Is The Universe really expanding?

[MigL]

You have a very bad memory about your posts, nobrainer.

 

In post #63 you write...

"As long as the photon generating star is producing electromagnetic radiation the photons electromagnetic field is being continually replaced as the electromagnetic field is decaying into monopole gravitational waves."

 

It distinctly says that elecromagnetic fields decay into gravitational waves, DOES IT NOT ???

 

Yet yesterday you posted...

"When or where did i state that electromagnetic fields have a finite range, I did not state that. "

 

WRONG ! Let me remind you that you stateed it in post #63.

 

Not only is your 'theory' inconsistant but you've just proven that your thinking is also.

[Nobrainer]

You have a very bad memory about your posts, nobrainer.

 

In post #63 you write...

"As long as the photon generating star is producing electromagnetic radiation the photons electromagnetic field is being continually replaced as the electromagnetic field is decaying into monopole gravitational waves."

 

It distinctly says that elecromagnetic fields decay into gravitational waves, DOES IT NOT ???

 

Yet yesterday you posted...

"When or where did i state that electromagnetic fields have a finite range, I did not state that. "

 

WRONG ! Let me remind you that you stateed it in post #63.

 

Not only is your 'theory' inconsistant but you've just proven that your thinking is also.

Yes it does and the decay of electromagnetic fields into gravitational waves creating wavefronts iwith reactions to wavefront formation is the continuing process that links electromagnetic fields to gravitational waves as a continuious process of mass and energy decaying into space itself. Expanding the reach of electeomagnetic fields to the entire universe via gravity. It is an action with a reaction because I am stating that wave interaction is a contact force. That means that the gravitational field becomes an extension of the electeomagnetic field. Stop critizing wrongly before you understand correctly. It is a continuous process with gravity as a reaction or all part of the same universe interconnected. This interconnected process, which Einstein believe was connected but could not figure out how it was connected explains so much.

A more human example would be fhe process of the human body sweating to cool itself. Increase in surface area to increase heat displacement to cool the body via evaporation evaporation. This example is just to show a communication of processes with a feedback result.

 

Sometimes it takes thinking out of the box to understand the box.. If you actual care which I don't think šo I suggest you try to understand Rhe entire concept before you start making the wrong characterizations and conclusions. I know the holes in my logic better than anyone and I can address them but you have not come close yet.

[MigL]

So, is that a yes then ?

According to you EM fields 'decay' into 'gravitational monopole waves', whatever those might be, and so EM fields have a limited, not infinite range.

Did you then lie when you claimed to have said no such thing ?

And again, how do you reconcile this with Maxwell's equations ?

Also, what is the machanism for this 'decay' from EM to GM waves ?

 

Or were you hoping no one would ask you and you could make up the rest of it later ?????

[Nobrainer]

Concerning the photon and the glue that holds photons together into a field or generated wave, electeomagnetic radiation;

 

A dipole has stucture and function, a variable range of strength interaction. If the dipole decays into a monopole wave then you could consider it one process decaying or two processes with a comonality. It is just semantics my friend. You don't seem to see it yet but the whole universe is connected through this process. Are there stages, and steps in this process of the singularity becoming all space.

 

The mechanism of decay-

 

What is the cause of action that allows or creates this process of work originating from potential energy to kinetic energy as the universe transitions from mass (particle) and energy( particle/wave duality) to space (wave)? Who knows for sure, comfort maybe, maybe all of existence is more comfortable laying flat than curled up in a ball? A path of least tension, positive pressure, negative energy, push me- pull you, just being silly..

Potential to kinetic energy, created at the big bang, but now a pulling as space expands or what you might call negative evergy. It is a violation of Einstein's conservation of the energy-momentum tensor would be another way to say it.

 

Here is a quote from a current article off the web;

""Many people have come up with different theories for dark energy," Wang said. "Unfortunately, the mystery remains, and in fact, the nature of dark energy is now perhaps the most profound mystery in cosmology and astrophysics. It is considered the most outstanding problem in theoretical physics.

"The other great mystery concerning our universe is that it contains much more matter than can be accounted for in our visible stars. The missing mass is termed as dark matter, and despite many attempts at detecting dark matter, the mystery remains and even deepens."

