How matter can born?

[heikki]

:)

Hi.

I have read this forums and many other astronomy-physics-philosophy forums and i have notice that many forums peopple talk about universe-starting issue and matter issue. Some says that universe is startless-everlasting and some says that universe has start some kind of big-bang or some creation process.

I have start to think how matter born?
We are form of matter that is quite thruth thing. If we are life or not life, still we are form of matter.
( I dont issue life-matter-mind(soul,etc.) issue at this, because i dont have thought excactly that how matter can have life inside, or that kind of thing. Only i known that there is differents about life-matter-form and non-life-matter-form. That is quite clear thing also.)

My question is, how matter born?
Born at this question dont mean that life-form-born natural process like us born and other animals and trees and flowers and etc.

Born at this question means that how this matter which is basic elements (or lego-puzzle-pieces) that our material-form-construction was born?

So my question is, how matter (was) born?

:)

[after]

:)

Hi.

I have read this forums and many other astronomy-physics-philosophy forums and i have notice that many forums peopple talk about universe-starting issue and matter issue. Some says that universe is startless-everlasting and some says that universe has start some kind of big-bang or some creation process.

I have start to think how matter born?
We are form of matter that is quite thruth thing. If we are life or not life, still we are form of matter.
( I dont issue life-matter-mind(soul,etc.) issue at this, because i dont have thought excactly that how matter can have life inside, or that kind of thing. Only i known that there is differents about life-matter-form and non-life-matter-form. That is quite clear thing also.)

My question is, how matter born?
Born at this question dont mean that life-form-born natural process like us born and other animals and trees and flowers and etc.

Born at this question means that how this matter which is basic elements (or lego-puzzle-pieces) that our material-form-construction was born?

So my question is, how matter (was) born?

:)


As long as I know, there is only one theory which is explaining really everything into the depth, you can find it in the adjacent thread:
http://physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=3359&postcount=11

[Epsilon=One]

As long as I know, there is only one theory which is explaining really everything into the depth, you can find it in the adjacent thread:
http://physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=3359&postcount=11I have read the thread/post that you link to.

I can find very little therein that explains any fundamental phenomena, much less what matter/mass actually is. What, precisely, is your definition of mass?

There are many conclusions that I tend to agree with; however, I cannot find any quantitative fundamental substance that supports the conclusions. Possibly such may be lost in all the words; or not clearly expressed.

I disagree strongly with what seems to be your theory's reliance on general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) as they relate to the forces of the standard models (SM). Meaning: do you rely upon conventional SM definitions of the fundamental forces? If so, I disagree

It is very difficult to reconcile and follow your logic concerning fundamental concepts.

For clarification of your concepts, let's begin with a few simple fundamental definitions/rationalizations. Then we can continue to some sort of unification.

First: You use mathematical symbolism. How does your theory prove your mathematics as being applicable to Nature?

Second: How does your theory get around the Gödel Incompleteness Theorem?

Third: How does your theory define the known dimensions; particularly time?

Fourth: How does your theory explain that galactic recession is accelerating?

[after]

Here are some of mine basic concepts, please reffer me more about your disagreements with that standard model.

http://www5.spread-it.com/dl.php?id=2b5d589755e48829b77234b58ba3cee357340f4e

[thejoshrules]

Here is a forum i was talking to others about the beginning of time, and how matter could just suddenly appear and take form in life, it might help...

http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=942

[Epsilon=One]

Here are some of mine basic concepts, please reffer me more about your disagreements with that standard model.

http://www5.spread-it.com/dl.php?id=2b5d589755e48829b77234b58ba3cee357340f4e You seem to confirm in the above link concerning, "A Brief Concept of Qcomputer," all of my reservations concerning your thoughts. You have directly answered none of my questions; while continuing to have reservations concerning your concepts.

I can find nothing that relates to any physical fundamental concepts or definitions. Everything is vague words; what you have seems to be more a philosophy of information knowledge rather than physics.

You state, "I do not know much about that SM (standard models) I am not considering them in my theory..."; then you go on to state: "...that was only such a brainstorming-nothing precisely formulated..."

Your philosophical intuition is good; however you cannot make preposterous claims for your theory without understanding something about fundamental physics and fundamental mathematics. At the physical level that you are trying to explain, set theory is not adequate. And, Gödel cannot be dismissed as easily as you are doing.

You state you do not understand the standard models; yet, you incorporate all their irreconciled, metaphysical concepts to support your ideas.

Study the works of Alfred Korzybski (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=korzybski&btnG=Google+Search)'s General Semantics. Then, determine your fundamental concepts and carefully define them. From this foundation you can build a theory to the conclusions that you intuit. Otherwise, you are just another philosopher that is propagating metaphysics and secular faith as truth without a "warning label"; much as those that currently have a "lock" on peer review and the status quo.

[Epsilon=One]

Here is a forum i was talking to others about the beginning of time, and how matter could just suddenly appear and take form in life, it might help...

http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=942I agree that fundamental matter is ephemeral, which is a basic premise of quantum chromodynamics (QCD); and, it must evolve, eventually to life.

I cannot believe that this evolution of matter/mass to the "higher" forms of life can be accomplished in 13 billion, or so years. Therefore, a good argument for the perpetuity of the Universe.

[heikki]

:)

Hi all and thanks the join this conversation.

My question is quite clear, but your all answer is not. I ask yours opinion or thought of that my question. I dont ask to write link-address and so on some theoryes and etc. I apology if my question is not been full clear.

---
DEAM-thinking method. Double Empty Aquarium Method.

If we think that matter(material) has some smaller matter-size or particle-size and this size has also must have then matter-mass because it is existing matter-piece.

And we move this one matter-particle in the empty aquarium from the full aquarium.

Then i ask again.

How matter born? How this individual smaller matter-particle born? Or can we explain it any kind of human kind invent theoryes?

Please, i hope that your make answer your own word and mind thought without referring any kind on old-physics or etc.theoryes or names. You can of cource use mathematical or physical formula if needet.

My thought and opinion is that my question has only one right answer and i know it but i dont want to write it because if i write you maybe start to think through my answer. Therefore i like to hear yours opinion first.

Continue...

:)

[Epsilon=One]

My question is quite clear, but your all answer is not. I ask yours opinion or thought of that my question. I dont ask to write link-address and so on some theoryes and etc. I apology if my question is not been full clear.Sorry. You are correct. I did not address your question. Nor, did I provide any of the links to spurious theory. I was more concerned with the "drifting" of those that replied to your question than your question, which was quite clear.

You speak of "matter"; for now I will consider the terms "matter," "mass," and "particle" as the same.

You ask, "How matter born?"

The simple answer is:
There is seminal motion that is interrupted because of the intrinsic geometry of this pure (dimensionless) motion. Out of the consequent chaos of said motion there is occasional harmony (because of said intrinsic geometry) that resonates as spinning spheroids. The resonation is ephemeral because it is within a pulsing quantum of said seminal motion that is ephemeral because of said intrinsic geometry.Said ephemeral resonation of motion is the birth of mass . . . and most other fundamental manifestations such as the Inverse Square Law, dimensions, a fundamental unit, time, and the fundamental forces of the standard models.

I expect my answer to your question to raise many more questions. If so, please advise me. The mathematics/geometry is available if you so require.

Please, i hope that your make answer your own word and mind thought without referring any kind on old-physics or etc.theoryes or names. You can of cource use mathematical or physical formula if needet.

My thought and opinion is that my question has only one right answer and i know it but i dont want to write it because if i write you maybe start to think through my answer. Therefore i like to hear yours opinion first.Your method is very wise.

[after]

You seem to confirm in the above link concerning, "A Brief Concept of Qcomputer," all of my reservations concerning your thoughts. You have directly answered none of my questions; while continuing to have reservations concerning your concepts.

I can find nothing that relates to any physical fundamental concepts or definitions. Everything is vague words; what you have seems to be more a philosophy of information knowledge rather than physics.

You state, "I do not know much about that SM (standard models) I am not considering them in my theory..."; then you go on to state: "...that was only such a brainstorming-nothing precisely formulated..."

Your philosophical intuition is good; however you cannot make preposterous claims for your theory without understanding something about fundamental physics and fundamental mathematics. At the physical level that you are trying to explain, set theory is not adequate. And, Gödel cannot be dismissed as easily as you are doing.

You state you do not understand the standard models; yet, you incorporate all their irreconciled, metaphysical concepts to support your ideas.

Study the works of Alfred Korzybski (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=korzybski&btnG=Google+Search)'s General Semantics. Then, determine your fundamental concepts and carefully define them. From this foundation you can build a theory to the conclusions that you intuit. Otherwise, you are just another philosopher that is propagating metaphysics and secular faith as truth without a "warning label"; much as those that currently have a "lock" on peer review and the status quo.

Yes I know but if I would try to write "everything" relevant it would take me at least 30 pages - it is not possible. I ll write it in Slovak - there I can express my thougts much clearer and if it will becom "somehing" - then there will definitely be some english translation by some professionals, who know the languege.

And one thing why I do not have to consider much details about stnadard model etc. is that "you don't need to know everything to know everything"

no human being is able to know everything about universe. So best what can be done is som optimal compromise between "everything" and "some smaller but optimaly balanced parts" - In other words - it is reversed version of "Sum becomning greater than their parts" - if you accept that something "small" becoming "bigger" is possible, and you are "finite" and that "something exists" than natural consequence of this is that also "some bigger can become smaller" - once you are looking as "finite" and "everything" etc can be only some huge number = digitalized it is inevitable that it must be possible also to reduce it. (if everything is digital (which is my starting point) and digital in that way it is capable to selfimply its own exsitence - its natural consequence)

So as long as I am manupulaing only with finite digital numbers - and I am trying to prove that they can selfimplicate their own existence - it is only a matter of logic. No mathematics, no physics etc. All what I need is some most relevant data observed from the nature, or formulated by some other scientist (and to rely they are good aproximation of th truth). All what I am doing is most basicly "informatics" or programming (I think I have quite good algorithmical thinking, I like elgenacy and simplicity in the code) and logic - don't forget that primary aim is to build quantum computer which is just manipulation with numbers - but much more powerfull as digital. Also - I started thinking about problem of how universe is possible about three months before I came here so I have done some computational experiments - literally I was using my computer the same way as mathematicians use paper and pencil to formulate their theories - so it was a very huge speed up (It hepled me a lot to be able to relize the important issues). I was thinking about it very intensively and I also programmed some 2D simmulation of the virtual universe - it created exactly what you would expect - three different degrees of organization. In the micorstructure it was almost chaotic, in the middle structure middle organized with well recognizable patterns and macrostructure looked like some spiral centers of galaxies etc with adjacent stars. It was very simillar as what Julia set looked like (if you watched that picture). And all I needed to do was just choosing the starting condition, between 0 / 1 and also some wery simple (almost trivial - few line) algorithm. If you are interested I can show you the program or some screenshots. It was not much however it showed me that it could be "something" (without computer I wouldn't be possible to relize that)

After running (or looping) that algorithm amount of data started to exponentialy grow - so I was quite limited by the memory of my comupter (e.g. about 10 iterations of the algorithm were possible but 11 would lead to ~ 2 GB memory requirememnts which is beyond my current memory limits)

One problem with that algorithm was - that I still couldn't explain, how curved spacetime is possible (I was only able to iterate through generated bits of data and put it into 2D screen, where time was the 3D dimension which only determined proper possitions of this pictures in the time on my 2D screen (as if you were watchin video))

And the problem was, that I failed to realize that information don't necesserally have to bee discrete or digital (even when I knew that GR predicts continuum I thought I can explain everything only by digital information - it was my limited view as a man from IT), I also knew that it has to do something with real numbers and natural numbers etc. but I was incapable to see the solution. I was looping and looping and ... I didn't know how to explain that. So your remark about that only possible way how our universe could become a copmuter is that it also needed to be analog was huge milestep for me - the last piece into the puzzle after which everything started to give perfect sense. (I can give you credit for it if this becomes "something" if you are interested - and I am almost sure that It can become something) It started that chain reaction which I called "brainstorming" (by trying to write about it helped me to better relize what I am dealing with) and now I have very good understanding about "what I am dealing with" - only thing I need to do is finish document in Slovak.

And aslo long time I was having that idea about Turing test and his improved version - and how it could distuiguish between digital computer and intelligence and also it's relation to human language (And I think I know how it is possible)

So as long as you admit, that our universe can be only some kind of quantum computer and that it is also possible to build one quantum computer inside another quantum computer - and that transformation from one "Bigger" quantum computer to another "Smaller" quantum computer is fully determinstic (which is the main idea) - than logical consequence is, that you really don't know anything about physics or maths or anything else and what is needed is instead logic, algorithmization, informatics and good deeply recursive thinking (I liked LISP a lot - which is a almost purely recursive language). So if something like that is possible - no mathematical or physical law can't be in contradiction with such deterministic transformation of one quantum computer into another if it is correct (isntead - laws of physics and such deterministic transformatioon must selfimplicate each another one with each others good approximation)

Therfore all I need from mathematics(M) and physics(P) is:

M:
* There exist infinitely many primes
* Each finite formal axiomatic system with at least one axiome is:
(incomplete) OR (inicomplete AND inconsistent)

P:
* Speed of light is constant
* particle / wave duality exist and this is how universe works
* we are finite observers

And also for informatics(I) and [A/D A/A D/A communication (C)]

C:
* there are three basic types of interference when transformation of information is not D/D
* (A/D, D/A) = dualism interference
* (A) = strong interference (analog part is "bigger")
* (D) = weak interference (digital part is "bigger")

I:
* D/D transformation is completely deterministic
* reliance of human language to intelligence and finite observer (proper turing test is possible)

If exact terminology is build on this axiomes than it is only matter of logic and deep recursive thinking (It simply must be truth, because it's too elegant and simple and I have already finished so many selfimplying loops that It is "almost" becoming one of the things I am most cerain in the life). No equations need to be solved (classical mathematical equations are improper way how quantum mechanics can be EXACTLY = DETERMINISTICALY (whole randomeness is only built on first input bit) and best described in some more reasonoble depth than e.g. one atom (I don't know what is the current limit on field of quantum computations). Instead if this theory is correct physical 3D transistors are needed (I mean real hardware chip or something like that - like many little sattelites circling around the Earth on the proper trajectories and communicating with D/D brain on the earth with completely A/A way, and also on the Earth there must be some links to the brain which are both D/D (but smaller - like desktop computer) and A/A and also A/D or D/A properely linked etc.) However - this is only futuristic vision - the one thing which is possible I think is to create virtual quantum circuit inside any current digital desktop computer and than we'll see what's next - I don't know yet - the idea of big D/D brain on the earth is only basic conpet what could become possible in distant future)

So that's all.

[Epsilon=One]

As long as I know, there is only one theory which is explaining really everything into the depth, you can find it in the adjacent thread:
http://physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=3359&postcount=11It is the above statement, "there is only one theory which is explaining really everything into the depth, you can find it in the adjacent thread:" that I am quarreling with.

Your paragraphs of voluminous "intuition" are fine . . . as long as you emphasize that you are "brainstorming." There just isn't anything beyond intuition with your theory; you state much that is very suspect in accuracy for having the "only one theory" that is "explaining really everything into the depth."

Your theory explains nothing in depth that I can ascertain. You rely heavily on digital concepts whereas Nature is analog. You rely heavily on mathematical theory that is entirely unproven. You rely on physics that is no longer relevant. You state the speed of light is constant when you have no understanding of how this can be . . . Why should light have an arbitrary speed? Why can light be a particle/wave duality?; when you haven't defined either particle or wave, which most persons would consider diametrically opposed.

You can propose any hypotheses you wish; you cannot state that such explains "really everything into the depth" when you admit there is much fundamental phenomena that you do not understand or are unsure of.

You don't need 30 pages or endless gobbledygook. Address one phenomenon and let's discuss it. Something like: Why must there be a fundamental unit? How is a dimension defined? Is time a dimension? What is time? What is gravity? What is speed? Why is there acceleration? Why are particles ephemeral? Etc., etc. Set theory and digital computers are not fundamentals.

Incidently, your English is very good for it not being your native language.

[heikki]

resonation of motion is the birth of mass



:)

Hi.


DEAM-method.
If this matter is that empty aquarium, then, how you explain, motion? No any kind of force is not there round and with this matter-particle. Pure empty aquarium and one lonely particle.

I think that resonation cannot exist if one particle is only. Therefore resonation need more than one matter-particle. When this two matter particle resonate some how still there is no any more than two matter particle. No borned more material.

continue....

:)

ps. I may not read this forum-site every day or week, so some times my write can take time. I apology of that.

