Relativity and Pulsars

[Regarius]

I can explain pulsars.  And any accretion disk (they're practically all variations of the same thing).  And gravitational lensing.  But not if we have relativity "correct".

 

We are all traveling at subjective velocities through an objectively static particle field.  This field is responsible for gravity, magnetism (I assume), and photonic wave propogation.  Photons do not exist.  I'd imagine the same particle controls gravity and photonic wave propogation.  (And presumably magnetism but I just tack that on because I just think about things in all disciplines and I don't understand enough to attach that though it must be correct if the rest is.).

 

The more mass there is at a point the more the particles will bunch up around said point.  It's why the speed of light is always a constant.  It's a photonic wave that ends up propogating at the same rate through any subjective perspective no matter what but when you are traveling faster at your own subjective velocity through the particle field, you have more particles you are pulling towards your mass for any given rate of time and thus they are closer together and the wave propogates faster through them.

If your mass is large the particles would "jump" away quickly as your particle field returns to "0" as you leave the area and the photonic wave would propogate from there.  The faster your mass is traveling relative to the static particle field the faster the particles would flood away from where the mass used to be and the farther the photonic wave would travel "quickly".  So the more mass, the more the particles would clump up (and then farther they would unclump and the faster you're moving the faster you've left the area.  The wave propgation would continue relative to how close the particles are to each other.

What is time dialation?  First... in which direction is positive acceleration?  The answer?  Any direction whatsoever.

 

When I first was thinking about this I looked at all the relativity experiments briefly and it seemed like all the hypothesises, if dismissed... and if you only look at the relative acceleration something would be going to assuming the Sun is going through a static particle field at a static rate (or at least Earth is subjectively accelerating through it and treating the Sun as a static point) then  the experimental data seems to fit.

 

As such, all acceleration would induce time dialation as you're changing the rate you're interacting with the static particle field.  My posit is the particles moving towards and clumping towards mass (as we move through the field) create the force of gravity.  If were were at absolute "0" in the particle field, there would be no perceptual gravity.  If this were not true it might be that moving "faster" or "slower" versus absolute "0" might induce different directions of time dialation but my assumption is that both cause more time to elapse (during acceleration).  If I'm wrong about gravity being nonexistant at "0" then perhaps time dialation works differently -- however, if I'm wrong about that then accretion disks don't make sense with my explanation of relativity.

 

Around the time I was thinking about relativity, I deduced a new kind of particle or reaction, depending on how much information I give about it.  I'm not going to talk about it much in detial as if I'm correct it's an insanely dangerous form of energy that may be very useful in the future that appears innoculous.  If you consider anything I'm writing enough to go and try something out please take my warning and DON'T.  If I'm not crazy you'll likely kill yourself and many others nearby.  Even if I'm crazy the tiny chance that I'm right is terrifying to me.  I also should be right as it explains pulsars (and other accretion disks).

Suns should be a single reaction (likely near the center).

Accretion disks should all have two or more reactions inside of them.  The reactions should repel each other but the particles they give off should feed each other as well.  These particles should be spat out in all directions but would have to interact with each other to produce a secondary reaction that would produce energy.

 

The two reactions in a pulsar are occupying the same general "sphere" while rotating around each other.  As they get closer, pushed there by the products of the secondary reactions, they undergo more and more rapid acceleration and as such, more and more time dialation.  Eventually they get too close to one another and push each other apart (as the reactions repel each other - very possibly what creates solar flares - they eventually get close enough to overpower the secondary reaction's forces to push them together).  They are also very, very close at this point and accelerating around each other at a very high velocity and thus feed each other's reaction to a very high degree.  The pulsar then "pulses".

I've seen pictures of pulsars (that I only looked at after I deduced this) that show a black band around the center.  This would make sense as many of the secondary reactions and products of said reaction would directly interact with the other primary reaction and thus the area around the spinning center would not have secondary reactions.  There should be a "bowl" above and below the center dim disk... and there should be the most reactions in the dead center as well as above and below the absolute center which would produce the up and down pulse.

 

All accretion disks should be variations of this.  At least two reactions orbiting each other... potentially many... some with different materials in the composition of the mass that would cause different effects and potentially other reactions that would give off things similar to "solar flares".  Fundamentally they are all examples of two reactions orbiting each other.

 

 

Recently I just sit around and think.  I used to work a job in the oil field... mudlogging.  Lots of time to myself.  Went through some really weird experieces 2-3 years back and it's made me think even more.  Been sitting around for months now thinking I should post about the things I've been thinking about but didn't feel I should... but I'm about to be homeless and maybe something I've thought about has merit.  I'm pretty sure I can explain Alzheimer's... I think I'm correct regarding relativity and pulsars (and can explain more there but so far I've decided not to) and I can explain how people develop autism to a high degree of certainty having had it (or having it) myself.  I'll be homeless in 4 days. commercial url removed per rule 2.7

[DrP]

3 minutes ago, Regarius said:

Photons do not exist. 

I have never seen any evidence to support this claim. There has been plenty of science around that deals with the photon for over a hundred years or so.

