Why the quantum world appears weird?

[Pincho Paxton]

No, my comment is completely relevant. I'm saying that you can't make physics work with aether, the premise is flawed right from the start.

 

Then your wording was wrong, you said established physics based on both theory and observation does work with aether. Which includes the words DOES WORK.

 

But QM works without an aether. If you add one, you need a compelling reason for it.

 

Do you think nothing can be solved from unifying physics? It is a window to observing the invisible materials out there, and maybe using them. Time, and dark Matter are two examples of unifying physics to Quantum Physics. I'm not sure what science would do with them, hopefully improve space travel, and maybe by understanding atoms, and biology science can solve a few biological questions. You would be amazed at the clarity of the Universe when you know what is out there. How the brain works.. it's all just amazing.

[finiter]

Actually it does. You claimed that the rules quantum realm must be deterministic because the macroscopic world had deterministic rules. This is assuming that the properties of one (the macroscopic would) must apply to another (the quantum realm. This is then very definition of that logical fallacy.

You have to distinguish between rules and properties. The fallacy of division applies to emergent properties only, not the underlying rules. It is very clear from the example given in the Wikipedia.

 

The other part of the claim that "the rules at the quantum level are deterministic, but the end result caused by these laws will have some uncertainty" is logically impossible. Even with emergent phenomena, the emergent behaviours can not have something that can not be traced back to the underlying system. With my Conway's Game of Life example of emergent phenomena, the behaviours of the higher order system, while not predicable from the underlying system, none the less are completely controlled by the underlying system's rules. You can't have behaviour that is not traceable to the underlying system.

 

So, if quantum rules were deterministic, then this means that although the specific behaviours of the macroscopic world might not be predictable from the quantum rules, there still can not be any behaviour that violates these underlying rules. And, since they would be deterministic, that means that the macroscopic world is also deterministic too. There would be no way that randomness could exist (it might be complex and not easily predictable, but it would not be non-deterministic).

 

The only way you could have the macroscopic world become non-deterministic is for the quantum world to be non-deterministic too. But, if you accept that the quantum world has non-deterministic behaviours, then you are back to the standard model and your argument is invalidated.

In an earlier post you have used the term 'not completely deterministic ' to indicate the unpredictability. I have used the word 'some uncertainty' to describe the same situation. So, I agree with your comment, "So, if quantum rules were deterministic, then this means that although the specific behaviours of the macroscopic world might not be predictable from the quantum rules, there still can not be any behaviour that violates these underlying rules. And, since they would be deterministic, that means that the macroscopic world is also deterministic too. There would be no way that randomness could exist (it might be complex and not easily predictable, but it would not be non-deterministic)." This is exactly what I should have stated (to avoid confusion).

 

The term "classical" refers to laws of physics that are based on the Newtonian laws (and a few others). Relativity, although is completely deterministic, is still a non-classical theory.

Now, with a claim like you made, that gravity is attributable to a "residual force of the strong nuclear force", then this means we would get gravitational poles, just like we get magnetic poles. It also means you would not be able to get gravitational monopoles either. But as we live at the bottom of a gravitational monopole, and we have never seen a different gravitational pole than the one we live in, then your claims are not supported by any evidence, and there is evidence to the contrary.

This makes your claims extremely unlikely to be true.

Relativity is also regarded by some as a classical theory (I have also the same opinion). The inference that we should get gravitational poles, if gravity is a residual force, is not correct. The strength of the force (ie, the constant) decreases as the residual force decreases. So my claim does not go against logic, and I can propose it as a hypotheses.

 

Your premise that "We cannot know the reality by indirect measurements" is actually false. All measurements are indirect. When you look at a measurement device, say a Geiger counter you are making indirect measurements.

 

1) The particle is entering the Geiger counter hits a gas, and causes it to ionise

2) The electrical current produced by this ionised gas is then picked up by the electronics

3) The electronics causes some mechanism or display to change

4) The light bouncing off (or emitted by) the mechanism then enters the eye

5) The light that entered the eye collides with chemicals inside the rod and cone cells of the eye and breaks them apart

6) The breaking of the chemical causes the cell to fire and send the signal along the optic nerve to the brain

 

And that is not even looking at how our brain interprets that signal. This means that all measurements are indirect and therefore your premise here is plainly wrong.

I think you are stretching it too far. At normal levels, we measure length directly, but at quantum level, we measure it indirectly. The direct- indirect distinction (that I have used) is only that much. I stick to my argument: Unless we know the internal structure, any indirect measurement of things at quantum level will not give us the real picture. There is always the possibility that you are having the wrong picture, especially when you use non-classical quantum mechanical model as the 'real picture'.

[Edtharan]

I think you are stretching it too far. At normal levels, we measure length directly, but at quantum level, we measure it indirectly. The direct- indirect distinction (that I have used) is only that much. I stick to my argument: Unless we know the internal structure, any indirect measurement of things at quantum level will not give us the real picture. There is always the possibility that you are having the wrong picture, especially when you use non-classical quantum mechanical model as the 'real picture'.

The real difference when we make measurements of quantum systems is that they don't behave as systems we have had a lifetime of experience with. There is a roughtly equal amount of "indirect" measurment between them observed effect and us in both quantum and macroscopic. Typically there is a machine that sits between us and the phenomina that takes the measurments.

 

In the macroscopic scale this could be a video camera, a microscope, a piece of string, an electronic switch, etc. In the quantum scale we have machines that sit between us and the thing we are trying to observe. It is the same degree of indirection, it is just that with the macroscopic world we think it is less indirect because the effect is one we are familiar with.

 

So it is not a matter of directness or indirectness, but that of familiarity. This means that the answer to the question posed in the OP "why the quantum world appears weird" is: We are not familiar with it.

 

If we evolved and grew up in a world dominated by quantum phenomena, the rules of the macroscopic world would appear weird.

 

You don't have to prove the Aether is there to make Quantum Physics work. All you have to do is say that Quantum Physics CAN work. And then you make any sort of possibility that would work physically. So long as you use physics to make Quantum physics work it doesn't matter if it is proved or not, it just means that people are not trying hard enough to make it work.

Just saying something is true does not make it so. Syaing that Quantum mechanics works with the concept of an Aether, means nothing unless you:

1) Define what the aether actually is, and then

2) Do the maths that show that it can't work without it.

 

If including the Aether into QM would not add anything to our ability to work out what would occur in a given situation, then it is a completely worthless addition and only complicates further something that is already quite complex. But, if the Aether actually can give as a more accurate and more versatile theory, then you can show that it is necessary.

 

But, to do this you have to come up with an experiment where using the aether gives the correct result and the standard model gives the incorrect result. And, because the results of the experiment is information, you have to describe how the aether works to give the more accurate result in the language of information (maths).

 

As you can see, this is much more complex and requiers much more hard work than just saying that the Aether is needed. If you really believe that the Aether is necessary and are willing to prove it to the world, then do the work, develop the idea into an hypothesis, do the experiments get peer reviewed and turn that hypothesis into a theory and then let the world try and prove it wrong by doing experiments until they find that your theory has become a law.

 

Quantum theory has been put through this procedure for around 100 years now. That is a lot of experiments and scientists working to try and disprove it. Now there are a few holes that have been discovered over the time, but with only minor tweaks these gaps get filled. What you are proposing would over turn all this work, and while scientists are not opposed to such revolutionary change, they won't just do it because someone said they thought it should be different.

 

Even someone like Einstein (who he himself instigated a revolutionary restructure of accepted theory), who believed that QM should not be based on the uncertainty principal and who died believing that QM was in reality deterministic, could not find a flaw in it that would prove his belief right. Even though he said it should be otherwise, scientists did not just accept his word without all the evidence to back it up (and he could not provide that evidence).

[Pincho Paxton]

The real difference when we make measurements of quantum systems is that they don't behave as systems we have had a lifetime of experience with. There is a roughtly equal amount of "indirect" measurment between them observed effect and us in both quantum and macroscopic. Typically there is a machine that sits between us and the phenomina that takes the measurments.

 

In the macroscopic scale this could be a video camera, a microscope, a piece of string, an electronic switch, etc. In the quantum scale we have machines that sit between us and the thing we are trying to observe. It is the same degree of indirection, it is just that with the macroscopic world we think it is less indirect because the effect is one we are familiar with.

 

So it is not a matter of directness or indirectness, but that of familiarity. This means that the answer to the question posed in the OP "why the quantum world appears weird" is: We are not familiar with it.

 

If we evolved and grew up in a world dominated by quantum phenomena, the rules of the macroscopic world would appear weird.

 

 

Just saying something is true does not make it so. Syaing that Quantum mechanics works with the concept of an Aether, means nothing unless you:

1) Define what the aether actually is, and then

2) Do the maths that show that it can't work without it.

 

If including the Aether into QM would not add anything to our ability to work out what would occur in a given situation, then it is a completely worthless addition and only complicates further something that is already quite complex. But, if the Aether actually can give as a more accurate and more versatile theory, then you can show that it is necessary.

 

But, to do this you have to come up with an experiment where using the aether gives the correct result and the standard model gives the incorrect result. And, because the results of the experiment is information, you have to describe how the aether works to give the more accurate result in the language of information (maths).

 

As you can see, this is much more complex and requiers much more hard work than just saying that the Aether is needed. If you really believe that the Aether is necessary and are willing to prove it to the world, then do the work, develop the idea into an hypothesis, do the experiments get peer reviewed and turn that hypothesis into a theory and then let the world try and prove it wrong by doing experiments until they find that your theory has become a law.

 

Quantum theory has been put through this procedure for around 100 years now. That is a lot of experiments and scientists working to try and disprove it. Now there are a few holes that have been discovered over the time, but with only minor tweaks these gaps get filled. What you are proposing would over turn all this work, and while scientists are not opposed to such revolutionary change, they won't just do it because someone said they thought it should be different.

 

Even someone like Einstein (who he himself instigated a revolutionary restructure of accepted theory), who believed that QM should not be based on the uncertainty principal and who died believing that QM was in reality deterministic, could not find a flaw in it that would prove his belief right. Even though he said it should be otherwise, scientists did not just accept his word without all the evidence to back it up (and he could not provide that evidence).

 

You have to break maths down in Quantum Physics just like you have to break the physics down. You don't end up with the sort of maths that you are used to. You end up with something more like trinary code. The maths for the quantum world, are the maths that create all of the other maths that you use today. all you end up with is something like this...

 

+1 + -1 = 0.

 

And you combine that with spherical stacking rules to get a self building system of physics, and maths. The spherical stacking rules include the kissing problem, that only 12 sphere can surround 1 sphere of the same size. The 12 sphere leave a gap the size of a 13th sphere, but it can never be fitted. But the 13th ball gap is chaos. So as you can imagine, if you use spherical stacking rules with particles.. chaos is physics.

 

Now being as you can't prove my theory with maths because you have to take maths out of the program, the only actual way to prove it is to simulate it in a computer simulation. Which I have already started to do.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[finiter]

So it is not a matter of directness or indirectness, but that of familiarity. This means that the answer to the question posed in the OP "why the quantum world appears weird" is: We are not familiar with it. If we evolved and grew up in a world dominated by quantum phenomena, the rules of the macroscopic world would appear weird.

........

Even someone like Einstein (who he himself instigated a revolutionary restructure of accepted theory), who believed that QM should not be based on the uncertainty principal and who died believing that QM was in reality deterministic, could not find a flaw in it that would prove his belief right. Even though he said it should be otherwise, scientists did not just accept his word without all the evidence to back it up (and he could not provide that evidence).

The macroscopic world appears to be real. So the question is why it appears to be real. The mainstream physics, as pointed out by you, provides the answer that 'it is the familiarity that makes you think that it is real'. But I would insist that 'the physical world is actually real'.

 

The three dimensional space, the time moving forward, and bodies having mass are all real in all respects. Our sense organs are evolved in this real world, and are designed (by the laws of physics) to act in such a way as to understand the differences (relative) in mass, space and time. The quantum world should also be real, but unfortunately (I would say), the QM is based on the uncertainty principle, which allows a body to remain in two forms at the same instant. That goes against reality. If a body can remain in two forms, 'reality' implies that there should be mechanism for that change and also it should take some time (however small that be). However, instead of explaining the mechanism, QM depends on the unexplained assumption that a particle like electron remains in two different forms at the 'same instant'.

 

So it is not 'what happens in the quantum world' (though we are not familiar with it) that is weird, it is the explanation that is weird. It is the 'unfamiliarity' that has led to the weird explanations.

 

And you combine that with spherical stacking rules to get a self building system of physics, and maths. The spherical stacking rules include the kissing problem, that only 12 sphere can surround 1 sphere of the same size. The 12 sphere leave a gap the size of a 13th sphere, but it can never be fitted. But the 13th ball gap is chaos. So as you can imagine, if you use spherical stacking rules with particles.. chaos is physics.

Your idea of 'physical stacking' is a very good to start with for explaining the formation of particles like electron/positron and neutron, and also for electromagnetic radiations. I myself have been trying this method for some time, and I can say it has yielded result. In my model, in place of eather, there is a fundamental particle of matter having mass nearly 10^-47Kg.

Edited September 20, 2011 by finiter

[Pincho Paxton]

The macroscopic world appears to be real. So the question is why it appears to be real. The mainstream physics, as pointed out by you, provides the answer that 'it is the familiarity that makes you think that it is real'. But I would insist that 'the physical world is actually real'.

 

The three dimensional space, the time moving forward, and bodies having mass are all real in all respects. Our sense organs are evolved in this real world, and are designed (by the laws of physics) to act in such a way as to understand the differences (relative) in mass, space and time. The quantum world should also be real, but unfortunately (I would say), the QM is based on the uncertainty principle, which allows a body to remain in two forms at the same instant. That goes against reality. If a body can remain in two forms, 'reality' implies that there should be mechanism for that change and also it should take some time (however small that be). However, instead of explaining the mechanism, QM depends on the unexplained assumption that a particle like electron remains in two different forms at the 'same instant'.

 

So it is not 'what happens in the quantum world' (though we are not familiar with it) that is weird, it is the explanation that is weird. It is the 'unfamiliarity' that has led to the weird explanations.

 

 

Your idea of 'physical stacking' is a very good to start with for explaining the formation of particles like electron/positron and neutron, and also for electromagnetic radiations. I myself have been trying this method for some time, and I can say it has yielded result. In my model, in place of eather, there is a fundamental particle of matter having mass nearly 10^-47Kg.

 

Yes, my version of Aether is just a fundamental sphere with very few rules.. It's not the same rules that science used for the Aether, but it is a more detailed version of the Aether, and can be used as the same theory but with new additions to that theory. I wanted to keep the same name because it still fits in the old theory.The changes are that I turned it into a sum.. +1 + -1 = 0, and made that sum into a physical code making machine made from stacking particles into a sort of Trinary Code. I de-evolved maths, I de-evolved physics.. so instead of taking the Universe back to a big bang, I de-evolved it. What I ended up with to create Galaxies wasn't a big bang, and I didn't get any attractive forces either. I ended up with only bumps between particles, and the bumps folded the Aether into a negative mass state that were black holes that then created Galaxies.The attractive forces are an illusion of flow into holes. Nearly everything in the Universe comes down to areas of least resistance, and pressure.The 13th ball always being an area of least resistance, but is never in a concise position, so is chaos.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Edtharan]

You have to break maths down in Quantum Physics just like you have to break the physics down. You don't end up with the sort of maths that you are used to. You end up with something more like trinary code. The maths for the quantum world, are the maths that create all of the other maths that you use today. all you end up with is something like this...

 

+1 + -1 = 0.

 

And you combine that with spherical stacking rules to get a self building system of physics, and maths. The spherical stacking rules include the kissing problem, that only 12 sphere can surround 1 sphere of the same size. The 12 sphere leave a gap the size of a 13th sphere, but it can never be fitted. But the 13th ball gap is chaos. So as you can imagine, if you use spherical stacking rules with particles.. chaos is physics.

How does this predict the mass of a proton? How does this predict the lines in a spectrograph? This proposition is not useful (as you have described it) at all. How does stacking apply to the 100 or so years of data about the quantum realm.

 

Take: "But the 13th ball gap is chaos". This means absolutely nothing. You could have said that the 13 ball gap is tapioca pudding and it would mean the same. You are using chaos as a buzz word. Do you understand what chaos is? Chaos is not randomness and it is not magic. You can't just say "X is chaos" and have X work.

 

Chaos is a very specific concept, both mathematically and scientifically. The way you have used it here show you don't understand what you are even saying.

 

Chaos is specifically about how components of a system interact. It is not a "Thing" that can fill a gap. It is also not an absence of something that needs to fill it (so it is not a gap either). Chaos is a process that occurs when a system is sensitive to initial conditions.

 

If you meant "randomness", then this too wouldn't work. Randomness is not a thing that can fill a gap, not is it a gap that can be filled. Randomness too is a specific mathematical concept. Randomness can be defined in many ways, but the easiest is that: The data sat follows no pattern. Thus randomness is not a "thing" but a property.

 

Also a solution to the stacking problem has been found for multiple dimensions. We all probably know the solution for 2 dimensions (the hexagon). Actually a good way to work out the shape needed is with bubbles. Bubble will naturally form the minimum surface area for a given structural constraint. This is why in fee space they form a sphere and when constrained to 2 dimensions (like the surface of water) they form a hexagonal pattern. A quick Google will show images of bubbles packed in 3 dimensions. Thus solving the need for a 13th, "chaos" sphere to be packed (hint, they are not spheres).

 

Actually, particles are not spheres. They are not like little balls whizzing around miniature solar systems despite the common (and incorrect) pictures that grace high-school textbooks. The closest they come to a "sphere" is that they are a wave function (which uses maths based on spheres to describe it). They are actually more like a sine wave (but in 3 dimensions - or perhaps more if the current thinking is correct). And, if you know what a sine wave looks like, they taper off to the sides, but never reach 0. This is what is meant by particles not having a specific place, they could be said to have infinite size, but that the part of them that goes out to infinity is infinitesimal.

 

X-Ray crystallography, which allows us to examine the structure of crystals down to the atomic scale, Scanning Tunnelling Microscopes, The double slit experiment, Laser Path experiments, and heaps of other experiments have shown time and time again that particles, even light, acts in a way that is consistent with the "probability wave function" description (that is the sine wave type thing I was talking about above - it is not an actual sine wave, but it is similar enough to use that as something you can visualise).

 

Now being as you can't prove my theory with maths because you have to take maths out of the program, the only actual way to prove it is to simulate it in a computer simulation. Which I have already started to do.

Computers operate based on maths (in fact, everything a computer does is mathematical). If you can do something with a computer it is mathematical. So, if you can simulate (or whatever) your idea on a computer, then you can construct a mathematical formulation of your ideas (which can then be tested mathematically).

 

This means that if you are taking "maths out of the program" you absolutely can not simulate it on a computer, at all, ever.

 

The macroscopic world appears to be real. So the question is why it appears to be real. The mainstream physics, as pointed out by you, provides the answer that 'it is the familiarity that makes you think that it is real'. But I would insist that 'the physical world is actually real'.

I have not said that the macroscopic world is not real. It is real. It is just that it is emergent from quantum physics. That is: the rules of the macroscopic world are the result of the interactions between the rules of the quantum world.

 

So, in answer to your question, "why it appears to be real" is: Because it is real.

[Pincho Paxton]

How does this predict the mass of a proton? How does this predict the lines in a spectrograph? This proposition is not useful (as you have described it) at all. How does stacking apply to the 100 or so years of data about the quantum realm.

 

Take: "But the 13th ball gap is chaos". This means absolutely nothing. You could have said that the 13 ball gap is tapioca pudding and it would mean the same. You are using chaos as a buzz word. Do you understand what chaos is? Chaos is not randomness and it is not magic. You can't just say "X is chaos" and have X work.

 

Chaos is a very specific concept, both mathematically and scientifically. The way you have used it here show you don't understand what you are even saying.

 

Chaos is specifically about how components of a system interact. It is not a "Thing" that can fill a gap. It is also not an absence of something that needs to fill it (so it is not a gap either). Chaos is a process that occurs when a system is sensitive to initial conditions.

 

If you meant "randomness", then this too wouldn't work. Randomness is not a thing that can fill a gap, not is it a gap that can be filled. Randomness too is a specific mathematical concept. Randomness can be defined in many ways, but the easiest is that: The data sat follows no pattern. Thus randomness is not a "thing" but a property.

 

Also a solution to the stacking problem has been found for multiple dimensions. We all probably know the solution for 2 dimensions (the hexagon). Actually a good way to work out the shape needed is with bubbles. Bubble will naturally form the minimum surface area for a given structural constraint. This is why in fee space they form a sphere and when constrained to 2 dimensions (like the surface of water) they form a hexagonal pattern. A quick Google will show images of bubbles packed in 3 dimensions. Thus solving the need for a 13th, "chaos" sphere to be packed (hint, they are not spheres).

 

Actually, particles are not spheres. They are not like little balls whizzing around miniature solar systems despite the common (and incorrect) pictures that grace high-school textbooks. The closest they come to a "sphere" is that they are a wave function (which uses maths based on spheres to describe it). They are actually more like a sine wave (but in 3 dimensions - or perhaps more if the current thinking is correct). And, if you know what a sine wave looks like, they taper off to the sides, but never reach 0. This is what is meant by particles not having a specific place, they could be said to have infinite size, but that the part of them that goes out to infinity is infinitesimal.

 

X-Ray crystallography, which allows us to examine the structure of crystals down to the atomic scale, Scanning Tunnelling Microscopes, The double slit experiment, Laser Path experiments, and heaps of other experiments have shown time and time again that particles, even light, acts in a way that is consistent with the "probability wave function" description (that is the sine wave type thing I was talking about above - it is not an actual sine wave, but it is similar enough to use that as something you can visualise).

 

 

Computers operate based on maths (in fact, everything a computer does is mathematical). If you can do something with a computer it is mathematical. So, if you can simulate (or whatever) your idea on a computer, then you can construct a mathematical formulation of your ideas (which can then be tested mathematically).

 

This means that if you are taking "maths out of the program" you absolutely can not simulate it on a computer, at all, ever.

 

 

I have not said that the macroscopic world is not real. It is real. It is just that it is emergent from quantum physics. That is: the rules of the macroscopic world are the result of the interactions between the rules of the quantum world.

 

So, in answer to your question, "why it appears to be real" is: Because it is real.

 

First, you don't need protons, you just need shells.. membranes to hold energy, and information data. You predict with the simulator by placing a sphere around the area that you want to examine. The sphere then describes the energy, and spin, and direction of whatever is in there.

 

Chaos is small changes that alter an event.. the 13th ball does that. Watch snooker breaks where the slightest change in distance between balls alters the outcome. The 13 ball is an invisible gap in space time, so it perfectly works with chaos.

 

Randomness is the same thing.

 

There are no multiple dimensions, and you can't bend fundamental particles because they are not made from parts. They can overlap, but not for long. They aren't bubbles like atom bubbles which are bendable.

 

particles are spherical, the electron has been measured as almost perfectly spherical. The Aether makes electrons so the Aether must be spherical, and entropy prefers the spherical shape, so induces it.

 

Computers work on electrons, and holes, we translate that to maths. The Aether goes back to electrons, and holes again. I am making a model to hopefully create a Galaxy just by allowing the particles, and holes to work the way that they are supposed to work. But I don't know if I will get a Galaxy, I'm not adding any formulas to the program. Just checking if the particles are overlapping, then use entropy to separate them, and create an electron. keep doing that, over, and over again.. and hopefully get a Galaxy. Here's a test I made to see how dynamic a few events could be...

 

Edited September 20, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[finiter]

I have not said that the macroscopic world is not real. It is real. It is just that it is emergent from quantum physics. That is: the rules of the macroscopic world are the result of the interactions between the rules of the quantum world.

 

So, in answer to your question, "why it appears to be real" is: Because it is real.

Of course, you have not said that the macroscopic word is not real (there are others who argue that it is not real). Then, how can you define that reality?

 

Actually, particles are not spheres. ...

X-Ray crystallography, which allows us to examine the structure of crystals down to the atomic scale, Scanning Tunnelling Microscopes, The double slit experiment, Laser Path experiments, and heaps of other experiments have shown time and time again that particles, even light, acts in a way that is consistent with the "probability wave function" description (that is the sine wave type thing I was talking about above - it is not an actual sine wave, but it is similar enough to use that as something you can visualise).

The fact that particles acts in a way consistent with the 'probability wave function description' does not rule out the possibility that particles are spherical. If we take that particles are spherical, then the integration of the particles depends on the question, "How many smaller spheres are required to form a larger sphere that is nearly perfect? It would be logical to assume that the larger particle formed will contain the minimum number required for that, and hence, it will be possible to arrive at the structures of proton and neutron.

[Edtharan]

First, you don't need protons, you just need shells.. membranes to hold energy, and information data. You predict with the simulator by placing a sphere around the area that you want to examine. The sphere then describes the energy, and spin, and direction of whatever is in there.

As I keep trying to remind you, just saying something is so, does not mean it is so. Just saying that "you don't need protons, you just need shells" doesn't mean that you don't need protons.

 

And besides, they can detect individual protons, and even know the structure of those protons. So saying they are not needed goes against the evidence that they do exist (if they exist then they exist).

 

Now, these "shells" you talk about. You haven't actually given any evidence that this is how reality is. All you keep saying is that you say that it should be the way you say is should be.

 

Chaos is small changes that alter an event.. the 13th ball does that. Watch snooker breaks where the slightest change in distance between balls alters the outcome. The 13 ball is an invisible gap in space time, so it perfectly works with chaos.

Wrong. this does not describe chaos at all. There are numerous systems that can have small changes made to them and they do not produce chaos. Take a single pendulum. You can move it just a small amount (or even quite a large amount) and it still produces regular (that is non chaotic) motion. So much so, we can actually use it to measure regular events (the rotation of the Earth, etc).

 

Now, the differenc between the snooker balls and a pendulum is one of interactions. With the pendulum, there is not much in the way of interaction. With the snooker balls, there are many interactions.

 

Thus, chaos, is not a "thing", it is a property of the system by which many interactions occur that are dependent on the details of the other interactions that occur.

 

It is not a "gap" in space time. That rally only has simple interactions (if any at all). Plus what is meant by "gap" anyway? Is it a hole in space time (we have a name for that and it is a black hole), or is this some technobable that you have made up to sound convincing. Remember, if you are using actual real terms, then you must stick with what those terms mean, or you have to create and define new terminology (like the term black hole, event horizon, space-time have all be rigorously defined both in theory and mathematically).

 

Any argument you make must be based on solid premises. If those premises are false, then your argument is not logical. If you just make up terms without defining what they are, or arbitrarily changing already existing definitions, then you are not basing your arguments on solid premises.

 

And, besides. If you want to communicate your ideas successfully to others, then you have to use a common dictionary. If I were to make up my own dictionary (either a completely new language, or a slight cvhange of an existing language), then my ability to successfully comminicate is reduced or eliminated.

 

This means that if you want to actually have other people understand your ideas, and to show they are correct in any way you need to use the terms as they are used by others. Not make up your own terms without definition.

 

Randomness is the same thing.

Randomness and chaos are very different thing mathematically. You can't just say they are the same without actually showing that they are (as they have already been shown to be different). Again, you are just defining your own terminiology to suit your own purposes and make it difficult for others to understand you.

 

There are no multiple dimensions, and you can't bend fundamental particles because they are not made from parts. They can overlap, but not for long. They aren't bubbles like atom bubbles which are bendable.

Mathematically multiple dimensions exist. I have used them, and if they didn't exist, then what was I using?

 

Oh look, here is a building designed as a 3 dimensional projection of a 4 dimensional object: . True, it is not an actual 4 dimensional building (good if it was though ), but this is what the designer wanted to make it look like. The fact that we know what such an object looks like is down to the existence multiple dimensional mathematics.

 

So, as far as the concept of multiple dimensional mathematics is concerned, it really does exist. But, does this have any physical, real world applications?

 

Well, using the the mathematical multiple dimensions, we know what they should be like if they did exist. We can work out how they would effect the world around us.

 

One such effect would be that if 3 dimensional space was curved into a 4th dimension, then it would cause a specific type of distortion of straight lines (or objects travelling in straight lines).

 

So, to see if there really are multiple dimensions, then all we need to do is to look for such distortions. As these distortions are mathematically defined based on how multiple dimensions mathematically behave. And, as we have already established that multiple dimensions exist as mathematical constructs, then if multiple dimension actually exist in the real world, then they should behave the same as the mathematical ones, or, they would not be called dimensions (remember what I was saying about definitions earlier).

 

When they examine the light from stars as they pass near the sun, the light from these stars behaves exactly the way predicted if the mass of the sun was causing space to be slightly rotated into the 4th dimension. In other words, we have proof that multiple dimension actually exist.

 

Einstein when further and stated that this 4th dimension is time (rather than space). If the 4th dimension was a space dimension, then we would still get the same bending effect on light, it just would not produce certain other effects (such as the slowing of time - as this is the result of time being the 4th dimension and being rotated into a spatial dimension - but that is not the point I am making here).

 

The point I am making here is that mathematically we know how multiple dimension should behave if they were real, and that we can see these behaviours occurring in the real world. Besides the curving effect I talked about, there are more subtle effects that are caused because of the curvature of 3d space into a 4th dimension that can not be accounted for due to a force applied onto an object. These effects have been tested for and the result is that it really is a 4 dimensional curvature of 3 dimensional space. This means that multiple dimension do exist and there is direct evidence that you statement that they don't is wrong.

