Zero Point Theory - the universal constant Gravity

AlphaNumeric

06-08-12, 06:24 PM

......so you believe that the thread or topic is about zero point energy?
even though the topic heading and op clearly state it is about the universal constant - gravity?They are actually the same construct in physics, just the quantum and relativistic points of view.

There is no monopoly on the term zero or zero point.... in fact these two terms have been used for thousands of years by all areas of intellectual pursuit... from the occult to the scientific.Surely even you grasp the issue that talking about zero point and gravity is going to make people think you talk about the cosmological constant, a zero point energy phenomenon? Sure, there isn't a monopoly on those words but when you put them together and aren't talking about their common meaning the onus is on you to clarify yourself. Besides, when you then go on to talk about the Higgs mechanism (http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/universal-constancy) in the same page as gravity and universal constants you're clearly attempting to give the impression there's something in science you're talking about. Talking about the Higgs mechanism, gravity, universal constants and then making comments like "Some people call it gravity, others call it god" makes my first reply completely and utterly justified. Besides, you and I have been around the block enough times that I wouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt to think you aren't trying to add a thin dishonest veneer of scientific talk to your otherwise random guessing.

Possibly it it your own pre-occupation with the potential of zero point energy that is the issue and not a semantic one.How do I have a preoccupation with it?

The Op is is quite clear I think...about the investigation into the source of the universal constant - Gravity, which happens to be, according to Zero Point Theory, zero.

The why and what of zero point energy is actually quite easy to comprehend once zero point theory is understood.
Perhaps you are expecting complexity?Well now you are clearly stating you can address zero point energy with this stuff, which completely validates my initial criticism. Seeing as you don't understand the relevant relativity or quantum field theory you are trying to dress up your random uninformed suppositions with an air of respectibility by dressing it in the garbs of actual science.

Quantum Quack

06-08-12, 06:32 PM

so ... can I ask ...do you have any particular reason(s) for not wishing to discuss the topic?
If so would you care to share these reasons?
btw I do appreciate your attempt to carify current scientific positions on these issues.

As to zero point energy, regardless of the language used or method ZPT (zero point theory) can indeed indicate very strongly it's mechanism and how it is able to manifest, in fact ZPT would predict the existance of Zero point energy once you understood the rational.

"It is often amazing what gemstones of inspiration one can find in amongst the scambled egg of someone elses insanity"

Quantum Quack

06-08-12, 06:46 PM

@Alphanumeric,
Perhaps you or some one else would be inclined to help translate the theory into that which can be peer reviewed and win a Nobel in the process [ re: attraction paradox ]
I believe tha task of presenting a peer reviewable paper would be dead easy for someone with the appropriate skills
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/attraction-paradox
and
empirical evidence:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/51-attraction-paradox-empirical-evidence

I must admit when I refer to zero point energy I am refering to the ability to obtain energy from the pure vacant space, pure vacuum or what I refer to as zero space [and you are of courses correct that zero point energy may indeed refer to the Gravitational Constant using current cosmological theory or thought. ]
ZPT does not attempt to refute current scientific theory it merely states what it states. The refutation is up to those who hold to what ever beliefs they hold to.

Quantum Quack

06-09-12, 07:22 PM

A simple way of describing the higgs mechanism as theorised by Zero Point Theory using pressure vessels as an analogy:

http://zeropointtheory.com/cache/a/5a1e9c9bf5f2bc1ed9444eb8998f477a.jpg http://zeropointtheory.com/cache/1/119cf5b82c823776c59391cc02494d5e.jpg http://zeropointtheory.com/cache/7/d7ed349e9d38c2daca014dbbe7e7f234.jpg
"As shown in the three diagrams above, when you consider the infinite diversity of size, type, distance of separation in space etc of all things of substance, there can be only one possible way that a fundamental equality that is absolutely equal and constant over time can be acheived, and it is ONLY with a SINGLE zero point being universally constant. and absolutely so."
re: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/universal-constancy

The important thing to realise is that there can be no other solution nor method or mechanism that fulfills the role the source of Gravity MUST fullfill to be universally constant.

Prof.Layman

07-08-12, 12:41 AM

Quantum Quack

07-08-12, 01:59 AM

I thought the attraction paradox could prove to be interesting, but after reading it I still don't get it. How does it prove that there can't be a "true rest"? I have thought one of the biggest problems in a big bang theory would be, well then how do you get your nothing moving? Can it just assume that it is in constant motion even though it is at rest, but then what if that changes the properties of the particle in question is it still allowed to do so just because someone said it ways? So it seems like there would be more of a need for a mechanism to put things in motion.

The attraction paradox can only be resolved by "movement" [time]
At t=0, more = less which is impossible. [paradox] and it is this paradoxical state that requires time as movement to facilitate a resolution.
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/tuitorials/tuitorial1/ap08.jpg
"For zero to non-exist, everything else must exist"
.. a purely self justifying logical statement as is the universe generally an absolutely self justifying existance but only over time.

Whats more, if one looks deeper into the paradox one can find that the movement generated by the paradox would have to be "spin" as at all times an object of mass is in a state of constant conflict with the linea gradient of the gravitational attraction. [ so the action of spinning in an attempt to resolve the paradox is an outcome ]
Therefore Zero Point Theory predicts "spin" or movement [time] at a fundamental level and does so for eternity as the object of mass constanty fails in it's attempt to resolve the paradox but is obliged by that paradox to keep trying for as long as the paradox exists [ eternity]. Absolute rest is utterly impossible.

I might add, any theory that attempts to set the premise of a TOE must be also able to accommodate time eternal as well.
Which is what Zero Point Theory does.

Prof.Layman

07-08-12, 02:21 AM

Still not sure where this more=less idea comes from or how it creates a paradox. Couldn't you assume that anything smaller than the Planck Scale would be equal to a zero point system? If it took an infinite amount of energy to measure something below the Planck Scale then any interaction that caused a difference smaller than the Plack Length/Time would be equal to zero, as it would have no measurable interaction with anything beyond that scale. So then in a sense everything could jitter around below the Planck Scale as much and as often as it wanted and would have no affect on anything since there would never be an infinite point of energy to detect it, energy could be conserved no matter how much everything did this.

Quantum Quack

07-08-12, 02:38 AM

Still not sure where this more=less idea comes from or how it creates a paradox. [/qupte]
If you do the simple experiment yourself as indicated here:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/51-attraction-paradox-empirical-evidence
You should have no problemo...
[quote] Couldn't you assume that anything smaller than the Planck Scale would be equal to a zero point system? If it took an infinite amount of energy to measure something below the Planck Scale then any interaction that caused a difference smaller than the Plack Length/Time would be equal to zero, as it would have no measurable interaction with anything beyond that scale. So then in a sense everything could jitter around below the Planck Scale as much and as often as it wanted and would have no affect on anything since there would never be an infinite point of energy to detect it, energy could be conserved no matter how much everything did this.
Zero point theory by necessity has to approach the issue with out regard to Planck's methods although similar it over complicates what is fundamentally a rather simple solution. IMO

A long time ago I had a long discussion at this forum about the notion that the present moment had a duration of an "infinitesimal" or Plank length, which I refuted on the grounds of infinite reduction leading always to a center of zero regardless of the dimension or metric used.

Argueing therefore that the use of a hyper surface to indicate the present moment was logically flawed as at t=0 duration distance can only = zero
All this meant that the use of a "fixed dimension" as being the smallest is illogical.

Therefore the use of Plancks system is merely a convenience to overcome the issues physics has with zero, being both a reality and non-reality simultaneously.

The paradox stands "as evidenced" regardless of what physics you wish to apply.

AlphaNumeric

07-08-12, 03:00 AM

so ... can I ask ...do you have any particular reason(s) for not wishing to discuss the topic?Questioning it's entire approach and how it is presented is discussing it.

As to zero point energy, regardless of the language used or method ZPT (zero point theory) can indeed indicate very strongly it's mechanism and how it is able to manifest, in fact ZPT would predict the existance of Zero point energy once you understood the rational.Except you have no working model or specifics of anything so saying "It can explain the mechanism" is very dishonest. You have a bunch of concepts you've arbitrarily taped together, they haven't been derived from a clear set of initial assumptions. I'll come back to this issue in a moment....

"It is often amazing what gemstones of inspiration one can find in amongst the scambled egg of someone elses insanity"Yes, occasionally good ideas are inspired by nonsense but more often than not nonsense leads just to nonsense.

Perhaps you or some one else would be inclined to help translate the theory into that which can be peer reviewed and win a Nobel in the process [ re: attraction paradox ]This is a classic mistake made by arm chair internet wannabe-scientists. You think you have the right concepts and all anyone needs to do now is just put in some maths to justify it. Doesn't work. If it did I could just say "Well quantum field theory describes the very small, general relativity the very big so we've got an explanation for everything, someone just needs to tie them together mathematically! Where's my Nobel Prize?". The problem is that when you actually look at the details you find QFT and GR can't be put into the same mathematical framework in a simple manner, you can't just tape them together despite their concepts being extremely good for understanding various physical phenomena.

Since all you've done is just say your opinion of various things you haven't shown they can be made consistent with one another, that there's a mathematical framework which binds them into a single construct. Furthermore you aren't deriving new conclusions in a rigorous manner, you're just adding more opinion. I'm sure I could ask you "How does your ZPT deal with [something]" and you'd be able to give a response but it's just one you make up from your own opinion, rather than seeing what the formal structure implies. That's why physicists do lots of calculations to see what the Standard Model says about LHC data, they can't just make up their opinion of what it will say.

Yes, there is a place in physics for someone having a qualitative concept in their head and then writing down some mathematics to formalise it but the formalisation must be done very early on else you're just piling assumptions on guesses on random supposition, which is what you have done.

Even if your opinion is accurate that doesn't cut it. If Einstein, instead of mathematically formalising GR, had written a paper which was nothing more than wordy descriptions of how he thinks space-time behaves he wouldn't have been doing good science. He'd need to justify how he arrived at those conclusions, what the precise predictions where. The devil is in the details. This is illustrated by the precession of the orbit of Mercury, Both Newton and Einstein predict a precession. We observe a precession. And yet the precession was used by Einstein to disprove Newton. But how, they both say a precession should occur? Newton predicts the wrong precession, he's out by about 10%. So without the details something can seem conceptually valid but is actually wrong.

Since you've already piled guesses on supposition on opinion you've already constructed what you think is a Nobel Prize worthy construct. Unfortunately you've failed to lay any foundations and, just as with a house, to lay the foundations you're doing to have to demolish the building, even if you are going to be able to rebuild it precisely as it was.

Therefore the use of Plancks system is merely a convenience to overcome the issues physics has with zero, being both a reality and non-reality simultaneously.You are misrepresenting physics. Come on, you know you don't know any physics yet you're making statements about it in such a way to say "Oh obviously there's a problem!". It's dishonest to say such things when you know full well you're not familiar with the relevant concepts. I know you aren't familiar because you just demonstrated you don't know what the Planck units are for. They are just convenient units of time, length and mass. Physicists could work in seconds, metres and kilos but the algebraic expressions aren't as pleasant, even if they are exactly equivalent. It's similar to how it's convenient to work in units of length where in one unit of time light travels one unit of length.

As for zero being both a reality and a non-reality simultaneously you're now wandering into the realms of just meaningless nonsense. Even if the sentence wasn't poorly explained you're not familiar enough with science to know the mathematical models used and see problems in them. That isn't to say there aren't problems but the one you claim exists is not in physics, it's in your head.

Quantum Quack

07-08-12, 03:16 AM

Hey, I see nothing wrong with any of what you just wrote..in fact it would have to be one of your more reasoned pieces.
However regardless of the language or nouse used the attraction paradox stands as evidenced. How you deal with it and what method you wish to employ is your concern.
The simple nature of the paradox doesn't require a large amount of mathematics to interpret with.
In fact it is probably it's simplicity that meant it has been overlooked by science.
Simply put:
to move to a position that requires less force, greater force is required as evidenced in any field of attraction, this immediately sets up a paradox when you apply infinite reduction [to acheive t=0 duration] to any given point in a field of attraction.

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/tuitorials/tuitorial1/ap08.jpg
how clear do you want it?

Quantum Quack

07-08-12, 03:44 AM

It is inevitable that at some point in time someone with the appropriate math and physics language skills will agree to write a simple, clear and intrinsically informative mathematical formulation of the paradox.
We just have to wait until then I guess..as it's revelation is certainly not going to go away.

AlphaNumeric

07-08-12, 04:55 AM

However regardless of the language or nouse used the attraction paradox stands as evidenced. How you deal with it and what method you wish to employ is your concern.Firstly your opening paragraph on your 'Attraction paradox' is not a little egotistical, "Having developed a keen understanding of zero and nothing-ness ". How have you arrived at such a conclusion, given you're quite unfamiliar with maths and logic? You just thought a bit and concluded you've got a 'keep understanding'?

Secondly there isn't a paradox. There is no logical contradiction, no A = (not A), no 1=2. You don't provide evidence or reason for your claims, you just say "This sounds odd to me, therefore it's a paradox".

The simple nature of the paradox doesn't require a large amount of mathematics to interpret with.No, because it isn't a paradox.

to move to a position that requires less force, greater force is required as evidenced in any field of attraction, this immediately sets up a paradox when you apply infinite reduction [to acheive t=0 duration] to any given point in a field of attraction.That isn't a paradox. Where is the infinite reduction? The fact gravity between two objects decreases as they move away from one another isn't a paradox, it isn't a logical contradiction.

It is inevitable that at some point in time someone with the appropriate math and physics language skills will agree to write a simple, clear and intrinsically informative mathematical formulation of the paradox.There is no paradox so it isn't going to happen. Your comments and pictures make it clear you've managed to grasp just enough basic reasoning to think you have a LOT of reasoning abilities and thus anything you conclude must be valid. Even your description isn't very clear.

What does it mean to 'achieve t=0 duration'? An instant of time to pass? Are you just trying to grope towards Zeno's paradox, which isn't a paradox really.

We just have to wait until then I guess..as it's revelation is certainly not going to go away. I always find it amusing when hacks conclude something either incoherent or well known which they think they must be the first to do. Farsight did it with his 'Money Explained' thing, where he thought it was a revelation when he realised money is just a complicated notion of IOUs with no value beyond what we choose to assign it. It's a concept anyone even vaguely familiar with economics theory realises for themselves. You, on the other hand, think you've got some huge revelation which is neither a revelation nor valid.

Concepts like taking time durations to zero and computing instantaneous forces or velocities etc is the bread and butter of calculus. That's precisely was calculus does and it does it in a formalised, coherent manner free of person opinion or incredulity. So you feel more gravitational or electromagnetic force the closer you are to something, so what? Kids know that. So you can move up a force gradient if you provide energy to do work? So what, that's physics 101. You say all of this can be done without needing to appeal to mathematics but if you actually had a smattering of mathematics capability, equivalent to a 16 year old doing a first course in calculus, you'd know that taking time intervals \delta t \to 0 while considering the change in force, \delta F or energy \delta E or distance \delta x going to zero is not some revelation, it's literally how to construct derivatives formally! Gravitational force is the gradient of gravitational potential, F = -\frac{d}{dx}U \equiv -\lim_{\delta x \to 0}\frac{\delta U}{\delta x}.

I'm almost certain you'll refuse to accept you might not have the 'keen grasp' you believe yourself to have (despite having no understanding of anything in maths or physics) but what you've shown is your own lack of imagination and grasp of such concepts. Newton and Leibniz developed calculus more than 3 centuries ago to handle concepts like instantaneous velocity, force, energy, changes etc. Now kids learn about it. Unfortunately you skipped or slept through that class and now think you're making massive revelations. Instead it's a parade of how little you've bothered to think or read.

Quantum Quack

07-08-12, 05:08 AM

Firstly your opening paragraph on your 'Attraction paradox' is not a little egotistical, "Having developed a keen understanding of zero and nothing-ness ". How have you arrived at such a conclusion, given you're quite unfamiliar with maths and logic? You just thought a bit and concluded you've got a 'keep understanding'?

Secondly there isn't a paradox. There is no logical contradiction, no A = (not A), no 1=2. You don't provide evidence or reason for your claims, you just say "This sounds odd to me, therefore it's a paradox".

No, because it isn't a paradox.

That isn't a paradox. Where is the infinite reduction? The fact gravity between two objects decreases as they move away from one another isn't a paradox, it isn't a logical contradiction.

There is no paradox so it isn't going to happen. Your comments and pictures make it clear you've managed to grasp just enough basic reasoning to think you have a LOT of reasoning abilities and thus anything you conclude must be valid. Even your description isn't very clear.

What does it mean to 'achieve t=0 duration'? An instant of time to pass? Are you just trying to grope towards Zeno's paradox, which isn't a paradox really.

I always find it amusing when hacks conclude something either incoherent or well known which they think they must be the first to do. Farsight did it with his 'Money Explained' thing, where he thought it was a revelation when he realised money is just a complicated notion of IOUs with no value beyond what we choose to assign it. It's a concept anyone even vaguely familiar with economics theory realises for themselves. You, on the other hand, think you've got some huge revelation which is neither a revelation nor valid.

Concepts like taking time durations to zero and computing instantaneous forces or velocities etc is the bread and butter of calculus. That's precisely was calculus does and it does it in a formalised, coherent manner free of person opinion or incredulity. So you feel more gravitational or electromagnetic force the closer you are to something, so what? Kids know that. So you can move up a force gradient if you provide energy to do work? So what, that's physics 101. You say all of this can be done without needing to appeal to mathematics but if you actually had a smattering of mathematics capability, equivalent to a 16 year old doing a first course in calculus, you'd know that taking time intervals \delta t \to 0 while considering the change in force, \delta F or energy \delta E or distance \delta x going to zero is not some revelation, it's literally how to construct derivatives formally! Gravitational force is the gradient of gravitational potential, F = -\frac{d}{dx}U \equiv -\lim_{\delta x \to 0}\frac{\delta U}{\delta x}.

I'm almost certain you'll refuse to accept you might not have the 'keen grasp' you believe yourself to have (despite having no understanding of anything in maths or physics) but what you've shown is your own lack of imagination and grasp of such concepts. Newton and Leibniz developed calculus more than 3 centuries ago to handle concepts like instantaneous velocity, force, energy, changes etc. Now kids learn about it. Unfortunately you skipped or slept through that class and now think you're making massive revelations. Instead it's a parade of how little you've bothered to think or read.
say, you wish to move the center of gravity of object A inifintesimally to position B away from the source of attraction [ ie. atractive force reducing]
You need to apply greater force than required at position A but less force than required at position B.
this is the paradox...
if you applied the force required at position B at position A the object would "fall" and move away and not towards position B
simple demo class room experiment see:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/51-attraction-paradox-empirical-evidence
and maybe you are right and there is no paradox...

Prof.Layman

07-08-12, 07:57 PM

Quantum Quack

07-08-12, 08:54 PM

I think I am starting to see how this could be seen as a paradox, but It seems to go along with Zeno's Paradox but the result of Zeno's Paradox is not valid by experiment. It states that if you could divide the distance between two objects an infinite number of times that you would have to move an infinite number of distances to get from point A to point B. Since an infinite number can not be achieved then movement would be impossible. He was more or less trying to show that infinite division was not valid in mathmatics because it holds no basis in reality, but the kicker is that we ended up doing it anyways because Plato didn't believe in his theory.

I tend to feel that Zeno was attempting to describe the nature of "infinite reduction" generally using "infinitely small distances" as a vehicle.

As described in the theory tutorial Zeno was stating that due to infinite reduction, the Archilles could never beat the tortoise to his own spot in the race.
re: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/infinite-reduction

I am aware there are many different opinions about this particular paradox, however as AlphaNumeric mentioned, possibly for different reasons, Zeno did not demonstrate a paradox in itself but actually clarified the logic of infinite reduction. [ in other words the so called paradox is not a paradox but a logical outcome of an infinite grandient.]

Of course the use of an arbitary Planck limitation on dimension defeats the notion of infinity completely. IMO which is why I wrote that Plancks approach was a convenience to remove the difficulty science had with "infinity" and "zero".

I think the solution to the paradox is that space is not continuous and is particular. It can't be divided infinitely. This would be because the Planck Scale has an effect on the basis of reality itself. So then any distance could only be divided into 10^-33cm, and everytime you move you jump all the distances inbetween that distance.

The only answer I have to this is that the universe does not have to subscribe to Planck scales. The Plank scale is a artificial limitation placed by Planck. There is no evidence that suggests that space is not infinitely dividable both in distance and time, and the limitation is only imposed to support pre-existing theory and not observation. Even so the Planck minimum segment must have zero at it's center which means a planck segment of time has both a past at one end and a future at the other.

It is a common error for people to presume that theory is reality rather than theory being what it is - an abstraction used in an attempt to understand reality.
example: "Probability" is merely qualified speculation and not the reality that some would have you think. Science has never proven "chance" or "randomness" to be real logically however it is commony taken for granted that "chance and randomness" have a reality beyond mental abstraction.
Another:
No one has actualy observed a photon [ or energy for that matter ]other than by it's effect yet belief in the photons reality as modeled by science is extremely strong.

I think the only possiblity of a Zero Point Theory having any basis on reality would be at the moment of the Big Bang. It would have had infinite energy and then "detect" something smaller than the Planck Scale.

The notion of the big bang [or pre-exstance] is fundamentally flawed as logically there can be no "before time began" therefore logically there can be no beginning to an eternal time scale. Every moment in time can then be deemed to be the centre of eternity [time].

When extrapolated fully Zero Point theory will indicate that the so called Big Bang is constantly occuring in the present moment as the "NOW" of zero duration means that non-existance is actually in the centre of eternity and not at the start or end. The zero point being a null point in the centre between past and future.
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/tuitorials/tuitorial1/timezero.jpg

In metaphorical terms this means that the universe was never created [past tense], but is in a constant state of creation [ present tense]
Human minds tend to require linea time progression form past to future etc however in reality the past is no longer and the future is a mere fantasy yet to be played out. The only thing "real" is the current moment which only exists due to the paradox of zero, whith out which it is contended the experience of the present moment woud be impossible as nothing can exist if there is no time for it to exist in. "t=0 duration is any point on a time line or simply t=0."

Prof.Layman

07-10-12, 10:53 PM

Quantum Quack

07-11-12, 07:45 AM

A paradox I ran into thinking about this was that Max Planck discovered both the laws of conservation and the Planck Scale. If you consider the Planck "perscription" of saying that nothing below the Planck Scale can be detected, then no interactions in that scale could ever reproduce any interactions that are larger than that scale.

I believe Panck was attempting to reconcile his theories with the second law, and certainly did not discovered them.

In November 1900, Planck revised this first approach, relying on Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics as a way of gaining a more fundamental understanding of the principles behind his radiation law
And as I mentioned earlier If t=0 has a static duration of any value then "absolute rest" is occuring. IMO.

A Planck time length is aso premised on the model that states a photon is traveling across a vaccum. This in itself has never been evidenced apart from effect only. [a photon is a imaginary or modelled construct only and has yet to be demonstrated as actually real]

* yeah I know the above comment raises a few eyebrows but many threads here at sciforums and other forums have been written on this subject with no resolution yet. [I even offered a $500 usd prize for about 3 years to any one who could demonstrate a photon as being anything other than an effect - the prize has since been withdrawn as I spent the money on a IPad:D]

Zero point theory requires no photons or energy to travel across a vacumm because space itself is zero time/distance for energy but has a value for objects of mass.
see:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/74-distance-a-illusion-of-mass

So say I go back to the basketbal example, I calculate that after a single dribble that the Earth moved a fraction of the Plack Scale. No scientist is then able to detect the difference in the position of the Earth that was caused by doing this. They try harder and then find that the difference in the Earths position didn't affect anything in the universe by any means possible. So then where did the energy from this correction of the Earth moving less than the Planck Length go? How did Max Planck create a law of conservation of energy and then develop a theory where energy seems to vanish?
If you hold to a finite universe as Planck's theories imply then of course this poses a problem.
The universe can remain a closed system and yet have inifinite elements to it.
example: even if the universe is infinite in size and eternally existant it can still be a closed system and the 2nd law of themro dynamics remains true.
Zero point theory is not in conflict with this law. [in fact it strengthens it by providing a mechanism that closes the system as there is no escape from this universe because this is all there is]

So then in order to uphold conservation we would have to say that no there can be no interaction below the Planck Scale, or we would be forced to say that the Planck Scale provides another loop hole for conservation. It would be like the Planck Scale would need Hawking Radiation, because it is now a black hole to energy.
Not if that energy is universally distributed via a single zero point. [gravitational constant and a mechanism for inertia]
see images at bottom:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/universal-constancy

I think the randomness or chance is logical when considering spacetime dialation and the particles own frame of reference. If you say a photon travels the speed of light and spacetime from its frame has contracted to zero, then there exist no classical description that could operate in a sense where one frame is nonzero and another is zero. We don't even have the classical mathmatics to describe such a situation.
I fail to understand the relevance to "chance" or "randomness " both being unevidenced nor even logically defined by science. Probability being only qualified speculation only.

So I think light traveling particles do in a way assume they are at rest, but the affects of them doing so has to coincide with how we observe them from our frame of reference. Then particle behavior in a sense becomes relative to the observer. It see's itself at multiple location at a time due to spacetime dialation, but then we don't see spacetime the same way it does so then it has to pick out a approximate location/speed to be detected at.
The current model for light or EMR brings about this problem of perspectives not the universe.IMO

So then the only way I think quantum mechanics could revert to being truely classical would be for someone to invinte new mathmatics that can deal with infinities and zeros and I don't think it would prove to be even possible.
I am sure if they continue they will have to eventually invent something to accommodate the ongoing nature of the paradox. [in other words until the attraction paradox is understood and included in their work it will always be present in any model they choose to create or utilise... a bit like a Zeno rabbit chasing a tortoise down a hole :)]

Prof.Layman

07-11-12, 08:33 PM

Quantum Quack

07-11-12, 09:00 PM

I double checked and found that he discovered Planck's Law, on black body radiation. I have seem to have gotten that confused with the laws of conservation.

I find it funny that you propose that the photon is imaginary or a model construct. I would have agrued just the opposite. I beleive all other particles to be some sort of imaginary construct of the photon. For one, I am not blind, now give me my 500 bucks, lol.
A common enough response as the belief in the reality of the photon is so strong yet none have ever demonstrated it beyond the effect. For all you know the light effect could be a resonance effect over zero space which is what Zero point theory would suggest. Same data outcomes but different causality.

In a way it is the same with gravity as science tries to model it as a "graviton" or some sort of particle inspired effect, yet could it be simply dimensional collapse as space attempts to collapse from 4 dimensions to zero dimension. [ no imaginary particles needed ]

The photon model is so entrenched in the minds of man that he will bend over backwards to attempt to accommodate it. Including the way our vision work.

Secoundly, particle accelerators detect photons and electrons not any of the other particles that come out of the reaction. Then describing the mathmatical interactions that have affected these particles do we know what else has happend from the collision. Also, if you combine matter with antimatter, you get pure energy or light particles without mass. So I would ask a similar question, how then could you prove that any other particle is not an imaginary construct of the photon? I could for example explain any particle theory completely in terms of photons in a unified theory as long as it doesn't involve gravity.

again this is only our attempt to [B]explain an effect we observe and certainly offers no evidence of a particle.
Sheesh! we can't even be certain whether it is a partice or wave. Nor can we describe a photons size adequately nor even whether it has mass or not, whether it is a zero dimensional particle [ therefore nonexistant ] or a 3 dimensional particle [existant]

Religious people attempt to do like wise and will offer similar defence by attempting to claim God exists by the effects they experience.
The effects are evidence of something and we simply try to model a causality.

More recent discoveries about the cosmological constant have shown that the universe is open, or it is unbound and will expand forever. And the 2011 Nobel Prize was awarded for it. The real problem I see here is that you say energy is universally distributed via a single zero point. I am bringing in the Planck Scale, because I can't figure a way how this would ever be allowed in quantum theory. You couldn't ever incorporate the theory into quantum mechanics and have it work out with existing theory. I could say okay I believe you and it does, but then it could never leave the Planck Scale and wouldn't have an affect on anything, it would no longer be a testable theory and if it did have an effect on objects in the macro scale it would have been measured or tricked us into thinking our current theory was wrong because this effect was missing. I just don't think it is quacky enough to describe the quantum realm.
and the only way to accommodate cosmic expansion and yet still maintain the constancy of gravity [universally] is with a zero point as nothing else can perform this function. [there is only one zero point universally as all zeros are the same zero]

Zero point theory is no doubt contraversial, but then again so is the challenge to support the following notions:

The existance of a photon beyond merely it's effect.
The mechanism that allows quantum entangement of half particles regardless of distance of separation. [spooky action at a distance]
Tunnelling effects.
A mechanism that allows the conformity [invariance] of inertia and mass universally.
A mechanism that can accommodate spatial expansion, in both time and length universally in a way that is absolutley uniform [ cosmic expansion ]
and so on..

Even length contraction and time dialation as proposed by Special Relativity Theory [SRT] has to have a mechanism to accommmodate observer ignorance and only the use of zero as central to everything can perform this function
The biggest issue I have with SRT is that it introduces a "relative zero" which means that the math used when calculating the transforms is subject to a variable and arbitary or contrived zero and not an actual zero. [re: relativity of simultaneity]
So science has introduced a fabricated zero as a variable with out realising it and zero is not able to be a variable. This being purely to accommodate an incorrect belief in the photons reality. IMO
To me, it is up to supporters of SRT to prove that the zero they use is absolutely zero and not relative.

Prof.Layman

07-12-12, 12:51 AM

I don't think the photon is affected by a zero point, I think it is affected by something more around the Planck Scale. Take a look at Plancks Constant for instance. The value is almost the same as Plack Time, about 10^-34 secounds. So then that means there is a fundemental constant in nature that is affecting energy that is on the same scale or size of the proposed smallest something can even be measured. h-bar in jouls per secound is almost equivelent to Planck Time. You can't help but think there must be something really profound about this. The properties of the photon are affected by Planck Time, it is the unit circle of quantum physics.

A lot of faith in the graviton has been lost, I don't think the graviton is even a proper way to describe quantum gravity. I saw a proof in one of Einsteins Papers that was on the net saying it was the general theory of relativity (lost the link). But it seemed to show that if there was a quanta to gravity that the amount of quanta on any given surface would be infinite. I think this was just a double check to make sure he was taking gravity into the right direction. With the failure of the graviton, and the discovery of a Higgs type boson science will take more of a direction explaining quantum gravity with the Higgs Field and I support that pursuit.

If there are an infinite amount of zero points and all of them act on everything, then everything would be filled with infinite energy. Gravity cannot be quantized, there would have to be an infinite desity of a round boundy in order to "exchange" its gravity with everything else in the universe.

I think the "relative zero" may be very neccassary to support quantum entanglement as working the same regardless of distance of seperation. If c was not exactly the speed of light it would allow spacetime contraction to be nonzero for something traveling the speed of light. If that value was nonzero then it would allow an experimentor to say that there is a 100% chance that the photon will be between here and here at this moment because it observed the distance farther than that to be a different location from its frame of reference. But since its frame of reference exist when we observe the particle pair, we notice the effects of that indirectly as the "spooky action at a distance". The particles merely see the time they where joined and seperated at the same time, so then when its spin changes it changes it through that whole duration in its frame that has to coincide with what we then see in our frame. Since it happens all at once in its frame, we see it changing FTL in our frame. So I think the effect can be explained logically, but not mathmatically in this fashion. The only way it could is if spooky action at a distance had a limit to the amount of distance it could perform this spooky action, that has never been mentioned of from any experiment.

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 02:33 AM

AlphaNumeric

07-12-12, 09:32 AM

say, you wish to move the center of gravity of object A inifintesimally to position B away from the source of attraction [ ie. atractive force reducing]
You need to apply greater force than required at position A but less force than required at position B.
this is the paradox...
Why is it a paradox? Some forces get weaker with distance. This isn't a paradox, it's actually quite intuitive.

if you applied the force required at position B at position A the object would "fall" and move away and not towards position B
simple demo class room experiment see:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/51-attraction-paradox-empirical-evidence
and maybe you are right and there is no paradox...And that's just "The force isn't constant".

Your 'paradox' is some forces get weaker over larger distances. You might find it strange or difficult to understand but neither of those are paradoxes. A paradox is something which is logically inconsistent, which cannot be made valid no matter how to view it, something like A is not A. Many 'paradoxes' in physics are actually examples of how normal intuition fails, like the 'twin paradox' of relativity. The concept of a force which gets weaker with increased distance is a mathematically sound concept, there is no paradox in the concept. Whether or not reality behaves like that is a different thing, logically sound concepts might not have a real world manifestation but they are still sound. So we have a mathematically sound abstract construct which describes a consistent observation about reality. There's no paradox there, only the possibility of someone not understanding it. Someone like yourself. This does not make it paradoxical. I don't understand Japanese, doesn't mean it's paradoxical or inconsistent and until I learn Japanese I'm not going to go around telling Japanese people how to talk, as that would be foolish. You, on the other hand, are telling mathematicians and physicists there is a paradox in their work when you haven't bothered to learn and understand their work.

Of course the use of an arbitary Planck limitation on dimension defeats the notion of infinity completely. IMO which is why I wrote that Plancks approach was a convenience to remove the difficulty science had with "infinity" and "zero".Except the Planck length isn't a lower limit on lengths, it's the length scale where you have to consider quantum gravity, thus rendering our current quantum models completely inaccurate. That is why we can't go smaller at the moment in our models.

The only answer I have to this is that the universe does not have to subscribe to Planck scales.Notice how you phrased that, the only answer you have to this. You aren't the benchmark by which science or reality is measured.

It is a common error for people to presume that theory is reality rather than theory being what it is - an abstraction used in an attempt to understand reality.Laypersons maybe but scientists generally don't make that mistake.

The notion of the big bang [or pre-exstance] is fundamentally flawed as logically there can be no "before time began" therefore logically there can be no beginning to an eternal time scale. Now you're showing you don't even know what the big bang model is. The BBM says that long ago (about 13.7 billion years according to observations) the universe was very small and very hot and it then underwent a particular form of expansion. It makes no comment about the 'moment of creation' or before, just as evolution has nothing to do with how life first arose (that's the realm of abiogenesis). But good on you for more misrepresentations and declarations of supposed logical flaws in things you haven't bothered to find out about properly. Go you.

When extrapolated fully Zero Point theory will indicate that...I'm sure it'll indicate whatever you want it to because you aren't being led by logic, you're leading it by your whims and unjustified opinions. This is why there's not going to be any mathematical formalism possible for ZPT, maths follows logic, it will tell you the logical implications of the postulates you feed into it. Your opinions and whims pay no attention to proper logic. This is why the whole "I've done the concepts, someone else can do the maths" thing of hacks is so flawed.

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 09:58 AM

Why is it a paradox? Some forces get weaker with distance. This isn't a paradox, it's actually quite intuitive.

And that's just "The force isn't constant".

Your 'paradox' is some forces get weaker over larger distances. You might find it strange or difficult to understand but neither of those are paradoxes. A paradox is something which is logically inconsistent, which cannot be made valid no matter how to view it, something like A is not A. Many 'paradoxes' in physics are actually examples of how normal intuition fails, like the 'twin paradox' of relativity. The concept of a force which gets weaker with increased distance is a mathematically sound concept, there is no paradox in the concept. Whether or not reality behaves like that is a different thing, logically sound concepts might not have a real world manifestation but they are still sound. So we have a mathematically sound abstract construct which describes a consistent observation about reality. There's no paradox there, only the possibility of someone not understanding it. Someone like yourself. This does not make it paradoxical. I don't understand Japanese, doesn't mean it's paradoxical or inconsistent and until I learn Japanese I'm not going to go around telling Japanese people how to talk, as that would be foolish. You, on the other hand, are telling mathematicians and physicists there is a paradox in their work when you haven't bothered to learn and understand their work.
It is strange to me how you have missed the entire issue of the paradox. Of course forces get weaker as distance increases from the source and of course this poses no paradox in itself... You may need to read the explanation again.

Now you're showing you don't even know what the big bang model is. The BBM says that long ago (about 13.7 billion years according to observations) the universe was very small and very hot and it then underwent a particular form of expansion. It makes no comment about the 'moment of creation' or before, just as evolution has nothing to do with how life first arose (that's the realm of abiogenesis). But good on you for more misrepresentations and declarations of supposed logical flaws in things you haven't bothered to find out about properly. Go you.
I was answering Prof Laypersons post where he refers to the Big bang in exnhilo terms.

I'm sure it'll indicate whatever you want it to because you aren't being led by logic, you're leading it by your whims and unjustified opinions. This is why there's not going to be any mathematical formalism possible for ZPT, maths follows logic, it will tell you the logical implications of the postulates you feed into it. Your opinions and whims pay no attention to proper logic. This is why the whole "I've done the concepts, someone else can do the maths" thing of hacks is so flawed.
again you have demonstrated a failure to actually read what I post...and if you wish we can go through it step by step if you lke....

