PainwithoutLove Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 I am tired of seeing physicist, cosmologist, theoretician and others trying in a desperate way to find answer to questions they don t seem to possess the ability or capicity to answer to. Dark matter, dark energy, black holes, wave-particle duality, 11 dimensions, multiverse, strings, higgs boson, higgs field, are all terms used to describe one thing, ignorance. I am sick of lies, I decided to find out the truth all by myself, since nobody else seems to be even close to understanding and finding what it is. The truth of our universe and the way it works was bogging my mind when i was listening to some lies over lies to cover up the first lies about lies. I discovered the truth by eliminating the lies, so that all that remains was the truth. Now, I wanna start a topic on that subject, the truth of reality. Let's start the topic with quantum state or the state of the very small. One thing that was bothering me all along was that one experiment, the double slit experiment and the fact that scientists decided to make contradictions to the reality and making up some hidden realities, probably hidden in their own minds, but certainly not in our own reality or universal reality. Look closely at the results of the double slit experiment and you will find out that there is nothing to it that comes close to make a quantum state or quantum theory. The observation of a mass motion capture, like a film makes the mass look like it was a mass, not waving at all. But when motionless capture, like a simple picture, the mass acts like a wave. It is totally understandable, and doesn t required any wave mass duality. The why is simple, it is because in the picture the time factor was disabled, making it look like a wave property, and when the time factor was enabled, making it look like an mass. Conclusion based upon the truth is, that, when i take a picture of myself, wich one is more likely to represent the reality i live in, the picture of myself, or myself talking about that picture? Do you understand where i try to get to? The double slit experiment does prove only one thing, that there is indeed a fourth dimension aded to space wich is time. Yet it doesn t mean that quantum or small things are governed by laws of the reality of the picture, rather more the reality of the motion of pictures. The truth is understandable, because it reflects reality, quantum mechanics isnt understandable because its like understanding how santa claus should navigate to give his gifts in one night to all children in the world. Hoping for you clever guys to understand the reality as it is. -1
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 ! Moderator Note Good for you. In future though, please keep the speculations in the Speculations forum. There are also additional rules for this forum that you should read up on.
PainwithoutLove Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 What about the fact that almost everybody thinks that the very small is different than the very big, i think it is quite the opposite that would represent the best the reality. Let s now talk also about general relativity, it is for sure something great to visiualise the universe as a 3d in a 2d plateform ( space time fabric), yet it is fancy, yet it is ridicule also. I mean if you take a close look at what it should look like to live in a world where time differs from place to place, it would be a bit odd to think that way. It is for sure one of the most admirable theory out there to explain how gravity works, yet it doesn t wanna fit with our observation of the double slit experiment. If einstein was right, there would be no waving mass when time factor is disable since einstein said that time was a property of space, rather more the oposite when observing a matter acting like waves upon a space fabric. For now I hope you are following me and understanding no so easy to grasp notions of cosmology and quantum mechanics but yet easy to understand for you clever guys out there. Ok, now, if einstein is wrong and planck is also wrong, am i going to be The one that is right? It depends on many factors, but for now lets focus on the matter at hand. Lets face it, E does not = Mc2 , yet the idea of a fourth dimension of time is actually pretty much accurate, but doesnt fit in the G.N. model neither does it fit in the Q.M. model, these two being wrong anyways. -1
Moontanman Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) What is truth, define the truth please... We do not know everything about anything and in everything we do know there is always a certain amount of error... Edited February 6, 2013 by Moontanman 2
PainwithoutLove Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 What if space was a property of time instead, would it not be a better way of making a model representing the cosmos and the particles? I mean listen, not only does space is a property of time, but even time is a property of something, otherwise there would be no gravity, strong nuclear force and electroweak force. Let s make it clear, time is a property of forces or force depending on wich scales you are refering to. Even time can be quantify in a precise way, depending on where you stand. If you stand on a bigger scale, time will have very less impact on the srong nuclear force, but more on gravity, if you stand on a smaller scale, time have less impact on gravity but more on strong nuclear force. I got the unification model of everything, but yet, nobody cares since i m not a good liar, rather more a good man of truth, who deserves better than being ignore. You wanna explain how mass gets a mass and wave gets a wave, look at the forces apllied on them, and how these forces can be describe in different ways relative to their respective space factor or " scales" so to speak. Anyways, just saying if someone is interesting in a grande unifying theory, just ask me, you ll be satisfied. -1
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 ! Moderator Note Painwithoutlove, If you're going to ignore member's posts to you and evade their questions, this thread will be closed. Please have a read of those rules I linked you.
PainwithoutLove Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 I ll reply to Moontanman, since he deserves it, since he speak in a respective way, i like the guy already, anyways. To answer to you, i would say this, truth is about understanding reality in the way reality needs to be understand. For some, reality is something really fine tuned, with no place for investagators like me. For others, me to say, i see reality in a different way. If I can understand reality better than someone else, it means i can say i am closer to the truth than the one who understands it less, you see, truth is the universe, understanding it is being true to yourself, yet being one step closer to the ultimate truth. I hope you enjoy my answer as well as i enjoy to answer you.
Bignose Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Let s now talk also about general relativity, it is for sure something great to visiualise the universe as a 3d in a 2d plateform ( space time fabric), yet it is fancy, yet it is ridicule also.Ridicule all you want, it is supremely successful at making predictions. See http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/ Any replacement you want to promote for general relativity has to be at least as good as the excellent predictions it makes above. And, p.s., general relativity doesn't have anything to say about the double-slit experiment. That is not the domain it works on. It IS an open question on how to remedy the very small scale and the very large scale. If you are claiming to be able to do this, please provide your mathematics and show how your unification makes really good predictions. 1
PainwithoutLove Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 What is truth, define the truth please... We do not know everything about anything and in everything we do know there is always a certain amount of error... I ll reply to Moontanman, since he deserves it, since he speak in a respective way, i like the guy already, anyways. To answer to you, i would say this, truth is about understanding reality in the way reality needs to be understand. For some, reality is something really fine tuned, with no place for investagators like me. For others, me to say, i see reality in a different way. If I can understand reality better than someone else, it means i can say i am closer to the truth than the one who understands it less, you see, truth is the universe, understanding it is being true to yourself, yet being one step closer to the ultimate truth. I hope you enjoy my answer as well as i enjoy to answer you. Ridicule all you want, it is supremely successful at making predictions. See http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/ Any replacement you want to promote for general relativity has to be at least as good as the excellent predictions it makes above. And, p.s., general relativity doesn't have anything to say about the double-slit experiment. That is not the domain it works on. It IS an open question on how to remedy the very small scale and the very large scale. If you are claiming to be able to do this, please provide your mathematics and show how your unification makes really good predictions. Dear followers, i enjoy you bringing that matter on the table. When you say it works, i couldn t more disagree on that statement of yours. Listen, it works for cosmology, and you know that cosmology depends on G.N. , so if G.N. is wrong, everything that was working well in your head will not work anymore afterwards, do you get my point? -1
Moontanman Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 I ll reply to Moontanman, since he deserves it, since he speak in a respective way, i like the guy already, anyways. To answer to you, i would say this, truth is about understanding reality in the way reality needs to be understand. For some, reality is something really fine tuned, with no place for investagators like me. For others, me to say, i see reality in a different way. If I can understand reality better than someone else, it means i can say i am closer to the truth than the one who understands it less, you see, truth is the universe, understanding it is being true to yourself, yet being one step closer to the ultimate truth. I hope you enjoy my answer as well as i enjoy to answer you. I feel we have a communication problem, you claim to know the truth, I doubt there is anything that can really be called the truth, as I said we do not know everything about anything and in everything we know there is always a certain amount of error. If you demonstrate your idea as being closer to reality than current ideas then I wait to hear your idea but so far you have not shown any reasonable evidence of your idea being any better. In fact I do not understand what you are asserting... but your assertion that investigators are somehow being suppressed is not supportable in fact I would say exactly the opposite is true... I suggest that the parameters of the universe have no care for your own personal truth or mine for that matter..
PainwithoutLove Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 Ridicule all you want, it is supremely successful at making predictions. See http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/ Any replacement you want to promote for general relativity has to be at least as good as the excellent predictions it makes above. And, p.s., general relativity doesn't have anything to say about the double-slit experiment. That is not the domain it works on. It IS an open question on how to remedy the very small scale and the very large scale. If you are claiming to be able to do this, please provide your mathematics and show how your unification makes really good predictions. Ok secondly, G.N. has everything to do with the very small, again being hardly in disagreement with you. You see, what rules the very small is got to be linked to the very large, and if you want my mathematics, on a given subject, give me first the subject with the matter described in mathematical terms, then i will refute gn and qm with the same process that made them be alive in a math way. I feel we have a communication problem, you claim to know the truth, I doubt there is anything that can really be called the truth, as I said we do not know everything about anything and in everything we know there is always a certain amount of error. If you demonstrate your idea as being closer to reality than current ideas then I wait to hear your idea but so far you have not shown any reasonable evidence of your idea being any better. In fact I do not understand what you are asserting... but your assertion that investigators are somehow being suppressed is not supportable in fact I would say exactly the opposite is true... I suggest that the parameters of the universe have no care for your own personal truth or mine for that matter.. Indeed you are right to a certain extent, where i m not trying to prove anything here, maybe just that others are wrong, yet not at all that i am right, yet knowing i am right, but not wanting to prove it, due to the lack of common shared grounds metaphorically speaking.
