing expressions heading towards each other, only to have their momentum by this action cancelled out, and the result is the two potentials that have cancelled out each others motion, end up as a denser density (compression point), a force or a repulsion in its own right..
we can now consider this potential as stored kinetic energy amidst a density (potential) half its potential - or a relative solid in a relative near vacuum..
The casualty by this, is the universes dimensions, expression or its past form is transferred or transformed to a different expression and or form where instead of a density all the same throughout, now is able to present a solid opposed to a near vacuum, and I have no doubt this pattern continues on in all levels..
So that not only solid and near vacuum may be presented or expressed, but gas and liquid, each and all are simply based on a ratio of Potential energy to Kinetic energy, which if we consider it via the maths, thus far all I have referred to is two values, sub-systems or two dimensions to work with{KINETIC & POTENTIAL}, where if they exchange quanta they together express a new level of complexity to our single expression "Universe", To which if a third dimension or more dimensions are introduced, more complexity may be presented..
I haven't much time today as I am to watch the cricket..
Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie oy! oy! oy!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Cusa
19th December 2008 - 03:40 AM
Even infinities are about the infinitely small. Different sizes of infinity of the infinitely small make up finite measure. Every infinitely small must be passed through when quantities change; the exception is in momentum transfer.
Speed up or accelerate and you instantantaneously pass through every quantity inbetween until you arive to your end speed.
Mitch Raemsch
iseason
19th December 2008 - 05:15 AM
Hi all
as this discussion goes along it is apparent that we do have our pet processes and perspectives. I agree that This is best as we are all including these perspectives in future thought processes.
Looking at "what " a wave encounters which creates change. it is obvious that when an atom is in free space that it will be exposed to every other wave form that moves through the near vacuum. These are two separate studies.
How an atom retains it's separation.
how near vacuum retains it's separation.
For me I can see an interaction that has defined rules "no matter where you look".This will be relevant also to an atom which is part of either a pure structure like a lump of lead or a "dirty"structure like molecules like oxides and other mixtures. The atomic structure is retained in all arenas , so the rule applies equally.
Cheers
Iseason
iseason
19th December 2008 - 09:16 AM
QUOTE (iseason+Dec 19 2008, 06:15 PM)
Hi all
as this discussion goes along it is apparent that we do have our pet processes and perspectives. I agree that This is best as we are all including these perspectives in future thought processes.
Looking at "what " a wave encounters which creates change. it is obvious that when an atom is in free space that it will be exposed to every other wave form that moves through the near vacuum. These are two separate studies.
How an atom retains it's separation.
how near vacuum retains it's separation.
For me I can see an interaction that has defined rules "no matter where you look".This will be relevant also to an atom which is part of either a pure structure like a lump of lead or a "dirty"structure like molecules like oxides and other mixtures. The atomic structure is retained in all arenas , so the rule applies equally.
Cheers
Iseason
Why an atom can keep it's ground while all about it a virtual hurricane of waves buffers it is the reason I look at the electron cloud as having a defensive role.But not only a defensive role. There can be room to see that a hydrogen atom placed near a plutonium atom shouldn't even stand a chance of retaining it's form.
Atoms must have a selective process and a cleaning process that we don't quite read correctly. What happens if they can come under attack from without and THIS is what we observe as "stuff happening."Each has it's own resonance, and that is the rate that it can defend itself . While other atom have different resonance , or a higher attack rate . Laid back might have some comment as to why two differing atoms don't affect each other to the detriment one the lower order atom.
Cheers
iseason...
By the way. I grey up in Brisbane..How'd the cricket go?
bukh
19th December 2008 - 10:46 PM
Hey All
Quote Iseason
"Looking at "what " a wave encounters which creates change. it is obvious that when an atom is in free space that it will be exposed to every other wave form that moves through the near vacuum. These are two separate studies."
The important principle behind all kind of "Lastingness" is inertia.
I like to think that all kinds of wave-expressions are being exerted via pixel-playing - and in our physical scale it is via Pixels (spelled capital). And a pixel can be seen as an "object" as a "structure" which is responding with a "signal" the pixel show a "change" when it is being triggered. And this a behavior which has a lot of bearings to what we know from physiology, including such things as excitation - or trigger level, building up of potentials - refractory periods and so on.
