In most cases, calling something such as this "a statement of the obvious" would be an insult. There's more to it than this, but it is an awesome first effort. Try spinning the field. Not symmetrically converging fields, but more like a whirlpool. Pass it through a double slit.
Light is a wave and a enfolding wave-particle+/- unfolding particle-wave when it comes in contact with the surface of an atom. Together they form an opposing fibonacci vortex spacetime sequence forming an electric field in and around itself generating its own rate of time relative to its energy or mass. Milo's amplitude principle, huygen's principle, mach's principle linked with the lorentz contraction of time and Einstein's equation for 'rest energy' gives the atom enough energy to fuck Legos!
There is a profound and perfect symmetry between positive and negative electric charge, the magnetic fields will always be at right-angles to the electric fields forming sine-waves! For every particle there exists an anti-particle astral counterpart within the same time-space! The symmetry of this time-space will be broken when two light spheres come together! This forms a spiral and we get the imperfect symmetry we observe in nature.
Proponents of Milo Wolff's theory How does his theory explain: 1. The Standard Model of Particle Physics 2. The weak interaction 3. Color charge and the strong interaction 4. Gravity 5. The general theory of relativity 6. The special theory of relativity and time dilation 7. Bose-Einstein statistics 8. Fermi-dirac statistics 9. The Pauli Exclusion principle 10. Quantum entaglement 11. Wave-particle duality 12. Quantum decoherence 13. Dark matter 14. Expansion of space Thank you.
What if the Qabalah, the I Ching, and the Bible/S were attempts at a Theory of Everything?
Obviously they were/are.
So hey how does modern science idiocy explain the following:
Fine structure constant used to tweak the EM field is known as '137'
So established 1000 years before quantum science how does QED explain the fact that the Hebrew word for QaBaLaH (kabbalah/cabala) which WAS A THEORY OF EVERYTHING has a gematria value of '137'?
@islandbuoy4 Please explain a magic number or scientific interpretation of a statement from ancient religious texts BEFORE the scientific explanation is discovered. There are billions of numbers in gematria and physics. To pick two that happen to match, without a hypothesis beforehand to justify it, is meaningless cherry picking.
Kekule had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail, a symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros.
From this inspiration came his breakthrough?
This happens all the time in science.
Now go read the book called '137' , it highlights the discussions between the scientist Wolfgang Pauli and the mystic Carl Jung.
I think it's beautiful. Why do we perceive separation, do you think? How do the waves making up the planet differ from the ones in the surrounding space? Or my hand from the surrounding "air."
i'm not a physicists but have wondered about this for a couple years, ever since learning about standing waves. what do you suppose are the harmonics causing the various standing wave-particles? do you think the harmonics are random happenstance or an indication of intelligent action? also why have i not heard of this theory in mainstream physics? is it provable? thanks.
@garyz777 The harmonics are simply a result of non-linearity of larger waves. Mainstream physics knows that universal laws must be non-linear. They also know that this means that standing waves will produce harmonics. There is nothing random in my opinion. You haven't heard of it because mainstream physics has been going down a blind alley for some decades - some intelligent physicists are realizing that now. Yes, it is somewhat provable. Many predictions of harmonics theory have been confirmed.
@artynz Or better still, True energy is in a BEC state maybe the quantum entanglement state of dimension. True energy particles as in my other comment could feed from this state changing a zero frequency into the duel EM wave through a particle field maintaining the c constant as EM waves have frequency and anything with a frequency is represented in time. Frequency means time, zero frequency has no time.
I'm considering that "things" can have an electric field, sure, but should I consider that there is the existence of an electric field kind of like in and of itself or regardless of whatever interacts or cause a disturbance or difference in potential, etc?
Are electric and magnetic fields like places "already there" or are they the "result" of something?
Anyway, representing matter as having an electric and magnetic looping entwined wave can totally be effective.
@crawlFace Hi, the more i think about it, the more I'm thinking of 5 states of matter being the key, time runs along this same line along with everything else. Space time or the vacuum i think is the 6th state of matter, as it expanded it pulled out what we know as matter(big bang) as the expansion slowed down we see it in virtual particle pairs today.
I always do a cycle of review looking into many approaches and recently I was reviewing Kepler’s work. I can appreciate using states of matter, plus you mentioned in other comment that “time” is a bi-product of matter’s state: which I feel is a very effective description, but yes it does come with some issues.
Now using the ideas of “states of matter”, would I be off if I considered “c” to also be matter?!
Yes this would suggest that we as humans only experience one or a couple of states of matter. But we may also experience all the states of matter but are unable to fully identify it yet. This would be similar to understanding that all the interactions involved with an existence spans the entire state of matter, especially since any existence is made of the same matter.
Meaning: nothing is not matter, or everything is some kind of state of matter. And I'm ok with that.
@crawlFace Hi, well i think "c" is the limit for matter in the top end like Bose Einstein condensate in the lower end. I think matter in 3D makes energy c and time and create all the other effects you can detect. I think matter beyond these points is the 6th of matter,or matter at rest so to speak, without space or time or anything really. The vacuum or Planck's constant must also maintain these two limits, but c cant be, it has no mass, but beyond c should be the 6th state. like below -0 Kelvin
As you can imagine, our discussion can get very elaborate. Let's use a traditionally definition for maximum visualization: Things that happen/produced/or result are not things that come from no where or magically "poof" into an existence. Yes, this is similar to the classic: matter can not be created or destroyed, etc.
So I'm thinking when we say "matter in 3d makes energy", I consider that the energy is also a particular state of matter.
So for ex: representing "time" on that dimensional line you mentioned should be accurate or at least effective. This also helps those who still find it difficult to understand how "time" can be 0.
I like "c" as the limit for matter, but I get nervous when we treat the properties of "c" as being not matter but something else, etc.
This brings me to my issues regarding "c" having no mass. My point being that I can not figure out if it is really accurate to say "no mass",
although specifically speaking I do understand the description of "no mass". What I am getting at is I'm careful not to base a definition of matter dominantly on having mass, only because mass may be an attribute for our particular interactions/experience (3d/4d, etc) of things.
And yet this idea is not uncommon: As matter approaches "c" we understand the mass of matter transforms.
@crawlFace It transforms maybe because we are using 3D time to observe it, and as time slows down more energy is needed to push it and its mass or energy would become infinite, but what is infinite? But if matter at that speed is interacting with space time increasing energy, it should also increase gravity, slowing down time, warp space and all the other effects you get at extreme velocity. Its a dimension of 3D observation, and observation runs at c. Its a hologram.
@crawlFace I think what we need is a simple explanation.How about this... In a 3D hologram, the hologram cant exceed beyond what makes it a 3D hologram, because a hologram uses light or information to determine the size of the dimension due to the speed of light (c) and matter that came from the structure of the holographic fabric, sits inside the fabric and is maintained by energy in the form of mass and spin. Because we are energy, with form and time, we cant detect the fabric that has none.
Let's take a closer look at the info a 3d hologram uses. I agree that in most instances the hologram cannot exceed beyond what makes it a 3d hologram. But what gets me scratching my head is the repetition or occurrence/recurrence of its information or of the state(s) of the hologram.
So what we get is a finite or closed amount of info, but any recurrence of that same info treats each recurrence as an additional amount of info, know what I mean?
Then let n + X = the recurrence of that finite amount of info.
Here we have “X” remaining constant/the fabric or make-up of the hologram, but “n” acts as an additional value for X.
Something happens in this relationship (n + X) which supports or results in more than just one state of the hologram. In return, the finite amount of info reflects this additional value.
Traditionally we say the “observer” distinguishes or experiences a “recurrence”, so that the state of the hologram can be thought of as set or absolute while the observer adds the variable change,
but what if the recurrence or multiple amount condition also happens because of the states/relationship you describe in your model?
Simple ex: solid, liq, gas, etc are recurrences of info at particular points along the dimensional lines (such as time line or matter or mass or temp line)
Now I was playing around with representation arrangements for your diagram with the square in a circle using Kelvin and light. To keep it simple for visualization let’s still call the points of the square making contact with the circle as the usual: N, S, E, W directions.
Also, observing wave interaction can give us more hints on how we can represent the state relationships of matter. I’ll post more as we discuss and elaborate the ideas.
@crawlFace energy is created by matter as information maintaining the dimensions of space and time, but i think the fabric of space itself (6th state of matter)created the matter we see as it expanded, pulling matter out of itself so to speak, like a squozen sponge being released. The energy waves i think are information not photons, that don't travel freely through nothing, but interact,propagate in a field particle/s maintaining the c constant...light is everywhere it just needs switching on
Good point mentioning/distinguishing between information as opposed to photons.
I just took a quick look at your docs and I like the approach. I have to split for work, but give me a moment to contemplate your material and hopefully we can continue our discussion.
@crawlFace No worries, do you like my all seeing eye? lol if freemasonry represents that as God, im sure ive got it correct lol it gives it a twist anyway. But no worries, just message me anytime, im all ears most of the day and night with this subject m8. Have a great day.
@MemeMachine1 Could you clarify please what is, in this case ( Or in any case) what makes you call this demonstration "pseudoscience"? Or, in spite of the non-sequitur phrase: what is a REAL physics journal?
As an example: If I filmed my hands while drawing the outline of a tree with a pencil on paper, described why I do this "line" thus or as such, intending an effect I wish to achieve, then choose You Tube to share my clever or maybe useful drawing technique, would it be REAL?
