OneSpace

This left me with many more questions than it answered Zephir, the fault lying with me not you though. You can see the vacuum? This vacume of many virtual particles is the cause of the wave/s that is eveything in the universe? Where the what are whatagating? (i understood propagating BTW) I can understand basic science and even fairly complex ideas but this is way out of my scope of understanding without a lot of time spent looking things up. I could but i won't. You don't have to give total LAYMAN answers, but just be a little more clear-cut.

Sorry i was a bit slow on the uptake in relation to the definition of arbitrary. Arbitrary dimensions i think would mean that you could have say 3D without the need for first having 1D or 2D. I think you are saying this premise is backed up by relativity showing that dimensions can all turn into each other. So therefore this is like arguing the choice of numbering any one dimension before another is not logical, like numbering your middle finger 1 or 3, it would not matter, it is arbitrary. The arguement is that you cannot have a 3D without first having a 2D, and you cannot have a 2D without first having 1D. Relativety is showing that dimensions can all turn into each other, you will not have an arguement here, but there is more than one way of looking at what is shown. A 1D thing exists in one axis, the same 1D thing exists as the second axis, and the same 1D thing exists as the third axis. They can turn into one another because they are one another. This is not arbitrary, you need to have 1D before you have 2D, and you need 2D before you have 3D. An infinite number of waves of the same thing. Please point out any holes.

Well yes, if there are only three. 1D would be that which moves along a single line of momentum like time 2D would be that which would have the added quality of angular momentum (left and right) and 3D would be that which had the further quality of being able to move around angular momentum on a third axis, completing the sphere. Well that follows, they are all just 1D on 3 different axis.

Yes, but IF time is the first dimension (1D) it can't also be called the fourth. I can't even imagine that except as an addition within and of the first three.

The molecules themselves are a result of the wave i thought, so how can something that is created from the wave also be that which causes the wave? When you say that the whole universe is a wave/s then wouldn't everything inside the universe be an effect of the wave and not the cause? Of course that is unless everything in the universe is that thing which caused it. Is there no answer, are there only theories?

The fourth dimension? The question is, is there such a thing? Why is time, which i think you are refering to as the fourth, not seen as 1D operating within 2D or even 3D, i mean why is it added to make another dimension. This is just another way of looking at it. To expand on this idea using:

Many phenomena are better understood by describing their causes and effects. When scientists see a connection between one fact and another, they try to show a cause-and-effect relationship. The cause explains why something happens. The effect describes what happens. So if the wave is the effect, what is the cause?

Try hitting the Quote button instead. Alternatively, you can manually program the quote, such as this: You then reply to that portion of the post here. After that, you quote the next bit: Just copy my text above and give it a whirl. ********************************************************** Thanks inow, i tried but none of these function seem to work on my com for some unknown reason, i did exactly as you suggested. this is selcted and i have hit BOLD. This is the green smiley Nothing I know how to use the functions they just don't work. The kids have removed mircosoft word from this com, i wonder if this is the reason. I put the name of the person at the start and answered in brackets, but i will try and reload Word when i get the chance. Edit> Ahhhh manually

After hitting reply your posts no longer have the Quote tag at the bottom to use. ********************************************************* OneSpace (for your scrunity) 0D- 0D is TIME STOPPED or paused 1D- 1D is TIME, it is 1D because it can move foward, point A to point B is a single dimension. 2D- Angular momentum, time that could just move foward now has a left right component. 2D is SPACE, some say space is empty or that it is nothingness, but it is just that space has no thickness, when you look at space you only see its height and width, its depth is invisible because it is not there. 3D- 3D is MATTER, the angular (left/right) momentum (foward/back) takes on the third and final dimension. Time (z) is spun into a flat orbit (y) in two dimensions and if you can imagine that orbit on each revolution moving around the (x) axis a specific amount every orbit. That specific amout quantizing the matter. ********************************************************* ajb & insane That is interesting how a properties are structure based, also like humans have the property of consciousness for instance from their structure of atoms. But regardless of the complexity of the structure and the properties derived would it be logical to say it is still truely what it is made from? #1. What something is made from, regardless of the complexity of the structure,(and the properties derived from those structures) is still what it truely is. ajb (About quantum theory you said): Very different, yet agrees with every experiment/observation ever carried out. Maybe not so different then? (That is the point i was making, no difference at all if you look at it a different way.) ********************************************************** Onespace (looking at the knowledge already gained differently) Young's double slit experiment says matter is both a wave and a particle. A different way to look this "knowledge already gained", (please let me know if i am getting the scientific facts wrong) I purpose for your scrunity: #1. What something is made from, regardless of the complexity of the structure,(and the properties derived from those structures) is still what it truely is. #1. The single dimension, regardless or the complexity of the structures (2D, 3D) that are created, (and the properties derived from those structures), is still what it truely is. 1D is the wave, 3D is the particle? Is the particle still truely the wave and the duality of Young's experiment is not a duality at all? Should we only think in tems of a 1D wave? That is all. ********************************************************** Klay I think our point is your analogy can be continued and it still works quite well when you start asking what type of sand etc.... (It is an analogy quoted after the premise, it is not about sand, get over it.) If you define something, then you've just sat the definition so this will always be true.. (it is a premise not a definition) You're not really doing science here, (i never said i was, the knowledge has already been gained i am only trying to think differently about it) Photons are 4D (i didn't know there was such a thing as 4D in science, it is not that i don't beleive you and i may be corrected but that is what i have read.) (i found your choice of a color quite hard to talk about using the premise) We're not really treating you like a crackpot (Ok, fine, lets get on with it, I hope to make a good and sensible arguement) ********************************************************* Moo (At the end of your previous post) You shouldn't take it personally, but requiring we stop is like requiring we stop thinking scientifically. That won't happen. (I didn't ask you to stop,) Well, I didn't say that (Well, you did) Before the analogies, speak STRAIGHT FORWARD (I did) (#1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is. e.g. Sand castles are always just sand.) (I am sorry i won't continue pulling apart your posts like this.) Having an imaginative idea is not against science. A lot of discoveries came from an imaginative "breakthroughs". HOWEVER -- There's no such thing as "stepping out of science". If you step out of science, you stop analyzing the world around you. (Your no dummy, so lets just get on with it and try and enjoy a good arguement)

I didn't ask you to stop, i have only asked for your help and encoraged you to find holes. *The "you are a crackpot i will give you no serious consideration" attitude is the only thing i find offensive. Like not considering that sand castles are an analogy, it is not literal, even if i say pure silica formed by heat into different forms. It is not like i did not actually spell it out for you first. #1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is. Like continuing the assumption i am somehow trying to unprove science. It is about thinking differently, if by doing this i were to step outside of science i would expect you would respectfully let me know. Again, please shoot at anything that is false science, this is the purpose here. i swear the quote tag does not work on my com. Quote#1 It's the same of me saying "What is blue, regardless of the colors that make it so, is still blue". It's circular, it is scientifically (and logically) meaningless, Try that arguement with a three dimensional thing, matter, and i think you will find it falls down. And still- Blue is the structure, the primary colours make it. Quote #2 because reaching any sort of conclusion based on that premise is risking (to say the least) flawed logic. I would agree if it is flawed. Quote #3 "The skies are blue because they reflect the ocean. The ocean is blue because it relfect the skies." That, too, is circular, tautological, and makes no difference in the sense of reaching conclusions. This is an unsubstantiated rant *. No offence intended. Quote#4 It's the same of me saying "What is blue, regardless of the colors that make it so, is still blue". Lets see if your right. The pemise is, What something (blue) is made from (red and green{?}i think ), regaurdless of the complexity of the structure (two primary colours blended), is still what it truely is (red and green). If you think this is flawed i think we should agree to disagee. You seem to think logic needs to be complex or is it that you think i am an idiot and must therefore be wrong. Have you ever had an original idea, (No offence intended) but you start by taking it back to basics and then see if it still holds as things get more complex. I seriously doubt within the life of this thread you can stop treating me like a crackpot and really give, it would now seem me not the idea, any serious consideration. I may be wrong.

No-one can answer true or false and say why to? #1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is. e.g. Sand castles are always just sand. #2.Don't put the cart before the horse, the structure is made from the base particle but the base particle is not made from the structure. e.g. Castles are made from sand, sand is not made from castles. i.e. It is not circular. you are kidding right? "the knowledge gained is not as important as the ability to think differently about it" Your right these are not scientific questions, it is only trying to think differently about the knowledge already gained. Is anybody here not sitting on a high horse? ajb. "I for one am not clear on what your original post of about." Quantum is showing us a very different world to our own, maybe we should look differently at our own. In all sincerity is that clear enough?

