TriggerGrinn

Here is a theoretical concept that has been tested to work. It is a form of turning mass into energy. Predicted by this theory of relativity of GR and SR basis, that attempts to explain quantum behavior in both macro a micro enviroments. E / M = d^2 / T^2 Energy=Mass=Time=Space=C=C^2

Isnt energy coming from the sun? If you put this in absolute zero, would things still work? matter is known to take on a new state at 0k. but im asking you, cause I didnt read into it that much.

The water device: Does the spinning of the device create a cyntrifugal force upon the water cause it to shoot out of tubes in a vertical fashion? Then follow a curved plate and fall back into the spinning container? I mean if you put this device upside down, and angled the water tubes so the water fell out by the power of gravity, and in doing so were able to cause the device to spin from the power of gravity making water come out at an angle, and could get the water to follow a path that made it jump back up inside the container where it would be thrown to the side to keep it forever full of water, you might be able to cause it to spin for a long period of time....? but I dont get the setup he expressed.

see the application of this equation at this link http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html#c2

Thats cool. I like expressing formulas in different ways. Formulas are more than just math. They are a descrpition of objects and the relationship between things. Kinetic energy: [math] KE = \frac {1}{2}mv^2[/math] > [math] KE = \frac{(M*V) (M'*V)}{M + M'}[/math] Kinetic energy that will be spent between two frames of mass that collide in 1d collisions. M = Mass, and must be used as the lesser mass of the interaction. That is M and M' are equal values of mass in the equation but represent the lesser mass of two objects colliding, and when masses are equall the value can be used from either of course. M = Moving object M' = The object that the moving object collides with, (at rest) V = velocity of object in motion relative to frame of reference at rest. Equall masses convserve velocity and momentum in (perfect collisions) and experience the exact same force. value of force of -acceleration and value of foce for +acceleration F+F. If two objects have different mass and collide, the force involved will only be as great as what the lesser mass can cause, with the considered velocity. This equation : [math] KE = \frac{(M*V) (M'*V)}{M + M'}[/math] describes the energy spent between a simple 1d interaction between two objects of mass. For no object has energy without a partner frame to measure its velocity. and of course this all can be expressed right into quantum behavior. [math]\frac {1}{2}mv^2 = \frac {(m1 v) (m1' v)}{m1 + m1'} = \frac {p^2}{2m} = \frac {n^2 h^2}{8mL^2} = En [/math] 1. The energies are quantized and can be characterized by a quantum number n 2. The energy cannot be exactly zero. 3. The smaller the confinement, the larger the energy required.

Choix: Judging from your posts in this thread, your reasoning and method, you would make an effective scientist, if you persued it professionally. nice work.

A solo persuit in science leaving no rock unturned and no question unasked is a venture worth taking and overal good science. However well I understand and believe in the text books, I will not surrender my efforts to comprehend in my own observations and efforts the universe and existence at whole. It is part of the reason I am still here today and its a personally rewarding venture. I could so convieniently learn out of a book in a classroom, but how does that compare to trying it all on your own as much as one can with his own capacity to do so. (Obviously this is not my career choice lol) just a quest thats part of my life. It is not that I did not believe in physics, I had issues with data and experiments that needed closure. Now I can move on in my own path in physics, and hopefully continue to get a helping hand from time to time from the people like you all on here when I have questions.

well.... no, because respect to no thought, thought is 0 in respect to thought, no thought is 0 the point is to show they are both valid, but equal and opposite to eachother. +1 = 1- 0 or zero would be the product of those two. Like force. Force isnt real. Its just what happens when two frames see space contracting between eachother.

Thread Closed!! Theory Disproven. Moved to SRT&GRT basis. new thread:http://forums.hypography.com/physics-mathematics/9110-special-relativity-alternatives-6.html I still could however use an "Paper Outline" guide. As far as I know, ******************* Title: Abstract Sumery: Title Paper: Intro Statements: work: Example Statements: work: Test Methods: work: Conclusive Statement: References: Including Contents. Is that a pretty bad paper guide?

Thus the relationship that forms IS: Delta X (+) / (-') = Delta Y (-) / (+') original post: http://forums.hypography.com/145972-post67.html original thread: http://forums.hypography.com/physics-mathematics/9110-special-relativity-alternatives-7.html

Thought and Not thought. Thought = not thought I would like to express this deeper. thought and no thought are Equal and opposite counterparts. In respect to the theory of relativity I am developing, all events are products of two sides of an equation. Instead of writing equations to measure events in ONE frame, you need to write an equation that displays events in both frames. A product is formed from the combination of those two frames. frame = opposite frame (forms event) Like a force: All forces are a product that exists between a minimum of two frames. Forces can appear as much as movement as they can as forces. The universe is movement. Thus the universe (movement-force) or the -"So there is some hidden system"- is the product of a minimum of two frames. Thought is observer, Non thought is observed perception. The thing in the middle is oneness - UNI-Verse

I do not think it will change our future. Consider a black hole. Inside the black hole in its frame it has seen time accelerate so much that millions of trillions of billions of years have probably been observed. Yet this does not affect our current time posistion. Time is relative to a consciousness, and measured as light between observers. Its like for example; A fast accelerating frame slows down observed time relative to us right? An analogy is; Person B has a tape recorder and records sound at a very high frame rate.. that is fast recording. Then you (person A) plays it back at regular speed, it sounds very slow. The event on the tape is stretched out on the tape. You play it slowly, and person B plays it quickly. But if you play it at the speed it was recorded, it sounds normal. Or time appears the same. No future was gained, just more energy was spent in the recording the sound. More energy is in a frame at high acceleration. Time is played more slowly for the observes at rest. I call this a C-meter. The distance light presumes it travels relative to certain frames. A big C-meter is an observer out in free space. A small C-meter is inside the gravity field of a dense star.

I will have to check on this, I was not sure about intertial frames. However on accelerating frames, time is slow for one, fast for another correct?

I've come across what looks to be a fundamental equation in physics in respect to the theory I have worked on. Please critique this. Original thread: http://forums.hypography.com/physics-mathematics/9110-special-relativity-alternatives-7.html Fundamental Equation It is possible that this is one of the fundamental final equations of reality, in respect to this theory of relativity. We have X and Y, where they are a value but the same thing. Aka if you want to use time you must use time as x and y, etc. They are frames of reference. That is an interaction between two frames. The change, or let us call DELTA, of what happens in any frame will always be equal and opposte delta in the other frame relative to what each frame observes.. Delta X (+) / (-') = Delta Y (-) / (+') Where + on one frames chage = - on the other frames change and Where -' on one frames chage = +' on the other frames change + and - mean opposite x = frame a y = frame b Examples: Gravity. If the matter (considering what atoms do) on earth experiences spacial contraction, what they see gets slightly closer. An object outside of the earth observes the matter expanding dimensionally, thus it IS closer. As the matter on earth sees space rapidly expand the object it sees expands dimensionally. The object outside the earth sees space contract. space contraction(X) = matter expansion (Y) Time time dilation between a frame at rest and moving. If one frame is observed to slow down time, the other will observe time to equally speed up. Time+ = Time- (relativistic effect between frames) Matter If an object observes hitting another object and stopping, the other object will equally and oppositly react. (X)Velocity+ = (Y)Velocity - (matter frame hitting matter frame derivative of [Ke]) (X)Mass+ = (Y)Mass- (relativistic effect between frames) (X)Momentum+ = (Y)Momentum- (matter frame hitting matter frame) Double slit experiment: If you shoot a electron(particle) from a gun through the slits you will observe it to be wave form on the screen, that is you see a particle, it acts a wave.. (that is it, it is wave like on the screen but it was was particle) If you observe it with light to measure it go through the slit, you will see a wave act like a particle. (that is it seems particle on the screen like but it goes through both slits) (X/Y)particle = (Y/X)Wave Heisenberg principle:? The more you try to measure posistion you are met with equally knowing less about its momentum (X)Position+ = (Y) momentum- E=MC^2 Energy is the equal yet opposite of mass. Wave(no mass) = particle(mass) The action of mass turning to energy is by value of C^2 (X)Mass- = (Y)Energy+ by C^2

