Forward time

[Nobrainer]

Could the very basis of forward time, time generally moving in one direction, be part of a mechanism that underlies the universe?

 

Here is how simple I believe it is and I call it the ghost wave theory.

 

Given

As accepted, the big bang singularity was one with itself until it became what is now known as mass, energy and space accelerating at an increasing change.

 

Is it possible that the energy transfer from matter to space continues and space, created at the big bang, continues to be created by the decay of mass and energy?

 

Could this process of mass and energy decay creating space, if it is happening, be the framework to the future shape and size of the universe?

 

Could this process be the very nature of the aether in which electromagnetic waves need to propagate?

 

Did Michelson and Morley's experiments in the 1880's imagine and test for an aether generated from within mass and energy?

 

The physics laws are local laws mostly, could it be because the laws are generated locally?

Could the speed of light be constant because the light arrives at the observer who is somehow governing the speed? If so how?

Could by understanding an aether show that the Galaxy clusters are are moving at an increasingly accleratingly rate? If so how??

 

Could the term what goes up must come down" be a dimensional statement? If so how?

 

Time, space and gravity have relative changes. How?

Edited September 19, 2012 by Nobrainer

[Tres Juicy]

Could this process be the very nature of the aether in which electromagnetic waves need to propagate?

 

There is no aether as proved by the Michelson Morley experiment and various more recent experiments.

 

Did Michelson and Morley's experiments in the 1880's imagine and test for an aether generated from within mass and energy?

 

No, they simply imagined that all waves needed a medium to propagate through and since light could travel through a vacuum that there must be something else there - an "aether"

 

The physics laws are local laws mostly, could it be because the laws are generated locally?

Could the speed of light be constant because the light arrives at the observer who is somehow governing the speed? If so how?

 

What?! Observers govern the speed of light? No

 

 

Could by understanding an aether show that the Galaxy clusters are are moving at an increasingly accleratingly rate? If so how??

 

There will never be an "understanding of aether" because it does not exist

 

Could the term what goes up must come down" be a dimensional statement? If so how?

Time, space and gravity have relative changes. How?

 

Word salad...

[neil2366]

Thank you for posting questions. One is fairly new to subject & learning . isn't it fair to say that any theory based on axiom can have all answer to currant science with practical verification? Can Axiom based and complete with internally generated proof forms a permanent theory whereas Science has necessarily to change continuously depending on its experimental findings and the consequential evolution of it’s dependent theoretical logic?

 

[Nobrainer]

The Aether;

Michelson and Morley proved beyond approach that they could not find the aether, period. They did NOT set up any experiment to determine if the aether is generated from within all mass and energy. This is fact, not word salad.

[Tres Juicy]

The Aether;

Michelson and Morley proved beyond approach that they could not find the aether, period. They did NOT set up any experiment to determine if the aether is generated from within all mass and energy. This is fact, not word salad.

 

 

Nobody has done an experiment to "determine if the aether is generated from within all mass and energy" because the entire idea of aether has been disproven time and time again.

 

And I'm sorry but

 

Could the term what goes up must come down" be a dimensional statement? If so how?

Time, space and gravity have relative changes. How?

 

Is word salad...

[swansont]

The Aether;

Michelson and Morley proved beyond approach that they could not find the aether, period. They did NOT set up any experiment to determine if the aether is generated from within all mass and energy. This is fact, not word salad.

If you can't detect it, how can it have any effect on anything?

[Ophiolite]

The physics laws are local laws mostly, could it be because the laws are generated locally?

Would you take the time please to give an example of a local physics law.

[illuusio]

If you can't detect it, how can it have any effect on anything?

 

Well, there was a time when human race didn't detect that Earth is a sphere I wouldn't count on that we have detected all relevant in Universe.

[Nobrainer]

Would you take the time please to give an example of a local physics law.

Local physics laws- "In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surrounds."- wikipedia

 

Concerning the speed of light being constant, independent of the speed of the source;

 

It is my opinion that one way the speed of anything, light, coming at an observer at a constant velocity even though the source is at a different relative velocity is that there is a hidden variable.

Here is a possible solution, if photons give off gravitational waves and the observer gives off gravitational wave and the waves of each are in-phase waves then the density differents in wavefront formation has a greater effect on the photon than the observer and the local laws of the observer are overwhelmingly obeyed. This is a hypothetical example why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect the aether, because the aether never would have shown to exist in this example.

 

This example, or the possible underlying process of electromagnetic fields decaying into monopole gravitational waves could be responsible for forward and density dependent relative time.

 

I could not care any less if you just say no with out a reason, at least have an intelligent reason behind your no.

 

If you can't detect it, how can it have any effect on anything?

Who said it isn't detectable? I said they never thought of the concept of generated from within.

 

Just off the cuff

 

1). I think dark energy is indirect evidence.

2). Gravitational energy loss in an isolated system is evidence as demonstrated by the research behind the 1993 Nobel prize in Physics.

3). Black Hole evaporation

4). A descrepancy in the intensity dimmer than anticipated) of radiation from stars that have ceased but not shown such yet as their light reaching us still exists yet the star is actually gone.

5). Constant speed of light in a vacuum

6). Understand man's continued preponderance for trying to make things conceptually stationary.

7). It fits everything

8). Predictions on extensions of when local laws are universal

9).

Edited September 24, 2012 by Nobrainer

[Nobrainer]

No one has preformed an experiment to "determine if the aether is generated from within all mass and energy" because the entire idea of aether has been disproven - NOT...

 

And I'm sorry but

 

 

 

 

 

.....And I am also sorry but you are wrong in your word salad blanket statement that there is no aether because of hearsay.

 

FYI

....There is no way that the concept of an aether was eliminated in the respect from being generated from within all mass and energy establishing the laws of physics as a

contact force wave function generated from with in mass and energy.

 

But what do you know... It has been shown indirectly in the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics..

So if the big bang created space, via the gravitational wave and each piece of mass and energy decay creating more space then space would be increasing as a direct relationship as mass and energy decrease. Could this fundamental action be the essence of how we measure time and space? And if this wave interaction is a contact force and the waves, interconnected as generated waves from sources, form wavefronts then the universe is flattening or losing degrees of three dimensional freedom as the stacking waves align increasing in amplitude aligning waves of gravity that bring all the universe along a plane.

Or "What goes up must go down, dimensionally speaking" -CMT

 

 

 

 

Is NOT word salad...

Edited September 25, 2012 by Nobrainer

[ACG52]

Here is a possible solution, if photons give off gravitational waves and the observer gives off gravitational wave and the waves of each are in-phase waves then the density differents in wavefront formation has a greater effect on the photon than the observer and the local laws of the observer are overwhelmingly obeyed.

 

Meaningless word salad.

 

The effect of local conditions has nothing to do with differing laws of physics. The laws are the same everywhere, but local conditions must be taken into account when applying them. If something is in a deep gravity well, and something is out in interstellar space, the same laws apply to both, but the environment, i.e. the gravity field, will cause different outcomes.

Edited September 25, 2012 by ACG52

[illuusio]

 

Concerning the speed of light being constant, independent of the speed of the source;

 

It is my opinion that one way the speed of anything, light, coming at an observer at a constant velocity even though the source is at a different relative velocity is that there is a hidden variable.

Here is a possible solution, if photons give off gravitational waves and the observer gives off gravitational wave and the waves of each are in-phase waves then the density differents in wavefront formation has a greater effect on the photon than the observer and the local laws of the observer are overwhelmingly obeyed. This is a hypothetical example why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect the aether, because the aether never would have shown to exist in this example.

 

That's the exact reason for speed of light being constant, I totally agree!

[MigL]

Hey Nobrainer, are you on a diet ?

It seems you're always making salad.

 

Word salad !!

 

My apologies to the mods and other members. It seems I've descended to his level.

[Tres Juicy]

No one has preformed an experiment to "determine if the aether is generated from within all mass and energy" because the entire idea of aether has been disproven

 

- NOT...

 

Well played! My argument falls to pieces at this stroke of genius...

 

.....And I am also sorry but you are wrong in your word salad blanket statement that there is no aether because of hearsay.

 

It would be wrong to base my argument on heresay - that's why I have based it on the evidence available.

 

 

FYI

....There is no way that the concept of an aether was eliminated in the respect from being generated from within all mass and energy establishing the laws of physics as a

contact force wave function generated from with in mass and energy.

 

Whilst I am tempted to say "word salad" at this point I will instead say this: This argument is flawed on so many levels. The aether concept has been disproven entirely - This is like saying "There is no way that the concept of unicorns was eliminated in the respect from being generated from within rainbows".

 

But what do you know... It has been shown indirectly in the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics..

So if the big bang created space, via the gravitational wave and each piece of mass and energy decay creating more space then space would be increasing as a direct relationship as mass and energy decrease. Could this fundamental action be the essence of how we measure time and space? And if this wave interaction is a contact force and the waves, interconnected as generated waves from sources, form wavefronts then the universe is flattening or losing degrees of three dimensional freedom as the stacking waves align increasing in amplitude aligning waves of gravity that bring all the universe along a plane.

Or "What goes up must go down, dimensionally speaking" -CMT

 

I have to say it here though... Word salad

 

Is NOT word salad...

 

I beg to differ

 

Also, is Illusio the same person?

Edited September 25, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[illuusio]

 

Also, is Illusio the same person?

 

 

 

No I'm not.

[swansont]

Who said it isn't detectable? I said they never thought of the concept of generated from within.

Then why didn't they detect it? If we aren't moving through it, and we aren't stationary with respect to it (since we observe stellar aberration), what options do we have?

[Nobrainer]

Then why didn't they detect it? If we aren't moving through it, and we aren't stationary with respect to it (since we observe stellar aberration), what options do we have?

 

I believe we are moving with it by generating space, via the gravitational wave and through constructive wave interference, aligning with the existing space continuously generated from the time of the big bang.

[illuusio]

Then why didn't they detect it? If we aren't moving through it, and we aren't stationary with respect to it (since we observe stellar aberration), what options do we have?

 

What stellar aberration has to do with ether? We observe stellar aberration because we are moving.

[Nobrainer]

That's the exact reason for speed of light being constant, I totally agree!

Remember Einstein thought that gravitational waves were generated by acceleration, I am stating that I believe they are naturally generated by all mass and energy as the aether and the resulting constructive wave interference through wavefront formation creates a reaction to wavefront formation- gravitation.

 

-----------Here is an unknown prediction--------

"If" this is the case "then" no particle will be found associated with dark matter.

 

Forward time;

"The question about the arrow of time has vexed physicists for a century because “for the most part the fundamental laws of physics don’t distinguish between past and future. They’re time-symmetric,” Carroll said.

 

And closely bound to the issue of time is the concept of entropy, a measure of disorder in the universe. As physicist Ludwig Boltzmann showed a century ago, entropy naturally increases with time. “You can turn an egg into an omelet, but not an omelet into an egg,” Carroll said.

 

But the mystery remains as to why entropy was low in the universe to begin with. The difficulty of that question has long bothered scientists, who most often simply leave it as a puzzle to answer in the future." - Sean Carroll

 

 

Another component of time is relativity. Aging or decaying of a mass or energy can be slowed but not reversed with relative mass and speed differences.

 

And then there is the inflation problem.

 

Here is a possible solution;

 

If time is a function of an emitted gravitational waves from all mass and energy then forward time, increase in entropy in the universe, relative time and the concept of inflation can be explained with this hidden variable process.

 

Concerning the emission of gravitational energy-

It has been shown in the research from the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics that it can be shown gravitational energy is lost in a system.

 

Concerning the mechanism of relative time-

Edited September 25, 2012 by Nobrainer

[Ophiolite]

Local physics laws- "In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surrounds."- wikipedia

My understanding, which I am happy to have corrected, is a fundamental assumption, validated by many, diverse observations, is that the same physical laws apply throughout the universe.

