Creation ex nihilo

More
17 years 9 months ago #19306 by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
I read an horrible discussion about the very simple concept of zpe:

To absorb a field, it is necessary to build an opposite field. But it is impossible to build the field emitted by an atom using the emissions of other atoms. Therefore it exists a residual field whose mean energy is deduced from thermodynamics.
Maybe, we can add that consequently:
-There is no isolated system
-A field may be absorbed down to the ZPF
-A spontaneous emission is an amplification of the ZPF.

Why do you introduce a mistery while it is simple ?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 9 months ago #18772 by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
Oh most certainly there is a cause and effect in every detail of Universe, no doubt about that. To make the graph complete it would have to be a mirror of positive and negative motion in time. Also, the speed of light is only one measurement, there are other finer and finer FTL fields in extreme motion that are relative to each scale.

Heat indexing is relative to forward and reverse directions in time. Everything is in motion around the ZERO POINT, a zero time event. Such that Gravitons for example in trying to get back to the zero point collapse creating resistance around mass, while the opposite reverse time Anti-Gravitons would operate cold since they are repulsive as they spin away from Matter in Forward Time in each division of macro scale wide flux field collapse around atomic micro scales. In forward time antimatter disappears quicker then matter waves because on scale wide dipolar motion it is from the other side. So heat indexing is only one half of the variable analysis showing forward motion and is balanced with the reverse wave motion which is critical for Universe to maintain mass, and equilibrium. With out the asymmetries of each scale of reverse time motion there would be zero centers and nothing could exist with out these infinities being spread a part in a 1+ to infinity away from a ZERO TIME to a 1- to infinity.

The Infinite Universe which has many organized scale wide systems are all in extreme motion trying to get back to ZERO TIME, but because of the reverse motion it eternally spins around itself taking on many shapes. The infinite fractal geometries are formed from the collapsing two way fields forming mega arms, clusters, and many geometries but on many levels looking from a distance at the whole the motion is always organized around ZERO TIME centers. The splitting of the Universe into many matter and antimatter lobes that is trying to collapse back to ZERO is the primal causitive reason anything exists! Nothing could exist without this two way flux interexchange.

John

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 9 months ago #18774 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
I have to admit to being alittle miffed by that penultimate post. I'll accept totally stupid, moronic even, but horrible! Never [:D]

However the main reason i took down that graph was that I put temperature along the x axis, instead of entropy. A faster than light graviton alters the graph downward in such a miniscule way, that we don't have wild things happening in our "real" or "imaginary" part of the universe.

It was Milikan who suggested that the source of cosmic rays could be due to issolated atoms ingesting their electrons by a process of k capture.

Is ZPF simple? I think it's complex, in both senses of the word. I also think that it has to be subdivided into three types. Matter/Ether, Ether/FTL substance and Matter/FTL substance.

Let's change the cutting up of planets to that of cutting up of electrons. If we cut them up using some transcendental function we can have something like the devil's staircase. Their will be areas like the surreal numbers where we cannot perform integrations. I think we can get a fractal lumpyness that will look very much like our universe. I suppose the next question has to be, how many cuts do we have to make in our electron before we get to this lumpyness?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 9 months ago #15049 by Fopp
Replied by Fopp on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>

But this should not bother us since there is never a need to completely decompose a particle or a distance. It is sufficient to decompose it to a size that exhibits the properties that we need. If a particle seems to truly disappear it is only because its disassembled components are too small to interact consequentially with larger particles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What properties is that? Are you saying that there are separate scales that cannot interact with each other? That in our scale there is a smallest size?

If so, what reason is there to postulate the existence of smaller scales? There is no way we could detect them. We should use Occam's razor to get rid of those scales. Maybe I didn't understand you correctly.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 9 months ago #18822 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Has this thread died, or is it that everyone is being polite and waiting for a reply from jrich?

Still things here to talk about. I think we have to look at the politics of the first great, big bang v steady state debate. Without a doubt it was a cold war debate, with he proviso that Russia didn't take part[:)][8D] Then there was the thorny add on to the mix, of the personality of Fred Hoyle, inventor of the term big bang.

This time round the debate on the big bang is going to have a distinct "green" tinge but I doubt that it's going to be any less nasty.

On the cutting up electrons issue, does anyone here like the idea of a "gluon" [?]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 years 9 months ago #16347 by Skarp
Replied by Skarp on topic Reply from jim jim
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What properties is that? Are you saying that there are separate scales that cannot interact with each other? That in our scale there is a smallest size?

If so, what reason is there to postulate the existence of smaller scales? There is no way we could detect them. We should use Occam's razor to get rid of those scales. Maybe I didn't understand you correctly.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We can safely say that if it doesn't interact, it doesn't exist. In the Meta Model - all particles interact regardless of size, therefore all particles are detectable. Even one that is a trillion levels of scale below the size of say a the smallest particle we know of. Sound a tad crazy? Thats probably because it is. At least from where I'm sitting.





Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.492 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum