Just came across this and had to share, cause it's big, bigger than you might think.

Apparently, they have been able to capture light bouncing off a mirror at 100 Billion Frames Per Second.  Such insane frequency has capture this, and it proved to me without a shadow of a doubt now, that the secret to our existence and to the existence of the universe, is 'Frequency'.  Everything is tied to frequency somehow, we can only see between certain frequencies, hear between certain frequencies, and there's a whole bunch of stuff I know nothing about that are also directly tied to frequencies - I think everything is.

Make up your own minds, but I'm pretty sure the secret to life and the universe is frequency, and I think this video proves it.  I also, in my own layman kinda way, think that this video proves that the accepted rules of physics, is nonsesne - I think they're wrong.  I've always suspected that because I'm convinced that those Perpetual Motion Generators (something that fascinates me) can indeed work if correcty designed with the right materials, I see no reason why they shouldn't.  I believe that constant free energy can be generated from the motion of something that was put into motion and will never need further assistance to keep running.  It's hard to explain why I think all of this is linked, but as far as I'm concerned, the secret to life and the universe is frequency, and I think the scientists have a lot of stuff very wrong.

At 100 billion FPS, we can see real life caustics in action, it's like we can actually see light as a physical matter, and I think the biggest secret of all will be unlocked when the cameras get even faster than that.  You can laugh, but you heard it here first, just in case some scientist tries to claim they figured it out before me; The secret to life and the universe is "Frequency" .

Takes a bow :-D

Yeah, listen, that's what I thought as well!!!

Later,
Roxie - Girl With Blade

Now if only Poser could run at 100 billion fps. ..think of the possibilities! 

pass the bowl, bro!

@Don
Yeah but I wouldn't want to wait for 100 Billion frames to render for one second's worth of animation though :-P

@Ghostship
Don't hate us for being a genius!

You know, if I knew any better, I'd say you lot were taking the piss :-D
Just wait until I receive an honour for figuring out the most complex thing in the universe, then you'll see!

Douglas Adams already said it is 42 - with as many copies of his books in print as there are, that statement gets read with some frequency, so you are only .42% right.

I agree with your basic point that it's all waves.  Particles and quantum crap have been a wildly profitable distraction. Profitable to greedy asshole scientists, that is, but wildly expensive in lost time and opportunity for real science.

On a more practical level, you'd need a whole lot more than 100 billion frames to map what's going on in just one human.  Each of us contains 100 trillion cells, and each of those cells is performing an unbelievable amount of complicated activity all the time.  Running little spell-check machines along its own DNA and fixing problems, opening and closing a thousand gates to let the right chemicals in and out, sending and receiving electrical and chemical signals to/from its neighbors..........

Just a note: This is a laser pulse, not a single photon's worth of energy. (AFAIK)

As far as everything being dependent upon some sort of idea revolving around "frequency", I think it's more efficient to think of things as being manifested within discrete sorts of packets of information involved in complex and predictable actions. String Theory is a theory because there still isn't any proof of its validity. It may contain workable ideas, but that doesn't mean that existence is organized as it states/theorizes.

For myself, the idea that time exists and we somehow perceive it and we can somehow perceive entropy and things "changing" is more amazing. That what we perceive can actually be defined how we perceive it is also a wonderful mystery. And, that the Universe can somehow be explained in predicable, mathematical, terms is a confounding reality... There is no reason why it must be this way, but it appears to be "true."

It's also true that the most amazing thing about the Universe isn't that it exists in all its splendor and mystery, but that we can apparently understand it... There is no fundamental law, no reason that requires this to be true. Yet, apparently it is true.

The universe is a hologram, we do not exist.

And even if we did exist at one point, the odds that we are currently just one of countless simulations of the distant past far outnumber the chances that we currently exist, if we ever existed at all.

That's my take on it anyway.

Shane, you're the closest to the truth. I exist, but the rest of you are merely elements of my own imagination. 

Unfortunately, solipsism doesn't explain Pumeco. But I guess I still have nightmares sometimes. :P

Don't conflate reality with perception, you'll go mad (or become a philosopher... same thing). We didn't even have proof of the mechanism that allowed mass to exist until the Higgs Boson was 'identified'. All matter is 99.999% empty space, but the nuclear force prevents things moving through it (unless you have no mass). The idea of frequency is part of the reason General Albert Stubblebine thought it was possible to train soldiers to walk through walls (why does nobody consider floors in that equation?). He retired soon after... As to perception, your mind makes most of it up. The majority of what you see is a convenient interpretation of things to allow you to function. If you had access to your subconscious you'd go mad (or be a philosopher).

