What is time?

[altonhare]

Nanotechnology is all about 2-D materials science and manufacturing.

We do some work in nanotech here. I can safely say everything we've worked with has been irrevocably 3D, although sometimes we assign only two coordinates to constituents because we assume they do not move in a third direction.

Perhaps you're confusing dimensionality of an object with coordinates?

Angular momentum (Ligamentum Circulatus aka LC) is a rotating circular 2-D string (2pi) of mass that scans an aether RMF unit (16 pi^2) that has encapsulated it.

A 2D string of mass? First off, 2D objects do not have location, they do not exist. As I've said before, when you look at them side-on they vanish. Second off, the definition of mass given by APM is so much hot air:

A dimension, as defined here, is a non-material, measurable quality relating to the foundation of existence and being.

Dimension is a quality... A quality of what though? The author states that it is "related to the foundation of existence and being" but what actually IS a dimension? This is like asking for the definition of "tall" and someone saying "it's a quality related to size". It begs the question "What does it tell you about size? Thick, fat, skinny, wide, long, vast, tiny?" This is not a definition, it's a cop-out, an evasion.

Let us define mass as a dimension, which when given a quantity, becomes a measurement of inertia.

This definition is based on the previous empty definition and is even more incomprehensible. Why would we give mass a quantity, what can this even mean? Why does mass suddenly transform into "inertia" when this happens? This definition is purposely vague and ambiguous in order to avoid saying anything specific and thus falsifiable.

Third off, what does it mean for an object to "scan"? What is it actually doing?

So yes JL, I see your pictures, but the story is not clear from the pictures alone. You either need a well-structured explanation in words to accompany the pictures or a movie demonstrating the theory. The former is what has been given and unfortunately the words are just so much hot air until someone actually grants them meaning.

[junglelord]

Hi Alton
Your definition denials mean only that you fail to comphrend the quantum nature of the universe. It in no way refutes a single thing I posted. Indeed your ability to see a picture vs understand a theory is sorely lacking. Your materialism is your fixation, to your own demise.

Meanwhile I have made the repulsive Casimir force explained and understood. I have shown that the quantification of ES is the missing link, and I have shown that the material science of 2-D is alive and well. Your living in the past dude....2D materials were presumed not to exist, until 2004 when free standing 2-D Crystals were formed, going against all "knowledge and prediction" and you my dear man are one of those...meanwhile I am the material that should not exist according to you.

More than 70 years ago, Landau and Peierls argued that strictly 2D
crystals were thermodynamically unstable and could not exist11,12.
Their theory pointed out that a divergent contribution of thermal
fluctuations in low-dimensional crystal lattices should lead to such
displacements of atoms that they become comparable to interatomic
distances at any finite temperature13. The argument was later
extended by Mermin14 and is strongly supported by an omnibus
of experimental observations. Indeed, the melting temperature
of thin films rapidly decreases with decreasing thickness, and the
films become unstable (segregate into islands or decompose) at a
thickness of, typically, dozens of atomic layers15,16. For this reason,
atomic monolayers have so far been known only as an integral
part of larger 3D structures, usually grown epitaxially on top of
monocrystals with matching crystal lattices15,16. Without such a
3D base, 2D materials were presumed not to exist, until 2004, when
the common wisdom was flaunted by the experimental discovery
of graphene7 and other free-standing 2D atomic crystals (for
example, single-layer boron nitride and half-layer BSCCO)8

On top of all that I have shown the Fine Structure Constant of the Electron, the Unified Field Theory, I have explained Mass, you have only given reasons why you cannot. I have shown that the creation of Matter is exactly as APM predicted by a new revelation about the repulsive and attraction Casimir force and APM can explain the creation of Matter at the heart of a galaxy via the theory of Arp and also explained the expansion of the universe each with the proper definitions of the Strong Charge Force. Anyone reading can see I have a clear grasp on the universe, your running around with your shorts down trying to counter with definitions, with no ability to refute the math or the theory. APM like the EU is running 1000% with prediction. That in and off it self speaks volumes, apparently you cannot read.

Cheers.

[Influx]

Altonhare said, "You can transfer motion!? Could you show me this process? I have never seen 'a' motion move from here to there."

Again, we are talking about states of matter here, not some abstract concept. Are we a concept? Object A hits object B, object A stops while object B moves. The kinetic energy, defined here as energy of movement, is transferred from A to B. The state of object A becomes the state of object B hence the energy of movement was transferred.

A concept is a human invention, if we become extinct, the universe will go on, and changes in the state of matter will go on, collision will go on, and movement, inertia and motion all will keep being transferred, transformed from body to another body for eternity to come.

In essence what you are doing is digesting and reducing the language, a human language, and trying to project it onto the universe. You can reduce everything down to concepts until nothing is left, but the universe will still be here. AS IT IS. I don't need scientific mambo jumbo, their inventions of knowledge, their measurement systems, their rules and the meaning they assign to these rules. I can understand the universe by my senses, my mind, and my intuition, not by what some stuffed know it all's tell me. I see the universe buzzing with the transference, transformation and transmutation of everything all the time!

[altonhare]

Hi Alton
Your definition denials mean only that you fail to comphrend the quantum nature of the universe. It in no way refutes a single thing I posted. Indeed your ability to see a picture vs understand a theory is sorely lacking.

The fact that your theory's definitions are nonsensical is a fault of the theory, not a fault of mine.

Your living in the past dude....2D materials were presumed not to exist, until 2004 when free standing 2-D Crystals were formed, going against all "knowledge and prediction" and you my dear man are one of those...meanwhile I am the material that should not exist according to you.

You continuously confuse dimensions with coordinates. A material that can be described as "planar" can have its constituent atoms described by 2 coordinates.

Do you honestly propose a material lacking height was made? Reference please? Your quote says nothing about 2D objects:

and other free-standing 2D atomic crystals (for
example, single-layer boron nitride and half-layer BSCCO)8

It says it's a 2D atomic crystal, but then says it's "single layer". This means it has height, a height of at least one atom! I presume, being a "layer", it also has length and width.

This embarrassingly simple distinction indicates you do not understand what a dimension is.

A concept is a human invention, if we become extinct, the universe will go on, and changes in the state of matter will go on, collision will go on, and movement, inertia and motion all will keep being transferred, transformed from body to another body for eternity to come.

For all your railing against "time" earlier, you certainly don't seem to have any problem with it now. You invoke all kinds of dynamic words such as "change" and "movement" and "inertia" and "motion" and "transfer" and "transform". If, as you said before, time is a concept, then so are heat, energy, momentum, etc. because these ALL invoke the concept of time (they are dynamic, they embody change and motion). We cannot even define energy, velocity, or momentum without also defining time.

[Influx]

Influx wrote: A concept is a human invention, if we become extinct, the universe will go on, and changes in the state of matter will go on, collision will go on, and movement, inertia and motion all will keep being transferred, transformed from body to another body for eternity to come.

For all your railing against "time" earlier, you certainly don't seem to have any problem with it now. You invoke all kinds of dynamic words such as "change" and "movement" and "inertia" and "motion" and "transfer" and "transform". If, as you said before, time is a concept, then so are heat, energy, momentum, etc. because these ALL invoke the concept of time (they are dynamic, they embody change and motion). We cannot even define energy, velocity, or momentum without also defining time.

Time is a not axomatic, the existence of the universe and change, i.e. movement, of objects in the said universe is axomatic. The description of the states of matter by invented human measurement systems is an arbitrary concept, but the universe and the states of matter in the universe are or is axomatic. And this fact is a self sufficient primary, no further explanations are needed. Change exist, it is not a concept, there are no alternatives too it, but all explanations, ideas, theories, concepts and thoughts rest on the axomatic change. Since change is axomatic, when I describe change I am talking about the axomatic change and movement of the universe, not the invented scientific measurement concepts of that change.

And by the way before you launch of an a tangent of what is existence, I simply would like to say that in my mind existence is a self-sufficient primary and that existence is axiomatic. Meaning it can not be broken down into parts or reduced to other concepts. It simple is.

[junglelord]

"For years there was a discussion if 2D materials should exist or not," says lead author Kostya Novoselov. "Now that we have proved that 2D crystals exist and that they are stable, we can study their electronic, optical and mechanical properties. And it's a whole new class of materials, which include metals, insulators, semiconductors and probably magnetic materials." The discovery will also allow theoretical models of 2D materials to be tested. "These are very exciting materials to work with," adds Novoselov. "We can study almost any property of matter in 2D."

It says it's a 2D atomic crystal, but then says it's "single layer". This means it has height, a height of at least one atom! I presume, being a "layer", it also has length and width.
This embarrassingly simple distinction indicates you do not understand what a dimension is.

You seem to have the idea that the word Dimension has multiple meanings.
You claim they cannot speak english.
So do I.

Therefore you have no idea what I mean. When ever you mind or you dictionary cannot rise to a level of awareness that goes beyond your definitions, I know that you are stuck in your own limits. Your limits are your limits, somehow you believe they apply to everyone else.

You say no 2-D, so did they, well now they are all wrong, and time will show that you are too.

[junglelord]

typo correction from above

When ever your mind or your dictionary

Oh, you mind telling me what "they" mean by two D, since you "persume" that it has "Height". What then is the 2-D they say that could never exist, is now in front of their very eyes and will allow them to study all the attributes of reality and make incredible new technology.....????

After your done explaining their definition of 2-D, which must be as squewed as mine,

Lets looks at your accusation,

It says it's a 2D atomic crystal, but then says it's "single layer". This means it has height, a height of at least one atom! I presume, being a "layer", it also has length and width.
This embarrassingly simple distinction indicates you do not understand what a dimension is.

lets get a reality check shall we?

What we are really talking about is "volume", which makes me wonder if you even understand the third dimension?
For a guy that goes on and on and on and on about definitions, your choice of the word height shows a gross misunderstanding of the third dimension.

Since we are talking about one atom, then your idea that an atom has height, has nothing to do with volume.
If you knew anything about APM, you would know that there is no volume in an atom.


Rather the third dimension of volume is actually space resonance.
Which what this thread is all about and what I try to keep telling you.
Its all about resonance, frequency, not time.
Your choice of the word height is clearly a huge misunderstanding of the third dimension volume which is why you do not understand space resonance. An atom and your definitions are realities apart.

Should be fun to watch you try to backpaddle out of the height of your awareness on atomic dimensions and resonance, clearly both you know nothing about, which means you clearly cannot understand charge and by extension the EU.

At the same time the dictionary thumping (like a bible thumper) you do so loudly to conceal your own limits has leaped out and bit your ass. Height, man thats lame. Where is that damn dictionary when you need it. I can see why you made this thread what is time as you clearly do not have a clue, the question is can you learn?

[junglelord]

What time is it? Its time to say that I rule.
Unless Mr Alton answers the above post, which he so coincidently seemed to have "missed", he is not capable of saying he was wrong....are you related to the Fonz?


I predict he cannot explain what is the 2-D definition that the scientist use, dispite the fact they say it is 2-D. When says it clearly is not as it has "height"....

I also predict he cannot admit that the "height" and the third dimension are non sequitar, and that in that huge fallicy, he totally misses the point of quantum resonance. The entire answer to his thread, staring him in the resonance face....waiting patiently for a response.

[Influx]

I also predict he cannot admit that the "height" and the third dimension are non sequitar, and that in that huge fallicy, he totally misses the point of quantum resonance. The entire answer to his thread, staring him in the resonance face....waiting patiently for a response.

The concept of dimensions is a human invention. The universe is a single volume of a void, that is nothingness, in which objects take up a part of that volume. The 3d measurement system has nothing do to with the universe and everything with the human mind simple describing the universe as such. Dimensions and measurement coordinates are two different things. A dimension is thought to be the structure of space or its properties. Coordinates are a measurement system that relates to the human and is a human concept. The problems is that people lump the 3d coordinates and measurement system with the structure of space and claim that space is 3d in itself. This is not true, space is a single volume, a single entity, a void. It can not be measured or described, only the objects that are in this space can have coordinates and be measured in relation to each other. A 2d object implies simple that it can only be measured in two directions, that it does not have a third direction. Such a object is purely theoretical and cant exist in nature because even the theoretical ether building block will have volume.

[junglelord]

A 2d object implies simple that it can only be measured in two directions, that it does not have a third direction. Such a object is purely theoretical and cant exist in nature because even the theoretical ether building block will have volume.

Errr, thats why the title of the link to 2-D Crystals was "Materials That Should Not Exist."
Yet they do and therefore your wrong....as was everyone else that claimed they could not exist.


However your comment on space and volume, that is the key word....volume.
That is not a property of atoms as they are not a particle. They do however have quantum resonance.
That is the true Third Dimension and it governs charge resonance, Telsa technology and the EU.
It therefore surely does exist and infact we have Tesla to thank for the use of this resonance.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Influx,
You wrote:

The concept of dimensions is a human invention.

I hate to do an 'Alton' on you, but you would have to define 'human' before you could make that stick.

The universe is a single volume of a void, that is nothingness, in which objects take up a part of that volume.

How does one get somethig (object) out of nothingness?

The 3d measurement system has nothing do to with the universe and everything with the human mind simple describing the universe as such.

If you mean 'brain' then you may be correct. If you mean 'mind' then you would have to prove that the human mind and the Universe are two separate things.

The problems is that people lump the 3d coordinates and measurement system with the structure of space and claim that space is 3d in itself. This is not true, space is a single volume, a single entity, a void.

I'm no scientist, but surely in order to be a volume an object has to have 3Ds? And in what sense are you using the word 'void'?

A 2d object implies simple that it can only be measured in two directions, that it does not have a third direction. Such a object is purely theoretical and cant exist in nature because even the theoretical ether building block will have volume.

Just because a 2D object cannot be perceived by ones 3D senses does not mean it cannot exist in nature. How many dimesions does a thought have? You may argue that a thought is not an object but that would be just your narrow definition of 'object'. The 'human' mind can do much more than the experts tell us.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Junglelord,
Don't know if this is the correct thread but have seen this:
Our world may be a giant hologram
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ogram.html

The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface.

The "holographic principle" challenges our sensibilities. It seems hard to believe that you woke up, brushed your teeth and are reading this article because of something happening on the boundary of the universe. No one knows what it would mean for us if we really do live in a hologram, yet theorists have good reasons to believe that many aspects of the holographic principle are true.

The article is full of the usual nonsense - gravitational lensing, Black Holes, etc but its main problem is, to me at least, the usual one of putting the cart before the horse. To wit the first highlighted section above. The 'physical process' is the everyday experience; that taking place the distant 2D surface is mental. My reasoning in confirmed by the second highlighted section which lists a series of physical actions, getting out of bed, teeth brushing, reading, 'because of something happening on the boundary of the Universe'.
Just as the ancients said.
It goes into more sciencey stuff, mentioning Planck's Constant etc which is more your cup of tea.

[altonhare]

You seem to have the idea that the word Dimension has multiple meanings.

People use this word many ways, I do my best to figure out which way they're using it. I always use it the same way: "Extent in a direction mutually perpendicular to each other direction".

You say no 2-D, so did they, well now they are all wrong, and time will show that you are too.

Convince me. Define object, exist, and dimension such that "two dimensional object that exists" is non contradictory.

Or show me a single 2D object.

Oh, you mind telling me what "they" mean by two D,

Sure, I already stated this:

A material that can be described as "planar" can have its constituent atoms described by 2 coordinates.

