What causes the standing wave? Is it preexisting and when do gravity come into effect?
How was "Space" created before the Universe
- Thread starter cb71109
- Start date
From what I am reading, there is NO limitation on size and that is one of the main advantages of the theory.
sean69>>>>
I havent picked up a physics book in like 4 years when I read about 6 books on string theory.
Im reading up on wave theory now and
wave theory >>>>
Just after a few minutes of reading, I can see the possibilities are
Im too busy right now for a new obsession
I havent picked up a physics book in like 4 years when I read about 6 books on string theory.
Im reading up on wave theory now and
wave theory >>>>
Just after a few minutes of reading, I can see the possibilities are
Im too busy right now for a new obsession
sean69>>>>
I havent picked up a physics book in like 4 years when I read about 6 books on string theory.
Im reading up on wave theory now and
wave theory >>>>
Just after a few minutes of reading, I can see the possibilities are
Im too busy right now for a new obsession
WSM (Wave Structure of Matter)
If your like me you've probably never heard of WSM, if so and are curious the above offers a pdf covering some of its uniqueness.
That's interesting.
Well I have a million questions, so I guess it would be best to read up on this theory. It actually makes pretty good sense.
This WSM is way out my league. I got to start my research again when I go back to school next week. I spent the entire Christmas and New Year break refreshing my mind so I can be ready to research again. I just want to thank everyone for the discussions. It have been fun
thank you
Here to add yet another unimportant question to the mix of all these other "unknowns"...
Are the planets "floating" like dust or a feather? Or are we just free falling at such a high rate of speed through "space" to where it only appears that the universe and planets are "standing still" and orbiting each other?
Which also leads me to ask, If one was able to go at such a speed (far surpassing the speed of light)... wouldn't that put said person in another dimension at those speeds?
Are the planets "floating" like dust or a feather? Or are we just free falling at such a high rate of speed through "space" to where it only appears that the universe and planets are "standing still" and orbiting each other?
Which also leads me to ask, If one was able to go at such a speed (far surpassing the speed of light)... wouldn't that put said person in another dimension at those speeds?
Makes no sense how WHAT could happen?
Scale? It doesn't mater. A spherical standing waves of all sizes can interact. A wave the size of a golf ball with one the size of Jupiter. Their respective phases will determine the nature of said interaction -- constructive or destructive.
In WSM theory the electron is composed of spherical waves which converge to the center and then become outward waves. The two waves form a standing wave whose peaks and nodes are like the layers of an onion. The wave amplitude (i'm assuming this is what you're alluding to as scale?) is a scalar number like a quantum wave, not an electromagnetic vector wave (like a sinusoidal wave). The Wave-Center is the apparent location of the electron 'particle'.
Dude, you need to have an open mind approaching this theory because it will definitely challenge a lot of your long held beliefs, theories you've probably been conditioned to accept as correct and complete truths -- general relativity, quantum, particles connected by fields, etc. WSM explains what causes gravity, solves paradoxes like "spooky" action-at-a-distance and wave/particle duality just to mention a few.
I gave it a shot several years ago and i've been sold ever since. The maths still needs to be developed further but I'm 100% convinced that WSM is a step in the right direction.
As far as books, you wont find a lot of literature on it -- for obvious reasons. But here's one:
"Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe: An Adventurers Guide"
Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...103-7671976-7152608&tag=vp314-20?tag=vp314-20
Also, Google "Dr. Milo Wolff" an check out THE website for WSM; www.spaceandmotion.com. This site is super dense with knowledge. You can use the search tool at the top left corner to look up topics and search articles on the site. Hey, you can start by searching up "String Theory"
As far as books, you wont find a lot of literature on it -- for obvious reasons. But here's one:
"Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe: An Adventurers Guide"
Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...103-7671976-7152608&tag=vp314-20?tag=vp314-20
Also, Google "Dr. Milo Wolff" an check out THE website for WSM; www.spaceandmotion.com. This site is super dense with knowledge. You can use the search tool at the top left corner to look up topics and search articles on the site. Hey, you can start by searching up "String Theory"
I was actually on that spaceandmotion site earlier
Combination of the in waves and the out waves both 'caused' by the motion of space. If you're asking about the origin of said motion, then the answer is that activity in the universe, motion, has always existed.