The researchers postulate that the energy-momentum tensor of normal matter is no longer conserved and that new gravitational field equations follow from Einstein's principles of equivalence and general relativity, and the principle of Lagrangian dynamics, just as Einstein derived his field equations. Wang said the new equations were the unique outcome of the non-conservation of the energy-momentum tensor of normal matter." - prof. Wang

Edited September 28, 2012 by Nobrainer

[Nobrainer]

How do I resolve this with with Maxwell's equations-

Are You understanding I am just taking the Huygen's Principle and saying yes it is correct and telling you and everyone it should be the Huygen's law?

Once you understand that then you might understand that Maxwell's equations in fact encompass the Huygen's Principle and can be truncated from it.

So I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

[MigL]

The photon is the electromagnetic field, or rather, the manifestation of excitation of the field. The field does not hold photons together.

 

So if its not one 'process' decaying into another but rather two 'processes' with a commonality, can you supply equations that describe this commonality, as Maxwell's equations and those of GR do not. Have you found a unification for electromagnetism and gravity ? Should I submit your name for a Nobel prize yet ?

 

The principle of least action describes pretty well the reason for and mechanism for exchange of potential energy to kinetic energy, and I really don't think any gravitational monopole waves are involved.

Edited September 28, 2012 by MigL

[Nobrainer]

Electromagnetic radiation comes in discrete packages called photons. And No I am not interested in a prize but thank you anyhow, very kind of you. And like I said the Huygen's principle can be derived from tMaxwell's equations. Use the Internet. I do not claim to be a great mathematician but I do claim to be able to understand how the universe operates by understanding the two processes that have been overlooked.

One missed process is that all mass and energy decay into the monopole gravitational wave creating the actions of time and space. - 1993 Nobel prize in physics as evidence of gravitational loss in a system- and where do you think that loss came from?

Second; a new process - in phase waves colliding create the action of a wavefront and a reaction of gravity. Gravity is not a direct pulling force but a wave aligning force.

Dark energy and dark matter are predictions of this process along with black hole evaporation and many others, dark flow etc. But you will never find a particle associated with these actions of gravity, and the Dark's

 

Again, thanks for your questions it's fun. This isn't new to me I copyrighted this years ago. I have played the devils advocate more than you ever could ever. Einstein never predicted dark energy or dark matter because he did not know the process,

And as far as the math that does include dark energy and matter, it has now been completed by Prof. Wang and Ma. altering GR to reflect a new field.

Seriously, one process of in-phase wave emission with wave synchrinization explains every action in the universe and you ask less than intelligent questions in my opinion.

Explain to me how you are able to nominate anyone for a Nobel prize or was that a lie?... It works both ways my friend... Of course it was a lie, so maybe one more question from you if you start behaving nicely otherwise I will not respond anymore to YOU.

[dimreepr]

Electromagnetic radiation comes in discrete packages called photons. And No I am not interested in a prize but thank you anyhow, very kind of you. And like I said the Huygen's principle can be derived from tMaxwell's equations. Use the Internet. I do not claim to be a great mathematician but I do claim to be able to understand how the universe operates by understanding the two processes that have been overlooked.

One missed process is that all mass and energy decay into the monopole gravitational wave creating the actions of time and space. - 1993 Nobel prize in physics as evidence of gravitational loss in a system- and where do you think that loss came from?

Second; a new process - in phase waves colliding create the action of a wavefront and a reaction of gravity. Gravity is not a direct pulling force but a wave aligning force.

Dark energy and dark matter are predictions of this process along with black hole evaporation and many others, dark flow etc. But you will never find a particle associated with these actions of gravity, and the Dark's

 

Again, thanks for your questions it's fun. This isn't new to me I copyrighted this years ago. I have played the devils advocate more than you ever could ever. Einstein never predicted dark energy or dark matter because he did not know the process,

And as far as the math that does include dark energy and matter, it has now been completed by Prof. Wang and Ma. altering GR to reflect a new field.

Seriously, one process of in-phase wave emission with wave synchrinization explains every action in the universe and you ask less than intelligent questions in my opinion.

Explain to me how you are able to nominate anyone for a Nobel prize or was that a lie?... It works both ways my friend... Of course it was a lie, so maybe one more question from you if you start behaving nicely otherwise I will not respond anymore to YOU.

 

When I came to this forum I was just like you; I had a brilliant idea that needed sharing with mainstream physics. Sadly I was wrong, as are you BTW; maybe this thread will enlighten you as to why.

[Nobrainer]

When I came to this forum I was just like you; I had a brilliant idea that needed sharing with mainstream physics. Sadly I was wrong, as are you BTW; maybe this thread will enlighten you as to why.

It's all about the evidence and the observations, it is not personal. Or as Dan Akaroid used to say, "Jane, you ...."lol

 

1). 1993 Nobel Prize in physics shows loss of gravitational energy in an isolated system.

2). "Lord Kelvin (1871) and Carl Anton Bjerknes (1871) assumed that all bodies pulsate in the aether. This was in analogy to the fact that, if the pulsation of two spheres in a fluid is in phase, they will attract each other".

3). I have demonstrated an overlooked law, that wave formation is a contact force and that there is a reaction to wave front formation that is exactly the same as Gravitation.

 

Funny, all you can do is say you are wrong but you do not have the ability to discuss the evidence...

If predictions of unknown phenomenon are correct or are not correct, that is the test. Does it fit all know phenomenon? What does it predict? This is not new to me nor are your responses. I have known this for 10 years or more and you are waisting both our times. If you want to know why and how everything can be understood in one theory let me. I do not claim this is just a theory, I claim this is "THE THEORY". The math to correct GR was done recently by Professor Ma and Wang if you care to look, Einstein even thought that gravitational waves were generated by acceleration. I am just putting the pieces together in the correct order and all the mechanisms of all the unknown actions in the universe become easy to understand.

 

Here is what I encounter

1). You are correct, there are people that have ipartiallu lthought out theories that upon close look have contradictions. The contradictions are usually easy to point out.

2). There are also people that have their own theories and therefore your theory has to be wrong or they are wrong and they can not be wrong! These are the worst people to deal with because they mount personal attacks and don't let up. I find that these people have very little original thought.

Einstein dealt with them a few ways, one was what he said after 100 of the worlds greatest scientists signed a letter all agreeing that Einstein was wrong he said; "if I was wrong, it would have only taken one."

Another saying was,

" Albert Einstein Quotes. Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

 

So don't worry it doesn't bother me that people have a different opinion and throw insults and I know it is correct because it fits the observations. That is the point, not what you say or what I say. It fits everything.

You are not my wake up call, my wake up call came when I first started to understand and I called Lawerence Krauss when he was at Case Western and he was nice enough to listen as I explained. He stated and this is a direct quote/ " If you are right then the rest of us are wrong and we wastes our lives so therefore you can not be right!"

If I can recover from that then I can easily recover from your non- important comments..

Best of luck though...

 

So try to understand before you criticize without merrit

Edited September 28, 2012 by Nobrainer

[dimreepr]

So try to understand before you criticize without merrit

 

 

If I gave you the manuscript of a French novel (Knowing youdon't speak the language) and an English synopsis and asked for a translation, I know without reading, the results would be wrong. The translation you give me back would be full of inaccuracy and assumptions (of course not your fault). You have admitted you don't have the math so, essentially, the analogy extends to your thesis as the language of physics is maths.

 

Edited September 29, 2012 by dimreepr

[Nobrainer]

If I gave you the manuscript of a French novel (Knowing youdon't speak the language) and an English synopsis and asked for a translation, I know without reading, the results would be wrong. The translation you give me back would be full of inaccuracy and assumptions (of course not your fault). You have admitted you don't have the math so, essentially, the analogy extends to your thesis as the language of physics is maths.

 

I

Did I miss something? I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

If you can not first creatively come ip with the conceptual solution then you can not do the math. I assume 1+1=2 was understood long before it was written down. I understood the concept long before the math but the math is done, I can not take credit for it. It was not done by me. Only the concept is mine, the original thought. The math is done by Ma and Wang.

Please explain what the heck I missed in what you are saying..

The concept is simple

1). All mass and energy decay into gravitational waves, continually emitted creating the actions of space-time.

2). Wave interaction is a contact force, in- phase wave interaction creates the force of gravity.

So Einstein did not know the mechanism of gravity and also he did not know about the actions of dark energy and dark matter. Taking this to completion, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum are incomplete and need refining to include the decay of mass and energy as a function of an emitted wave.. Well that means that General relativity needs another modification to include this and low and behold Professor Ma and Wang have done it.

