Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: trevorjohnson32 on 18/06/2016 18:52:58

Title: Theory on Space-time
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 18/06/2016 18:52:58
Theoretical Physics
By Trevor Borocz Johnson

A universe and a quark are composed of the same substance that is Space-time and have the same properties, properties like fusion in stars, the periodic table, the chemistry for life, nature etc.. Space, which I refer to as void, and time which I refer to as energy, are woven together to form a universe or a quark. A universe or quark is then composed of cubic void blocks and energy lining those void blocks in a cubic honeycomb symmetry. A universe or quark is shaped like a cube.

A Quark is a super dense, super small, area of space-time. An area of denser space-time will put a transcendent squeezing or density in the surrounding space-time it exists in. Void blocks surrounding the quark are squeezed smaller by the super dense dimension of the quark. A body such as a planet creates a field of these denser void blocks because of the combined gravity field of the astronomical number of quarks in the planet. A quark passing by will “fall” into this field as it is attracted to the region of denser void which only increases the closer you are to the planet.

Just like the super dense space-time of the quark puts a transcendent squeezing effect on the surrounding space-time its in, so too does the planet's gravity field have this effect on the edge of the quarks gravity field. When the edge of the gravity field of the quark touches the gravity field of the planet, the part of the outer layer touching the planet's gravity field becomes as dense as the outer layer of the planet's gravity field. The space time of the quarks gravity field that is squeezed becomes smaller in size, the quark and its gravity field then experience momentum in the direction of the squeezing, each successive layer of the planet's gravity field pulling it in faster. The denser space which increases the closer to the planet, has the more powerful attraction force and the quark is pulled in that direction giving it momentum energy. The quark and the planet both pull on each other and effect one another in ratio to their size.

If a body with a gravity field loses weight or during an object’s momentum on the surface of said body The field in its entirety decreases, and the units of empty space void expand slightly in a wave that perpetuates outward from the object. This is what creates gravity waves.

The number of quarks in a human body is 1.345 x 10^29. The area in which all the quarks of the earth would occupy if only quarks were to fill a region is a sphere with a diameter of .7 inches. That puts the weight of the earth into a teaspoon. In comparison to the size of the gravity field they create from there desolate existence it is clear that a quark has a much greater role in the universe then that of its physical boundaries. The limits of the gravitational boundaries of a single quark is of an inch to a sphere with a radius of up to four million miles. It is at this boundary to a single quark that its influence on space-time seizes and it can go back to its regular state. That is for a single quark. For the nucleus of a hydrogen atom which contains six quarks, three in its neutron and three in its proton, the region of boundary where the influence of gravity and compressed space-time returns to its regular state may ‘wobble’ between several different boundaries in accordance with the combination of quark spins. These different boundaries are what make up the different electron shells that an atom can have. From here at these boundaries, the atom’s retain the electron’s that compose their essence.  An electron then is simply a slice of energy whose amount is calculated by the edge of the region of space that is affected by an atom’s gravity.

The strong form of energy is electromagnetic radiation(EMR) and electrons, and its inactive form is a weak energy dimension, the time of space-time. This weaker energy dimension is like a grid and has the property of flowing. The weaker energy dimension of empty space is a lining between the blocks of empty space void. It would resemble something like the lines on a sheet of graph paper where the white blocks on the sheet are the units of empty space void.

Electromagnetic radiation is a stress on this weaker dimensional energy of empty space. The stress gives energy and electrons ‘weight’ by squeezing on the dimensional void of space-time its in creating the effect of gravity. The squeezing stress itself is invisible which can be observed by holding a flashlight or LED behind one’s head and pointing it in the direction of sight in the dark. Anything within the region of squeezing will become illuminated but space itself will remain dark. In a sunlit room each illuminated object will add its own hue of coloration to the overall tension in the room which can be observed by holding a white sheet of paper in the center of the room. The sheet of paper will reflect the mixture of colorations that are present in the tension of empty space and changes as you move it around.

Magnetism is a property of the flowing of the empty space energy dimension. In a ferromagnetic material all the electrons orbit in the same direction. This creates a fan like churning of the empty space energy dimension. A magnetic field is then stirred up like wind through fan blades where one side of the material, south, is the draw for the fan, and the other side of the material, north, is the region that the ‘air’ would fill. Thusly two north ends repel each other and so do two southern ends. When you move the magnet around you change the region of empty space which it has an effect on.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: quasimodo on 18/06/2016 19:59:26
Could the overall answer be correct?
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 04/07/2016 19:12:23
I'm still thinking on this idea. I'm working on a video with pictures that's only about a minute long.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 11/07/2016 04:24:29
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: nilak on 08/04/2017 18:44:24
spacetime is not a substance it is free space and time. But space could be occupied by a medium that enables the existence of fields.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: kah-len on 20/04/2017 04:21:30
This is my theory on this subject...

Time is measured by the chronon in this 3rd dimensional reality and I will try to explain this the best way I can.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I am not a mathematician so please bear with me...

How I see that space-time really works is this...

Every second that you live your life, is like a radio frequency..

say at your birth the frequency was 1.00001 on the dial. At age 1 day, the frequency is now 103,680.00001 (in seconds)
× 365 = 37,843,200.00001 (seconds) on the dial and every second of each and every moment and there are even more slices of time-frequencies in between those milliseconds as well such as 365000.45332455554333999
etc... each millisecond has its own slice of time frequency that stands still and we continue the moving picture stills or "pages" of time slices.

Each and every number is a time-slice or frequency of that moment.
The very day you were born still exists as a frequency set to 1.00001 (if that was also the beginning of all time) and you can go back there by setting the frequency to that time.

In reality, time would be in the range of septillionths since the big bang would be considered the 0.000001 slice.

The earliest calculation some 47 trillion years ago, If you take into effect the speed of light from the time of creation.
(Billy Albert Meier had calculated the half life of the speed of light and from that he measured closest to the exact time of the big bang including the 7 hyperspaces it created.)

0 Being the actual point of explosion 1 being the explosion and -1 being the implosion.

Time travel itself would be compared to changing the radio dial to the frequency or number of time slices that were created. Because we cannot know the exact time of the big bang to calculate, we would have to work backwards from this time and get approximates within the milliseconds.

To travel in time, you need to use the frequencies smaller then the chronon and that is where the tachyons come in.
They travel billions of times the speed of light.. The sub-neutrinos could be used as a carrier to transmit the signal to the past or the future.

Everything is frequency!
Brain waves do travel outside the body and thought is a particle that travels faster than light.

Forget about the 24hr clock and think of it as linear time. Each separate multiverse has its time line traveling in the same direction and speed as our own but sometimes the frequency of 2 or 3 want to share the same band wave and they cross each other like a double or triple helix causing what is known as the Mandela effect.

Thoughts anyone???
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: kah-len on 21/04/2017 02:21:06
Also my theory...

I believe that photonic resonance Or I would call it (Photo-Radionics) (Light-Sound).
The universe I believe originally began with sound and is what causes the speed in which the atoms pulsate. I believe that the frequency of the photons change their frequency by crossing each others path. Crossing each others paths zillions of times over changes their spin rate, frequencies or temperatures etc.. It would take at least trillions of years for these photons to be created and I believe that sound waves gave birth to photons. Photons mixing from all directions causing slight dips and slight increases in temperatures just slightly above the absolute zero -252.9 °C where the hydrogen begins to boil and eventually ignite. In absolute zero all of the elements glue themselves to each other. Heating and cooling causes the centrifugal force to begin and as the molecular clouds bind themselves within the vortex a star is born. Sometimes the star slowly burns out and becomes a planet. It would take approximately 40 trillion years of mixing gasses and molecules before the star or planet is born and then approximately 40 billion years before it could contain any sort of life as the necessities of life fall from the stars,
or they get pushed out from the core of the planet's centrifugal force. The birth of gravity comes from the heating and cooling temperatures before and during the birth of a new sun. The core of the sun speeds up and maintains it's velocity causing the gravitation pushing and pulling of the planets around itself. The heat pushes and the core pulls.
I also believe there is something such as dark light.. many wave lengths of dark light that we cannot see and also there is a possibility of not just a cold fusion that scientists just discovered but a cold heat or cold combustion that breaks down plasma. That would have to happen in temperatures approximate to the positive boiling point of hydrogen. A minus boiling point of the same below the absolute zero of -273.15 or roughly -293.15

The invisible low frequency sound waves is what I feel is the dark matter that connects us all because that same
"stuff" is also pure consciousness. This would explain the wave–particle duality and the reasons why the wave instantly becomes a particle when it is directly observed. Conciseness is the wave and awareness causes the particle to receive new instructions from the observer.

Thoughts anyone???
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 12/05/2017 11:08:47
Also my theory...

I believe that photonic resonance Or I would call it (Photo-Radionics) (Light-Sound).
The universe I believe originally began with sound and is what causes the speed in which the atoms pulsate. I believe that the frequency of the photons change their frequency by crossing each others path. Crossing each others paths zillions of times over changes their spin rate, frequencies or temperatures etc.. It would take at least trillions of years for these photons to be created and I believe that sound waves gave birth to photons. Photons mixing from all directions causing slight dips and slight increases in temperatures just slightly above the absolute zero -252.9 °C where the hydrogen begins to boil and eventually ignite. In absolute zero all of the elements glue themselves to each other. Heating and cooling causes the centrifugal force to begin and as the molecular clouds bind themselves within the vortex a star is born. Sometimes the star slowly burns out and becomes a planet. It would take approximately 40 trillion years of mixing gasses and molecules before the star or planet is born and then approximately 40 billion years before it could contain any sort of life as the necessities of life fall from the stars,
or they get pushed out from the core of the planet's centrifugal force. The birth of gravity comes from the heating and cooling temperatures before and during the birth of a new sun. The core of the sun speeds up and maintains it's velocity causing the gravitation pushing and pulling of the planets around itself. The heat pushes and the core pulls.
I also believe there is something such as dark light.. many wave lengths of dark light that we cannot see and also there is a possibility of not just a cold fusion that scientists just discovered but a cold heat or cold combustion that breaks down plasma. That would have to happen in temperatures approximate to the positive boiling point of hydrogen. A minus boiling point of the same below the absolute zero of -273.15 or roughly -293.15

The invisible low frequency sound waves is what I feel is the dark matter that connects us all because that same
"stuff" is also pure consciousness. This would explain the wave–particle duality and the reasons why the wave instantly becomes a particle when it is directly observed. Conciseness is the wave and awareness causes the particle to receive new instructions from the observer.

Thoughts anyone???

you have to explain your theory to me again as I am lost. you think gravity comes out of sound? is that it? help me
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 29/06/2017 02:17:47
magnetism is pretty amazing, it creates a force in invisible space causing us to almost say space is nothing, but if it can make this amazing force it must be a something.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 25/07/2017 20:31:40
Anybody else have knowledge of unexplained things that may relate and be answered by the theory in the OP, example how electromagnetism works on space time. I know for those of you who disagree there is some reason in the back of your head.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: GoC on 28/07/2017 12:27:11
Quarks reduce further so space is not quarks. The cubic lattice is not a cube but its most likely triangles made from 2d complimentary spin states 45 degrees offset and 90 degree spin state as energy. You need to describe how energy is created and not jut say energy. A 45 degree offset allows for expansion that a cubic lattice would not allow.

I like the way you are thinking.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: pasala on 14/08/2017 15:31:21
 "Quark is a super dense, super small, area of space-time. An area of denser space-time will put a transcendent squeezing or density in the surrounding space-time it exists in. Void blocks surrounding the quark are squeezed smaller by the super dense dimension of the quark. A body such as a planet creates a field of these denser void blocks because of the combined gravity field of the astronomical number of quarks in the planet. A quark passing by will “fall” into this field as it is attracted to the region of denser void which only increases the closer you are to the planet".

Well, do you think that quarks behave similarly at all places.   A quark on the Earth behaves differently, when compared to a similar quark in space and outside our universe.  If this is solved than quantum theory will take a U turn and in fact Gravity.

Yours
Psreddy
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: pasala on 02/09/2017 15:20:16
"The smallest particles of matter, such as protons and neutrons, are made of extremely dense substance of space time. Their density puts a squeezing force in the surrounding space time they exist in. The force is stronger the closer to the particle. This causes a gravity field. When a gravity field touches another gravity field, the same squeezing force of space time on space time applies and the larger gravity field squeezes on the weaker one pulling it harder. Both objects then move towards each other in proportion to there weight".

It is true and this is an wonderful theory.  Yet, there are number of questions.  It is said that matter is made up of extremely dense substance of space time and its density creates a squeezing effect on surroundings.
01  So, density of matter depends on space time
02  Suppose if the space time is weak, density created there on is also weak
03  In case if the space time at a particular place is strong, inner density of matter increases.
04  If the inner density increases, a strong gravity field is created.

Gravity of matter mainly depends on the gravity of space time.  We are all living on the Earth, where strong gravity field persists. Most of our research and focus is based on the things on the Earth.  Suppose if we move to Moon, where space time is weak and thus gravity.  Matter cannot create same gravity.  For that if we move to deep caves where gravity is weak, inner density of matter decreases and thus gravity.

E=MC2 is not equal at all places. 

I feel, this subject warrants lot of research and i am sure that it paves way for "What exactly gravity is".

