1

New Theories / Why does an electron move?

« on: 19/11/2017 17:58:10 »

    We assign + and  - to the proton and the electron but is that logical? In a balance of charges there is a point where entropy the difference in the energy of  + and - translates to neutral. I believe dark mass energy is the cause of motion for the electron. Is there any objection?

2

New Theories / Why do electrons move?

« on: 13/06/2017 11:36:56 »

?

3

New Theories / What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 02/05/2017 11:54:06 »

David to continue our conversation on our own thread from the "invariant speed of light" topic.

SR mechanically follows Relativity with the spin Aether c. Lets look at an example at relative half the speed of light by mass. We have two mirrors set parallel 90 degrees to vector speed. The light just hit one mirror (Light is a spherical propagation wave on the Aether spin c). The event in space now becomes a race to the other mirror already moving through space. So light sphere goes twice as fast as the mirror but there is no perpendicular view with vector velocity. The sphere of light produced reaches the second mirror at a angle of 30 degrees producing a 30,60,90 triangle. The travel distance is the hypotenuse length for the light. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the percentage of a second at rest and the inverse is 1.133075 vs. 1 for the extra distance the light traveled. The contraction of view for an image is the angle different from perpendicular. You claim science believes time is a dimension. That is a definition based on the unknown for what produces motion. If we have a mechanical Aether c spin producing all motion as the energy source time definition would be motion c = energy available to space = time. Time measurement is a cycle of distance used for a vector distance. They both require a distance either light between mirrors or the electron cycle. Motion measuring motion. How is that a dimension in and of itself?
Aether c spin of the complimentary 2d grid pattern offset by 45 degrees and 90 degrees spin to the first 2d sheet is quantum mechanics that move the waves on the spectrum and move the electrons of mass. A virtual photon describes a spectrum of Aether spin c propagation of a wave on particles with no need for a particle to carry energy. Relativity math would not allow it to be a particle that is why virtual was used as a weasel word to get around relativity's objection to main streams model.

GR is a dilation of Aether spin c particles. So energy is diluted and the wave created has a lower frequency. mass is expanded physically in GR. Mass is expanded visually in SR. That is the equivalence between GR and SR where g=a.

4

New Theories / What causes motion?

« on: 27/03/2017 21:25:43 »

?

5

New Theories / Equivalancy in Relativity

« on: 06/03/2017 11:45:37 »

Mike and timey

   Timey has allot of correct ideas but her format is wrong. her temporal idea of time being the cause of gravity is incorrect. Time is a measure of the ratio between Pe and Ke of a frame. You cannot say the measurement of gravity is the cause of gravity. First you have to consider what is being dilated in GR. That would be energy c as total energy available. While c is a constant (of total energy available) mass creates an affect on the energy state by dilation of energy changing the Pe density state of the spectrum causing gravity from the single atom to the galaxies.

Equivalency is in the photon to electron ratio.
1. GR dilation changes the electron travel distance through space. Mass expands and contracts based on the amount of mass and the position of that mass in relation to the other mass. The dilation is greatest in the center of mass where the electron travel distance is the greatest. When we measure the tick rate in the center of mass using the electron cycle the measurement duration between ticks increase and reaction rate of that frame slows. Mass is attracted to the expanded energy state because dilation of mass creates less friction with energy. So the Pe in the center of mass becomes less due to dilation of energy. If you are in the center of a planet and move towards the surface the Pe increases and the Ke decreases relative to total c energy.
2. SR vector speed the electron is traveling through space and cycling at the same time. Total c divides its energy between cycle time and vector motion. The division is between Ke vector speed and Pe total available motion.

The equivalency between GR and SR is in the temporal measurement of a frames clock. Clocks are only a measurement of Pe available.

The equivalency between SR and GR is in the cycle time of the electron in the form of energy available as c (represented as a Photon for total energy).

Now lets test that statement.

If mass could have a vector speed of the SOL all of the energy for the electron would be in the forward direction and non left for the cycle of the electron. The measurement of time would stop.
Mechanical and light clocks tick the same in every frame.
If the mass of a light clock could have a vector speed at the speed of light the photon would use all of its motion between the clocks and none for the bounce between the clocks. So the measurement of time would stop.
So can we agree clocks only measure the potential energy of a frame?

And timey is on the correct path of temporal relationship with gravity. But it is all in the gamma term of relativity for dilation.

The proof for energy being of the spectrum and not of mass is in the deceleration of mass. Deceleration causes gravity and your clock tick rate increases!!! Moving away from the center of mass is the equivalancy

The center of a planet is equivalent to the inertial speed of a ship in space after acceleration. That is equivalency and measured by the tick rate in that frame.

BH's only have Ke and no Pe.

Clocks can only measure available Pe.

6

New Theories / Equivalancy in Relativity

« on: 05/03/2017 14:02:25 »

Mike and timey

   Timey has allot of correct ideas but her format is wrong. her temporal idea of time being the cause of gravity is incorrect. Time is a measure of the ratio between Pe and Ke of a frame. You cannot say the measurement of gravity is the cause of gravity. First you have to consider what is being dilated in GR. That would be energy c as total energy available. While c is a constant (of total energy available) mass creates an affect on the energy state by dilation of energy changing the Pe density state of the spectrum causing gravity from the single atom to the galaxies.

Equivalency is in the photon to electron ratio.
1. GR dilation changes the electron travel distance through space. Mass expands and contracts based on the amount of mass and the position of that mass in relation to the other mass. The dilation is greatest in the center of mass where the electron travel distance is the greatest. When we measure the tick rate in the center of mass using the electron cycle the measurement duration between ticks increase and reaction rate of that frame slows. Mass is attracted to the expanded energy state because dilation of mass creates less friction with energy. So the Pe in the center of mass becomes less due to dilation of energy. If you are in the center of a planet and move towards the surface the Pe increases and the Ke decreases relative to total c energy.
2. SR vector speed the electron is traveling through space and cycling at the same time. Total c divides its energy between cycle time and vector motion. The division is between Ke vector speed and Pe total available motion.

The equivalency between GR and SR is in the temporal measurement of a frames clock. Clocks are only a measurement of Pe available.

The equivalency between SR and GR is in the cycle time of the electron in the form of energy available as c (represented as a Photon for total energy).

Now lets test that statement.

If mass could have a vector speed of the SOL all of the energy for the electron would be in the forward direction and non left for the cycle of the electron. The measurement of time would stop.
Mechanical and light clocks tick the same in every frame.
If the mass of a light clock could have a vector speed at the speed of light the photon would use all of its motion between the clocks and none for the bounce between the clocks. So the measurement of time would stop.
So can we agree clocks only measure the potential energy of a frame?

And timey is on the correct path of temporal relationship with gravity. But it is all in the gamma term of relativity for dilation.

The proof for energy being of the spectrum and not of mass is in the deceleration of mass. Deceleration causes gravity and your clock tick rate increases!!!

The center of a planet is equivalent to the inertial speed of a ship in space after acceleration. That is equivalency and measured by the tick rate in that frame.

BH's only have Ke and no Pe.

Clocks can only measure available Pe.

7

New Theories / Relativity Equivalancy

« on: 05/03/2017 14:00:01 »

Mike and timey

   Timey has allot of correct ideas but her format is wrong. her temporal idea of time being the cause of gravity is incorrect. Time is a measure of the ratio between Pe and Ke of a frame. You cannot say the measurement of gravity is the cause of gravity. First you have to consider what is being dilated in GR. That would be energy c as total energy available. While c is a constant (of total energy available) mass creates an affect on the energy state by dilation of energy changing the Pe density state of the spectrum causing gravity from the single atom to the galaxies.

Equivalency is in the photon to electron ratio.
1. GR dilation changes the electron travel distance through space. Mass expands and contracts based on the amount of mass and the position of that mass in relation to the other mass. The dilation is greatest in the center of mass where the electron travel distance is the greatest. When we measure the tick rate in the center of mass using the electron cycle the measurement duration between ticks increase and reaction rate of that frame slows. Mass is attracted to the expanded energy state because dilation of mass creates less friction with energy. So the Pe in the center of mass becomes less due to dilation of energy. If you are in the center of a planet and move towards the surface the Pe increases and the Ke decreases relative to total c energy.
2. SR vector speed the electron is traveling through space and cycling at the same time. Total c divides its energy between cycle time and vector motion. The division is between Ke vector speed and Pe total available motion.

The equivalency between GR and SR is in the temporal measurement of a frames clock. Clocks are only a measurement of Pe available.

The equivalency between SR and GR is in the cycle time of the electron in the form of energy available as c (represented as a Photon for total energy).

Now lets test that statement.

If mass could have a vector speed of the SOL all of the energy for the electron would be in the forward direction and non left for the cycle of the electron. The measurement of time would stop.
Mechanical and light clocks tick the same in every frame.
If the mass of a light clock could have a vector speed at the speed of light the photon would use all of its motion between the clocks and none for the bounce between the clocks. So the measurement of time would stop.
So can we agree clocks only measure the potential energy of a frame?

And timey is on the correct path of temporal relationship with gravity. But it is all in the gamma term of relativity for dilation.

The proof for energy being of the spectrum and not of mass is in the deceleration of mass. Deceleration causes gravity and your clock tick rate increases!!!

The center of a planet is equivalent to the inertial speed of a ship in space after acceleration. That is equivalency and measured by the tick rate in that frame.

BH's only have Ke and no Pe.

Clocks can only measure available Pe.

8

New Theories / Mike and timey Equivalancy in Relativity

« on: 05/03/2017 13:57:28 »

Mike and timey

   Timey has allot of correct ideas but her format is wrong. her temporal idea of time being the cause of gravity is incorrect. Time is a measure of the ratio between Pe and Ke of a frame. You cannot say the measurement of gravity is the cause of gravity. First you have to consider what is being dilated in GR. That would be energy c as total energy available. While c is a constant (of total energy available) mass creates an affect on the energy state by dilation of energy changing the Pe density state of the spectrum causing gravity from the single atom to the galaxies.

Equivalency is in the photon to electron ratio.
1. GR dilation changes the electron travel distance through space. Mass expands and contracts based on the amount of mass and the position of that mass in relation to the other mass. The dilation is greatest in the center of mass where the electron travel distance is the greatest. When we measure the tick rate in the center of mass using the electron cycle the measurement duration between ticks increase and reaction rate of that frame slows. Mass is attracted to the expanded energy state because dilation of mass creates less friction with energy. So the Pe in the center of mass becomes less due to dilation of energy. If you are in the center of a planet and move towards the surface the Pe increases and the Ke decreases relative to total c energy.
2. SR vector speed the electron is traveling through space and cycling at the same time. Total c divides its energy between cycle time and vector motion. The division is between Ke vector speed and Pe total available motion.

The equivalency between GR and SR is in the temporal measurement of a frames clock. Clocks are only a measurement of Pe available.

The equivalency between SR and GR is in the cycle time of the electron in the form of energy available as c (represented as a Photon for total energy).

Now lets test that statement.

If mass could have a vector speed of the SOL all of the energy for the electron would be in the forward direction and non left for the cycle of the electron. The measurement of time would stop.
Mechanical and light clocks tick the same in every frame.
If the mass of a light clock could have a vector speed at the speed of light the photon would use all of its motion between the clocks and none for the bounce between the clocks. So the measurement of time would stop.
So can we agree clocks only measure the potential energy of a frame?

And timey is on the correct path of temporal relationship with gravity. But it is all in the gamma term of relativity for dilation.

The proof for energy being of the spectrum and not of mass is in the deceleration of mass. Deceleration causes gravity and your clock tick rate increases!!!

The center of a planet is equivalent to the inertial speed of a ship in space after acceleration. That is equivalency and measured by the tick rate in that frame.

BH's only have Ke and no Pe.

Clocks can only measure available Pe.

9

New Theories / Mike and timey "Equivalancy in Relativity"

« on: 05/03/2017 13:52:07 »

Mike

   Timey has allot of correct ideas but her format is wrong. her temporal idea of time being the cause of gravity is incorrect. Time is a measure of the ratio between Pe and Ke of a frame. You cannot say the measurement of gravity is the cause of gravity. First you have to consider what is being dilated in GR. That would be energy c as total energy available. While c is a constant (of total energy available) mass creates an affect on the energy state by dilation of energy changing the Pe density state of the spectrum causing gravity from the single atom to the galaxies.

Equivalency is in the photon to electron ratio.
1. GR dilation changes the electron travel distance through space. Mass expands and contracts based on the amount of mass and the position of that mass in relation to the other mass. The dilation is greatest in the center of mass where the electron travel distance is the greatest. When we measure the tick rate in the center of mass using the electron cycle the measurement duration between ticks increase and reaction rate of that frame slows. Mass is attracted to the expanded energy state because dilation of mass creates less friction with energy. So the Pe in the center of mass becomes less due to dilation of energy. If you are in the center of a planet and move towards the surface the Pe increases and the Ke decreases relative to total c energy.
2. SR vector speed the electron is traveling through space and cycling at the same time. Total c divides its energy between cycle time and vector motion. The division is between Ke vector speed and Pe total available motion.

The equivalency between GR and SR is in the temporal measurement of a frames clock. Clocks are only a measurement of Pe available.

The equivalency between SR and GR is in the cycle time of the electron in the form of energy available as c (represented as a Photon for total energy).

Now lets test that statement.

If mass could have a vector speed of the SOL all of the energy for the electron would be in the forward direction and non left for the cycle of the electron. The measurement of time would stop.
Mechanical and light clocks tick the same in every frame.
If the mass of a light clock could have a vector speed at the speed of light the photon would use all of its motion between the clocks and none for the bounce between the clocks. So the measurement of time would stop.
So can we agree clocks only measure the potential energy of a frame?

And timey is on the correct path of temporal relationship with gravity. But it is all in the gamma term of relativity for dilation.

The proof for energy being of the spectrum and not of mass is in the deceleration of mass. Deceleration causes gravity and your clock tick rate increases!!!

The center of a planet is equivalent to the inertial speed of a ship in space after acceleration. That is equivalency and measured by the tick rate in that frame.

Ignore me if you like. But what Einstein felt he was missing is a mechanical cause for relativity. Relativity itself I recognize as quite complete in its mathematics and description of what we observe. Failure of Relativity is choosing the wrong understanding of Relativity.

timey your h changes angle in different dilation and vector motions. Your base is total c which can never be measured as fixed using mass or the photon.

We only have equivalency between Pe measurement in GR and SR by the use of clocks. Its always a ratio between Pe and Ke in a frame.

BH;s are total Ke void of Pe.

10

New Theories / Define Time

« on: 20/02/2017 14:14:59 »

   Time is a big part of Relativity but we each have a vague idea of what exactly we are referring to when we say time. In the relativistic view time is variable depending on your position in GR and speed in SR. We have to ask ourselves what is the common issue especially since there is an equivalence between GR and SR. Well we have to go with c as the constant because the measurement of c is the timed equivalence as a constant. Now we have to ask what is c? We measure the limit and consistency of c by the photon. You might be ahead of me at this point but here it is 'what is a photon?'.  Here is what we know. A photon defines the parameters of energy by distance traveled. The photon is confounded in every frame with the electron cycle to measure the speed of light always the same in all frames. This does not mean the clock tick rate is the same in every frame only that the electron and photon move relative to each other in every frame.

The clock tick rate is relative to the photon and electron which we recognize as energy. Where does energy come from? The electron moves as perpetual motion but how can perpetual motion exist? It cannot without a mechanical cause. So fundamental energy must be of space itself. What causes fundamental energy? That would be the next step of unknowns but electrons move by the energy state in which they exist. It is the electron that moves a clocks tick rate relative to c as energy. It is energy that moves the electrons perpetual motion. So:

Time=Motion=Energy

Is there a logical argument against this line of reasoning?

11

New Theories / Is the Big Bang real?

« on: 14/12/2016 15:20:46 »

  How much leeway are we going to give the BB before we have to say we were wrong? In the 1980's we found fully formed galaxies as far back as we could distinguish galaxies. So we had to change the interpretation of what we were viewing. We are now on a balloon surface where the BB happened everywhere at once. This violates relativity but we have to now understand that light curves around the universe even when you pear in the direction of a balloon wall. So light must bounce off the balloon wall. Now where the BB happened in space is no longer normal space. We can go through a worm hole and reach any position in the universe where the space used to be? Really? We are going to go with that? The problem is in order to be respected in the field of physics you have to sign on to the BB. We are constantly looking for reasons to remain in the BB box. We need to let the BB die by logic.

   Not only do we observe fully formed galaxies we also observe super massive Black Holes (BH) for short. We look back in time and observe BH on the order of 400 AU. If we condense our sun to a black hole it would occupy ~1.8 miles. How many suns need to be consumed to be 37,200 million miles large? Our sun is about 4 billion years old and it will last about 10 billion years. That time is on the order of the total time of our predicted BB existence. No way a BH could consume that many suns in 13.6 billion years. Really? Still sticking with the BB?
 Well then lets discuss GR red shift caused by a 37,200 million mile BH in a galaxy by dilation. The lensing affect fro the mass in a galaxy is the accumulation of dilation of mass inside of the galaxy. We measure red shift as SR for expansion while ignoring the GR contribution. From our perspective 75% away from the more concentrated GR dilation in the center its no wonder we observe all galaxies as red shifted in our more blue shifted dilated position. The only way we know Andromeda is moving towards us is the approaching arm is more blue shifted than the receding arm is red shifted.

