[Atkhenaken (OP)]

You are invoking absolute time which would require an absolute frame of reference. This frame would require absolute zero velocity relative to all other particles within the universe and be fixed with respect to expanding spacetime. So which point in the universe do you suggest we anchor this frame to? Earth? Some remote galaxy? Shangri La?

Time is just a human intellectual construct. It doesn't exist as an entity by itself. Time is just a measurement of spin and rotation. If there was no spin or rotation, then nobody would have a clue what the time was.

Relativity joins space and time as a unit of action. This is plain crazy.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

"Note - Its the compression that causes the clocks to slow down."

What is causing compression and why is it causing clocks to slow down? Fundamental energy c is being used for speed. Allowing less to be available because of the increased distance the electron covered in space.

Aetheric compression. Its the same as driving a car and getting increased wind resistance the faster you go. Thus, the faster you travel in a space ship the slower the clocks will run due to aetheric pressure on the mechanism of the clock. Time, itself, remains unaltered.

"This is another aspect of my theory which does away with all magical forces and fields and replaces it with mechanical actions. Thus, the universe has no fields or forces but only has mechanical actions. This is the Simple Universe Theory."

You seem to be trading one magic for another. What moves the electrons?

Who said electrons move? Its only the aether flow that moves.

[GoC]

Hey guys, Science has been hitting a brick wall for some time. And those of you who do not take in the full observations of relativity will find the wall the fastest. You think others do not understand and that is true none of us understand everything. What makes anyone believe their understanding is correct? My criteria is theory fits all observations with the same set of parameters used for all observations. Current science uses magic to fit their theory.

Both of you might as well bang your heads physics could care less about what you think you understand. Most are just parrots of the same magic dance. You went down a branch of the learning tree. So yes why do you bother? The most important questions you don't bother giving any thought about.
1. Why do electrons move?
2. Why are the electron and photon confounded in every frame?
3. why do you think there is a perpendicular view when understanding Relativity you recognize there is no such thing possible as a perpendicular view because light is independent of the source. You would have to have a fixed frame for a perpendicular view. There are no fixed frames?
4. How can a photon be a particle and a wave? If the particle is moving at the speed of light the wave motion would have to be greater than the speed of light. The blind are teaching the blind. Virtual particle is a weasel word to maintain current understanding not following the math. If it does not follow the math it is wrong.

I could go on with many more examples of the accepted theory without a cause. But please go bang your heads.

I agree many make statements without any backing. Any theory without the mechanical backing is useless including the currently accepted one.

All of these questions are meaningless to main stream because accepted theory cannot answer them. There is a fundamental energy that allows motion up to but not including c. Speed of mass reduces that available energy to c. because all energy of the electron is used up with none left for the cycling of the electron. Follow Relativity or the theory will fail.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

Hey guys, Science has been hitting a brick wall for some time. And those of you who do not take in the full observations of relativity will find the wall the fastest. You think others do not understand and that is true none of us understand everything. What makes anyone believe their understanding is correct? My criteria is theory fits all observations with the same set of parameters used for all observations. Current science uses magic to fit their theory.

Both of you might as well bang your heads physics could care less about what you think you understand. Most are just parrots of the same magic dance. You went down a branch of the learning tree. So yes why do you bother? The most important questions you don't bother giving any thought about.
1. Why do electrons move?
2. Why are the electron and photon confounded in every frame?
3. why do you think there is a perpendicular view when understanding Relativity you recognize there is no such thing possible as a perpendicular view because light is independent of the source. You would have to have a fixed frame for a perpendicular view. There are no fixed frames?
4. How can a photon be a particle and a wave? If the particle is moving at the speed of light the wave motion would have to be greater than the speed of light. The blind are teaching the blind. Virtual particle is a weasel word to maintain current understanding not following the math. If it does not follow the math it is wrong.

I could go on with many more examples of the accepted theory without a cause. But please go bang your heads.

I agree many make statements without any backing. Any theory without the mechanical backing is useless including the currently accepted one.

All of these questions are meaningless to main stream because accepted theory cannot answer them. There is a fundamental energy that allows motion up to but not including c. Speed of mass reduces that available energy to c. because all energy of the electron is used up with none left for the cycling of the electron. Follow Relativity or the theory will fail.

What is the purpose of this reply?

(1) Are you trying to hi-jack my post with your own ideas?

(2) Do you agree or disagree with my hypothesis?

(3) Reasons for agreeing or disagreeing.

[guest39538]

The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based.

Ok, I have thought about this myself in the past, spin is not the primary although in principle spin/rotation is a ''huge'' part of the activity of the Universe.
However spin/rotation is surely a process of acting force(s)?

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based.

Ok, I have thought about this myself in the past, spin is not the primary although in principle spin/rotation is a ''huge'' part of the activity of the Universe.
However spin/rotation is surely a process of acting force(s)?

The only possible source of energy that the universe has is spin energy. Logic dictates that sub-atomic particles must spin at the speed of light. This is the source of all energy. The universe is energy rich.

[guest39538]

The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based.

Ok, I have thought about this myself in the past, spin is not the primary although in principle spin/rotation is a ''huge'' part of the activity of the Universe.
However spin/rotation is surely a process of acting force(s)?

The only possible source of energy that the universe has is spin energy. Logic dictates that sub-atomic particles must spin at the speed of light. This is the source of all energy. The universe is energy rich.

No , spin is a process of energy , not energy.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based.

Ok, I have thought about this myself in the past, spin is not the primary although in principle spin/rotation is a ''huge'' part of the activity of the Universe.
However spin/rotation is surely a process of acting force(s)?

The only possible source of energy that the universe has is spin energy. Logic dictates that sub-atomic particles must spin at the speed of light. This is the source of all energy. The universe is energy rich.

No , spin is a process of energy , not energy.

Where does this "energy" come from? Answer - Sub-atomic spin!

[guest39538]

The universe is a simple place which can be explained in a very simple manner using spin as the basic unit of activity which the universe is based.

Ok, I have thought about this myself in the past, spin is not the primary although in principle spin/rotation is a ''huge'' part of the activity of the Universe.
However spin/rotation is surely a process of acting force(s)?

The only possible source of energy that the universe has is spin energy. Logic dictates that sub-atomic particles must spin at the speed of light. This is the source of all energy. The universe is energy rich.

No , spin is a process of energy , not energy.

Where does this "energy" come from? Answer - Sub-atomic spin!

The electron ''spin'' is not as you imagine it. Atoms of a ''solid'' do not individually spin , the entirety of  the inertial reference frame ''spins''.

Energy is light related and the initial fusion process of stars that ''feeds'' all other matter that is not a star, if it were not for stars the energy in/of the Earth would soon dissipate leaving a dormant like rock.


What is gained is equally lost to the entropy of free space, thus allowing equilibrium of the matters entropy.


Spin is not energy , although spin can produce work , but the spin is created rather than being.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

The electron ''spin'' is not as you imagine it. Atoms of a ''solid'' do not individually spin , the entirety of  the inertial reference frame ''spins''.

The atom exists in its own fractal reference frame. We do not exist in the sub-atomic reference frame but we just feel its existence from our reference frame. The speed of light is a sub-atomic reference frame. it signifies the speed at which the aether spins.

What is gained is equally lost to the entropy of free space, thus allowing equilibrium of the matters entropy.

The energy can never be lost. Its called 'background radiation'.

Spin is not energy , although spin can produce work , but the spin is created rather than being.

If the aether didn't spin at the speed of light the universe would be totally dark and completely dead. Thus, energy without spin is impossible. Thus, no spin, no energy, no universe, no nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[guest39538]

The electron ''spin'' is not as you imagine it. Atoms of a ''solid'' do not individually spin , the entirety of  the inertial reference frame ''spins''.

The atom exists in its own fractal reference frame. We do not exist in the sub-atomic reference frame but we just feel its existence from our reference frame. The speed of light is a sub-atomic reference frame. it signifies the speed at which the aether spins.