I copyrighted the entire concept and they have now pit it into the language of physics. To build a car, I need parts, I need to know the order and the understanding of the physics of car building but I do not necessarily have to write out every equation to actually build the car, especially when building and testing something new. The math comes after you have observed, and that is what happened here. I observed and rebuild the universe by explaining the reasons the universe works, mechanically, and Ma and Wang did the math. I just wanted to figure it out, it drove me a little crazy not knowing the mechanism of how it is possible time dialation is possible. Either it was bullcrap or there had to be a concrete understandable explanation. Using only three spactial dimensions I pieced it together.

It is kinda like when someone takes something apart to figure out how it works, the math comes last. In this case, the universe put it together, I conceptually took it apart and Ma and Wang wrote the math for future curious people to see how it works mathematically. In other words, I only claim to understand the mechanism and it all makes sense. The math now confirms what I knew. The math was created to correct an error, I understand the mechanism which explains the error and why the math is needed to correct an error no one else saw until recently.

If a uncooked fish stinks, I do not need the math to know not to eat the fish, it smells funny. With a similar feeling I knew something was wrong with our perception of the universe so I started over and reviewed all the laws and I found two flaws and it changes everything.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Nobrainer

[dimreepr]

I

Did I miss something? I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

If you can not first creatively come ip with the conceptual solution then you can not do the math. I assume 1+1=2 was understood long before it was written down. I understood the concept long before the math but the math is done, I can not take credit for it. It was not done by me. Only the concept is mine, the original thought. The math is done by Ma and Wang.

Please explain what the heck I missed in what you are saying..

The concept is simple

1). All mass and energy decay into gravitational waves, continually emitted creating the actions of space-time.

2). Wave interaction is a contact force, in- phase wave interaction creates the force of gravity.

So Einstein did not know the mechanism of gravity and also he did not know about the actions of dark energy and dark matter. Taking this to completion, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum are incomplete and need refining to include the decay of mass and energy as a function of an emitted wave.. Well that means that General relativity needs another modification to include this and low and behold Professor Ma and Wang have done it.

I copyrighted the entire concept and they have now pit it into the language of physics. To build a car, I need parts, I need to know the order and the understanding of the physics of car building but I do not necessarily have to write out every equation to actually build the car, especially when building and testing something new. The math comes after you have observed, and that is what happened here. I observed and rebuild the universe by explaining the reasons the universe works, mechanically, and Ma and Wang did the math. I just wanted to figure it out, it drove me a little crazy not knowing the mechanism of how it is possible time dialation is possible. Either it was bullcrap or there had to be a concrete understandable explanation. Using only three spactial dimensions I pieced it together.

It is kinda like when someone takes something apart to figure out how it works, the math comes last. In this case, the universe put it together, I conceptually took it apart and Ma and Wang wrote the math for future curious people to see how it works mathematically. In other words, I only claim to understand the mechanism and it all makes sense. The math now confirms what I knew.

 

What part of my, very simple, analogy is tripping you up?

 

How do you know the maths, done by Ma and Wang, is correct?

[Nobrainer]

The whole reason that I confirmed that I was right was in part to discovering that physicists ignored their own mathematical equations, their own language. And I confirmed this thru experimentation just to be sure.

 

They made a big mistake by throwing out 1/2 of the equation. Almost like the mistake Einstein made when he added his constant to correct for a false belief in a static universe. But they were one step away from understanding their own math and they through out the other half of the Huygens principle. They could not grasp that they only needed one more step. You see, when a wavefront forms Huygen's principle dictates a wavelet in every direction forming and they only see the wavefront going out and no back wave but here is the step they missed. When you have a wave colliding continually forming larger waves the opposite reaction has a wave aligning continually by smaller and stronger waves because it it traveling back to the sources and since the inward motion of energy transfer in a medium is compressing into smaller generated waves as it gets closer to the sources, a stress/tension builds between the sources and the sources decrease in distance apart to reduce the stress/ tension. This is the basic building block of gravity and the math was ignored until now.

Together Einstein, Ma and Wang have corrected this flaw in the understanding of Huygens principle and now it can be the Huygens law. Try it. Take two ping pong balls and drop them is still water varying the distances apart. It is Newton's gravity formulas. It is the correction of understanding because the MATH IS DONE, it is your understanding of the math that is the problem, not mine.

