 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / April 2006dimensions are energy??
I was in bus when a thought crossed me. Remember what Bohr said about the shells of atom? They have certain energy in which electrons are free to move without loosing energy.(That was due to wave interference of course). Can we apply same principal to dimensions, Having some different(hidden) sort of energy, which we matter also possess, and hence are able to wander in the dimensions.(May not be about waves but I have lots to say about it and many arguments to support it) Dear Nishu: > I was in bus when a thought crossed me. Remember > what Bohr said about the shells of atom? They have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > about waves but I have lots to say about it and > many arguments to support it) Given time and conservation of momentum, space is formed. Energy isn't always conserved globally. David A. Smith Dear David, Of course you must be right. You may have a lot of knowledge of the subject but I am only very new.I'm just 16 but have far more knowledge of this subject then my peers and much more than a layman. All I wish to say is that can't we look into something with a completely different pespective. Maybe it is these dimension limits of energy that don't allow us to cross light's speed or cool anything below 0 K(-273.15 c) .Maybe if we can find some way to break these hidden energy barriers and so we can escape into new dimensions( which may not be curved or string scale small) with diffrent energy bounds. This might sound funny to you, but please reply me back. > Dear David, Of course you must be right. You may have a lot of > knowledge of the subject but I am only very new.I'm just 16 but have > far more knowledge of this subject then my peers and much more than a > layman. All I wish to say is that can't we look into something with a > completely different perspective. Sure - but that perspective must make sense. Dimension and energy are entirely different concepts. For a modern view of what energy is see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem As you can there is a connection - but it is subtle. > Maybe it is these dimension limits of > energy that don't allow us to cross light's speed or cool anything > below 0 K(-273.15 c) .Maybe if we can find some way to break these > hidden energy barriers and so we can escape into new dimensions( which > may not be curved or string scale small) with diffrent energy bounds. > This might sound funny to you, but please reply me back. That is a lot of ifs - in science it is wise to proceed with less grand speculation and only after one has understood the basics: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/ http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html Maintain your interest - but harness it correctly. Thanks Bill > > Dear David, Of course you must be right. You may have a lot of > > knowledge of the subject but I am only very new.I'm just 16 but have > > far more knowledge of this subject then my peers and much more than a > > layman. All I wish to say is that can't we look into something with a > > completely different perspective. "...look into something with a completely different perspective." That sounds like true science to me, unlike most of the postings here. Henry Haapalainen > Sure - but that perspective must make sense. Dimension and energy are > entirely different concepts. For a modern view of what energy is see: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Thanks > Bill > > > Dear David, Of course you must be right. You may have a lot of > > > knowledge of the subject but I am only very new.I'm just 16 but have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "...look into something with a completely different perspective." That > sounds like true science to me, unlike most of the postings here. Ah! You confuse "science" with "originality". You think scientists get famous because they are creative and not because they are *right*? Henry, I think we've found the source of your problem! PD > Henry Haapalainen > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Thanks > > Bill Henry Haapalainen wrote: > "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> kirjoitti viestissä > news:KYy3g.15975$vy1.7706@news-server.bigpond.net.au... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "...look into something with a completely different perspective." That > sounds like true science to me, unlike most of the postings here. (HH) Ah! You confuse "science" with "originality". You think scientists get famous because they are creative and not because they are *right*? Henry, I think we've found the source of your problem! PD PD, you sound like an idiot to me. (HH) > > Sure - but that perspective must make sense. Dimension and energy are > > entirely different concepts. For a modern view of what energy is see: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Thanks > > Bill > Henry Haapalainen wrote: >> "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> kirjoitti viestissä [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > PD, you sound like an idiot to me. (HH) No Henry - I was going to write something similar before I saw Paul's response. There is a differerence between originality and nonsense. Sometimes things that are original are not nonsense - those are the ones that are generally pursued in science. Most of the time even those turn out a dead end - very few make the grade. Your trouble is you, Henry, can't distinguish nonsense from something that just may be true. Falling space for example is nonsense - Kaluza-Klein theory looks weird and is original - but is not nonsense and in fact may be true. The original poster needs to learn the difference to make progress. Gerard t'Hooft spells it out quite clearly here: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html The fact you do not recognize your ideas are nonsense does not change the fact they are; nor does it change the fact the original posters ideas are 'nonsense'. Studying and understanding basic physics and math will go part way in allowing you (and the original poster) to tell the difference. Theories that are nonsense were described by Pauli as 'not even wrong'. Once you understand the basics it is usually easy to recognize such - and the more you