Imparticle Theory.

[tar]

from wiki (searching "Kant's categories")

 

The table of judgmentsKant believed that the ability of the human understanding to think about and know an object is the same as the making of a spoken or written judgment about an object. According to him, "Our ability to judge is equivalent to our ability to think."[8] A judgment is the thought that a thing is known to have a certain quality or attribute. For example, the sentence "The rose is red" is a judgment. Kant created a table of the forms of such judgments as they relate to all objects in general.[9]

 

Quantity

Universal

Particular

Singular

Quality

Affirmative

Negative

Infinite

Relation

Categorical

Hypothetical

Disjunctive

Modality

Problematical

Assertoric

Apodictic

 

This table of judgments was used by Kant as a model for the table of categories. Taken together, these twelvefold tables constitute the formal structure for Kant's architectonic conception of his philosophical system.[10]

 

[edit] The table of categories

Quantity

Unity

Plurality

Totality

Quality

Reality

Negation

Limitation

Relation

Inherence and Subsistence (substance and accident)

Causality and Dependence (cause and effect)

Community (reciprocity)

Modality

Possibility

Existence

Necessity

 

[edit] SchemataCategories are entirely different from the appearances of objects. According to Kant, in order to relate to specific phenomena, categories must be "applied" through time. The way that this is done is called a Schema.

 

Similar thoughts, but no imparticle mentioned.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 6, 2011 by tar

[Imparticle]

 

 

Similar thoughts, but no imparticle mentioned.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I didn't say there was...

[tar]

Just figuring your theory to possibly being a good analogy to human understanding, but not nescessarily an accurate description of the thing as it is.

[Tres Juicy]

"It begins with the imparticle. The imparticle is invisible, having no distinct qualities, having no energy or value. Since we can't identify an imparticle, we have to imagine one."

 

I see problems here...

 

"having no distinct qualities"

or "not existing"

 

"having no energy or value"

or "not existing"

 

"Since we can't identify an imparticle, we have to imagine one."

And you did but it gets you nowhere

 

"But as I said very clearly, the bonding process and the disbanding process is instantaneous--why?--because the process takes NO ENERGY and therefore cannot take up any amount of "time"."

Then by definition there has been no bonding or disbanding because for something to have "happened" there needs to be a frame of reference for it to happen in.

 

Your theory goes like this: "I propose that the whole universe is made of something undefinable and undetectable and thats why things happen. All evidence for this is beyond our perception, but I am soOOooO clever I worked it out (but not with maths or reasoning because Imparticle's are undetectable to those). So I ask you to prove me wrong if you can and until you do, I will accept this as true"

There is no evidence

 

There is no way to test it

 

The is no way to falsify it

 

It makes no predictions

 

Can you please at least give your reasons for coming to the conclusion that such a thing exists?

 

How did you discover the undiscoverable???

[Imparticle]

Your theory goes like this: "I propose that the whole universe is made of something undefinable and

undetectable

and thats why things happen. All evidence for this is beyond our perception, but I am soOOooO clever I worked it out (but not with maths or reasoning because Imparticle's are undetectable to those). So I ask you to prove me wrong if you can and until you do, I will accept this as true"

or "not existing"

The idea is that it can exist without DISTINCT qualities (that word is there for a reason) and without energy. Yes, this does engender more dimensions to the universe. But that's nothing new as scientists have been suggesting there are more dimensions than 3 or 4 for many decades, and will continue to because there should be. Obviously, if you approach this with the preconceived notion that nothing could hypothetically exist without energy, then you aren't going to see the reasoning. If you can't be hypothetical, don't discuss hypothetical theory.

 

made of something undefinable

Not true. I defined it thoroughly.

made of something undefinable

Super strings are not remotely detectable, and Higgs Bosons haven't been detected yet. Regardless if they can be detected, as a scientific mind you cannot PRESUME that everything thing in and about the universe is detectable. That is naive.

I worked it out (but not with maths or reasoning because Imparticle's are undetectable to those). Can you please at least give your reasons for coming to the conclusion that such a thing exists?

I have given reasons. There are maths and reasoning. Do you think zero or infinity are not numbers? You can say I haven't reasoned anything, but I clearly have been attempting to provide reasons through logic. If you disagree with them or see that they fall short, as a rule of discussion you have to actually argue, and not make claims about what I say without backing them up. Did you read the thread? I may not be as clear or have all the phraseology and background knowledge of professional scientists in the slightest, but at least I can see reason and literal meaning in what people say. I could read all about what the scientists are doing to find the Higgs boson, and then I can turn around and say, "they have no reasons to say that, they worked it out without math or reasoning." But that would be a lie, because obviously I didn't understand what they had said, or I just disagreed with it with preconception.

 

 

 

The Higgs boson is thought to be tied to a field (the Higgs field) that is responsible for giving all other particles their mass. Ironically, physicists don't have a specific prediction for the mass of the Higgs boson itself, so they must search a wide range of possible masses for signs of the particle.

 

Based on data collected at LHC's CMS and ATLAS experiments, researchers said they are now able to narrow down the Higgs' mass to a small range, and exclude a wide swath of possibilities.

 

That's neat o. They don't have a prediction for the mass of this particle, until they see how it works exactly.

 

 

 

[Tres Juicy]

The idea is that it can exist without DISTINCT qualities (that word is there for a reason) and without energy. Yes, this does engender more dimensions to the universe. But that's nothing new as scientists have been suggesting there are more dimensions than 3 or 4 for many decades, and will continue to because there should be. Obviously, if you approach this with the preconceived notion that nothing could hypothetically exist without energy, then you aren't going to see the reasoning. If you can't be hypothetical, don't discuss hypothetical theory.

 

 

Not true. I defined it thoroughly.

 

Super strings are not remotely detectable, and Higgs Bosons haven't been detected yet. Regardless if they can be detected, as a scientific mind you cannot PRESUME that everything thing in and about the universe is detectable. That is naive.

I have given reasons. There are maths and reasoning. Do you think zero or infinity are not numbers? You can say I haven't reasoned anything, but I clearly have been attempting to provide reasons through logic. If you disagree with them or see that they fall short, as a rule of discussion you have to actually argue, and not make claims about what I say without backing them up. Did you read the thread? I may not be as clear or have all the phraseology and background knowledge of professional scientists in the slightest, but at least I can see reason and literal meaning in what people say. I could read all about what the scientists are doing to find the Higgs boson, and then I can turn around and say, "they have no reasons to say that, they worked it out without math or reasoning." But that would be a lie, because obviously I didn't understand what they had said, or I just disagreed with it with preconception.

 

 

That's neat o. They don't have a prediction for the mass of this particle, until they see how it works exactly.

 

 

 

 

 

"That's neat o. They don't have a prediction for the mass of this particle, until they see how it works exactly."

 

No, they don't, but they do make some predictions about the Higgs at what it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

 

What predictions does your theory make? how have you arrived at these?

Thats all I'm asking, you have been quite vague and in places contradictory.

 

In order to arrive at a theory it needs to describe nature by making testable predictions.

 

I cannot see that this one does.

 

 

 

Please (in plain English) explain your predictions of "Imparticle Theory"

[Imparticle]

"That's neat o. They don't have a prediction for the mass of this particle, until they see how it works exactly."

 

No, they don't, but they do make some predictions about the Higgs at what it does.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Higgs_boson

You don't have to link, I am aware that they make predictions. Higgs bosons are a completely theory.

Thats all I'm asking, you have been quite vague and in places contradictory.

Please point out my self-contradictions.

In order to arrive at a theory it needs to describe nature by making testable predictions.

 

Please (in plain English) explain your predictions of "Imparticle Theory"

Atoms, subatomic particles, mass, particles of energy, appearing in a universe and interacting with each other singularly without every disassociating from any other particle under any circumstances. When this does not happen, my hypothesis will be proven wrong. Or, when someone uses logic to suggest that it is wrong, that would be reasonable as well.

[Tres Juicy]

You don't have to link, I am aware that they make predictions. Higgs bosons are a completely theory.

 

Please point out my self-contradictions.

 

Atoms, subatomic particles, mass, particles of energy, appearing in a universe and interacting with each other singularly without every disassociating from any other particle under any circumstances. When this does not happen, my hypothesis will be proven wrong. Or, when someone uses logic to suggest that it is wrong, that would be reasonable as well.

 

"Atoms, subatomic particles, mass, particles of energy, appearing in a universe and interacting with each other singularly without every disassociating from any other particle under any circumstances. When this does not happen, my hypothesis will be proven wrong. Or, when someone uses logic to suggest that it is wrong, that would be reasonable as well."

