Proof

  • 55 Replies
  • 2108 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Proof
« on: 05/10/2016 03:25:56 »
If time really slowed down , then it would take longer to get somewhere and the velocity would also have to slow down of the moving Caesium atom.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #1 on: 05/10/2016 15:00:18 »
Two clocks A and B

clock A at ground state

clock B dilated on board a car

The car travels at v=100mph


v=constant


Time does not slow down because v=constant regardless of time.


added- in short the aeroplane travelling with the Caesium on board in the Keating experiment does not slow down when the clock dilates showing no time dilation.


End of proof.




« Last Edit: 05/10/2016 15:03:13 by Thebox »

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #2 on: 05/10/2016 16:12:50 »
the problem is that both clocks, A and B, are "still existing", regardless of the dilatation, everything is submited to time, regardless of the dilatation, so there is 2 different constants of the same V, cause V=time, it was never the car that was accelerating, only seems to be like that to us...
 There is no cuch thing as "I'm walking", or "I'm driving", or  "the car is moving at V", everything there is seems to be occuring inside time, and time can occur at different velocity but it's always proportional to the dilatation, no matter where interaction it is happening, not even the dilatation....
  For as long your two clocks are the same clocks, they on itself would be readapted to the new dilatation, the only way to provide proof is to math and logic, but as for scientific proof, not likely, the two clock would have to remain the same clocks even when existing on different dilatations of space-time, and this is simple not possible, matter is in correlation with space-time, one cannot simple set two clocks apart of the dilatation to measure...

 Maybe if you keep the A clock at A dilatation but measuring the events of B, and the clock at B measuring the events on A, this with a considerable distance and dilatation bettween A and B, and certainly not over a planet like earth that is not a good place to test, cause it has a moon, it is translating, and has a silight eliptical orbit around the sun, and most improtant it is indeed very irregular without the water, so there would be many openign to miss interpretations... I believe that conduc such experments on the moon would be a much more easy task instead of using cars and roads... If the two clocks end up measuring the same time on different frames, witch is possible would confirm that time is constant, despise the dilatation, the only thing that would change would be speeds of things, in thsi case the car and the very clocks temselves, even if they are atomic clocks, it would be irrelevant, atomic is precise but is also submited to existence, since the clock is "made" it exists, cannot violate the general law and exist apart from the dilatation where it is occuring...

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #3 on: 05/10/2016 16:36:44 »
the problem is that both clocks, A and B, are "still existing", regardless of the dilatation, everything is submited to time, regardless of the dilatation, so there is 2 different constants of the same V, cause V=time, it was never the car that was accelerating, only seems to be like that to us...
 There is no cuch thing as "I'm walking", or "I'm driving", or  "the car is moving at V", everything there is seems to be occuring inside time, and time can occur at different velocity but it's always proportional to the dilatation, no matter where interaction it is happening, not even the dilatation....
  For as long your two clocks are the same clocks, they on itself would be readapted to the new dilatation, the only way to provide proof is to math and logic, but as for scientific proof, not likely, the two clock would have to remain the same clocks even when existing on different dilatations of space-time, and this is simple not possible, matter is in correlation with space-time, one cannot simple set two clocks apart of the dilatation to measure...

 Maybe if you keep the A clock at A dilatation but measuring the events of B, and the clock at B measuring the events on A, this with a considerable distance and dilatation bettween A and B, and certainly not over a planet like earth that is not a good place to test, cause it has a moon, it is translating, and has a silight eliptical orbit around the sun, and most improtant it is indeed very irregular without the water, so there would be many openign to miss interpretations... I believe that conduc such experments on the moon would be a much more easy task instead of using cars and roads... If the two clocks end up measuring the same time on different frames, witch is possible would confirm that time is constant, despise the dilatation, the only thing that would change would be speeds of things, in thsi case the car and the very clocks temselves, even if they are atomic clocks, it would be irrelevant, atomic is precise but is also submited to existence, since the clock is "made" it exists, cannot violate the general law and exist apart from the dilatation where it is occuring...

OK! I think you sort of understand. 

Yes in this scenario v=t, if we consider d/t=c  , the time never changes at a constant velocity.  in example we could use gravity and a falling object. 

An object will fall to the ground at a=9.81m/s, the seconds are unimportant, the object will always fall at a=9.81 m/s .

If we was to add time to the scenario now presented, and time the event of a falling object using clock A and clock B, the object will take the same time to fall regardless of what either clock says the measurement is.

The speed of fall does not slow because the clock B shows a slow rate of time.  We can apply this scenario also to the speed of light from the sun to earth, a photon/wave travels at c, it arrives in approx 8 minutes and 24 seconds, timing the event will not change the velocity of the light, time dilation fails because this is proof without any doubt, this relativity is factual.

added- and yes both clocks exist in time and are not time. 

 



« Last Edit: 05/10/2016 16:40:04 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #4 on: 05/10/2016 16:47:59 »
Diagram

no contraction of space

no time dilation or slowing down of time


v=t

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #5 on: 05/10/2016 17:00:17 »
''you'' can also look at it like this ,

Clock A times the car travelling d/t and it takes 1 hour to travel 100 mile.


Clock B times the car travelling d/t and it takes example 1 hour and 5 seconds to travel 100 mile.


We know that clock B is contradictory to the constant velocity of the car. The car does not travel slower and neither does the distance shorten in length.



The car will always take the same amount of time to travel distance X at v=constant .


So quite clearly there is no actual time dilation.


added- time and free space are interwoven, relatively time and free space are not moving or observed to move, time and free space is the ''stationary'' reference frame that allows things to move in and be observed as distinguishable different to  the time and free space ''stationary'' reference frame. 

Without time and free space, it would be impossible for matter to exist, there would be no volume for the matter to exist in.










« Last Edit: 05/10/2016 17:11:13 by Thebox »

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #6 on: 06/10/2016 18:39:51 »
The car will always take the same amount of time to travel distance X at v=constant .


So quite clearly there is no actual time dilation.


added- time and free space are interwoven, relatively time and free space are not moving or observed to move, time and free space is the ''stationary'' reference frame that allows things to move in and be observed as distinguishable different to  the time and free space ''stationary'' reference frame. 

Without time and free space, it would be impossible for matter to exist, there would be no volume for the matter to exist in.


Yes, and most probably, but seems to be not that simple, two factors remain, a practica understandment of what does create time as a general constant(proportional to the dilatation yes, but only, when compared to a stationary frame, witch we determine), that being said time is as constant as the speed of light, but shouldn't be possible, unless light, more especificaly "photon" were not wrong, only missinterpreteded...
  The way is to presume photons traveling as being incorrect, even if you does agree with that, one need to question the base, in order to readapt the rest toreach the correct reason behind "GR" be correct...
 We do know that it's almost certain that GR is correct (frame to frame), but observing universe, something is missing, cause many things shouldn't be happening as they do out there, "GR" seems to be correct but subjected to it's reverse, E=mc2 "covers the point of view of matter", as it is usefull to us humans we naturaly advanced on it, but there is still missing the point of view of space-time, gravity is originated from coerelation betwenn enegy/mass with space/time, almost as if energy is to space, as mass is to time...

 I can't desagree on your question, I agree that time is contant to the dilatation, the same way light is, constant accelerating and dessacelerating speeds only when we are "framing" time on examples, when indeed, equal objects with equal acceleration, always, independently of where they exist inspace, are always moving at the same speed...
 About l'm not 100% convinced that light has it's speed cause it moves, as for now I agree with the speed of ligth provinient from the speed of the traveling massless photons, but not to confident on the "photon" concept...

 If I understood you, space is static on your point of view, but when mass is presented, such as planets, suns, their interaction (with space), starts to set the static onto motion, in my point of view producing our local time( within the heliosphere) or you consider space to be static everywhere at any given instant?

 One last consideration, when you check that time is constant despise the dilatation, reaching back, des it leads you to a universe that was composed for only energy, that become matter, that start a singularity and the acceleration of such object, started to decompose matter into energy leaving behind "this empty space blackground we see)? As if matter and planets are now only spearated fragments of once were a unique single think, and the ony reason empty space is now outhere is becose the singularities, have gradually deactivated all that energy/,atter, into all this dark matter?  I ask cause most think on the reverse of this...

I could explain beter, but in resume, a big bang, not one that happened over nothing, but one singularity that happened at the very center of the already existing energy(that was already there), the singularity produced the very first empty space on the dimmension, and from that point forward, all the energy that was there was and still sppining in function of the singularity, as it was growng large the center was expanding in area, gradually loosing the acceleration on the center, in a short version all those galaxies existing inside the the center of the singularity, and all those spherical objects outhere, copies of the original dimmension, suns, planet, moons, even atoms, dispise the composition, being only ordinary atempts (local) of the original universe... Time as being result of the general acceleration of the whole universe...
« Last Edit: 06/10/2016 23:38:25 by Alex Siqueira »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #7 on: 07/10/2016 09:45:11 »



Yes, and most probably, but seems to be not that simple, two factors remain, a practica understandment of what does create time as a general constant

Time is not created it exists without physicality , i.e free space.




Quote
unless light, more especificaly "photon" were not wrong, only missinterpreteded...

Quite possible,




 
Quote
I can't desagree on your question, I agree that time is contant to the dilatation, the same way light is, constant accelerating and dessacelerating speeds only when we are "framing" time on examples, when indeed, equal objects with equal acceleration, always, independently of where they exist inspace, are always moving at the same speed...
 About l'm not 100% convinced that light has it's speed cause it moves, as for now I agree with the speed of ligth provinient from the speed of the traveling massless photons, but not to confident on the "photon" concept...

Well we both truly know that the ''Photon'' is of the imagination without any real proof of existence. If there was an existence it could also be explained as a ''piece''/''fragment'' of light separated from the whole .



 
Quote
If I understood you, space is static on your point of view, but when mass is presented, such as planets, suns, their interaction (with space), starts to set the static onto motion, in my point of view producing our local time( within the heliosphere) or you consider space to be static everywhere at any given instant?

I consider space is static everywhere at any given instant, I think people/scientists ignore looking ''behind''/''underneath'' the light. If we removed all EMR from space, the space left must be static containing no physicality or structure with a ''viscosity'' of zero.

Matter creates fields that affect fields, the fields do not exist without the matter, the space remains a void unless occupied by matter that has fields.

Space curvature is the effect of fields and not an interaction with space in my opinion, relative space occupies absolute free space. An object of matter or ''energy'' that rotates will produce a disk like field. Centripetal and ''centrifugal'' force playing a part.

Imagine an invisible ball with a very low viscosity spinning and creating ''centrifugal'' bulge, the spherical ''ball'' oblates.










 
Quote
One last consideration, when you check that time is constant despise the dilatation, reaching back, des it leads you to a universe that was composed for only energy, that become matter, that start a singularity and the acceleration of such object, started to decompose matter into energy leaving behind "this empty space blackground we see)? As if matter and planets are now only spearated fragments of once were a unique single think, and the ony reason empty space is now outhere is becose the singularities, have gradually deactivated all that energy/,atter, into all this dark matter?  I ask cause most think on the reverse of this...

Well behind the light I also think a dark energy occupies the free space void , static space, this energy contracts and is attracted to itself always, a bit like a stretchy rubber ball.
(think along the lines of magnet bottling, except an infinite bottle by its own means).

Quote
I could explain beter, but in resume, a big bang, not one that happened over nothing, but one singularity that happened at the very center of the already existing energy(that was already there), the singularity produced the very first empty space on the dimmension, and from that point forward, all the energy that was there was and still sppining in function of the singularity, as it was growng large the center was expanding in area, gradually loosing the acceleration on the center, in a short version all those galaxies existing inside the the center of the singularity, and all those spherical objects outhere, copies of the original dimmension, suns, planet, moons, even atoms, dispise the composition, being only ordinary atempts (local) of the original universe... Time as being result of the general acceleration of the whole universe...

time and free space pre-existed the big bang, the dark energy contraction is the start of everything.


added-

Imagine an infinite volume void, an entity of absolute zero. The very essence of nothing. However not entirely nothing because we have free space.  Now imagine this void also has an infinite volume of negative energy that is attracted to itself but does not move.  Imagine at any given point this energy is attracted to that point and adjoined at the point but there remains no force or pressure on the point. However there is also infinite timeless time, and at any given point because of infinite time, the point gains ''something'' that sparks a positive.





« Last Edit: 07/10/2016 09:54:06 by Thebox »

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 595
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #8 on: 07/10/2016 12:05:21 »
In the twin paradox, the two twins begin on earth. One twin is placed in a rocket and is given relativistic velocity. The moving twin eventually returns to the earth, where he is now younger, compared to the twin, who had remained stationary on earth. This is due to time dilation. Although the twin that returns is now younger; implicit of time having slowed down in his reference, he is not permanently shorter than the other twin, even though the stationary twin also saw what appeared to be distance contraction. We see space-time contracting, while in motion, yet in the end, only time changes in a tangible way.

Also, both twins do not look younger, to each other, when they return; relative motion affect, even of they appear to see that while in motion. The final affect is reference dependent. Only the twin that was given extra energy for the propulsion of his rocket, shows tangible time dilation. As long as two references never meet, we see a relative reference illusion. But once they meet, we see both references are not the same, but a hierarchy will appear based on energy.

That being the case, I often wondered whether the universal Doppler shift assumption is correct. The reason is, distances will reverse in the twin paradox, but only time will show a permanent change. The question is, is the red shift based on the time shift; frequency shift? The wavelength is the dependent variable; reversible, and not the active variable. It follows the lingering time shift so the product of frequency and wavelength has to equal the speed of light.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2016 12:18:36 by puppypower »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #9 on: 07/10/2016 12:33:55 »
In the twin paradox, the two twins begin on earth. One twin is placed in a rocket and is given relativistic velocity. The moving twin eventually returns to the earth, where he is now younger, compared to the twin, who had remained stationary on earth.

The "twin paradox" is not really a paradox : the twin in the spacecraft has undergone acceleration, the one on Earth hasn't : they are not symmetrical ... https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #10 on: 07/10/2016 13:22:11 »
In the twin paradox, the two twins begin on earth. One twin is placed in a rocket and is given relativistic velocity. The moving twin eventually returns to the earth, where he is now younger, compared to the twin, who had remained stationary on earth.

The twin can't be younger, the twin travels at v=constant distance = X, the twin makes the return journey v=constant distance=X

Both twins experience the exact same amount of time measured by v=constant and distance=X.


A car makes a round trip and travels A to B and back again from B to A at v=100 mph

The round trip takes 1 hour timed by A and B and the car.

The clock on the car could  be running at a slower rate but this does not affect x/v=t

« Last Edit: 07/10/2016 13:29:29 by Thebox »

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #11 on: 07/10/2016 14:42:54 »
   There is an equivalency principle between SR and GR. Time dilation is just that dilation of fundamental energy. When space time is more dilated cesium electrons travel further and take longer to tick tock. It is exactly the same for mechanical clocks as light clocks. Fundamental energy is c. v reduces the available space time energy as it approaches c. c is a spin amount that moves a wave of light and is constant. c is faster then the electron that caused the wave on space time energy. It is the rotation of the electron in energy that creates the light wave. The dilation of that energy frame in GR creates the red shifted light in a gravity well. It has nothing to do with change in momentum. Light moves at a constant by spin of space time energy independent of its dilation. Light travels the extra distance same as the electron travels the extra distance for its tick tock. ......... . . . . . . . the material dilates also because of the increased travel distance of the electron. Physics is the same in every frame.

SR works differently for equivalency with GR. Its a distance through space equivalency. Acceleration is not the cause of clocks slowing similar to GR acceleration on the surface of the earth. Clocks are slowest in the center of the earth where it is like being inertial in space. Acceleration and deceleration causes gravity they are indistinguishable but in deceleration clocks increase there tick rate while acceleration decreases your tick rate. This is the basic proof of logic that energy is of space and not mass. Mass is just a conduit for space energy by moving the electrons of mass.

There is really no proof of anything. Only the logic of the mechanical cause of observations will give us a clue to the real foundation of existence.


In SR 

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #12 on: 07/10/2016 15:31:14 »


That being the case, I often wondered whether the universal Doppler shift assumption is correct. The reason is, distances will reverse in the twin paradox, but only time will show a permanent change. The question is, is the red shift based on the time shift; frequency shift? The wavelength is the dependent variable; reversible, and not the active variable. It follows the lingering time shift so the product of frequency and wavelength has to equal the speed of light.

red-shift has to be compression, light stretched beyond 750nm is ''invisible'' with no spectral content.

Unless I have the wrong perception in my mind about red-shift.


added - to clarify my understanding, an object travelling away from an observer at the near speed of light will stretch the light? causing a red shift, this would  be contradictory to wave length , red being a compression of less than 750nm?


if it was stretched, surely it remains ''gin-clear''?

An object moving away surely removes radiation pressure, but I cant see how the radiation could then compress to red-shift?


added- unless the ''gin-clear'' light of free space is ''blue'' , 400nm or less to begin with.


added- i ask myself


red is longer wave length than blue but a shorter wave length than the invisible spectrum.


« Last Edit: 07/10/2016 15:45:20 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #13 on: 07/10/2016 15:48:18 »
When space time is more dilated



0 can't dilate, any measurement after 0 becomes instant memory, no matter how fast or slow the rate of measurement or the length of measurement.

« Last Edit: 07/10/2016 15:51:44 by Thebox »

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #14 on: 07/10/2016 16:31:17 »
When space time is more dilated



0 can't dilate, any measurement after 0 becomes instant memory, no matter how fast or slow the rate of measurement or the length of measurement.

 Not exactly, it could be possible if we change the conception of where we exist on the universe, could be hat it is indeed 0 and can't dilatate (to minus), but if everything that is is occuring inside the center of a singularity (that is spining), it would change the grid from static, as result time wouldn't be slowing down when near massive objects, what occurs is that at the center of each masive object time would be null, more than this, (no time at all, at the center), acceleration and electromagnetism, yes, but times seems to require direct interaction with space energy, witch wouldn't be happening at the center... For time t exist, someplace needs empty space, a considerable layer of dese atomic structure with almost no space within the atoms, would virtualy split the universe in two, the outher one could energy and the inner one (tiny fraction that was split), the opossit, hot and expanding, the problem and reason why planets do not explode, seems to be that electromagnetism and charger, provinient form the exitement of this very expansion (sppining), is bounding everything toguether...
 Only woundering, the inner core expands constantly, as muchas it does the sppining is absorbed by the outhercore, the absorbsion produces electromagnetsm that bound and prevent the planet from expanding too fast, and as long as this cycle keeps happening outher space will remain in constant interaction with the object, compressing itself by being atracted to this...

 The point is, outer space would be the resting one (+), dilatation would start to occur in function and towards the massive object, becoming (minus-), zero dilatation is possible(when the mass is proportional), but not possible to happen from outside in the body, space has no barriers on the exterior, it simple can't reach even 0 dilatation only on the exterior of the body on normal conditions, to achieve 0 it would requeire a physical barrier of density (mater) to be happening isolated from the whole...

For more incomplete and ilogical that it sounds, raises the question,
"energy ony became mater becose of time?"
and if so...
"when matter gets too near to a black hole(considering it, the surrownding of a black hole, as a point of -0 dilatation, where time basicaly does not exist, is all that mater not desapearing on a dimmensional magical hole, but simple, being deactivated from  its condition of mater,(before it could even reach the neutron star) and so converted back into space energy?" Could this be the reason why we imagine that mater is falling inside (being stored), when instead it is simple being converted into space energy (before reaching the neutron star)?

 One consideration, a question, "only for an instant assuming" black holes (neutron stars) as to be acting as ordinary innercores, but one that due it's composition can sustain itself (acceleration) even when in direct interaction with space(without the necessity of a crost), could be the case that the sppining of the neutron star is so fast that the acceleration of space surpases the speed of ligh (density of the medium), in other words, creating a "split" on a point of (minus -0 dilatation) AND since such dilatation should not be possible to exist, by convinience the neutron star able to still existing "isolated" from the whole? Something like, the neutron star, followed by a "spherical barrier of -1 dilatation"(witch means no space existing on that area, true emptiness), followed by the outherspace that we all know and see (enveloping it)?
 The question is, something that surpasses the speed of light, would not leave this unverse, but simple coexist with it, but being completly apart of it, surrounded by it, but not submited to it and its energy, including time?

-0 dilatation could exist cause it could be represented by a "split" separating this universe we see into two pieces(external and internal, the whole exterior universe, and the interior beyond anything that reached and broke that very limit (speed of light)... Like a bubble of gas inside another bubble of the same gas, separated only by the acceleration happening inside of the secund bubble, so fast that it is compressing tge exteror towards it, and expanding anything on the interior "due acceleration' reaching 0(null), a little bit more energy, and it will unbalance between expansion and compression, but for all effects, -0 dilatation of space, is one correct into assume -0 dilation is represented by a rupture betwenn the exterior universe and the object that is accelerating?
« Last Edit: 08/10/2016 01:19:16 by Alex Siqueira »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #15 on: 08/10/2016 13:11:06 »


 Not exactly, it could be possible if we change the conception of where we exist on the universe, could be hat it is indeed 0 and can't dilatate (to minus), but if everything that is is occuring inside the center of a singularity (that is spining), it would change the grid from static, as result time wouldn't be slowing down when near massive objects, what occurs is that at the center of each masive object time would be null, more than this, (no time at all, at the center),

I feel I must correct your interpretation, you think that when for example a Caesium atom is at the center of gravity that the rate slows down to zero. Although this might be true, this has no affect on time, time ''runs'' regardless of position.

What you have to consider is that time is independent of everything. Time is not of objects and remains external of any objects.

Time is not the physical ''thing'' dogma makes it.





 
Quote
acceleration and electromagnetism, yes, but times seems to require direct interaction with space energy, witch wouldn't be happening at the center... For time t exist, someplace needs empty space, a considerable layer of dese atomic structure with almost no space within the atoms, would virtualy split the universe in two, the outher one could energy and the inner one (tiny fraction that was split), the opossit, hot and expanding, the problem and reason why planets do not explode, seems to be that electromagnetism and charger, provinient form the exitement of this very expansion (sppining), is bounding everything toguether...
 Only woundering, the inner core expands constantly, as muchas it does the sppining is absorbed by the outhercore, the absorbsion produces electromagnetsm that bound and prevent the planet from expanding too fast, and as long as this cycle keeps happening outher space will remain in constant interaction with the object, compressing itself by being atracted to this...

 The point is, outer space would be the resting one (+), dilatation would start to occur in function and towards the massive object, becoming (minus-), zero dilatation is possible(when the mass is proportional), but not possible to happen from outside in the body, space has no barriers on the exterior, it simple can't reach even 0 dilatation only on the exterior of the body on normal conditions, to achieve 0 it would requeire a physical barrier of density (mater) to be happening isolated from the whole...

For more incomplete and ilogical that it sounds, raises the question,
"energy ony became mater becose of time?"
and if so...
"when matter gets too near to a black hole(considering it, the surrownding of a black hole, as a point of -0 dilatation, where time basicaly does not exist, is all that mater not desapearing on a dimmensional magical hole, but simple, being deactivated from  its condition of mater,(before it could even reach the neutron star) and so converted back into space energy?" Could this be the reason why we imagine that mater is falling inside (being stored), when instead it is simple being converted into space energy (before reaching the neutron star)?

 One consideration, a question, "only for an instant assuming" black holes (neutron stars) as to be acting as ordinary innercores, but one that due it's composition can sustain itself (acceleration) even when in direct interaction with space(without the necessity of a crost), could be the case that the sppining of the neutron star is so fast that the acceleration of space surpases the speed of ligh (density of the medium), in other words, creating a "split" on a point of (minus -0 dilatation) AND since such dilatation should not be possible to exist, by convinience the neutron star able to still existing "isolated" from the whole? Something like, the neutron star, followed by a "spherical barrier of -1 dilatation"(witch means no space existing on that area, true emptiness), followed by the outherspace that we all know and see (enveloping it)?
 The question is, something that surpasses the speed of light, would not leave this unverse, but simple coexist with it, but being completly apart of it, surrounded by it, but not submited to it and its energy, including time?

-0 dilatation could exist cause it could be represented by a "split" separating this universe we see into two pieces(external and internal, the whole exterior universe, and the interior beyond anything that reached and broke that very limit (speed of light)... Like a bubble of gas inside another bubble of the same gas, separated only by the acceleration happening inside of the secund bubble, so fast that it is compressing tge exteror towards it, and expanding anything on the interior "due acceleration' reaching 0(null), a little bit more energy, and it will unbalance between expansion and compression, but for all effects, -0 dilatation of space, is one correct into assume -0 dilation is represented by a rupture betwenn the exterior universe and the object that is accelerating?

Energy only becomes matter because of space and ''timeless''. I don't quite understand the rest of your post sorry it does not make sense to the discussion.

Place  a single dot on a piece of paper, the dot occupies time, the whole of the paper, the whole of the paper occupies time, space is time.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #16 on: 08/10/2016 15:08:44 »
     First you have to define time before you can describe time affects. The reason you do not understand Alex is because you are not using the same definition of time. Alex has a deeper understanding of time than just <it is>. You may be at the limit of your depth of understanding. As apparently I am also. We are each fixed in our unshakable opinion. I believe both Alex and I feel time is condition caused by space separate from macro mass. There is observation and subjective reasoning for observations it is in the form of theories. Relativity being the best theory because it has passed every test so far. This is a theory based on postulates and not mechanics. When mechanics are removed it opens the door to magical causes. The Copenhagen interpretation opened that door very wide. Multi verse, time travel, worm holes and even the big bang is the result. They are all something from nothing magic. Those that are smarter than I came up with it so it must be true. In the past the so called smartest men of their time voted on the big bang. There were 13 men and the vote was 12 to 1 in favor so it passed for the cause of the creation of mass. I might also remind you that it was a Catholic Priest who named it the Big Bang. He probably wanted to tell science it took 7 days to complete. Some one could have come up with a stat that would have confirmed it but then again the concept of a day would have to have been pre-defined.

   I grew up with religion from my mother and science with my father. Obviously my father won my mind.

   Back to proofs. There are no proofs period without a mechanical basis. Mathematicians believe math is mechanical. And yes it is mechanical. A theory has to follow math to be possible but impossible theories can also follow mathematics. Like Einstein I have faith in Relativity. Main stream fails the Relativity postulates. Main streams mechanical structure is non existent so it opens the door to not following the postulates. Lets take light going down a gravity well. Main stream will suggest light increases momentum to be blue shifted. Of course by their interpretation that is the only way the observation could be interpreted by their understanding of their standard model. They violated the constant speed of light postulate in order to maintain their model. That observation should have destroyed there standard model in favor of a model that included red shift without a SR velocity increase of light.
     This red shift in GR is described in the gamma term for dilation. Space is being expanded by this gamma term (dilation). Than we have to ask what is being dilated? What ever is being dilated is directly affecting light propagation and electron cycle time in what is considered a frame. Mass is dilated to fill a larger volume of space so your measuring stick becomes larger.  A larger measuring stick will measure a meter longer than a smaller measuring stick. Your measure of time by either light distance or electron cycle ticks slower to match the measuring stick in your frame. The measured speed of light in every frame in a vacuum is measured to be the same. That the distance measured is not the same is what allows Euclidean mathematics to remain valid. Main stream suggests the magic of contraction of the universe and use the muon as proof. The muon has to slow down in order to react with its new environment of the mass on Earth rather than the energy of space. Space energy has to control the distance and propagation of light and cycle of the electron to measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in every frame. Or you can maintain a belief in coincidence of magic.

When you move a standardized spectrum detector cell down a gravity well the standardization changes its size to the newly dilated frame. Light used for the standardization higher in less dilated space will appear blue shifted to the more dilated position of the detector. The reverse will be a red shifted detection. The speed of light remains the same because the spin of energy particles remain the same. Space energy is an organized pattern while mass is a disorganized pattern causing friction with fundamental energy. That friction is what we describe as energy. Our mass energy is just a conduit for space time energy, zero point energy or Dark mass energy. Name it anything you like other than main streams model of energy from magic.

Do I know why the spin energy for the motion of time exists? Absolutely not. That depth of understanding has to be relegated back to the God of the unknown.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #17 on: 08/10/2016 15:39:23 »
     First you have to define time before you can describe time affects. The reason you do not understand Alex is because you are not using the same definition of time. Alex has a deeper understanding of time than just <it is>. You may be at the limit of your depth of understanding. As apparently I am also. We are each fixed in our unshakable opinion. I believe both Alex and I feel time is condition caused by space separate from macro mass. There is observation and subjective reasoning for observations it is in the form of theories. Relativity being the best theory because it has passed every test so far. This is a theory based on postulates and not mechanics. When mechanics are removed it opens the door to magical causes. The Copenhagen interpretation opened that door very wide. Multi verse, time travel, worm holes and even the big bang is the result. They are all something from nothing magic. Those that are smarter than I came up with it so it must be true. In the past the so called smartest men of their time voted on the big bang. There were 13 men and the vote was 12 to 1 in favor so it passed for the cause of the creation of mass. I might also remind you that it was a Catholic Priest who named it the Big Bang. He probably wanted to tell science it took 7 days to complete. Some one could have come up with a stat that would have confirmed it but then again the concept of a day would have to have been pre-defined.

   I grew up with religion from my mother and science with my father. Obviously my father won my mind.

   Back to proofs. There are no proofs period without a mechanical basis. Mathematicians believe math is mechanical. And yes it is mechanical. A theory has to follow math to be possible but impossible theories can also follow mathematics. Like Einstein I have faith in Relativity. Main stream fails the Relativity postulates. Main streams mechanical structure is non existent so it opens the door to not following the postulates. Lets take light going down a gravity well. Main stream will suggest light increases momentum to be blue shifted. Of course by their interpretation that is the only way the observation could be interpreted by their understanding of their standard model. They violated the constant speed of light postulate in order to maintain their model. That observation should have destroyed there standard model in favor of a model that included red shift without a SR velocity increase of light.
     This red shift in GR is described in the gamma term for dilation. Space is being expanded by this gamma term (dilation). Than we have to ask what is being dilated? What ever is being dilated is directly affecting light propagation and electron cycle time in what is considered a frame. Mass is dilated to fill a larger volume of space so your measuring stick becomes larger.  A larger measuring stick will measure a meter longer than a smaller measuring stick. Your measure of time by either light distance or electron cycle ticks slower to match the measuring stick in your frame. The measured speed of light in every frame in a vacuum is measured to be the same. That the distance measured is not the same is what allows Euclidean mathematics to remain valid. Main stream suggests the magic of contraction of the universe and use the muon as proof. The muon has to slow down in order to react with its new environment of the mass on Earth rather than the energy of space. Space energy has to control the distance and propagation of light and cycle of the electron to measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in every frame. Or you can maintain a belief in coincidence of magic.

When you move a standardized spectrum detector cell down a gravity well the standardization changes its size to the newly dilated frame. Light used for the standardization higher in less dilated space will appear blue shifted to the more dilated position of the detector. The reverse will be a red shifted detection. The speed of light remains the same because the spin of energy particles remain the same. Space energy is an organized pattern while mass is a disorganized pattern causing friction with fundamental energy. That friction is what we describe as energy. Our mass energy is just a conduit for space time energy, zero point energy or Dark mass energy. Name it anything you like other than main streams model of energy from magic.

Do I know why the spin energy for the motion of time exists? Absolutely not. That depth of understanding has to be relegated back to the God of the unknown.


In my opinion you can't really vote on whether something is correct is not, it is either  correct or not.  There is no fact that we could ever interpret a prequel event, it can only ever be speculation .

The big bang Fails in a few areas.


The big bang states that before the big bang nothing existed, not even time.


This can not be true. It is somewhat factual that for any event to take place there needs a volume of space to happen in.


It is also factual that nothing can be interpreted as empty free space.

It is also factual that ''time'' still exists in a void.

It is factual that space itself has no physicality such as an aether, so it must be also factual that space itself can not and does not expand.

The age of the Universe is defined from the central observer, ourselves,


There is no evidence that space is expanding , fact,

the redshift is not of space, space does not reflect or emit light, only things in space do that.


I wish I was there at the vote, I think the vote result would of changed.





*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #18 on: 08/10/2016 16:27:08 »
   Then there would be two votes against instead of one. You have not demonstrated a deep understanding of relativity and appear to be a denier of relativity. As such the lack of understanding the observations that agree with the postulates and none that do not agree would suggest your opinion on relativity is invalid.

You assign fact without enough observations to prove your point has validity.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #19 on: 08/10/2016 18:43:25 »
   Then there would be two votes against instead of one. You have not demonstrated a deep understanding of relativity and appear to be a denier of relativity. As such the lack of understanding the observations that agree with the postulates and none that do not agree would suggest your opinion on relativity is invalid.

You assign fact without enough observations to prove your point has validity.



I have provided observations , it is a fact you can not observe free space has any sort of motion , it is a fact that no aether has been detected, it is fact that free space has no physicality, space is not an inflating balloon,  there is space beyond the distance galaxies that the galaxies are travelling into.
There is no evidence of expanding space, there is evidence of galaxies moving away from us, fact not fiction my friend.

The true and reality interpretation is that the length/distance between galaxies is expanding, not the space itself like some sort of stretchy balloon.

Next you will be telling me you think there is an edge of space that  is visual seen has darkness which would be quite laughable considering lights nature.