#1. What something is made from, regardless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is. e.g. "Sand castles are always just sand." Circular? How, why? True, false? Could you give an example? Maybe you could be a bit more specific, which statements? By the way i used the quote tabs but nothing happened Well the first one is circular I don't think i can get it to work. Smileys don't work either. edit: spelling >regardless

Could you help, please? Premise 1 and 2. #1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is. e.g. Sand castles are always just sand. #2.Don't put the cart before the horse, the structure is made from the base particle but the base particle is not made from the structure. e.g. Castles are made from sand, sand is not made from castles. True of false, it would be appreciated. If false, how,why? For logic not science.

If you were trying to be my friend then this would not be the twelfth post without discussing anything i have said. How about a little help then, i don't think i know that much at all. No offence but we have had many of the scientific types through the fire service, they also think> "but with no evidence, logic or the scientific methods, your theory is not even a theory, it's an unproven rant." ,and all you're doing is trying to show them how to use a beater! Remove your foot from your mouth, you actually have to bring up something i have said to poke holes in it(i want you to take shots to see if it stands). It's not an insult, pull your head in, discuss something i have said, i came here looking for the experts, not to prove i am one. p.s. edit: "the knowledge gained is not as important as the ability to think differently about it" It is not about finding science, the knowledge has already been gained, it is thinking differently about it.

yes i understand that, but what are they, what makes them, how are they created, are they a thing or are they what moves through a thing? Most importantly are there any differences between one wave and another, if so, how? Of course the answer may be height and frequency but do these features stop the wave from actually being a wave? Am i out of line asking these questions?

opps, practical.

Look son, i am a 43 yr old firefighter, so think of me as a consultant here to give you a practicle point of view, that is all. Science goes to a lot of trouble to prove and test and double blind test, then put their theories out there for others to do the same, so when they say something like E=MC2 i tend to beleive them. And even with my year 12 physics i can understand that it means energy and matter are interchangable, so stop ("i was just") treating me like and idiot. I am not here to tell you your job or anything about physics that has not already been proved but if you actually read what i wrote you would see the content is so practicle that even a child could understand it. Come on, for once pull your head in and think, "what else could it be?" Simplicity is eloquence. "the knowledge gained is not as important as the ability to think differently about it." Klaynos I was just carrying on the sandcastle analogy, I think it worked quite nicely to show that stuff isn't just made of one thing That is the opposite of what it is showing.

I was not comfortable calling it 0D, on thinking about it i came up with this. 0D- 0D is TIME STOPPED or paused 1D- 1D is TIME, it is 1D because it can move foward, point A to point B is a single dimension. 2D- Angular momentum, time that could just move foward now has a left right component. 2D is SPACE, some say space is empty or that it is nothingness, but it is just that space has no thickness, when you look at space you only see its height and width, its depth is invisible because it is not there. 3D- 3D is MATTER, the angular (left/right) momentum (foward/back) takes on the third and final dimension. Time (z) is spun into a flat orbit (y) in two dimensions and if you can imagine that orbit on each revolution moving around the (x) axis a specific amount every orbit. That specific amout quantizing the matter. Klaynos Gidday mate. The sand castles are an analogy, i don't think the water and shell stuff has anything to do with it. Duality, i think this is quite clear, here you have time which is a singularity building the things (3D) that are a duality. Premis#1, we don't stop being that from which we are made so a 3D particle is still 1D time, a duality. Gidday Trans I am so new here, i will try and learn how to use the quote tags. One last thing is that i don't need to give you evidence and math, this has already been done by you and by science, this is just thinking differently about the knowledge already gained.

Just remember I don't need to be able to prove E=mc2 myself to understand mass and energy are interchangable. Quotes ****************************************************************** swansont (Knight who says, "Ni!") Planck's constant would be the equivalent of the 100 rpm increment. Except the "spinning" isn't a physical object actually spinning. (QM is quite weird) Except the "spinning" isn't a physical object actually spinning. (QM is quite weird) swansont (Knight who says, "Ni!") 03-12-2008, 03:04 PM #2 Everything is actually waves, and the waves — which represent things like the position/momentum/energy of the entity in question — must conform to boundary conditions. This excludes a great many solutions from being possible; the solutions that are left are discrete. Klaynos (Most Nagging Member) 03-12-2008, 05:06 PM #6 Well you see the idea of wave and particle breaks down in quantum mechanics. When we said everything is a wave, we would also have been correct in saying everything is a particle, depending how you measure something it will appear to be either one... Photons are waves, and they are particles, as are electrons... Quantisation comes into play because the energies (and other values) of these particles/waves only have fixed quantised values... Severian (Primate) 01-21-2008, 09:18 AM #8 In reality, QM is pretty simple if you stop thinking of things as particles and think of everything as a wave instead. Particles are really just very tightly focused wave-packets. 5614 (Genius) 03-13-2008, 11:00 AM #13 Originally Posted by DrP It [double slit experi] is excellent for explaining how an electron travells as a wave and hits as a particle. Yes, but they never behave as a wave and a particle at the same time. it behaves as one or the other, but never both at the same instant. If you say it is neither a wave, nor a particle, but is in fact a third 'thing', which somehow combines both wave and particle properties in one, then you'll be getting at the right thing. Martin (Physics Expert) But there are at least these two QG approaches that don't have any discreteness in any way shape or manner-----you can let the scale parameter or the UV cutoff go to zero, and they don't blow up. Or they seem not to blow up. One is Martin Reuter and Roberto Percacci Asymptotic Safety approach the other is Renate Loll and Jan Ambjorn Triangulations approach. Or maybe there is no discrete reality down below planck scale, in which case Loll Triangulations or Reuter Asymptotic Safety could actually lead to FUNDAMENTAL theories. It's nice to have that flexibility of being useful in either case however it turns out. bascule (Scientist) the jury on discreteness is still out. IMO we simply don't know what things look like smaller than planck. (or even remotely close to planck IMO). Very fascinating stuff. What's your personal take on the whole thing? ______________ Tomorrow is the enemy if it steals one moment from today. Join Date: Apr 2005 | Posts: 3,982 | Location: The center of the universe (from my frame of reference) | ****************************************************************** Sorry but it makes it harder for you to shoot down my theory if I quote you (and others) from the start. Premises. #1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is. e.g. Sand castles are always just sand. #2.Don't put the cart before the horse, the structure is made from the base particle but the base particle is not made from the structure. e.g. Castles are made from sand, sand is not made from castles. So. There is only one entity that is real and 0 dimension, ala Time. Using premise#2. To not put the horse before the cart the more complex (space and matter being the structure) 3 dimensions are made from 0 dimension time. The structure can cease to exist and even though time and space are one, time doesn't cease to exist it would just stop or be paused, but not destroyed like something 3 dimensional. There is nothing that is discrete, Using premise #1. 3 dimensional space and 3 dimensional matter is made from 0 dimension time. Everything is truely still 0 dimension time. It is time spinning up 3 dimensional space and matter, i.e. time is a 0 dimensional entity creating objects in 3 dimensions. If the premises are right what else could it be. What does it all mean then? Not 3 dimensions are an illusion, but rather it is real but is a structure that is still truely 0 dimensions. Hence the wave particle daulity. Things never behave as 0 dimension(wave) and 3 dimension(particle) at the same time.

time/space, a random structure. matter, a random structure with defining rules organisms, a random structure with defining rules and choice. Humans, a random structure with defining rules and creative choice. so Consciousness is creative choice from a defined structure choosing thought from all randomness. To measure it is to measure all randomness. Is there anything that you feel you are banned to think, not me. Added Edit: I thought of something that is banned, dimensions in 1D and 2D as well as four, five, six ect. I can think of there representations but i can't actually think of them. I can think of 0D as time. Time is a real entity that is of no physical dimension.

And what are waves? In water they are not the water but only the up down movement of it as the wave travels. Seems to me if this is the nature of waves then they are all the same thing.

Hi Dark Yeah i like it. I could be an undertaker, death is easy, agony is a bit harder to handle. Hi inow I started ju-jitsu when i was 15, at 19 i was training 3 to 5 nights a week for the next ten years. I taught for another ten and the last couple i have stopped, but you never really stop. I ran my own business on days off A1 Motorcycle School for five years but never again, between the two and 5 kids it almost killed me. I still have the bike, 96 Honda CB 750. I also have a five meter fibreglass 1/2 cab boat with a Yammy 115 v4 -76 kl/h WOT on the water- and take it out on Morton Bay here near Brisbane. I want to sell them both and get a gyrocopter, probably a Bensen or a KB2.

That is a failing of my language, the beach is made of one sand, not meaning one giant grain of sand. There are many waves but are they all the same wave, that which creates the field?

Excellent response inow, i see there are conflicting experiments showing both particle and wave evidence. I did notice this and confess i don't know how much this assumption matters. From your attachment. "but the formula only made sense if he assumed that the energy of a vibrating molecule was quantized--that is, it could only take on certain values." Added edit: I notice with the double slit that the particle being fired is a measured quantity of one, and that the hit is also a measured result of one, it is measured at both ends. If the measure is just before the slits it also is a quantity of one. The unmeasured quantity is also one if by one i mean there is only one wave that all particles are. Hence the wave is every particle and can take on all values.