1

New Theories / Re: Speculating: Is everything an universe of itself?

« on: 25/09/2020 14:01:17 »

I may have expressed it badly.
I'm wondering if we while using "the universe" as a boundary, even no being for our minds it acts as if it was.
 If into doing so we are not blinding our perception, when considering, for example universal expansion.
 That we may have be missing the whole scene.
 For instance, a question:
 What prevents the small inhabitants of the moon, to think that gravity of an invisible Earth is the expanding universe?
 Wouldn't they be one and the same, sure the laws to be the same, but the perception may shift.
 To the point that what they thought that was a forever endless field, was but the expansion bouncing over the Earth.
 Earth relationship with the expansion here, acting on the role of "an interference" on its configuration, Earth being misread as (the impossible edge), ort better to say (one of multiple impossible edges), from the electron to the sun, all offerencig to space a different possible "impossibility", as if the expansion as reaching the Earth has as only possible answer to stay there stored, and or, to self update again and again, which would be the same as being stored with potential.
 Guess I'm looking for alternative views where the expansion would have being gravity and both the same, only one existing, wondering if determining, multiple candidates to the expansion, rather the main one, inside out big bang, would not suffice...

If so, on this case, if instead of matter, could energy produce gravity to the extend to start to expand the whole within it?

 The Universe is expanding forever, that based on out scale perception and the direction we decided to look from, could it be the case that every mass is an virtual end of The Universe? If one chooses it to be, based on an endless goal that never shifts, not depends, only is: Forever expanding towards forever, for I have never set a B point or cause to relate with?

2

New Theories / Speculating: Is everything an universe of itself?

« on: 24/09/2020 02:21:29 »

Only speculating, what makes THE universe so unique to be studied?
  Isn't my house the universe from the point of view of the inhabitants of the marble that I'm holding over my hand?

  The Marble Earth and the universal house would have different rules and constants when in contrast to the Earth universe wouldn't they?

  The point, i believe is: I look at the Marble Earth, it funnels space as much as space considers it, attributing to it a temporal mass effect that lasts and is recreated at C.
 The funnel the Marble produces, now is measured from a virtual horizon that my room provides, and my room is too small so the planet's horizon provides measurement, acting as a rule for how much "time" the Marble should receive for its mass, and this mass how much time it takes for communicating back with the environment...

 I'm seeing multiple funnels with objects stored in them, floating inside the funnels, being levitated by a sort of falling /accelerating constant, while mass insist for them to stay inside the funnel...so they are actually on the same place, andis the funnel that is moving in function of the objects.
  Now if the Marble is to communicate with another Marble on my other hand, it must "climb up" it's funnel, and move straight towards the other funnel, and then it will have to "climb down" inside it's time, the both aspects happening at the same time...

 If of a certain geometry, time "starts to take (too much) time" for the line to communicate with the other side of the opposite funnel, and the C frames start to be elongated to make sure the communication is happening, even if the straight line is to become a curved one, and after more time, space decides to start to mold itself to match the parameters and needs to suit the communication from A to B...

 If my radio signal can no longer reach the radio tower as it "need to do by law", the radio tower or my receptor must be dragged towards me in compensation, or me to it... if "I'm at multiple locations at the time", the signal would choose to be updated in pulses...

 Mind a little bit off at the starting of building an idea, but: Is time a vortex in space geometry  caused by mass effect to be scaled up and or down? If so, gravity should be erased from the dictionary along with the considerations of it's very existence as a thing?

 if time takes too much time to climb out the pit, it is delayed forever away from it's original strain, it tries to adopt another , wondering if mass it's not lossless time, as if a portion the expansion lost it's bus, or perhaps decided that it has already arrived at the end of that local universe, unable to leave, stays there, forever... as long as that interference exists.

3

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 22/08/2020 16:23:40 »

It is here that i am struggling hard.  As per my knowledge goes, if we place any mass, anywhere in the universe it will curve the space time around it.  As long as the mass is not placed, it is a 2d space and when the mass is placed, it is converted to 3d space.  How it is possible?.

 Perhaps, mass messes with a grid geometry and the so called flat 2d space time bases are multiplied and splited into all possible directions as a constant probability, but it can also never set, so it may be adopting the matter configuration for it's own as for being the only possible one...
 The picture would be now, the one of a "possibility into being a force" if it was able to remain static as it was during the 2d flat space instance...  Add a close point of reference to the 2d one, it will perceive it as infinity and infinity is impossible to be reached, even so "the grid" has "reached" the end of it, only thing an endless straight line would be able to do is to cease to be, at the same time it starts to "re chase" infinity... that on the view would be an orbit...

 On this view is "obvious" that the flaw is on the "it falls" approach... I'm wondering that the apple as an ordinary photon was taking a rid with space , and is "moving" towards infinity with it, taking a ride on it's geometry, math, probability for this is not so relevant, still the apple is simple there, as much as it was "before it has (fallen)", and we could restart and say that even at the ground it is still falling, tough, there is room for a change of rules here, if something needs to bypass a bulk barrier to reach infinity... If the apple is to small and the earth to big it would "seems" to be stationary at it would be read as one, also accounting for other sources... If the apple was the size of the moon, it would also try to do the same, but there is the thing, moon also as a infinity of it's own... so should be the apple.

 Just speculating, that mass is a "counter side" of space that only take's place when something, either due geometry or perhaps bulk matter configuration, is "big" enough to mess with the grid, this view is needing a "breaking limit" for curvature to be so, a mathematical one...
 Point of the speculation would be, gravity is an illusion born "over space" when something offers it a point to be read as infinity, take it as a local end of the universe... a flipped would be universal expansion, same rules of the inside out big bang one, tough, due local reference, also replicated outside in...

 I can't see the apple falling, I cannot see a single "curve" here only different sets of scales while the straight line is "trying" to reach infinity, never achieving, and returning to try again, at each rate the line is breaking and resetting itself, that would be at C...
 As if space reads the particle as a potential candidate and while trying to reach it, it misses due geometrical rules it should have derivative of it's own limitations, and as it misses, it sort of "slashes" over itself, creating a loose end(photon) that moves on, as light, if alone...
 while it's being updated to "return as a commodity", better to say, it's updating the trajectory to "try again". The "loose end" adds an atemporal extraction point (that would be photon/light) where it's converted to energy, if the electron or the heavy particle in question takes/traps it for itself, so it can "leak" it's own loop, as a sink filled with liquid that would transbord, but it's on the reverse, the sink would be volume and the hole the one poring liquid in, the hole can't change, so it may redistribute it's own tunneling effect, by adding multiples of itself till it can balance and sustain it's necessity, or the reason behind it... (I'm not into particles, but can see the way their work)
 Goes without saying that the electron on this view, automatically, by it's very existence, "inevitably" stimulates space to try to reach infinity and misses, the slashing effect creates a flat configuration (2d) particle while riding as a wave, and a "temporal vortex" while still on with the electron...
 Feels that photons are more like "layers" around the electron, spiraling around it, each with a specific frequency
  I'll try to link a picture or diagram of what I have in mind, may be subjective, for I'm still curious about golden ratio..
 Not good at math or geometry, only suggesting a scenario, for it may shade some light, some falling apples...

 As for the point, I do know that nothing falls, just digesting, for it's the correct way to go once one cannot explain surely why, or why not..
 The apple act into falling, but an illusion, derivative from the mass effect, not really useful if for causes, but perfect to explain the final result based on the consequence, make sense, works, it simple will not answer...

 Try think of this. Heavy particle, space takes it as infinity, a point of reference, a local target to it's expansive effect, a goal it, always must, fail to accomplish. It "fails", is a commodity term here, but the act was present, the probability is still there, the straight line of the filed possibility of reached infinity, and different from the linear one (2d) that rules all volume and is related with the expansion from big bang, this one is the same potential only on the outside in, the reverse scenario, the reverse math coexisting within the opposite one...
 Space expands on all direction, it may be a mathematical or geometrical cause or consequence to be so, if "gravity", is but an illusion effect due the suggested above, the same rules would be reversed, forcing the reference to behave also on all directions...

 Space makes the 3d configuration as a replica of ti's own expansive answer...

 I mean, if not clear:
 "WHAT would be the mathematical/geometrical "possibilities" if universal expansion was to reach the impossible edge of the universe, would it be forced to bend itself by splitting and multiplying volume, so to "turn around"and reach infinity again?
 and, what if when doing so, it was also accounting for "multiple infinity sources", would every rule be forced to (bend) themselves to accommodate the impossibility?

 If not clear, on this experiment, all indicates that (for space) each particle is the edge of the universe, infinity, so it is expanded over it, it fails, the act of trying to do so is constant, it then originates the probability wave, and the overcharged particle a lesser one so to siphon out the excessive energy/impossible amount of + energy... if it "can't' it's own configuration shifts into another particle, if it can it releases it as light/a loose end /interference point "slashed" taking a ride along the wave... Would that be possible?

 The closes infinity would have preference over the far, also the biggest infinity would also be preferred over the small. Think of a "conic dance" correlation in between multiple infinities, a smaller cone would always fit inside the biggest one.
 The reason may as well be all known ones, not questioning that... Only suggesting that time also may be born from the correlation in between multiple "ending of the expansion" points, each local reference as a universe of itself interacting with others(galaxies) as it's closer to the source it sort of funnels volumes compacting them at the same passe they get more dense, but only as temporal adjustment, not as a different space...
 Also seems to be an illusion, as if particles do almost the same thing as BH do with space.. Consider black hole as a big example, perhaps the loss of geometry, or the fact of being so small and so dense that "space" can no longer "physically reach" the singularity... As if universe was like multiple rain drops that were standing still until Black Holes started to "fall" apart from it all, dragging everything else behind their path..

4

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 16/08/2020 18:11:05 »

    What this space fabric consists of.


One doesn't have to consider space-time as being made of anything other than space and time in order for relativity to work.

When we talk of anything, it must be specific or otherwise the theory is incomplete or insufficient.

"Matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells how to move".   Matter tells what to curve or how this curved space time interacts with matter and tells it to move. 

In general relativity,  gravity is described in terms of the curvature of space time. For example, imagine a sheet of rubber with grid lines like graph paper, suspended horizontally so that it forms a flat surface.  With no weight on it, the grid has straight lines and right angles, corresponding to the "flat space" of Euclidean geometry.
.
If you place a ball on the surface, the rubber sheet stretches around it. The curvature of the grid increases as it gets closer to the ball. This corresponds to the curvature of space-time near a massive object.

If the bowling ball is placed at the centre of the rubber sheet, it will curve or distort the sheet.  If we roll a marble piece in this curved path, it will go round the bowling ball.

This description is ok for non-Euclidean geometry. 

Well, it is true that curved space time is nothing but Gravity. We know that Gravity is keeping the planets in orbit around the sun and also is keeping the moon in orbit around Earth. The gravitational pull of the moon pulls the seas towards it, causing the ocean tides.  Einstein also proposed number of effects, time dilation, light bending i.e.,

Without complete description of what is working like space fabric, being curved by mass, theory will not go further, ends at the one stage or the other.  This is what happening and we are taking Newton’s inverse square law as base.

This is the reason, still “what exactly is gravity” a mysterious one.

Yours
Psreddy

    What this space fabric consists of.


One doesn't have to consider space-time as being made of anything other than space and time in order for relativity to work.

When we talk of anything, it must be specific or otherwise the theory is incomplete or insufficient.

"Matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells how to move".   Matter tells what to curve or how this curved space time interacts with matter and tells it to move. 

In general relativity,  gravity is described in terms of the curvature of space time. For example, imagine a sheet of rubber with grid lines like graph paper, suspended horizontally so that it forms a flat surface.  With no weight on it, the grid has straight lines and right angles, corresponding to the "flat space" of Euclidean geometry.
.
If you place a ball on the surface, the rubber sheet stretches around it. The curvature of the grid increases as it gets closer to the ball. This corresponds to the curvature of space-time near a massive object.

If the bowling ball is placed at the centre of the rubber sheet, it will curve or distort the sheet.  If we roll a marble piece in this curved path, it will go round the bowling ball.

This description is ok for non-Euclidean geometry. 

Well, it is true that curved space time is nothing but Gravity. We know that Gravity is keeping the planets in orbit around the sun and also is keeping the moon in orbit around Earth. The gravitational pull of the moon pulls the seas towards it, causing the ocean tides.  Einstein also proposed number of effects, time dilation, light bending i.e.,

Without complete description of what is working like space fabric, being curved by mass, theory will not go further, ends at the one stage or the other.  This is what happening and we are taking Newton’s inverse square law as base.

This is the reason, still “what exactly is gravity” a mysterious one.

Yours
Psreddy

 Well, from a cosmetic point of view the issue seems to be right there... "oriented misconception "
 We are heavily relying on a term that may be clouding overall, "curve"...
We do accept that space (or any other variable) is bending "something", simultaneously to this we do accept that everything is on a straight line.

 Seems that if we take away our "know estimated reference" as a fixed point such as the sun, planets, moons, it will lead to the conclusion, that:
  Gravity is but a "unavoidable mathematical mistake", not real as a force, a mysterious nothing...

 Then why things fall?
 It would also be answered by the same answer that explain, not what gravity is, also not what gravity isn't.
 It would be answered by explanation that excludes it's very existence from the board.

 Surely related, with all that was previously mentioned, corrected to shift away from the necessity that implies Gravity to be, as a feeling entity.

5

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 08/08/2020 15:10:29 »

any chances that what we "see" as light speed, or speed of light to be no "speed" at all?
 What if by geometry, photon could be, avoiding time influence, and the traveling thing is the particle photon taking a ride on a geometrical wave of probability?

 Could be that space is at C while light is just taking a ride along with it, that specific frame in time which it had originated?

 Or there's anything that undoubtedly, states: Light speed is a speed because...?

6

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 02/08/2020 16:40:37 »

"matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells matter how move"

 Space is but empty volume, feels more geometrical and only exist in our minds, while observing A-B-Z.
 Collide every matter together, no space no more, still...
I understand what you mean, and it's truth, are but ideas, I'm, based o your posts, starting to consider gravity as "potential", as much as if earth and Jupiter were one and the same, as the space in between them just empty volume, permeated by "wherever" from time to time...
  If there's a necessity for another external factor to fill the gap, maybe by convenience, I'd blame our senses, left right, Y,X, from here to there or there to somewhere else, as distinct things...
  Gravity is interference wouldn't also suffice... (on what?)
 If one is the same, and there's no room for gravity, gravity would have always being space as it is, on a miss interpretation that it must be something, cause we may have named it... the speed of a shadow
 and all that "gravity" does, is but other forces permeating to empty volume.

 Can't answer. Still I got the point, and is right, i'm afraid the whole line would be wrong, for if everything is possible we would have already, unless we do...
 Many users here and there, almost everyone has a "possible" way how gravity would be, non is correct... makes wonder
Gravity as a derivation of other forces, a "potential" into be, something that can't be everlasting a moment in time...
 Only thing comes to mind in terms of "Sustaining an impossibility" would be geometrical and requiring time so to exist...
 Something that could be, will become, but never is, should be potential, a reaction of something that is...

7

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 02/08/2020 15:18:16 »

01  It is true that there is Gravity inside the elevator and Mr.'X's weight is 75 kgs.

This "inside"/ "outside" restrictions is what do not match the picture here...
Shouldn't be such a thing.
 Unless, on a short version, gravity on space is electromagnetic based.
 And "our" gravity here, more atmospheric related.
 
 What I mean if there is an inside and or outside something, and that truth is unrelated with gravity.
 Gravity could be derivative from geometrical shapes, as if matter tied together "offers" a "minimal" margin, volume for "medium", only that on this case, medium would be the effect caused due density...
 Trying to picture, that anything "dense" enough to be away from "medium" and or "not submitted to it by shape, would be "gravity less"
 As a _-_- - - - - - - - - - - line would "inevitably be" submitted to "medium" either by existence or by possibility.
 While a dot configuration, or perhaps each (-) individual dot, smallest most dense structures, would not...

 Not sure yet, thought experimentation do not account for math...

1-One is inside a box submersed into water.
2-The box is empy and it's wall have the smallest possible distances in between each hole.
3-The box have thickness granted "in time" only due the fact that the box is accelerating"
4-The box doesn't consider to be accelerating on it's own, the medium(pool) is the thing fluxing around the box.
5-Accelerating only from A in comparison to B.
6-This acceleration not as a straight line, more like a flux, as the water is constantly "rushing" to close the hole that the box represents on it's 2d plane.
7-Medium(water) into trying to fall over the "elevator" collides with many "micro elevators"(particles)/Matter.
8-The collisions within the different angles and interacting with each others, permeate, mixing totterer, to the point the gravity "inside"(while there is none) is taking more "time" to rush out of the box, and what was other wise spread, a sphere fluxing from inside out without a single broken fold, become a more flat shape (disk).
9- The horizon starts to add a 4D dimension and starts to organised all the waves together on a 2d plane.
10- On the act of doing so, the medium is also blended and elongated (the geometry of it) and from box starts to become rounded...
11- I mean the new 4D horizon is forming on the present moment in time that the box is moving away from it, due "external sources", so I assume the horizon keeps constantly reforming at the rate the elevator is being lifted.
 An "incomplete" sphere(disk for a 2d plane) while having it's center relocated in time (y) would behave more like a spiral (interference on the geometry/medium), elevator is squared and fixed, thus it's "apart" from what's truly going on there"
A drop of Rain would be more precise, but too flexible, plasma would be the best thing to observe, as for what i'm suggesting is likely not be seeing, by impossibility, as if the act of trying it would ruin it..

 I guess the image is, the interaction in between different particles, and their configurations, force medium to "fill the gap" as it reads it as a 3d object now that it's shaped, and by the "time" the tick hit's the designated spot, it's unable to locate it, still the attempt remained, as a "loose end wave/dot" as a wave inside an pool, ever propagating "by chance" not by the existence of anything in witch into propagate to...

 Has for now: "the configuration of matter" create loose ends within the medium, dot particles as while the frame they occur, and wave on the previous frame, also waves on the future frame, past and future being only relevant from the angle one is looking, wouldn't matter if the direction as outside in, and is inside out simultaneously, or very quick updated...
 if nothing else, I believe would be: Medium takes a certain amount of "micro geometrical distances" into interacting with the elevator, as this happens, the "would be inner box" starts to behave like a 2d plane, and the box itself due drag "in time" starts to fluctuate (take a ride) on the bouncing wave itself is causing (against the moving water)...

 Not sure... I feel like about 100% the only problem there is the "inside/outside" perception...

8

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 26/07/2020 23:17:33 »

you're suggesting that the medium reads dense matter(earth) as a "hole" on it's fabric, and thus constantly trying to fill it... Electromagnetic forces/atomic forces, fight back, or more likely, use this medium attempt to their own benefit, not being able to collapse, they start to spin, not from themselves as their properties are, but their motion a physical representation of this medium?
 Something like that?

If so, gravity should be greater at the points where the extraction of energy is greater, planets, heavy particles, and blackholes?
 Would this medium be "falling" (accelerating faster in time) to close such "gaps" within it's tissue?

Or perhaps, but a complex geometrical shape for empty volume in occurrence in between A-B? Could this medium be ever present as a energy grid but diluted due universal expansion(acceleration)? as if everything stops moving, the nature of the medium would be physically revealed, as everything would simple instantly be undone due absolute heat...  Could be the acceleration s "draining" this medium reducing temperatures, as masses or point's the medium sees as infinity for it to collapse(fill), heat up due lack of acceleration?

I'm wondering what theoretically happens to space on black holes?
, geometry or thermal? As if the neutron star is not a neutron star at all, but a pace where the universal acceleration can no longer reach. A center away from space physical interaction, due geometry space has become impossible to touch(reach) that center... But instead of spinning neutron star, space is sniping along with the matter it is digesting, but inside the center, nothing but a hole, direct access to this medium...  It would be something if the medium proved to b true, and owner of all energy, and particles but different scales in time producing different energy frequencies... So anything that we tough that has ever spin or had properties would be just borrowing...

Any idea of the nature of this medium? Electrical?

 If universe as we see would be just as a cabin accelerating over this medium, and if true that universe originated from a single point accelerating expanding over this medium. Would make sense (maybe just convenience) that anything on the reverse would give access to the medium as it is... Unobservable and only possible delayed apart from acceleration, as much as for the traveling ship?

9

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 26/07/2020 00:14:02 »

well, right or wrong, since we do not completely understand gravity, the only thing that is left to say:
 The structure of his text was pretty easy to visualize...
 Since we are all emotive beings despise the effort, if we accept that we don't know to state we are right about the "not knowing", even that could, and most certainly is wrong... Still, easy to mind picture that scenario that he described.

Mr Alex,
As rightly accepted by Newton, there is a medium, giving or causing weight on Earth, known as Gravity.  It is true that Einstein carried out number of experiments to find out "What exactly this medium is".  But, in my opinion, whenever I go by his theory or thought experiments, i feel that it is incomplete and an unfinished agenda. 

I am just trying to find out the truth, exploring the different possibilities.  I am moving with confidence, but i am not sure, whether i could present it in better way or convince others  "what exactly is gravity".

Thank you
Psreddy

 Almost sure that the missing piece is to start to consider outside in the known universe, extrapolating some theories.
  I'm starting reading on the possible explanation for the Golden Ratio, feels that the mathematics behind of it's why could crack that 2d space, curved space relation with gravity...
 I've always assumed that gravity is not real as a force but as potential, and time represented as XYZ(3D space) the only real expression, gravity possible being a direct result of the "water flowing inside the coiled fire hose", gravity being the "loose ends" where time, borrowing mass for the end line of it's race(it's straight line) "reached infinity", thus it starts to fade inside of itself, tunneling it's potentiality energy into motion...
  Sort of gravity represented as a firehouse coiled around earth by law due mass effect, on a rudimentary but easy to visualize approach, gravity being the shock wave produce (at each intersection the water hits the inner wall of the filing hose)...
 Somehow it, again, "just feels" open to some relation with the flat configuration of the photon...
  As if space has a minimal possible angle (pre-determinate on micro scale), or (determinate by local macro scale), and or (determinate by the nature of what shapes the universe itself (the edges)...
 I feel that the golden ratio could match this "would be spiral flat motion"(photonic)(has poles, charges and horizon) that when submitted to "observation" by other near masses, forces one to be in correlation with one another, forcing the "is flat curved straight line reaching infinity(it's own center)" into "receiving a second reference", adding a third dimension(Z) to the flat XY, turning the act simple try to reach infinity, into propagating motion, and in the process creating a spiral tunneling effect...

  Need to gather more information on the golden ratio, but there is picture of energy trying to be released from the iteration of particles alone, and it's trying to be released both as thermal radiation and light... So I must wonder that photons are the "catalyst" for gravity, more precisely... Mass being the "real" cause, and the releasing energy out of the system, into "gravity", the same one caused due mass alone, but observed wrongly from the wrong side...

 As if light was the water filing the coiled hose using it to release energy from the tank, and gravity being but a convenient "sub consequent effect", happening every time  the tunneling energy hit's the mathematical borders of the theoretical tunneling effect...
 Word salada, yeah I know, again, gravity would "only look like for the example" as the hose being submersed into water, and being filled with water too, suppose that the hose has 45° intersections, each time the water hits that curvature, gravity would be the "shockwave" propagated trough the pool...
 On space example, I accept that the water is energy, the exterior is medium(grid), and there's only particles, mass and it doubles this two as for it's own reference, the duality causing the medium(forcing it) to waste energy over those references(A and B)...
  Since there are countless references, all energy of the medium "is", and "is, will being" diminished and added to those references, if the "dot" achieves the meaning to break that "would be geometrical limitation of the curvature", it is forced to abandon macro scale, pushing all possible "energy volume available" to the exterior, creating it's own inner reference...
  A an A point, that will still interact with B and be submitted to it, but that now as it's own inner reference, so it no longers can emit energy out, only thermal... As if the coiled hose has fuse itself and it's collapsing towards infinity (it's own center), not forever or to another universe, could be the case that is simple a flux of space energy,and the releasing "is right there" as ,medium, black holes being but what we know that they are, but with one distinction, they are the "engine" that is creating the medium (space) from energy...
 A photonic sea of diffused energy waiting for reference to reshape near mass effect, and to also to be reabsorbed by the medium again....

 Sify, need first to try understand the why of golden ratio to see better, I suppose that golden ratio will re-link with particles and math... For now I guess that golden ratio is the inevitable mathematical expression of a tunneling effect local and also everywhere...
 As if black holes and inner cores ("are" would be doing without protective matter) destroy matter's own reference, and release it as medium (space), the tunneling effect being the whole galaxy on micro scale, still a macro replica of the same tunneling happening on micro scale with particles, with the only difference that particles spiral flat and black holes on 3D using themselves as reference... More simple, particles are loose ends and need to borrow energy and references to do so, their configuration is always incomplete, never reaching infinity, so the tunneling effect is more like a flow. Black holes for their turns, "cheated" offering a mass without any empty volume as inner reference, "anything" near them "assume to have reached infinity", obviously it's almost the same behavior of a planet for things can orbit them, still I'm not aiming matter, but space itself... As for space, blackholes are infinity and so it's rushed towards it, also planets are infinity, but apparently planets "push it back" in a different manner, concealing the same effect inside their mass, but away from the medium, delayed enough away from it, conveniently adverting the violent side of BH... Also seems more than convenient, planets would not be able to reform if the inner core was to BH for a few instants, meaning that they would not be able to reform themselves, is to say that new planets would be impossible to form... Sometimes "feels" designed to be like this...
 Again once we are a byproduct of the whole, is kind of inevitable to not feel that way...

 I wan't to know what lies beyond the theoretical borders, + 1 light year...
 My guess? Universe is a big galaxy, but if so, why there is a breaking limit for ratio?

10

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 25/07/2020 00:35:53 »

well, right or wrong, since we do not completely understand gravity, the only thing that is left to say:
 The structure of his text was pretty easy to visualize...
 Since we are all emotive beings despise the effort, if we accept that we don't know to state we are right about the "not knowing", even that could, and most certainly is wrong... Still, easy to mind picture that scenario that he described.

On the shadow of that, could it be: Gravity is the weaker and also the strongest force divided or multiplied by the mass effect?
 If so, on those in between SS, 2d space time, gravity would be the weakest force (in that time) as much as near the horizon of the mass effect gravity would also be the strongest force (in that time)...
 If gravity were more like a tunnel then a straight line, could be the "thickness" affect it's potential?
 As on when in comparison with a straight house garden hose with a coiled fire truck hose?
 I mean the borrowing/releasing of energy at each intersection of the now "gravity submitted to mass effect" in contrast with the straight 2d one?
  Would also be possible that even gravity being the would be strongest force, a measurement of it in micro scale even on that strong environment, would say, weakest force?
 I'm not sure what I'm seeing here, I believe that the divergence has something to do with time as a multiplier and divisor, and gravity being absolute the same for both micro, macro, 2d or curved environments(spaces)...
 Sry my bad English, i'm more into mind experiments,I read more curious then enthusiast ,,,
 Also pondering on the possibility for gravity and time being two sides of the same coin, the mathematical and real sides of the same thing, being observed physically expressed as "is" (flat space time) and "is being" (during mass effect)

11

New Theories / Re: Brief Idea: Proof that Time travel proved a massive misconception.

« on: 12/07/2020 06:54:30 »

Well, not my native language, but the short version would be:
  Time traveling into the past on our universe is like:
1-Stand over a moving car that is moving at C.
2-Turning the device on, would mean to start to slow down yourself.
3-You would find yourself standing in the middle of nowhere, on a physical place on space were the car did pass, still, the frame were you arrived there is a future frame of that physical location on space.
  There couldn't possible be the past, it would have to be stored somewhere, it isn't.
 We are tied to a self updating present frame, there's no time outside this frame, only the next frame.
 One could say tat the universe exist and doesn't exist for a fraction of C it simple cease, still space has energy enough to drag the whole along with it into the next frame, so it must perpetuate, and that seems to be granted by mass and gravity... without both we are just what we are anyway, a frozen frame of energy moving on a straight line, tied to a ever moving car that only exist on that moment, and once it has passed the marker, nothing have ever existed, the road, the car, the marker, nor you and or I.

4-Time traveling machine = A fancy ship to travel(stay still/suspended), conveniently, at minus C.
 Not as a negative speed, but as long as you don't have enough energy to drag the car, the road, and the whole local frame with you, they will keep going along with the universe, while you stay still...

 As for my point of view, Even the frames that took to type this never existed, as this one is instantly erased as long as gravity is out there.

 The daily time travel example is way shorter:
1- Standing over the moving car.
2- Jump, and as you do borrow the atmosphere to reduce your speed till you are slower than the moving car.
3-Crash into the asphalt, now, see that moving car? That's the future you traveled away from...
 
