Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Adamalone
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 44
Location: England

07 Nov 2012, 7:18 am

I need to clear my head a bit so I'd like your opinions on a couple of small theory's of mine well that is if i can explain them properly.

Is our reality primarily physical or energy?
I'm fairly sure it's energy let me try and explain my thought process behind that
we have three base dimensions length, width and depth but we also have time.
time is a dimension, i cant look at it any other way granted it's not like the other dimensions because it's one way.
I think of it as a more primary dimension then the others and I'll give you an example in a true three dimensional way.

we take three dimensions, the primary time and the secondary ones length and width.
now think of a flip book animation where a single page is like a representation of what is normally thought of as two dimensional space with just length and width.
now think of each page as a moment in time in that dimension.
now the flip book can be seen as looking at a reality from it's outside and the full shape of it is clearly three dimensional.
i hope that made sense.

now try to apply that to our reality and i cant see it being able to be portrayed as anything physical but i can see it as energy.
it would of course be a physical shape but made of energy.
it's very difficult for me to explain but it just feels right when i think of it this way.
oh and the shape of our reality would most likely be a forth dimensional sphere.


is infinite energy generation possible?
i think yes even though i have seen many scientists say it's not possible.
the reason for this is based on my thoughts behind the last theory i presented.
take this example at a very basic level lightning occurs because of atmospheric turbulence and the basic thought process behind it is along the lines of that.
but if our reality is primarily energy and the physical layer is just a convenient (for us) place for life to exist then i say it goes more like this:
the natural background energy of the universe + turbulence in the atmosphere = the physical manifestation to a direct extent of the turbulence minus any negating factors of the natural background energy of the universe.

now if i have explained that the way i hope i have you may think 'well that makes no difference' but allow me to put forward this theoretical experiment.
we will start with solar panels, there are two types i know of the basic silicon type and a type made from copper witch is just pathetic when compared to silicon ones.
that two types exist means there could be more further along the periodic table and given the difference between the copper based one and the silicon ones any further along could produce a lot of power.
now before anyone says that we will never find such a thing i say to you the end of the periodic table of elements has things there that do not occur in nature on the earth that have been created in labs so from a scientific point of view it's really only a matter of time before such an element is discovered.

next we have a specific kind of light bulb.
your first question i will address right now, yes you can get solar panels to draw power from light bulbs, i have do so with my lamp and James may did so with a solar paneled car in a show that i unfortunately do not get the name of (if you know it please do tell)
now i say a specific kind of bulb because we as a species have only just really started to make things that conserve energy and this bulb will have to use the least amount of power it can and preferably be small.

now according to the laws of thermodynamics the panel will never be able to produce more energy then the bulb uses and this is right but the panel we are using here is much better then silicon types and the bulb uses hardly any power as it is.
so the panel produces let's say 90% of the energy the bulb needs, what happens when we add a second panel then?
if one panel produces 90% then the next one has to as well but that would give a total output of 180% of the bulbs needed power and the laws of thermodynamics say that can not happen.
the reason it does though can best be explained with some very basic electronics terms it goes like this, the universe runs in series but also supports parallel.
this is really hard to explain.

scientists say that energy can not be created or destroyed if this is true then all energy produced is simply energy that is already there made usable by a reaction of objects on our physical plane that allowed the energy to be formed in to a usable state.
if the background energy is even across all the physical plane then say the power released be a pulsar can be generated at any spot in the universe if you have the right tools to make it happen.
so the maximum amount of power generatable is limited by the amount of background energy in the universe.
and the only way i can see for that to work is if the amount of energy available is infinite.

i don't think i explained that well at all, anyway what are your thoughts?



Deno
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 4 Aug 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 24

07 Nov 2012, 8:16 am

Hi Adamalone. I enjoyed the read.

Firstly, I believe the universe is energy, and 'physical' is simply what we come up with based on the way our brains interpret and represent this energy to us.

Second, I myself am not fond of looking at time as a Dimension at all. I don't believe in time beyond a way we use to measure the passing of events. Universal Time is just the passing of events in Space, and I suppose you could wrap that up into a dimension for convenience and to make it easier to understand but I never think of it in that way. It's hard to explain my view of time...

Thirdly, I do not know if infinite generation is possible, if the universe has a set amount of energy then no. they say energy can not be created or destroyed (that they know of). But perhaps our materialistic views of the universe and our limited data have brought us to the conclusion of energy conservation. It may look like that now but I never say never, and we may find that it is not completely true, in which case a infinite energy generator could be possible.

