there could be a dimension of light and of dark
While you're at it, how about a dimension for 'thought', 'sixth-senses' and 'heaven + hell'.
And in regards to particles, how about one for the electron, one for the neutrino, one for each boson, and one for magic to exist.
Yeah, there we go. Totally screwed over the point of dimensions.
And in regards to particles, how about one for the electron, one for the neutrino, one for each boson, and one for magic to exist.
Yeah, there we go. Totally screwed over the point of dimensions.
QUOTE (landon+Aug 22 2007, 01:10 AM)
there could be a dimension of light and of dark
Landon -
When people come up with theories, they are usually trying to provide answers to a question, or give an explanation for something. You are just randomly thinking up ideas and then posting them here. You also seem to think that darkness is a physical substance ("of light and of dark"). Darkness is just the absence of light.
Light is made up of photons, which exist in the same dimensions we exist in. If light existed solely in a higher dimension, then we would not be able to see it.
Still not convinced as to the incorrectness of your idea? Give me some evidence that light has a dimension all to itself, and then I'll take your idea seriously.
It is possible for light to exist in higher dimensions as well (e.g like in string theory, where everything is made up of 11 dimensional strings, including photons), but it could not exist in just one dimension.
- Gehn
Landon -
When people come up with theories, they are usually trying to provide answers to a question, or give an explanation for something. You are just randomly thinking up ideas and then posting them here. You also seem to think that darkness is a physical substance ("of light and of dark"). Darkness is just the absence of light.
Light is made up of photons, which exist in the same dimensions we exist in. If light existed solely in a higher dimension, then we would not be able to see it.
Still not convinced as to the incorrectness of your idea? Give me some evidence that light has a dimension all to itself, and then I'll take your idea seriously.
It is possible for light to exist in higher dimensions as well (e.g like in string theory, where everything is made up of 11 dimensional strings, including photons), but it could not exist in just one dimension.
- Gehn
Landon one answer:
Why?
Why?
You would not need to use M-theory necessarily.
Read the middle column of site.
Dealing with the Kaluza-Klein mode.
Just a different perspective on particles not just photons.
You might want to look into the implications of dark matter/energy as well.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2006...ay06-01-24.html
caio_
yquantum
Read the middle column of site.
Dealing with the Kaluza-Klein mode.
Just a different perspective on particles not just photons.
You might want to look into the implications of dark matter/energy as well.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2006...ay06-01-24.html
caio_
yquantum
Light theory has two flat electromagnetic sine waves in planes at right angles to each other. I say that this is wrong the em waves are not flat but have dimension.
Mitch Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch
what do you call space with nothing in it no light or anything
QUOTE (landon+Aug 22 2007, 10:24 PM)
what do you call space with nothing in it no light or anything
What do you call a four sided triangle?
It's a contradiction, just as 'empty space' is a contradiction due to quantum fluctuations. There's always light there.
What do you call a four sided triangle?
It's a contradiction, just as 'empty space' is a contradiction due to quantum fluctuations. There's always light there.
a pyramid
why has light always there?
space should not be called space if it has light in it. Space should be a place made of nothing. Where no light can enter
why has light always there?
space should not be called space if it has light in it. Space should be a place made of nothing. Where no light can enter
Why should it not be called space exactly?
light filled area
space should have infinite size and have nothing in it
space should have infinite size and have nothing in it
Landon. Is this an attempt to drum up more votes?
There is never nothing, where there is nothing there is a hell of a lot of something, space is a vacuum, for the most part at least and as such ends up doing what I mentioned in another post.
Therefore the majority of the time it does indeed have stuff in it.
p.s.
for the feedback.
QUOTE
Matter gets created all the time wherever there is a vacuum a particle of antimatter and a particle of matter is created by "borrowing" energy from the future, it is then put back though when the two particles collide and return the energy. This happens very rapidly and a lot, its not a rare occasion.
Therefore the majority of the time it does indeed have stuff in it.
p.s.
for the feedback.
QUOTE (landon+Aug 23 2007, 02:50 AM)
"and have nothing in it."
..... said the mong-boy with regards to his cranium.