 You did traveled back in space, to a future frame of time, were you are, also future frame in time where the car is..
 Now,
Close your eyes for 3 seconds and open them:
 See that bird that you would have seeing if your eyes were open?
 Happens that your sight "traveled back in time".

 I suspect that if Jupiter was to flyby near earth right now, earth would travel back in time.
 Earth takes 24 hours to travel back in time around the sun...

 See where I'm going with this?

 Turn off all gravity and consequentially all mass: Banggggg...* (now elongate the g endlessly inside a frozen frame the size of the universe) there would be no universe, no particles fading on directions away, there would be no away from... Gravity would simple slowly be again, collapse everything and reset...

12

New Theories / Re: Brief Idea: Proof that Time travel proved a massive misconception.

« on: 11/07/2020 22:47:19 »

for what my perception of time tells me, travel back in time in a universe where every frame is erased and updated at C tick, would mean probably move to space and perhaps hit the face on Jupiter, or emptiness, meaning time traveling back in time = Re surging where earth was on that period in time... Universe seems to have everything but absolutely no memory... turn of the C tick and all that is instantly cease to exist... it would be required multiple dimensions for universe have memory and the rules would be much more flexible... The laws are unbreakable fro a reason.... One would need to jump outside the universe and it's influence.. out there could be a possible universal frame frozen in time from the exterior, and then reenter back or forwards on it... that's why I suggested that one need to be apart of C as possible, not speeding up but slowing down by hiding or masking your mass with energy field, negative energy... or by getting out of it... both scenarios would require universe to have memory for it's energy, it seems only to have instant memory of it's mass, planets, straight lines only, always moving forward towards the beginning, much as any planet orbiting a sun, always a straight line, only messed up by gravity elongating it, delaying it, reshaping C into motion, that seems to be local when in fact is but a well twisted still straight lines, so twisted, that it starts to make possible the occurrence of so many straight lines, leading to the formation of different particles, all of them based on conditions and derivation from the same original one, pre-gravity... gravity seems to be related with mass and caused by BHs, so often that is easy to guess that the universe is but a ever unfolding black hole on a ring shape, compressing height as it expands width... and inside of it, every local mass providing a sub category, a replica of that patterns, creating sub versions of the main singularity at the edge... I don't think it's changing or anything, only breathing like a lung,compressing, twisting, expanding, always one in accordance to the other... there's got to be a exterior dimension, that would be just as the local solar system or a black hole, or the universe itself... Leading always to the gut feeling that we are inside a massive universal black hole, so large that it was forced to delay it's center so many "frames" away from C that the interior calmed down and reformed, and also everything in it was patterned with it's signature motion, energy, the length of the C frame "time"... Still point is, traveling in time from earth with Jupiter on the past, would mean crash into Jupiter, if Jupiter was occurring on that location in time, at that instant, on that future frame... meaning traveling, useful, has meaning, can be measure, but not so much different than a rocket... and even if ll that was possible, one would need to have a fixed reference to do so, a A beacon would have to be left there under almost the same conditions as te traveling device, stooped outside of C, coming in just long enough to send signals and fading out again... if one could track that immobile beacon, you could move instantly to that frame in tie or very close to it...  if mass would not be a problem, planets would serve as stations for the jumps...nothing would age faster or slower, only the traveler would not age... and I guess it would take as much time to travel stooped at minus C that would take to speed up at C plus... if you could jump to outside of C, could also be the case that distances would be something different, the correct engine could propel the device as a personal would be universe in behavior, with different speed, ahead on the now observable (calculable) universal YXZ and perhaps reenter from another spot... on this scenario alone one could travel in time for it would be away from C influence observing a frozen universal frame... Happens that I consider being away from C as being stopped and negative speed of C... that would instantly let you travel trough space at C on the opposite direction of the flow. the same way you could come back to earth t the correct period on... as for the question:  Time can't exist on the past, for universe has no memory, max one would be able to go back in time is "1 C frame" and even that would be compensated by the laws, perhaps increasing or decreasing your energy, don't sound pleasant, pretty certain to escape forcefully C influence for a fraction of C, without a protective field... would make your cease to exist due the lack of gravity...

13

New Theories / Re: Brief Idea: Proof that Time travel proved a massive misconception.

« on: 11/07/2020 22:09:26 »

time "feels" more like a monitor framerate, a frame subjected to the next frame, always adapting the screen to match the conditions of the next would be frame... The speed or rate being determinate by gravity in correlation with photon, C.
  For what matters, again, feeling, that for time travel to the past one has to find a way to be away from C as possible, stooped and frozen in time... I imagine it would require a field to mess with micro and macro scale, some device able to involve itself away from the tick, and by doing so kind of instantly emerge at one of the previous C frames...

14

New Theories / Re: Brief Idea: Proof that Time travel proved a massive misconception.

« on: 11/07/2020 22:02:02 »

Time is but a tool humans invented to comprehend, a concept. Obviously it can be used and interpreted, tough I usually consider time, outside of my living consciousness, as a non existent thing from anyone observing from outside in the universe or any experiment with time...

