1

New Theories / Re: Atmosphere is what's compromising the double-slit conclusion?

« on: 28/08/2018 03:37:56 »

Make sense I know, but when one is considering about light, I do not think a vacuum would make much of a difference to my speculation.
  About shooting electrons, I do not believe that was the case. More like electron not being but existing at C.
  What I mean is, that the very wave of the passing electron has the potential to become one for each intersection.
  All that it really takes is the waves on the left start to interfere with the waves on the right, eventually one electron will miss the jump and cascade the whole experiment.

   Another consideration is that this universe has direction.
 Someone has ever tried to centrifuge the whole experiment while running it?

2

New Theories / Atmosphere is what's compromissing the double-slit conclusion?

« on: 26/08/2018 20:18:58 »

Time connects all 4 dimensions, reason why the act of observing affects the whole experiment.
  Not magic, simple quantum entanglement, one isolated action causes a ripple of infinite possibilities within the environment, like domino's.
 So is very easy to visualize that if one gets a falling object, on the quantum perspective (with a present observer) there is the necessity (of the observer) to imply that the object must make some sort of sound, the sound must have a pre-determinate speed, and each and every single aspect is intricate with the other in a specific arrow, mix all that on dimensions you got arrow of time, spinning towards infinity, therefore, individual particles entangled to each other, each one with their specific local time due different frames of reference.

  Even so, the observers necessity is what is implying the reality to "do or be", remove that, still dot-wave at the same time (only and only when) time is relative.
 Time is relative only if one have more than one point of reference, on this case, the (eye,mind,toughs,flesh,wherever).

 The "observer" is the point of reference itself in comparison to the electron it is observing, therefore, (Observer) by offering a point B to the straight line, added "environment" to the arrow.

 In a nut shell, until there was a B point of reference, the electron only needed to seek the curvature of the arrow of time, from the machine towards infinity, point B added + one direction, and since light is constant at C, the only possible outcome is one particle spiting into waves of possibility in between A+B+C, and each wave interfering with each other.


 Dot-Wave configuration, not at the same time still a single DOT, but projected and overlapped towards itself at C towards infinity, until mass.

 Seems backwards, light as a product of space-time?

3

New Theories / Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?

« on: 04/03/2018 23:25:46 »

I also sort of agree with deep sea waters volcanic activities, seems quite possible...

4

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy

« on: 04/03/2018 19:48:31 »

I'm wondering that C is a limit not a speed.
 That Edwin Hubble misinterpreted shifts on light by being property when they are optical virtual effects.
That Dark energy is correspondent to the interaction of electromagnetic fields generated by plasma configurations of galaxies, also the plasma configuration giving the shape for galaxies and rotation not gravity.
 Gravity being but an illusion, Einstein used gravity to explain gravity. If earth is bending space-time acting like a funnel, no matter how close the moon would be it would be stationary.
 Explain gravity as causing the funnel and gravity as the force causing the free fall feels wrong.
 Dark Matter being a correct prediction inside a wrong model.
 Dark Matter being resultant of interaction of particles on the quantum level, and different as observed on a planet for example, happening in open space.
 Dark Matter being represented by some sort of infusing space regions suffering from the interaction of different EMF.

 What I wondering is, sorry if I can't be specific about witch EMF ratter then galaxies EMF.

 Einstein was wrong, Newton and also Hubble.
 Seems that is all related to plasma and electromagnetic field interactions.
 
Also for the concept of time I wondering that time as I mentioned once, feels like a comparative between different scales.
 Time being related only to math and never a real entity.
 Also a universe based on 2D interactions on the smallest scale that when in interaction of tree or more, provide 3D holographic views for a 3D object.

 Thing about an asteroid from the atomic point of view, there is empty volume in between the electromagnetic interactions of the atoms that compose the asteroid.
 I'm assuming that never was a asteroid in the first place, not as long as there is still empty volume in between the atoms.

 If light can be slowed down when passing trough different mediums, C is not a speed but a universal limit and doesn't need to be constant.

 Still thinking about it. Trying to find precisely "where" the models started to fail and creating magical particles to explain.

 Actually I'm stuck trying to mix some TheBox concepts with GoC ideas.