 

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #20 on: 08/10/2016 22:38:19 »
     First you have to define time before you can describe time affects. The reason you do not understand Alex is because you are not using the same definition of time. Alex has a deeper understanding of time than just <it is>. You may be at the limit of your depth of understanding. As apparently I am also. We are each fixed in our unshakable opinion. I believe both Alex and I feel time is condition caused by space separate from macro mass. There is observation and subjective reasoning for observations it is in the form of theories. Relativity being the best theory because it has passed every test so far. This is a theory based on postulates and not mechanics. When mechanics are removed it opens the door to magical causes. The Copenhagen interpretation opened that door very wide. Multi verse, time travel, worm holes and even the big bang is the result. They are all something from nothing magic. Those that are smarter than I came up with it so it must be true. In the past the so called smartest men of their time voted on the big bang. There were 13 men and the vote was 12 to 1 in favor so it passed for the cause of the creation of mass. I might also remind you that it was a Catholic Priest who named it the Big Bang. He probably wanted to tell science it took 7 days to complete. Some one could have come up with a stat that would have confirmed it but then again the concept of a day would have to have been pre-defined.

   I grew up with religion from my mother and science with my father. Obviously my father won my mind.

   Back to proofs. There are no proofs period without a mechanical basis. Mathematicians believe math is mechanical. And yes it is mechanical. A theory has to follow math to be possible but impossible theories can also follow mathematics. Like Einstein I have faith in Relativity. Main stream fails the Relativity postulates. Main streams mechanical structure is non existent so it opens the door to not following the postulates. Lets take light going down a gravity well. Main stream will suggest light increases momentum to be blue shifted. Of course by their interpretation that is the only way the observation could be interpreted by their understanding of their standard model. They violated the constant speed of light postulate in order to maintain their model. That observation should have destroyed there standard model in favor of a model that included red shift without a SR velocity increase of light.
     This red shift in GR is described in the gamma term for dilation. Space is being expanded by this gamma term (dilation). Than we have to ask what is being dilated? What ever is being dilated is directly affecting light propagation and electron cycle time in what is considered a frame. Mass is dilated to fill a larger volume of space so your measuring stick becomes larger.  A larger measuring stick will measure a meter longer than a smaller measuring stick. Your measure of time by either light distance or electron cycle ticks slower to match the measuring stick in your frame. The measured speed of light in every frame in a vacuum is measured to be the same. That the distance measured is not the same is what allows Euclidean mathematics to remain valid. Main stream suggests the magic of contraction of the universe and use the muon as proof. The muon has to slow down in order to react with its new environment of the mass on Earth rather than the energy of space. Space energy has to control the distance and propagation of light and cycle of the electron to measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in every frame. Or you can maintain a belief in coincidence of magic.

When you move a standardized spectrum detector cell down a gravity well the standardization changes its size to the newly dilated frame. Light used for the standardization higher in less dilated space will appear blue shifted to the more dilated position of the detector. The reverse will be a red shifted detection. The speed of light remains the same because the spin of energy particles remain the same. Space energy is an organized pattern while mass is a disorganized pattern causing friction with fundamental energy. That friction is what we describe as energy. Our mass energy is just a conduit for space time energy, zero point energy or Dark mass energy. Name it anything you like other than main streams model of energy from magic.

Do I know why the spin energy for the motion of time exists? Absolutely not. That depth of understanding has to be relegated back to the God of the unknown.

 I agree.
  My true question is if there is "space" and a massive object is accelerating so fast that it reaches the limit speed of this very space, reaching 0 dilatation, a little bit more energy put into the system, would reach a point of -0 dilatation? To be more specific -0 dilatation of "wherever space-time", could be represented as a rupture of space?

 Well you'll be surprised to eard that I do no't believe into half of what I try to come with, being subjection or not, I indeed reached the limit of my understanding, the logical awnser is constantly try to prove my settled concepts to be incorrec, for this I try many different possibilities based over the same different perspective, probably subjection of myown, but in purpose, for what matters, I'm with mathematicians all the way...

 All those interpretation of inner core expansion and compression, is because I'm testing something, and presume is the best way to be corrected by someone else who knows, more effective than questioning it, when I raise a question I recieve passive awnsers witch is very usefull to someone that already knew, with is not the case...

 The think behind my interrest in BH and inner cores, is because, (and I'm not ready to state this), what is called big bang, for me is only the remainings of the nova expansion of what once was a star, (one that included on it most of our galaxy and pehaps all the others to). I do not follow this, nor even I believe without proof, but when I look up to sky and models, what I see is the same events in lower scale, back in time begining with a super massive star(universe) "one that had not emptyspace on it, only matter, when it colapsed the nova expanded most of it away, the center colapsed into one great atractor, caught up part of the matter, and before the same even in lower scale started to repeat itself in form of a super massive milkway object, andromeda, and any other galaxy outhere...
 Hard to proof, but for now I'm not intending to find proof, just questioning myself, for me all this planets are already inside this twisted vortex, cause we where formed here...
 Much speculation, but I look the milkway and I dont see much other options than a super massive object that enetered nova, inside the void left behind by another one, untill we finnaly reached the first spherical object without space at that moment, space is what is left behind by the decompossition of energy and mater (universe)...
 Not a conception of another dimmensions or paralel universes, but simple the probabilitie of the universe has started from a nova of its own energy colapse, not from nothing, and asside of this universal star, possible many other star coexisting and orbiting one another....
 As I said there is many things lefting, maybe one thing will anulate the whole perspective(I hope so), but as this far, we are loooking at space when we should be more focused on what is happening bellow our feets...

 As for time, I'm just trying to rain on the wet over the elephant on the room, you describled it well the speed of light and the spining of the electron, witch none of us actually known, for this very reason, I'm questioning myself...

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #21 on: 08/10/2016 23:06:39 »
the box

" it is a fact you can not observe free space has any sort of motion "

Can you observe gamma rays? That is unobservable yet a physical reality.

", it is a fact that no aether has been detected"

I would suggest light being detected proves a type of Ether.

"it is fact that free space has no physicality"

Again I consider light a wave on a type of aether. If light were a particle of mass suns would evaporate.

"There is no evidence of expanding space"

The slowing of the tick rate of a clock in GR

" there is evidence of galaxies moving away from us, fact not fiction my friend. "

If it is SR yes but if it is GR red shift not necessarily.

I do not have faith in the big bang and do not have an opinion on the size of the universe

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #22 on: 09/10/2016 14:36:41 »
the box

" it is a fact you can not observe free space has any sort of motion "

Can you observe gamma rays? That is unobservable yet a physical reality.

We can detect gamma rays?  But you are adding something to free space, you have to think the void of space that is ''behind''/''underneath'' everything.

Quote
", it is a fact that no aether has been detected"

I would suggest light being detected proves a type of Ether.

CBMR could be an ''aether'' but again adding to free space, see above.



Quote
"There is no evidence of expanding space"

The slowing of the tick rate of a clock in GR


Just no, a clock or rate has no relationship to free space.



Quote
I do not have faith in the big bang and do not have an opinion on the size of the universe


Interesting, you understand that distance is defined by the last ''piece'' of visual  matter?


*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #23 on: 10/10/2016 14:46:06 »
Quote\
We can detect gamma rays?  But you are adding something to free space, you have to think the void of space that is ''behind''/''underneath'' everything./Quote

I do not believe space is a true void.

Quote\
Just no, a clock or rate has no relationship to free space. /Quote  It has everything to do with space.

Quote\
Interesting, you understand that distance is defined by the last ''piece'' of visual  matter? /Quote
 The last piece of a visual image measured through relativity for distance.

There is something you can explain to me. How do you frame quotes?


*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #24 on: 10/10/2016 15:42:33 »
Quote\
We can detect gamma rays?  But you are adding something to free space, you have to think the void of space that is ''behind''/''underneath'' everything./Quote

I do not believe space is a true void.

Quote\
Just no, a clock or rate has no relationship to free space. /Quote  It has everything to do with space.

Quote\
Interesting, you understand that distance is defined by the last ''piece'' of visual  matter? /Quote
 The last piece of a visual image measured through relativity for distance.

There is something you can explain to me. How do you frame quotes?

To frame quotes Gog you simply pick out the section you want to frame/quote.  Type the word quote at the start of the section in brackets, using these brackets [] and the word quote being inside the brackets , then at the end of the section type the word quote in brackets with a closed quote [/]  the word quote after the slash.
 
For what reason would anyone presume free space was not a void?

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #25 on: 11/10/2016 01:01:40 »
[Quote\] For what reason would anyone presume free space was not a void? [/Quote]

Because energy is of space not mass.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2016 01:05:31 by GoC »

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #26 on: 11/10/2016 01:08:00 »
[Quote\] For what reason would anyone presume free space was not a void?

Because energy is of space not mass.
[/quote]

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #27 on: 11/10/2016 18:51:41 »
[Quote\] For what reason would anyone presume free space was not a void?

Because energy is of space not mass.


and why would you think that energy does not occupy a spacial void?

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #28 on: 11/10/2016 20:08:21 »
[Quote\] For what reason would anyone presume free space was not a void?

Because energy is of space not mass.


and why would you think that energy does not occupy a spacial void?

Gravity(X)

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #29 on: 11/10/2016 21:11:40 »
[Quote\] For what reason would anyone presume free space was not a void?

Because energy is of space not mass.


and why would you think that energy does not occupy a spacial void?

Gravity(X)

gravity is a product of mass, mass occupies space , I see no reason why space itself can not be a void , absolute emptiness.


*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #30 on: 12/10/2016 12:23:49 »
   The effect of gravity continues through space. Physically  there is a mechanical reason similar to sound needing air to propagate. Spectral waves, magnetism, gravity and the movements of the electrons are caused by mass affecting space energy. Fundamental Energy is of space not mass. Or electrons move by magic.

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #31 on: 13/10/2016 16:17:13 »
[Quote\] For what reason would anyone presume free space was not a void?

Because energy is of space not mass.


and why would you think that energy does not occupy a spacial void?

Gravity(X)

gravity is a product of mass, mass occupies space , I see no reason why space itself can not be a void , absolute emptiness.

yes, product of masses, but not on the macro mass, "the gravity" is happening right at space, the friction of macro mass with space, releases energy from space, causing temperatures, electromagnetism and all sorts of reaction, but macro mass creates dilatation, there will be produced dark mass energy, gravity is a force, macro mass is the catalistor yes, but at the end is provenient from space energy, thus the presence of macro mass will inevitable result in dark mass energy, and this mass alone will affect itself trought space, for it cames from it...
 One coukld say that macro mass is possitive and dark mass energy is negative, the gravity we experience is the results over the macro mass, space around macro mass is also simple expanding away, everything, all the macro mass should be ejected into space on a fraction of a secund, as solar winds does, if energy is relased by macro mass is hold togueter (as a planet) is becouse the spinnign of particles, and the atomic bounds they produce, if wasn't for the electorn, the earth would simple instantly become light/energy and fade away into space...  So in resume energy for space, mass/electromagnetism for mater = Gravity
 Space dilatation is simple trying to fill the macro mass hole that earth represents on it's whole, it does not intend to compress it only moves towards the planet, the spping of the particles is what converts a passive attempt into a spiral flow of this very dark mass energy, against the hydrosphere, hydrosphere weight against the earth's crost, from that point own is all up to atomic bounds and electromagnetism...
 