15

New Theories / Re: Atmosphere is what's compromising the double-slit conclusion?

« on: 28/08/2018 03:37:56 »

Make sense I know, but when one is considering about light, I do not think a vacuum would make much of a difference to my speculation.
  About shooting electrons, I do not believe that was the case. More like electron not being but existing at C.
  What I mean is, that the very wave of the passing electron has the potential to become one for each intersection.
  All that it really takes is the waves on the left start to interfere with the waves on the right, eventually one electron will miss the jump and cascade the whole experiment.

   Another consideration is that this universe has direction.
 Someone has ever tried to centrifuge the whole experiment while running it?

16

New Theories / Atmosphere is what's compromissing the double-slit conclusion?

« on: 26/08/2018 20:18:58 »

Time connects all 4 dimensions, reason why the act of observing affects the whole experiment.
  Not magic, simple quantum entanglement, one isolated action causes a ripple of infinite possibilities within the environment, like domino's.
 So is very easy to visualize that if one gets a falling object, on the quantum perspective (with a present observer) there is the necessity (of the observer) to imply that the object must make some sort of sound, the sound must have a pre-determinate speed, and each and every single aspect is intricate with the other in a specific arrow, mix all that on dimensions you got arrow of time, spinning towards infinity, therefore, individual particles entangled to each other, each one with their specific local time due different frames of reference.

  Even so, the observers necessity is what is implying the reality to "do or be", remove that, still dot-wave at the same time (only and only when) time is relative.
 Time is relative only if one have more than one point of reference, on this case, the (eye,mind,toughs,flesh,wherever).

 The "observer" is the point of reference itself in comparison to the electron it is observing, therefore, (Observer) by offering a point B to the straight line, added "environment" to the arrow.

 In a nut shell, until there was a B point of reference, the electron only needed to seek the curvature of the arrow of time, from the machine towards infinity, point B added + one direction, and since light is constant at C, the only possible outcome is one particle spiting into waves of possibility in between A+B+C, and each wave interfering with each other.


 Dot-Wave configuration, not at the same time still a single DOT, but projected and overlapped towards itself at C towards infinity, until mass.

 Seems backwards, light as a product of space-time?

17

New Theories / Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?

« on: 04/03/2018 23:25:46 »

I also sort of agree with deep sea waters volcanic activities, seems quite possible...

18

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy

« on: 04/03/2018 19:48:31 »

I'm wondering that C is a limit not a speed.
 That Edwin Hubble misinterpreted shifts on light by being property when they are optical virtual effects.
That Dark energy is correspondent to the interaction of electromagnetic fields generated by plasma configurations of galaxies, also the plasma configuration giving the shape for galaxies and rotation not gravity.
 Gravity being but an illusion, Einstein used gravity to explain gravity. If earth is bending space-time acting like a funnel, no matter how close the moon would be it would be stationary.
 Explain gravity as causing the funnel and gravity as the force causing the free fall feels wrong.
 Dark Matter being a correct prediction inside a wrong model.
 Dark Matter being resultant of interaction of particles on the quantum level, and different as observed on a planet for example, happening in open space.
 Dark Matter being represented by some sort of infusing space regions suffering from the interaction of different EMF.

 What I wondering is, sorry if I can't be specific about witch EMF ratter then galaxies EMF.

 Einstein was wrong, Newton and also Hubble.
 Seems that is all related to plasma and electromagnetic field interactions.
 
Also for the concept of time I wondering that time as I mentioned once, feels like a comparative between different scales.
 Time being related only to math and never a real entity.
 Also a universe based on 2D interactions on the smallest scale that when in interaction of tree or more, provide 3D holographic views for a 3D object.

 Thing about an asteroid from the atomic point of view, there is empty volume in between the electromagnetic interactions of the atoms that compose the asteroid.
 I'm assuming that never was a asteroid in the first place, not as long as there is still empty volume in between the atoms.

 If light can be slowed down when passing trough different mediums, C is not a speed but a universal limit and doesn't need to be constant.

 Still thinking about it. Trying to find precisely "where" the models started to fail and creating magical particles to explain.

 Actually I'm stuck trying to mix some TheBox concepts with GoC ideas.

19

New Theories / Dark Energy

« on: 04/03/2018 00:44:26 »

Einstein was right, cosmological constant for Dark Energy (EMF)
 No universal expansion ratter the interaction of EMF's, (interaction of particles on the quantum level/ Illusion Gravity)
 And dark matter being nonexistent and the gravitational pull being represented by the Dark energy sort of backing over space-time fabric?

 Does any of that make sense?

20

New Theories / Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?

« on: 27/02/2018 23:22:37 »

OK, back onto the Tsar Bomb. Earth is already not a perfect sphere, the kinetic energy released by the disruption of the tectonic plates would not take the planet out of it's original?
 I mean the earth orbit the sun where it is because it's center, if you disrupt the outside layers and flow of magma, wouldn't the center be re-centered somewhere else for some time?