understand the easier it is to recognize. To an outsider that looks like a high priesthood laying down the law (and what you see cranks ramble on about); to those with even a minimal knowledge it is simply common sense. BTW even scientists are not immune to proposing nonsense - Pauli was often sounded out my Einstein to ensure his ideas were not nonsense. Pauli helped Einstein see many of his ideas were 'not even wrong'. Bill >> > Sure - but that perspective must make sense. Dimension and energy are >> > entirely different concepts. For a modern view of what energy is see: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> > Thanks >> > Bill > > Henry Haapalainen wrote: > >> "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> kirjoitti viestissä [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Bill What I wrote was the following: > >> "...look into something with a completely different perspective." That > >> sounds like true science to me, unlike most of the postings here. (HH) > > > Henry Haapalainen wrote: > > >> "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> kirjoitti viestissä [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > >> "...look into something with a completely different perspective." That > > >> sounds like true science to me, unlike most of the postings here. (HH) That's right. "Looking into something with a completely different perspective" is no indicator of it being "true science". It is an indicator of originality, not of science. PD Henry Haapalainen wrote: > "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> kirjoitti viestissä > news:yGV3g.17066$vy1.7596@news-server.bigpond.net.au... [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > >> "...look into something with a completely different perspective." That > > >> sounds like true science to me, unlike most of the postings here. (HH) That's right. "Looking into something with a completely different perspective" is no indicator of it being "true science". It is an indicator of originality, not of science. PD I think that you will never understand the true meaning of that sentence. (HH) > Henry Haapalainen wrote: >> "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> kirjoitti viestissä [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > I think that you will never understand the true meaning of that sentence. > (HH) Just as you will probably never understand stringing words together in ways silly from the very definition of those words - like dimension energetically creates isomorphism's or similar rubbish you see from cranks or trolls trying to ape them - while original - is utter nonsense. Falling space is also an example. This was a key philosophical insight of Wittgenstein; http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/ten.html The tractatus is terse and difficult but its last line is plain as day 'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.' Bill > > Henry Haapalainen wrote: > >> "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> kirjoitti viestissä [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > Bill You are dummy. I didn't say a word about dimensions or energy. I wrote about that one sentence of (Nishu?), and I meant only that, nothing else. (HH) >> What I wrote was the following: >> > >> "...look into something with a completely different perspective." That >> > >> sounds like true science to me, unlike most of the postings here. (HH) > That's right. "Looking into something with a completely different > perspective" is no indicator of it being "true science". It is an > indicator of originality, not of science. > PD For example, deciding that the Universe is controlled by invisible cats would be looking into things with a completely different perspective. However unless I can find some experimental support for the invisible cats, it is not scientific. Stephen > >> What I wrote was the following: > >> > >> "...look into something with a completely different perspective." That [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > However unless I can find some experimental support for the invisible > cats, it is not scientific. And actually you don't even need direct evidence of invisible cats. All you need is the prediction of a measurable phenomenon that stems from the presence and influence of invisible cats, and which phenomenon is not predicted by any other preceding theory. If the measurable phenomenon turns out as predicted, then it is reasonable to assume the presence and influence of invisible cats. PD > Stephen >> >> What I wrote was the following: >> >> > >> "...look into something with a completely different perspective." That [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> However unless I can find some experimental support for the invisible >> cats, it is not scientific. > And actually you don't even need direct evidence of invisible cats. All > you need is the prediction of a measurable phenomenon that stems from > the presence and influence of invisible cats, and which phenomenon is > not predicted by any other preceding theory. If the measurable > phenomenon turns out as predicted, then it is reasonable to assume the > presence and influence of invisible cats. > PD Given the fascination that cats have with gravity, especially their desire to test it at 3am by knocking things off the nightstand, I have always suspected there was some deeper connection. Stephen > > >> What I wrote was the following: > > >> > >> "...look into something with a completely different perspective." That [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > > PD Do you know some breakthrough in physics that has been done without "looking into something with a completely different perspective"? Henry Haapalainen > > > >> What I wrote was the following: > > > >> > >> "...look into something with a completely different [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Do you know some breakthrough in physics that has been done without "looking > into something with a completely different perspective"? Yes, indeed. Lasers, for example. Electroweak unification, for another. Cosmic microwave background, for another. There are many cases where the act of genius is in reality the synthesis of a bunch of little pieces that are already in the literature, plus a healthy dash of courage. That's