Not one, but two further explanations of why I think frequency is the answer:

There's a manmade product called a "Powerball", they're used for keeping fit, they're a handheld ball that you spin-up and they feel like they've gained weight enough to replace a dumbell.  The apparent weight gain is due the forces generated by the gyro inside the ball.  These things are light enough you could blow one across a table-top with your own breath, but once the frequency going on inside it goes from being zero to, say 280Hz, it becomes something with weight.

There is only one thing that converts that ball from weighing next to nothing, to being something that is heavy enough to excercise with.  And here's the thing, one of the things that I think is flawed about current takes on things, the obvious scientific response would be that the ball is heavier simply because of the forces generated by the gyro inside the ball.  What they seem to overlook though, is that without "frequency" being involved, those forces would not exist in the first place.  When the gyo is not spinning, the ball weighs that of it's physical matter, but add "Frequency" to the equation and you have something else.  No frequency, no effect.

One of the most puzzling things I ever heard was this: "If there is an end to outer space, what's on the other side of it?"

Obviously, there cannot be an end to it, because if there was, something would have to be on the other side of it, and that would have to be more space.  And again, frequency comes into it, because I believe without frequency there would be nothing, no stars, no planets, nothing.  It is frequency that caused the creation of the universe as we know it.  Electromegnetism causes a movement, that movement builds momentum, that momentum creates the outer-space equivalent of a whirlwind that causes high frequencies to exist, and when a frequency gets high enough, it creates physical matter.  Physical matter accumulates inside these whirlwinds and because of their very nature (spinning), perfectly round objects are formed (planets).

I believe everything that exists is the result of extremely high frequency and the electromagnetism is generates.

I also think that another manmade device demontrates this, and even explains things such as "Black Holes" or "Worm Holes" or whatever they are called.  Those machines they use in Junkyards for lifting dead cars and dropping them into the crusher, an "Electromagnet".  And what does this have to do with frequency and strange holes in space?  Well, at massive frequency there is enough force and electromagnetism to attract a heavy car to the magnet and lift it, but you are what is called a "Junkyard Pizza" if you happen to be underneath it at the time the frequency drops below a level, sufficient enough to hold the car above you.

Again, the obvious thing to do would be to look at such a thing and say, well yeah, it's just electromagnetism that is responsible, but again, I think that would be kinda dumb, because something major that effects whether it works, is "Frequency" - without frequency, the device would not work.  I think a Black Hole or Worm Hole or whatever,  is basically a part of space that is effectively the centre of the electromagnetic whirlwind I explained earlier.  If you get caught in it you basically get de-frequencied, you disintegrate, extremely fast, into the components of that created you (frequency and electromagnetism).

There is no end to space, it started out as a big empty nothing, and electromagnetism caused by "frequency" changes is what created the planets.

Takes another bow :-D

Actually, gravity is the weakest of the forces, but the only one that multiplies. Gravity is not a force (although the search for gravitons goes on), but is considered a warp in space/time. Black holes are collapsed stars where the outward pressure of the fusion reaction ends when the fuel is gone and the star collapses in on itself. If it is massive enough (past what is called the Chandresekar limit, about 3.2 solar masses from memory), the force of gravity overpowers the nuclear force that gives atoms their shape/space, and the star collapses into a 'singularity'. The gravity is so strong that light cannot reach escape velocity (hence black hole). The more interesting aspect for most is that when the star collapses it causes a matter shell to super heat and explode; up to 90% of the stellar mass is ejected. The pressures allow exotic materials to form. As a hint, the Earth and Sun are only big enough to produce iron atoms. Anything with an atomic weight over that of iron could not have been made in this solar system. If you own any gold, you own something that (at the atomic level) was created in the death of a star.

Physics is an interesting space... I wish I understood the math.

Oh, the 'other side' of space does exist, but our universe has unique rules of physics (all universes do), so if you 'cross over' it will likely be very unpleasant.

Oh I'm below noob when it comes to this stuff, believe me, never studied it, but that's the way I think it works!
BTW, I made an error above, I meant movement creates electromegnetism, not the other way around :-D

But yup, interesting stuff, wish I understood it as well, cause like I say, those perpetual motion generators have always fascinated me!

Then again, I think it works the other way around too, so perhaps not an error after all :-D

[quote]    Not one, but two further explanations of why I think frequency is the answer:

    There's a manmade product called a "Powerball", they're used for keeping fit, they're a handheld ball that you spin-up and they feel like they've gained weight enough to replace a dumbell.  The apparent weight gain is due the forces generated by the gyro inside the ball.  These things are light enough you could blow one across a table-top with your own breath, but once the frequency going on inside it goes from being zero to, say 280Hz, it becomes something with weight.[/quote]

No, it does not.

Inertial resistance is not mass. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia)

The Universe is infinite, at least as much as would matter for the sake of thinking about it. And, what's "outside" of the Universe? That's really a nonsensical question, isn't it? In order for there to be an "outside" definable as such, we have to use rules that apply to our common-sense experience of the "inside" of the Universe. Common sense is not common when it comes down to cosmology. If there is an "outside", it's not likely to be easily definable by our pitiful "inside" rule-sets. And, it probably wouldn't allow for our existence or even be something that we could possibly take notice of.