 

Well that math which I agree with because they created the missing field needs to be tested. We will see. In the meantime, it is the underlying math that you ignored. It was also done with out me but I agree with it and you have ignored it. It is the math behind the Huygens principle derived from Maxwells equations. And the concept shows that there is a reaction to wavefront formation, the entire principle has been ignored because it did not make sense because they did not see a back action wave they ignored the math. The math should not have been ignored. The mistake I found was physicists ignoring their own math so they decided it was negligible and discarded it.

So as the French say- Touché

Now go pick on a string theorist and make then show you another dimension in space. They can't because if they could we would be already in it and not living in 3. So they have to pretend it curls up so we will never see it. Or we live in only 3 dimensions and time and space and gravity are actions of wave emission and in-phase collisions.

I chose my way because I proved it to myself.

 

Funny, mathmatically we have competing universes we live in string theory has how many dimensions? So does that make it true? No. Math is just a tool but you can be sold useless tools in math also. The reason math is important to Theoritical Physicists is for predictions and to link the four forces of nature together ( or are they saying six forces with dark energy and matter?).

Anyhow it reminds me of a man who is driving around lost without a gps and refusing to ask for directions. Once everyone catches on to the concept that mass and energy decade into their lowest form then and gravity is a by product of this decay not directly related to the other forces except it monopole action then everything is easier to understand.

Oh yea. The decay of protons...

 

In my house my piano sits 1/2 in the sunlight and there is a distinct difference between the wood which is protected and the wood not protected. Protons protected are kept abay from decay until eventually everything becomes space.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Nobrainer

[dimreepr]

The whole reason that I confirmed that I was right was in part to discovering that physicists ignored their own mathematical equations, their own language. And I confirmed this thru experimentation just to be sure.

 

<...>

It is the correction of understanding because the MATH IS DONE, it is your understanding of the math that is the problem, not mine.....

 

 

<....>

I chose my way because I proved it to myself.

 

All you have done in this entire thread is tell everyone they're wrong and your right and yet you've provided nothing to back up these assertions; except words in the wrong language. You say the maths is done and yet you provide: no equations, no predictions and no evidence.

 

The time is now, my friend, put up or shut up and not just with a re-iteration of your previous posts.

 

Edited September 29, 2012 by dimreepr

[Nobrainer]

All you have done in this entire thread is tell everyone they're wrong and your right and yet you've provided nothing to back up these assertions; except words in the wrong language. You say the maths is done and yet you provide: no equations, no predictions and no evidence.

 

The most basic evidense-

1).

1993 Nobel prize in physics shows gravitational energy loss in an isolated system

2).

"Lord Kelvin (1871) and Carl Anton Bjerknes (1871) assumed that all bodies pulsate in the aether. This was in analogy to the FACT that, if the pulsation of two spheres in a fluid is in phase, they will attract each other;"

The time is now, my friend, put up or shut up and not just with a re-iteration of your previous posts.

 

These two tiny bits of evidense is all I need to spring an original idea. And obviously I am having fun with you because it is like one plus one to me and your mindblock ignores the evidence that currently exists which I have stated previously. You ask for the math I say Read the paper by Ma and Wang, you say no evidence and I supply evidence. Yet not one word. Obviously I have step on your crap theory and you don't like it and funny thing you are one in the crowd, not original. Not one question yet that I haven't answered logically you are boring me.

 

And yes I have provided all you stated;

1). Light evidence above

2). Read Ma and Wang paper for math, bone up on Rhe Huygens principle for math- I am not your personal teacher.

3). I have stated some predictions previously either here of forward time. One would be there is no matter in dark matter. Another is mass and energy decrease as space increases. The predictions are so obvious- Kepler's laws will be violated.. duh...

[dimreepr]

These two tiny bits of evidense is all I need to spring an original idea. And obviously I am having fun with you because it is like one plus one to me and your mindblock ignores the evidence that currently exists which I have stated previously. You ask for the math I say Read the paper by Ma and Wang, you say no evidence and I supply evidence. Yet not one word. Obviously I have step on your crap theory and you don't like it and funny thing you are one in the crowd, not original. Not one question yet that I haven't answered logically you are boring me.

 

And yes I have provided all you stated;

1). Light evidence above

2). Read Ma and Wang paper for math, bone up on Rhe Huygens principle for math- I am not your personal teacher.

3). I have stated some predictions previously either here of forward time. One would be there is no matter in dark matter. Another is mass and energy decrease as space increases. The predictions are so obvious- Kepler's laws will be violated.. duh...

 

According to current thinking the 'Aether' doesn't exist (no evidence). You say you've answered all questions yet my very simple question "How do you know the maths, by Ma and Wang, is correct?" is yet to be answered. Did you even read the OP of the thread I linked to? You seem to be a prime candidate. BTW I'm very sorry I bore you and no you didn't step on my theory, much like you, I never had one. Also you can't teach something you know nothing about i.e. maths.

 

Edited September 29, 2012 by dimreepr

[Nobrainer]

According to current thinking the 'Aether' doesn't exist (no evidence). You say you've answered all questions yet my very simple question "How do you know the maths, by Ma and Wang, is correct?" is yet to be answered. Did you even read the OP of the thread I linked to? You seem to be a prime candidate. BTW I'm very sorry I bore you and no you didn't step on my theory, much like you, I never had one. Also you can't teach something you know nothing about i.e. maths.

 

Verification throughtout prediction will confirm there math, other peers have given their Math a positive preliminary look. But I don't know until they predict unknown phenomenon. For example I predict that as the universe is mapped you will see Kepler's Laws violated more often in older galaxies.

I read the link - no it doesnt fit. Evidence and predictions an overview of the process and the concept fits all observation and gives reasons for deductions being correct.

Every law now has reasons behind it. And I created a new one, wave interaction is a contact force!

[dimreepr]

Verification throughtout prediction will confirm there math, other peers have given their Math a positive preliminary look. But I don't know until they predict unknown phenomenon. For example I predict that as the universe is mapped you will see Kepler's Laws violated more often in older galaxies.

I read the link - no it doesnt fit. Evidence and predictions an overview of the process and the concept fits all observation and gives reasons for deductions being correct.

Every law now has reasons behind it. And I created a new one, wave interaction is a contact force!

 

 

Which of Kepler's laws will be violated? and how?

[Nobrainer]

Which of Kepler's laws will be violated? and how?

Last time I spent this much time with someone as I have with you today I married her. I will answer, I am out of time for now. Physical labor calls. You are asking me to feed you a fish and I would rather first, discuss the mechanism by which the laws are violated, dark matter mechanism and you will see"why" the laws are violated and which ones and then we can fish together. But later thanks for getting to a fun question.

 

And still monologuing....

I can not learn and memorize easily until I know why something works and it drives me obsessively crazy until I figure it out. By trying to understand a simple child-like question, " When I drop something why does it fall?" I came across parameters that modified the possibilities such as the variables of forward relative time, space shrinking or expanding, mass increasing or decreasing depending upon other parameters such as distance and speed. You see, it's always the why... Whether you are a physicists or a philosopher. It's mankind's only never ending question.... Why?

Edited September 29, 2012 by Nobrainer

[Nobrainer]

Which of Kepler's laws will be violated? and how?

All of Kepler's big three should be violated.

Imagine this scenario;

All mass and energy in the universe decay into the least potential form of work energy, space, the once emitted, never to be reabsorbed gravitational wave.

All mass and energy decay into the baseline wave which synchronizes, increases in amplitude with all other waves.

Example 1

Extreme synchronization - hypothetical

In a galaxy with a black hole in the center this rotating massive black hole loses energy through this process and spins faster if there is no energy to replace the lost energy due to emission of gravitational waves, if the black hole is in an equaliibrium wirh mass gain vs energy loss at the center of a galaxy then the black hole's mass is constant and it's spin stays constant. In this situation with a constant spin velocity of the black hole and given enough time for all the gravitational waves in this galaxy which is continually emitting gravitational wave from each piece of mass and energy then the overall wave synchronization will create a process which initially catches the outer planets, spirals in the black holes rotation in older galaxies and eventually catches all the galaxy in a synchronizating rotation with the black holes rotation. This effect should be extremely common in varying degrees dependent upon the black holes spin, energy consumption verses energy loss and the total energy of the system. The system itself, combining onto the continued emission of a large wavefront will also align, synchronize with the wavefronts from all of space creating a constant force, with a decreasing overall total energy (mass) and every galaxy will be increasing in acceleration in the direction of their original motion following Newton's laws of motion, F=MxA.

