Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
Offlinefeldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Svetaketu]
    #26474266 - 02/07/20 04:57 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

How was I dismissive? I asked a question.

It’s all good, just trying to understand here...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Svetaketu]
    #26474278 - 02/07/20 05:07 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

bodhisatta said:
Electromagnetism and gravity are factored in. Dark matter is theorized book mark to be the explanation for the missing gravity AND source of electromagnetism that would explain the motion of Galaxies




That is no exactly the case.  Dark matter (and dark energy) are both effectively gravitational phenomenon.  Yes, dark matter is used to explain galactic rotation, but not through electromagnetism, through greater consecrations of "dark matter". 

Quote:

Svetaketu said:
It's not about what's a reputable source, the fact is that dark matter has not yet been "detected". Evidence of a thing is different than actually detecting the thing... Kind of like finding deer tracks versus an actual deer.

I'm not saying dark matter is fake, and I'm not pretending to know enough about physics to know if Rift is right or wrong.

But these sciences are still in their infancy... Why be so dismissive of alternative theories? 100 years ago people were eating poison because they thought it was medicine. It would not surprise me to discover that a large portion of what we "think" we know about space is completely backwards.




Dark matter is redundant, with zero legit support...while its competition (electromagnetism) has been well established within physics for well over 100 years, though not significantly applied to space sciences, as it clearly should be. 

Quote:

Svetaketu said:I agree he came off like a dick in a few responses, but y'all are dicks 80% of the time too :lol: I'm just trying to be objective here.


Me?  oh sure!  Creatures are meant to be treated with dignity, honor, and respect; while ideas are meant to be jumped, thoroughly beaten with every property of the universe that can be thrown at them, and believed only if they survive...I'm all about being ruthless with concepts, and feel all should challenge my science as they see fit...but don't fuck with me -I'll rip your fucking face off; I'm not to be trifled with.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 7 hours, 35 minutes
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26474359 - 02/07/20 05:54 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

feldman114 said:
How was I dismissive? I asked a question.

It’s all good, just trying to understand here...




No worries, understanding is also my objective...

The point is, dark matter has not been detected yet. There is evidence supporting it, hence why it is taken seriously, but there are also a few concerning holes in the story, many of which Rift explained rather nicely. 97% is not a small chunk, there should be plenty nearby to experiment with, yet ... Experiments fail to repeatedly verify it...so far.

Similar to the black hole idea, it seems like a case of forcing reality to fit the math, which is backwards... We need to force the math to fit reality.

Quote:

Rift Zone said:
Quote:

Svetaketu said:
It's not about what's a reputable source, the fact is that dark matter has not yet been "detected". Evidence of a thing is different than actually detecting the thing... Kind of like finding deer tracks versus an actual deer.

I'm not saying dark matter is fake, and I'm not pretending to know enough about physics to know if Rift is right or wrong.

But these sciences are still in their infancy... Why be so dismissive of alternative theories? 100 years ago people were eating poison because they thought it was medicine. It would not surprise me to discover that a large portion of what we "think" we know about space is completely backwards.




Dark matter is redundant, with zero legit support...while its competition (electromagnetism) has been well established within physics for well over 100 years, though not significantly applied to space sciences, as it clearly should be. 




I'm inclined to agree with you, however I haven't gone through the plasma cosmology mathematics myself, which would be required for a genuine understanding. So the best I can really say is, your idea sounds more right to me?

Quote:

Me?  oh sure!  Creatures are meant to be treated with dignity, honor, and respect; while ideas are meant to be jumped, thoroughly beaten with every property of the universe that can be thrown at them, and believed only if they survive...I'm all about being ruthless with concepts, and feel all should challenge my science as they see fit...but don't fuck with me -I'll rip your fucking face off; I'm not to be trifled with.





Sure, but is this your idea of rigorously testing your ideas? This isn't really the place to get actual criticism for your scientific theories, based on this thread it looks like at best you'll get "sounds possible" or "bullshit, prove it", but you can't because we don't understand the math...

What's the endgame here?


--------------------
LAGM2020
LAGM2021


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 10 months, 28 days
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26474397 - 02/07/20 06:11 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Rift Zone said:
Quote:

chibiabos said:
I already told you that its a parameter that defines an event horizon (in part, at least).




You mean you concede. 




No.  I mean that it's a term that tells you how to define an event horizon.  It's sort of like how a radius is a parameter that defines a circle (even though one is a number and the other one is a closed loop that can be embedded in a plane).


Edited by chibiabos (02/07/20 06:23 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Svetaketu]
    #26474407 - 02/07/20 06:15 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Svetaketu said:
... Why be so dismissive of alternative theories? 100 years ago people were eating poison because they thought it was medicine. It would not surprise me to discover that a large portion of what we "think" we know about space is completely backwards.



-another voice of reason...  I like it!  =)


Quote:

Svetaketu said:

I'm inclined to agree with you, however I haven't gone through the plasma cosmology mathematics myself, which would be required for a genuine understanding. So the best I can really say is, your idea sounds more right to me?




for 5 bucks you can pick up a used copy of "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner.  I saw that shit and was like "say what?  -defend yourself"...  and it did.  Its science kicked the shit out my big bang theory, and I subsequently became a Plasma Cosmology adherent 20something years ago...  I kinda lead the field now (astrophysics, QM, and cosmology outright, for that matter.)  Anyway, start there, put Nova on top of it, and you'll be pretty keen on 21st century physics! 

Quote:

Svetaketu said:
Sure, but is this your idea of rigorously testing your ideas? This isn't really the place to get actual criticism for your scientific theories, based on this thread it looks like at best you'll get "sounds possible" or "bullshit, prove it", but you can't because we don't understand the math...

What's the endgame here?




I'm not testing a theory here, I know Nova cannot be broken.  I also know I'm not about to lose a physics argument to any human.  My endgame is asserting myself as the world's foremost physicist.  Granted, without the math behind Nova, it's in no position to assert itself as a proper theory presented in proper form, but I can fuck up modern theory well enough to establish Nova is the only viable prospect out there.  This is to gain notoriety for my other life's work: NATURE; I'm trying to save the world here... I'll actually do it if I can manage to get myself out of obscurity.  -Hence my presence, I'm getting kinda vocal nowdays, and I'll talk to anyone who will listen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHartford
Lawful Good
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/27/19
Posts: 1,123
Loc: Tennessee
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26474550 - 02/07/20 07:26 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

The black hole punctures timespace and releases tremendous amounts of energy which has built up in a spaceless field connected all around the universe from dense matter pushing on the fabric of space


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Black Holes Do Not Exist! [Re: Hartford]
    #26474562 - 02/07/20 07:33 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Hartford said:
The black hole punctures timespace and releases tremendous amounts of energy which has built up in a spaceless field connected all around the universe from dense matter pushing on the fabric of space




that's not exactly a reliable interpretation of Relativity, but it's not too bad.  Just the same, for reasons discussed above, yea no.  them theories are not as cool as they think they are.  not to mention space time kinda unravels when you pull time out of it, as Nova has done, quite successfully.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRift Zone
Stranger
Registered: 01/25/20
Posts: 48
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
The physical nature / origin of TIME: [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26474564 - 02/07/20 07:34 PM (4 years, 9 days ago)

Solid matter is an illusion. At our scale it’s a rather convincing illusion, but it is illusion none the less. When we think of atoms we might have a tendency to think of little balls. We might think of something solid. We imagine it to be a thing, or a few things clumped together. It’s nothing like that. If we could see an atomic nucleus in the every day sense of the word/at a comfortable scale we would not see “things”, we would see energy… That nucleus has the personality of a Tesla coil.

Perhaps the best way to picture a particle would be to imagine the schematic for a lithium atom. A common representation includes some center structure and three orbits around it. Since we’re concerned with individual particles, not the atoms they form, let’s ignore the center structure and focus on the schematic for the electron orbits themselves. Just as space has three dimensions that are all perpendicular to another, so do particles’ structure. E=mc^2 is true not because “energy” has the capacity to transmute forms, it’s true because the inherent form NEVER changes; particles are literally made of light, lots of it, in mutual association. So the character of that structure we’re talking about within particles is fundamentally indistinguishable from the structure of light , with the exception that light only has 2 axial elements while their mutually associated state (particles) have 3 axial elements**. Light, of course, has a crazy structure with elements that include angular momentum as well as transverse, and extrapolating light’s form into a 3 axial structure makes the system all the more complicated! We basically have to take those bands in the orbit of the lithium schematic and make them do the same think light itself does, only with the added complexity of 3 pertinent axis. It’s rather complicated; of course, this is QM, being inherently complicated simply comes with the territory.

Another rough approach to picturing a particle would be to start with the schematic for the propagation of light. Light is a transpose waveform, writhing through eternity… Imagine rather, that the waveform isn’t going anywhere. It’s sitting still, writhing. Particles are a concentration of a lot of energy so imagine many waveforms there, writhing. Do you recall the spherical/circular/three band/time-space travel thing popularized in the movie “Contact”. Imagine the structure of those bands are more like chain-lightning than actual bands. Are you familiar with how those things move? They are kind of weird. To make matters worse, we must make them weirder still: since this is a transpose system, we must also imagine the bands shrink to nothing then back again, just like light does. Now reconcile those thoughts: the standing waveform and sphere thing in action. If we did it right we have about the best model of a particle humanity has ever produced (the precise model I’m working with may be a bit more refined… -no peeking, you’ll know when I publish the math). It is mostly open space. I suggest to not worry if you have difficulties visualizing the structure of particles. Just keep in mind the structure of particles dynamically exist throughout the volume. Particles are mostly open space themselves, and their structure is constantly on the move.

As for time, imagine our particle again. Imagine that mess isn’t writhing or osculating, that photon isn’t propagating, that we took a picture of it or something. I think we would all agree that picture would represent an instance in time. Subsequent instances could rightfully be construed as propagation of time. Time is exactly that. Time is energy’s capacity to transmute, its ability to writhe, to propagate. It is no more complicated than that. The inherent structure of energy/matter gives us time. Time is an emergent property born of particles’ dynamic nature. It is not tied to anything else. The universe as a whole has no direct association with time. The existence of the universe did not bestow us with time, having energetic constitutes did. Conglomerations of mass within the universe are able to evolve because their constitutes are energetic. Humans make a bigger deal out of time than the universe does. The universe exists independent of time.

[Also: A quick look at the properties of time along with a little conservation of energy will completely refute the notion of time travel. It’s not a technical feat, it’s pure fantasy. When you look into the night sky you see stars. That essentially means you have absorbed and incorporated energy into your being that originated all across the cosmos. Likewise, your body temperature exists far above absolute zero. That means you have been a radiation source that has been lighting up this section of the galaxy since you were born. The energy that makes us is essentially transient and it is so deeply and intricately interwoven into the rest of the universe we could never be isolated from it. Time travel is asking the universe to completely reconstruct itself without your energy -Not gonna happen; no rebuilding the universe unless you’re here to join us. Besides, time does not exist as a dimension, there’s nowhere to go. Thinking of time as a dimension is a very effective and beautiful way to track how the universe is interacting, but that model does NOT directly apply to the nature of the universe. The only thing we can infer from the existence of time is that the universe’s constitutes are dynamic.]

The astute observer might notice this essay impacts facets of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They won’t reconcile because both are behavioral models which have no understanding of the actual structure of the universe. They work great for telling how things behave but they fail when it comes to telling us what it is. For instance: time is a dimension? Would someone care to explain how time manifests in that view? Precisely how does that 4th dimension interact with our dimensions to produce all these wonderful properties??? Actually no, let’s utilize some intellectual integrity here and admit some of the shortcoming of Relativity… You see, considering time to be a fourth dimension essentially renders it as an abstract concept to the universe. Time is not an abstract concept to the universe! Time is a very real phenomenon. Likewise, time dilation is a very real phenomenon, born of very real mechanical and tangible circumstances. Relativity is incapable of telling us anything about it! Relativity does tell us how to calculate some values, but it utterly fails when it comes to providing any sensical description of what time actually is, how related phenomena arise in the universe, or how it interacts with other known traits of the universe. What Relativity tells us is how things behave; it is rather incapable of telling us why things behave that way because it doesn’t understand/address the physical nature of those things. In Nova, time dilation arises from the dynamic structure of particles themselves being slowed down, thanks to getting “caught up” in gravitational field. Experience of rate of time propagation is localized because time arises within everything’s own physicality/structure.

Back in the day Einstein and Bohr were having a chat about Quantum Mechanics. Bohr was essentially saying the mathematics of QM *was* the essence of the particles it was describing. Einstein disagreed. Academia sided with Bohr, still does. Einstein was much closer to the truth than we give him credit for. Einstein was a little to tightly bound to his logical structure to get it entirely right; the universe is not deterministic as he thought it to be. And he should have had a chat with Feynman -mother nature isn’t spooky, she’s clever! However, in spite of Einstein’s denial of much of quantum mechanics, he was still right about causality, and that was the nature of the argument more than anything… -mice and men don’t determine anything; particles and events are not arbitrary. Particles do have definite structure; it’s a dynamic structure, to be sure, but a decisive one none the less. The universe doesn’t resolve out of every possibility, whatever goes down was more or less coming. The indeterminism of our universe arises from how those our particles interact, their dynamic nature makes that tricky. This is where Bohr comes in… Bohr, was of course right too, though on a level different than he thought: particles are always discreet entities, but we can’t know the precise state that particle, or how it will interact with another particle in another unknown state. Particle physics (QM/the Standard Model) cannot distinguish the forest from their proverbial trees. They still think the math of behavior translates directly into the math of structure. -Um no, it don’t work that way. What we really need is a structural model of particles that wave probability equations can be derived from: note our particle above!

Wave/particle “duality” is not an answer, it’s an admission of ignorance. Again, note our particle above… Particles behave like waves -yea, because their inherently dynamic structure behaves in a wave-like fashion. Particles behave like point like entities -yea, because fundamental particles may dynamically exist in a relatively large volume but they will only interact at a single point… Oh, have you done a double slit experiment with them yet? You’ll love it! Keep in mind that structural model of particles represents the structure of the wall your slits are carved into, not just your projectiles. That mental exercise should make QM a bit more comprehensible, because our particles can and do explain why we see the results of the double slit experiment, going above and beyond predicting what results we should expect… Not to mention it’s an elegant reconciliation of Relativity and QM.

[**side note: 2 axial elements produce a single unique structure, given that structure is rotationally symmetric to all other instances. Three axial elements produce 2 unique structures: the “left hand rule”, and “the right hand rule”. While light is a 3 dimensional particle, only 2 axis are pertinent to defining its structure. Sub atomic particles have 3 oriented axis that are free to orient as they wish; the 2 unique structures that arise are known as matter and anti-matter.  Thanks to the tendency for all manifestations of energy to align with another, an ambient background of sorts is established that will statistically favor coalescing energy orient as matter in our realm.]


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCosmicPineapple
Lurker


Registered: 12/05/19
Posts: 15
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 2 months, 18 days
Re: The physical nature / origin of TIME: [Re: Rift Zone]
    #26510550 - 02/29/20 11:01 PM (3 years, 11 months ago)

Rift Zone, are you the ghost of Gene Ray?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* wow, well it looks like black holes can kill stars. amyloid 1,340 9 02/23/04 11:08 PM
by FrankieJustTrypt
* Hawking cracks black hole paradox MAIA 1,381 6 07/27/04 09:50 AM
by MAIA
* I wonder what the black stuff/space is made off. Fliquid 1,851 13 03/06/03 02:28 AM
by TheHateCamel
* Worm Holes Fucknuckle 445 1 11/23/04 02:13 PM
by amyloid
* Big Bang Theory Put To Test Jackal 957 6 06/19/03 08:18 PM
by whiterasta
* Am I missing something? Or is the big bang bullshit?
( 1 2 3 all )
Flux 8,495 47 01/29/04 04:48 PM
by Shmoppy McGillicuddy
* Black hole of Windows driver problems poke smot! 1,347 16 08/22/04 05:00 PM
by Ythan
* The Schwarzschild Proton - Nassim Haramein BrainChemistry 1,950 11 01/15/12 01:40 PM
by BrainChemistry

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
2,587 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.