Schrodinger's Universe/ Electric Universe
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am
Re: Schrodinger's Universe/ Electric Universe
Steven:
Maybe we could share some ideas privately. I can be reached at athearn41 at yahoo dot com. Thanks again for your earlier post, which prompted me to sign up immediately to the forum. Actually, just chanced to hit on this particular discussion, after googling "Schrodinger's universe" - though I had been aware of the existence of Thornhill, Talbot and Scott's work for a couple of months. However, I haven't yet had the chance to delve into it, except for a few things on the web, though I look forward to doing so. I'm very curious to know how the electric universe folk make their case for skepticism regarding the theory that hydrogen fusion is the main source of stellar energy. Larson also had a lot to say about that, of course, and this would be a natural area of commonality between the two perspectives. I imagine that Larson's general skepticism toward the importance of electric forces (in the structure of the atom, in solid and liquid cohesion, and in current electricity), might find greater resistance in these quarters, though there too, there might be a basis for fruitful interchange.
Junglelord:
I'm afraid I'm not up to speed here, but good luck with your efforts to sort these things out.
Steve Athearn
Maybe we could share some ideas privately. I can be reached at athearn41 at yahoo dot com. Thanks again for your earlier post, which prompted me to sign up immediately to the forum. Actually, just chanced to hit on this particular discussion, after googling "Schrodinger's universe" - though I had been aware of the existence of Thornhill, Talbot and Scott's work for a couple of months. However, I haven't yet had the chance to delve into it, except for a few things on the web, though I look forward to doing so. I'm very curious to know how the electric universe folk make their case for skepticism regarding the theory that hydrogen fusion is the main source of stellar energy. Larson also had a lot to say about that, of course, and this would be a natural area of commonality between the two perspectives. I imagine that Larson's general skepticism toward the importance of electric forces (in the structure of the atom, in solid and liquid cohesion, and in current electricity), might find greater resistance in these quarters, though there too, there might be a basis for fruitful interchange.
Junglelord:
I'm afraid I'm not up to speed here, but good luck with your efforts to sort these things out.
Steve Athearn
- junglelord
- Posts: 3693
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Schrodinger's Universe/ Electric Universe
Welcome to the forum.
This is a quick link to a APM white paper
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
APM is the Aether Physics Model by Dave Thompson.
this is the web site link
http://www.16pi2.com/
This is a quick link to a APM white paper
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
APM is the Aether Physics Model by Dave Thompson.
this is the web site link
http://www.16pi2.com/
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am
Re: Schrodinger's Universe/ Electric Universe
Thanks for the links and the note of welcome.
My wording above was ill considered. Larson would not have wished to be associated with the claim that electric forces play no role in electric current - if that claim would even be intelligible. But he held that such current does not consist of a motion of permanently charged particles. And he also denied the role that conventional theory attributes to such particles in basic atomic structure and in molecular cohesion.
Steve
My wording above was ill considered. Larson would not have wished to be associated with the claim that electric forces play no role in electric current - if that claim would even be intelligible. But he held that such current does not consist of a motion of permanently charged particles. And he also denied the role that conventional theory attributes to such particles in basic atomic structure and in molecular cohesion.
Steve
- Antone
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:28 pm
- Contact:
Re: Schrodinger's Universe/ Electric Universe
I'm probably misinterpreting your intended meaning--and if so I appologize. But In an experiment, repitition is the hallmark indicator of truth... and it seems to me that the same is probablay true of mathematical systems used to describe something. Now, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "necessary" ... but if you mean to imply something along the lines of "true" or "reflecting reality" then I do not buy your statement at all.jabailo wrote:... to me, the existence of two equivalent mathematical systems to describe the same thing means neither is as necessary as it purports to be.
There are numerous areas where a given truth or reality can be defined in various ways.
