This was something unknown to me until a short while ago. It seems a solid way of explaining matter and fits in with GR. However is there a way to distinguish whether a partical is actually in reality a discrete point of information/energy in space, or just the center of a QM wave??
Also because it proposes particles are in fact made up of space, does this mean it can be unified with GR??
Some enlightening would be appreciated, cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check these out for some basic reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_Structure_Matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_th...cture_of_Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (joeearl+Dec 27 2005, 05:27 AM)
...because it proposes particles are in fact made up of space, does this mean it can be unified with GR...
Such of this, the wave concept is a general concept of lot of theories, for example the superstring theory or Aether Wave Theory in particular, which is absolutelly necessary to consider during developing of final theory with respect to the quantum theory.
I believe, the WSM concept can be unified with the GR easily using the geometrodynamic principle, as the quantum theory is just a local version of GR.
Hi joeearl,
You might want to check into a physicist named, R. B. Laughlin - [Nobel Prize Winner].
You might find some things in common with what you have started here.
Hope it helps, and you find what you seek.
ciao_
yquantum
Such of this, the wave concept is a general concept of lot of theories, for example the superstring theory or Aether Wave Theory in particular, which is absolutelly necessary to consider during developing of final theory with respect to the quantum theory.
I believe, the WSM concept can be unified with the GR easily using the geometrodynamic principle, as the quantum theory is just a local version of GR.
QUOTE (joeearl+Dec 27 2005, 05:27 AM)
...is there a way to distinguish whether a partical is actually in reality a discrete point of information/energy in space, or just the center of a QM wave...
Definitelly yes at the higher dimensional level, where the QM waves of massive particle are forming coherent wave packets, convoluted by its own gravity to the so called geons/quantum loops/t-dualities. But at the lowest supergravity level is no principial difference between particles and waves, as they differing just by their energy density.
Definitelly yes at the higher dimensional level, where the QM waves of massive particle are forming coherent wave packets, convoluted by its own gravity to the so called geons/quantum loops/t-dualities. But at the lowest supergravity level is no principial difference between particles and waves, as they differing just by their energy density.
joeearl,
" ..is there a way to distinguish whether a particle is actually in reality a discrete point of information/energy in space, or just the center of a QM wave?? "
Your question seems to have the answer built into it. There is no difference between a discreet point of information/energy in space, and the center of a QM wave. Wave centers (of spherical waves) do not accumulate "inertia/mass" until there is more than TWO random momentums; one and two differing momentums (or vectors) will still produce an oscillating state that can be measured (in groups) that is "expanded" or GASEOUS. When you add the THIRD electron, with its differing momentum, you begin TRUE "point-like" properties. [IE. Lithium] You can still measure mass of H and He, and other gases, but over an area; introducing space, and losing the "point-like" definition.
It seems that a separation of wave/particle duality by the definitions and requirements of each, by a well defined line between them, would be a good thing.
WSM is, as far as I know, not in any conflict the the math of SR/GR. A slight change in the model is all that is needed.
TRoc
" ..is there a way to distinguish whether a particle is actually in reality a discrete point of information/energy in space, or just the center of a QM wave?? "
Your question seems to have the answer built into it. There is no difference between a discreet point of information/energy in space, and the center of a QM wave. Wave centers (of spherical waves) do not accumulate "inertia/mass" until there is more than TWO random momentums; one and two differing momentums (or vectors) will still produce an oscillating state that can be measured (in groups) that is "expanded" or GASEOUS. When you add the THIRD electron, with its differing momentum, you begin TRUE "point-like" properties. [IE. Lithium] You can still measure mass of H and He, and other gases, but over an area; introducing space, and losing the "point-like" definition.
It seems that a separation of wave/particle duality by the definitions and requirements of each, by a well defined line between them, would be a good thing.
WSM is, as far as I know, not in any conflict the the math of SR/GR. A slight change in the model is all that is needed.
TRoc
QUOTE (TRoc+Dec 27 2005, 08:08 AM)
It seems that a separation of wave/particle duality by the definitions and requirements of each, by a well defined line between them, would be a good thing.
Well, the two or more particles can be entangled into the single state, so that the "center" or the "gravity center" cannot serve for distinguishing the original particles at the quantum level. The separation of the wave/particle behavior of such system can be impossible, due to the lost of information.
Well, the two or more particles can be entangled into the single state, so that the "center" or the "gravity center" cannot serve for distinguishing the original particles at the quantum level. The separation of the wave/particle behavior of such system can be impossible, due to the lost of information.
How do photons fit into this? surely because they do not have mass they do not affect the structure of space and therefore do not have a matter wave?
Also i understood a particle to be a point where field lines converge. since a particle can experience multiple fields it is where many different fields converge. What links these fields together in WSM so that if the convergance point of say the EM field moves, so the convergance point of the gravitational field moves to the same point
What are the reasons for the theory not becoming widely accepted? it makes sense to me and seems to simplify quite a few concepts. Also the way everything can be attributed to just space, and not space, time and energy as with the particle model surely shows it presents a mre fundamental approach
Also i understood a particle to be a point where field lines converge. since a particle can experience multiple fields it is where many different fields converge. What links these fields together in WSM so that if the convergance point of say the EM field moves, so the convergance point of the gravitational field moves to the same point
What are the reasons for the theory not becoming widely accepted? it makes sense to me and seems to simplify quite a few concepts. Also the way everything can be attributed to just space, and not space, time and energy as with the particle model surely shows it presents a mre fundamental approach
QUOTE (joeearl+Dec 27 2005, 02:37 PM)
How do photons fit into this?
Photons are waves like the fermions - the whole difference is the inner field convolution of fermions with respect of corresponding bosons.
Photons are waves like the fermions - the whole difference is the inner field convolution of fermions with respect of corresponding bosons.
joeearl,
I am not an expert in WSM theory; just aware of it, and understand well enough to agree with it. I have done some work that leads to it, and perhaps even finishes it.
You are right that with quantum of energy, or "photons"; because they do not have mass they do not affect the structure of space and therefore do not have a matter wave. They do have circular properties, that can always be expressed with a function of Pi; this means that, at the correct curvature, or radius, the matter wave and the energy wave can have resonant values. This leads to the photo-electric effect - without the particles.
The electron is the smallest wave that can have mass, and be considered Fundamental. Every vibration that has more mass, or exists for only a finite time, is secondary to the electron. All energy is communicated via the electron. The carrier of energy is vibration itself; any wave that, when described in 3D, becomes spherical.
The standing waves, or full time, waves resulting from two electrons that are coupled through resonance (meaning that they have the same angular momentum, and opposite spin, or directing, from mirror symmetry), create the "atmosphere", or medium, that is totally homogeneously structured. Vibrations move through this medium at their maximum speed, ©. Since energy can only be created in discreet quantities, the resonance is only communicated in discreet quantities. The quantities can be measured with distance, and therefore geometry OF space-in-time; they can also be measured with frequency over time, giving the observer the SAME relativistic perspective without the convoluted (literally) math.
You asked, " What links these fields together in WSM so that if the convergence point of say the EM field moves, so the convergence point of the gravitational field moves to the same point ".
There is the appearance of cause and affect here. Geometrically measured movement in one plane CREATES an opposing plane "movement". Other than the straight line, there is only ONE angle that vibration can take to symmetrically arrive at point B from point A. The true "distance" of this curvature may change (amplitude/doppler), but Pi can not be eliminated from the equation. There is an equal, but opposite angle (with opposite spin) 180 deg away, and going in the same direction. This is the source of spin, and the IN and OUT wave of WSM.
