1

New Theories / Re: Is time a 3 dimensional entity ?

« on: 01/01/2018 13:58:10 »

Only the present exists as a flow of motion. We perceive time as motion by our synapsis firing. But that is motion in itself. Without c energy there would be no motion and lack of motion is lack of time. Black Holes are void of time because there is no motion of the electron. While mass gives us our three dimensions it is c that causes motion of electrons. We would not have life without motion. The mathematics of time is relative density of energy c. All electrons are moving at a constant speed but not at a constant distance. This is handled by relativity.

Past and future are just man made concepts to distinguish order of events. Happy new year.

2

New Theories / Re: Phase transition on the fabric of space

« on: 31/12/2017 15:14:35 »

As their matter is already gone would they not then remain for the next phase transition in a new universe?

If there matter was gone in a BH they would not have gravity. The distance an electron travels in normal matter is about one football field to the proton being a marble. So normal matter is mostly space. In a BH mass is marbles right next to each other for density affecting the fabric of energy c. BH's are completely kinetic with no motion in the electrons we can measure as time. It might be radiation is separate from mass with kinetic energy just being a created wave and not a loss of mass. Your model limits your understanding and while your current understanding might be correct thee is always the chance it might not be.

3

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 31/12/2017 14:29:33 »

Time is generally described as timing rather than describing the cause of time. Fundamental energy c is the cause of motion and the electron flow. The electron flow and photon propagation through the vacuum of space are confounded in energy c. Physical and light clocks change by the same amount when going through different frames. This is proof that there is an underling process controlling both equally. The difference in timing between frames is due to density of energy c. The center of mass is where energy is the least dense. In a black hole there is no energy so there is no time within a black hole. There is only kinetic energy 100% in a black hole. Energy is extremely dilated by the inverse square law causing mass to stretch when entering a black hole. Out in space between galaxies energy has the greatest density and clocks tick rate is the greatest because the energy particles are closest. Mass dilates energy by causing the energy to move electrons. The electrons have to travel further in dilated space. c is the reason for relativity and electrons move at the speed of light but in a helix through energy. This probably has to do with why life was created as a helix.

Our eyes view our environment at about 16 frames per second. This gives us a fluid view of our environment and yet if something moved in and out of our view in 1/32 of a second we would not even see it. If our synapsis fired 5 times as fast we would view a blur of an object. Time as we detect it biologically is also based on c limits same as a physical clock. Children's synapsis fire faster than adults so they experience time more than adults. In other words it is a longer experience to get somewhere for children than adults but all relative to c.

It's unlikely time is a singularity but just the opposite being energy c.

4

New Theories / Re: Is zero point energy or the universal expansion crushing all galaxies?

« on: 30/12/2017 19:27:04 »

Almost visible light but not quite.......

While it is generally accepted as dilated space light is a wave propagated in space. The dilated space would create a more red shifted frequency than less dilated space. Space is just the carrier of waves of the spectrum. You need to understand the fundamentals.

5

New Theories / Re: Is zero point energy or the universal expansion crushing all galaxies?

« on: 30/12/2017 17:30:02 »

It is dark matter and not dark energy linked to galaxy rotation profiles. It is thought that halos of dark matter within the galaxy causes this effect.

The larger question is what is the halo? If you have a preconceived notion that limits the halo by your model you might be missing the bigger picture. We know the halo causes a lensing affect on photons as an expansion. We have a preconceived notion of the halo being mass in order to fit our understanding to relativity rules. Consider this, Dark Mass and Dark Energy being two different aspects of the same thing. One being a particle of a minute size (Dark Mass) and the other being a spin state of c (Dark Energy). Dilation between the particles in a galaxy vs. space between galaxies is much greater within a galaxy. The halo in the center where 75% of the mass resides creates a greater dilation of the halo. This understanding would create havoc with the current model and be rejected by the trained mind of the scientific community. But consider what this might cause to our understanding. The red shift could be attributed to GR and rotation SR. By distance the galaxies would be much further rotated away causing a greater red shift with distance. There might be a point where rotation causes a undefined object beyond 13.8 billion light years where all signals are just noise. Rotation might be greater than c by distance there by losing the ability to define objects.

Throughout history our model of our environmental science has interfered with the true nature of science understanding. Just saying.

6

New Theories / Re: Passive time and energy allow us to relinquish quantum, relativity, and gravity

« on: 30/12/2017 16:29:29 »

All physical concepts are meaningless.(Length, area, volume, time, energy)Their only meaning is "the possibility of measuring them"Do not ask "What is passive time?"You have to ask .. How do you measure passive time?

The answers are relative only in measurement. Passive time is not passive at all its fundamental energy c. All time measurements are related to c total zero point energy. The dilation of energy say in the center of mass is increased dilation by the inverse square of the distance from the surface of mass if the mass were uniform. The dilation of energy reduces through space as the inverse square of the distance. The dilation of energy in space increases the distance for the electron to travel even though the electron is always moving at c in a helix motion through the energy particles. The distance electrons have to move through space (SR) is relative to the dilation of space occupied by mass. Energy moves electrons which causes dilation of c energy. Time is based on c relative dilation of c energy in space. 0.9 c is 0.9 kinetic with 0.1 fundamental energy available. We can only measure c available and not kinetic energy used which is why we can only measure relative.

7

New Theories / Re: What is time?

« on: 25/12/2017 14:13:06 »

Time as we measure it is a cycle. A galaxy rotation, a planet rotation or an electron rotation all measure time. So time is motion. You are quite correct to assume particles all being in the same position could recreate a past arrangement from a future. There is no past or future except as a concept of man. There is only the present motion caused by fundamental energy based on c relative. c gives our still frame motion. c is organized rules that cause ciaos by position. Entropy is not reversible.

8

New Theories / Re: Why does an electron move?

« on: 20/11/2017 15:24:31 »

Yes, I object on the grounds that what you said makes no sense.

I am sure with your current understanding there is nothing moving the electron around. But if there is nothing moving the electron around why is it moving? You and I come from the same field, chemistry. There are reasons for reactions. There must be a reason for electron motion organized to fit into relativity. Something moves the electron to cycle at the same rate in a frame and sea level on earth. Both electron and photon are confounded in every frame to measure the same changing cycle. To disagree there is a control mechanism would be to believe in magic. Which is your right of course to believe in magic.

All I am suggesting is energy available from the spectrum which carries the photon also moves the electron c. Energy c is the spectrum and a photon is a wave caused by an electron slowing the energy jumping to a different orbital position. That causing a wave that transfers through the space spectrum at its constant speed c.

Is it different from what you were taught? Yes. Does the description violate your understanding to the point of confusion. Your confusion is not a true objection. Abstract thinking is difficult for some and does not seem to make sense. In my abstract thinking energy causes a channel for the electron to move through at the speed of light. But it would be allot like the electron is rotating around a string. Since we live in a 3d universe the string is actually points (dark mass) with complimentary spin (dark energy) to create channels for both negatrons and positrons inside the protons and neutrons,  Only negatrons cycling outside of the protons. With this arrangement and c electrons can cycle through the protons because the speed is the same on entry, c. Matter and anti matter making up the quarks.

Its just an abstract system designed to create relativity. Plus and minus has no control mechanism

I object, the motion of the electron is because it is always attracted to a positive.

Yes but that does not allow perpetual motion. You need a system of perpetual motion that can speed up and slow down. Attraction is entropy of the energy state (gravity).

9

New Theories / Why does an electron move?

« on: 19/11/2017 17:58:10 »

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

10

New Theories / Re: Does this answer the question of Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

« on: 06/11/2017 15:20:39 »

It would seem very strange to have a high density measurement of something in a system without also having a low density reading somewhere else in the system. This would seem to be the nature of a continuum. It is then from inference we can suggest that if high density is gravitationally attractive, low density must be gravitationally repulsive. In fact all the things that we would predict of low density space is what Dark Energy seems to be

Do you have your density confused by position in space? And then density of what? If we look at atomic clocks and were they tick the slowest would be in the center of mass where attraction from the surface of a planet is the greatest. Rather then density being grater there we might suggest energy density being less dense in the center. The spectrum energy ( Dark mass energy ) being expanded more in the center of mass would coincide with the further distance the electron has to travel. Especially if you consider dark mass energy move the electrons. Since mechanical and light clocks tick at the same rate in every frame there has to be a control mechanism for light and the electron to be confounded. Main stream does not have the tools to explore fundamental spectrum energy. They are devoted to another path that excludes mechanics of electron flow trough energy.

11

New Theories / Re: Does energy have weight ? The answer is ... no

« on: 03/11/2017 14:59:07 »

It's also called the power button sometimes.

12

New Theories / Re: Theory on Space-time

« 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.

13

New Theories / Re: Are curved spacetime and displaced dark matter the same thing?

« on: 16/10/2017 11:59:02 »

   In my opinion spacetime dark matter is far from empty space. Just a dimension of size particles of energy. What is this dark matter energy? It is the limit of c and the cause of c at the same time. It is the reason for time and the very essence of motion itself. Energy moves the electrons to allow motion of bodies.

And yes rather than displace dark matter energy mass expands the dark mass energy reducing the density of energy per volume of space creating relativity (GR). Gravity is the attraction of mass to a less dense energy state than it currently occupies. Enlightenment comes to those who use the proper tools.