Pete

07-12-12, 10:27 AM

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 07:52 PM

Seems you're getting tangled in dynamics, QQ.
To move something intially stationary at A to finally stationary at B it has to accelerate and decelerate, so the force on it will change over time.

There's nothing paradoxical about this.
ahh but there is if this occurs in a field of reducing attraction. Ie. gravitational force differentials between Positions A and B. In space that has no fields of attraction present [which is not possible] you would be correct in your assessment however the entire universe has some degree of attractive gravitational fields at play.

from the web site:

Whether refering to dipole fields such as magnetism where the rule is "inverse cubed" or a monopole field such as Gravity where the rule "inverse squared" the paradox is still evident. All it takes is a reducing strength of the attraction , the further you move away from the source of attraction.

The Attraction Paradox applies to any situation where attraction is present on a reducing basis as distance increases from the source.

The actual paradox is relatively simple to explain, with the application of infinite reduction, to test and to observe, very axiomatic and very fundamental and whilst not able to be demonstrated directly as zero is non-existant the following statement can demonstrate the fundamental attraction paradox:

"It requires greater force to move to position
where less force is required."
re: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/attraction-paradox

and:

For example if an object is suspended in a gravitational field with a force applied equal to 100 units, to maintain a relatively stationary positon relatve to the source of attaction then any force greater than 100 units will see it "escape" that position and cause it to accellerate away from the source of attraction. This in itself is nothing unique of special and it is well understood and utilised by scientist on a regular basis.

However what is of interest and important to note is that if we appy "infinite reduction" to the amount of force in excess of the 100 units any force no matter how small will cause accelleration away from the source as the field of attraction weakens [over t/d] facilitating the accelleration.

In the example given it would only require 100 force units + 1/infinity force unit, needed to escape the position and start to accelerate.

It is only when we wish to avoid continuous acceleration that the paradox becomes highlighted.
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/tuitorials/tuitorial1/ap08.jpg

If we wish to move our object only for 1/infiinite amount of distance, we would have to both increase and decrease our force simultaneously over a 1/infinity amount of time duration to avoid over shooting.
re: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/attraction-paradox?showall=&start=2

and most importantly:

100 + [1/infinty] to move to a position requiring 100 - [1/infinity]

So it can be concluded that at exactly zero in a gravitational field zero is paradoxed as both requiring more and less force applied simultaneously to be sustained as an exact position.
re: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/attraction-paradox?showall=&start=2

The best thing for you to do is work it out for yourself.

Highschool lab task:

Form a conclusion to the following scenario using absolutes:
"In a gravitational field move any object a distance of (1/infinity) away from the source of attraction.
And note the required forces including the weakening gravitational force over that 1/infinity distance."
Show workings
Form a conclusion [ opinion ]

Pete

07-12-12, 08:16 PM

ahh but there is if this occurs in a field of reducing attraction. Ie. gravitational force differentials between Positions A and B.
No, it's still simple dynamics, with no paradoxes.
Start stationary at A. Accelerate. Decelerate. Stop stationary at B.
No problem.

In a gravitational field move any object a distance of (1/infinity) away from the source of attraction.
And note the required forces including the weakening gravitational force over that 1/infinity distance.
That would be no movement at all.

Perhaps you mean "move an object a distance of h away from the source of attraction, and consider what happens as h approaches zero"?
(It seems to be implied that the object is stationary at the beginning and end of this movement.)

Which is easy to do.
Accelerate.
Decelerate.
No problem.

It's even easier if we remove the implication of being stationary to start and finish.

Pete

07-12-12, 08:22 PM

However what is of interest and important to note is that if we appy "infinite reduction" to the amount of force in excess of the 100 units any force no matter how small will cause accelleration away from the source as the field of attraction weakens [over t/d] facilitating the accelleration.
There's nothing paradoxical here, either.
You've pointed out that maintaining a mass at a constant distance from a gravity well by applying a constant thrust is a non-stable equilibrium, but that's not paradoxical.

Equilibrium: Stable or Unstable? (http://home.comcast.net/~sharov/PopEcol/lec9/equilib.html)

If the system moves away from the equilibrium after small disturbances, then the equilibrium is unstable.

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 08:27 PM

non-stable equilibrium
which is one of the things explained...
The paradox when understood explains an "unstable equilibrium" as you put it. It explains why there can be no "absolute rest"
I would suggest you do the lab experiment for your self [virtually or practically]
edit: it explains a "stable" equilibrium as well

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 08:34 PM

Say, we have an object suspended in a gravitational field which takes 100 units of counter force to maintain a stable equilibrium.
We then wish to move that object to a position further away from the source of attraction that requires [100 - (1/infinity)] to maintain a stable equilibrium.
What forces do you have to apply to facilitate that movement with out over shooting the target position.

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 08:37 PM

love the new forum look and function btw

Pete

07-12-12, 08:41 PM

Sorry, QQ, I don't see anything paradoxical, or anything that needs explaining.

Pete

07-12-12, 08:44 PM

Say, we have an object suspended in a gravitational field which takes 100 units of counter force to maintain a stable equilibrium.
No, it's an unstable equilibrium.
Any infinitesimal change in the counter force will lead to acceleration away from the position of stability.

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 09:02 PM

No, it's an unstable equilibrium.
Any infinitesimal change in the counter force will lead to acceleration away from the position of stability.
correct.

if position A requires 100 units of counter force
and position B requires 99 units of counter force
In a field of reducing attraction what forces must be applied to faciliate movement from A to B? where B is further away from the source of attraction?
hint: "you have to accellerate and deaccellerate however the deaccelleration has to be greater than the accelleration"

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/tuitorials/tuitorial1/ap08.jpg

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 09:10 PM

example:
postion A requires 100 units of counter force at d=1000 from source
position B requires 99 units of counter force at d=1010 from source
to move from position A towards position B a force greater than 100 units has to be applied.
yes?

Pete

07-12-12, 09:18 PM

correct.

if position A requires 100 units of counter force
and position B requires 99 units of counter force
In a field of reducing attraction what forces must be applied to faciliate movement from A to B? where B is further away from the source of attraction?
hint: "you have to accellerate and deaccellerate simultaneously however the deaccelleration has to be greater than the accelleration"
No, you don't have to acellerate and decelerate simultaneously.
First you accelerate, then you decelerate.

The quickest way would be:
first increase the counter force above 100 to break the equilibrium and accelerate toward B
decrease the counter force below 99 so that the object decelerates in such a way that it will be stationary just at it reaches B
increase the counter force to exactly 99 when the object is stationary at B.

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 09:30 PM

No, you don't have to acellerate and decelerate simultaneously.
First you accelerate, then you decelerate.

The quickest way would be:
first increase the counter force above 100 to break the equilibrium and accelerate toward B
decrease the counter force below 99 so that the object decelerates in such a way that it will be stationary just at it reaches B
increase the counter force to exactly 99 when the object is stationary at B.
correct. Sorry I confused the issue with the word "simutaneously". [*I shall explain why later]
If you graph it you will see a "scallopping effect" similar to that descrbed in the diagram:
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/tuitorials/tuitorial1/ap08.jpg
Now imagine the diagram is horizontay "squished up" so that the distances are reduced infinitely

the paradox is summed up by this:
"It takes more counter force to achieve a position where less counter force is required"

Pete

07-12-12, 09:31 PM

Then it doesn't move. The counter force stays at exactly 100.

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 09:34 PM

Then it doesn't move. The counter force stays at exactly 100.
explain please...
it is very subtle but incredibly important especially when reducing the time and distances to 1/infinitey

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 09:37 PM

in the end the paradox explains WHY 0= +1 + (-1) therfore why zero is always the sum of all things.

Pete

07-12-12, 09:39 PM

the distances are reduced infinitely
If the distances are reduced infinitely, then an object at A is already at B. Moving it from A to B means leaving it alone.
The counterforce required to keep a stationary equilibrium at B is the same as at A.

It takes more counter force to achieve a position where less counter force is required
That's pretty much the definition of an unstable equilibrium.
It's not paradoxical, it just means that you have to exert fine control to keep it in place, like balancing a pencil on your finger.

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 09:48 PM

If the distances are reduced infinitely, then an object at A is already at B. Moving it from A to B means leaving it alone.
The counterforce required to keep a stationary equilibrium at B is the same as at A.

That's pretty much the definition of an unstable equilibrium.
It's not paradoxical, it just means that you have to exert fine control to keep it in place, like balancing a pencil on your finger.

Infinite reduction can not ever find zero because zero is nonexistant.
which is why I refer to the infinitesimal as being the smallest possible movement in both distance and time.
If position A and B are separated by an infinitesimal distance they are NOT in the same position. and most importantly note the distinction between the infinitesimal as being commonly thought of as being a static or finite dimension when in fact it cannot be [as is the case with Planks metric.]

Pete

07-12-12, 09:50 PM

in the end the paradox explains WHY 0= +1 + (-1) therfore why zero is always the sum of all things.
Please, QQ, save the wild claims for when you've established some foundations.
I'm currently maintaining a state where I'm considering you as being not a crackpot, but that state isn't necessarily stable. Large impulses will tip it over.

Pete

07-12-12, 09:53 PM

Infinite reduction can not ever find zero because zero is nonexistant.
which is why I refer to the infinitesimal as being the smallest possible movement in both distance and time.
If position A and B are separated by an infinitesimal distance they are NOT in the same position. and most importantly note the distinction between the infinitesimal as being commonly thought of as being a static or finite dimension when in fact it cannot be [as is the case with Planks metric.]

...and it's gone.

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 09:54 PM

The only reason there is no paradox evident is the advent of time. Take "time" out of the equation and look at zero and you will find a paradox by default. [ which is why we can experience 4 dimensional space ] because time resolves the paradox and "time" of course is directly related to distance.

The method I have used is a form of reverse engineering....

Quantum Quack

07-12-12, 09:56 PM

Please, QQ, save the wild claims for when you've established some foundations.
I'm currently maintaining a state where I'm considering you as being not a crackpot, but that state isn't necessarily stable. Large impulses will tip it over.
thanks for the caution...

Prof.Layman

07-12-12, 11:32 PM

The notion of the big bang [or pre-exstance] is fundamentally flawed as logically there can be no "before time began" therefore logically there can be no beginning to an eternal time scale. Every moment in time can then be deemed to be the centre of eternity [time].

I didn't even realize that the Big Bang could be explained in exnhilo terms until years after already doing so, lol. Sounds like you should read Alan Guths paper on eternal inflation. It has ruled out a lot of possible Big Bang scenarios that have been proposed over the years and it is mostly in layman's terms. It also says that inflation can conserve the energy being created from the moment of the Big Bang, and that there is no before the Big Bang, at least that has the same laws of physics. But, it can have a start! I would go further to say that in light of this evidence of inflation that there was no singularity at the moment of the Big Bang. All the matter/energy of the universe didn't have to be present at the time inflation started if it is conserved with inflation, so then it could have the same laws of physics that we have now. So, inflation doesn't rule out exnhilo Big Bang scenarios, and in his presentation we was asked a lot about them and they mentioned classical models that have not been completely ruled out, but it raises the problem of calculating probabilities. From what I have read about possible Big Bang scenarios it may be the best fitting model we have to eternal inflation. I think if eternal inflation does show evidence of physics having the same laws, then the Big Bang theory would no longer be relavent below the Planck Scale. And I think it has a lot of work to be done on the plancktian veiw, since Guth mentions that it would be hard to fit into that model. Also, in the paper I saw that he used 10^-43 sec and not 10^-34 sec that have read from many sources for the Planck Time... If the energy of the universe did in a sense double every 10^-37 sec then I would think that eteranal inflation assumes the Planck Time is 10^-37 and not 10^-34 in the theory. So then in eternal inflation the Big Bang would have started at 10^-37 sec in my interpretation of the theory.

AlphaNumeric

07-13-12, 07:12 PM

if position A requires 100 units of counter force
and position B requires 99 units of counter force
In a field of reducing attraction what forces must be applied to faciliate movement from A to B? where B is further away from the source of attraction?
hint: "you have to accellerate and deaccellerate however the deaccelleration has to be greater than the accelleration"I stand by my comment of "There is no paradox", as Pete has also said. You're asking a mechanics problem, one which is pretty basic. Knowing the force you experience at any given location allows you to compute the energy required to move from A to B. Or is liberated when you go from B to A. This is literally what Newton invented calculus to describe. As I said in my last post, the problem is not a paradox, the problem is that you don't understand basic mechanics. But rather than saying "Well every physicist for 350 years seems to have been okay with this, perhaps I should look at how they model such things so I can expand my understanding" you've just said "I don't get it, therefore paradox!".

explain please...
it is very subtle but incredibly important especially when reducing the time and distances to 1/infiniteyIt's incredibly important but you haven't bothered to look up the proper methodical construction of such a system using calculus, which allows us to consider distances going to zero in a consistent logically manner? It's so incredibly important and very subtle that you've been unable to do anything other than declare a paradox must exist?

If position A and B are separated by an infinitesimal distance they are NOT in the same position. and most importantly note the distinction between the infinitesimal as being commonly thought of as being a static or finite dimension when in fact it cannot be [as is the case with Planks metric.]'Commonly thought'? By whom? You've just shown you don't know what mathematics or physics has to say about it so you're obviously not referring to mathematicians or physicists because if you were you're just being dishonest by presupposing they.... sorry, we, think about such things. Furthermore you continue to perpetuate your misconceptions about the Planck length. You clearly have no idea it's role in physics but you're happy to make assumptions about it and construct strawmen so you can claim 'commonly thought' ideas are flawed. The flawed thoughts here are yours.

The only reason there is no paradox evident is the advent of time. Take "time" out of the equation and look at zero and you will find a paradox by default. [ which is why we can experience 4 dimensional space ] because time resolves the paradox and "time" of course is directly related to distance.Said like a man who has no idea about dimensions in physics, the role of zero in mathematics or even what paradox means in reason and logic.

Out of interest who precisely is all your ZPT stuff aimed at? Are you aiming it at laypersons so you can peddle delusions of mediocrity by conning people who don't know any better? It must be laypersons because your blatant lack of knowledge about what physicists/mathematicians do/think/understand/say and your willingness to construct straw men in that regard means you can't possibly seriously expect to convince those of us who didn't sleep through high school science class that you're onto something. If you're out to convince people like myself, people with the necessary mathematics and physics knowledge to do the 'fill in the maths' thing you previously suggested I might want to help doing then lying about us to our faces isn't going to endear yourself to any of us. Spewing out buzzwords and saying things like looking at zero gives you a paradox 'by default' might sound deep to someone who left school decades ago and even then without a decent grasp of science but to anyone who actually do any of this stuff you're coming off as a snake oil salesman. And a poor one at that. If you're honestly wanting to add something to science please explain to me why you think misrepresenting science and scientists (and likewise maths and mathematicians) is a good way to go about it.

Quantum Quack

07-13-12, 08:23 PM

I shall repsond to your post using your last comments first:

Out of interest who precisely is all your ZPT stuff aimed at? Are you aiming it at laypersons so you can peddle delusions of mediocrity by conning people who don't know any better? It must be laypersons because your blatant lack of knowledge about what physicists/mathematicians do/think/understand/say and your willingness to construct straw men in that regard means you can't possibly seriously expect to convince those of us who didn't sleep through high school science class that you're onto something. If you're out to convince people like myself, people with the necessary mathematics and physics knowledge to do the 'fill in the maths' thing you previously suggested I might want to help doing then lying about us to our faces isn't going to endear yourself to any of us. Spewing out buzzwords and saying things like looking at zero gives you a paradox 'by default' might sound deep to someone who left school decades ago and even then without a decent grasp of science but to anyone who actually do any of this stuff you're coming off as a snake oil salesman. And a poor one at that. If you're honestly wanting to add something to science please explain to me why you think misrepresenting science and scientists (and likewise maths and mathematicians) is a good way to go about it.

The primary reason for developing the site is to find a way to explain evidence that I have that is about to be revealed. The site was and is, only an explainer to provide clues for more erudite opersons when the time becomes necessary. As there will be a demand from science to explain this evidence. Given the time restraints I feel I have done remarkably well with the little scientific language skills I have.

The primary reason for running this thread is not about explaining the paradox or the theory or acheiving credo's, but to learn why the explanations are unable to be conveyed in a way that is comprehended, whether that be to laypersons, a 12 year old highschool student or an astute physicists such as your self.

Your posts so far to this thread have proved it's necessity.

I stand by my comment of "There is no paradox", as Pete has also said. You're asking a mechanics problem, one which is pretty basic. Knowing the force you experience at any given location allows you to compute the energy required to move from A to B. Or is liberated when you go from B to A. This is literally what Newton invented calculus to describe. As I said in my last post, the problem is not a paradox, the problem is that you don't understand basic mechanics. But rather than saying "Well every physicist for 350 years seems to have been okay with this, perhaps I should look at how they model such things so I can expand my understanding" you've just said "I don't get it, therefore paradox!".

If this thread was about simple movement from position A to B in a field of attraction your post would be quite relevant and this thread would never have been started nor would there be a web site attempting to explain something so well understood.

The issue is not about the movement although this has to be explained regardless it is about WHY an object has to deaccellerate more than it accellerates to move from position A to position B.
Fortunately due to my discourse with Pete the language has been adjusted to use the words "accelleration" instead of "force" or "counter force".
This adjustment in word use may make it easier to convey the paradox but in your case, which is why I am perservering is you have repeatedly "missed" the key elements of my posts denigrating them to inconsequentiality and repeatedy sort to discredit any attempt at better communication. [effectively blocking discussion for reasons you only know]
This is the issue of this thread as I do not need to prove anything to you or any one, nor do I need to somehow validate the realty of zero point theory as the evidence I have and so many others have in ignorance, [ yes even you have it! ] is self evident. And as Newton would probably say "It is the self evident that is the hardest to explain scientifically - yep apples fall from trees!"

Compare:

I stand by my comment of "There is no paradox", as Pete has also said. You're asking a mechanics problem, one which is pretty basic. Knowing the force you experience at any given location allows you to compute the energy required to move from A to B. Or is liberated when you go from B to A. This is literally what Newton invented calculus to describe. As I said in my last post, the problem is not a paradox, the problem is that you don't understand basic mechanics. But rather than saying "Well every physicist for 350 years seems to have been okay with this, perhaps I should look at how they model such things so I can expand my understanding" you've just said "I don't get it, therefore paradox!".

