God Particle Stuff

[czimborbryan]

OK, I will share a few ideas that have been passing in and out of my mind over the last few years. Please feel free to respond, because as of yet, I have not found anybody that is capable of discussing this with me.

 

1. The speed of light is not a constant: because gravity and time are proportional. Areas of deep space would have a low time effect which would allow light to pass at astonishing speeds relative to outside of this area, even though within the area of low gravity light is moving at it's classicly observed speed. This effect would appear to shorten the distance traveled, even though the distance is huge. It's very similar to a worm-hole, but it has a true geographical presence.

So, my point is that using the speed of light to measure distance is a flawed system.

This same effect can be observed through the poles of the earth as well as through the poles of our solar system. These poles have relatively low gravity, therefore low time effect.

 

2. The above info leads to the issue of why it's always colder at the poles. What? Well, since the gravity is lower and the time effect is less, there is a tremendous amount of enegery radiating from the poles. This has the same effect as a refridgerator.

 

3. This is the biggie. There is no God Particle. Why? The higgs field is in fact the only thing remaining and has no particles. In fact, the Higgs field is the same thing that was once refferred to as the Ether. This field is no more than the gravity/time effect. This effect of gravity/time creates what is effectively tension in the universe. Imagine it as a stretched out sheet of spandex with some areas pulling tighter than others.

These waves (light spectrum) travel like ripples through the tension created from gravity/time in the same way waves travel across the surface of water, except in 3-D.

So then what is the thing that makes up the particles? The answer to this is a wave or more precisiely a collision of waves. Because of the nature of time/gravity the resulting collision at the speed of light (if colliding at the right angles and the right frequency and amplitude) would create a situation where the time effect is suddenly and almost completely frozen. The combining waves form kind of like a frozen clump which is a particle and has mass because of the effect of time/gravity. This is the genesis of the material world. So in many ways, waves that are also particles may in fact not be a particle until it comes in contact with a mass or has a collision.

 

4. This gravity/time thing also explains why the physics of particles is so wildly different than the physics of planets and stars. Tiny particles are moving rediculously fast (let's say something like 1 second to us would be 1000 years for a particle). The math isn't really there, but you get the point. Likewise, one second to a star may be a billion years to us.

 

I hope that I was clear enough, but there you have it; everything in the known universe is made up of no more than waves of gravity/time.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention that time is a mechanic relationahsip to how fast processes are occuring in the present here and now. I beleive there is no past and future for time.

[insane_alien]

OK, I will share a few ideas that have been passing in and out of my mind over the last few years. Please feel free to respond, because as of yet, I have not found anybody that is capable of discussing this with me.

 

that may be because what you want is not discussion but to be allowed to preach and have people take what you say as fact.

 

1. The speed of light is not a constant: because gravity and time are proportional. Areas of deep space would have a low time effect which would allow light to pass at astonishing speeds relative to outside of this area, even though within the area of low gravity light is moving at it's classicly observed speed. This effect would appear to shorten the distance traveled, even though the distance is huge. It's very similar to a worm-hole, but it has a true geographical presence.

So, my point is that using the speed of light to measure distance is a flawed system.

This same effect can be observed through the poles of the earth as well as through the poles of our solar system. These poles have relatively low gravity, therefore low time effect.

 

the poles have higher gravity than the equator. might want to check that. and we have measured the speed of light from areas of different gravity and as it passes through areas of different gravity, it travels at c in all reference frames. this is an observation.

 

2. The above info leads to the issue of why it's always colder at the poles. What? Well, since the gravity is lower and the time effect is less, there is a tremendous amount of enegery radiating from the poles. This has the same effect as a refridgerator.

 

gravity is again, higher, so using your logic the poles should be warmer than the rest of the earth with a chilly ice belt.

 

the poles are colder because there is less light striking the surface per unit are, this is due to the spherical(roughly) nature of the earth.