Yours
Psreddy
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 03/09/2017 18:46:22
"The smallest particles of matter, such as protons and neutrons, are made of extremely dense substance of space time. Their density puts a squeezing force in the surrounding space time they exist in. The force is stronger the closer to the particle. This causes a gravity field. When a gravity field touches another gravity field, the same squeezing force of space time on space time applies and the larger gravity field squeezes on the weaker one pulling it harder. Both objects then move towards each other in proportion to there weight".

It is true and this is an wonderful theory.  Yet, there are number of questions.  It is said that matter is made up of extremely dense substance of space time and its density creates a squeezing effect on surroundings.
01  So, density of matter depends on space time
02  Suppose if the space time is weak, density created there on is also weak
03  In case if the space time at a particular place is strong, inner density of matter increases.
04  If the inner density increases, a strong gravity field is created.

Gravity of matter mainly depends on the gravity of space time.  We are all living on the Earth, where strong gravity field persists. Most of our research and focus is based on the things on the Earth.  Suppose if we move to Moon, where space time is weak and thus gravity.  Matter cannot create same gravity.  For that if we move to deep caves where gravity is weak, inner density of matter decreases and thus gravity.

E=MC2 is not equal at all places. 

I feel, this subject warrants lot of research and i am sure that it paves way for "What exactly gravity is".

Yours
Psreddy


The gravity field of matter does change in radius when in different gravity fields. The Density of the larger gravity field matches the outer layers of particles individual gravity fields, causing them to shrink. You describe it as the inner density of matter increases. What do you mean by this?
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: pasala on 09/09/2017 16:42:55
Well, we are discussing about so many things, gravity of quarks, gravity of planets, but in exact terms we are not, in fact, not aware of “what exactly is gravity” and how it is created.  We talk about squeezing effect of quarks.  In case if the planets, by virtue of quarks creates gravity field than why it varies from plane to planet. 

Well, of course it is one’s surprise to see how a quark can create its own gravity field and influences the gravity field of planet.   

We are all living in a strong gravity field and doing research which is misleading us.  Suppose if we do the same, in a place where there is no gravity at all, quarks behave differently. 

Suppose if the gravity of quark, (minute)               = x
Gravity at a particular place                                   = 7.82
Influence of space time gravity on a quark            = 7.82x

Suppose if the quark is squeezed   
Amount of energy freed                                        =    E
Amount of energy boosted                                   = 7.82E2
Gravity of the quark                                              = X7.82E2.
If the squeezing increases, it results in explosion.

Ok, let us discuss about Electromagnetic effect:
Electromagnetic circles are created only when we send electricity in any particular route or way.  It is true that electrons are neither created nor destroyed and it can only modified into different ways.  Suppose we are producing electricity, with the help of magnet.  We are drawing electrons from the open air, with the help of magnet and making them to flow in any one direction.

Here Electrons are already in the open area.

But there is no magnetic circles.

Only when electricity is made to flow by a cable, magnetic circles are created.

So, to have Electromagnetic influence on the Gravity, electrons must be made to flow in any particular route,  with pressure or force, which will be having devastating effect on the Planet.

How Gravity works:
We must remember that total universe, including our planet are present in a free state.  Electrons are flowing from one place to other place without any force or pressure.  In the curvature of space time, electrons are moving freely.  They are dragging the electrons in the open air.  Well, we have to remember that Earth already lost its weight due to gravity and it is in free State.  Even slight change can cause Earth to rotate.

Yours
Psreddy

Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: pasala on 28/09/2017 08:09:21
Mr Trevorjhonson32,

I think you find it, of course something not from any books and different, logically drawn that may or may not be correct and i am sure bothering your mind.  If any body raises and says, Einstein theory E=MC2, without any hesitation we all raises our hands and support it. 

But we do not, including senior scientists say how an atom when ignited is giving huge energy. 

01 It is true that before ignition the atom is at stable condition.
02 When the atom is split huge energy is coming out.
03 Ok, let us think that there are sub-atoms.
04 In normal condition, how much energy is stored in a atom.
05 Even if sub-atomic particles releases energy, how much energy comes out.

Basically an atom consists of very, very small amount of energy and it has no capacity to make any wonders.  When we equate Mass with energy, total energy must come out from the atom only. 

Ok, in case total energy is from the particle only, how it is in stable condition.   

The mass of a proton is 1.672 x 10^-27 kilograms
But it contains 1.505 x 10^-10 joules only.

When ignited, energy stored within atom only comes out and it has no capacity to make any wonders and it must be equal at all places.

But it is happening differently and when an atom is ignited huge energy is coming out. 

It is surprising to see, no body including senior scientists are not concentrating on this.  It is true that it also varies from place to place and according to gravity.  When Mass is equated to Energy, it must be equal at all places.

If we start thinking in this angle also, new things comes out or it is like a fighting in darkness.   

If the truth comes out, research takes a big loop and chances of developing anti atomic bombs or method of diffusing them will come out and human beings will be saved from this menace.

Yours
Psreddy

Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: panoptos on 28/09/2017 09:38:42
Thank you for your explanation of the theory of space-time.  Whilst what you say may appear to be true given todays human limits of perception and cognitive development, it seems what you have said is more of a description based on current observations and mathematical language than a definition.  Terms like space and time have been conflated with the term universe.  Is there one, or are there more than one Universes?  If there are more than one Universes, why use the term Universe which starts with the prefix "Uni" meaning one?  Surely this forms a logical inconsistency if the term universe can relate to more than one?  Wouldn't it be better to define THE one Universe and sub-divide it into subverses and talk about space-time forming a subverse?  Next, defining space and time... can you please define space in terms of foundational Universal properties or postulates?  Also time is used in many ways when describing what we perceive as our Universe.  If space and time interact, what is the exact nature of time?  Not the "arrow of time" or the consequence of a "big bang", or the relativity that time suggests between one universal position and the next perceptible universal position, but linked to some defined originating concept from which the Big Bang and a direction of time can be measured/compared (even as an ideated concept) with consistent usage when discussing the exact nature of time and its consequences?  Describing something that can be observed is necessary for verification of perceptions through the scientific method, and any other independent method of verification.  However, I can describe the number 1 in terms of 1 egg, 1 proton etc. yet without anchoring it to zero as in the Peano postulates, or the number 2 as in concrete discrete systems, the direction of numbers would not exist.  So to achor the concepts of time and space, what would you postulate as a minimal statement from which these concepts can be evolved?  Or in fact, have I missed something fundamentally simple to be equivalent to triviality in mathematical proofs?  Please keep in mind that we only use the language of mathematics as a descriptive language where our descriptions are based on a logical structure and the consequence of the human languages we use to articulate these symbolic descriptions which are verified through an independent method of comparison with observations made of the Universe (and I will only acknowledge one universe, by definition) such as the scientific method.  Thoughts please?
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: pasala on 28/09/2017 13:44:09
Mr Panoptos

At this juncture, I think it is very difficult to define or say anything about space time. 