5

New Theories / Dark Energy

« on: 04/03/2018 00:44:26 »

Einstein was right, cosmological constant for Dark Energy (EMF)
 No universal expansion ratter the interaction of EMF's, (interaction of particles on the quantum level/ Illusion Gravity)
 And dark matter being nonexistent and the gravitational pull being represented by the Dark energy sort of backing over space-time fabric?

 Does any of that make sense?

6

New Theories / Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?

« on: 27/02/2018 23:22:37 »

OK, back onto the Tsar Bomb. Earth is already not a perfect sphere, the kinetic energy released by the disruption of the tectonic plates would not take the planet out of it's original?
 I mean the earth orbit the sun where it is because it's center, if you disrupt the outside layers and flow of magma, wouldn't the center be re-centered somewhere else for some time?

7

New Theories / Re: The 2018 learn me thread. lesson 1-The Earths magnetic field?

« on: 15/02/2018 23:51:03 »

"Space-time earth's" magnetic (field?)
Space holds the energy, time provides a field for dimensions and earth as just a point of reference.

 So what earth has to do with the magnetic or the field at all?

All atoms have a field.

 My question on the last years is:
 Do they? or it's the environment that does?

8

New Theories / Re: The 2018 learn me thread. lesson 1-The Earths magnetic field?

« on: 13/02/2018 22:30:27 »

"Space-time earth's" magnetic (field?)
Space holds the energy, time provides a field for dimensions and earth as just a point of reference.

 So what earth has to do with the magnetic or the field at all?

9

New Theories / Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?

« on: 13/02/2018 22:10:15 »

"If by mans activity during the hours of daylight (point of the earth facing the sun) applies force to the surface of the earth, whilst by the hours of darkness he is static, would this activity have an effect (however small)  to permanently alter the distance of the earth from the sun"

No.
The laws of momentum conservation make this impossible.
Essentially, nothing on earth can change the earth's orbit, because it would have nothing to push against.

The detonation of a Tsar Bomb at the Mariana's trench, at the bottom of the pacific ocean would surely move the planet out of its current position...
Needless to say, gigantic tsunamis would kill most of humans on the process witch given the facts is not entirely a bad thing...

10

New Theories / Re: What is gravity?

« on: 17/06/2017 01:46:40 »

Firstly, I feel it is important to not look at the attractive side of gravity, but to look at why things don't compress to a complete solid making everything dense.

I personally feel that charge stops total compression of matter because charge is opposed to charge. 

What do you think?

I think you are generally correct.
 
Like you, I feel it is important to look at the repulsive side of gravity.
 
That is the reason that I have come up with the Experimental Quantum Antigravity HYPOTHESIS :

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70629.0

Naturally, there should be both, the attractive, as well as repulsive gravity. 
   
The Solar system is a perfect example :

QuantumAntiGravity.wordpress.com/solar-system/

HAVE YOU EVER PONDERED DEEPLY ENOUGH WHY THE SOLAR SYSTEM HAS BEEN SO PERFECTLY STABLE OVER SUCH A LONG TIME?

HAVE WE EVER OBSERVED ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS RESULTING FROM ANY POTENTIAL SOLAR SYSTEM’S INSTABILITIES, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE:

•     PLANETS FALLING ONTO THE SUN;
•     MOONS FALLING ONTO THEIR PLANETS;
•     PLANETS ESCAPING THE SUN;
•     MOONS ESCAPING THEIR PLANETS.

IS THIS PERFECT LONG-TERM STABILITY REALLY THE EXCLUSIVE RESULT OF A FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES AMONG THE SUN, THE 8 PLANETS, AND OVER 170 MOONS, NOT INCLUDING PLUTO, ITS 5 MOONS, AND THE PLANET NINE so massive that it tilts the entire Solar system by 6 degrees?

COULD THAT HYPOTHESIS OF FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES SOMEHOW BE SUBJECTED TO EMPIRICAL VERIFICATION, OR FALSIFICATION? WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE 4 SPECTACULAR INSTABILITIES TO OCCUR IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM?

Considering that the age of the Solar system (derived from the study of meteorites which are thought to be the oldest accessible material around) is estimated to be close to 5 billion years, have the angular velocities of all the planets and moons been slowing down? Have they been slowing down at the same rate, or at different rates? In either case, how long will it take before any one of the above 4 spectacular instabilities is going to finally occur?

Well, I will not hold by breath, and if none of the above 4 spectacular instabilities had ever happened even once, not to mention that all of them could have happened more than once, then it would follow that the present Solar system stability hypothesis of FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES is correct in small part only. play-roulette-liveNo orbit in the Solar system is perfect, like a spinning roulette, and since chaotic dynamics are pervasive in the Solar system, whatever the reasons of its stability, they cannot be fragile, and in order to be able to compensate for the variety of these chaotic dynamics, they need to be robust enough.

QuantumAntiGravity.wordpress.com/solar-system/
 
“ Scientific discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody else has thought. Scientific discovery must be, by definition, at variance with existing knowledge. During my lifetime, I made two. Both were rejected offhand by the Popes of that field of science.”
 —  Nobel Prize Laureate, 1937

 Try to think about orbits this way:
  "the "material planet/moon/sun" is not important at all"
  They are only masks, a meaning to an end...
    Consider that the thing orbiting the sun is exclusively the atom at the center of each of those objects, and that solar systems are all about:

   "space anomaly A interacting and resonating with space anomaly B, and the field is space..."
  Space interacting with space....
  Although a planet is required to envelop space "away from c", I believe what a planet serves for as casualty, the density splits a portion of space, isolating it from the exterior one...  At that moment one have space outside in and inside out...
   I understand space cannot be separated like a tangible material, but it can be slowed down by density far enough to reverse...

     Some consider earth as being a dynamo at the center, I save the speculation that our "dynamo" is not metal at all but in fact empty space(space/energy) spited from the other layers due pressure and then infused with radiation, to the point it starts to expand, but the only way to release is to start to spin and convert it into acceleration, just like a Black hole engine...
  Although one that never effectively interacts with the external space, one that is not self sustainable as a neutron star should be, therefore earths singularity never reaches it's full potential...
   
 Question, start a black hole from inside out a rocky planet and make sure that there is no interaction with the exterior, would it "devour" the planet from inside out?
  i do not thing so...
  Black hole + direct interaction with space = Event horizon
  Black hole + Rocky planet = Inner core

  Just try to frame, one inner core (space) interacting with another and so on and on... At the end the conclusion is that our density is blinding us to a possibility: It was space interacting with itself all along, we were just the meanings to...

11

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

« on: 17/06/2017 01:18:22 »

As for the moon, at this point I believe water only on the rock or mixed with other elements.
 I do not believe there should be liquid water...
  Mars certainly has, somewhere...

12

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

« on: 12/06/2017 21:37:47 »

What I mean was, to have a magnetosphere some suggest the necessity for heavy metals to be sniping inside of earth, my suggestion was that such metals would not form without the existence of water, so for instance for our purposes a healthy magnetosphere would require both water and oxygen, a lot of it...

13

New Theories / Re: Dilatation/Gravity behaves like "turning spheres insideout? C aspect?

« on: 05/06/2017 16:56:03 »

Me too Thebox, the question is:

 Is electromagnetism producing gravity as a result of being patterning space energy with C?
  Does the relation in between C/Gravity and electromagnetism behaves like constantly turning a sphere inside out?
 I'm trying to visualize C as a geometrical shape caused by electromagnetism turning space inside out most like the sphere on the video...
  But the process never closes cycle, I'm picturing the frame where the sphere is kept mostly IN +50%/ OUT -50%...
 I'm wondering that this phenomena could be invisible hidden in between the electromagnetic outlines of a magnetic field...
 Where the struggle to turn it inside out is always countered by the outside in aspect of the same process...
 Only light seems to suffer no effects...
  C being represented as a geometrical shape (on space) around each particle and only existing when presented...
  Light travels at C, fine...
 But is there C where light is not?

I'm wondering this is actually only the outlines of the true process(dilatation), electromagnetism interacting with space, space with itself...
  I find this often related with the example on the video, but I'm not wondering dilatation is a spheres turning inside out, but that each reference such as earth comprehends the sphere at the center, and the surroundings are keep +50% IN and -50% out, not static but proportional, like a breathing lung...

MagnetFilings.png (104.93 kB . 444x298 - viewed 1429 times)

14

New Theories / Re: Perpetual motion and perpetual energy using gravity and magnetic forces to power

« on: 04/06/2017 16:07:07 »

... it'll exponentially multiply the energy ...  No need to violate thermos dynamics or laws of physics

"multiply the energy", nothing can do that : energy cannot be created or destroyed , (1st law thermodynamics).

 It's my limited English, I was suggesting to "multiply" because each spiral inside the valve is on itself a individual flow, and each individual is adding to the power of the whole system...
  I apologist then, never meant to create energy from nowhere, only to stimulate the river flow to create more than one loose end on each corner...

 A relative small turbine what does not focus on harvesting the waterfowl but instead one that "exists within" (as) one with the water flow as a meaning to an end, the end being let the plate absorb all the river's flow into acceleration...

 A normal turbine produces mechanical movement on itself with moving parts, I'm wondering a (turbine) that is not harvesting the motion of water but the potential energy the flow is being submitted to...

  A turbine capture only the potential of the area it's affecting, and even if one is to unilateral the flow towards the turbine there is friction and eventual limitations due friction and heat...
  I wondering a turbine produced over Tesla's Valve design can "multiply" the efficiency by it's length, more pressure faster sppin....

 And there two designs arrive, one that the plate sustains the sand clock turbine this one I suppose wouldn't work because of the incoming water pressure, but the one where only the plate is spinning, that seems to be possible...
  This all considering that they indeed find a way to produce useful mono pole magnets...

 I'm wrongly assuming that the the "potential energy" of the gravity that's moving the river is C?

 Afunilate a flow towards a spiral Tesla Valve, one with holes on the walls and that will behave like a Tesla turbine, but do not harvest that, use magnetic rings around of it that are submitted to the turbine spiral movement...

  The turbine angular magnetic field will be the thing bouncing the plates till the point that all the angular momentum being applied to both sides of the plates will be perfectly converted into acceleration and the disk will stabilize with 100% of efficiency, minus the drawback of the magnetic spheres on the surroundings...

 I guess they call this Vortex technology, not the actual one the one from Viktor Schauberger
 I was always fascinated with the way he based his inventions on nature observation...

 My idea is to redirect a river towards a free fall exist ( Vertical pipe) and set it trough a vertical Tesla Valve but one that allows the liquid to exit, that valve would convert the flow into pressure and the pressure would turn it into spin..
  The spin is not harvested on the interior but on the exterior using floating magnetic disks that are surrounded by curved walls made of magnetic spheres and those spheres are the ones converting the movement into electric energy...
 They are also helping to stabilize the spinning plates...

 the exterior format of the turbine can be cylindrical but it must have attached to it magnetic structures that resembles the exterior of a sand clock, those points will be responsible to set the floating plates into motion...

 I should have used "multiply the efficiency" for converting motion/energy, not the energy itself...

15

New Theories / Re: Perpetual motion and perpetual energy using gravity and magnetic forces to power

« on: 04/06/2017 14:49:05 »

train wheel link design

This:
 My models suck, so counting on you...
  I'm trying to capture the power of the whole river flow but inside a small area...
http://imgur.com/GFVyaM6

Untitled.png (121.98 kB . 967x473 - viewed 2700 times)

Imagine a river flowing and a narrow curve, the river always produce lost spirals at the corners, for me that's the nature of the photon when the electron is spinning....
  Of course the horizontal plate is not submerged into the liquid, it can be even isolated from the whole process, being there it's enough...
  If the water flow inside the turbine is the wave length of an electron, than the spiral flow created on each corner of the device would be like photon converting....
  There is no difference in between the straight line movement and the spiral except for the fact that the energy on the spiral configuration can be more easily collected...

 Earth is on a infinity free fall towards its own dilatation, we cannot produce a machine long enough to capture lots of liquid flow, but the Tesla valve seems to be doing just that, on a much lower area... After all every spiral movement is on itself it's a free fall towards infinity...

  Free energy from nowhere? I don't thing so...
  But free energy not from the water flow, but from the system (gravity) that is producing the flow? Sure...

 I'm not aiming to extract energy from the water, i'm aiming to use water as a tangible substitute for "space"...
  Space can't be captured, but liquid does...

 If possible, at the moment the horizontal ring stabilizes it's rotation it'll exponentially multiply the energy by a lot...

 No need to violate thermos dynamics or laws of physics, like on the river example, the idea is to harvest more gravitational influence on a small area...  Gravity is all around us, if one is able to add +plus gravity to a small area it's likely that it will be converted into acceleration on this case spiral movement, the ring function is just rotate suspended there with no friction... And the energy will be collected by a single sphere (Dynamo) at the center or by magnetic spheres that are located around the spinning plate...

This image is no model but it'll defnetly give a plus to what I have in mind:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AIxjIYeHAAg/T3bleix-toI/AAAAAAAAHxo/XdvVPQezCx0/s1600/52860_Papel-de-Parede-Ampulheta_1024x768.jpg

ttt.jpg (48.97 kB . 1024x768 - viewed 2771 times)

16

New Theories / Re: Perpetual motion and perpetual energy using gravity and magnetic forces to power

« on: 04/06/2017 00:40:22 »

Also this man seems to be relying on horizontal bouncing as key to perpetual motion, although I consider his machine more like a discovery than free energy...
  He's bouncing the disk to the sphere using mechanical motion, I'm suggesting bouncing the spheres to the disk using electromagnetism...
 I'm not aiming to use the electromagnetism to affect the components, I'm aiming to use the electromagnetic fields to "Cheat" with the environment, sort of replicating a mini artificial magnetosphere condition... Using structures to tame the electromagneticfield and use it against itself (loop itself)

17

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

« on: 03/06/2017 23:33:18 »

Is the size of our early moon...

 Planets i suppose are like boiling eggs, for me the moon was not created by a rouge planet collision, for me the moon material was deliberately ejected into orbit by a powerful explosion from inside out earth's crest...
  Most likely due volcanic activities piercing gas and water oceans...

 The question can be answer if we learn how oxygen was/is? able to reach the inner regions of a planet on formation...
  Water must be a key factor no doubt about that...

 The magnetosphere may have helped to create the liquid water not otherwise...

18

New Theories / Re: Perpetual motion and perpetual energy using gravity and magnetic forces to power

« on: 03/06/2017 23:27:26 »

Try to complex it.
 Add a twin opposite model and link them both using a straight line..
  Take a spherical magnet and split on the middle, overlap the north and south poles so the sphere now resembles a sand clock..
         Model A
           S I
 Like (>I<)  Sand Clock like
            I N
        Model B

 I'm suggesting that the sand clock magnets at the center should add electromagnetic angular momentum (////) to both Models (linked to each other) at the plate...
  And the models must be able to bounce up and down, not only spin on X 360° but bounce up side down on the horizon...
   If make sense I can drawn something terrible....

Just thing about tow of your 2D models add a sand clock magnet in the middle, and now project it to a 3D perspective on your mind...
  There is no math behind of this is just that feels natural that the missing element is the "bouncing horizon", the vertical propulsion up and down the X horizon will be inadvertently converted into spin by the two models A and B, wouldn't it?

 This image is no model but it'll defnetly give a plus to what I have in mind:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AIxjIYeHAAg/T3bleix-toI/AAAAAAAAHxo/XdvVPQezCx0/s1600/52860_Papel-de-Parede-Ampulheta_1024x768.jpg

 In a sense the orbs are your models, the sand clock is a flipped sphere N/S (repelling thyself) and the angle is just about right to collide with your models to add angular momentum to a whole horizontal plate of models, the only requirement seems to be that the plate must be attached to the sand clock middle in a way it can bounce up and down, enough to add external source for the horizontal motion...
 Perhaps even the sand clock must spin and bounce...
  How about open a whole inside the sand clock magnet to form a gas/liquid turbine?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS37n1-QloqVtqkz6WCsXvEUX1DWTR4l7NJ_N1XAqzVrf6z2OOo

 Can you visualize what I mean?

19

New Theories / Electromagnetism/Gravity behaves like "turning spheres insideout?

« on: 03/06/2017 22:56:04 »

Try to forget about photon as being a (particle) such as a solid ball that bounces back on mirrors...

  Thing as photons as a stationary frame on their own frame, that do not move or travel, but that happen at C.
 A is C, B is C, and C is the last frame of C of a straight line on space...
  Photon A is not Photon B, Photon B is no longer photon A or C...
  They are the same thing, same configuration(recipe) for a particle, but seems to be a geometrical problem on it's shape..

 Photon can't store energy, it does not acknowledge yxz around him, photon only knows it's own horizon, it's on itself a interference pattern happening on space, over it, like a wave on an ocean, the wave and the ocean were but the same thing...

