PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Bossieman on January 08, 2003, 01:00:39 PM
-
Today I was working on a paradox in the theory I´m working with and to solve it I had to do a very interesting assumption. I would like to here what you people think of it.
When you work on a theory it is easy to get lost so this is also a realitycheck.
If the theory is right the way we look at matter is way wrong.
According to the theory everything we see has its origin in what evolution has brought to us. We can see matter that shine. If an object shine we can see it, if it doesnt shine we cant see it(try to see in a dark room). But we cant see gravity just feel it. We cant see light only light that is reflected on particles. If we cant see it we can still feel it. If you put your hand close to burning candle, you cant see the heat(light) but you can feel it. Same with gravity, you cant see it but you can feel it. Why cant we see gravity?
Well according to the theory the answer must be that evolution has given us the ability to see light because it is vital to survival. Gravity is almost constant all around the planet, no need for evolving the ability to see gravity. Remember that the electromagnetic force and gravity is in our theory antiforces to each other.
A particle is a particle because it reflects light. But the assumed graviton is an antiparticle to the photon (in our theory)meaning that we can never see the graviton as particle. Because if we want to observe anything it must emmiting light but gravity is anti to light so we can never see the graviton. This makes sence IMO because scientists today have no clue in how to see a gravitons.
Evolution has given us the ability to see light emited from objects but not the ability to see gravitation.
So in the theory you can never see particles that is build of more Anti-LESA than LESA.
And according to the theory there should be "particles" that is build of more anti-lesa than lesa. A particle is only a particle as long as it emmits light. If it doesnt emitts light we cant see it and we say the particle is a wave. I know it sound strange now but I just have to share this with you all because it is a great day today.
It should be places in the universe where everything is the other way around. The lifeform can see gravity but for them gravity becomes light in our world. Gravity for them would be light for us.
Does this sound insane or what? Opinions please.:D
-
What.
-
I like pasta.
-
Ok, whay to abstract, thanks anyway.
-
Man dude, you\'re like smart or something.
-
E=mc²!
-
I understand *runs off scared of the big words
-
Well, one thing that struck me when I was reading it was when you talked about seeing light vs. feeling it, in the form of heat. Wouldn\'t light and heat be independent of eachother? I mean, something can be incredible hot, and not be something we can see. If you\'re walking around in a dark room, and you step on a recently heated piece of steel or something, you\'d feel it without seeing it. At the same time, with things like LED\'s, relatively high amounts of light can be emitted with relatively low amounts of heat. I probably am missing something here, but I just thought I\'d point that out. I suppose they would be related, at least from the knowledge that I have based on my limited knowledge of different sciences, but they don\'t seem to be directly related enough to say that heat is like a way of feeling light.
I guess the reasoning you gave makes sense to me on some level, but it also seems like there are other things you can feel, but can\'t see. For example, say you have a stereo. You turn the volume up, and have the bass on really high. You can feel the bass, but you can\'t see it. I guess sound in general would be an example. I mean, we can feel sound. Otherwise, we couldn\'t hear it. However, we can\'t see it. There seems like there are just a lot of examples of things you can feel, but can\'t see...too many to just grab gravity out as one of these things, and make such an assumption. Then again, it is quite possible that you have more thinking behind this, or I just missed something. *shrug*
-
There are lots of creatures that survive quite well without the ability to see light. But beside that, I think this is more of a philosophical thing. Just coz you can\'t see the candle flame doesn\'t mean it\'s not there.
Graviton? I suppose you can\'t see gravity since it does not have mass....then again, we can see light and that doesn\'t have mass. Or does it? The force of gravity from the Black Holes can pull light, correct?
-
Well, you really have to read the stuff that Bossieman posted before. It was about basically a whole different theory on all sorts of things like that.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
was when you talked about seeing light vs. feeling it, in the form of heat. Wouldn\'t light and heat be independent of eachother? I mean, something can be incredible hot, and not be something we can see. If you\'re walking around in a dark room, and you step on a recently heated piece of steel or something, you\'d feel it without seeing it.
I
Light and heat are the same thing. The human eye can only see a fraction of the lightspectrum.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
For example, say you have a stereo. You turn the volume up, and have the bass on really high. You can feel the bass, but you can\'t see it. I guess sound in general would be an example. I mean, we can feel sound.