What is gained is equally lost to the entropy of free space, thus allowing equilibrium of the matters entropy.

The energy can never be lost. Its called 'background radiation'.

Spin is not energy , although spin can produce work , but the spin is created rather than being.

If the aether didn't spin at the speed of light the universe would be totally dark and completely dead. Thus, energy without spin is impossible. Thus, no spin, no energy, no universe, no nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But there is no known aether of space , there is nothing to spin, things spin in space.   To have any chance of your theory you would have to prove the aether to begin with.

Thus, no spin, no energy, no universe, no nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm! big bang my friend not spin.

[Colin2B]

But there is no known aether of space , there is nothing to spin, things spin in space.   To have any chance of your theory you would have to prove the aether to begin with.

I wouldn't waste your time in this thread, he doesn't have anywhere near your observational and analytical skills. And I'm being serious.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

But there is no known aether of space , there is nothing to spin, things spin in space.   To have any chance of your theory you would have to prove the aether to begin with.

I wouldn't waste your time in this thread, he doesn't have anywhere near your observational and analytical skills. And I'm being serious.

Avoidance of issues is the first sign of deception.  Now seeking peer group ratification and back patting from colleges to disguise feelings of insecurity and doubt. lol!

[guest39538]

But there is no known aether of space , there is nothing to spin, things spin in space.   To have any chance of your theory you would have to prove the aether to begin with.

I wouldn't waste your time in this thread, he doesn't have anywhere near your observational and analytical skills. And I'm being serious.

Avoidance of issues is the first sign of deception.  Now seeking peer group ratification and back patting from colleges to disguise feelings of insecurity and doubt. lol!

Well! I wouldn't be to sure he was not ''speaking'' to you .  Peer, college?   not me, I am banned from all sections except this one. I ''argue'' more than most .

My objective does not allow itself to do ''god'' theories, in other words you can't base  theory on a Aether if there is no Aether proven to begin with .


p.s  Colin, waste my time?  I am hardly overwhelmed with conversation so I will take what discussion I can get. (presuming your post was aimed in my direction).

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

Well! I wouldn't be to sure he was not ''speaking'' to you .  Peer, college?   not me, I am banned from all sections except this one. I ''argue'' more than most .

My objective does not allow itself to do ''god'' theories, in other words you can't base  theory on a Aether if there is no Aether proven to begin with .

The aether has many different names to disguise its aetherness. (dark matter, dark energy, space-time continuum, virtual photons, non energy quantum fluctuations and Planck's constant).  You obviously don't understand that the aether is just a political football of the science world. Its the elephant in the room which nobody is allowed to talk about. People only whisper its name in secret places because they are all afraid of being thought of as old fashioned and not with it. But as soon as they discarded it, they had to immediately reinvent it under a different name because the universe doesn't make any sense without it.

[guest39538]

Well! I wouldn't be to sure he was not ''speaking'' to you .  Peer, college?   not me, I am banned from all sections except this one. I ''argue'' more than most .

My objective does not allow itself to do ''god'' theories, in other words you can't base  theory on a Aether if there is no Aether proven to begin with .

The aether has many different names to disguise its aetherness. (dark matter, dark energy, space-time continuum, virtual photons, non energy quantum fluctuations and Planck's constant).  You obviously don't understand that the aether is just a political football of the science world. Its the elephant in the room which nobody is allowed to talk about. People only whisper its name in secret places because they are all afraid of being thought of as old fashioned and not with it. But as soon as they discarded it, they had to immediately reinvent it under a different name because the universe doesn't make any sense without it.

Ok , looking at this in ''light'' of your explanation of an Aether I sort of get where you are coming from and I have explained this Aether plenty of times before in various forms.

I do prefer the term Dark energy these days. The term alone allowing me to ''see'' the dark energy.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

Ok , looking at this in ''light'' of your explanation of an Aether I sort of get where you are coming from and I have explained this Aether plenty of times before in various forms.

I do prefer the term Dark energy these days. The term alone allowing me to ''see'' the dark energy.

So, you are quite happy to accept that dark energy exists but still are unhappy with the aether. Even though the existence of dark energy has no scientific proof either and is just a scientific hypothesis.

[guest39538]

Ok , looking at this in ''light'' of your explanation of an Aether I sort of get where you are coming from and I have explained this Aether plenty of times before in various forms.

I do prefer the term Dark energy these days. The term alone allowing me to ''see'' the dark energy.

So, you are quite happy to accept that dark energy exists but still are unhappy with the aether. Even though the existence of dark energy has no scientific proof either and is just a scientific hypothesis.

No, I said I understand your point now about the aether but would rather call it dark energy.. None of the ''aether'' is proven to exist, they build a picture from nothing, except somethings need a beginning, 1.

[JoeBrown]

I'm with you Atkhenaken

Been hiding from this forum while delving into my own postulations.  I've contrived a similar postulation to yours.  But I think your off by two spin.  There's perpendicular forces ie. electro-magnetism.

That suggests theres 4 spin.  up/down - left/right...  Which makes your universe a little less simple (not much tho).

I understand your desire to use the term aether.  I don't quite see it as an aether.  Space the final frontier, is difficult to explain, because we simply cannot see it.  Doesn't mean it's "nothing", but if you cannot examine a thing, it makes it hard to describe...

I've been working on describing all of the forces as I understand them, to myself with a similar thesis.  You're eaton I refer to as photon in my thoughts, w/out the speed of light.

I don't agree with your neutron - blackhole hypothesis.  I've haven't worked out the math, but I think electrons have electric polar spin alignment and protons have perpendicular (magnetic) polar spin alingment. I think neutrons have both combined in harmony.

These are some of the ideas I've been working on.  Theres a lot more details that need to work out, but I think you & I are on the right track.

Instead of 10 dimensional strings, it all boils down to a buckyball universe.    Describing the bucky ball is difficult when you cannot ever hold one still and look at it nor, measure it's properties, etc...  That's where the math will come in handy.

[guest39538]

I'm with you Atkhenaken

Been hiding from this forum while delving into my own postulations.  I've contrived a similar postulation to yours.  But I think your off by two spin.  There's perpendicular forces ie. electro-magnetism.

That suggests theres 4 spin.  up/down - left/right...  Which makes your universe a little less simple (not much tho).

I understand your desire to use the term aether.  I don't quite see it as an aether.  Space the final frontier, is difficult to explain, because we simply cannot see it.  Doesn't mean it's "nothing", but if you cannot examine a thing, it makes it hard to describe...

I've been working on describing all of the forces as I understand them, to myself with a similar thesis.  You're eaton I refer to as photon in my thoughts, w/out the speed of light.

I don't agree with your neutron - blackhole hypothesis.  I've haven't worked out the math, but I think electrons have electric polar spin alignment and protons have perpendicular (magnetic) polar spin alingment. I think neutrons have both combined in harmony.

These are some of the ideas I've been working on.  Theres a lot more details that need to work out, but I think you & I are on the right track.

Instead of 10 dimensional strings, it all boils down to a buckyball universe.    Describing the bucky ball is difficult when you cannot ever hold one still and look at it nor, measure it's properties, etc...

The Universe is not hard to understand in terms of forces, direction, up, down, left and right are just the figurative of speech. There only exists at this ''time'' relatively +ve direction and -ve direction relative to each independent observer, by observer I do not just mean things that can see and observe, I mean the entirety of matter in free space observing and experiencing their affects on each other.
Spin is a process rather than a cause of ''things'', forces acting on forces etc.

I consider the universe is compressing and decompressing simultaneously, I consider unlike the present information, dark energy is the compressor and also in close relationship to the strong nuclear force and gravity.

I consider that ''light'' energy is the decompress, things that gain more ''light'' expand. Likewise charges repel.

However I also consider that both a dark energy and a light energy could occupy a void and absolute space.