Topic: An Energy Discussion
Tom4Uhere's photo
Fri 02/17/17 12:07 PM
You certainly do have an active mind.

Gladly I know that my heritage is not prone to Alzheimer's but I read that an active mind helps stave off dementia and creativity runs in my family.

Nanotechnology is one of my greatest passions for ideas. Ever since I read Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation I have been hooked on it.
http://e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Table_of_Contents.html



DiminishedConcern's photo
Wed 01/10/18 12:29 AM
I have always looked at time as a construct simply a man made system of measurement. Based on cyclical events and molecular half life. Physics and mathematics use it as a constant for equations. But is it truly a component of matter. Given environmental changes cyclical cycles and molecular half life can be altered. So if conditions changed which affected the predictable usage of "time" then would it just be readjusted to become useful again. Thinking along the lines of whatever greater system that might make something a constant like our gravity time ect. might not necessarily be consistent or present elsewhere in the universe at least not as we ascertain it here.

Tom4Uhere's photo
Wed 01/10/18 07:26 AM
I have always looked at time as a construct simply a man made system of measurement.

I did until I started thinking about duration.
Everything that exists, exists within a duration.
Even its beginning happens in duration.
The spin of a "z" or "w" boson is motion.
432Hz, the resonating frequency of the Universe is also motion.
To stop time, the Universe must become static, frozen.
The spin of a boson, the frequency of the Universe would being to move again. The duration of time starts as soon as the spin begins to move from static, the frequency occilation begins to move from static. Humans have no set name to describe this initiation of movement because we don't exist in that relativity plane of reference. I call it a duriton (baseline state change duration).

Time, to humans, is our ability to use memory to initiate a 'flow' of time in the individual static states of reality in the present.
Just like a motion picture editor, we use our memory to forecast the next moment of change.
I wonder if there is a study to figure out at what rate of change humans begin to notice it? Would we notice change at a billion frames per second? A Trillion fps?

The speed of light in a vacuum is 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second)

If science exceeded light in shutter speed would each individual frame be blank? Would it be a static image? Could we detect and define a duriton? Slow a boson and watch as it stops spinning?

Would the duriton be made of component parts? At that level of detection, would we see the baseline of energy? The Enron?
Energy is movement, movement has duration. It is a state that is not frozen, energy and movement create heat.

If something has absolute zero it has no movement and no energy and no heat. As far as reality is concerned, it does not exist.
You could not detect it because there would be nothing eminating or reflecting from it. It would be a void.

no photo
Wed 01/10/18 07:43 AM
I wonder if there is a study to figure out at what rate of change humans begin to notice it? Would we notice change at a billion frames per second? A Trillion fps?


well i'd say a good starting point for this is animation and it's minimum frame rate and the old subliminal message flash rates. you could then start shortening the flash duration to see when you stopped wanting the candy bar.

Tom4Uhere's photo
Wed 01/10/18 08:18 AM

I wonder if there is a study to figure out at what rate of change humans begin to notice it? Would we notice change at a billion frames per second? A Trillion fps?


well i'd say a good starting point for this is animation and it's minimum frame rate and the old subliminal message flash rates. you could then start shortening the flash duration to see when you stopped wanting the candy bar.


Slow motion is fast shutter speed.
a high speed camera can have a shutter speed as fast as 1/8000th of a second.
That is far, far below 1/1,000,000,000,000 of a second.

A new record for the fastest ever data rate for digital information has been set by UCL researchers in the Optical Networks Group. They achieved a rate of 1.125 Tb/s as part of research on the capacity limits of optical transmission systems, designed to address the growing demand for fast data rates.

SOURCE ~ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160211082253.htm
1,099,511,627,776 bytes
So far, this is our scientific maximum for optical detection.
I suspect duration is much, much faster than we can detect (the space between moments).

Tom4Uhere's photo
Sat 05/19/18 08:37 PM
Bump for discussion...

iam_resurrected's photo
Sat 05/19/18 09:09 PM
are you a fan of Tesla?