“As per Einstein curvature of space time is responsible for gravity. Space and time in Einstein's universe are no longer flat (as implicitly assumed by Newton) but can pushed and pulled, stretched and warped by matter. Gravity feels strongest where space time is most curved, and it vanishes where space time is flat. This is the core of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is often summed up in words as follows: "matter tells space time how to curve, and curved space time tells matter how to move".

In my view, Gravity is an unfinished agenda in the files of Einstein.  He is of the opinion that relativity transforms away Gravity and equated it with acceleration.  Ok, let us discuss with a simple example.  Suppose you are in a house and it catches fire and radiation start raising.  If you are in inertial position, radiation start giving trouble.  If you move from one corner to other corner, you can temporarily transform away from radiation. 

Here, there are so many important implications:
01 If there is no fire than there is no radiation at all.
02 If there is no roof than there is no scope for accumulation of radiation.
03 If there is no accumulation of radiation, than relativity will not work.

In Einstein theory of relativity, this medium or the process by which it is happening is absent.  As per Einstein, Space time is completely filled with matter.  But how these particles are raising.  Space time is working like a roof in our example.  Why and how these particles are concentrating at a particular place only and why don’t they move away are come down.  Suppose if the Gravity curve is created by the planet than why it differs from planet to planet.   

In my view Space time itself is a big question and we have to discuss it without moving to dark matter or dark energy and black holes and if it is resolved than the puzzle of gravity is solved. 

Yours
Psreddy
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: panoptos on 28/09/2017 22:57:04
Mr Psreddy

It seems that you are calling 'time-out' on looking beyond Einstein.

No improvements in technology or understand have ever occurred by thinking within limited cognitive structures, whether it was Aristotle, Archimedes, Gallileo, Fermat, De Cartes or even Einstein.  May I suggest that the next step in understanding our Universe will not come only from accepting Einstein's established constructs and the efforts of the many who have elaborated upon them. Accepting the pelop (the "Perceiving Entity's Limits Of Perception") as you have by basically acknowledging the limitations and treading water until the next linked findings have been established will limit progress since it is based on the assumption that thinking 'the same' will lead to the next greatest discovery.  This has never happened in history, so I challenge you and the others who limit themselves by just saying "we do not know", which, respectfully, is what you have just said by saying "At this juncture" and "In my view".  The forerunners of Einstein would have said exactly the same thing.  What I am trying to do is change tack, and look for a more elemental originating base from which we can generate self-consistent structures that may indeed lead to the resolution of the problems you have posed in your reply.  This may require a re-definition of terms we think we know the meaning of, and even re-structuring of our foundational conceptual bases.  We are all working within our pelops but will only achive greater understanding by constant re-evaluation of what we think we know, and by acknowledgement of what then fits that new framework from what we have already established as matching Universal processes.  So all that you have said may indeed be true, but again nothing you have said will break the mold of, to use a term I am learning to hate, thinking "within the box/square/other confine". You have yourself said that "space time is a big question" so I am starting the process of getting the confined to break their shackles but, not from a position of belief or assertion or just questioning, but to start with foundational statements ... postulates, corollaries etc, which are similar to the time when Peano postulated the existence of 0 and 1 to start a justification for the pre-existing number systems.  I am currently in the process of finalising a book "On The Origins Of Perception From First Principles" and require a definition of time that at present is non-definitive as to its origins in the human world.  To that end I am positing a starting point of trivial definitions that do not contradict anything that is currently proveable using our descriptive languages such as mathematics and english.  I look forward to your contribution (see the topic in this blog  "How justified is your understanding of the foundations of the Universe?").  I suggest that you can shold you beliefs and unresolved questions regarding the questions you have raised in you above reply to my post, whilst at the same time engaging in the process of re-thinking the structures and definitions we currently accept to seek another path.  I am suggesting redefinition of some existing terms we use in an attempt to unify and extend our current accepted scientific knowledge, whether string theory, quantum theory, chaos theory or any other structure we have currently modelled using our languages of communication such as mathematics and our independent verification methodologies such as the scientific method supported by peer-review as the means of agreeing on what we currently know... 'Currently' being relativity for humans. Thanks for the time you have taken to reply and restate what we already know and do not know.  Time to change the direction of our thinking perhaps?  Only then can we take the next leap of understanding of our one beautiful Universe. Sorry for cuttin this short.  The power company are doing maintenance and are about to cut off the supply of my electrons.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: imetheman on 29/09/2017 20:46:39
I believe that any theory which purports to be an accurate alternative description of any aspect of physical reality, must incorporate the existence of consciousness into every aspect of the theory. Insofar as the extent to which consciousness is incorporated into the theory, the theory must first prove that the known universe would not exist without the pre-existence of consciousness as being an integral component of the universe as a whole, and that without the existence of consciousness the physical universe would not exist. I am an atheist by the way.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: imetheman on 29/09/2017 23:40:37
This is my contribution to the discussion of what constitutes space and time.
No point coordinate A in the universe can be regarded as being static in position over time relative to the external infinite 3-D space/ universe which surrounds it.  It is the perpetual movement of the coordinates of matter in 3-D space which creates the 4th dimension of time. Any given fixed point coordinate of matter which exists in 3-D space at a hypothetical frozen moment in time A, requires an external 3rd force x acting on it to make it move from that stationary position A to it's future position B.  The tolerance of movement of external matter A in 3-D space which can be detected and registered at any given point coordinate in 3-D space at any given moment in time B, is equal to 1 Planck length angle of arc movement. The time it takes for a moving coordinate A, to move a distance which is registered at coordinate B as being 1 Planck length angle of arc of movement represents the relative pulse of time between points A and B.

Between the cyclical  pulses of 1 Planck length of relevant angle arc movement of A relative to B, the coordinates of both A and B do not exist relative to each other. No information is being exchanged between them and the 2 points can be regarded as existing in a vacuum equilibrium.   

 The relative time pulse between any 2 given points in 3-D space is determined by the physical distance between them and the velocity of A/B relative to B/A.  This relationship between time and distance of external matter in 3-D space constitutes the force of Gravity which is felt from all directions at any given point coordinate at any given moment in time.
The natural cyclical spiral structure of all matter over time means that at any given moment, the coordinates of all external matter in 3-D space relative to any other given point is either accelerating or decelerating [the distance between them has changed] relative to any other given point.

The most local massive region of space possessing the greatest velocity [relative to equilibrium = no movement] is the surface of the Earth relative to the surface centre of the Sun.  The velocity of the surface of the Earth  determines the frequency of the the relative Planck second pulses and therefore the relative force of gravity .
       

   
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: panoptos on 30/09/2017 00:24:46
Thank you for your response but you have raised another issue that is not defined.  Consciousness, which is the consequence of perception.  Perception needs definition, which I have done in a so far 24 Chapter book I have more than half written. Structure is there but need to flesh out understandings in discussion pieces. I found that trying to define perception, I was forced into the need to address the issue of the existence of Time and its origins, although this was not the initial intent of my tome. My thoughts on this was what has lead me to this Naked Science blog.  Back to your point.  If you do not perceive, you would not have consciousness, or even awareness which precedes it.  Consiousness is the consequence of Universal and cognitive structures of the perceiving entity.  This then introduces the concept of "pelop" ... viz the Perceiving Entity's Limits Of Perception.  All of these things need definition from an originating basis of Postulates and Corollaries which are, in mathematical terms, trivial and incontrovertible which is why I turned my thoughts to originating definitions (see my post in this blog "How justified is your understanding of the foundations of the Universe?") which is one of my attempts to do just that.  My goal is self-consistency of structure of these postulates and corollaries.  Please note the word 'goal', hence the fact that the first edition of my book is not yet completed. Within this self-consistent work is the expectation that application of independent verification methods for what we compare to the Universal properties is the way we validate perceptions as Universally consistent (Universally being the adjective I am using to relate anything to the Universal structures and processes, not human agreed perceptions). I lack your confidence of the non-existence of God or Gods.  Without evidence, I cannot either confirm or deny the existence of God(s) without an agreed definition of what a God actually is.  Something that has caused wars and conflict throughout the anthropocene without resolving that definition, and which is still bringing out species to the brink of extinction by our own hands.  So I am not a theist, atheist or any other related believer without the evidence to prove, or otherwise, that what is believed in has transitioned from a belief to a matter of fact by means of matching its reproducible validity to those incontrovertible processes of the Universe through application of independent methods of verification. Please note that I have said method(s), since others are needed due to the nature of the perceiving entities.  Hope this gives you something to ponder.  I will always welcome constructive comments to both inform me and maybe amend what stage of Universal understanding I have gained so far.  Any comments on my other topic in this New Theories blog "How justified is your understanding of the foundations of the Universe?" would be appreciated. Thank you for your time to reply.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE:  Whilst typing this response, I have noted you have added more.  Having read your work, I would like you to consider my suggestion that you are doing what most scientists are currently devoted to... utilising our mathematical language and its surrounding structures to describe and justify what we perceive by increasingly try to add to this body of work.  With respect, you are describing processes based on current perceptions and scientific lines of enquiry, not origins for those processes.  Nothing I will say will contradict anything that has been established scientifically as relationships that are validated by a process of scientific method and peer-review.  We absolutely need these current efforts to continue.  But so do we need to consider the establishment of the next generation of ideations required for investigating our Universe underpinning our next human advances (limiting comments to humans here), which needs alternate ideas or threads of ideas to achieve this goal. Please refer to my response to Psreddy above, especially noting that no change in understanding or technological advancement (as we humans call it) has come from thinking the same.  Sometimes we have to examine the seemingly absurd to arrive at the next leap of understanding our Universe.  How many scientists in the past have been crucified, literally, for trying to demonstrate something we now recognise as fact i.e. actually matching wha is happening in the Universe?

Please accept my apologies for any typos.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: imetheman on 30/09/2017 17:24:40
I had written elsewhere on the forum on another thread which appears to address the issue of causation and a definition of what constitutes 'God'. (I have copied and pasted it below).   

The moment of the creation of life on Earth occurred at the precise moment that a particular arrangement and construction of inanimate chemical elements combined in such a way that the resulting structure of the 'photoelectric' molecule expanded and contracted in sequence with the 24 hr Sun/Earth cycle of day and night. Before the appearance of this molecule on our planet, the movement of all matter which existed on the surface of our planet was governed solely by the force of gravity and as such entirely predictable.

The creation of the 1st photoelectric molecule represents the commencement of the beginning of time for life on Earth.

The repeated rhythmical physical action of movement in 3-D space of the constant acceleration and deceleration of the photoelectric  molecule as it expands and contracts [relative to the velocity of the surface of the planet and the gravitational force of the Sun - as the surface of the planet rotates around it's axis] creates an EM wave of radiation which emanates outward at the speed of light from the surface of the planet at a particular specific wavelength frequency. This EM wavelength of life carries a message which radiates outward into infinity, and it is that life is capable of evolving on the surface of this planet. It is important to note that the EM wavelength of life emanates from the surface of the planet only and not from the planet as a whole.

The wavelength of life is a combination of the resonant wavelength frequencies of the orbital velocities which occurs within the Goldilocks zone which surrounds every a star - where water exists in liquid form - and also the orbital velocity at the surface of the planet around it's axis.  The acceleration and deceleration of points on the surface of the planet [at the Planck scale of movement relative with centre of the nearest star at any given moment in time] creates a spiral as it moves through 4 -D space-time. The velocity of the surface of any given planet around it's axis [ie the wavelength frequency of Planck seconds must also accommodate the existence of water as remaining a liquid at the surface of the planet.   

The pre-existence of liquid water on the surface of the planet facilitated the specific formation of the  particular arrangement of the atoms of the photoelectric chemical molecule - otherwise the circumstances required for life to evolve on this planet would never have arisen in the first place.

The frequency of the 3-D movement of the 1st molecule of life, relative to the movement in 3-D space of the surrounding inanimate matter in the environment [which  is wholly governed by the law of  gravity] is in harmony with the combined stellar and planetary EM radiation. It should be possible to observe the thumbprint of the wavelength of living organisms existing on the surface of the planet within the EM spectrum [ = force of gravity ] which is being radiated from that planet.

At the precise moment that deceleration in one direction is transformed into acceleration in the 180 degree opposite direction, [at the apex of the expansion / contraction / in out movement] we can say that at some point in time, a particle of matter which exists at the planck scale, could be considered as being static in space before it begins to accelerate in the opposite direction.

According to the laws of physics and gravity which applies to inanimate matter, this particular 180 degree movement of a particle of matter in the immediately opposite direction is totally unpredictable. From the moment that the point particle is regarded as being static and unmoving in space to the moment that the acceleration in the opposite direction completes a distance of 1 Planck length, it can be legitimately stated that the point particle has ceased to exist in either time or space.

As the accelerating particle returns in the opposite direction, it occupies the last known coordinate in space-time of the particle [before all movement is stopped and it disappeared]. The new particle moves back in time to occupy the same coordinate it once occupied in the past.  The subsequent collision which occurs at the coordinate between the old decelerating negatively charged particle and the new identical positively charged returning particle results in their mutual instantaneous annihilation.

This event represents the Big Bang of a newly created universe. However this new universe includes the wavelength frequency of the movement of a living organism within it's geometry. The 1st molecule of life represents the creator of our own universe. The further evolution of the structure of this 1st molecule would be determined by it's response to  the circumstances of it's immediate environment.  The molecule would eventually evolve to the moment that it could intentionally move a part of it's body in a specific direction in response to changes in it's environment. This intentionality of movement represents the baseline definition of the free will of the organism and the emergence of consciousness. The relative intelligence of any given organism is simply determined by the degree to which the organism can  correlate external information and intentionally react  to change.

The important point about the application of the free will is that it represents the compulsion of the organism to intentionally move  which therefore results in a physical acceleration of  movement in 3-D space. The future position of a particle which has been moved through the application of it's free will, is entirely unpredictable by any application of the law of gravity. Every moving living organism creates an entirely new universe at the apex of the deceleration / acceleration of intentional movement.       
 
  The calories which are required to move the particle in the opposite direction by a distance of 1 Planck length represents the amount of energy which is incorporated into the equation at the moment of the Big Bang.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: pasala on 02/10/2017 08:31:31
Mr imetheman

Well, you have explained in detail, thank you.  Yes, 3-D Space time is a great mathematical foundation.  Einstein has constructed a beautiful 3-D Space.  It is the perpetual movement of matter that plays key role and it is this movement which is base for 4-D Space i.e., time. 

Einstein was quite genius, relativity helped him to come out of the “universal law of gravitation” and carried out number of tests, including wrist watch. He knows pretty well that attraction of matter is least one, Earth is pulling apple and at the same apple is also pulling the Earth.  He knew that both these attractions are least one and looked at Space.  Actually at that time lot of research was going on Atoms and he was surprised to see huge energy coming from Atomic Bomb.  Actually energy is multiplying several times.  They thought that total energy is coming from the atom only and thus equated matter with energy.

At that time Mach’s theory and Newton’s bucket theory were very much famous and these helped Einstein to come to a conclusion that Space is being influenced by Earth and Space is completely filled with matter. 

Matter which is raising from Earth, why should it stop at an exact place and what makes it or how it pushes or pulls space.  At that time in fact, lot of research was going on different types of particles and scientists noticed internal energy of particle coming out and developing as a Gravity curve.  When it is Earth, innumerable number of particles and if each particle emits energy, it is a wonderful imagination.  Keeping this in mind, finally Einstein turned towards Newton’s Gravity curve as his final destination. 

A simple incident that happened at the early turned my thinking towards this theory differently.  Ours is a poor family from India.   In the house, kitchen is separated by a small 3 feet wall on one side and the other side is open and food was cooked using firewood in the evening. It is a severe winter season and cool breeze chasing all the corners except near kitchen up to 10 to 12 feet.  When noticed this difference, it is little bit surprise to me, how and why it is hot at that exact place.  Actually firewood was used to cook food in the evening itself and there after no fire wood was used.  When I had removed ashes, charcoal was still in red color.  Small amount of radiation released by charcoal was able to resist cool breeze.  I had realized that:

01  When firewood was burnt it established a base, “Energy base”.
02  Small amount of energy released by charcoal protected this base for longer period.

If we substitute this to our Earth:

01  Once our Earth is also ball of fire only and released lot of energy into open area and it helped in developing ‘Energy base’ on this Earth.
02 At present Earth is burning charcoal only and energy released by it is maintaining ‘energy base’ on this Earth.

Space is not curved by matter but by the presence of energy base.  At the equator, where Earth is releasing lot of Energy, ‘Energy base’ is strong and it is pushing matter to new heights.  When we move towards poles ‘Energy base’ weakens and space comes down to Earth.  This is the curvature of space time. 

Suppose if the Earth fails to release energy it turns out as a 2-D Space or flat.  Since energy base is strong on this Earth, 3-D space is formed and 4th dimension time came into existence.

How the matter is moving and what is the ‘X’ force pushing the matter from A to B.  In all 2-D space, where there is no concentration of matter.  It is indeed surprise to see, why Gravity curve is absent in all 2-D space.  When the particles of the Planet creates or develops Gravity curve, why not in 2-D space.

In 3-D space, if matter moves from one place to other place, a 4th dimension Time comes out.  Suppose if there is no movement or delay in movement of matter, time delays.  In fact movement of matter is not perpetual.  Keeping in mind Minkowski space time,  "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality", tied space with time.  But in future I don’t think space and time co-exist together.

This is not criticizing Einstein, but for, to have a meaningful discussion only.

Yours
Psreddy
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 12:19:31
I was just looking over this thread and I have looked at this picture. Something in the picture triggered my mind and I related it to my own ideas.  Now ignoring all your explanation and using just the picture, you are trying to say and almost said what I have said and I give you half of credit for half of the explanation in  the picture.
You are in essence explaining my N-field but only half of it.  I understand your picture thoroughly, but your explanation of your own thoughts is terrible.
Firstly lose the quark idea and concentrate only on the spacial fields involved .  Explain it in field terms using conventional science such as polarities of the field(s).
But yes you are part correct .
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 02/10/2017 20:44:52
Firstly lose the quark idea and concentrate only on the spacial fields involved .  Explain it in field terms using conventional science such as polarities of the field(s).

Do you also believe space-time has no reference frame or that there is no aether? I freely admit that my background in physics is a high school AP course and 6 years studying Astronomy when I was a kid, so I certainly don't have the know how to put my words into correct physics terms. I could hardly tell you the difference between velocity and momentum anymore.
You said your theory relates to my picture? Do you have a simple explanation for your theory or better still post it so I can read it. I won't stick around if its long winded and confusing. I'm not your college professor reading your paper you paid me to read.

Thanks for saying you like the picture.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 22:23:57
Firstly lose the quark idea and concentrate only on the spacial fields involved .  Explain it in field terms using conventional science such as polarities of the field(s).

Do you also believe space-time has no reference frame or that there is no aether? I freely admit that my background in physics is a high school AP course and 6 years studying Astronomy when I was a kid, so I certainly don't have the know how to put my words into correct physics terms. I could hardly tell you the difference between velocity and momentum anymore.
You said your theory relates to my picture? Do you have a simple explanation for your theory or better still post it so I can read it. I won't stick around if its long winded and confusing. I'm not your college professor reading your paper you paid me to read.

Thanks for saying you like the picture.
I called my theory the N-field, it is a unified field theory that explains gravity and space time curvature in one swoop.  You can find this thread in this section called N-field.
I believe there is an ''ether'' but not like we would of imagined. I also believe in an absolute reference frame that has dielectric properties.
See other thread.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: pasala on 08/10/2017 12:46:07
Mr Trevorjhonson32

You have posted theoretical physics in a better way and i read the following captioned subject several times. 

