Hej Ivars
yes - I knew that you would be in agreement. And remember that viscosity is just another way of expressing inertia. And inertia/viscosity starts to exist exactly when the pixels start to play wave-patterns - physical matter.
QUOTE:
"Of course these pixels or granules have inertia which may be characterized as their inertial mass."
I prefer to define Inertia - simply as delay time in response - and not trying to tie inertia directly up to mass - as long as we have no accurate idea about exactly how to define mass.
I think that mass is reflected in the effective AREA of the pixel screen that is occupied, and not merely by the number of pixels playing. That is why a photon - or bosons generally - those elementary particles that obey Bose Einstein condensation, have a very little mass, because they occupy a very small effective area of the pixel screen, and allows for other bosonic particles to be present on the same area of the pixel screen simultaneously. Fermion-like particles on the other hand "shadow" a bigger area - but not all the pixels are playing on said shadowed area. That is why photon with little mass can be transformed into electron with big mass.
When it comes to Pixel Inertia - it is defined by the pixels signal delay - and this delay time could very well be a reflection of how much information (number of math.-points playing wave-patterns) involved - in order to trigger the pixel-signal.
QUOTE: "
This quantum of circulation leads to higher level particulation of Aether by so called vortex lattice. It has generally bigger elements than pixels, much bigger, and it is those elements i am talking about, and interested in, because they directly lead to observable physical phenomena and can be tested with working theories."
I would phrase it slightly different - "quantum of circulation" is Pixel ON / OFF, "vortex lattice" is any wave-pattern played by the pixels, small and non-complex wave-patterns belong to subatomic world, and more complex and bigger structures belong to observable physical phenomena. It is the latter that you are concerned about for the moment.
QUOTE:
"These bigger elements can be stretched, what ever, they do change even when they get the information about something changing in the other end of Universe.They interact. What You probably noticed when reading about the movement of the electron is that FIRST the cell comprising electron gets narrower because it receives information about outside things happening ( e.g. existence of field potential) and only then electron knows that is has to move. Also, its movement in my model is as You suggested- it regenerates itself in the next cell which it creates for itself, and disappears from previous cell via a small opening, so it does not move continuously as a particle, it moves exactly as a wave interference would. The vortex I ascribe to electron can be reduced to its Fourier components moving with different speeds, so that Wave packet appears and gets desynchronized just to appear again after some distance in the same shape if resonance conditions hold ( in this case, the diameter of the tube, no interference from other information )."
You say that it moves exactly as a wave-interference would - why not make it simple and say that it IS a wave-interference (played by the pixels). And it is the pixel information (propagated from pixel to pixel with immense speed) that "tells the electron to move - because movement is nothing else than neighboring pixels starting to play the wave, and thereby propagating the electron wave-interference pattern over the 3D Pixel screen.
It is immensely important to be absolutely true to the principle that pixels do not move - pixels do not change position - all motion is an illusion - all motion is re-expression of next following "picture" played by the pixels - all motion is the mere expression of infromation.
QUIOTE:
"So , there are 2 levels of information flows:
1) Fundamental : between pixels , borders between them- the fundamental reason for particulation of Aether in granules, pixels, and defining their properties
2) physical : between Aether vortex lattice cells, via their borders, which explains e.g why imaginary wave function based quantum mechanics work, gravity, etc. "
Pixel information is so immensely rapid in its propagation from pixel to pixel, because it is based upon wave-structures that are made by math-. points - which are so small that they have nearly nil delay time. One could say Newtonian principles even in the smallest scales.
Physical information I define as the back-play onto the pixels by the wave-interference patterns.
QUOTE:
"Philosophically, there is no infinities nor singularities in space, I think we agreed on that long time ago. So there is no such thing also in mathematics. So mathematics/harmonically organized information take space and are PRESENT in space. That is kind of obvious, but how to derive physical laws which have proven to be true from this alone? We must go to higher level but BELOW quantum mechanics. Below quantum, above pixels is the place where answers lie.
Pixel < wave-interference patterns to be defined / understood / picturelized < QM
Yes - I agree. But I hope that PIXEL SIZE and DELAY-TIME are two universal constants that can be defined and used in the understanding of many of the QM Units.
if the pixels are really pixels like a TV screen then they dont move or have mass themselves. They project viscosity and inertia onto particles as waves pass though a particular region. The viscosity theory of inertia might be restated as a constant resistance to change of the scalar value of each pixel. The value of the resistance to change term would be equivalent to viscosity.
It's interesting you give the pixels vortice type properties. Why vortexes, do they do something that explains something?
bukh
5th August 2007 - 06:32 PM
Hej Neil Farbstein
QUOTE: "It's interesting you give the pixels vortice type properties. Why vortexes, do they do something that explains something? "
No - I do not put any vortice type properties on the pixels -
The pixels behave exactly as you say like pixels on a TV screen. They exert no motion, only signaling, and you can say that they are without mass - whatever the latter is.
A pixel is defined by taking a volume, can signal ON OFF, and the signal is with well defined delay time, and the pixel contains information (a lot) about which wave-patterns shall be sustained and which not.
So the pixel is an (incomprehensible) complex structure.
The whole concept behind the 3D Pixel Universe is how the Informational World expresses itsself in a physical form.
We are dealing with only part of the Informational World - namely that part of it, which is mathematical and confined to that part of mathematics, that relates to discontinua. For that specific part of mathematics - logically - any math. point must take a size. And this is how information (relevant to the physical universe) can be translated into a volume - namely pixel matter. I envisage that all this relevant mathematics at its very bottomline can be expressed in wave-forms.
So pixel matter (information) is in the form of wave-interference patterns with waves composed of math. points.
Likewise physical universe is in the form of wave-interference patterns with waves composed of pixels
Math. points and pixels serve the same function, they are just different scales.
We humans are an intimate part of this physical scale, and this is the only relevant scale in this context.
There may well exist other scales - non-relevant for us, and there may well exist many other expressions than this particular physical expression - and again non-relevant for us.