 

As your argument seems to require that multiple dimensions don't exist (other wise it wouldn't have had to be a point you needed to state), and the fact that there is proof that multiple dimensions actually do exist, then this proves your claims wrong.

 

particles are spherical, the electron has been measured as almost perfectly spherical. The Aether makes electrons so the Aether must be spherical, and entropy prefers the spherical shape, so induces it.

Again, Just saying something is the case does not make that statement true. Provide evidence for your claims, or at least a logical argument to support them (and that requires providing the initial premises that you are basing your reasoning on).

 

Also: "entropy prefers the spherical shape" is wrong. A spherical shape is a highly organised shape. Entropy is defined as "disorganisation". Thus a spherical shape can not be preferred by entropy as the shape is organised.

 

Remember what I said earlier about definitions. You can't just make up your own definitions of already existing concepts.

 

Computers work on electrons, and holes, we translate that to maths. The Aether goes back to electrons, and holes again.

Actually "Maths" is a process, not a "thing". We design computers to perform the process of maths. Computers do not have to use electrons. They can in fact, use mechanical components (gears and such), and the very first computer (the Difference engine) actually was a mechanical computer which did not need electricity at all. Thus this shows a big "hole" (sorry) in your argument.

 

It is not because we translate electrons and holes into maths that computers work, it is because we translate maths into the flow of electricity and the position of switches, or into the movement of cogs and cams. You have it backwards, and because you have made such a mistake, you have reached the wrong conclusion.

 

I am making a model to hopefully create a Galaxy just by allowing the particles, and holes to work the way that they are supposed to work. But I don't know if I will get a Galaxy, I'm not adding any formulas to the program. Just checking if the particles are overlapping, then use entropy to separate them, and create an electron. keep doing that, over, and over again.. and hopefully get a Galaxy. Here's a test I made to see how dynamic a few events could be...

A model in a computer is by definition mathematical. Computers operate on logic. Logic is a branch of mathematics. Therefore computers operate on mathematics.

 

Now, logic requiers certain premises which can be true or false. Even if theya re false, you can still derive a logical conclusion form them. This does not mean tha the conclusion is true, only that it is true IF and ONLY IF the initial premises are true.

 

What this means is that even though you can simulate something in a computer, it does not mean that it must be true in the real world. So just because you can simulate something in your computer does not mean that your initial premises are true, not that it actually applies to the real world.

 

The only reason you simulate something on a computer is not to prove it true or not, but to use the simulation to predict something based on your ideas. If the prediction works, then you can show that your ideas can be used to predict behaviours in the real world (and then it becomes useful).

 

What would be interesting (as I am a programmer) is for you to show us the code you are using to simulate this (you can leave out the code to display it on the screen as this is not necessary). This will allow us to examine what you have done and to look for where your ideas break down and you have had to intervene to get the result you want (mainly 'IF' statements, constants you have used).

 

Each 'IF' statements (which is not needed because the program is being run on a computer rather than the universe) is where you have had to step in and say: despite applying the ideas I have, I have to step in and change the result. Also, each constant (not needed to apply the algorithm in the given hardware) means that there is something unaccounted for by your ideas and thus needs you to manually put it into the system.

 

And beyond that,because computers operate completely mathematically, it will allow us to see the mathematical definitions of your ideas.

[Pincho Paxton]

As I keep trying to remind you, just saying something is so, does not mean it is so. Just saying that "you don't need protons, you just need shells" doesn't mean that you don't need protons.

 

And besides, they can detect individual protons, and even know the structure of those protons. So saying they are not needed goes against the evidence that they do exist (if they exist then they exist).

 

Now, these "shells" you talk about. You haven't actually given any evidence that this is how reality is. All you keep saying is that you say that it should be the way you say is should be.

 

 

Wrong. this does not describe chaos at all. There are numerous systems that can have small changes made to them and they do not produce chaos. Take a single pendulum. You can move it just a small amount (or even quite a large amount) and it still produces regular (that is non chaotic) motion. So much so, we can actually use it to measure regular events (the rotation of the Earth, etc).

 

Now, the differenc between the snooker balls and a pendulum is one of interactions. With the pendulum, there is not much in the way of interaction. With the snooker balls, there are many interactions.

 

Thus, chaos, is not a "thing", it is a property of the system by which many interactions occur that are dependent on the details of the other interactions that occur.

 

It is not a "gap" in space time. That rally only has simple interactions (if any at all). Plus what is meant by "gap" anyway? Is it a hole in space time (we have a name for that and it is a black hole), or is this some technobable that you have made up to sound convincing. Remember, if you are using actual real terms, then you must stick with what those terms mean, or you have to create and define new terminology (like the term black hole, event horizon, space-time have all be rigorously defined both in theory and mathematically).

 

Any argument you make must be based on solid premises. If those premises are false, then your argument is not logical. If you just make up terms without defining what they are, or arbitrarily changing already existing definitions, then you are not basing your arguments on solid premises.

 

And, besides. If you want to communicate your ideas successfully to others, then you have to use a common dictionary. If I were to make up my own dictionary (either a completely new language, or a slight cvhange of an existing language), then my ability to successfully comminicate is reduced or eliminated.

 

This means that if you want to actually have other people understand your ideas, and to show they are correct in any way you need to use the terms as they are used by others. Not make up your own terms without definition.

 

 

Randomness and chaos are very different thing mathematically. You can't just say they are the same without actually showing that they are (as they have already been shown to be different). Again, you are just defining your own terminiology to suit your own purposes and make it difficult for others to understand you.

 

 

Mathematically multiple dimensions exist. I have used them, and if they didn't exist, then what was I using?

 

Oh look, here is a building designed as a 3 dimensional projection of a 4 dimensional object: http://www.flickr.co...N00/4327315865/ . True, it is not an actual 4 dimensional building (good if it was though ), but this is what the designer wanted to make it look like. The fact that we know what such an object looks like is down to the existence multiple dimensional mathematics.

 

So, as far as the concept of multiple dimensional mathematics is concerned, it really does exist. But, does this have any physical, real world applications?

 

Well, using the the mathematical multiple dimensions, we know what they should be like if they did exist. We can work out how they would effect the world around us.

 

One such effect would be that if 3 dimensional space was curved into a 4th dimension, then it would cause a specific type of distortion of straight lines (or objects travelling in straight lines).

 

So, to see if there really are multiple dimensions, then all we need to do is to look for such distortions. As these distortions are mathematically defined based on how multiple dimensions mathematically behave. And, as we have already established that multiple dimensions exist as mathematical constructs, then if multiple dimension actually exist in the real world, then they should behave the same as the mathematical ones, or, they would not be called dimensions (remember what I was saying about definitions earlier).

 

When they examine the light from stars as they pass near the sun, the light from these stars behaves exactly the way predicted if the mass of the sun was causing space to be slightly rotated into the 4th dimension. In other words, we have proof that multiple dimension actually exist.

 

Einstein when further and stated that this 4th dimension is time (rather than space). If the 4th dimension was a space dimension, then we would still get the same bending effect on light, it just would not produce certain other effects (such as the slowing of time - as this is the result of time being the 4th dimension and being rotated into a spatial dimension - but that is not the point I am making here).

