1

New Theories / Re: Is the universe made from one particle?

« on: 19/09/2017 02:03:47 »

So far I have seen nothing but unsubstantiated claims about concepts that exist only inside your head.
Please provide the experimental evidence.

Where has evan gone? "Evan!" has anybody seen evan lately? lol

2

New Theories / Re: The conductive grid of Space-time

« on: 19/09/2017 01:56:24 »

Well the conductive grid is stationairy. The planets move around the sun because of the early formation of the solar system in a disk form. A star, not a sun, can expand and then collapse on itself creating a supernovea that creates all known elements in the universe. A black hole will capture any matter it brings in I don't know how the creates aether.Most of that looks like word salad to me. Can you explain some more about the rotation causing the infraction in the experiment you posted?

1. Proof that all the planets move at the same relative speed. Note : VxR 1/2 = 1 for all planets
 http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/orbital.htm

2. The rotating interferometer shows that the aether movement affects the speed of light. If the rotating speed of the interferometer is 30 m/s then the aether will be 30 m/s also. This proves that (a) the aether is moving with the earth and (b) The interfermeter result is being affected by this movement and showing fringes. Thus, this proves that space contains a slowing medium called "aether".

3. Aether jets shoot out of galaxies perpendicular to the rotational axis. This creates aetheric pressure which we call gravity.

http://www.fractaluniverse.org/v2/?page_id=2

3

New Theories / Re: Is the universe made from one particle?

« on: 19/09/2017 01:39:43 »

I like your philosophy, as well.

Why don't you suck his dick while your at it?

4

New Theories / Re: The conductive grid of Space-time

« on: 19/09/2017 00:47:41 »

I'm not sure you got that one right. why would the speed of the moving ether as relative to earth equate to gravity? The aether or conductive grid is stationairy and we're moving through it. Gravity is something entirely different.

Most of current physics is wrong. Space is not empty and the Earth and all the other planets are pushed around the sun by the aether. Note - All the planets move at the same relative speed according to there position and size. The conductive grid is not stationary. The universe is constantly expanding and contracting at the same time. Suns expand and create matter and black holes destroy matter back to aether again. Its a circular motion which is perpendicular the the galactic axis. Similar to magnetic forces which are tiny fractals of aethic forces and movements.

5

New Theories / Re: Is visible light dependent on substance?

« on: 18/09/2017 16:22:22 »

To help the world understand reality I feel it is important that I explain the nature of the light.    The light that the world thinks exist , does not actually exist and all things that we see and observe are glowing in the dark.   Light itself is not something that passes through empty space, light is something that is made by quantum actions of radiation making contact with substance.
To add scenario and proof to this , I would  like you to consider yourself and look at yourself.  I then want you to imagine that all the objects of substance around you are not there and you are just ''floating'' in space.  Quite clearly there is now only you glowing in the dark.
 

Space is not empty. It is full and matter is empty. Space is pushing into matter because matter contains holes in space called neutrons. The universe is like a series of Russian dolls which extends forever outwards and forever inwards. Each unit of reality is a fractal which has a larger and smaller equivalent. Thus, we have atoms, solar system, galaxy; each being a fractal equivalent of one another.

6

New Theories / Re: The conductive grid of Space-time

« on: 18/09/2017 16:08:24 »

  The Michelson Morley experiment highly discounts the possibility of a stationary grid structure. I would have to agree with that assessment but that did not prove a grid made of points that spin in a complimentary fashion was disproven. We nave to account for energy to move the electrons. A spin grid of c complimentary points would satisfy that requirement and create relativity. Or continue on the path of magic rather than mechanical electron motion that is confounded with photon motion.

I've been discussing this. I have come to the conclusion that the split light beam in the Michelson Moorley experiment doesn't lose or gain momentum energy from the moving grid or ether because it returns on exactly the same path as it was sent out cancelling any momentum it gains or loses from it's moving through the ether. Measuring how fast the light gets to the END of each arm in the experiment would show which way the ether was moving in respect to the movement of the earth through a stationairy conductive grid or ether.

Airy's telescope experiments and Sagnac's experiment where he spins the interferometer at a rate of 2 revolutions per second creates the expected fringes.
The expectations of the Michelson/Morley experiment were that the Earth moves through the aether at 30 meters per second. They never considered that the aether pushes the Earth around the sun. The Michelson/Morley experiment found an aether speed of 10 meters per second. This experiment was called a null result because they didn't get what they were expecting. This is the speed that the aether enters the Earth. Its called gravity. 9.8m/sec. If the aether is travelling at the same speed as the Earth then of course, there wont be much wind.

Note - Ignore the religious content of this video.

7

New Theories / Re: Is the universe made from one particle?

« on: 18/09/2017 15:39:59 »

I have already unified the universe.

So far I have seen nothing but unsubstantiated claims about concepts that exist only inside your head.
Please provide the experimental evidence.

Airy's telescope experiments and Sagnac's experiment where he spins the interferometer at a rate of 2 revolutions per second creates the expected fringes.
The expectations of the Michelson/Morley experiment were that the Earth moves through the aether at 30 meters per second. They never considered that the aether pushes the Earth around the sun. The Michelson/Morley experiment found an aether speed of 10 meters per second. This experiment was called a null result because they didn't get what they were expecting. This is the speed that the aether enters the Earth. Its called gravity. 9.8m/sec. If the aether is travelling at the same speed as the Earth then of course, there wont be much wind.

Note - Disregard  the religious references of this video.

8

New Theories / Re: Is the universe made from one particle?

« on: 18/09/2017 06:33:56 »

I have already unified the universe. If the universe is made from one particle in 3 states. Thus, unification of gravity, light and mass is easy. Quantum is the wrong term. Quantum anything doesn't exist. The universe operates via spin torque which is mistaken for quantum mechanics. The aether spins at the speed of light. Space is made of alternate left and right spinning particles. Light is transferred through the aether medium like the  cogs in a watch. Matter contains a no spin particle at the centre which the left and right spin particles orbit around or are falling into. The aether particles are falling into the sun which are forced together and stop spinning which releases E=MC2 energy and light. Thus, 2 particles of aether (c2) are forced together to become (M) mass or neutron.

9

New Theories / Is the universe made from one particle?

« on: 18/09/2017 01:26:28 »

The universe is made from only one particle in 3 states. There are not hundreds of different sub-atomic particles. These states are known as positive, negative and neutral. This can be further simplified to left spin, right spin and no spin.

10

New Theories / Re: Luminiferous Aether

« on: 01/10/2016 17:59:19 »

Been exploring the concept in my head.  Seems to me, many of us argue (within ourselves) about the need for a medium of space. 

Like myself, many suspect there must be a medium for light and/or gravity waves to propagate through space, but we cannot see it.  We can neither prove, nor disprove such quality, it has no tangible quality, other than taking/making up space.

The Michaleson Morely experiment (MME) is the most prominent example of the search for a definitive answer.  But the experiment was limited to being performed at the surface of the earth.

I postulate atomic structure (mass) displace aether.

If that postulation is correct, I conclude that solid mass displace most aether, followed by liquids then gas.  From the core of the earth to the outer most reaches of the atmosphere, it would be something of a sliding scale.

I’ve been struggling to contrive a method to detect it, but I’m coming up blank.

Even if there is such a quality, can we assume it doesn’t interact with mass/matter?

Best I’ve got:  Its everywhere there isn’t atoms, there is aether.  If there is aether around the sun and we’re orbiting the sun within it…  It stands to reason the aether would flow in a similar path around the sun, as the Earth.

–

That’s explains to me, why MME and others fail to detect any aether quality of space.

You don't need an interferometer to detect aether. Aether is gravity, electricity and all forms of energy. The Earth floats with the aether like a piece of drift wood down a river. Thus, if you are trying to measure its velocity you wont get a big difference. Michaleson and Morley did measure a small difference but it wasn't the same as the Earth's speed around the Sun, so they dismissed it as a NULL RESULT. (a silly mistake of misunderstanding of the true nature of aether) lol!


Note - They were under instructions to find a NULL RESULT. In science you can always manipulate the results by manipulating the expectations! lol!

11

That CAN'T be true! / Is vaccination is just an old superstition?

« on: 01/10/2016 17:43:03 »

The process of vaccination is derived from ancient tribal practices which goes back thousands of years into our primeval past. It was once thought (and still is apparently) that mixing animal and human blood together would protect people from getting sick. It was thought that the animals spirit and strength could be gained by mixing the animals blood with human blood. Edward Jenner used these old wives tales as inspiration and thought that there might be some scientific validity to this process. But, alas, there is nothing to gain by injecting animal blood into human blood. In fact, the practice is highly dangerous to the person's health because they need to preserve the animal blood with dangerous chemicals which may attack the nervous system of susceptible individuals. Unfortunately, Edward Jenner had no training in nutrition and was not to know that most disease is caused by vitamin deficiency and has nothing to do with germs. But, modern understanding of how the body functions has enlighten some people who now avoid eating inappropriate foods like dairy, grain, sugar and alcohol. These people can enjoy perfect health and never have to worry about getting sick with - headaches, cancer, heart attack, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, arthritis, colds or flu.

12

That CAN'T be true! / Re: How can time be a dimension?

« on: 01/10/2016 02:08:57 »

The proof is in the pudding. Space /time theory has borne no fruit.

That's simply not true.
Does your GPS work?
It relies on space-time.

I presume you have been too busy being wrong at the top of your voice to actually study any science.
That explains why you don't understand it and that, in turn, explains why you think it's wrong.

It doesn't matter much- science still works, even if you don't believe in it.

The operation of a GPS system can be equally validated and explained using my theory. A lack of aetheric pressure on the clock mechanism accounts for the clock ticking faster in space. Note - The clocks are slowed down before the satellite is launched.
Note - Satellites use a 6-12 point average system. Thus, they are not as accurate as they tell you they are. 

13

That CAN'T be true! / How can time be a dimension?

« on: 30/09/2016 18:23:47 »

The clock being a device which mimics the rotation of a planet.

The reference clock used for scientific purposes is an atomic clock, which does not involve rotation, and is not directly related to the rotation of a particular planet.

Note - one second as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a Cesium 133 atom in a vacuum.

Note -  for something to vibrate it requires a rotation or spin action as the source. Nice try though!

14

New Theories / Re: How do suns form?

« on: 30/09/2016 02:34:26 »

I suppose you have some evidence for this? I would accept as evidence: indications of other planets turning into stars (perhaps Jupiter is closest?), detection of "ethons," observation of neutron formation inside the Earth, or a theory on how ethons combine to generate BOTH mass AND energy.

In the January/February 2006 issue of Australian Physics. -
 
Professor Cahill argues that the Michelson Morley experiment did not produce the null result generally supposed. Fringe shifts were observed, but were much smaller than expected from the assumed velocity of the apparatus through the aether, and were thus disregarded.The modern view of this experiment (or at least the prevailing modern view)is that any aether or other absolute frame of reference is likely to remain un-detected because of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction of the apparatus in the direction of travel. Professor Cahill argues, however, that if an interferometer contains gas, such as the air in the Michelson and Morley apparatus, the refractively diminished phase velocity of the light would be such that contraction effects would not exactly counter differences in travel times. Small phase shifts would thus occur of the order of magnitude of those in fact recorded.I would suggest, however, that the presence of gas in the light paths could not produce the effect described. The essential problem lies in the assumption that the reduced phase velocity of the light in "gas mode" will have the same magnitude whether observed in the laboratory frame or in an absolute frame of reference. It is true that the free space velocity is invariant but not so the reduced phase velocity. To ascertain the magnitude of that phase velocity,as observed from another frame, we must use the relativistic formula for the composition of velocities, those velocities being in this case the velocity of the interferometer and the phase velocity of the signal.  

