...AND MACM DOES IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :m: :m: :m: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
malisha, ************************ Reply: There is a difference in listening to and adapting other views. Where a clear error has been pointed out I immediately acknowledge that but when it is a matter of interpretation or the answer is not directly on point, then I reserve the right to await a concise reply. ************************ ************************ Reply: Now if I could do that, I think I would take you up on your following comment, since I can't I don't. ************************ ******************** Reply: You have never heard me say that. Indeed if you had looked at my work the first two paragraphs are disclaimers as to any formal mathematicl proof or experimental support. This is something expoused by others as a means of trying to make me look egotistical, which I am not. Hard headed, well maybe. ********************* ******************* Reply: Actually, I would expect it to be taught should it ever be found to be correct. That however, is not likely to happen at my hand. That is (as I have said before) beyond my skills. ******************** ************************ Reply: First no forgivness needed. You have been more polite than some othersPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . Second, the only "Proof" is the gravity tests which are over 50% completed and that will be released. But even that isn't proof of UniKEF. It is proof gravity isn't what conventional science has thought it was and UniKEF becomes one of what I am sure will become many new ideas on what it really is. So until then it is all tounge in cheek. But soon. ************************** MacM
Thanks SciBoy, Thanks. I don't get a whole lot of support around here.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But if it was easy it wouldn't be fun.
0 Canute, I don't know if this is your personal thoughts or if you have paraphrased something I have said but I do make the speculation in UniKEF that Infinity and 0 are the same point. And yes saying the recipocal of infitesimal was infinity was a foopaa. Because infinitely small is not "0". I will do better in the future to say the recipocal of "Absolute nothing" is infinity (I think). But overall you have captured the meaning and I appreciate the balance of your post. Thanks.
Quote MAC - "And yes saying the recipocal of infitesimal was infinity was a foopaa. Because infinitely small is not "0". I will do better in the future to say the recipocal of "Absolute nothing" is infinity (I think)." I was suggesting that you may not have made such a 'foopaa' as you think. Or rather that you made a very understandable one.
OK, well if you dont see anything wrong with your profound expression not being just a simple arithmetic expression then fine Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! what comment, the part where i say you try to compare yourslf with einstien ?!?! how does posting real math mean your comparing yourself with einstien, i thought that was tandard procedure, new theory euals new or modified formulas which people can work with Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have benn reading some of your posts, speiclally the one called trials of einstien, how you speak of many scientists not beliving his ideas at the start etc,etc, if there isnt some underlying message in what you posted in that thread(related to how people may be thinking of you now, as people saw einstien initially) i would say you would be lying. And this is exactly the reason why people are getting annoyed ! you attempt to push a theory which you cant backup ! wich you cant even prove, its like an anthiest trying to push religion, its stupid & on the topic of religion without proof, your theories are nothing more then another religion added to the stockpile. Good im glad Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So why push tounge and cheek so hard ? taking up forum space ? this isnt an i told you so contest. what do you expect will be your ultimate goal ?that you post all this stuff, someone else figures it out and by some freak of nature your correct ? then you comeback to this messageboard and say to everyone that knocked you ... see i told you so, man come on :bugeye:
Clarification malisha, ****************** Reply: There was no correlation to myself in that post. It was made in direct costrast to others that had posted (paraphrasing) "Einstein was well received and his theories understood from the day they were published". It was not my intent to suggest that my reception being rejected in someway correlated. I have never compared myself to Einstein or anyother notable. I may not be an Einstein but I certainly am intelligent enough to know the difference. ********************* quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, I would expect it to be taught should it ever be found to be correct. That however, is not likely to happen at my hand. That is (as I have said before) beyond my skills. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And this is exactly the reason why people are getting annoyed ! you attempt to push a theory which you cant backup ! wich you cant even prove, its like an anthiest trying to push religion, its stupid & on the topic of religion without proof, your theories are nothing more then another religion added to the stockpile. ********************************* Reply: In another post the point was made as to the theories of "String, TOE, M & P-Branes. They aren't proveable either but the concepts are being considered. That is all I expected. That the general concept would be considered. When I posted here I did not think one had to have absolute proof of a concept. ********************************* quote:------------------------------------------------------------------------- So why push tounge and cheek so hard ? taking up forum space ? this isnt an i told you so contest. what do you expect will be your ultimate goal ?that you post all this stuff, someone else figures it out and by some freak of nature your correct ? then you comeback to this messageboard and say to everyone that knocked you ... see i told you so, man come on ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***************************** Reply: On that point I think you could count on it.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There have already been numerous "I told you so" issues predicted in UniKEF that have been discovered; which is why frankly I expected more tolerance for the fact that the concept is in its beginning stages. I'm sure I see more signifigance to the predictions being found true than others but that was my basis for posting here. But since that tolerance is not present, I will participate at a different level and when (IF) UniKEF gets attention, I think it would be very justified to say "Told you so". Think of the opportunity you may have missed.
"Origin of Existence"? Now there's a piece of dualistic buffoonery that begs to be mocked. "Comes from", implying a beginning and a creator. A cause effect separation where cause is other than effect. Beautiful. Then we are baffled by the paradoxes and self-contradicting bullshit we put into our heads.