« Last Edit: 29/11/2016 13:56:00 by Alex Siqueira »

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #32 on: 13/10/2016 16:57:11 »
   Logically we have to understand mechanics as a down up approach. You are using a top down approach. Energy was here before macro mass. Macro mass is frozen dark mass energy. Similar to black holes being condensed atoms with no energy (time) inside. What is time? The energy of spin c not a flow c. Mass occupies normal space at about a marble to a football field. A black hole is a football field of marbles where energy of space can no longer hold atoms apart. Black holes are formed by stars whose gravity surpasses attraction greater than the speed of light. Stars gain mass by producing electrons and forming atoms. Stars create mass and form higher elements as they age. Star entropy. So we have to create a operating system that causes relativity to work not just opinions with no basis in mechanics. Push pressure of energy is not mechanically uniform by direction. Mass pushes to the center of mass or pulled by the lack of energy density in the center is a matter of conjecture. It is the correct operating mechanical process causing relativity that will provide the answers we seek. We need an operating system that provides answers to all motion of relativity not just a specific issue of relativity. Bottoms up.

*

Offline ProjectSailor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 83
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #33 on: 28/10/2016 11:23:48 »
I like the way the box thinks, I think the same, but disagree on this point of free space.

The reason I do not think free space is a void is because I believe that space without substance would not be able to carry any force/energy. It is not unusual to consider that something that does carry force as being of substance and although describing something as the 'undetectable' is about as helpful as a chocolate kettle, it remains the best guess at what could be there..

That something we call space could be comprised of the smallest unit of existence, not holding mass or energy (hence undetectable) but concentrations thereof making up mass and allowing energy to be carried, is actually a fairly workable theory if utterly unprovable, but as we know the unprovable can also be used as the undeniable. God Theory.

IF the ether exists, it would be inconsequential to all theories and laws (no mass, no energy)
If the ether doesn't exist, it would be inconsequential to all theories and laws as well..

think like pixels on your screen, the picture exists because of them, but they do not impact the picture.

Therefore I do not see much point in either trying to prove it, or disprove it. The same as there is no point trying to tell those that believe in God that it doesn't exist.

 

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #34 on: 18/11/2016 13:01:33 »
Quote
That something we call space could be comprised of the smallest unit of existence, not holding mass or energy (hence undetectable)

You need a more complete understanding of energy. Your current understanding is electron based. What moves the electrons? In my opinion Quantum mechanics move the electrons and the fundamental reason for time we measure as electron cycle or photon distance. Which are confounded in every frame to measure the electron cycle and photon distance to be the same in every frame. You seem to understand the need for connection but not the need for understanding from where the fundamental motion comes. E=c without M. In Quantum mechanics c moves electrons. It is a simple logic jump or you believe in magic.

If Relativity is wrong than the box may be correct in his thinking. I totally believe in Relativity and its beauty.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #35 on: 27/11/2016 03:31:25 »

yes, product of masses, but not on the macro mass, "the gravity" is happening right at space, the friction of macro mass with space, releases energy from space,

If we were to remove for our imagination all the matter from space, I do not believe gravity would exist, space would be just free space, a spacial void.  However, there is no laws of the universe that says energy does not occupy free space. Energy is quite ambiguous so can we call this imagined energy that exists in free space dark energy?

An energy that is almost undetectable with a ''viscosity'' of zero and observed as neutral, however I believe the neutral is because it is constant and we evolved in this energy , not to notice the energy or able to detect the energy.
Any device set up  in a constant could  never notice the constant the device was invented in to begin with.


*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #36 on: 27/11/2016 03:33:02 »
[Quote\] For what reason would anyone presume free space was not a void?

Because energy is of space not mass.

But energy could occupy space, I ''see'' space to be a blank canvass and all that is of ''matter'' is of ''creation'' that occupies free space of a void.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #37 on: 27/11/2016 13:41:11 »
Quote
But energy could occupy space, I ''see'' space to be a blank canvass and all that is of ''matter'' is of ''creation'' that occupies free space of a void.

if energy occupies space than space is not a void. I view c as the gears of motion. Without c there is no motion. We live in a 3d point world. The proof is there is no such thing as a perfect circle, only points closer together.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4177
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #38 on: 27/11/2016 14:11:29 »
If time really slowed down , then it would take longer to get somewhere and the velocity would also have to slow down of the moving Caesium atom.

This is a very important point and the fact that you are considering it demonstrates your intellect. Don't let anyone say otherwise. Think about this a little more.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #39 on: 28/11/2016 07:33:37 »
If time really slowed down , then it would take longer to get somewhere and the velocity would also have to slow down of the moving Caesium atom.

This is a very important point and the fact that you are considering it demonstrates your intellect. Don't let anyone say otherwise. Think about this a little more.
I could think about this in several ways , is there anything specific you want me to think about or direct me towards?


*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #40 on: 28/11/2016 21:53:25 »
Well, seems that Time was stated as derivation from motion, thus the conclusion of the Caesium atom is backwards... Time should have slowed down in function of the (now) velocity of the Caesium atoms, due dilatation of space(time), where the measurement is occurring...
 Isn't it?

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #41 on: 29/11/2016 05:33:30 »
Well, seems that Time was stated as derivation from motion, thus the conclusion of the Caesium atom is backwards... Time should have slowed down in function of the (now) velocity of the Caesium atoms, due dilatation of space(time), where the measurement is occurring...
 Isn't it?


No , the frequency of the Caesium atom is dependent to the atom and not dependent of space although ''things'' in space do affect the Caesium frequency.
However ''things'' occupy space, ''things'' with motion that can  be timed, timed not being the same as time.
The mechanics of timing ''things'' do not interfere with absolute time and space, time and space being a whole and  interwoven as a dimensional whole. 

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #42 on: 29/11/2016 15:13:33 »
Quote
No , the frequency of the Caesium atom is dependent to the atom and not dependent of space although ''things'' in space do affect the Caesium frequency.
However ''things'' occupy space, ''things'' with motion that can  be timed, timed not being the same as time.
The mechanics of timing ''things'' do not interfere with absolute time and space, time and space being a whole and  interwoven as a dimensional whole. 

It is interesting how we each have a different understanding of time. Alex is describing time as a reaction rate. You are describing time as a c ratio. I suspect a reaction rate is a deeper understanding of c as a constant. Mass affects c as energy of motion. c always remains constant but dilation expands c for less GR zero point energy. Red shift increase is an affect of expanded less dense energy giving electrons a longer path with higher dilation

So you can argue both sides of the same coin.

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #43 on: 29/11/2016 22:35:30 »
I came to believe that spinning C is derivation of higgs field (as it is now), higgs field is setting constants on everything but energy, each particle being interconnected one with the other by their own fields, spinning at the same rate, just like perfect clocks, such particles do not experience time, although their interaction with different proportions(field) cause a delay on both as higgs is constantly seeking balance between sipping and centrifugal force...
To really understand time in our scale, one need to perfectly combine GR with QM, but the still missing piece is what is causing the C pattern?
 Einstein thought the universe was static cause everyone always considered milky way as being the universe, he could "see" the infinite continuous void of empty space beyond our galaxy horizontal plate. I mean he obviously knew that "space" was infinite, eternal as he said...
 I can't let go from this idea, that if he knew that universe is formed by hundreds of galaxies, he would once again reach the same conclusion but with the correct information, that universe is in fact an expanding event, a field that is "still" expanding (dark energy), but nonetheless a expanding field much like the first few moments of a nova... I wonder that his conclusion back there would be again that "space" is infinite and eternal, and universe is a still expansion momentum of an ordinary nova, perhaps among many others...
  For me this is relevant for my source of C, time as a whole entity, and also quantum (engine) lies much beyond our physical universe, and behaves much as a black hole/particle does...
 For me that, wherever it may be, is giving to a frozen space the C pattern converting its pure state of frozen energy into a kinetic pattern of this spinning C, and is doing that trough higgs field...
 The only truly linear motion on C "seems" to be energy cause is able to ignore higgs field... Clarifying it, everything is moving on a straight line, it's higgs field that is offering to mass a point of reference, changing linear to still sppin, both being the same...
 When one suggest that time is a whole existence of C, independent of the Caesium atom, I have to try to implement that universe is not finite nor all that is, but a bigger solar system witch all the planets and stars have went super nova, a singularity should have being there at a virtual center, but being so the field should not be expanding and much less with an increasing rate, seems to be the case that all the galaxies are just conserving momentum and that our singularity at center is less activated or even completely dispersed into heat trough out space...
 This would explain why distances are increasing, the speed of the event also increasing... I'm suggesting a scenario similar to the delay earth would felt before have noticed that our sun was gone.. Evens so factors like time and sipping C still constant... Black holes should be able to spin the electron, also mess up with space on the quantum level and produce time, but only as local, as sun is for solar system, and super massive black hole is for galaxy...
 The proportions are too chaotic to work homogeneously as those constants are, blue and red shift seems to be like interference on those constant patterns(field), as GoC said, "increasing the distance of the jump", expanding the field much beyond its capacity(C), if expanded enough it should loose the color light quality and become gin-clear(spectrum) as The box mentioned once.
 And eventually even milky way itself will reach the moment where it will feel that the center was gone, much speculation, but it's my understatement of sipping C and time, if time is an whole entity:
  Or it is a big dimension, or it's a product of expansion and quantum mechanics, or if time is in fact a "final product" motion, and proportional and constant as C, I become in conflict within myself, that the "engine" of C, thus time, lies much beyond our sight and understanding, maybe beyond universe itself...
  If not possible, if universe is all there is, undependable of it's size, time has to be a "final product" of the quantum mechanics when submitted to our universal expansion... The sipping particles does not bound to time, but inadvertently when you add expansion (motion/C) to the environment, inadvertently end up producing time on our scale,   any delay on quantum mechanics, would inevitable result in slower rate in our scale....
 If one is to thing about it, time is a primordial scale on itself, if time want but a product, a measurable one, there would be no need for scales, nor dimensions, everything would be frozen, nothing would ever have size or substance, time is there as a ruler, between scales, so universe do not mess up and accidental forces every planet or any given mass to behave as a black hole does...
 As much more one things about this, even being speculation, more plausible the jump of the particles are as important and fundamental as anything else.... My true question is why space is at C, without this visualization is very unlikely that humanity will ever figure it all out, we advance by observation, how do we observe beyond what we would never be able to observe?
 "A space that has no particles/matter, does not requires existence of time"
 Everything that is would be energy, without motion, without C...
 As long one does not have the answer, I agree with both versions too...
« Last Edit: 03/12/2016 14:32:12 by Alex Siqueira »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #44 on: 04/12/2016 02:50:36 »
I came to believe that spinning C is derivation of higgs field (as it is now), higgs field is setting constants on everything but energy, each particle being interconnected one with the other by their own fields, spinning at the same rate, just like perfect clocks, such particles do not experience time, although their interaction with different proportions(field) cause a delay on both as higgs is constantly seeking balance between sipping and centrifugal force...
To really understand time in our scale, one need to perfectly combine GR with QM, but the still missing piece is what is causing the C pattern?
 Einstein thought the universe was static cause everyone always considered milky way as being the universe, he could "see" the infinite continuous void of empty space beyond our galaxy horizontal plate. I mean he obviously knew that "space" was infinite, eternal as he said...
 I can't let go from this idea, that if he knew that universe is formed by hundreds of galaxies, he would once again reach the same conclusion but with the correct information, that universe is in fact an expanding event, a field that is "still" expanding (dark energy), but nonetheless a expanding field much like the first few moments of a nova... I wonder that his conclusion back there would be again that "space" is infinite and eternal, and universe is a still expansion momentum of an ordinary nova, perhaps among many others...
  For me this is relevant for my source of C, time as a whole entity, and also quantum (engine) lies much beyond our physical universe, and behaves much as a black hole/particle does...
 For me that, wherever it may be, is giving to a frozen space the C pattern converting its pure state of frozen energy into a kinetic pattern of this spinning C, and is doing that trough higgs field...
 The only truly linear motion on C "seems" to be energy cause is able to ignore higgs field... Clarifying it, everything is moving on a straight line, it's higgs field that is offering to mass a point of reference, changing linear to still sppin, both being the same...
 When one suggest that time is a whole existence of C, independent of the Caesium atom, I have to try to implement that universe is not finite nor all that is, but a bigger solar system witch all the planets and stars have went super nova, a singularity should have being there at a virtual center, but being so the field should not be expanding and much less with an increasing rate, seems to be the case that all the galaxies are just conserving momentum and that our singularity at center is less activated or even completely dispersed into heat trough out space...
 This would explain why distances are increasing, the speed of the event also increasing... I'm suggesting a scenario similar to the delay earth would felt before have noticed that our sun was gone.. Evens so factors like time and sipping C still constant... Black holes should be able to spin the electron, also mess up with space on the quantum level and produce time, but only as local, as sun is for solar system, and super massive black hole is for galaxy...
 The proportions are too chaotic to work homogeneously as those constants are, blue and red shift seems to be like interference on those constant patterns(field), as GoC said, "increasing the distance of the jump", expanding the field much beyond its capacity(C), if expanded enough it should loose the color light quality and become gin-clear(spectrum) as The box mentioned once.
 And eventually even milky way itself will reach the moment where it will feel that the center was gone, much speculation, but it's my understatement of sipping C and time, if time is an whole entity:
  Or it is a big dimension, or it's a product of expansion and quantum mechanics, or if time is in fact a "final product" motion, and proportional and constant as C, I become in conflict within myself, that the "engine" of C, thus time, lies much beyond our sight and understanding, maybe beyond universe itself...
  If not possible, if universe is all there is, undependable of it's size, time has to be a "final product" of the quantum mechanics when submitted to our universal expansion... The sipping particles does not bound to time, but inadvertently when you add expansion (motion/C) to the environment, inadvertently end up producing time on our scale,   any delay on quantum mechanics, would inevitable result in slower rate in our scale....
 If one is to thing about it, time is a primordial scale on itself, if time want but a product, a measurable one, there would be no need for scales, nor dimensions, everything would be frozen, nothing would ever have size or substance, time is there as a ruler, between scales, so universe do not mess up and accidental forces every planet or any given mass to behave as a black hole does...
 As much more one things about this, even being speculation, more plausible the jump of the particles are as important and fundamental as anything else.... My true question is why space is at C, without this visualization is very unlikely that humanity will ever figure it all out, we advance by observation, how do we observe beyond what we would never be able to observe?
 "A space that has no particles/matter, does not requires existence of time"
 Everything that is would be energy, without motion, without C...
 As long one does not have the answer, I agree with both versions too...

I do like your input, I however really need you to ''see'' the interpretation error about ''expanding'' space.
I too believe that is space is forever and infinite without boundaries. I do not  believe that space itself is expanding, I believe the red-shift evidence shows us according to present doppler use, that  bodies are moving away from us into more space.   Lets face it,  a distance star shines light in all directions, so the furthest away radius of the last observed star, is almost certainly shining the other way , a radius away from the star away from us into ''deep'' un-explored , un-observed space.  The ''blackness'' we observe between distance galaxies is actually daylight, but there is nothing large enough or reflecting enough radians of light to be observed by our conventional present technology.
I believe this Higgs field you  mention may occupy the void as an entity maybe.
I am not sure what you mean by what is causing the c pattern, but I am sure if you have c  patterns, the patters are of observer affect, in short you are stopping the light from permeating through space creating pattern or spin .  ''Linear torque twist.''

Space does not have slits.
« Last Edit: 04/12/2016 02:52:43 by Thebox »

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #45 on: 05/12/2016 15:08:31 »
Much appreciated, I do like it, The ''blackness'' we observe between distance galaxies is actually daylight, but there is nothing large enough or reflecting enough radians of light to be observed by our conventional present technology. "

  About C patter, it only cross my mind when I decide to consider space as an infinite field, where the "momentum universe" (big bang/nova) is still "expanding"... My concept of expansion if surelly present when thinking about blackholes as centrifugal force, spin as one would say... But I do consider that all this field we call universe is a momentum of a nova expansion...
  If space and time are existing in coorelation, I do accept that the reagion of any nova when the star explodes is temporarily submited to a expansion, and on that few secunds, the interior experience a local existence of time, different from the one on the exterior... AQs I do wonder we are expericing our from universe...
  I see space as a void, altough when I do accept universe as a limited C existence that is still expanding over nothing, than I do not need that pattern, it must be somehow related with sppining particles and blackholes on control...

 But if I do accept universe as being a still expanding super nova, an ordinary momentum over a "already existing" field of "energy", I tend to seek for a more deeper resolution...
  If universe is nothing but a still expanding momentum of an ordinary nova, over a space that was already there, light does not make sense...
  For so, I'm considering both factors, sppin and expansion, as being of different origins...  C would be the expansion itself, it belongs to a still borning universe, altough for me the spin, the whole "engine" of quantum mechanics, was already there much earlier than universe, I relate with empty space all the patterns of quantum mechanics... In a sort version i'm wondering that quantum mechanics dictates and operate particles and energy, on and from the void, and a good topic for that is both gravitron and higgs boson...

 See I do believe that C is for expansion(local/universe), as sppining "C" is for (space/energy), one existing and coodepending on each other, but nonentless one being a constant, and other being a momentum...
   If one is to reverse our so called big bang, I do believe that void would be all there was, frozen energy, a higgs field different from our own on the present, a frozen entity of energy as a whole existence, with no scales and without time... one could consider that as a frozen particle, that is vast as infinity...

 Somethign was happen or started to happen on the center, maybe from the interaction between two dimentions.  Yes this is merely speculation, but in terms of beyond the existence of the universe, basically one had a perfect, predictable entity, if there was a pattern presented it should have being  opossit charge and balance...
 I do make an Idea of what happened, there's no way to see or to know for us.
 The point is: When I consider space as an whole entity eternal and infite, two possibilities come to mind.
1- "space" has a structure with a virtual center that is constanty cicling the entity, twisting and stretching it, spliting it into fractions (quanta), determining all the constants...
 i do picture something, like a rupture, or an eye of a hurricane, with a very eliptical shape, but that more than sppin is also sort of rolling space in as if it was a hope, stretching it, raging it into smal pieces, on the quantum level... Imagine something like the momentum when a black hole is feeding on a gass cloud, now imagine that:
  A sort of singularity that grew so wide and so large, that is started to work as an ring that started to propagate itself as it feeds on the fabric itself...
  A easy way is to watch a spherical rock hitting a lakes surface, the wave is propagating trough the fabric, well on this scenario, the wave is the ring, ans is propagting itself troght the lake... Messing with it from inside out, stetching and sppining all water in there atributing to it a ciclic expansion and twisting proprieties...

 Imagien that we (universe) is alreadyexisting and born from inside out this already expanding ring.
 Such ring would be feeding from primordial energy, expanding itself, lefting behind only its patterns constantly submiting the interior to it, and also forming this void, tht for me on this scenario is nothing less than knetic energy from this very expansion...
  This red shift on thsi scenario seems trully to be as you mentioned, perhaps by very different reasons, but nentless I agree that the "gin-clear" out there is also red shift, more precisely what happen with photons beyond C, the colour beyond the red shift, that is also happening even where there is nothing to see... There is nothing to see for the distance is to great and C is constant...

 The secund cnfiguration would make universe become a simple faction of a eliptical hyper horizontal disk, of a super massive singularity, white hole or primordial black hole made of light, I'm not fan of this theory for it seems not to provide a correct expansion...
   I do believe that black holes are absolute, but there should be a point where not even the field can handle it, and with enought particle present, as on a begining, a black hole could theoreticaly grow into a spiral ring expanding, maybe even more than one, that is devouring space itself, and lefting this space that we do know on the interior...
  The faster expansion, seems to be the same way they use to calculate PI and diameter of stars, it seems to also explain a faster expansion, that is infact a bigger diameter, and not altering the cosntants or the speed of the expansion itself, only the diameter of it's edge...

I do not accept on this scenario, universe to be rare and unique, it is simple a expanding momentum of a nova, surounded by a super intercaled void, till we "pyshicaly" reach another universe or star and so on and on...
  I agree with the tinny size and bang, but I do believe that what caused universe to be born from that point of super density, was infact the "space expansion itself" it crossed over it at C, perhaps is still occuring, and crashed all those super massive objects, that we now see as galaxies...
  Much speculation, but my big bang, starts with lots of ordinaries stars, that where ripped apart by an sudent expansion on the blackground, latter on absorving the "now" C partterns resulting on the mechanics we do experience today...

  Is speculation, but for me "C" lies beyond the universe, it's a propriety of space itself, or it is a product of a expansive structure at the edges of "space" that is ripping energy and forming this void with all its patterns...
  Time as a whole entity would also be resultant of this spiral structure...
  As it it more a conversion than a destruction of something, just like a black hole it should be converting primordial energy into this ever growing void, as a ordinary black hole would be doing with a galaxy...
  So C and all its properties would be of space and on it, matter is something that was already there, or pieces that somehow survived the expansion without be consumed...

 In resume this is only necessary when I do consider space as eternal, it needs a structure, again, if universe is allthat is, there is nothing to worry about, for C would be again, the universal expansion over nothing, and quantum mechanics was always based on probabilities since day one...

  Somehow I do not believe that, but is too soon for take it as a conclusion, for the moment I share the same space at C that everybody does...
  The only aspect that does not match with this are the constants, universe "seems" to be to chaotic to control such perfect patterns...
  I'm working but where higgs enter on this:  Higgs would be the primordial energy tring to come back to its resting form, always trying to conservate energy, constantly trying to rest, not sure becouse this act itself could be gravity, the original entity trying to rest on the "after" expansion.
 As ona large black hole that is eery time less destructive as it grows, perhaps even if expanded enought, alowing particles to reapear....


 For me on a sort seculation, dark energy and dark matter origins, as space expands, the interior is becoming back to its original state, that should be the general source of gravity and expontaneous formation of particles...
  I'm no scientst, so I still have a long way to go on those thoughts...
 I'm trying to understand why a inactive photon was never considered to be a gravitron, a photon that is part of this "gin -clear", as on if photons was serving as for light and gravity...

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 547
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #46 on: 05/12/2016 16:13:34 »

        Alex you have a good mind and curiosity. They are the traits of a good scientist.

Why do you personally believe the universe is expanding and not steady state?

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #47 on: 05/12/2016 23:04:58 »
Thanks Goc, but as always for my official opinion, i'd stick with your and relativity, for we were able to measure and observe...
 