Bignose Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Dear followers, i enjoy you bringing that matter on the table. When you say it works, i couldn t more disagree on that statement of yours. Listen, it works for cosmology, and you know that cosmology depends on G.N. , so if G.N. is wrong, everything that was working well in your head will not work anymore afterwards, do you get my point?No... actually read the article. The article is all about how well general relativity actually predicts the measured results found in nature. If that isn't working well, what is? As I wrote above, if you want to replace it with something, you need to demonstrate how your idea makes more or even better predictions than general relativity. If you can't do that, I'm going to choose the theory that makes more and better predictions every time. 4
PainwithoutLove Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 A comment made me think about another annoying thing in modern science, " it works so it means it s true" he said. What a terrible intellectual mistake. It s not because based upon a false theory, other assumption are popping out of it, assumption is an actual terms used to describe a knowledge based upon something not proved to be a fact like gr or qm, again if A is wrong B will be consequently also wrong, it s the snow ball effect. but " it works" he said. Indeed it works as long as you assume that GR is right, otherwise it collapses under its own influence.
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 ! Moderator Note PainwithoutLove, One of the rules in that page I linked to you states that you must support your claims with some form of proof / evidence or face thread closure. This is your chance to do that.
ACG52 Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Indeed it works as long as you assume that GR is right, otherwise it collapses under its own influence. And more nonsense from our latest Pain. When we say a theory works, it means it accurately predicts and explains how the physical universe operates, not the universe in your head. GR makes very specific predictions, which have always been confirmed. BTW, what is this GN you keep referring to? Edited February 6, 2013 by ACG52
PainwithoutLove Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 No... actually read the article. The article is all about how well general relativity actually predicts the measured results found in nature. If that isn't working well, what is? As I wrote above, if you want to replace it with something, you need to demonstrate how your idea makes more or even better predictions than general relativity. If you can't do that, I'm going to choose the theory that makes more and better predictions every time. I am sure that you are impatient to hear my views and or proofs but wait a minute, we have all life to discuss these issues, first of i wanna explain you that you are wrong to think that gn as any implication with nature, other than to say that time is a fourth dimension wich i already agreed. Tell me, you keep going ou of your main topic of your comment, what are the implication that i can measure? tell me that, because i know there arent any my friend. ! Moderator Note PainwithoutLove, One of the rules in that page I linked to you states that you must support your claims with some form of proof / evidence or face thread closure. This is your chance to do that. I didn t state any facts of my own opinion yet, so what is there to prove anyways?
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 ! Moderator Note Last chance. Stop telling us about what you want to explain and explain it. With evidence.
PainwithoutLove Posted February 6, 2013 Author Posted February 6, 2013 And more nonsense from our latest Pain. When we say a theory works, it means it accurately predicts and explains how the physical universe operates, not the universe in your head. GR makes very specific predictions, which have always been confirmed. BTW, what is this GN you keep referring to? I would have alot of love for you if you could do one simple thing for me, explaining what exactly is your prediction all about? You got to be more concrete in your comments, otherwise the issue of your comment is no more related to any concrete facts my friend. And no i don t want my fantasies to come to reality otherwise there would be no reality. I would have alot of love for you if you could do one simple thing for me, explaining what exactly is your prediction all about? You got to be more concrete in your comments, otherwise the issue of your comment is no more related to any concrete facts my friend. And no i don t want my fantasies to come to reality otherwise there would be no reality. Again wich predictions are you talking about, you are making confusion out of nothing, proof that something can come out of nothing i guess
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 ! Moderator Note It was recently brought up in a staff conversation that we possibly spend too much time waiting for crack pots to get to the point and present their evidence, when we should really be enforcing the 'must provide evidence' clause from the get go. PainwithoutLove, you were given your chance(s), you ignored them and now this thread is closed. You are not permitted to reintroduce the topic. 1
Recommended Posts