So we have relativity GR red shift to explain the universe is not necessarily expanding and we have super BH volume to show the universe must have existed much longer than we can measure back in time. 13 billion years is a mere blip in time. 13 billion light years is just our ability to distinguish objects on the spectrum. I suspect we are more insignificant then what we believe in science.

Our galaxy only rotated ~52 times since the beginning of the BB.  Ok in 4 billion years our 4 million sol BH will collide with Andromedas 25 million sol BH. We have tiny BH's compared to a super 400 AU black hole. One sol being about a 1.8 mile diameter.

Lets let the BB die a logical death.

 

12

New Theories / Is the Lorentz contraction physical or just visual?

« on: 12/11/2016 15:54:11 »

   Which do you understand and why?

13

New Theories / Questions about the BB?

« on: 17/10/2016 18:34:27 »

  For my own personal reasons I do not have faith in the Big Bang. Please help me to have faith.

1. We know the visual perspective is reduced by the inverse square of the distance. So there is a distance where the potential visual perspective is that of planks length. Should we claim the size of the universe is limited to the distance our measuring tools can take us?

2. If you follow the relativity postulate light being independent of the source and the expansion is at the speed of light, the distance from when the light started 13.6 million light years ago will have an additional fraction of 13.6 million light years larger. So do we consider the physical size by relativity or the measured size of the universe, according to the BB?

14

New Theories / Is dark mass energy the new aether?

« on: 05/09/2016 18:39:19 »

    Being a realest seems to be out of vogue these days. Most scientists are  leaning towards the Copenhagen and Bohr non realest interpretation of physics. I remain in the realists camp with Einstein's view of the universe. It's matching observations to current theories that move scientists to unrealistic ideas. Like multi-verse, time travel and yes the Big Bang. Using a little logic we can ask questions not allowed by the current model. Questions that do not include the current model are termed unrealistic. This is not science just faith. Lets look at the Michelson and Morley experiment (MMX). They correctly proved that the logic of a stationary Aether was not possible in the current idea of photon travel. That same experiment could be made very simple by orienting a light clock in different directions and checking if they remain synchronous. The answer is they will. As a matter of fact mechanical clocks also remain synchronous with different orientations and with light clocks. This proves logically that what is controlling the electron is also controlling the photon. An orthogonal proof is they remain synchronous in all frames. This shows a weak association with the current model. The actual weakest point is the constant speed of light. The current model has no answer for the non entropy nature of the photon. This is why the term virtual photon was created. Relativity mathematics do not work if a photon has mass. Like I said I am a realest so what model would carry energy and not be a particle? The conclusion I have reached is energy being of space and not mass. Remember the electron and photon being confounded (controlled) by the same force?  There is one logical path refused to be taken by main stream science. Energy particles (Dark Mass) and spin (Dark Energy) two aspects of the same thing. With this tool all of the observations return to the realest camp. We can describe all relativistic observations in Relativity including the reason we can find no frame of rest.

We can tell by galaxy lensing that space dilates. What is dilating? Dilation is an expansion of space energy that light curves around. What is light? A wave on space spin energy at c. What is magnetism? Rotation of electro flow of energy and natural magnets are aligned electron spin of body centered rather than face centered molecules. So magnetism is just a spin direction of energy particles aligned. What makes electrons move? The grid structure of energy spin particles. Complimentary spin between energy particles with a 45 degree offset position of spin particles spinning in their plane as complimentary spin. This would create a cork screw forward motion for the electron. In all gravitational dilations the electron and photon are confounded by the same increase and decrease in dilation to measure the same speed of light in every frame. Reaction rate is controlled by dilation distances but all reactions will be the same in all frames. This follows Relativity. Since spin energy move electrons it becomes logical that electrons are attracted to less dense energy of space. Mass increases dilation of space and mass is attracted to the most dilated space by the inverse square law. The result is gravity. Still following Relativity.