1. Quantum Mechanics for instance can be done in several different ways.
2. Calculus was first developed by Newton and Leibniz--and latter change to its current form.
I'm sure there are numerous other examples in the field of mathematics. Outside of mathematics there are many other examples. Color theory can be defined in several different ways, using entirely different characteristics (hue, saturation, etcK) to define color completely--but in different ways.
Even something as simple as the definition of a word shares this quality--because most words can be defined in at least a couple different ways--with each way accurately reflecting the meaning of the word. Even the act of observing an object can be accomplished by looking in different directions (assuming there's a mirror etc. around).
Of course, if you simply meant that it wasn't the only possible way to model reality--then I think that's so obvious that it probably goes without saying.
-
- Guest
Re: Schrodinger's Universe/ Electric Universe
Hi, just wanted to state, that a System is a human definition of something we don't understand. I'm not a professor, but having studied from Boltzman and Planck to Einstein and Bohr and Weinburg, Feynmann, David Deutch .... and ThunderBolt, I must somehow agree about 'the dark age' - gee - Einstein was a great thinker, but he (and Bohr) wasted valuable evaluiating oppotunities. The double slit exxperiment is confusing, complicated, incomplete (naturally), as is the never ending discussion about the structure of the atom: is it a particel, a wave (function), a state vector or what.
Many physicist claim that it is stupid to talk about an electrons orbit around the nucleon - ie. there is no orbit... Ok, perhaps we cant predict the orbit, but really, and this is my question: is it not posibel to meassure the historical orbit of an electron in a single atom (H) for just 1/1000 of a second? And how does Plancks constant influence on collected data (that should give us information), when the smallest meassurement unit is 1 Quanta -- that's just not good enough - if we want to, say, simulate one single H2O molecule. How does 1 ectron know which nucleon it 'belongs' to or how does the nucleon know which electron it 'owns' - not that I'm claiming particals should or have to know these relations, but I naturally beleive that they do know, or understand without having to know (only us humans establish systems and structures (perhaps due to our amazing but limited senses and brain)), because else there would be no matter (stabil mass and molecules)
Is it still true that the electron controls or forms the matters chemical attributtes (bad word) besides orbit momentum/temperature - I mean is it the nucleon or the electrons we can feel with our hands and see with .....?
I hope someone will help me on my way to understand nature - this site is my best hope - that is why I love ThunderBolt: new, clear and simple logical analyzing and debating.
Thanks anyway
Lars Holm, Vejle, Denmark - System Auditor / IT-nerd
Many physicist claim that it is stupid to talk about an electrons orbit around the nucleon - ie. there is no orbit... Ok, perhaps we cant predict the orbit, but really, and this is my question: is it not posibel to meassure the historical orbit of an electron in a single atom (H) for just 1/1000 of a second? And how does Plancks constant influence on collected data (that should give us information), when the smallest meassurement unit is 1 Quanta -- that's just not good enough - if we want to, say, simulate one single H2O molecule. How does 1 ectron know which nucleon it 'belongs' to or how does the nucleon know which electron it 'owns' - not that I'm claiming particals should or have to know these relations, but I naturally beleive that they do know, or understand without having to know (only us humans establish systems and structures (perhaps due to our amazing but limited senses and brain)), because else there would be no matter (stabil mass and molecules)
Is it still true that the electron controls or forms the matters chemical attributtes (bad word) besides orbit momentum/temperature - I mean is it the nucleon or the electrons we can feel with our hands and see with .....?
I hope someone will help me on my way to understand nature - this site is my best hope - that is why I love ThunderBolt: new, clear and simple logical analyzing and debating.
Thanks anyway
Lars Holm, Vejle, Denmark - System Auditor / IT-nerd
- junglelord
- Posts: 3693
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Schrodinger's Universe/ Electric Universe
We must be able to feel each one. Ie a acid is a hydrogen atom without its electron, that is the nucleus. Otherwise we feel the electron as its distributed charge is the average configuration. However we do feel the influence from both the proton and neutron, and our hands have magnetic receptors it turns out. So in reality we can feel it all. In several ways.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests