Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 400 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#27571 - 08/24/08 04:12 AM Unified Field Theory. Maybe?
MrKuhl Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/24/08
Posts: 7
I think i may have come up with a Unified field theory. Not Kidding. I'm posting it to try and get holes shot in it.

Matter is Compressed space-time.The shape of this compression gives the form of matter.Regular matter can be considered to be up. Anti-matter can be considered down. The shape of the matter determines which waves can propogate through them. A ferrous material's shape allows the standing wave of a magnetic field to influence it. A mateerial which appers Red has a shape which correlates to reflecting red light. . Gravity is the curvature of space time( ala Einstein ) Electromagnetic radiation is waves propagating through Space time. A good example would be to imagine the universe as an expanding bubble of water with the fabric of space time as water. Matter would be compressed water which is ice. This does away with the need for Messenger particles like the photon and graviton to explain how energy traves through a vacuum.It travels within the fabric of spacetime itself. This also explains why it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. As you Accelerate you compress space time in front of you, and as space time is commpresed it becomes matter. your mass increases thereby requiring more energy to accelerate which in turn increses your mass. Also Einsteins E=Mc2 hold true as both matter and energy are different forms of space time they can easily be transformed into one another. The wave theory of space time also explains why magnetism can act at a distance. Imagine A magnet as dot in the middle of a standing wave.This has to do with Magnetic fields resulting from the travel of electrons in a cirlce at the speed of light, producing a standing wave The noth pole stats the crest and the south pole starts the trough. When meeting another magnetic field the type of interference governs the reaction. A like wave ,say crest to crest produces repulsion as the wave interact with each other. The opposite holds true for crest to trough interaction.

Top
.
#27572 - 08/24/08 07:46 AM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: MrKuhl]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: MrKuhl
The north pole starts the crest and the south pole starts the trough. When meeting another magnetic field the type of interference governs the reaction. A like wave ,say crest to crest produces repulsion as the wave interact with each other. The opposite holds true for crest to trough interaction.
Thanks for this neat way of looking at it too; it's something I think I can use to help me more fully understand things. I'm sure it'll fall into place within a few months, ...someday while musing.

Originally Posted By: MrKuhl
I think i may have come up with a Unified field theory. Not Kidding. I'm posting it to try and get holes shot in it.


What a pleasure to see another spark of insight put to pen and paper (so to speak). Thanks for sharing your ideas.

More accurately it should probably be called a Unified Field Concept (rather than a Theory), but someday somebody will learn the right mathematical way to express your concept.

You may also find out that your ideas already closely align with the consequences of string theories, brane theories, Hawking's "Nuts & Bolts," etc.

Certainly you should check out the threads by Zephir on the Aether Wave Theory,
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=26954#Post26954
"We can explain this idea by the example of dense condensing gas or supercritical fluid. We aren't required to see the individual molecules, but the density fluctuations of these molecules are apparent ...."
.
.
...and (modestly) the thread: Energy, Mass & Fractals
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=22153#Post22153
"Energy levels of an atom would correspond to different structures, conformations of the folded dimensions. Each different atomic # would be a basic unique folding of dimensions, with a heirarchy of conformations attainable as "energy" is added."
...reminded me of your description of "red!" Brilliant!
===

I find it helpful to accept (conditionally) the validity of all theories (and new hypotheses), and then see how they can be interpreted in terms of my own "perspective" or GUT (Grand Unified Theory).

I think it's great that the Zeitgeist is changing so that, without mathematical proof, we can now see beyond the illusory separate nature of reality, and see intuitively into the unified nature of reality.

...but if you have the chance, don't pass up on the math!

Cheers,
~ smile

...and Welcome to the Forum....
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#27580 - 08/25/08 01:32 AM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: MrKuhl]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: MrKuhl
..Matter is compressed space-time.The shape of this compression gives the form of matter....
...and the space-time is formed by density gradients of matter. These two approaches are mutually dual each other. The idea of yours is the base of geometrodynamic theory, btw. The geometrodynamic theory was developed by J.A.Wheeler in the mid of 50's of the last century already.