How do you explain the photoelectric effect if photons do not exist?  Or the propagation of light for that matter?

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, Regarius said:

I can explain pulsars.  And any accretion disk (they're practically all variations of the same thing).  And gravitational lensing.  But not if we have relativity "correct".

 

We are all traveling at subjective velocities through an objectively static particle field.  This field is responsible for gravity, magnetism (I assume), and photonic wave propogation.  Photons do not exist.  I'd imagine the same particle controls gravity and photonic wave propogation.  (And presumably magnetism but I just tack that on because I just think about things in all disciplines and I don't understand enough to attach that though it must be correct if the rest is.).

 

The more mass there is at a point the more the particles will bunch up around said point.  It's why the speed of light is always a constant.  It's a photonic wave that ends up propogating at the same rate through any subjective perspective no matter what but when you are traveling faster at your own subjective velocity through the particle field, you have more particles you are pulling towards your mass for any given rate of time and thus they are closer together and the wave propogates faster through them.

If your mass is large the particles would "jump" away quickly as your particle field returns to "0" as you leave the area and the photonic wave would propogate from there.  The faster your mass is traveling relative to the static particle field the faster the particles would flood away from where the mass used to be and the farther the photonic wave would travel "quickly".  So the more mass, the more the particles would clump up (and then farther they would unclump and the faster you're moving the faster you've left the area.  The wave propgation would continue relative to how close the particles are to each other.

What is time dialation?  First... in which direction is positive acceleration?  The answer?  Any direction whatsoever.

 

When I first was thinking about this I looked at all the relativity experiments briefly and it seemed like all the hypothesises, if dismissed... and if you only look at the relative acceleration something would be going to assuming the Sun is going through a static particle field at a static rate (or at least Earth is subjectively accelerating through it and treating the Sun as a static point) then  the experimental data seems to fit.

 

As such, all acceleration would induce time dialation as you're changing the rate you're interacting with the static particle field.  My posit is the particles moving towards and clumping towards mass (as we move through the field) create the force of gravity.  If were were at absolute "0" in the particle field, there would be no perceptual gravity.  If this were not true it might be that moving "faster" or "slower" versus absolute "0" might induce different directions of time dialation but my assumption is that both cause more time to elapse (during acceleration).  If I'm wrong about gravity being nonexistant at "0" then perhaps time dialation works differently -- however, if I'm wrong about that then accretion disks don't make sense with my explanation of relativity.

 

Around the time I was thinking about relativity, I deduced a new kind of particle or reaction, depending on how much information I give about it.  I'm not going to talk about it much in detial as if I'm correct it's an insanely dangerous form of energy that may be very useful in the future that appears innoculous.  If you consider anything I'm writing enough to go and try something out please take my warning and DON'T.  If I'm not crazy you'll likely kill yourself and many others nearby.  Even if I'm crazy the tiny chance that I'm right is terrifying to me.  I also should be right as it explains pulsars (and other accretion disks).

Suns should be a single reaction (likely near the center).

Accretion disks should all have two or more reactions inside of them.  The reactions should repel each other but the particles they give off should feed each other as well.  These particles should be spat out in all directions but would have to interact with each other to produce a secondary reaction that would produce energy.

 

The two reactions in a pulsar are occupying the same general "sphere" while rotating around each other.  As they get closer, pushed there by the products of the secondary reactions, they undergo more and more rapid acceleration and as such, more and more time dialation.  Eventually they get too close to one another and push each other apart (as the reactions repel each other - very possibly what creates solar flares - they eventually get close enough to overpower the secondary reaction's forces to push them together).  They are also very, very close at this point and accelerating around each other at a very high velocity and thus feed each other's reaction to a very high degree.  The pulsar then "pulses".

I've seen pictures of pulsars (that I only looked at after I deduced this) that show a black band around the center.  This would make sense as many of the secondary reactions and products of said reaction would directly interact with the other primary reaction and thus the area around the spinning center would not have secondary reactions.  There should be a "bowl" above and below the center dim disk... and there should be the most reactions in the dead center as well as above and below the absolute center which would produce the up and down pulse.

 

All accretion disks should be variations of this.  At least two reactions orbiting each other... potentially many... some with different materials in the composition of the mass that would cause different effects and potentially other reactions that would give off things similar to "solar flares".  Fundamentally they are all examples of two reactions orbiting each other.

 

 

Recently I just sit around and think.  I used to work a job in the oil field... mudlogging.  Lots of time to myself.  Went through some really weird experieces 2-3 years back and it's made me think even more.  Been sitting around for months now thinking I should post about the things I've been thinking about but didn't feel I should... but I'm about to be homeless and maybe something I've thought about has merit.  I'm pretty sure I can explain Alzheimer's... I think I'm correct regarding relativity and pulsars (and can explain more there but so far I've decided not to) and I can explain how people develop autism to a high degree of certainty having had it (or having it) myself.  I'll be homeless in 4 days.  commercial url removed per rule 2.7

!

Moderator Note

Due to the non-mainstream nature of your post, I'm moving this to our Speculations section. We need to keep the mainstream sections like Relativity free from unproven concepts since we have students looking to pass classes come here for explanations.