I agree space-time is as real as anything relative to us as we look around. I just mean to point out that, the only way you could be absolutely certain is to step out of your present moment and into the future, the same time you were in your present of your past. Its as if I through some invisible rocks at you and you could not see me. You could count them when they hit you, but you could never tell me how many I threw, or how many I am going to throw. thus you are locked into that posistion, and you do not know even how far awa those rocks are. I could be just tapping you with the rock 1mm away, yet you can only know when it is in your frame, boom , ouch, contact, now. Now for your minds eye, the creation of your perception it is the frame, and the present is the surroundings.

Hello popular, Arkain101 here. I thought I would like to add the understanding of time in respect to my Theory of Relativity to your thread. This is the description of time and space for any and all observation frames. An observer is contained in the zero point observation. This is his present moment and it has zero spacial property (that which he see's). Any chosen distance D1,D2... outwards of the frame is the future. Thus the future is not attainable, so distance (or space) can only be a perception and never a certain fact. A clock that ticks in this a frame is its own present moment, which is relative to any other frame. In respect to SR space-time can be anything relative to a reference frame and depending on that frames velocity. Thus velocity is Time and Space. Velocity is change. V=D/T, The speed of light is velocity d/t, so V=C Therefore we have C. The C in all frames of observation is constant. Constant because all frames are unchanging. To be unchanging they must not have space-time. sqrt(Energy / Mass) = C = 1 / sqrt (Eo * Uo)

Deja Vu can have this effect for me, making me question my being where I am. I used to have it alot. I do not think this is a loop. I think that the source of who we are, which is the factor behind our consciousness is that of a infinite substance or form. Time to time we have an experience that brings us very close to this part of ourselves and we come in touch with infinite and it transfers into our reality leaving us going, this is ALL to strange, then as quickly as it came it passes and we continue. The theory of relativity that I have been working on, I believe can scientifically prove that infact this entire existence is a perception of our consciousness. Nothing but a life form with a consciousness experiences the universe as we do, as a spacial world. Somewhere between quantum, atoms, cells, and life forms the consciousness takes a posistion, and that posistion is a static space-time perception, so there is also design and construct behind our concsciousness or perception, more so than proposing it was chance and that its an illusion that we have one.

Right, it happens. But it took breaking rational thinking to discover that. A human being is part of a whole, called by us the "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest-- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. -A Einstein I am not positive this is correct, but it has phenominal consequences if you do believe it. I am not alone in this conception.

Think of an atoms perspective. Quantum material shifting around at near the speed of light. Space flexing changing warping, completely dynamic. From that percpetions space may appear, dissapear, reapearing, strethc, contract, millions of times in one second. From our perspective we gather a stable space, and our perception is a figment in our consciousness. However, somewhere along the line the obseravtion frame goes from dynamic (atomic world) to static (perceptive world). All I am suggesting is that SR seems strange to comprehend because we think space is static. Think about what we are made of, and whats going on at the smallest level. Each atom is a frame, made of frames of electrons and nucleaus, that is made of frames of protons, neutrons, made of frames of quarks, Each frame is a moment of the present. It must obey zero dimensions or it exists within the future and the present at the same time. We are made of this collaboration of zero dimensions in the frames of the trillions of trillions. The space between all these frames is dynamic, as is the time. The dimensions of each frame is of zero dimension. As is all material things. Thus anything material the very property of mass itself is zero dimension. Which is to say regardless of posistion you are in the same posistion as any from that particular perspective. This says we are all one source. Energy, and Matter. One timeless spaceless entity. However our human consciouness as we come alive from a DNA strand into a human our perception grows and grows untill we are somehow capable to percept a dimensional world. Then when we die our consciousness would change. If it continues to last it would return to a place of NO dimension. Spiritual like place ? i dunno u be the a judge.

hmm... "strokes overly grown in need of shaving goatee" I must agree it could have some interesting use in study of evolution.