We percept what we are.
And yes - inertia can be accounted for by the pixel delay-time.
yquantum
5th August 2007 - 07:49 PM
QUOTE
math. points and pixels serve the same function, they are just different scales.
We humans are an intimate part of this physical scale, and this is the only relevant scale in this context.
=> bukh
bukh, how would one measure this pixel model or is a awareness of the cognitive process as in a projection. When you said that
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
math. points and pixels serve the same function, they are just different scales.
We humans are an intimate part of this physical scale, and this is the only relevant scale in this context. |
=> bukh
bukh, how would one measure this pixel model or is a awareness of the cognitive process as in a projection. When you said that So the pixel is an (incomprehensible) complex structure.
if I understand your statement then this is just speculative but could never be analyze for testing...
If I misunderstood then it can be detected --> then what micro measurement would you estimate? Good question NF you are on a role.
ciao_
yquantum
bukh
5th August 2007 - 08:47 PM
yquantum
In my answer to Neil I did not comment on this:
QUOTE NEIL: "if the pixels are really pixels like a TV screen then they dont move or have mass themselves. They project viscosity and inertia onto particles as waves pass though a particular region."
Just for the sake of accuracy, I would say that pixels ARE the waves - (no wave without points to express the wave). So the pixels are not projecting (if I understand rightly -I am not English tongue) viscosity and inertia onto particles ---. I would say that the pixel behaviour - defined by its delay-time - that is what gives us the qualities of viscosity and inertia. EVERYTHING starts from the math.point, and physical universe is about how this math. point stepwise turns itsself into expressions which are more and more physical - so to speak.
QUOTE: "how would one measure this pixel model or is a awareness of the cognitive process as in a projection. "
I am not sure exactly what you are pointing at ? please rephrase.
QUOTE: "If it can be detected then what micro measurement would you estimate?"
The pixel as such is an intimate part of all physical matter,
When the pixel screen is mute - not playing - no wave-structures are being expressed, and we humans will see the mute pixel screen as absolute vacuum.
Our only chance to detect the pixel is indirectly, we have to look at how wave-forms are build from the pixel-points.
Any particle is made by wave-interferences, and lets start with the smallest elementary particles that we can put qualities on as of to day, fermions - bosons. This mean that we know characteristic frequencies - that is what is being referred to as spin, we may know volume / mass / energy - that has bearing to amplitude, flavour may get an interpretation wave-wise and so on and so on -
On this basis I envisage that it is possible to get ideas about Universal Units such as pixel volume and pixel delay time.
How many pixels are being involved in a wave-expression - what is the inertia in the expression -
The smaller the elementary "particles" that can be described the more "direct" the pixel can be seen.
jal
5th August 2007 - 09:28 PM
Do you read scientific papers?
Not everyone believes that physic goes to Planck Scale.
Why Planck Scale. Why not stop at 10^-18?
Let’s look at some papers.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0601097 Planck-scale physics: facts and beliefs
Authors: Diego Meschini
(Submitted on 23 Jan 2006)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506068 Is empty spacetime a physical thing?
Authors: Diego Meschini, Markku Lehto
(Submitted on 11 Jun 2005 (v1), last revised 24 Oct 2005 (this version, v2))
Let’s look at some others who research Planck scale
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0305019 Selected topics in Planck-scale physics
Authors: Y. Jack Ng (University of North Carolina)
(Submitted on 4 May 2003 (v1), last revised 15 May 2003 (this version, v2))
Abstract
We review a few topics in Planck-scale physics, with emphasis on possible manifestations in relatively low energy. The selected topics include quantum fluctuations of spacetime, their cumulative effects, uncertainties in energy-momentum measurements, and low energy quantum-gravity phenomenology. The focus is on quantum-gravity-induced uncertainties in some observable quantities. We consider four possible ways to probe Planck-scale physics experimentally:
1. looking for energy-dependent spreads in the arrival time of photons of the same energy from GRBs;
2. examining spacetime fluctuation-induced phase incoherence of light from extragalactic sources;
3. detecting spacetime foam with laser-based interferometry techniques;
4. understanding the threshold anomalies in high energy cosmic ray and gamma ray events.
Some other experiments are briefly discussed. We show how some physics behind black holes, simple clocks, simple computers, and the holographic principle is related to Planck-scale physics.
We also discuss a formulation of the Dirac equation as a difference equation on a discrete Planck-scale spacetime lattice, and a possible interplay between Planck-scale and Hubble-scale physics encoded in the cosmological constant (dark energy).
--------------
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312014 Planck-scale structure of spacetime and some implications for astrophysics and cosmology
Authors: Giovanni Amelino-Camelia
(Submitted on 30 Nov 2003 (v1), last revised 8 Dec 2003 (this version, v2))
-----------
jal
Laidback
6th August 2007 - 12:14 AM
QUOTE (HiggsInteresto+Aug 5 2007, 11:29 PM)
It's been a while I've read over some deep physics
as deep as today whilst studying black holes and the Higgs mechanism (not here BTW).
I find it very interesting and quite a mystery, but nonetheless, I'd like to see some seriously critique and evaluation of this supposition [Higgs Boson] when experimenting and or testing is underway at the LHC.
I've heard they're encountering many engineering problems linked mainly with the superconducting magnet's, not to mention problems with funding.
Until then, I'm not really sure whether other causes can be considered by me personally, since it's not far from the final stage now and is a good project to answer many "theoretical postulations and or assumptions" for now.
Maybe it really is an over complicated view of things that are actually taking place? Do you think if a proposition (theoretical explanation of an occurrence) was simple it would simply be rejected by the authoritative scientific community and major publishing bodies (though it may actually be factual but not yet known) ?
I personally "ponder" some times that
maybe a sort of inductive vibrational movement has something to do with particles having mass. Vibration on minima scales a fraction of the actual particle mass yet initiated by a set of occurrences external and internal to the particle itself. Just over-simplistic pondering, nothing more.
Lets never over look that
All forces adhere to classical mechanics..
QUOTE
I'd like to see if the SUSY partners exist and mainly how.
By understanding the Physical Laws on Force and Motion you should already know if SUSY pairs are a justified reference in the first place..
Cheers all,
Peter J Schoen.
Laidback
6th August 2007 - 01:25 AM
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 6 2007, 06:47 AM)
yquantum
In my answer to Neil I did not comment on this:
QUOTE NEIL: "if the pixels are really pixels like a TV screen then they don't move or have mass themselves. They project viscosity and inertia onto particles as waves pass though a particular region."
Just for the sake of accuracy, I would say that pixels ARE the waves - (no wave without points to express the wave). So the pixels are not projecting (if I understand rightly -I am not English tongue) viscosity and inertia onto particles ---. I would say that the pixel behaviour - defined by its delay-time - that is what gives us the qualities of viscosity and inertia. EVERYTHING starts from the math.point, and physical universe is about how this math. point stepwise turns itsself into expressions which are more and more physical - so to speak.
QUOTE: "how would one measure this pixel model or is a awareness of the cognitive process as in a projection. "
I am not sure exactly what you are pointing at ? please rephrase.
QUOTE: "If it can be detected then what micro measurement would you estimate?"
The pixel as such is an intimate part of all physical matter,
When the pixel screen is mute - not playing - no wave-structures are being expressed, and we humans will see the mute pixel screen as absolute vacuum.
Our only chance to detect the pixel is indirectly, we have to look at how wave-forms are build from the pixel-points.
Any particle is made by wave-interferences, and lets start with the smallest elementary particles that we can put qualities on as of to day, fermions - bosons. This mean that we know characteristic frequencies - that is what is being referred to as spin, we may know volume / mass / energy - that has bearing to amplitude, flavour may get an interpretation wave-wise and so on and so on -
On this basis I envisage that it is possible to get ideas about Universal Units such as pixel volume and pixel delay time.
How many pixels are being involved in a wave-expression - what is the inertia in the expression -
The smaller the elementary "particles" that can be described the more "direct" the pixel can be seen.
Hey Bukh,
Just a few quick question, with respects to your inference to the
Theoretical Pixel..
Is my reasoning justified if I state each pixel is set out 3 dimensionally "set measurement and or quanta" and every one of them are the same as all the others?
It concerns me.. Whether they are only theoretical as I have been reasoning thus far or as per your above statements imply they are a reality?
If this is the case then I guess further considerations for both General and Special relativity need to be considered.. And how does one explain gravities downward push and or exertion, does your model consider and or comply to the implications?
and what resolution have you reasoned them with?
I guess we are bordering where it may nessecitate the calculus which I should point out is not my strong point never the less feel free to punish me with it, nothing better than getting ones feet wet if one needs to experience and or understand water so to speak..
bukh
6th August 2007 - 09:41 AM
Hej Laidback
QUOTE: "It concerns me.. Whether they are only theoretical as I have been reasoning thus far or as per your above statements imply they are a reality?"
What is theoretical and what is real ?
We are used to think that there exist easy distinctions between these two worlds - but actually I see it as a very subtle and difficult to answer question.
The short version is that Pixel is very REAL. Pixel is perhaps the most real we can think of. The pixel is the underlying reality of any wave-structure.
And yes - physics is probably in a paradigma shift, not that we are to abandon all or any of what have been accumulated of wisdom - but going downwards, a totally new insight of complexity opens up. We get closer to a TOE. We can use most of what we already know to calculate downwards - and the most important will probably be to allot wave-concepts a very central place.
Gravity - I call it this odd desire of Nature to socialize.
Where someting is - more comes to - and matter creates matter.
The 3D Pixel Screen is an ideal medium for explaining how -
Any wave-pattern will enter into interference with nearby wave-patterns - the nearer the easier. That phenomenon we experience / interpret as gravity. The information contained in the respective pixels will ease this gravitational process.
QUOTE: "I guess we are bordering where it may nessecitate the calculus which I should point out is not my strong point never the less feel free to punish me with it, nothing better than getting ones feet wet if one needs to experience and or understand water so to speak.. "
Oh I like You - nothing better than get things moved - and you may know that I am totally ignorant in EVERYTHING related to physics and math. Ivars and Sylwester are those - as you already know - that have been using the calculator. I understand that the scale is around 10-64.
yquantum
6th August 2007 - 06:16 PM
bukh, Ivars, Laidback, Brain, et al
The pixel is the underlying reality of any wave-structure...Oh I like You - nothing better than get things moved - and you may know that I am totally ignorant in EVERYTHING related to physics and math. Ivars and Sylwester are those - as you already know - that have been using the calculator. I understand that the scale is around 10-64. =>bukh
bukh, 10^64 is a number I cannot or know of a supercomputer that can compute such a vast #.
NF, mentioned TV and projection and you rejected the analogy. So if they are points and I think I remembered you saying they were sometimes off/on what mechanism turns the waves off/on.
QUOTE
It concerns me.. Whether they are only theoretical as I have been reasoning thus far or as per your above statements imply they are a reality?. => Laidback
Are you talking about different dimensions, bukh?
I am trying to understand this model you have been working on, but I cannot wrap my mind around the
PIXELS as you describe them. Is this your alternative to the Higgs boson?
ciao_
yquantum
bukh
6th August 2007 - 09:29 PM
yquantum
QUOTE: "bukh, 10^64 is a number I cannot or know of a supercomputer that can compute such a vast #."
OK - but why is it important that a supercomputer cannot compute values of that order of magnitude - in as much as a supercomputer is a fairly primitive calculator, at least if we look at it in say 10 years time. Anyhow I am not a math. guy, so i am not the right one to answer this question.
QUOTE: "NF, mentioned TV and projection and you rejected the analogy."
