The Universe Solved

 


Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Navigating the Quantum Froth - more evidence for Programmed Reality? Options
jim
Posted: Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:20:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 968
Points: 2,910
New Blog Post: Evidence for Programmed Reality is starting to pour in from all fields. The latest comes from Gamma-ray imaging from deep space: http://blog.theuniversesolved.com/2009/08/16/navigating-the-quantum-froth/

jim
Posted: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:06:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 968
Points: 2,910
An update to this topic is in this week's NewScientist here.

Doesn't really prove anything much, except that the results from MAGIC don't match the results from NASA. But it does make me wonder - did the programmers apply a patch some time between 2005 and now? Anybody check Planck's Constant lately?
jdlaw
Posted: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:00:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
It is precisely because of the granularity of the universe that -- constants are not necessarily constant.

You may have seen the below equation in some of my other posts. And it really is just -- E equals MC squared, but it throws in a little objective reality into relativity.

i.e. there is NO universal velocity - no universal reference frame - no universal constants. The following equation (which I take credit for, by the way, since I have yet to see it published exactly as I have it anywhere else) is just an application of Lorentzian transformations considering that there actually is no -- universal reference frame.
The little "i" stands for the inertial state (the particle energy or object we want to observe) and the little "r" stands for the reference state (the particle energy or object that wants to do the observing). It never matters if r or i switch places, it is just the difference that matters.

-- A bit of semantics, I know, but given the nature of the created (programmed) universe as opposed to the self-created (happen stance) universe, we see that "God" (i.e. the great programmer in the shy) does have the ability to just turn the dial -- or simply given time and changing of the way the universe expands or contracts ... the physical constants will change. Given the enormity of the universe, however, things like Plancks Constant do not change within our lifetime.


jdlaw
Posted: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:14:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
On a side note, how do the points in this forum work?

Why do I always seem to be the point leader in here. On my last post, I was 456. Jim was 438. And Neo was only 137 yet has more posts than anybody.

Was up wid dat?
jim
Posted: Sunday, November 1, 2009 1:34:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 968
Points: 2,910
Yes, the forum points - almost as mysterious as relativity itself. I think there is a Lorentzian factor applied if you post too quickly. :d/

But seriously, deleting posts automatically dings you a hundred points or something. So Neo must have thought better of something he posted. As uberforumadmindude, I think I can add points and adjust the rules and did so once in the past to help poor Neo get out of the negative. I would be glad to apply another point boost if our Matrix-bound friend so desires.

Question about your formula - as the reference frame moves close to the speed of light relative to the inertial frame, the denominator of your factor goes to zero and energy goes to infinity. How do you see this manifest?
jdlaw
Posted: Monday, November 2, 2009 11:02:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Yes. The difference of squares math is not too difficult. I do look for the Occam's Razor (elegant solutions).

It has to go to infinity when the difference approaches the speed of light. I see this infinity manifest as dropping out of observable reality, but only as to the reference state. If the reference still wants to observe the inertial system, it will have to catch up somehow.

I apologize for my lack of clarity in writing. Most often, I understand myself very well. But alas, to everyone else, I might just be a cracked pot. I equate your question with Law number 2 of the JDlaws of light speed.

Do I get forum points for being an arrogant bastard?

JDlaws of Light Speed
1. The observed speed of light in any reference frame is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second.
2. No mass, energy, or quantum particle can be observed directly by another mass energy or quantum particle that has a greater relative difference in velocity than 299,792,458 meters per second.
3. Where two masses, energies, or quantum particles are moving, spinning, or vibrating with velocities separated by greater than 299,792,458 meters per second relative to each other they must exist in a different quantum realities. However, a third mass, energy or quantum particle whose relative velocity is between the two may observe them both.
4. This duality is finite, but the number of dualities is infinite.
5. There is another reference frame in some reality that exists somewhere or sometime where this reference frame, you are in right now, is moving at the speed of light relative to that other reference frame.

jdlaw
Posted: Monday, November 2, 2009 11:43:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Oh! and the formula derivation is a lot easier than trying to explain (guess really) how it might manifest.

I derived it quite simply from observation. Somewhere in some physics class, the instructor once taught me that:




Then I thought, wait a minute. What the hell is v? The earth is spinning -- orbiting about the sun -- the sun is moving in reference to other stars -- the other stars are either expanding or contracting -- and who knows how fast empty space might be moving????

So obviously,


Then you just copy the Einstein derivation from KE to E substituting (vi - vr) for v. You will come up with



Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Universe Solved Theme Created by Jim Elvidge (Universe Solved)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v4.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.105 seconds.