An idea to science is not real, as in; it is not measureable, you can not weight it, feel it, or see it. In respect to our human mind, an idea is real, it is weighable, measureable, you can feel it, and see it. In respect to science, mass and energy is real and the universe as a spacially dimensional world is an Idea. In respect to the human mind(our perception) the unvierse is a real place of spacial dimension and time, and mass and energy are only ideas; things we can not directly see or visualise. So it is not to say the outside world does not exist. In repsect to this theory, it does not. Which is why our perceptions can change when we travel at relativistic speeds. Like space can contract, and time can fluctuate. However in our frame(that which is at rest to us) remains normal) In repsect to your human perception the universe is every bit real and existant. We percieve 3D spacial dimension to navigate around in dimensionaless mass and energy to survive and have this human experience. But our consciousness itself resides in the ONE source of mass and energy of zero dimension. Each distance you go further away from yourself (even in the tiniest of quanta distance) is your future. You can not obtain the future. The moon for example is 2 seconds into your future. Your present is your frame. You can not predict what appears distant from you, because what you observer as distant is the present in your frame.

Special Relativity can be a difficult concept to grasp. Especially difficult if you view from a newtonian perception of reality. What this describes is the way to truly view this reality, from our human perspective. This theory that I have been working on proposes you discard the idea that the space you see in this universe is anything more than a figment of your imagination. For example, here to the moon. It seems like there is alot of space or distance there between you and the moon. However as SR says, it is not absolute, and it can contract and expand relative to all kinds of observers. This theory I am discussing here, proposes you accept the fact that all that space, is a figment of imagination, and has nothing to do with how the universe works. This theory states space is not there, not in the nothingness sense, and not int he spacial sense. What IS there is Matter and Energy. The ONLY capable frames of reference. And as a principle a frame of reference is a closed system of zero dimensions. If you accept this perspective, you can clearly understand Special Relativity. Furthermore, you can theorize with a basis of understanding relativity with further insight. I hate to mention this on a science forum, but what this theory says is that our consciousness's are matter and energy. Matter and energy are dimensionless. So that means it is one singularity of a thing, with zero seperation of space. However, through methods of perception we view from this dimensionless world (be it source or soul or sprit) and we create the 'idea' of a universe. However our idea of the universe in dimension like conception cleary does not coincide with the true nature of the universe. That true nature is Energy and Mass in a dimensionless world. Thus if we were to percieve that we traveled through space very quickly, a percentage of C, our perception would dilate. Time would seem to change, length and mass, all those relativistic effects. However nothing would change for out true nature of our mass and energy in our frame. Just as SR says.

It may very well be that the calculations I have shown are unconventional. Although I arrived to the conclusions presented without the work equations shown. I meant only to attempt to show a connection. It appears as though there is issue with it, thank you.

I see what you mean now. I wasnt following you the first time. Props to that explaination. I agree completely from the observations. However There is other forces at work, however small. I built this in a small jar at first. The attraction effects were much greater. I built a larger one after this post, it doesnt appear there is the same attraction of the same distance, when the overal size of the plane is larger. So anyway, you wont be seeing any intesnse gravity effects in a large system. HAHAHA yah kids can really enjoy this. Especially if there was liquids to use that would last nearly permanently. One could add different types of bacteria to each type of dropplet and have some full on galactic warfare. See which form of virus and bacteria's out last the rest, considering they should be locked into their bubble, surrounded by the oily film, once a few planets collide, they can at times JOIN, thus different life forms will for the first time meet there alien counterparts, and seeing how they get along would be pretty entertaining. Heck add some sea monkeys.

Look, I first and foremost apologize if this is in the wrong section. but I really have to say that in my time of visiting this particular forum many of you are out of line with the attitude you bring towards creative thinking. It is not me who I am concirned for,because this is what I do and I will never quit. However the young minds of the next generation might feel compelled to stop thinking up ideas if they are confronted with such negetive opinions from people they once looked up to. Its your freedom to act nice or mean to people amongst this community, I give you that but just think what impact you could be creating if you shatter some peoples weaker enthusiasm. Correct them all you like, but that can be done in a positive manner.