yoshi
New Member
Posts: 45
Likes: 14
|
Post by yoshi on Mar 7, 2019 3:22:30 GMT
I'm not sure i understand any of this. What is Quantum Physics? Is it just possibility of actions or am i missing something?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 8, 2019 13:11:28 GMT
I wish I knew...
I studied it many years ago, but I'm afraid there's no left in my head for now. All I remember that there are some laws of particles, and there are some functions that described their behaviour in dependence of each other. I think that math ascribing is better, than to try to imagine something of it.
Also, I remember that non-binary logic, a fuzzy one or modal ones are pretty suitable for describing state of quantum affairs. So, I presume it wouldn't be wasting of efforts if we would've started reading Aristotle's "Hermeneutics", instead modern literature to get close to modality.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 12, 2019 19:54:43 GMT
I'm not sure i understand any of this. What is Quantum Physics? Is it just possibility of actions or am i missing something? Most of what passes for quantum physics is sophistry and filibuster. it is used to embezzle academic funding for the most part. So 99% of what is written on this topic can be discarded if it is not utterly clear. But it is based on some solid ideas which can be reduced to a very few simple principles. Quantum Energy from Max Planck. He proves that energy must consist of indivisible 'packets' . This came about due to what is known as the 'Ultraviolet catastrophe', whereby Rayleigh theorized that there is an infinite amount of energy at any point. Essentially this was a 'division by zero' error. So the smallest quantum of energy was needed to resolve the error. If we divide by ever smaller amounts, then the result will be infinitely large. Quantum Time: From Max Planck. I am still not sure how he got the result that time also must exist in indivisible amounts. But considering "Zeno's paradox", I had attained by own proof that time also cannot be in ever smaller amounts, and must consist of quanta for the same reasons as quantum energy. Following from here I have devised that the solution for quantum gravity, is simply a result of quantum time. More in depth articles based on computer algorithms are at this link: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/zeno-and-planck.htm The practical result is not only the solution to n-body gravity, but also this is the only theory I know of that can account for the "gravity" assist properly.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 1, 2019 21:27:40 GMT
I'm not sure i understand any of this. What is Quantum Physics? Is it just possibility of actions or am i missing something? Most of what passes for quantum physics is sophistry and filibuster. it is used to embezzle academic funding for the most part. So 99% of what is written on this topic can be discarded if it is not utterly clear. But it is based on some solid ideas which can be reduced to a very few simple principles. Quantum Energy from Max Planck. He proves that energy must consist of indivisible 'packets' . This came about due to what is known as the 'Ultraviolet catastrophe', whereby Rayleigh theorized that there is an infinite amount of energy at any point. Essentially this was a 'division by zero' error. So the smallest quantum of energy was needed to resolve the error. If we divide by ever smaller amounts, then the result will be infinitely large. Quantum Time: From Max Planck. I am still not sure how he got the result that time also must exist in indivisible amounts. But considering "Zeno's paradox", I had attained by own proof that time also cannot be in ever smaller amounts, and must consist of quanta for the same reasons as quantum energy. Following from here I have devised that the solution for quantum gravity, is simply a result of quantum time. More in depth articles based on computer algorithms are at this link: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/zeno-and-planck.htm The practical result is not only the solution to n-body gravity, but also this is the only theory I know of that can account for the "gravity" assist properly.
The Quantum Leap is not explained rationally; displacement without motion is impossible. If an electron goes from A to B without going through the area AB, it must be submerged into an underlying universe. In the macroworld, if I go from Boston to New York without touching the territory in between, I would have to go into a different dimension in order to make that leap; I would be on an airplane. Entanglement, which is twin particles affected by something that is only under the influence of something near the first particle, is like my twin brother is in Alaska and, as a result of that, I am shivering in Florida. The way to make sense of that is by recognizing it can only happen to one participant. Again, it happens in an outside dimension and it is only one particle going back and forth at the square of the speed of light, touching our universe only as it turns around on its round trip. So, with no twin brother at all, I would fly to Alaska and back so fast that an outside observer would think I was two different people, with the one in Florida strangely affected. But if the observer wasn't a childishly escapist geek, he would search for a rational explanation, and not follow the dogmas of self-appointed authorities (who, by the way, are viciously dishonest when they explain away Heisenberg's Naziism). The maximum velocity in the outside dimension being c squared (a light-year (distance relative to c to the first power) every three minutes) explains fission as a collision formula where the first collision happens at that velocity and then is slowed down to the standard limit of c in all the huge number of chain reactions. Why don't people see that it is a neurotic desire for irrationality infectingthese emotionally disturbed physicists that makes them explain it in the absurd way they do? They are bitter, vindictive, and anti-social; there's no reason to hold back on insulting them. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 2, 2019 22:48:35 GMT
Most of what passes for quantum physics is sophistry and filibuster. it is used to embezzle academic funding for the most part. So 99% of what is written on this topic can be discarded if it is not utterly clear. But it is based on some solid ideas which can be reduced to a very few simple principles. Quantum Energy from Max Planck. He proves that energy must consist of indivisible 'packets' . This came about due to what is known as the 'Ultraviolet catastrophe', whereby Rayleigh theorized that there is an infinite amount of energy at any point. Essentially this was a 'division by zero' error. So the smallest quantum of energy was needed to resolve the error. If we divide by ever smaller amounts, then the result will be infinitely large. Quantum Time: From Max Planck. I am still not sure how he got the result that time also must exist in indivisible amounts. But considering "Zeno's paradox", I had attained by own proof that time also cannot be in ever smaller amounts, and must consist of quanta for the same reasons as quantum energy. Following from here I have devised that the solution for quantum gravity, is simply a result of quantum time. More in depth articles based on computer algorithms are at this link: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/zeno-and-planck.htm The practical result is not only the solution to n-body gravity, but also this is the only theory I know of that can account for the "gravity" assist properly.
The Quantum Leap is not explained rationally; displacement without motion is impossible. If an electron goes from A to B without going through the area AB, it must be submerged into an underlying universe. In the macroworld, if I go from Boston to New York without touching the territory in between, I would have to go into a different dimension in order to make that leap; I would be on an airplane. Entanglement, which is twin particles affected by something that is only under the influence of something near the first particle, is like my twin brother is in Alaska and, as a result of that, I am shivering in Florida. The way to make sense of that is by recognizing it can only happen to one participant. Again, it happens in an outside dimension and it is only one particle going back and forth at the square of the speed of light, touching our universe only as it turns around on its round trip. So, with no twin brother at all, I would fly to Alaska and back so fast that an outside observer would think I was two different people, with the one in Florida strangely affected. But if the observer wasn't a childishly escapist geek, he would search for a rational explanation, and not follow the dogmas of self-appointed authorities (who, by the way, are viciously dishonest when they explain away Heisenberg's Naziism). The maximum velocity in the outside dimension being c squared (a light-year (distance relative to c to the first power) every three minutes) explains fission as a collision formula where the first collision happens at that velocity and then is slowed down to the standard limit of c in all the huge number of chain reactions. Why don't people see that it is a neurotic desire for irrationality infectingthese emotionally disturbed physicists that makes them explain it in the absurd way they do? They are bitter, vindictive, and anti-social; there's no reason to hold back on insulting them. I am still uncertain as to whether we need quantum space. I kinda see your point about AB, but the idea of expanding space as 'quantum foam' raises the question as to how the foam packages itself so neatly when new quanta of space appear. Geometry has particles moving in straight lines, so there would still need to be a perfect geometric space that underpinned the quanta of space. And if so, then there is no reason to persist with the quanta of space at all due to Occam's razor. As for the 'speed-of-light' question; I can really only see it as a fixation rather than a theory because I have 100% proven that gravity itself must move at least several thousands of times faster than light-speed.  The Alpha Centauri binary should separate at 1.4 million km per orbit due to this effect (BOGVOS) which would give them a life-span of a fraction of a million years. Even Earth would drift from the Sun at 1km per orbit, and the Moon depart the Earth at 400m per orbit. The 'other' effects of the various relativities being hundreds of thousands of times less than gravity moving at light-speed. More details here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htmAs for insulting the physicists, its easier to start than to stop! |
|
vicky
Full Member
Help ever; Hurt never
Posts: 115
Likes: 59
|
Post by vicky on May 3, 2019 4:24:57 GMT
Don't know much about it but this video is what made me interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on May 3, 2019 12:26:45 GMT
Don't know much about it but this video is what made me interested.
Here's an excellent channel:
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 3, 2019 17:45:46 GMT
The Motto of These Nerd Misfits Is: "If It's Weird, It's Wise"The Quantum Leap is not explained rationally; displacement without motion is impossible. If an electron goes from A to B without going through the area AB, it must be submerged into an underlying universe. In the macroworld, if I go from Boston to New York without touching the territory in between, I would have to go into a different dimension in order to make that leap; I would be on an airplane. Entanglement, which is twin particles affected by something that is only under the influence of something near the first particle, is like my twin brother is in Alaska and, as a result of that, I am shivering in Florida. The way to make sense of that is by recognizing it can only happen to one participant. Again, it happens in an outside dimension and it is only one particle going back and forth at the square of the speed of light, touching our universe only as it turns around on its round trip. So, with no twin brother at all, I would fly to Alaska and back so fast that an outside observer would think I was two different people, with the one in Florida strangely affected. But if the observer wasn't a childishly escapist geek, he would search for a rational explanation, and not follow the dogmas of self-appointed authorities (who, by the way, are viciously dishonest when they explain away Heisenberg's Naziism). The maximum velocity in the outside dimension being c squared (a light-year (distance relative to c to the first power) every three minutes) explains fission as a collision formula where the first collision happens at that velocity and then is slowed down to the standard limit of c in all the huge number of chain reactions. Why don't people see that it is a neurotic desire for irrationality infectingthese emotionally disturbed physicists that makes them explain it in the absurd way they do? They are bitter, vindictive, and anti-social; there's no reason to hold back on insulting them. I am still uncertain as to whether we need quantum space. I kinda see your point about AB, but the idea of expanding space as 'quantum foam' raises the question as to how the foam packages itself so neatly when new quanta of space appear. Geometry has particles moving in straight lines, so there would still need to be a perfect geometric space that underpinned the quanta of space. And if so, then there is no reason to persist with the quanta of space at all due to Occam's razor. As for the 'speed-of-light' question; I can really only see it as a fixation rather than a theory because I have 