14

New Theories / Re: Does the mass of the object increase if...?

« on: 21/09/2017 17:32:52 »

It will someday be understood there is no charge to mass. Only flow, pressure and vacuum causing quantum mechanics. c is the cause of flow and position of mass causes the pressure and vacuum states of mass. Seven occupied spaces in chloride creates a vacuum needed to be filled by an eighth position for uniform distribution in space.

15

New Theories / Re: Isn’t dark energy & mass explained by power line theory & energy conservatn?

« on: 13/09/2017 12:23:17 »

have you ever considered mass is a balance of matter and anti-matter with energy being the cause of flow? So energy as you say is of space and not mass.

16

New Theories / Re: What's wrong with my Unifying Theory that's got me banned from 2 US sci- forums?

« on: 11/09/2017 11:54:51 »

    It's always interesting to me when posters suggests what was there in the beginning and what was not there in the beginning. The size of black holes relative to 13.6 billion years is not mathematically possible in a linear development. It is equivalent to the Jewish bible saying man only existed 6 thousand years. Speculating on Adam and eve particles is useless without a physical mechanism. Speculating that a God created it forces one to ask about the creation of a God. The creation of the first particle to produce the first particle is beyond our ability to understand at this juncture in human existence. Math is the one tool we have for theories but math can only disprove a theory and not prove a theory to be correct. The BB should be scrapped because BH's of 4 billion solar masses is incompatible with the timing of the BB. It is the equivalent of saying man only existed 6 thousand years. The BB is really a faith issue and not science when you take in the actual observations. Top down is never a good position to find yourself. That means there was something before there was something and that something was everything. Not logical. But the creation of the first thing is illogical. Speculation should be reserved for actual observations like puzzle pieces. There are not enough pieces to suggest a BB considering the observations of BH's of such magnitude. Science by faith is not real science. Changing the collective mindset even with mathematically disproving the timeline is unlikely.

17

New Theories / Re: A new theory of Time

« on: 05/09/2017 21:17:17 »

All the physical theories did not take into account that passive time existed.They thought electromagnetic waves moving in a vacuum, and that was a mistakeThe electromagnetic waves travel in a complete resting medium, of passive time.Passive time is a real concept in physical reality, because it is measured

They are energy propagation waves. Nothing to do with electro magnetic waves. There is nothing passive about c. The electron is a flow given to it by passive energy. Time = energy c = motion

18

New Theories / Re: A new theory of Time

« on: 05/09/2017 18:13:11 »

Passive time does not exist in Einstein's theory, nor in Newton's theory.

Quite correct it is not defined in relativity.

The resting thing you are discussing is not resting at all. It is the energy c of space that move the electrons. A body at rest has the quickest cycle time for its electrons. Passive energy (time) is conserved in motion. The universe is in a sea of c and we use that energy for motion. Without (passive) energy there would be no motion nor time. Time is motion derived from energy. With velocity there is less passive energy available as conservation of c total passive energy. Waves are created by mass and ride on energy c in the spectrum energy c. That is why light is said to go on forever without entropy. The energy is of space and not mass. Spectrum waves propagate under there own spectrum energy. Electrons being slower linearly to a faster linear photon would not be possible with fundamental energy being of mass. We can only detect c orthogonally through spectrum waves. We would need something faster than c to detect c directly.

Thebox

Space is not transparent to light space wave is light. When the light reaches our eyes we view the waves as an image. We do not view to the distance as you believe. The view travels to us.

19

New Theories / Re: A new theory of Time

« on: 05/09/2017 13:42:15 »

Passive energy of stone, is the weight of the stone.

That is if you believe fundamental energy is of mass. Look at the electron cycle time with speed or increased mass. The electron cycle becomes slower in its tick rate. Mass is just a conduit for fundamental energy.

Mass of the stone with velocity transfers fundamental (passive) energy to kinetic energy reducing the available fundamental energy. Energy is always a ratio to available c.

Active energy has many performances that maintain a conservation law. Passive energy does not participate in this law.

No it creates the conditions for the law with a limit of c.

20

New Theories / Re: A new theory of Time

« on: 04/09/2017 13:03:44 »

   Yes time is energy available or passive time. The electron at rest completes its cycle in the shortest duration. When mass moves through space there is a longer duration to the cycle. A somewhat uniform space in the motion of mass counts all distance through space added for the duration of the electron cycle. At c the electron could not cycle. Probably less than c if you consider the helix path of the electron.

There is a used energy and available energy. Kinetic used vs. amount available for increased motion. Our measurement of time is the amount available. We cannot measure the true kinetic energy used so we cannot measure a prefered frame.