 

The point I am making here is that mathematically we know how multiple dimension should behave if they were real, and that we can see these behaviours occurring in the real world. Besides the curving effect I talked about, there are more subtle effects that are caused because of the curvature of 3d space into a 4th dimension that can not be accounted for due to a force applied onto an object. These effects have been tested for and the result is that it really is a 4 dimensional curvature of 3 dimensional space. This means that multiple dimension do exist and there is direct evidence that you statement that they don't is wrong.

 

As your argument seems to require that multiple dimensions don't exist (other wise it wouldn't have had to be a point you needed to state), and the fact that there is proof that multiple dimensions actually do exist, then this proves your claims wrong.

 

 

Again, Just saying something is the case does not make that statement true. Provide evidence for your claims, or at least a logical argument to support them (and that requires providing the initial premises that you are basing your reasoning on).

 

Also: "entropy prefers the spherical shape" is wrong. A spherical shape is a highly organised shape. Entropy is defined as "disorganisation". Thus a spherical shape can not be preferred by entropy as the shape is organised.

 

Remember what I said earlier about definitions. You can't just make up your own definitions of already existing concepts.

 

 

Actually "Maths" is a process, not a "thing". We design computers to perform the process of maths. Computers do not have to use electrons. They can in fact, use mechanical components (gears and such), and the very first computer (the Difference engine) actually was a mechanical computer which did not need electricity at all. Thus this shows a big "hole" (sorry) in your argument.

 

It is not because we translate electrons and holes into maths that computers work, it is because we translate maths into the flow of electricity and the position of switches, or into the movement of cogs and cams. You have it backwards, and because you have made such a mistake, you have reached the wrong conclusion.

 

 

A model in a computer is by definition mathematical. Computers operate on logic. Logic is a branch of mathematics. Therefore computers operate on mathematics.

 

Now, logic requiers certain premises which can be true or false. Even if theya re false, you can still derive a logical conclusion form them. This does not mean tha the conclusion is true, only that it is true IF and ONLY IF the initial premises are true.

 

What this means is that even though you can simulate something in a computer, it does not mean that it must be true in the real world. So just because you can simulate something in your computer does not mean that your initial premises are true, not that it actually applies to the real world.

 

The only reason you simulate something on a computer is not to prove it true or not, but to use the simulation to predict something based on your ideas. If the prediction works, then you can show that your ideas can be used to predict behaviours in the real world (and then it becomes useful).

 

What would be interesting (as I am a programmer) is for you to show us the code you are using to simulate this (you can leave out the code to display it on the screen as this is not necessary). This will allow us to examine what you have done and to look for where your ideas break down and you have had to intervene to get the result you want (mainly 'IF' statements, constants you have used).

 

Each 'IF' statements (which is not needed because the program is being run on a computer rather than the universe) is where you have had to step in and say: despite applying the ideas I have, I have to step in and change the result. Also, each constant (not needed to apply the algorithm in the given hardware) means that there is something unaccounted for by your ideas and thus needs you to manually put it into the system.

 

And beyond that,because computers operate completely mathematically, it will allow us to see the mathematical definitions of your ideas.

 

You write too much, and make it hard for anyone to answer. If you had separated your replies I could answer. In this case I can only say that all of your replies are wrong. Saves time. What I would rather do is account for your own psychology instead. You have been living in a scientific world that has made its own set of rules from almost no information. The electron microscope, and LHC, and mathematics are giving you a sense of logic that doesn't exist. For example you donate protons as proven, yet disassociate a membrane with a hole. But the two things are the same, and what you don't understand is the properties of a hole. You think a hole is a space, because you cannot see what is inside a hole. We evolved not to see what is inside a hole. If a fish could see water, it could not see at all. We evolved to see positive mass, and ignore negative mass. negative mass is a hole. Holes have the properties of mass in the Quantum World. they rip mass apart. A proton therefore is a membrane with a hole, but is extremely dynamic. From where you stand, you have nothing to tell me, and I should do all of the talking. How did I come up with my ideas? I tore science apart, and started from scratch. it took about 15 years of building up a theory that starts from nothing at all.. the void. To create all of the physics that we see today, and EVOLVING each part of that theory from the particles that I created from nothing. The hole, and the membrane.. +1 + -1 = 0. A theory that starts from nothing, and creates everything with no cheating involved.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Edtharan]

But you haven't explained anything. How can I learn what your theory is and address it if you don't explain it?

 

+1 + -1 = 0 means nothing by itself. All that is saying is that if you add inverse operations together then they cancel out. As this is the definition of inverse operations, you have not actually added anything to knowledge.

 

As an example I can generalise your "formula" by stating that Function A + - function A = 0. This says no more about the quantum world than 1 - 1 = 0, or Fish + debt of fish = no fish. you have to be more clear than that.

 

The problem is that you are making no sense with your claims. All they are are claims. I could claim it is pink faeries making the universe work (and thus the randomness seen in quantum mechanics is because that faeries are mischievous). But without evidence all they are is words.

 

What I have been doing in my long posts is giving you that evidence and the reasoning form that evidence to the conclusions. That is why they are so long I have tried to be thorough about it. I could have just said that quantum mechanics works and then just lef tit at that and you would not have the opportunity to learn something.

 

The other problem you seem to be having is that you don't actually understand what you are arguing against, and the arguments you make as to why it is therefore wrong are irrelevant. See the "Straw-man Argument" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ). If you create a false representation (either intentionally or through lack of knowledge) and then form your argument against that, then you have formulated a straw-man argument.

 

Also, you seem to be trying to argue that since (the straw-man) is wrong, therefore you must be right.

 

For the sake of argument, lets just say that current theories are completely wrong. This does not mean your arguments are right. Not only that, if your model produces the same results as current theories, then because experiments were to give different results then you theory would have to be wrong too (as it would be giving the same - incorrect - results).

 

this is why I insist on you providing more information about your ideas as that way we could work out where your ideas produce different results than current theories do and therefore be able to make a distinction about which gives the better predictions.

[Pincho Paxton]

But you haven't explained anything. How can I learn what your theory is and address it if you don't explain it?

 

+1 + -1 = 0 means nothing by itself. All that is saying is that if you add inverse operations together then they cancel out. As this is the definition of inverse operations, you have not actually added anything to knowledge.

 

As an example I can generalise your "formula" by stating that Function A + - function A = 0. This says no more about the quantum world than 1 - 1 = 0, or Fish + debt of fish = no fish. you have to be more clear than that.

 

The problem is that you are making no sense with your claims. All they are are claims. I could claim it is pink faeries making the universe work (and thus the randomness seen in quantum mechanics is because that faeries are mischievous). But without evidence all they are is words.

 

What I have been doing in my long posts is giving you that evidence and the reasoning form that evidence to the conclusions. That is why they are so long I have tried to be thorough about it. I could have just said that quantum mechanics works and then just lef tit at that and you would not have the opportunity to learn something.

 

The other problem you seem to be having is that you don't actually understand what you are arguing against, and the arguments you make as to why it is therefore wrong are irrelevant. See the "Straw-man Argument" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ). If you create a false representation (either intentionally or through lack of knowledge) and then form your argument against that, then you have formulated a straw-man argument.

 

Also, you seem to be trying to argue that since (the straw-man) is wrong, therefore you must be right.

 

For the sake of argument, lets just say that current theories are completely wrong. This does not mean your arguments are right. Not only that, if your model produces the same results as current theories, then because experiments were to give different results then you theory would have to be wrong too (as it would be giving the same - incorrect - results).

 

this is why I insist on you providing more information about your ideas as that way we could work out where your ideas produce different results than current theories do and therefore be able to make a distinction about which gives the better predictions.

 

Again you struggle. Adding fairies adds wings, legs, physics, adding fish adds fins, eyes mouths, swimming. You need to follow my rules that you aren't allowed to add anything that you can't evolve from nothing, and build up from there.

 

Work up from nothing....

 

 

Define nothing, and then see what happens when it interacts with itself. The parts spin around as they try to reset back to zero.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[swansont]

What predictions does this make and how do you test/falsify it?

[Pincho Paxton]

What predictions does this make and how do you test/falsify it?

 

It predicts everything, but it is the test that is difficult. You have to program a simulator to follow the exact rules above, that when the Aether overlaps it is checked back to zero. You then have to wait for the simulator to make something new. Then you would drag a sphere around the new state, and the sphere would tell you what is happening inside it. You would have to visually, and physically identify what that new state is. it could be an atom for example if it was a spherical object with an output of electron orbits that matches the known orbits of electrons. Then you could combine the atoms to see what the molecules do. But the mathematical model is just to correct sphere back to zero. In 2004 when I first started this idea I found that it predicted the bubble around the galaxy, and bubbles from black holes. They were found about 2007. But it isn't a mathematical model.. it's whole point is to not use mathematical algorithms, the idea is for it to work as simply as possible. Of course you have to check the sphere, you have to have some measurement routines. I try not to use any maths, but I can't get round the fact that the particles have circumference, and area.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[swansont]

I don't know what you mean by "it predicts everything". If I'm going to do an experiment, the theory has to tell me about the data I will get, e.g. a peak at some value of a variable. If that peak is missing, the theory is wrong. If the theory works whether or not there is a peak, then it has no value. e.g. the standard model predicts the Higgs, as it has predicted other particles. If no Higgs is found, the theory has to be changed.

 

If there's no math, then its usefulness is exceedingly limited and probably will never deserve the label of "theory"

[Pincho Paxton]

I don't know what you mean by "it predicts everything". If I'm going to do an experiment, the theory has to tell me about the data I will get, e.g. a peak at some value of a variable. If that peak is missing, the theory is wrong. If the theory works whether or not there is a peak, then it has no value. e.g. the standard model predicts the Higgs, as it has predicted other particles. If no Higgs is found, the theory has to be changed.

 

If there's no math, then its usefulness is exceedingly limited and probably will never deserve the label of "theory"

 

It predicts mass from the inertial spin of attempting to realign zero with entropy. So it doesn't predict Higgs, just mass. It does the same with gravity. As the holes are cut from membranes a flow can travel along the particles. As those particles collide inside this passageway they bump, and gradually become smaller, and smaller. Eventually they are just negative. When they are negative they can cross positive to help it to reset back to zero again. So a flow into the Earth would travel through these areas, turn negative, and flow out again into space as anti-matter. The in-out flow is the bubbles that we see, the anti-matter is found just outside the Earth.You get Gravity as in-flow, and magnetism as out-flow.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[finiter]

Mathematically multiple dimensions exist. I have used them, and if they didn't exist, then what was I using?

 

Oh look, here is a building designed as a 3 dimensional projection of a 4 dimensional object: http://www.flickr.co...N00/4327315865/ . True, it is not an actual 4 dimensional building (good if it was though ), but this is what the designer wanted to make it look like. The fact that we know what such an object looks like is down to the existence multiple dimensional mathematics.

 

So, as far as the concept of multiple dimensional mathematics is concerned, it really does exist. But, does this have any physical, real world applications?

 

Well, using the the mathematical multiple dimensions, we know what they should be like if they did exist. We can work out how they would effect the world around us.

 

One such effect would be that if 3 dimensional space was curved into a 4th dimension, then it would cause a specific type of distortion of straight lines (or objects travelling in straight lines).

 

So, to see if there really are multiple dimensions, then all we need to do is to look for such distortions. As these distortions are mathematically defined based on how multiple dimensions mathematically behave. And, as we have already established that multiple dimensions exist as mathematical constructs, then if multiple dimension actually exist in the real world, then they should behave the same as the mathematical ones, or, they would not be called dimensions (remember what I was saying about definitions earlier).

 

The point I am making here is that mathematically we know how multiple dimension should behave if they were real, and that we can see these behaviours occurring in the real world. Besides the curving effect I talked about, there are more subtle effects that are caused because of the curvature of 3d space into a 4th dimension that can not be accounted for due to a force applied onto an object. These effects have been tested for and the result is that it really is a 4 dimensional curvature of 3 dimensional space. This means that multiple dimension do exist ...

Your argument that multiple dimensions exist is not logical. Mathematically multiple dimensions exist. But in a physical world, there are only three dimensions of space. The building you have referred to is actually three dimensional (you have admitted it). It is impossible to construct a spatially four dimensional structure. Just because there exits a three dimensional projection of a four dimensional mathematical structure, we cannot infer that the real world has four spatial dimensions. If we take the fourth dimension as 'time', then also the situation is mathematical and not physical. The real physical world is always three dimensional, and time is not a dimension that can be regarded in the same way as space.

Just because the observations in the real world are in agreement with what you may expect from a mathematically multidimensional model, you cannot say that multiple dimensions exist in the real world ( it is just like the 'physically three dimensional projection' of the the 'mathematically four dimensional structure') . The existence of 'multiple dimensions' may be taken as a possibility; in the absence of any other explanations, it may the most suitable explanation (closest approximation). However, you cannot take it as a fact proved beyond doubt.

[Pincho Paxton]

Your argument that multiple dimensions exist is not logical. Mathematically multiple dimensions exist. But in a physical world, there are only three dimensions of space. The building you have referred to is actually three dimensional (you have admitted it). It is impossible to construct a spatially four dimensional structure. Just because there exits a three dimensional projection of a four dimensional mathematical structure, we cannot infer that the real world has four spatial dimensions. If we take the fourth dimension as 'time', then also the situation is mathematical and not physical. The real physical world is always three dimensional, and time is not a dimension that can be regarded in the same way as space.

Just because the observations in the real world are in agreement with what you may expect from a mathematically multidimensional model, you cannot say that multiple dimensions exist in the real world ( it is just like the 'physically three dimensional projection' of the the 'mathematically four dimensional structure') . The existence of 'multiple dimensions' may be taken as a possibility; in the absence of any other explanations, it may the most suitable explanation (closest approximation). However, you cannot take it as a fact proved beyond doubt.

 

I also have time in my model (if its right), and it is just a figure 8 of particles in the X/Y/Z. So time isn't even a new dimension (if I'm right). You could call time an internally bonded loop.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[Edtharan]

Your argument that multiple dimensions exist is not logical. Mathematically multiple dimensions exist. But in a physical world, there are only three dimensions of space. The building you have referred to is actually three dimensional (you have admitted it). It is impossible to construct a spatially four dimensional structure.

And, as I said, that building was only to convey the fact that we understand the mathematical concept of multidimensionality. The building was not proof of multiple dimensions. If you read further I actually explained the proof.

 

the fact is, the behaviour of a particle subject to a force is different than the behaviour of a particle travelling on a geodesic. This is the essential difference between Newtonian Gravity and Einsteinian Gravity.

 

There is a subtle, yet significant difference. Such as the orbit of Mercury. According to Newton's gravity, it should be in one place, but if space is actually curved in a 4th dimension as per Einstein's Gravity, then it will be in a different place. When they measured the location of Mercury, they found that its position was not what Newton's theory predicted, but it was where Einstein's theory predicted. This is proof that space really is curved into a 4th dimension as a physical force could not account for the position, only the fact that the planet is travelling along a geodesic that has 4 dimensions can account for the motion.

 

Again you struggle. Adding fairies adds wings, legs, physics, adding fish adds fins, eyes mouths, swimming. You need to follow my rules that you aren't allowed to add anything that you can't evolve from nothing, and build up from there.

 

Work up from nothing....

 

Define nothing, and then see what happens when it interacts with itself. The parts spin around as they try to reset back to zero.

But you have added Aether, shells, negative mass, positive mass, and the fact that you need someone to actually force it to work. Not only does your idea disagree with observation, It also need biology, eyes, mouths, legs, etc of the person deciding if it has done what you want.

 

You then have to wait for the simulator to make something new. Then you would drag a sphere around the new state, and the sphere would tell you what is happening inside it. You would have to visually, and physically identify what that new state is.

In other words, your idea needs you to make it do things. It does nothing by itself, only when a human (or some intelligent agent) actively manipulates it does it produce any results. Your idea does not start with nothing, but requires the entire universe to exist before it can be at its starting state.

 

If your idea really did work from "nothing", then you would not need any intervention at all for it to produce something meaningful.

 

As I keep saying, just because something is able to be simulated, does not make it real. I can simulate a 3d universe with all its own rules and even enter it an interact with objects. There is physics with collisions and inertia and friction and gravity.

 

Does this mean my simulated world means the real world is like this? No, not at all (it is actually a computer game). My simulated world is based on mathematics (and so could be described as coming from 1 + -1 = 0) and does not even need human intervention to work or produce fundamental objects.

 

What you have to do is even though you can simulate something, you have to show that it matches observations, and can predict what futures observations will be. If it can not do this, then it is useless as a theory. It doesn't describe the real world, just a pretend world.

 

Think about this: If your "theory" makes no attempt to predict anything about the real world, how can you state that it is an attempt to describe the real world. Saying that it predicts everything, unless you can actually show it does, is just words. I can write 1 sentence that predicts everything too: "Murphy's Law states that if something can go wrong it will, and Murphy's Law applies to itself".

 

If you actually think about it, it can explain everything (the universe is something going wrong, or going right). It explains everything, but it is also useless because it doesn't allow us to predict anything. It is not science. At best it is philosophy and at worst, it is just words.

 

So, unless your "theory" can tell us what, and why the electron has a certain mass, or why the speed of light is what it is, or any one of a number of things that science is actually looking for, then it is a worthless theory. It doesn't matter how many years you put into it, if it is not useful, then it is not useful.

[finiter]

the fact is, the behaviour of a particle subject to a force is different than the behaviour of a particle travelling on a geodesic. This is the essential difference between Newtonian Gravity and Einsteinian Gravity.

I agree with you. The changes in the location of mercury can be explained using 'Einsteinian Gravity'. However, in my opinion, the relativity theories of Einstein goes against 'reality' (independent and absolute 'space and time'), and so it should be excluded from the domain of physics (maybe, I am wrong). So I try for alternate explanations. The Newtonian gravity, it is held (wrongly or rightly), visualizes static orbits for planets. The actual position may be that 'the force of gravity is countered by the speed (balanced by the speed)', and so the elliptical orbit need not be confined to any particular direction in a plane.

 

Newtons law of gravity is a mathematical law, but we are using it as a physical law. Gravity is now defined based on that mathematical law, and it is this definition that leads us to the conclusion that orbits are static. Gravity should be physically defined: how gravity is created, how bodies interact, what role it has in systems like the nucleus/atoms/solar system/ universe, why it has that particular constant, etc (in the case of magnetic force, we know at least how it is created).

Edited September 25, 2011 by finiter

[Pincho Paxton]

And, as I said, that building was only to convey the fact that we understand the mathematical concept of multidimensionality. The building was not proof of multiple dimensions. If you read further I actually explained the proof.

 

the fact is, the behaviour of a particle subject to a force is different than the behaviour of a particle travelling on a geodesic. This is the essential difference between Newtonian Gravity and Einsteinian Gravity.

 

There is a subtle, yet significant difference. Such as the orbit of Mercury. According to Newton's gravity, it should be in one place, but if space is actually curved in a 4th dimension as per Einstein's Gravity, then it will be in a different place. When they measured the location of Mercury, they found that its position was not what Newton's theory predicted, but it was where Einstein's theory predicted. This is proof that space really is curved into a 4th dimension as a physical force could not account for the position, only the fact that the planet is travelling along a geodesic that has 4 dimensions can account for the motion.

 

 

But you have added Aether, shells, negative mass, positive mass, and the fact that you need someone to actually force it to work. Not only does your idea disagree with observation, It also need biology, eyes, mouths, legs, etc of the person deciding if it has done what you want.

 

 

In other words, your idea needs you to make it do things. It does nothing by itself, only when a human (or some intelligent agent) actively manipulates it does it produce any results. Your idea does not start with nothing, but requires the entire universe to exist before it can be at its starting state.

 

If your idea really did work from "nothing", then you would not need any intervention at all for it to produce something meaningful.

 

As I keep saying, just because something is able to be simulated, does not make it real. I can simulate a 3d universe with all its own rules and even enter it an interact with objects. There is physics with collisions and inertia and friction and gravity.

 

Does this mean my simulated world means the real world is like this? No, not at all (it is actually a computer game). My simulated world is based on mathematics (and so could be described as coming from 1 + -1 = 0) and does not even need human intervention to work or produce fundamental objects.

 

What you have to do is even though you can simulate something, you have to show that it matches observations, and can predict what futures observations will be. If it can not do this, then it is useless as a theory. It doesn't describe the real world, just a pretend world.

 

Think about this: If your "theory" makes no attempt to predict anything about the real world, how can you state that it is an attempt to describe the real world. Saying that it predicts everything, unless you can actually show it does, is just words. I can write 1 sentence that predicts everything too: "Murphy's Law states that if something can go wrong it will, and Murphy's Law applies to itself".

 

If you actually think about it, it can explain everything (the universe is something going wrong, or going right). It explains everything, but it is also useless because it doesn't allow us to predict anything. It is not science. At best it is philosophy and at worst, it is just words.

 

So, unless your "theory" can tell us what, and why the electron has a certain mass, or why the speed of light is what it is, or any one of a number of things that science is actually looking for, then it is a worthless theory. It doesn't matter how many years you put into it, if it is not useful, then it is not useful.

 

I haven't added anything.

It's very simple 0 is always relative to two conditions. +1 + -1. If I had 1 apple, and took 1 apple away.. you are actually transferring energy. You have two conditions, but they are hidden in the question. If something has a speed of zero.. relative to something else. Two conditions. Zero is always made from two conditions. So +1 + -1 = nothing. It is actually nothing once you get your head around zero being relative. But the way I have made the Aether is very special as well. The inner area is identical to the outer area. they are both spherical. the both share the same X/Y/Z. they both move together at the same speed. They have nothing to distinguish them apart until they overlap. I have made +1 and -1 relative to each other.

 

Get your head around E then...

E = pi*(R+r-d)²*(d²+2dr-3r²+2dR+6rR-3R²)/(12d)

 

E = the overlap of two Aether particles.

 

You might be able to improve that. My maths is terrible.

 

So nothing is made from the membrane, and the hole. I didn't add them they are the fundamental properties of nothing.

 

The observer isn't human. The outer membrane is the observer. It just resets by equalling pressure. The background noise is the equalling of pressure in the Universe.The equalling of pressure from a distant membrane is action at a distance.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Pincho Paxton