[thejoshrules]

I got lost... umm back to what epislion said you said that it was born with some kind of motion well how was the motion started and what could be moved if there was no mass.(waiting to be born from motion)

[Epsilon=One]

...it was born with some kind of motion well how was the motion started and what could be moved if there was no mass.Light (photons) move with no mass.

Existence is between the infinitesimal and the infinite.

The infinitesimal and the infinite are the same place, which is a singularity referred to as Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity), a limit which cannot be reached from Reality (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Reality) (that which exists.)

A singularity has no dimensions; thus, a singularity can be considered a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere.

Everything that exists has motion; and existence, being between the duality of a singularity, Infinity, there must be motion between a dimensionless point that is within a dimensionless sphere.

Thus, for said motion that is referred to as seminal motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/SM), said point and said sphere must separate. An analysis of said motion of separation demonstrates the elliptical geometry that underlies the quantum (Pulsoid (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Pulsoids) of Pulsoid Theory: Overview (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/OV)). Said geometry, Unimetry (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Unimetry), creates the unit of time, numbers, dimensions, and the manifestation of mass . . . the particle (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Particle).

[Epsilon=One]

If this matter is that empty aquarium, then, how you explain, motion? No any kind of force is not there round and with this matter-particle. Pure empty aquarium and one lonely particle.

Therefore resonation need more than one matter-particle. When this two matter particle resonate some how still there is no any more than two matter particle. No borned more material.Analogies such as an "aquarium" and "one lonely particle" are too far removed from the subatomic manifestations of harmony and resonances of seminal motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) to have any meaningful application.

I think that resonation cannot exist if one particle is only.Harmonic waves can resonate without particles. Any motion can create resonance (http://www.intuitor.com/resonance/).

Mass manifestations (or particles (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Particles)) exist within atoms where nuclear physicists understand that they are ephemeral, changing forms of energy (complex motion).

That is: mass continuously "comes and goes" and transposes to different forms of mass and energy.

There is nothing "fixed" about the most fundamental "particles (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Particles)."

See above post quoting and replying to: "thejoshrules."

[heikki]

Harmonic waves can resonate without particles.

That is: mass continuously "comes and goes" and transposes to different forms of mass and energy.

"

:)

Matter is energy itself.

Without matter matter-energy dont exist.

Harmonic waves need matter-energy.

Energy need matter.

Matter smaller size is one matter-part and so called particle.

----

Therefore nature cannot exist any kind of wave or resolution without matter-particles.

We can made mathematics calculation, mathematics formula, measuring things our equipments, only matter-things.

Material wave-motion cannot exist without material.

continue...

:)

[Epsilon=One]

Matter is energy itself.Yes.

Without matter matter-energy dont exist.No.

Harmonic waves need matter-energy."Harmonic waves" do not need matter; though, they can "create" matter.

Energy need matter.No.

Matter smaller size is one matter-part and so called particle.Particles are formed by resonating, harmonic waves of "pure" energy.

Therefore nature cannot exist any kind of wave or resolution without matter-particles.There is fundamental existence before the evolution of ephemeral resonances (particles).

We can made mathematics calculation, mathematics formula, measuring things our equipments, only matter-things.No. In fact, without Nature's creation of mathematics (a fundamental unit or common denominator) there can be no harmony, thus no resonance, thus no particles ("matter-things").

Material wave-motion cannot exist without material.Yes, you are correct concerning "material wave motion." However, "material" is not required for energy wave motion; light is an example. It is "wave-motion" without "material" that evolves to particles ("material").

At the most fundamental levels of evolution matter (a particle) does not exist.

All my statements are consistent with, and common knowledge of, what is known by, most likely, every world-class, nuclear, research physicist. The concept is so prevalent that citing anyone is unecessary. It is more meaningful if you can cite anyone of eminence, in the physics world, in the last ten years, that thinks otherwise.

You seem to have it backward. Particles come after motion, not before motion.

[after]

It is the above statement, "there is only one theory which is explaining really everything into the depth, you can find it in the adjacent thread:" that I am quarreling with.

Your paragraphs of voluminous "intuition" are fine . . . as long as you emphasize that you are "brainstorming." There just isn't anything beyond intuition with your theory; you state much that is very suspect in accuracy for having the "only one theory" that is "explaining really everything into the depth."