 It's the dilatation overlapping itself at the rate of C... A present>B present>C present> D future
                                                                       Erased     past   (you)  past (you) past      Empty
                                                                                                    (C)      /      (C)
                                                                                                     Frozen Frame

 Space is not at C, but space holds the potential to C itself on the presence of the photonic interference, and photon only borrows a track on gravity to follow a path...
  On mater that path is a straight line towards infinity but around the electron, conserving energy, extracting it and adding it to the electron, forcing it to spin...
  On light the electron is always ahead and the energy extracted by the photon interference is left behind, the electron does not absolve thus there is no mass to be gained, temporarily that electron is about to become a ordinary photon....

  The electron is a construction created, sustained and codependent of this interference we assume to be a particle that bounces over mirrors... Photon is a configuration for particle...
  I believe we have never isolated nor counted or shoot individual photons, we have being just using electromagnetic fields to cheat the photon as a particle!
  All we may be doing is isolating random interference under "our rules"...

 We are creating the photon we are all theorizing...
  Everything particle interference is presented on resting space, it starts to C the surroundings, I picture this C much like a sphere that is constantly flipped from inside out the reference, although not physical movement, more like a pattern...

 Imagine the electron/or a planet, now imagine that space is like a sphere created by some sort of structure, and that the present of individual "references" such as particles and celestial bodies force this sphere to re-start itself on that point...
  Now imagine that the dilatation of earth is now i'ts own particular universe:

 Now observe one of those experiments where the sphere is flipped inside out without producing any narrow corners on it, and put earth at the center, assuming that the flipping sphere is earths dilatation(space)...
  Is mere speculation but I thing electromagnetic field reveal just that, we may be focusing on the electromagnetic visible lines, like on that iron dust experiment with magnetic...
  I'm focusing not on the lines but on the why the lines are there, the invisible stuff in between...


 Leading every time more to the possibility that each electron magnetic source and field is constantly interacting with space itself, forcing it to individually produce "fields" and each field a flat horizon/disk, particular "universes" for each particle and planet out there...
  C for me is sometimes represented like a flipping inside out sphere "invisible on space" that does not move the particles, but that happens wherever the particle is presented, and the horizon of each particle the thing that allows it to be able to move in any direction...  But not because the particle on the center is moving, the interaction of one "flipping sphere" with other and with the very big sphere that comprehend them is what does...
  I mean something that masses do not orbit each other, instead that one horizon interacts with the other horizon...
  Planet and particles again being just a meaning to an end, to start the engine, leading to the conclusion that is not objects interacting with one another, but space interacting within itself by the existence of such objects...

  Would that be completely wrong, sort of for certain?

ps.: For reference this is the most practical video of what I'm trying to conceive above...
  The sphere is dilatation caused by earth at the center.
  The sphere is both dilatation "and on" space...
 There is no limit for the sphere, that sphere only represents earth's dilatation "personal universe" that coexists within a much larger space...
 The presence of earth's magnetosphere is just delimitation a point of reference.... Sort of restarting universal electromagnetic pattern causing the property to C itself...

  Iron dust on paper only reveals the outlines of the true process, suggesting here that the slightest form of electromagnetism is constantly creating references and the existence of those references stimulate space to create particular spheres "fields" and one sphere"field" tarts to interact with one another...

From 1:23m up to 1:133m constant and cyclic on and for each point of reference = Representation of C
  C does not exist without reference, meaning could be a property of space that only exists on the presence of a point of reference and only on that frame of reference...

20

New Theories / Re: Could light be the only truly stationary "stuff" in the universe?

« on: 31/05/2017 01:29:52 »

I see your point Chiral but remember; the universe isn't a "giant 3 dimensional room", as Einstein discovered. It exists in ways that the senses and instinct don't easily comprehend. What if the redshifting is due to us doing the moving instead of light? My theory isn't postulating that light is accelerating with the expanding universe - I'm theorizing that light is genuinely stationary and the universe is expanding and accelerating away from it, giving us the illusion that it's light that is doing the moving when in my theorized reality, it's us who are doing the moving instead.

 I've being there before...
  Change the concept of photon and "moving",
  Assume for a second that a photon is like a "incomplete gear", an "attempt" to become a "gear."
  Gear=Stable Particle
 Stable gears = Not energy but configuration of energy given from and "on" space.
  Photon = incomplete gear or hybrid gear in between Energy 50% plus gear 50%.

