1

New Theories / Re: What is the effect of water under the Earth's surface?

« on: 13/06/2017 22:03:12 »

What is interesting to me is how far down in the moon before you find water. Mars also.

2

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 04/06/2017 12:56:14 »

Mass contains kinetic energy while space has an energy limit of c. There is a ratio of energy used vs. energy available shown as a reaction rate increase and decrease. You can decrease available energy by increasing mass GR or by increasing the speed of mass SR. There is an equivalence between GR and SR relative to reaction rate. With an increase in mass GR the dilation of mass is physical so the cell length to measure a frequency increases to maintain the calibration of wavelength between frames. The reaction rate of course is based on the constant speed of light that has to go further in a dilated cell for GR. This happens all the way up to mass gravity acceleration at the speed of light where energy can no longer keep atoms apart and a BH is formed. There is no relativity within a BH. There is no energy within a BH and it becomes entirely kinetic.


thebox

  We have to recognize observations that the orientation of a clock does not affect the tick rate while the graphing of the physical paths would if it were not for some intervention. Physical contraction of length is one option that would align math to what is observed. The Doppler in space suggests a medium that speed pushes against to change the angle of light. Its interesting to know the electron path to the proton ratio is a marble to a football field. Speed should have no affect on orbit or create the Doppler affect without a medium. Motion would not be possible without an energy source. We recognize an energy limit of c while not recognizing where energy itself resides. Energy is c and the pattern on c (radiation) propagated at c shows energy of space is spin of dark mass. Relativity would not work if space moved by a direction as Einstein suggested. But spin of dark mass particles would satisfy relativity. Another option would be the spin state of energy rotates with planets, solar system, galaxies and the universe. In that case all of our measurements would be from a stationary frame for measurement locally relative to energy available as a ratio between kinetic used and c total. We have to understand energy before we can really understand our measurements.

3

New Theories / Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life,

« on: 13/05/2017 23:57:33 »

There is no logical purpose to life only emotional ones. You might ask what is the purpose of a fly. If I care less about a fly why would an all powerful being care about me? Non of it is logical. The volume of the universe compared to my volume, I am less than significant. Who would you chose to live forever? Certainly not me over you. The belief in a God is a very selfish attitude.
I am happy for what I have but I do not think forever is anything but boring.

Nature is causing me to abstain from sex, not my choice. Religion is just a control mechanism.

4

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanics of relativity?

« on: 03/05/2017 11:59:35 »

Again this needs a diagram to make it possible to follow. Let's just do one thing at a time though and start with something really simple. Let's start with a stationary object one metre long. If this object is then moved lengthways at 0.5c, it should appear to shorten to 867mm. In LET, this shortening is accounted for by the atoms settling closer together so that the communication distances between atoms are the same in the direction of travel of the object as they are sideways. What does your theory say about what's going on in the same situation?

I think for myself and do not trust others to do my subjective interpretations. I never thought of my interpretation as a rival. Reading Einstein's papers gave me the interpretation I have about relativity.
What you want is the discussion on the reflection of light. OK. Lets look at light coming from the opposite direction of travel to the meter stick. Light hits the front of the stick while the stick is going half the speed of light. The light travels down the stick while the back of the stick moves towards the light for reflection. So the light reflects off of 2/3rds of the stick. So the contraction in this case is 2/3rds length but remains physically 1 meter long. Because of the finite speed of a photon (whatever you believe to be a photon) non can move fast enough to cover the whole meter stick.

Now lets look at light following that same stick. Light reaches the back of the meter stick. The front is still moving forward. The reflective light follows the meter stick for two whole lengths of the stick. So the meter stick becomes two meters long for the view while the meter stick is only one meter long.

Clocks oriented in any angle to vector velocity will tick at the same rate. Both mechanical (electrons) and light clocks. So you need to be more specific in what you are asking. There is no physical contraction in SR. Where would you get such an idea? 

5

New Theories / Re: What causes motion?

« on: 15/04/2017 13:36:53 »

How can the Big Bang survive its failure with Black Holes? In our universe there are BH's larger than 30,000 AU.

I know that the evidence is that you don't really care about the actual content of physics or empirical evidence, but what is your source for that claim? Your claim about the size of black holes is at least one order of magnitude larger than the Schwartzchild radius of the largest recorded black hole.

I do care about the content of physics. And I did make a mistake by a factor of about 100. 17 billion solar units. This would be around 314 AU. But you are avoiding the point by your insult. How could the universe be only 13.6 billion years old with a BH of 17 billion suns?