“When the edge of the gravity field of the quark touches the gravity field of the planet, the part of the outer layer touching the planet’s gravity field becomes as dense as the outer layer of the planet’s gravity field”.

I think simply studying this as subject is not going to fetch anything and there is a need to analyse. 

01 Gravity field of the quark
02 Gravity field of the Planet.
03 Interaction of gravity field of quark with the gravity field of planet.

How this total process is going on and I am sure nothing can be produced out of thin air.  If this theory is to be correct, gravity field of the quark and the gravity field of the planet are must.  But it never tells how a gravity field is created or the medium by which it is working.    This is correct on Earth where there is a strong Gravity field.  Suppose if it is on Moon where gravity field is weak and the gravity field of space time is also weak.  In case if the quark is capable of creating its own gravity why it is weak on Moon.  A quark on  Earth or Moon never changes its quality. 

By this we can say that a quark has nothing to do with gravity and it is the medium that is creating gravity field of the quark and also helping the planet to create gravity field. 

Ok, let us see with a simple example.  Suppose let us assume that you are in a house and it is completely covered by darkness.  If you light a candle, light start spreading upto certain area and in case if you lights up more candles, more light and it start inter acting with the roof, walls and the things in the room.  Here we are comparing quarks with candle.  A candle is after all candle only, unless it is lighted up, it has no capacity to give light and a candle by itself  cannot inter act with other things in the house.  It is only when you lights a candle, energy comes out and turns as a light and this light inter acts.

In normal conditions, a quark by itself and space by itself has no capacity to create gravity.  When there is no gravity, there is no question of interaction.  These things are possible in existing gravity field only. .

Actually total process is going by a simple medium, it is creating gravity field of the quark, it is creating planet’s gravity and it is also interacting with both of them.   The same medium is extending and interacting with other planets and Sun.

Yours
Psreddy
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: guest39538 on 08/10/2017 13:48:46
Mr Trevorjhonson32

You have posted theoretical physics in a better way and i read the following captioned subject several times. 

“When the edge of the gravity field of the quark touches the gravity field of the planet, the part of the outer layer touching the planet’s gravity field becomes as dense as the outer layer of the planet’s gravity field”.

I think simply studying this as subject is not going to fetch anything and there is a need to analyse. 

01 Gravity field of the quark
02 Gravity field of the Planet.
03 Interaction of gravity field of quark with the gravity field of planet.

How this total process is going on and I am sure nothing can be produced out of thin air.  If this theory is to be correct, gravity field of the quark and the gravity field of the planet are must.  But it never tells how a gravity field is created or the medium by which it is working.    This is correct on Earth where there is a strong Gravity field.  Suppose if it is on Moon where gravity field is weak and the gravity field of space time is also weak.  In case if the quark is capable of creating its own gravity why it is weak on Moon.  A quark on  Earth or Moon never changes its quality. 

By this we can say that a quark has nothing to do with gravity and it is the medium that is creating gravity field of the quark and also helping the planet to create gravity field. 

Ok, let us see with a simple example.  Suppose let us assume that you are in a house and it is completely covered by darkness.  If you light a candle, light start spreading upto certain area and in case if you lights up more candles, more light and it start inter acting with the roof, walls and the things in the room.  Here we are comparing quarks with candle.  A candle is after all candle only, unless it is lighted up, it has no capacity to give light and a candle by itself  cannot inter act with other things in the house.  It is only when you lights a candle, energy comes out and turns as a light and this light inter acts.

In normal conditions, a quark by itself and space by itself has no capacity to create gravity.  When there is no gravity, there is no question of interaction.  These things are possible in existing gravity field only. .

Actually total process is going by a simple medium, it is creating gravity field of the quark, it is creating planet’s gravity and it is also interacting with both of them.   The same medium is extending and interacting with other planets and Sun.

Yours
Psreddy

Yes , but it is not a gravity field, it is two opposite polarity fields merged into one to create a field of solidity relative to other fields. The polarities of the merged fields  being the cause and effect of the solidity of the field.  In Trevor's drawing, he has left  a radius between fields, the actual radius between fields is r0.   In the drawing he also put the underlying ''field'' as being space time.  That would be incorrect, the space-time is the bodily fields, the underlying field is an  absolute reference frame and  is timeless.
Space-time and relativistic affects occupy absolute space.   I believe the sky is blue because where the fields touch each other is applied pressure according to Newton's 3rd law.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: pasala on 08/10/2017 15:23:57
Well, thank u Thebox and you have not used word 'terrible for that also. It is true that you are having very good knowledge over the subject but please come out of the existing subject and think beyond. In a dark room, if you light a candle light start spreading upto certain area and if you light another candle and light spreads upto certain area.  Light coming from both the candles start meeting at a different place.  This is the method and way by which fields are created and inter-acts.

Without base, polarity field of particle and the polarity field of planet how they inter-act with each other and merges. Please remember it is not the question of Newton's third law and the way by which both the fields interact with each other  but how they are created.   Please come out of the existing subject and think beyond on how these fields are created and the medium by which they interact and merge.

Yours
Psreddy
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: guest39538 on 08/10/2017 15:38:54
Well, thank u Thebox and you have not used word 'terrible for that also. It is true that you are having very good knowledge over the subject but please come out of the existing subject and think beyond. In a dark room, if you light a candle light start spreading upto certain area and if you light another candle and light spreads upto certain area.  Light coming from both the candles start meeting at a different place.  This is the method and way by which fields are created and inter-acts.

Without base, polarity field of particle and the polarity field of planet how they inter-act with each other and merges. Please remember it is not the question of Newton's third law and the way by which both the fields interact with each other  but how they are created.   Please come out of the existing subject and think beyond on how these fields are created and the medium by which they interact and merge.

Yours
Psreddy
What is interesting is the particle itself which emits the spacial field , does not have to exist to be a ''particle''.   Two spacial fields merged to make one field, i.e the atom , is all that is needed to create a ''force feedback''.
In essence a ''particle'' can not exist without there being two opposite polarity fields to unify the two independent fields into one single ''particle''.
In other words and in trying to explain further more, imagine a ''virtual reality'' that has solidity because of the merged fields, quite a scary thought indeed.
However I think the question you are asking me is how does the process first start, the beginning, the formation of ''things''?  I am not sure I want to answer or think about that because that would be ''playing God''.
I understand how it all works I think , but my problem is an underlying field or ''ether'' may suggest intelligent design unless we accept that space , just is and always was.

Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: pasala on 08/10/2017 16:18:59
Well thank you for the quick response, indeed. 

At present subject mainly tells about the existing conditions in a gravity field.  This is possible due to lot of research and hard work done by them.  But it is happening due to a simple medium, which is creating field at the particle and at the space and inter acting with both of them. 

We are not in a position to decide what exactly that medium is.  If it is a EMF than it has to act differently but it is not so. 