So a pixel is being prepared to trigger from the introvert activities going deep down in the pixel structure - and the pixel is being triggered according to very delicate balances between internal and external forces.
Yes - it is important to have an inertial body to express a wave - and it is as important to have a system that determines when and how the signals are being played - so I do not think that there exist competing waves all around - a wave-structure is the result of harmonious playing - and such playing is a very ordered process. Just like people on an arena, it is first when they start lifting their arms in a harmonious way that the wave appear. It is first with the wave that pixel playing is being converted into the expression of particles - mass - physical world.
And all expressions have to do with "isolation" meaning that a particle expression on a certain location, isolates the place from expressing anything else for the period where said particle is present - it is the equivalent of the Pauli's exclusion criterion.
iseason
20th December 2008 - 08:20 AM
Hi all .
Bukh. The peculiarity I'm referring to is the lastingness of an opening and closing system. In an atom, there are very defined parameters. These parameters are open to the near void environment. Which means that rules govern the means of interaction.
we tend to treat the environs of an atom as being fixed or with slight change. Otherwise we describe them in various ways , but only in respect to themselves or other "matter". The extra parameter I am proposing is whether they must treat "free space" of near vacuum in a defined way (wherever you find them.)
This goes to the duality of light as a particle and a wave. We tend to describe that this is so but fall short of describing the change between the two states and the reasons behind it. My proposal is that the two states are continually in close connection at the edges of an atom which requires the borders to be better described.
There are very big differences between the atoms which seemed mimicked in light. (we receive light from all the elements). So here is an opportunity to compare ideas as to how they may make use of the environment of which they are the only inhabitants..
Cheers
iseason
bukh
20th December 2008 - 01:14 PM
Hej Iseason
QUOTE: "Bukh. The peculiarity I'm referring to is the lastingness of an opening and closing system. In an atom, there are very defined parameters. These parameters are open to the near void environment. Which means that rules govern the means of interaction."
Yes - I think I know what you are hinting at - and allow me to copy paste a post from yesterday - which may be of relevance.
"Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis
by bukh on Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:13 pm
Ivars
The controlled accumulation of errors- so that each "scale" differs in a way it accumulates them- leads to creativity - or possibility of creativity , rather- as well as possibility of messing things up.
Perhaps - but I also see a possibility that "creativity" could be a result of how systems observe themselves.
Any system creates subsystems - being defined as areas of the system with "constraints" in their entanglement. A system will never be ideally entangled - which would be the definition of a system with an ideal even flow of "information" all over the system all the time.
Any kind of observation involves a kind of constraint - and it has an intimate correlation also to the constraint mentioned in the thermodynamic second law -modern version - because the first requirement for any observation is that the observer can be "isolated" relative to what is being observed. This implicate that the mere observation has an influence on the "back-signaling" so the observer becomes a strong influential part on how the system eventually develops, it is the fundamental on all development - it is the fundamental that it is not a trivial out- in-folding.
So I feel much stronger for that kind of interference than trivial faults in the calculations - because calculations per se should have no chance of being faulty. And I do not accpet the concept of true infinity - true infinity is the same as physical death - no gradient no motion - no physical expression. So calculus is extremely accurate - must be - but there is a strong effect backwards - never forwards. Forwards is always the calculus of next following step - accurately determined out from this "Isolation of observer" effect.
Any existing "object" effects backwards - and the more complex the observer the stronger the backwards effects - and human is very complex and very efficient actor in this respect.
bukh
Advanced Member"
Laidback
20th December 2008 - 10:54 PM
QUOTE (iseason+Dec 19 2008, 07:16 PM)
Why an atom can keep it's ground while all about it a virtual hurricane of waves buffers it is the reason I look at the electron cloud as having a defensive role.But not only a defensive role. There can be room to see that a hydrogen atom placed near a plutonium atom shouldn't even stand a chance of retaining it's form.
Atoms must have a selective process and a cleaning process that we don't quite read correctly. What happens if they can come under attack from without and THIS is what we observe as "stuff happening."Each has it's own resonance, and that is the rate that it can defend itself . While other atom have different resonance , or a higher attack rate . Laid back might have some comment as to why two differing atoms don't affect each other to the detriment one the lower order atom.
Cheers
iseason...
By the way. I grey up in Brisbane..How'd the cricket go?
The final day for the RSA Cricket Match continues Later on today, The game is a close one!
Meanwhile..
In response to the above prodding and or probing, and based upon my re-reading of my past comments made a while back, I find that my explanations really suck!
No seriously, I think they really do suck.. Anyway
Let me refer those who are interested on my view, what I reason would result if a highly kinetic Atom were to be placed near one that is not as kinetic to links that explains it best..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemestry#Energyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#FlammabilityI hope the two links provide enough data to link the two inferences, and whats more clue in why certain Atoms because of their ratio of Potential and Kinetic energy are perceived to be non reactive, to which let me assure you this is not the case, as all atoms, and or particles do react violently with each other, only the scale of violence may not be relatively apparent around our scale..
If the links don't supply enough data pointing this out, let me know the difficulty..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
iseason
21st December 2008 - 07:11 AM
Hi Laidback.
Yes. Those links were useful. (by the way,I GREW up in Brisbane"not grey"...lol)
My thoughts are aligned to kinetic motion while the atom retains it's quality as an atom. the transfers seem to imply that an oxygen atom still remains oxygen even if it binds to another atom. I always have difficulty with the explanations which say that atoms "move faster" in a heated environment. The problem I have is that it assumes the atom gets energy from within to move faster, or that it trades energy from without. However every explanation seems unsatisfactory.
In most cases that I've heard an atom goes into a higher energy state (inner / outer orbital cycle) and then returns to it's lower state.However no explanation it given to the heat that is supposed to "cause" the atoms to move faster or how the change from lower orbit to higher orbit is supposed to move the atom around.
If atoms are bouncing off each other."what are they actually bouncing off?".
If each other"what happens when two atoms hit a hydrogen atom from opposite sides?" Since it has only one electron, what keeps them apart?
If binding atoms produce much more heat than is used to begin the burning, What (if energy is conserved) produced the heat?. Surely the atoms had a source of energy which was not directly related to the actual elements that were involved.
And that is my proposal. That atomic structure is very difficult to destroy or create, but in the near vacuum there is a source of energy in waves that can be ordered via hot and cold. (warm being relative stability for the atom). The atom has the ability to "clean house" during the period of change and return to rest state in a purer form of itself at normal temperature.
Like this.......Any atom can accept waves from the general near void and must do so if the range is higher that it's natural defenses(resonance) allows. Most pass through harmlessly, since the proton is so small. But the effect on the structure is cumulative and the structure of an atom over time gets warped and tired.However (back to seeding),the atom has a central blueprint, which arrived with it and during the heat or cold process,(depending on the atom), a higher wave structure in the near vacuum allows the atom to "expel and accept" energy in the range that repairs it's blueprint.
Why?
Base elemental gas is purified by pressure , resulting in a very cold mixture. This means that "pure oxygen" is in line with a blueprint that "disallows hot" , so Hot is "outside of" or "reactive to" oxygen in it's purist form. We see this in the way oxygen usually won't burn without a source of heat.
Likewise , "dirty gas" tends to be hot as it compresses. This is in line with pure gas "expelling impurities" as it finds a closer environment.
When Heavy elements, such as plutonium are forced closer together , they become heated, in the presence of oxygen. This could be put down to a higher availability of "free energy". But not from the plutonium, but from the oxygen. Binding constricts the ability of plutonium to act on the oxygen (and therefore other base elements) while as an oxide, rendering it more stable.
In fact, Oxygen is like a fire warden.(funnily enough) but not in the sense we see fire wardens. I do not see heat as the cause of motion, although it is a secondary resulting action. When you see burning, you see oxygen. The oxygen is attracted to heat and it is this feature of oxygen which causes the "lift " in thermal motion.
There are three ingredients to fire.
1.Oxygen....(cold)
2.Fuel.........(stable and unstable)
3.heat........(small and intense)
Only one of these is required to move TO a fire in order to create AND maintain it.Generally, fuel in the form of combustibles, does not get up and go to a fire.
