So is Stephen Hawkins wrong or is Einstein wrong?

[QuantumArtist]

oops! When I said;

"I certainly hope so! Its just to say that I'm 100% sure that in doing so, you'd be converting the truest, most basic unit of energy/action (the verb of life), just a manifestation thereof. "

I meant to say that I'd be sure you would NOT be converting the truest unit of energy. I believe true energy is much more basic. So basic... its apparently difficult to grasp for some people.
_________________
QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t

I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)

[Cryptoscientia]

“Primarily because the 2ndTD says energy essentially IS finite. “(QuantumArtist)
Yet we have no clue how far out the universe goes and how matter or energy there is. If there is a finite energy amount then that would mean the universe could only go so far? I don’t remember the 2ndTD ever saying that there is a limit on how much energy there is (if it did I missed it…)

“I think ultimately, energy is very simply, just action.” (QuantumArtist)
Would there be a ‘potential verb’? Meaning what does the verb do on its ‘free time’?

“Reason I bring this up is that I'm not at all convinced that this action/energy exists "out of phase"….Frequency is but one of many manifestations of an intangible action force which defines it.” (QuantumArtist)
Ether has frequency, it is caused by variations in the quantum space, and however there is nothing acting upon it. No man has found ‘pure space’ that is because of these fluctuation of space, keep all space occupied. What would you consider say a cubic centimeter of space is (meaning a cubic cm of no matter)?

“Perhaps your phase theory could be worked to CONVERT one form of energy to one we can use at our level of understanding. I certainly hope so! Its just to say that I'm 100% sure that in doing so, you'd (would NOT) be converting the truest, most basic unit of energy/action (the verb of life), just a manifestation thereof.” (QuantumArtist)
I’m sorry but I was not to sure what you were meaning there… if you could elaborate I would much appreciate it.

“For every force, power, or anomaly you can conceive, there is a definition. There will always be a governing power which defines the anomaly. THAT is the true energy of the universe. It dictates everything we see, everything we define, and the potentials of every outcome. It’s the verb of everything.”(QuantumArtist)

There are quite strange things that happen, in general. Your ‘Energy’ or ‘verb’ is the thing you say happen at a point, right? If so how could it explain some of the odd phenomena that happen in particle accelerators?

A few observed things such as particles just disappearing (not to be seen and no observable energy that came off them at the point they disappeared), two separate particles that act as one (hit only one and both are effected) and one of my favorites, the one that apparently appears and disappears (my friend says it is God playing with us). There are much more particles that do odd things, my ether theory can and actually covers the strange events that are witnessed. My self and three others came up with it to explain these odd happenings. We used mainly observed facts from particle accelerators, with a bit of math to and imagination back it up.

Bare back basics are that there are quantum fluctuation that are basic, fill everything stuff, not particles.

Any and all matter is quantum fluctuation that have stabilized.

Energy is the interactions between the quantum fluctuation and the matter (stabilized quantum fluctuation).

There are many frequencies of quantum fluctuation, but only matter ‘tuned’ to one frequency can interact with matter of that same frequency(resonance), all other frequencies are ignored (out of phase).

That is bare basics of the theory.

[QuantumArtist]

Odd disappearances of particles doesn't concern me much. Remember, according to my theory, that particle is just a pixel in the universe. If we cant see it one moment, and again the next, its possible that its moving faster then our conceivable "frame rate".

For example, the phenomina where 2 particles act as one. What if its just 1 particle moving so fast that it APPEARS to be 2? In this example, the 1 particle exceeds our conceivable frame rate and hence appears to be in 2 places at the same time, or even as 2 different particles.

Its also possible that if a particle disappears, its been converted to energy/action. This action may be in a form we're unfamiliar with... such as gravity, which I've already explained above.

Conversion of a point of matter to energy might happen when conditions are met that force the point to redefine itself. Because a point is a very defined and very simple entity, any redefinition will make it no longer matter. For example, lets say a point is represented by a simple "o". We'll use the o to represent graphically a point in space without length width or hight. Its not accurate, but its about as good as I'll get in this forum for visual effect.

A point will look like so;

o

This next point kinda works with your theory of dimensions. Lets say something like anti mater or an accelerator forced it to redefine itself by giving it a dimension like length...

o--->

or

<o>

The --- are supposed to represent a solid line. Basically the point becomes redefined as a ray or even a line. Once it gains a dimension, it no longer becomes a point. Fundimental matter works the same way I believe when converted to energy and vice versa.
_________________
QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t

I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)

[QuantumArtist]

Ack!

Cant edit the <o> to look any different. Its supposed to have --- on either side of the o.

Also, about the accelerator suddenly loosing particles. Its possible the particle was going fast enough that it may have exceeded a universal "frame rate" threshold which made it look like a line to the rest of the universe and poof! Now its energy.
_________________
QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t

I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)

[QuantumArtist]

Oh, and I believe light flirts on the border of this threshold, making it seem half in reality.
_________________
QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t

I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)

[Cryptoscientia]

There was one question I really wanted you (Quantum Artist) to answer, that was the one I asked:
“I think ultimately, energy is very simply, just action.” (Quantum Artist)
Would there be a ‘potential verb’? Meaning what does the verb do on its ‘free time’?


And do any of these points fit somehow in your theory, if so how?

“Bare back basics are that there are quantum fluctuation that are basic, fill everything stuff, not particles.

Any and all matter is quantum fluctuation that have stabilized.

Energy is the interactions between the quantum fluctuation and the matter (stabilized quantum fluctuation).

There are many frequencies of quantum fluctuation, but only matter ‘tuned’ to one frequency can interact with matter of that same frequency(resonance), all other frequencies are ignored (out of phase). “(Myself)


“Odd disappearances of particles doesn't concern me much. Remember, according to my theory, that particle is just a pixel in the universe. If we cant see it one moment, and again the next, its possible that its moving faster then our conceivable "frame rate".”

So, if some particles move faster then our conceivable “frame rate” would it or could it be considered “a frequency”. Surely if it ‘blinks’, it blinks with pattern (even though it could not be noticeable to us at all) and with pattern comes some frequency or at least a combo (or more) of frequencies. Suggesting something even more basic is happening to it?

For the moments that it would be apparently ‘gone’ would it exist? Even if it were some kind of ‘broken pixel’ It would essentially be created and destroyed over and over again?


“…..exceeds our conceivable frame rate and hence appears to be in 2 places at the same time…..” (QuantumArtist)

‘Our conceivable frame rate’ that to me doesn’t make sense. It ‘Our conceivable frame rate’ is just the human rate of time. Are you suggesting that time may go even faster then we ACTUALLY comprehend (our conceivable existence)?

“I believe light flirts on the border of this threshold” (QuantumArtist)
Are you talking about ‘Our conceivable frame rate’ again? Hence the reason why light does not ‘blink’ in and out of ‘our conceivable existence’?

Does ‘our conceivable existence’ mean that some beings comprehension of time is all up to that being? Is it up to the individual? Example: a fly lives at a ‘higher’ comprehendible time level (frame rate) then a human, were as a sea turtle lives in a ‘lower’ comprehendible time level (frame rate) when compared to a human? I use fly because of there relatively short life, whereas the sea turtle has a life around 130+ years. That really doesn’t make sense to me…



“Its also possible that if a particle disappears, its been converted to energy/action.” (QuantumArtist)
Honestly I like the statement above better then the other two. That I believe makes sense when I say, “all matter is quantum fluctuation that have stabilized.” And if it is only stable for a second (and 90% of particles are) then reverts back to ether, it would appear to “vanish” to us.




“Conversion of a point of matter to energy might happen when conditions are met that force the point to redefine itself.” (QuantumArtist)
I think I understand what you meant there. I hope you are familiar with Oscilloscopes (just making an example to see if I understand what you meant).

The older ones turn on and there is just a “point” of usually green light. This point doesn’t change unless you add a signal that will change it to whatever the signal dictates.

If you were to relate the point of light with your example (the one with O in your last post) and the “conditions are met that force” it to redefine that point in to whatever it would change to what the acting force dedicates. I kind of like that little piece of info…

[Cryptoscientia]

Here is some more proof (however little it may be) to my theory of neutrons; by the way I said it before they did...

http://www.physorg.com/news109259529.html

[QuantumArtist]

"Would there be a ‘potential verb’? Meaning what does the verb do on its ‘free time’?"

Ah, now theres the trick! For action to OCCUR it must act upon someTHING. Until matter comes along, the results of an action cannot be seen. Again, I think this works like a computer game! There is much going on in the background of a computer game while you play it. What you see on your screen is an image, which is the end product of thousands of computations which are likely not displayed to the user.

In short, yes the action is there without matter, but it needs to have matter for an action to "occur". Without matter, action is still governed by rules, it still observes them. Think about it, any action that occurs is predefined. Were it not so, we could not anticipate, nor define an action because the outcome would be completely random. The rules for the action are there before the action occurs, giving it parameters for when it finally finds matter to occur upon.

"
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:41 am Post subject:
There was one question I really wanted you (Quantum Artist) to answer, that was the one I asked:
“I think ultimately, energy is very simply, just action.” (Quantum Artist)
Would there be a ‘potential verb’? Meaning what does the verb do on its ‘free time’?


And do any of these points fit somehow in your theory, if so how?

“Bare back basics are that there are quantum fluctuation that are basic, fill everything stuff, not particles." I do believe this is correct. Action/energy does exist in the space between points of matter, although the word "filling" is a bit odd to my theory. Keep in mind, I don't think "absolute energy" has any mass at all, nor does "absolute matter".

"Any and all matter is quantum fluctuation that have stabilized." I think matter is just a point where action happens. It takes many points to build up and represent any "item" we conceive. It takes several "frames" of time to create a "frequency". You must remember, the action I speak of is "absolute energy" and doesn't disprove or prove your concept of frequency. You're talking about walls, I'm talking about bricks. A frequency is an event, acting upon matter. We see waves from these events. Underlying all this, is an action force, which defines all these things, and acts upon "absolute matter" to build up and create the event you see as a frequency. I am pursuing the indivisible units of matter and energy, and it sounds like you're speaking of tapping into events which are created by this "absolute" matter and energy. I'm boiling existence down to its roots, dealing in the most simple terms which build up to our understanding.

To give you an idea. Most peoples theories have nothing to do with what I speak of. They believe they're talking about the building blocks of life in their theories, but they're not. Usually, they speak of a point of matter which is governed by this law and blah blah blah. Most of these theories are focused around an event which I believe is orchestrated by pure action upon matter. Thing is, they never seem to stop and think, that maybe this ISNT the smallest unit of matter... I believe most events we see are the result of action (the verb in the sentence of existence) which transacted at possibly zillions of points of matter to create the event they're speaking.

Its important to remember that when I speak of matter and energy, I'm speaking on terms of its most basic forms. Pure action, and pure matter. Its like a sentence, matter is like a noun. Its just a thing. Matter doesn't DO anything without action. This is why I think that matter ultimately is just a point where action happens. A point by geometric terms has no hight length or width, its just a point. Action is like a verb. Verbs are events, they're not things. This point is important because action cant occur without occurring somewhere. Having a point of matter is like saying, "look over here action! You can happen... RIGHT HERE!".

When I read most peoples theories about matter and energy, they usually focus on some point of matter or some event involving many points of matter. They get caught up on waves and frequency which is certainly the result of the action forces, but they never stop to think about the claims they make that they are dealing with the most indivisible stuff of life. I find this assertion hilarious because matter is infinitely small and energy is intangable. For all they know, entirely epic amounts of creation exist in just that 1 particle or event.

You must understand. If you can conceive it as the smallest possible particle or action ever... my theory will say it could be the result of entire universes of matter points which are reacting in accordance to the dictates of action to produce the event. Why? because I believe absolute matter has no mass. How can you give limits to that which has no mass? The action around it... is completely intangable its a verb! Between points of matter which have no mass, and energy which is intangable, any carrier particle, any frequency acting upon it, could be a colossal event involving whole universes worth of matter points beyond our comprehension and action to create it.

So basically, I don't think your frequency theory is the end all, indivisible building block to existence. It doesn't mean your theory about tapping into frequency to obtain energy isn't correct. Again, you're talking about a wall and I'm talking about the bricks (and mortar).

"Our conceivable frame rate’ that to me doesn’t make sense. It ‘Our conceivable frame rate’ is just the human rate of time. Are you suggesting that time may go even faster then we ACTUALLY comprehend (our conceivable existence)?"

OK, try replacing "conceivable" and interjecting something like "the most indivisible frame rate of existence". Time exists regardless of the being observing it, although it seems like my job could bring time to a near halt, I'm happy to say it does not. I'm referring to the frame rate of existence, which occurs at a MUCH faster rate then that of our own.

The thing with light is I believe it moves on the verge of exceeding this time frame rate. This isn't just because of the speed it travels. Pretty much most any event we see as being "inter dimensional" is really just flirting with exceeding the universal frame rate of time. When doing this, the points of matter which comprise the image of the event are on the verge of redefinition into action. For all we know, the matter and energy may be converting back and forth from one to the other in that those kinds of events, until it stabilizes.
_________________
QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t

I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)

[Cryptoscientia]

Well I’m back from camping,
So…

“You're talking about walls, I'm talking about bricks. A frequency is an event, acting upon matter. We see waves from these events. Underlying all this, is an action force, which defines all these things, and acts upon "absolute matter" to build up and create the event you see as a frequency. I am pursuing the indivisible units of matter and energy, and it sounds like you're speaking of tapping into events which are created by this "absolute" matter and energy” (QuantumArtist)

And

”When I read most peoples theories about matter and energy, they usually focus on some point of matter or some event involving many points of matter. They get caught up on waves and frequency which is certainly the result of the action forces, but they never stop to think about the claims they make that they are dealing with the most indivisible stuff of life.“ (QuantumArtist)

You have to remember Ether is different the Matter and Energy, it has no mass, no electrons or other particles it is all connected and when I talk about the Ether (Quantum fluctuations or vibrations or ZPE) ‘having a frequency’ it does not mean it is moving particles to make up that frequency, but it is force that is all over.

