Forum FILOZOFIA Strona Główna FILOZOFIA
Forum miłujących mądrość
 
 » FAQ   » Szukaj   » Użytkownicy   » Grupy  » Galerie   » Rejestracja 
 » Profil   » Zaloguj się, by sprawdzić wiadomości   » Zaloguj 

Ogólna Teoria Wszystkiego
Idź do strony Poprzedni  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 ... 32, 33, 34  Następny
 
Napisz nowy temat   Odpowiedz do tematu    Forum FILOZOFIA Strona Główna -> Ontologia
Zobacz poprzedni temat :: Zobacz następny temat  
Autor Wiadomość
Prorock




Dołączył: 20 Paź 2008
Posty: 314
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 6 razy
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: skąd-inąd
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Pią 2:04, 26 Maj 2017    Temat postu:

Druga (najważniejsza) część filmiku właśnie się przelicza... W ciągu 34 minut przemodelowałem całe, naukowe pojmowanie świata, w którym żyjemy. Myślę, że naukowcom może się nie spodobać fakt, że umieściłem ich teorię 11 alternatywno-wymiarowego multiświata na tej samej półce, co "teorię" płaskiej Ziemi (półce podpisanej "totalny szmelc").

W 3 części posłużę się bazą danych egzoplanet, by pokazać, jak ślepa potrafi być nauka

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
Uporządkujcie sobie listę wg parametru "orbital periods" - jednostką jest długość dnia ziemskiego.

Nie sądzicie, że większość planet zdaje się orbitować z absurdalnie wysoką częstotliwością? Z jaką prędkością musialaby się poruszać taka planeta, by okrążać gwiazdę 2 razy dziennie?

I jakimś trafem, nikt się jakoś tym jeszcze nie zainteresował. No cóż - na nieszczęście dla nauki, tym kimś będę chyba musiał być ja (a potrafię być bardzo wredny Razz)

2 przykład, to pszczoła, która widzi poszczególne klatki w filmie... Nie umiem jednak jak na razie znaleźć filmiku, który kiedyś widziałem - może ktoś mi zechce pomóc...? Smile

3, to fragment filmu "Antman" - który bardzo efektownie przedstawia efekt dylatacji czasu w wymiarze skali...

No i to chyba wystarczy, żeby nikt nie był w stanie zaprzeczyć moim wywodom... Myślę, ze do niedzieli się wyrobię z wysłaniem całego filmu. A potem, mam nadzieję na widowiskowe fajerwerki, pożogę oraz strach i rozpacz, wszystkich tych, którzy próbowali powstrzymać nasz gatunek, przed wspięciem się na wyższy poziom cywilizacyjny.

Nie da się zaprzeczyć Jedynej Prawdzie

P.S. Jak wam się podoba tytuł "For You - General Theory Of Universe: The Unified Field" (Dla Ciebie - Ogólna Teoria Wszechświata: Zjednoczona Przestrzeń) ? Ma być jak najbardziej chwytliwy... Chcę przecież poruszyć cały świat Razz


Post został pochwalony 0 razy

Ostatnio zmieniony przez Prorock dnia Pią 2:57, 26 Maj 2017, w całości zmieniany 4 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Prorock




Dołączył: 20 Paź 2008
Posty: 314
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 6 razy
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: skąd-inąd
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Pią 3:44, 26 Maj 2017    Temat postu:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlOkBsOuX0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5XUdvBO_TE

Nie o te filmy mi chodziło, ale trudno - jak się nie ma, co się lubi... To się kradnie, co popadnie Razz
Oczywiście naukowcy próbują tłumaczyć to zjawisko prędkością przetwarzania informacji, ale niebawem będą musieli zmienić zdanie

A tutaj jest człowiek-mrówka Smile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5FYeciGgaA

Hmm, czyżby zjawisko dylatacji czasu w skali było już znane w Hollywood? Szkoda, że nikt nie podzielił się tą wiedzą z resztą świata...


Post został pochwalony 0 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Prorock




Dołączył: 20 Paź 2008
Posty: 314
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 6 razy
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: skąd-inąd
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Sob 19:18, 27 Maj 2017    Temat postu:

I oto jest...
https://youtu.be/GERLqsDGcmg
Pierwsza część filmowej wersji OTW... Krótko, zwięźle i logicznie udowodniłem, że Einstein, to zwykły bajkopisarz...


Post został pochwalony 0 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Piotr Rokubungi




Dołączył: 25 Maj 2017
Posty: 161
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 1 raz
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: Polska, Pomorze Zachodnie
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Pon 1:31, 05 Cze 2017    Temat postu:

Aktualnie nie mam czasu, by się zapoznać z tym wątkiem dokładniej, ale wezmę go raczej pod uwagę; tym bardziej, że od jakiegoś czasu sam powoli pracuję nad Hipotezą Wszystkiego...Smile

Post został pochwalony 0 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Prorock




Dołączył: 20 Paź 2008
Posty: 314
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 6 razy
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: skąd-inąd
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Wto 2:00, 06 Cze 2017    Temat postu:

Pozwólcie więc moi mili, rozwiązać kolejną z "wielkich zagadek nauki". Mianowicie - tajemniczy kondensat Bose-Einsteina. Rzecz tak niezwykłą, że nawet naukowcy jej nie rozumieją...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGPAb4obs8

A Prawda jest po prostu taka, że pod wpływem ekstremalnie niskiej temperatury, atomy stają się obiektem fizycznym.

Jednym obiektem - tym, którego te atomy tworzą. I tyle...

Bo liczy się tylko informacja, zapisana w atomach.


Post został pochwalony 0 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Prorock




Dołączył: 20 Paź 2008
Posty: 314
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 6 razy
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: skąd-inąd
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Wto 2:37, 06 Cze 2017    Temat postu:

I jeszcze wstępniak do kolejnego filmiku - niestety znowu po "mojemu angielsku"

Hello once again!

I will begin from the point, where my previous episode ended.

Up until now I've only defined the space, in which everything exists. For those, who didn't see my previous movie - space has 3 dimensional directions and one dimensional scale.
This makes it 4D. Time is defined by frequency of cycles, which take place within this space. However the cycles need some kind of physical substance to exist physically.

This is the time to speak about the physical matter, which fills the space.

Physical Matter has two main parameters - it is the size and the mass. By combining those two values, we get another paramter, which describes the density of matter in space. I think, that I don't need to explain, how it works Smile

Physical matter can be described as well by the energy, which is stored within the matter. Energy, combined with the density, defines the state of matter.

Energy is stored in such properties, as velocity, temperature and electric charge. The higher is the mass of matter, the bigger amount of energy can be stored in it...

There are 5 states of matter, according to our knowledge. It's: solid object, liquid, gas, plasma and Einstein's Bozeman Condensate (what an ugly name :/). Plasma and the condenstae are two critical states of matter. Matter becomes plasma due to high energy. Matter becomes the condensate when it's energy becomes extremely low.

Matter with low energy, appears, as solid objects.
The higher is the energy, the less "physical properties" can be seen in the matter. Liquid, gas and plasma can't be treated, as solid objects and they are affected by different laws of physics...

Na razie tyle Razz


Post został pochwalony 0 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Piotr Rokubungi




Dołączył: 25 Maj 2017
Posty: 161
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 1 raz
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: Polska, Pomorze Zachodnie
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Wto 18:04, 06 Cze 2017    Temat postu:

Sporo w tym racji, ale też niemało bzdur wynikających raczej z niedostatecznej znajomości wiedzy aktualnej. Odnoszę te słowa głównie w stosunku do pierwszego wpisu tego wątku. Nie zwróciłem uwagi, kiedy został on napisany, ale bozon Higgsa jest już doświadczalnie potwierdzony aktualnie. Nie czytałem jeszcze całego wątku, a tylko kilka pierwszych wpisów, ale postaram się doczytać dalej, bo dosyć mnie zaciekawił i ma trochę wspólnego z Hipotezą Wszystkiego...Wink

Post został pochwalony 0 razy

Ostatnio zmieniony przez Piotr Rokubungi dnia Wto 18:05, 06 Cze 2017, w całości zmieniany 1 raz
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Prorock




Dołączył: 20 Paź 2008
Posty: 314
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 6 razy
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: skąd-inąd
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Wto 19:00, 06 Cze 2017    Temat postu:

Piotr Rokubungi napisał:
Sporo w tym racji, ale też niemało bzdur wynikających raczej z niedostatecznej znajomości wiedzy aktualnej. Odnoszę te słowa głównie w stosunku do pierwszego wpisu tego wątku. Nie zwróciłem uwagi, kiedy został on napisany, ale bozon Higgsa jest już doświadczalnie potwierdzony aktualnie. Nie czytałem jeszcze całego wątku, a tylko kilka pierwszych wpisów, ale postaram się doczytać dalej, bo dosyć mnie zaciekawił i ma trochę wspólnego z Hipotezą Wszystkiego...Wink


Akurat zbytnio mi to nie przeszkadza - bozon Higgsa może być tłumaczony po prostu jako ta część informacji, zawartej w atomie, która opisuje jego masę...


