ScottTheSculptor Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 and he figures out human cognition. And then realizes that physics hasn't solved the universe precisely because of how human minds works. So he solves it. Stunned. How would you feel? I cook up this theory that matches all known data . . .but I do it in outer space. I'm working out how the universe has to drive itself, why you would "think" there was dark energy, how you could possibly explain light, and what the heck gravity is. Along the way *time* falls into place. Time. I get a rock solid theory that connects all those things together . . . but have no equation. I go to a physics forum and get kicked off for being a crackpot. I find another forum with room for "speculation". I argue my theory down to an equation. Along the way I pick up planetary density discrepencies, radiowave life discrepencies, rotational relativity bizzareness. Then I realize that *this* is the equation that Einstein was looking for. . . . It took a couple days to recover. I cried a lot the first day. I pretty much just tried to not think of it after that. Still *gets* me. I really do "see" logic. Einstein was "The Man". Then I return to the forums to find the "believers" have shut down the thread. You just have to laugh. But I really didn't solve it for any reason other than getting the world to pay attention to my cognitive discoveries. It was most logical. The psych world has no reference to the real world. The physics world is currently mostly "belief" but it *is* anchored to reality. Logic is the connection to reality. I can do that logically follow the chain back. . . *Seeing* into the minds of the math physicists, the cogitive psychologists . . . Calculating a high probability for success in solving a logic problem that had been approached mathematically for the last 60 years. . . .before even beginning. . .
farmboy Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 and he figures out human cognition. And then realizes that physics hasn't solved the universe precisely because of how human minds works. So he solves it. Stunned. How would you feel? I cook up this theory that matches all known data . . .but I do it in outer space. I'm working out how the universe has to drive itself, why you would "think" there was dark energy, how you could possibly explain light, and what the heck gravity is. Along the way *time* falls into place. Time. I get a rock solid theory that connects all those things together . . . but have no equation. I go to a physics forum and get kicked off for being a crackpot. I find another forum with room for "speculation". I argue my theory down to an equation. Along the way I pick up planetary density discrepencies, radiowave life discrepencies, rotational relativity bizzareness. How does your theory match all known data? Do you genuinely believe this to be true? So far as I can see all you have done is make this statement, but not actually shown how or why it is true. 2
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 How does your theory match all known data? Do you genuinely believe this to be true? So far as I can see all you have done is make this statement, but not actually shown how or why it is true. Exactly. If you want to convince us, we need to see that it matches all known data. In detail. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 2
timo Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) I once shared a flat with a woman who had invented telepathy. But they stole the idea out of her head using her very own invention. So she tried to re-obtain her results again, which turned out to be a problematic endeavor because they tried to steal her new results (I never quite got that part since I though they already knew everything). So she was in a constant struggle of writing down important scientific results and flushing them down the toilet or spreading them in trash cans all over the town so that they wouldn't find them. Well, the nights in the flat were full of activity of writing and flushing things down the toilet. And apparently, they even broke into the flat from time to time to steal my food from the fridge. Bottom line: I don't have any advice for you as long as your only problem is not being taken seriously on the Internet. I'm usually not being taken as serious as I'd like to, too (like for example with this post - the story above is not made up). But as soon as you start finding out that the physics professors you visit are all blind to see the greatness of your idea, or if you find out they are all part of a conspiracy, or you feel that they try to harm you, or you realize that the energy you put into promoting your idea has a serious impact on your social life or you job, then from my experience I'd say that you should not be ashamed to talk about that with a medical doctor. Edited April 14, 2011 by timo 3
md65536 Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 Then I realize that *this* is the equation that Einstein was looking for. . . . What was the equation? I've seen a lot of "I solved it"s and "This explains gravity and planets and cat and dogs etc"... but I haven't seen any understandable explanations. Only claims. Perhaps I missed it somewhere among the posts of another thread. Let's just assume for a minute that you're right and that you've solved the universe. I still don't understand it. I'm just a stupid ordinary person. How will it be understood, used, discussed etc by others if it can't be explained in a way that we understand? If this is something that we are incapable of understanding and you're incapable of dumbing down for us, then there's no point in discussing it. Until I can understand any part of your solution to the universe, or even understand what it is you may have solved, I must assume that you haven't. (No need to comment on my being stupid. The degree of my stupidity doesn't change anything other than whether or not I'm your intended audience.)