Actually sound is motion in the air for examples. The reason we cant see sound is that the particles that move is so small. But if you look at the bass you can see it move.
-
Interesting..hmmm.
It should be places in the universe where everything is the other way around. The lifeform can see gravity but for them gravity becomes light in our world. Gravity for them would be light for us.
I dont think we can deny this possibility.Actually I think we should accept it as fact.
The universe is infinite and so are the possibilities.
We humans can only imagine things based on what we ve seen.If we lived in an enviroment where there is no red for example we could have never imagined how red looks.
If we were blind creatures that could live without their sight we would have never known how this sense is.We would have never known even that vision exists.
There might be colors our eyes cant reckognise (can someone that has monochromatism know all the of colors we know?Can a dog know?).
There are sounds we cant hear.
There are senses we dont know because our bodies arent built that way.
Indeed I think there might be other life forms in the universe that have other senses we dont have and dont have others we have because they arent needed to survive.
-
Indeed - our colour-vision is quite narrowed. Heck, we only see a small part of the rainbow. Imagine how beautiful the sight would be if we had the ability to witness all the possible nuances of colour ( that, however, is only possible in fictional theory )?
Light and heat is - indeed - the same thing. The difference between a candle and a light-bulb - as sources of light - is the fact that while a candle produces natural light, a light-bulb produces artificial light. \'Thus you can not feel the light produced by a light-bulb from afar - but try to grab the light-bulb after it has been on for a while. You will burn your fingers quickly.
Bossieman, I can not really agree nor disagree with your theory. It sounds quite good as it is, but as I am not very good with particles and gravitons, my word shouldn\'t count much. What I do agree with you, however, is your theory of oppositism ( sp? ). Some believe that in order to keep the universe in balance, every matter has to have an anti-matter. Meaning that, for example, a black-hole has to have a light-producing white-hole as a counter-part, somewhere. In the second Universe... In the second Dimension... Who knows?
Indeed. Who really knows anything?
-
Eh?
I read "Today I was working on a paradox in the theory I´m working with.........", then everything went fuzzy. The next thing I remember was waking up in the zoo, wearing nothing except a Tina Turner wig and feeling rather "tender" round the back door area.
WTF happened????
-
I thought for a moment you said you were wanking in the zoo wearing a Tina Turner wig.:laughing:
-
Originally posted by Kurt Angle
I thought for a moment you said you were wanking in the zoo wearing a Tina Turner wig.:laughing:
so did i....
See us Brits we have the dirty\'st minds on the planet !
-
Originally posted by ooseven
See us Brits we have the dirty\'st minds on the planet !
Yeah, it\'s a pity the rest of the world doesn\'t recognise out better qualities.
-
So, with all this said, Why can we see antimatter then?
-
yeah and why do we have arm pit hair
well not me per say as i shave mine.
-
Originally posted by Darth Joyda
The difference between a candle and a light-bulb - as sources of light - is the fact that while a candle produces natural light, a light-bulb produces artificial light. \'Thus you can not feel the light produced by a light-bulb from afar - but try to grab the light-bulb after it has been on for a while. You will burn your fingers quickly.
[/QUOT
Heat and ligt are not the same thing. Heat is a byproduct of light. and I dont belive ther is such a thing as "artificial" light. A lightbulb uses electricity to create light. That doesnt change what it is.
-
Originally posted by MPTheory
So, with all this said, Why can we see antimatter then?
Antimatter in QM and anti-matter in ET-Theory are 2 different things.
Antimatter in QM are just ordinary matter with opposite values on charges a.s.o.
In ET-theory antimatter is build of anti-room(anti-LESA) and matter build of room(LESA).
To see matter the room has to be positiv. So we can never see particles that is anti in ET-Theory. Examples are. Gravitons and electrons.
-
****! My brain hertz.... *doh*
-
I like big butts and I can not lie...
-
Originally posted by MPTheory
Originally posted by Darth Joyda
The difference between a candle and a light-bulb - as sources of light - is the fact that while a candle produces natural light, a light-bulb produces artificial light. \'Thus you can not feel the light produced by a light-bulb from afar - but try to grab the light-bulb after it has been on for a while. You will burn your fingers quickly.
[/QUOT
Heat and ligt are not the same thing. Heat is a byproduct of light. and I dont belive ther is such a thing as "artificial" light. A lightbulb uses electricity to create light. That doesnt change what it is. [/B]
Yes - I noticed my mistake later-on :) Sorry - it was late when I wrote that, so my brain wasn\'t functioning properly.
But at least I tried - unlike most of the spammers here.
-
Originally posted by Bossieman
Today I was working on a paradox in the theory I´m working with and to solve it I had to do a very interesting assumption. I would like to here what you people think of it.
When you work on a theory it is easy to get lost so this is also a realitycheck.
If the theory is right the way we look at matter is way wrong.
According to the theory everything we see has its origin in what evolution has brought to us. We can see matter that shine. If an object shine we can see it, if it doesnt shine we cant see it(try to see in a dark room). But we cant see gravity just feel it. We cant see light only light that is reflected on particles. If we cant see it we can still feel it. If you put your hand close to burning candle, you cant see the heat(light) but you can feel it. Same with gravity, you cant see it but you can feel it. Why cant we see gravity?
Well according to the theory the answer must be that evolution has given us the ability to see light because it is vital to survival. Gravity is almost constant all around the planet, no need for evolving the ability to see gravity. Remember that the electromagnetic force and gravity is in our theory antiforces to each other.
A particle is a particle because it reflects light. But the assumed graviton is an antiparticle to the photon (in our theory)meaning that we can never see the graviton as particle. Because if we want to observe anything it must emmiting light but gravity is anti to light so we can never see the graviton. This makes sence IMO because scientists today have no clue in how to see a gravitons.
Evolution has given us the ability to see light emited from objects but not the ability to see gravitation.
So in the theory you can never see particles that is build of more Anti-LESA than LESA.
And according to the theory there should be "particles" that is build of more anti-lesa than lesa. A particle is only a particle as long as it emmits light. If it doesnt emitts light we cant see it and we say the particle is a wave. I know it sound strange now but I just have to share this with you all because it is a great day today.
It should be places in the universe where everything is the other way around. The lifeform can see gravity but for them gravity becomes light in our world. Gravity for them would be light for us.
Does this sound insane or what? Opinions please.:D
Gravity is an anti particle for Photons? Gravity is a wave? This is very unorthodox, to say the least. But I can\'t say I understand everything in this Bossi. I have a few questions: When you say "anti-particle", do you mean the same thing as anti-matter when we say normal matter? When you say "anti-force", what exactly do you mean? What does the LESA acronym stand for?
(and when these questions are answered, I\'ll have more for you! :D )
I can see a potential hole in the theorey. If you say that gravity is an anti particle of photons, simply because it doesn\'t reflect them, what do you call matter that doesn\'t reflect photons? I must admit, I can\'t think of anything that doesn\'t reflect photons. Even black coloured things that don\'t reflect normal light always relfects some infa-red. (Are there substances that are considered to be normal matter that absorb all photons directed upon it?)
-
Originally posted by Avatarr
Gravity is an anti particle for Photons? Gravity is a wave? This is very unorthodox, to say the least. But I can\'t say I understand everything in this Bossi. I have a few questions: When you say "anti-particle", do you mean the same thing as anti-matter when we say normal matter? When you say "anti-force", what exactly do you mean? What does the LESA acronym stand for?
I can see a potential hole in the theorey. If you say that gravity is an anti particle of photons, simply because it doesn\'t reflect them, what do you call matter that doesn\'t reflect photons? I must admit, I can\'t think of anything that doesn\'t reflect photons. Even black coloured things that don\'t reflect normal light always relfects some infa-red. (Are there substances that are considered to be normal matter that absorb all photons directed upon it?)
A antiparticle in our theory is not the same as in standard QM. The photon is itselfs antiparticle in QM(Quantummechanics), in our theory the graviton is anti particle to the photon.
Anti particles is a wrong name, because there is no particles in our theory. Just the sum of space and anti-space (LESA and anti-LESA)
What I mean when I say antiforce I mean a force that neutralize another force so the sum becomes zero.
Matter that doesnt reflect photons are in our theory pure anti-LESA. The concept matter is not a good word to use. Our theory is based on completely new physics where mass energy, momentum a.s.o is just things that humans have created to make life easier.
Well we are having close connection through the mail so I can answer better there.
-
I wish more people would be interested in this!
.....
That way, we won\'t look so strange! :D
-
dude your way over my head on that idea i cant even add 2+2=?
-
no.... u don\'t even know the difference between "your" and "you\'re"..... :)