[PHYSICS] Universal Inverse Theory of Everything.

Per-Chance...

It is true that in the "Double Slit" Experiment that the reason why, when being observed by recording equipment, the "beam of light" passing-through 2 slits becomes only 1 beam of light instead of 2, as when not being recorded?

Could the reason why be due to the photons hitting the recording equipment are quantum-entangled with the photons hitting the slits, and what going-in must equal-out to what passes through on the other side of the slits, and what's being recorded resulting in only one beam of light?

But when you take-away the recording equipment, you see with your eyes, two beams of light passing through?

Perhaps this is a feature of analog, which cannot be measured digitally. Has anyone tried an actual film camera? What happens when you record in-analog?

So, in-addition to analog circular-loops, you'd have digital-square or 45 degree angles, where the "difference between analog and digital being a scales-of-frequency resonated in Planck-Time. One domain can't be another domain, at the same-time, but is seen as "the same" when viewed in-analog, through the persistence-of-vision, through "Space-Time." It's an inversely-connected closed-system? Space (infinite) - Time (Finite) -or- Time (infinite) + Space (finite.) It might even make one think the universe was an infinite singularity, when you scale-it.

Go light-speed and time becomes infinite and space becomes a finite point, graduated-down or inverse-by-increments? That sounds toroidal, to me. You?

Seems connected, micro and macro, but how can a photon travel as a 45 degree angle through time, as well as a spiral in space? I suppose it would depend on how you look-at-it? I suppose, the closest distance between two-points in each "frame-of-time" would be a straight-line, which is efficient, can appear as an analog spiral, when each frame is viewed in-succession as a series or "path," from a particular perspective? Could this be an explanation of "Gravitational Lensing?" Could this explain everything?

Additional Observations: I have heard of the "digital-effect," which I have not heard of before where "propeller blades in-motion, seem as if they are 'disconnected' and 'oriented' oddly and not with any form like when 'filmed' by an analog camera which makes it seem 'gaussian'?" This is exactly the same observation of an astronaut falling into a singularity, one perspective seems as if the astronaut "freezes" in-time and another vantage seems as if the astronaut "spins-off" increasingly, inverse-versions, as in fractals? I feel as-if the two are related. Very closely.

Interesting, indeed.

reply to post by trekwebmaster


Wait!! lets get "The Scientist" in here

I coudnt make sense of most of your post but I thought gravitation lenseing didn't need any explanation.

reply to post by mb2591


LOL yeah hes just a couple threads down. he hasnt gone to far we can still catch up to him

reply to post by mb2591


lol I thought I was a "scientist," but this isn't my field. LOL!

Universal Inverse Theory of Everything?

E-Mc2= POOF! heheheh sorry I could not resist

Wow, you just turned a really simple and basic physics principle and turned it into a blithering babble of nonsense.
Please, learn basic physics before trying to create universal theories or any theories involving physics period. This doesn't just go to the OP, this goes to everyone. I've seen so many basic physics theories butchered in ways that make it obvious that the author has no idea about anything involving physics.
There's a reason many colleges are now requiring basic physics courses for non-physics majors.

reply to post by Ghost375


Sorry that you thought so, I wasn't asking for you to "build Rome in a day" just "explore" the inference behind the theorized concepts and see how they relate.

I'm not worrying about crossing the T's or Dotting the i's, just asking if you can follow the "rough theoretical draft."

I souhnd't hvae to hvae ltrtes croctlry slepeld in oerdr to raed or uednrnatnsd

Is that too much to ask w/out a demeaning complaint because the form didn't appeal to you?

Honestly, do you have to have everything presented as a neat tidy box? Or can you not think "outside of the box" in multiple and abstract ways and scale, at the same time?

But are you rejecting based-on denial of any other conflicting view you hold?

Clearly, your assessment is biased, through negative perceptions of anything outside of your perspective, unseen, or clearly ignored or dismissed without merit. Or is this negativity not evident in your complaint, which is filled with plainly derogatory descriptions of an emotional interpretation of what's presented, in non-standard symmetry?

I only asked valid questions, and in-turn, received not valid answers, but disdainful irrelevant retorts. And yet you offer no-proof to your allegations to the contrary.

reply to post by trekwebmaster


i think of light with reference to what the light is in, the gas medium, its refractivity
the gravatational feilds that the light is in,

my speculation follows
in the latest light experiments i have read the way to truly "look for" the two slit problem effects were........
the trick was to look for the effect light had on the medium it was propogated through
i have written a previous thread where i asked the question of medium density (the medium) and lights effects on the medium,
so in light (pun) of the consideration that must be given to the medium i would say that light as a particle induces a physical responce in the medium of the experiment,
and at the point of consriction (the plate with slits) a "resistor" type effect is produced devorcing the "particles" from their group effect on the medium untill free from the "restiction" or slots requiring that the particles once again "propogate" in the medium as individuals instead of as a group and create the "interference pattern we all know about.

the largest point to note is that by restricting the particles we are removing the "combined" effect of the particle in the medium and studying them individually

an example would be to force water through a hole an atom wide an look at the atoms and try and figuar out the dynamics of "water"
bad example i know but.......................

the refractivity of a medium shows lights interaction with the medium
and the anolog vs digital reference could be a way to differentiate between light (digital) and medium (anolog) behavious in the component parts.

IMHO
light particles disturbe the medium they are in, as they travel
xploder

reply to post by Ghost375


How silly, the physics of one Universe is not the same as the next; so on a quantum level there are doors to be opened not closed!

Your statements make me feel you have learned all you can learn! Sorry! You sound like a book slamming shut!

reply to post by XPLodER


Light particles disturb the medium, traveling in space-time (weight or metric placed on either space or time - inversely-related?) - and / or - Light waves don't disturb the medium traveled, due to it "carrying" the, for lack of a better word, "the digital fractional number" - what's left-over when subtracted - as in statistics, as in PHI, 1.186 -1 = fractional number. What got me going on this line was analog waveforms are curved and digital versions are square (sine), which resembles a block with half being under or over the analog boundary if seen or over-layed together. This boundary always is at 90 degree angle and half of this is 45 degrees. That's where the 45 comes from. But it's actually 90, for the "lost" or "gained" proportion? Does that make sense? Just thinking visually, so don't burn me at the stake for being wrong. Either one view "gains" a fraction of something as digital or one view "loses" a fractional part of something as analog, but is the same when seen as many samples. As with many samples approaches infinity, in statistics, and resembles a bell-curve. When seen as little or one sample it's square-like, when finite? Like those analog video-tape recorders, where the tape-head is oriented 90 degrees from the orientation of the tape?

The correlation with film vs. digital film, and the "digital rolling shutter effect," and "singularities," seemed oddly familiar. Wave vs Particle, but both, but when observed it destroys (on or off.) Just trying to see if this has merit. But what if observed digitally, which a digital camera, like the lines on the television (analog) if filmed by digital cameras, but an LCD monitor doesn't show that effect, due to the Hz being faster than our analog eyes, by "persistence of vision," which says anything 24 frames per second seem to appear in motion, but anything less, appears as frame-by-frame, which we do notice.

The Rolling Digital Shutter Effect: Oddly similar to what happens when an astronaut falls into a singularity, making it seem as two objects with different states:

Digital Rolling Shutter Effect

reply to post by trekwebmaster

Seems connected, micro and macro, but how can a photon travel as a 45 degree angle through time, as well as a spiral in space? I suppose it would depend on how you look-at-it? I suppose, the closest distance between two-points in each "frame-of-time" would be a straight-line, which is efficient, can appear as an analog spiral, when each frame is viewed in-succession as a series or "path," from a particular perspective? Could this be an explanation of "Gravitational Lensing?" Could this explain everything?

quoting the op

i have been studying this exact thing for the last few days

in lensing we have reference frame issiues
we are in a spiral galaxy that is rotating with inertia and gravity
if we look at another galaxy it too is distorting the image we see because of its spiraling medium
encoded into the image on a gravatational llense is a composite of the spiraling motion of the galaxy and the image from the light as it transitions the medium and gravity inside the lens

it is very interesting to compair the large scale and the small scale

star and flag

xploder

Originally posted by Ghost375
Wow, you just turned a really simple and basic physics principle and turned it into a blithering babble of nonsense.
Please, learn basic physics before trying to create universal theories or any theories involving physics period. This doesn't just go to the OP, this goes to everyone. I've seen so many basic physics theories butchered in ways that make it obvious that the author has no idea about anything involving physics.
There's a reason many colleges are now requiring basic physics courses for non-physics majors.

was that really needed.If you have some positive critisim jump donw from your high horse and share it please...

reply to post by XPLodER


ahhh, so to carry the logic forward...those gravitational lenses could be atomic energy levels gaining, excited and when the medium changes the atoms release the equal incoming energy and output it and return to a non-excited state? Sounds interesting, but the medium is missing something. Could this be a dark matter or dark energy? producing the lensing, but if lensing is occurring, that infers an increase of scale, which seems transparent or not seen by analog, but digitally increases and, lenses? Could this be the equivalent to an dark-energy or matter? I'd to see how those gravitational lenses are physically located, to other observed astronomical formations or bodies.