 

This is not a prediction its another example of being vague...

 

Please what does this theory suggest/predict/do?

[Tres Juicy]

A few questions and examples of things you've said:

"In mathematical terms, infinitely valueless would be represented as [0] (absolute zero) or perhaps zero to the i (imaginary zero). There are various ways to describe infinitely valueless."

 

What is imaginary zero?

 

"I've already explained this and discussed it with dozens of my associates."

 

Who are these associates?

"If you were sincerely interested in this theory, you would actually discuss it. Instead, you have my semantically break down everything little thing I say"

 

That's science, science does not just accept what it's told, it asks questions and tries to get to the meaning of things. Since your explanations are vague and at times meaningless (see below for examples), expect to be asked questions.

 

"Let me break it down for you. When I try to come up with quantitative predictions, I end up imagining everything that happens in the universe, between the quantum mechanics and the general relativity of anything and everything. One day, I realized this is what many scientists are working on today, in physics, quantum physics, astrophysics, mathematics, and philosophically as well. You're right. I can say or hypothesize that the reason the particles of your body are able to associate and remain in the same universe together at the same time and also to stay that way, is because the imparticles they're made up of are intrinsically intertwined and can't allow them to be separated in regards to general relativity or quantum mechanics. On the other hand, I can't measure this prediction. That's why it is hypothetical, like String Theory, but nonetheless it has theoretical meaning and is reasonable and logical."

 

Imagining is the operative word here

 

"Thus, to "observe" the imparticle is to imagine a unit that is without space, and also between time."

 

A lot of imagining

 

"Reflectively, they exist between time as well…. <SNIP> To say that they exist "outside" time would be misleading, because something that exists "outside" of the dimensions of the universe, does not really exist here."

 

So, whats the difference? Outside time/between time, if time does not have any hold over them whats the difference??

 

"Just because you can't apply the implied meanings, doesn't mean my words are meaningless"

 

This makes no sense and as an explanation of your meaning it falls down

 

"Normal people understand them when I have discussions almost every week. Now, either they are telepathically understanding what I'm saying, or else my words have scientific meaning to them."

 

What constitutes "normal people" or "scientific meaning" to you?

 

"For god's sake, they are making up dimensions only for the sake of accommodating String Theory. I simply have a different approach. It is not so far fetched, you just have to gain perspective."

 

On the other hand you're saying there are 9 dimensions to accomodate this idea, what makes your 9 dimensions any more plausible than those of string theory?

 

"Many, many people of different angles have payed loads of attention to my theory. They've discussed it, turned it inside out and backwards, and gone through logical experiments with it on their own and with third parties."

Please share with us these experiments as this would be a great help to us

 

"They exist without space and between time, and it is in this facet of the universe that they convulse and BUILD into massive particles. They are hyper-quantum for a reason. I'm not just vomiting out words, I am making sense. That's why I used String Theory as a contrast, to point out that obviously this theory is legitimate."

 

How does string theory legitimize this idea? Why is it so obvious?

 

"Imparticles naturally exist without time and without space, but in being intrinsically entangled, they are miraculously forced into order."

I am inclined to question any "theory" which use words like "miracle" and "miraculous"

 

"I have reasoned that like photons are the quanta of light, so are imparticles the quanta of quantum, or essentially they are the quanta of itself"

This is nonsense again

 

"I found invisible particles that exist interchangeably, simultaneously, composing all that exists at the same time…"

 

How? Do you have a access to the LHC at Cern? or are you guessing?

 

"… but they eventually convinced me (of their existence) logically."

 

Again, how?

 

"Stop right there guy. Building does require a process. I call it convulsion. But as I clearly described, a process that involves no energy, and has no reference to any quality of MASS, cannot and does not "require time" (theoretically). How would it? Why would it? Furthermore, I've already found and explained all the dimensions that allow them to exist entirely and go through their convulsion process, which freely allows them to be built into massive particles and energy particles. Naturally, these dimensions are consecutive and they do build on each other perfectly."

Please explain this

 

"At any rate, whatever the mechanics are, regardless if they're superstrings or not, these mechanics are not self-explained and imparticles are the very thing which explain them ultimately."

