Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Standing Waves From 3 Relative Quantized Fields

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on March 3, 2002 06:22:49 UTC

Just briefly:

I realised when re-reading, that errors were very likely as some issues were glossed over and needed to be more precisely calculated.

Possibly this may mess up other calculations but possibly it will just cancel out other errors.

Any discovery of non-balancing equations is good to know about. When I first wrote it I figured that mass = acceleration; then I realised I had left out the "reference distance" involved in the "direction" of velocity as unlike "speed" which is just "distance per reference distance (time)"; velocity is a vector.

I'm not sure that the exact nature of "direction" is adequately equated with "reference distance"; it may have to regarded as "reference distance per reference distance per reference distance" as to reduce all possible directions in 3-space requires a triangle that can rotate.

That is: you need two focii around which you thread a triangle of thread that goes around a third point (classic means of drawing an ellipse).
This allows any direction in a plane with the ellipse-forming triangle. In 3-space you would need to be able to rotate the ellipse out of the plane to accomodate all directions in 3-space.

Maybe you need two ellipse-drawing triangles that can vary between each other: that would give maybe 6 "d"s just to represent direction so my calculations lack many "d"s.

For hyper-directions I might need to exponentially increase the number of "d"s? So may be I can just use one "d" to represent "d+..." ?

I'm trying to write everything in terms of "distance" and "reference distance" from an n-space perspective; so how to represent "direction" in hyperspace and beyond?

Dr. Dick ends out with a rotation-based system in his Chapter 5.

I need to consider the issues of angular momentum and of direction and spin and figure out how many "d"s are needed and hope it works out!

But here is a logical reason as to why "mass" may be treated as "negative velocity" :

If you think of FIELDS of quantum oscillators (which I call "musical chairs games" as it's just like a field of kids running among a field of chairs- or vice-versa) then:

If "game 1" (a whole group of quantum oscillators) is moving with a velocity v, past "game 2"; then at any "instant" defined by freezing the two games against the quantum oscillators of a 3rd game, you will get matches of game 1 vacant chairs to game 2 chair-less kids.

Now suppose you move forward to the next instant. The next instant is Planck's constant h after the previous instant, and represents the next instant that at least one child or chair has changed match-ups.

A certain type of wind-wave cloud (lenticular cloud) appears stationary in high winds because it grows at one edge and evaporates at the other; and thus the cloud "stationary mass" is a kind of "negative wind velocity".

I am supposing that a field of quantum oscillators (in analogy: "cloud") is jumping at just the right synchronisation relative to another, moving, field of quantum oscillators (in analogy: wind velocity) to appear stationary against a third field of quantum oscillators (in analogy: "ground")(time or reference space).

So this seems to fit with modern physics which says that "mass" is "frequency" is "matter wave".
Note Dirac's electron has a tiny amplitude oscillation frequency within it's immediate location such that when added to it's straight velocity gives c.

The text "Light" by R.W. Ditchburn (about 700 pages) gives the clearest explanation I've seen of why "wave" and "particle" are limits at each end of one overall theory.
The basic quantized field theory of "three musical chairs games" seems to work exactly as required by that text.

Feynman's particles from the future seem to be possibly just really the mirror-effect that I include (those particles are in fact mirror particles). I think I have accomodated that. Dr. Dick may have done so under a different description.

thanks,

-dolphin

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins