1

New Theories / Re: Can we draw a geometrical representation of gravity?

« on: 01/07/2022 15:37:34 »

Can we draw a geometrical representation of gravity?
Yes.
↓

2

New Theories / Re: Can we draw a geometrical representation of gravity?

« on: 01/07/2022 05:39:36 »

The rubber sheet analogy is a crude analogy of gravity, but I see it often used, and it is definitely a geometric representation. I've never seen it used to make any actual predictions though.

3

New Theories / Re: Molecular chain that would end all life? Causality Firewall of life/ CFL?

« on: 30/06/2022 13:43:51 »

If the hydrogen bond between water molecules suddenly disappeared all life (as we know it) would die.
Also the oceans here would boil.
But, on a scale bigger than planets, the weird properties of water probably don't matter much.

This has nothing to do with causality or firewalls.
It's a fantasy.

4

New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?

« on: 28/06/2022 09:35:50 »

" Can conscious thought act on matter?"
If it didn't, we wouldn't know it existed (other than our own).

5

New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?

« on: 27/06/2022 18:19:23 »

Then again: Can conscious thought act on matter?
 What do you expected? 😂

 Proof? Ok.

 My brain thinks.
 My brain move my hands.
 My hands shape a ball made of Clay.

The clay wasn't necessary. The hands moved. That's enough to illustrate the point. I totally agree. The question was asked in a classical manner, and that's a classical answer.
So the question now is, what's all the fuss? Who would deny that?

6

New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?

« on: 27/06/2022 13:31:00 »

Even if a highly ultimate technology, would comunicante trough physical means.
 There a wire or even light it's not different from my hands.

We usually call them interfaces. They can be biological neurons, implanted electrodes, or non-invasive brain wave sensors.
Currently, humans can affect matter on Mars, because we have the necessary interfaces and actuators.

7

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 26/06/2022 00:53:10 »

But if the watches are not synchronized, and can tick at different rates depending on their velocity relative to some imaginary fixed point in space, (which might not be a realistic possibility at all), can we just drop a flare there to mark the spot ?


I don't think so!


149929,

 It can work if universe exist and doesn't at the same time, divided by the plank scale, like a predictable future which erases and recreates that which it just erased constantly, that tic tac rate would be C.
 As for frame of reference, the frame of reference of matter it's always it's past, as it would be not a real static frame of reference, only the geometry of spacetime reajusting itself constantly at C.
 My frame of reference would always be the fields to which I'm submitted, always reference to zero when I'm my own frame of reference.

 It's an understanding about the cosmological limit, it's too much of a convince that quasars for example jets out matter at 99.999% of the cosmological constant.
 One of the feasible possibilities it's that: C it's not a moving speed, rather a quantification rate limit.
 A1-A2-B1-B2-C1-C2.... Towards infinity which would be... A1-A2-A1-A2-A1-A2 on a straight line distance following and seting the arrow of time.
 Each time A1 meets A2 the particle it's recreated there, but in between A1-A2 the existence of anything but spacetime was (0) for it didn't existed as a thing since nothing can't move trough nothing.
 What I mean by nothing can't move trough nothing (faster than C) it's the suggestion itself, that in between A1 and A2 (one Planck volume) "the thing" wold not be a thing at all, the update "speed" it's set and nothing cannot surpass it as "a thing".
 Matter seems to bypass this by offering a center for mass, still such reference it's only reference for itself while for space it is still zero.
 If the information was erased as a thing and recreated on the destination, with a C speed as the frame rate it would be virtually undistinguished from a moving object.

 Matter travel is to spacetime using the same means of the photon, if the photon requirements are to produce virtual photons In order to work, one can say that it's also true that nothing it's relative to nothing but spacetime.

Hmmm, I'll have to take a closer look at this, later.



142050,144594,

8

New Theories / Re: Did we really never observed white holes ?

« on: 23/06/2022 23:36:28 »

Hi.

   I'm sorry but I am struggling to understand what has just been said.   Some bits of it do look like existing ideas for white holes.

Best Wishes.

9

New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?

« on: 23/06/2022 23:26:31 »

Hi.

I read most of what was written just above.   It says quite a lot of stuff   BUT  none of it seems to be useful.  It doesn't make any predictions or suggest something that can or should be tested.   Science is less concerned about why or what some ultimate truth might be and more concerned with having an explanation and a model that is useful for making predictions.   

Best Wishes.

10

New Theories / Re: Volume/Space/mass/light linked?

« on: 19/06/2022 15:47:40 »

Its always a bit messy to have to deal with consciousness but quantum gravity, if that's such a thing "seems" to demands to understand clearly what it's, before, being able to mathematically represent it, if tapping into the answer without understanding how time and consciousness are related one would be forbidden to understand the "why" (it would be).

Do you seriously think that makes any sense?

 Think like this: If I understand everything I need to reach Vega in order to warn them about a supernova I've seen on earth, which they haven't seen yet.

If you see the supernova on earth and it doesn't negatively impact the earth, then the would be no need to warn Vega since it would obviously be farther from the supernova than the earth is.

 Now what is a paradox for us?
 Where the math couldn't keep up.
 But if that's true, it's a redundant assumption.
 You couldn't travel because you didn't knew how at that moment.
 You "math" would only be the math for casualty which emerged "specifically" set for "you".

 If you knew how to reach Vega the way you wanted, you say that there would be no paradox.
 But isn't that equally redundant?
  What about the casualty that prevented you to do the way you wanted?
 "Was avoided!"

 See?
 You don't avoided the potential paradox, you avoided the casualty which lead to it.
  Not preventing the paradox, simple "there was the paradox and there wasn't all along".

 Your "not knowing" created casualty based on your own observation.
 Which lead to you explain not the universe embedded within math or geometry, but the causality you yourself caused because your math was still "predictable".

 One needs to understand this quantum aspect of "different time" or even "no time", in order to understand how to replicate that in the macro scale.

Once you do, you'll understand "what casualty" was, pretty sure it's time to put the human consious observer as a properly of time, or there'll be a "new way" to describe casualty and "why" you can't do it, because you used casualty on your understanding, "bringing" the impossibility with you.

 From that point will be very difficult to return and fix.
 For me, intuitively "light" it's our single only misconception for it all.

Word salad.

11

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 17/06/2022 23:57:50 »

It seems that the 1/r^2 law for gravity makes perfect sense, as it directly follows from the geometry of a point source.
Why would this contradict the conservation of energy?

It is complicated to explain shortly, but i will try my best.

So yes, you are right. If the gravity field would behaviour like the electromagnetic field you should have a 1/d^2 law for the gravitational field.
But first you need to really understand why there can be a 1/d^2 law in the intensity at some distant point for the electromagnetic field.
Lets begin with a source of photons that emit only 1 single photon.
This photon start form the point source and then advance toward infinity.
There is a problem if you want to receive this single photon, especialy if you are at a very long distance because if you consider the photon will spread as a cylinder (like a laser beam would do), the 1/d^2 law intensity would not apply everytime.
By chance, the photon spread as a cone, and you can intercept it much easyer.
So a single photon at a distance d can be received within a large surface onto the sphere wich has the radius d.
Whats the intensity law for this single photon ?
1/d^2 ? No, if you get the photon that is actualy present (because the duality particle wave) you got the full energy of this photon.And very important, if you get the photon within this surface, the photon disappear instantly (so far as we know) preventing anyone to receive the photon at the same time at an other position (the wave function is destroyed).
Now, if you consider a source that emit a tremedous quantity of photons, every second, like a star would do, the intensity of the source can be seen as if it would be distributed onto the surface of a sphere of radius d.
You can divide the intensity by d*d because you are in fact dividing the number of the photons you can intercept on the surface of the sphere.You are not dividing the intensity of the photon (you can not it is a particle), but their number.
It seems obvious at first, but there is something very interresting you need to understand there : As soon as you have interacted with the photon, it stop his travel and disappear and before you interact with it, it is like it is not here (it does nothing).
So : The intensity 1/d^2 can be obtained because of the large number of photons (they are well repartited) BUT you can ONLY obtain this intensity 1 time.
The maximum you can do is receiving all photons emited and you will have the same intensity as that of the star.
Saying you have a pulse of light (it is better to understand) 1/d^2 is proportional with the surface d^d  of the sphere of radius d. Here we dont have a problem with the energy.

Now, if you consider the gravitational field.
Let assume we have, like for the electromagnetic field, "something" that is spreading from the source (the same star as before per example). We dont need really, for the explaination here, to know what this "something" is (some graviton or whatever). But what we know, and it is was distinguish the behaviour of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field; is that the photon is VIRTUAL (it exists virtualy in the space and has no effect unlike you receive it, and if it interact it disapear) and that the "something" who is responsible for the curvature of space-time is ACTUAL (it has a PERMANENT and real effect, everywhere where it travel).
Therefore, if you consider that it can curve the space-time (and this can be assimilated as some local energy change) everywhere he pass by, you will understand that you could theoritically do the sum of the energy change of the spheres with radius between 0 and the infinity.
Because the "graviton" or whatever it is, change actually the curvature of space-time, this would lead to an infinite energy gain because the radius will become bigger an bigger.
An if you want to interact with it like the photon, it must occupy a large amount of space, bigger and bigger as you go away from the source.
The photon can because it only occupy space without interact with it, but the "graviton" can not (or it is some big mystery) because it is actualy changing the curvature within the space-bigger and bigger it occupy. .

Therefore, my opinion is : The best, and i will finish briefly here, is to consider the "graviton" (or whatever it is) like some fluid that is occupying the area around the star.
The intensity of the fluid production is extremly strong, so the filling around the star is "like if" the "fluid balloon" extend around speed of light, but soon you go further, and because of the constant (proportional to mass) production of this fluid the "balloon" growing rate decrease.
The intensity around the star is proportional to 1/d^2 but soon you go further away the density of this fluid become less than 1/d^2... until some time when the area is well filled and so forth.
More interresting, with this model, you dont only say : What is the intensity of the gravitational field at distance d, but you also need to say WHEN do i consider this intensity..
Older structures, like for the galaxys, have more of this "fluid" then young galaxys.
And when the star is loosing mass... the gravitational effect remain somewhere.

 

12

New Theories / Re: Volume/Space/mass/light linked?

« on: 16/06/2022 16:33:49 »

@Alex Dullius Siqueira, your entire post in pseudoscience.  The ideas presented do not match observation or experimentation, so your ideas are wrong.

13

New Theories / Re: Volume/Space/mass/light linked?

« on: 15/06/2022 03:55:32 »

Light causes gravity

There is plenty of observational and experimental evidence that shows your idea is not correct.

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.

That makes no sense.  I think you need to rephrase that.

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.

I'm going to have to stop at this point because none of this makes sense.  It sounds like a bunch of science terms just randomly thrown together.  Sorry.

14

New Theories / Re: Volume/Space/mass/light linked?

« on: 14/06/2022 13:14:39 »

 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.

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.

A black hole is more like a very compact gravity source.

 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.

A warp should be proporcional, light is a warp.

I think you are using the wrong word.  'Warp' means bend.

15

New Theories / Re: Volume/Space/mass/light linked?

« on: 13/06/2022 13:26:36 »

It'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.

therefore their mass occurs one frame behind the next plank

Could expound on this?  I don't know what 'one frame behind the next plank' means.

 As if the warp was to fast to even quantity their mass

I don't know what that means, please explain further.

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"?

How could a particle become space?  That would clearly violate the conservation of mass and energy so it seems highly unlikely.

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.

Light cannot expand space, light has inertia so it could conceivably have some effect on matter but not space.

16

New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?

« on: 12/03/2022 14:30:11 »

@talanum1 apparently they all pretend not to understand this Quantum mind theory which does exist. The question now is to wonder why they pretend not to understand.

Quantum consciousness or Quantum mind  is a hypothesis that suggests that quantum phenomena, such as the entanglement and superposition of states, are involved in the functioning of the brain and in particular, in the emergence of consciousness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind by David Bohm ; Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff ; Umezawa, Vitiello, Freeman ; Karl Pribram ; Henry Stapp ; David Pearce

17

New Theories / Re: Speculating: Is everything an universe of itself?

« on: 26/09/2020 11:59:35 »

Our universe started with small things such as sub particles. These tiniest of things combined to form larger things, which became too large to be expressed at the smallest level. Each level has has its own properties.

This particle scaling continued into chemistry which is more or less the platform for the rest of the scaling. There we have planets, mountains, oceans and then life. Life itself scaled from single then to multicellular. All these levels of scaling occur by means of the attractive forces and an increase of entropy.

The most advanced or highest levels of scaling contain all the previous levels down to the sub particles. However, the loss of free energy; enthalpy and entropy, at each level of scaling, makes the lower levels more stable and tame. This focuses the scaling at the higher levels, so they can further evolve in a way that is appropriate to its own level of scale. 

In a sense, each level of scale is its own universe, due to its properties being more or less self contained at that scale. The highest level of scale, encompass all the rest, down to the smallest, with the smallest less dominate to the overall affect. It is like nesting dolls.

18

New Theories / Re: Gravity...what the heck?

« on: 04/09/2020 19:58:50 »

point of energy

What is a "point of energy"? That sounds like something Thebox would say.

The answer is no. Energy doesn't have to be moving to generate gravity.

19

New Theories / Re: Gravity...what the heck?

« on: 02/09/2020 20:53:03 »

.If it's not quarks, then what is it that produces
gravity?

Mass (or equivalently, energy).

How would curved space/time produce gravity as opposed to mass?

Curved space-time is gravity.

20

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 22/08/2020 16:47:23 »

I mean, if not clear:
 "WHAT would be the mathematical/geometrical "possibilities" if universal expansion was to reach the impossible edge of the universe, would it be forced to bend itself by splitting and multiplying volume, rules, wherever, so to "turn around"and reach infinity again?

Einstein has taken us to a different world.  It is true, it is a big topic, expansion or contraction of universe.  In my view, first we must be in a position to say, what exactly is gravity on Earth.  Further, we must have a perfect idea on functioning of our solar system.  But, here, un-certainity prevails and for all practical purposes we are taking Newtons inverse square law, which, we know, is incorrect.