 

Please support this statement with some evidence. You can't say "imparticles explain everything" and expect science to go "oh, brilliant, we don't need to examine this claim any further".

 

 

"Simultaneity, in part--the sixth dimension. That describes how our singular now are instantly singular. But the dimension describing how yours and mine now are singular is Singularity, which Simultaneity is built onto. Perhaps that doesn't fully answer your question..."

No, this is nosense again and does not answer anything

 

Please answer these points as best you can

 

Thanks,

 

Al

Edited December 14, 2011 by Tres Juicy

[Imparticle]

I've been thinking and working up diagrams a lot. There are some more concepts and more particle explanations that are important. Imparticles has become more of a general term now. I think there are actually no-mass no-energy particles called pullons. Pullons are what I said. Relative to us they have infinite velocity, like an endless line. But actually they aren't moving at all. But they are intertwined, intrinsically entangled due to their inseparable and indistinguishable nature. The essential principle I thought of that I need to explain is something like quantum alteration. It's related to superposition, and how--as you know--particles flit into the universe. I know people are searching for the Higgs-Boson. Then there's String Theory.

What I think is, as the pullons are spinning in their dimensions of hyperspace, alteration (in regards to superposition) occurs, and they are unable to remain together. They have an infinite potential energy and due to this superposition they are unable to have stasis. This releases the Energy, which you were talking about, a band of energy that begins and ends in the pullon. But, due to the intrinsic singularity of the pullons, the Energy cannot escape. This quantum inertia causes free Energy to vibrate into further particles. These particles are like pullons, for they have no mass. They are called flingons. Pullons fling these particles into being through quantum inertia, through their intrinsic pulling force. However, one must realize that many other strings of vibrating Energy are emerging from the pullons. The myriads of flingons that are flitting into hyperspace naturally differentiate from each other, because of their superposition and quantum alteration. However, the inertial force of the pullons ever holds them in virtual confinement. Thus, a boson is released into the normal space of the universe. It has evolved into a relative informational state of duration, length, width, and depth of its own.

This is all consistent with String Theory somewhat.

These flingons are confined into bosons and fermions. The force of the pullons confines particles into quarks, which try to escape the relativity of one another, but cannot, because the swinging pull of the flingons that are constructing them causes them to be confined into neutrons, protons, electrons. Furthermore, the inherited inertia of the subatomic particles keeps them together relative to other subatomic particles. Thus, an atom, with its quarks, is built. The building block of matter, out of energy.

In short, Energy is fundamental, but it is also particulate. Superstrings is a true theory, in some senses (that there are 10 dimensions and vibrating strings). Elementary particles ARE elementary particles. And, there are alternate universes, in a way, but in their quantum conflict they all occur together. Other universes cannot escape the intrinsic inertia of pullons. Everything is held together by quantum mechanics. I think that even gravity is causes by the immense gathering of so much quantum inertia, that normal space becomes bent. This would all perfectly explain how quantum mechanics and general relativity are coexisting.

 

Harley.

 

Please explain this:

"Stop right there guy. Building does require a process. I call it convulsion. But as I clearly described, a process that involves no energy, and has no reference to any quality of MASS, cannot and does not "require time" (theoretically). How would it? Why would it? Furthermore, I've already found and explained all the dimensions that allow them to exist entirely and go through their convulsion process, which freely allows them to be built into massive particles and energy particles. Naturally, these dimensions are consecutive and they do build on each other perfectly."

I have explained it partially in the previous post. The dimensions which allow pullons and flingons or any manner of imparticle to exist and behave in the universe are 10 in number. The ones in question, however, constitute hyperspace, which is an old concept and is considered commonly by theoretical physicists all over the world. These dimensions in question are Singularity, Simultaneity, Infinity, Potentiality, Possibility, and (Dissemination) (naming this tenth dimension has proven quite difficult). Superposition also occurs because these dimensions are present in the universe.

 

Harley.

[Tres Juicy]

Hi Imparticle, welcome back

 

 

I still have unanswered questions

 

 

 

"I found invisible particles that exist interchangeably, simultaneously, composing all that exists at the same time…"

How? Do you have a access to the LHC at Cern? or are you guessing?

 

"… but they eventually convinced me (of their existence) logically."

 

Again, how?

 

 

I refer you to my post above, if you could answer them point by point that would be great!