swansont Posted April 15, 2011 Posted April 15, 2011 ! Moderator Note You had ample opportunity to present supporting evidence, and you didn't. All you have done is bluster.Just so it's clear: Attempting to reopen the discussion isn't going to end well for you. (Responding to a modnote in this thread isn't, either)
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 15, 2011 Author Posted April 15, 2011 (edited) ! Moderator Note You had ample opportunity to present supporting evidence, and you didn't. All you have done is bluster. Just so it's clear: Attempting to reopen the discussion isn't going to end well for you. (Responding to a modnote in this thread isn't, either) Yes. I apologize. This has been difficult for me. I am currently working on the ICRS-ITRS transforms but still do not have access to annual timecode WAAS time corrections. This should clear things up; The "weak point" in Einstein's point of view; The "speed of light" is constant. In order to have "speed" light has to travel a set distance in a set amount of time. So you lock time and distance within the "speed of light", yet you allow "observed distance" to vary as the "speed of light" varies - with a time that varies to fit. Just lock "distance". Distance is constant. It is part of anti-spacetime. Only "time" in anti-spacetime has any affect on matter. Its only affects are to cause "gravity" and ripples in anti-spacetime.Though gravity "compresses", it does so without changing distance. If you do this then the "speed of light" must change in any frame *without changing distance*. From this point of view the speed of light depends upon the *rate of flow of anti-spacetime* because that *is* time. Time is variable. Einstein has that. All your physics still works. Our "rate of time" is based on the anti-spacetime packing and throughput of our time engine Sol. It does not vary at any set radius to the sun - other than rate differences in the "aging" of the star. All intertial frames have a delta t. Where is it in your calculations? In order for anything to happen time had to pass. If the rate of time has a gradient across the frame it needs to be calculated *in* the frame. Both concepts are covered by adding a variable to C. You just won't need to use it much, so far only artificial satellite time has been at all affected. On earth you can just use the old way . . . Edited April 15, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 15, 2011 Posted April 15, 2011 What is anti-spacetime and how does it relate to ordinary spacetime?
farmboy Posted April 16, 2011 Posted April 16, 2011 Yes. I apologize. This has been difficult for me. I am currently working on the ICRS-ITRS transforms but still do not have access to annual timecode WAAS time corrections. This should clear things up; The "weak point" in Einstein's point of view; The "speed of light" is constant. In order to have "speed" light has to travel a set distance in a set amount of time. So you lock time and distance within the "speed of light", yet you allow "observed distance" to vary as the "speed of light" varies - with a time that varies to fit. Just lock "distance". Distance is constant. It is part of anti-spacetime. Only "time" in anti-spacetime has any affect on matter. Its only affects are to cause "gravity" and ripples in anti-spacetime.Though gravity "compresses", it does so without changing distance. If you do this then the "speed of light" must change in any frame *without changing distance*. From this point of view the speed of light depends upon the *rate of flow of anti-spacetime* because that *is* time. Time is variable. Einstein has that. All your physics still works. Our "rate of time" is based on the anti-spacetime packing and throughput of our time engine Sol. It does not vary at any set radius to the sun - other than rate differences in the "aging" of the star. All intertial frames have a delta t. Where is it in your calculations? In order for anything to happen time had to pass. If the rate of time has a gradient across the frame it needs to be calculated *in* the frame. Both concepts are covered by adding a variable to C. You just won't need to use it much, so far only artificial satellite time has been at all affected. On earth you can just use the old way . . . No the part I've highlighted just isn't true. Values of c are always entirely independent of distance.