This one process of mass and energy decay, creating the aether of space, which inflation explains exists, for the wrong reason I might add, remember there has never been an experiment devised to check if the aether was generated from within and therefore controls the laws form local sources outward. Now if this idea is correct it is an example of wave amplitude increase or space density increase through a feedback of a contact force with actions and reactions to wave amplitude increase. In otherwords, only one wave can occupy the waves area without changing the amplitude, thickness of the area the wave controls. If wave could stack without change in amplitude then the current laws are correct, but they can not interfere without interfering... It is just common sense which is oddly very uncommon. Because there is an increase in amplitude when two waves combine constructively, there is change. Because there is change, the waves cannot occupy the smallest pinpoint area of a single wave with multiple waves or there would be no change. Why is that so hard for all of physics to see? That right there is the essence of the problem with physics, wave alignment changes waves and is by defination a contact force. A contact force requires for every action a equal and Collinear reaction.

I think it was MigL who sarcastically said, and I am paraphrasing; so you are right and everyone else is wrong... In this case the answer is definitely yes. Everyone else is wrong and blew it big and is stuck on stupid. It is so obvious yet no one uses their brain here. The amplitude is increased, that is fact.. This is a change, that is fact. It is somehow a contact or there could not be a change, this is fact. Once you understand that continuously emitted in-phase waves collide and rearrange to fit and it is a contact force, the rest is easy because it follows classic laws of motion and the entire universe clearly works this way by all the evidence which can not be examined on one understanding any other way.

This violation of Kepler's laws through future observation is just one example of why this Ghost Wave Theory is correct.

 

"God does not play dice with the universe" Einstein said, and Bohr's responded, " Do not tell God what to do." Einstein's point, which Bohr could have capitalized on instead of taking offense was that something does not feel right, there has to be something missing. Well Einstein was correct, "God does not play dice, He plays pool"-CMT

If either Bohr or Einstein understood that wave interference was a contact sport with no one playing nice but everyone playing for position and dragging mass and energy along with it, general relativity would have incorporated dark matter and dark energy as aspects of field interactions and Bohrs could have combined general relativity with quantum theory and we could use this new way to understand the universe to communicate instaneously independent of distance without any violation of the laws of nature but I am getting a little ahead of myself.

 

Suppose I am correct, and that does mean everyone else is wrong, many people use that to try to say I have an ego but I do not, what they are saying to me is that they are ignorant and jealous and can not phathom that something as wave collision could be a contact force and they tote all the stupid lines like - I used to be like you but I woke up and so should you. Or personal attacks or you are not talking the language of physics, you should go back to school... F- that . I am so sick and tired of the whole world being brainwashed.

If I am wrong- show me or STFU. Talk only physics not trash... You can jot show me because I did not discover this to be right, I discovered it because it is right.

Show me I am wrong or don't say non-sense and BS.

 

But if you are going to take a shot anyhow, remember the Heisenberg principle keeps the reaction to the action of wave amplitude increase a hidden variable until the grand scale where the prediction of unknown phenomenon gives raise to oddities resulting from this process such as violations of Kepler's laws, (dark matter) wave synchronization with planets and galaxies and dark energy- ( F=MxA)

Edited September 30, 2012 by Nobrainer

[dimreepr]

You've basically said all this before, and you've managed to evade the basic question. I'll hold my hands up here, my question was somewhat ambiguous, so let me try to reduce the ambiguity. You say all three of kepler's laws are violated. Here are the laws in brief (copied from wiki):

 

1. "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of two foci."

 

 

2. "A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time."

 

 

3. "The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit."

 

 

In what way are each of the above violated? For instance how exactly is a planets orbit different to how explained above?

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2012 by dimreepr

[Nobrainer]

Oh I forgot about an earlier question; proton decay. photon decay, it doesn't matter.

First any estimate is total BS. Let me tell you why first with an example in the real world. I have a light on in my house, in the man cave, which is my kids play room and my wife's storage room anything but a man cave, and after I walk in knowing the light has been on for weeks. The illumination has not changed. Could I say the illumination has not aged because there is no change? Isn't that what we think of photons traveling at the speed of light? Another example; I have a swimming pool and the water level never changes, it is constantly at one level whether it rains all day or it is 90 and sunny without rain for two weeks, why? Because I have an automatic filler and a hole to drain excess water above a certain level. The water level is ageless, so it appears... Now apply that information to protons in a protective atom and to a photon with magnetic fields...

[MigL]

Just like you told Dimreeper to understand before he criticises, I think you should do the same. You have little understanding of the accepted and consistent way things work as exemplified by your understanding of proton decay,

 

And Einstein did predict dark energy, however he called it a cosmological constant. If you read any advanced cosmology texts you'll find that the two work the same and are both caused by vacuum energy.

[Nobrainer]

Meanwhile, concerning photons and magnetic fields, "virtual photons ... are constantly being emitted and re-absorbed by the electron" but that isn't really what we mean.  Two particles that are interacting electromagnetically are indeed surrounded by a virtual photon cloud. However, in familiar cases (e.g. a hydrogen atom) that cloud is completely unchanging in time. Nothing at all is going on. The words about things fluctuating around are a rough way to convey one of the peculiar properties of quantum fields. The electric and magnetic fields have not only average values but also ranges of possible values around the average. That's what's so different from classical fields.  (It's just like the positions of quantum particles, which have ranges around the average position, unlike classical particles.) You can convey an image of that range by pretending that the fields are jumping around between the different possible values, just like you can pretend that a particle  is jumping around among the different positions in its cloud. However, the fields (including their spread of values) no more need to be jumping around than do the particles in space. In a nice stable atomic state, for example, nothing changes in time. The static range of possibilities turns into an actual range of outcomes only when the system interacts in particular ways with the bigger world outside.

 

Mike W.

 

(published on 04/28/11)"

 

 

That quote saves me time, but what I can say and soon youknow too, the concept of "virtual photon"s is a man-made way to picture something on the quantum level of fields that attempt to explain why magnetic fields do not show a particle as electromagnetic fields. Imagine the particle exists, but can not be dissassociated from the photon's cloud. It has a spin vibratatonal frequency which adds energy as it is contained.

 

Just like you told Dimreeper to understand before he criticises, I think you should do the same. You have little understanding of the accepted and consistent way things work as exemplified by your understanding of proton decay,

 

And Einstein did predict dark energy, however he called it a cosmological constant. If you read any advanced cosmology texts you'll find that the two work the same and are both caused by vacuum energy.

You are trying to save Einstein's ass because he did not predict dark energy. The reason Einstein put in his cosmological constant was because all of physics thought that the universe was static and Einstein needed a cosmological constant to correct general relativity. Einstein died having no idea that the universe was increasing in acceleration. The best you cab say is he put it on the wrong side of the equation. My math teacher would fail me for that one wrong is wrong.

People try to give Einstein credit where none is deserved which clouds the achievements he did do. So quit BS-ing me with made up BS that Einstein Knew the universe was increasing in acceleration, he did not and anyone who says he did is giving Einstein credit that is a flat out lie. Which is worse. Lying directly or spreading falsehoods because you can't think for yourself?

Einstein did not know about or predict the actions of the universe expanding at an accelerated rate- that is a lie that is being forwarded by people that can not think for themselves. He constant was for a completely different reason and on the wrong side of the equation. SDA

 

As for proton or photon decay, I have not given you the answer yet, just clues. Pay attention SDA

 

You've basically said all this before, and you've managed to evade the basic question. I'll hold my hands up here, my question was somewhat ambiguous, so let me try to reduce the ambiguity. You say all three of kepler's laws are violated. Here are the laws in brief (copied from wiki):

planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of two foci."

 

 

2. "A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time."

 

 

3. "The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit."

 

 

In what way are each of the above violated? For instance how exactly is a planets orbit different to how explained above?

 

 

 

 

I can not believe you can not get it-

Planets on the outermost orbits will revolve around their stars exactly as the inner most planets as if they are sitting on a record player going around a turntable. Put two coins on a paper plate one by the center, slightly off centered and one on the outer edge and slowly rotate the paper plate and you will see what I mean. U can play with the details- boring.

Now review that understanding with the second law.And you will see it violates that law and then you can figure out the rest. I don't have a virtual protector - sorry

Edited September 30, 2012 by Nobrainer

[dimreepr]

This explains nothing and it's certainly not an answer to my question, just more evasion. You say 'swansont's' description of a crackpot doesn't fit you, please, it fits like a glove...