matter is there only 50% of the time

[gtarrant]

Explanation of the supposed electrons being created out of thin air is just a lack of understanding of the basics of electricity induced by a generator. Look up a sine wave. The concept of the generator is that the magnetic feild excites electrons in a coil of wire causing them on the atomic level to be pushed away from their molecules in the coil material. The relation ship there is a give and take. If you try to induce too much excitation, more than the material can handle it overloads and produces heat (see a toaster for this effect). The electrons are forced away by the magnet then when the magnet is removed they come screaming back to the source. Negative voltage on a sine wave.

DC power is different. Common form without using AC as a base and modulating to create DC, is the battery. Which in all batteries there is a chemical reaction that cause a breakdown of the material and the material itself is spent in the process. This truth supposedly falls apart with rechargable batteries but in the grand scheme of things the only thing that occurs here is a reversal of the reaction to store the charge. The charge is spent again at some point and time or leaks and decays. There is an overall balance that nature tries to preserve as in yin/yang, good/evil, polar opposites.

The only merits I see to the 50% idea is that assuming that light is a particle as well as a wave that radiates, then all matter must vibrate to some extent. If the vibration frequency hits it's ideal resonance the particle should fracture like a glass when an opera singer hits that exact note. This is called disassociation, it is the core principle behind the idea of Stanley Myers water dielectric capacitor to produce fuel by an extreme application of electrolysis.

There may be a point that if a molecule is vibrated at a certain frequency that the molecule might seem to phase in and out by visual sense as it meets the frequency at which it emits it's reflection that we indicate as the visual existance of the molecule. Which would be the idea of cloaking an object by making it invisible or shifted out of the field of vision. This would support my thoughts on the existance of black holes, which are only supported by the existance of stars their somewhat polar opposites. For all we know, the way we are looking at black holes is from the back side. The black hole may be the path or shadow of a star that is traveling away from us at an equal speed causing the light to equal out and fall dead or not to be visible which would then appear to be black, you know the whole perspective or relativity that Einstein spoke of. 

The idea that the molecule only exists half the time would mean that it is created and destroyed and in a sense never really exists or always exists on this given plane. The idea of multiple planes is not something that should be totally discounted but should be seen with scepticism as it has not been proven to exist by our current knowledge. I'm going with the thinking that it always exists and certain phenomenon cause it to appear to not be there by respect of our senses. Just because it seems to not be there for a breif period doesnt mean that it does not exist during that period. It only appears to not be there relative to our point of view.

Maybe the topic should read "matter is visible only 50% of the time" instead of calling into question the entire existance of matter during half of it's vibration cycle or maybe the potential proof lies in polarization. The proton would be it's proof of mass therefore existance? If it lacks a proton and becomes equally charged then what happens does that combination in turn create a neutron? You raise a lot of questions by that statement and in a sense call into question the existance of everything.

[Low-Q]

if matter is only in our universe 50% of the time, then when you role something down a less distance intensive slope, and back-up a very distance intensive slope, it would be more likely to "bleep" through that recoil/distance intensive slope. Think of the ball in this picture as a partical that is bleeping in and out of time, at a high frequency.



Oops, I got time and distance messed up.

the bottom of the graph is the resting point. The ball travels up, but is brought back by the stronge magnetic force. the dotted circles is where the ball could go when it bleeps- out of the universe.

Question
1. does everything exsist and not exsist at a certain frequency?

I look at matter as a state of energy, and energy have no substance. To provide energy, there must be an unbalance "charge" between two states. If I say +50Volt, this number is measured compared to a state 50Volts lower ( minus 50Volts). The same with matter. Matter is present because there exists matter in an oposite state - black matter, anti matter, minus matter, or what we choose to call it. If we short circuit matter and anti matter, no matter is left, just like when we short circuit +50V with a state 50Volts lower = 0Volt.

So, somewhere in the universe, some time ago, the universe was charged so matter and anti matter could exist, and to keep the unbalanced state, matter and anti matter must not short circuit. Many scientists say that we have a parallell universe - I believe so too.

So I believe matter exist 100% of the time, in parallell with the existence of anti matter. The question is when the universe again implode so matter and anti matter again meets and leaving a tiny spot with infinite smallness and infinite gravity.

How does this affect the conservation of energy? Energy cannot be destroied, and cannot be created - bullshit?
It has been created some time ago, but the price this energy had to pay, is an energy state as much in minus as the energy as we know it. The sum of all energies in the universe must therefor be zero - else we violate the conservation of energy anyway. It cannot be created, and cannot be destroied, remember?