With:

if position A requires 100 units of counter force
and position B requires 99 units of counter force
In a field of reducing attraction what forces must be applied to faciliate movement from A to B? where B is further away from the source of attraction?
hint: "you have to accellerate and deaccellerate however the deaccelleration has to be greater than the accelleration"
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/tuitorials/tuitorial1/ap08.jpg

Why you seem focused on something else I do not know but this thread is about finding out why you and others are inadvertently applying a form of selective reading.

It appears that you believe science is the exclusive doman of those who have been educated in it. This is a real pity, as science is a "global" human preoccupation for all education levels regardless of speciality, IQ or apparently dare I say wisdom...

You also believe you need to defend sciences acheivements in away that proves only, that you have grave concerns about it's credibility.

Fortunately you and others of similar persuasion, do not hold a monopoly on scientific thought whether that be in an erudite fashion or in the fashion of a 2 year old.

To me science is about observation and then attempting to understand what you observe. Preferably with out the emotional hubris of ego esteem issues, and of course the more tools you have in doing so the better. However if those tools [education] are lacking then one must do the best with what one has.

When observing an object moving from position A to position B in an intense field of reducing attraction there is something that science has overlooked and something very fundamental to the way this universe is constructed and functions. That something explains the evidence I have which is why I found it.
The paradox is easilly demonstrated using the following lab experiment:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/51-attraction-paradox-empirical-evidence
I would suggest if you wish to continue participating in this thread that you either refute the experiment as described in the link provided and it's predictions or simply declare indifference, or declare your agenda as "protector of the scientific ego"
If you wish to continue "playng the man" instead of the "ball" we could start another thread to facilitate this. [maybe what I just wrote is over your head...eh?]

Quantum Quack

07-13-12, 09:10 PM

Try to relate this to the above discussion,

A discussion with "ditch digger" Bob down the pub...
Bob: "ehh, hav u ever tride to hold a magnet with you hand close to some iron, .... still?"
Me: "Ehh Bob, what are you tryng to say?"
Bob: "eh yu no, try to keep a magnet still with your hand next to some eron?"
Me: "Yep many times, why do you ask?"
Bob: "aw..so why is it I can't stand still and strrrayt when I am drunk?"

Quantum Quack

07-13-12, 09:59 PM

As a matter of interest:

I didn't even realize that the Big Bang could be explained in exnhilo terms until years after already doing so, lol. Sounds like you should read Alan Guths paper on eternal inflation. It has ruled out a lot of possible Big Bang scenarios that have been proposed over the years and it is mostly in layman's terms. It also says that inflation can conserve the energy being created from the moment of the Big Bang, and that there is no before the Big Bang, at least that has the same laws of physics. But, it can have a start!
there is an interesting analogue demonstrated. [ checks to make sure in right forum ] as used by the 4th dynastic Pharohs of Egypt with their somewhat famous Anch [ Ankh ]
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/relatedarticles/425px-Anch.jpg
image c/o wiki
regarding the notion of time and big bang concepts etc.
Currently I am tending to believe that the heiroglyphs used in their "picture" writing are in fact not simply a religious dogma but actually a form of encypted [to us] science.

The Anch symbol is ideal for demonstrating ZPT and given it's legends and typical meaning seems most appropriate. This is further, alluded to in the chaple built 10 years or so after L. da Vinci's [whom I believe knew the about the zero point reality] death, in Scotland called "Rossylin Chapel (http://www.rosslynchapel.org.uk/)" which also has many myths and legends surrouding it's purpose and meaning.

If you transform the symbol of the Anch into a time line using the vertical as the present moment, left arm being past and right arm being future and note the paradox of the "flow of time" with the circular loop shown at the top you can see a time diagram that displays the paradox and why matter or mass has inherant spin.
This is a part of further research and as yet inconclusive.
However if one subscibes to the notion that the Anch is indeed a scientific symbol and not just an ornament it opens all sorts of possibilities and potentials regarding historical myth and facts.
How this relates to your post:
I believe at this stage that the Pharohs of the 4th dynasty also belived that there is no "begining to time" and that the act of creation "big bang" is an ongoing present or now event.

yet to be published:
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/relatedarticles/anch_Zero_point_paradox.jpg

notice the similarities and recall that DaVinci had a morbid facination with the Golden Ratio and was a great comedian when it came to leaving clues and demonstrating his passion for cryptology.

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/relatedarticles/441px-Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg

As I said, this is an area still to be fully researched and as yet not pubished in the web sites related articles section.

AlphaNumeric

07-14-12, 06:45 PM

Fortunately due to my discourse with Pete the language has been adjusted to use the words "accelleration" instead of "force" or "counter force".The language wouldn't need to be adjusted if you'd gone and read the 'common dictionary' which has been constructed by science over the last few centuries.

[LIST]
It appears that you believe science is the exclusive doman of those who have been educated in it. This is a real pity, as science is a "global" human preoccupation for all education levels regardless of speciality, IQ or apparently dare I say wisdom...
And we're back to you misrepresenting people. Where did I say science is the exclusive domain of those who are educated in it? Please provide a link to a post where I said something which can only be viewed to mean that. I'll save you some time, there isn't one.

You also believe you need to defend sciences acheivements in away that proves only, that you have grave concerns about it's credibility.And you're putting words in my mouth for a second time in as many lines! I don't have 'grave concerns about it's credibility'. What concerns I have, grave or not, in regards to nonsense like the stuff you're spewing is that you can infect people who don't know any better with your nonsense. Someone might read you posts and think "Well I don't know any science or maths but he's using lots of words which seem complicated so he must be onto something". Furthermore I don't like it when people misrepresent science or scientists. As I said, several times you've basically said "Science says...." and then said something science doesn't say. If you're unwilling or unable to put in the intellectual time and effort to properly grasp what science says then don't attempt to paraphrase it for people. I wouldn't attempt to paraphrase someone speaking Japanese because I don't understand Japanese.

I am certain I'm more aware of problems with/in general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, string theory, any area of physics, than you are. Identifying where problems are is the first step in addressing them, which is what research is all about.

Fortunately you and others of similar persuasion, do not hold a monopoly on scientific thought whether that be in an erudite fashion or in the fashion of a 2 year old.Where did I say I did? Wow, 3 misrepresentations in as many lines.

Seriously, why do hacks view someone saying "Your work is unjustified, incoherent, wrong in numerous places and you're misrepresenting science" to mean "No one else can discuss science except those of us with a PhD in it!"? I have no problem laypersons discussing science, I really really really wish more of you would. I do have a problem though with people who blatantly haven't read any science pretending they have. It's intellectually dishonest. I have infinitely more time and respect for someone who says "I'm sorry, I don't understand this" and doesn't understand anything than I have for someone who understands something and refuses to acknowledge when they are in territory they don't understand. If they attempt to make up explanations/summaries for other people who don't know (such as Reiku did/does) then they pass on their ignorance. If they are trying to engage someone like myself in discussion then it wastes my time because they benefit nothing from it. I don't denounce laypersons considering science, I denounce anyone being intellectually dishonest. I view the wilful disregard/under-usage of reason, logic and the brain evolution has provided you are as close to a cardinal sin as an atheist can allow (since the notion of 'sin' and 'cardinal sin' are religious in origin). So when I see you misrepresenting science, showing you haven't read it, knowing you haven't read it but still willing to say things about what science says or what scientists do/think/say then I don't think terribly kindly of you.

(1) To me science is about observation and then attempting to understand what you observe. (2) Preferably with out the emotional hubris of ego esteem issues, and (3) of course the more tools you have in doing so the better. However if those tools [education] are lacking then one must do the best with what one has.Oh goody, a smorgasbord of things to comment on, so I've numbered them.

1. So what observations have you made, beyond just everyday life? You don't have access to scientific experiments done in labs. You don't have experimental experience so you haven't 'done a Faraday'. Given your lack of physics education you're also unaware of many of the phenomena in the universe which might be relevant to your claims.

2. Saying your work is nonsense isn't the same as me saying "I'm better than you at this", though I happen to think that too. Your claims are vapid because you cannot justify them, you can't even state them coherently. No ego involved there. Also my view of my place within the research community is based on experience, trial by fire etc. I quite readily state I'm, at best, a mediocre string theorist. I have no problem with this, I'm just glad I could contribute something to it. Compare that self-view with someone like Farsight. He believes his work is worth at least 4 Nobel Prizes. He deliberately set out for fame and glory. I cold earn a lot more than I do if I went into finance. But I don't because I love my job and I think adding something to human knowledge, something fundamental, is a better goal than trading derivatives.

3. If the more tools the better and if without education you must make do then why haven't you bothered to find out what science says? There's plenty of websites which will explain in layperson terms the scientific take on forces, you don't need a degree to find out such information. Why haven't you used perhaps the most powerful information processing tool ever to exist on this planet, the internet, to find out what science actually says and not just misrepresent it? Clearly you haven't used some of the most obvious and powerful tools which are freely available to you so I would say your comment is more of an abstract ideal rather than something you actually practice.

When observing an object moving from position A to position B in an intense field of reducing attraction there is something that science has overlooked and something very fundamental to the way this universe is constructed and functions.And you know this from your extensive reading of science and mathematics, right?

That something explains the evidence I have which is why I found it.
The paradox is easilly demonstrated using the following lab experiment:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/51-attraction-paradox-empirical-evidence
There is no paradox. I'm sorry that basic mechanics, something kids learn in school, is so baffling to you that you have to declare that there's a 'paradox of 0' but that's a problem in your head, not an actual paradox. Seriously, learning how to model speed, time, forces, energies, distances for such experiments is taught to school kids. Assuming your mathematics abilities aren't worse than a 12 year old (and if they are then you're undermining your own position by demonstrating you have no idea what current models/concepts/science says) you could learn how to do such things relatively easily.

Seriously, you want to talk about ego etc when you're claiming the very concept of a force, something central to physics, is logically dubious, something only you have spotted?

I would suggest if you wish to continue participating in this thread that you either refute the experiment as described in the link providedWhat is there to refute. Increase the separation between magnet and piece of iron and the force goes down. This is a demonstrable reality and the mathematical models physics uses to describe such things are sound. You don't have an 'experiment', you have an assertion about an experiment. An assertion you have not justified. If you think there's a paradox there then you need to show, clearly and methodically, that you can actually construct a paradox. The models of the experiment you describe are not paradoxical, not to mention they are put to real world use all around us.

If there's a paradox there you need to show it. Show that you lead to a logical conclusion along the lines of A implies B and B implies not A and not A implies not B. The force needed to hold the iron still decreasing with separation from the magnet is not such a thing. In fact, it follows logically from the underlying construction

or simply declare indifference, or declare your agenda as "protector of the scientific ego"I think you're showing a little more of your ego than you realise. I'm not saying your claims are nonsense as some knee jerk reaction to someone saying "Science is wrong" but because you haven't justified your claims, you've misrepresented science and scientists, you've misrepresented me and you're being intellectually dishonest in a number of instances. Someone claiming to have additional evidence for some part of science would illicit the same response from me if they did a similarly terrible job of making their case. An unjustified assertion is unjustified regardless of what the assertion may be. Viewing yourself as being on the receiving end of criticism because I'm a 'protector of the scientific ego' is more an illustration of your own ego. This is another issue hacks have, they get too emotionally invested in their work. It's because you don't logically derive your results from clearly stated postulates, you just assert what you think the conclusion is. Since your assertions are guided by your experience in the everyday world accepting you're mistaken means accepting your intuition and experience is insufficient. Being willing to bin ones work when it is clearly insufficient in merit is an important part of being intellectually honest. It's a behaviour almost completely absent in the hack community. Hence why we have people like Farsight, Sylwester, Magneto, Masterov etc still peddling their demonstrably flawed claims years down the line. Are you planning on joining that list?

If you wish to continue "playng the man" instead of the "ball" we could start another thread to facilitate this. [maybe what I just wrote is over your head...eh?]As I just explained, it's typical of people in this subforum to view a dismissal of their unjustified assertions as an attack on them, as they... sorry, you, invest too much of your opinions into your claims and not enough detached logic and reasoning. The fact you misrepresent science is a separate issue. Commenting on such a thing is playing the man, not the ball, but in such instances it is warranted since it is the man at fault.

So, can you demonstrate a paradox exists in clear logic or are you just going to continue asserting it without merit? If it's the latter you provide nothing which needs to be retorted. That won't stop me pointing out when you misrepresent people, including myself, or science.

Quantum Quack

07-14-12, 08:53 PM

OK...lets look at it critically.
The lab experiment details published at:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/physics/51-attraction-paradox-empirical-evidence
is easy to set up and easy to graph the results.
Straight forward set up and inexpensive.

General comment:

By performing the experiment you can show graphically that smooth transition away from the source of attraction to another position is impossible. [A to B]
In demonstration you will find the iron weight will bounce continuously as it moves to Position B if one wishes to avoid what is referred to as escape velocity. [ beyond and along the way to the target destination - position B ]
It is the reason behind the "bounce" that is the issue.

When assessing the output graphs one can deduce that the iron object is accelerating and then de-accelerating as it moves at a "relatively steady" velocity towards position B.
One can also conclude knowing that the force of attraction is continuously reducing that the amount of deacceleration is always in excess of the acceleration.

Challenge:
If we apply infinite reduction to the dimensions of distance and time, what conclusions about the nature of zero can you make?

Hint: You will not find the answer in a text book and you will have to work it out for your self.

My solution is :
No matter where the centre of gravity [zero point] is, as the object moves to position B, it must be needing to both accelerate and de-accelerate simultaneously. Therefore I conclude that as everything is constantly moving [ no Absolute rest ], zero being the centre of gravity, must be paradoxed.

Quantum Quack

07-14-12, 09:18 PM

@AlphaNumericL
Maybe you don't realise that the simple equation 0= +1 + (-1) being held as valid, is in fact confirmation of a paradox of zero.

Prof.Layman

07-14-12, 09:27 PM

I think the evidence from the experiment could be interpretted differently. Say you created a magnet out of a superconductor. You then could make something float over it with little or no effort of keeping it steady. The superconductor could just be a more perfect magnet, in a normal magnet not all of the poles in the material line up exactly the same and those poles can change to transfer magnetic properties to another material.

Quantum Quack

07-14-12, 09:33 PM

Maybe you could describe the experiment to show your understanding of it and we can compare notes?:) [seriously and with all due respect]

AlphaNumeric

07-15-12, 10:21 AM

By performing the experiment you can show graphically that smooth transition away from the source of attraction to another position is impossible. [A to B]No, it isn't impossible. Provided you can apply a continuous force to the string holding the piece of iron it will smoothly move away from the magnet. In practical cases, such as you holding it with your hand, there might be some jerky motion but that's because of the way our muscles work. Don't mistake flaws in the apparatus with flaws in the underlying physics.

Challenge:
If we apply infinite reduction to the dimensions of distance and time, what conclusions about the nature of zero can you make?Firstly you haven't done any actual modelling of that. You haven't got anything quantitative, you only have assertions. Secondly 'zero' in an abstract concept. I'll get onto that in a moment...

My solution is :
No matter where the centre of gravity [zero point] is, as the object moves to position B, it must be needing to both accelerate and de-accelerate simultaneously. Therefore I conclude that as everything is constantly moving [ no Absolute rest ], zero being the centre of gravity, must be paradoxed.I seriously wonder how you can think what you said is clear and coherent. You give the distinct impression that you're trying to stick together words and concepts you're not sufficiently familiar with into something you can convince yourself is meaningful.

@AlphaNumericL
Maybe you don't realise that the simple equation 0= +1 + (-1) being held as valid, is in fact confirmation of a paradox of zero. You think that's a paradox? It only serves to illustrate how poorly you grasp even basic mathematical concepts. You mentioned 'conclusions about the nature of zero' earlier. We define zero by it's properties, not discover it's properties. This would be something you'd have seen if you bothered to go and find any information about it but as I said before, you talk about using tools available to yourself but you don't actually use them.

The concept of positive whole numbers is pretty straight forward. The concept of addition is pretty straight forward too. This is all formalised in the logical construct known as the Peano axioms of arithmetic. If x and y are whole numbers then so is x+y. But we will quickly find when looking at such constructs it's useful if there is some object, let's call it z, such that x+z = z+x = x for all x. Given this property we will also find that it's useful if for each x there is an x' such that x+x' = z. This is because if a+b=c then we can add a' to both sizes. The left hand side becomes a'+a+b = (a'+a)+b = z+b = b and the right hand side is c+a'. This allows us to isolate things we're interested in, such as b in that example. This is all done in abstraction because the concept applies to many other things beyond just whole numbers and similar procedures allow us to construct the notion of 1, multiplication, division, factorising, fields, groups, rings, modules and more besides. People are more familiar with the notion of 0 for z and -x for x'. So 0 is constructed such that addition leads to the concept of subtraction and things like -1 are defined by the equation 1 + (-1) = 0. This isn't a paradox, it's one of the most basic results in all of arithmetic!

No doubt you think you've got some wonderful deep insight into 'a paradox of zero' but in reality you're just showing you're struggling to grasp things which children learn. The abstract construction and generalisation of arithmetic is the bread and butter of many areas of mathematics. You aren't exploring new territory, you've gotten lost in your own home! And you refuse to look at a map, despite claiming you make use of tools available to you. This is yet another illustration of how hacks simply don't have a clue how deep and elaborate mathematicians have done with even basic concepts, all because you adamantly refuse to consider you might not have the insight you believe yourself to have.

Quantum Quack

07-15-12, 06:32 PM

well we might get somewhere eventually...
You state:

No, it isn't impossible. Provided you can apply a continuous force to the string holding the piece of iron it will smoothly move away from the magnet. In practical cases, such as you holding it with your hand, there might be some jerky motion but that's because of the way our muscles work. Don't mistake flaws in the apparatus with flaws in the underlying physics.
*the weight is suspended in series with a set of scales to aid in graphing the small bouncing that would have to take place as the counter forces go from "more to less", "more to less" repeatedly to accommodate the inversed nature of the field of attraction in the context of the experiment described. [Note: the bounce or vibration will exist at a micro or atomic level whether we try to move the weight or not as absolute rest is impossible - the paradox generates inherant "spin"]

which means you have failed to consider that the reducing attractive forces involved are inverse to the counter forces required.

I suggest seriously that you have a bit more of a think about the issue of applying converse force in a field that is inverse.
The factors at play:
a reducing field of attractive force. [inverse squared or cubed]
a need to increase counterforce to move to a weaker position. [re: escape velocity ]
a need to reduce the counter force to maintain a new position
the amount of reduction in counter force must be greater than the innitial increase in counterforce.
If you do the math or even use simlpe word logic you can see that when reducing this situation infinitely to zero a paradox is evident.