For example we, on earth, are stuck in the suns gravity as are a bunch of other planets and other things with in it’s gravity as well. Everything ‘feels’ that force (gravity) within the suns gravitational range. Now I’m not calling ether gravity, however comparing the force of gravity to ether, the ether effects everything and has no range. And just like different planets have different gravitational amounts or fluxes, there all gravity, yet have very different pulls. These are like the frequencies that exhibit the ether. They have different fluxes and are all the same, anything that is not in resonance is out of phase.


”Its important to remember that when I speak of matter and energy, I'm speaking on terms of its most basic forms. Pure action, and pure matter. Its like a sentence, matter is like a noun. Its just a thing. Matter doesn't DO anything without action. Action is like a verb. Verbs are events, they're not things. This point is important because action cant occur without occurring somewhere. Having a point of matter is like saying, "look over here action! You can happen... RIGHT HERE!".“ (QuantumArtist)

You know if I was to travel in a space ship to mars would the energy exist all the way to mars, but would only show It’s self when the space ship was over a point were the space ship was at that exact moment.

>===-- ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….O


>===-- is the space ship.
O is mars.
The ……….. is energy. (Action that can’t occur without the ship being there)

What I’m saying is that the ……….. that is waiting to occur (cant until it has a noun to ‘occur’ with) is essentially not occurring there for is not existing?

Or a sentence example:

Lets say this sentence, “The Dog Jumped over the log.”
We have an action, “Jumped”
we have the nouns,”Dog, Log”
So what about, “the, over, the”
We know that “Over” is a preposition.
‘The’ I guess would be a ‘Definite article’.

If ‘Jumped’ were alone it would not exist until you have a noun to ‘jump’

Also this (and all) sentences would not make any sense with just nouns and verbs.
If nouns are = to matter and verbs are = to energy, what would the other words be = to?

I would say energy (meaning in example, ‘the’ and ‘over’) would still describe energy in my theory, (anything that is not a noun would be some king of joining or adjective or adverb or verb or whatever). The “letters” would be made of ether; the letters (and any punctuation) of the example sentence are all ether. The noun is matter, where it ‘does’ stuff, anything that happens to matter is interaction between matter and ether (or is energy) so J by It’s self is nothing until it has at least ‘ump’ following it, then it becomes a interaction(or energy).


”You must understand. If you can conceive it as the smallest possible particle or action ever... my theory will say it could be the result of entire universes of matter points which are reacting in accordance to the dictates of action to produce the event. Why? because I believe absolute matter has no mass.”
“Keep in mind, I don't think "absolute energy" has any mass at all, nor does "absolute matter".” (QuantumArtist)

I do not understand how pure or absolute matter contains no mass, because mass is the quantity of matter as determined from its weight or from Newton's second law of motion. Example: a lead brick weights more then that of a brick of the same size made of carbon.
In space something of high mass, lets say a lead brick, were to move, it would have more energy put into it then a carbon brick to move at the same distance and speed. Mass I believe cannot be taken out of the equation. In a world with pure or absolute matter, there would be no energy, because we know that E=mc2, if it were not so then energy would not exist, however energy can exist alone, because E can always be converted into mass. On the other hand mass must always have energy, because if it is moving or even the act of electrons moving or the gravity (however small) that is there all fit into energy!!!

With my theory, ether is the thing that can never go, because it makes up energy and matter. It must always exist.

“Entire universes of matter points” you mean that this goes on forever? Such as lets say one point, that point is governed by entire universes of matter points, so I take one of those points within the larger point, is there an other “entire universes of matter points” and as far as I go down there will always be, “entire universes of matter points”?
So is our universe just a point that is part of a ‘larger’ set of points? Or is our universe the stopping “point”? If so why?

[QuantumArtist]

I am sorry for the incorrect use of the term mass. I meant to say "absolute matter" has no dimension. It therefore has no size.

Hence, yes! It is infinitely small and any event we see could be a conglomeration of an incomprehensible number of these points of matter.
_________________
QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t

I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)