 Hard to put in words, but is to make easy to comprehend "a photon" does not move, nor any other particle, not with a speed.
  "C" is but a state of space, a photon "traveling from earth A to the moon B" is not traveling, not C is happening too...
  C is related with gravity, photon is not traveling but "happening" and the "happening of the attempt photon" is "frozen on it's on frame indeed" but the frozen frame of the attempt is "being carried" by space because C of gravity,,,

 Photons and any other particles do not travel at C or not C, photons and any other particles happen at C from A to B.
  The distance in between A and B is of 10C, and the minimum period of "Distance" on this scale is 0,1C.
  0,1C being the speed of light, not "speed"! 0,1C being the rate of the attempt, from 0,0000000....1C  up until 0,1C "the photonic attempt" was the same frame, "the photon" "(X)Moving"/ The photon "(V)Happening" from 0,1C up to 0,2C is not longer the same photon attempt of its past...
 
 Gravity is not constant but is proportional.
  Photonic attempt are constant but disproportional/unstable.

 Space XYZ is volume which allows distances thus time = It's the stadium.
  Gravity is the track.
    And photons are the horses, a static horse that exists only on the present (present is a frozen frame)
 that is constantly at C being overlapped by the next frame backwards...
  The photon on the present is "at the rate of C" overlapped "backwards" by the possibility of the next frame,on that instant photon on the present has created a temporary past (short memory) but constant on time!

  There is no past as a physical dimension for "anything to move", there is distances and scales different scales on the both edges of a cone create time in between the edges( point to point) but only when in comparison and interaction...
  There is no time when in comparison of space to A or to B, but only when in comparisons of A to B and B to A is another distance...
  Space is not expanding "universe is", expansion "for me at least" must require the existence of "time" the possibility for it to exist, outside in universal expansion there is no immediate point to point comparison...
  Meaning universe as a point of reference is only relative to itself or other universes, "space" when in comparison to universe does not produce nor distances... Unless one is to have universe A and at least a B.

 Depends only if you accept big bang as real and as a "beginning", for me space and universe are two different things...
 Universe seems to be like a hyper nova expansion/explosion, a fluctuation happening on the sheet that is space, the existence of space allowed universe or bang to happen...
 
 Gravity is not a force, gravity is like acceleration and C is the limit, although if the car is happening at C, and both are spinning with no direction or reference time take place to determinate scales and order, when time takes place speeds are able to exist for now energy can be conserved and memory is presented...
  The car "destiny" can now suffer the illusion of gravity that it's no longer moving on a straight line towards infinity...

 I can relate why your photon can be stationary, and no one is able to state for sure it's not, but all the expectations about the environment are irrelevant without "reference" to compare, light can't be compared to anything, it ignores anything, even a BH, light only does not ignore space... Thus light is but a virtual interference over, from and happening on space wherever space is presented...

  FOr a photon to be and reamin stationary "on any frame" from A to B, the photon would have to become invisible for at any given instant of C from A to B photon would be subjected to the very expansion of the universe which is given to surpass C...
  I do not see how a photon can travel from A to B "as it does" having the same intensity and geometry(size) without becoming invisible...
  Being so I assume that the photon "if constant as a single photon" from A to B would become invisible on the first frame of C..  It does not for the photon is happening from A to B on space, not traveling trough space at C...
 Gravity is at C, photon is an interference a "recipe" for a particle configuration, that is caused and confounded with the electron, the presence of the electron ridding C of gravity as if it was a reference is interference on space itself on the electron frame of existence...


 Time spins the electron, photons are electron attempts...
 Spinning electron conserves the free energy extracted from space by it's photons and things start to get interesting...

 I'm suggesting earth of today is not earth of tomorrow, the past of this earth of today will be a previous are of "now/tomorrow" empty space...
  Travel in time tomorrow to this Earth of today, and one is to appear in the vacuum of space and die...

 You are also not being, everything there is is happening at C.
 We are A because earth is B, remove B and our bodies will no longer be A, it's about exchange of instant information...

 Look at your hand it's only happening and existing there for the spinning particles (with a pitch) are able to store the energy f the photonic configuration when on matter, space exist and everything our hands included are but frequencies...
  Like can't travel for the photonic configuration on light does not store conserve energy...
  Light "is there" but light is not where it's not, nor forward nor backwards,,,,

 Light/photons can't travel for the can't exist outside their frames of existence/unreachable present...
 But yes I do believe that each photon exists as a frozen frame of static energy, although one that is fragmented and submitted to time/volume...