The light path aligned at right angles to the direction of travel, in the laboratory frame, is not so aligned when observed in the absolute frame. However, we need only consider in the absolute frame those components of phase velocity.

Wave Structure of Matter

A precursor of aether physics is the Wave Structure of Matter theory by Milo Wolff. In 1986 Wolff formulated a theory that he called ‘the Standing Wave Structure of Matter’ (abbreviated to WSM theory). Independently Geoff Haselhurst came to the same conclusion about a standing wave theory for matter and they are working together as of 1998.

The WSM theory is relatively simple. It proposes that matter is the focal point of a standing wave the result of two interfering waves. One is an inward wave moving towards the center and the other is an outward-bound wave moving away from the center. The waves are spherical waves in the fabric of space. The center of the two spherical waves is the ‘point particle’ center. As simple as the axiom of this theory is, the properties these standing waves can assume seem to be immense.

Whereas almost all physical laws both in Newtonian and quantum physics were empirically derived from experiments, Milo Wolf says he now has theory that a priori, from theoretical principles, allows the laws of both relativity and quantum physics to be determined!

If he is right the origin of the physical laws and the properties of charge, mass and gravity, for the first time can be understood. Mainstream physics could never really explain these; for one thing we still don’t know what gravity really is; we have known the physical laws of gravity since Newton; however we don’t know what’s causing gravity!

String theory is trying to accomplish exactly what the WSM theory has done, to integrate quantum physics and Einstein’s relativity. String theory is mainstream physics best shot and hope for a theory of everything (T.O.E.)

A wave structure of matter had already been proposed 130 years ago by William Clifford, he declared that ‘all matter is simply undulations in the fabric of space’. Unfortunately, his colleagues never took his work seriously.

In the WSM theory matter is just the interference pattern of in and out waves. The in-waves of a given particle are the out-waves of another particle. In this way all matter in the universe is sustained and mutually dependent. In and out waves tie all the matter in the universe together.

In conclusion : A very bad Photoshop user is more likely to discover the secrets of the universe than the most advanced scientist at CERN. This is because smashing marbles tells you very little about marbles regardless of the size of the hammer you are using. Whereas, a Photoshop user is using similar tools to that which the universe uses to create reality.

Note - The human eye sees everything in terms of 3 parts. (The law of 3rds which applies to both music and visual arts).  The number 3 was Tesla's favourite number because he knew that it was the key to understanding the universe.

http://ryuc.info/creativityphysics/energy/pair_production.htm

15

New Theories / How do suns form?

« on: 29/09/2016 17:14:11 »

It is my opinion that suns form from planets and not from primeval dust from the Big Bang. The shape of the Earth's continents clearly indicates that the Earth is expanding and has been doing so for billions of years. (See 'The Expanding Earth' video.) The aether is flowing into the centre of the Earth where the spinning (at the speed of light) particles of aether are forced together so they stop spinning. This releases heat and energy and forms neutrons. This is why the centre of the Earth is molten and hot. Now, as the planets get larger, the aether fusion point gradually moves outwards towards the crust. Eventually, the fusion point reaches the surface when the planet is big enough. When this occurs, the planet ignites and becomes a sun. There may be some dust which comes from exploding stars but most of the mass would come from aether fusion. This involves the left and right spin ethons fusing together to make a neutron. Neutrons then grow to become atoms by attracting electrons and protons into rotation around the neutron (black-hole attractor.)

This process is never ending and has no beginning nor and any ending. The solar fractals will eventually expand and become galactic fractals. This is how the universe is expanding. - Note - It has nothing to do with the Big Bang.  The universe is divided into fractal dimensions. Real time increases with smaller fractals and slows down with larger fractals. The time scale differential between each dimension is approx. in the order of 10 to the power of 35 or more commonly know as Planck's constant.

Note - There is no fourth dimension within our fractal reality.

16

General Science / Re: Was Einstein wrong about E=mc^2?

« on: 29/09/2016 16:40:29 »

Being a scientist, I prefer numbers to rhetoric. Your political prejudices and amateur psychology are irrelevant: please show your calculations.

Einstein made three basic mistakes in his interpretation of the E=MC2 equation. Einstein’s first mistake with E=MC2 was to take a simple equation and then try to interpret it with two contradictory and paradoxical ideas of mass and energy.
In the general interpretation, E=MC2 defines the relationship between mass and kinetic energy. This means that when a body of mass is decelerated it loses mass and energy and when it is accelerated it gains mass and energy. This mass increase/decrease for all matter is proportional to each body’s kinetic energy relative to a common position of rest for all matter. In this interpretation of E=MC2, energy and mass coexist together. When a body is accelerated to a given velocity, the kinetic energy inherent in that velocity contributes to overall mass of the body. One Joule has a mass of 10,-17 kg and a kilogram of mass weighs 1017 Joules. Here their is no conversion of matter to energy. While a Joule is a quantity of energy it is also a quantity of mass.
A single Joule of mass and energy is at the same time very small and very large. It takes 1014 joules of mass just to weigh a single gram but a one Joule photon would be a formidable event indeed. It would have an energy 1,000,000,000,000 times greater than a typical X-ray photon. A one Joule photon could not be produced in the laboratory with even the most powerful of accelerators. The only place where such photons could be found would be among the most powerful of the cosmic rays.
Moving bodies contain both Joules of kinetic energy and Joules of kinetic mass contained in that energy. When a body is decelerated its kinetic mass decreases as it is slowed and its kinetic energy is lost in the deceleration process.
Einstein refused to believe in deceleration as a meaningful concept that could be differentiated from acceleration to establish a position of absolute rest because the mass changes caused by motion cannot be measured locally.

17

General Science / Re: Am I the 1st person to notice this phenomenon of living matter?

« on: 29/09/2016 04:44:38 »

Hi.

I believe I may be the first person to comment on the following subject as I can find no reference to it anywhere else.   

The subject relates to an alternative model on the interpretation of the true nature of reality. However, the whole model falls apart if the following observation is proved as being incorrect.

The model can differentiate between the movement of the coordinates of inanimate matter in 3 dimensional space and that of living ( and moving) organisms within that same 3-D space.

The model highlights an event which occurs only within the matter of living organisms moving within 3-D space. And by 'within' I mean an area with a volume of 1 Planck Sphere in diameter. The model postulates that an 'area' of that size cannot exist in our own relative particular 3-D space.

The Planck unit of time represents a moment when nothing can be known of the Planck length coordinate in the intervening time between starting the Planck stopwatch and the moment we stop the watch (at the moment the  coordinate has moved a distance of 1 Planck length).  When we stop the watch, we can entirely predict the position & state of every inanimate particle of matter at it's / their new coordinate in the 4 dimensional spacetime. 

We do not possess that same predictability about the future position of the coordinates of living matter however. Moreover, there is an event which occurs at a distance of 1 Planck length and which can only occur uniquely  within that of living matter moving in 3-D space.

This event occurs when a [particle of matter] coordinate of a living organism is moving in a particular direction trajectory in 3-D space at any given moment. After a period of 1 Planck stopwatch unit of time, the coordinate of living matter meets itself coming back at 180 degrees in the opposite direction. The degree of tolerance from a perfect infinite 180 degree opposite trajectory is 1 Planck length.

This situation of a 180 degree returning of a particle of matter back to the coordinate it occupied 1 Planck unit ago, does not exist in the natural movement of inanimate matter in 3- D space. It appears to exist in living matter however.