Br.

Vidar

[allcanadian]

So I believe matter exist 100% of the time, in parallell with the existence of anti matter. The question is when the universe again implode so matter and anti matter again meets and leaving a tiny spot with infinite smallness and infinite gravity.

How does this affect the conservation of energy? Energy cannot be destroied, and cannot be created - bullshit?
It has been created some time ago, but the price this energy had to pay, is an energy state as much in minus as the energy as we know it. The sum of all energies in the universe must therefor be zero - else we violate the conservation of energy anyway. It cannot be created, and cannot be destroied, remember?

So you believe matter exists 100% of the time.
So why does the burning hydrogen in the suns corona (matter)disappear?
Because it is transformed into radiant energy(radiation) light.
Where did all the light go from the sun? It leaves the sun so we should see it leave shouldn't we. It is transformed into space, EM radiation traveling through space-- not matter.
So this silly anti-matter everyone talks about is radiated energy or space. That 80% of matter the astronomers can't seem to find, that should be there is radiated expanded energy/space and there seems to be alot of space relative to matter, Hmmm.
So we don't need some fantastical multi-parallel string filled alternate universe to explain this, the alter ego of matter is space or radiation if you prefer.

As well the conservation of energy is conceptually flawed, If matter is converted to radiation then radiation is converted to matter through gravity. You know gravity the stuff none of the scientist can explain, radiation contracts on approach to the earth, it condenses from negative to positive potentials(matter).
The conservation of energy should read "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but can transform between matter and radiant energy damn near any time it wants."

[Low-Q]

So I believe matter exist 100% of the time, in parallell with the existence of anti matter. The question is when the universe again implode so matter and anti matter again meets and leaving a tiny spot with infinite smallness and infinite gravity.

How does this affect the conservation of energy? Energy cannot be destroied, and cannot be created - bullshit?
It has been created some time ago, but the price this energy had to pay, is an energy state as much in minus as the energy as we know it. The sum of all energies in the universe must therefor be zero - else we violate the conservation of energy anyway. It cannot be created, and cannot be destroied, remember?

So you believe matter exists 100% of the time.
So why does the burning hydrogen in the suns corona (matter)disappear?
Because it is transformed into radiant energy(radiation) light.
Where did all the light go from the sun? It leaves the sun so we should see it leave shouldn't we. It is transformed into space, EM radiation traveling through space-- not matter.
So this silly anti-matter everyone talks about is radiated energy or space. That 80% of matter the astronomers can't seem to find, that should be there is radiated expanded energy/space and there seems to be alot of space relative to matter, Hmmm.
So we don't need some fantastical multi-parallel string filled alternate universe to explain this, the alter ego of matter is space or radiation if you prefer.

As well the conservation of energy is conceptually flawed, If matter is converted to radiation then radiation is converted to matter through gravity. You know gravity the stuff none of the scientist can explain, radiation contracts on approach to the earth, it condenses from negative to positive potentials(matter).
The conservation of energy should read "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but can transform between matter and radiant energy damn near any time it wants."

If matter is energy, and so is the light from the sun, it will never be destroyed. It can disappear by leaving one place and go to another place far away, but it will never be destroyed. Once, an extreme density of light (electromagnetic radiation) made the first elements in the matter as we know it. So light is in fact the source to matter as we know it - and is also the energy that radiates from matter and make the matter disappear over time.

Gravity is a fact that I cannot explain. However I believe gravity is a function of the direction of the cosmic radiation. If this radiation mainly comes from one point, where the explosion did happen, I believe that this radiation some how "charge" any matter as we know it with some kind of magnetic field - by partly arrange any atoms in the universe mostly in one direction.
Or, gravity itself is anti-matter. As gravity and mass eventually will make the universe to implode into infinite smallness. With nothing else around it, the possible gravity in that spot will be nothing as well. Hmmm, hard to explain gravity - that's for sure.

Br.

Vidar

[allcanadian]

@low-Q
So light is in fact the source to matter as we know it - and is also the energy that radiates from matter and make the matter disappear over time.

Now your talking my language!
Not the BS we here of from the scientific community, I recently read an article called "the secret of light" by walter russell. I think you should read this, it has the best explanation for gravity I have ever heard. Does no one wonder why we have absolutely no explanation for gravity? Supposedly we know everything, except for magnetism and gravity, and I may not be the sharpest crayon in the box but these seem to be pretty important, like the fundamental forces in this universe and no one seems to a hoot.Where are the questions? Why? how?