But I still prefer the matter based theory, not the space-time based approach, because its more illustrative and easier to comprehend. Every can imagine the behavior of particle system, rather then of space and time, which are both abstract concepts. This makes the Aether concept so good for layman explanations. While the behavior of particle system is difficult to model by consecutive math, it can still be modeled by using of computer. Briefly speaking, the particle based models are good for illustrative explanation of mutual connections and the space-time based models for mathematical derivations and exact computing. But they're both dual mutually, as we cannot explain the behavior of particle field without time/space concept on the background, and vice-versa.



For example, the above picture illustrates the analogy of Faraday-Lentz force and Newton-Magnus-Robbins force by AWT. The magnetic field transforms the vacuum into field of many tiny vortices, through which the charged particle with spin is moving along curved path, being dragged by vortex field. The particle (i.e. matter based) model explains the mutual relation of vectors by quite illustrative way - the dragging force is similar to those, which we can experience by using of rotating ball falling in the gas. For explanation of the same effect by space-time based theory you would required to have rather complex math first.

In addition, the particle (i.e. Aether) based approach can explain even the nature of the space and time concepts itself and their mutual relation. By geometrodynamic theory you cannot explain, what the time and space concepts are - they're simply postulates here. By space-time based approach it's much more difficult to explain the nature of right-angled geometry, to explain, why we are living in just 3D space and other principal things, which can be explained by Aether model easily. This is simply because the space/time are abstract, ad-hoced concepts, the nature of which isn't apparent for us so well, with compare to particle gas concept.
Originally Posted By: MrKuhl
..Electromagnetic radiation is waves propagating through Space time. A good example would be to imagine the universe as an expanding bubble of water with the fabric of space time as water....
You see - but these models are particle system based analogies, not the space-time based analogies. Even the wave concept is particle based concept, because you cannot explain, why the space-time should undulate in waves without consideration of particle field on background - the concept of wave is apparently ad-hoced (artificially introduced) behavior in space-time based theory. In brief, you're forced to use the Aether model on background, when trying to explain at least something from space-time behavior. cool

Top
#27585 - 08/25/08 07:42 AM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Zephir]
MrKuhl Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/24/08
Posts: 7
I dont believe explaining the universe (which is four dimensions, we exist in 3 and obseve a fourth "time") as permutations of said space time is more complex than creating particles sepertae from it. If matter is compressed space time as i postulated it explains why nothing existed at the first moments after the big bang. Space time was too hot to allow it to condense. Also having energy transmit through spacetime instead of relying on messenger particles which are messy and add complexity, it simplyfies the universe while fitting all observable facts( that i know of which is the reason i put it out there).As i stated above it explains how magnetism works at a distance, gravity, matter to energy conversions and even corroborates einstein. As to explaining why we exist in 3-d space, we dont, we exist in 3+1 space. The universe is expanding in 4 dimmensions which we observe. X, Y, Z and Time. As to why this is it is a mystery maybe god said let it be so maybe its a random permutaion of the fundament of existence maybe theres more that we just cant observe like the 2d peron observing a 3rd dimension.I just dont know but that doesnt invalidate any of my ideas. Nothing i have said comes from why we exist in 3+1d. If we accept that the universe started as a singularity and started expanding along theese dimmensions then being made of condensed space time explains why time goes one way. we are rocks in the river of time.This also explains realativity as you accelerate you literaly catch up with time that has passed you. I can accept being wrong and i can accept that this has been said before but i need specific examples not that you find it easier to comphrehend. thnx fo the input tho

Top
#27594 - 08/26/08 04:08 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: MrKuhl]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: MrKuhl
I think i may have come up with a Unified field theory. Not Kidding. I'm posting it to try and get holes shot in it.

Matter is Compressed space-time...
Interesting thread, Thanks. May I ask: What or who, in your opinion, does the feat of compressing time? May I also ask: How would you formulate your theory? What symbols would you add to E=MC2 to complete it?

MK, I hope you do not mind me suggesting: When you write your ideas, please use headings and short paragraphs. This makes it easier to read and understand.
===============================================
With the above in mind, I add the following:
===========================================
I JUST TOOK 39 MINUTES AND LISTENED TO an interview with Dr. Michiko Kaku, about his recent book. Dr. Kaku--a Japanese American born in Los Angels--is a well respected Harvard physicist. His views are a pretty good reflection of the generally accepted theories amongst many modern physicists: http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/mkaku.htm

I found the above video fascinating, and well worth the time spent. I will do it more than once.

In summary, Dr. Kaku said: The universe, the cosmos around us, is much more than just a bunch of measurable things, structures or forms.In my opinion he is talking about YHWY, GOD--beyond physicalism and the atomic theory of things.

After listening to him, I now feel that I know why Orthodox Jews have always felt that the Tetragrammaton, YHWH--the sacred name of G-d is too sacred to vocalize. It is beyond physicalism--the idea that matter is primary. Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
http://www.eliyah.com/tetragrm.html

When Jews write the proper name for 'God' in English, they do not use and ordinary noun, God, as we do; they use 'G-d'. The dash symbolizes the ineffable.
http://www.tetragrammaton.org/

Six years ago, I bought and read the book, Universe on a T-Shirt--the quest for the theory of everything (2002), by Dan Dalk. It inspired me, for the same reasons referred to above, to stop using the ordinary noun 'God' when referring to the ineffable. Instead I started using the acronym, GOD.

Or, as in my signature, instead of the O, I also like to use the mathematical sign called the null--O with a / through it--symbolizing the set without numbers.
=======================================================
EXPRESSING THE UNIFIED-FIELD THEORY, OR THE GRAND UNIVERSAL THEORY (GUT) -- a suggested formulation.
==============================================
Here is formula I humbly suggest: E=MC2 + I(magination) + F(aith) + H(ope) x L(ove),

In my opinion, the formula enables us to feel that we are co-creators with GOD. That is, partners in the process of creation, about which A.N. Whitehead--mathematician, process philosopher and theologian--wrote in the 1930's and 40's.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/


Edited by Revlgking (08/26/08 04:21 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#27596 - 08/26/08 06:27 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Revlgking]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
What or who, in your opinion, does the feat of compressing time?
While your question is quite relevant, you should ask "what the time is" first. After then it would clear for you, how it can be "compressed". You can imagine the time as a particle environment - only such environment can be "stretched". Aether Wave Theory makes the explanation of time and space quite easy and transparent and the MrKuhl's ideas follows from it quite clearly.

Every fundamental theory should explain first, what the space and time is, and how these concepts are related each other. Without it, every space/time based theory can still be correct, but it becomes ad-hoced (i.e. "guessed") insintrically. You have no chance to put such theory in deeper consequences and validate it by such way.

The existence of space considers, the information/energy/matter can be transferred from place to space without change/distortion. Can we met with such spreading inside of particle gas? No. In particle gas the Huygens principle takes place: the energy spreads through it in longitudinal waves and every piece of environment becomes a new source of information, so that the information vanishes. In particle gas we could never see the distant stars as a pin-point objects, such environment distorts the waves and it blurs every source of information quite rapidly, so we would observe the quantum chaos, instead of information spreading.

From the above follows, the information spreads through space in transversal waves, i.e. the waves, which occurs at the water surface. The character of surface wave spreading doesn't allow the information to be distorted/blurred at the distance. And this mechanism explains, what the time is, at the same moment. The water surface gradient is flat, i.e. it has at least two significant directions, when its size changes rapidly with orientation. As a space are serving these directions, where the surface gradients changes as little as possible. And the time is the remaining direction, where the surface gradient is spreading in most pronounced way.


It means, the claim "the matter is formed by deformation of time" can be completely reversed into "the time is formed by gradient of matter" as well, they're dual by their very nature.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Here is formula I humbly suggest: E=MC2 + I(magination) + F(aith) + H(ope) x L(ove)..
The humbleness cannot cover the fact, the formula of yours has no meaning, it doesn't enable us to derive something meaningfull from this. Many people are feeling such humbleness against math, so they're considering it as a new God. After then they're applying a "cargo cult" for it: they're writing down a meaningless formulas in the hope, they would appear more meaningfull (or maybe even "scientific") after then. But the math has its rules and the nonsense remains nonsense - no matter how it's being written.

Top
#27598 - 08/26/08 06:53 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Zephir]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
The human imagination, nonsense?

