Creation an artist hypothesis

This video explains a dynamically evolving universe within a new hypothesis called Quantum Atom Theory.
In this very simple theory creation is a continuous process and the flow of time is formed by the continuous inward absorption and outward emission of light or EMR.
In a very similar way that we use sound wave to create our own music we use light waves to create our own future time that will have the geometry of spacetime. The wave-particle duality of light is continuously forming a blank canvas for the observer that he or she can participate in! In this Theory time is unfolding at the quantum level forming the probability that we will see and feel as future events. In this theory all objects (groups of atoms) will form their own future reference frame or spacetime by reacting with the wave-particle duality of light. Objects can choose when and where to collapse the wave-particle duality of light forming their own unique position in space and time.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• creation
• of
• the
• universe
• science
• continuum
• hypothesis
• evolution
• created
• creationist
• creationism
• darwin
• darwinism

[HaleyMary]

If a group of atoms accelerates at the speed of light and distorts the geometry of space time, why is it that an observer doesn't have the same affect on the geometry of space time when they observe and participate in actions in the world? Or, is it because people on a daily basis generally don't go faster than the speed of light?

[nickharvey7]

@HaleyMary We do distort the geometry of space time when we participate in actions in the world but this is very small because we don't go very fast this is explained in Einstein’s relativity. In QAT we form our own future by distorting the geometry of spacetime that will have its own reference frame and proper time. We will feel this as the continuous flow of time and as the time line from our birth to our death.

[Schmidt975]

Really, anotherone of these? Haven't you tried to actually check on the stuff, after it got pointed out to you that it is totally flawed? If you keep up ignoring reality, you might become youtube's latest ignoramus.

[Schmidt975]

@nickharvey7 It already could 80 years ago. Look it up anywhere! Are you kidding me, or are you that ignorant? ... and again: what people say is usually their opinion, not science. Science it done with a paper and pencil. Alternatively with experiments. But seriously: are you really that ignorant?

[nickharvey7]

@Schmidt975 Modern physics still cannot explain the wave-particle duality of light and without explaining this we cannot explain the Double-Slit Experiment. So what Richard Feynman said twenty years ago is just as true today as it was then!

[Schmidt975]

@nickharvey7 Feynman also died 20 years ago, before all the experiments about decoherence were performed. I also could not confirm that qoute. And Feynman also believed, that vaccuum is totally empty. As I told you before: quoting people leads nowhere. And no: you can look it up. Just do it instead of bitching about how it is impossible. Or are you afraid to find, that the "mystery" was solved half a century ago?

[nickharvey7]

@Schmidt975 The Physicist Richard Feynman was talking about QED when he said “that we understand how to do the calculations but we don’t understand why we have to do the calculations”. He also said that the double-slit experiment is a great mystery therefore it can’t just be looked up in a book.

[Schmidt975]

@nickharvey7 All points of this claim are false. We don't only have a mathematical description, we have a model and an understanding. We also can explain all experimental results related to QED. And yes, it's not that hard to explain, what is going on in the double-slit experiment. Why don't you just look it up instead of claiming nonsense?

[nickharvey7]

@Schmidt975 All you have is a purely mathematical description of QM and experimental results that you can’t explain. Can you explain why light acts the way it does in the Two Slit Experiment?

[Schmidt975]

@HaleyMary that wouldn't distort the spacetime any more than it did when they were at rest (except for the fact, that you'll have to put energy into them, to acc. them, and they become heavier as they go faster). And an observer does have the same effect. It's just really tiny. Even the sun does distort only slightly. And in this cosmos, nothing can move faster than the speed of light, was far as we know. Also: that distortion causes gravity. It's described by general relativity.