Your theory explains nothing in depth that I can ascertain. You rely heavily on digital concepts whereas Nature is analog. You rely heavily on mathematical theory that is entirely unproven. You rely on physics that is no longer relevant. You state the speed of light is constant when you have no understanding of how this can be . . . Why should light have an arbitrary speed? Why can light be a particle/wave duality?; when you haven't defined either particle or wave, which most persons would consider diametrically opposed.

You can propose any hypotheses you wish; you cannot state that such explains "really everything into the depth" when you admit there is much fundamental phenomena that you do not understand or are unsure of.

You don't need 30 pages or endless gobbledygook. Address one phenomenon and let's discuss it. Something like: Why must there be a fundamental unit? How is a dimension defined? Is time a dimension? What is time? What is gravity? What is speed? Why is there acceleration? Why are particles ephemeral? Etc., etc. Set theory and digital computers are not fundamentals.

Incidently, your English is very good for it not being your native language.
Yes you are right it was quite inappropriate to write that such theory explains everytnhing into depth. I think I was too optimistic about it now I completely changed my mind - it is too exhausting to think about such things and try to find solutions even if my basic concept may be completely wrong and my knowledge is too limited so I decided to stop.

However are there eny scientific explanations how "somehting" is possible ? (no philosophy, no religion etc.) Is there any other possibility than selfimplication ? Or what is your best guess ?

Even though I don't know answers to your questions I still think there could be something "good on it". E.g. that entropy of "everything" = 0, or that idea of division by zero could be perhaps possible for complex numbers which leads into deep recursion - but it is all very uncertain and unproven...

[Epsilon=One]

...I was too optimistic about it now I completely changed my mind - it is too exhausting to think about such things and try to find solutions even if my basic concept may be completely wrong and my knowledge is too limited so I decided to stop.Do not stop (a rest, once in a while, is always good). The hope of ever cleaning up the mess that our religions and secular leaders have placed civilization is dependent upon alternative, "free," and abstract thinkers like yourself.

Your thoughts have just begun; and yet, they are very challenging to the control of the "peer reviewed" elite.

However are there eny scientific explanations how "somehting" is possible ? (no philosophy, no religion etc.) Is there any other possibility than selfimplication ? Or what is your best guess ?Consider Conceptualism (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Conceptualism) and its foundation Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/OV). If you cannot find what you are looking for, let me know. I'm sure your thoughts will be such that a consensus can be reached. Such is the purpose of Conceptualism (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Conceptualism), truth, a thinking person's philosophy that unites Science, Theology, and Philosophy.

Even though I don't know answers to your questions I still think there could be something "good on it". E.g. that entropy of "everything" = 0, or that idea of division by zero could be perhaps possible for complex numbers which leads into deep recursion - but it is all very uncertain and unproven...I understand. I'm sure that there is much "good on it." Ask me about what concerns you with "answers to...(my) questions" (one at a time); I'm sure, whether you agree or not, that I can be of some help with your insight.

[heikki]

Yes, you are correct concerning "material wave motion." However, "material" is not required for energy wave motion; light is an example. It is "wave-motion" without "material" that evolves to particles ("material").

All my statements are consistent with, and common knowledge of, what is known by, most likely, every world-class, nuclear, research physicist. The concept is so prevalent that citing anyone is unecessary. It is more meaningful if you can cite anyone of eminence, in the physics world, in the last ten years, that thinks otherwise.

.

:)

1. Say what kind energy is that energy with dont need matter? How do you calculate it? How do measure it? How do image it?

2. My opinion. Light is matter-particle flow motion. Not matterless wave motion. Wave-theory of this area was wrong idea.

3. That what physics-world has made theoryes last 10-50 years at this physics area is not image of nature matter-behaving and existing process.

3.1 Some physics-theory has start to think that energy is some kind of non-matter thing and can exist without matter. It cannot. All energy-forms what we can calculate, measure, transform, produce, is matter-energy basic. Need matter always.

4. Electricity is matter-particle some kind of motion and behaving process.

5. Wave is matter vibration process.

These are my thoughts. This new physics area.

Still i ask. DEAM-method.

How one individual matter(particle) born?

continue....

:)

[Epsilon=One]

1. Say what kind energy is that energy with dont need matter? How do you calculate it? How do measure it? How do image it?The same way that you calculate, measure, and image the energy of any "electromagnetic" wave; such as: X-rays, infrared energy, visible light waves, etc.

2. My opinion. Light is matter-particle flow motion. Not matterless wave motion. Wave-theory of this area was wrong idea.I strongly disagree with you; of course, you are entitled to your opinion, which opinion does not seem to reconcile with IPSO (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/IPSO). I would be very interested to know how you can explain the ephemeral, oscillating properties of subatomic mass if it is not composed of "something" that is without the properties of mass.

3. That what physics-world has made theoryes last 10-50 years at this physics area is not image of nature matter-behaving and existing process.I agree that theoretical physicists have made many mistakes; however, I am very inclined to believe what research physicists have observed and been able to repeat.

3.1 Some physics-theory has start to think that energy is some kind of non-matter thing and can exist without matter. It cannot. All energy-forms what we can calculate, measure, transform, produce, is matter-energy basic. Need matter always.I strongly disagree with you; of course, you are entitled to your opinion, which opinion does not seem to reconcile with IPSO (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/IPSO).

4. Electricity is matter-particle some kind of motion and behaving process.Yes.

5. Wave is matter vibration process.Yes. However, there are "waves" that do not require matter. Matter is composed of such "waves."

These are my thoughts. This new physics area.It is good that you think of such things. There is much that you can still learn about matter, waves, and energy. Keep thinking about what it is that creates matter. Think about what the below comment means. Rather than continuing to state what you believe, ask questions about what you don't understand.

Still i ask. DEAM-method.Ludicrous.

How one individual matter(particle) born?See Post #9 of this Thread (http://physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=3459&postcount=9).

The simple answer to your question "How one individual matter(particle) born?" is:There is seminal motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) that is interrupted because of the intrinsic geometry of this pure (dimensionless) motion. Out of the consequent chaos of said motion there is occasional harmony (because of said intrinsic geometry) that resonates as spinning spheroids. The resonation is ephemeral because it is within a pulsing quantum of said seminal motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) that is ephemeral because of said intrinsic geometry.Said ephemeral resonation of motion (Resoloids (http://www.Resoloid.com)) is the birth of mass . . . and most other fundamental manifestations such as the Inverse Square Law (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/ISL), dimensions, a fundamental unit (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CU), time (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Time), and the fundamental forces of the Standard Models.

[heikki]

The same way that you calculate, measure, and image the energy of any "electromagnetic" wave; such as: X-rays, infrared energy, visible light waves, etc.

I strongly disagree with you; of course, you are entitled to your opinion, which opinion does not seem to reconcile with IPSO (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/IPSO). I would be very interested to know how you can explain the ephemeral, oscillating properties of subatomic mass if it is not composed of "something" that is without the properties of mass.

I agree that theoretical physicists have made many mistakes; however, I am very inclined to believe what research physicists have observed and been able to repeat.

I strongly disagree with you; of course, you are entitled to your opinion, which opinion does not seem to reconcile with IPSO (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/IPSO).

Yes.

Yes. However, there are "waves" that do not require matter. Matter is composed of such "waves."

It is good that you think of such things. There is much that you can still learn about matter, waves, and energy. Keep thinking about what it is that creates matter. Think about what the below comment means. Rather than continuing to state what you believe, ask questions about what you don't understand.

Ludicrous.

See Post #9 of this Thread (http://physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=3459&postcount=9).

The simple answer to your question "How one individual matter(particle) born?" is:There is seminal motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) that is interrupted because of the intrinsic geometry of this pure (dimensionless) motion. Out of the consequent chaos of said motion there is occasional harmony (because of said intrinsic geometry) that resonates as spinning spheroids. The resonation is ephemeral because it is within a pulsing quantum of said seminal motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) that is ephemeral because of said intrinsic geometry.Said ephemeral resonation of motion (Resoloids (http://www.Resoloid.com)) is the birth of mass . . . and most other fundamental manifestations such as the Inverse Square Law (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/ISL), dimensions, a fundamental unit (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CU), time (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Time), and the fundamental forces of the Standard Models.

:)

All thing what we measure with any kind of measuring equipment works only if something material-particles motion is on flowing and coming that equipment. Flowing-process can be wave-vibration process or like direct-current, not wave-vibration process.

:)