What do you think causes one person to become a saint, and another a terrorist? This can happen even in the same family. Martin Bormann, next in power to Hitler, was an extreme Nazi. His son became devout and respected Christian priest. What a difference imagination+faith+hope multiplied by love can make.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/bormann.html

Why did Einstein say: "Imagination is more important than knowledge?
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#27599 - 08/26/08 06:55 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Zephir]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
By Aether Wave Theory, the Aether structures are given by probability laws inside the inertial chaos, composed of many states (virtual particles). The less or more deterministic fluctuations of chaos density (i.e. the chaos density gradients) are having a structure of scale invariant Perlin noise, which we can perceive as a foam from local perspective. This structure can be derived from number theory, if we realize, the repeating sequences in random numbers are the less frequent, the more deterministic states (i.e. the similar numbers, the linearly increasing serii, etc.) they contain.


This mechanism is quite similar to formation of foamy density fluctuations inside of condensing supercritical liquid, so we can say, the observable reality has a structure of nested foam. This is because, the density fluctuations are everything, what we can see from inertial chaos and the density fluctuations is the only way, how the energy/information can propagate at distance. So when the density of system increases, the foamy character of Perlin noise will become a clearly pronounced, so we can approximate all Aether structures (including time and space) by nested foam.

It means, the Universe is completely random and it has no apparent structure. But the observable portion of Universe cannot be completely random, or it wouldn't observable for us. This residual amount of order is cumulated through time and it enables to form highly ordered, intelligent creatures, which are having a tendency to observe only ordered portion of Universe, after then. In brief, just because we are ordered creatures, we have tendency to consider the ordered pieces of Universe as a reality, by the same way, like we cannot see the chaotic portion of condensing supercritical fluid, just a most ordered portion of it, i.e. the density gradients (quantum strings, space-time fabric, quantum foam, whatever) in it.

Top
#27600 - 08/26/08 07:13 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Revlgking]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
What do you think causes one person to become a saint, and another a terrorist?
Inside of each random particle system, a two ways of energy spreading exists: the longitudinal waves and the transversal ones. The longitudinal waves are spreading from particle to particle without no apparent direction preferred. But in dense particle system always exist a density fluctuations, too. The energy/information is spreading along such density gradients in quite different (dual) way: the energy spreads through it in transversal waves, i.e. like waves at water surface without dispersion, i.e. by predestined, causal way.

Being a highly ordered creatures, we are preferring to consider just a highly ordered way of information spreading as an insintric property of space. But such view is anthropocentrically biased. Inside of large volume areas of vacuum the energy spreads in noncausual way, i.e. via longitudinal waves, where infinite number of time arrow exists. We can detect the traces of such wave spreading in quantum uncertainty phenomena: the quantum uncertainty tell us, the Universe is highly random by its very nature.

We can met with this dual behavior of reality in many situations. While some people prefers the spreading of their influence by the using of rational, ordered way, some others are preferring the spreading of chaos and violence. The evolution learn us, both approaches are having their substantiation, both strategies can be successful from their evolutionary point of view. In the rational society, the aggressive, competitive stance is transformed into free-market competition, but it's still present here. The people are always trying to find optimal strategy by the same way, like energy waves spreading through inhomogeneous particle system: some prefers to spread through bulk, some other prefers to adhere the rules of density gradients.

By the same way, some peoples are asocial, while some others tends to adhere on existing society rules. We can call the asocial people as a mutations of society. As we know, the mutations aren't always harmless, they can promote a new ways of evolution sometimes. As we know, the fast evolving society always contains more asocial individuals with "West East habits", then the well balanced, steady-state one. We cannot fully avoid the mutations, or our evolution would stop completely. But in most common, general case, the mutations are malign and harmless and they're destroy its carrier. It's our price for fast evolution of human society.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Why did Einstein say: "Imagination is more important than knowledge?
I suppose, the above analogy has explained already, why both approaches are in duality. But the mutations in thinking, i.e. the violation of well established paradigms is what drives the evolution in "forward way". The following of rules can never lead to the significant improvement of the existing models, only conservation of them.

But I don't think, the Universe as a whole tends to some form of evolution purportedly. By my opinion, the Universe is completely random and its present highly ordered state (as we can observe by now locally) is just an accident, a local fluctuation, well balanced by the large volume of the surrounding cosmic space, full of chaos. Well, if we throw the dices many times, even intelligent life can create. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does throw dice. We're just refuting to see all His attempts.

Top
#27601 - 08/26/08 08:49 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Zephir]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
If the Universe is infinite random stuff, what makes it finite in our eyes. From which the apparent quantization follows?

The trick is, the same gradients are serving both like mean of observation, both like subject of observation. We can imagine it as a laser ray observation in the dense fog. If the fog is too sparse, the dispersion of laser light will be faint and we wouldn't see anything. And vice-versa, if the fog will be too dense, we wouldn't see anything as well, because of too dispersion. Therefore some optimal value of fog density exists there, which enables to see as much from Universe, as possible.

We can understand it even by more relevant way, if we realize the energy spreading in the dense condensing supercritical fluid. In such fluid, the energy spreading prefers the surface gradients of the resulting density fluctuations.



But here's a optimal density of density gradients. If these density gradient are too sparse, the energy can spread fast through it, but with low intensity. If these density gradients are too dense, the energy can spread with high intensity, but too slowly. By another words, the optimal density of gradients is such density, which enables us to see as many gradients from the condensing supercritical fluid, as possible, but the speed of energy spreading is always limited, because the portion of high speed energy spreading ceases to zero inside of such system by the same way, like the portion of high density of energy spreading.

It means, inside of large chaotic field, the number of states, which are observable at the same moment is always quite limited because of limited speed of energy/information spreading. And such system can never appear completely chaotic for us by the same way, like the color patterns, formed by limited number of color states inside of random field of colored dots.



The colored dots will exhibit the formation of fractal patterns, which are scale invariant and they're corresponds the distribution of prime numbers in large (but finite) sequence of natural numbers (a Riemann Zeta function, in particular). Note that these patterns are scale invariant, they're always appear the same, despite the number of entities involved - they're forming so called u nparticles. Well, and these particles are everything, what we are allowed to see from chaotic Universe, which appears like composed from chaotic clouds or Perlin noise from sufficiently distant perspective. Because we are tending to see just a density gradients from our universe, such cloud is transformed to dense nested foam of density gradients, which we can observe both in large scales as a streaks of dark matter, both in Planck scale as a "quantum foam" or as a "fabric of space".



It means, every law inside of our observable Universe follows from the sufficiently exaggerated/multiplied laws of energy distribution/spreading through chaotic field of density fluctuations of itself. Both our reality, both we are formed just by order distribution in chaos - nothing less, nothing more.

Top
#27602 - 08/27/08 02:53 AM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Zephir]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
EINSTEIN AND THE IMAGINATION. The following is one among a number of sources in which he refers to the imagination:
http://www.quoteworld.org/category/imagination/author/albert-einstein

BTW, I understand that Einstein said that space and time are one and the same--a space/time continuum. I presume this means that there is an infinity of space and an eternity of time--in which forms and objects like planets, stars and galaxies do appear as related, and relative, to one another. I think of all things as being in the eternal NOW, which I think of as GOD--not as a god, or God, or as a separate being, but as being itself.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#27603 - 08/27/08 06:46 AM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Revlgking]
MrKuhl Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/24/08
Posts: 7
Ok nothing i have said has refuted the existance of particles or any other theory. Particles are explained as different shapes of time/space If you assume that energy is propogated through space time and that matter is "twisted" or "Condensed" space time you do away with the need to come up with ever smaller particles to describe matter. YOu explain radiant heating, you also answer the question of where everything comes from. It follows the law of conservation of mass and energy,e=mc2, relativity, unifies all fields , is internally consistent, fits all observed facts ( that i am aware of which is why i posted it. no one has yet posted any facts which dispute my assertions or said this has been said before) and is much simpler than anything youve said zephir. it also allows for virtual particles formed by energy waves( say light) interfering with another wave and momentarily creating a twist in space time which then collapses and further propogates the wave. Why anti matter and matter destroy each other is also explained by my theory and follow exactly e=mc2

To answer your question about Space and Time,Space is 3 of the known vectors the univese is expanding in. Time is another dimension the universe is expanding along. Since we only exist in 3 dimensions and observe time we can only move one way in it, towards the future. It is the thought experiment with the 2d man who observes a 3d shape interacting with his universe. he doesnt see the whole object just the parts that he can interpret like a dot for a sphere growing into a circle and then contracting to a point again. .

I want someone to refute with observable facts, examples and logic or tell me someone has come up with this before. Otherwise i think i have come up with a unified field theory. When i had thesse thoughts it was an epiphany, a higher understanding of the universe. If i'm wrong i'm wrong but i need proof. everything you have said in this thread has been tangents or other explanations which are more complex and rely on things we havent yet observed.