 

3. This is the biggie. There is no God Particle. Why? The higgs field is in fact the only thing remaining and has no particles. In fact, the Higgs field is the same thing that was once refferred to as the Ether. This field is no more than the gravity/time effect. This effect of gravity/time creates what is effectively tension in the universe. Imagine it as a stretched out sheet of spandex with some areas pulling tighter than others.

These waves (light spectrum) travel like ripples through the tension created from gravity/time in the same way waves travel across the surface of water, except in 3-D.

So then what is the thing that makes up the particles? The answer to this is a wave or more precisiely a collision of waves. Because of the nature of time/gravity the resulting collision at the speed of light (if colliding at the right angles and the right frequency and amplitude) would create a situation where the time effect is suddenly and almost completely frozen. The combining waves form kind of like a frozen clump which is a particle and has mass because of the effect of time/gravity. This is the genesis of the material world. So in many ways, waves that are also particles may in fact not be a particle until it comes in contact with a mass or has a collision.

 

i don't think you fully understand what the higgs field actually is. and it must be made up of particles as that is what the higgs hypothesis says, if it is not made up of particles then it is not the higgs field

 

4. This gravity/time thing also explains why the physics of particles is so wildly different than the physics of planets and stars. Tiny particles are moving rediculously fast (let's say something like 1 second to us would be 1000 years for a particle). The math isn't really there, but you get the point. Likewise, one second to a star may be a billion years to us.

 

thats not how it works, the maths is there, its called special relativity, one of the most tested theories in all of science and it also says light will always travel at c.

 

I hope that I was clear enough, but there you have it; everything in the known universe is made up of no more than waves of gravity/time.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention that time is a mechanic relationahsip to how fast processes are occuring in the present here and now. I beleive there is no past and future for time.

 

that wasn't very clear, not only did it contain factual errors and logical fallacies, you failed to explain how you arrived at the conclusions, what evidence you have and observations of where current theories fail.

 

provide these and we weill believe you.

[gre]

 

1. The speed of light is not a constant: because gravity and time are proportional. Areas of deep space would have a low time effect which would allow light to pass at astonishing speeds relative to outside of this area, even though within the area of low gravity light is moving at it's classicly observed speed. This effect would appear to shorten the distance traveled, even though the distance is huge. It's very similar to a worm-hole, but it has a true geographical presence.

So, my point is that using the speed of light to measure distance is a flawed system.

This same effect can be observed through the poles of the earth as well as through the poles of our solar system. These poles have relatively low gravity, therefore low time effect.

 

I would say mass and gravity are proportional around planet (for example), but not time and gravity. Gravity might affect the 'rate of time', but I doubt at the center of the earth where there is no or very low gravity time doesn't exist.

 

 

2. The above info leads to the issue of why it's always colder at the poles. What? Well, since the gravity is lower and the time effect is less, there is a tremendous amount of enegery radiating from the poles. This has the same effect as a refridgerator.

 

[/Quote]

 

It's pretty much proven the poles are cold because they absorb less radiation from the sun , not because the polls are radiating energy due to gravity .. Don't you think?

 

I'd bet all the white snow, and ice radiate energy back into space keep the poles cooler, but no so much time/gravity.

 

And .. I'm not sure if this is a fact, but if you subtract the "centrifugal force" on the equator (due to earth's rotation), from the force felt on the equator, the gravitational force someone feels on the equator is pretty close to or the same as on the poles.

 

3. This is the biggie. There is no God Particle. Why? The higgs field is in fact the only thing remaining and has no particles.

 

In fact, the Higgs field is the same thing that was once refferred to as the Ether. This field is no more than the gravity/time effect. This effect of gravity/time creates what is effectively tension in the universe. Imagine it as a stretched out sheet of spandex with some areas pulling tighter than others.

These waves (light spectrum) travel like ripples through the tension created from gravity/time in the same way waves travel across the surface of water, except in 3-D.

 

I think light travels through space/time not gravity/time. Are you staying gravity/time is space?

 

 

 

So then what is the thing that makes up the particles? The answer to this is a wave or more precisiely a collision of waves. Because of the nature of time/gravity the resulting collision at the speed of light (if colliding at the right angles and the right frequency and amplitude) would create a situation where the time effect is suddenly and almost completely frozen. The combining waves form kind of like a frozen clump which is a particle and has mass because of the effect of time/gravity. This is the genesis of the material world. So in many ways, waves that are also particles may in fact not be a particle until it comes in contact with a mass or has a collision.

 

Mass does form from hight energy photon collisions, but using words like "frozen clump" and "effect of time/gravity" isn't really standard, and probably requires lots and lots of math to make physicists understand what you are trying to say.

 

4. This gravity/time thing also explains why the physics of particles is so wildly different than the physics of planets and stars. Tiny particles are moving rediculously fast (let's say something like 1 second to us would be 1000 years for a particle). The math isn't really there, but you get the point. Likewise, one second to a star may be a billion years to us.

 

I hope that I was clear enough, but there you have it; everything in the known universe is made up of no more than waves of gravity/time.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention that time is a mechanic relationahsip to how fast processes are occuring in the present here and now. I beleive there is no past and future for time.

 

You're a little too confident in this theory... I think you should start asking some questions before assuming you know answers.

[swansont]

1. The speed of light is not a constant: because gravity and time are proportional. Areas of deep space would have a low time effect which would allow light to pass at astonishing speeds relative to outside of this area, even though within the area of low gravity light is moving at it's classicly observed speed. This effect would appear to shorten the distance traveled, even though the distance is huge. It's very similar to a worm-hole, but it has a true geographical presence.

So, my point is that using the speed of light to measure distance is a flawed system.

This same effect can be observed through the poles of the earth as well as through the poles of our solar system. These poles have relatively low gravity, therefore low time effect.

 

Gravity and time are indeed linked, which makes it important to note which reference frame you are using to measure c. If I am in flat space, i.e. far away from any large mass, and I measure the speed of light in a local experiment, I will get c. If I look at light that has passed by a massive object (e.g. a star), it will indeed appear to have slowed, which is known as the Shapiro delay. This is because I am not in the same coordinate system as the pathway near the star and am not accounting for the bending of space. An observer near the star, who also sees his local space as flat, will measure the local speed of light to be c.

 

It's the physicists' version of the realtor's mantra: frame of reference, frame of reference, frame of reference.

 

The poles, however, do not see a changed time effect. It is true they have higher gravity than the equator, but one must also account for the speed due to spin. It turns out that the deformation of the earth makes the kinematic and gravitational potentials cancel, so time runs at a constant rate on the geoid.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

4. This gravity/time thing also explains why the physics of particles is so wildly different than the physics of planets and stars. Tiny particles are moving rediculously fast (let's say something like 1 second to us would be 1000 years for a particle). The math isn't really there, but you get the point. Likewise, one second to a star may be a billion years to us.

 

People do experiments on very cold atoms and slow particles, too. Your gross generalization is just wrong.

[czimborbryan]

I was just informed that this thread should have been posted under "speculation", which is exactly what it is, but how would I get an interesting discussion if I post it in a place where professionally trained people rarely visit. I can discus this all day with people that don't know and get nowhere, or I can discuss this with people that do know and figure things out. I am also completely incapable of speaking in scientific terms, because none of this come from education or scientic observation. I have already offended most of from this last statement, but humor me and maybe I can get this all figured out. I would say that if having discussions with untrained hobbyists burns you up, it would be advised to spend your time on a different thread

 

Here are a few points to add to my above ideas.

 

1. I'm not saying that gravity is lower at the poles on the Earth's surface, I'm saying that gravity is lower at the poles above the Earth's atmosphere. So, if you would travel 150 miles above the surface of the Earth at the equator and also at one of the poles, the gravity should be less at the poles. The same should also be said about time because as far as I can tell, they are nearly the same thing and are proportional to one another.

