Jump to content

Comparative scales not right !


Guest Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

Well it is simple :

 

1) The bucket theorie : the conception that the universe cannot hold so much matter is ridiculus ! it is an outdated concept base on a social dimension base of the time wich the persone who creat that theorie live! I explain myself :

 

lets say that the universe IS a bucket , but instead of being rigid ( like a metal bucket) , it is in fact flexible (like plastic) to let expension or even retraction (since we know that the universe IS expending , the theorie of the rigid bucket , just die !)So any additional matter entering this particuliar part of the universe will not affect the whole universe by is own presence , only by is action in this universe.

 

2)Most of the time we see the fabric of the universe like one and only one cloth , one density . The universe with is ability to subtaine oppossite force /action/counterpart ( like matter VS anti-matter) must be able to change or alter is own density OR to have multiple density :now if we agree that the universe can have multiple density , it means that it is not created in one big bolck but , like a Lego game , its a whole created with a multitude of deferente part of differents shapes and color ( you can replace shape and color by density and velocity).

 

3)relativity : since the universe is created with a multitude of differente parts of differents density and value , the same laws or reaction of those laws cannot be the same everywhere : ex : if we take Conductivity : the same electric current will not travel at the same speed in copper then in water ; the same current is refrain by the values of the material wich he travel into :just like the universe , Time cannot have the same velocity , impact ,tracjectory in all the universe , only in the same part or piece of universe wich the observer is ( relativity).

 

Thats it for today ( way too much typo !) if you like those observation , HEY ! e-mail me and we can discuss some more !

 

Franck.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

another way to see it

 

when i said that the possiblity of multi density/multi "set of parts and values" and just found a way to see it in a simple way :

 

Lets say that you see one of your friend , you see him as an whole , you dont see the bones or the blood cells or muscles only a whole , but ALL of this IS HIM ! differents fonction , set of values , density , mass , and weight !!

 

Lets go to your room : you see wall , floor , ceiling etc etc , right ?!

 

now , if you shrink to the size of a ant (or smaller) this is the same room , but your are no longer able to see the ceiling or the walls ! everything is now alien to you ! but its still the same room !

 

Our conception of the universe is limited by of point of view and our comprehention of our surrounding ( relativity ) and our very basic knowedge ( matter is matter , its must be solide , or having a mass etc etc ) Dimentional and densimentional (yes , its a new theorie and its mine ..) are sometime mixte by our small point of view .

 

sorry for my poor english (but hey ! am learning !)

 

Franck.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

You write very interesting speculations. Your ideas are creative and well thought out.

 

My problem lies with Standard Quantum Theory (SQT) itself.

 

Early on, we assumed a particle/wave duality largely due to the fact that at the quantum level of matter, we were (and still are) not able to measure accurately the behaviour of either particles or waves with respect to their velocities or position. You cannot determine both at this juncture. It's the foundation of the Heisenberg Uncertainity principle. It leaves us with having to make the untidy assumption stated above.

 

This assumption however is also what has led us to make further assumptions and draw possibly mistaken conclusions from the effects we "think" we see in this particle/wave duality. Some of these conclusions are what have led us to hypothesize time reversal and multi-dimensionality due to the seeming cause/effect enigmas that result from the observations as interpreted by the original assumption.

 

In other words, since we have no real way of explaining what we see, using our less than adequate measuring systems, we have devised all manner of speculative hypotheses to explain that which we do not understand.

 

That does not by any means prove that any of these hypotheses are true. In fact, it is more reasonable to assume they are not since they are based on uncertain observations in the first place.

 

Being pragmatic, I prefer to believe that we have more work to do before we can even begin to assume the results of all this hypothesizing leads to time travel or multi-dimensionality.

 

The theories any such postulations are based on, are themselves on very shaky ground. They have never reconciled with Einsteinian Relativity, and I predict they probably never will. Albert didn't like them either.

 

Nevertheless, thank you for your thought provoking ideas.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Am happy to see

 

I am happy to see , that you agree on the fact that what dont know is a lot bigger then what we do know .

 

It will take an extremely long time to man just to grasp the basic dynamics of time/space , sine we are trap in our single perspective view .

 

Now you talk about multi-dimention , what about multi-density?

 

A fracture or a limite , may not be a clean cut , but just a variation of the "sector" aside .

 

Waves behavior ,particles etc etc as you know , sometime have unpredictable behavior : a change in the nature in what they evolve maybe ? its possible , maybe not !

 

I am not a big fan of the dimension theory , i see it like a way that some people use to explain what they dont understand (like the paradox theory and the big bang theory)

 

still sorry for my poor english.

 

Franck.M.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Heisenberg didnt think of that !

 

Heisenberg was a victime of is own time !

 

You read "multi- dimension" , am talking about "multi-density" : thats will give an partial explaination for why or how , particle are so herratics sometime ( maybe it is because they just past trought a pocket or lair of different density , affecting the tracjectory and/or velocity !)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Re:Heisenberg didnt think of that !

 

I'll start a new conversation thread on this one. I think it's a topic in itself. (See CURRENT top on message board.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Re:Heisenberg didnt think of that !

 

Dear sir; Heisenberg got something wrong:dM as being a determinant of the quantum h. Momentum is a RESULT of BALANCED Ws=Pv. And "time" is an IMBALANCE of Ws not = to Pv. My 6 page paper, OUT OF TIME explains how "time" actually works. snail mail: W=P 420 2nd Ave East Kalispell, MT 59901 (406-752-3328), if you want to break out of the mental prison cell of "time"....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Re:Re:Heisenberg didnt think of that !

 

Whether Heisenberg got ANYTHING wrong or right is immaterial to your argument since the effects ARE observed by present day methods. I am in fact a PROPONENT of tossing the Uncertainity Principle out the window

 

IF we can conclusively find the evidence for the error in our ways. Evidence we have AS YET to find, however.

 

Also, if you have a point to make, try refraining from statements like 'if you want to break out of the mental prison cell of "time"....'

 

They belie a presumption on your part to the role of a "self appointed educator" status which is a position you do not have the right to assume. You become some else's educator by being ASKED to be one...not by setting yourself up as one. Your statements on this site show that you have either not read everyone else's posts completely, or that you weren't paying full attention when you did.

 

From what I read of your statements thus far, your presumptions as to what I "think" time is, are at this point quite premature.

 

If you have a theory to hawk, fine. Show us your reasoning. Don't try to "dazzle" us with what are simple basic equations that themselves prove nothing without the postulate analysis to back them up.

 

Any good Quantum Mechanic will tell you that any Quantum Theory should be easily explainable to the lay person. Stephen Hawking says this, and backs it up by doing just that.

 

Thanx.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...