..... said the mong-boy with regards to his cranium.
nom
nobody cares about the stupid poll
there is no future, there is only now
anti-matter is like planting -1 apples seeds
nobody cares about the stupid poll
there is no future, there is only now
anti-matter is like planting -1 apples seeds
QUOTE (landon+Aug 23 2007, 04:07 PM)
nobody cares about the stupid poll
Yet you've created two threads so far to complain about it
Yet you've created two threads so far to complain about it
what poll are you talking about
oh really, there is no future? you got proven wrong as soon as you finished typing that sentence.
anyway, all space has something in it because of quantum fluctuations, as was said already. can you not accept that?
on a random side note, why did u respond to that guys question saying a 4 sided triangle is a pyramid? a pyramid is 3 dimensional, a triangle is 2 dimensional so they aren't the same
anyway, all space has something in it because of quantum fluctuations, as was said already. can you not accept that?
on a random side note, why did u respond to that guys question saying a 4 sided triangle is a pyramid? a pyramid is 3 dimensional, a triangle is 2 dimensional
so they aren't the same
When someone ask me a queston i'm not thinking 2d
Erm, so?
If light is everywhere in space then space is light
light = space
could light or electicity be what is filling the gap between planets that is holding our
universe together
where there is no electronlight there is nothing how is there not nothing
light = space
could light or electicity be what is filling the gap between planets that is holding our
universe together
where there is no electronlight there is nothing how is there not nothing
So now light is space... ok? Have fun with that. Thats like saying "this box is filled with cheese, so the box is cheese."
Also, who said its EVERYWHERE in space?
Also, who said its EVERYWHERE in space?
I like to think I can come up with my own crack pot theories.
At least I know they are crackpot when I do this.
But to say light is space because light is in space sure extends the bounds of logic into the realm of magic.
Get Real Landon.
Light travels through space at incredible v. Means it is here then it is gone. It self perpetuates or travels in its very own magnetic/electric field which is incredible enough.
It does not need to be relegated to a dimension as well.
Jeff
At least I know they are crackpot when I do this.
But to say light is space because light is in space sure extends the bounds of logic into the realm of magic.
Get Real Landon.
Light travels through space at incredible v. Means it is here then it is gone. It self perpetuates or travels in its very own magnetic/electric field which is incredible enough.
It does not need to be relegated to a dimension as well.
Jeff
QUOTE (landon+Aug 22 2007, 09:24 PM)
what do you call space with nothing in it no light or anything
Empty landon.
Empty landon.
is there a such thing as empty space. with zero wave
zero wave space
it would have no magnetic fields or waves of kind does it exists
zero wave space
it would have no magnetic fields or waves of kind does it exists
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 23 2007, 05:23 PM)
Empty landon.
It's funny reading that with my "landon filter" active. All his messages are seamlessly removed from the display.
Holler if you want a copy.
It's funny reading that with my "landon filter" active. All his messages are seamlessly removed from the display.
Holler if you want a copy.
QUOTE (landon+Aug 23 2007, 03:41 AM)
a pyramid
That's not a triangle, it's 4 triangle and a square put together to form a 3d shape.
That's not a triangle, it's 4 triangle and a square put together to form a 3d shape.
QUOTE (landon+Aug 23 2007, 03:41 AM)
why has light always there?
I suggest learning some quantum mechanics, specifically quantum fluctuations
QUOTE (landon+Aug 23 2007, 03:41 AM)
space should not be called space if it has light in it. Space should be a place made of nothing. Where no light can enter
Space doesn't confirm to your random, ignorant, notions.
QUOTE (landon+Aug 23 2007, 03:41 AM)
When someone ask me a queston i'm not thinking 2d
Then you're just an idiot because a triangle is, by definition, 2 dimensional so the answer would have to be a 2 dimensional shape. Thinking in multiple dimensions has nothing to do with it. You're just trying to sound clever when you just sound an idiot.
QUOTE (landon+Aug 23 2007, 03:41 AM)
is there a such thing as empty space. with zero wave
zero wave space
it would have no magnetic fields or waves of kind does it exists
zero wave space
it would have no magnetic fields or waves of kind does it exists
No. Any time you measured the space, you'd find disturbances in it, ie particles.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 23 2007, 07:59 PM)
hat's not a triangle, it's 4 triangle and a square put together to form a 3d shape.