  The reasons why I do believe space is still expanding, is the thing that is expanding, cycling...
  See, we do consider for a galaxy a colection of solar system, gas and any osrt of matter that is sppining around a center(BH)...
  But I wonder that this perception is similar for the miss interpretation of Einstein and others, as the milky way as being the entirely universe. Reason why he claimed space to be infinite...
 I also do consider what is a galaxy not by the field it is existing within(space), for me any galaxy is simple the matter and mass, a structure that exists between space...
 So it goes for universe, univer would also be all the matter/mass we can observe, but space is not restricted to universe on this scenario, space(void) would be already there when universe was born, as the same principle that a galaxy is born over the already existing same space...
   So I believe that the thing expanding in our "universe" is space, not trully an literaly expansion, but more a constant proportional "adaptation" of an ever growing void, that should have a structure at the edges, not necessarily at the edge of universe, can be much beyond universe itself, more likely impossible to be visualised...
   I consider this (space as a void) the secund stage, form, of the primordial entity. Now I do not sure how or why a singularity would be born from a static frozen entity of energy, but interaction with another dimension...

 Now I do believe that wherever happened to trigger the rupture once it was done, it started to behave much as a black hole does, and different from our insignificant black holes feeding on left overs...
 This original one, would be surounded by energy, and the grown would be almost abusurd to consider.
 Now I'm not sure what an ordinary black hole would become if it was surrounded by energy instead of void, But I do wonder, that space is flat now, but wasn't always, one could say that I'm considering that we do exist inside a universal hole, that our universe is an ordinary momentum along with perhaps many others, but without the necessity of verses or extra dimensions.
 Basicaly one would have our universe intercalled by super void, and eventually another portion that we could call "andromeda" and next another universe that we would call perhaps "sombrero" and so on and on...

 I thing that this singularity would not be able to grown spherical for it was feeding on a now flat universe, for so it the structure itself would exchange the spherical grown for a more eliptical one...
  I wonder that our magnetic fields and spinning particles are simple assimilating this patterns and appling it to mechanics, from particles upt to black holes, all but copies...

 Now being practical:
We do observe an aleatory galaxy and we do observe and assume that it is moving away from us.
 I believe that is not that simple, some would be in fact accelerating away or towards some other one, but as for the expansion, I believe that is more as "relocation"...
  Like the singularity space growing up on diameter as it continues to feed on the primordial entity, the diameter keeps growing, and what would seems to us a "faster" expansion, would perhaps be only a exponential growth in diameter...
 As the space as a void grows in diameter the interior is also relocated, contantly relocated, and along with space, anything that is existing within it, in our observations, everything that is(matter)...
 This "speculation" makes me question not the age of the universe anymore, as I used to do. Universe since the begin should have being submited to "time" as we do know now, otherwise light and our measurements would not make sense, the clock experiment that lead us to those 13-14 billion years (that we already observed) wouldnt make sense, for me always sounded logical that if uiverse was all that is, and that space "belongs" to universe, that time and light should have being independant one of the other since day one, I mean that the clock assumption does not make sense to me if universe is all there is, time could not have being born ready as it is, nor light, but than again...
 Energy, C, and time over many different experiments and technology have prove to be intricate and constant, we could calculate the decay of atoms, the age of rocks, and much more, and I simple cannot accept that a bunch of aleatory unpredictable, inscontant and "not enternal" black holes could be on control of that perfection... And again they also do, those objects also can interact with energy, C and time, but as one goes away from those objects in any dirrection constants come back perfectly, so why is that?

 I can only think about a ever lasting expanding ring like structure that is feeding on the energy of a pre-space/void, and the voild is the result, space as a result, knetic energy... It would not have curves, nor dirrections, nor density, but it does have patterns, it twists, it expands, is is procuded aparently from nothing...
  I tend to think that two opposit constants are acting here on the total scale, one is C, C being result of the spiral sppin of this ring like structure that is ever growing at the edges of infitity(space).
 And the oposit force would be like the "mother" of this structure, it came from it, so is to expect that it's gorwing is submited to some sort of control, what determinates it's gorwth, delimitates C...
  I once read something about another "mistake" of Einstein where he sugested a so chaotic oposit force to gravity that the explanation itself only made things more weird...
  I do believe that C is always and constantly countered for its own source, controled by gravity...
 I do not know how to say but Gravity should have being born at the same time that C started to happen, gravity being the constant attempt of the "original still existing entity" to come back to its resting/original state, and would be proportional anywhere, but also local, gravity than would not be constant...
 I guess that as near one gets to the edges, bigger things can be, because gravity should be weaker there than at more at near a virtual center...
  Imagine the situation of a quasar, here it's own grownth when consuming energy, forces it to become eliptical in order to not surpass C, I picture this ever growing singularity as being sujected to the same now "constant" situation, very reason of why the eliptical form...

  So in resume, when someone observe a galaxy moving away from another, I assume it may well be moving away indeed, but also being constantly relocated as the diameter of space (void) grows...
  One thing I'm sure but only within this speculation, so it's meaningless without observation, I do prefer that way...  If space has similar structure, that is growing by feeding on energy, lefting this knetic void, that allowed universe to exist, by observing any field on any scale, I do presume that no matter how big "universe" is, it has matter, and as any other thing out there, universe got to be at the center of space...
  Now universe can be very large, but I'm not sure that it is still growing beyond this virtual plate, there got to be an end back in time, I just consider that if humanity ever come to glimpse on that, we would find that after creation (big bang) there would be depending on the dirrection we are observing, or more and more intercalled super voids of empty space, or once again the same oservtions on backwars, if we by coincidence be observing at the center... As the last thing we may see is still forming galaxies, a barrier of light , maybe a imensurable black hole where galaxies are orbiting, like great attractor, and than it will make sense, that universe is no different than a galaxy, hyper galaxy...

 I'm used to write down a lot, so I apologize for that, but seems the only viable way to explain why I do consider "Expansion" as being "Relocation"...
 I do not believe Universe can expand, for the same principle a rock can't expand, universe for me is but the visible matter, space belongs to universe as much as our solar system is producing "new" space, it's not... Space was there, if there was a big bang like event is was from space itself becoming a ever growing void, universe is but a event, occurring inside this everlasting space expansion...
  I thought about this for a long time, but still many information to cross, I'm ever imagined that matter and much more planets could stand a super nova expansion, but thanks to internet, I was able to learn that a few bodies can indeed withstand supernovas and still continue to orbit their mains star, I never considered it to be possible...
 If you ask me, I'm sticking with relativity, it does make sense...

 If I was to guess, "universe" was an earlier hyper massive star, that could withstand it's "imensurable size" due it's existence nearby the post-C expansion of space, weaker gravity, it was a giagantic star, as space kept growing on diameter, exponentially, eventually gravity increased and the universal star when nova, eons latter within the new existence of gravity, the leftovers started to gathered togueter and form galaxies, solar sistems, and so on and on...
 I do wonder that is that that we are observing, anything but a momentum of a universal star that once upon a time went nova due an ever growing void...

 A bigger the eye gets, closer to the orginal entity this dimmension returns, stating to loose movement, allowing the re-formation of particles, matter would than be the result of a marriage between this two oposits, but not for ever, eventually dark matter, that should be not observed by its effects, dark matter should be the effects, an aproximation of a "crushing" resting state as the virtual more centered regions of this void start to rest...
I know that mass should not be from space, I do accept this, but I'm also always questioning, should not from space in witch state, the resting energy, or the knetic void?
  For my oficial opinion: Expanding universe
  For my subjection: Realocating on space time
 As if space as it grows in diameter, it is constantly readapting the sizes to math the constants, in function of C, part of this would be set things apart, from the particles to galaxies...

 To visualise the whole idea, I'm assuming that black holes are sperical "only" becuse the "already void. That the true form of any singularity is infact a "spiral ring", the true form of a black hole being quasar, and this ever growing rupture being precisily that, a expanding quasar like event...
 A quasar event that is on this scenario, at the edges, surrowunded by frozen  energy/mass, and empty at the center, different from our "inversed" singularities... A ever growing quasar like eliptical structure, that is massive at the ring itself and empty at the center. As like the ring, the structure itself as "Whole" being the center of it, the center is the edge. I'm considering a different gravity at the borderds that makes the ever growing structure to not requere mass at center. A different more "real" form of singularity...
  Like a "constant quasar" that is constantly devouring energy/mass from the exterior, from outside in, one where the void lies on the inside...
  I wondering if we where to serve a quasar with pure energy instead of a void, it would reveal to become a expansive horizon that would reveal a void at the center(new space)... From a certain point, this ever feeding quasar event, would make its center the whole expansive ring, unable to fall back towards the center, and when big enough, the very object that once formed it, would eventually dissipate its mass into heat and radiation... Than all matter and energy that make us and stars, that make universe itself, would be born from the left overs of this virtual center, that now exists no more. It may even have lasted only a few moments, before dissipated, lefting only the ever expanding ring, that would theoretical still be consuming energy, and growing in diameter since there should be a limit "C" that does not allows it to grow on size, only in diameter...

 If one ask me why mater?
  I carring the tought that mater is the "death of space/void". Particles(energy/quanta) are the prelute of an ever continuos cycle of resting, as much more the void keeps growing in diameter, more and more particles are to apear, they only reason why they do not collapse is the ever sppining C and expanding C, those constants should grant to the void a perpetual existence, but only up to a certain point, for C is still constant. as big the void gets, greater the delay(time). One is to expand forver at C, but time not, time is backwards. Time will remain as constant as C, but C structure does not need to grow in size, or can't, but it can virtually grow forever in diameter, as for the opossit time can't, time is not at C. What I wonder is that as bigger the diameter of the ever growing void, bigger the delay towards the center(comunication), this could be the source of dark matter, dark matter being "mass", and will keep growing on quantity, increasing gravity and time setting the scales, making everything every time smaler but in more quantity. Self producing particles borning everywhere on and from the void on past as it keeps expanding... So I use to consider particles as proof of a already dying space...
  If you ask me why the existence of quanta? It's an aproximation of the original state, but thanks to C and relocation it is fractured in pieces... I look to the existence of a planet and I think what space would be like in the very distant future: Dense, massive, as bigger that density grows, more static at the center, returning to its original state, till eventually it may well re-start the whole process over and over again. But there's a difference, what of the original expanding ring? Well I presume it would remain there, and that universes like now, would still be happening at the right place...
 Something like a expansion, followed by another from inside out, and so on and on

 Mass starts to occurs when the C pattern is disrupted/delayed in time, for me energy is the source of mass, but mass is at the same time, the original state of energy, of space, before the void...
« Last Edit: 06/12/2016 00:21:37 by Alex Siqueira »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3251
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #48 on: 06/12/2016 04:32:04 »
Much appreciated, I do like it, The ''blackness'' we observe between distance galaxies is actually daylight, but there is nothing large enough or reflecting enough radians of light to be observed by our conventional present technology. "

  About C patter, it only cross my mind when I decide to consider space as an infinite field, where the "momentum universe" (big bang/nova) is still "expanding"... My concept of expansion if surelly present when thinking about blackholes as centrifugal force, spin as one would say... But I do consider that all this field we call universe is a momentum of a nova expansion...
  If space and time are existing in coorelation, I do accept that the reagion of any nova when the star explodes is temporarily submited to a expansion, and on that few secunds, the interior experience a local existence of time, different from the one on the exterior... AQs I do wonder we are expericing our from universe...
  I see space as a void, altough when I do accept universe as a limited C existence that is still expanding over nothing, than I do not need that pattern, it must be somehow related with sppining particles and blackholes on control...