Tom4Uhere's photo
Sat 05/19/18 11:17 PM
no

iam_resurrected's photo
Sat 05/19/18 11:58 PM
:thumbsup:

Up2youandme's photo
Mon 05/21/18 11:49 AM

:thumbsup:


But he is a fan of Google :smile:

Tom4Uhere's photo
Mon 05/21/18 11:57 AM


:thumbsup:


But he is a fan of Google :smile:

So, what's your point Oh Great One?

Up2youandme's photo
Mon 05/21/18 12:12 PM
Just an observation Cup Cake.

Tom4Uhere's photo
Mon 05/21/18 12:40 PM
Just an observation Cup Cake.

So, do I live up to your expections?
Can I ever hope to live well without your approval?
Can you ever forgive me for using resources without your approval?
My life is over now, I'm crushed!

GearGrinder83's photo
Sun 05/27/18 12:11 AM

From a philosophical standpoint, how much energy is actually in one Joule is hard to determine. The way I see it is, we have trouble understanding what energy really is, so we reconcile that by using concepts like a Joule to be able to measure and calculate with.


There is nothing philosophical about it. Human science is still in its infancy. Just because we can't prove something does not mean it isn't real.
At one point, we believed that the atom was the smallest object in the Universe. We now know atoms are made up from even smaller parts.



Here is something I wrote awhile back that kinda explains what I see concerning True Absolute Zero.
Temperature is movement. Movement is frequency. Frequency generates heat. Heat is energy.
Frozen means no movement (frequency of vibration).
When things are freezing they are slowing down. When things are heating they are speeding up.
Science says the absolute lowest temperature that is theoretically possible is -273.15 C. That temperature is known as Absolute Zero (AZ).
We know Bosons exist. We know the Boson has a spin. If the Boson spins, it is moving. It is part of the Fermions of Matter.

Real Absolute Zero would be when even the spins of Fermions have stopped. Only then could matter be completely frozen. It may be at -1000 deg C or -273.18 C.
Any matter that has a cycle of movement cannot be AZ. If a particle of matter somewhere in the Universe cycles only once in 14 billion years it still has movement, thus has heat.

Imagine a Universe where every Fermion spin has stopped. All matter is at AZ. Nothing moves anywhere at any scale. It may remain that way forever or a split nanosecond.
Now, introduce movement to that. A Down Quark starts to spin.
At that point heat is generated, very little heat but heat all the same. That movement reacts with the frozen Fermions in its vicinity and starts more movement. Soon, the particle is moving, then the next and the next and so on. The reaction spreads in all directions faster and faster. It looks like an explosion, it grows hotter and hotter as the movement increases. We have ourselves a Big Bang, folks.
Eventually, all the matter that is moving will slow. As it slows, it cools. It continues to slow until all matter is once again at Absolute Zero. We have a Big Freeze, folks.

Science can't achieve True Absolute Zero because we are within a current expansion of movement of all matter. The thing about AZ that makes it so difficult to replicate is that we can't isolate a particle of matter from all movement. Even if we could, we would not be able to study the particle because to detect the particle it must move something to be detectable from nothing. Detection is isolating one thing from another. Imagine trying to detect a black dot in the middle of a black square.

On the human scale, Think about what happens when you see something. Light reflects off the item and enters your eyes. When a photon strikes a particle it is absorbed and reflected. The frequencies of light that are absorbed causes heat in the particle. The frequencies that are reflected cause movement in the particle that translates to heat. (Think Solar Sail, yes light can affect matter)

Science has transported a particle quantumly. So, even quantumly, matter has movement. AZ also includes frequencies quantumly affected. Which means, To achieve AZ, the quantum properties of the particle must also be controlled. Does the Spin of a W Boson also have a quantum state?

This brings me to Energy. The spin of Fermions requires energy to make it move. Is energy heat? Energy generates heat by moving matter. Heat is a product of Energy. It is theorized that there is such a thing known as Vacuum Energy or Zero Point Energy (ZPE).

ZPE implies that in a true vacuum, energy erupts into matter and antimatter that annihilate each other in a constant percolation of minute explosions both structurally and quantumly. When the annihilation is not completed, a particle and antiparticle are created. Those particles and antiparticles drift in the vacuum until they meet another, then bond or annihilate. When they bond, over time, they bond with more particles and eventually dust is formed. The gathering process continues, creating all matter in the Universe.

To achieve Absolute Zero with any particle, even the ZPE will need to be isolated from the particle both actually and quantumly.
When the Universe ends for this phase, all Energy, Including the ZPE will cease to affect matter. All matter in the Universe will stop moving until ...something...causes a movement. Then it will explode into a new Universe of movement for a time.


Understanding energy has great potential for us in everyday life. Imagine a phone that requires no battery. The energy that powers it comes from the energy already existing in the materials used to make the object. It could be the next giant leap in technology. No more batteries, wires or power plants. It may not happen in our lifetimes but it could happen. Think Nano-Watts instead of Kilo Watts. Nanotechnology is a real science. Its applications are theoretical not philosophical.




You're right. Since we can't disprove there is an invisible wizard that created everything in all of our realities, we must accept its existence until proven otherwise. Nothing bad can come from accepting every single idea that gets thrown across our faces.

Tom4Uhere's photo
Sun 05/27/18 09:33 AM
You're right. Since we can't disprove there is an invisible wizard that created everything in all of our realities, we must accept its existence until proven otherwise. Nothing bad can come from accepting every single idea that gets thrown across our faces.

Not sure how this applies?
I tend to believe things that make sense to me.

At one time in history religion made sense to a lot of people.
Religion still makes sense to some, they see it as reasonable.

The reason religion has fallen is because people have obtained more reasonable knowledge about the world they live in.
For many, religion no longer makes sense.

Religion is proof that sometimes things that make sense at one time may not make sense always. Including science in the quest for knowledge.

Based on what I have learned from the tests and observations made and documented by science, I find it reasonable that energy is a baseline component of everything in the Universe.
Even with that reasonableness, I have no idea why that first particle started to move.
What initiated the very first movement that changed the 'frozen' state to set the Universe into motion?

no photo
Fri 06/01/18 12:41 PM
Edited by IMFrisson on Fri 06/01/18 12:44 PM

You're right. Since we can't disprove there is an invisible wizard that created everything in all of our realities, we must accept its existence until proven otherwise. Nothing bad can come from accepting every single idea that gets thrown across our faces.

Not sure how this applies?
I tend to believe things that make sense to me.

At one time in history religion made sense to a lot of people.
Religion still makes sense to some, they see it as reasonable.

The reason religion has fallen is because people have obtained more reasonable knowledge about the world they live in.
For many, religion no longer makes sense.

Religion is proof that sometimes things that make sense at one time may not make sense always. Including science in the quest for knowledge.

Based on what I have learned from the tests and observations made and documented by science, I find it reasonable that energy is a baseline component of everything in the Universe.
Even with that reasonableness, I have no idea why that first particle started to move.
What initiated the very first movement that changed the 'frozen' state to set the Universe into motion?

Tom,
Ah, back to the ether, eh? So much for the accumulated theories in Physics since the Medieval days.

Things I like: Einstein's spluttering, "God does not play dice with the universe".

-'There is more space between matter than there is matter' Please, anybody, if you know who originally said this, let me know. I have googled it, searched quotation sites to no avail. I'm serious, no joke.

-the fact that the 2014 bosun came in at the CERN Collider at 124 Tev, exactly in the middle between a hypothesized singularity universe and a multiverse.

And this little UBI (Useless Bit of Information):
I was riffing one day, creative writing-wise, on a scenario where, travelling at the speed of light and therefore everything is in suspension, reaching out with a nanobot, grabbing a sub-atomic particle and giving it a spin in another direction. Would that be creation?

Being new here, in the past few days, I have developed a modest respect for your skepticism, irreverence and tongue-in-cheek attitude. You are, no doubt, a seeker.—IM

Tom4Uhere's photo
Fri 06/01/18 01:57 PM
Edited by Tom4Uhere on Fri 06/01/18 02:00 PM


You're right. Since we can't disprove there is an invisible wizard that created everything in all of our realities, we must accept its existence until proven otherwise. Nothing bad can come from accepting every single idea that gets thrown across our faces.

Not sure how this applies?
I tend to believe things that make sense to me.

At one time in history religion made sense to a lot of people.
Religion still makes sense to some, they see it as reasonable.

The reason religion has fallen is because people have obtained more reasonable knowledge about the world they live in.
For many, religion no longer makes sense.

Religion is proof that sometimes things that make sense at one time may not make sense always. Including science in the quest for knowledge.

Based on what I have learned from the tests and observations made and documented by science, I find it reasonable that energy is a baseline component of everything in the Universe.
Even with that reasonableness, I have no idea why that first particle started to move.
What initiated the very first movement that changed the 'frozen' state to set the Universe into motion?

Tom,
Ah, back to the ether, eh? So much for the accumulated theories in Physics since the Medieval days.

Things I like: Einstein's spluttering, "God does not play dice with the universe".

-'There is more space between matter than there is matter' Please, anybody, if you know who originally said this, let me know. I have googled it, searched quotation sites to no avail. I'm serious, no joke.

-the fact that the 2014 bosun came in at the CERN Collider at 124 Tev, exactly in the middle between a hypothesized singularity universe and a multiverse.

And this little UBI (Useless Bit of Information):
I was riffing one day, creative writing-wise, on a scenario where, travelling at the speed of light and therefore everything is in suspension, reaching out with a nanobot, grabbing a sub-atomic particle and giving it a spin in another direction. Would that be creation?

Being new here, in the past few days, I have developed a modest respect for your skepticism, irreverence and tongue-in-cheek attitude. You are, no doubt, a seeker.—IM

Thanx - I think?

Your thought experiment about flipping the spin is interesting.
I never thought to look into whether particles have a spin 'direction'?
That would entail a "right side up" condition as well. What force causes the orientation of matter's fundamental particles? Does an up quark have a top and bottom? Does a down quark have a north and south pole? While it may not be magnetic, perhaps there is a force like magnetism that acts on its determination?

As for the aether, I kinda like the idea of vacuum energy at Planck constant. Is zero point energy the smallest unit of energy possible?
While zero point is the smallest dimension possible, is energy confined to dimension? Could there be an energy between the particles that make up matter?

Our current method of measuring energy results in fractions of a whole unit. If there are fractions of a unit, that unit cannot be the baseline value.
The zeptojoule (zJ) is equal to one sextillionth (10^-21) of one joule. 160 zeptojoules is about one electronvolt.
10^-34 (6.626×10^−34 Joule) = Photon energy of a photon with a frequency of 1 hertz.
The joule is NOT the baseline unit of energy.
The erg is a unit of energy and work equal to 10^−7 joules. It originated in the centimetre–gram–second (CGS) system of units. It has the symbol erg.
The baseline unit of energy will be energy that cannot be reduced to to a lesser value. We don't have a word to represent that because we haven't found that lower limit yet.
It would be like the energy level that initiates the movement of a particle. Not the actual movement but the component of energy that builds to cause a change of state.
Since any change in state requires time, this is the energy that is present between the smallest instance of time.
Time is change of state.
Change of state is movement.
Movement is heat.
For time to occur, requires energy.

That force, that preparation to movement, is God for lack of any better word. It was the first anything in the entire Universe. It permeates everything in the Universe and it will be the last anything to exist when the Universe eventually freezes to absolute zero.
Its the energy that is present before the particle starts to spin.

That's the way I see it all. Since it works with reason for me, I have faith in my belief. Everything else in the Universe is a result of that energy.

no photo
Fri 06/01/18 08:32 PM
Thx for your reply. Wiki 'Spin(Physics)' That way I don't have to copy&paste and ya might think I'm cherrypickin'.

In my venture I ran across ...'even at absolute zero energy exists' and 'superfluidity'.

Your 'That force, that preparation for movement is God, for lack of any better word.': To me, one word's as good as another. Phenomena, enigma, force, entity, voodoo, will do too.

'Course, when you're on the edge of things logic breaks down and words fail. And of course, seeing is impossible because it takes approximately 2/10ths of a second (an eon in quantumland)for the optic nerve to transmit anything to the brain.

So' we'll just keep spinning our stories, eh?






Tom4Uhere's photo
Sat 06/02/18 12:10 AM

Thx for your reply. Wiki 'Spin(Physics)' That way I don't have to copy&paste and ya might think I'm cherrypickin'.

In my venture I ran across ...'even at absolute zero energy exists' and 'superfluidity'.

Your 'That force, that preparation for movement is God, for lack of any better word.': To me, one word's as good as another. Phenomena, enigma, force, entity, voodoo, will do too.

'Course, when you're on the edge of things logic breaks down and words fail. And of course, seeing is impossible because it takes approximately 2/10ths of a second (an eon in quantumland)for the optic nerve to transmit anything to the brain.

So' we'll just keep spinning our stories, eh?

Sure, Why Not?
I'm a truck mechanic not a scientist.
Just because I'm a truck mechanic doesn't mean my reasoning is off, just that it's unsupported.
If I gain a semblance of order from my reasoning, what does it matter?
I do try to find out about things that interest me, when I find out, I try to incorporate those ideas into my reasoning, if they don't work, I dismiss them, even if they are established science right now.
Its like my reasoning on light speed. I think matter can move at c+.
Without knowing everything about everything, everywhere and everywhen, nobody can be sure. Until we gain the knowledge of the whole Universe and all the possible paths within it, impossible can't exist. We can't know for sure.

it takes approximately 2/10ths of a second (an eon in quantumland)for the optic nerve to transmit anything to the brain.

This I also include in my reasoning about time and the fact that we can never detect anything in the actual present. There's always a lag between actual moment and detected moment.
Since there is also no baseline unit for time we can only describe it as the instant of change of state.
If a state change is happening it is already changing state.
There is a lag between state and the beginning eruption of state change.
A time unit that is infinitesimal.
So there are two units which humans do not grasp; Energy and Time.
I'll name them:
Base unit of Energy - The Enert
Base unit of Time - The Krynt
Base unit of Dimension is The Point (true one dimension)
Base unit of Temperature is True Absolute Zero (cessation of all movement), We call it Frozen for a reason.
Scientific AZ is not the same as True AZ.
True AZ can only occur as long as no movement (heat) is transferred. Since even particles have spin, and space is full of particles True AZ can not be established. Only a localized, temporary scientific AZ can happen.
If a chunk of matter is at AZ and it is detected, the detection process causes it to not be AZ. The moment you shine a light on it to see it the matter begins to warm.
Light as in any wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum.



I believe a state of true AZ must happen to isolate the baseline Enert and Krynt.
I believe the Universe erupted as the first Enert and Krynt changed the state from true AZ.
I believe the Universe will cool back to true AZ.
Perhaps a billion, trillion or googolplex of cosmological decades into the future?
When the only matter in the Universe is cold dead supermassive black hole singularities.

no photo
Sat 06/02/18 10:58 AM
Edited by IMFrisson on Sat 06/02/18 11:00 AM
'I do try to find out about things that interest me, when I find out, I try to incorporate those ideas into my reasoning, if they don't work, I dismiss them, even if they are established science right now.'

Sure, I get it. We make it up as we go along. However, there needs to be a mechanism other than outright dismissal. Two (or more) minds are better than one. Collaboration keeps the cobwebs off the social skills, eh?

'If I gain a semblance of order from my reasoning, what does it matter?'

I agree. It's a free country, We have the right to believe what we like. But if we want to come to common understandings, some give-and-take has to occur.

So if we want to think (believe?) matter can move at c+ or we want to define units in our own way (Enerts, Krynts THE Point, true Absolute Zero as opposed to scientific AZ) to satisfy our thought system, we absolutely have the right to do that.

But unsubstantiated, unsupported conclusions are not science. Science is so named because opinions have also been demonstrated to be true by others. Facts are established by common understanding and validation.

Thank you for your effort to communicate your reasoning. That's lovely coding there.—IM