100% proven that gravity itself must move at least several thousands of times faster than light-speed. The Alpha Centauri binary should separate at 1.4 million km per orbit due to this effect (BOGVOS) which would give them a life-span of a fraction of a million years. Even Earth would drift from the Sun at 1km per orbit, and the Moon depart the Earth at 400m per orbit. The 'other' effects of the various relativities being hundreds of thousands of times less than gravity moving at light-speed. More details here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htmAs for insulting the physicists, its easier to start than to stop! Gravity occurs in the fourth spatial dimension, which is why myopic physicists can't find the gravitons. To a certain extent, all matter is embedded there. The maximum velocity there is c^2. That, and only that, is what makes gravity seem instantaneous. Because of the same limited measuring ability, c^2 makes entanglement seem like two particles when it is only one. Postclassical physicists are quite incompetent and unscientific; they fit right in with the decadence of the 20th Century. Only defective and neurotic personalities would glory in accepting apparently impossible phenomena without seeking a deeper explanation to make their explanations rational and consistent with the "macro" world. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 5, 2019 18:41:04 GMT
I am still uncertain as to whether we need quantum space. I kinda see your point about AB, but the idea of expanding space as 'quantum foam' raises the question as to how the foam packages itself so neatly when new quanta of space appear. Geometry has particles moving in straight lines, so there would still need to be a perfect geometric space that underpinned the quanta of space. And if so, then there is no reason to persist with the quanta of space at all due to Occam's razor. As for the 'speed-of-light' question; I can really only see it as a fixation rather than a theory because I have 100% proven that gravity itself must move at least several thousands of times faster than light-speed. The Alpha Centauri binary should separate at 1.4 million km per orbit due to this effect (BOGVOS) which would give them a life-span of a fraction of a million years. Even Earth would drift from the Sun at 1km per orbit, and the Moon depart the Earth at 400m per orbit. The 'other' effects of the various relativities being hundreds of thousands of times less than gravity moving at light-speed. More details here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htmAs for insulting the physicists, its easier to start than to stop! Gravity occurs in the fourth spatial dimension, which is why myopic physicists can't find the gravitons. To a certain extent, all matter is embedded there. The maximum velocity there is c^2. That, and only that, is what makes gravity seem instantaneous. Because of the same limited measuring ability, c^2 makes entanglement seem like two particles when it is only one. Postclassical physicists are quite incompetent and unscientific; they fit right in with the decadence of the 20th Century. Only defective and neurotic personalities would glory in accepting apparently impossible phenomena without seeking a deeper explanation to make their explanations rational and consistent with the "macro" world. It certainly is tragic how unscientific the institutions that are labelled 'science', really are. And for quite some time, I too had seemingly been forced to concede gravity was a 4d phenomenon. However consider this diagram:  Here we see that the inverse of the square-law, can only be a feature of a 3d phenomenon. If gravity propagated in 4d space, it would follow the inverse of a cube formula. Let me try explain this verbally. Of the 3 dimensions of space, if one is the distance, then the other 2 spread out the effect of of the gravity. So if we lived in 2d, space, then gravity would be g=m/r, like this:  Note here, if we double the distance, then it spreads out halved. Whereas here:  Double distance is quarter the effect, and in the first diagram, triple the distance is 1/9th of the effect. So anything which obeys the inverse of the square law is contained in 3d space. So if we are looking for phenomena in 4d space, we need laws which are the inverse of the cube. Do you know of any? I am afraid Newton understood this better than any 20th century physicist, and the worst of them all was Einstein. As for quantum gravitons, they are easily disproved because they would cause a 'gravity shadow', much like photons cause a 'light shadow'. Summary of my thesis on gravity here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/force-of-gravity.htmDisproving the illusion of quantum gravity and relativity detailed here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity/gravitational-waves%2Bgeneral-relativity.htm |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 5, 2019 21:42:32 GMT
The More Authority They Are Granted, the More Authoritarian They Become
First, the outside universe is three-dimensional. It can be considered a fourth dimension, but only in the way Quantumists consider time to be a dimension. It has an effect on particles in our own universe; therefore, these particles are partially embedded in it, the more so the more energy they have, such as in fission.
An effect must have an agent. Postmodern Physicists cannot find gravitons because their focus is limited to this universe. I can imagine gravitation taking effect in hyperspace by a boomerang type of action, but, for now, I can only guess what kind of process is going on. An atom may emit gravitons from its embedded part; they shoot towards another object with a force related to the atom's mass, then knock it towards the first object, the resulting force is transmitted to the part of the object in our universe.
All I know is that the agents must be there, because they are not here. Besides, the original particles erupting into our universe in the "Big Bang" decomposed into mass, energy, light, and space itself, so the forces may re-unify to create gravitational attraction.
|
|