No, it was not meant as a rejection of the analogy - on the contrary - TV screen (3D) is a very good analogy - it was just a comment on the semantic level on something else - namely:
QUOTE Neil: "They (pixels) project viscosity and inertia onto particles as waves pass through a particular region." In my ears this can be misinterpreted, in a way that it is not the pixels that create the waves. On the bottom line it is the pixels that create everything - and they are the underlying cause of everything, and as such the pixels are the underlying cause of viscosity and inertia ----and waves ---and particles ----and physical world ----and humans.
QUOTE:
"It concerns me.. Whether they are only theoretical as I have been reasoning thus far or as per your above statements imply they are a reality?. => Laidback
Are you talking about different dimensions, bukh?"
I do not understand why dimension is relevant in this context.
If you ask me whether a pixel is a theoretical or a real "creature" I would say that the pixel is the most real, that exist in our physical universe - and at the same time the pixel is by its very nature impossible ever to "touch".
Anyhow - the question whether something is real or not - that is a very very subtle question, and cannot be answered by a yes or no. "Reality" is something that needs an accurate definition in the context it is being used.
QUOTE: "I am trying to understand this model you have been working on, but I cannot wrap my mind around the PIXELS as you describe them. Is this your alternative to the Higgs boson?"
Well - the Pixel solve in my eyes the problems that the Higgs boson should remedy - but the Pixel has a much more far-reaching effect on "Everything".
Laidback
6th August 2007 - 10:35 PM
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 6 2007, 07:41 PM)
Hey Laidback
QUOTE (LaidBack+)
It concerns me.. Whether they are only theoretical as I have been reasoning thus far or as per your above statements imply they are a reality?"
What is theoretical and what is real ?
For starters,
Any event that is replicated to imitate a previous event assumes that all variables are considered into our observations..
The universe being in a constant state of change makes this near impossible..
Anyway, In any research facility, all we can do is to setup some tests, lets say we were trying understand what the hell is going on with ones hair as one nears a metal sphere..
All we can do is to set up various tests for our observations, and as proof we can get someones Else's confirmation, and thus no calculus is needed as direct observations were possible for confirmation, with these observations we needed guidelines so that others can repeat the test and or experiment ending with the same results..
From this need, certain forces needed to be quantisized and set up so confirmation is possible simply by repeating the theoretical variables, and its here where the theory began to enmesh with reality, HELLO Quantum mechanics "QM" and Quantum ElectroDynamics "QED" via some bright spark doing the theory before even the experiment took place..
Anyway during the introduction of QM and QED there was a point in time where theory could calculate what would be observed, Much of the Atoms Model is structured from this theoretical bases, as is most of Electronics, anyway over the past 25 to 30 years the Electronics Industry was met with many problems that conflicted with the current models, and as a result new models have been postulated and tested and via the results proved more reliable, and as long as we cant directly observe the Atom and the postulated Electrons, the best we can do is to rely on tests gained via detectors noting that the detectors depend on theoretical forces with set quanta.. we also should note the detectors consist much of what we may be trying to detect in the first place..
QUOTE
We are used to think that there exist easy distinctions between these two worlds - but actually I see it as a very subtle and difficult to answer question.
Agreed! That's why we should always be mindful we are working with much theory and whats more in many cases, theories that rely on previous theories which in some cases some may base data on outdated models, models that work for one purpose but not for all the other purposes, and no where is this problem more evident than when one refers to Photons rather than to the latest models developed in the communications industry, err~ I am afraid that's all I can say on this matter in avoiding serious repercussions..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We are used to think that there exist easy distinctions between these two worlds - but actually I see it as a very subtle and difficult to answer question. |
Agreed! That's why we should always be mindful we are working with much theory and whats more in many cases, theories that rely on previous theories which in some cases some may base data on outdated models, models that work for one purpose but not for all the other purposes, and no where is this problem more evident than when one refers to Photons rather than to the latest models developed in the communications industry, err~ I am afraid that's all I can say on this matter in avoiding serious repercussions..The short version is that Pixel is very REAL. Pixel is perhaps the most real we can think of. The pixel is the underlying reality of any wave-structure.
Yquantum has already queried this, but If the Pixel is real what forces (velocities) give it, it's form and or structure?
QUOTE
And yes - physics is probably in a paradigm shift, not that we are to abandon all or any of what have been accumulated of wisdom - but going downwards, a totally new insight of complexity opens up. We get closer to a TOE. We can use most of what we already know to calculate downwards - and the most important will probably be to allot wave-concepts a very central place.
My reasoning is we already have TOE, its just that most have the silly idea of a perception being some magical attractive and or pulling force...
My reasoning has me convinced that once this gross oversight is addressed gravity will be treated via its proper inbound velocities.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And yes - physics is probably in a paradigm shift, not that we are to abandon all or any of what have been accumulated of wisdom - but going downwards, a totally new insight of complexity opens up. We get closer to a TOE. We can use most of what we already know to calculate downwards - and the most important will probably be to allot wave-concepts a very central place. |
My reasoning is we already have TOE, its just that most have the silly idea of a perception being some magical attractive and or pulling force...
My reasoning has me convinced that once this gross oversight is addressed gravity will be treated via its proper inbound velocities. Gravity - I call it this odd desire of Nature to socialize.
And this has come about via NOT fully understanding what Force means.
Force means an exertion, and an exertion is only possible via considering the velocities implicated.. Know this and it becomes blatantly obvious attraction or pull is a by-product of previous velocities..
QUOTE
Where something is - more comes to - and matter creates matter.
I reason Gravity is the result from the dynamics of Potential Kinetic Energy, via from the perspective of certain velocities that result from meeting velocities having traversed an area only to be met by inbound velocities from other areas outward velocities..
Put simply where the majority see the swell of water from the moon above as the pull of the moon, I reason the body of water is mass that has the luxury to decompress via lacking inbound velocities..
This is because I insist attraction and or magic is not possible!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where something is - more comes to - and matter creates matter. |
I reason Gravity is the result from the dynamics of Potential Kinetic Energy, via from the perspective of certain velocities that result from meeting velocities having traversed an area only to be met by inbound velocities from other areas outward velocities..