Somethings are not or might not be in the correct sequence, or be described with the correct or best term. Please follow the general format of inference and help correct this, I'm just putting this down in writing, so I won't forget it.

Please bear with me.

Compilation of Discussion between XploDER and Trekwebmaster:

Per-Chance...

It is true that in the "Double Slit" Experiment that the reason why, when being observed by recording equipment, the "beam of light" passing-through 2 slits becomes only 1 beam of light instead of 2, as when not being recorded?

Could the reason why be due to the photons hitting the recording equipment are quantum-entangled with the photons hitting the slits, and what going-in must equal-out to what passes through on the other side of the slits, and what's being recorded resulting in only one beam of light?

But when you take-away the recording equipment, you see with your eyes, two beams of light passing through?

Perhaps this is a feature of analog, which cannot be measured digitally. Has anyone tried an actual film camera? What happens when you record in-analog?

So, in-addition to analog circular-loops, you'd have digital-square or 45 degree angles, where the "difference between analog and digital being a scales-of-frequency resonated in Planck-Time. One domain can't be another domain, at the same-time, but is seen as "the same" when viewed in-analog, through the persistence-of-vision, through "Space-Time." It's an inversely-connected closed-system? Space (infinite) - Time (Finite) -or- Time (infinite) + Space (finite.) It might even make one think the universe was an infinite singularity, when you scale-it.

Go light-speed and time becomes infinite and space becomes a finite point, graduated-down or inverse-by-increments? That sounds toroidal, to me. You?

Seems connected, micro and macro, but how can a photon travel as a 45 degree angle through time, as well as a spiral in space? I suppose it would depend on how you look-at-it? I suppose, the closest distance between two-points in each "frame-of-time" would be a straight-line, which is efficient, can appear as an analog spiral, when each frame is viewed in-succession as a series or "path," from a particular perspective? Could this be an explanation of "Gravitational Lensing?" Could this explain everything?

Additional Observations: I have heard of the "digital-effect," which I have not heard of before where "propeller blades in-motion, seem as if they are 'disconnected' and 'oriented' oddly and not with any form like when 'filmed' by an analog camera which makes it seem 'gaussian'?" This is exactly the same observation of an astronaut falling into a singularity, one perspective seems as if the astronaut "freezes" in-time and another vantage seems as if the astronaut "spins-off" increasingly, inverse-versions, as in fractals? I feel as-if the two are related. Very closely.

Interesting, indeed.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by trekwebmaster

 

i think of light with reference to what the light is in, the gas medium, its refractivity
the gravatational feilds that the light is in,

my speculation follows
in the latest light experiments i have read the way to truly "look for" the two slit problem effects were........
the trick was to look for the effect light had on the medium it was propogated through
i have written a previous thread where i asked the question of medium density (the medium) and lights effects on the medium,
so in light (pun) of the consideration that must be given to the medium i would say that light as a particle induces a physical responce in the medium of the experiment,
and at the point of consriction (the plate with slits) a "resistor" type effect is produced devorcing the "particles" from their group effect on the medium untill free from the "restiction" or slots requiring that the particles once again "propogate" in the medium as individuals instead of as a group and create the "interference pattern we all know about.

the largest point to note is that by restricting the particles we are removing the "combined" effect of the particle in the medium and studying them individually

an example would be to force water through a hole an atom wide an look at the atoms and try and figuar out the dynamics of "water"
bad example i know but.......................

the refractivity of a medium shows lights interaction with the medium
and the anolog vs digital reference could be a way to differentiate between light (digital) and medium (anolog) behavious in the component parts.

IMHO
light particles disturbe the medium they are in, as they travel
xploder

Light particles disturb the medium, traveling in space-time (weight or metric placed on either space or time - inversely-related?) - and / or - Light waves don't disturb the medium traveled, due to it "carrying" the, for lack of a better word, "the digital fractional number" - what's left-over when subtracted - as in statistics, as in PHI, 1.186 -1 = fractional number. What got me going on this line was analog waveforms are curved and digital versions are square (sine), which resembles a block with half being under or over the analog boundary if seen or over-layed together. This boundary always is at 90 degree angle and half of this is 45 degrees. That's where the 45 comes from. But it's actually 90, for the "lost" or "gained" proportion? Does that make sense? Just thinking visually, so don't burn me at the stake for being wrong. Either one view "gains" a fraction of something as digital or one view "loses" a fractional part of something as analog, but is the same when seen as many samples. As with many samples approaches infinity, in statistics, and resembles a bell-curve. When seen as little or one sample it's square-like, when finite? Like those analog video-tape recorders, where the tape-head is oriented 90 degrees from the orientation of the tape?