I've also removed the commercial url from your post, since it violates our no-advertising rules. And please stick to a single concept, preferably the one you started with. If you wish to discusss your Alzheimer's and autism ideas, or homelessness, do so in separate threads. 

 

[Silvestru]

Doesn't sound like you can explain Pulsars. Actually your silly speculation aside, it sounds like you can't even make a sentence without contradicting yourself.

14 minutes ago, Regarius said:

Photons do not exist.

14 minutes ago, Regarius said:

It's why the speed of light is always a constant.

So which one is it? You describe light as a photonic wave after you say that photons do not exist. Surprisingly as I read further, your speculations get even more ridiculous than the one about photons! I would suggest forgetting everything you think you know about physics and starting anew.

[Regarius]

It's the speed of the photonic wave propagation that's always a constant.  The photon would be the particle in the static particle field.  It doesn't move... it would be anchored on a static point.  It might vibrate back and forth but it wouldn't propagate itself... just the wave.

[Silvestru]

2 minutes ago, Regarius said:

It's the speed of the photonic wave propagation that's always a constant.  The photon would be the particle in the static particle field.  It doesn't move... it would be anchored on a static point.  It might vibrate back and forth but it wouldn't propagate itself... just the wave.

And what is the wave made out of? If a river flows and the river is made out of water do the water molecules move?

What do you mean just the wave? Again you are contradicting yourself. 

[Regarius]

Atoms/molecules propagate waves... they don't move with them.  Are you suggesting heat migrates?

[Silvestru]

What is the static particle field? Do you see this as the Static field and the flexible field? Where do you get all this "information"?

1 minute ago, Regarius said:

Atoms/molecules propagate waves... they don't move with them.  Are you suggesting heat migrates?

And what are waves in your opinion? 
Please don't tell me you are greatly confused on what heat wave actually means. 

I dont know what do you mean by heat migrates but yes. Heat is energy transferred from one system to another.

[Regarius]

Just call the silly particles in the static field photons then.  Why do photons have to move?

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, Regarius said:

Atoms/molecules propagate waves... they don't move with them.  Are you suggesting heat migrates?

Heat is energy transfer owing to a temperature difference. Heat, by definition, migrates.

6 minutes ago, Regarius said:

Just call the silly particles in the static field photons then.  Why do photons have to move?

Because there is no way for them to be at rest. EM waves arise out of of Maxwells equations, and they propagate at c.

[MigL]

Because a single one can be generated at one point and show up on a detector at another point.

Science works by making observations, fitting a model ( usually mathematical ) to those observations, making predictions based on that model, verifying those predictions by further observations, and changing the model accordingly.
The process is continuous and evolving.

Your approach seems to be...
My rubber ducky behaved this way, yesterday, with my other toys in the bathtub, so quantum particles must behave the same way.

[Silvestru]

15 minutes ago, Regarius said:

Just call the silly particles in the static field photons then.  Why do photons have to move?

Ok lets go step by step. So why is this static field ...well static? The wave is made out of photons yes? (wave-particle duality aside) Photons have to move at c as they have no rest-mass. 

But lets agree that photons do indeed "move". (propagate) It's the car lights that I flash in your eyes. And the photons we receive form the sun.

All these things would not be possible without photons moving.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Silvestru
removed electromagnetic confusion form my side.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Regarius said:

We are all traveling at subjective velocities through an objectively static particle field. 

What is the evidence for this?

How fast are we moving through it?

What are "subjective velocities"?

What is the nature of these particles?

Why can't we measure this "objectively static" field?

2 hours ago, Regarius said:

This field is responsible for gravity, magnetism (I assume), and photonic wave propogation.

As magnetism and gravity behave very differently, in many ways, why do you think they can both be explained by the same field?

2 hours ago, Regarius said:

I don't understand enough to attach that

You don't think this might be a problem?

Do you know that electric charge, magnetism and light have all been unified already? By relativity

TBH, I gave up at that point.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Regarius said:

I can explain pulsars.  And any accretion disk (they're practically all variations of the same thing).  And gravitational lensing.  But not if we have relativity "correct".

Pulsars are simply the spinning remnant of a very large star, and a version of a Neutron star. They have nothing to do with accretion disks, which are simply orbiting amounts of matter that rotate around a dense astronomical body like a BH. Gravitational lensing is simply the effects we see as a result of light from distant objects, being bent around an intervening object on its way to us on Earth, and is caused by light/photons following geodesics in curved/warped spacetime.

We have strong, near irrefutable evidence to support all three of those definitions.

ps: To the best of our present knowledge, relativity both general and special is correct and again both supported by observational and experimental evidence.

[Strange]

On 29/11/2018 at 3:45 PM, Regarius said:

Why do photons have to move?

Because they are massless so they always move at the speed of light.

On 29/11/2018 at 3:25 PM, Regarius said:

It's the speed of the photonic wave propagation that's always a constant.  The photon would be the particle in the static particle field.  It doesn't move... it would be anchored on a static point.  It might vibrate back and forth but it wouldn't propagate itself... just the wave.

That is not how things work.