It is only through the application of the conscious free will of the living organism choosing to move a coordinate/particle of it's body in entirely the opposite direction that this event occurs at all.

I would appreciate to know if any part of this observation is incorrect.

The whole lot is incorrect. That is only because you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. lol!

18

That CAN'T be true! / Re: How can time be a dimension?

« on: 29/09/2016 03:17:39 »

The proof is in the pudding. Space /time theory has borne no fruit. The theory has created a dead end to scientific investigation. CERN scientists are just going around in circles going nowhere. (excuse the pun, lol) If space/time was a valid theory, then all the forces of the universe should have been reconciled by now. But, no. No progress has been made. There is still no common denominator. Thus, my theory that spin is the common denominator which unites all the forces must be true.

19

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Re: Is spacetime real?

« on: 29/09/2016 03:12:20 »

1. You have been free to post this nonsense.

You have to prove that it is nonsense, not just say that it is nonsense. I have proven that what you are saying is nonsense and you haven't replied to many questions. Thus, I have the upper hand.

2. Science is science.

Non-committal statement and bureaucratic as expected. Doesn't mean anything? Avoidance....... etc

3. The rules apply to everyone.

As George Orwell said "some people are more equal than other people" lol! (Communists)
 

4. You have been free to post this nonsense.

Your inherent bias has been included here. lol

5. You pose the point and I reply. That sounds like two way communication to me.

Not when you block a posting because it doesn't agree with your personal opinions. That's called censorship.
 

6. The rules are in place to prevent incorrect information being disseminated. And to protect you from those that would attack and insult you.

Sorry, the rules are in place to protect large corporations and institutions from being embarrassed and litigated against. Note - Governments don't like to be proven wrong. They will do anything imaginable to avoid this happening. I know, because I used to work for the government.

20

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Re: Is spacetime real?

« on: 28/09/2016 04:03:27 »

No, time was always physical. Are you saying that speeds and rates were merely intellectual concepts? If you take away time, then speed is only distance... Time has been an integral (no pun intended) part of Newtonian physics, and even the ancient Greeks and (ancienter) Babylonians had pretty a reasonable grasp of time.

As far as "the arrow of time" is concerned. I don't think it is really about time being part of a vector so much as that people realized that time only changes in one direction. Things only get older, never younger. The major reason that people started talking about "the arrow of time" was in relation to entropy. As far as Newtonian mechanics was concerned, everything was purely deterministic, and any physically possible process that happened could just as reasonably happen backwards. Event A causes event B, which causes event C, could just as easily be reverse C causes reverse B causes reverse A. During the 19th century people realized that the world really doesn't work this way, that there is, in fact, one order of events that is more meaningful than the opposite order--time only moves one way.

The easiest way to think about this is by imagining the fate of several ice sculptures on a sunny day. No matter what shape the sculpture has in the morning, it will be a puddle of water in the evening. The process of melting only makes sense one way. Sure, you can refreeze the puddle, but it won't put itself back together into a sculpture (and certainly not the one that it started as). If one looked at the reverse process, of a puddle freezing and growing into a beautiful statue, you would say that it was either impossible or magic (certainly not physics). That's all the "arrow" is about.

If time is a dimension, then in which direction is it pointing?

Thus, we can see the stupidity of time as a dimension!

The problem is that physics is now irrational nonsense due to the intervention of Einstein.

The universe is better understood when it contains left spin, right spin and no spin particles. (positive, negative and neutral) That's all you have to know about the universe. The rest is just commonsense and consequences. paper - scissors - rock

 Always an imbalance and never stable. 


How does one know if you are living under a dictatorship?

1. No freedom of speech - Check

2. Bias opinions of bureaucrats - Check

3. Unfair rules that favour the sycophants - Check

4. Inflexible rules which have no grey areas - Check

5. Only one way communication - (top down) - Check

6. No punishments or disincentives for administrators of unfair rules - Check