This would put red shift in the realm of GR dilation and not SR expansion.

Again, for those people who actually care about physics: cosmological expansion is entirely a GR phenomenon, SR is not a factor of cosmological redshift.

GR is gravity red shift and SR is vector red shift. GR red shift does not necessary mean anything is moving away. Explain your GR version of the expansion of the universe.

13.6 billion years has become a faith no longer following our observed reality. After all it was a Catholic Priest who coined the phrase Big Bang.

Actually, it was an atheist who coined the term "Big Bang". He did it in order to attempt to smear the theory because he couldn't produce definitive evidence in favor of his own theory. Time and further data collection did not side with him.

History of the Big Bang theory - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
The history of the Big Bang theory began with the Big Bang's development from observations ... In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an ... who coined the name of Lemaître's theory, referring to it as "this 'big bang' idea" ... Hoyle repeated the term in further broadcasts in early 1950, as part of a ...

Insults rather than correcting my term coined the term BB? It was a Catholic Priest who proposed the BB but Hoyle did coin the phrase.

Physbang you are not a very generous person are you? You can be precise without being accurate and you can be accurate without being precise.

What is the possibility of a 13.6 billion year universe with a 17 billion solar BH? Our suns lifespan is about 10 billion years. Do you have an opinion or is you thoughts only in the form of insults.

6

New Theories / Re: What is the ''speed'' of ''time''?

« on: 07/04/2017 11:30:12 »

Yes your angles can be dangerous.

7

New Theories / Re: What is gravity?

« on: 06/04/2017 17:27:07 »

The Box : I personally feel that charge stops total compression of matter because charge is opposed to charge. 
What do you think?

Very close to it, I think. The number of scientists who agree on the basic scenario that electromagnetism was involved in gravity are too many to even begin to list here.  In Particular those scientists including Poincare who were responsible for the eventual and unintentional revival of the aether theory in the form of relativity. Relativity was originally formulated as a means to to explain why the aether was undetectable.

  Electro-magnetic is a difference in potential. Charge is a difference in potential. Gravity is a difference in potential. c spectrum is the potential.

8

New Theories / Re: What causes motion?

« on: 06/04/2017 17:11:25 »

Big bang is not the beginning of space, big bang is the foundation over which "motion" was able to start to take place. As one said motion exists for it has space(volume) to be able to exist.

Big bang is motion. Time is independent from motion.

Plank's time is the smallest of motion'

The BB 13.6 Billion years is a drop in the bucket compared to BH's reaching over 30,000 AU. The two are incompatible. Which one is observed and which one is theory?

9

New Theories / Re: What is the ''speed'' of ''time''?

« on: 02/04/2017 14:05:34 »

Goc the absolute reference frame is observable space.

We do not observe space.

jef: Any object that moves away from you falls into the past. Not only does time slow down for the object, but also because of the nature of light we observe the object falling into the past.

We do not ever observe the present. All observations are from the past by the amount of time light takes to reach your peeps

10

New Theories / Re: What is the ''speed'' of ''time''?

« on: 01/04/2017 14:46:25 »

Goc has misconstrued the concept of unambiguous measurements. It does not equate to an absolute reference frame. It simply means that a measurement made in one context can be reliably transposed to another. It requires a common factor, which is light speed in the case of SR.

I agree there is no absolute reference frame. How and where did you read anything I said to suggest one? There is only one ratio between frames with relativity math giving that ratio of observed effects accurately.

To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, the speed of time is one second per second or one year per year or whatever unit of time per whatever unit of time. Einstein taught us that my seconds (or years or whatever) are not necessarily the same as yours so the real question is how they differ. SR answers that question and it all boils down to one's perception of light speed, which is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.

Einstein suggested all views are equally valid. Interestingly enough this allows that no view is valid. Each frame has its own measuring stick. When everyone measures with their own measuring stick we obtain many different values. There is no valid view same as there is no standard time.

which is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.

Your time and distance changes for every different frame. If you change your frame your tick rate and measuring stick change equally to measure the same speed of light. Your measuring the speed of light not unambiguous distances.

If your time changes physically than your measuring devise has to change physically to measure the same speed of light in every frame. You measure the speed of light with your new measuring stick distance. The distance measured is different between frames. The distance measured is different while the speed of light is measured to be the same.

There is no preferred frame. The measured speed of light is unambiguous. The distance measured is ambiguous.

Time and distance are always related as a ratio. How you interpret meaning has to be properly defined. There is no time without motion c.

11

New Theories / Re: Is the Big Bang real?

« on: 18/12/2016 14:14:40 »

our knowledge is to explain what exists and not how it existed

I would not want to limit my knowledge in any way. I would have bitten the apple and not blamed it on a woman. The desire for knowledge is strong and I would not want to discourage that in anyone.

 

our creative skills is to build things from what exists and not to create matter or energy

A theory has to include size dimensions we cannot detect or we believe in magic. We cannot view what causes c but we know it exists. We do not create energy or matter with mechanical interpretations. We strive to understand our relationship with our environment. c is the most fascinating part of the universe to me.

12

New Theories / Re: All fields are the same , a new theory on field.

« on: 18/12/2016 13:29:30 »

what if my hypotheses are valid ? how it would be acceptable worldwide ? will scientists accept a forum thread ?

No.

I think that why light moves at speed c because it is a kinetic energy of 0.5mc^2 !!

You haven't described the reason for c as a constant. Main stream has the same problem. They claim light does not slow down than speed up going through different mediums. This is because there is no mechanism in their understanding. This is a limitation to understanding. c is fundamental energy outside of mass kinetic style energy. c moves electrons and allows motion up to c energy by photon spectrum but not mass. The logic of a photon slowing and speeding up going through different materials guaranties energy is outside of mass. Yet the standard model defends the idea of something for nothing. To change minds it takes a herculean effort similar to trying to convince the Pope God does not exist. Ideas on a forum falls on deaf ears.

99% of scientists will believe a 1% possibility to maintain the standard model. Science has become faith.

13

New Theories / Re: Is the Big Bang real?

« on: 17/12/2016 18:00:38 »

I'm just curious, if not big bang, what are the best(most solid) alternatives we have available?

Is there a God and what does he or she look like?

 I do not have that answer but I am also not going to describe one that is impossible to exist.

The BB has no logical path for existence when we view super massive black holes 37,200 AU and it will take 4 billion years for one BH to merge with another to produce a 29 million sol BH. One sol being about 1.8 miles as a BH. That is just over 3 merging BH's for ~90 million sols not even 1 AU using the inverse square law for volume. That is just under the predicted age of the universe 12 billion years for three mergers. 37,200 times 12 billion and that does not include the growth to there present size.

I do not care what anyone believes but science should follow logic.

14

New Theories / Re: The 12 Aspects of 1 Dimensional Time

« on: 17/12/2016 17:34:54 »

  The belief in potential time travel is a violation of relativity. Relativity tells us we view our universe with relativity of simultaneity. This means we can never view anything that happens in the present. When we view it, it already happened. The further away the longer the time period since it happened. The physical is in the present but the view is always from the past. The physical act creates a physical image that travels through space at the finite speed of c.

Entanglement creates a mirror wave at 180 degrees. When we bring them back together one is always the opposite spin of the other. You do not chose one spin to create the opposite spin in the other. This is not magic but rather predetermined at creation of light. The electron dos not travel through space only the representative spectrum of the electron travels through space. We do not have a real particle pair being produced. That is only in fusion.

15

New Theories / Re: The 12 Aspects of 1 Dimensional Time

« on: 15/12/2016 14:14:24 »

    The BB is highly unlikely due to the super black holes found in the universe. Time is just the present positions of mass in now vs. the present in the next now when we move planks length of c. Future and past are just words to distinguish positions of mass in a previous present or a expectation of an upcoming present. Time is not a dimension its just motion between a different present in your frame of energy available.

16

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 15/12/2016 13:56:53 »

Perhaps there is a way, if you can find one way speed of light.

In a sense this is correct. It's kind of like analytical chemistry where you can use an internal and external standard for purity of a product. You have all of the energy being used for distance while you can measure the distance. Unfortunately GR also interferes with distance measurements. So while we can have accurate measurements we can never have precise measurements because your AF is always confounded with mass dilated space. Even between galaxies but that is where we would be the most precise. If mass could have a vector speed of light the ability to measure time (energy available) would stop.

17

New Theories / Re: Is the Big Bang real?

« on: 15/12/2016 13:36:32 »

   Is there anyone out there to explain the BB logically or are we just sheep following the whims of imagination? Even if we are in an expanding Universe (which I suspect to be GR red shift not SR) it might be a mega oscillation. When you interpret observations to confirm a theory that is not science. Equal weight needs to be placed on the issues that logically show your position to be impossible. How can the Earth be only 6,000 years old if there were dinosaurs? The BB is based on faith not science. And by the way if you sail far enough you will not fall off the earth.   