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 16, 2011 Author Posted April 16, 2011 No the part I've highlighted just isn't true. Values of c are always entirely independent of distance. I am having difficulty translating the idea into the current theory. I really *am* a sculptor. It is still relational. Let me try this. Using my theory. . . Imagine messenger. It travelled to Mercury. Along the way the "speed of light" increased because the rate of anti-spacetime flow increased. This did not affect it's path or "gravitational" relationship to anything else in the solar system. It all cancels out. --- THE WHOLE THEORY There are two universes. One matter, one anti-matter. Our stars make matter and spacetime. Their stars make anti-matter and anti-spacetime. When our stars make spacetime it goes into their universe. Ditto on their side, so our space is *anti-spacetime*. It wells up between the galaxies pushing them apart. The time in anti-spacetime pushes them. Space has no push, only time can move galaxies. Ditto with space in the anti-matter universe. Since there is more matter (and anti-matter) being produced by stars, there is more spacetime on their side and anti-spacetime on ours - accelerating the growth in the amount of time (and space). Our stars are exciting matter under gravitational/time flow confinement to the point that it can be squished down into a "package" along with its confined anti-spacetime which has light and energy in it (collapsing). Packages are bundles of; 1 dimensional energy , 2 dimensional light, 3 dimensional matter, and 4 dimensional spacetime - they condense in that order. (really a continuum, variation in containment force gets you different matter) Collapsing anti-spacetime, matter, light, and energy while condensing energy, light, matter, and shoving the last bit out the back door into the anti-universe at the same time. It can not condense in the same gravitational/time value as it's collapsing and pushes into the other universe, reversing its "sign" - ditto on the other side. The kick from space leaving to the other universe pushing hard light at us via croquet with the new matter, and vice versa, drives the growth of both universes. The matter is defined by the kick - it balances as the "foot ball" in the croquet, with the foot being the containment gravitational/time value. Anti-spacetime is flowing passed us to be compacted in the sun. We are made up of regular (non-anti) matter. The difference is the speed of light. Light itself is two dimensional so has no "speed". When you have anti-spacetime flowing passed regular matter it wants to fall together against time. That's "Gravity". A sphere with its center at the sun and a radius of the orbit of the earth is our "time-gravity". Time=Gravity. Since we are part of spacetime we don't see the variations, but they can be measured relatively - Hafele–Keating experiment has already collected the data. My theory will more closely match their data and show time variation relative to distance to the sun. The wave particle dualism is cross connected - two types of light, particle type and excitation waves. Hard light and soft light. The "particle type package" also *contains* light so acts as both (the particle being that collapsed bundle of matter-spacetime). "Soft light" or excited time-distance (non-anti) light is moving in anti-time-space and so uses up its time doing so. Hard light is a different animal. It moves through time and across distance but is independent of both. This explains how and why distant starlight takes so long to get here and why it actually makes it. Hard light contains time so will eventually stick to something or get pulled back in the gravitational/time field of the universe. The speed of hard light is not constant . . . it really isn't light. It's ELMA Energy, Light, Matter, Anti-spacetime This leaves all current physics intact and solves the problems. Also crumples up some dubious theories. This is as far as I can take it without having learned the words to describe the subatomic processes - I didn't make it that far in my studies . . . But hey, it's better than being in the "Dark". "Redshift" needs to be redefined - Redshift from a star is gravitational effects on their ELMA - sorting it over the distance. Their speed is not constant. THIS IS NOT LIGHT. ELMA is much smaller than matter, different ratios of ELMA and matter would yield different stars. Black holes are almost all ELMA - Red giants would be mostly matter. Big ELMA stopping time wells = "Black Holes" (light has no mass). *New* -> Small ELMA "black stellar objects". You can't see ELMA if it doesn't hit you. ELMA will orbit. Here is all your missing mass. Here is your "cosmic background radiation". -1
md65536 Posted April 16, 2011 Posted April 16, 2011 Imagine messenger. It travelled to Mercury. Along the way the "speed of light" increased because the rate of anti-spacetime flow increased. This did not affect it's path or "gravitational" relationship to anything else in the solar system. It all cancels out. I have my own theories in which the "speed of light" is not constant. You can create your own variation of a definition of time, and use it to create your own variation of velocity. But does it make sense? The problem is, an observer traveling to Mercury is not going to observe any change in the speed of light. You could use an artificially modified variant of time, so that the artificially modified variant of speed shows the speed of light varying, but that's not what the observers are going to see. All observations in recorded history, as well as all observations as predicted by SR and GR, show that all observers measure a constant speed of light. Nobody ever observes a change in the speed of light.
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 16, 2011 Author Posted April 16, 2011 (edited) Nobody ever observes a change in the speed of light. Then what is "rotational relativity" for? It is a correction in time. You *could* see that as a change in the "speed of light". But you choose not to and *prefer* Dark energy, Dark matter, Mysterious forces . . . Edited April 16, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor
Klaynos Posted April 16, 2011 Posted April 16, 2011 Then what is "rotational relativity" for? It is a correction in time. You *could* see that as a change in the "speed of light". But you choose not to and *prefer* Dark energy, Dark matter, Mysterious forces . . . I'm pretty sure this disagrees with the first postulate of special relativity, or rotational relativity as laid out by Carmeli in International Journal of Theoretical Physics 25, 89-94, DOI: 10.1007/BF00669716 You've also not addressed my concerns posted in the original thread on this. You appear to have disregarded Swansont's warning as well. I fear we are operating on borrowed time.
Recommended Posts