The carrier of one wave can be the other wave ONLY. Thus, frequency of a carrying wave should be at least in 2 times more, then a frequency of a wave which it carries (a theorem of Kotelnikov). Digital video and audio is based on this principle of recording. How many levels of “ the wave carries other wave ” exists, I do not know. It is possible to do only assumptions, how many such levels exist.
The carrying (original) wave exists in the fine structure (vacuum) and it is a fluctuation of this substance. What this layer is “made” of, as well as, how many sublayers exist, we do not know. Probably, it will not be accessible to us never. Therefore we can develop more or less “working” model of this substance only.
Dear elas ,
I have offered “ the CHANNEL of INTERACTION ” instead of “ FIELD”
Yes. The reality exists in current Plank time only. It is the minimal cycle of time. The continuity is prodigal. Discreteness is economic. The nature always chooses an optimum variant. Any object (the particle or any their combination) has a cycle of time inherent in it. Time for each object individually and represents the counter working on subtraction. From a birth to death. All time cycles are synchronized by the minimal cycle of time. It is fair both for macroobjects and for microobjects.
You are repeating it with persistence worthy the best application. But when you’ll tell definitely, at last, where this contradictions are observed. Is it your great secret?
Secret? In the second post of this thread, I said:
Thats it (others echoed it though). There is nothing more to say except to examine (in another thread) WHY you refuse to accept a veritable MOUNTAIN of imperical evidence.
I do not “refuse to accept a veritable MOUNTAIN of empirical evidence”. I completely recognize them. But I draw OTHER CONCLUSIONS on these results. Agree, it is not empty obstinacy in which you reproach me. I try to find the REASON of such behavior of a wave and a particle. And these searches have led me to what you see here.
This is getting tedious. Yes. They do contradict observations. Again, your opening statement - the crux of your argument - does not fit with observations. For another example, if what you said were correct, a gravitational lens would act like a gravitational PRISM.
russ_waters,
If you are saying the math and science of QM isn't an accurate description of physical reality, that just plain isn't true. If you don't believe me, you'd better turn off your computer before QM fails and your computer blows up.
You come near the true, but you are limited to very small range of frequencies. Look more widely, Russ! In a range of visible light the distinction is insignificant. But I assume, that exact experiment should confirm distinction in the diffraction patterns of boundary frequencies of visible light. Besides, I can predict a deviation of red light in a strong magnetic field and absence of such effect for a blue light (TRUE RED SHIFT! ).
Vlamir that's great. I will check your website and contact you.
Really? Would you be so kind as to give us some links to experiments which show that radio wave (and not gammas) are deflected by a magnetic field, and that radio waves are not deflected in a gravitational field?
Let's see your calculations of the size of the radio-magnetic field effect please.
I offer the simple experiment which will answer all questions. It can be executed, using a powerful magnet similar the LHC magnet, here, on the Earth. Except of a magnet, two lasers : blue and red are necessary. Their beams are parallel and directed at one target. They pass between poles of a magnet. The distances between red and blue points on a target and their coordinates on a target at the switched OFF magnet is measured. The same is carried out at the magnet switched ON. Certainly, lasers should be closer to a magnet, and the target is far as it possible.
Have you written up your experiment, and its results, and submitted them to a peer-reviewed journal? If so, please give us a reference; if not, why not?
Take a look at my location. It is clear defines why not. I have addressed at forum’s team with an offer what to do with a new ideas ( in the post “ What about new ideas?”). Regrettably I don’t get any answer.
You would been surprised, but I have DONE them.
I must have missed it (unless it's a doc3.doc.php attachment earlier in this thread, which I couldn't open); can you post it again please?
Russ ... that's not serious.
?? I'm absolutely serious. Most people who post new theories in here act like they are the first people to examine the subject of their theories. Frankly, I think that's pretty arrogant.
So all ... is known ... done business. Nothing to add. Point.
I have never said any such thing. No, we don't know everything. But we know a whole lot and thousands of high end scientists have done a lot of research on the subject. So for one person to think he's thought of something so important that they have missed is arrogant.Originally posted by pelastration
So all ... is known ... done business. Nothing to add. Point.
That's good, even very good news.
Not that I can see ... I thought you said there was a site?
Any invention is a thing which others have missed or could not see. Are you accepting all inventors are arrogant?
Thats a false analogy because a new invention doesn't require that all related previous inventions not work.
Format doesn't matter, the attachment simply isn't there.