Post został pochwalony 0 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Piotr Rokubungi




Dołączył: 25 Maj 2017
Posty: 161
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 1 raz
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: Polska, Pomorze Zachodnie
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Wto 22:01, 06 Cze 2017    Temat postu:

Prorock napisał:
Piotr Rokubungi napisał:
Sporo w tym racji, ale też niemało bzdur wynikających raczej z niedostatecznej znajomości wiedzy aktualnej. Odnoszę te słowa głównie w stosunku do pierwszego wpisu tego wątku. Nie zwróciłem uwagi, kiedy został on napisany, ale bozon Higgsa jest już doświadczalnie potwierdzony aktualnie. Nie czytałem jeszcze całego wątku, a tylko kilka pierwszych wpisów, ale postaram się doczytać dalej, bo dosyć mnie zaciekawił i ma trochę wspólnego z Hipotezą Wszystkiego...Wink


Akurat zbytnio mi to nie przeszkadza - bozon Higgsa może być tłumaczony po prostu jako ta część informacji, zawartej w atomie, która opisuje jego masę...
Cokolwiek MOŻE BYĆ tłumaczone jakkolwiek.

Post został pochwalony 0 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Prorock




Dołączył: 20 Paź 2008
Posty: 314
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 6 razy
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: skąd-inąd
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Sob 22:49, 10 Cze 2017    Temat postu:

Piotr Rokubungi napisał:
Prorock napisał:
Piotr Rokubungi napisał:
Sporo w tym racji, ale też niemało bzdur wynikających raczej z niedostatecznej znajomości wiedzy aktualnej. Odnoszę te słowa głównie w stosunku do pierwszego wpisu tego wątku. Nie zwróciłem uwagi, kiedy został on napisany, ale bozon Higgsa jest już doświadczalnie potwierdzony aktualnie. Nie czytałem jeszcze całego wątku, a tylko kilka pierwszych wpisów, ale postaram się doczytać dalej, bo dosyć mnie zaciekawił i ma trochę wspólnego z Hipotezą Wszystkiego...Wink


Akurat zbytnio mi to nie przeszkadza - bozon Higgsa może być tłumaczony po prostu jako ta część informacji, zawartej w atomie, która opisuje jego masę...
Cokolwiek MOŻE BYĆ tłumaczone jakkolwiek.


A ja po prostu tłumacze wszystko w jak najprostszy i jak najbardziej logiczny sposób Smile


Post został pochwalony 0 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Prorock




Dołączył: 20 Paź 2008
Posty: 314
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 6 razy
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: skąd-inąd
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Sob 23:13, 10 Cze 2017    Temat postu:

Wklejam tutaj moją dyskusję, która nadal ma miejsce w komentarzach pod filmem, mówiącym o tym, czego nie wiemy o czarnej materii:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pq9hovXI44

JA - It's because our understanding of time is wrong. Time is not a dimension, but the frequency of everything, what happens in the environment - and this frequency depends on the scale. We measure time using Earth cycles - using this frequency to describe massive objects (like galaxies), will cause distortions... This is why so many exoplanets have ridiculously short orbital periods and why insects see the world in "slow motion"...
Sadly this denies the concept of time-space, where time is 4'th dimension. There's one more physical dimension, besides X,Y,Z - it's the SCALE...

Morning madera - Not butt hurt, but dumbstruck by the ignorance in your post. Your amount of verbal vomit was astounding.

One little note, we haven't measured time by Earth cycles for centuries, we currently measure time with the help of the Caesium atom.

JA - Yeah - and just by coincidence, one day equals to one Earth rotation and one year equals to a single orbital cycle... Of course - it has nothing to do with the time Smile LOL And of course Caesium atom doesn't have any cycles at all...

Sure... There are no cycles in space and time is a physical dimension (one of 11). Alternative multi-verse combined with time travel. The fact, that we exist is a pure coincidence, right? Cause, this is what science came to...

So, probably you won't be butthurt, if I call those "revelations" as sci-fi fairytales? "Sliders" meet "Back To The Future" - this is how standard model looks like...

Laff700 - Our perception of time isn't directly linked to Earth's rotational speed or orbital period. If it was we wouldn't be able to perceive changes in the day's length. Not quite sure if you're arguing against this or not Astral Traveler.

Morning madera - 1 day = EXACTLY 24 hours, one Earth rotation is slower by about 4 seconds, so no, one day does not equal one Earth rotation. We also have leap years and seconds, so no, one year does not equal to one orbital cycle.

To which crowd do you adhere, the flat/hollow earth mumbo jumbo, the electric universe tin foil hatters, or the "we are all connected" hippies? I'm gonna go with E.U., since you used "standard model" derogatorily ...

JA - Laff700 - Hmm, the velocity of rotation doesn't change a bit throughout the year. It's the angle of Earth axis, which causes the changes in the durations of days/nights... However, this is only the base of how we measure the time. I don't say, that a change of rotational velocity would affect our percepcion of time flow - all the clocks would measure the same time, as before...

I say, that if you would shrink an analog clock, it would measure the time "faster" than before. If you would make yourself smaller, your heart would beat faster and you would perceive the world in "slow motion" - just like insects do...

This is why scale is the 4'th dimension of physical space - and not time, which is something apparent...

JA - Morning Madera - So, the fact, that we have to adjust our time measurements to the frequency of planetary cycles, only proves, that I'm correct... I knew about those details, but I didn't want to waste my time, talking about them Smile Thanks!

Actually, I don't like to put myself to any cathegory. I use some parts of all the alternative theories and add my own thoughts - EXCEPT the flat/hollow Earth BS. I like the plasma cosmology, but it doesn't include the quantum physics - so I've had to add couple things to it (like the scale dimension)...

But it goes much further... Quantum physics becomes obvious, when we will think about atoms, as about INFORMATION, which describes matter...

Altrag - @Astral Traveler: You need to learn how science works. Scientists are very well aware of what units of measure are and how they work, and how to convert from one set of units to another. I'm not sure I can say the same for you.

The speed of light is constant. It doesn't matter if you measure it in km/s or mph or years per light-year. The number you get will be different in each system of units, but only by a constant factor and a constant multiplied by another constant is still constant.

The reason galaxies can move away from us faster than light is because the speed of light only applies to things within space, it doesn't limit the speed of space itself and its actually the expansion of space that results in faster than light galaxies (and even then there's an aspect of it being just an apparent effect since by definition, any light emitted from an object moving away from us faster than light would not have had time to get to us.)

Faster than light rotation within a galaxy on the other hand, has not been observed. Occasionally someone thinks they've observed it but so far its always been either an observational error or some incorrect math and when it gets peer reviewed, the inconsistency gets fixed and the universe turns out to be just fine.

JA - altrag Problem is, that scientists don't include the difference of size in the measurements of cycles in distant objects. For example - apparent velocity of rotation, will get higher, the smaller the object is, compared to our point of reference. This is why so many exoplanets have such short orbital periods - planet, which circles around the star every couple hours would have to move at impossible velocity. To measure the frequency properly, we would have to be within that system. But if we would go there and measure the orbital period of Earth, it would get much longer, that the one, which we see on Earth. Difference of scale causes the distortion of apparent time flow... And I don't think, that scientists include it in their calculations...

Laff700 - "I say, that if you would shrink an analog clock, it would measure the time "faster" than before. If you would make yourself smaller, your heart would beat faster and you would perceive the world in "slow motion" - just like insects do..."

I'm going to guess that these assumptions are based of of general relativity. The first guess of mine is the smaller an object is, the faster time passes because there is less mass so there is less gravitational time dilation. My second guess has to do with the non-linear relationship between momentum and velocity as one gets closer to the speed of light. Lets say you have a clock that works by counting the amount of time it takes for one particle to bounce from one side of a box to the other. If we double the length of the box then we must also double the speed of the particle so that the clock's speed doesn't change(m/(m/s)=s=2m/(2m/s)). Lets say we do that by keeping the mass the same and doubling the momentum. This works great when the first and second speeds are very low. It doesn't work well when they are going significant fractions of the speed of light. The ratio between velocity and momentum is (1-(v/c)^2)^0.5/m. This means scaling up one of these clocks could slow it down if the particle is going fast enough. The most extreme example of this is a photon clock. If you double the size of a photon clock it will tick 2 times slower.

"http://exoplanets.org/detail/KOI_1140.01
And of course, it is absolutely normal, that a planet, which is 3 times larger than Jupiter, circles around a star, which is 3 times larger than the Sun, every 12 hours... "

The period of an object's circular orbit around a much larger object is based on the distance between both objects and the mass of the larger object. The gravitational acceleration felt by an object in orbit(GM/r^2) is equal to the centripetal acceleration it feels(v^2/r). The orbital period would be 2r*pi/v=2pi(r^3/GM)^0.5. 2pi((0.0145 AU)^3/(G(1.32 suns)))^0.5/(24*60^2) days=2pi((2.169169e+9 m)^3/((2.64e+30 kg)(6.67408e-11)))^0.5/(24*60^2) days=0.55348842403 days~=0.553261874 day. I'd say that the orbital period makes perfect sense given the planets location.

"The problem with velocity of galaxy rotation can be solved without the dark matter. We just need to stop thinking about gravity, as about the dominant force in the Universe. ... You can increase the voltage to cause stronger rotation... It's the basic law of MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS (MHD)..."

The issue isn't stars not being able to go fast enough to stay in their orbit, its that the gravitational force doesn't seem like it would normally be strong enough to keep stars going that fast in orbit. It seems like the stars should get flung out of the galaxy by the centripetal force. To counteract this apparent discrepancy, scientists suggested that the extra inwards force was coming from extra mass's gravitational pull. The extra inward force could also be explained if there was a strong enough current going around the center of the galaxy and a magnetic field that current would be going through.

JA - Laff700 I really appreciate your response. I'm always ready to speak with people, who have the proper knowledge and are not afraid to speak with someone, like me Smile Actually I like to learn new things and I hope, that you have an open mind... Just don't run away... Very Happy

This is my statement: Laws of Universe are simple, logic and universal. They have to work, in every aspect of physical and measurable existence...

Let's begin from this movie:
watch?v=32qqEzBG9OI

This is everything, what we actually know about the Universe (at least in macro-scale). It's so nicely explained, that even a complete amateur, (like me) can understand it... I'm guessing, that half of the simulation code is based on MHD - which solves the interactions of electromagnetic fields and plasma currents. Second half, is the gravitaton - which is caused by dark matter and black holes. Am I right?

Now let's add the fact, that every galaxy has it's own magnetic field. Even black holes have them. I think, that you've heard about this, recent discovery:
watch?v=ZyyLkuCHdRY

How do you think - is this a rare event in the Universe, or is it something rather common? For me it was always obvious, that magnetic fields of galaxies are interacting with eachother... And let me ask you, what is the source of magnetic field in the whole physical matter?

I would say, that it is the spin of particles in atoms. If the direction of spin is aligned in a group of atoms, magnetic field is being produced. In a pernament magnet, atoms are arranged in domains with a single orientation of magnetic field...

In a star system it's also the spin (at least in the case of Solar System). On the Sun, magnetic equator is located close (I know!!! not exactly, but close) to the geographical one.. So does on Earth and on most of planets in our system
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]
This is the heliosphere...

In a galaxy all the star systems are aligned by the direction of their spins. Yes - galaxies are not perfect magnets, but they generate a magnetic field, just like other objects with a different size...

And this is why, science has to consider the scale as a 4'th dimension of measurable space - completely physical and most likely infinite, in both "directions"... From macro- to micro- Universe - as above, so below...

Atoms and objects are placed in the same location in dimensional space - but they exist in completely different "realities". Of course, scale has infinite levels - so the distortions are increasing smoothly, the higher gets the difference of size...

Compare a quasar with the shape of electron orbital d... Coincidence???

Compare the galactic filaments to a brain cell... It's not me, who's making this up...

(this was only about MHD - I will speak about the gravity in next comment Razz)

Morning madera - Gotta love that Electric Universe ramble ... you people should form "a society" too, just like flat earthers.

JA - Morning Madera - I didn't talk to you... You don't fit to the description, which I gave in the very beggining of my previous comment... Sorry, but your opinion is for me as valuable, as... (well - guess by yourself Razz)

altrag - "I would say,"
Any sentence that starts with a phrase like that is, pretty much by definition, conjecture. Its not a theory and its definitely not a proof of anything.

"science has to consider the scale as a 4'th dimension of measurable space"
No, it doesn't. Science has to consider evidence and only evidence. You can propose any hypothesis and make any conjecture you want, but until there's evidence to back it up its not a theory.

The reason we believe things like General Relativity and disbelieve things like Electric Universe is because the evidence supports the former. Even if EU's math all works out (and I'm not sure that it does,) if it doesn't match reality then its not science -- its just math and fantasies. Also note that I said we "believe" in GR. Its not (and can never be) "proven" since there's always the chance that we'll find something tomorrow that doesn't fit within the GR model. Unfortunately for EU, there's already plenty of things that don't fit the models. That doesn't mean someone can't fix the EU models some day, and who knows maybe it will turn out to be right. But short of a full on scientific revolution, the magic 8 ball is strongly pointing toward "no."

And of course, when I say "evidence" I don't mean "well I looked at it and it seemed to be this way." You have to actually measure it. And then convince people that your measurements themselves were done correctly, which is generally best accomplished by detailing your measurement apparatus and letting other people attempt to duplicate (or at least review) your work, your results, and the conclusions you drew from it.

JA - altrag - I have an idea of experiment, which would prove the dimensional scale as being dimensional (what is like proving the roundness of a circle Razz).

Make a perfectly scaled miniature of Big Ben (with it's original mechanism) and compare the time, which is measured by the model and by full-scale original from London.

I can predict, that the model will (most likely) measure the time "faster"...

Make a planet two times smaller - and the lenght of orbit would be twice so long from it's point of view. Shrink yourself and perceive the world in "slow-motion"...

It's all the same dimensional scale - which makes A LOT of difference in space...

JA - Laff700 - Our knowledge of electromagnetism and MHD is relatively good. I agree with most of things, which we (profanes) are being told. But when it comes to gravity....

watch?v=NVKO7UCIlgs

Yeah... Hmmm... It's "sort of scratching at the door of one of the biggest mysteries, that we have today, in cosmology"...

During this short movie, we can see 3, different visualisations of objects, emitting gravitational waves. Which one is, in your opinion, the best one? I like the one at 02:00... It shows the gravitational lensing - which can be in fact seen on the images from Hubble Telescope... And "just by coincidence" it looks like distortion, caused by objects, which are floating on a water surface. Similar effect can be seen in my bowl Smile

Mechanism of gravity in space is still a complete theory... Science understands the gravity, as the effect of "space-time" curvature. However, the idea of time, being a physical dimension is simply WRONG. I don't care about the calculations - show me the proof, that there's any other time, than the moment, in which we exist physically. Only Real-Time is real... Prove me being wrong...

But let's go back to the simulation of Universe. We can see there the gravitational waves, emitted by black holes. In my opinion, this proces seems to work correctly. However, I have a different explanation - as I always try to find the most simple answer...

watch?v=PN9eO3LqPp8
watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU

Of course - ionised gas, is the most common form of matter in space. So, instead of bubbles, similar process causes a massive displacement of particles with electric charge. Induction creates a magnetic field - and voilla: a galaxy is born.

Of course, in time, electric charge gets lower - as each differential tries to nullify itself. This is why, velocity of galaxy rotation gets smaller in time.

So, what is the gravity in my completely insignificant opinion? Well it's a wave, which is created by any physical object, moving in a less dense medium... Of course the bigger and "heavier" is the object, the bigger gravitational waves it emits (but it's rather obvious)

Such concept of gravity allows (in theory) to emit artifical gravitational waves and locally nullify the gravitational field of another object (antigravity I think?)
I can predict, that gravitation is probably caused by waves at huge lenghts (hundreds or even thousands of kilometers long). It seems, that we are just learning how to levitate small objects with sound.

Using microwaves and a flame, we can create balls of plasma - which defy completely the gravity. What, if we would surround some object with microwaves and make it burn? Smile
watch?v=G7lfzA7WzVI

I know - it's too simple...

JA - And for the final: What is the most "scientific" definition of physically existing Universe? (according to my pseudoscientific ignorance)

Universe is a fractal structure, which (Who?) exists due to the constant process of information exchange.

I know - it's to short and too obvious...

And what is even worse - it explains God (as the One, Who Is) - and us (concious life forms), who live in the physical manifestation of His Mind.

And proves it with MHD simulation from NASA... It can't get worse...

Sorry - but it is The Only Truth (the one, which is most obvious and plain)... I Am Who I Am - and there's no other way to understranding...

altrag - > I can predict, that the model will (most likely) measure the time "faster"...
Your prediction is wrong. Well, actually that's not entirely true. The real Big Ben, having more mass, would produce a (very, very) small amount of extra gravity and, per General Relativity, would indeed cause nearby objects to move faster. Of course with the amount of mass a single building has, you're likely talking a difference of parts per trillion or smaller. That is, basically unmeasurable even with our best instruments.

> the lenght of orbit would be twice so long from it's point of view
No its not. Here's an experiment for you: Cut out two circles of paper -- one with a 3" diameter and one with a 6" diameter. Now trace a 10" diameter circle around each, centered on in the center of each circle.
Great. Now measure the circumference of those two 10" circles. Notice how they're both ~31.4 inches (10*pi)? Because the size of the larger circle (the "orbit") has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the smaller circle (the "planets.")

Now of course the mass of the planet has an effect on orbit around it (though a 10" orbit is still a 10" orbit -- the change is the amount of energy you need to use to maintain that orbit.) But that's true under Newton's gravity as well. In fact, Newton was the one who proved that a small, dense planet and a large, fluffy planet with the same mass would have the same gravitational effects on distant objects such as an orbiting body.

> perceive the world
Perception is a function of how your brain operates, its not a function of reality. That's why we need actual objective experiments, rather than just intuition, to justify physics on scales that humans aren't used to -- very small, very large, very fast, very cold, very hot and so on. In all of those extremes, the universe simply works different from how you think it should based on your human-scale experiences.

JA - altrag - more important is the angular velocity and the rotational speed. Take a big spinning top and a small one - to maintain the same frequency (for example 1 rotation per 1 seond), bigger top has to rotate faster. The same goes for gears in every mechanism. Maintaining the same rotational speed will result in higher frequency of the smaller model.

>the lenght of orbit would be twice so long from it's point of view
Sadly, there's no way to shrink yourself, so it's more, like a "theory". However imagine yourself running on a road, which is 1km long. Now imagine, that you are 10 times smaller - but the road remained 1km long. It's rather obvious, that from your perspective, you need to move through much greater distance - you would have to make 10 times more steps (and a single step can be used as a unit of frequency). You would have to shrink the road together with you to maintain the ratio of subjective distance...
Talking about planets, It can be probably calculated, by using the radius of a planet, as a unit to measure the distance. For example - Bigger plaet has to pass a distance, which equals to 100 radiuses. Planet, which is 2 times smaller, would have to pass the distance of 200 radiuses, to maintain the same frequency.

> perceive the world
True, but since we know already, that smaller animals perceive the world in slow motion, such assumption is based on actual facts...

JA - altrag - when you change the circumference of a circle, you change as well the rotational speed (if you maintain the angular velocity). This is probably one of the basic laws in mechanics...
You can begin from 16:37
watch?v=GERLqsDGcmg
The most "scientific" visualisation of apparent time flow and how the dimensional scale affects it..

altrag - Again, that video is flat out wrong:
- "1 day equals one rotation of a planet, which circles around a star every single year."
Then on the next slide:
- "This is the ultimate callendar of known universe."
- "No matter, on which planet you would live, those constant values could be used to measure the time."

Wrong, wrong wrong. For starters, they're not "constant" by any useful definition -- in fact they're explicitly not constant as they are different for every single planet. But beyond that, they aren't even constant on our own planet -- there are slight wobbles in both the rotation about our axis and in our orbit around the sun that changes both the length of a day and the length of a year.

On the other hand, the actual units we use -- based off of fundamental values such as the speed of light in a vacuum and the fine structure constant -- are always, 100% the same no matter where you are in the universe or when*.

Its certainly useful to say "Mercury's year is only 88 days long!" when you're talking to the general public who don't know, understand or care about things like SI units, but actual science is done using much stricter definitions. You will never see the term "day" used as an unit of time in any real physics equation. Its just not accurate enough for their purposes, by several orders of magnitude.

* There is a small possibility that the fine structure constant isn't entirely constant across really large time scales, which we can probe by looking really far out (= really far back in time.) No difference has been found yet, but that only means that the deviation is small enough that our current instruments can't detect it at that distance. Its always possible the next generation of tech will find a deviation, but its not really expected.

JA - altrag - the units of time, which we use are NOT based on speed of light...
How an hour is connected to SOL? Time was measured long before we knew about SOL...

Yes - there are wobbles and this is why, we have to adjust our clocks to the changes of planetary cycles. This proves, that time measurements depend on planetary cycles.

How could I define a time unit in my virtual model differently? How one second can be applied to a completely virtual model? It can't... You have to define completly new unit of time - just as I did...

Sebastian Schneider - [link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

An hour is defined as 3600 seconds and a second i defined by a proven natural constant. (The SI definition of second is "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom")

Nothing to do with planetary cycles. The rotation of the earth also has nothing to do with its orbit around the sun. imagine a ballerina twisting on the back of a truck (a day) while the truck drives a circle. (a year)

We ajust our clocks to the wobbles of the earth cause our clocks are waaay more precise than the rotation of earth, Since we still need to keep noon at noon and spring in spring we of course adjust our clocks since they would be out of sync in a while. But that has nothing to do with measuring time but with convinience since we all need to agree on what 9am is to be at a meeting on time.

JA - Sebastian Schneider - we use a callendar to measure the time. One day equals to (almost) 24 hours - we adjust the clocks to turn the "almost" into "precisely".

Callendar is based on planetary cycles - it's simple, as f***k

Our time measurement is based on those cycles... Or maybe you will tell now, that one year has nothing to do with orbital cycle of Earth...

1 light year equals to the distance, passed by a wave of light during a single orbital cycle of Earth...

Someone wants to argue with this? Smile
You can try only to paste funny images, which will show, how wrong I am. Well - sorry... I'm absolutely correct Smile

Laff700 - +Astral Traveler

Sorry, I've been busy lately.

"True, but since we know already, that smaller animals perceive the world in slow motion, such assumption is based on actual facts..."

While creatures like insects may perceive time faster than us, this is not a good basis for saying smaller creatures perceive time faster than us due to their small size. A more accurate comparison would be between us and another species which is very similar to us but much smaller. A good comparison would be between a human and a rat. Biologically speaking, humans and rats are rather similar. It is for this reasons scientists test on rats so much. Rats are also much smaller than humans. If your theory was correct, rats would perceive time faster than us. I have had pet rats in the past so I know how they behave and act. Based on my observations, rats do not perceive time faster than us. We both seem to perceive time at the same rate. Therefore, I can conclude size does not affect the perception of the rate that time passes at. The difference in the rate time passes at between humans and some bugs must be explained by another thing, like genetics.

JA - Laff700 - how the movements, which the rat is making appear to you. I also know, how rat behaves - his movements are rapid in our perspective..

I can ony bet, but from the perspective of a rat, his movements are normal, but you appear to move slower...

But it's not only about the size, but more about the cycles of a particular organism. A turtle won't probably see in "slow motion" - but we see the turtle in such way Smile It's probably about the heartbeat rate or/and the metabolism (which is partially connected with the size)...

Laff700 - The speed of the movements of a rat's feet isn't necessarily related to the speed time passes for them. It could be something they do unconsciously like how we unconsciously control the muscles in our legs when we walk.

JA - Laff700 let's compare a turtle and a rat. turtle moves slowly, rat moves faster. Turtle lives much longer than a rat. Turtle is moving slower through time - that's why his movements appear as slow in our perspective. shorter life span results in higher frequency...


Post został pochwalony 0 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Prorock




Dołączył: 20 Paź 2008
Posty: 314
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 6 razy
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: skąd-inąd
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Sob 23:14, 10 Cze 2017    Temat postu:

JA - Laff700 - I'm working right now on the second part of my weird "Universe lessons". I'm trying to explain all the aspects of existence, as simply, as it is possible. But I would like to be sure, that I didn't make any mistakes - from the scientific point of view.

This is, how it will look like more, or less:
**
I will begin from the point, where my previous episode ended.

Up until now I've only defined the space, in which everything exists. For those, who didn't see my previous movie - physical space has 3 dimensional directions and one dimensional scale, what
makes it 4D. Time is defined by frequency of cycles, which take place within this space. However, to exist physically, a cycle needs some kind of physical substance, which would allow us to measure and describe it.

And this is the right moment, to speak a bit, about the physical matter, which fills the space and shape the reality, in which concious Mind exists on daily basis...

Physical Matter can be described by two main parameters - it's dimensional size and it's mass. By combining those two values, we get another paramter, which describes the density of matter in space. I think, that I don't need to explain, how it works Smile

Physical matter can be described as well by the energy, which is stored within this matter. Energy can be described by properties, like velocity, temperature and electric charge. The higher is the mass of matter, the more energy can be stored in it...

Energy, combined with the density, defines the state of matter. According to our current (and official) knowledge, there are 5 known states of matter. It's: solid object, liquid, gas, plasma and Einstein's Bozeman Condensate (what an ugly name :/). Plasma and the condensate are the critical states of matter. Matter becomes plasma, when it's energy is high enough and turns into Einsten-Bozeman condensate when it's energy becomes extremely low.

At the lowest energy band, matter appears, as solid object.
The higher the energy gets, the less solid the matter appears. Liquid, gas and plasma can't be treated, as solid objects and are described with different laws of physics... According to professional scientists, Bose-Einstein condensate is so weird, that even they can't explain it properly - but I will come back to it soon...

Physical matter is made of atoms. Atoms describe all the basic properties of matter. Mass, density, energy, state, composition or even physical size depends on the information, which is stored on the quantum level (piko-scale?). Keep in mind, that physical matter can be described by many other properties, like it's color, it's smell or taste - or by every single property, which you can think about. This information is as well stored "somewhere" at the molecular level (nano-scale?).

But the most important properties of matter - from the perspective of a human Mind - can be observed, as properties of the physical environment, in which we exist and which we interact with. Generally, when we see a cup of coffee, we don't think too much about all the atoms, which create it.
Still - this cup of coffe is actually made of all those atoms. When we drink it, atoms, which make the coffee, interact with atoms of the tongue - and what are they doing? Nahhh - I won't reveal all the mysteries of science at once. Those, who still didn't figure it out, will have to wait a second...Razz

For now, let's move back to the cycles in 4D space. Each kind of physical matter, has it's frequency of cycles. Although an object might appear completely motionless, it is constantly moving through space in an endless celestial cycle. Besides, each atom has as well it's own frequency of cycles.

Velocity, temperature and electric charge, describe the energy, which is "stored" in matter. But those values affect as well the frequency of cycles. By increasing the energy, we increase as well the frequency of matter. Plasma has the highest frequencies, while solid objects, the lowest ones.
There are so many different ways to change the energy level in matter, that I won't even give any examples... Ok - one: microwave owen... Smile

And this is the right time, to speak again about the Bose-Einstein condensate - a state of matter, achieved by extremely low temperatures. According to all scientific predictions, by lowering the temperature, we should as well decrease the frequency of matter, until we won't achieve the point, when frequency will reach zero and all the cycles will literally "freeze in time".

But here comes the funny part... Most of physicists assumed, that in this point, atoms will become solid objects and electron clouds will turn into tiny "balls" of matter.

But Instead, all the atoms turned into a single waveform... In the end, physical matter turned out to be completely virtual and "metaphysical"... And this is why, all those scientists are currently ripping out their brains, trying to find any physical substance in the physical existence...

Allow me to help... When the temperature becomes extremely low, atoms turn in fact into a solid object. They turn into the object, which is made of those atoms. Atoms disappear and only an object exists...

And this is why I will now make the second assumption in my model of Universe. My assumption is simple: entire existence - in all of it's forms - is based on the INFORMATION...

Matter exist physically, because of the information about it's physical properties.

So, what happens, when atoms, which create a coffee, interact with atoms of the tongue? Yes, my dear children - they exchange the information about their properties...
***

For now, that's it. I didn't even start dealing with physical forces. I didn't even mention about the waves, magnetic and electric fields, speed of light and millions other things - but in time, I will try to fit every single piece of the puzzle on the right place...

altrag - Well I'm not about to point out all of the flaws in that giant pile of nonsense, but I will explain one thing for you: The Bose-Einstein condensate is named after two people who were involved in discovering it -- Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein. I'm sorry you feel their names aren't up to your aesthetic views but its still kind of impolite to call them ugly.

You really, really should at least read the Wikipedia articles on some physics stuff before you start trying to deny or reinterpret things you don't even know the correct name of, never mind how they work or what real scientists have already discovered in the past hundred years (you know, using actual experiments and evidence rather than just stating random things you happen to think up.)

JA - altrag - it is rather obvious, that Bose-Einstein condensate is named after two scientists - one of those names sounds even somehow familiar to me... strange... Still, compared to such words, like plasma, gas or liquid, it sounds pretty ugly... They should figure out something shorter and more cool - like "freezoid", "coldium" or "solide". I know! ..."waveium"...P Damn! this sounds pretty cool!

Thanks anyway... Maybe you didn't tell anything new to me, but I appreciate your input Smile If this was the only mistake, which you've found, then I don't need to be afraid about the rest. Of course, I've made everything, to ensure myself about being correct in my statements, but there was always a chance, that I overlooked something (like some additional form of energy or something like that)...

Of course, my goal is to explain everything in the shortest and most simple way. I won't waste the time, to speak about the history of research in all the aspects of physics, which I'm dealing with. If I would make an essay about the Bose-Einstein condensate, I would have to make it as well, in the case of plasma and God knows, what else. But that's not the point... My explanations should be short and simple - so even a half-brained flatearther would be able to understand them...

It's actually very funny, to resolve all the greatest "mysteries" of science, with obvious statements. Like for example:
"Why subatomic particles have mass?"
"Because they contain the information about the mass"
The end - case solved Smile Quantum physics explained in 5 minutes...

However it seems, that scientists, like to turn the physics into some arcane knowledge for the choosen ones. They always look for the most difficult and abstract explanations and explain them, using strings of digits.... 11D multi-verse is the best example of such thinking. Possibility as physical dimension(s). Damn, what drugs they take, to make such sick statements? Flakka?

Obviously you forgot, where and when our science was born... It was in ancient Greece. First scientists, were philosophers. They used LOGIC, instead of mathematics. I hope, that I don't need to tell you about all the great achievements of ancient Greeks...

altrag - > If this was the only mistake,
Hardly, but since you were making the same mistakes in that wall of text that you have been throughout the entire thread, I didn't feel like wasting my time saying the same things over again. You obviously are stuck on your "virtual" world and are unwilling to spend the time learning how the real world works. That's fine. You're welcome to do that. But its not reality, its just stories.

> It's actually very funny, to resolve all the greatest "mysteries" of science, with obvious statements
Trouble is, the universe isn't obvious -- at least not by the standards of human intuition. You can make all the statements you want, obvious or not, but unless they can be confirmed by experiment they aren't reality, they're just stories.

> Quantum physics explained in 5 minutes
"It exists because it exists" is an even more useless statement than "God did it." The latter at least could, in principle, be useful (if God decides to show up one day and tell us he did it. Though we'd probably still double-check just in case he's gone back to his Old Testament persona and is testing us yet again Razz) Your statements however are pretty much just a tautology and doesn't "explain" anything. That would be like saying the sky is blue because its made of things that are blue. Not only useless, but also incorrect.

> arcane knowledge for the choosen ones
If by "the chosen ones", you mean "everybody." You're perfectly free to watch some of those videos I linked. The Leonard Susskind lectures in particular. That is literally recorded in a classroom where they teach the "chosen" ones -- free for literally anybody with an internet connection to watch. Even you. And he's by far not the only one who has this information up on the internet. Its up to you whether you want to invest the time into becoming a "chosen" one.

> They always look for the most difficult and abstract explanations and explain them
No, they look for the most correct explanations. The fact that they're difficult is unfortunate but that's the way the universe works, to the best of our measurement capabilities.

> 11D multi-verse is the best example of such thinking. Possibility as physical dimension(s). Damn, what drugs they take, to make such sick statements?
I have no idea how they came up with it, and all string theories (in fact all theories involving any form of quantum gravity) are still purely math without evidence. String theorists are well aware of the fact that they could be shown to be incorrect at any time should the LHC (or any other detector) discover something totally unexpected and unexplained. But at the same time, those scientists spend their time trying to think up ways these theories could be potentially tested so that we can say with at least a bit of certainty whether we're heading down the right path or if we're totally off base. For now though, those theories are also just stories. But at least they're stories that match up with our existing experiments, unlike your stories.

> They used LOGIC, instead of mathematics.
Yep, and they were frequently wrong. If you want to use Greek science, you should be talking about things like epicycles and the four elements (earth, air, fire, water) and celestial spheres and other such nonsense that may have sounded good when the only measurement instruments we had were our own senses, but fell down pretty fast as soon as we started inventing things like telescopes and microscopes.

The ancient Greeks were really good at geometry (algebra hadn't been invented yet) and they were pretty good at engineering. Physics? Not so much. In fact they were almost stubbornly against physics as they believed experimenting was grunt work. Unfortunately for them, philosophy only takes you so far and no matter how pretty your math is.. if it doesn't match experiment then its not reality, its just stories.

The universe is the ultimate and only arbiter of what is "right" when it comes to physics -- the whole point of physics is to describe the universe as it is, not how you think it should be. And if that means it doesn't make sense to you well.. tough luck. The universe isn't changing how it operates (at least not for a few billion years) so its on you to change how you think.

JA - > It's actually very funny, to resolve all the greatest "mysteries" of science, with obvious statements
Trouble is, the universe isn't obvious -- at least not by the standards of human intuition. You can make all the statements you want, obvious or not, but unless they can be confirmed by experiment they aren't reality, they're just stories."

All my statements are based on scientifically valid observations

> Quantum physics explained in 5 minutes
"It exists because it exists" is an even more useless statement than "God did it." The latter at least could, in principle, be useful (if God decides to show up one day and tell us he did it. Though we'd probably still double-check just in case he's gone back to his Old Testament persona and is testing us yet again Razz) Your statements however are pretty much just a tautology and doesn't "explain" anything. That would be like saying the sky is blue because its made of things that are blue. Not only useless, but also incorrect."

Of course it is incorrect. Did I ever said so? Did I cite Bible here? I speak with the language of science (and I piss on all your digits). Nice to hear, what do you think about my statements - and now point out a single one, which is wrong, according to science...

>>>Universe exists, because information from the environment is transferred to your brain and translated into something, what YOU can understand<<<

Ask Stephen Hawking, if this statement is scientifically wrong in any aspects. You can try to calculate it, if you want - but I already know the result... And I feel sorry for you... You are trying so hard to remain blind.

Science has already all the pieces of puzzle - but is too afraid, to assemble them correctly.

And why it is afraid? Because in the exact middle of everything, is a "dirty" fact - physical existence of unmeasurable MIND...

> arcane knowledge for the choosen ones
If by "the chosen ones", you mean "everybody." You're perfectly free to watch some of those videos I linked. The Leonard Susskind lectures in particular. That is literally recorded in a classroom where they teach the "chosen" ones -- free for literally anybody with an internet connection to watch. Even you. And he's by far not the only one who has this information up on the internet. Its up to you whether you want to invest the time into becoming a "chosen" one.

Oh - believe me: I LOVE TO WATCH SCIENTIFIC VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE... Look for me in the comment sections Very Happy

> 11D multi-verse is the best example of such thinking. Possibility as physical dimension(s). Damn, what drugs they take, to make such sick statements?
I have no idea how they came up with it, and all string theories (in fact all theories involving any form of quantum gravity) are still purely math without evidence. String theorists are well aware of the fact that they could be shown to be incorrect at any time should the LHC (or any other detector) discover something totally unexpected and unexplained. But at the same time, those scientists spend their time trying to think up ways these theories could be potentially tested so that we can say with at least a bit of certainty whether we're heading down the right path or if we're totally off base. For now though, those theories are also just stories. But at least they're stories that match up with our existing experiments, unlike your stories.

Now you talk like a normal guy Smile I'll try to stop being derisive towards you Smile

So let's me give you the most simple answer:
In the LHC bytes of information are smashed into smaller bits of information. And there is quite a lot of data in an atom

> They used LOGIC, instead of mathematics.
Yep, and they were frequently wrong. If you want to use Greek science, you should be talking about things like epicycles and the four elements (earth, air, fire, water) and celestial spheres and other such nonsense that may have sounded good when the only measurement instruments we had were our own senses, but fell down pretty fast as soon as we started inventing things like telescopes and microscopes

Well - I speak about the elements (only call them states of matter)
I speak about the cycles of celestial bodies.

I can assure you - that right now science is as well wrong in many different ways (11D-multi-kulti)

And I can assure you as well, that Greeks were better scientists, than today scientists are - well amost of them. Greeks didn't have telescopes - but they calculated the circumference of Earth, using wooden sticks and the Sun. They were of course wrong - at about 10%...

Concept of atoms, was made in Ancient Greece... Of course, it was wrong, as Greeks didn't have microscopes...

There's part of science, which I trully admire, for it's achievements. Sadly, you probably didn't hear about Tsynagenko - this guy should have a Nobel Prize. I really love space science. Plasma physics is my hobby...Smile I just simply piss on all the stupid calculations.

But I admire the people, who make it for me Smile

"The universe is the ultimate and only arbiter of what is "right" when it comes to physics -- the whole point of physics is to describe the universe as it is, not how you think it should be. And if that means it doesn't make sense to you well.. tough luck. The universe isn't changing how it operates (at least not for a few billion years) so its on you to change how you think."

Yes - and this is, exactly what I do - I describe the Universe, as it is...


And you know what? The most obvious answer is always the good one Smile

Stephen Hawkings tells, that we all exist by a pure coincidence in some kind of sci-fi magic-fairyland in multi 11D wonder maybeland, without God...

And What if, in one of those multidimensional, parallel universes God would be real? OMG!

Would you l;ike to learn the binary code of Universe?
Space described as endless superposition of states - with two main states of existence?
1 - physical existence
0 - lack of physical existence

1 contains everythything, what exists physically in space. 1 multiplied infinite times is 1. 0 is a denial of existence - empty space

altrag - > Stephen Hawkings tells, that we all exist by a pure coincidence
Stephen Hawking can say whatever he wants to say and believe whatever he wants to believe, just like the rest of us. Until he gives us evidence though, its not science. Just because he does real, useful science and is well known for his work, doesn't magically make his non-scientific beliefs any better than yours or mine. And he's well aware of that fact since he's a pretty smart guy and knows how science works and more importantly, he knows the difference between his beliefs and actual science.

> And What if, in one of those multidimensional, parallel universes God would be real? OMG!
Then there's two things that can happen: 1) We get evidence of such and that would be cool and lead us down some new, interesting paths. 2) We don't get evidence and it remains in the realm of "what if" forever. Fun to think about perhaps, and who knows maybe its even true, but without evidence one way or the other, its fundamentally useless to science.

> Would you l;ike to learn the binary code of Universe?
Here's a ternary (three-state) code of the universe:
Cow - universe exists
Chicken - universe doesn't exist
Duck - universe exists, but there's so much quacking noise that we all go deaf.
See how fun that is! And how useless it is? Of course my example is intentionally stupid while yours may have some relevance to philosophy. But not to science. Not that there's anything wrong with philosophy in its own right, but its not a scientific field any more than literature or mythology or interpretive dance is scientific.

JA + altrag
> Universe exists, because information from the environment is transferred to your brain and translated into something, what YOU can understand
No, the universe exists regardless of what I can understand. That's why you need to do experiments. Human intelligence evolved to understand things that matter to human survival. At our scale for example, the Earth's gravity is the only force that really (directly) affects us. If we had evolved to be the size of a bacteria on the other hand, the electromagnetic force and quantum mechanics would be far more relevant -- we'd be small enough to feel the small EM differences across the length of a molecule but at the same time we'd be too small to significantly feel gravity. Scale is definitely an important part of physics.. its just not a "dimension" in the way that you're implying.

It is exactly, as you say - gravity affects big and "heavy" objects. We are affected by the gravity of Earth, but the micro organisms, which live on our skins, are affected mostly by the electromagnetism. It's because scaling affects the frequency of cycles (the smaller is the object, the higher is it's frequency). In my model, gravity is a wave with very low frequency and with giant wavelenght. A bacteria resonates with much smaller waves and with higher frequencies - that's why it is affected by gravity much less, than we are. A bacteria can be placed in the same location as you are - but exists in a completely different environment. And this is why, scale can be treated as a physical dimension. Objects and atoms are placed in different point of scale - and this is why, different laws are applied to both. The difference of frequencies is too high, to think about atoms, as about objects...

> Would you l;ike to learn the binary code of Universe?
Here's a ternary (three-state) code of the universe:
Cow - universe exists
Chicken - universe doesn't exist
Duck - universe exists, but there's so much quacking noise that we all go deaf.
See how fun that is! And how useless it is? Of course my example is intentionally stupid while yours may have some relevance to philosophy. But not to science. Not that there's anything wrong with philosophy in its own right, but its not a scientific field any more than literature or mythology or interpretive dance is scientific.

I think, that my code makes much more sense. Cow, chicken and duck are absolutely real, accordng to physics. But I wonder, what would happen if you would try to check them in the double slit experiment Razz

Laff700 - When you talk about the frequency of matter, it seems like it cooresponds direcly to themal energy. Correct me if I misunderstood.

Also I'd like to explain Bose-Einstein condensates as I understand them. My understanding may be wrong though because quantum physics makes no sense to me. When an atom gets colder, it's velocity gets more well known. This is because it's velocity approaches 0. Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the better we know an object's velocity , the worse we know it's position. As a result of this, really cold atoms' positions are described by a probability wave. If there are many cold atoms near each other then their probability waves will overlap and combine. That would be a Bose-Einstein condensate.

When someone tastes food, molecules in that food bind to receptors inside taste buds. That would be how information is transferred from the food to the tongue.

JA + Laff700

>When you talk about the frequency of matter, it seems like it cooresponds direcly to themal energy. Correct me if I misunderstood.

Correct Smile

>Also I'd like to explain Bose-Einstein condensates as I understand them. My understanding may be wrong though because quantum physics makes no sense to me. When an atom gets colder, it's velocity gets more well known. This is because it's velocity approaches 0. Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the better we know an object's velocity , the worse we know it's position. As a result of this, really cold atoms' positions are described by a probability wave. If there are many cold atoms near each other then their probability waves will overlap and combine. That would be a Bose-Einstein condensate.

Yes Smile

>When someone tastes food, molecules in that food bind to receptors inside taste buds. That would be how information is transferred from the food to the tongue.

I see it as a resonance of waves
watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0

Mass of atoms is scattered over electron clouds. By vibrations atoms generate waves in the environment. When they resonate the information is transferred between them.

And this is generally all Smile It works in all the points of scale. Objects also generate waves in the environment. It's a giant neuron network Smile

Some people asked, why we don't see the atoms of background. Some people answered, that it's because the background is made of copper and the electron cloud is shared by all the atoms - and that makes even more sense for me - this is why copper is such a great conductor...

Laff700 + +Astral Traveler

I'm sorry but that's just not how tasting works.

JA - Laff700 - information from the molecules of food is transferred to the receptors on the tongue and further, via the nerve cells to the brain, where it is "decoded" into taste...

Laff700 - +Astral Traveler

That is correct.

altrag - > gravity affects big and "heavy" objects
Gravity affects small objects too. Just not as much since gravity works on the mass of the object, not its length or width or anything like that. If you have a small ball of iron and a large ball with an equal mass worth of feathers, they will fall at exactly the same speed.

> are affected mostly by the electromagnetism
EM affects large objects too. Find a couple of bar magnets if you don't believe me, and watch as they magnetically attract each other. For that matter, go get a sunburn. That's the EM force at work! At human scales! It just took us a long time to realize that light and magnetism were two aspects of the same force.

The main reason we don't "feel" EM naturally isn't due to any goofy scaling issue. EM is many, many, many times stronger than gravity. Its because EM has two opposite charges that are usually cancelled out. (Permanent) magnets are special in that their molecules naturally gate arranged in a way that magnifies the force instead of being random and having the positives and negatives cancel out like most materials. Naturally magnetic materials are rare for the same reason its hard to put two bar magnets together in the same direction -- same charges repel and therefore there's actually a pressure against aligning like that. But a few materials manage it nonetheless because other properties of the molecule can overpower the EM repulsion.

> A bacteria can be placed in the same location as you are
That is just absolutely untrue. Well at least assuming you're defining "same location" with any degree of accuracy. If by "same location" you mean "in the same city" or even "in the same room," then sure I guess you're technically right. But if you mean "same location" as in "their atoms literally overlap in space" then no, no they cannot any more than two people can overlap in space.

> different laws are applied to both
The exact same laws are applied to both. Different approximations are applied to them because we don't have the computational power to accurately model every single atom even in the simplest human-scale experiment like rolling a ball down an inclined plane. That ball has trillions of trillions of atoms in it. But luckily for us, the universe works in such a way that if you have a trillion trillion atoms, and one stray atom decides to do something unexpected, it doesn't really make much difference to the larger system. The error rate of 1/10^18 isn't even measurable so we ignore it. But just because we ignore it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. In principle though, you really could compute the trajectory of every single atom in the ball (and the plane and the air around it and so on) using the methods of quantum mechanics and you'd come up with the same answer at the end of the day, at least once you round off to the same level as your original approximation. You still have the problem of being unable to measure things that accurately though so you wouldn't have any way to know if your full QM calculation is actually correct. You would just have to trust that QM is tested well enough by other means and just assume its correct (and that you did all your math right!)

> But I wonder, what would happen if you would try to check them in the double slit experiment Razz
This is actually a very useful question, and one real scientists try to answer once in a while. There was a team (from China I think, but possibly wrong on that) that managed to successfully show double slit interference with buckyballs (C60) and later with viruses. The problem as you get larger and larger though is how quantum mechanics defines an "observation." The wording they chose was terrible and people often think that it means a person has to observe the experiment, but that is untrue. An "observation" is anything that causes wave function collapse, so as you get more and more atoms added into the system, you have a higher and higher chance of collapse occurring with or without any human involved. I mean its good for us (that's in part why we can use those classical approximations on larger scales like I mentioned earlier -- the chance of anything "quantum" happening much above the scale of say a bacteria becomes so incredibly small that it may well never happen anywhere in the entire universe, past or future, because the wave functions get collapsed so fast. But that's still not zero. There really is a tiny, tiny chance that every atom and electron in your body will simultaneously tunnel exactly three inches to the left and you'd appear to teleport a short distance.) But it also means that the double-slit experiment is highly unlikely to show interference after you get past a certain size and the quantum nature is blurred into the classical approximations.

JA 0- altrag -
> gravity affects big and "heavy" objects
Gravity affects small objects too. Just not as much since gravity works on the mass of the object, not its length or width or anything like that. If you have a small ball of iron and a large ball with an equal mass worth of feathers, they will fall at exactly the same speed.

Yes. In a vacuum. I don't argue with this. Mass defines the amplitude of gravitational wave. Size defines the wavelenght. Dense objects generate waves with small wavelenght and big amplitude - but a dense object will be attracted to a huge object with the same force, as a less dense object with the same mass (if we exclude friction).

> are affected mostly by the electromagnetism
EM affects large objects too. Find a couple of bar magnets if you don't believe me, and watch as they magnetically attract each other. For that matter, go get a sunburn. That's the EM force at work! At human scales! It just took us a long time to realize that light and magnetism were two aspects of the same force.

Actually it is not. You could make such assumption, if you would be able to burn your skin with magnets. You need the electric charge or other form of energy, which would be transferred to the object. Magnetic field as a separate field doesn't cause the transfer of energy. However it can affect (attract or repulse) other magnetic fields.

>The main reason we don't "feel" EM naturally isn't due to any goofy scaling issue. EM is many, many, many times stronger than gravity. Its because EM has two opposite charges that are usually cancelled out. (Permanent) magnets are special in that their molecules naturally gate arranged in a way that magnifies the force instead of being random and having the positives and negatives cancel out like most materials. Naturally magnetic materials are rare for the same reason its hard to put two bar magnets together in the same direction -- same charges repel and therefore there's actually a pressure against aligning like that. But a few materials manage it nonetheless because other properties of the molecule can overpower the EM repulsion.

Ok, but why tiny bits of matter are affected stronger by the EM forces, than the big and heavy objects? Smaller mass, means smaller amplitude of a wave. Energy defines the frequency of a wave. EM forces are connected with high frequencies, gravity is caused by waves with low frequency.

But magnetic field can't be described as form of energy. It's generated, when an assembly of particles is aligned by the directions of their spin. If the spin in a group of particles is pointing into the same direction (dimensional), a magnetic field is generated... But without the charge, there won't be no transfer of energy...

> A bacteria can be placed in the same location as you are
That is just absolutely untrue. Well at least assuming you're defining "same location" with any degree of accuracy. If by "same location" you mean "in the same city" or even "in the same room," then sure I guess you're technically right. But if you mean "same location" as in "their atoms literally overlap in space" then no, no they cannot any more than two people can overlap in space.

So, if a bacteria is placed on your skin, then what is YOUR location in this case? I agree - atoms can't overlap in space. But waves can - especially those, with a big scale differential (so they won't resonate with eachother)

> different laws are applied to both
The exact same laws are applied to both. Different approximations are applied to them because we don't have the computational power to accurately model every single atom even in the simplest human-scale experiment like rolling a ball down an inclined plane. That ball has trillions of trillions of atoms in it. But luckily for us, the universe works in such a way that if you have a trillion trillion atoms, and one stray atom decides to do something unexpected, it doesn't really make much difference to the larger system. The error rate of 1/10^18 isn't even measurable so we ignore it. But just because we ignore it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. In principle though, you really could compute the trajectory of every single atom in the ball (and the plane and the air around it and so on) using the methods of quantum mechanics and you'd come up with the same answer at the end of the day, at least once you round off to the same level as your original approximation. You still have the problem of being unable to measure things that accurately though so you wouldn't have any way to know if your full QM calculation is actually correct. You would just have to trust that QM is tested well enough by other means and just assume its correct (and that you did all your math right!)


I simply mean, that atoms are affected by gravity much weaker, than objects are (just an example). Science can't understand, that those billions and trilions of atoms, share their information and create a single object. Those atoms work, as an assembly and not as single particles... Single atoms are not affected by the gravity, but the ball is. Atoms "share" their masses within this ball

> But I wonder, what would happen if you would try to check them in the double slit experiment Razz
This is actually a very useful question, and one real scientists try to answer once in a while. There was a team (from China I think, but possibly wrong on that) that managed to successfully show double slit interference with buckyballs (C60) and later with viruses. The problem as you get larger and larger though is how quantum mechanics defines an "observation." The wording they chose was terrible and people often think that it means a person has to observe the experiment, but that is untrue. An "observation" is anything that causes wave function collapse, so as you get more and more atoms added into the system, you have a higher and higher chance of collapse occurring with or without any human involved. I mean its good for us (that's in part why we can use those classical approximations on larger scales like I mentioned earlier -- the chance of anything "quantum" happening much above the scale of say a bacteria becomes so incredibly small that it may well never happen anywhere in the entire universe, past or future, because the wave functions get collapsed so fast. But that's still not zero. There really is a tiny, tiny chance that every atom and electron in your body will simultaneously tunnel exactly three inches to the left and you'd appear to teleport a short distance.) But it also means that the double-slit experiment is highly unlikely to show interference after you get past a certain size and the quantum nature is blurred into the classical approximations.

It's because, the bigger is the assembly of "particles" the better the matter is defined. At some point, assembly of atoms, can be defined as object...

That's why we shouldn't talk about quantum MECHANICS, but about quantum INFORMATICS Smile

***I na razie na tym dyskusja się skończyła***
zadałem jeszcze jedno pytanie i czekam na odpowiedź:

JA - I have a problem. I'm looking for a video, which would show, how the wave of light appered as 2 bars in the double slit experiment. I saw two versions of it - in one only electrons behaved like bodies, but in second the photons also did it. However, I can't find any actual evidence for the photons to behave like particles - all the videos on YouTube show the wave pattern in the case of light. I also looked in the comments, how they "fired up" single photons - and it turns out, that they didn't. They "launched" only small "packs" of photons...

It is very important for my theory. Light, as stream of particles doesn't make sense. If photons would be emitted as particles, from the source of light, we could speak about density of photons in space - but we can't. Intensity of light is not defined by density, but by the amplitude of a wave. Photons seem to fill entire "empty space" and there is no space without the matter or/and without the photons. It makes much more sense, to speak about the photons, as about a field and not as about particles. Are we emitting particles of air, while we make a sound?

A wave can also transfer energy. Photon can be considered a "pack" of energy, which can be carried by a wave...


Post został pochwalony 0 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Piotr Rokubungi




Dołączył: 25 Maj 2017
Posty: 161
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 1 raz
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: Polska, Pomorze Zachodnie
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Nie 13:48, 11 Cze 2017    Temat postu:

Prorock napisał:
Piotr Rokubungi napisał:
Prorock napisał:
Piotr Rokubungi napisał:
Sporo w tym racji, ale też niemało bzdur wynikających raczej z niedostatecznej znajomości wiedzy aktualnej. Odnoszę te słowa głównie w stosunku do pierwszego wpisu tego wątku. Nie zwróciłem uwagi, kiedy został on napisany, ale bozon Higgsa jest już doświadczalnie potwierdzony aktualnie. Nie czytałem jeszcze całego wątku, a tylko kilka pierwszych wpisów, ale postaram się doczytać dalej, bo dosyć mnie zaciekawił i ma trochę wspólnego z Hipotezą Wszystkiego...Wink


Akurat zbytnio mi to nie przeszkadza - bozon Higgsa może być tłumaczony po prostu jako ta część informacji, zawartej w atomie, która opisuje jego masę...
Cokolwiek MOŻE BYĆ tłumaczone jakkolwiek.


A ja po prostu tłumacze wszystko w jak najprostszy i jak najbardziej logiczny sposób Smile
Wydaje ci się tak...

Post został pochwalony 0 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Prorock




Dołączył: 20 Paź 2008
Posty: 314
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 6 razy
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: skąd-inąd
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Nie 14:07, 11 Cze 2017    Temat postu:

Piotr Rokubungi napisał:
Prorock napisał:
Piotr Rokubungi napisał:
Prorock napisał:
Piotr Rokubungi napisał:
Sporo w tym racji, ale też niemało bzdur wynikających raczej z niedostatecznej znajomości wiedzy aktualnej. Odnoszę te słowa głównie w stosunku do pierwszego wpisu tego wątku. Nie zwróciłem uwagi, kiedy został on napisany, ale bozon Higgsa jest już doświadczalnie potwierdzony aktualnie. Nie czytałem jeszcze całego wątku, a tylko kilka pierwszych wpisów, ale postaram się doczytać dalej, bo dosyć mnie zaciekawił i ma trochę wspólnego z Hipotezą Wszystkiego...Wink


Akurat zbytnio mi to nie przeszkadza - bozon Higgsa może być tłumaczony po prostu jako ta część informacji, zawartej w atomie, która opisuje jego masę...
Cokolwiek MOŻE BYĆ tłumaczone jakkolwiek.


A ja po prostu tłumacze wszystko w jak najprostszy i jak najbardziej logiczny sposób Smile
Wydaje ci się tak...
~

Raczej nie - dlatego właśnie lubię dyskutować z ludźmi, którzy mają naukowe wykształcenie. Nawet oni przyznają mi rację... Prostym stwierdzeniem, że wszelkie istnienie opiera się na informacji, rozwiązuję wszystkie problemy fizyki kwantowej...


Post został pochwalony 0 razy

Ostatnio zmieniony przez Prorock dnia Nie 14:11, 11 Cze 2017, w całości zmieniany 1 raz
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Prorock




Dołączył: 20 Paź 2008
Posty: 314
Przeczytał: 0 tematów

Pomógł: 6 razy
Ostrzeżeń: 0/2
Skąd: skąd-inąd
Płeć: Mężczyzna

PostWysłany: Śro 22:26, 14 Cze 2017    Temat postu:

Jednak dyskusja trwa nadal...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pq9hovXI44&lc=z12twxchqrbac3zcq232vnnb0ua1upum5.1497443036009325

altrag:
> You could make such assumption, if you would be able to burn your skin with magnets

Why would you think that? I said light and magnetism are two aspects of the same force, I didn't say they were the same thing. Now the magnetic force and the electric force? In certain mathematical senses, those are the same thing (but only in the math.. though there are again fundamental reasons why the math works that aren't particularly easy to understand. In this case though, its a relativistic effect rather than a quantum effect so it is understandable. Sort of.)

