A theory of everything. The truth about creation.

[graybear13]

On 2/14/2019 at 1:03 PM, Ghideon said:

I have some questions regarding the last part*
(bold by me)

and

Is "gravity"/"gravitational field" the same as what is known from mainstream science? In the last sentence you say "nullify"; that looks like some concept of anti gravity is involved? Or maybe you mean that there will be a Lagrange point between the machine and earth if the machine is placed at an elevated point? Please clarify if we are discussing possible misunderstandings of mainstream topics or completely new stuff.  

 

*) I might return to other issues later; other members have already commented.

 

Thank you for your questions Ghideon.

Yes, it is the same gravity as measured by mainstream science. No conflict, just a new understanding. a new way of thinking.  The disturbance in space-time that has been accepted by mainstream science needs to be defined and then connected to all of these measurements. I am sure they will interface nicely. All of the standard model derives from the transfer of energy from PEE field into the electronic organization of matter.  The Genesis particle is the conductor/conduit of PEE.  

If this experiment creates strong gravity, that would be some new stuff.  I believe that the creation will seem to be anti gravity, but it is really just gravity creating it's own reality (disturbance) in space-time.  If the Genesis particle manifests and continues compressing the air, the enhanced gravity could become strong enough to ignite a fusion reaction and contain it.  That would be some new stuff.  

When an atom performs radioactively it degrades its own genesis particle giving up PEE particles.  This explains why, when atoms perform radioactively,  they emit far more energy than would be expected.  This excess of radiation comes from the breaking up of the Genesis particle.  

regards, gray

  

[Mordred]

All this from a spinning pyramid sorry I still don't see how the pyramid connects to your genesis particle. You may scoff at the value of mathematics in physics, however a little reality check might help. The vast majority of the standard model of particles were predicted to exist prior to their discovery via those very mathematics.

Can your model (in truth conjecture a model requires mathematics) make any predictions that can be tested ?

Edited February 18, 2019 by Mordred

[Strange]

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

The shape of a pyramid is the only shape that will create a dip in the air flow across it's face when spinning against an opposing air mass. 

Citation needed.

I am assuming you have made this up. But feel free to provide a supporting reference.

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

It seemed like a good place to start.

If you think that mounting the Great Pyramid on a pole and spinning is a "good place to start" I think you have some serious problems.

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

I think that the pyramid should be the magnet.  

And how are you going to make a pile of limestone act as a magnet. (Come to that, how are you going to make it stick together when you spin it.)

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

How long will it be until someone is willing to fund this project?

How does "never" work for you?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

The shape of a pyramid is the only shape that will create a dip in the air flow across it's face when spinning against an opposing air mass.

Unfamiliar with a curveball, I take it.

 

[Endy0816]

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

Unfamiliar with a curveball, I take it.

 I was too once but then it hit me.

[Ten oz]

On 2/5/2019 at 11:33 AM, graybear13 said:

I believe that I can create a genesis particle (GP) in earths gravity field which will set up it's own gravity field, separate and apart from earths gravity field.  When this GP becomes strong enough, anything inside the new gravity field will not be affected by earths gravity field.  The GPs of all the atoms inside the collapsing spheres will feed on PEE in the spheres, not the PEE racing toward the earth.  this eliminates the push toward earth. This will, in effect, create a bubble inside earths gravity field where no gravity force except it's own will exist.  Anything inside the GP will be weightless with reference to the earth and be able to move around in earths gravity field with zero g-force.  When a machine is built that will create a GP we will be able to harvest energy from PEE.  BTUs per ton to move stuff around on earth will be reduced by as much as 90%.  That alone would be worth trillions of dollars to the world economy per/year.  Not to mention completely retooling our vehicle industries.  It would usher in another industrial revolution, clean this time.  We should take a fraction of the collider money and build GP gravity machines.  

Posthaste

[graybear13]

On 2/18/2019 at 9:58 AM, Mordred said:

Do you have any means of showing how your spinning pyramid has anything at all to do with how particles themselves behave, interact or determine any of their properties ? Or is this merely a wild conjecture with no plausible connection ?

 I'm sure if you thought about it the vortexes you describe can be modelled with thermodynamic fluid relations. (without invoking your puissant emergent energy) for starters have you ever considered spinning this pyramid in a vacuum ? Do you think you will get the same dynamics as spinning it in an atmosphere ?

 

 

 

Yes.  I saw the connection in the 1982 form of the experiment.  I was shinning lights at a spinning  mirror pyramid and I saw the spinning effect  that was caused by the light reflecting off of the passing pyramid walls.  Later I had some success with making the transition to a thermodynamic spinning effect in atmosphere.  

If the experiment were to move forward, any suggestions on how best to create the vortex thermodynamically should certainly be considered.  I do not have a strong vortex in my hand because I have not been able to control the variables; temperatures, air pressures and rate of spin.  Not to mention electromagnetism and ionized gasses. 

regards, gray

On 2/18/2019 at 10:14 AM, Mordred said:

All this from a spinning pyramid sorry I still don't see how the pyramid connects to your genesis particle. You may scoff at the value of mathematics in physics, however a little reality check might help. The vast majority of the standard model of particles were predicted to exist prior to their discovery via those very mathematics.

Can your model (in truth conjecture a model requires mathematics) make any predictions that can be tested ?

When I have a vortex that I can control, then I can have two vortexes that I can control.  When I force them to join at their tips, If the spheres form, that is the framework of the genesis particle.  The spinning pyramid is the cause of the vortexes.  

I never said that I doubted the value of mathematics in physics.  I did say that I dismiss the mathematics behind the big bang theory of creation because it is backwards and wrong headed.  That is what my threat is about, creation.  When I attack the big bang b.s. I am not attacking the standard model unless the big bang is part of the standard model.  

regards, gray

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, graybear13 said:

I did say that I dismiss the mathematics behind the big bang theory of creation because it is backwards and wrong headed. 

Since BBT has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, can we assume you think the maths are wrong because you've misunderstood them?

[MigL]

I have seen threads with much more plausible conjectures get dismissed and closed down in just a few posts.
Yet this nonsense about atmospheric phenomena being related to anti-gravity and elementary particles is ongoing, and in its second page.
Must be no gravity or elementary particles in the vacuum of space, then.

This isn't PEE, it's CRAP !

[graybear13]

On 2/20/2019 at 11:33 AM, Phi for All said:

Since BBT has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, can we assume you think the maths are wrong because you've misunderstood them?

I do not think you should assume anything about me. 

Whether or not I understand the math is not relevant.  I understand, from what I have read, that Einstein said "it is ridiculous to suggest a moment of creation from a primeval atom", but the Catholic church's priest Lamaitre, with the help of Edwin Hubble, convinced Einstein to change his way of thinking.  This led directly to BBT and now you say that BBT has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.  I guess you have to deny the primeval atom/singularity in the end, but that leaves BBT without meaning.  Something from nothing doesn't really work. 

Einstein was on the right track until his way of thinking was changed by Hubble and Lamaitre.  I do not have to be able to do the math to see the difference between exploding from nothing into creation and PEE slowing down and collapsing and then exploding into creation.  

The universe is a lot older than is predicted by BBT.  For all we know our local universe may expand and contract over hundreds of billions of years    It probably depends on how the PEE is moving.  The atomic universe is drifting and moving within the PEE.  

[Strange]

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

I do not think you should assume anything about me. 

It is not an assumption to say that you clearly don't know anything about the Big Bang model. This is a conclusion from the evidence you have provided.

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

I guess you have to deny the primeval atom/singularity in the end, but that leaves BBT without meaning. 

The "meaning" (or purpose) of the Big Bang model is that it describes the evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state to the structures we see today.

We have no theories that are applicable earlier than that initial state, so any "creation" is purely speculative and nothing to do what the scientific model.

The current expansion could been caused by the collapse of an earlier stage of the universe. Or the universe could be infinitely old. Or ... No one knows.

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

I do not have to be able to do the math to see the difference between exploding from nothing into creation and PEE slowing down and collapsing and then exploding into creation.  

You would need to do the math to produce a testable theory. You would need to do the math to work out if, based on the density of matter in the universe, it is likely to collapse. You need a certain level of math to understand the Big Bang model (which, as I say, you have provided plenty of evidence to demonstrate that you don't).

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, graybear13 said:

The universe is a lot older than is predicted by BBT.  For all we know our local universe may expand and contract over hundreds of billions of years    It probably depends on how the PEE is moving.  The atomic universe is drifting and moving within the PEE.  

You don't know this. You CAN'T know this. The BBT can't even accurately describe the precise moment before expansion, what we might term t=0. The theory starts when the math begins to be understandable in terms like density and temperature.

You claim to KNOW the universe is older, then you invoke "for all we know" to support yourself, and end with a "probably". This is NOT how science works, and your chain of reasoning is horrid, I'm sorry. But better for you to know now that you need to study more mainstream science, hopefully within a structured curriculum, and stop wasting time with ideas that are easily shown false.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, graybear13 said:

I do not think you should assume anything about me. 

Other then you are entirely wrong and also ignorant of the current overwhelmingly supported model of universal evolution we call the BB.

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

Considering the lack of discussable science in OP and the fact that the discussion is going nowhere this thread is closed pending review.