TJ McCaustland

Hello TJ here again, and I would like to ask the question of would it be possible to attract two significantly large objects such as stars together using quantum or "dark" masses as a way of redirecting objects in space that pose a threat to the populace of earth without sending anything into space?

What the article states is quite true how GR agrees with reality, but I saw another topic in specs that asked the same question in a much more convoluted way, it's just that I had a question and you answered it, so thanks.

Hello everyone, TJ here after a long vacation of study and speculation. I came here to ask a simple yet deceivingly complex question, Does general relativity Really agree with reality? Well before everybody picks sides or starts stating that Einstein was a brilliant man far above my level in learning which he was, I will present a few of my findings here. 1. In reality mass does affect the universe, but why then should mass effect the "fabric" of space when the universe is actually a dimensionless multiverse? Is that just our way of thinking of it or is the theory flawed at some specific point or is the entire universe actually limited? 2. In equation he accounts for the cosmological principal, but does he really account for the seemingly limitless, dimensionless multverse we live in? or does he forget that. I ask that here you keep the discussion in a professional calm manner and not start a flame war, and that you please do not criticize these questions unless they are completely wrong and if so show me where to correct them, after all science started with the question "why?"

Sorry about the errors, I do realize that I was rather misinformed on radiation recently.

Well we do live in a multiverse in a way, as the universe has an infinite number of dimensions as it is infinite, and the explanation for multiverse is an infinite number of infinities so it would be infinity to the infinite power, as is our universe.

This is one of my speculations to account for neutrinos, if there is already an account for them then disregard this as pseudoscience. Well as for the "math" I was trying to account for my thought that particles without mass or energy (basically space "particles"), or extra-dimensional particles could possibly depend on the universe's rate of expansion as their defined limit of speed, but the problem with this is the cosmological principle. The universe being homogeneous and isotropic states that all matter will have set speed of C as the universe's creation was not an explosion, but rather rapid expansion. So all of this taken into account unless said matter has extremely special properties it will obey the C limit, as doing otherwise would disprove the cosmological principle, because with expansion instead of explosion that means that all matter with very, very FEW exceptions obeys the same laws, principles and so forth because of the equal distribution of matter in the universe. Basically pertaining to energy.

True, but say we had a mythical fuel that did not vaporize the wings, and did not produce stupidly high levels of radiation, would this be possible, though terribly ineffective? Because I can see that on worlds like Venus, if we ever get there, this could be highly effective due to the dense atmosphere.

Hello, I'm back after around three weeks vacation. And I had a thought, would it not be possible to cause rapid nuclear decay via controlled neutron bombardment, or basically controlled small scale nuclear detonations? because I know that all forms of radiation come from one specific element (Or many in the case of of molecules) having too much energy at the atomic level to be stable, so it emits excess energy in the form of Alpha (two protons two electrons) Beta (Similar to electrons) Gamma (extremely potent short wavelength) and x-ray (rather short wavelength), as well as in the form of neutrons. So given this information would neutron bombardment in short bursts cause an acceleration in the decay of radioactive elements and isotopes?

Well the reason why you would do this is because of the reason that you would not have to provide fuel.

OK I created this to account for the existence for non-matter non-antimatter neutral atoms and energies. The infinity over zero I know is undefined, but that is in the place of the rate in m/s of the expansion of the universe. And E(NC)or M(NC) are neutral representations.

Would it be possible with materials that can withstand it, to create plasma and propel and aircraft via superheated wings transforming gases into plasma and providing thrust through the expansion of those gases?

That is because there is nothing else to compare it to. The reason? Well we live in a universe not a multiverse.

Could there be two different constants? Energial and Physical(E=mc2)? Well if there could be an energial constant it could look something like this: E(NC)=V∞/0 (Infinity over zero to denote that neutrally charged energy's speed depends on the universe's expansion rate. Or does it?) Answer this question below.

Very well BRT with the evidence. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDark_energy&ei=S9dXVLS4Cov7yASe94KABA&usg=AFQjCNF6O3fvO5xnNgU77xQW0wygt9n0_w&sig2=z5zCYD2a7gOwmep22xjikQ&bvm=bv.78677474,d.aWw But without dark energy the rate of expansion would have reversed. A group of theorists proposed a four dimensional star collapsed and created a black hole that exploded and caused the universe to be created. It is not a matter of "I can't believe it" here, it is a matter of which theory makes the most sense.

I do have limited evidence but It is evidence nonetheless. One such piece of evidence is that the universe is infinite, If it is indeed infinite then time must be infinite itself via a time loop with different outcomes, this is supported by the fact that a universe without matter is a universe of nothing, and nothing cannot be something. Therefore I conclude that the heat death theory is invalid and that the universe must recreate itself at some point. I support my second point with the fact that there is a finite amount of matter, and with that comes the restriction that nothing in the universe can have infinite gravity or mass, however large either may seem. I support the first point with the fact that both a black hole, and the big bang are incredibly dense masses of matter, the only reason why the latter did not become a large black hole is that the universe is relative, and it exists around matter. Have it all in one place and you have a tiny universe, have it spread out and you have a large one, thus there was simply not enough of the universe at that time to permit the formation of a less dense singularity, it is the dark energy that pushed the universe's boundaries out. Oh but I do, you see that is why I put quotation marks around explosion. Well you see If we look at C as the ultimate speed of the universe then the universe isn't really infinite now is it. Because if a thing is infinite then all things it contains must be limitless as well.

The universe is relative to everything because it is infinite, Anything that has mass or energy affects the universe in diverse and interesting ways.

I have come here today to present a revised, and better version of the "Universal creation and rebirth speculation." My theory has several important points. 1. Black holes are relatives of the big bang. Essentially a black hole if large enough could create another big bang, although the amount of matter and energy this would take is enormous. 2. Particles with enough velocity (Theoretical particles (tachyons) and possibly neutrinos in special cases) can escape the event horizon because black holes do not have infinite gravity or mass. (Pet theory, Ultra-high velocity ejection) 3.The universe as we see it today is part of an endless cycle of universal implosions and black hole "explosions" due to the dark energy which repels matter dissipating over time (To be confirmed.)

Yes of course, but any physical configuration has an effect on the matter surrounding it because it causes change, and because the universe is relative.

Ok at first I didn't even watch the video because I didn't have an 2 hour video, But this is crackpot pseudoscience, excuse me for saying so but you really should not believe everything you hear, there are a lot of "Alchemists" out there, not to mention a load of brilliant idiots, all of whom should write Sci-Fi stuff, not Sci-Fact. Always Always Always pass your experiments through peer review before you do anything.

It is not for us to answer the question of who, but to ask it, I am no philosopher but I do like to think.

Maybe a mini version.