> However it can affect (attract or repulse) other magnetic fields.

In physics, that's called a transfer of energy. Hell basically everything in physics is defined as a transfer of energy of one sort or another when you dig down far enough.

> why tiny bits of matter are affected stronger by the EM forces, than the big and heavy objects

Because EM has both positive and negative charges. If those charges aren't lined up correctly then they cancel out. And in most materials, they aren't (naturally) lined up. In other words, "big" objects do feel the EM forces just as much as little objects, but they feel an almost-equal amount of positive and negative force so there's zero net force (or close enough to zero that it gets ignored.. another one of those 1/10^18 -is-too-small-to-notice type rules.)

> if a bacteria is placed on your skin, then what is YOUR location in this case?

My location would be under the bacteria in that case, even if its only by a micro or two -- that's still not occupying the exact same space.

> But waves can

OK sure, there's definitely a small region where the atoms of the bacteria and the atoms of my skin cell interfere with each other. We're getting pretty nitpicky now as to what it means to be in the same place, but this is actually true thanks to that whole wave/particle duality thing.

> with a big scale differential (so they won't resonate with eachother)

Annnd you're gone again. There is no "bacteria waves" vs "human waves". There are the waves that form the electrons, protons, etc, and those definitely do interact with each other. But that's it. There's no (useful) concept of a "human wave."

> atoms are affected by gravity much weaker, than objects are

No they aren't. Gravity is gravity for everything. The difference is that gravity acts on mass, and atoms just have a low mass. But gravity is cumulative so when you have a whole lot of atoms together (as in a ball or a planet or a star,) the total gravity is noticeable. But gravity is still a property of mass and mass is still a property of those individual particles (and well, energy thanks to the good old E=mc^2.)

> Single atoms are not affected by the gravity

Yes they are. Their mass is just so small that our tools (even ones as powerful as the LHC) can't detect their gravity. I mean I guess we could be way off base on that, but the smart money is that gravity, like the electric charge and color charge and other such properties, are intrinsic to a particle rather than being some force that arbitrarily appears based on an otherwise-unnecessary "scale" variable.

> Atoms "share" their masses within this ball

Not really. Each atom retains its own mass. But if my ball has 4 trillion atoms in it, and I'm a foot away from it.. I will feel 4 trillion atoms' worth of gravity pulling me toward the ball. You can call it one ball's worth of gravity if you want (and that's a useful thing to do when you start talking about larger objects where tracking every individual atom is impractical) but just because we call it one ball's worth of gravity, doesn't change the fact that fundamentally its 4 trillion atoms' worth.

> It's because, the bigger is the assembly of "particles" the better the matter is defined.

That's kind of right, but it isn't. Matter is matter. What changes is the probability. If you have a single particle, the probability that it will do something weird is pretty high. If you have a trillion particles though, the probability that they'll all do the exact same weird thing at the exact same time is.. very very small. Its not really the matter that becomes better defined, is the probability peak. Of course that's starting to get back into the whole "nobody understands quantum mechanics" issue -- what does a "probability peak" (a completely mathematical concept) mean in a physical object? Nobody knows. But it somehow still works when you run the experiments.

> At some point, assembly of atoms, can be defined as object...

That point would be when you have one atom. Or even part of an atom (a quark can be defined as an object, for example.)

> That's why we shouldn't talk about quantum MECHANICS, but about quantum INFORMATICS Smile

People do talk about quantum information theory. But it has nothing to do with your "scale is the fourth dimension" or other such goofiness. Real quantum information theory generally attempts to do things like judge how many bit operations could be done if the particles making up an object were somehow interpreted as a binary code (for example, the spin of an electron could be used as a single bit -- spin up=1 and spin down=0.) I'm not really a fan of the concept as it tends to be more of a philosophical rather than a scientific endeavor, but its pretty popular among physicists so maybe I just don't know enough about it to understand why its useful or interesting.

JA
>Why would you think that? I said light and magnetism are two aspects of the same force, I didn't say they were the same thing. Now the magnetic force and the electric force? In certain mathematical senses, those are the same thing (but only in the math.. though there are again fundamental reasons why the math works that aren't particularly easy to understand. In this case though, its a relativistic effect rather than a quantum effect so it is understandable. Sort of.)

Let's ignore the math. Electric and magnetic fields are caused by different factors. You need to apply some energy into matter, to generate the electric charge, while magnetic field (in the case of pernament magnets) just is... I was as well confused by those two forces, but it became clear to me, when I've checked, if a compass will react to electric field - it didn't... Of course, there are electromagnets - but they behave somehow differently from pernament magnets - electromagnets don't cause the water to spin during electrolysis. This is another thing, which science can't explain at this moment...

>In physics, that's called a transfer of energy. Hell basically everything in physics is defined as a transfer of energy of one sort or another when you dig down far enough.

I went further and understood, that it's actually the transfer of INFORMATION...

>Because EM has both positive and negative charges. If those charges aren't lined up correctly then they cancel out. And in most materials, they aren't (naturally) lined up. In other words, "big" objects do feel the EM forces just as much as little objects, but they feel an almost-equal amount of positive and negative force so there's zero net force (or close enough to zero that it gets ignored.. another one of those 1/10^18 -is-too-small-to-notice type rules.)

But generally, gravity affects bigger and heavier objects stronger, than the small and light ones...

>My location would be under the bacteria in that case, even if its only by a micro or two -- that's still not occupying the exact same space.

But it's the SIZE, what makes the actual difference between you and a bacteria - not different location...

>Annnd you're gone again. There is no "bacteria waves" vs "human waves". There are the waves that form the electrons, protons, etc, and those definitely do interact with each other. But that's it. There's no (useful) concept of a "human wave."

Of course, there are - you make sounds and they are waves. I can bet, that a bacteria also makes some sounds, but the size of those waves is far to small, to hear it... I can bet as well, that every object produces some kind of waves in the environment - no matter, what is it's size... But your size matters, when it comes to interaction with those waves - think, how big is the difference between waves, emitted by you and by the bacteria...

>No they aren't. Gravity is gravity for everything. The difference is that gravity acts on mass, and atoms just have a low mass. But gravity is cumulative so when you have a whole lot of atoms together (as in a ball or a planet or a star,) the total gravity is noticeable. But gravity is still a property of mass and mass is still a property of those individual particles (and well, energy thanks to the good old E=mc^2.)

It's more about the density, than about the mass itself. Objects with low density will fly to the sky... Besides in some materials (like metals), electron cloud is being shared between all the atoms - but I don't know, how it is in case of different materials... Anyway, according to science, most of mass comes from energy - but I think, it's all about the information, which is "written" in atoms. I say, that Information about the mass is shared between all the atoms in an object - this is why Bose-Einstein condensate appear as waves - not as solid particles...

>That's kind of right, but it isn't. Matter is matter. What changes is the probability. If you have a single particle, the probability that it will do something weird is pretty high. If you have a trillion particles though, the probability that they'll all do the exact same weird thing at the exact same time is.. very very small. Its not really the matter that becomes better defined, is the probability peak. Of course that's starting to get back into the whole "nobody understands quantum mechanics" issue -- what does a "probability peak" (a completely mathematical concept) mean in a physical object? Nobody knows. But it somehow still works when you run the experiments.

That's because, science can't understand, that everything, what matters, is the information, which describes the matter. Single atom is not a solid object - it's a probability wave. I would say, that's an assembly of information, which describes the matter...

>That point would be when you have one atom. Or even part of an atom (a quark can be defined as an object, for example.)

Defined by YOU, but not by the nature. That's why, it behaves as object only during observation. Atoms behave, like objects, only when nature understand them, as objects - and you need an assembly of atoms, to make it... Matter with all it's properties begins in hydrogen atoms. Single electron is not matter - you can't create a solid object from electrons...

>People do talk about quantum information theory. But it has nothing to do with your "scale is the fourth dimension" or other such goofiness. Real quantum information theory generally attempts to do things like judge how many bit operations could be done if the particles making up an object were somehow interpreted as a binary code (for example, the spin of an electron could be used as a single bit -- spin up=1 and spin down=0.) I'm not really a fan of the concept as it tends to be more of a philosophical rather than a scientific endeavor, but its pretty popular among physicists so maybe I just don't know enough about it to understand why its useful or interesting.

My concept is much easier to comprehend Smile But the problem is, that you have to accept the simple Truth - I AM. Beyond this point we can only assume, that everything else is "real" Smile


Post został pochwalony 0 razy
Powrót do góry
Zobacz profil autora
Wyświetl posty z ostatnich:   
Napisz nowy temat   Odpowiedz do tematu    Forum FILOZOFIA Strona Główna -> Ontologia Wszystkie czasy w strefie EET (Europa)
Idź do strony Poprzedni  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 ... 32, 33, 34  Następny
Strona 28 z 34

 
Skocz do:  
Nie możesz pisać nowych tematów
Nie możesz odpowiadać w tematach
Nie możesz zmieniać swoich postów
Nie możesz usuwać swoich postów
Nie możesz głosować w ankietach


fora.pl - załóż własne forum dyskusyjne za darmo
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
subMildev free theme by spleen & Programosy
Regulamin