Gravity is simply accounted for by the changes in mass-energy density of space which is determined by the velocity of the waves.
Explained in detail here: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Reality-Forces-Light-Gravity.htm
Check the section "On the Force of Gravity"
Last edited:
Cool. What did you think?
I was actually on that spaceandmotion site earlier
But for every question the theory solves it opens a can of new ones. For example what is propelling or gives energy to the oscillation waves? Then there is the question of where these waves came from and can matter be destroyed or stop oscillating?
Then what about the original question, How was space created? Especially an infinite space that this theory suggest.
Energy is an effect. So is force. Energy and force have no meaning without motion. Motion can't exist without space. So you see, more fundamental than both energy and force is space and motion.
see my post #423 reply to JG.
Again, ref post #423
Last edited:
This is more of a philosophical issue than a physics, because my next question is why is matter finite or infinite? Because what you are describing sounds like you believe its infinite if so how would you explain the big bang theory? If you have an infinite amount of substance in a singularity and it exploded, how long would it take for it to empty out all of its content? The answer should be infinity, if thats the correct answer then the big bang should still be going on.
First of all, you have to realize that physics, philosophy and metaphysics are inseparable and necessary requirements for getting the truth. Start with the most fundamental and then think your way up logically. Matter is an effect. More fundamental, is space and motion. The [wave] motion of space forms matter. Space is infinite (not bounded by anything) and eternal (not created by any substance). Consequently, motion is eternal. What we observe as finite discrete matter, aka 'particles', is the effect of wave interactions. Specifically, the wave centers.
And why are you asking me to explain the BBT? Haven't you read any of my posts in this thread?
There was no big bang. Singularities are figments of mathematical imagination. As long as your mind is fixed on this Big Bang thing you're gonna be forever stuck.
I agree that this is a stumbling box and I love to watch people who swear to it sit uneasy when I ask them a few logical questions about the theory.
Now here is a philosophical thought, if all matter and reality is nothing more than a bunch of waves, oscillating waves, and thought nothing more than waves of countless neurons synapses, and reality perception of (matter) waves turned into neuron waves in with the brain that is somehow translates into our sense of reality........ Then how can we say that any of this stuff is real and not just waves being transmitted into our brains?
The waves i'm talking about are real. Real tangible, spherical standing waves. Real vibrations of real space.
Im only speaking in hypercritical terms now, but the waves that you are talking about are only tangible because the waves in our brains told us....
In other words you see a red ball, that is composed of waves of matter, that reflect waves of light, into our eyes where they are turned into neuron waves that our brain draws up for us to see..... If you really think about it, rest our senses operate on the same principals.
So the question remains, what makes an object real, the external waves that we are perceiving or the waves in our brain...... And if there were no one to observe the waves does it exist at all?
Im am not saying this is my belief but it is interesting how some of the principles of the (WSM) fits so neatly in this belief system..
That I have to cut some time out of somewhere to do more reading. In the first few minutes, the basic premises shattered some concepts from string theory. However, without having read more, it just makes sense. Sometimes, when you read up on a new theory, it connects at the end once you correlate the disparate concepts and unify them in the theory. Initially, it doesnt seem so complex.
Ok, let's not get ahead of ourselves now. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what i'm talking about and until that gets resolved we're just going to be going around in circles.
1) There are different kinds of waves. Brain waves are linearly propagated sinusoidal waves. They're electromagnetic oscillations generated by neurons in the brain. And they don't "tell" us anything. They're just by-products of neuronal activity. Just like smoke is a by-product of combustion.
2) Something is real because you experience it as being real. The keyboard that you're typing on right now. It's real because your senses detect and respond to the stimuli coming into your nervous system. Not because brain waves, somehow, communicated it to you like you're saying.