So, an oscillating mass (or gravitational field), moving in spherical waves and having NO preferred direction (scalar), will CREATE waves "in every direction" [gravity]. If the geometry of the oscillating mass is ORDERED (symmetrical structure, ie Magnetic, Conductive, etc.), then the oscillation will have EITHER a perpendicular OR a parallel direction to the scalar; this CREATES a wave with a 90 deg relation to the former (which is also true of 2 "wave centers" of = ang. mom.) This defines longitudinal and transverse waves. With spherical waves, the two are relativistic dualities: the position of the observer determines which type of wave will appear. For symmetry to be conserved, a spherical wave must move forward in increments of 1/2 wavelength, or phase.
The net effect is that the geometry of the wave-centers moving relative to each other causes the E - M waves that we measure.
TRoc
I am not an expert in WSM theory; just aware of it, and understand well enough to agree with it. I have done some work that leads to it, and perhaps even finishes it.
You are right that with quantum of energy, or "photons"; because they do not have mass they do not affect the structure of space and therefore do not have a matter wave. They do have circular properties, that can always be expressed with a function of Pi; this means that, at the correct curvature, or radius, the matter wave and the energy wave can have resonant values. This leads to the photo-electric effect - without the particles.
The electron is the smallest wave that can have mass, and be considered Fundamental. Every vibration that has more mass, or exists for only a finite time, is secondary to the electron. All energy is communicated via the electron. The carrier of energy is vibration itself; any wave that, when described in 3D, becomes spherical.
The standing waves, or full time, waves resulting from two electrons that are coupled through resonance (meaning that they have the same angular momentum, and opposite spin, or directing, from mirror symmetry), create the "atmosphere", or medium, that is totally homogeneously structured. Vibrations move through this medium at their maximum speed, ©. Since energy can only be created in discreet quantities, the resonance is only communicated in discreet quantities. The quantities can be measured with distance, and therefore geometry OF space-in-time; they can also be measured with frequency over time, giving the observer the SAME relativistic perspective without the convoluted (literally) math.
You asked, " What links these fields together in WSM so that if the convergence point of say the EM field moves, so the convergence point of the gravitational field moves to the same point ".
There is the appearance of cause and affect here. Geometrically measured movement in one plane CREATES an opposing plane "movement". Other than the straight line, there is only ONE angle that vibration can take to symmetrically arrive at point B from point A. The true "distance" of this curvature may change (amplitude/doppler), but Pi can not be eliminated from the equation. There is an equal, but opposite angle (with opposite spin) 180 deg away, and going in the same direction. This is the source of spin, and the IN and OUT wave of WSM.
So, an oscillating mass (or gravitational field), moving in spherical waves and having NO preferred direction (scalar), will CREATE waves "in every direction" [gravity]. If the geometry of the oscillating mass is ORDERED (symmetrical structure, ie Magnetic, Conductive, etc.), then the oscillation will have EITHER a perpendicular OR a parallel direction to the scalar; this CREATES a wave with a 90 deg relation to the former (which is also true of 2 "wave centers" of = ang. mom.) This defines longitudinal and transverse waves. With spherical waves, the two are relativistic dualities: the position of the observer determines which type of wave will appear. For symmetry to be conserved, a spherical wave must move forward in increments of 1/2 wavelength, or phase.
The net effect is that the geometry of the wave-centers moving relative to each other causes the E - M waves that we measure.
TRoc
And therefore all phenomena (gravity, em, weak, strong) can be explained in terms of matter waves?
And why is the elctron the smallest wave with mass? there are other 'particles' with less mass? If a positron and electron have opposite wave functions, they will destructively interfere (annihilation), cancelling out, hence How does this produce energy?
If so this seems a very powerful model, any good reason why it hasn't been widely adopted?? does it require extra dimensions?
And why is the elctron the smallest wave with mass? there are other 'particles' with less mass? If a positron and electron have opposite wave functions, they will destructively interfere (annihilation), cancelling out, hence How does this produce energy?
If so this seems a very powerful model, any good reason why it hasn't been widely adopted?? does it require extra dimensions?
Hi joeearl,You might want to check into a physicist named, R. B. Laughlin - [Nobel Prize Winner].
You might find some things in common with what you have started here.
Hope it helps, and you find what you seek.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (joeearl+Dec 28 2005, 03:55 AM)
...all phenomena (gravity, em, weak, strong) can be explained in terms of matter waves...
I believe yes - and rather easily after all. But the massive wave concept is somewhat recursive - it expects some massive environment at first. As the wave equation is just the Newton cinematic law in its local form - it doesn't create inertia by any way, just concentrates it into new dimension set using a kinetic energy concept. So that the Wave Structure of Matter theory doesn't explain the inertia/mass existence alone. From the point of WSM, the space and time aren't' just some abstract quantities, they've its own physical representation (for example, the "space" is just a uniformly distributed mass) and the whole model is very classical, here are no some elegant surprises and expectations.
I believe, it isn't crucial problem, as the universe can be recursively formed by the waves by the fractal way, but it doesn't look as the very final explanation and is even somewhat boringly trivial. But I haven't a better explanation at the present time.
I don't know why such trivial explanations are ignored by the mainstream of scientific community, but I suspect the most of active scientists are rather active proponents of anti-Aether interpretation of general relativity and WSM theory is just a different name for old Aether theory. And the extra-scientific community likes the mystery of the general relativity and quantum theory, the science plays a role of academic priesthood, some symbol of perfection and its understanding serves as the target of motivation.
It's rather difficult to throw up a more than one hundred years of belief, to disclose the blinders and start again from the very beginning with some old trivial concepts. But it's a life...
I believe yes - and rather easily after all. But the massive wave concept is somewhat recursive - it expects some massive environment at first. As the wave equation is just the Newton cinematic law in its local form - it doesn't create inertia by any way, just concentrates it into new dimension set using a kinetic energy concept. So that the Wave Structure of Matter theory doesn't explain the inertia/mass existence alone. From the point of WSM, the space and time aren't' just some abstract quantities, they've its own physical representation (for example, the "space" is just a uniformly distributed mass) and the whole model is very classical, here are no some elegant surprises and expectations.
I believe, it isn't crucial problem, as the universe can be recursively formed by the waves by the fractal way, but it doesn't look as the very final explanation and is even somewhat boringly trivial. But I haven't a better explanation at the present time.
I don't know why such trivial explanations are ignored by the mainstream of scientific community, but I suspect the most of active scientists are rather active proponents of anti-Aether interpretation of general relativity and WSM theory is just a different name for old Aether theory. And the extra-scientific community likes the mystery of the general relativity and quantum theory, the science plays a role of academic priesthood, some symbol of perfection and its understanding serves as the target of motivation.
It's rather difficult to throw up a more than one hundred years of belief, to disclose the blinders and start again from the very beginning with some old trivial concepts. But it's a life...
QUOTE (joeearl+Dec 28 2005, 03:55 AM)
...why is the electron the smallest wave with mass - there are other 'particles' with less mass?...
Yes. there are a lighter particles, like the neutrinos. The concept of composition of waves across the mutually perpendicular directions (i.e. dimensions) predicts the existence of some simplest interferences, the basic modes of vibration. And the electron is the simplest particle, carrying both the leptonic, both the EMG charge at the same time - i.e. double-wounded spiral, whereas the neutrino is the simplest single-wounded one.
- Not really, as we are also parts of the same One Universe, not separate from it. So we also can determine what we are and how we exist. TAT TVAM ASI.
Yes. there are a lighter particles, like the neutrinos. The concept of composition of waves across the mutually perpendicular directions (i.e. dimensions) predicts the existence of some simplest interferences, the basic modes of vibration. And the electron is the simplest particle, carrying both the leptonic, both the EMG charge at the same time - i.e. double-wounded spiral, whereas the neutrino is the simplest single-wounded one.
QUOTE (joeearl+Dec 28 2005, 03:55 AM)
...if a positron and electron have opposite wave functions, they will destructively interfere (annihilation), canceling out, hence How does this produce energy...
Very easily - try to bring-up the colliding pair of vibrating vortexes, where the charge forms the helicity of their inner motion. The vortex shape can be described as the result of wave composition across the perpendicular directions (the picture bellow forms a link to the video animation). I believe, such explanation is clear, but you can found more details in my submissions list.
Very easily - try to bring-up the colliding pair of vibrating vortexes, where the charge forms the helicity of their inner motion. The vortex shape can be described as the result of wave composition across the perpendicular directions (the picture bellow forms a link to the video animation). I believe, such explanation is clear, but you can found more details in my submissions list.
Cheers yquantum and Zephir that helps a bit. might be back in a while with some more questions tho 
Hi All,
I think WSM actually explains GR pretty well as follows. First, you assume an aether that propagates the waves. You derive the speed of the waves in this aether (which I believe is a compressible material with elasticity constant k) by assuming that spherical waves (which Wolff of WSM proposes) create a wave-center (particle). Because spherical waves are only dependent on r (theta and phi of spherical coordinates are independent variables), all force and energy relations work out to nice scalar equations, such as speed = sqrt(force/mass-density), the familar scalar equation for a standing wave. In fact, if you put in a force of kR, where R is the Hubble radius and k is some constant, then you take the mass density to be Mass of universe/radius of universe (again - scalar density because we are only dependent on r), you find that the speed of the waves are the speed of light if k = 7.18 x 10 ^17 Newtons/meter. Then, you can take the scalar relation, 1/2k(x^2) which is the potential energy of compression of the aether over distance x, and set it equal to the rest-energy of the "particle" which is created by two spehrical wave fronts, 1/2k(x^2) = mc^2. Now use the k value shown above and plug in x = 10^-18 meters (weak nuclear force range), you find m = 2.2 eV/c^2 which is a mass that is in the ballpark of what physicists are expecting for the electron-neutrino. Also, plug in x = 7.88 x 10^-15 meters (strong force range - max nuclear radius known) and find m = mass of pi-meson - the known vector particle for the strong nuclear force. Plug in x = hubble radius (10^26 meters) and find m = 10^53 Kg, the mass of the universe. Plug in x = classical radius of the electron and you have something pretty close (order of magnitude) to the electron mass. This relation is now explaining large scale gravity, strong, weak, and electric forces with a simple scalar equation, a unified theory that Einstein worked for years on.
General relativity is as easy as taking the lorentz transform of the outgoing wave speed to the ingoing wave speed of a given mass. This produces the same time dilation formula as Scharwzchild solution (without the messy, non-linear differential equations to begin with). Check out journal of theoretics, comments section, Oct. 2004 for a paper called "Quantum Foam" which I wrote that details this.
Although at the time I wrote this I didn't realize you could leave Schwarzchild solution out and derive it independently, which I have done in a paper called "The Gravitational Force as Defined by DeBroglie Waves" (google it) . It shows the time dilation of Scharwzchild easily derived by finding the speed of outgoing waves from a mass. Just start with speed = sqrt(force/mass-density) where force = kx and mass-density is Mu/Ru as desribed above. x is a characteristic distance (one value only) from any generic mass in question found by solving 1/2k(x^2) = mc^2 from known mass. In this sense, it shows Scharwzchild's solution as a parameteric equation - it only works for a given distance x from the mass, but it does produce the same results as Scharwzchild for any mass value.
Also, if you want a cosmological perspective of WSM check out "The Cosmological-Redshift Explained by the Intersection of Hubble Spheres"
Best regards,
Mike
I think WSM actually explains GR pretty well as follows. First, you assume an aether that propagates the waves. You derive the speed of the waves in this aether (which I believe is a compressible material with elasticity constant k) by assuming that spherical waves (which Wolff of WSM proposes) create a wave-center (particle). Because spherical waves are only dependent on r (theta and phi of spherical coordinates are independent variables), all force and energy relations work out to nice scalar equations, such as speed = sqrt(force/mass-density), the familar scalar equation for a standing wave. In fact, if you put in a force of kR, where R is the Hubble radius and k is some constant, then you take the mass density to be Mass of universe/radius of universe (again - scalar density because we are only dependent on r), you find that the speed of the waves are the speed of light if k = 7.18 x 10 ^17 Newtons/meter. Then, you can take the scalar relation, 1/2k(x^2) which is the potential energy of compression of the aether over distance x, and set it equal to the rest-energy of the "particle" which is created by two spehrical wave fronts, 1/2k(x^2) = mc^2. Now use the k value shown above and plug in x = 10^-18 meters (weak nuclear force range), you find m = 2.2 eV/c^2 which is a mass that is in the ballpark of what physicists are expecting for the electron-neutrino. Also, plug in x = 7.88 x 10^-15 meters (strong force range - max nuclear radius known) and find m = mass of pi-meson - the known vector particle for the strong nuclear force. Plug in x = hubble radius (10^26 meters) and find m = 10^53 Kg, the mass of the universe. Plug in x = classical radius of the electron and you have something pretty close (order of magnitude) to the electron mass. This relation is now explaining large scale gravity, strong, weak, and electric forces with a simple scalar equation, a unified theory that Einstein worked for years on.
General relativity is as easy as taking the lorentz transform of the outgoing wave speed to the ingoing wave speed of a given mass. This produces the same time dilation formula as Scharwzchild solution (without the messy, non-linear differential equations to begin with). Check out journal of theoretics, comments section, Oct. 2004 for a paper called "Quantum Foam" which I wrote that details this.
Although at the time I wrote this I didn't realize you could leave Schwarzchild solution out and derive it independently, which I have done in a paper called "The Gravitational Force as Defined by DeBroglie Waves" (google it) . It shows the time dilation of Scharwzchild easily derived by finding the speed of outgoing waves from a mass. Just start with speed = sqrt(force/mass-density) where force = kx and mass-density is Mu/Ru as desribed above. x is a characteristic distance (one value only) from any generic mass in question found by solving 1/2k(x^2) = mc^2 from known mass. In this sense, it shows Scharwzchild's solution as a parameteric equation - it only works for a given distance x from the mass, but it does produce the same results as Scharwzchild for any mass value.