A similar effect occurs with black holes. Radiation is expelled from the poles, the lowest area of gravity.

 

2. I beleive that frame of referance is an easy way to dispell the fact that the speed of light is not a constant.

 

3. I beleive that space is not truly bent around great massive objects, this bending is a result of time/gravity which may or may not be a part of space. I haven't decided wether or not space even exists, it may be just an illusion.

I suppose saying that space bends is the simplest way to explain what is happening, so I'll just go with it. The reaches of deep space covering billions of miles is "bent" because of the low gravity/time makes it extremey easy to go very very fast. It will seem as though the distance is much shorter than it really is. What is really bending is time, not space.

Immagine time/gravity as a density. The greater the density, the slower time passes. Remember, this has nothing to do with past and future, only the here and now. The end result is a great change in speed through space or whatever the heck space is.

 

That said, I'm sure I have a few things twisted up, but I have never actually had a discussion with anybody professionally trained, so be kind.

 

So I guess I'm trying to figure out what I have right or almost right.

[swansont]

I was just informed that this thread should have been posted under "speculation", which is exactly what it is, but how would I get an interesting discussion if I post it in a place where professionally trained people rarely visit. I can discus this all day with people that don't know and get nowhere, or I can discuss this with people that do know and figure things out. I am also completely incapable of speaking in scientific terms, because none of this come from education or scientic observation. I have already offended most of from this last statement, but humor me and maybe I can get this all figured out. I would say that if having discussions with untrained hobbyists burns you up, it would be advised to spend your time on a different thread

 

You're completely untrained in science, yet you want scientific feedback? Here's some: learn some science. Sorry of that sounds brusque, but this isn't the right medium to use as a substitute for a physics course.

 

 

 

So I guess I'm trying to figure out what I have right or almost right.

 

Basically nothing. That's why it's speculation.

[czimborbryan]

OK, this is not completely true. Time and gravity are definitely proportional, which I had discovered from visualizing a car accident running in slow motion (no science, but the conclusion was right). I know this is far fetched, but still true.

 

Ever since I dreamed this up I have been visualizing the consequences of this which I know may or may not be accurate.

[Sayonara]

I was just informed that this thread should have been posted under "speculation", which is exactly what it is, but how would I get an interesting discussion if I post it in a place where professionally trained people rarely visit.

Be assured that threads in the P&S Forum get a lot of attention, especially threads pertaining to physics questions.

[mooeypoo]

OK, this is not completely true. Time and gravity are definitely proportional, which I had discovered from visualizing a car accident running in slow motion (no science, but the conclusion was right). I know this is far fetched, but still true.

 

Ever since I dreamed this up I have been visualizing the consequences of this which I know may or may not be accurate.

It's great that you visualize physical phenomena, but that's hardly a way to discover or prove scientific theories. In this case, you require a more practical and mathematical proof.

 

Otherwise, it's quite meaningless scientifically.

[czimborbryan]

mooeypoo,

 

I agree with you that it is meaningless scientifically and I also understand that there may be some large errors in my thought process based on misrepresented visualized models. - I may have goofed here and there.

 

Either way, there should be a forum for discussing concepts with errors without throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[mooeypoo]

Oh, there is, and you're in it ("Pseudoscience and Speculation") but this is still a science forums. Your speculation needs to be scientifically based.

 

You need to be able to put a logical explanation based on references and prove that your speculation has any bearing on reality, rather than an empty thought exercise.

 

Specifically since your thought - interesting as it may be - gives way to a claim that doesn't quite fit what we know (mathematically and physically) about.. well, reality.

 

If you want us to discuss the validity of your theory, you have to give us something to discuss.

[czimborbryan]

Good point moo.

 

Maybe there should be a forum for factless discussion for those interested in that.

[insane_alien]

there is, its just not this site.

 

and you're still wrong about gravity at the poles, if you go 150miles up at the poles and 150 miles up at the equator the gravity will be less at the equator.