I think their definition of "2-dimensional" is "well described by only 2 coordinates".

After your done explaining their definition of 2-D, which must be as squewed as mine,

Not really, they just mixed up "dimension" and "coordinate", which is pretty common. The APM definition of dimension (I assume yours also), however, expressly avoids actually saying anything:

A dimension, as defined here, is a non-material, measurable quality relating to the foundation of existence and being.

Dimension is a quality... A quality of what though? The author states that it is "related to the foundation of existence and being" but what actually IS a dimension? This is like asking for the definition of "tall" and someone saying "it's a quality related to size". It begs the question "What does it tell you about size? Thick, fat, skinny, wide, long, vast, tiny?" This is not a definition, it's a cop-out, an evasion. It is blatantly question-begging.

What we are really talking about is "volume",

I thought we were talking about objects.

Height, man thats lame.

I like height, it lets me see over peoples' heads in crowds.

Unless Mr Alton answers the above post, which he so coincidently seemed to have "missed", he is not capable of saying he was wrong....are you related to the Fonz?

Again, not appreciated. There is simply no reason for you to maliciously imply these things.

I predict he cannot explain what is the 2-D definition that the scientist use, dispite the fact they say it is 2-D. When says it clearly is not as it has "height"....

Essentially they mean that the location of any atom within the material can be described by measuring its distance from a reference atom along the materials' length and again along the material's width.

I also predict he cannot admit that the "height" and the third dimension are non sequitar, and that in that huge fallicy, he totally misses the point of quantum resonance.

The key words here are object, exist, and dimension. Objects that exist are three dimensional, they have LWH. Since APM's definition of "dimension" fails to say anything you don't really have a leg to stand on here. I don't think I've seen you define object or exist, either.

Errr, thats why the title of the link to 2-D Crystals was "Materials That Should Not Exist."
Yet they do and therefore your wrong....as was everyone else that claimed they could not exist.

From the blurb I read I believe the reason they thought they couldn't synthesize a material of only a single layer is that it wouldn't be stable without the underlying substrate. They probably thought a planar material with a height (many materials scientists would say thickness) of only a single atom would be very fragile and unstable. Indeed in materials scientists planar structures usually don't come about "easily" for a variety of chemical reasons.

Just because a 2D object cannot be perceived by ones 3D senses does not mean it cannot exist in nature.

This doesn't have to do with perception/observation/confirmation/experimentation. Words are defined so that we can use them consistently. You cannot define object and exist such that a 2D object exists, and still use these terms consistently. A 2D object lacks location.

How many dimesions does a thought have? You may argue that a thought is not an object but that would be just your narrow definition of 'object'. The 'human' mind can do much more than the experts tell us.

Again, not an issue of "narrow" definitions or "what we can do". Definitions are chosen so that can be used consistently, not based on what you or I perceive.

[junglelord]

Hi Alton


Do not take it personal dude. Its ok to be you and we are friends.


hope you had a good weekend and I am glad that you replied.


While you skipped over the most important part, that volume is space resonance, the whole meaning of the thread.
The height vs volume and your skipping space resonance as the third dimension. Charge resonance of the EU begins with the introduction of volume...not height.

Since you always wrangle over words, I figured you would have a hard time squirming out of this one.
But you tried and I give you credit for that.


While you took the time, you still miss the resonance...
take care buddy.

[altonhare]

Since you always wrangle over words, I figured you would have a hard time squirming out of this one.

The point is that you claimed to present evidence for a 2D object. At worst the evidence you presented was misleading and at best it was simply irrelevant. The authors synthesized a planar material and called it 2D, which is common in materials science. People who are not aware of such conventions and the difference between a dimension and a coordinate might be misled by the quote into thinking a material lacking height was actually made, which the authors did not claim to have done and indeed they did not do. This "evidence" is, then, irrelevant as evidence of a 2D object. It seems you just found a quote that called a material 2D and said it shouldn't exist. A casual skimming, especially by someone untrained in science, would give the impression that it bolstered your stance.