Now bearing in mind that zero is nonexistant the equation 0= +1 + (-)1 states an obvious paradox of zero. And empirical evidence as described above supports it [B]but only if one excludes the time factor.
The actual equation that would demonstrate the paradox and it's resolution properly in this context, has yet to be derived as, 0 = +1 - (-)1 is a simultaneous equation and not sequential where +1 + (-)1 are considered simultaneusly to equal zero.
As show by the experiment "time" or "sequentiality" is required if one wishes to bring the simple equation in to the real world of mass and matter [space/time] and not abstraction to resolve the paradox.

Prof.Layman

07-16-12, 01:02 AM

Maybe you could describe the experiment to show your understanding of it and we can compare notes?:) [seriously and with all due respect]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XEQVnIFmQ

In the video all he has to do is press down a magnet on top of the superconducting material in order to get it to float perfectly over it. I don't know much about it, I just heard about it in High School and I graduated about 13 years ago so I dont remember much about it. I think it is a counter example to the experiment, where a magnet reacts differently to a material. The superconductor allows magnetic properties to be transfered more effeciently, then it removes part of the problem you explained in your experiment. Then instead of the magnet being completely unstable, it is forced into a position of more stability that is the opposite of what the zero point theory predicts. So, the experiment has more to do with the magnetic poles of the material in question.

Quantum Quack

07-16-12, 02:55 AM

Great video.. a thread on it's own I reckon...thanks

AlphaNumeric

07-16-12, 05:40 PM

*the weight is suspended in series with a set of scales to aid in graphing the small bouncing that would have to take place as the counter forces go from "more to less", "more to less" repeatedly to accommodate the inversed nature of the field of attraction in the context of the experiment described. [Note: the bounce or vibration will exist at a micro or atomic level whether we try to move the weight or not as absolute rest is impossible - the paradox generates inherant "spin"]Just asserting "This generates spin" doesn't mean it does. Notice how you haven't formalised anything, so you aren't actually using logic to go from assumptions to conclusions, you just assume what you think follows actually follows. Why don't you formalise this? Writing down the description of forces, particularly Newtonian gravity, is quite easy. Can't you do that?

which means you have failed to consider that the reducing attractive forces involved are inverse to the counter forces required.

I suggest seriously that you have a bit more of a think about the issue of applying converse force in a field that is inverse.
The factors at play:
a reducing field of attractive force. [inverse squared or cubed]
a need to increase counterforce to move to a weaker position. [re: escape velocity ]
a need to reduce the counter force to maintain a new position
the amount of reduction in counter force must be greater than the innitial increase in counterforce.
If you do the math or even use simlpe word logic you can see that when reducing this situation infinitely to zero a paradox is evident.Sorry, I do know how to model such systems and there's no paradox. I also just explained via mathematics/logic why there's no paradox in 0 = 1 + (-1). Besides, if you're so sure the maths leads to a paradox then show it.

Now bearing in mind that zero is nonexistantI've already corrected you on this. Zero is a concept, not a thing. The same is true for all other mathematical constructs. Your comment implies there's something more to say 1 than 0, since 'zero is nonexistant' [sic]. 0 is not more existent or not than 5 or -2 or sqrt(4) or i or \frac{d}{dx} or any other mathematical object. If you want to get into the philosophical logic of it all, concepts are non-physical. These exist only within minds. There isn't a planet where 5's grow on trees or a star made of \frac{d}{dx}'s any more than there's a planet which has fields of anger or oceans of ambivalence. I gave you what 0 means within mathematics, you assigning additional meaning to that doesn't then make a paradox within mathematics or logic because you're adding axioms/postulates/assumptions and thus changing the logic system in question. It's easy to make logical constructs from some set of assumptions within which you can define some individual concept but which then is no longer possible when you add additional assumptions or modify them. Since you haven't formalised anything you're not going about things logically but rather just assuming and guessing.

the equation 0= +1 + (-)1 states an obvious paradox of zeroOnly in your head.

And empirical evidence as described above supports it [B]but only if one excludes the time factor.Except it doesn't. You've just unable to grasp basic mechanics.

The actual equation that would demonstrate the paradox and it's resolution properly in this context, has yet to be derived as, 0 = +1 - (-)1 is a simultaneous equation and not sequential where +1 + (-)1 are considered simultaneusly to equal zero.
As show by the experiment "time" or "sequentiality" is required if one wishes to bring the simple equation in to the real world of mass and matter [space/time] and not abstraction to resolve the paradox.I'm now having a hard time telling whether you're just doing a Poe (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law). You're now saying such obviously daft and incoherent things you are either more detached from reality and rationality then I realised or you're delving into new depths of parody, even for you.

Quantum Quack

07-16-12, 05:58 PM

Are you saying the center of gravity of any object is an abstraction?
Can you honestly state that the centre of gravity is not a zero point and that it is all in your head?
When you go to the web site the first slide in a slide show at the top is this:
http://zeropointtheory.com/components/com_jgslider/images/timthumb.php?src=/images/zpt/slideshows/indextop/010.jpg&h=85&w=455&zc=1
did you not see it? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting me?

There is no doubt that ZPT is relevant to all areas of human intellectual pursuit including theosophy, metaphysics, epistiology, philosophy, mathematics, physics engineering, etc etc. which is why it is such a powerful theory. It is afterall the center of all things, concepts, ideas, dreams, thoughts, sensory peception, material substance, matter , mass, and gravitational attractions, magnetic attractions, etc.

For example, mathematics woud be utterly useless with out it as all equations and formulae rely on it's "non-existance" and singular absoluteness.
i.e. what does the (=) sign mean in E = mc^2

Quantum Quack

07-16-12, 06:51 PM

@Alphanumeric,
If I was to rely on only one specialist opinion [your's] I would be an idiot yes?
Do you wish me to rely only on your opinion?

Gerhard Kemmerer

07-27-12, 01:52 AM

Anch [ Ankh ]
are in fact not simply a religious dogma but actually a form of encypted [to us] science

The symbol is female in type and is the obvious counterpart of the male symbol which I don't want to identify. It is a symbol of invisible forces which were eventually misunderstood and incorporated into their religion. The symbol is a derivative or abstact design of an instrument used by pre dynasty tribes, that involved using the background forces in technology.
Big bang, black holes, dark matter and almost all modern science had no place in their thinking - either religiously or scientifically. All ancient cultures recognised that the universe was created and maintained by a Divine Being or plural thereof.

Quantum Quack

07-27-12, 02:03 PM

The symbol is female in type and is the obvious counterpart of the male symbol which I don't want to identify. It is a symbol of invisible forces which were eventually misunderstood and incorporated into their religion. The symbol is a derivative or abstact design of an instrument used by pre dynasty tribes, that involved using the background forces in technology.
Big bang, black holes, dark matter and almost all modern science had no place in their thinking - either religiously or scientifically. All ancient cultures recognised that the universe was created and maintained by a Divine Being or plural thereof.
I believe you to be correct when you say the symbol is incorrectly understood given that you feel there is a "male" counter part.... the mere fact that you consider it to be a part of a polarised force is enough alone to render the symbol impotent. Freemasonary, as an example organisation, hold the symbol as part of a polarised duality as do it's various subsiduaries. Most other organisations have never looked at it as deeply, and consider it to be of only religious ornamentation.

Gerhard Kemmerer

07-27-12, 04:18 PM

I believe you to be correct when you say the symbol is incorrectly understood given that you feel there is a "male" counter part.... the mere fact that you consider it to be a part of a polarised force is enough alone to render the symbol impotent. Freemasonary, as an example organisation, hold the symbol as part of a polarised duality as do it's various subsiduaries. Most other organisations have never looked at it as deeply, and consider it to be of only religious ornamentation.

Yes it is part of a duality. Quite often you will find Egyptian leaders holding both the male and female symbols. Both were considered emblems of great power, even though they did not know how to use them. The original instruments were buried with Kofu, and the first robbery of the pyramids removed those items, leaving behind all the treasures and gold for someone else less cluey.

Quantum Quack

07-28-12, 02:51 AM

I guess what I really wanted to say was that it is in the holding to a duality that maintains it as a duality and thus the symbol of the Anch is rendered impotent because for this incorrect human need to maintain a state of duality. In other words the Anch is actually self sufficient in it's own right and is neither female nor male but really a singularity and not a duality. It is the complete combination of both as one.

Gerhard Kemmerer

07-28-12, 06:38 AM

Quantum Quack

07-28-12, 07:31 AM

do you believe Gravity to be a polarised force and if so can you explain why?

Gerhard Kemmerer

07-28-12, 08:49 AM

do you believe Gravity to be a polarised force and if so can you explain why?

I have looked at gravity as a plain gradient of energy, and also considered that it can be polarised by magnetism. If there was an odd phenomenon in the direction of gravity, such as the plumb line not quite the same as in other places, I would expect some sort of polarisation going on.

I don't want to say why, but there are places in the world where it happens naturally from time to time.

Quantum Quack

08-03-12, 02:58 AM

Before getting into the issue of the polaration of gravity according to Zero Point Theory try the following thought exercise:
We have a bar magnet of any typical macro length.
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/generalimages/barmag.jpg
we then cut this magnet in half and we end up with two bar magnets with both of them still polarised North and South.
Imagine repeating the cutting of one of the halfs infinitely, each time in half and then the resultant half again in half.
Let's pressume we do this and end up with a half that is infinitesimal or 1/infinity in length. [apply infinite reduction]
Theoretically the half that is infintesimal in length shoud still be polarised N & S. no matter how small you get the magnet there will always be a state of polarisation.

Presume this image shows a bar magnet that is infinitesimal in length.
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/generalimages/barmag.jpg
Given that the infinitesimal is the smallest possibe length before zero. What makes up the body of the magnet?

I believe we can safely state that there is zero distance between North and South polarities.
N > 0
S > 0
extend to

0= N + S
the center of gavity is zero between both poles.
When you take one magnet and another magnet with opposite poles attracting each other, let them come together and the seem/line between the two is 0
N >0< S
(remember 0= +1 + (-)1 or
+1>0<(-)1 as a reflective statement with zero as the reflection plane [the end of the equation is in the centre of tthe equation and not at the end.]
We can surmise that 0 can be a pretty strong force with regards to magnetism

Quantum Quack

08-03-12, 03:07 AM

Quantum Quack

08-03-12, 04:04 AM

Now give all the above have another look at the symbol used by the ancients.
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/relatedarticles/anch_Zero_point_paradox.jpg.http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/relatedarticles/425px-Anch.jpg
The Anch could be understood using a refelctive statement as mentioned abe where the end of the equation is in the centre and not the end.

Essentially the (=) sign is replaced with a zero. I believe that this may provide a clue to the rest of the heiroglyphs utiised if thought of as using a form of reflective mathematics with zero at the centre and not just implied as in trypical Western mathematics. [an idea yet to be matured]
for those that are interested the Unformalised "word salad" as used by someone can be read here:
Zero Point Theory (http://zeropointtheory.com)

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-03-12, 03:02 PM

Now replace the word North with the word Future
and replace the word South with the word Past and apply the same logic.
What is between past and future? zero...[HSP] [NOW]
Zero is also the center of gravity..
Have a look at the light cones drawn for minkowski/einstein spacetime
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png

That magnetic phenonema could be the polarisation of .......?

The deduction of relating time with magetism, to me is reasonable, and an uncanny thought that seems to be springing from instinct.
The background force is such that, magnetism is induced by it. The magnetism itself is not a time factor, but the cause of magnetism is.

Magnetsim essentially shows that something has a 'need' to wind itself around a single line - the North South line.

By the way the condition of magnetism resides in every atom to some degree, whether it can be magnetised or not, so it is a fundamental aspect of matter.

Sorry, I have not answered the question.

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-03-12, 03:09 PM

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-03-12, 03:14 PM

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-03-12, 03:30 PM

Great video.. a thread on it's own I reckon...thanks

This was a video that I wished everyone was familiar with. When you remove heat, the automatic reaction is for the properties of magnetism to become enhanced. This does not always induce a single pole, but multiple depending on the material used.
The tendency of the time factor that produces magnetism, is to demand that matter has a specific manner of relating to its environment, and that it also has a specific position in space - effectually a type of inertia or mass.
The super conductor is only a mild bias towards the time factor, and so it will behave more rigidly, in the way it is placed etc.
In the extreme, it will not move at all, but if it 'decides' to move, normal surrounding matter will provide no resistence.

While magnetism is related to the time factor, heat is related to the space factor, and the two are balanced to whatever attitude in all matter.

I do not understand your point zero theory, but I will one of these days.

QQ, I'd have to agree with Alphanumerics and others comments, because it seems to me that you cannot justify your impressions with basic physics, that apply to matter.

But I can identify where you are coming from. You seem to have an artistic mind that marries images and tries to find correlations, its a good ability among others you have.

After going over your notes again, are you implying that the universe is in motion because of something that is acting as less than nothing?

If that is the case you are correct, but that involves an understanding of how matter exists, and you can no longer rely on measuring it by what physics defines.

The universe, contrary to popular opinion, exists on a slight negative pressure. That condition provides a playing field of freedom, in a similar way that a river won't flow until it has somewhere to go.

The BB universe will run out of that movement. But, I don't think the universe will run out of that movement, because both positive and negative pressure is used in maintaining it, with the negative slightly greater.

Quantum Quack

08-04-12, 12:14 AM

It is of no surprise that the theory is confusing to those captivated by the current scientific paradigm. In fact it is to be expected and dare I say respected as well.
However it is little wonder that I have decided to put aside the theoretics for the moment as I can see no justification in adhering to them if for example science can not even decide whether Energy has substance or not.
The mere fact that science appears to be confused on this subject alone is enough to render any future understanding of fundamental principles almost impossible.

Zero Point Theory is primarily about one such fundamental principle and that is how a paradox requires as an absolute physical necessity to expand zero dimension into 4 dimensions to resolve that paradox. To do so mass must be created by means yet to be described here.
As without mass there are no dimensions to exist.

Therefore we have a universe that has no paradox to it except in the nature of zero which is both existent as non paradoxed and non-existent as paradoxed.

Quantum Quack

08-04-12, 12:30 AM

For me, for example, the issue of the observed Dark Flow phenomenon is easy to understand yet science will state that it is occurring apparently by forces beyond this universe...the issue of how we can gain energistic value from a vacummous void is also easy to understand and how this links to inertia.
However Dark Flow is a special case and proof that an anomaly has occurred universally. A breaching of fundamental physics as science currently knows it and yet conforming to zero point theory and still considered as an anomaly in a different context.

Prof.Layman

08-04-12, 06:47 PM

I find it interesting how a particle can have multiple magnetic poles, and at other times a single one.I was refering to different particles in the same material.

Quantum Quack

08-04-12, 07:50 PM

One of the issues I have is trying to decribe a complex dimensional form in a mathematical expression
example:
this image shows the standard use of zero from a universal substance perspective and also from an no-existent absolute zero perspective.
I am not confident the way I have displayed it is correct in the use of typical math symbols etc but it states the case all the same if one looks at it's simplicity
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/generalimages/relative%20zero.jpg
hence this expression
+1 >0< (-)1
using a reflective statement with the reflective plane in the center of the statement. Absolute Zero being less than both sides.

*note: The value (-1) is something of value [ substance ] therefore greater than absoute zero.

Quantum Quack

08-11-12, 09:02 PM

I agree with the model that resembles the shape of the Ank, and for the time being I don't see the connection, because your model is one for time, and the Ank resembles the part of the background force that gives matter its presence in space. The symbol representing the time factor of the background force is the Djed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Djed.svg/100px-Djed.svg.png
I am not so sure that the Djed Pillar is a symbol of time nor am I convinced that the Anch is a symbol exclusively for life. The symbol of the ANCH has always been a symbol of "Immortality" - eternal Life and not just life.
The Djed symbol according to wiki, is about stability. "the spine of Osiris" and is a rather intriguing symbol as it seems to be in dissonance with all other symbols in use. This area of concern in heiroglyphs appears also to be a different genre or style to those heiroglyphys commonly used in the pyramids. Possibly older than the 4th Pharonic dynasties. [unresearched]

Quantum Quack

08-11-12, 09:07 PM

When you compare the typical Djed Use with other heiroglyphs you can see the disparity in styles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Seal_ring_Ptah_the_one_with_durable_favours_N2080_ mp3h8731.jpg/598px-Seal_ring_Ptah_the_one_with_durable_favours_N2080_ mp3h8731.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Papyrus_Ani_curs_hiero.jpg/310px-Papyrus_Ani_curs_hiero.jpg

You will also note that the Djed doesn't appear to be used in the the other image. Which suggests, to me at least, that the Djed is from much older genre of heiroglyphs

Quantum Quack

08-11-12, 09:27 PM

What is interesting is how all this may associate with Zero Point Theory.

The use of pyramids of a style used by the 4th Dynasty, the use of heavy blocks of stone, the positioning of all the chambers [king and Queen], especially the positioning of the sub terranian chambers all indicate that the pyramids were not so much a tomb and monument but a set of energy "sinks" built in the hope of eternal life [corporal immortality]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Great_Pyramid_Diagram.svg/800px-Great_Pyramid_Diagram.svg.png

They appear to have had a great understanding of Zero Point Theory as the large blocks of stone, with a solid gold cap at the top would have set up a "culminant Centre of gravity" with in the structure, this being a focal point for star light.[energy]. The unfinished subterranian chamber indicates that they anticipated the collected energy would be channeled downwards.

The pyramids have been aligned to focus on the Orion Nebula which is a "galactc maternity ward" so their intent, to me, was for the collecting of "procreative" energy in the hope that basking inside the pyramids would prolong their incredibly short life spans. So the Pharohs would enter the chambers at night and sleep, basking in the star light [energy] collected in the vain hope of prologing their life usin Gold inlayered artifcats/ornaments to enhance the process [ gold being used to amplify and stabilise]. [their gene pool was dying big time]

Each pyramid purpose build to suit the individual needs of each Pharoh became redundant upon death and was then used as a tomb because the pyramid could not be used by any other Pharoh.
The use of the ANCH was the whole concept rolled into one symbol IMO.
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/relatedarticles/anch_Zero_point_paradox.jpg

AlphaNumeric

08-12-12, 03:49 AM

They appear to have had a great understanding of Zero Point TheoryYou do realise how nutty that sounds, right?

as the large blocks of stone, with a solid gold cap at the top would have set up a "culminant Centre of gravity" with in the structure, this being a focal point for star light.[energy]. The unfinished subterranian chamber indicates that they anticipated the collected energy would be channeled downwards.So not only are you claiming you have some understanding of nature which no one in the scientific community has but you're also claiming the Ancient Egyptians had an understanding too and used the pyramids in a manner completely different to the archaeologically documented evidence?

so their intent, to me, was for the collecting of "procreative" energy in the hope that basking inside the pyramids would prolong their incredibly short life spans. For which you have no evidence. No evidence the Pharaohs did that, no evidence this 'energy' exists, no evidence the Egyptians knew of it and no evidence the pyramids were for that purpose. And there's plenty of evidence against your claims about the pyramids.