I belive that time is not a factor. Time is precived backwards. Time is the past. You can not change the past and there for you can not change time. Everything happens in the precent, RIGHT NOW. You can not change what you did 1 sek. ago or yesterday. Our minds can remember and learn from the past. And that is what we call time. We know from past expirence that it takes an average acorn , time , to grow into a tree. What it depence on is : (a)potential and (b)circumstances. If a+b=1 Then a+(b/1000)=0,001 Everything is binary, either something happens or it don´t. 1 it happens, 0 it don´t. What it depence on is; what potentials does it have and are the circumstances fulfilled. If this is so then 1. If not fulfilled then 0. We can speed up "time" by changing the circumstances. If an acorn have optimale circumstances it will grow quicker, because it is easier to achive the potential.
This is why the Aether Wave Theory (AWT) considers, the nothing is in fact the artifact of something. In dense particle system no energy can propagate at distance due the chaotic nature of such system, yet such system can condense into something in predictable way.
nothing is everything that exists, and the universe has always existed there, in invisibility. when the zero divides because of it's paradoxical (divided) nature, consciousness is born which divides everything further and that's why we experience this universe, this small frequency range of nothingness. the reason that energy can't be created or destroyed is because there is zero (infinite) energy
You got a good head on your shoulders! I will say that my equation explains this "all" and "nothing" Again we have to look at the definition of "time". Time is precived in retroperspectiv. What happens RIGHT NOW is the result of what potentials are possiable and if the curcumstances for that are forfilled. We know that our body are made up by 1000000´s of cells, we know what the cells are made up by, we have discovered DNA, we know what it is made of, we can build nano items. But what happens when we go deeper that nano? We do not know yet! I do not think that we ever will find some god behind it. I do think that we will find more of what we have found so far. Until we find that we and everything are made up by curcumstances and potentials, no matter how small or how big. To branch off to unsupported conclusions, is a logical step for people who reached the end of theis logical thinking ability.
Leading cosmologists picture the Universe as a bubble floating in empty space, right? Now, is that empty space composed of parts? No. Does the concepts of motion and therefore time apply to it? No. Does it have a beginning or an ending? No, it does not move, therefore it is not subject to change, it is eternal. Is it everywhere? Yes. Is it the seat to all fields? Yes. Can there be matter without fields? No. Is it matter? No. Is it real? It has been argued before that there is an interaction at a deeper level between matter and the environment in which it develops. That this deceptively simple and very old idea that energy, therefore, matter, comes from a common substrate, and that everything is interconnected through this substrate is the underlying reality. And this is the aim of this book, to examine the philosophical implications that these facts bring to light and to reassess this new state of affairs in detail. Traditionally, western science's tendency has been to fragment and isolate everything we take as the object of our investigations, ignoring the background, the underlying substrate from where the Universe emerged. From the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle we get that light is particle and wave at the same time, that the totality is more than the sum of its parts and that when you get down to the size of atoms there are no solid-like particles spinning in empty space but a net of interconnected particle-wave systems, a hologram ruled by the laws of wave harmonics. From the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) experiment and from the fact that when we rotate the plane of polarization on a beam of light the whole beam changes at once, instantaneously, we get non-locality. And, from John A. Wheeler's Delayed-Choice and Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics we get undividedness of process, wholeness, self reflection and self-organization. From these facts we can argue that matter originates at a deeper level, and that state instantaneously changes throughout a beam of light thanks to wholeness in space and time. That this wholeness is what makes EPR phenomena possible. I argue, like many others, that the Aether is the physical, nonmaterial substance, from which the Universe popped into existence. To exist, things must be in spacetime, and the Aether is not in spacetime, it is before spacetime, so it is but does not exist as matter. Spacetime is the bubble floating in empty space that cosmologists talk about when describing the Universe. The Aether is all permeating, it is everywhere by its own definition, it is inside and between particles. You can not conceive a fragmentable aether, or it would not be the Aether as it was defined thousands of years ago. By definition, everything is made from it, even the space that surrounds you. The Aether, as described over four thousand years ago, is materially non-dimensional. Things move, but not in relation to the Aether, things move in relation to other things at the classical level. It is not matter, therefore, not directly observable. You can measure the properties of fields, but you can't take a direct measurement of the Aether. It is indivisible, fields can create the appearance of separated volumes, but you can not divide the Aether into separate entities. In that sense, it is apparently, infinitely divisible. This is why many say you could fit the whole Universe in a point. Since motion isn't one of the Aether's properties, neither is time, nor change, making it immutable... eternal. Any material substance will occupy space. This physical but nonmaterial substance does not occupy any space. It becomes matter as fields spin or pulsate at very high speeds, creating material properties like volume, extension, motion, time, mass, gravity, solidity... eventually causing the formation of objects in spacetime. Since it lacks the property of motion and can not be described as containing parts that follow a time-line, we can conclude that it is not matter. At the sub-quantum level, the level at which energy is before it turns into multiple entities, motion loses meaning. Once we have the limits, the boundaries, we can talk about size, extension, motion, time and process. In this sense, Aether is