18

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 14/12/2016 16:53:39 »

Nilak


      That was a very interesting paper. About 80% correct in my opinion. Its still slightly off because some of the foundation is missing which will lead to some incorrect conclusions that violate relativity. But you have mixed mechanics with most of relativity quite well. Putting mechanics to relativity is like following the rabbit into his hole in Alice in wonderland. While the math has been worked out precisely the accuracy of the mechanical gears have remained a mystery. A few tweaking's of the concept is all I suspect that is needed to accurately follow relativity. The one major piece missing is the correct understanding of the Alfa Frame which had no description of motion but use motion in examples. Why do electrons move in a helix. I totally believe they do and I have shown reason for why they do at c. You seem to have left out the very reason for motion itself. Once you figure that out I suspect it will change some of the positions you currently hold. The main one being light is the same as mass. This is just wrong. Light being the cause of gravity is also incorrect but the spectrum does cause gravity. Your distance issue with clocks is spot on in SR but misses the mark in GR. Dilation of space is real, observable as lensing in galaxies and increases the size of mass when the energy density expands. This is the equivalence between SR and GR. You correctly describe an Alpha Frame c of least amount of dilation as a fixed c distance for energy particles. While we can only use our clocks for relative dilations in GR and relative speeds in SR. We can never measure a fixed frame although there is one of least dilation. You can never measure a tool that you are using to measure with. We can not measure c with c. That was insightful and shows understanding.

There are no lines in 3d space only points of different special dimensions as proven by Pi. 

Overall very good

19

New Theories / Re: Space and matter concept

« on: 13/12/2016 15:09:35 »

I've already described how they move. Fundamental wave that it is made of travels at c the same way as EM waves. Interactions with other waves makes them to change shape (compress or extend the helix) and thus the forward speed changes. What makes photons to move makes electrons to move.

   We fundamentally agree the photon travels as a helix similar to our own DNA. The electron motion is probably the cause of DNA and life itself. "What makes photons to move makes electrons to move" While you are correct you are missing the deeper question. What makes electrons move? I have designed a grid pattern of c spin that make electrons appear to be moving around a string going in any direction. Always moving at c both the electron and the photon. The electron total angular motion is c while the photon is vector motion c. So for me it is the structure of space that creates the helix light photon packet by its jump to a higher orbit. This jump causes friction in the grid pattern mimicking the electron travel distance and angular motion we view as hf.

Regarding fields other than electro-magnetic, since they can interact with electro-magnetic filed through gravitational effects it means that probably they are also electro-magnetic. This explains the relativistic mass effects that apply to all particles.

Using the term electro magnetic is probably confusing. We have to define a physical interpretation for different attraction affects. And we need to follow relativity.

Speed in SR reduces tick rates in clocks. We can understand the geometry issue with tick rate slowing down. Fundamental c being total energy available (an electron moving a vector c would not cycle) is reduced by vector speed. In GR we can follow gravity as a reduction of potential energy as gravity. Speed in SR also reduces potential increase in speed. While the mathematics of main stream suggests a difference in mass we can view gravity as a difference in energy potential while the mass remains the same. Main stream fudges a mass increase to follow relativity. It is actually an energy decrease that cause the attraction increase in GR. The equivalence in SR is energy available from c for the mathematics to be the equivalent gamma term.

Like Nikola Tesla said  – "Everything is the Light".

While I believe everything is energy c light is just a propagation wave on fundamental energy c.

Fusion in suns compress energy into hydrogen atoms creating their own fuel from space with radiation waves on the grid.
Fission in suns release the frozen energy particles back into fundamental energy with radiation waves on the grid.

The sun produces higher elements as it ages using space as its fuel. The suns life cycle.

 

20

New Theories / Re: Could the photon be the sole elementary particle?

« on: 10/12/2016 20:17:02 »

CPT ArkAngel,

   There are only a few of us traveling our path. You are explaining things the general way I understand them. Not exactly the same but close enough to understand your position. You do realize to many others we speak a different language. Its a stepwise process so the leap is to challenging. We appear to be on the same stairway. Our theories shut most trained minds off and the untrained minds cannot follow some of the concepts of relativity.  It becomes an exercise in futility. But I can appreciate you Alex and Nilak.