Also, if you want a cosmological perspective of WSM check out "The Cosmological-Redshift Explained by the Intersection of Hubble Spheres"
Best regards,
Mike
It seems that many believe the words we use to describe reality are equatable with reality. "Particle" or "wave" describe aspects of observable reality. When we try to shoehorn reality into the definitions, there comes the strain. Since reality is ultimately indivisible, concepts that imply divisibility cannot accurately describe a unified reality. To postulate that "ultimate particles" exist, one has to assume that reality is divisible into particles "that communicate with each other" via quanta bound in waves. That waves themselves are divisible as discrete elements, postulates again that reality is divisible. Monastic theory is a mechanical conceptualization of the reality. Our senses perceive units that our brains treat discretely, and that we can discourse about discretely. But our social conventions do not create reality, only our socialized perception. We must perceive as humans because we are humans, not so much different than any other animal. I think that accurately measuring any sized piece of reality does that and not much else, because we are not measuring all of the unmeasured reality that engulfs that which is measured. To measure the propagation of a wave form through reality, measures that. The measurement is not of every other aspect of reality that impinges on the wave's propagation-that sustains the wave. Measurement in a vacuum measures form in the absence of gases, liquids, and solids, as we define them, but does not and cannot measure the totality of the energy fields creating the basis for the wave or particle generation. The deduction that reality is defined by the measurement of tiny part of reality is simply not descriptive of the broader reality which cannot be describe phenomenologically as a collection of interrelated concepts approximating descriptions of phenomena. Reality is not a describable phenomena. The reality of matter cannot be excluded experimentally. One cannot control a test for 'non-reality" elements. One can only control for known, that is discrete, gross, elements. Reality has no ultimately discrete elements. I do not believe in a "knowing" presence, but reality is clearly not subordinate to human definition either by attribution to a big bang or divine intervention. The human spectacle is evident in how clumsy people are in creating even minimally equitable societies without butchering each other for fossil fuels. To project our limited knowledge on the universe, onto the total reality, as a gospel is truly pretentious.
Ahoy, Michael H' etc,
Michael, interesting stuff; this is my highly speculative vision:
Wave propagation transits from high to low dimensionality (low to high density respectively) via a pivotal stage of highest condensation called a singularity & cycles upspace back to its beginning only to restart the process again ad infinitum unless further dimensional collapse occurs.
Before singularity creation, all waves form event horizons marking the magnetic/electric boundary responsible for the 180 degree out of phase temporal duality effect we know as the electric & magnetic field. The magnetic field of an electron represents all propagation exterior to the EH...The electric...is all propagation in respect to its interior!; it is this interior propagation that produces the charge field and the consequent temporal reversal effect 'magnetic field'. In this way the event horizon is somewhat analogous to a semi-transparent mirror. The EH's outer edge is magnetic maxima, " "...inner edge, electric minima, whilst the singularity represents electric maxima (point charge/mass) and co-existing event reversed magnetic minima.
I'm convinced (ish)
wavefronts are really what we term 'Branes', co-existing between the primary wave event / event reversal and subsequent collapse 'instant' (bit of a concept) allowing for an apparent acausal, (timeless) ever changing environment to evolve, depending on your dimensional elevation
With photons these forces are contained within lower dimensional restraints, unable to be expressed in our time-space. However, hypertoroidal wave propagation (like that which produces electrons) allows for this duality to manifest as force. All electrons/protons within our universe have potential anti-particle counterparts inhabiting other extra-continuum wavefronts in which they are either embedded /semi-embedded or both; although during a gamma photon decay when point singularity metamorphosizes to a ring singularity @ 90 degrees to our brane-wave, both particles (e- & e+) are present in our universe, the product of one single hypertoroidal transdimensional wave envelope; their charge, merely the penetrative direction of wave propagation through our brane from hyperspace.
It is this circular hyperspatial wave component that acts as a carrier wave for photons which are embedded in it. The electro/positronic branewave can be thought of as parent to lower dimensional offspring wavicles (photons) .... in much the same way protons & electrons 'ride' embedded in their parents branewave, the one we call the universe!
Well if you have a low energy wave it might take a lot more condensing to arrive at the event horizon stage than say that of a high energy wave...might it not?
I've got a fair intestinal sensation that it's the degree of transit in wave collapse to event horizon formation that determines a photons frequency.
If this has whet you're appetite, just google "spacial vacuoles", feel free to plow through my scrap heap of ideas
Michael, interesting stuff; this is my highly speculative vision:
Wave propagation transits from high to low dimensionality (low to high density respectively) via a pivotal stage of highest condensation called a singularity & cycles upspace back to its beginning only to restart the process again ad infinitum unless further dimensional collapse occurs.
Before singularity creation, all waves form event horizons marking the magnetic/electric boundary responsible for the 180 degree out of phase temporal duality effect we know as the electric & magnetic field. The magnetic field of an electron represents all propagation exterior to the EH...The electric...is all propagation in respect to its interior!; it is this interior propagation that produces the charge field and the consequent temporal reversal effect 'magnetic field'. In this way the event horizon is somewhat analogous to a semi-transparent mirror. The EH's outer edge is magnetic maxima, " "...inner edge, electric minima, whilst the singularity represents electric maxima (point charge/mass) and co-existing event reversed magnetic minima.
I'm convinced (ish)
wavefronts are really what we term 'Branes', co-existing between the primary wave event / event reversal and subsequent collapse 'instant' (bit of a concept) allowing for an apparent acausal, (timeless) ever changing environment to evolve, depending on your dimensional elevationWith photons these forces are contained within lower dimensional restraints, unable to be expressed in our time-space. However, hypertoroidal wave propagation (like that which produces electrons) allows for this duality to manifest as force. All electrons/protons within our universe have potential anti-particle counterparts inhabiting other extra-continuum wavefronts in which they are either embedded /semi-embedded or both; although during a gamma photon decay when point singularity metamorphosizes to a ring singularity @ 90 degrees to our brane-wave, both particles (e- & e+) are present in our universe, the product of one single hypertoroidal transdimensional wave envelope; their charge, merely the penetrative direction of wave propagation through our brane from hyperspace.
It is this circular hyperspatial wave component that acts as a carrier wave for photons which are embedded in it. The electro/positronic branewave can be thought of as parent to lower dimensional offspring wavicles (photons) .... in much the same way protons & electrons 'ride' embedded in their parents branewave, the one we call the universe!
Well if you have a low energy wave it might take a lot more condensing to arrive at the event horizon stage than say that of a high energy wave...might it not?
I've got a fair intestinal sensation that it's the degree of transit in wave collapse to event horizon formation that determines a photons frequency.
If this has whet you're appetite, just google "spacial vacuoles", feel free to plow through my scrap heap of ideas
QUOTE
To project our limited knowledge on the universe, onto the total reality, as a gospel is truly pretentious.
- Not really, as we are also parts of the same One Universe, not separate from it. So we also can determine what we are and how we exist. TAT TVAM ASI.
QUOTE (joeearl+Dec 27 2005, 02:27 AM)
particles are in fact made up of space
There is space in between the particles, but are you seriously trying to suggest that the particles themselves, are space??
There is space in between the particles, but are you seriously trying to suggest that the particles themselves, are space??
QUOTE (joeearl+Dec 27 2005, 02:27 AM)
This was something unknown to me until a short while ago. It seems a solid way of explaining matter and fits in with GR. However is there a way to distinguish whether a partical is actually in reality a discrete point of information/energy in space, or just the center of a QM wave??
Also because it proposes particles are in fact made up of space, does this mean it can be unified with GR??
Some enlightening would be appreciated, cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check these out for some basic reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_Structure_Matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_th...cture_of_Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The particle is the wave, joe. It's a distortion in space. That's why it isn't some little billiard ball. It has no surface. You can't locate it. Normally a wave travels through space, and we call it a photon. If however it travels round and round in circles, it's a soliton, and we might call it an electron. Then it has mass, which is a measure of "stopped" energy. We can now locate it, but it still has no surface.
