61

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 11/10/2016 13:45:14 »

     Yes of course like sound uses air the spectrum uses dark mass energy. There is a mechanical reason for relativity.

62

New Theories / Re: Proof

« on: 11/10/2016 01:01:40 »

[Quote\] For what reason would anyone presume free space was not a void? [/Quote]

Because energy is of space not mass.

63

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 10/10/2016 14:06:26 »

        The speed of light is constant no matter your speed or gravitational state. The speed of light can be viewed as the energy state of space. Equivalency between SR and GR is dilation of space energy for GR and percent of energy used for SR in velocity. c is total zero point energy being used for velocity c. Even between galaxies dilation is reduced by the inverse square of the distance. Galaxies have their own dilation we view as their lensing. 75% of the light produced in a galaxy is in the center. This is where the lensing is the greatest and red shifted the most compared to our position in our own galaxy. So we view all galaxies as red shifted from our observed position. The big bang is based on SR red shift calculations when the red shift is actually GR. The background radiation is from the energy state of space being affected by mass. The increased red shift with distance is a prism effect of convex lensing needed to view further into the universe. What is wrong with current science allowing magic to rule our understanding?

64

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 09/10/2016 14:27:44 »

    Eventually the dual concept of mass and energy will be accepted by main stream. Your ideas have a basis in change but do not follow relativity in a logical manner. In order for c to be a uniform constant, the energy state of the universe has to be constant. So fundamental energy is the same throughout the universe. Time is fundamental energy that causes motion and that motion causes time. If everything were frozen in place where electrons did not move time would not exist (like in a black hole). So now we have a definition of time = to motion and fundamental motion is c through space.

    Your particles of space have to be the cause of relativity not just work with relativity. My personal understanding come from thinking about relativity for most of my life almost to the point of being an obsession. To the logical mind mechanics has to rule physics that include mathematics. Mathematics of the observations of relativity have been applied so this suggests an understanding of ratios using the speed of light. Without mass this is a very simple concept. That fundamental motion is uniform and c. Its only when we add mass that we have light, magnetism, electricity and the wavelength spectrum.

     Where does mass mechanically receive the ability of movement? From c of course. Any other direction moves us away from the cause of relativity.

65

New Theories / Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?

« on: 07/10/2016 16:08:24 »

   Let us look at the defined amount of mass as the equivalency of SR and GR. On the surface of the moon a mass has a certain acceleration by gravity. In the center of the moon there is no acceleration while the mass remains the same. Clocks tick slower in the center of the moon due to dilation of mass. Mass is expanded but the mass remains the same amount of electrons, protons and neutrons. What is relativistic mass? Mass moving through space no difference than being in the center of the moon. Clocks can tick at the same rate as the center of the moon but the electrons, protons and neutrons remain the same. Mass remains the same but the math increases the assumed weight increase as an increase in mass. This is a reduction of space time energy related to c. There is no space time energy in black holes and they are the weightiest things in the universe. Loss of space time energy in mass is associated with an increase in weight when it is actually a decrease in energy related to c.

Relativity math as understood by main stream does not allow a photon to have mass. If the photon had mass relativity does not work by its math. This suggests mass and energy are different items. Mass does not include energy. Energy is given to mass by moving their electrons while photons are propagation of energy waves through space at c.

pmbphy

You are confused by what you were taught. Main stream subjective beliefs cause virtual photons (weasel words) to maintain their view. You seem to understand photons have to consist of something but at the same time you miss the point relativity math does not work if the photon is part of mass. Understanding will stay stagnant while we concoct weasel words when the observations do not follow our subjective understanding.

Photons have to have micro mass (dark mass energy) separate from macro mass to allow relativity math to work properly.

Math cannot prove a theory but if a theory does not follow math it proves the theory is incorrect. If the photon has mass as you understand mass relativity math does not work. I believe relativity is correct. Your position suggests you do not believe in relativity.

66

New Theories / Re: Proof

« on: 07/10/2016 14:42:54 »

   There is an equivalency principle between SR and GR. Time dilation is just that dilation of fundamental energy. When space time is more dilated cesium electrons travel further and take longer to tick tock. It is exactly the same for mechanical clocks as light clocks. Fundamental energy is c. v reduces the available space time energy as it approaches c. c is a spin amount that moves a wave of light and is constant. c is faster then the electron that caused the wave on space time energy. It is the rotation of the electron in energy that creates the light wave. The dilation of that energy frame in GR creates the red shifted light in a gravity well. It has nothing to do with change in momentum. Light moves at a constant by spin of space time energy independent of its dilation. Light travels the extra distance same as the electron travels the extra distance for its tick tock. ......... . . . . . . . the material dilates also because of the increased travel distance of the electron. Physics is the same in every frame.

SR works differently for equivalency with GR. Its a distance through space equivalency. Acceleration is not the cause of clocks slowing similar to GR acceleration on the surface of the earth. Clocks are slowest in the center of the earth where it is like being inertial in space. Acceleration and deceleration causes gravity they are indistinguishable but in deceleration clocks increase there tick rate while acceleration decreases your tick rate. This is the basic proof of logic that energy is of space and not mass. Mass is just a conduit for space energy by moving the electrons of mass.

There is really no proof of anything. Only the logic of the mechanical cause of observations will give us a clue to the real foundation of existence.


In SR 

67

New Theories / Re: some nonsense removed from another post

« on: 29/09/2016 13:27:26 »

I have a theory of gravity attraction so you can no longer say you never heard of one. Energy of space c is dilated in mass (expanded by the gamma factor in relativity) by moving the electrons in mass. The center of mass is the most dilated as we understand by atomic clocks tick rate slowing in the center of mass compared to the surface of mass. Your measuring stick expands and the tick rate slows to measure the same speed of light in a vacuum. Mass is attracted to the lowest energy state of space which is the center of gravity. Your push theory has no mechanical cause of direction to the center of mass.

68

New Theories / Re: If you post in this section the chances are....

« on: 29/09/2016 00:35:07 »

There is a cure for our knees. I now have two 30 year striker knees. Weather does not bother titanium so much.

69

New Theories / Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?

« on: 25/09/2016 22:28:44 »

captcass
\

I noticed you were expecting a standard distance for your meter stick. Relativity shows us there is no standard meter stick. Time slows distances increase to measure the same speed of light in every frame. SR is a special increase through space. GR is dilation of space itself as a gradient of course. So the physical size of the measuring stick increases to compensate for the dilated space for light to transverse. Light produced in gravitation causes red shift in light frequency.

70

New Theories / Re: If you post in this section the chances are....

« on: 16/09/2016 13:40:39 »

Yes, I am terminal and probably wont make it past 95. Curiosity and the study of science makes you a scientist by definition. Having a certificate of knowledge is just a recognition you studied what others did before you. Your ability to come to your own conclusions that do not necessarily fit the general conclusions in the field is where breakthroughs are found. How long ago did we find out the Earth was not flat?

71

New Theories / Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?

« on: 16/09/2016 13:26:29 »

Alex,

 You have a very good mind and can think for yourself and create a logical reality. Yes we view things the same. I came at my understanding through Relativity being understood geometrically. When I was in a position to explain it geometrically I found I needed a source to explain the motion of the electron being confounded with speed of light. This is what is missing with main stream. They are like Alice in wonderland. They know the math but not what the math truly represents. So they follow the rabbit and not logic of reality as it relates. They pull up the MMX and conclude there is no (Aether) matrix. That is like trying to do a mechanical job without any tools. You and I are designing the tools to work on the mechanics. It is just a mind, math, motion and construct puzzle game. Relativity is the rules of the game. Mechanical Relativity is fitting all the pieces together for the proper picture. A paradox is when the pieces do not fit in reality. that is when main stream goes into fiction like multiverse, Big Bang and the entire Copenhagen non reality issues. Something from nothing is never a position of reality. Mass is created in suns, from the electron to all of the elements. No need for a big bang. Gravitational red shift can easily explain a more static universe that is not necessarily expanding. It is the dark mass energy rotating with galaxies that gets expanded by mass to create the lensing we view in galaxies. The lensing is the expansion of dark mass energy becoming more diluted in density (less dense). The width of the electron jump is longer and we call that less energetic (red shifted).

And yes I defined your tissue as a grid structure of spinning points to move electrons. Your bubble as a propagated  wave structure that moves itself through space and the structure returns to its original positions. the propagation is at the spin rate of dark mass. Dark mass is the structure like Aether and spin is the energy that gives everything the ability to move. The structure dilates in mass but the spin rate stays the same. You just measure a longer distance with a dilated measuring stick. Relativity only says you measure the same speed of light in every frame. The gamma term in Relativity determines the distance of your measuring stick. The electron distance and the photon distance are confounded.

I could say great minds think alike but most here will consider our view as silly and unrealistic to what the have been taught. We all carry the baggage of our belief system.

72

New Theories / Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?

« on: 15/09/2016 13:40:22 »

: Alex Siqueira
« on: Today at 00:08:05 »
Quote\ Energy=time=motion. Energy is the carrier of the photon.

Yes, I'm not very resorcefull with words, but I always agree the speed of light is contantant...
 And your atestment above I consider to be precise too...
"Energy is the carrier of the photon"
"Photon is a construction of the photonic space, that will be present and recieve a particle like shape whenever atomic structure/ energy is presented. If there is none it re-turn, to become a tissue, a fabric, as a whole"\

I do not make a distinction between energy and your term fabric. To me the universe is a sea of energy spin c.

Quote\ Photons are right there beneath our feets, cause and as long exists something as beneath and our feets, in the absence of energy, the photon as particle will return to become what it was in the absence of charges, a fabric...\

To me there is no absence of zero point energy nor is there anything related to charge. There is only spin to my way of thinking. A photon being a pure energy propagation frequency on particles of energy spin c. Light is a sphere from a light bulb. Vector directions are a pseudo particle point for measurement.

Quote\  See I not atesting anything, just realy on to the reviews that light and matter may not be traveling "trought" nor even coexisting "over" this tissue, space. Instead any energy/matter as being like a bubble of oxigen under a liquid, that is pushed to the surface in a straight line, because the bubble is existing in "between" the liquid... There is compression and a limit where the liquid cannot enter the buble, it cant ocupy the same place that the bubble, intead the liquid fall over the bubble on the attempt to it, with the whole density of the lake, the bubble is "pushing back" the lake...\

I view it another way. The rotating electron through the grid structure (fabric to you) jumps to a different shell. That jump sucks energy then pushes energy creating a frequency wave that propagates on the already spinning energy particles. Only the action is propagated and not the particles themselves.

Quote\  For a ray of light, it has energy, space is trying to fill the place where it exist, it can't penetrate, coexit, so light is occuring not over the fabric, but in between, the compression over the energy slingshot the energy on a straig line as it does with the bubble, momentum happen and waves are being formed on the mediun...
 For this interpretation the speed of ligh still being constant, but subjected, and provinient only of and from "the density of the medium that is 'falling' over it", almost the same result goes for matter.. Altough matter different from ligh has high density, can be shaped into spherical shapes, and sperical can also be pushed in a straight line, but is disrupted by equals, and one start to chase the other, even being orbiting it is not a static circle, but inddeed a straight line path along with the sun, the fact that we, planets are orbiting it's plate in a eliptical orbit, does not mean anything, for the dirrection that matter, planets and sun are still being moved on a straight line, not as perfect as light, but still...\

Yes I agree there s a density of energy spin particles. Between galaxies the density is the greatest. In the center of suns the density of fundamental energy is much less. Energy is being used to move and create electrons. Suns create there own fuel (H) from fundamental energy. The energy becomes expanded in mass. Mass is attracted to the more expanded space. This is the cause of gravity. The speed of light is measured to be the same in every frame but the measuring stick in every frame is different. So your measure of a mile is never the same. Light propagates at the same speed through any energy density. Basically light is a standard but our ability to use it as a standard of measurement is compromised by the expansion and contraction of our measuring stick.

Quote\  Speed of ligh being constant, but if the are where it is occuring is more dense, the "Whole" system will slow down, not a real slow down, but as we determinate a velocity on a perfect medium, we can't accept a speed of light that slow down, it can't, at least shoudn't... But as for a speed of light, where the speed is coming from the density of the medium and not from the ray of light, than of the density of the medium increase or decrease the speed of light will still be constant, not constant to the measurement we made, but constant to the density of the area in space light is occuring...
 The ray starts with one speed, the density changes the speed of light will be lower than the original, but if we start to consider the density of the field, the speed of light never reduced it's own speed, it had none, the speed is being given to the ray from the density of the mediun, so we are sharing the same speeds, same math, but one is considering the speed of the ray as of its own, and the other considering the same results but considering that the speed of the ray is given to it from the density the space where the ray is occuring "between"...

To my way of thinking the speed of light does not slow down. The distances light travels changes but the kinetic affect remains constant.


Quote\  Much failures, but I'm focused on the idea where matter/energy and space fabric, never can share the same place, wherever matter or energy is occuring on space, is not trully within or trough it, matter and energy are constantly occuring between space, homogeniously recieven compression proportional to the place that they ocupy in space, and for this as small something get, stronger it becomes...\

The size difference between an electron path and the proton is like a marble to a football field. Energy exists between them and probably inside the proton to move the electrons (positrons and negatrons both electrons with opposite complimentary spin). Matter and anti- matter in a stable rotation we view as quarks.

Quote\  Can you understand my problem when considering as usuall? Understand what I eman when I say happening in "between space fabric"?\

Yes I can understand it the way you are thinking of it but you are missing the cause of motion. Motion of the electron to the black hole has to have a mechanical mechanism in reality. Of course you could be a non realest like the current main stream Copenhagers. Einstein was a realest as am I.

73

New Theories / Re: What if an aether existed?

« on: 14/09/2016 13:53:03 »

   the problem with any static Aether is that it was disproven by the MMX. In 3d a tissue representation is misleading. 3d has to be point oriented rather than fabric oriented. Spin of the points at c is the only explanation mechanically. For them to move electrons there has to be a rotation path. This leads to perpendicular offset (45 degrees) complimentary spins of the particles. This would spin electrons and keep them cycling by density dilation. Mass causes an increase in dilation (expansion). This expansion is related to Relativity (the gamma term). The areas which have the greatest expansion of energy (least dense energy state) has the greatest expansion because mass has no energy that is not given to it by the grid spin structure. Light is just a propagated wave on this structure. The expansion is the inverse square of the distance. The view of an object is the inverse square of the distance as a reduced view. The cause of relativity is the grid spin structure.

74

New Theories / Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?

« on: 08/09/2016 15:36:45 »

jerrygg38

    You are suggesting photons have mass. They do not by Relativity mathematics and as you know we have to follow the math. Main stream will never understand what a photon looks like under the current model and understanding. There probably is no such thing as charge in the sense you are using. Electrons rotate through fundamental energy c of space. When an electron rotates up to a different shell it creates a tornado in the fundamental c that propagates at c until something absorbs the tornado we recognize as macro energy in the mass realm. The maxima and minima is the rotation and length of travel for the electron. A sphere in all directions is created unless blocked by absorbing mass.

Main stream suggests a virtual photon particle and a wave. I would suggest a wave on particles of spin c. I have a designed grid structure that move electrons as a rotation and follow Relativity mechanics.

What moves the electron in the main stream model?

75

New Theories / Re: On ‘Kinetic Energy’ and ‘Nuclear Vibration’.

« on: 02/09/2016 22:39:06 »

Your always interesting RTC

76

New Theories / Re: Could you become a God by traveling at the speed of light?

« on: 07/11/2015 18:44:08 »

That's a meaningless statement. There's no meaning to "speed of time". Therefore in no sense in relativity can it be said that light has the same speed as time.

The speed of time is consistent with the speed of light in every frame. Mechanical time keeping is the same as light clocks in every frame. What is the meaning of time? Planks motion of the electron would be a good guess. We use time to measure distance. It is unfortunate that distance is not uniform per frame. One had to change. Distance or light being consistent. Einstein chose wisely having light be consistent. So the speed of light is consistent with how we measure time. A light second is the speed of time in distance. Time is the energy that moves the electron planks length as the consistency of light distance per frame. So the distance light moves is always relative to the distance the electron moves in every frame.

 

Also another meaningless concept. There's also no such thing as "massless speed" in relativity.

Virtual Photon?

That can't be said either. Since matter can never move at the speed of light that matter can never be shredded. Besides in the rest frame of matter the matter is the same as it would be in any other rest frame. The point is that there's no frame in which matter is at rest where that frame moves at the speed of light relative to another frame.

Pure speculation:
In GR mass can accumulate to greater the speed of light attraction where energy can no longer hold the protons apart and shred them into a black hole. In SR probably the opposite happens and mass returns to energy.

have the wrong idea here. The whole idea of special relativity is that all inertial frames of reference are the same.

Speculative:
Up to the speed of light is relativities limit. Fission and fusion rule after the speeds are breached.

I agree the divine nature in man is unlikely speculation.

77

New Theories / Re: What causes gravity?

« on: 18/10/2015 18:26:47 »

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.

Robert B. Laughlin must be suggesting a type of grid structure pervasive throughout the universe as a relativistic Ether. And if what you are suggesting the Ether has mass for c then energy for c must also be part of c being a constant. A spin of c on Ether particles would satisfy light being a constant wave as is all of the EM spectrum. In that case the Ether would actually be the cause of electron motion and dilate the length between atoms. Those atoms would carry that dilation with them and rotate with a body of dilation moving the electrons within that grid pattern. Yes in a case like this there would be a null result from the MMX. But we have done so much progress without the Aether particles do we really need to go down another path?

78

New Theories / Re: What causes gravity?

« on: 16/10/2015 15:18:23 »

The cause of gravity has a simple explanation. Entropy of mass. Mass causes the dilation of space (curved space). This is observed in galaxies as lensing. So dilation of space by mass is an observed phenomenon. In the center of mass is the most dilated space as observed by clock tick rates being the slowest tick rate position on a planet. Red shifted light in GR is considered to be less energy. Red shift is the greatest in the gravitational center of a planet. So we can conclude more dilated space suggests a less energy position in space as an observation. If we consider dilation of space also dilates mass that occupies that space we can understand why light and mechanical clocks both slow equally with greater distances of light and the electron to travel to create physics the same in every frame.

In that light we can consider energy being dilated (red shifted light being produced in more dilated space). Now for the potential energy as an attractive force of entropy. We can now follow gravity as simply mass being attracted to a more dilated position in space of less energy. in Relativity light bends away from and curves around dilated space while mass is attracted to a more dilated space position. Einstein appears to be correct in dilation (curvature) of space is the cause of gravity.

To give up on the cause of physics is very unscientific. It may always remain a subjective interpretation of cause but explanations need to be consistent with observations.