Fourth.. re you talking about the solar panel picking up the energy from the light bulb itself? If so, firstly you would need energy to power the light bulb before the solar panel would pick anything up. Second, the amount of light generated and emitted in all directions around the bulb would not be enough to power the light bulb. If you had a solar panel that picked up enough energy from the light bulb that it managed to generate 90% of the light bulbs energy requirements then the solar panel would be completely or nearly completely encompassing the light, and there would be no room for a second solar panel. No matter how efficient the light bulb or solar panel it could not be done in my opinion.


Also "Energy can not be created or destroyed" so no energy is "produced", energy just disperses and changes form (light, heat) which are essentially both vibrations.


_________________
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed"
-Friedrich Neitzsche


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

07 Nov 2012, 8:26 am

I don't intend to be a grammar Nazi, but where you said theory's you really meant theories. The plural of theory is theories. The word theory's means something belonging to a theory, e.g. the theory's assumptions.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Trencher93
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 464

07 Nov 2012, 9:10 am

Neither question can be answered in any meaningful way. The only thing anyone can do is create various hypotheses and try to test them. The controversy around string theory is a good example of what you get when you try - at a certain subatomic level, it's impossible to actually verify anything with experiments, so people build mathematical theories that fit observed behavior, and then argue about them. I'm not sure a definitive answer could ever be arrived at.

I tend to be pragmatic. As long as I need to eat, reality is physical. As long as I have to pay the electric bill, energy is finite.



Deno
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 4 Aug 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 24

07 Nov 2012, 9:16 am

But haven't you ever thought that you only need to eat because of the way society teaches people about the world? How you are programmed from birth? and that you pay a power bill because there are greedy people that are making you have all these things to pay and do so you don't realise the truth? Not saying that's how it is. Just saying it's impossible to say it's impossible.

In regards to not eating, look up HRM Sun gazing.


_________________
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed"
-Friedrich Neitzsche


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Nov 2012, 11:44 am

Energy is physical. Both mass and energy are dual aspects of the same thing or process.

ruveyn



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

07 Nov 2012, 6:15 pm

Adamalone wrote:
Is our reality primarily physical or energy?


Energy. Matter is literally slowed down energy.

Quote:
we have three base dimensions length, width and depth but we also have time.
time is a dimension, i cant look at it any other way granted it's not like the other dimensions because it's one way.

Quote:
oh and the shape of our reality would most likely be a forth dimensional sphere.


Look at this video its quite informative:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqeqW3g8N2Q[/youtube]


Quote:
is infinite energy generation possible?


No. Generating energy is defined by taking existing energy in one form and using it in another form. You still require the source energy to milk whatever you generate out of it. As such 'infinite' is not possible. Even if you created a device that sucked power from the universe itself you will stop generating power when you've sucked the universe dry.

You mention a lightbulb and solar panels that take power from a lightbulb... even if you have a 100% efficient solar panel it will not capture 100% of the energy released by the lightbulb. You'd need to encase the lightbulb in the panels to get that effect. That makes for a useless lightbulb... and you still have to provide the power to the light bulb to get it going. Essentially you'd end up making a really silly super-battery.

Quote:
scientists say that energy can not be created or destroyed if this is true then all energy produced is simply energy that is already there made usable by a reaction of objects on our physical plane that allowed the energy to be formed in to a usable state.
if the background energy is even across all the physical plane then say the power released be a pulsar can be generated at any spot in the universe if you have the right tools to make it happen.
so the maximum amount of power generatable is limited by the amount of background energy in the universe.
and the only way i can see for that to work is if the amount of energy available is infinite.

i don't think i explained that well at all, anyway what are your thoughts?


Zero Point Energy is what you're talking about here. Its theoretically possible and it'd be awesome. It would be infinite in our context/frame of reference but not truly infinite. ;)



Last edited by Dantac on 07 Nov 2012, 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,310
Location: Stendec

07 Nov 2012, 6:25 pm

The universe is physical. That is, it can be observed and measured. So can its contents. If an item can not be directly measured (i.e., a black hole, an thought, et cetera), then its effects can be measured instead. If an item can not be measured at all, then it is likely that the item itself does not exist. Never propose the existence of an immeasurable item when that existence would require an immeasurable force or immeasurable set of conditions. Mere belief in an immeasurable item does not prove its existence.


_________________
"I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis."
-- Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Nov 2012, 9:55 am

Fnord wrote:
The universe is physical. That is, it can be observed and measured. So can its contents. If an item can not be directly measured (i.e., a black hole, an thought, et cetera), then its effects can be measured instead. If an item can not be measured at all, then it is likely that the item itself does not exist. Never propose the existence of an immeasurable item when that existence would require an immeasurable force or immeasurable set of conditions. Mere belief in an immeasurable item does not prove its existence.


We are about 16 orders of magnitude away from measuring things a Planck distance. So there are physical elements of the Cosmos that exist which we cannot measure and very likely we will never measure.

ruveyn



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,662
Location: temperate zone

08 Nov 2012, 5:43 pm

"Physical or energy"-is a distinction without a difference.

Physical phenomena are energy phenomena, and vice versa.

Matter is energy, and vice versa.

Think about the everyday.

Normally you think of matter as physical, and electricty as energy.

So if someone asks you "why is it that you cant walk through walls" your response might be that "the wall physically blocks you".

You dont think of it as involving electricity.

But in fact the reason you cant walk through walls is that both the wall and you are made of atoms. The atoms have outer shells of electrons. Electrons are negatively charged (which binds them to the positively charged atomic nuclei- but the outer skin of the atoms are negatively charged even if the whole atom is neutral). So when you walk into a wall - the electron shells of the wall's atoms encounter the electron shells of your atoms. Since both have the same electrical charge the two masses of atoms repel each other. Thus when you bang your drunk head into the wall it bounces off and you bruise yourself.

Thus the physical IS the electrical. They are one and the same.



Adamalone
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 44
Location: England

08 Nov 2012, 6:36 pm

i knew i was not going to be able to explain my theories well enough.
let me try and clear it up a bit.

when i asked if you thought our reality was primarily energy or physical i did not mean one or the other.
it's really hard for me to explain, think of our reality as having many layers one of which is the physical one, another for radio waves and so on.
now consider looking at our reality as a whole from the outside, would you see it as physical as we see it everyday or as energy?
think of it like this, once people thought the earth was the center of the solar system and even the entire universe as a whole till proved wrong and what i am suggesting is kind of like that.
at the moment most scientists consider things from a point of view that the main layer of our reality is the physical one and that is probably just because we exists here but i am asking if any of you think that the primary layer of our reality that all other layers are built on is energy and not physical.

now for the hard part
when i was talking about my thoughts of how lightning occurs i tried to suggest that it was the natural background energy that exists at all points in the universes that when combined with some atmospheric turbulence that caused the natural background energy to briefly manifest in our physical level and i was applying that to the solar panel experiment as well.
firstly i was suggesting that this theoretical panel was made of an element that does not occur naturally in all the universe, it would be something made purely in a lab and would be incredibly photovoltaic, so much so that that one square panel could collect just a small amount of light emitted from the bulb and its reaction would be so great that it would generate 90% of the bulbs required power and still leave enough space around the bulb for another 4 panels.
i suppose it was a bad example.

try this one instead.
nuclear fission is when the nucleus of an atom is split which produces energy.
nuclear fusion is when two or more nuclei are fused together and this also produces energy.
that both produce energy should not work, only one should produces energy while it opposite should mealy consume energy as that is not happening where is the energy coming from if not by being drawn on to our physical layer from another by physical reaction.

i think i explained that badly but that's the best i can do except maybe if you went back to how i suggested lightning worked.
if it was possible to remove all the natural background energy and then just cause the atmospheric turbulence there would be no lightning if i am right.

now as to why i think an infinite amount of energy can be drawn from the universe is tied to how i said that our reality, if looked at from the outside would most probably be a 4th dimensional sphere.
lets say you had a level of technology that allowed you to record and scan every single layer of our reality and reproduce it on a small scale.
if you took a tiny square of space and recorded it natural state for lets say three seconds and while doing that you were also transmitting all your recordings back to the same place you got them from while you were doing it and at the end you sealed the starting data with the ending data in an energy matrix you could of theoretically compressed those three seconds in that area of space together and made a tesseract.

say you also channeled a constant stream of 1 volt through that small chunk of space while you did it.
the tesseract is now its own little version of our reality, from inside its just the same three seconds repeated over and over but from the outside it is all the moments within those three seconds repeated at the same time.

this means that one volt charge is multiplied by the amount of moments in those three seconds and since you can infinitely break time down in to smaller and smaller degrees the amount of voltage that can be drawn from the tesseract is also infinite.
but then again i'm talking about a level of science here that's probably millions of years to advanced for us so there's really no way to know but what are your thoughts?

Dantac, i liked the video, i don't think its exactly right but it does line up with a lot of my own thoughts on some other things.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Nov 2012, 9:50 pm

If you can't explain your theories to your grandma there is something wrong with them.

ruveyn



Deno
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 4 Aug 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 24

09 Nov 2012, 3:13 am

Natural Plastic, I liked your comment. Physical and Energy are one in the same. Adamalone, you questioned how existence would appear looking at the whole, or perhaps the outside in. This brings me to my earlier statement. It depends on how you perceive things, if you were a human that could do this, my guess is that you would see a physical universe just like we see from our point of view right now. 'Physical' in my opinion is just our brains way of interpreting the energies that surround us (and make us up) to make them sensible and easier to comprehend. Also we don't even comprehend all those energies. We see less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum and only hear a set range of frequencies as well. We think we are seeing the universe how it is, but we are seeing a tiny fraction of what is. So if you were a superior being perhaps, that was aware/could see all of the spectrum, then they may perceive the universe as Energy. But for us, it is physical. Just my guess..

So in regards to your change in the light bulb and solar pannel, the new element would harness the vibrational frequency of the background radiation, and pretty much only need the light from the bulb as a 'push over the edge' to initiate energy generation and exploitation of the energy in the background radiation? Not sure if this is possible, but in my opinion no one can ever say never because when we do that we tend to prove ourselves wrong.

In regards to nuclear fission/fusion, Doesn't fission release energy (while also requiring it to initiate fission) and Fusion require energy? I could be wrong but this was my understanding. Someone please correct me if this is not what is currently believed by mainstream. Then stars reach the end of their life when they create a lot of iron which either requires more energy to break apart than is available, or the next element on the list requires too much energy to be formed (Again, correction here highly appreciated, it's been awhile since I've studied Nuclear reactions and the Sun.

Creating a tesseract (a 4 dimensional object) by adding the component of time, which is by most thought of as a dimension itself, would be highly unlikely to be possible. At least with my understanding of time. We may very well be in a four-five-six or more dimensional universe but are only able to comprehend or detect three. So there may be tesseract's around us that we are unaware of.

Also, not a big fan of that explanation of dimensions. Although I don't have a better explanation for you. I especially thought the guy in the video had a weird/silly explanation when he was talking about two different infinities. He's just thinking of random s**t to 'create' different dimensions. Infinity is everything and would encompass all changes in the laws of physics in the universe as well as changes we make due to decisions.


_________________
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed"
-Friedrich Neitzsche


Last edited by Deno on 09 Nov 2012, 3:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

2fefd8
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 44

09 Nov 2012, 3:20 am

Adamalone wrote:
...


Your "theories" don't seem to agree with much of what is known about physics.

I'd really suggest learning more about what is known before you just dismiss it in favor of your own theories. Widely accepted physical theories are not to be dismissed lightly. Although they are sometimes not a complete description of reality, they are also rarely completly wrong. You need good reason to reject them. This means you need a well-reasoned thought experiment at the very least for anyone to take suggestions to the contrary at all seriously. Of course, actual evidence would be a lot better.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Nov 2012, 7:41 pm

Adamalone wrote:
I

i don't think i explained that well at all, anyway what are your thoughts?


Learn some thermodynamics before you go spouting off theories.

ruveyn



Evinceo
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 392

12 Nov 2012, 2:50 am

Quote:
Exec #1: Item six on the agenda: "The Meaning of Life" Now uh, Harry, you've had some thoughts on this.
Exec #2: Yeah, I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: People aren't wearing enough hats. Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this "soul" does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
Exec #3: What was that about hats again?
Exec #2: Oh, Uh... people aren't wearing enough.
Exec #1: Is this true?
Exec #4: Certainly. Hat sales have increased but not pari passu, as our research...
Exec #3: [Interrupting] "Not wearing enough"? enough for what purpose?
Exec #5: Can I just ask, with reference to your second point, when you say souls don't develop because people become distracted...
[looking out window]
Exec #5: Has anyone noticed that building there before?