See "pair production" for creating an electron out of a photon. We also get a positron too, but forget that for the time being.
I've been working on a series of essays that spell it all out fairly clearly. Here they are: RELATIVITY+
Also because it proposes particles are in fact made up of space, does this mean it can be unified with GR??
Some enlightening would be appreciated, cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check these out for some basic reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_Structure_Matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_th...cture_of_Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The particle is the wave, joe. It's a distortion in space. That's why it isn't some little billiard ball. It has no surface. You can't locate it. Normally a wave travels through space, and we call it a photon. If however it travels round and round in circles, it's a soliton, and we might call it an electron. Then it has mass, which is a measure of "stopped" energy. We can now locate it, but it still has no surface.
See "pair production" for creating an electron out of a photon. We also get a positron too, but forget that for the time being.
I've been working on a series of essays that spell it all out fairly clearly. Here they are: RELATIVITY+
QUOTE (your other Name+Jun 14 2007, 01:35 PM)
TAT TVAM ASI.
To ti yesi
NETI, NETI
To ti yesi
NETI, NETI
Space is the One Thing that exists. It is its wave-action which is permanent, infinite, as a fundamental part of it, but this action (motion - connection) produces all the transient 'things' that we observe (and are!). This is why all things constantly change, eventually back into pure wave-state. So, everything is Space, and its vibrating wave-centres attract other wave-centres to them (frequencies harmonize), producing greater 'mass' as they accumulate. This explains 'gravity', if you are understanding it correctly.
Google 'Dynamic Unity of Reality'...
Google 'Dynamic Unity of Reality'...
your other Name
QUOTE: "Space is the One Thing that exists. It is its wave-action which is permanent, infinite, as a fundamental part of it, but this action (motion - connection) produces all the transient 'things' that we observe (and are!). This is why all things constantly change, eventually back into pure wave-state. So, everything is Space, and its vibrating wave-centres attract other wave-centres to them (frequencies harmonize), producing greater 'mass' as they accumulate. This explains 'gravity', if you are understanding it correctly."
The above would seem to be a very close description of the 3D Pixel Universe - or vice versa.
3D Oixel Universe is briefly explained in another thread: "Aether exists or Not" on June 9, and in the section "Space".
And Yes, gravity is explained the same way.
Informational is believed to be a very important part of the physical expression, and having the Pixels as the Interphase between informational world and physical world, and in a one - to - one connection, any wave-structures that become near-chaotic / chaotic will observed bu imformational world and will be erased - and this accounts for the low-entropy Universe, with its high ordered complexity - in an ever growing Universe.
QUOTE: "Space is the One Thing that exists. It is its wave-action which is permanent, infinite, as a fundamental part of it, but this action (motion - connection) produces all the transient 'things' that we observe (and are!). This is why all things constantly change, eventually back into pure wave-state. So, everything is Space, and its vibrating wave-centres attract other wave-centres to them (frequencies harmonize), producing greater 'mass' as they accumulate. This explains 'gravity', if you are understanding it correctly."
The above would seem to be a very close description of the 3D Pixel Universe - or vice versa.
3D Oixel Universe is briefly explained in another thread: "Aether exists or Not" on June 9, and in the section "Space".
And Yes, gravity is explained the same way.
Informational is believed to be a very important part of the physical expression, and having the Pixels as the Interphase between informational world and physical world, and in a one - to - one connection, any wave-structures that become near-chaotic / chaotic will observed bu imformational world and will be erased - and this accounts for the low-entropy Universe, with its high ordered complexity - in an ever growing Universe.
MATTER IS THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE?
LIKE ELECTRON SHELLS?
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
LIKE ELECTRON SHELLS?
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
Nick
QUOTE: "MATTER IS THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE?"
Space is matter - primordial matter - arranged in a 3D Pixel Screen, the latter playing matter - physical matter.
QUOTE: "MATTER IS THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE?"
Space is matter - primordial matter - arranged in a 3D Pixel Screen, the latter playing matter - physical matter.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 17 2007, 09:46 AM)
matter is the structure of space
The matter is the result of structure of space, which is the result of the structure of another matter. The trick of AWT is, the matter can be structure of itself after sufficient number of the generations of such recursion.
Try to imagine the vacuum like the soap foam, composed from bubbles, which are filled by another smaller bubbles, recursively. What will happen with the space, if the small bubbles will grow, while the large bubble will collapse?
At the moment, the role of both bubble generations will reverse, the Universe will be filled by uniform dense graviton foam. But after then the former space becomes the time and it will appear in the particle interior - and vice versa: whole the Universe becomes formed by the particle interior (so called the "Simpsons intro" model).
The matter is the result of structure of space, which is the result of the structure of another matter. The trick of AWT is, the matter can be structure of itself after sufficient number of the generations of such recursion.
Try to imagine the vacuum like the soap foam, composed from bubbles, which are filled by another smaller bubbles, recursively. What will happen with the space, if the small bubbles will grow, while the large bubble will collapse?
At the moment, the role of both bubble generations will reverse, the Universe will be filled by uniform dense graviton foam. But after then the former space becomes the time and it will appear in the particle interior - and vice versa: whole the Universe becomes formed by the particle interior (so called the "Simpsons intro" model).
QUOTE (Michael Harney+Dec 9 2006, 06:04 PM)
Hi All,
I think WSM actually explains GR pretty well as follows. First, you assume an aether that propagates the waves. You derive the speed of the waves in this aether (which I believe is a compressible material with elasticity constant k) by assuming that spherical waves (which Wolff of WSM proposes) create a wave-center (particle). Because spherical waves are only dependent on r (theta and phi of spherical coordinates are independent variables), all force and energy relations work out to nice scalar equations, such as speed = sqrt(force/mass-density), the familar scalar equation for a standing wave. In fact, if you put in a force of kR, where R is the Hubble radius and k is some constant, then you take the mass density to be Mass of universe/radius of universe (again - scalar density because we are only dependent on r), you find that the speed of the waves are the speed of light if k = 7.18 x 10 ^17 Newtons/meter. Then, you can take the scalar relation, 1/2k(x^2) which is the potential energy of compression of the aether over distance x, and set it equal to the rest-energy of the "particle" which is created by two spehrical wave fronts, 1/2k(x^2) = mc^2. Now use the k value shown above and plug in x = 10^-18 meters (weak nuclear force range), you find m = 2.2 eV/c^2 which is a mass that is in the ballpark of what physicists are expecting for the electron-neutrino. Also, plug in x = 7.88 x 10^-15 meters (strong force range - max nuclear radius known) and find m = mass of pi-meson - the known vector particle for the strong nuclear force. Plug in x = hubble radius (10^26 meters) and find m = 10^53 Kg, the mass of the universe. Plug in x = classical radius of the electron and you have something pretty close (order of magnitude) to the electron mass. This relation is now explaining large scale gravity, strong, weak, and electric forces with a simple scalar equation, a unified theory that Einstein worked for years on.
General relativity is as easy as taking the lorentz transform of the outgoing wave speed to the ingoing wave speed of a given mass. This produces the same time dilation formula as Scharwzchild solution (without the messy, non-linear differential equations to begin with). Check out journal of theoretics, comments section, Oct. 2004 for a paper called "Quantum Foam" which I wrote that details this.