 But if I do accept universe as being a still expanding super nova, an ordinary momentum over a "already existing" field of "energy", I tend to seek for a more deeper resolution...
  If universe is nothing but a still expanding momentum of an ordinary nova, over a space that was already there, light does not make sense...
  For so, I'm considering both factors, sppin and expansion, as being of different origins...  C would be the expansion itself, it belongs to a still borning universe, altough for me the spin, the whole "engine" of quantum mechanics, was already there much earlier than universe, I relate with empty space all the patterns of quantum mechanics... In a sort version i'm wondering that quantum mechanics dictates and operate particles and energy, on and from the void, and a good topic for that is both gravitron and higgs boson...

 See I do believe that C is for expansion(local/universe), as sppining "C" is for (space/energy), one existing and coodepending on each other, but nonentless one being a constant, and other being a momentum...
   If one is to reverse our so called big bang, I do believe that void would be all there was, frozen energy, a higgs field different from our own on the present, a frozen entity of energy as a whole existence, with no scales and without time... one could consider that as a frozen particle, that is vast as infinity...

 Somethign was happen or started to happen on the center, maybe from the interaction between two dimentions.  Yes this is merely speculation, but in terms of beyond the existence of the universe, basically one had a perfect, predictable entity, if there was a pattern presented it should have being  opossit charge and balance...
 I do make an Idea of what happened, there's no way to see or to know for us.
 The point is: When I consider space as an whole entity eternal and infite, two possibilities come to mind.
1- "space" has a structure with a virtual center that is constanty cicling the entity, twisting and stretching it, spliting it into fractions (quanta), determining all the constants...
 i do picture something, like a rupture, or an eye of a hurricane, with a very eliptical shape, but that more than sppin is also sort of rolling space in as if it was a hope, stretching it, raging it into smal pieces, on the quantum level... Imagine something like the momentum when a black hole is feeding on a gass cloud, now imagine that:
  A sort of singularity that grew so wide and so large, that is started to work as an ring that started to propagate itself as it feeds on the fabric itself...
  A easy way is to watch a spherical rock hitting a lakes surface, the wave is propagating trough the fabric, well on this scenario, the wave is the ring, ans is propagting itself troght the lake... Messing with it from inside out, stetching and sppining all water in there atributing to it a ciclic expansion and twisting proprieties...

 Imagien that we (universe) is alreadyexisting and born from inside out this already expanding ring.
 Such ring would be feeding from primordial energy, expanding itself, lefting behind only its patterns constantly submiting the interior to it, and also forming this void, tht for me on this scenario is nothing less than knetic energy from this very expansion...
  This red shift on thsi scenario seems trully to be as you mentioned, perhaps by very different reasons, but nentless I agree that the "gin-clear" out there is also red shift, more precisely what happen with photons beyond C, the colour beyond the red shift, that is also happening even where there is nothing to see... There is nothing to see for the distance is to great and C is constant...

 The secund cnfiguration would make universe become a simple faction of a eliptical hyper horizontal disk, of a super massive singularity, white hole or primordial black hole made of light, I'm not fan of this theory for it seems not to provide a correct expansion...
   I do believe that black holes are absolute, but there should be a point where not even the field can handle it, and with enought particle present, as on a begining, a black hole could theoreticaly grow into a spiral ring expanding, maybe even more than one, that is devouring space itself, and lefting this space that we do know on the interior...
  The faster expansion, seems to be the same way they use to calculate PI and diameter of stars, it seems to also explain a faster expansion, that is infact a bigger diameter, and not altering the cosntants or the speed of the expansion itself, only the diameter of it's edge...

I do not accept on this scenario, universe to be rare and unique, it is simple a expanding momentum of a nova, surounded by a super intercaled void, till we "pyshicaly" reach another universe or star and so on and on...
  I agree with the tinny size and bang, but I do believe that what caused universe to be born from that point of super density, was infact the "space expansion itself" it crossed over it at C, perhaps is still occuring, and crashed all those super massive objects, that we now see as galaxies...
  Much speculation, but my big bang, starts with lots of ordinaries stars, that where ripped apart by an sudent expansion on the blackground, latter on absorving the "now" C partterns resulting on the mechanics we do experience today...

  Is speculation, but for me "C" lies beyond the universe, it's a propriety of space itself, or it is a product of a expansive structure at the edges of "space" that is ripping energy and forming this void with all its patterns...
  Time as a whole entity would also be resultant of this spiral structure...
  As it it more a conversion than a destruction of something, just like a black hole it should be converting primordial energy into this ever growing void, as a ordinary black hole would be doing with a galaxy...
  So C and all its properties would be of space and on it, matter is something that was already there, or pieces that somehow survived the expansion without be consumed...

 In resume this is only necessary when I do consider space as eternal, it needs a structure, again, if universe is allthat is, there is nothing to worry about, for C would be again, the universal expansion over nothing, and quantum mechanics was always based on probabilities since day one...

  Somehow I do not believe that, but is too soon for take it as a conclusion, for the moment I share the same space at C that everybody does...
  The only aspect that does not match with this are the constants, universe "seems" to be to chaotic to control such perfect patterns...
  I'm working but where higgs enter on this:  Higgs would be the primordial energy tring to come back to its resting form, always trying to conservate energy, constantly trying to rest, not sure becouse this act itself could be gravity, the original entity trying to rest on the "after" expansion.
 As ona large black hole that is eery time less destructive as it grows, perhaps even if expanded enought, alowing particles to reapear....


 For me on a sort seculation, dark energy and dark matter origins, as space expands, the interior is becoming back to its original state, that should be the general source of gravity and expontaneous formation of particles...
  I'm no scientst, so I still have a long way to go on those thoughts...
 I'm trying to understand why a inactive photon was never considered to be a gravitron, a photon that is part of this "gin -clear", as on if photons was serving as for light and gravity...
wow Alex your posts are extensive and you have a  good ability to think.

Let me see if you can understand this .



We all have heard of photons right, we imagine in thought these little tiny mass less particles travelling from the sun to the earth.
photons that are information packets.


Now I want you if you can, to imagine that there is no photons but only a photon. Imagine that and matter, the smallest of particles , gives of a spherical light field.

I want you to imagine that the entire spherical field is a single photon . I want you to imagine zooming out so the spherical field you observe relatively contracts to a single point , so all you see is a dot like a star.

You are an outer observer looking in, you can see the now dot but the dot can not see you because you are beyond the limit of lights radius.

Imagine these dots you now visualise to be single photons, inside of each and every photon is a visual universe that is connected via the light internally.

Let me know if you understood please.

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: Proof
« Reply #49 on: 06/12/2016 09:13:41 »
Yes, I do see that, but also saving the consideration that those "seeds" were before...
 It were there happy with their unique force, a soup of energy as a whole entity, perhaps a frozen one...
 One where quanta was not, a single field, with a perfect pattern. I like to think of photons as it, but it could also be a unique bosson, as a dimenssion...
   Eventually some other dimmension interacted with it, or by any reasons it started to develop "cancer".
 A twisted singularity that started at a virtual center, maybe more than one, devouring one the other, but I do believe to have being only one, it started to grow in diameter exponentially from the minute it where born.
  Accelerating towards everything there was(energy) as a wave, feeding and growing on diameter on it...
  Perhaps resambles a big bang, but for me big bang was ordinary nova, that produced a "bigger" galaxy that we call universe. On a reverse scale universe is bigger in diameter for the period on the expansion it was born, as for galaxies, solar systems, atoms are smaler for the same reason...
  I do consider the big bang as a nova for the universe borned from it, but nonentless particles borning from the void as the ever lasting expansion continues, with those particles "re-apearing" universel star, was able to form, but submited to a weaker gravity than now, for the void was smaler, as it kept expanding gravity has increased on our region(different from now) and from that point own all that happens was what we already know, nova and black hole(once and somewhere) but I do wonder that "space as a void" was  already growing in diameter and realocating the interior.
 The very act of realocation and growing, what allowed matter (energy) to reapear, thus universe..

  One have a whole entety of energy(frozen/spherical)
 Now, One have a singularity that feed on it, from inside out, lelting behind a inner void of knetic energy "space/C" as it consumes and grows in diameter... C remain constant and time stretches towards both dirrection, faster at the edges and slower at the center, allowing the existence of different scales other than particles, alowing matter to exist...

 Matter and void, would be a marriage, inconstant for they are not from the same thing, energy is a constant state (primordial), and void/space but a momentum (result)
 I wonder that as the diameter keeps growing, the interior will be constantly relocating the (void) and as the diameter grows the center (where universe should lies now) it's on itself a consequence of a slow "return" to the original resting state, and atempt to conserve... Though they are still married, so one would have fractions of the entity, like copies(atempts)
   
 So I assume universe has indeed born from a explosion(that also expanded), but only expanded matter, as any other super nova out there, the miss understanding I believe to be that C was already happening on the blackground, and that univer iself, only born because space adquired a big enought radius that allowed particles to "re-apear", matter is than result of a marriage.....

I'm short on time, latter I'll correct it, but basically universe as a "probability" for it's own existence due it "now place"/ "relocation" on the ever growing void.. altoguh different from our already "inversed" singularityes surrowunded by already void. This ring/singularity can and should be growing much as a quasar, but one that theoreticaly does not requeres a center of mass, one that the center is the whole "weight" of the ring itself, with void at the center.. I believe that this condition is repeating itself from inside out dense objects as inner cores, they seem to explode nova depending on their size by the same factor "relocation"... An atempt to become one again, what does not let it happen is becouse matter is a marriage that is now forever submited to C...

  I do understand what you asked to visualize, I'm just implementing over it... Cause photons are already sppining energy. I tend to think that what more resambles the primordial state is frozen mass. Bosons seems more logic then sppining particles, like individual fractions of a whole quanta, the rest of the particles (stages), sons of this marriage, would any other particles, inevitable they would assimitate its father caracteristics(Twisting) around their mothers personality(static)... Not precisily on those terms, but I take for "mother" the primordial existence of the dimmension as whole energy that remains opossit to the father on the edges of the ever growing void, acting as a delimitation for the event(time) controling C, C controling higgs, the simple existence of the bosson, an alternative reason for sppining particles, around a virtual center...
  I imagine that primordial existence, thinking about a inner core from outside in as being similar to the primordial space, it only does not expand again, cause the void is already there, even so is known that the do expand to...
 Big bang describles a new bron even, I do not focus ont hat, I consider a inverse scenario for space itself, it was already infinite as energy, than the void started to clean up, consuming it as it expands, not in size, bt in diameter, we would be on the middle, happens only that this middle this, universal plate, or, this horizont where universe exists along with others, is very very large...
 So what's out there? Beyond the universe event? Void and eventually with "time" and "relocation" self expontaneous particles, back up to another "bigbangs"...

 As for gravity, seems to be related with higgs bosson, it is the source, but it is transmited trough this "photonic space/void"  in a deeper speculation photon is but a carrier, that forms and refrms on the void itself... This gin-clear that The Box mention, this blackground can indeed be filed with inactivated photons/gravitrons...
 This last speculation is related with the one above for even higgs being the source as a point of reference for sppining particles, there would require something else to carry the information/waves, and do it at C I can only thing of photons themselves being the carrier of all sort of information, from light up to gravity... But not even close to take it as a conclusion... I do not expect to be correct, but the only way to thing differnt is to strapolate over the details and reach a partial conclusion, than start to check it step by step, possible, not possible and why, if so, how?

 I'm sugestingthat the very re-apereance of particles/enever. (now sppining at C), is on itself, proof of an already dying space, as also condition for an universe itself to exist...
« Last Edit: 06/12/2016 14:35:41 by Alex Siqueira »