Since this is so, WHY do we look AT THE RESULTING ACTION as if it were the cause.
Oxygen moving towards heated surfaces is the key to thermal motion. The earth rotates from cold TO heat. The Arctic air moves and fuels the weather. Not the other way around. Even though RADIANT HEAT began the motion of oxygen towards it, it is the attraction of oxygen to IT that creates the motion.
Sorry for the rant..(sore point)
Cheers
Iseason
Lestat9
2nd January 2009 - 05:36 AM
You said:
If infinity existed (in any form) then the outer borders and the inner borders don't exist. Therefore there would be no friction in the middle to create any variance whatsoever. The fact that we can measure at all proves that infinity is false.
********************************************************************
Now, what you are talking about is physical infinity.
Can a physical object be infinite.
Infinity is possible in math, one can keep adding one to a number for infinity.
So infinity does exist. We as humans perceive infinity does exist.
(keep in mind some are less human than others.) 8D
As far as physical infinity(and i am going to assume math is not physical)
Einstein said a spaceship can not travel the speed of light because its gas tank would have to be infinitely large or something along those lines.
Now that assumption was based on what he perceived to be reality or , there can be no spaceship that can be infinitely large.
or
Assumption: Nothing physical is larger than physical everything.
That is what you are saying.Because of frictional restraints.
But lets turn that around for a second
Physical Everything is larger than physical nothing .
Assumption: Every physical thing is larger than physical nothing.
That is (physical) infinity.
If you detect confusion in that statement it is a symptom the language has its limitations.
Let me try it this way
Assumption: If the universe is physical.
Assumption:If the physical universe is infinite,( and we do not know if it is or is not, so that is an unknown.)
Assumption:Then there is physical infinity because the universe is physical.
Cusa
2nd January 2009 - 06:32 AM
Negative infinity or infinity cancel is necessary for renormalization physics which is the trend of the future. All forces effect energy motion from point to point creating the necessity of renormalization.
Mitch Raemsch
FOAD
2nd January 2009 - 06:36 AM
QUOTE (Cusa+Jan 2 2009, 06:32 AM)
the necessity of renormalization.
Mitch Raemsch
I wish you'd practice what you preach, and seek out a little renormalization courtesy of a whole dustbin load of anti-psychotic drugs and intensive psychiatric therapy.
iseason
2nd January 2009 - 06:56 AM
QUOTE (Lestat9+Jan 2 2009, 06:36 PM)
You said:
If infinity existed (in any form) then the outer borders and the inner borders don't exist. Therefore there would be no friction in the middle to create any variance whatsoever. The fact that we can measure at all proves that infinity is false.
********************************************************************
Now, what you are talking about is physical infinity.
Can a physical object be infinite.
Infinity is possible in math, one can keep adding one to a number for infinity.
So infinity does exist. We as humans perceive infinity does exist.
(keep in mind some are less human than others.) 8D
As far as physical infinity(and i am going to assume math is not physical)
Einstein said a spaceship can not travel the speed of light because its gas tank would have to be infinitely large or something along those lines.
Now that assumption was based on what he perceived to be reality or , there can be no spaceship that can be infinitely large.
or
Assumption: Nothing physical is larger than physical everything.
That is what you are saying.Because of frictional restraints.
But lets turn that around for a second
Physical Everything is larger than physical nothing .
Assumption: Every physical thing is larger than physical nothing.
That is (physical) infinity.
If you detect confusion in that statement it is a symptom the language has its limitations.
Let me try it this way
Assumption: If the universe is physical.
Assumption:If the physical universe is infinite,( and we do not know if it is or is not, so that is an unknown.)
Assumption:Then there is physical infinity because the universe is physical.
Hi
For any type of discussion, the parameters are important. you have made comparisons which do not make sense because they compare questions with questions and not qualified them with parameters which are measurable.
A measure does not need to be a ruler. Statistical analysis has been the keystone for Quantum for decades. If it is THAT MUCH more likely, then we can assume it to be so.This both supports my view and leaves the window open for me to say somethings not quite right.