The atom. The most dilated space is in the position of the proton but energy is pervasive even inside the proton. Consider the proton (and neutrons) made of complimentary rotating electrons. There not being plus and minus but just flow. An electron moves out by the grid spin energy having no complimentary partner like in a neutron. The momentum is the speed of the rotating electron with a total motion of c. As it moves away from the proton it encounters a more densely packed grid structure that causes it to curve back towards the proton. This electron is received at the same speed as all other electrons and takes its place inside of the proton kicking out another electron starting the cycle all over again.

What makes the electron move? Energy. What causes fundamental energy? Haven't a clue. But it's mechanics and not probability.

15

New Theories / Mechanical Relativity

« on: 02/09/2016 15:39:39 »

         Theoretical Physics

   Relativity is the most important discovery in physics period. But Einstein left us with the question of mechanical design of Relativity. He was a realest in the sense that motion had a cause and spent the rest of his life dedicated to that cause. He never found one that he could accept.
   We have to reverse engineer Relativity like any other product of a mechanical nature. The biggest hurtle to that approach is we cannot view the product directly only orthogonally can we measure the mechanical result. It’s like being able to measure the speed of a car but not knowing what is making the car move or why it moves in the first place. This forces one to guess at the engine without ever viewing an engine. Boyle and his followers gave up in the Copenhagen interpretation. Rather than continue to remain in the realest camp of something for something they remain to this day in the belief of something for nothing. We have many followers in the physics (mathematical) field and very few thinkers to put mechanics to physics. If Einstein could not do it how can anyone else hope to compete with his understanding? To that I say foundation of your imagination is of greatest importance.  Do I believe I have the intelligence of Einstein? No, I have my own intelligence which is the knowledge accumulated in the years of my existence. By the way yes I exist both physically and mentally and as such, a realest. I will not follow the Copenhagen interpretation to allow me to question my existence as reality. Many physicists believe they cannot explain theoretical physics to the layman. To that I say it’s because physicists do not really understand it themselves. Current physics say to the layman higher mathematics is needed, so the layman cannot understand physics. Measuring the speed of a body is not the same as understanding the mechanical reason for motion in the first place. Mathematics cannot prove a theory, only disprove one. The Copenhagen interpretation relieves physicists of the burden to explain motion in other than mathematical terms. Their credo is crunch equations and do not think. Motion then becomes a probability and not necessarily a reality. In the defense of current understanding it is the current lack of knowledge that allows our current view of physics in the same category as magic. As a realist I refuse to believe in the magic of probabilities as described by current physics. Logic remains in the mechanical realm for me.
   I have a mechanical understanding of Relativity. This understanding is not shared by current physics. There is a difference in the meaning of words expressed by mechanics and magic. I will try to explain my understanding of Relativity without higher mathematics. Relativity is just ratios which can be expressed as math. But you are only left with ratios without a cause. Mathematics will never prove a theory it only has the ability to disprove one as I mentioned. Math can follow contradictory theories. Mechanics on the other hand is the reality factor based on a premise. Garbage in garbage out is the reality of logic.
   Definition of terms are different for each theory but modern physics will not allow a different definition so it cannot move beyond its current magical understanding of contradictory results to logic. Any result that does not fit your theory will prove your theory wrong. The elegance of Einstein’s postulates of relativity is that it fits every experiment preformed to date. They are for special Relativity: “The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.”  Now measurement is a value, so we can claim no more than the measured value is always velocity c in a vacuum. We need to define the word frame. Frame in Special Relativity is your value of motion. This has no standard with which to determine ones velocity. We are rotating on the Earth, we are revolving around our sun, we are moving through our galaxy, our galaxy is moving through the universe and we do not really know if our universe is rotating or not. This is why the question in physics is always relative to what? Physicists always uses the ratio of one moving object to another for motion since everything is always in motion. We have no standard of a rest state. For measurement we chose one object being measured as if it were at rest and the other as the only one moving.  Frame is your current motion in space (Special Relativity [SR]) or your position in a gravity well (General Relativity [GR]).
   Now let us define time. We measure time by the use of clocks. Both mechanical clocks and those that use the speed of light as measurement in the same frame maintain synchronization. This proves the motion of the electron cycle (whatever you’re understanding) and the distance light travels have the same ratio in a vacuum of a frame. So the distance the electron travels and the distance light travels in a vacuum by Relativity is measured to be the same distance in every frame. If you have a curios mind would you not question the distance of measuring light if you are traveling at 10 mph vs. 10,000 mph? Logic would force you to take into account your difference in speed while moving? The logical answer is yes but current beliefs in physics would be no. From what I can determine from theoretical physics of math equations is a belief in increased speed causes a reduction of physical length defined by the Lorentz contraction. I will give you the formula: Sq. Rt. Of 1 – v^2/c^2. So a physical body is reduced in length the faster its speed. Why is not a concern of modern physics because magic is possible in modern physics. Modern physics teaches measurement is a physical state of a body between frames. I do not agree. The visual measurement contracts but not the physical body. The cause is geometry of motion vs. the finite speed of light. If light speed were infinite visual contraction would not appear. As you increase the value of c mathematically the Lorentz contraction decreases. This proves it is a visual contraction rather than a physical (magical) contraction. Our measure of time slows down with increased speed. Reaction time slows down due to increase in length vs. energy of c. Basically the travel distance for light and the electron travel distance has increased with the increase of speed. The electron and photon are confounded in every frame. So your measurement of the speed of light is the same in every frame. Geometry of the finite speed of light on a measuring stick will visually increase the length of the measuring stick. So you measure a longer distance for light to travel in a vacuum confounded with the longer distance the electron has to cycle through space. You measure the same distance with a slower clock tick cycle rate relative to your frame of reference’s measuring stick. Chemical reactions are slower with increase in frame speed. Since your aging is a time clock you age slower the faster the speed of your frame compared to another. Now that we have gone through some relative distances we can understand c being fundamental energy of motion and distance traveled in your relative time measurement. There is no reference to time other than fundamental energy of c. The more energy you use of c for speed the less energy you have available for the increase in speed. c energy is a fundamental limit. So now we can define what we mean when we use the word time. Time=motion=fundamental energy available to a frame.
   All three terms are necessary to understand the mechanics of time vs. the magic of time. There is no such thing as time travel. There is no forward or backward of time only the motion allowed by fundamental energy. I say fundamental energy to separate c energy from physical resistance to fundamental energy we describe as physical work. Fundamental energy move electrons. Without fundamental energy all motion would stop and time would cease to exist. When we move electrons and atoms out of their rest state we cause resistance to fundamental energy. This is our definition of work in our physical world which is a resistance to fundamental energy.
   