Put simply where the majority see the swell of water from the moon above as the pull of the moon, I reason the body of water is mass that has the luxury to decompress via lacking inbound velocities..
This is because I insist attraction and or magic is not possible! The 3D Pixel Screen is an ideal medium for explaining how -
Any wave-pattern will enter into interference with nearby wave-patterns - the nearer the easier. That phenomenon we experience / interpret as gravity. The information contained in the respective pixels will ease this gravitational process.
Yes I agree but they are NOT real unless you can detail how their structure is possible as per Physical laws on force and motion require it..
QUOTE
Oh I like You - nothing better than get things moved - and you may know that I am totally ignorant in EVERYTHING related to physics and math. Ivars and Sylwester are those - as you already know - that have been using the calculator. I understand that the scale is around 10-64.
Mathematics is not a strong point of mine but even so when push comes to shove when some one declares or implies form and or structure, I try to apply my own model to it, to see if it conforms and complies to Newtons Laws, and if there were problems, in the past I snickered to myself, knowing to well it does NOT comply to cause and effect and or Newtons critical Laws on FORCE and MOTION, which then implies to me the theory is based partly on a flawed theory that may further be based on further outdated theoretical models, these days I don't have to concern myself with the protection of my models being utilized by my competitors as I consider myself retired, of course I still have to avoid legal repercussions if I leak out to much of the model I developed.. the best I can do is to drop a few clues..
Any questions?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen.
yquantum
7th August 2007 - 03:12 PM
bukh, Ivars, Laidback, Brain, et al,This is not to be a means or effort to impress you with the power mathematical disciplines. It just gives us a tool in which to better understand our universe both macro and micro -- I believe
Laidback touched on this.
The information below could be found I would think anywhere from text to math models that would give some type of picture of our universe & its vastness.
bukhTo give you somewhat an appreciation of the number you mentioned and as it said below is a lower limit will express what the model your purposes. Please remember the," law of conservation - the number give or take a few ? is all there will ever be.
QUOTE
QUOTE: "bukh, 10^64 is a number I cannot or know of a supercomputer that can compute such a vast #."
OK - but why is it important that a supercomputer cannot compute values of that order of magnitude - in as much as a supercomputer is a fairly primitive calculator, at least if we look at it in say 10 years time. Anyhow I am not a math. guy, so i am not the right one to answer this question.
I respect your openness BTW,
You might say that this is not relevant but when you form a hypothesis/model you must included so many other theories/models that have been proven to extreme detailed.
I do not believe your
pixel postulation takes these into account (VP's, forces, DM/E, etc. as an example & how your postulation explains events) I believe you would find some problems with what you have mentioned. And this is if I understand what you are purposing.
Laidback understands I deal with the micro or QM side but am open to just using classical because that is the world you
see.
I do understand why you use this approach. It is intuitive not unintuitive as what I see each day.
My experiences in observation, forces (you should like that description, Laidback) me into models
QM etc. that has given much information with tremendous accuracy in predictions.
This is just a classical view.
A typical star weighs about 2x10^33 Grams, which is about 1x10^57 atoms of hydrogen per star ... That is a 1 followed by 57 zeros.
It is estimated a typical galaxy has about 400 billion stars so that means each galaxy has 1x10^57 X 400,000,000,000 = 5x10^68 hydrogen atoms in a galaxy, say like ours.
It has been estimated there is 80 billion galaxies in the Universe, so that means that there are about: 5x10^68 X 80,000,000,000 = 4x10^79 hydrogen atoms in the Universe. But this is definitely a lower limit calculation, and ignores many possible atom sources.
I do not know what DM or DE might be made of but there you have to take into account 96% of the unknown cosmos. I would not even begin to try and express what influences it might have on experment's.
This is really the important point on this reply, bukh.Just wanted to give you some idea of what is said when you say that all there
your pixels explain everything around us.
caio_
yquantum
bukh
7th August 2007 - 03:21 PM
Hej Laidback
QUOTE:
"The short version is that Pixel is very REAL. Pixel is perhaps the most real we can think of. The pixel is the underlying reality of any wave-structure.
Yquantum has already queried this, but If the Pixel is real what forces (velocities) give it, it's form and or structure?"
It is a very demanding question - in as much as this is unknown for "Everything". We have previously been touching this topic about force / energy - and origen of same.
I imagine that energy is intimately associated with motion - and motion is change - and change is information - and the Pixel contains the informational world.
This is what gives the pixel its force - the ability to signal ON OFF, and this signal is then translated into the creation of the wave-structures - and the wave structures creates the particles by their standing wave-interference patterns - to express the whole physical Universe.
Universe is the physical expression of the informational world- Information is being utilized but cannot be used up - so Universe will always have the amount of "energy" as needed. EVERYTHING is created out from informations that translate itsself into physical expressions.
QUOTE:
"Gravity - I call it this odd desire of Nature to socialize.--
And this has come about via NOT fully understanding what Force means.
Force means an exertion, and an exertion is only possible via considering the velocities implicated.. Know this and it becomes blatantly obvious attraction or pull is a by-product of previous velocities.."
Agreed - I made a sloppy and incomplete answer. I trust that you understand what I meant - namely that gravity IS force - the force that is being expressed when wave-systems on the 3D Pixel Grid is approaching (building up tension - force) and subsequently being repelled and creating vacuum (relative). But also that wave-systems more easily enter into interferences with nearby wave-systems - so they are being attracted to each other.
And NEWTONIAN ! --
On the bottom line I would say that the behaviour of the pixel signaling ON with a deleay time from pixel to pixel, that IS Newtonian in its very micro-expression. "A body (pixel) with inertia (delay time), and this is the origen of EVERYTHING. You can say that it is the microcosmos of Newtonian law - which is scaled upwards in the formation of what we see as physical particles (wave-interference structures construed out from pixels) and consequently everything in physical universe behaves according to Newtonian laws.
Ivars
7th August 2007 - 03:51 PM
hej bukh
Sounds familiar, no?
http://www.physorg.com/news105703818.htmlA vacuum – space essentially void of any matter whatsoever – is a strange thing. And it may be even stranger, according to recent research. Motivated by the results of an experiment known as PVLAS, which showed that not only is the
vacuum empty but can act like a crystal under a strong magnetic field, a group of physicists has proposed a dark-matter candidate particle produced during the early universe and within stars.
So , crystal like "imaginary" aether lattice like in a superfluid is there, like we predicted. And we also said that it may explain 70% dark energ part, 26% going to liquid Aether, 4% to matter.
Nice.
yquantum
7th August 2007 - 05:20 PM
QUOTE
crystal like "imaginary" aether lattice like in a superfluid is there, like we predicted.
Hi Ivars,
"imaginary" aether lattice am I to understand that you do not believe in the aether?
ciao_
yquantum
Ivars
7th August 2007 - 06:42 PM
QUOTE (yquantum+Aug 7 2007, 05:20 PM)
Hi Ivars,
"imaginary" aether lattice am I to understand that you do not believe in the aether?
ciao_
yquantum
"Imaginary" in a sense that it affects Aether behaviour, creates its turbulence at low T ( like in superfluid) , so it is there, on other hand, it is not clear why it is there (what could cause Aether=vacuum to be particulated in a regular way, and why this component of vacuum is kind of totally separated from other things going on - e.g. why are space ships able to move via crystal without almost no problem?)
Normaly we would assume crystal and vacuum ( solid and very rarified gas) are very far from each other- it appears that in the end they connect, but the crystal is special- the lattice is still there, but there is NOTHING , no matter in this crystal. So it is kind of imaginary crystal, and I expect that it is the true reason physics can not live without complex numbers.
yquantum
7th August 2007 - 07:13 PM
Ivars,
Great question, and I hope this will clear some issues up for you.
http://www.uncwil.edu/courses/mat111hb/Izs...ex/complex.htmlciao_
yquantum
Neil Farbstein
7th August 2007 - 07:21 PM
QUOTE (Ivars+Aug 7 2007, 06:42 PM)
"Imaginary" in a sense that it affects Aether behavior, creates its turbulence at low T ( like in super fluid) , so it is there, on other hand, it is not clear why it is there (what could cause Aether=vacuum to be particulated in a regular way, and why this component of vacuum is kind of totally separated from other things going on - e.g. why are space ships able to move via crystal without almost no problem?)
Normally we would assume crystal and vacuum ( solid and very rarefied gas) are very far from each other- it appears that in the end they connect, but the crystal is special- the lattice is still there, but there is NOTHING , no matter in this crystal. So it is kind of imaginary crystal, and I expect that it is the true reason physics can not live without complex numbers.
You think space is some type of crystallized object. It's pretty but relativity contradicts it. Crystalline structure might have something to do with defining the speed of light. Crystal type aether is attractive to us as concept since it lets us explain something intuitive about space and motion or something else; quantum teleportation etc.
Ivars
7th August 2007 - 07:56 PM
QUOTE (yquantum+Aug 7 2007, 07:13 PM)
Ivars,
Great question, and I hope this will clear some issues up for you.
http://www.uncwil.edu/courses/mat111hb/Izs...ex/complex.htmlciao_
yquantum
hej yquantum,
Mathematically -of course, by why do we need them to calculate real physical values? As an intermitent mathematical tool?
I have this mystical feeling that harmony and connections we see in math more and more and which we still
have not discovered truly are there because it fits the nature. And comlex numbers probably is one of the first things - to find out why imaginary unit is needed in physics- is there a place for it in Universe?
I believe there is.
QUOTE
A pseudoscalar in a geometric algebra is a highest-grade element of the algebra. For example, in two dimensions there are two basis vectors, e1, e2 and the associated highest-grade basis element is
e1e2 = e12.
So a pseudoscalar is a multiple of e12. The element e12 squares to −1 and commutes with all elements — behaving therefore like the imaginary scalar i in the complex numbers. It is these scalar-like properties which give rise to its name.
In this setting, a pseudoscalar changes sign under a parity inversion, since if
(e1, e2) → (u1, u2)
is a change of basis representing an orthogonal transformation, then
e1e2 → u1u2 = ±e1e2,
where the sign depends on the determinant of the rotation. Pseudoscalars in geometric algebra thus correspond to the pseudoscalars in physics.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscalar"
Ivars
7th August 2007 - 08:08 PM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Aug 7 2007, 07:21 PM)
You think space is some type of crystallized object. It's pretty but relativity contradicts it. Crystalline structure might have something to do with defining the speed of light. Crystal type aether is attractive to us as concept since it lets us explain something intuitive about space and motion or something else; quantum teleportation etc.
We might get around the relativity problem in the same heat conductivity works in superfluids- there is NEVER a temperature gradient in superfluid as its thermal conductivity becomes very large.
We may say that superfluid of Aether, with "imaginary" crystal behind it, have the nice property of NEVER having a light speed gradient- because vaccums "conductivity" for light speed becomes very large - so light speed is everywhere the same.
yquantum
7th August 2007 - 08:44 PM
Ivars, NF, bukh, Laidback, et al,
QUOTE
Mathematically -of course, by why do we need them to calculate real physical values? As an intermitent mathematical tool?
=> Ivars
I am not able to reply ASAP due to other responsibilities I remember reading this some time ago and hope it helps. This is not intended to push SS, or T/models but how they are used.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Mathematically -of course, by why do we need them to calculate real physical values? As an intermitent mathematical tool? |
=> Ivars
I am not able to reply ASAP due to other responsibilities I remember reading this some time ago and hope it helps. This is not intended to push SS, or T/models but how they are used.