The correlation with film vs. digital film, and the "digital rolling shutter effect," and "singularities," seemed oddly familiar. Wave vs Particle, but both, but when observed it destroys (on or off.) Just trying to see if this has merit. But what if observed digitally, which a digital camera, like the lines on the television (analog) if filmed by digital cameras, but an LCD monitor doesn't show that effect, due to the Hz being faster than our analog eyes, by "persistence of vision," which says anything 24 frames per second seem to appear in motion, but anything less, appears as frame-by-frame, which we do notice.

The Rolling Digital Shutter Effect: Oddly similar to what happens when an astronaut falls into a singularity, making it seem as two objects with different states:

Digital Rolling Shutter Effect

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by trekwebmaster

 

Seems connected, micro and macro, but how can a photon travel as a 45 degree angle through time, as well as a spiral in space? I suppose it would depend on how you look-at-it? I suppose, the closest distance between two-points in each "frame-of-time" would be a straight-line, which is efficient, can appear as an analog spiral, when each frame is viewed in-succession as a series or "path," from a particular perspective? Could this be an explanation of "Gravitational Lensing?" Could this explain everything?

quoting the op

i have been studying this exact thing for the last few days

in lensing we have reference frame issiues
we are in a spiral galaxy that is rotating with inertia and gravity
if we look at another galaxy it too is distorting the image we see because of its spiraling medium
encoded into the image on a gravatational llense is a composite of the spiraling motion of the galaxy and the image from the light as it transitions the medium and gravity inside the lens

it is very interesting to compair the large scale and the small scale

star and flag

xploder

edit on 26-6-2011 by XPLodER because: fix brackets

ahhh, so to carry the logic forward...those gravitational lenses could be atomic energy levels gaining, excited and when the medium changes the atoms release the equal incoming energy and output it and return to a non-excited state? Sounds interesting, but the medium is missing something. Could this be a dark matter or dark energy? producing the lensing, but if lensing is occurring, that infers an increase of scale, which seems transparent or not seen by analog, but digitally increases and, lenses? Could this be the equivalent to an dark-energy or matter? I'd to see how those gravitational lenses are physically located, to other observed astronomical formations or bodies.

Somethings are not or might not be in the correct sequence, or be described with the correct or best term. Please follow the general format of inference and help correct this, I'm just putting this down in writing, so I won't forget it.

Please bear with me.

This "perspective(s)" is / are evolving. Keeping expounding on this topic. Correcting when needed. By honest thought, and not biased opinion which might conflict with an obsolete perspective.

Peace and Love,

Learn all you can. But to understand, you'll have to download the rest from "out-there!"

Perhaps, a good example, but bad terms?

Quoted from XploDER: "an example would be to force water through a hole an atom wide an look at the atoms and try and figuar out the dynamics of "water"
bad example i know but......................."

But...

An example would be to force or "open a channel" to "information" by quantum entanglement and look at the "information" and try to figure-out the dynamics of "consciousness" to understand "cosmic-consciousness," which contains all of the mysterious ways of God?

Human Brains, seem to have or assemble "mental maps" or "networks," with new quantum-networks coming online and connecting, we learn or know "information" which may be inaccessible to thought and able to be roughly assembled and understood as a rough representation as numbers, in fractal format. But when "thought" and "connected" in the soul and mind, as thought, oh, that's another thing entirely, and the more networks which come online by quantum-entanglement, concepts which described or "roughed-out" as numbers, become salient and clear in the quantum-brain. Information of matter is never destroyed, everything we learn in-life is stored in-tandem, in the quantum universe, when we die, so it may seem as, "if we can connect to the quantum network of the universe, we may be writing our names in the book of life, for eternity."

Amazing isn't it. Best of all, it's free. All that is required is a true-intent of the heart and mind to seek-out the apparent and sublime information to truly understand. Everything is inter-related. Even, if it seems "strange" or "incredible." It will be through the "sublime" that we understand the true and mysterious ways of God and how the universe works.

Peace and Love,

the universe and how it works is truly an amzing subject
if you want some help with anything in particular (re message)
please draw a diagram label it and explain it in steps
its good you are interested and you sound like you have some interesting ideas
so if you could format into points or questions
i will be able to understand what i can do to help or understand your idea
xploder