16

New Theories / Possible cause of relativity?

« on: 20/11/2015 16:09:43 »

Energy,

What do we think we know about Energy? We think it is part of mass. What if we are incorrect and Energy is part of space. This would suggest mass draws that Energy from space in the form of moving the electrons in mass.

What would be the affects on Relativity?

A photon would be a propagation wave on Energy until it was absorbed back into a uniform distribution. This would be for all types of radiation in our known and unknown spectrum.

GR- Gravity would be dilation of that energy from space. The dilation greatest in the center of mass as a gradient outward. It would be the density of energy that affects time. With dilation of space the electron has a larger space to occupy. This would result in dilation of the mass object.

Relativity says the measurement of light in a vacuum is the same in every frame. Our measuring stick in a vacuum at the center of a planet would be dilated by the amount that space energy is dilated. We know mechanical and light clocks run the same in every frame so the dilated space that light travels through (Light being more red shifted when created in more dilated space vs. less dilated space) also effects the electron travel distance. Resulting in a slower clock with a longer distance traveled. Since the mass dilated with the measuring stick measurements, the speed of light in every frame would be the same while the distance measured would not be the same. Measured time and distance would be confounded in every frame. Time would be Energy c. Distance would relate to the density of the Energy state in GR. Gravity would be an acceleration monopole with no antigravity possibilities. Mass dilates space energy and mass is attracted towards less space energy density. Both dilation and gravity follow the inverse square law. Would gravity be equal to reduced potential space energy?

SR- acceleration would be resistance to the change in electron motion of c. Acceleration in SR would equal slowing the motion of the electron rest cycle by absorbing velocity relative to c. If you consider electrons motion being at c potential always from space energy than velocity would have to affect its rest cycle to a slower cycle. If you take mass to the extreme of c (which is unlikely) the electron would stop all motion but its linear distance motion. This of course is less than possible since motion could only attain motion through the energy of c, not greater than c.

Inertial speed and the center of a planet could have the same tick rate but for different reasons. The common denominator would be c.

This is all hypothetical of course. Time being equal to motion and motion being equal to energy density in space.

17

New Theories / Mass and energy. Two different entities?

« on: 29/09/2015 13:40:16 »

Is it possible for mass to be separate from energy?