First.....we cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain of anything via statistical analysis. This means that science NEEDS 0.9999r in order to allow flexibility in the math. This is a mathematical infinity.
However.... Science has a law which is 100 percent certain. The law of conservation.
One of these statements can be true. But not both.
1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. The universe is infinite. (meaning it goes on forever)
In my understanding of infinity, the ends have nothing to prevent expansion. So the middle has to have unlimited capacity to expand.....But wait...There is no time in infinity because everything is equal....so there is no middle to expand from.
In that case it is over as soon as it has begun...in other words NOTHING HAPPENED.
Cheers
Iseason
bukh
2nd January 2009 - 11:23 AM
Iseason
Just before Christmas you said:
"This goes to the duality of light as a particle and a wave. We tend to describe that this is so but fall short of describing the change between the two states and the reasons behind it. My proposal is that the two states are continually in close connection at the edges of an atom which requires the borders to be better described."
We never see light as such - light is a "tear" in spacetime fabric - light is the equivalent of flowing free void - light is how spacetime fabric communicate all the ever ongoing adjustments of the pixel-fit - and YES - now we have locked ourselve in a Gods eye position - we have chosen our frame of observation as to being the Pixel grid - but it is not possible to discuss anything without choose a frame out from which we can discuss.
What I am trying to say is that there is no difference between wave-and particle when we are in a well-defined frame. Once we have decided on the frame - we at the same time has decided the scale - and particles in a given frame-scale is expressed via wave-patterns - so now it is a mere question about observation. We - we being humans of course - see particles as wave-patterns that are showing a repetitional pattern - wave-patterns that best can be described as standing circular waves - meaning that the waves show a bended trajectory in its frame - showing angular momentum.
From previous posts you know that light/photon is quantized - because we need a repeated wave-pattern - we need something which is being harmoniously played on the Pixel grid - involving a certain "number" of Pixels - and that is the equivalent of a certain amount of free void. So all kinds of changing atom position or atom configurations will involve a change of position and/or relation between harmonious patterns played on the Pixel grid - so any and all changes are executed via quants - via quants of free void being ever distributed around - like a flow - or like adjusted elasticity of the spacetime fabric - all the time - according to the beat of universe - and in physical scale according to the beat of physical scale - which of course is a beat-duration much much longer than universal smallest dimension-beat.
So on the bottom line borders between atoms are being defined at each and any beat according to which Pixels actually are being involved in the playing of the atomic pixel-playing pattern and where said pixels are being placed on the grid. Position aóf an aton cannot be defined with accuracy -because an atomic expression is a "movie-strip" involving many flash expressions (beats) to draw the exact outline of said atom at said time - so the Heisenberger uncertainty principle is valid - and this goes for any scale of course - and that is also why the paradox of Zeno's arrow is valid - existence is based on a very very oscillating "reality"
Laidback
2nd January 2009 - 09:39 PM
QUOTE (iseason+Dec 21 2008, 05:11 PM)
Hi Laidback.
Yes. Those links were useful. (by the way,I GREW up in Brisbane"not grey"...lol)
Hi Iseason,
Grey?
whazat? <gasp~>
I originate from Melbourne, Yeah - I am now push~n 60 and have been tempted to grey away the grey..
QUOTE
My thoughts are aligned to kinetic motion while the atom retains it's quality as an atom. the transfers seem to imply that an oxygen atom still remains oxygen even if it binds to another atom. I always have difficulty with the explanations which say that atoms "move faster" in a heated environment. The problem I have is that it assumes the atom gets energy from within to move faster, or that it trades energy from without. However every explanation seems unsatisfactory.
My reasoning has the whole universe consists of mass or energy that if compared or measured will present a result (ELECTRON~ic) device that detects electromagnetic energy (FORCE) or potential differences..
Put simply if a measurement is detected at a given co-ordinate within the universe, and the measurement results to lets say imply to a Proton of a given variety - to which then another detection is made, lets say deemed to be at the edge of that proton, the detection would be a negative charge, or in theory our Electron..