There is no one definable "frequency." Anything can have a "frequency." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency What's important is what's exhibiting that frequency, not the frequency itself. Very high frequency electromagnetic radiation can be very dangerous. A very high frequency mechanical motion of a car's engine can be dangerous, too. But, they're dangerous for different reasons and have properties appropriate to the forces involved.

PS - I hate this forum's software, interface and just about every other technical aspect of this forum's software and environment. Sorry for the mini-rant, but this forum's design and software is just not conducive to conducting open public communication. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me... Sorry for any formatting errors and such. It's the fault of this terrible forum and not my composition! :)

My hubby majored in astrophysics. We have these kinds of conversations all the time. He does understand the math -- well, much of it.

Pumeco, what you're calling "frequency" isn't a new thing at all. It's a bunch of other things that have already been described in great detail and with precise mathematics. You're just throwing a lot of different variables (like torque and angular momentum) into a single category and calling them something different. Newton did a great job of explaining the forces affecting things the size of a powerball -- in the 17th century. People at that time were fascinated with perpetual motion machines, too. Welcome to The Enlightenment. 

Unfortunately, there are a lot of YouTube scammers pretending to have harnessed the amazing powers of perpetual motion machines. What they've actually harnessed is the amazing gullibility of human suckers. People have been buying versions of these things for 400 years.

Frequency is simply the word we use to describe the number of repetitions of something in a given time. We have a standardized measure of it (1 cycle per second) and call it a Hz. But it isn't a thing in the same way that velocity isn't a thing and height isn't a thing. It's just a measure of a thing. But you need a thing (not necessarily an object, mind you) before you can measure its frequency.

"when a frequency gets high enough, it creates physical matter" -- Frequency of what? I know the answer. I just want your explanation. As it stands, you could as easily have said, "when a tallness gets high enough, it creates physical matter". (Since I think the universe was created when the stars burst out of the giant dancing ogre's head, this makes more sense to me. The height of the ogre is the key.)

Science is one of those things that really is puzzling if you stop and think about it. We think we have a good understanding of things, but that is not always the case.

When I was in college, one of the Professors asked the class if anyone could disprove the speed of light. No one answered that they could.

She quickly replied that we do it everyday and don't even realize it. The way she explained it was rather interesting, and rather hard to argue.

Imagine that you are in a car driving down the road, and at the same time someone is walking down the road the same direction that you are going. There is a road sign up ahead with a rather attractive person on it. You see the sign, the person walking down the road sees the sign.

The speed of light is always the same right? Well, Is it really? If it is, how did both of you see it at the same time? Better yet, assume it was at night and the only light was from your headlights.

Did both of you see different signs, or different light? If you saw different signs, where is the other one? If you saw different light, how did it magically change the speed of the light so both of you could see the same sign at the same time? Your difference in speed is not that much, but even if it was both of you would still see the sign.

Either way you look at it, something is not right and explaining what that is is not so easy to do. One explanation is a time difference because you are moving faster than the guy walking down the road. Your timeline is slower because you are moving faster. If that was the case, did he perceive you as moving slower than you actually were? Did he instantly know that you would be late because you were slowed in time? And is the poor guy aging faster than you are because he is moving slower threw time than you are? 

From our vantage point in the universe, it appears to be ever expanding.  But that is based on the constant speed of light as part of the equation. We have no idea what it is doing, because we don't know how fast the light was going over the entire trip it took to get here. The universe could be collapsing at an alarming rate for all we really know.

Face it, we don't have a clue how to explain this or many other things that we think we understand.

Life is an illusion, and we are all falling for it.

Fast forward 30 years or so, and looking back the Professor was probably right.

It has since been proven that a beam if light can be stopped dead in its tracks. Totally disproving the speed of light is an unchangeable constant.

Light stopped dead in its tracks

Ironically, she was a Psychology Professor

Face it, we don't have a clue how to explain this or many other things that we think we understand.

That's not quite right. Yes, there are many mysteries, but that there are mysteries does not mean that we don't know or don't understand anything. We have very good ideas of how certain things work. We can make very accurate predictions about a good many things. Do we understand "everything." No. But, we do understand a great many things. If we get surprised and learn that something isn't quite what we thought it was, that doesn't mean that we were entirely wrong. For instance, you can likely throw a baseball from here to a moon orbiting a distant planet on the other side of the galaxy using only Newtonian physics. We know Newton was "wrong" regarding certain things, but his theory is "right enough" for gubbermint work... :)

So, yes, we can understand and we can explain the process that you are describing with an accuracy and with likely mechanisms that have yet to be falsified.