3) You have it backwards. The waves i'm talking about form matter, not the other way around. The waves create the red ball, not the red ball creating the waves. It's important that you understand this fundamental concept first.
Man, these guys are still talking about particles when there are none.
But yeah, you've gone way off tangent from the thread topic so I'll pass this rabbit hole...
I hear that. What's so fascinating to me is how simple it is. And also interesting is it's relationship to General Relativity. When you think about it, it's GR in reverse. Space warping matter. Einstein had it backwards! And that's why he had the conundrum with reconciling it with quantum theory ... which by the way is also seriously flawed.
I hear that. What's so fascinating to me is how simple it is. And also interesting is it's relationship to General Relativity. When you think about it, it's GR in reverse. Space warping matter. Einstein had it backwards!
Funny, in that when I was referencing a theory in my previous response, I was thinking about GR. GR didnt connect with me until after reading a book on the theory and I literally needed every disparate concept to really connect the theory. Only then, did it make sense. I didnt have my wow moment until the end. I got a wow on WSM within the first few moments like
String theory got me much faster than GR but nothing like WSM. Shit is fascinating man.
But as a I said, I am going to really need more time to give a more detailed response. With dense materials, books or academic papers really work well for me because I like details.
yep. mentioned it in a thread a while back. excellent book. got it in the study right now. not done reading it though ...a bit off topic sean, but u eva read this:
if so, what did you think?
a bit off topic sean, but u eva read this:
if so, what did you think?
Wow....
Never heard about this book. The earliest mathematics I have ever done was Egyptian and Babylonia mathematics. Trust me it is incredible difficult doing physics with that shit.
The Egyptians had the arithmetic down, but the Arab added the numeric system we use today. 0-9...
haven't finished reading it, however it does grip you from the introduction tho.
do you have the ebook?
I fully understand the differences between the waves, one forms all the substance in the universe via osculating wave patterns, and the other creates a picture in our mind to represent these substances via electronic pulse waves by our neuron in our brain.. Simple enough, but my hypothetical question is, can the relationship between these waves be similar to a TVset and the TV signal..... Our brains being the receptors or the physical TV set that is capable of convert the signals into a neuron generated stimuli we perceive as reality. While the wave particles act more like the signal itself, information in the form of wave frequencies containing bits of information needed to be translated by a receiver in the right frequency in order to be perceived..
May this also be how parrelel universes work, perhaps they are wave signals that our senses are not in tune to pic up...... Perhaps its a stretch but nevertheless if find it very completing and food for thought.. Especially when there is data that suggests that the mere act of observation seems to have an affect on matter, which suggest that our brain may have a more proactive role to the substances around us than that is understood.
On the topic of whats real where you said, "Something is real because you experience it as being real" are you suggest that a hallucination or virtual reality are also real, just because the mind experience it as being real?
a bit off topic sean, but u eva read this:
if so, what did you think?
That books is no joke! Make sure you set some time to give it a good read.. Nothing embarrassing about feeling lost and completely beyond your faculties reading it either!
a bit off topic sean, but u eva read this:
if so, what did you think?
added to wishlist based on comments
As i read what he wrote i saw your query as a likely response. It does beg the question as we become more "apt" at reproducing these waves patterns without the stimuli, what does that mean in terms of reality?
Talking about "wow" moments, read that article on gravity from the spaceandmotion website. WSM explains gravity so elegantly and simply!Funny, in that when I was referencing a theory in my previous response, I was thinking about GR. GR didnt connect with me until after reading a book on the theory and I literally needed every disparate concept to really connect the theory. Only then, did it make sense. I didnt have my wow moment until the end. I got a wow on WSM within the first few moments like
String theory got me much faster than GR but nothing like WSM. Shit is fascinating man.
But as a I said, I am going to really need more time to give a more detailed response. With dense materials, books or academic papers really work well for me because I like details.
gonna go read it now....
Similar threads