So the Pharohs would enter the chambers at night and sleep, basking in the star light [energy] collected in the vain hope of prologing their life usin Gold inlayered artifcats/ornaments to enhance the process [ gold being used to amplify and stabilise]. [their gene pool was dying big time]Evidence needed. For each claim.

The use of the ANCH was the whole concept rolled into one symbol IMO.I seriously cannot believe you believe this stuff. Honestly. If you were someone like Terry Giblin, who really does seem to have an insufficient grasp on reality, then I could believe you believe it. But unlike Terry you've got a posting history of being lucid, even if it displayed a complete lack of understanding or knowledge of science. Now all of a sudden you're madder than a box of squirrels in a tumble drier. Is there some reason for this? Are you doing a social experiment to see how completely random you have to be before even pseudoscience thinks you're talking gibberish? Have you always thought about this stuff but for some reason have decided to bring it all out into the open now? Have you undergone some psychological event? Let me be clear, I think you're lucid enough to know what that what you're saying is nonsense so I'm trying to work out why you're nevertheless saying it.

Prof.Layman

08-12-12, 04:05 AM

I would have to say that a lot of this could be solved by the invention of rope. It wouldn't take much of an effort to form rope after cloth was invented. Then all someone would have to do is sling a rope around something and then it would form a type of pulley. It's too bad I don't think anyone really knows when rope was invented, and I don't know how I would even begin to make rope myself. Also, I think ancient people developed all that different types of mathmatics because they may have actaully used it, ew.

Quantum Quack

08-12-12, 04:14 AM

You do realise how nutty that sounds, right?
absolutely except to those who know exactly what I am talking about.....
and my Post was primarilly directed at Gerhard Kremmas post about the pillar of Djed.

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-12-12, 05:11 AM

The djed was a real instrument before it turned into a symbol of other relevance. It produced a less than zero effect on matter.
Greater intelligence is required to use it, not found in the following generations.

The ank was a desposable item that was used in conjunction with it. So it is possible to find dozens of anks but no djed. The original ank looked like a hand bag or cow bell with two prominant features on one end. These features were exaggerated by the simple into the appearance of the cross. The djed was downgraded to a stick with four ribs at the top.

The picture you supplied is fairly accurate in shape, but not in colour.

The pyramid was an artificial mass designed to produce an overflow of the background force related to the ank. This demands a counter effect of the other aspect of the background force - because it is dual in nature - the djed. The interior hall and chamber were used to capitalise on this imbalance and direct it. In effect what it did was produce a standing wave of lower magnitude, or a less than zero effect. Normal matter under those conditions will jump into a harmonic (compensatory) mode of operation, giving the desired technology.

The significance of the constellation of Orion has to do with the purpose of the building, which I do not want to elaborate on here, but to put it briefly, matter as we know it has a certain time and place, that is how it operates, but it is made up of forces that defy those limits, those normal space / time constraints. By inducing matter to operate "lower down" in the harmonics that support it, allows it to defy standard physical laws. Like moving stones weighing thousands of tonnes like they were made of cork, and cutting out rocks like butter.

What the pyramids were used for later, is what you find in all the sandbox books.

The point of saying this is that your quest has given you the ability to realise that "matter as reckoned by common science is not all that there is to it"
which is the sign of a genuine scientific ability - to think outside the square.

Having said that, any genuine discovery about matter should verify known science, or at least give another reasonable perspective, so it is important to take on board scientific criticisms as valid.

So far as I can see science fits into other contexts greater than recognised today, and in time it will discover that.

Quantum Quack

08-12-12, 06:19 AM

Certainly the piller of Djed is an interesting "inconguity" to me. It is seemingly out of synch with teh rest that I know about heiroglyphs. [ which to be honest is not that much but growing daily]
The discovery of thousands of vinegar jars scattered about the base of the pyramids, whilst already discounted as not special by science I believe where utiised as storage facilitation for this energy useage.
Human behaviour also dictates as the rule of Khufu only lasted a mere 23 years or so, and to entertain the possibiity of someone of any generation devoting all of his rule to a single monolyth for the sole purpose of self-entombment is ridiculous and incredibly morbid.
After all I am sure he had more to do than build such big silly tombs.
It is reference to the Goddess Bastet/Khufu whose supposed tomb appears to be in the highlands of Bulgaria yet her corpse appears to be on the island of Cyprus entombed with her pet cat is a signifcant clue also. Given the history of Cyprus when dealing with the lineage of Moses of the Christian Bible just adds to the intrigue...

Apparently according to persistent rumours, quantum entangle devices were secured by the communist regime in Bulgaria at the time and the "soma cave" sealed under tons of concrete since due to a strange "radiation" that the cave was emmitting.

Quantum Quack

08-12-12, 06:57 AM

As a matter of interest this image is supposedly of the Tomb stone or cave enterance found in the highlands of Bulgaria in a "no go" military zone with a hostile neighbour.

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/sundry/Fronton%20in%20the%20Bastet%20tomb.jpg

same image with some "workings" drawn in red
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/sundry/Fronton%20in%20the%20Bastet%20tomb%20red.jpg

Quantum Quack

08-12-12, 07:02 AM

It produced a less than zero effect on matter.
Greater intelligence is required to use it, not found in the following generations.
yes it makes sense to go "Under unity" and allow the universe to restore unity.
similar to what the "Orbo" device Steorn Industries of Ireland attempted to do in ignorance. [ they ignored or underestimated the "observer effect" ]

Quantum Quack

08-12-12, 07:09 AM

Gerhard there is an article I think you should read if you have the time and patience:
http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/philosophy/66-the-holy-grail-freewill
as You know the quest for the Higgs Bosun, the quest of the Ancients and the quest of most people in their journey through life is for the power to influence their universe in a "God like manner" and science is as guilty of it as any one.

The article clearly shows why ultimately this quest is doomed to failure due to the nature of the attraction paradox.

ZPT: click note: extract:
As discussed by Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche [1844-1900] and demonstrated by human behaviour throughout history, the "will to power", the god complex and in extreme forms the Narcissistic Personality Disorder have played a dominant role in human affairs, and is a primary driver behind all that we have accomplished or seek to accomplish.

It is contended that as we are all of the same zero point source and that source being akin to God that this preoccupation with power be an inevitable outcome of our deepest inner intuitive and intinctive self understandings. How our collective and individual behaviour is driven by this unrevealed source of everything.

As demonstrated by the reverence for various religious and mythical icons one of which is that of Brahma [see image], one can imagine that at the centre of all those heads and arms and legs is a single zero point that connects all to the one single point and realise that, if that single zero point is shared universally then the interconnectedness of all things can be seriously considered and an explanation for humanities preoccupation with power [power of influence] can be possible.

another extract for context:

The "Grail Quest" for those who are ambitious for control will always end in frustration until it is realised that "less force achieves more results" and in humanistic terms this means becoming better people, more respectful of anothers freedom, more clever, more loving, empathic, compassionate, "democratic" and in doing so greater freedom for every one is acheived.

Djed or no Djed, which is why the ancients and possibly those who currently hold it [the artifact ] fail(ed) to achieve what they wanted to achieve with it's use and fail they did..

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-13-12, 02:20 AM

I read some of the article, and find it too difficult to digest. It has made me think twice about what I often post that is too confusing for most, and I have decided to stick with the stuff most people can relate to from here on in. By the way, thanks for pointing out the image on the stone. If the arrow is on an angle of 5 degrees, then it could represent the nine meridians of the world as the Egyptians recorded. A five degree incline around the globe from the south gives you nine divisions.

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-13-12, 02:41 AM

yes it makes sense to go "Under unity" and allow the universe to restore unity.
similar to what the "Orbo" device Steorn Industries of Ireland attempted to do in ignorance. [ they ignored or underestimated the "observer effect" ]

By greater intelligence I meant knowing how aand when to use the instruments, it had nothing to do with mind power. Anybody can learn how to use them. But it involved a knowledge of astronomy, the position of the sun, moon and planets, and the zodiacs. Because these objects affect the rise and fall, or the balance of the background force on earth. You also have to know where to stand in relation to the stones, and how to hold the instruments, which if handled wrong, you would die soon after.

Quantum Quack

08-13-12, 03:36 AM

By greater intelligence I meant knowing how aand when to use the instruments, it had nothing to do with mind power. Anybody can learn how to use them. But it involved a knowledge of astronomy, the position of the sun, moon and planets, and the zodiacs. Because these objects affect the rise and fall, or the balance of the background force on earth. You also have to know where to stand in relation to the stones, and how to hold the instruments, which if handled wrong, you would die soon after.
not surprising to me as I start to gather info on this subject.

In the flood of emails since posting here about the Djed I received this image:

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/sundry/jed.jpg
Have you seen these schematics before?

Sorry but the size is the largest I can make it with out distorting the file.

Quantum Quack

08-13-12, 03:51 AM

also a strange question for you:
Have you ever seen or known about the use of a single disc of extremely dense, extremely dark [light neutral] carbon fibre composition [like one of the 4 discs shown in the DJED images] being used by a person having it inserted under the skin of the right temple? About 1.5 inches in diameter and about 1/8th inch thick. [unable to be detected under normal or casual inspection]
Does the control line "Obey or Die" mean anything to you?

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-13-12, 04:11 AM

not surprising to me as I start to gather info on this subject.

In the flood of emails since posting here about the Djed I received this image:

Have you seen these schematics before?

Sorry but the size is the largest I can make it with out distorting the file.

The centre picture is to scale of the original model. The model on the left is a derivative of later theories, and the one on the right, I presume a modern interpretation, most likely incorrect. The attachment at the top of the centre djed is also a spare part, which was disposable, and changeable with different types for different effects. If the one on the right is a modern version, then the object at the base is an oscillator of some sort. But the discs are too close together, and there cannot be anything like a tube through the middle of the rings/discs.

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-13-12, 04:15 AM

Quantum Quack

08-13-12, 04:30 AM

Gerhard do you believe that someone on this planet has possession of the Djed? and knows how to use it [ to a certain degree ]?

Quantum Quack

08-13-12, 05:15 AM

Sounds like a question out of scientology.
close...but not quite..
while we are on the subject have you ever seen something like this:

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/sundry/anteriared.jpg

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-13-12, 05:55 AM

Put it this way, the fingers could be longer, but they are quite smooth.

Quantum Quack

08-13-12, 06:35 AM

Put it this way, the fingers could be longer, but they are quite smooth.
[chuckle] yes I thought as much... cast from a German/Austrian/Prussion hand.. I think, a bit chubby and stumpy...

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-13-12, 01:47 PM

Gerhard do you believe that someone on this planet has possession of the Djed? and knows how to use it [ to a certain degree ]?

Various djeds were developed centuries later, by the ancient Greeks, the Celts, Mayans etc. Smaller but less sophisticated versions appeared from time to time. You'll find statues from various cultures holding the two instruments, or versions thereof.
In regards to the present, if history repeats itself, then our generation is most vulnerable to deception, seeing that they have a false view of nature and the past.

Quantum Quack

08-13-12, 06:21 PM

The incongruity that the Djed poses for me is that most symbols used by the ancients appear to have some reference to natural phenonema. Even the Anch design could be related to humanoid form. However the Djed appears to have no relationship with organic nature and "reeks" of an "atificial" or "non-natural" scientifically derived device.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Djed.svg/100px-Djed.svg.png

4 discs perfectly parallel on a conical column with tappered subsections...hmmm... of specific colours and vertical grooving.... with out any resemblence to natural or cutural phenonema is very suggestive. Given that all other symbols in use at the time of the Djed indicates the culture at the time was rather inferior to the culture that originally "delivered" the Djed. What I mean to say is that the owners of the Djed where of a lesser intellect to the creaters of the Djed. especially how the hieroglyphs indicate quite strong "Sacral" obsessions with erotic control of women by men using the Djed as a tool for the subjugation of females.
I tend to believe the Djed is considerably more than just a "marital aid" :) and that if the user allowed himself to develop the 2 other primary chakra centers the Djeds full potential could be revealed.
In other words as with most "mind control" freaks they get stuck in the sacral "erotic" and the Osiris cults where no different to most modern day cults.

Religion such as Christianity, could be described for example, as mans attempt to restrain his hedonistic passion by forcing himself to focus on higher, more spiritual pursuits. Shifting emphasis from the sacral passions [sexuailty/consumerism - sin etc] to the heart passions love, affection and compassion - non-sin -good/charity - legal] and onto the mind passions [curiosity, intellectual pursuts etc] Very strongly demonstrated when the Christ rejected the offer made to him in the desert [ 40 days and nights] as described in the New Testament of the Bible.

As we have witnessed in the press and media generally the plethora of Catholic Priests being charged and convicted for sexual crimes against children indicates to me, this challenge of taking the energy of the sacral and attempting to shift to the spiritual in an attempt to achieve "God Like" powers over others [ through the connection to "God's energy", the energy of Osiris, Ra, or what ever (Zero Point Energy) ]. Failing terribly at a terrible cost to the innocent children and others affected by the most often obsessive nature of the priest hood.

Which brings up the subject of "Zero Point Energy" and the back ground forces you refer to.

An area I am not quite prepared to discus in a public forum due to the signifcant ramifications of what Zero Point Theory when fully understood has regarding "free energy", "God energy" , "life force and chakra" [ crystaline energy] and then onto the serious implications on human health due to psycho-somatic inferences. [due to a lack of training,discipine and understanding of the knowledge ]
As an indication of just how serious this risk is:
The leading question:
Why do humans have to sleep [loose consciousness] on a regular basis to stay alive?

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-14-12, 02:31 AM

Quantum Quack

08-14-12, 02:45 AM

I am going to be really cryptic as only those who know what I am referring to, will make sense of it.
Gerhard can I ask you what you consider the power that the Djed offerred an accomplished user? [ I believe I already know but woud Like to compare notes.]
You have already stated that if not used correctly the operator will perish. [ and I agree with that assessment or knowledge for surely they and their immediate surroundings could uhm, re-integrate as distinct to disintegrate]. ]
Have you seen or know of the video game Assassin Creed II...Produced by Ubisoft, about the templar organisations desire to control the Alien artifact called the Apple of Eden?
If so do you recall the "staff" the Pope [Vatican] uses to utilise the apple in the fight with Ezio towards the end of the game and note that the Apple is supposed to be genetically coded to be able to be used successfully by only one person with an exact DNA match. That human person yet to evolve...

Are you aware that the company Ubisoft was created on or around 1985 using the logo almost identical to the Mayan long count Calendar design. The same year or there abouts that Chenobyl reactor explodes killing thousands. The hole in the ozone layer was discovered and global climate change was first acknowledged as a real issue. [ amongst many other signifcant global issues, like the end of the cold war for example]

Quantum Quack

08-14-12, 03:10 AM

Also I shall stay cryptic and post the following images.

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/sundry/djed/applevsblaschko.jpg

have you heard of Chemira genetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29)? [associated with Egyptology?]

In 1953 a human chimera was reported in the British Medical Journal. A woman was found to have blood containing two different blood types. Apparently this resulted from cells from her twin brother living in her body
and

A major milestone in chimera experimentation occurred in 1984, when a chimeric geep was produced by combining embryos from a goat and a sheep, and survived to adulthood.[14] The creation of the "geep" revealed several complexities to chimera development. In implanting a goat embryo for gestation in a sheep, the sheep's immune system would reject the developing goat embryo, whereas a "geep" embryo, sharing markers of immunity with both sheep and goats, was able to survive implantation in either of its parent species.

Something that certain Nazi scientists were alledged to be experimenting with during WW2.
Compare the "apple" with one of the skin pigment disorders of certain Human Chimera candiates. [Blaschko's lines]

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/sundry/djed/Assiassincreed.jpg
The symbology used deliberately throughout the game reeks of certain associations to well known "secret" organisations. To me they appear to raising a flag to any one who happens to know the meaning of their symbolic use.

BTW Ubisoft is a French Company, with multi national outlets. [who built Paris?]

Now I ask you why do you think I have launched a web site called "Zero Point Theory" in the year 2012?

Quantum Quack

08-14-12, 03:48 AM

In regards to the present, if history repeats itself, then our generation is most vulnerable to deception, seeing that they have a false view of nature and the past.
and decieved they are and have been... for what appears to be a very good reason....unfortunately.

Now...do you have any questions you wish to ask me?

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-14-12, 04:43 PM

Quantum Quack

08-14-12, 05:26 PM

All subjects are related, whether logically or symbolically, because the mind remembers with abstractions.

So I understand why you are able to jump from one subject into another without a hitch.

I don't have a problem with it, but I also know that doing that all the time means the mind is restless and disconnected.

Your mind is running, running away from ... confusion and pain? It is hyperactive.

If everything you said was completely wrong, would you still be worth anything?

If everything I said was wrong, what is my value?

See its ok to be wrong, ok to know nothing, because its ok to be.

Animals are good company because they don't know much!

Put the computer away and pat the cat.

I guess one of the main problems here is that you appear to only know of the Djed and it's impact impersonally or in abstraction where as I know of the impacts at a more personal level.

I do apologise for the seemingly disconnected writing above, however my excuse is about pushing boundaries to determine responses and reaction and depth of insight or knowledge.

Quantum Quack

08-14-12, 07:35 PM

Unfortuately the issue of the Djed has provoked associations for me with the Serbian/American Inventor Nikola Tesla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla). A scientist, whom I would have preferred not to mention in association with Zero Point Theory. I have not studied his work all that much but some items stand out that are relevant to this discussion.
His opinion stated as follows:

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view"
...directly relates to ZPT notions of Zero space, meaning that space betwen bodies of mass only have "volume" due to the presence of mass and apart from "volume" that space has no other value. [no aether what so ever]

Teslas preoccupation since the early 1900 with Direct energy weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon) is indicative of the similarities of his work and that of how the Djed functions.

My understanding:

The Djed, if being what I think it is, functions only in zero space, it transmits "energy" or shoud I say more correctly "energistic information" across zero space instanteously regardless of distance [ which is determined by mass as the metric in use] It therefore has the capacity to re-integrate matter, [ disintegrate depending on need ] so used as a stone cutting tool would be an extremely simplistic use.
It sets up a harmonic resonance not unlike an ultra sound device can, establishing a connection directly with the "Accoustic" frequency of the mass involved and that of the operators intent. Upon synchronation the mass in question becomes uttely open to manipulation regardless of composition. Amongst other thing it can also by means similar, setup accoustic connections with humans [ via zero space] and exert incredibly strong influence.

The Djed is either a dream come true for science or the ultimate nightmare.... However as stated in the article I wished you to read, The paradox of zero mitigates the power of the Djed. Therrefore the operators skill is important but so to is his intent.

Where Tesla may have been seriously mistaked in his approach to the subject was that he failed to realise that it is not energy in the form of kilovolts etc that needed to be transmitted but energy only in the form of information. If energy is attempted to be transmitted across zero space in the form of "high energy - acka "high voltage" zero space immediately expands to 4 dimensions causing the failure of the intended action [eg. High voltage power lines]. However transmiting only information only using the the available energy of the target means that "transmission" can be successful. Technically the Djed does not transmitt nor does it generate a ray or a beam of energy. It uses what I call, the "AT principle which means the information is already "at" the destination instanteously with no time nor distance involved. [re: Quantum Entanglement phenonema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement)]

AE: "I would not call [entanglement] one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought."

As with Einstein, Schr�dinger was dissatisfied with the concept of entanglement, because it seemed to violate the speed limit on the transmission of information implicit in the theory of relativity.[15] Einstein later famously derided entanglement as "spukhafte Fernwirkung"[16] or "spooky action at a distance".
It also brings the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to the for which can be directly related to the ZPT attraction paradox I have been discussing in another thread.

I believe, after a little research that Tesla was aware of "zero space" "hyper space" and possibly even considered the notions of "collapsing space into worm holes or "tunnels"
Tesla was in direct confrontation with Albert Einstiens work as displayed in the development of the Tesla coil, meaning that to achieve such an invention he had to be aware of the nature of zero space in a rudementary and fundamental way.
The notion of zero space is incompatable with the then and currently held devotion to Albert Einsteins work.

We all know what happend to Teslas life after his apparent success....

Note:
Since quantum entanglement was confirmed in 1930's science has been working on the obvious and significant disparity with A. Einsteins work and no doubt has made significant strides in it's understanding. The most important being how this associates with human consciousness and freewill, hence my question about carbon fibre disks being inserted under the skin of the right temple [ something for which I have unsolicited and qualified eye witness testimony for ] and the apparent need for maintaining intense secrecy on their achievements.

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-14-12, 08:44 PM

I don't fully understand Zero point theory, which makes me wonder why you would even bother talking to me.

There are a few things you said about the djed that are right as far as the natives tell me, that's where I get the info.

If you got in the way of the djed, only momentarily while it was working, you could loose your mind.
And as far as intergrating matter and disintergrating, it does both.

When the molecules in a rock vibrate at a sub normal rate, not a higher rate as imagined by new agers, some of the minor elements and components like phosphorus, gypsum, and boron are thrown off, and are quite toxic because they are eager to cling to the nearest object. That is the disintergrating part.
But at the same time the overall rock gets an amazing coherence, almost elastic. The forces involved in this state are already shared with all surrounding matter, and if they get out of control they will attempt to merge surrounding objects. That's the intergrating part. That property helps the stone merge and take the shape of the ordinary ground or other 'set' stones, so you get a very close fit, so that not even a razor can fit in between.

I like Tesla. Going by the quote you supplied, he did not understand the background force, otherwise he would have accepted that space/time can be curved.

As far as the ZPT is concerned, in my mind you cannot have a less than zero, if zero is nothing, but only if there is something other than matter that relates with it. The backgound force is something, not nothing, but matter can be reduced or increased by it, matter can literally disappear, and also appear by these forces. You can also get an object and change the way it relates to other normal matter.

A zero point then should be able to appear anywhere at any time, provided it had the conditions set for it. The background force can do that. It already does, both with outer space and with molecules. There are specific zones where attraction, coldness, magnetism, recycling, gravity occur, and also places of expending energy, heat, demagnetising, repelling goes on. These play together and give matter a specific time and a specific way to exist. All the physical properties, like mass, inertia, acceleration, heat, spin effect, charge, hardness, are expressions of this interaction of the two characteristics of the background force.

Now the argument of science is that all those actions and consequences are accounted for, and they are absolutely right, because the whole affair of matter is run under a masterminded supereconomy, which suggests that matter is totally and utterly independent of any other greater or lesser force. and that what we measure is all there is.

But then there are the anomilies, the inexplicable, and here scientists don't have the tools to think further, so denial is a common solution.

Quantum Quack

08-14-12, 09:24 PM

Thanks for your post, I think I am finally getting an idea of where you are coming from.

If you got in the way of the djed, only momentarily while it was working, you could loose your mind.
to me this is such an obvious outcome of interferring with the process. Even distracting the operator [ becoming his center of attention] will cause severe outcomes that would normally be beyond comprehension.
If and when you understand ZPT you will learn why this is so... [ZPT on the nature of consciousness ]

And as far as intergrating matter and disintergrating, it does both.

When the molecules in a rock vibrate at a sub normal rate, not a higher rate as imagined by new agers, some of the minor elements and components like phosphorus, gypsum, and boron are thrown off, and are quite toxic because they are eager to cling to the nearest object. That is the disintergrating part.
But at the same time the overall rock gets an amazing coherence, almost elastic. The forces involved in this state are already shared with all surrounding matter, and if they get out of control they will attempt to merge surrounding objects. That's the intergrating part. That property helps the stone merge and take the shape of the ordinary ground or other 'set' stones, so you get a very close fit, so that not even a razor can fit in between.
This again brings Tesla, his ideas and that of Einstien to the for...
Do you recall the classic almost cult movie: The Philadelphia experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment).
Do you recall images of sailors' bodies "intergrating" with matter such as with the ship itself?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChjyCR8V2Bg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtQBT15DX34

Can you see the similarities between this apparent fiction/conspiracy theory and what we are discussing?

Surprisingly the integrating of the sailors to ship is the give away as this aspect of dramatics taken alone is so extraordinary even for horror movie buffs that it defies expectations and more importantly 1940's imagination. [the truth being stranger than fiction so to speak]

btw this topic also has relevance to the myths of Atlantis and how it may have integrated [vanished as an island or city with it's suuroundings due to a Djed operator error.
myths of crystaline energy misuse have been around for ages.... crystaline energy is of a subliminal accoustic variety, I believe. The Djed operates as an accoustic focusser using zero space. IMO

Quantum Quack

08-14-12, 09:26 PM

I like Tesla. Going by the quote you supplied, he did not understand the background force, otherwise he would have accepted that space/time can be curved.
if one subscribes to the current view yes, if one doesn't and subscribes to zero space, space/time as currently held, is up for a major review.
ZPT extended will indicate that space does not have time/distance, only objects of mass do. [As an extension to quantum entangement phenonema]
Also the background force you keep referring to is described as what? In your words...

Quantum Quack

08-14-12, 09:34 PM

Please explain you ideas about the back groud force you refer to... if you can...

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-14-12, 10:09 PM

Please explain you ideas about the background force... if you can...

God is infinite in power, therefor nothing can exist with it, in it or beside it. The existence of anything has to be an allowance "LET there be..."

That allowance has to come from, and can only come from, Someone equal with God, the Son. All creation exists by a subjection of power, not brute force, or the increase of power. Popular creationists don't know any of this, hence their lame science.

That subjective or calming power is the Word that comes from God. It produces a Light (supernatural energy), and the Light produces pardoxical effects that produce the effects of time and space, under the influence of the Word, which calms both these extremes, and allows them to weave and interact to produce substance we call matter.

Matter is made by a weaving of the light properties under the power of the Word, and all of matter's behaviours are a consequence of its own free economy created through the boundaries of the Light - which I called the background force, for easier understanding.

Quantum Quack

08-14-12, 10:21 PM

God is infinite in power, therefor nothing can exist with it, in it or beside it. The existence of anything has to be an allowance "LET there be..."

That allowance has to come from, and can only come from, Someone equal with God, the Son. All creation exists by a subjection of power, not brute force, or the increase of power. Popular creationists don't know any of this, hence their lame science.

That subjective or calming power is the Word that comes from God. It produces a Light (supernatural energy), and the Light produces pardoxical effects that produce the effects of time and space, under the influence of the Word, which calms both these extremes, and allows them to weave and interact to produce substance we call matter.

Matter is made by a weaving of the light properties under the power of the Word, and all of matter's behaviours are a consequence of its own free economy created through the boundaries of the Light - which I called the background force, for easier understanding.
ok, i was going to add to my question the provision that you include some sort of "scientific " rational... but...
don't get me wrong I am not disagreeing with you nor am I agreeing with you but merely trying to understand you.
Agreement is not a criteria for good discussion however understanding is.

Quantum Quack

08-14-12, 10:23 PM

Can I ask you to explore this question :
Why do you think the act of sleeping [unconsciousness - zero point] is essential to the maintenance of life?

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-14-12, 10:52 PM

Watched the videos on the experiment, never seen before, not surprised at the results. Not produced by em field... exactly.
The teleportation is not exactly that...either.
Re UFO's, they're not alien but man made, have been known about since the Chaldeans pre Babylonian empire.
Same technology in principle.

Unified theory? Don't know what that is.

Strange technology is not complex, but impossible to comprehend unless you have challenged your mind to think otherwise.

Scientific rational cannot grasp it, probably never will.

It is next to impossible to understand and use this technology because of mentality, not a lack of brains.

Nature uses (the edge of) the background force all the time, for a million things, the flight of certain insects, migration, feeding, and even how they stand in the paddock. The growth of plants in search of nutrients and water. The wind, the rain, storms and tornadoes, solar activities, tides, gravity - everything. The orbiting of stars and planets.

What the ancients did, and as the modern world will, they used and worshiped those forces, and dismissed God altogether. You can do great things with it, renovate cities in a short time, travel at tremendous speed with ease, heal diseases and grow tissue faster than normal, cause lightning to strike from a clear sky (making fire come down from heaven" to quote scripture) etc.

Hefty price tag though. Play with nature and it will bite back.

Quantum Quack

08-14-12, 11:13 PM

If we assume just for a moment that the story of the Philadelphia experiment is essentially valid, somewhat dramatised and exagerated in places but basically tells of certain scientific techniques being employed in an experiment that produced rather horrific and beyond imagination at the time, results.
If we also take note of the plethora of UFO or Alien interest immediately after the experiment, numerous sightings etc etc by people that would normally be credible.
and if we extend a little and suggest that the implementation of a quantum field or event such as described by the Philadephia experiement would create a "signature" or "sounding", universally given the nature of zero space.
Is it little wonder that there would be a sudden interest in this planet by those "aliens" with a vested interest in the technology and the beings who learn to make use of it?
Is it also little wonder that any evidence to lend credibility to the situation has been supposedly systematically removed from the public arena?
Of course now after all these years the only evidence that could have been found has been scrapped [ the ship in question] with out being quantifiably scrutinised/examined for signs of integration? eh? Does not make sense yes?
Of course any person wishing to lend credibility to the story will immediately be faced with character assination...

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-14-12, 11:39 PM

There are well over a quarter of a million people world wide who are aware of this technology, and it is not from alien creatures at any time.
It has been applied to organic life, unfortunately, resulting in certain and various types of living beings, including forms of human life - very unfortunately. It has been done before in history and I am not interested in discussing it any further. I am only interested in nature and how God has made it.

Quantum Quack

08-14-12, 11:40 PM

Scientific rational cannot grasp it, probably never will.
I disagree, as ZPT is about granting science and theosophists an ability to "grasp it"

which is why I asked the question:
Why is sleep [ unconscousness - zeropoint] essential for the maintenance of life?

Years ago when first realising the zero point conceptually I was going to go on and write a book called "The Physics of God" and it may still be except I have produced a web site instead called Zero Point Theory because there is a hell of lot more involved than just arm-chair physics and new approaches.

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-15-12, 12:11 AM

Can I ask you to explore this question :
Why do you think the act of sleeping [unconsciousness - zero point] is essential to the maintenance of life?

No clue.

Quantum Quack

08-15-12, 01:15 AM

No clue.
well think about it if you so wish. I look forward to reading about your thoughts on the question and answer... :)

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-17-12, 06:19 AM

Quantum Quack

08-17-12, 06:31 AM

Thought about it today, not expecting anything, but there are a few interesting things about sleep, why the mind shuts down or perhaps goes into another mode, and recovers - because without sleep we can die.
Electrical states? Chemical changes in hormones/ transmitters? Is there some kind of reversal going on, the opposite to electrical impulses?

A necessary non state?
Unfortunately like most humans, you are underestimating just how "incorporated" and "integrated" our bodies are with this universe we exist within. I do not mean this in any way that is disrespectful as I envy your ignorance.

Have a think about your back ground energy and note that the main reason we need to sleep is because of "will" fatigue. [ we get tired of making choices, regardless of how much waken rest or food we have to eat ]
There is no if or maybe about it... no sleep equals certain death...
and note also It is no coincidence that at least half of every planet and moon in this universe of ours, is in shadow of their respective stars.

Quantum Quack

08-17-12, 06:49 AM

and maybe consider this question:
http://zeropointtheory.com/components/com_jgslider/images/timthumb.php?src=/images/zpt/slideshows/indextop/020.jpg&h=85&w=455&zc=1
ref:http://zeropointtheory.com/

Quantum Quack

08-17-12, 07:17 AM

Zero point Theory provides the means to connect everything that exists via the unconscious for animated life and center of Gravity for non-animated form.

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/sundry/Zum.jpg

We all utilise the same unconsciousness when we sleep as we become a part of the "universal collective unconscious" or in religious terms we become one with God.
Upon waking we wake up with a fresh strength to our wills to see us through another day until we eventually have to sleep again to recover the energy we lost in our attempt to be our OWN God in our OWN universe. This is the nature of our existential egos created by the paradox of zero.
The zero point paradox grants infinite diversity to the universe.

With out the will to use and direct the energy of our bodies that is generated by what we eat and drink and breath we would be no different to a lump of rock sitting in a puddle of water, inanimated and lifeless.
"ashes to ashes, dust to dust..." "by the grace of God go I" "In God we trust"
So for someone to say "I am going to sleep with God" he may not be entirely incorrect and at sometime in their life they sleep for ever...

For the athiest, sleeping allows your will to regenerate it's strength by drawing Zero Point Energy from the zero space your body exists in. For the same reasons the attraction paradox means that you will wake up with a unique "you" personal identity other wise refered to as an ego. That ego allows you to attempt to rule your universe until you have to surrender due to fatigue to the inevitable truth of your co-dependancy with that universe and you will do this your entire life until you can do it no more...regardless of the belief system you employ
...and empathic effects of unconscious communication as demonstrated in this video dramatically can and do occur whether you are an atheist or not..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4kzGhDEURA

Quantum Quack

08-17-12, 07:53 AM

The attraction paradox, in part, can be expressed using the following:
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/sundry/relabszero-2.jpg

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-17-12, 02:08 PM

Quantum Quack

08-17-12, 07:30 PM

There is a phenomenon with the background force that unifies the forces and objects, and your diagram is a fairly good model of that.

While I don't mind the unity through unconsciousness, I am fully set against any notion, however slight, that introduces death as some kind of door to a better place or unity with God, seeing that it is His prime enemy, and sleep is a waste of time that only happens in a world where the poor creatures are mortal.

I don't feel a personal preference has much to do with it. The physics as I know them are not all that caring about personal beliefs or desires but more about collective function and utility and the efficiency in which the uiverse carries these out.
Death serves a very important role in the scheme of things even for those who may consider themselves to be uhmmm ...ultra long lived...
Words like "better place" heaven, hell , escape, even pain and pleasure are all associated with the ego I mentioned earlier. The universe is utterly indifferent to emotional or emotive qualification of absolutely necessary phenonema. A bit like not liking the rules of chess because you dont know how to win the game.... [ the rules can work against you [ victim ] or for you [winner]] it is up to you, by virtue of your own egoistic freewill [ zero point ] to learn how to succeed using the same rules [physics] that every one else uses.

I am fully set against any notion, howver slight, that introduces death as some kind of door to a better place or unity with God

Regardless of whether you think of God as God or the zero point, you are already one with it. It is only the function of ego, created by the neccessity of the "attraction paradox" that compells you to believe in the duality of "zero vs. something" or "life vs. death" or "positive vs negative" or "male vs female" or "Yin vs yang" etc when in fact these attributes are merely a gradient of the one thing. "existance"
"The sum of all things is zero." No actual duality exists except for ego-centric reasons.

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-17-12, 08:55 PM

I don't feel a personal preference has much to do with it...
Regardless of whether you think of God as God or the zero point, you are already one with it. It is only the function of ego, created by the neccessity of the "attraction paradox" that compells you to believe in the duality of "zero vs. something" or "life vs. death" or "positive vs negative" or "male vs female" or "Yin vs yang" etc when in fact these attributes are merely a gradient of the one thing. "existance"
"The sum of all things is zero." No actual duality exists except for ego-centric reasons.

The correct understanding of the duality in nature, including the background force, is not life and death or life v's death. That interpretation comes from those who worshiped nature - pagans, and is only a false derivative of the true meaning.

Death is a foreign element that does not belong in a fully functioning world or universe.

In one sense duality does not exist, as in a paradox. But Love, for example, is Justice and Mercy combined.
The forces in nature are a reflection of those qualities, for example, boundaries and freedom.

Quantum Quack

08-17-12, 09:06 PM

The correct understanding of the duality in nature, including the background force, is not life and death or life v's death. That interpretation comes from those who worshiped nature - pagans, and is only a false derivative of the true meaning.

Death is a foreign element that does not belong in a fully functioning world or universe.

In one sense duality does not exist, as in a paradox. But Love, for example, is Justice and Mercy combined.
The forces in nature are a reflection of those qualities, for example, boundaries and freedom.

Death is a foreign element???
Death as a belief or death as an act?
...simply using the word Death in any context implies duality...
The famous last words of a convicted "bushranger" criminal years ago, Ned Kelly, sums it up quite well I think:
"Such is life" just before the floor dropped below his feet and the hangmans noose.......

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-18-12, 05:24 AM

Death is a foreign element???
Death as a belief or death as an act?
...simply using the word Death in any context implies duality...

We don't want it, we fight for life.
Death is a local hazard, the rest of the universe boasts of life, a never ending life. Some would like to interpret the universe through a hole in a coffin, but it is only a transferred view from a place that has defied the Life Giver.

Atheism, which is the political religion of communism, would have us rationalise freedom, independence, and the purpose of life away, and accept that we are no better than bacteria destined to serve the country and then die. By the way, I have never heard of anybody sane wanting to defect to a communist country. Modern science is based on doubt and death, the spawn of atheism.

