I do notice the word atom. And I notice that an ion is an atom, as you said. So a positive atomic hydrogen ion, also known as a proton, would be an atom, therefore matter according to the classical definition. H2 is irrelevant to the discussion, as that is a molecule. There is no dispute of which I am aware whether molecules are matter.
Yes of course. AboveAlpha - - - Updated - - - When you start discussing Hydrogen Atoms that exist as Plasma in Stars that have lost their electrons you are talking about Gravitational Compression Models that do not exist anywhere else except in other Celestial extremes. AboveAlpha
Getting back to the topic....since Matter is completely comprised of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms....understanding and developing the Unified Field Theory is necessary for Gravitic Drives and Interstellar Travel as well as never ending Clean Energy supplies. AboveAlpha - - - Updated - - - Again...Matter is a definition. One might redefine it...but in it's classical sense...well there we are. AboveAlpha
No, the topic was forming matter from energy, not gravitic drives or interstellar travel or clean energy. The definition of matter is ambiguous, hence the long thread.
There's no "redefining" here. I'm using your "classical definition" entirely. If matter is atoms, and ions are atoms, then ions are matter. And a hydrogen ion is a proton. Therefore a proton is matter. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
Really? THAT is what you are going to post? Are you saying deveoping and understanding the UFT is not the ability to covert any matter to energy and back again? AboveAlpha - - - Updated - - - Not on Earth there isn't unless it is done in a Lab. AboveAlpha
Funny, I thought you totally rejected the graviton. You do know it's predicted by the UFT right? In any case, I'm curious how the UFT explains the creation of full atoms from energy. I do believe your definition of matter was atoms, right?
There does not EXIST a UFT!!!! We don't have anywhere NEAR the knowledge to even begin to delelop it!!! AboveAlpha
Of course it doesn't exist, we haven't quantized gravity yet or discovered the graviton. Have you changed your position of quantized gravity and the predicted existence of the graviton? (by saying we haven't quantized gravity, I mean mathematically, of course gravity is quantized in nature)
WOW!!! The Graviton does not exist. We have already discovered the Higgs Boson and understand it it's the Higgs Field that allows Hadrons to have mass. What year are you in? 1950? AboveAlpha
Then why bring up UFT? You can't have UFT without the graviton. I already explained to you that hadrons get most of their mass from binding energy, not the Higg's Field. What year are you in, 1925? Electron orbits, eh. Since I can't send you a picture book, here's an amusing video: [video=youtube;Ztc6QPNUqls]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls[/video]
What you have just posted is utter nonsense. You are parroting what Physicists were discussing over 70 years ago. The Graviton does NOT exist. Any UFT Model will exist without any such fantasy. AboveAlpha
Let me TRY to explain the little I am aware of about Quantum Mechanics. QM acts in a manner that cannot be confined to a singular Universal Reality. We know this because we already have developed Practical Aplications based upon Many Worlds and Multiversal Theory THAT WORK! A Graviton is NOT a part of such a Model. AboveAlpha - - - Updated - - - I might have vast knowledge and exerience it what humans have so far postuated as far as QM but I am the first one to admit that upon the grand scale I know nothing. AboveAlpha
Your last sentence at least deserves some respect, not much you have said before does. Let me ask you this, and sorry we are totally off the the thread topic. Is gravity quantized?
Gravity is variable in Space-Time depending upon what dspecific type of Celestial Object or Dark Matter Fillament you might be next to. The general consensus is everything is relative. AboveAlpha
I'll ask again, not sure why you avoid questions, but is gravity quantized? "I don't know" is an acceptable and honorable answer.
We have evidence that it might not be. Dark Matter is one of these GLARING realities. Answer...we really don't know. AboveAlpha
This may seem like a strange example of partial verification that this technology will play a role in the future.... but it is interesting that the 2000 plus people who were progressed into the future while hypnotized by Helen Wambach Ph. D. and Dr. Chet Snow... did see that nuclear energy would still be in use several centuries from now. http://dwij.org/forum/future_link/future7.htm
AboveAlpha..... what do you personally think of the efforts to obtain "energy from quantum vacuum?" http://www.theorionproject.org/en/quantumvacuum.html
Ummm' this is BIG news to me when you said ; " We know this because we already have developed Practical Applications based upon Many Worlds and Multiversal Theory THAT WORK!". BIG NEWS! You may be referencing the fact that we use STANDARD QFT calculations to design modern computers. The key word here is modern! The MWT is not needed. So I think you may be misinformed. If you arent misinformed I am, Check your source. reva
Sorry AA, I am cutting in! Lol....I think the the orion project that is a proponent of harvesting zpe is as near quackery as we are going to get. While zpe may or may not be viable the only real and doable with current or even early 60's tech is this one; http://orbitalvector.com/Deep Space Propulsion/Nuclear Pulse Drives/Nuclear Pulse Drives.htm The fantastic project that would give today's and yesterdays spacecraft relativistic velocities ie 100,000,000 + mph (that is one hundred million miles per hour!!) was killed off because of a world of PC hand wringers afraid of their own shadows, and other concerns that are exceedingly silly. reva