So suddenly you find these wonderful numbers that work so well in mathematics, but didn't seem to have any role to play in the physical world now had a role to play in the physical world. Well twistor theory is trying to take that one step further, so you look for a role for these complex numbers, complex spaces, and so on to have a role in spacetime geometry.
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~frank/BerkeleyGroks_Penrose.htmIn the interview with RP you will find your answer, --> it starts the paragraph with,
QUOTE
Let me just backtrack a little bit.
ciao_
yquantum
bukh
7th August 2007 - 09:41 PM
yquantum
QUOTE: "it has been estimated there is 80 billion galaxies in the Universe, so that means that there are about: 5x10^68 X 80,000,000,000 = 4x10^79 hydrogen atoms in the Universe. But this is definitely a lower limit calculation, and ignores many possible atom sources."
I am pretty happy with this kind of figure - because it fits well with a scale that is ultimately set by human being - so it means that we are in a range of 10^80 - 10-80.
QUOTE: "I do not know what DM or DE might be made of but there you have to take into account 96% of the unknown cosmos. I would not even begin to try and express what influences it might have on experment's. This is really the important point on this reply, bukh."
With the 3D Pixel Universe, fundamental space IS the crystalline grid made by the pixels. When the pixels are not signaling - not playing - the fundamental space expresses nothing and will be percepted as absolute vacuum - and that is DE. When the pixels are playing - they are expressing wave-patterns - and it is Physical MATTER. Now depending on the complexity - the size of wave-interference structures - the amount of "energy" - the amount of Information that is contained in the said particle expression - (analogies for the same) - such matter will be either DM - in the case that "particles" are too small to me percepted by human senses / technologies - or it is ordnary physical matter, in the case that the particles are sized "elementary" and upwards.
VP is particle forms so short lasting that they are nearly impossible to detect - and/or too small to be percepted.
We will learn - I imagine to get fairly accurate impressions about VP and DM by their indirect fingerprints - and perhaps the announcement of to day about a crystalline structure in vacuum represents the first clue of the 3D Pixel Universe - who knows.
QUOTE: "Just wanted to give you some idea of what is said when you say that all there your pixels explain everything around us."
Pardoni - it was not meant like that - you know, sometimes one get so happy about own ideas, that it is really too much.
The important point is that physical universe can be seen as the physical expression of information. MOTION becomes a very triggy concept - and should perhaps more accurately be defined as shifting expressions. Motion as we traditionally see it as humans - is an illusion.
bukh
7th August 2007 - 09:47 PM
Hej Neil
QUOTE: "You think space is some type of crystallized object. It's pretty but relativity contradicts it."
Why would you say that the idea of crystalline fundamental space is contradicted by relativity.
Laidback
7th August 2007 - 11:10 PM
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 8 2007, 01:21 AM)
Hey Laidback
The short version is that Pixel is very REAL. Pixel is perhaps the most real we can think of. The pixel is the underlying reality of any wave-structure.
QUOTE (Laidback+)
Yquantum has already queried this, but If the Pixel is real what forces (velocities) give it, it's form and or structure?
It is a very demanding question - in as much as this is unknown for "Everything".
Well my view is we already know what we need to know, Err~ for TOE.Well maybe some of us at this point in time, as I am extremely confident all of physics MUST follow on with observable Laws..
Yquantum, may not be aware how closely QM is adhering to these basic laws, all it needs is to be mindful of RELATIVITY via considerations to all Velocities for all of the forces implicated, Err~ paying attention to clues I have slipped in I hope as I cant say to much more...
QUOTE
We have previously been touching this topic about force / energy - and origin of same.
I imagine that energy is intimately associated with motion - and motion is change - and change is information - and the Pixel contains the informational world.
This is what gives the pixel its force
OK lets consider each and every Pixel is with a force lets say of two Newtons a meter Err {2 Nm} or even better lets convert your Pixel to a single dimension and imply 2 joules, and seeing joules are Energy each Pixel is equal to 2 joules of Potential Energy..
Now lets consider this is their on state, and their off state is ????????
Hmmm we cant destroy Energy but we can give it momentum but only if its force or Energy is with a greater force to what surrounds it..
If all the pixels in the Universe were with a force of two in all directions there is our structure, but each pixel simply can only be stagnant..
Unless we consider the bigger picture!
lets consider with respects to just 729 pixels in an array of 9 x 9 x 9 and consider that each pixel each was with the energy and or force of 2 joules and or importantly converted back to 2 Newton meters, which refers to their force via Kinetics and or momentum (force) lets consider how much RELATIVE force the very central Pixel is experiencing by keeping in mind in reality our 729 pixel model may be experiencing a lot more compression than what our central pixel model is experiencing, Err~ I wish I could say more so that I can clue in Yquantum why relativity
MUST be considered here correctly but that's all I can say.. well other than to again point out to the critical error in the below image as a key, and by understanding why and how the error was made should lead to an astounding simplicity...
Any way going back to that central Pixel what do you think its occupation would be with respects to the other pixels occupation? and if the nine by nine structure was spherical who here can point out where we would most likely find the following states within one of the pixels for, Near vacuum, Gas, Liquid, Solid, further more where would we have the slowest velocities, slowest time rates? if we were three pixes deep, which direction would imply red-shift and which direction would imply Blue-shift? if anyone can answer all of these questions well you are damn close to understanding ALL of physics!
Of course one must be capable of calculus and conversions from one quanta to another, but other than that - That's it, its that easy and or simple well sort of..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
We have previously been touching this topic about force / energy - and origin of same.
I imagine that energy is intimately associated with motion - and motion is change - and change is information - and the Pixel contains the informational world.
This is what gives the pixel its force |
OK lets consider each and every Pixel is with a force lets say of two Newtons a meter Err {2 Nm} or even better lets convert your Pixel to a single dimension and imply 2 joules, and seeing joules are Energy each Pixel is equal to 2 joules of Potential Energy..
Now lets consider this is their on state, and their off state is ????????
Hmmm we cant destroy Energy but we can give it momentum but only if its force or Energy is with a greater force to what surrounds it..
If all the pixels in the Universe were with a force of two in all directions there is our structure, but each pixel simply can only be stagnant..
Unless we consider the bigger picture!
lets consider with respects to just 729 pixels in an array of 9 x 9 x 9 and consider that each pixel each was with the energy and or force of 2 joules and or importantly converted back to 2 Newton meters, which refers to their force via Kinetics and or momentum (force) lets consider how much RELATIVE force the very central Pixel is experiencing by keeping in mind in reality our 729 pixel model may be experiencing a lot more compression than what our central pixel model is experiencing, Err~ I wish I could say more so that I can clue in Yquantum why relativity
MUST be considered here correctly but that's all I can say.. well other than to again point out to the critical error in the below image as a key, and by understanding why and how the error was made should lead to an astounding simplicity...
Any way going back to that central Pixel what do you think its occupation would be with respects to the other pixels occupation? and if the nine by nine structure was spherical who here can point out where we would most likely find the following states within one of the pixels for, Near vacuum, Gas, Liquid, Solid, further more where would we have the slowest velocities, slowest time rates? if we were three pixes deep, which direction would imply red-shift and which direction would imply Blue-shift? if anyone can answer all of these questions well you are damn close to understanding ALL of physics!
Of course one must be capable of calculus and conversions from one quanta to another, but other than that - That's it, its that easy and or simple well sort of..
"Gravity - I call it this odd desire of Nature to socialize.--
QUOTE (LaidBack+)
And this has come about via NOT fully understanding what Force means.
Force means an exertion, and an exertion is only possible via considering the velocities implicated.. Know this and it becomes blatantly obvious attraction or pull is a by-product of previous velocities.."
Agreed - I made a sloppy and incomplete answer. I trust that you understand what I meant - namely that gravity IS force - the force that is being expressed when wave-systems on the 3D Pixel Grid is approaching (building up tension - force) and subsequently being repelled and creating vacuum (relative). But also that wave-systems more easily enter into interferences with nearby wave-systems - so they are being attracted to each other.
If you go back to the Pixel Model and as to how that central Pixel experiences its surrounding pixels combined forces, it is that compression what I see as gravity, keep in mind of the huge number of Pixels the universe is made up of..
now imagine what compression does to your Pixels the more central it may be of a greater number of them?
QUOTE
And NEWTONIAN ! --
On the bottom line I would say that the behaviour of the pixel signaling ON with a delay time from pixel to pixel, that IS Newtonian in its very micro-expression. "A body (pixel) with inertia (delay time), and this is the origin of EVERYTHING. You can say that it is the microcosm of Newtonian law - which is scaled upwards in the formation of what we see as physical particles (wave-interference structures construed out from pixels) and consequently everything in physical universe behaves according to Newtonian laws.
But for change we must have momentum, and for momentum we must have force, and for force we must have momentum..
Wait! I already stated that? didnt I?
Zephir
7th August 2007 - 11:31 PM
QUOTE (bukh+Aug 8 2007, 12:41 AM)
The short version is that Pixel is very REAL. Pixel is perhaps the most real we can think of. The pixel is the underlying reality of any wave-structure.
The true is, nobody did see the single explanation using the 3D Pixel concept, some testable prediction the less.
yquantum
8th August 2007 - 12:13 AM
Laidback, bukh, Ivars, et al,
Laidback, I have not overlooked your comments - wanting to keep a very open mind and see if all you have stated is possible. More importantly is there a experiment that I have heard of that supports the model which is as you know very important.
QUOTE
The pixel is the underlying reality of any wave-structure.
=>bukh
I believe any scientist in this field would want to test this underlying reality of the -- "WAVE MODEL'. Do you have any approach/experiment that you would suggest.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The pixel is the underlying reality of any wave-structure. |
=>bukh
I believe any scientist in this field would want to test this underlying reality of the -- "WAVE MODEL'. Do you have any approach/experiment that you would suggest.
The true is, nobody did see the single explanation using the 3D Pixel concept, some testable prediction the less.
=Z
Please give me some viable experiment's that support your claim & please do not answer a question with another (?) please.
ciao_
yquantum
Laidback
8th August 2007 - 12:35 AM
QUOTE (yquantum+Aug 8 2007, 10:13 AM)
Laidback, bukh, Ivars, et al,
Laidback, I have not overlooked your comments - wanting to keep a very open mind and see if all you have stated is possible. More importantly is there a experiment that I have heard of that supports the model which is as you know very important.
ciao_
yquantum
NASA done some experiments with water and alkaselza of all things, there are some movies available, but I don't know if they may help with how the solid alkaselza briefly are exerted to the core of a body of water before it dissolves..
Let me know if you find the video of it, as I would love a copy of it..
The important point to note is how the solid tablet was exerted to the core of the body of the water in two of their videos just before the chemical reactions propelled it every-which way..
Cheers to all,
Peter J Schoen.
yquantum
8th August 2007 - 01:10 AM
Laidback,QUOTE
NASA done some experiments with water and alkaselza of all things, there are some movies available, but I don't know if they may help with how the solid alkaselza briefly are exerted to the core of a body of water before it dissolves..
=>Laidback
Are you referring to the experiment with Alka-Seltzer when added to spherical water drop in micro gravity on board the International Space Station? -- (March 22, 2003)
It might be some time before I can reply but will check after some data has be discussed.
caio_
yquantum
Neil Farbstein
8th August 2007 - 03:28 AM
QUOTE (Laidback+Aug 8 2007, 12:35 AM)
NASA done some experiments with water and alkaselza of all things, there are some movies available, but I don't know if they may help with how the solid alkaselza briefly are exerted to the core of a body of water before it dissolves..
Let me know if you find the video of it, as I would love a copy of it..
The important point to note is how the solid tablet was exerted to the core of the body of the water in two of their videos just before the chemical reactions propelled it every-which way..
Cheers to all,
Peter J Schoen.
Amazing!
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.
) satisfaction - this would be my hope.