Although at the time I wrote this I didn't realize you could leave Schwarzchild solution out and derive it independently, which I have done in a paper called "The Gravitational Force as Defined by DeBroglie Waves" (google it) . It shows the time dilation of Scharwzchild easily derived by finding the speed of outgoing waves from a mass. Just start with speed = sqrt(force/mass-density) where force = kx and mass-density is Mu/Ru as desribed above. x is a characteristic distance (one value only) from any generic mass in question found by solving 1/2k(x^2) = mc^2 from known mass. In this sense, it shows Scharwzchild's solution as a parameteric equation - it only works for a given distance x from the mass, but it does produce the same results as Scharwzchild for any mass value.
Also, if you want a cosmological perspective of WSM check out "The Cosmological-Redshift Explained by the Intersection of Hubble Spheres"
Best regards,
Mike
Mike Harney is a REAL scientist working for a clearer understanding. We could all do a lot worse than listen to someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
I think WSM actually explains GR pretty well as follows. First, you assume an aether that propagates the waves. You derive the speed of the waves in this aether (which I believe is a compressible material with elasticity constant k) by assuming that spherical waves (which Wolff of WSM proposes) create a wave-center (particle). Because spherical waves are only dependent on r (theta and phi of spherical coordinates are independent variables), all force and energy relations work out to nice scalar equations, such as speed = sqrt(force/mass-density), the familar scalar equation for a standing wave. In fact, if you put in a force of kR, where R is the Hubble radius and k is some constant, then you take the mass density to be Mass of universe/radius of universe (again - scalar density because we are only dependent on r), you find that the speed of the waves are the speed of light if k = 7.18 x 10 ^17 Newtons/meter. Then, you can take the scalar relation, 1/2k(x^2) which is the potential energy of compression of the aether over distance x, and set it equal to the rest-energy of the "particle" which is created by two spehrical wave fronts, 1/2k(x^2) = mc^2. Now use the k value shown above and plug in x = 10^-18 meters (weak nuclear force range), you find m = 2.2 eV/c^2 which is a mass that is in the ballpark of what physicists are expecting for the electron-neutrino. Also, plug in x = 7.88 x 10^-15 meters (strong force range - max nuclear radius known) and find m = mass of pi-meson - the known vector particle for the strong nuclear force. Plug in x = hubble radius (10^26 meters) and find m = 10^53 Kg, the mass of the universe. Plug in x = classical radius of the electron and you have something pretty close (order of magnitude) to the electron mass. This relation is now explaining large scale gravity, strong, weak, and electric forces with a simple scalar equation, a unified theory that Einstein worked for years on.
General relativity is as easy as taking the lorentz transform of the outgoing wave speed to the ingoing wave speed of a given mass. This produces the same time dilation formula as Scharwzchild solution (without the messy, non-linear differential equations to begin with). Check out journal of theoretics, comments section, Oct. 2004 for a paper called "Quantum Foam" which I wrote that details this.
Although at the time I wrote this I didn't realize you could leave Schwarzchild solution out and derive it independently, which I have done in a paper called "The Gravitational Force as Defined by DeBroglie Waves" (google it) . It shows the time dilation of Scharwzchild easily derived by finding the speed of outgoing waves from a mass. Just start with speed = sqrt(force/mass-density) where force = kx and mass-density is Mu/Ru as desribed above. x is a characteristic distance (one value only) from any generic mass in question found by solving 1/2k(x^2) = mc^2 from known mass. In this sense, it shows Scharwzchild's solution as a parameteric equation - it only works for a given distance x from the mass, but it does produce the same results as Scharwzchild for any mass value.
Also, if you want a cosmological perspective of WSM check out "The Cosmological-Redshift Explained by the Intersection of Hubble Spheres"
Best regards,
Mike
Mike Harney is a REAL scientist working for a clearer understanding. We could all do a lot worse than listen to someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
QUOTE (your other Name+Jun 17 2007, 06:46 PM)
... you assume an aether that propagates the waves. You derive the speed of the waves in this aether ... by assuming that spherical waves ... create a wave-center (particle)....
The first part of the above sentence is OK, while the rest is ad-hoced BS already. Here's no reason for formation of spherical waves of the structure, which Dr. Millo Wolf is proposing.
The first part of the above sentence is OK, while the rest is ad-hoced BS already. Here's no reason for formation of spherical waves of the structure, which Dr. Millo Wolf is proposing.
Zephir, just because YOU can't see reason, doesn't mean it's not there.
Why are you so scared of WSM? If it's not true, you'd just leave it, wouldn't you? You have 6 posts of insistence at the last count. Is it that much of a threat to you?
Why are you so scared of WSM? If it's not true, you'd just leave it, wouldn't you? You have 6 posts of insistence at the last count. Is it that much of a threat to you?
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 17 2007, 09:11 PM)
...just because YOU can't see reason, doesn't mean it's not there...
If you believe in WSM so much, you can propose some relevant explanation, or not? What can you predict by WSM theory?
The theories like WSM are just compromising the Aether concept in the eyes of publicity.
If you believe in WSM so much, you can propose some relevant explanation, or not? What can you predict by WSM theory?
The theories like WSM are just compromising the Aether concept in the eyes of publicity.
Guest
QUOTE: "Zephir, just because YOU can't see reason, doesn't mean it's not there.
Why are you so scared of WSM? If it's not true, you'd just leave it, wouldn't you? You have 6 posts of insistence at the last count. Is it that much of a threat to you?"
Actually I see no reason for Zephir to be scared about WSW, in that the AWT and WSM share very little - if anything - in common. Take away the word Resursiveness" from AWT, and very little is left. And total resurciveness means continuity and infinity - which both are impossible concepts in the physical world.
On the other hand I think that the 3D Pixel Universe in many ways goes with the WSM, actually I had no clue about WSM in developing the 3D Pixel Universe - so it is very encouraging to see another principle with so many similarities.
QUOTE: "Zephir, just because YOU can't see reason, doesn't mean it's not there.
Why are you so scared of WSM? If it's not true, you'd just leave it, wouldn't you? You have 6 posts of insistence at the last count. Is it that much of a threat to you?"
Actually I see no reason for Zephir to be scared about WSW, in that the AWT and WSM share very little - if anything - in common. Take away the word Resursiveness" from AWT, and very little is left. And total resurciveness means continuity and infinity - which both are impossible concepts in the physical world.
On the other hand I think that the 3D Pixel Universe in many ways goes with the WSM, actually I had no clue about WSM in developing the 3D Pixel Universe - so it is very encouraging to see another principle with so many similarities.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 18 2007, 11:16 AM)
...take away the word "Recursiveness" from AWT, and very little is left...
Well, you'll need a bit of inertia, too... "Recursiveness" is abstract concept, you cannot build a physical theory just by using of abstracts, massless concept.
And here is an indication of how the reality of anything can so easily be missed. I never mentioned your fears. The referral was to any potential 'theory'. Please, there is no intention of personal attack. I am merely passing on information to those who have real interest.
To gain insight into anything, we must really pay close attention. Y'know...? Kinda 'scientist-like'? Much in the same way as 'child-like' (retaining a sense of awe) as opposed to 'childish' (retaining a sense of self-importance), eh?
Well, you'll need a bit of inertia, too...
"Recursiveness" is abstract concept, you cannot build a physical theory just by using of abstracts, massless concept.QUOTE (bukh+Jun 18 2007, 11:16 AM)
...And total recursiveness means continuity and infinity - which both are impossible concepts in the physical world...
It depends on the position of observer. For example, with respect of specific wave spreading, even the surface of tiny water droplet behaves like physical singularity. Of course, with respect of more general view (for example the gravitational waves spreading), it's just a subtle density gradient, not worth for further discussion.
It depends on the position of observer. For example, with respect of specific wave spreading, even the surface of tiny water droplet behaves like physical singularity. Of course, with respect of more general view (for example the gravitational waves spreading), it's just a subtle density gradient, not worth for further discussion.
Hi bukh,
I think you may have to adjust this thought at some point on your journey, but nice to see a thinking person! - Openmindedness is the fuel of the future!
WSM is Zephir's pet hate, for very good reason! That's why he keeps posting here. Still, at least it keeps Reality on the agenda! People are not so ignorant as he thinks, and can work it out for themselves, I'm sure.
QUOTE
...continuity and infinity - which both are impossible concepts in the physical world.
I think you may have to adjust this thought at some point on your journey, but nice to see a thinking person! - Openmindedness is the fuel of the future!
WSM is Zephir's pet hate, for very good reason! That's why he keeps posting here. Still, at least it keeps Reality on the agenda! People are not so ignorant as he thinks, and can work it out for themselves, I'm sure.
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 18 2007, 02:24 PM)
WSM is Zephir's pet hate, for very good reason!
Of course. The spherical waves of WSM are apparent BS without testable predictions, so I'm criticizing it, like every other BS here. The 3D Pixel Screen concept is apparent BS without testable predictions, so I'm criticizing it, like every other BS.
But this is not personal hate, simple the critique. After all, what do you expecting here, if not critique? If you want to present theories without comments, you can post it on some private web. You people are like small kids.
Prove me wrong and we both will remain lucky.
Of course. The spherical waves of WSM are apparent BS without testable predictions, so I'm criticizing it, like every other BS here. The 3D Pixel Screen concept is apparent BS without testable predictions, so I'm criticizing it, like every other BS.
But this is not personal hate, simple the critique. After all, what do you expecting here, if not critique? If you want to present theories without comments, you can post it on some private web. You people are like small kids.
Prove me wrong and we both will remain lucky.
Guest
"QUOTE
...continuity and infinity - which both are impossible concepts in the physical world.
I think you may have to adjust this thought at some point on your journey, but nice to see a thinking person!"
Well - the interphase - the primordial matter - the pixels - they may well - yes they have probably qualities like continuity and infinity - but they are not strictly part of physical world.
For the physical world - admitting that no such thing as the final truth exists, and will never come to exist - I have difficulties for the moment to accept that infinity and continuity can be in existance - and I see this as an axiom - OK I know - I have stated that before - nothing new.
Could you give me a clue whyt you have another view?.
"QUOTE
...continuity and infinity - which both are impossible concepts in the physical world.
I think you may have to adjust this thought at some point on your journey, but nice to see a thinking person!"
Well - the interphase - the primordial matter - the pixels - they may well - yes they have probably qualities like continuity and infinity - but they are not strictly part of physical world.
For the physical world - admitting that no such thing as the final truth exists, and will never come to exist - I have difficulties for the moment to accept that infinity and continuity can be in existance - and I see this as an axiom - OK I know - I have stated that before - nothing new.
Could you give me a clue whyt you have another view?.
Zephir
QUOTE: " "Recursiveness" is abstract concept, you cannot build a physical theory just by using of abstracts, massless concept."
May I compliment you for your good sense of humour -
No - and I agree with you - one cannot build a physical theory based on those grounds.
QUOTE: " "Recursiveness" is abstract concept, you cannot build a physical theory just by using of abstracts, massless concept."
May I compliment you for your good sense of humour -
No - and I agree with you - one cannot build a physical theory based on those grounds.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 18 2007, 03:43 PM)
...May I compliment you for your good sense of humor...
The AWT isn't based just on the recursiveness, it even doesn't contains the recursiveness at all as a postulate. The recursiveness is the result of Aether behavior, not the assumption at all.
The AWT isn't based just on the recursiveness, it even doesn't contains the recursiveness at all as a postulate. The recursiveness is the result of Aether behavior, not the assumption at all.
Zephir
QUOTE: "The AWT isn't based just on the recursiveness, it even doesn't contains the recursiveness at all as a postulate. The recursiveness is the result of Aether behavior, not the assumption at all."
Oh - pardoni - how stupid I am
QUOTE: "The AWT isn't based just on the recursiveness, it even doesn't contains the recursiveness at all as a postulate. The recursiveness is the result of Aether behavior, not the assumption at all."
Oh - pardoni - how stupid I am
Reality always proves itself right, Zephir. 'Small kids' know it!
Trashing other people threads because they threaten your own seems like the action of a very immature person to me, and certainly NOT close to resembling the courtesy that REAL scientists afford each other.
As long as you are here posting, it threatens you...Threats produce fears. If 'awt' was in any way true, you would have nothing to fear.
Anyway, keep posting! That keeps it more in public view, and truly inquisitive people will be able to decipher Reality from, well...(n)awt?
I could, but why should you believe anything from someone you don't know, and certainly have no way of knowing his/hers/its motivation? All I can say is that you will put up your own barriers to understanding by believing that 'certain things are not possible'. You have to first ask yourself: 'why do I believe that'? Is it my observation, or someone else's idea that I have latched onto? - I'm not saying that you are in any way 'gullible', or that you have not previously asked yourself these same questions, but Humans have over-complicated Reality to such an extent that the veils are piled very very thickly nowadays!
Only by learning how to be your own judge of Truth will you ever understand Truth from your own perspective, and that it must comply with all other perspectives of Reality. Sounds simple enough, doesn't it? But this is why Zephir's 'method' is more like a religion, that he has to force on people, quite simply because he does not give others credit for having their own thoughts. This kind of action takes power from people, and replaces it with 'authority'. We could deduce from this that the likes of Zephir either desperately want to be 'authority figures', or they already assume they are, and are promoting the idea that 'authority is good', because it is apparently paying off for them. None of which has much to do with the Reality in question, but indeed has much to do with throwing yet another veil over it.
People will always find Truth, if that is what they are genuinely looking for. If they are, in reality, only trying to justify 'authority' to themselves, then they will find that also...and be stuck with it! You have to be prepared to dig a bit deeper to find the Real gold. The 'fools' stuff is lying everywhere...
Trashing other people threads because they threaten your own seems like the action of a very immature person to me, and certainly NOT close to resembling the courtesy that REAL scientists afford each other.
As long as you are here posting, it threatens you...Threats produce fears. If 'awt' was in any way true, you would have nothing to fear.
Anyway, keep posting! That keeps it more in public view, and truly inquisitive people will be able to decipher Reality from, well...(n)awt?
QUOTE
Could you give me a clue why you have another view?.
I could, but why should you believe anything from someone you don't know, and certainly have no way of knowing his/hers/its motivation? All I can say is that you will put up your own barriers to understanding by believing that 'certain things are not possible'. You have to first ask yourself: 'why do I believe that'? Is it my observation, or someone else's idea that I have latched onto? - I'm not saying that you are in any way 'gullible', or that you have not previously asked yourself these same questions, but Humans have over-complicated Reality to such an extent that the veils are piled very very thickly nowadays!
