O'Nero Samuel

I have to agree with you on that. Criticism should ignite one to work harder, if not for anything, to prove his point.

Studiot, sorry if I didn't sound polite earlier. One gets easily irrasible when his believes, no matter how stupid they may seem; maybe more so when they are stupid, is put to the mud. Because this theory really is when contrasted with what we know as rational. But it is real. The fault is mine, I haven't discovered a "simple and apparent way" to bring it to the mainstream ways of refined thought; thats my job, and I'm working on it. "How many unicorns I see in my room? ... About six. Actually it was nine, but I sent the purple ones away. Why? I don't like purple so much. I'd be glad if you could tell me how many unicorns I have sent away so far? On a serious note, Too-open-minded, it surprises me that someones' thought is also delving into this madness. I would have ask for us to share notes, but I think it would be too early. When I have more grounds I'd contact you. Your analogy with number line was okay, but it still doesn't portray the depth of this theory. But going with that same analogy, its like multiplying two very negative numbers and having a very positive number; far more involved than that though.

Whether you agree with me or not is of no consequence. I'm working on this idea already, i call it THE ZERO THEOREM. Its speculative nature, and its logical distance from experienced reality would not allow me make an argument for now. Its big, its deep and it would change everything. Too opened minded, if you are working on it continue, you re on the right track. Every of our zeros, whether of energy, space or time, are arbitrary, and are well define in some other frame of reference compared to our frame where they are undefined. I call this the zero function. Zero functions are unique mathematical variables, as though they are undefined in our frame, their combination can make functions that transform back into our "defined domain. This might sound like total nonsense, because it, but its final manifestation would suprise the world, and change our concept4ons of the term ENERGY.

Zero, as we see it, and as manupulated by mathematics is universally impossible. This shud be the bases of this speculation. By universally impossible, I mean that all zeros relative to earth's frame are non-zeros relative to some other frame. Another way of looking at it is this; there is nothing as zero energy, as long as there is motion. And I'm sure you'd agree that there would always be motion.

You mean G is an arbitrary constant? Mean as a matter of choice, it would have been able to do away with pi? And at the same time, 4 pi Square makes up part of the three constant of the Coulomb force? That is really something to look into. From general outlook, pi comes to play whenever we have to resolve orbits. Gravitation is resolved in orbits, how does pi play an arbitrary role in the gravitational constant? And, what could it be replaced with if we were to use "three constants"?

[quote name=PatrickGarrow17' timestamp='1345415048' post='697938] Was pondering gravity as it relates to orbit... Since, most orbits are circular in nature (or better, elliptical), wouldn't it follow that somehow the ratio pi is inherent in the force of gravity. I've seen pi present in the equations for general relativity and the cosmological constant, and was hoping to get some insight on the significance of the number as it relates to the structure of the universe. The cosmological constant: Einstein's field equation of general relativity: A circular rotational motion and spherical structure seems to be a pattern from the atom to the star to the galaxy... Can anyone here tie this all a little tighter for me? To add to your speculations, if you square the value of pi you'd get approximately g(9.876...). Why? Coincidence? I doubt.

what then defines this "different path through space"? Don't tell me its the speed of the space ship as it approaches c. Does that mean that the speed of the spaceship maps out its own space-time? Hypothetically, if there were two spaceships, with spaceship1 moving at "almost the speed of light", and spaceship2 moving with about three-quarter of that speed, what then would be the time difference between both spaceships as observed from earth as an initial frame? Don't tell me it depends on their speed again, because that would not take into consideration the effect of "space" on speed. What are these "effects"?

If a frame is discovered whose speed approaches c, when would happen to these "mainstream physical models that have experimental evidence"? Don't be mistaken! I'm not trying to dismiss or undermine the verisimilitude of relativity, just trying to see what would happen and how things would look like on the other side, and if there ever is "another side". The speculative nature of this proposition is quite glaring due to the fact that a theory like this would "require the application of complicated logical processes in order to reach conclusions from the premises that can be confronted with observation", according to Einstein himself in his letter to scientific america on his theory on relativity. And like you said, if there really is an other side, then I'm on my own until logically proven, but then not all that is logically simple is embodied in experienced reality. Like Einstein said, is the "miracle creed" the tamed metaphysicist believes. So no matter the degree of mental oscification in the mainstream physical model, we should never stop trying to see things from a different view no matter how ludicrous they may seem. So please stop giving quotes that translates how dumb someone's view is. The founder of the theory of relativity has this to say on our attaining a unified field theory after his life's work: "The derivation, from the equations, of the conclusions which can be confronted with experience will require painstaking efforts and probably new mathematical methods."

Ok, thanks. light is not a valid reference frame, accepted. why then does gravitation alter the speed of light as observed from earth? Remember Einsteins prediction of the bending of starlight due to gravitation. Is that not the hand of Newtons universal law of gravitation? And if it is why then is light, a particle, not a valid frame of reference? Coherence? Oh, sorry, it doesn't have mass. Oops! But it has momentum, eh? All these speculations may seem out of point, but if only one would view our duldrums with photons, then we would get this guts instinct that there if definitely something wrong somewhere in these theories that is truncating its apparent "coherence". Even Einstein himself has this to say ;"if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"

Traveling with the speed of light, dt tends to zero(this is assumed to be relative to earth's time; which is dependent on the gravitational force around the earth). Is there a moving frame somewhere whose time relative to earth is not zero? Maybe due to its traveling speed, or maybe the gravitational force around it. Can anybody help with an explanation, or better still, where to search for answer?