Life is an illusion, and we are all falling for it.

Fast forward 30 years or so, and looking back the Professor was probably right.

It has since been proven that a beam if light can be stopped dead in its tracks. Totally disproving the speed of light is an unchangeable constant.

Light stopped dead in its tracks

Ironically, she was a Psychology Professor

The first example of an assumption ignores Special Relativity. The second assumption ignores the fact that the light is traveling through what can be called a Bose Einstein Condensate which is a fancy word for something that is really, really, really, really, really, cold... sorta. :)

And, that she was a Psych prof attempting to teach very complicated physics isn't too surprising.

Nobody has ever said that the speed of light was constant, everywhere. The speed of light is constant within a vacuum, which is a bit different than a BEC. However, IIRC, there have been some new experiments involving the speed of light that show some interesting results: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/jan/22/structured-photons-slow-down-in-a-vacuum

What we "know" can be measured in how valid our predictions are. If we can predict, using only our knowledge, what will happen when x+7=z, and we can do this reliably, it's a good guess that we're on the right track. If, after repeated challenges, this prediction can't be invalidated, we can say very confidently that we "know" how to predict x+y=z. We can not, however, also be as confident in the mechanisms that we assume impact our predictions. Most of the time, we're right when we attribute certain mechanisms to something we can predict when our predictions are correct and haven't been invalidated. Others will experiment with the proposed mechanisms and discover properties that are likely to contribute towards the described or assumed mechanisms. But, not always... Sometimes, something new is discovered, usually due to improvements made to the tools that we use to observe and measure things. Better tools = Better and more accurate capabilities in gaining knowledge.

But, discovering new knowledge does not mean that we were ignorant, it only means that we have some fine-tuning to do. :)

PS - Sorry for the formatting. This forum is becoming more and more frustrating to use the more I try to interact, here. But, I'm sure that's been griped about by so many, it's no use for me to gripe about it... :/

the key to the universe are babes ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiYCgVKioI4

'The Origin of the World'_

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Origine_du_monde

Well I'm no scientist, lol, but I still reckon the secret has something to do with frequencies.
I can't speak in scientific technical jargon, but I reckon the answer will be found one day, and it will be attributed to the use of insanely high frequencies!

Of course I'd love to accept both RorrKonn's and Primorge's version, but that's a bit too obvious and idealistic :-P
And anyway, at least Roxie agrees with me!

Roxie, with zero mass.
Build out of infinite small vertex, edged with infinite small edges into infinite thin polygons, UV-mapped with infinite small normals.
Competing with other infinite small vertex collections, on 2D screens , faking 3D, that only exists in the back of our heads, because we have 2 eyes that are playing jokes on us..

The day the Poser 2050 lady wakes me up in the morning, with a hot coffee, after a steaming night.
That will be the day the universe starts to make sense.

What are we?
An accidental collection of molecules?
So ashamed of ourselves that we dress up to hide who we are?
We are the only animals with clothes.
That is why we are all so mean.
We are constantly hiding who we realy are.

@Vilters
You're very brave sayiing stuff like that about Roxie, especially in the same post as lusting after the Poser Coffee Lady.
That's just sick :-D

only thing to say at this point ;-) 

http://youtu.be/B0yoiBYbT2I

the universes ,hier powers or what ever ya want to call them iq is a trillion to the billionth power and then some.

humans average iq is a 100.

so the odds of humans to understand the universe would be about the same as teaching a ant algebra.

we where never meant to understand the universes.

with what little tech we do get where trashing , destroying this world.

there not going to let us trash , destroy there universes.

Well, after 3D projection came to Poser in 2020, and life 3D printing was end user afordable by 2040, a hot coffee lady should be possible by 2050. :-)

Come to thnk about what I just wrote?
Should the coffee be hot or the lady?

Roxie? "Go play with your blade."
Or with Pumeco
Or with Pumeco's blade.
LOL.

Should the coffee be hot or the lady?

Both

Hey, I have a little video here I think Vilters might like.

The guy in this video isn't even advanced enough to make a cup of Coffee yet, but that doesn't stop the girl having fantasies about him.  If you were to switch this situation around, and put the girl in the guys position and the guy in the girls position, you'd have pretty much the same thing as a Vilters fantasy, only Vilters idea of a woman version is a lot more sophisticated if she can make coffee (I think he's asking a bit much from technology on that one).  That said, I wouldn't mind having this girl as an obedient "Coffee Lady" in my room, so Vilters does kinda have a point.

A cool video by Schiller featuring a Vilters-style fantasy :

Sleepy...

http://youtu.be/SXijVjLBxsU

It's official, TinaK rocks!
Thanks for bringing the thread back :-)

No point giving me those eyes, if you're hinting at the art thread, I can't help that, I thought it would have been cleaned-up and put back!

BTW, is that one of yours, Primorge?