Top
#27605 - 08/27/08 02:58 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: MrKuhl]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
MK, I am not refuting you. What I would like to see is your putting your idea the form of a formula.

E(the energy in and through all creation, as we observe and sense it)= M(ass) X C2 (speed of light, squared) + I(magination), which can include faith, hope and love.

BTW 1, I do not claim that I have done it. And I like your word epiphany, it shows your use of imagination.

BTW 2, because of my interest in psychology I have been a student of hypnosis--based on the word pneumatology, I call it pneumatism--for over 40 years. Experience has taught me that it is possible to measure how much imagination (including, faith+hope+love) any individual has. I have done experiments with many individuals and groups, which demonstrate this. Just the other day, I did it right over the phone.

Incidentally, all hypnosis is self-hypnosis. The master-subject model of hypnotism is an illusion.


Edited by Revlgking (08/27/08 05:28 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#27607 - 08/27/08 05:12 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Revlgking]
MrKuhl Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/24/08
Posts: 7
Rev pleace stop posting things which have no basis in reality. What you're saying is meta-physics at berst and in my opinon and the rest of the scientific community mumbo jumbo. it has no bearing on any of this so please take it to a non science formula.

Top
#27608 - 08/27/08 05:37 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: MrKuhl]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
MK, you mention "When i had thesse thoughts it was an epiphany, a higher understanding of the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany

Epiphany? On what reality do you base your statement above? smile
And where is your GUT proving formula?


Edited by Revlgking (08/27/08 05:40 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#27610 - 08/27/08 06:08 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
As I said earlier, Dr. Michio Kaku--a Japanese American born in Los Angels--is a well respected Harvard physicist. His views are a pretty good reflection of the generally accepted theories amongst many modern physicists.

Did you listen for yourself to: http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/mkaku.htm

Did you hear him state bluntly?: All of the current atom-based and atomic-particle based books on physics and chemistry will have to be re-written. More than once he referred to the mind of what I call GOD. http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com
Should we write and ask him to get back to the study of physical reality? Just curious.


_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#27611 - 08/27/08 06:12 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: MrKuhl]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: MrKuhl
..that matter is "twisted" or "Condensed" space time ..
I've nothing against your ideas, but which way? If the space-time is continuous, how it can be stretched? By AWT the particles are simply dense blobs of Aether foam. The foam can be always stretched - it means, my model doesn't violate your model, but it explains it in more detailed level.

Originally Posted By: MrKuhl
..It follows the law of conservation of mass and energy,e=mc2, relativity..
The E=mc2 formula follows from relativity, by such way your theory is relativity dependent. But how you can explain the E=mc2 formula independently. In AWT it's easy: the foam always gets more dense under shaking, right? The more dense foam, the more it looks like particle of matter, as described above. By such way, the foam model of Aether handles the E=mc2 formula automatically, without need to borrow/derive it from relativity. You can play with AWT foam behavior here by using of Java applet.

Originally Posted By: MrKuhl
.. is much simpler than anything you've said..
Again, I'm not saying, the Aether model is complex, but as you can see, you'll need more exact view of your theory to explain it without logical gaps. How do you want to explain the quantum mechanics phenomena by your theory, for example?
Originally Posted By: MrKuhl
.. Why anti matter and matter destroy each other is also explained by my theory and follow exactly e=mc2..
Try to draw your particle and antiparticle and to explain, why they're destroying each other. Simply saying "regular matter can be considered to be up. anti-matter can be considered down" is nice, but I've no idea, what are you talking about exactly and such model is completely symmetric. We already know, the particles and antiparticles aren't really quite symmetric and such symmetry is violated the more, the smaller such particle are.How do you want to explain the CP symmetry violation by your model, after than?

Albert Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"

Top
#27612 - 08/27/08 06:14 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
I think your formula has a flaw Rev. Imagination that is born of the ego is not always connected directly through the awareness and activity of Unity.
Consciousness has to breathe life into matter.
In string theory particles are born of conscious action not random imagination. The order of the universe is a constant, tho some believe it is random, it does not take anything from the order that exists.
Placing "imagination" within the theory of relativity referenced as "faith," "hope" and "love" present a contradiction of terms. Faith and hope, are random aspects built on standing outside of something trying to see in and making presumptions to direction that is tethered to ideals. Love is the support of all things whether it be idealistic or necessary such as the destruction of the past to create the present, such as the destruction of the boy to create the man or the destruction of the bud to create the flower. In Eastern sciences of spirituality it is in the order of nature or the Gunas, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas that the particles of nature are born arranged and absorbed again to begin all over in a new moment, creating the appearance and experience of time and space.
In reference to string theory and quantum physics, particles are created by the intelligence of consciousness within the universe and if the imagination of man is united consciously so that the intellect is immersed in "that consciousness" and not that of the ego standing outside imagining itself inside, E=mc2 becomes theory imagined from direct cognitive contact with universal mind rather than from blind ambition and personal ideals.
Intuitive sense oriented in the direction of standing inside sometimes peers within the Universal mind while still standing on the outside. Your Theory is fabricated from ideals that are personal and from the personal imagination.
Anyone can come up with an imaginative thought by standing outside trying to look in and have a valid imaginative thought just like the three blind men who experienced parts of an elephant but failed to describe it in its entirety.

You've come to try and inject spirituality in scientific theory which is like trying to cross an apple with an orange in this case, because both subjects are being driven from the imagination that is from the mind that is standing outside rather than inside of consciousness itself.

Einstein was very much interested in proving a Unified field theory where all things are connected and where imagination comes from one source, such as a universal mind or absolute. He wasn't necessarily speaking of the ego or personal imagination that is driven from past impressions of the individual founded on the boundaries if individual perceptions of reality and morality.
There are 6 billion plus imaginations on this planet at this time not to mention the theoretical probabilities of life on other planets and conscious imaginings of life in alternate universes within string theory. Something created all of it and we as humans are reflections of it but as humans, we often believe we are the source of intelligence within the universe. Some believe we are the only life in the universe.
If we imagine from the foundation of belief that we are alone and are in fact not, how accurate is imagination?
If we imagine from a principle of egotistic or personal morality but there exists beyond that personal morality a greater morality that is linked to multidimensional aspects of life and consciousness in all dimensions of the universe how accurate is personal imagination?

Are you confident that your formula applies and is generated from the highest consciousness and universal mind or is it something that you personally feel fits within the imaginings of your personal reality?


Edited by Tutor Turtle (08/27/08 06:22 PM)
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27613 - 08/27/08 06:26 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Revlgking]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
..Dr. Michio Kaku--a Japanese American born in Los Angels--is a well respected Harvard physicist. His views are a pretty good reflection of the generally accepted theories amongst many modern physicists...
Dr. Michio Kaku is the author of string field theory, in particular. What's the matter?

So far the string theory was the theory of particles (i.e. strings) only. Prof. Michio Kaku has came with idea, the concept of quantum strings is relevant for vacuum, too. But I'm not quite sure, he was first or the only one, who has came with this idea. For example, here exists a string net liquid concept of vacuum, which is quite similar. If nothing else, the model of Michio Kaku is well elaborated mathematically.

Anyway, as you can see, the Aether nested foam concept is quite relevant even from modern theories perspective and the AWT can explain, why is it so. In AWT every bubble of Aether foam is filled by another bubbles recursively, which gives the foam the quantum string behavior without any assumption of quantum theory on background: everything is derived from first principles here by recursively fractal way.

Therefore I needn't string theory, quantum mechanics or relativity when explaining the Aether foam behavior. Instead of this, these theories can all be derived from AWT. This makes the AWT so fundamental and unique theory.

Top
#27614 - 08/27/08 06:36 PM Re: Unified Field Theory. Maybe? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
...Consciousness has to breathe life into matter. In string theory particles are born of conscious action not random imagination...
For me is quite surprising, how/why apparently intelligent people can say such things. If the people have evolved from lower creatures, then it's quite apparent, the behavior of Universe is completely independent to the way, by which we are describing it, the human consciousness the less.

The AWT explains the formation of intelligent life by quite believable and consistent way by gradual condensation of Aether foam - so I cannot assume, the whole Universe is dependent to consciousness of some creatures, living on the tiny, well hidden planets inside it for quite restricted period of time. This is simply quite ridiculous idea and I don't know, where it has come from, if the evolution is valid theory. Such idea is nonsense, even if you believe in creation, because after then the Universe behavior would depend on creator consciousness, not human consciousness.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.