I suggest learning some quantum mechanics, specifically quantum fluctuations
Space doesn't confirm to your random, ignorant, notions.
Then you're just an idiot because a triangle is, by definition, 2 dimensional so the answer would have to be a 2 dimensional shape. Thinking in multiple dimensions has nothing to do with it. You're just trying to sound clever when you just sound an idiot.
No. Any time you measured the space, you'd find disturbances in it, ie particles.
*hi5's alphanumeric*
One thing though... you probably shouldn't tell him to read quantum fluctuations, because he'll read it and use it to come up with more crackpot theories. That is, if he understands it.
I suggest learning some quantum mechanics, specifically quantum fluctuations
Space doesn't confirm to your random, ignorant, notions.
Then you're just an idiot because a triangle is, by definition, 2 dimensional so the answer would have to be a 2 dimensional shape. Thinking in multiple dimensions has nothing to do with it. You're just trying to sound clever when you just sound an idiot.
No. Any time you measured the space, you'd find disturbances in it, ie particles.
*hi5's alphanumeric*
One thing though... you probably shouldn't tell him to read quantum fluctuations, because he'll read it and use it to come up with more crackpot theories.
That is, if he understands it.
God Bless You Landon... I'll give you something to think about.
How could light be a dimension unto it's own, if theories concerning the photon indicate that it experiences absolutely no dimensions at all?
NeoNo.1
How could light be a dimension unto it's own, if theories concerning the photon indicate that it experiences absolutely no dimensions at all?
NeoNo.1
QUOTE (NeoNo.1+Aug 24 2007, 08:12 AM)
God Bless You Landon... I'll give you something to think about.
How could light be a dimension unto it's own, if theories concerning the photon indicate that it experiences absolutely no dimensions at all?
NeoNo.1
No it waves in space and time.
Wavelength and frequency.
How could light be a dimension unto it's own, if theories concerning the photon indicate that it experiences absolutely no dimensions at all?
NeoNo.1
No it waves in space and time.
Wavelength and frequency.
QUOTE (landon+Aug 22 2007, 01:10 AM)
there could be a dimension of light and of dark
The brighter the light the darker the shadow by contrast.
The brighter the light the darker the shadow by contrast.
why can't a dimension have a dimension of it on and more than itself a sub dimension
nick
your right the brighter the light the darker the shadow
how bright is no light ? does infinite space go the other direction negative infinite space?
negative infinite space
nick
your right the brighter the light the darker the shadow
how bright is no light ? does infinite space go the other direction negative infinite space?
negative infinite space
it would only make sense...
if theres no light than its not bright at all...
and do you have any idea what space is? its the stuff you live in and move through, and type your crazy posts through
and do you have any idea what space is? its the stuff you live in and move through, and type your crazy posts through
i live in air atmosphere there alot of room but no space
Do any of you guys (and possibly girls) even know what a dimension is? How it's defined in mathematics and physics?
For instance, why is a plane 2 dimensional, yet a volume 3 dimensional? Why is time a dimension? Why, therefore, is light not a dimension?
For instance, why is a plane 2 dimensional, yet a volume 3 dimensional? Why is time a dimension? Why, therefore, is light not a dimension?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 25 2007, 10:00 PM)
Do any of you guys (and possibly girls) even know what a dimension is? How it's defined in mathematics and physics?
For instance, why is a plane 2 dimensional, yet a volume 3 dimensional? Why is time a dimension? Why, therefore, is light not a dimension?
Point indicates a position in space
A point extended, becomes a:
Line with properties of:
- Length
- Direction
- Position
A line extended, becomes a:
Plane with properties of:
- Length & Width
- Shape
- Surface
- Orientation
- Position
A plane extended, becomes a
Volume with properties of:
- Length, Width & Depth
- Form & Space
- Surface
- Orientation
- Position
For instance, why is a plane 2 dimensional, yet a volume 3 dimensional? Why is time a dimension? Why, therefore, is light not a dimension?
Point indicates a position in space
A point extended, becomes a:
Line with properties of:
- Length
- Direction
- Position
A line extended, becomes a:
Plane with properties of:
- Length & Width
- Shape
- Surface
- Orientation
- Position
A plane extended, becomes a
Volume with properties of:
- Length, Width & Depth
- Form & Space
- Surface
- Orientation
- Position
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 26 2007, 01:00 AM)
Do any of you guys (and possibly girls) even know what a dimension is? How it's defined in mathematics and physics?
In AWT the dimension of space-time is considered as a degree of freedom for energy spreading. I.e. the direction, in which the energy can spread independently to the other directions. For example, at the water surface the waves can spread energy in two mutually independent directions without interference, the third normal direction is the time dimension.
In AWT the dimension of space-time is considered as a degree of freedom for energy spreading. I.e. the direction, in which the energy can spread independently to the other directions. For example, at the water surface the waves can spread energy in two mutually independent directions without interference, the third normal direction is the time dimension.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 25 2007, 11:15 PM)
A point extended, becomes a:
Line with properties of:
- Length
- Direction
- Position
That doesn't really answer my question though. A line is 1 dimensional, yet you list three properties. Why is it 1 dimensional and not 3?
Line with properties of:
- Length
- Direction
- Position
That doesn't really answer my question though. A line is 1 dimensional, yet you list three properties. Why is it 1 dimensional and not 3?
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Aug 25 2007, 11:15 PM)
Plane with properties of:
- Length & Width
- Shape
- Surface
- Orientation
- Position
- Length & Width
- Shape
- Surface
- Orientation
- Position
Again, you list 5 properties, so why is it 2 dimensional? I would also point out that orientation is not a property all surfaces have. For instance a Mobius strip does not have an orientation, despite being a 2d surface.
Given an object or system, how would you work out it's dimensionality? Working out wether it's orientatable or not doesn't tell you anything about it's dimensionality in general since there exist both orientable and unorientable n dimensional objects for all n>0.
Given an object or system, how would you work out it's dimensionality? Working out wether it's orientatable or not doesn't tell you anything about it's dimensionality in general since there exist both orientable and unorientable n dimensional objects for all n>0.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 25 2007, 11:15 PM)
In AWT the dimension of space-time is considered as a degree of freedom for energy spreading. I.e. the direction, in which the energy can spread independently to other directions. For example, at the water surface the waves can spread energy in two mutually independent directions without interference, the third normal direction is the time dimension.
Amazingly, and shamefully for Bryn, Zephir is the closest, though his style of sentence implies that such a description is somehow unique to or the result of AWT. It's not, but it's the rough definition of dimensionality.
In his example of an oscillating surface, you need 2 values to define a point uniquely on the surface (you can use 3 but 1 of them would be redundant) and you need a time coordinate to define the position of that point in terms of height.
In other words the surface point X would be expressed as X = (x,y,z[x,y,t]).
Since x,y and t are neede to describe a point on the surface properly, the system is 3 dimensional (often writen as 2+1).
Come on now Bryn, if Zephir's managing to parrot something more relevent than you you know you're in trouble. Might I suggest understanding rather than parroting? It does help a lot.
In his example of an oscillating surface, you need 2 values to define a point uniquely on the surface (you can use 3 but 1 of them would be redundant) and you need a time coordinate to define the position of that point in terms of height.
In other words the surface point X would be expressed as X = (x,y,z[x,y,t]).
Since x,y and t are neede to describe a point on the surface properly, the system is 3 dimensional (often writen as 2+1).
Come on now Bryn, if Zephir's managing to parrot something more relevent than you you know you're in trouble. Might I suggest understanding rather than parroting? It does help a lot.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 26 2007, 01:31 AM)
though his style of sentence implies that such a description is somehow unique to or the result of AWT
In AWT the dimension concept has no sense, if it cannot be distinguished by inertial mass/energy spreading. In math the requirement of inertia has no meaning, so it can postulate the vector spaces of whatever dimensionality.
Can you explain, why the dimensions are denoting the mutually perpendicular directions? If yes, you can say, the AWT approach is unique.
If not, then it's just you, who is parroting the textbooks without deeper understanding of the subject...
In AWT the dimension concept has no sense, if it cannot be distinguished by inertial mass/energy spreading. In math the requirement of inertia has no meaning, so it can postulate the vector spaces of whatever dimensionality.
Can you explain, why the dimensions are denoting the mutually perpendicular directions? If yes, you can say, the AWT approach is unique.
If not, then it's just you, who is parroting the textbooks without deeper understanding of the subject...
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 25 2007, 10:31 PM)
A line is 1 dimensional, yet you list three properties. Why is it 1 dimensional and not 3?
Again, you list 5 properties, so why is it 2 dimensional? I would also point out that orientation is not a property all surfaces have. For instance a Mobius strip does not have an orientation, despite being a 2d surface.
What I gave, was a full list which featured all the properties for the listed dimensions, within a space. If you wanted to envision the dimensions 'not' in a space, but as space itself; then you would remove some properties from each dimension in my list.
ie. A line has - Length, Direction & Position ..... when in a space. However, if you have a line 'not' in a space, then direction and position do not apply.
I thought that this would be self-explanatory, but I guess I had to explain that to you.
Again, you list 5 properties, so why is it 2 dimensional? I would also point out that orientation is not a property all surfaces have. For instance a Mobius strip does not have an orientation, despite being a 2d surface.
What I gave, was a full list which featured all the properties for the listed dimensions, within a space. If you wanted to envision the dimensions 'not' in a space, but as space itself; then you would remove some properties from each dimension in my list.
ie. A line has - Length, Direction & Position ..... when in a space. However, if you have a line 'not' in a space, then direction and position do not apply.
I thought that this would be self-explanatory, but I guess I had to explain that to you.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 25 2007, 11:41 PM)
In math the requirement of inertia has no meaning, so it can postulate the vector spaces of whatever dimensionality.
Not if it's trying to describe a specific system. Describing the solar system would require a 4 dimensional physical space since you need 3 spacial dimensions and a time dimension. Inertia has nothing to do with it.
You're making grand claims about a topic you don't know about, basing your claims on ignorance. You never have done linear algebra have you? Vector calculus?
You're making grand claims about a topic you don't know about, basing your claims on ignorance. You never have done linear algebra have you? Vector calculus?
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 25 2007, 11:41 PM)
Can you explain, why the dimensions are denoting the mutually perpendicular directions? If yes, you can say, the AWT approach is unique.
If not, then it's just you, who is parroting the textbooks without deeper understanding of the subject...
Orthogonal directions are usually the most computationally convenient. For instance, it's convenient to decompose motion and forces into horizontal and vertical when dealing with objects moving through the air or on slopes. This is not a requirement but in many systems non-orthogonal bases result in much more complicated equations of motion.
For instance, in spherical coordinates, the Einstein Field Equations for a black hole system are simple. In cartesian coordinates they are all coupled together and fantastically complicated, despite giving the same system in the end.
In special relativity, when two observers in relative motion compare their notion of axes, they will see the other one is not working with orthogonal basis vectors, even if they claim to be (ie they see it from their own perspective). This is due to time and length alterations due to motion.
If not, then it's just you, who is parroting the textbooks without deeper understanding of the subject...
Orthogonal directions are usually the most computationally convenient. For instance, it's convenient to decompose motion and forces into horizontal and vertical when dealing with objects moving through the air or on slopes. This is not a requirement but in many systems non-orthogonal bases result in much more complicated equations of motion.
For instance, in spherical coordinates, the Einstein Field Equations for a black hole system are simple. In cartesian coordinates they are all coupled together and fantastically complicated, despite giving the same system in the end.
In special relativity, when two observers in relative motion compare their notion of axes, they will see the other one is not working with orthogonal basis vectors, even if they claim to be (ie they see it from their own perspective). This is due to time and length alterations due to motion.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 25 2007, 11:41 PM)
I thought that this would be self-explanatory, but I guess I had to explain that to you.
You listed properties without explaination. The list did not actually address the question I'd asked. I could see the answers in there, it was not obvious you could.
Given the posts in this thread, it's obvious numerous posters don't understand what a dimension is or how to compute the dimensions of a thing or system and your reply didn't show if you fell into that group or not. Anyone can copy and paste from websites. Look at Zephir.
Given the posts in this thread, it's obvious numerous posters don't understand what a dimension is or how to compute the dimensions of a thing or system and your reply didn't show if you fell into that group or not. Anyone can copy and paste from websites. Look at Zephir.
Dear Sir,
I'm sorry for the bad english that you will find written in this e-mail. I am Pasquale Galianni, a 20 years old physics student of University of Lecce (Italy), with a great passion for astrophysics. In recent days my team have maked a discovery, that represent literally "the final blow to distant quasars". We have found an high redshift quasar overlapped to the nucleus of NGC7319 in Stephan quintet. The discovery have been achieved in collaboration with H.C. Arp, E.M. Burbidge, G. Burbidge, S. Zibetti, and V. Jukkarinen. You can find the technical article that speack about this discovery on the ArXiv.org preprint server. The article of the title "The discovery of an high redshift QSO very close to the nucleus of NGC 7319" will be published in february 10 issue of ApJ.
I think that is important for everyone that love astronomy to read something about this discovery.
We are sure, that this discovery will not touch the actual scientifical establishment.
For this reason, I think that if a scientifical revolution must start, it must start from non-professionists people. Only with our passion we can break the wall of scientific estabilishment. I hope that you we help me, in the divulgation of this fundamental discovery.
I want to signal some useful non technical links, that speack well about the discovery:
ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0112quasar.asp
www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/physik_astronomie/bericht-38639.html
www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm
Please, give me your opinion, and your help. Best Regards,
Pasquale Galianni
-Studente di Fisica Università di Lecce Received on Fri Jan 14 2005 - 04:13:17 PST
77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
Big Bang Theory Thrashed
2006-12-16, Empire Media
Fulton, NY: a mere two months after his debut paper, "An Alternative View of the Universe", Bryan Belrad, 26, has published two more works; Titled "The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" and "Redshift and Spatial Expansion".
Bookish-sounding perhaps, but quite literally world-shaking.
The first paper, which was made public in October, 2006, unvieled a new Theory of how the universe might exist - the first to seriously challenge the Big Bang since the 1960’s.
In papers 2 and 3, Belrad gets down to the nitty-gritty: in "Cosmic Microwave", he demonstrates how the ‘afterglow of creation’ is really nothing more than, frankly, hot air. In "Redshift", he presents evidence that scientifically rules out the entire premise of an expanding universe. Both also present evidence and predictions in support of his own Theory, The Eternal Universe Model.
And all of this was done while working THREE jobs. None of them in Astronomy or Physics.
Working on science during lunch breaks, and constanly pondering the mysteries of the cosmos while caring for three children at home, he describes himself as "the most tired man on the planet."
Up next: Anti-Matter. "I strongly suspect there is a relationship between matter, anti-matter, and light that goes deeper than we know."
All three works, to date, are available online at www.BelradUniverse.com
I'm sorry for the bad english that you will find written in this e-mail. I am Pasquale Galianni, a 20 years old physics student of University of Lecce (Italy), with a great passion for astrophysics. In recent days my team have maked a discovery, that represent literally "the final blow to distant quasars". We have found an high redshift quasar overlapped to the nucleus of NGC7319 in Stephan quintet. The discovery have been achieved in collaboration with H.C. Arp, E.M. Burbidge, G. Burbidge, S. Zibetti, and V. Jukkarinen. You can find the technical article that speack about this discovery on the ArXiv.org preprint server. The article of the title "The discovery of an high redshift QSO very close to the nucleus of NGC 7319" will be published in february 10 issue of ApJ.
I think that is important for everyone that love astronomy to read something about this discovery.
We are sure, that this discovery will not touch the actual scientifical establishment.
For this reason, I think that if a scientifical revolution must start, it must start from non-professionists people. Only with our passion we can break the wall of scientific estabilishment. I hope that you we help me, in the divulgation of this fundamental discovery.
I want to signal some useful non technical links, that speack well about the discovery:
ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0112quasar.asp
www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/physik_astronomie/bericht-38639.html
www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm
Please, give me your opinion, and your help. Best Regards,
Pasquale Galianni
-Studente di Fisica Università di Lecce Received on Fri Jan 14 2005 - 04:13:17 PST
77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
Big Bang Theory Thrashed
2006-12-16, Empire Media
Fulton, NY: a mere two months after his debut paper, "An Alternative View of the Universe", Bryan Belrad, 26, has published two more works; Titled "The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" and "Redshift and Spatial Expansion".
Bookish-sounding perhaps, but quite literally world-shaking.
The first paper, which was made public in October, 2006, unvieled a new Theory of how the universe might exist - the first to seriously challenge the Big Bang since the 1960’s.
In papers 2 and 3, Belrad gets down to the nitty-gritty: in "Cosmic Microwave", he demonstrates how the ‘afterglow of creation’ is really nothing more than, frankly, hot air. In "Redshift", he presents evidence that scientifically rules out the entire premise of an expanding universe. Both also present evidence and predictions in support of his own Theory, The Eternal Universe Model.
And all of this was done while working THREE jobs. None of them in Astronomy or Physics.
Working on science during lunch breaks, and constanly pondering the mysteries of the cosmos while caring for three children at home, he describes himself as "the most tired man on the planet."
Up next: Anti-Matter. "I strongly suspect there is a relationship between matter, anti-matter, and light that goes deeper than we know."
All three works, to date, are available online at www.BelradUniverse.com
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 26 2007, 01:57 AM)
Orthogonal directions are usually the most computationally convenient
LOL, do you really think, our space exhibits the three perpendicular dimensions just because it's "most computationally convenient"? How the energy spreading can know, what's "most convenient" for some mankind? BTW We aren't disputing the coordinate systems, but the dimensionality of space, you just mixing two different aspects together. Even the spherical coordinate system remains threedimensional, because it's using the 3D sphere.
LOL, do you really think, our space exhibits the three perpendicular dimensions just because it's "most computationally convenient"? How the energy spreading can know, what's "most convenient" for some mankind? BTW We aren't disputing the coordinate systems, but the dimensionality of space, you just mixing two different aspects together. Even the spherical coordinate system remains threedimensional, because it's using the 3D sphere.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 26 2007, 12:08 AM)
LOL, do you really think, our space exhibits the three perpendicular dimensions just because it's "most computationally convenient"? How the energy spreading can know, what's "most convenient" for some mankind?
I never said such things were physical. I made it quite clear (and it would be even more clear to anyone whose ever done physics) that I was talking about our methods of description.
The statement "our space exhibits the three perpendicular dimensions" is incorrect. Dimensions are not about the orientation of a given set of basis vectors but only how many there are.
You are having a go at me because you are ignorant of how vector calculus or linear algebra are used to describe spaces.
I never said such things were physical. I made it quite clear (and it would be even more clear to anyone whose ever done physics) that I was talking about our methods of description.
The statement "our space exhibits the three perpendicular dimensions" is incorrect. Dimensions are not about the orientation of a given set of basis vectors but only how many there are.
You are having a go at me because you are ignorant of how vector calculus or linear algebra are used to describe spaces.
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 26 2007, 12:08 AM)
BTW We aren't disputing the coordinate systems, but the dimensionality of space, you just mixing two different aspects together.
It is slightly relevent since dimensionality comes down to the number of linearly independent vectors you need to span a space. The vectors don't have to be perpendicular but they can't be linearly dependant. So spherical, polar, cartesian, you're at liberty to pick which one you prefer or is simplest. That isn't the same as saying nature is like that but obviously some systems lend themselves to particular coordinates. Spherical black holes are easiest described in spherical coordinates. That was what I was referring to but obviously with your complete lack of experience in doing such descriptions you didn't understand.
Have you ever done any linear algebra or vector calculus Zephir? It's pretty important to be able to do Newtonian mechanics. But then you can't do that either.
Have you ever done any linear algebra or vector calculus Zephir? It's pretty important to be able to do Newtonian mechanics. But then you can't do that either.
light has a point where it starts a point were it ends why has it got to be a ray light could travel in maybe a dimension pulse that is spread out aver the whole universe
one after the other we don't really know how light travels except for fast
one after the other we don't really know how light travels except for fast
we know exactly how fast light travels... approximatley 186,282.397 miles per second (im not gonna give the exact number lol - thanks for pointing that our sirshanson)
sorry that just made me grin 
Bit contradictory at first sight, but I know what you meant ^^
QUOTE
we know exactly how fast light travels... approximately 186,282.397
Bit contradictory at first sight, but I know what you meant ^^
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 26 2007, 02:19 AM)
I was talking about our methods of description
I know, but this is exactly why I didn't asked you for our methods of description, but the physical reasons. My question was, if you can explain, why the dimensions are orthogonal in our space-time?
Why these angles aren't 60º, for example?
I know, but this is exactly why I didn't asked you for our methods of description, but the physical reasons. My question was, if you can explain, why the dimensions are orthogonal in our space-time?
Why these angles aren't 60º, for example?
bit of a hypocrite are we, there are no hypocrites on physorg
exactly how fast is light ? Is hydrogen inside out the sun?
approximately you don't know
exactly how fast is light ? Is hydrogen inside out the sun?
approximately you don't know
lol landon wt frick
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 26 2007, 01:55 AM)
Why these angles aren't 60º, for example?
They can be if you wish. Infact, in some crystals, they are and so it's prefered to have basis vectors which are 60 degrees from one another.
'Dimensions' are numbers. You keep referring to basis vectors are dimensions. Angles exist between the vectors, not the dimensions.
You are ignoring (or failing to understanding) the fact I've specifically stated that our method of description (ie choice of basis) is arbitrary. We can pick vectors at 90 degrees to one another or at 1 degree to one another. Provided they aren't parallel or coplanar, that's all (otherwise you have linear dependance).
You're trying to trap me into saying something you think is incorrect but it's only because you are so ignorant of basic vector calculus. Thus demonstrating you can't do any Newtonian mechanics.
They can be if you wish. Infact, in some crystals, they are and so it's prefered to have basis vectors which are 60 degrees from one another.
'Dimensions' are numbers. You keep referring to basis vectors are dimensions. Angles exist between the vectors, not the dimensions.
You are ignoring (or failing to understanding) the fact I've specifically stated that our method of description (ie choice of basis) is arbitrary. We can pick vectors at 90 degrees to one another or at 1 degree to one another. Provided they aren't parallel or coplanar, that's all (otherwise you have linear dependance).
You're trying to trap me into saying something you think is incorrect but it's only because you are so ignorant of basic vector calculus. Thus demonstrating you can't do any Newtonian mechanics.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 26 2007, 10:57 AM)
You're trying to trap me into saying something you think is incorrect...
Please, don't project your usual motivations into my behavior. I'm really interested about your answer.
Of course, I don't care about dimensions angles in crystals, as you probably realized.
Please, don't project your usual motivations into my behavior. I'm really interested about your answer.
Of course, I don't care about dimensions angles in crystals, as you probably realized.
Hm-mm, very interesting is this light you are. Light separate dimension, is it. Hm-mm?
I'm leading towrds, (chemical reaction). Initially is it true I am, this is why I see you, it is..
Note I have , but why you ask young Anakin? Still a toddler, you are, but of such an ancient Jedi prophecy!
The force still remains in you, it does....
very interesting is this light you are. Light separate dimension, is it. Hm-mm?I'm leading towrds, (chemical reaction). Initially is it true I am, this is why I see you, it is..
Note I have , but why you ask young Anakin? Still a toddler, you are, but of such an ancient Jedi prophecy!
The force still remains in you, it does....
Light waves are thought to be sine waves in planes at right angles. But how could they be without dimension. If they are flat they are without dimension.
I say they have dimension and that Maxwell didn't know.
I say they have dimension and that Maxwell didn't know.
a light wave comes from what ever is being burnt up in the top of our atmosphere.
hydrogen is usually the first thing it hits.
A sun wave is all radiation light is this radiation filtered by hydrogen that we are seeing.
you people know i right
hydrogen is usually the first thing it hits.
A sun wave is all radiation light is this radiation filtered by hydrogen that we are seeing.
you people know i right
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.