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
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: AtkhenakenI 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: AtkhenakenThe 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.
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.
Being a scientist, I prefer numbers to rhetoric. Your political prejudices and amateur psychology are irrelevant: please show your calculations.
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.
1. You have been free to post this nonsense.
2. Science is science.
3. The rules apply to everyone.
4. You have been free to post this nonsense.
5. You pose the point and I reply. That sounds like two way communication to me.
6. The rules are in place to prevent incorrect information being disseminated. And to protect you from those that would attack and insult you.
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.