Quantum Quack

08-18-12, 08:53 AM

Gerhard, you may recall my question regarding the offset of magnet where by one pole is slightly stronger than the other?
You may recall the question: what if +1 + (-)1.023 = 0
What would this mean? And I wrote we would be in deep shit, deep shit big time... I did write this for a reason.
well.....
I just managed to find details of the Eridanas Void:
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/sundry/black_hole_milkyway.png
image source: http://current.com/community/92451003_the-eridanus-void-a-monster-black-hole-one-billion-light-years-across.htm

and this is exactly what I mean by deep shit.
What you are looking at is in effect "Absolute zero" and it is not a classic theorised black hole.

This anomoly causes the center of gravity to "refract" creating two centers of gravity instead of one. As with pseudo perpetual machines derived by use of gravity and magnetism an artificial COG has to be created for then to be successful.
What you see in the image is a lensing effect I predicted in 2004, but I didn't believe my own prediction. I did however express it in the form of literary fiction in a book yet to be finished, to be titled "The Center of Time" and I have dated emails in my archives discussing this anomally prior to 2007, if needed.
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/sundry/center%20of%20time.jpg
Notice the irony of the similarities as the image above was created in 2005. Prior to the discovery of the Eridanas Void in 2007

The phenonema described as Dark flow is a demonstration of the refraction of the universeal constant COG the black void described in the image is the cause of that refraction.
Accellerating Cosmic expansion may also be another symptom of a refracted COG as the strength of Gravity weakens accordingly.
It is also I believe the primary cause for the climate change we are experiencing...

and there is only one way this void can be created and it is not a "natural" event.

I write the above so that those "in the know" monitoring this dialogue can make up their minds as to whether or not to take me into their confidence or not. For me it doesn't matter either way.
This is why I published a web site called Zero Point Theory.

Prof.Layman

08-18-12, 11:12 AM

Gerhard Kemmerer

08-18-12, 04:47 PM

The supervoid is used as an explanation for the cold spot, because some don't see it can exist in any other way.

Those cold spots exist above the poles of nearly every planet, star and galaxy, and possibly dominion, and would be proportionately larger. You don't need a supervoid to produce these spots, because the background force is hundreds of thousands times stronger than ordinary matter.

The sun has two such cold spots about two light years south and two light years north. And yes they are linked to a force which stores energy in time.

This force is used to give celestial objects their position, orientation and relation to other objects. The line of force tends to be straight up and down, but varies, with some bending over to connect to a nearby object. Sometimes stars are attracted to them and you can see their shape. It is a form of connectivity. The same phenomenon takes place on a molecular level, with atoms, giving them specific charateristics of relating to other molecules, like receptor sites, bonding, polarity, magnetism etc.

When a star explodes, it is often possible to see material high-light these polar orientations. Scientists call them jets, which they believe are caused by the effects of a black hole, but the only black holes to be found are in theory.

Quantum Quack

08-18-12, 05:57 PM

Quantum Quack

08-18-12, 06:06 PM

I have seen the picture of this black hole on television before, but I thought it was just a cheaply done special effect as no mention was made about it in particular. That is an amazing find, thanks for the link. But, I still can't help but wonder, is this thing for real? How old is this thing supposed to be anyways? It appears that they have found it on the CMB, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridanus_void Makes you wonder if it is just blocking the CMB picture or if the formation was actually 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

The reasons that it is so hard to believe is because you are looking at a super massive, 1 billion light year diameter, artificially created "malignant tumor" where only natural phenonema is or was expected to be found.
The reality of how we measure time and distance is yet to be revealed. Science believes we are looking at light info history, are they in for a surprise when they realise that it is actually witnessing something in real time.
and I might add it is not considered in the same way as a black hole [ which is the extraordinary bit ]

Quantum Quack

08-18-12, 06:15 PM

Here is another image of the same void...
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/zpt/sundry/black_hole_milkyway-2.jpg

You will notice in both images the shape of the voids horizon is nearly a perfect circle or sphere. This is another reason why it is not a natural event as nature doesn't produce perfect circles or spheres. Only intelligent life such as humans can get close to doing that. There is no doubt in my mind that the void is an artificially evolved phenonema.
Another way of looking at it is using the term "Inverse Sphere"
see: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/1-05-the-inverse-sphere
It is it's 3 dimensional spherical shape that makes it stand out as an anomoly. A void of "absolute nothingness" in the form of a near perfect 3 d sphere.... [no Cosmic background radiation/force present]

Prof.Layman

08-18-12, 08:32 PM

The reasons that it is so hard to believe is because you are looking at a super massive, 1 billion light year diameter, artificially created "malignant tumor" where only natural phenonema is or was expected to be found.
The reality of how we measure time and distance is yet to be revealed. Science believes we are looking at light info history, are they in for a surprise when they realise that it is actually witnessing something in real time.
and I might add it is not considered in the same way as a black hole [ which is the extraordinary bit ]Right, I was like, they didn't even try to make that to scale. It is amazing that the claims of the CMB say that the universe is perfectly homogeneous when the energy that formed the map has traveled through the seams of the visable universe to get to us even. But then I guess, there is always an exception to every rule. I don't think it would even be physically possible for there to be a universe-in-mass in this black hole. It may be one of the oldest black holes that we have found. I think if the neutron is unstable in a black hole then it could break down into quarks, and then quarks would also be unstable. I think the enterior could lose a lot of mass, as matter is converted to energy (E=mc^2). Then a less concentration of mass at the center of a black hole could increase the Schwarzchild Radius since it would have a lower density. I thought this could explain the size of a suppermassive black hole that is the size of a solar system, but This, is just a monstrosity!

It is like finding a cosmic string, that physicist use to write about. There isn't one behind it is there? But, from some of the theoretical work I read about from the 80's in some popularized books on suppermassive black holes, if it behaves the same way as those theories predected, it could only have about the density of one. That being about the same as water. So then it would only act like it was a giant blob of water that is 1 billion light years across. I think maybe that the electron is the most stable particle that could exist in the black hole and that the critical density of them could be close to one that would make it about 1 trillion kilograms. If it is a sphere, most likely since it seems to be looking us straight down.

Quantum Quack

08-18-12, 09:13 PM

Right, I was like, they didn't even try to make that to scale. It is amazing that the claims of the CMB say that the universe is perfectly homogeneous when the energy that formed the map has traveled through the seams of the visable universe to get to us even. But then I guess, there is always an exception to every rule. I don't think it would even be physically possible for there to be a universe-in-mass in this black hole. It may be one of the oldest black holes that we have found. I think if the neutron is unstable in a black hole then it could break down into quarks, and then quarks would also be unstable. I think the enterior could lose a lot of mass, as matter is converted to energy (E=mc^2). Then a less concentration of mass at the center of a black hole could increase the Schwarzchild Radius since it would have a lower density. I thought this could explain the size of a suppermassive black hole that is the size of a solar system, but This, is just a monstrosity!

It is like finding a cosmic string, that physicist use to write about. There isn't one behind it is there? But, from some of the theoretical work I read about from the 80's in some popularized books on suppermassive black holes, if it behaves the same way as those theories predected, it could only have about the density of one. That being about the same as water. So then it would only act like it was a giant blob of water that is 1 billion light years across. I think maybe that the electron is the most stable particle that could exist in the black hole and that the critical density of them could be close to one that would make it about 1 trillion kilograms. If it is a sphere, most likely since it seems to be looking us straight down.
sorry but you are still missing the key point.

It......is.....NOT......a......Black....hole
it is void. BIG difference!

if it was merely a black hole I would not have bothered posting about it...
scientists consider it as a void of nothingness...
Due to prediction made in 2004, I consider it as a void of nothingness... a normally impossible to determine "inverse sphere" as described in the link I provided.
I am tempted to post the chapters of the book written in 2004 but shall wait until someone actually asks me to. [It explains using fiction as a vehicle what I didn't want to believe as true]
However I will say this: "Humanity is not the only race with a vested interest in this anomoly"

Prof.Layman

08-18-12, 09:59 PM

Quantum Quack

08-18-12, 10:14 PM

Looks like a black hole to me, idk maybe I just don't get it. The link you gave said it was a black hole, and the videos I saw of it happened while scientist where describing black holes. I don't see anyway possible it could be anything other than a black hole. I can't say that I agree with the current theory describing the object. Suppermassive black holes used to be an outrageous far fetched theory, I just wonder if the theoreticians that first described it where correct and if it does show to have a density of one. I am just saying that if it is a black hole that it should show to have a mass of about 1 trillion kilograms not a universe, maybe a bit less I think I calculated for a cube.
ok.. I see the problem I think:
From what I read all scientist know is:

In August of 2007, astronomers at the University of Minnesota located a gigantic hole in the universe. This empty space, stretching nearly a billion light-years across, is devoid of any matter such as galaxies, stars, and gas, and neither does it contain the strange and mysterious dark matter, which can be detected but not seen.
and this:

A contrary theory proposed in The Journal of Cosmology suggests that our observable universe orbits a super-supermassive hole just as the stars of entire galaxies orbit and eventually are swallowed by the supermassive black holes at their center. Like the stars closest to the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy which have a greater velocity than stars on the outer arms (where the Earth is located), stars at the edge of our known, Hubble-length universe, orbit one of these "universe-in-mass holes" at a greater velocity than those stars further away thus effecting the red shift and dimness of light and creating the illusion the universe is accelerating and exanding.
reference: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/05/the-eridanus-black-hole-a-monster-one-billion-light-years-across.html
the notion of it being a "universe in mass Hole" is only a theory proposed in the "Journal of Cosmology" to explain what scientists currently can not explain as it does not conform to expectations about typical black holes.
They have yet to determine what it is...

Quantum Quack

08-18-12, 10:41 PM

A few things of interest whist researching this.
Apparently there are no official released or university studies on the Eridanas supervoid [dia: 150 Mpc] available on the web.
Info resources appears strictly limited to unqualified and dubious sources, for example the Journal of Cosmology reference.
Wiki decribes some details.

A much larger void by quite a sigificant factor discovered in 1998, called the Giant Void, [dia: 300-400Mpc] has no wiki page nor is their any info easily available on the web.

It is the distinct lack of information on both massive voids that is puzzling me....

Quantum Quack

08-19-12, 09:31 PM

In fact the serious lacking of credible information about a major discovery such as the Eridanas Void or more importantly the Giant void is not good at all...
it appears we have a internet "void" as well... :)

Prof.Layman

08-19-12, 09:46 PM

In fact the serious lacking of credible information about a major discovery such as the Eridanas Void or more importantly the Giant void is not good at all...
it appeasr we have a internet "void" as well... :)
I was told in school that you should never trust any information you find on the internet, as some of the information could be wrong and ruin your work on anything. When I first tried to tell someone on the internet about relativity they told me that it was only an illusion and that telling people that it was actually spacetime contraction had to stop, it was just a matter of perception. As no books I read described it this way, it was a total shocker.

Quantum Quack

08-19-12, 10:08 PM

I was told in school that you should never trust any information you find on the internet, as some of the information could be wrong and ruin your work on anything. When I first tried to tell someone on the internet about relativity they told me that it was only an illusion and that telling people that it was actually spacetime contraction had to stop, it was just a matter of perception. As no books I read described it this way, it was a total shocker.
You may not know it but my profession is actually a web designer. So I am familiar with the net and it's psychology [ got alot to learn I might add ]
and when I see a serious lack of official recognition for something that has been officially declared as true it indicates censorship of some kind.
How many universities are trying to work out what the Eridanas Void is? for example.

For an anomoly of such a scale you woud expect at least one major university to be working on it. It appears none are....or if they are it is maintained as classified and secret.

so it is a puzzle... no doubt about it.

Prof.Layman

08-19-12, 11:31 PM

Ah, the Eridanus Void must be what happens when too many of Stephen Hawkings dopplegangers win the black hole wars, lol.

Quantum Quack

08-20-12, 02:45 AM

Ah, the Eridanus Void must be what happens when too many of Stephen Hawkings dopplegangers win the black hole wars, lol.

ha... but still if so why is wiki still referring to it and them as voids and not black holes do you think?

Prof.Layman

08-20-12, 12:55 PM

I did find this link, of Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D., http://current.com/1of204c This article seems more like reading the Book of the Dead or the Satanic Bible. It claims that Big Bang Theory is founded on relegious principles that have a Earth centered models. This is simply not true, and it seems to be the source of where all his accusations come from, that is a bad sign. In Big Bang theory, any location can be viewed as the center, use of Earth is only by convenience. But, any model should show that a location at any galaxy can be equally valid. This brings me to another point, how does the doppler shift of light, as he puts it, "know" what direction a body is traveling relative to Earth at all times? It doesn't, it just proves that space is actually expanding between galaxies. But, then he points out special cases of where the doppler shift changes, I think this is to be excpected of GR. These are stars or galaxies that are accelerating very quickly. Relativity states that an object in constant motion can be the center of a model or consider itself to be at rest but not an object that is accelerating. You can scientifically prove that an object is accelerating! Even if there is no absolute frame of reference! He then goes on about graviton holes that are smaller than the Planck Length and how they can refurbish matter, it is total nonsense and he is clearly a total crackpot. For one, something smaller than the Planck Length cannot be detected. By definition the distance is the distance it would take an infinite amount of energy to detect a variation. I haven't seen any infinite amounts of energy all bundled up into the Planck Scale, have you? During the conference they had of the discovery of the Higgs Boson, they even stated that they have given up on even trying to find the graviton, because it clearly doesn't fit into the standard model. Then it follows that if the Higgs Boson is discovered and can explain gravity, the graviton is not even necessary. That means that they will most likely never find it because it does not exist!

Quantum Quack

08-20-12, 05:38 PM

That means that they will most likely never find it because it does not exist!

yeah... finally... the recent CERN 8 billion euro experiment has inadvertently provided further proof of validity to the higgs boson not existing...[ chuckle]
The funny thing is that even if they found the particle they were looking for that particle MUST have a center of gravity. So I guess they will have to continue to chase the rabbit of "infinite reduction (http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/infinite-reduction)" even further until they hit the "inverse sphere (http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/infinite-reduction)" of zero point theory (http://zeropointthoery.com).
Zero Point theory clearly explains that the source of gravity is in fact NON-existance, Zero. And that gravity is the dimensional collapse of 3 dimensional "zero space" towards absolute zero...[ non-existance ]
So looking for something that doesn't exist is rather silly don't you think...

I wonder how much more money they are going to invest trying to find something that doesn't exist... yet everything has an evident center of gravity... the solution is staring them in the face...

Prof.Layman

08-20-12, 06:00 PM

yeah... finally... the recent CERN 8 billion euro experiment has inadvertently provided further proof of validity to the higgs boson not existing...[ chuckle]

I was saying that the graviton does not exist, not the Higgs Boson, unless news of that discovery has changed? During the annoucements I saw from July, 4th they tended to slip up and say that the Higgs Boson is responisble for gravity, but the source of gravity would actually come from the Higgs Field. It is pages of pure equations that describe how the standard model could be tied together. I have argued before that I don't think gravitons can exist mathmatically because then the surface of any sphere would then have to have an infinite number of force carriers in order for everything around it to feel the force of gravity at extreme distances. Like a light bulb, it is round so then the light coming away from it diverses, then it creates the illiusion of the light getting dimmer with distance. The photons just split apart, and the further from the source the further away they will be from each other. The graviton would then have to act in a similar way, but in order for it to relay the message of gravity to everything else in the universe the density of gravitons on any surface would have to be infinite. I think it is good for relativity and cosmology that we found the Higgs Boson and not the Graviton. I think it still leaves room in quantum mechanics for gravity to be described as a curvature of space, it is pages of equations crammed together after all. :) This way quantum mechanics can't win the war on more accurately describing the true nature of gravity. If it found the graviton it could have started to do that. So in a way it is still a victory for cosmology.

Quantum Quack

08-20-12, 06:25 PM

I was saying that the graviton does not exist, not the Higgs Boson, unless news of that discovery has changed? During the annoucements I saw from July, 4th they tended to slip up and say that the Higgs Boson is responisble for gravity, but the source of gravity would actually come from the Higgs Field. It is pages of pure equations that describe how the standard model could be tied together. I have argued before that I don't think gravitons can exist mathmatically because then the surface of any sphere would then have to have an infinite number of force carriers in order for everything around it to feel the force of gravity at extreme distances. Like a light bulb, it is round so then the light coming away from it diverses, then it creates the illiusion of the light getting dimmer with distance. The photons just split apart, and the further from the source the further away they will be from each other. The graviton would then have to act in a similar way, but in order for it to relay the message of gravity to everything else in the universe the density of gravitons on any surface would have to be infinite. I think it is good for relativity and cosmology that we found the Higgs Boson and not the Graviton. I think it still leaves room in quantum mechanics for gravity to be described as a curvature of space, it is pages of equations crammed together after all. :) This way quantum mechanics can't win the war on more accurately describing the true nature of gravity. If it found the graviton it could have started to do that. So in a way it is still a victory for cosmology.
The so called Higgs discovery is contraversial and yet to be confirmed. I believe the announcements were terribly premature although necessary to support the concerns of the huge investment made in it's search more than to do with actuall discovery. [ an act of politics rather than good science ]
There is no solid support for the declaration that I have found.

If the Higgs had been revealed it would be a huge global media frenzy... because most realise that it is the ultimate quest of science to discover the truth about matter and gravitational forces.

I believe you are correct. The use of a gravton model is inadequate.
However there is evidence I believe to suggest that 3 d space can be a form of an infinite matrix of zero points, [therfore replacing the graviton model] each exhibiting a quala of gravitational force with in a field of gravitation. Using this method of approach one can start to appreciate the advent of zero point energy and how energy can be extracted and returned to the field.
It was because of this infiinite matrix of zero points [ combining to make zero space universally], that eventually led me to discount the use of a Planck minimum as this would naturally lead ot the notion of a fixed dimension particle called a graviton.
zero space can be defined as:
+x + (-)x + (t=>0) = 0

zero space therefore has a time component and it only has the potential to deliver energy because absolute zero is paradoxed
+x + (-)x = absolute 0

esentially it means that absolute zero [ non-existance ] underpins reality. Reality exists in zero space due to the necessity of time [ motion ] required to resolve the non-existance of absolute zero.
Thus absolute rest is "non-existant" -as only absolute zero [which is non-existant] can only be at absolute rest.
"Nothing can be at absolute rest"
and well.....absolute zero is that "nothing"

zero piont theory is entirely self justified, self evident and entirely a natural outcome of zero being paradoxed.