In my view it is EMF only, but created and working differently. 

We are producing and transforming electricity with lot of speed in a particular route and thus strong EMF is created.  Suppose if the electricity is moved into the open, it is relaxed and thus EMF.  This is what happening in the space.

It is true, God created us and has given knowledge to think and to create or develop something.

Thanking you, we will meet after one week.

Yours
Psreddy
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: guest39538 on 08/10/2017 16:44:52
Well thank you for the quick response, indeed. 

At present subject mainly tells about the existing conditions in a gravity field.  This is possible due to lot of research and hard work done by them.  But it is happening due to a simple medium, which is creating field at the particle and at the space and inter acting with both of them. 

We are not in a position to decide what exactly that medium is.  If it is a EMF than it has to act differently but it is not so. 

In my view it is EMF only, but created and working differently. 

We are producing and transforming electricity with lot of speed in a particular route and thus strong EMF is created.  Suppose if the electricity is moved into the open, it is relaxed and thus EMF.  This is what happening in the space.

It is true, God created us and has given knowledge to think and to create or develop something.

Thanking you, we will meet after one week.

Yours
Psreddy
Zero point energy of either polarity will expand by it's own mechanism of being likewise to itself.  So although we could conceive an underlying field that the ''polarity'' permeates through such as a ''conductive ''ether'' , the underlying field is not itself needed for the polarities to expand/permeate away from the 0 point. However I think an underlying ''conductive field'' would be needed to create the relative motion of bodies and the bodies fields.
Newtons laws and a body will remain in motion unless acted upon by external forces  extended also to cover internal forces.
I think a ''conductive'' underlying field would allow bodies to pull themselves along the field retaining velocity , but at this time I am unsure how a ''conductive field'' would not also slow the object down at the same time because the ''conductive'' field would offer isotropic force of attraction to all of the field. This meaning while the body travelled ''forward'' , pulling itself along the field, the field behind the body would also pull back . The body being equally attracted to the field ''behind'' it.
I am not sure you will understand any of that, but I have tried to explain in basics.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 11/10/2017 21:08:28
I think a ''conductive'' underlying field would allow bodies to pull themselves along the field retaining velocity , but at this time I am unsure how a ''conductive field'' would not also slow the object down at the same time because the ''conductive'' field would offer isotropic force of attraction to all of the field. This meaning while the body travelled ''forward'' , pulling itself along the field, the field behind the body would also pull back . The body being equally attracted to the field ''behind'' it.

In my theory the conductive grid is inactive and only becomes active when energy passes through it. Matter effects void blocks that line the conductive grid. These void blocks are made of a conductive grid much smaller that is acted upon by matter in the form of a squeezing on space-time that causes a gravity field.
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: pasala on 28/10/2017 18:44:52
Mr thebox
Let us suppose that both of us are in a class and the teacher started explaining about “Electric field”.  When the charge is created in an electric cable, electrons moves out and develops as an electric field.

My mind stopped at the very basic point, when a charge is created in an electric cable how it develops an Electric field.  Where does it is drawing electrons.  Suppose if the electrons from the charge comes out to form or develop a field then how electricity is flowing to far away places.

Basically, in my view whether it is AC or DC, if the electrons comes out from the charge to develop an Electric field then it has to stop flowing within short distance but it is not happening so. 

My mind started exploring different possibilities. 

Finally I came to a conclusion that electrons in the open area due to attraction or whatever reason it may are developing or forming as an electric field and are turning out as an obstruction.

If this idea is correct than electricity must flow with maximum speed in vacuum since there is no obstruction and to prove this I am carrying out practical tests.

It is true that it is very difficult to explain in a better way and to convince others.

This is what happening here in the case of space time also.

Here, from Mr Trevorjhonson32’s space time:
“Just like the super dense space-time of the quark puts a transcendent squeezing effect on the surrounding space-time its in, so too does the planet's gravity field have this effect on the edge of the quarks gravity field. When the edge of the gravity field of the quark touches the gravity field of the planet, the part of the outer layer touching the planet's gravity field becomes as dense as the outer layer of the planet's gravity field. The space time of the quarks gravity field that is squeezed becomes smaller in size, the quark and its gravity field then experience momentum in the direction of the squeezing, each successive layer of the planet's gravity field pulling it in faster. The denser space which increases the closer to the planet, has the more powerful attraction force and the quark is pulled in that direction giving it momentum energy. The quark and the planet both pull on each other and effect one another in ratio to their size”

Here you are all thinking differently and my mind is moving in other direction.

If this theory is to be correct:
01  Quarks must create its own gravity field.
02  Planet must have its own gravity field.
03  Gravity field of the space time has to  inter act with the gravity field of the quark.

If this theory, of course not by Trevorjhonson32 is correct than:
Why gravity differs from planet to planet.  When a quark is capable of creating its own gravity field why don’t it on other planets.  In normal conditions, if the mass of the planet is capable of creating its own gravity, why don’t it on moon.

In my view space time is true on Earth where there is strong gravity field.  Strong gravity of the Earth interacts with the quarks gravity field. It is due to the force/pressure created by this interaction that a part of the energy of the quark comes out and develops as a Gravity field.  Our scientists were surprised to see the Gravity field of the quark.  But they have forgot that we are already in the strong gravity field and it is influencing each and everything and a quark is no exception to this. 

Suppose if it is on Moon where gravity is weak, quarks may not be in a position to develop same gravity as it does on Earth.

Basically it is the gravity of the planet that plays key role. 

But as of now we don’t know how a gravity field is created and how it works. 

In other words we are taking pressure/force on objects of the planet as Gravity.

While carrying out research one must keep in mind that we are already in a strong Gravity field.

Yours
Psreddy
Title: Re: Theory on Space-time
Post by: GoC on 03/11/2017 14:37:43
Thebox

I think a ''conductive'' underlying field would allow bodies to pull themselves along the field retaining velocity , but at this time I am unsure how a ''conductive field'' would not also slow the object down at the same time because the ''conductive'' field would offer isotropic force of attraction to all of the field. This meaning while the body travelled ''forward'' , pulling itself along the field, the field behind the body would also pull back . The body being equally attracted to the field ''behind'' it.

The answer is c. c allows motion in the first place. The photon is a disturbance wave on a grid structure and the grid structure is constant energy c. It neither slows down nor speeds up so the disturbance is a constant velocity. Our universe is a sea of energy otherwise all would be frozen in space unable to change position. Most take motion for granted as the Copenhagen interpretation (allowed magic). Only mechanics can allow motion from motion without magic. c might be slowing down as mass is being produced in the universe but we would not recognize the slower c because we are a part of that c.

c is the motor for electrons. This is why mechanical and light clocks measure the same time relationship In the same frame.