Only by learning how to be your own judge of Truth will you ever understand Truth from your own perspective, and that it must comply with all other perspectives of Reality. Sounds simple enough, doesn't it? But this is why Zephir's 'method' is more like a religion, that he has to force on people, quite simply because he does not give others credit for having their own thoughts. This kind of action takes power from people, and replaces it with 'authority'. We could deduce from this that the likes of Zephir either desperately want to be 'authority figures', or they already assume they are, and are promoting the idea that 'authority is good', because it is apparently paying off for them. None of which has much to do with the Reality in question, but indeed has much to do with throwing yet another veil over it.
People will always find Truth, if that is what they are genuinely looking for. If they are, in reality, only trying to justify 'authority' to themselves, then they will find that also...and be stuck with it! You have to be prepared to dig a bit deeper to find the Real gold. The 'fools' stuff is lying everywhere...
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 18 2007, 05:33 PM)
this is why Zephir's 'method' is more like a religion
Every theory is sort of religion. For example, we are required to believe in postulates of every theory. Therefore I't trying to reduce the number of postulates to as low number, as possible. That's all.
The problem with WSM theory is, it introduces spherical wave for particles without further reasoning. The spherical wave is certain ad-hoc geometric structure, i.e. the same postulate, like the strings of string theory.
Every theory is sort of religion. For example, we are required to believe in postulates of every theory. Therefore I't trying to reduce the number of postulates to as low number, as possible. That's all.
The problem with WSM theory is, it introduces spherical wave for particles without further reasoning. The spherical wave is certain ad-hoc geometric structure, i.e. the same postulate, like the strings of string theory.
WSM is correct. You cannot ignore Truth forever.
QUOTE (8th bardo+Sep 11 2007, 12:33 PM)
WSM is correct. You cannot ignore Truth forever.
I see...
I see...
QUOTE (8th bardo+Sep 11 2007, 09:33 AM)
WSM is correct. You cannot ignore Truth forever.
Unfortunately it is not. For example, that theory is not able to say anything realistic about "strong gravity" and related structures, or about realistic and predictive unity of forces. Also it assumes linear wave equations and strict validity of SR/GR which is impossible to be.
But something could be viable in that intellectual attempt and that is the basic intuition of Space and its basic wavy nature. Realization was naive and wrong.
Cosmos follows a different Dynamics.
Unfortunately it is not. For example, that theory is not able to say anything realistic about "strong gravity" and related structures, or about realistic and predictive unity of forces. Also it assumes linear wave equations and strict validity of SR/GR which is impossible to be.
But something could be viable in that intellectual attempt and that is the basic intuition of Space and its basic wavy nature. Realization was naive and wrong.
Cosmos follows a different Dynamics.
A spherical wave is a simplification in a certain weak field. The particles would not be stable in a strong field (in nucleus) , I think.
There has to be a structure of the space which keeps the particle together.
There has to be a structure of the space which keeps the particle together.
QUOTE (Turya+Sep 11 2007, 01:37 PM)
Unfortunately it is not. For example, that theory is not able to say anything realistic about "strong gravity" and related structures, or about realistic and predictive unity of forces. Also it assumes linear wave equations and strict validity of SR/GR which is impossible to be.
But something could be viable in that intellectual attempt and that is the basic intuition of Space and its basic wavy nature. Realization was naive and wrong.
Cosmos follows a different Dynamics.
No. Fortunately, it is you who are not in possession of facts concerning WSM. (I'm just guessing that you have some 'theory' which feels threatened by WSM's obvious truth?)
It says everything about ALL Gravity. (And whatever is a 'related structure'?) It assumes neither 'linear wave equations' nor 'strict validity of SR/GR'. Please study.
There is a large and ever growing number of real scientists becoming increasingly more aware and involved with it.
You are correct with 'realization was naive and wrong', but not any longer.
Czeslaw - 'particle' is actually standing spherical wave-centre in WSM. No wave, no 'particle'. The wave-function is the fundamental action of Infinite Space (motion). The 'particle' is a finite structure, thus all physical matter is sometimes described as 'holographic', sometimes even 'illusory', but 'finite' is a better description. The paint is not permanent, but the canvass is.
Those interested in Truth now have the correct tools to find it with. The rest of you, if you could just rattle your jewellery?
P.S. Infinite Space cannot 'expand', it's just that Human understanding of it DOES. (eventually)
But something could be viable in that intellectual attempt and that is the basic intuition of Space and its basic wavy nature. Realization was naive and wrong.
Cosmos follows a different Dynamics.
No. Fortunately, it is you who are not in possession of facts concerning WSM. (I'm just guessing that you have some 'theory' which feels threatened by WSM's obvious truth?)
It says everything about ALL Gravity. (And whatever is a 'related structure'?) It assumes neither 'linear wave equations' nor 'strict validity of SR/GR'. Please study.
There is a large and ever growing number of real scientists becoming increasingly more aware and involved with it.
You are correct with 'realization was naive and wrong', but not any longer.
Czeslaw - 'particle' is actually standing spherical wave-centre in WSM. No wave, no 'particle'. The wave-function is the fundamental action of Infinite Space (motion). The 'particle' is a finite structure, thus all physical matter is sometimes described as 'holographic', sometimes even 'illusory', but 'finite' is a better description. The paint is not permanent, but the canvass is.
Those interested in Truth now have the correct tools to find it with. The rest of you, if you could just rattle your jewellery?
P.S. Infinite Space cannot 'expand', it's just that Human understanding of it DOES. (eventually)
QUOTE (Wolff da Knower+Sep 12 2007, 09:51 PM)
No. Fortunately, it is you who are not in possession of facts concerning WSM. (I'm just guessing that you have some 'theory' which feels threatened by WSM's obvious truth?)
I've read it long ago and all I found in it was only one thing - intuition of Space and I am always glad to share it. Also, by my very nature, I don't have such kind of fears as you might be assuming. Narrowness is not helpful anymore.
However, in strict physical sense that theory really is useless and unproductive especially about ALL gravity - real meaning of gravitostatic and gravitomagentic vectors and of related vector potential, real math form of G-potential, real meaning of constants c, G, h, real non-linear wave dynamics of strong gravity, mass of gravyphoton, violation of Lorentz symmetry... Real Cosmos.
Have peace dear Wolff
I've read it long ago and all I found in it was only one thing - intuition of Space and I am always glad to share it. Also, by my very nature, I don't have such kind of fears as you might be assuming. Narrowness is not helpful anymore.
However, in strict physical sense that theory really is useless and unproductive especially about ALL gravity - real meaning of gravitostatic and gravitomagentic vectors and of related vector potential, real math form of G-potential, real meaning of constants c, G, h, real non-linear wave dynamics of strong gravity, mass of gravyphoton, violation of Lorentz symmetry... Real Cosmos.
Have peace dear Wolff
QUOTE
I don't have such kind of fears as you might be assuming.
And here is an indication of how the reality of anything can so easily be missed. I never mentioned your fears. The referral was to any potential 'theory'. Please, there is no intention of personal attack. I am merely passing on information to those who have real interest.
To gain insight into anything, we must really pay close attention. Y'know...? Kinda 'scientist-like'? Much in the same way as 'child-like' (retaining a sense of awe) as opposed to 'childish' (retaining a sense of self-importance), eh?
www.glafreniere.com
..is another good site from yet another real scientist who is working with standing spherical waves.
..is another good site from yet another real scientist who is working with standing spherical waves.
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.