0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It's possible that the photon do have mass and happens that due their configuration can't store it or keep it,
therefore their mass occurs one frame behind the next plank
As if the warp was to fast to even quantity their mass
so instead of giving it to the photons as particles, such mass is lost in the previous frame, and once there mass without a geometrical "particle/vibration" becomes "volume/space"?
Could it be that the elusive force expanding the universe is the mass of the photonic light emitted by the stars? Only visible if observing the past.
Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 13/06/2022 06:15:21It's possible that the photon do have mass and happens that due their configuration can't store it or keep it,Probably not, since matter cannot move at the speed of light.Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 13/06/2022 06:15:21therefore their mass occurs one frame behind the next plankCould expound on this? I don't know what 'one frame behind the next plank' means.Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 13/06/2022 06:15:21 As if the warp was to fast to even quantity their massI don't know what that means, please explain further.Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 13/06/2022 06:15:21so instead of giving it to the photons as particles, such mass is lost in the previous frame, and once there mass without a geometrical "particle/vibration" becomes "volume/space"?How could a particle become space? That would clearly violate the conservation of mass and energy so it seems highly unlikely.Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 13/06/2022 06:15:21Could it be that the elusive force expanding the universe is the mass of the photonic light emitted by the stars? Only visible if observing the past.Light cannot expand space, light has inertia so it could conceivably have some effect on matter but not space.
Quote from: Origin on 13/06/2022 13:26:36Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 13/06/2022 06:15:21It's possible that the photon do have mass and happens that due their configuration can't store it or keep it,Probably not, since matter cannot move at the speed of light.Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 13/06/2022 06:15:21therefore their mass occurs one frame behind the next plankCould expound on this? I don't know what 'one frame behind the next plank' means.Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 13/06/2022 06:15:21 As if the warp was to fast to even quantity their massI don't know what that means, please explain further.Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 13/06/2022 06:15:21so instead of giving it to the photons as particles, such mass is lost in the previous frame, and once there mass without a geometrical "particle/vibration" becomes "volume/space"?How could a particle become space? That would clearly violate the conservation of mass and energy so it seems highly unlikely.Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 13/06/2022 06:15:21Could it be that the elusive force expanding the universe is the mass of the photonic light emitted by the stars? Only visible if observing the past.Light cannot expand space, light has inertia so it could conceivably have some effect on matter but not space. Im deliberately suggesting that light occurrence created/still does, the void known as space, a temporal allocation for would be photonic mass, that when in the absence of atomic structure becomes "space/time and gravity".... I was thinking about "everything is the light" and the geometrical relation PI could have with everything, which lead to a visualization of a typon like structure we call photon. Not real as a particle but merely "a probably" created by the electron, or where the electron should exist "in the past and future" given the present frame probabilities. When it's no longer necessary it's discarded "still" it can't be lost, and started to create warps and along site this attempt it started gradually to create space/gravity and all that in time, so time as well.
Light is the interference that gives mass to everything there is and itself, in time. The photon is why the electron and everything else vibrates and can exist as a thing in the first time. Photons not traveling trough space time, photons created space time as the original "universal star" exploded.
Wondering if black hole in fact sucks anything, or if they simple when the star exploded is sometimes able to "delay away from C" and becomes disconnected from the grid and space starts to fall towards it in order to seal the hole.
Not sure C is indeed a "limit" to anything. It seems C it's more a tictac rate, where anything moving at a matching speed would not be able to be recreated in the next frame and would desapears. But nothing ever proved C is the limit.
A warp should be proporcional, light is a warp.
Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 14/06/2022 02:04:08 Light is the interference that gives mass to everything there is and itself, in time. The photon is why the electron and everything else vibrates and can exist as a thing in the first time. Photons not traveling trough space time, photons created space time as the original "universal star" exploded.There is no evidence that I am aware of that would support those conjectures.Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 14/06/2022 02:04:08Wondering if black hole in fact sucks anything, or if they simple when the star exploded is sometimes able to "delay away from C" and becomes disconnected from the grid and space starts to fall towards it in order to seal the hole.A black hole is more like a very compact gravity source.Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 14/06/2022 02:04:08 Not sure C is indeed a "limit" to anything. It seems C it's more a tictac rate, where anything moving at a matching speed would not be able to be recreated in the next frame and would desapears. But nothing ever proved C is the limit.The speed of light is invariant and as a consequence, the speed of light is the max speed of the universe.Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 14/06/2022 02:04:08A warp should be proporcional, light is a warp.I think you are using the wrong word. 'Warp' means bend.
Light causes gravity
And it all would start from the assumption that photons recieves their mass one plank distance behind their present frame, and such would be mass is quantified, allocated but since it can't be stored remains null.
When the temporal warp light causes trough out it's whole trajectory of billions of years, start to colide with mater, it than start to "push" the object, and the binding is up to electromagnetic forces. It doesn't literally pushes or pulls anything, rather the object recieves the whole temporal path of light, and it grants it the ability to move.
And it all would start from the assumption that photons recieves their mass one plank distance behind their present frame, and such would be mass is quantified, allocated but since it can't be stored remains null.YThat makes no sense. I think you need to rephrase that.
Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 15/06/2022 01:42:27Quote from: Origin on 14/06/2022 13:14:39I think you are using the wrong word. 'Warp' means bend.I deliberately meant warp, for light.Despite the word used, mass deforms what was otherwise Euclidean spacetime into something not Euclidean.If you mean something else by 'warp', you need to be a lot more specific.QuoteBending if it would have a center of mass, but assuming that the mass attributed to the photons are "null" and the allocated volume occurs "behind/past" frame, the bending acts as a warp engine.This doesn't help. Any attempt to glean meaning from this seems to be a reference to Star Trek or something, a fertile source of occasional physics word salad.QuoteAll that produced and sustained by the light phenomenon.Most of the physics we know, including how mass deforms spacetime, how force and acceleration work, etc. all would work the same even in the absence of EM radiation, the absence of which would at best affect how/if magnetism works.QuoteI don't think particle or relativity or even quantum mechanics to be wrong as they can explain most of anything.This makes it sound like there's something called the theory of particle.QuoteLight causes gravity, caused space and sustains time.Light would be meaningless in the absence of space already there.QuoteTurn off the lights everywhere you'll turn off gravityThis is what I was talking about. No, gravity is unrelated to light. Magnetism maybe, but not gravity.QuoteA lot of assumptions, but it somewhat "feels" right.It's been a long time since physics has had anything to do with what 'feels' right or wrong. Certainly ditching that methodology contributed heavily to getting us out of the dark ages.
Quote from: Origin on 14/06/2022 13:14:39I think you are using the wrong word. 'Warp' means bend.I deliberately meant warp, for light.
I think you are using the wrong word. 'Warp' means bend.
Bending if it would have a center of mass, but assuming that the mass attributed to the photons are "null" and the allocated volume occurs "behind/past" frame, the bending acts as a warp engine.
All that produced and sustained by the light phenomenon.
I don't think particle or relativity or even quantum mechanics to be wrong as they can explain most of anything.
Light causes gravity, caused space and sustains time.
Turn off the lights everywhere you'll turn off gravity
A lot of assumptions, but it somewhat "feels" right.
Quote from: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 15/06/2022 04:49:47I'm suggesting that the bigbang object emitted an absurd amount of lightIt is a mistake to consider the big bang to be an object, which implies something that is created at a time and location. It happened literally everywhere (so no location), and there was no light at first. That came later, and even then, most of it got nowhere before hitting something and being reabsorbed. It took nearly 400000 years before the universe became transparent and the light generated then could be detected now.
I'm suggesting that the bigbang object emitted an absurd amount of light