synonymous to energy, it is pure energy. Everything is connected to the Aether because everything is made from it. This is where particle complementarity comes from. In this view, the Aether has no capacity to hold any information, just qualities which are used by active information as energy is turned into quantities, or quantized, in spacetime. The Aether gives the Universe properties like wholeness, interconnectedness, continuity and, since the property of extension does not apply to it, non-locality. There are no parts when you refer to the Aether, but you can look at electric fields, magnetic fields, gravitational fields, or any kind of force field as different things or parts of a greater whole made from the same continuous and non-fragmentable Aether. According to contemporary Quantum Mechanics, particle complementarity is due to an indivisible process which originates in a common background, but, it appears as if the only necessary information being transferred, through EMR (Electromagnetic Radiation) in hyperspace, from the Aether to the particles, is that concerning momentum and location in relation to that inertial frame and the rest of the Universe. All the information needed for the evolution of the system in spacetime is contained by the system itself, in spacetime. Therefore, eliminating the need for some a priori mega information storage system containing the history of the Universe. [X, P] = 0 -- commutativity (leads to a dualism) [X, P] = ih -- non-commutativity (leads to a monism) Hence the non-separability of process claimed by so many. "The non-commutativity of the underlying process produces an ontological complementarity. This must be contrasted to Bohr's epistemological complementarity." --- Basil Hiley According to Louis de Broglie, et al., every object exists as a body coupled to a matter-wave, and its displacement through space can be described by a wave-function. Information about the object's relation to its surroundings and the rest of the Universe is picked and brought in by each object's particular pilot-wave. Bodies in motion need to continuously reset their energy requirements. As we now know, particles are not these space independent billiard-ball like objects floating in space, they are particles-wave systems in constant motion and there needs to be a continuous energy flow from the substrate to the particle, this is why position and momentum can't be known at the same time. This is where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from. Matter is continuously changing, becoming, what was a second ago is no longer, and the only things real or meaningful to us are the information and processes through which things become and what they now are. But the immutable, the eternal, the real, is the empty space in which the Universe sits. Matter and fields are little more than apparitions, active information, as David Bohm called it. Basil Hiley, one of David Bohm's followers, is correct when he says that being is a relative invariant in the process of becoming, existing is not the same as being. The fundamental laws, that which remains unchanged, is what is real. These qualities of the Aether are the same fundamental laws that rule electromagnetic (EM) fields. Can you be without materially existing? Logic tells us that creation ex nihilo is physically impossible. And from electromagnetic phenomena and gravitation we get that, physically speaking, to be, you don't need to be material, all you need is to be able to act as a force. You can be without existing, but you can not exist without being. Is empty space real? Can we prove it? Can we measure it? Can you mathematically describe the rotation or acceleration of an object in empty space without assuming empty space to be real? I mean, if you were the only particle in space, how could you tell when spinning or accelerating? Is the only way to have space, rotation and acceleration when we have more than one object to consider? According to Relativity, objects in spacetime are relative to each other, not to empty space, and I trust Relativity. Empty space may be empirically untenable, but it is already considered as real by present theory, this is why we have a Cartesian plane. Empty space and spacetime are not the same thing. Einstein's spacetime is material, empty space is not. There can be no space without time or motion, that is why Albert Einstein called it spacetime. Like Einstein said, if we had no time (process), everything would have to happen at once. That is why Einstein described reality as a spacetime continuum where he saw process as the weaver of the fabric of space, a fabric made from space and time. Reality is process... spacetime is process. Time, space and matter, start with the quantum. Quanta can exist only if in motion. Field motion, or energy, turns into matter. If we could stop the motion, matter would go back to being just empty space. Outside of time, quantum events are not possible. There is time and space because there is motion, and there is motion because there is energy. The Aether itself does not move, matter does, the quantum does. The Aether is not in spacetime, spacetime is in the Aether. In this view, it is the substrate to all matter, including cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). Everything depends on this substrate, this is where the laws of electromagnetism are administered from. Electromagnetic fields should not appear as ultimate, irreducible realities. Existence starts with the field, and before that there is Aether. It is before geometry, spacetime and geometrization happen after the Aether. The Aether, unlike spacetime, is primary. Matter and time are not. Therefore, the Universe is background free and there is no fixed or absolute frame of reference, nor absolute time. From Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, we get that objects are not relative to empty space, that they are relative to other objects with mass. In respect to Relativity, what is absolute is not empty space, nor time, what is absolute is the objective Universe, the world. There is absolute reality. This is what makes GTR (General Theory of Relativity) true, everything is related through and by the Aether. Or how could it be that when a body is accelerated to near the speed of light, time and length must change in relation to a stationary observer? Wasn't space supposed to be absolute, primary, independent and non-derivable from anything else (Isaac Newton)? According to General Relativity the Universe is one single entity, one process. Space... objects... Mankind... come from one thing, which by definition we call Aether. It is nothing in particular but has the potential to become anything.
