ScottTheSculptor Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 The New Universe. Time is a fourth dimension, one dimensional "thing" that flows into the sun and can vary. If physics can accept this; dark energy, dark matter, missing radiowaves from the galactic core, long lived particles from up time-stream, planetary density discrepencies (Mercury too dense, Mars not dense enough), proton magnetism, jets from black holes, and other cosmic mysteries are explained. Also, dah dun dun dah!, Time/Gravity *is* the flow of time. You may wonder how we missed this I will attempt to explain . . . The crux of my argument is against Einstein's relativity *description* (his math was perfect). Einstein thought that time was constant. If it is then you *can* mathematically connect space with gravity since gravity is time. But as soon as the rate of time changes that model falls apart. Just one too many variables. In order to have "speed" light has to travel a set distance in a set amount of time. But his description locks time and distance within the "speed of light", yet allows "observed distance" and "observed time" to vary as you travel faster or slower relative to the "speed of light". This is illogical. Light only happens at one speed. It is constant. This "speed" is "the rate of time" and just coincidentally "the speed of light". So, NO warping or bending of spacetime; Distance is constant. It is part of spacetime. It has no affect on light and doesn't "squash" if you "go real fast". Same with time. The reason time is changing was to compensate for the change in distance. You can only do that if the rate of time does not change. All current physics still works. Our "rate of time" is based on the 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. We have geological evidence that the rate of time has increased over billions of years. If you get closer to the sun the rate of time increases. Interstellar distances are measured in light years. As the rate of time speeds up the distances are perfectly compensated. Faster time means more light years to the same distance. Distance is constant. *Time* is relative. ("speed of light = "rate of time"). Imagine a spacecraft traveling to Mercury. The change in rate of time doesn't change it's gravitational relationship to anything else in the solar system since gravity is also relative and tied to the rate of time (*is* the rate of time). This *is* the theory of relativity . . . with a new point of view, redefinition of a couple words and making a thing changable that you thought wasn't. The result is that almost all the cosmic mysteries disappear all at once. The jets from black holes predicts time jets from the poles of all stars. The rate of time is dependant on the size and time throughput of a star which is tied directly to its mass conversion rate. There is a high probability that a gas giant can convert time and have jets. This would explain reported clock "malfunctions" when traveling over the poles of gas giants. Solar flares can carry time. There is evidence of odd long-lived particles and time discrepencies connected to the largest of them. Recently. The black holes at the center of galaxies are the main "time drains" that creates the gravity to hold them together. Different rates of overall timeflow perfectly describes mass anomalies in galaxies that have been describe to be caused by "dark matter". The time flow gradient isn't dramatic. USNO more commonly puts a leap second in at maximum distance to the sun and takes one out at minimum (summer and winter soltices). The mass variation of the sun will map perfectly to noted time rate changes. There are more supporting arguments but are just TMI to accept at once. If I can get people to accept the above then more information follows (dark energy is pretty "out there"). I have emailed all the leading living physicists that have an email address - no answers. I *am* banned from physicsforums.com for being a crackpot - I dared to change the "speed of light". I was gagged at science forums for attempting to argue the above, twice. This is the third and last attempt. I am not a physicist and would't know how to "publish in a peer reviewed journal" so consider it "cold fusion" until proven. That wasn't peer reviewed . . .
mooeypoo Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 You were told, twice before, that reopening a closed thread is against the rules. You were further told, twice before, that the ONLY way for you to reintroduce your theory is with proper mathematical concepts and/or EVIDENCE to support your claim, since there were - twice before - debates about everything else surrounding that idea. Debates that showed the flaws of it. There is no evidence in your renewed attempt to reopen the closed thread. We don't expect you to come up with a peer reviewed journal article for your pet theory. We do expect, however, that after two attempts with multiple-page threads where your theory was picked apart, you will come up, at the VERY LEAST, with what we've asked you to do. You seem to have nothing new, specially not what was required of you. Read our rules again, and stop reopening a closed thread. ~mooey 1
Recommended Posts