Devising an advanced mathematical theory that unifies all of physics is not analogous to finding and sharing a personal way of engaging in an artisitic activity which has no defined "correct" or "real" method. In fact, I have trouble making a worse analogy. To completely rewrite the way relativity, quantum mechanics, and all physical phenomena are described mathematically would require first actually studying and learning the full mathematical description of them
And then solving all of the equations with his "standing wave "theory, demonstrating how it adds to or replaces current description. Do you realize the magnitude of this project he proposes to do completely with his mind alone? Simply by looking at a few experiments and "thinking about it"? He could at least prove to us that he has scientific or mathematical background to even be seriously discussing such concepts as "fundamental particles" or "effects of relativity"
You make some fair points that any proposal has to deal with. Accepted sciences also face the same issues with the same questions. Generally, we are trying to better understand aspects of nature where irrefutable evidence is hard to come by.
artynz is not alone in this, and he has provided many links to people who share or fairly consider a wave-structure approach.
Mankind's ideas about cycles, harmonics, and waves are just as old as our model/ideas of the atom.
@crawlFace If you use a line and start it from( 0-time/0 kelvin) and run it to c-light/0-time. and accross this line run states of matter, BEC, solid, liquid,gas,plasma etc, create a 360* angle of the dimension N,S,E,W you end up with a cube in a sphere. You then have a dimensional line or shape representing everything we know about the universe. Im sure matter is created out of the universe itself and the vacuum maintains its growth and the energy or its constant.
Well said, and quite striking. For starters, I definitely can consider that there are universal or absolute shapes expressing or representing the relationships of an existence, be it on a universe scale or locally or even arbitrarily.
Excellent that you mention 360deg, because we do get hung-up on the orthogonal relationships in form, which is not really that big of a problem if we get used-to 360deg not having to always be represented as a circle/sphere, etc.
I'm sure this sounds simple enough and yet the "programing" of us is dominant. It's simple in the sense that we understand 4 rt-angles = 360deg. It's difficult in the sense of how do we describe a cube by the terms/property of a sphere?
How funny that each side of a cube can be represented as a unique or distinguished dimension or state? But when we observer matter in these states we see evidence of a wave nature. So maybe the +/- charges are the 90deg difference?
@crawlFace I will send you a link to my hot-mail where there is a few office docs showing the workings of the dimension, and how i created it, its an easy design, but we may be able to use it as a scale.
@crawlFace When we look at the uncertainty principle, it must show people that time itself is a bi-product of matters state,looking through or changing an effect(time) to see the source of the effect or what created it,doesn't seem logical to me.Below condensate,or beyond c,even though we know matter at c isn't possible in this way of thinking,unless we change the rules or manipulate space time itself,but beyond these limits time seems to stop,and the dimension we live in cant exist without time
@artynz Hi, would you think that matter could be a Boson encased with 2 looped and entwined waves.. one of magnetic and one of electric?Also what do you think of energy not being the observable energy restricted by c, but the quantum entanglement theory and the energy you see is an interaction of true energy within a field where its state creates the observable electric and magnetic double vectors of the EMF ? Thanks
@artynz Should not be any interference between the incoming wave and the outgoing wave. A moving standing wave is just like a stationary standing wave except the center of the wave is offset toward the direction of the movement. Other words, the radius of the standing wave is smaller toward the direction of movement...The
incoming AND outgoing wavelenght toward the direction of movement is shorter than the incoming AND outgoing (both) , behind the moving spherical wave...What do you think?
Free energy has been here for a while ,But Millions are spend in supressing that information,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be the revolution!
I think one of the big questions and steps to take is deciding on the extent to our approach:
1. Do we consider waves to be the nature for/of certain conditions, or property of certain conditions/states, so that waves are exclusive or specific to certain aspects of existence, such as matter, etc?
2. Or do we consider that waves are the nature for/of all aspects of existence, even if the property or condition/state of these aspects differ?
@crawlFace IMO there is a medium pervading all the universe which used to be called the aether before people got confused about that. The waves that explain matter as well as electromagnetic waves are all just the motions of this medium - stretching, deforming, tension, pulling back into shape, oscillating. The magnetic field is twisting, the electric field is acceleration. E/M is traveling waves, matter is spherical standing wave. There is nothing else in existence but this medium.
Here’s an interesting way to continue this though while evolving the earlier questions:
Can a wave, perhaps of the order we may hardly be able to fathom, cause or result in an aether?
Let’s try again:
There is nothing else in existence, therefore the aether always was and always is?
No I do not have the answers to these questions, but I have been able to apply reasoning to them to come up with good approaches to better understanding them.
If I am not mistaken, you are not a big fan of multiple universes. Believe it or not, neither am I, although I understand the use and representation of that kind of terminology. I feel any amount of multiple universes would actually make-up what we could still describe as one actual place, being still one universe.
In many respects this does make a universal medium very reasonable.
Keep in mind that I totally understand the valuable recognition to make is that waves are actually the behavior of the medium.
The amazing complexity about this is that each result of the medium (such as interaction) produces a system which in return sustains another system, and so on and so forth.
For a general ex:
The existence we know of could be the result of a third cycle of some interaction with this medium.
As if: we are the result of a result of a result, etc.
The existence we know of occurs at a certain order, a certain stage or interval, where any stage other than that becomes debatable regarding whether it is even a part of or connected to the result of the harmonics we can identify for ourselves.
All of this kind of questioning is geared to better understanding how we relate to such a universal medium.
Can the results of an interaction of this medium behave like a new or different medium, or will such results always be effected and in effect to one and only one nature of a medium?
One thing I wonder about is a boat riding on a Tsunami. It seems the boat could hitch a ride from where it began and where it meets land to soak up the Tsunami's energy. Thus the boat hitches a ride on the highest amplitude of the Tsunami has & only has to worry about the energy to keep it in place at the highest crest. This seems to be a very good idea to ride the wave crest to where ever it's going with minimal energy used.
Because I must also consider such waves are not theoretical representations but are of an actual property.
Meaning: think literally like an "ocean". In this case we have the entire body of water, but at the same time we have unique aspects of the body which may behave similar or different from the whole.
Any property in relation to these differences will have results that express the body in whole but also results that defy the nature of the whole.
what this totally considers is a conservation of energy, which is a good thing, because the axis from interaction can support transformations while the "original" state/property of both waves can remain constant.
For ex. representing phases of an interaction can be 90 degrees and the corresponding axis would be all positions between 90 degrees.
When the axis reaches maximum range, so to speak, it can be said to be "in phase" and describes a reoccurrence...
yes, think of the axis as the center from 2 waves converging, but think of the range as the very image of that center appearing to "bulge" and grow in size.
Simply put, the position/range of the axis/bulge of outgoing waves will occupy an inverse of the same positions the incoming waves consisted of.
Although already complex, it gets worse when we consider more than 2 waves interacting/converging to describe a center, lol
Like I said, a work in progress, but nevertheless lots of fun
Im not that good at physics but are you saying that the waves of ?radiation? come in and out of an piont and that piont then becomes a quark or someting?
@11918151119 If we forget about what matter is for a little while, and just consider electromagnetic radiation (light, radio, etc) then there are stable configurations of waves that are coming inwards to a point and passing out again, so that the wave fronts make spheres. The expected behaviour of this type of waves is actually just what we observe "particles" of matter to be like. Therefore it seems that this is what matter is - standing waves of e/m.
I agree with you that real waves form the probability of Quantum Mechanics. But could the inward and outward movement or absorption and emission of these waves form the passage of time for the observer within his own reference frame? You have a very beautiful theory but it has no explanation of why we have a future and a past.
@nickharvey7 Explaining why time exists was not the intention, and is a tall order. However the future of a particle is already present in the incoming waves, and its past is on the outgoing wave. Is that what you mean?
@artynz Thanks for your reply! An explanation of Time could explain why we have wave-particle duality. We only have a photon of energy if the wave comes in contact with an atom if the wave doesn’t come in contact it will only have the momentum of its own wave-function. In modern physics we have an infinite number of reference frames that all have their own proper time relative to their position and momentum. Could the WSM be forming the arrow of time within each reference frame?
@nickharvey7 In my opinion, a photon is simply the change in frequency of the electron in wave which soon becomes the out wave after passing through the centre. The beats (musical / physics term) between the in and out wave as this change occurs look just like another wave coming in (being absorbed) or going out (being emitted).
@artynz I agree it is just a process, but it is a universal process everything is absorbing and emitting EMR continuously even people. When the wave is absorbed it must be localized in a small rejoin of space, but when it is emitted if spreads out forming probability of where it will form a new photon along its wave front. Are the waves moving in space forming the passage of time and geometry of spacetime?
I am not a scientist but tend to think waves would have been at the start of the universe. easier to imagine this than particles out of nothing!
Just before I was thinking that maybe different waves might have different speeds and also explain heat and cold properties.
It might also explain why a chain reaction such as in atomic explosions acts like a stone thrown into still waters causing the bigger waves (damage) in the centre,
and no wonder we cannot see the particles..Keep at this!!!!
@artynz I'm nearly illiterate about this subject but as I thought about particles I realised that the word "particle" is just an arbitrary word. The universe is still as it is. Nothing has changed. A brick is still a brick and water is still water. I would like to have an explanation of what some forces are. What about the weak & strong nuclear forces. Things such as these need some kind of elementary explanation & I haven't seen an explanation yet.
@nor888vast695 agreed that particle is arbitrary. In a wave view, there is no place where one particle leaves off and another starts. They are all messed up together.
As far as the forces are concerned I cannot say definitely. The strong force is associated with the Compton wavelength of proton/neutron, or about 1.3 femtometers. This is probably the strongest wave. Yes, more needs to be described about this.
@artynz I also think the antiparticle is 2 EMF's crossing at the opposite angle, creating opposite spin etc. Makes one think when they annihilate they release nothing but the same energy that i think created them. Sub atomic black holes i think are the key. If you throw in too much matter into a black hole it releases excess in the jet, same with the particle, energy or matter is the same thing, it creates event horizons,thing is with a particle, its that small it can only use energy to make it.
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I agree that jets are excess energy. Don't know about the rest. IMO nucleons (protons and neutrons) are the charge equivalent to a gravitational black hole. That is because charge force is 10^40 stronger than gravity, and mass of nucleon is 10^40 too low to make a black hole.
@artynz Cross reference all particle sizes and compare them to the frequency wave lengths, i know one cant do it with the electron as it bounces about like like my X after a drink. But with me not having all the data to hand, it could add up for you. ;)
@crawlFace Yes, the thing that distinguishes us folk who refer to WSM is that we believe the waves are real as distinct from the Bohr idea that the waves are probabilities only. Schroedinger, de Broglie and Einstein believed in real waves not just probabilities. Einstein never defeated Bohr on this, but he was right.
lol, I have to admit that for some aspects I am shocked at how "wired/programmed" I am to what we may generally call: particle physics. However, I had the wonderful opportunity to work for one of America's leading "electric" companies before I migrated to Australia. So studying the nature of "energy" in a circuit is silly as just "particles" etc. In fact, there shouldn't be an electrician out there who doesn't understand a wave structure/approach.
I don't know if I am maybe referring to interference or maybe messing up differential equations for 2d/3d. Generally I'm thinking about the results of energy from a relationship of waves and wave centres, as if a wave centre defines a range by which its outgoing wave can propagate, and you are showing that an incoming wave can be treated the same way (inversely, in part or whole).
Here I might not treat "propagate" as a new wave but it does support a centre recreating waves as you touch on in videos How to make a Universe.
If a wave centre contains the frequency/frequencies of related in and outgoing waves then the magnitude of the centre should express/support a range of wave propagation which we can define as the energy available or transferred/conserved from its interactions.
This should also describe what kind of waves will have significant change/interaction or what kind will/will not impose, superimpose, etc. This should be fairly easy to represent by phases.
For ex: the Compton frequency supports a range for this energy that we represent by oscillation/charge. If I am not mistaken it has been effective or at least useful, lol.
I could expect bulk of freq to remain constant but the tiny portion may not be as discrete as sometimes suggested.
@crawlFace The universe is filled with waves of many frequencies, so we shouldn't expect everything to come out exact all the time. But using the Compton frequency of a particle as the frequency of a spherical wave leads DIRECTLY to all of de Broglie's results which are experimentally confirmed. There can be no doubt that this is the correct frequency of particle waves.
@artynz WHEN I took elec. tech. a test question I missed was what is a square wave? A sum of all frequencies at the same amplitude. I wish that I hadn't wasted most of my productive life not learning. There are great new programs for people to investigate. We'll have to lock the warmongers up first so humanity can advance..
@nor888vast695 Yes, a square wave or a triangle wave or a sawtooth wave are all the sum of harmonics, but in different proportions. In the harmonics theory, the final pattern is another one again.
@artynz I i have been looking into waves structure of matter, i have come to the conclusion that matter is created in stars or by a stars EMF frequency, maybe crossing streams to generate a high energy point together with linear frequency waves creating a vortex effect event horizon that is made from the frequncy that created it...ie...gamma/electron proton/xray etc...i am looking at the wave size in comparison to the particle size which should match up if this is correct.
@artynz Hi, are you guys heading into the EM creation of all matter particles? Im not a physics guy realy, but it realy cheesed me of when they all knew so called everything, yet didnt realy know anything and the way they look down on others, because as far as im concerned we have overlooked 1 key component here, what matter is,and how this energy or matter i think create mass, and gravity unique to each particle and not some graviton or god particle.They have spend billions to smash balls about
@artynz hi again, i started to do this because of another interest of mine, but it took me down this road and i now realise the reason matter waves like energy, is because that's what it is, and when it annihilates it leaves,yes you guessed it, energy.I personally think, matter and energy are indeed the very same stuff, but some will argue otherwise.Size shouldnt be a factor in space and they should now know this, considering their impossible super sized sun that couldn't exist has been found.:)
@artynz Hi again, if one bombards electrons with Gamma would this increase the mass of the electron, and if one did the same with the proton but with xray energy would this increase the mass too? Now if one could combine this process with high energy xray and gamma in vacuum with a mix of electrons and protons, could this extra energy enable the proton and electron to attract and form the hydrogen atom? maybe this extra energy -mass/gravity creates the attraction in some way?
@artynz Hi again, can you tell me if the frequency length of the wave from peak to peak is the same as the wave length from trough to trough...As for pictures of the wave in the particle with gamma, I took a wave 10pm x 10pm in size, rotated the wave and it formed the 4 leaf flower, i took the circumference, created the square, then 28.2 x pi gave me the 8.859 etc x 10/11mtrs, giving me the true size of the particle based on a 100 KeV gamma wave.
@artynz Contd....Now if this is how a wave rotates, i have a problem at the moment, i cant seem to find out how the energy is changed at the point where a frequency of the same energy crosses another, and what if any increase would there be. Say if i crossed 100 KeV with another 100 KeV , would the stream of energy/mass increase to 200 KeV or would it stay the same, or are there any other effects going on? and would you think this would create a subatomic black hole or maintain one? Cheers
@artynz I took 100 KeV of natural gamma no less and square rooted it, i think i found the charge number in the electron, after some digging, i think i found xrays in the quarks within the Proton...(proton/electron=hydrogen= perpetual solar fusion) i think after the electron(singularity) is created the excess energy is released over to another electron and so on as it does normaly.(black hole polar jet ?) this could explain, the unique gravity/mass and the reason the particle waves like energy.
I am going to work with some of the comments here for inspiration and elaboration. I don't require immediate replies and I would love for any fellow viewers to join in.
I have also begun reviews on how we experience spherical natures for wave structures, the representation of energy relationships (such as harmonics, etc), and the expression/range of wave interaction.
@crawlFace De Broglie showed it and got a Nobel prize. Before that Schroedinger. Both of them always believed that these are real wave structures and not probabilities.
If we define an "original" or "first" kind of wave as having an infinite nature, then it takes on the properties/range of having no source by which such a wave can be the oscillation or pulse of, and it also faces difficulty represented as an interval of a reoccurring seq of events.
And when a wave doesn't have this issue then the ether supporting it does.
I welcome anyone's input, that's why I am commenting :)
In order to have a reoccurring sequence of events, we should have/start with at least one sequence of events.
If a sequence of events never happen, then there can not be a reoccurring of such events.
Of course we could consider nothing as always being in a reoccurring state until defined/described as something other than nothing. But I am not here to play wordGames.
@crawlFace I have thought about the nature of The EternalCreator & 1st casual. I believe that the universe was ordained and instructive such that everything had a beginning in terms of what we call material universe. Now it has come about that nothing has exactly nothing does NOT exist. The universe itself was created as a carrier wave which seems in my mind of making the universe the primal character of transmitting any & all events. Ether was the right name in understanding wave transferrence.
So, no wave is actually a standing wave since any wave can be at least represented as 2 interacting waves? Yes, it appears or behaves as if "standing" but everything is in or from an interactive motion.
Your perspective on cycles suggests that within a certain range, this wave interaction will appear standing but at a larger range there may be a very notable motion.
I still need to look into what I am trying to say with this comment.
@crawlFace Well "two waves traveling opposite ways" and "standing wave" are just ways of saying the same thing. Of course the in wave has to come out again after passing through the centre, so in another sense it is just one wave (interacting with itself from a little earlier). Motion will occur when the point of convergence is changing over time. That depends on how other waves are interacting with the incoming wave (what we call forces).
However I also consider a continuity so to speak, so that the points where waves converge are the centres but the waves involved continue on, obviously with changes or effects (maybe not, etc) but in this sense we would look for "other" waves that "pass" through these centres.
I think there are cases for both and I am probably missing/overlooking something as well.
@crawlFace To the first order, the wave just travels straight through the centre. However near the centre the non-linearity is significant so that there may be some scattering or refraction of energy from any inward part of the wave.
As to "new waves" I would say that the vast bulk of the incoming energy comes out at the same frequency (for a particle, the Compton frequency) but a tiny proportion will go to harmonically related frequencies, especially the low order harmonics.
Yes I am focusing on the relationship of energy, but wondering if I should consider all waves to be of a constant wave or something like that. Somewhere around here I have to consider that all things are possibly of a wave structure which would include all the different values for what we mean when we say "energy".
@crawlFace Waves are a fairly basic way of looking at what is going on, but there are others. Energy is an aspect of waves. When there is a discrete shift in the frequency of a particle (e.g. an electron moves a bit further from a nucleus) then the incoming and outgoing waves are momentarily at different frequencies. This creates a beat (musical term) wave that we call a photon. Its energy is proportional to the frequency shift (times Planck's constant).
@crawlFace It is all these terms we used to use such as mass-energy-direction which were to describe a "particle" and now particles do not exist but as a standing wave. It really pulls my chain of trying to understand these old terms still existing as we "see" it but fundamentally different in experiment as to what makes it up as standing waves, in-coming out-going waves. The nature of light as it used to be a particle with freq. & direction without anyother description confounded me.
but once we understand that all models and theory are describing, or attempting to describe the same thing, the effectiveness of any particular one increases, so long as we identify the equivalents in usage of terms.
Thinking along the lines of "material universe" is very effective because it considers "expression" or "the result of".
However the material universe has traditionally been defined proportional to what we can distinguish, while still considering that its property is shared, or at least constant throughout its form, or any nature supporting it.
If we could distinguish all property of waves or energy, what would be the accurate definition of a material world?
It's certainly not just solids, nor any one particular form, is it?
In a wave structure of matter we still have a "point-particle" nature don't we? Not a problem, since the wave structure gives us a broader range in which to represent relationships of interaction (we can realistically/actually "follow" a wave much better than models that rep probable fields)
I also see how the differences can snowball into a big variation between the amount of "space" present in relationships found in atoms for ex.
@crawlFace The point particle aspect of a spherical standing wave is simply the central point at which waves converge. IMO (and in those of Schroedinger and de Broglie) probability is not a part of nature, just of our limited knowledge. There are real waves. The uncertainty principle can be restated in cycles terms as "you can work out the frequency of a long wave better than of a short one".
I must say that your other sites and related info, peers/links etc. make it a pleasure to look at some specifics involved with wave natures. Much appreciated!
I've been looking over your videos and reviewing some of the links/websites of relating info. There's some good discussion in the comments; your responses are extremely helpful.
I know much of what I will mention is debated and researched by others, and some info I may be inaccurate with (please excuse me), but better to express ideas rather than "sit on them". The following came to mind when watching this video:
The ether may be the energy available for wave propagation. We could represent energy before wave interactions happen but it may be inaccurate to describe by phy dimension. We could say: before wave propagation, the energy available is an "ether" of wave potential. However, after wave propagation the energy available is a relationship of wave interaction. Of course wave interactions result in other potentials which could be used to define some possible boundary effects.
It may be elusive to separate/define the ether from relating wave(s) because in actuality they are not separate. In this sense, we should not be able to find a border or boundary within or throughout the wave system, unless of course we consider any wave or set of waves as a particular border or boundary, which would be very dynamic indeed but not unrealistic when we think in terms of range and frequency.
If the ether has an unbounded nature, which could be the equivalent of an undefined or "open" source of energy, then simply put: a duration of a wave would relate that wave's boundary so that all durations of all waves would equal the boundary of their ether. This might make more sense when referencing the constant recreation of waves, which when measured should support a range/duration that will act like a boundary.
Obviously the interaction of waves defines the ether, but at least we have a direction to look at regarding certain energy needed for certain systems, or for certain waves to form in the first place.
@crawlFace The outgoing component of one particle's standing waves becomes the incoming component of another's. The distance at which this happens for nucleons is probably the cause of the size of the observable universe. So we do not need a universe boundary.
@crawlFace The outgoing component of one particle's standing waves becomes the incoming component of another's. The distance at which this happens for nucleons is probably the cause of the size of the observable universe. So we do not need a universe boundary.
@crawlFace It is perfectly OK to work with either e/m equations or aether motions. These are equivalent alternatives describing the same thing. The advantage of aether is that it is more easily understood in simple mechanical terms.
Only one question, then why can't matter move as fast as the speed of light if they are simply waves?
The concept is great untill you apply this. Why? Because if atoms were waves (and thats it). It would be like any other form of electromagnetic radiation, (i.e. radio waves, ultraviolet) And easily move as fast as the speed of light. Please, If im wrong point out how and why, because explaining mass this way makes it very difficult.
@artynz Thanks again. However, like Richard Feyman used to say (paraphrased): naming a thing isn't knowing a thing. What I meant was, what do you think the tensil aether actually IS?
By definition we can't observe black holes directly either, but the existence of black holes is not an empty argument, because we can undirectly observe its effects. The same goes with the expansion of space. Though we can't observe space itself nor the expanding of it, we can observe how galaxies move futher apart from each other.
My argument is not empty. nucleus of atoms exploding all a time and also particle exploding all a time. We can make science experiment with nucleus of atoms and later we can proof, i am right. You cant never proof, space expanding. you cant never explain how gravity working. I can expalin how pushing force working. There is only one force/power. It is pushing force, because energy expanding/exploding, cant stay in same space. exploding energy pushing away that area space and this is real force!
The point is that direct observation or direct experimentation are not necessary for arguments to work. Another example: Causality. We can never observe causality. We can see that after something happens, something other usually happens aswell, but as a separate entity causality is beyond our observational capabilities. Nonetheless we have data that causality works, at least on the macro level. The same goes with expansion of space; we can't observe it, but we can have indirect proofs about it.
Nucleus of atoms can change nucleus of atoms energy with time. Also photons can change photons energy same time when photons moving in space who dont expanding, curving or changing any way!
SOUND and LIGHT waves can be symbolized using the MALTESE Cross and the SWASTIKA?
Yes it is obvious that the ancients knew about SOUND and LIGHT waves?
They left us plenty of SYMBOLS which have had their profound meanings 'twisted' in order to serve the few?
(cut and paste url, note the spaces)
kachina2012. wordpress. com/2008/09/16/%E2%80%9C%E2%80%A6a-noble-theory-of-everything-must-include-the-swastika%E2%80%9D/
islandbuoy4 2 months ago
Indeed welcome to the club and Thanks for your contribution more confirmation of Walter Russel.
philopolymath 2 months ago
In most cases, calling something such as this "a statement of the obvious" would be an insult. There's more to it than this, but it is an awesome first effort. Try spinning the field. Not symmetrically converging fields, but more like a whirlpool. Pass it through a double slit.
fjolsvit 3 months ago
Interesting presentation.
Regards from Athens,
Panagiotis Stefanides
pstefanides 3 months ago
Intersecting waves are particles how are some stable
13sam31 3 months ago
Waves and anti waves maybe time
13sam31 3 months ago
So the pressure of the wave is what gives us mass and the alinement or lack of is what determines how strong or weak that mass or force is ???
13sam31 3 months ago
Light is a wave and a enfolding wave-particle+/- unfolding particle-wave when it comes in contact with the surface of an atom. Together they form an opposing fibonacci vortex spacetime sequence forming an electric field in and around itself generating its own rate of time relative to its energy or mass. Milo's amplitude principle, huygen's principle, mach's principle linked with the lorentz contraction of time and Einstein's equation for 'rest energy' gives the atom enough energy to fuck Legos!
yoda6523 4 months ago
There is a profound and perfect symmetry between positive and negative electric charge, the magnetic fields will always be at right-angles to the electric fields forming sine-waves! For every particle there exists an anti-particle astral counterpart within the same time-space! The symmetry of this time-space will be broken when two light spheres come together! This forms a spiral and we get the imperfect symmetry we observe in nature.
yoda6523 4 months ago
yes yes yes
but do you see the swastika twisting in the center?
first to the LEFT and then to the RIGHT
go back to the very beginning of the video, the first 30 seconds or so, have another look, still do not see it?
go here:
kachina2012.wordpress dotcom /2008/09/16/%E2%80%9C%E2%80%A6a-noble-theory-of-everything-must-include-the-swastika%E2%80%9D/
namaste
islandbuoy4 4 months ago
The Ether was put forth 70 years ago by Howard Carter.
Lliafaill 5 months ago
MemeMachine1 6 months ago
@MemeMachine1
What if the Qabalah, the I Ching, and the Bible/S were attempts at a Theory of Everything?
Obviously they were/are.
So hey how does modern science idiocy explain the following:
Fine structure constant used to tweak the EM field is known as '137'
So established 1000 years before quantum science how does QED explain the fact that the Hebrew word for QaBaLaH (kabbalah/cabala) which WAS A THEORY OF EVERYTHING has a gematria value of '137'?
Noah's ARK was 137meters?
Please explain?
islandbuoy4 4 months ago
@islandbuoy4 Please explain a magic number or scientific interpretation of a statement from ancient religious texts BEFORE the scientific explanation is discovered. There are billions of numbers in gematria and physics. To pick two that happen to match, without a hypothesis beforehand to justify it, is meaningless cherry picking.
HitfulVids 2 months ago
@HitfulVids
That is easy.
Benzene ring discovery.
Kekule had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail, a symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros.
From this inspiration came his breakthrough?
This happens all the time in science.
Now go read the book called '137' , it highlights the discussions between the scientist Wolfgang Pauli and the mystic Carl Jung.
Your beLIEf puts YOU in the dark dearie??
islandbuoy4 2 months ago
@HitfulVids
You are missing the OBVIOUS.
i.e. We are supposed to go AHA! AHA! AHA!
Wow our measurements match the ancients (pi phi and the speed of light found in the design of the Great Pyramid???)....so what does it mean?
I respond with Thrice AHA!!!
But the ignorant science sheeple like yourself reBLEAT:
DUH
DUHwin
DUHkins
Don't worry ONE day EWE will see the light and the open gate sheeple person.
islandbuoy4 2 months ago
@islandbuoy4 More cherry picking. Sorry for overestimating your intelligence.
HitfulVids 2 months ago
Comment removed
islandbuoy4 2 months ago
@HitfulVids
U R a waste of time
I never realized I was dealing with a cherry picker.
go back to school ya dummy ;)
islandbuoy4 2 months ago
Comment removed
islandbuoy4 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HitfulVids
I sent Milo Wolfe (standing wave guru) an e-mail of my thoughts.
And his response was far different than the ignorant tripe you been tossing my direction, ya wanker. ;)
islandbuoy4 2 months ago
Comment removed
MemeMachine1 7 months ago
I think it's beautiful. Why do we perceive separation, do you think? How do the waves making up the planet differ from the ones in the surrounding space? Or my hand from the surrounding "air."
OctoberLifeImages 8 months ago
What a headache! 2 messages appear as mine while they are not. It makes no sense at all.
asachildtobecome 9 months ago
but so far he hasnt done so, and until he does, his brilliant "realizations" about the nature of matter are worth spit.
MemeMachine1 9 months ago
Comment removed
MemeMachine1 9 months ago
Comment removed
MemeMachine1 9 months ago
i'm not a physicists but have wondered about this for a couple years, ever since learning about standing waves. what do you suppose are the harmonics causing the various standing wave-particles? do you think the harmonics are random happenstance or an indication of intelligent action? also why have i not heard of this theory in mainstream physics? is it provable? thanks.
garyz777 10 months ago
@garyz777 The harmonics are simply a result of non-linearity of larger waves. Mainstream physics knows that universal laws must be non-linear. They also know that this means that standing waves will produce harmonics. There is nothing random in my opinion. You haven't heard of it because mainstream physics has been going down a blind alley for some decades - some intelligent physicists are realizing that now. Yes, it is somewhat provable. Many predictions of harmonics theory have been confirmed.
artynz 10 months ago
@artynz Or better still, True energy is in a BEC state maybe the quantum entanglement state of dimension. True energy particles as in my other comment could feed from this state changing a zero frequency into the duel EM wave through a particle field maintaining the c constant as EM waves have frequency and anything with a frequency is represented in time. Frequency means time, zero frequency has no time.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 9 months ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
Sincerely I wonder:
is it possible for me to observe something with no frequency?
Sure multiple approaches/sets of terms may be effective, or simply a preference of analysis, etc,
but if we wanted to be critical, it doesn't take much to reveal the issues with the term "particle".
What is a particle? something fundamental that is made-up of or a collection of something even more fundamental?
I don't think many would be happy with: A particle is made-up of particles, lol.
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace
I'm considering that "things" can have an electric field, sure, but should I consider that there is the existence of an electric field kind of like in and of itself or regardless of whatever interacts or cause a disturbance or difference in potential, etc?
Are electric and magnetic fields like places "already there" or are they the "result" of something?
Anyway, representing matter as having an electric and magnetic looping entwined wave can totally be effective.
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace Hi, the more i think about it, the more I'm thinking of 5 states of matter being the key, time runs along this same line along with everything else. Space time or the vacuum i think is the 6th state of matter, as it expanded it pulled out what we know as matter(big bang) as the expansion slowed down we see it in virtual particle pairs today.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 8 months ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
I always do a cycle of review looking into many approaches and recently I was reviewing Kepler’s work. I can appreciate using states of matter, plus you mentioned in other comment that “time” is a bi-product of matter’s state: which I feel is a very effective description, but yes it does come with some issues.
Now using the ideas of “states of matter”, would I be off if I considered “c” to also be matter?!
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace
Yes this would suggest that we as humans only experience one or a couple of states of matter. But we may also experience all the states of matter but are unable to fully identify it yet. This would be similar to understanding that all the interactions involved with an existence spans the entire state of matter, especially since any existence is made of the same matter.
Meaning: nothing is not matter, or everything is some kind of state of matter. And I'm ok with that.
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace Hi, well i think "c" is the limit for matter in the top end like Bose Einstein condensate in the lower end. I think matter in 3D makes energy c and time and create all the other effects you can detect. I think matter beyond these points is the 6th of matter,or matter at rest so to speak, without space or time or anything really. The vacuum or Planck's constant must also maintain these two limits, but c cant be, it has no mass, but beyond c should be the 6th state. like below -0 Kelvin
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 8 months ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
As you can imagine, our discussion can get very elaborate. Let's use a traditionally definition for maximum visualization: Things that happen/produced/or result are not things that come from no where or magically "poof" into an existence. Yes, this is similar to the classic: matter can not be created or destroyed, etc.
So I'm thinking when we say "matter in 3d makes energy", I consider that the energy is also a particular state of matter.
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace
So for ex: representing "time" on that dimensional line you mentioned should be accurate or at least effective. This also helps those who still find it difficult to understand how "time" can be 0.
I like "c" as the limit for matter, but I get nervous when we treat the properties of "c" as being not matter but something else, etc.
This brings me to my issues regarding "c" having no mass. My point being that I can not figure out if it is really accurate to say "no mass",
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace
although specifically speaking I do understand the description of "no mass". What I am getting at is I'm careful not to base a definition of matter dominantly on having mass, only because mass may be an attribute for our particular interactions/experience (3d/4d, etc) of things.
And yet this idea is not uncommon: As matter approaches "c" we understand the mass of matter transforms.
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace It transforms maybe because we are using 3D time to observe it, and as time slows down more energy is needed to push it and its mass or energy would become infinite, but what is infinite? But if matter at that speed is interacting with space time increasing energy, it should also increase gravity, slowing down time, warp space and all the other effects you get at extreme velocity. Its a dimension of 3D observation, and observation runs at c. Its a hologram.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 8 months ago
@crawlFace I think what we need is a simple explanation.How about this... In a 3D hologram, the hologram cant exceed beyond what makes it a 3D hologram, because a hologram uses light or information to determine the size of the dimension due to the speed of light (c) and matter that came from the structure of the holographic fabric, sits inside the fabric and is maintained by energy in the form of mass and spin. Because we are energy, with form and time, we cant detect the fabric that has none.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 8 months ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
Excellent example.
Let's take a closer look at the info a 3d hologram uses. I agree that in most instances the hologram cannot exceed beyond what makes it a 3d hologram. But what gets me scratching my head is the repetition or occurrence/recurrence of its information or of the state(s) of the hologram.
So what we get is a finite or closed amount of info, but any recurrence of that same info treats each recurrence as an additional amount of info, know what I mean?
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace
So let X = a finite amount of info.
Then let n + X = the recurrence of that finite amount of info.
Here we have “X” remaining constant/the fabric or make-up of the hologram, but “n” acts as an additional value for X.
Something happens in this relationship (n + X) which supports or results in more than just one state of the hologram. In return, the finite amount of info reflects this additional value.
Perhaps it's how finite gets to behave infinite?
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace
Traditionally we say the “observer” distinguishes or experiences a “recurrence”, so that the state of the hologram can be thought of as set or absolute while the observer adds the variable change,
but what if the recurrence or multiple amount condition also happens because of the states/relationship you describe in your model?
Simple ex: solid, liq, gas, etc are recurrences of info at particular points along the dimensional lines (such as time line or matter or mass or temp line)
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace
Now I was playing around with representation arrangements for your diagram with the square in a circle using Kelvin and light. To keep it simple for visualization let’s still call the points of the square making contact with the circle as the usual: N, S, E, W directions.
The first 2 versions I considered are:
N and S = 0 Kelvin, E and W = light (c)
or
N and S = light, E and W = 0 Kelvin
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace
Also, observing wave interaction can give us more hints on how we can represent the state relationships of matter. I’ll post more as we discuss and elaborate the ideas.
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace energy is created by matter as information maintaining the dimensions of space and time, but i think the fabric of space itself (6th state of matter)created the matter we see as it expanded, pulling matter out of itself so to speak, like a squozen sponge being released. The energy waves i think are information not photons, that don't travel freely through nothing, but interact,propagate in a field particle/s maintaining the c constant...light is everywhere it just needs switching on
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 8 months ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
Good point mentioning/distinguishing between information as opposed to photons.
I just took a quick look at your docs and I like the approach. I have to split for work, but give me a moment to contemplate your material and hopefully we can continue our discussion.
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace No worries, do you like my all seeing eye? lol if freemasonry represents that as God, im sure ive got it correct lol it gives it a twist anyway. But no worries, just message me anytime, im all ears most of the day and night with this subject m8. Have a great day.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 8 months ago
Pseudoscience. Publish your work in a real physics journal. Good luck.
MemeMachine1 11 months ago
@MemeMachine1 Could you clarify please what is, in this case ( Or in any case) what makes you call this demonstration "pseudoscience"? Or, in spite of the non-sequitur phrase: what is a REAL physics journal?
As an example: If I filmed my hands while drawing the outline of a tree with a pencil on paper, described why I do this "line" thus or as such, intending an effect I wish to achieve, then choose You Tube to share my clever or maybe useful drawing technique, would it be REAL?
asachildtobecome 9 months ago
@asachildtobecome
Devising an advanced mathematical theory that unifies all of physics is not analogous to finding and sharing a personal way of engaging in an artisitic activity which has no defined "correct" or "real" method. In fact, I have trouble making a worse analogy. To completely rewrite the way relativity, quantum mechanics, and all physical phenomena are described mathematically would require first actually studying and learning the full mathematical description of them
MemeMachine1 9 months ago
@asachildtobecome
And then solving all of the equations with his "standing wave "theory, demonstrating how it adds to or replaces current description. Do you realize the magnitude of this project he proposes to do completely with his mind alone? Simply by looking at a few experiments and "thinking about it"? He could at least prove to us that he has scientific or mathematical background to even be seriously discussing such concepts as "fundamental particles" or "effects of relativity"
MemeMachine1 9 months ago
@MemeMachine1
You make some fair points that any proposal has to deal with. Accepted sciences also face the same issues with the same questions. Generally, we are trying to better understand aspects of nature where irrefutable evidence is hard to come by.
artynz is not alone in this, and he has provided many links to people who share or fairly consider a wave-structure approach.
Mankind's ideas about cycles, harmonics, and waves are just as old as our model/ideas of the atom.
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace If you use a line and start it from( 0-time/0 kelvin) and run it to c-light/0-time. and accross this line run states of matter, BEC, solid, liquid,gas,plasma etc, create a 360* angle of the dimension N,S,E,W you end up with a cube in a sphere. You then have a dimensional line or shape representing everything we know about the universe. Im sure matter is created out of the universe itself and the vacuum maintains its growth and the energy or its constant.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 8 months ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
Well said, and quite striking. For starters, I definitely can consider that there are universal or absolute shapes expressing or representing the relationships of an existence, be it on a universe scale or locally or even arbitrarily.
Excellent that you mention 360deg, because we do get hung-up on the orthogonal relationships in form, which is not really that big of a problem if we get used-to 360deg not having to always be represented as a circle/sphere, etc.
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace
I'm sure this sounds simple enough and yet the "programing" of us is dominant. It's simple in the sense that we understand 4 rt-angles = 360deg. It's difficult in the sense of how do we describe a cube by the terms/property of a sphere?
How funny that each side of a cube can be represented as a unique or distinguished dimension or state? But when we observer matter in these states we see evidence of a wave nature. So maybe the +/- charges are the 90deg difference?
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace I will send you a link to my hot-mail where there is a few office docs showing the workings of the dimension, and how i created it, its an easy design, but we may be able to use it as a scale.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 8 months ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
That would be awesome.
crawlFace 8 months ago
@crawlFace When we look at the uncertainty principle, it must show people that time itself is a bi-product of matters state,looking through or changing an effect(time) to see the source of the effect or what created it,doesn't seem logical to me.Below condensate,or beyond c,even though we know matter at c isn't possible in this way of thinking,unless we change the rules or manipulate space time itself,but beyond these limits time seems to stop,and the dimension we live in cant exist without time
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 8 months ago
@srdickens Yes, the same is happening at large and small scales. Everything is connected, because everything is just part of the same sloshing waves.
artynz 11 months ago
@artynz Hi, would you think that matter could be a Boson encased with 2 looped and entwined waves.. one of magnetic and one of electric?Also what do you think of energy not being the observable energy restricted by c, but the quantum entanglement theory and the energy you see is an interaction of true energy within a field where its state creates the observable electric and magnetic double vectors of the EMF ? Thanks
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 9 months ago
The representatin of a moving standing wave shown at 2:36 is wrong!
nfexp 11 months ago
@nfexp In what way?
artynz 11 months ago
@artynz Should not be any interference between the incoming wave and the outgoing wave. A moving standing wave is just like a stationary standing wave except the center of the wave is offset toward the direction of the movement. Other words, the radius of the standing wave is smaller toward the direction of movement...The
incoming AND outgoing wavelenght toward the direction of movement is shorter than the incoming AND outgoing (both) , behind the moving spherical wave...What do you think?
nfexp 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good stuff...watch also Tesla video in "Tesla cold electricity" by HorizonDelta ;-)
HorizonDelta 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy has been here for a while ,But Millions are spend in supressing that information,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be the revolution!
affluenceclm 1 year ago
wow this is truely remarkable! thanks you for your contribution. keep up the good work!!!
TheMeansardine 1 year ago
If you can derive the Fine Structure Constant (alpha) from these patterns, you'll be receiving a Nobel prize!
catherbi 1 year ago
as mr spock was so fond of saying........"fascinating"
brahmin21 1 year ago
I think one of the big questions and steps to take is deciding on the extent to our approach:
1. Do we consider waves to be the nature for/of certain conditions, or property of certain conditions/states, so that waves are exclusive or specific to certain aspects of existence, such as matter, etc?
2. Or do we consider that waves are the nature for/of all aspects of existence, even if the property or condition/state of these aspects differ?
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace IMO there is a medium pervading all the universe which used to be called the aether before people got confused about that. The waves that explain matter as well as electromagnetic waves are all just the motions of this medium - stretching, deforming, tension, pulling back into shape, oscillating. The magnetic field is twisting, the electric field is acceleration. E/M is traveling waves, matter is spherical standing wave. There is nothing else in existence but this medium.
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz
Here’s an interesting way to continue this though while evolving the earlier questions:
Can a wave, perhaps of the order we may hardly be able to fathom, cause or result in an aether?
Let’s try again:
There is nothing else in existence, therefore the aether always was and always is?
No I do not have the answers to these questions, but I have been able to apply reasoning to them to come up with good approaches to better understanding them.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
If I am not mistaken, you are not a big fan of multiple universes. Believe it or not, neither am I, although I understand the use and representation of that kind of terminology. I feel any amount of multiple universes would actually make-up what we could still describe as one actual place, being still one universe.
In many respects this does make a universal medium very reasonable.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
Keep in mind that I totally understand the valuable recognition to make is that waves are actually the behavior of the medium.
The amazing complexity about this is that each result of the medium (such as interaction) produces a system which in return sustains another system, and so on and so forth.
For a general ex:
The existence we know of could be the result of a third cycle of some interaction with this medium.
As if: we are the result of a result of a result, etc.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
Using harmonics for the example, we would say:
The existence we know of occurs at a certain order, a certain stage or interval, where any stage other than that becomes debatable regarding whether it is even a part of or connected to the result of the harmonics we can identify for ourselves.
All of this kind of questioning is geared to better understanding how we relate to such a universal medium.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
For ex:
How far removed are we from this medium?
Can the results of an interaction of this medium behave like a new or different medium, or will such results always be effected and in effect to one and only one nature of a medium?
crawlFace 1 year ago
One thing I wonder about is a boat riding on a Tsunami. It seems the boat could hitch a ride from where it began and where it meets land to soak up the Tsunami's energy. Thus the boat hitches a ride on the highest amplitude of the Tsunami has & only has to worry about the energy to keep it in place at the highest crest. This seems to be a very good idea to ride the wave crest to where ever it's going with minimal energy used.
nor888vast695 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this!
FlyingWig 1 year ago
Why are the use of "axes' important?
Because I must also consider such waves are not theoretical representations but are of an actual property.
Meaning: think literally like an "ocean". In this case we have the entire body of water, but at the same time we have unique aspects of the body which may behave similar or different from the whole.
Any property in relation to these differences will have results that express the body in whole but also results that defy the nature of the whole.
crawlFace 1 year ago
Further details have been a slow process, a work in progress; it comes in waves, pun intended, lol.
And my sort of "specialty" is being able to convert complex ideas to terms we are more familiar with.
The best progress I have involves the approach of a coordinate system for wave interaction.
To cut to the chase, 2 waves that converge/interact make up an axis proportional to the interaction.
The proportion can be represented as a range describing both waves...
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
what this totally considers is a conservation of energy, which is a good thing, because the axis from interaction can support transformations while the "original" state/property of both waves can remain constant.
For ex. representing phases of an interaction can be 90 degrees and the corresponding axis would be all positions between 90 degrees.
When the axis reaches maximum range, so to speak, it can be said to be "in phase" and describes a reoccurrence...
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
yes, think of the axis as the center from 2 waves converging, but think of the range as the very image of that center appearing to "bulge" and grow in size.
Simply put, the position/range of the axis/bulge of outgoing waves will occupy an inverse of the same positions the incoming waves consisted of.
Although already complex, it gets worse when we consider more than 2 waves interacting/converging to describe a center, lol
Like I said, a work in progress, but nevertheless lots of fun
crawlFace 1 year ago
Ok ... um
Im not that good at physics but are you saying that the waves of ?radiation? come in and out of an piont and that piont then becomes a quark or someting?
plz explain, in a less quantum mechanical way
11918151119 1 year ago
@11918151119 If we forget about what matter is for a little while, and just consider electromagnetic radiation (light, radio, etc) then there are stable configurations of waves that are coming inwards to a point and passing out again, so that the wave fronts make spheres. The expected behaviour of this type of waves is actually just what we observe "particles" of matter to be like. Therefore it seems that this is what matter is - standing waves of e/m.
artynz 1 year ago
I agree with you that real waves form the probability of Quantum Mechanics. But could the inward and outward movement or absorption and emission of these waves form the passage of time for the observer within his own reference frame? You have a very beautiful theory but it has no explanation of why we have a future and a past.
nickharvey7 1 year ago
@nickharvey7 Explaining why time exists was not the intention, and is a tall order. However the future of a particle is already present in the incoming waves, and its past is on the outgoing wave. Is that what you mean?
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz Thanks for your reply! An explanation of Time could explain why we have wave-particle duality. We only have a photon of energy if the wave comes in contact with an atom if the wave doesn’t come in contact it will only have the momentum of its own wave-function. In modern physics we have an infinite number of reference frames that all have their own proper time relative to their position and momentum. Could the WSM be forming the arrow of time within each reference frame?
nickharvey7 1 year ago
@nickharvey7 In my opinion, a photon is simply the change in frequency of the electron in wave which soon becomes the out wave after passing through the centre. The beats (musical / physics term) between the in and out wave as this change occurs look just like another wave coming in (being absorbed) or going out (being emitted).
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz I agree it is just a process, but it is a universal process everything is absorbing and emitting EMR continuously even people. When the wave is absorbed it must be localized in a small rejoin of space, but when it is emitted if spreads out forming probability of where it will form a new photon along its wave front. Are the waves moving in space forming the passage of time and geometry of spacetime?
nickharvey7 1 year ago
@artynz
Impressive.
crawlFace 1 year ago
I am not a scientist but tend to think waves would have been at the start of the universe. easier to imagine this than particles out of nothing!
Just before I was thinking that maybe different waves might have different speeds and also explain heat and cold properties.
It might also explain why a chain reaction such as in atomic explosions acts like a stone thrown into still waters causing the bigger waves (damage) in the centre,
and no wonder we cannot see the particles..Keep at this!!!!
enniopat 1 year ago
@enniopat Yes, particles are so arbitrary. Why this particle rather than that? With waves we can come to understand at a deeper level.
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz I'm nearly illiterate about this subject but as I thought about particles I realised that the word "particle" is just an arbitrary word. The universe is still as it is. Nothing has changed. A brick is still a brick and water is still water. I would like to have an explanation of what some forces are. What about the weak & strong nuclear forces. Things such as these need some kind of elementary explanation & I haven't seen an explanation yet.
nor888vast695 1 year ago
@nor888vast695 agreed that particle is arbitrary. In a wave view, there is no place where one particle leaves off and another starts. They are all messed up together.
As far as the forces are concerned I cannot say definitely. The strong force is associated with the Compton wavelength of proton/neutron, or about 1.3 femtometers. This is probably the strongest wave. Yes, more needs to be described about this.
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz I also think the antiparticle is 2 EMF's crossing at the opposite angle, creating opposite spin etc. Makes one think when they annihilate they release nothing but the same energy that i think created them. Sub atomic black holes i think are the key. If you throw in too much matter into a black hole it releases excess in the jet, same with the particle, energy or matter is the same thing, it creates event horizons,thing is with a particle, its that small it can only use energy to make it.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER I agree that jets are excess energy. Don't know about the rest. IMO nucleons (protons and neutrons) are the charge equivalent to a gravitational black hole. That is because charge force is 10^40 stronger than gravity, and mass of nucleon is 10^40 too low to make a black hole.
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz Cross reference all particle sizes and compare them to the frequency wave lengths, i know one cant do it with the electron as it bounces about like like my X after a drink. But with me not having all the data to hand, it could add up for you. ;)
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Frequency of particles is directly proportional to mass and is called Compton frequency (look up in wikipedia).
artynz 1 year ago
This is what I have always accepted:
Generally a wave describes energy, energy describes interaction, and interaction describes existence.
When anyone explains that 'waves are real' I may assume they have a solid understanding of the interchangeable/equated nature involved.
In this sense, a wave is as "real" as the energy it describes, so long as there is interaction.
I am swamped by approaches and the math involved, however that's never stopped any of us before, lol.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace Yes, the thing that distinguishes us folk who refer to WSM is that we believe the waves are real as distinct from the Bohr idea that the waves are probabilities only. Schroedinger, de Broglie and Einstein believed in real waves not just probabilities. Einstein never defeated Bohr on this, but he was right.
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz
lol, I have to admit that for some aspects I am shocked at how "wired/programmed" I am to what we may generally call: particle physics. However, I had the wonderful opportunity to work for one of America's leading "electric" companies before I migrated to Australia. So studying the nature of "energy" in a circuit is silly as just "particles" etc. In fact, there shouldn't be an electrician out there who doesn't understand a wave structure/approach.
crawlFace 1 year ago
I don't know if I am maybe referring to interference or maybe messing up differential equations for 2d/3d. Generally I'm thinking about the results of energy from a relationship of waves and wave centres, as if a wave centre defines a range by which its outgoing wave can propagate, and you are showing that an incoming wave can be treated the same way (inversely, in part or whole).
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
Here I might not treat "propagate" as a new wave but it does support a centre recreating waves as you touch on in videos How to make a Universe.
If a wave centre contains the frequency/frequencies of related in and outgoing waves then the magnitude of the centre should express/support a range of wave propagation which we can define as the energy available or transferred/conserved from its interactions.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
This should also describe what kind of waves will have significant change/interaction or what kind will/will not impose, superimpose, etc. This should be fairly easy to represent by phases.
For ex: the Compton frequency supports a range for this energy that we represent by oscillation/charge. If I am not mistaken it has been effective or at least useful, lol.
I could expect bulk of freq to remain constant but the tiny portion may not be as discrete as sometimes suggested.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace The universe is filled with waves of many frequencies, so we shouldn't expect everything to come out exact all the time. But using the Compton frequency of a particle as the frequency of a spherical wave leads DIRECTLY to all of de Broglie's results which are experimentally confirmed. There can be no doubt that this is the correct frequency of particle waves.
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz WHEN I took elec. tech. a test question I missed was what is a square wave? A sum of all frequencies at the same amplitude. I wish that I hadn't wasted most of my productive life not learning. There are great new programs for people to investigate. We'll have to lock the warmongers up first so humanity can advance..
nor888vast695 1 year ago
@nor888vast695 Yes, a square wave or a triangle wave or a sawtooth wave are all the sum of harmonics, but in different proportions. In the harmonics theory, the final pattern is another one again.
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz I i have been looking into waves structure of matter, i have come to the conclusion that matter is created in stars or by a stars EMF frequency, maybe crossing streams to generate a high energy point together with linear frequency waves creating a vortex effect event horizon that is made from the frequncy that created it...ie...gamma/electron proton/xray etc...i am looking at the wave size in comparison to the particle size which should match up if this is correct.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER Yes, e/m with energy equivalent to electron or more can make e- and e+ pairs. This is well known and can be done in the lab.
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz Hi, are you guys heading into the EM creation of all matter particles? Im not a physics guy realy, but it realy cheesed me of when they all knew so called everything, yet didnt realy know anything and the way they look down on others, because as far as im concerned we have overlooked 1 key component here, what matter is,and how this energy or matter i think create mass, and gravity unique to each particle and not some graviton or god particle.They have spend billions to smash balls about
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@artynz hi again, i started to do this because of another interest of mine, but it took me down this road and i now realise the reason matter waves like energy, is because that's what it is, and when it annihilates it leaves,yes you guessed it, energy.I personally think, matter and energy are indeed the very same stuff, but some will argue otherwise.Size shouldnt be a factor in space and they should now know this, considering their impossible super sized sun that couldn't exist has been found.:)
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@artynz Hi again, if one bombards electrons with Gamma would this increase the mass of the electron, and if one did the same with the proton but with xray energy would this increase the mass too? Now if one could combine this process with high energy xray and gamma in vacuum with a mix of electrons and protons, could this extra energy enable the proton and electron to attract and form the hydrogen atom? maybe this extra energy -mass/gravity creates the attraction in some way?
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@artynz Hi again, can you tell me if the frequency length of the wave from peak to peak is the same as the wave length from trough to trough...As for pictures of the wave in the particle with gamma, I took a wave 10pm x 10pm in size, rotated the wave and it formed the 4 leaf flower, i took the circumference, created the square, then 28.2 x pi gave me the 8.859 etc x 10/11mtrs, giving me the true size of the particle based on a 100 KeV gamma wave.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@artynz Contd....Now if this is how a wave rotates, i have a problem at the moment, i cant seem to find out how the energy is changed at the point where a frequency of the same energy crosses another, and what if any increase would there be. Say if i crossed 100 KeV with another 100 KeV , would the stream of energy/mass increase to 200 KeV or would it stay the same, or are there any other effects going on? and would you think this would create a subatomic black hole or maintain one? Cheers
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
@artynz I took 100 KeV of natural gamma no less and square rooted it, i think i found the charge number in the electron, after some digging, i think i found xrays in the quarks within the Proton...(proton/electron=hydrogen= perpetual solar fusion) i think after the electron(singularity) is created the excess energy is released over to another electron and so on as it does normaly.(black hole polar jet ?) this could explain, the unique gravity/mass and the reason the particle waves like energy.
SASNIGHTCRAWLER 1 year ago
'Particles are a wave structure'.
Throughout my life, every time I used this approach it was very effective, and I fully believe it to be accurate.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
I am going to work with some of the comments here for inspiration and elaboration. I don't require immediate replies and I would love for any fellow viewers to join in.
I have also begun reviews on how we experience spherical natures for wave structures, the representation of energy relationships (such as harmonics, etc), and the expression/range of wave interaction.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace De Broglie showed it and got a Nobel prize. Before that Schroedinger. Both of them always believed that these are real wave structures and not probabilities.
artynz 1 year ago
If we define an "original" or "first" kind of wave as having an infinite nature, then it takes on the properties/range of having no source by which such a wave can be the oscillation or pulse of, and it also faces difficulty represented as an interval of a reoccurring seq of events.
And when a wave doesn't have this issue then the ether supporting it does.
I welcome anyone's input, that's why I am commenting :)
crawlFace 1 year ago
Lastly (for the moment, lol):
In order to have a reoccurring sequence of events, we should have/start with at least one sequence of events.
If a sequence of events never happen, then there can not be a reoccurring of such events.
Of course we could consider nothing as always being in a reoccurring state until defined/described as something other than nothing. But I am not here to play wordGames.
You may already see what I am getting at...
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace I have thought about the nature of The EternalCreator & 1st casual. I believe that the universe was ordained and instructive such that everything had a beginning in terms of what we call material universe. Now it has come about that nothing has exactly nothing does NOT exist. The universe itself was created as a carrier wave which seems in my mind of making the universe the primal character of transmitting any & all events. Ether was the right name in understanding wave transferrence.
nor888vast695 1 year ago
So, no wave is actually a standing wave since any wave can be at least represented as 2 interacting waves? Yes, it appears or behaves as if "standing" but everything is in or from an interactive motion.
Your perspective on cycles suggests that within a certain range, this wave interaction will appear standing but at a larger range there may be a very notable motion.
I still need to look into what I am trying to say with this comment.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace Well "two waves traveling opposite ways" and "standing wave" are just ways of saying the same thing. Of course the in wave has to come out again after passing through the centre, so in another sense it is just one wave (interacting with itself from a little earlier). Motion will occur when the point of convergence is changing over time. That depends on how other waves are interacting with the incoming wave (what we call forces).
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz
'interacting with itself' can be a complex nature to represent, but I understand why we can describe it that way.
If I can keep it simple then all the better:
This in wave that comes out again is basically the result of an interaction, shouldn't I expect a range of new waves?
In this sense, I am not going to describe any outgoing wave as the "continuation" of any incoming wave,
nor does it appear to actually pass a centre.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
None of what I mention is in any way a prob or issue of "right or wrong".
I understand that standing waves and wave interactions describe the same things.
At the moment I am considering a "centre"to be the result of interaction where both in and out waves must change.
I have to consider a significant amount of this happening, lol rather that 1 interaction and a few waves go this and that way
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
However I also consider a continuity so to speak, so that the points where waves converge are the centres but the waves involved continue on, obviously with changes or effects (maybe not, etc) but in this sense we would look for "other" waves that "pass" through these centres.
I think there are cases for both and I am probably missing/overlooking something as well.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace To the first order, the wave just travels straight through the centre. However near the centre the non-linearity is significant so that there may be some scattering or refraction of energy from any inward part of the wave.
As to "new waves" I would say that the vast bulk of the incoming energy comes out at the same frequency (for a particle, the Compton frequency) but a tiny proportion will go to harmonically related frequencies, especially the low order harmonics.
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz
Yes I am focusing on the relationship of energy, but wondering if I should consider all waves to be of a constant wave or something like that. Somewhere around here I have to consider that all things are possibly of a wave structure which would include all the different values for what we mean when we say "energy".
crawlFace 1 year ago
Issue with energy: It's not actually a specific "set" substance. We face the same situation with our general term called: "Time"
Now I don't think I am mistaken when I say the same situation exists for "waves", right?
Waves are not a substance in and of themselves but better thought of as: An oscillation or pulse of energy.
In this sense it becomes very effective to recognize your explanations that waves are actually the vibrating aether.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace Waves are a fairly basic way of looking at what is going on, but there are others. Energy is an aspect of waves. When there is a discrete shift in the frequency of a particle (e.g. an electron moves a bit further from a nucleus) then the incoming and outgoing waves are momentarily at different frequencies. This creates a beat (musical term) wave that we call a photon. Its energy is proportional to the frequency shift (times Planck's constant).
artynz 1 year ago
@crawlFace It is all these terms we used to use such as mass-energy-direction which were to describe a "particle" and now particles do not exist but as a standing wave. It really pulls my chain of trying to understand these old terms still existing as we "see" it but fundamentally different in experiment as to what makes it up as standing waves, in-coming out-going waves. The nature of light as it used to be a particle with freq. & direction without anyother description confounded me.
nor888vast695 1 year ago
@nor888vast695
but once we understand that all models and theory are describing, or attempting to describe the same thing, the effectiveness of any particular one increases, so long as we identify the equivalents in usage of terms.
Thinking along the lines of "material universe" is very effective because it considers "expression" or "the result of".
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
However the material universe has traditionally been defined proportional to what we can distinguish, while still considering that its property is shared, or at least constant throughout its form, or any nature supporting it.
If we could distinguish all property of waves or energy, what would be the accurate definition of a material world?
It's certainly not just solids, nor any one particular form, is it?
Is it things with electrons?
It gets tricky. Anything with mass is physical?
crawlFace 1 year ago
In a wave structure of matter we still have a "point-particle" nature don't we? Not a problem, since the wave structure gives us a broader range in which to represent relationships of interaction (we can realistically/actually "follow" a wave much better than models that rep probable fields)
I also see how the differences can snowball into a big variation between the amount of "space" present in relationships found in atoms for ex.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace The point particle aspect of a spherical standing wave is simply the central point at which waves converge. IMO (and in those of Schroedinger and de Broglie) probability is not a part of nature, just of our limited knowledge. There are real waves. The uncertainty principle can be restated in cycles terms as "you can work out the frequency of a long wave better than of a short one".
artynz 1 year ago
I must say that your other sites and related info, peers/links etc. make it a pleasure to look at some specifics involved with wave natures. Much appreciated!
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace Yes, there is some good work done. Unfortunately it is too little known.
artynz 1 year ago
I've been looking over your videos and reviewing some of the links/websites of relating info. There's some good discussion in the comments; your responses are extremely helpful.
I know much of what I will mention is debated and researched by others, and some info I may be inaccurate with (please excuse me), but better to express ideas rather than "sit on them". The following came to mind when watching this video:
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
The ether may be the energy available for wave propagation. We could represent energy before wave interactions happen but it may be inaccurate to describe by phy dimension. We could say: before wave propagation, the energy available is an "ether" of wave potential. However, after wave propagation the energy available is a relationship of wave interaction. Of course wave interactions result in other potentials which could be used to define some possible boundary effects.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
It may be elusive to separate/define the ether from relating wave(s) because in actuality they are not separate. In this sense, we should not be able to find a border or boundary within or throughout the wave system, unless of course we consider any wave or set of waves as a particular border or boundary, which would be very dynamic indeed but not unrealistic when we think in terms of range and frequency.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
If the ether has an unbounded nature, which could be the equivalent of an undefined or "open" source of energy, then simply put: a duration of a wave would relate that wave's boundary so that all durations of all waves would equal the boundary of their ether. This might make more sense when referencing the constant recreation of waves, which when measured should support a range/duration that will act like a boundary.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace
Obviously the interaction of waves defines the ether, but at least we have a direction to look at regarding certain energy needed for certain systems, or for certain waves to form in the first place.
crawlFace 1 year ago
@crawlFace The outgoing component of one particle's standing waves becomes the incoming component of another's. The distance at which this happens for nucleons is probably the cause of the size of the observable universe. So we do not need a universe boundary.
artynz 1 year ago
@crawlFace The outgoing component of one particle's standing waves becomes the incoming component of another's. The distance at which this happens for nucleons is probably the cause of the size of the observable universe. So we do not need a universe boundary.
artynz 1 year ago
@crawlFace It is perfectly OK to work with either e/m equations or aether motions. These are equivalent alternatives describing the same thing. The advantage of aether is that it is more easily understood in simple mechanical terms.
artynz 1 year ago
@artynz
I totally agree. I don't think it's difficult to see that most current models/rep deal with an aether issue, even when not described as an aether.
I always thought space-time or our rep of electromag fields was similar version of aether.
crawlFace 1 year ago
Only one question, then why can't matter move as fast as the speed of light if they are simply waves?
The concept is great untill you apply this. Why? Because if atoms were waves (and thats it). It would be like any other form of electromagnetic radiation, (i.e. radio waves, ultraviolet) And easily move as fast as the speed of light. Please, If im wrong point out how and why, because explaining mass this way makes it very difficult.
sulthus 1 year ago
@sulthus Standing waves in a medium can move at any velocity up to the wave velocity.
It seems to me that you are not distinguishing between moving and standing waves. I suggest that you look up standing waves in wikipedia.
artynz 1 year ago
@sulthus look at matter as 'frozen energy'!
fntime 1 year ago
thats amazing. would you condiser these waves to be traveling in a medium?
daveslev 1 year ago
vid length 3:14 ... pi ... nice
simonodell 2 years ago
1. Scientific experiments
The argument about the expanding space is an empty argument! There is no way
to make scientific experiments with a space. The argument about expanding
space is not science. It is a religion!
The thing that particules radiate their energy is not an empty claim.
Particules can be examined and make scientifical experiment with them and
this way proof this claim to be true.
Etimespace 2 years ago
Thanks for your comments.
artynz 2 years ago
@artynz: Very nice vid. Thanks. What do you think is waving?
jzbard 2 years ago
I usually think in terms of a tensile aether, although that is equivalent to the electromagnetic field.
artynz 2 years ago
@artynz Thanks again. However, like Richard Feyman used to say (paraphrased): naming a thing isn't knowing a thing. What I meant was, what do you think the tensil aether actually IS?
jzbard 1 year ago
By definition we can't observe black holes directly either, but the existence of black holes is not an empty argument, because we can undirectly observe its effects. The same goes with the expansion of space. Though we can't observe space itself nor the expanding of it, we can observe how galaxies move futher apart from each other.
Justifier7 1 year ago
My argument is not empty. nucleus of atoms exploding all a time and also particle exploding all a time. We can make science experiment with nucleus of atoms and later we can proof, i am right. You cant never proof, space expanding. you cant never explain how gravity working. I can expalin how pushing force working. There is only one force/power. It is pushing force, because energy expanding/exploding, cant stay in same space. exploding energy pushing away that area space and this is real force!
Etimespace 1 year ago
The point is that direct observation or direct experimentation are not necessary for arguments to work. Another example: Causality. We can never observe causality. We can see that after something happens, something other usually happens aswell, but as a separate entity causality is beyond our observational capabilities. Nonetheless we have data that causality works, at least on the macro level. The same goes with expansion of space; we can't observe it, but we can have indirect proofs about it.
Justifier7 1 year ago
The point is that. We never understund before me, entropy working all a time with quarks energy.
We dont need space who changing. We have only energy whos density changing in space who dont changing at all.
If you dont understund that, we never get theory of everything!
Nucleus of atoms exploding all a time, absorbs energy and emit energy
and thats the way it is going!
.
Etimespace 1 year ago
Nucleus of atoms can change nucleus of atoms energy with time. Also photons can change photons energy same time when photons moving in space who dont expanding, curving or changing any way!
.
Etimespace 1 year ago
Well we can only see the cause, not the action
Digalog 1 year ago
Totally wrong I ment, we can not see the cause, only the effects
Digalog 1 year ago
Have you heard about the Schwarzschild Proton theory ?
Digalog 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2. Let´s take long chutes from different materials into the space and place
telescopes to them to observe some known place of a star. If the energy that
comes to the chutes makes the photons moving in the chute to bend towards
the chute, we can this way observe that this star concerned seems to be in a
different place than it is known to be!
Etimespace 2 years ago
3. The sun does not curve the space. The energy coming towards the sun makes
photons passing by the sun to bend towards the sun, because the hot / thick,
small and little exterior surface possessing particules do not interact with
the photons passing by the sun!
Etimespace 2 years ago