Thanks for your contributions. Just wait till you read its details, breaking it down to your level, then u would see its meaning. Intelligence is invisible to those who do not have it... Author Schaupeneur.

THE ZERO THEOREM, i.e you would agree with me that our mathematical system operates with the presupposition that at dt=0 nothing exist. But the truth is that given absolute relativity, and the fact that dt is strictly dependent on gravitation (twin paradox and all of einstein's codswallop), outside, and far from, earth, somewhere, there exist manifold variation of gravitational force and its effect on time space (though its space geometry and complex space geometry remains the same - somehow!). Adding all of this up, the zero theorem is simply saying that at earths dt=o, there exist, somewhere, where dt is not equal to zero. Then all our mathematical zeros becomes arbitrary relative to some other frame of reference. In our words, our "nothing" is actually "something"! Then how can we find any speed beyond that of light?

conveniently rational, but not satisfying. come to think of it, how can something that is made of nothing make up something? !!!!

One unique nature of "self sustaining forces" are orbits. My question then is does atomic orbitals bear any rational connection with gravitational orbit as an agglomerate of its basic unit? I mean can any logical deductions or inference be drawn on gravitational force from atomic orbits as its basic unit?

I don't have the time reference years of any two planets at the moment, but if you could show me you computing formulas, then we could start our "work together" from there. I never doubt what i believe, the only thing i need it time to bring it down to the apparent comprehension of science. Was surprised someone was even thinking in this direction, because the isolating thing about science is that when you think too far you get ignored, remember Galileo, Einstein, Newton and many others who had mad profound breakthrough in this world, so I'm not bothered. But to get someone to work with in this light would be fantastic.

Pi square is not the figure going out of phase, rather it seems like an absolute ablution through which all other phase variables finds their relativistic and correlation correction of, and finally, from exogenous variation. This is the quest of Planetary motion for its inherent precision. Think of this phase-in and phase-out as a periodic motion with a restoring force acting to bring the system back to equilibrium. In this case Pi square acts like an arbitrary constant. Now i say this constant would strongly depend on the frame of reference of inference because of the chaotic-like nature of these exogenous variables. The term "exogenous variables" seems too vague as to be able to aid computation of these relations as in relation to the prediction of this phase-in and phase-out of Pi and G, but then not surprising it proves relatively absolute given the arbitrary and unexpected acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe. Now not much of a diversion here, for there is a concept, or rather call it a philosophy i believe in; I call it "SUPER-INTERACTIONS". In this sense, every slight nuance in the working of a conserved system affects every part of the system in a way, currently observable or not. The butterfly-effect kicks in and distort and amplify these nuance into exorbitant variation from the purity of the mathematically inferred precision. Orbits, like I believe, always try to find a way to bring all of its systems, no matter how exorbitant their flux variation is, back into harmony with time. The question then is; "What relative force-effect determines this precision restoring effect"? Now, that would lead us into a field I'd rather not delve into at the moment. The bottom line then is, Pi seems absolute, just as space is, and the observable variation are as a result of relative frame of inference caused by flux in exogenous variables amplified through the butterfly effect when observed from various frame of reference. Now all of these are just intuitive inference, nothing of experimental consolidations. But then the intuitive thinker knows that the ultimate truth and beauty of the nature of science are as a result of this intuitive inference.

You have a point. This constant then would depend strongly on the frame of reference of inference.

I mean is the effective work done by this E-radiation energy obey the laws of conservation of energy? I mean can other forms of energy, say, electrical be transmitted without any medium an still have its effective work effect when converted back to its original form? We all know E-M waves are made use of by ICT, transmitted and converted back and forth. But can this same mechanism be applied to more greater forms of energy?

Sure....if this theory proves substantial then it does apply to the big G. And this would then describe and predict the nature of the of the acceleration of the space-time boundary of the universe.

Do energy always require a medium for its transmission? If not, is it what is transmitted through electromagnetic waves? If then, why does E-M waves act as the conduit and not the form of energy? I mean why does E-M waves not be transmittable in such a way as to distort or affect mass without its conversion? If then energy always require a medium for its transmission, then it defies its essence, because the concept of energy itself proves arbitrary enough as not to be able to be pin pointed down to anything tangible...we can only describe, horn and manage its effects.

I think you have a point here. Lets not get too conventional here not to see a new relation between our "already known" conceptions about gravitation and its laws. I believe this simply proves a concept I'm working on. I call it ORBITS. All conserved force goes in orbits. Pi helps to define and simplify this relation using an almost perfect figure; a circle; but thanks to the Uncertainty principle, it remains almost perfect. My point here is that gravitational acceleration is simplified in a constant g. In this sense, this constant becomes arbitrary, since all forces due to this acceleration is goes in orbits, though not as perfect as that of a conventional circle. The question then is if Pi and g works in ORBITS, how then are they related mathematically, and what is the significance of this relation?

John, keep in mind that velocity and position are determined relative to the position of the observer. The uncertainty principle highlights this relativity to framer of reference and practically shows that there is no other frame of reference that is relatively in inertia with reference to other frames of references. In this sense, then, getting consistency and precision in the measurement of the position and velocity of a body is determined by its relative consistency with the integral of that due to other frame of reference. This is the underlying truth of the Uncertainty principle. And for determinism, it is simply trumped by time relativity and orbits. Hawking did not dismiss this concept by terming it in the supernatural domain...he only accepted his limit. There is what i call back timing...this is what time use to trump all form of determinism...it creates an unending constant change. Keep in mind that this change is relative to the perspective of the observer....and position and velocity are measure with the human time...to me this is a really narrow time frame.