Infinite Theory

[36grit]

 

Infinite Theory

By: Mark Beal

Please read slowly. The words are compressed for maximum efficiency

 

Mass is time and distance present. It moves into time distance future, leaving

time distance past behind.

 

Our galaxie is (in large part) an expanding past time;time wave distortion bubble.

 

This time wave distortion bubble is expanding amidst a static, infinite field of pre-present,

and pre-history energy and distance, probably rich in gravity in a thin and stretched state.

This gravity leaks in amidst a cosmologicaly intense electro-static energy storm, coupled with

the surge wave suface tension at the event horizon.

The event horizon is chaotic and not uniform. The gravity condenses once free from

the static and infinite distance. Some in the form of huge swirling vortexes of zero time distance.

zero time offers a path of least resistance for light, energy, and mass nearby. Stretched thin

they disapear then exit on the other side with great force.

Some of the gravity that leaks in is much smaller. Smaller, less intense, gravity vortexes condence

into the atoms if great gas clouds, ice, and rocks of various elements, as they capture the

storms energy attracted to the zero time distance. A meduim sized vortex may well create a galaxie

similar to our own in it's state millions or billions of years ago.

 

 

 

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I'd like to hear your thoughts, question, and challenges to this model.

Please step up.

I was asked (On another forum) to expand the explanation of three dimensiol time.

This was my reply:

 

keep it simple, you will understand.

Time can be broken up into three dimensions that we are all familiar with. The past, the present, and the future. It may be difficult at first, but try and realize that we are not moving in space but time.

Let's examint these instances of time:

If we look at a star 30 thousand light years away, we are measuring time as a distance. The light that came from that star traveled a distance of 30 thousand years.

We are not seeing the future or the present, but the past. Therefore: we can conclude that if our universe has an edge it must be the edge of an instance of time space past. We also know that our universe is expanding. This makes sensce because history is always growing.

At this point one might ask, "What is space made out of?" The answer is mostly distance. The fabric of the distance itself is probably gravity, but that's another subject.

So now we can define past space. It is the distance from the beginning to end.

The present is the point inwhich the future and the past meet. Because it is time it must also occupy distance. Mass might be described as a tangible distance. Gas, liquids, and solids define the distance of the present. The location of the present is contantly changing according the momentums and forces acting upon it. The atom is a time machine, sucking in the future and spiting the past. It is the physical point of the exchange. Mass is made up of atoms. There would be no expansion in the universe without it. Large bodies of mass pump out enough past distance to bend light.

It stands to reason, at this point, that the future space time is also made up of distance.

It also stands to reason that our universe is expanding into the future. The future must also be in a very still (static) state. Any movement therein would constitute a present action and an instance of past time space. Future distance also exists within our universe in the form of black holes, Quazars, and gravitaional forces being drawn in to the atom for conversion.

Time stops near a black hole because future distance cancels out the past distancs. These future distance objects draw things in because they radiate a thinner atmosphere in the space time continuum.

The future must be infinite because if it were nothing, there would be nothing, and I am something. Therefor I have named this theory, "Infinite Theory"

In this model the universe had a beginning state. It probably started off as a single atom caused by some movement in the highly volitile, static, future distance space and then as a chain reaction started growing. It is probably that it will keep expanding forever.

[ajb]

I'd like to hear your thoughts, question, and challenges to this model.

 

I thought it was a poor attempt a poetry, there we can allow creative licence.

[36grit]

I thought it was a poor attempt a poetry, there we can allow creative licence.

 

 

I do write a lot of poetry. In fact this is posted on a few sites where I publish poetry. As far as poets go, I'm constderd average. As far as poems go, I'd have to agree that this one is less than average.

Edited December 15, 2010 by 36grit

[A Tripolation]

I actually think its decent nerd poetry. Better than most of the emo garbage that's homogeneous in it's mediocrity.

 

What ajb is trying to say about the creative thing is that it's all very nice you've thought of this. But it will never be taken seriously. There are no equations whatsoever. As a dual English/Physics major, I can see that this would be welcomed in maybe a literary deconstructive thought class. But it would be laughed at in a relativistic mechanics class.

 

There's no math here. Math is the language of the universe. How do you expect to explain the universe without a single equation? Most scientists anticipate that the universe, at it's most fundamental level, is governed by one elegant theory. The theories we have now are shards of that one elusive, perfect equation. What I'm saying is that even at the most basic level, the universe will still most likely be one equation that can accurately predict anything that may happen within its confines, provided an initial state is known.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Trip

[swansont]

How can your idea be tested, in a falsifiable way?

[36grit]

I actually think its decent nerd poetry. Better than most of the emo garbage that's homogeneous in it's mediocrity.

 

What ajb is trying to say about the creative thing is that it's all very nice you've thought of this. But it will never be taken seriously. There are no equations whatsoever. As a dual English/Physics major, I can see that this would be welcomed in maybe a literary deconstructive thought class. But it would be laughed at in a relativistic mechanics class.

 

There's no math here. Math is the language of the universe. How do you expect to explain the universe without a single equation? Most scientists anticipate that the universe, at it's most fundamental level, is governed by one elegant theory. The theories we have now are shards of that one elusive, perfect equation. What I'm saying is that even at the most basic level, the universe will still most likely be one equation that can accurately predict anything that may happen within its confines, provided an initial state is known.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Trip

 

E=MCsq

 

The past expands as the future collapses

instant entropy at C

Hello mass

expand me

said the universe in a forest

of time trees

 

 

 

I am an artist in a sea of time

think I don't laugh at your theories?

 

Science screams, "No such thing

no such thing as perpetual motion

Oh, expaneion of this little thing

It's nothing

 

 

The first part is a little hard to understand so I' m going to rewrite it.

Edited December 16, 2010 by 36grit

[36grit]

How can your idea be tested, in a falsifiable way?

 

 

I think Einsteins theory of relativity calculates it pretty good. His theory states that large bodies of mass warp time and space. Why not say that mass radiates space?

what's the differece? It's just another way of saying the same thing to gain a new frame of perspective around an old picture, so to speak.

 

If the momentum of a black hole in the middle of the galaxie is causing the matter of the galaxie to spin, then is'nt it responsible for the future point in space the mass will soon occupy? Therefor it can be termed, future distance momentum. If we could calculate the area and weight of a galaxie (Inculding the black hole in the middle, and of course all the others) We should be able to calculate the density of the gravity on the other side, of the event horizon at the edge of the universe, but I don't know how you could prove it.

I see black holes (solid or near solid, gravity) destroy mass by shrinking it down to the size of energy. Why not an edge that expands mass at the speed of light? If we can derive energy from mass then we should be able to derive mass from energy. I don't know. There must be some way to prove or disprove it though.

 

If we could smash matter into anti-matter a zero distance space might emerge. I don't know if you'd be able to measure something going through it before it collapses under the preasure of the dominating normal past time distance. It might even hang there due to the vacuum of space.

 

Here's a poem another poem to help expand the evolving train of thought though:

 

 

 

The nature of a galaxie

 

a planet strays to close

to a black hole

where it is crushed to the size of energy

the information is pobably still there

but black holes are made

of condensed future time space

they are made to rain down gravity

the momentums are there

because mass needs to feed

to perform the task at hand

we need to expand at the speed of light

nothing is free my freind

we need expansion to slam

into the edge of infinity

because we need more future

BAM!

the past crashes

and the future collapses

at least to some extent

as the edge moves on

the view most excellent

a shock wave of

galaxies, stars, and quazars

comming down in sheets

as far as the eye can see

the other side is static and infinite

the inside has a beginning and an end

now,

far far from here

and far far from now

the momentums will be spent

the present will collapse

that is, all of the galaxies mass

because it cannot exist

if it cannot pump out the past

it will return to a static state and wait

for the next wave to pass

 

 

 

 

[ajb]

Why not say that mass radiates space?

what's the differece? It's just another way of saying the same thing to gain a new frame of perspective around an old picture, so to speak.

 

 

Nothing wrong with another interpretation of general relativity. But an interpretation is just an interpretation. They can be useful for mental pictures of what is going on, but it is no replacement for the actual mathematics of the theory. An interpretation should be considered as good if it can lead to new ideas within the theory.

[36grit]

My interpretation of an accepted theory:

 

When two objects move towards each other at 100% velocity

a time dialation occurs

as a matter of perception between the two entities

 

New Theory

By Mark Beal

 

(an extension of "Jet theory", and "Infinite Theory")

 

State of the art:

Time dialation happens on a plane of space

when velocity exceeds the speed of light

time becomes compressed and converts into distance (space)

a gravatron is one measure of past distance space

 

The nucleous of an atom is a quantum feild of vacuum energy

gathered together as the result of an influx of light time

quantum particles that include states of mass

"protons and neutrons" are manipupated by this vacuum energy

at near the speed of light

the velocity of these particles cause an atomic time dialation

("even if there is only one particle")

electrons are massless objects

they are pushed outside of this quantum feild

by the outward flow of gravatrons being produced

the distance between the nucleaous of the atom

and the electron perimeter is what I call a flash feild

this flash feild is a distance of newly formed gravatrons

pushing out against the matrix of past distance space

The electrons orbits are defined

by waves of gravitrons converting back to time energy

as distance is pushed out in waves radiating out from the atom

at a very high rate

similar to the rays radiating out from the sun

gravatrons are polar

they face always face there parent object

these bands of distance/time intensify as they group and flow

from smaller objects to larger objects

these waves are the under lying currents that connect all things together

from the smallest proton to the solar system

from the great rivers produced by galaxies

unto the very end of the ocean of this matrix of time we call

the firmament, expanse, and universe

Edited February 9, 2011 by 36grit

[Bloke of the forest]

English literature and science combined?! And not only that, poetry used to present (alliteration) a physical model?! Post-modernism has reached new juxtaposed heights!

 

 

 

 

Time dialation happens on a plane of space

when velocity exceeds the speed of light

 

 

Isn't this impossible?

[36grit]

English literature and science combined?! And not only that, poetry used to present (alliteration) a physical model?! Post-modernism has reached new juxtaposed heights!

 

 

 

 

Isn't this impossible?

 

 

and to think that I'm considered a less than average poet. Perhaps I should learn to spell.

 

Impossible? What? for to things to travel over half the speed of light towards each other? The time dialation occurs between these two objects so that they themselves do not experience faster than light velocity. An outside observer would see the distance closing faster than light. This discussion goes into great detail on another thread on this site. See: http://www.sciencefo...s-close-at-14c/ and a few others.

 

According to "New Theory" listed above, the two objects moving towards each other would experience a time dialation just like predidicted, and a third party observer would see the distance closing faster than light, just like in Einsteins theory of relativity predicts. But according to "new theory" (still evolving ofcourse) the third party observer would experience the time dialation also, in this manner: Light traveling across the time dialation plane to reach the observers eyes, would bend slightly to move around the time dialation's slight expansion of space. Like throwing a pebble in an ocean it'd be almost undetectable but would occur, at least, according to "New Theory" dynamics. If this is true then it'd probably account for a lot of this "dark" or missing energy needed to explain the accelerated pace of our universe's expansion.

 

To imagine future knowledge, then build it upon accepted theories, or known facts, is the scientific art of evolving conceisness.

 

Gravity: Mass projecting distance in it's own three dimensional image.

 

Time Dialation: The collision of projected distances creating new shapes and distances according to the energy and consistency of the event

 

Space: The matrix of the varying time dialations on projected distances.

 

Momentum: A gravatron wave

 

Dark Matter: A web of complex gravitational shapes that emerge between large bodies of mass over great distances who's momentums (gravatrons) are in a state of continuous collision.

Edited February 9, 2011 by 36grit