not to say that there aren't breakthroughs in physics that have involved stepping back and taking a fresh perspective. But, as I said earlier, the thing that drives those physicists is finding out what is *right*, not finding something *new*. You have your priorities mixed up. PD Now here is some real action going over the "different perspective" thing. I posted that. I'm very new and it was just a creative thought. I don't have much knowledge regarding the subject. It's just my mind that uncontrollably flies in the world of physics. But I'm learning really fast with the help of members of this group and some good quality textbooks. But I will also like to add that once even 'earth is round' seemed to be a creative and unscientific thought, or evolution or even universal nature of a single force called gravity(However whoever proposed these thoughts were, unlike me, greatest minds of their time). And as you believe in quantum mechanics(as I hope), you cannot completely discard probabilty of any event, however small it may be. Dear Nishu: > But I will also like to add that once even 'earth is > round' seemed to be a creative and unscientific > thought, or evolution No, the Greeks had identified that the Earth was round (and measured the curvature), long before Europeans got in trouble with the Church for pointing out the facts. "The Earth Is Round" was simply politically incorrect, because the Church was dominant in politics at that time. > or even universal nature of a single force called > gravity (However whoever proposed these [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > discard probabilty of any event, however small > it may be. That is one of the problems with applying quantum mechanics to the real world. A probability can be assigned to a particular cow, having been slaughtered, processed, and consumed... to be reconstituted into the original cow. Your idea is not sharp, not in focus. Until you make some predictions, it can neither be supported nor defeated. Until it is fully expressed (or discarded), it will always stand between you and more understanding. Your next step is to see what "dimensions are energy" implies... David A. Smith > Dear Nishu: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > pointing out the facts. "The Earth Is Round" was simply politically > incorrect, because the Church was dominant in politics at that time. Indeed - for the full gory detail see http://hps.arts.unsw.edu.au/hps_content/online_resources/online_inhouse_res/schu ster_SciRev_book/Schuster_a_contents.htm >> or even universal nature of a single force called >> gravity (However whoever proposed these [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > discarded), it will always stand between you and more understanding. Your > next step is to see what "dimensions are energy" implies... And that is where a problem arises - time is a dimension - but Noethers theorem shows that energy is basically about time symmetry which would seem to rule the idea out. However you may still wish to pursue it - but it does not look fruitful - ie as Pauli would say - it seems not even wrong. Thanks Bill > David A. Smith $$ Re: Shape-phase-change energy. > > Your idea is not sharp, not in focus. Until you make some > > predictions, it can neither be supported nor defeated. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thanks > Bill [..a VERY GR-cracked-pot calls kettle BLACK-a.s.] -=- > > David A. Smith > > [..End of POST]. > Now here is some real action going over the "different perspective" > thing. I posted that. I'm very new and it was just a creative thought. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cannot completely discard probabilty of any event, however small it may > be. The remarks by PD and myself were not directed at you. You seem quite genuine and simply need a little direction pointing to get on the right track. It was directed at others who have been given that direction many times and fail to see it. They confuse silly semantics with creativity. Thanks Bill Now here is some real action going over the "different perspective" thing. I posted that. I'm very new and it was just a creative thought. I don't have much knowledge regarding the subject. It's just my mind that uncontrollably flies in the world of physics. But I'm learning really fast with the help of members of this group and some good quality textbooks. But I will also like to add that once even 'earth is round' seemed to be a creative and unscientific thought, or evolution or even universal nature of a single force called gravity(However whoever proposed these thoughts were, unlike me, greatest minds of their time). And as you believe in quantum mechanics(as I hope), you cannot completely discard probabilty of any event, however small it may be. Henry Haapalainen wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä > news:1146229549.147115.65240@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Do you know some breakthrough in physics that has been done without "looking > into something with a completely different perspective"? You have your priorities mixed up. PD How can you know about my priorities. Have I told you something about them? Where? (HH) Henry Haapalainen: >> > >> What I wrote was the following: >> > >> > >> "...look into something with a completely different [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Do you know some breakthrough in physics that has been done without "looking >into something with a completely different perspective"? Do you know of one breakthrough in physics that has been made without any knowledge of physics? > > > > Dear David, Of course you must be right. You may have a lot of > > > > knowledge of the subject but I am only very new.I'm just 16 but have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > because they are *right*? > Henry, I think we've found the source of your problem! Mathematicians only get famous for manufacturing extrema garbage about cateogories. Physcists only get famous because the morons can still read The Fig Newton even after the Three Mile Island Meltdown. Evolutionists only get famous because they know where to get strong coke, vis 'a vis weak coke. > PD > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > Thanks > > > Bill |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.