What I reason is that the whole universe is not with void, but rather a density that is compressed, and if ever allowed, a compressed density de-compresses REF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Radiation QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My thoughts are aligned to kinetic motion while the atom retains it's quality as an atom. the transfers seem to imply that an oxygen atom still remains oxygen even if it binds to another atom. I always have difficulty with the explanations which say that atoms "move faster" in a heated environment. The problem I have is that it assumes the atom gets energy from within to move faster, or that it trades energy from without. However every explanation seems unsatisfactory. |
My reasoning has the whole universe consists of mass or energy that if compared or measured will present a result (ELECTRON~ic) device that detects electromagnetic energy (FORCE) or potential differences..
Put simply if a measurement is detected at a given co-ordinate within the universe, and the measurement results to lets say imply to a Proton of a given variety - to which then another detection is made, lets say deemed to be at the edge of that proton, the detection would be a negative charge, or in theory our Electron..
What I reason is that the whole universe is not with void, but rather a density that is compressed, and if ever allowed, a compressed density de-compresses REF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Radiation In most cases that I've heard an atom goes into a higher energy state (inner / outer orbital cycle) and then returns to it's lower state.However no explanation it given to the heat that is supposed to "cause" the atoms to move faster or how the change from lower orbit to higher orbit is supposed to move the atom around.
I reason Atoms don't move around, but rather they compress and decompress, so on compression Kinetic Energy is stored or transferred to Potential Energy, and on decompression, much like a balloon releasing air its Potential decreases..
In fact if we stuff a few blown up balloons in a tube and then prod the protruding balloon on one side of the tube we would demonstrate how kinetic energy or Force is transferred atom to atom or in our crude models case balloon to balloon..
Here is another two definition model where height will represent potential magnitude, noting with an increase in potential energy we must have less Kinetic energy, to which maximum velocity will be less, REF: Speed of light in NEAR-Vacuum compared to speed of light in Solid density {as in 3Dimensionally Compressed}..
"----" Here I have modeled a Near vacuum as in potential energy is near zero, but our width is around 4 times greater in magnitude..
"==" And here we have a relative solid because we have twice the Potential energy(twice the height) but at the expense of half the Kinetic energy" note how we have half the Kinetic width, so if we modelled this via a 3D sphere it would be like having a balloon lets say 5 kilometers above sea level taken down to sea level, the result is a smaller (balloon) sphere, as its contents are compressed..
If we were to transmit a wave through both of the above models they would both take the same time, even though the solid is only half the length..
QUOTE
If atoms are bouncing off each other."what are they actually bouncing off?".
If each other"what happens when two atoms hit a hydrogen atom from opposite sides?" Since it has only one electron, what keeps them apart?
For this reason the Pixel or cubic modeling may be a gawd send, as we can define each pixel or cubic with a given density and or potential of energy..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If atoms are bouncing off each other."what are they actually bouncing off?".
If each other"what happens when two atoms hit a hydrogen atom from opposite sides?" Since it has only one electron, what keeps them apart? |
For this reason the Pixel or cubic modeling may be a gawd send, as we can define each pixel or cubic with a given density and or potential of energy.. If binding atoms produce much more heat than is used to begin the burning, What (if energy is conserved) produced the heat?. Surely the atoms had a source of energy which was not directly related to the actual elements that were involved.
Heat and or Light are pretty much - one and the same thing, and to go into electromagnetic radiation here by me, would do it an injustice, so I highly recommend one should read up on thermodynamics.. REF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThermodymanicsQUOTE
Sorry for the rant..(sore point)
Cheers
Iseason
,
Hey thats oks,
And I am sure most of it is and or will fall in to place with the above latest supplied links..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Laidback
2nd January 2009 - 09:52 PM
QUOTE (Lestat9+Jan 2 2009, 03:36 PM)
You said:
If infinity existed (in any form) then the outer borders and the inner borders don't exist. Therefore there would be no friction in the middle to create any variance whatsoever. The fact that we can measure at all proves that infinity is false.
********************************************************************
Now, what you are talking about is physical infinity.
Can a physical object be infinite.
Infinity is possible in math, one can keep adding one to a number for infinity.
So infinity does exist. We as humans perceive infinity does exist.
(keep in mind some are less human than others.) 8D
As far as physical infinity(and i am going to assume math is not physical)
Einstein said a spaceship can not travel the speed of light because its gas tank would have to be infinitely large or something along those lines.
Now that assumption was based on what he perceived to be reality or , there can be no spaceship that can be infinitely large.
or
Assumption: Nothing physical is larger than physical everything.
That is what you are saying.Because of frictional restraints.
But lets turn that around for a second
Physical Everything is larger than physical nothing .
Assumption: Every physical thing is larger than physical nothing.
That is (physical) infinity.
If you detect confusion in that statement it is a symptom the language has its limitations.
Let me try it this way
Assumption: If the universe is physical.
Assumption:If the physical universe is infinite,( and we do not know if it is or is not, so that is an unknown.)
Assumption:Then there is physical infinity because the universe is physical.
The Universe is NOT infinite, so it therefore is Finite, and importantly a closed system, which is just as well, because all possibilities depend on some finite quanta, or put simply if quantity was not finite, then all simply is not possible until a defined finite possibility existed, only then can a finite life span or definition be possible..
The above long winded statement is based on the following..
Energy can not be created nor destroyed, therefore what exists right now, constitutes for all of the Universes Energy, as 100% of the Universes Mass IS all of the Universes Mass..
And as it so happens what exists, has a finite life span in accordance to the available finite energy resources..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
bukh
2nd January 2009 - 10:24 PM
Hej Laidback - Iseason
I thought that we are into agreement with the crude details about the pixel universe - ?
iseason
3rd January 2009 - 01:51 AM
Hey Bukh..Welcome back Laidback....
We are...I just like side roads...
Cheers
Iseason
Laidback
3rd January 2009 - 11:25 PM
QUOTE (bukh+Jan 3 2009, 08:24 AM)
Hej Laidback - Iseason
I thought that we are into agreement with the crude details about the pixel universe - ?
Hi BukH,
Yes I agree we have and are both still referring to the Universe via pixels, its just that much of my previous posts were briefly side stepping the theoretical pixel structure and or model based on Quantum mechanics set dimensions, we can still refer or define the pixels to my previous statements to comply to quantum mechanics, so that each pixel is modelled as somewhat deformed because each may be experiencing differing compression and or expansion within our frame of reference, which in the above case our QM pixels are embedded in a master Reference or Master Pixel..
For example our master Reference may be a single 2D, 3D or even 4D Pixel, which is sub divided with the inference to nine sub pixels, where then each sub-pixel may also hold nine sub-pixels, so on and so forth dependent on acceptable tolerances and to what constant we are working to..
And if any one of the pixels was to present as being compressed, including our master Pixel, all of its neighboring pixels would have to present the combined reciprocal, mind you if our master pixels dimensions are changed or exchanged with its ignored neighboring Pixels, each of its sub-pixels forms would have to model the implied change..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Cusa
3rd January 2009 - 11:33 PM
QUOTE (Cusa+Jan 2 2009, 06:32 AM)
Negative infinity or infinity cancel is necessary for renormalization physics which is the trend of the future. All forces effect energy motion from point to point creating the necessity of renormalization.
Mitch Raemsch
When energy changes speed it must pass through every quantity of the speeds inbewteen. All the speeds together are a size of infinity.
Gamma is the same. It's inverse applies to the aether speed.
Mitch Raemsch
bukh
4th January 2009 - 12:22 PM
Hi Laidback - Iseason - et al -
Good to know -
And we are painfully aware that just as an atom is not into existence - neither is a pixel into existence -but pixel is perhaps a better way of getting a mindpicture of the physical world -
But then what then is "the Origin of the Origin" - what IS into existence - and I like to think that the only to be into existence is: smallest "object of sameness" - and smallest object of sameness is defined as something having a shape and having a size - but neither shape nor size will ever be known and will never be definable because they constitutes Unit1 qualities - they are the yardsticks out from which everything is being defined and described.
Smallest "object of sameness" can be anything from "size of universe" divided into two or more ratios - and to "size of universe" divided into as many ratios as physically possible, and that is just before "infinitely many" and therefore physically non-existing - so everything between 0 and infinite.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