 

Your reference to the principle of locality does not contradict that. We could expand your quote to read "In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly, according to the universal laws of physics, only by its immediate surrounds."

 

So either you are misunderstanding what is going on, or you are using local physics laws in a singular way, or I'm thicker than I thought I was.

[swansont]

What stellar aberration has to do with ether? We observe stellar aberration because we are moving.

Yes. Moving through the ether, if there is one. If we were stationary wrt the ether, we would not observe aberration.

 

Which raises the question of how M-M's null result can mean anything but the non-existence of the ether. If there is some kind of cancellation, as Nobrainer posted, then we shouldn't have aberration. The thing is, a number of tests have been done in response to modified ether theories (aether drag). None of them hold up. You need to address/recognize all of that if you are going to champion an ether theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

 

I believe we are moving with it by generating space, via the gravitational wave and through constructive wave interference, aligning with the existing space continuously generated from the time of the big bang.

What are the ramifications/predictions (specific ones, i.e. we need equations) of such a "model"?

[Nobrainer]

My understanding, which I am happy to have corrected, is a fundamental assumption, validated by many, diverse observations, is that the same physical laws apply throughout the universe.

 

Your reference to the principle of locality does not contradict that. We could expand your quote to read "In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly, according to the universal laws of physics, only by its immediate surrounds."

 

So either you are misunderstanding what is going on, or you are using local physics laws in a singular way, or I'm thicker than I thought I was.

I agree with you and I quoted Wikipedia as a quick definition. I am stating that the reason the laws are universal and governed by local surrounds is because the local surrounds govern the laws of physics by a universal process of mass and energy decay into monopole gravitational waves. Spooky action at a distance, I believe can also be governed locally but that is a subset of a principle and a sidetrack discussion. From forward time to the universe expanding at an increase in acceleration there are two missed processes that explain everything in theory.

1). All mass and energy decay into gravitational waves and

2). All gravitational waves form wavefronts actions creating

A contact force in which the reaction to wavefront formation is gravity. (copyrighted a long time ago).

This overall process explains the actions of the universe by seeing the process we all missed.

[swansont]

Remember Einstein thought that gravitational waves were generated by acceleration, I am stating that I believe they are naturally generated by all mass and energy as the aether and the resulting constructive wave interference through wavefront formation creates a reaction to wavefront formation- gravitation.

 

…

 

Concerning the emission of gravitational energy-

It has been shown in the research from the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics that it can be shown gravitational energy is lost in a system.

But the observation by Hulse and Taylor was for an accelerating system — binary pulsars. You can't use that in support of your hypothesis if you claim acceleration is not required. You need a non-accelerating system to exhibit this. However, the observation you cite gives a scale to the effect, and it's much too small. The energy loss from gravity waves is not the same as gravitational potential energy, i.e. they are different things. We can measure gravity from the sun or the earth or the moon, but not the gravity waves.

[Nobrainer]

But the observation by Hulse and Taylor was for an accelerating system — binary pulsars. You can't use that in support of your hypothesis if you claim acceleration is not required. You need a non-accelerating system to exhibit this. However, the observation you cite gives a scale to the effect, and it's much too small. The energy loss from gravity waves is not the same as gravitational potential energy, i.e. they are different things. We can measure gravity from the sun or the earth or the moon, but not the gravity waves.

Very good points but in my opinion and with my view whether the system is accelerating or not there would still be energy loss, this was just a way that measures it. My view does not exclude energy loss in an accelerating system, it includes accelerating systems and is expected. It is only indirect evidence.

Remember, I am stating that energy loss is in ALL systems and this data shows one system which should be covered in the ALL systems category. My question is why would you expect only an accelerating system to have energy loss or in reality all systems are always creating acceleration and deacceleration if waves contacting each other is a contact force which I claim it is.

a

Another point you brought up is the energy loss is not equal to the gravitational potential. I agree because I am only sighting the 1993 Nobel Prize data as an example of the process of forward time, propagation of the aether, origination of the continuously generated aether, not gravitation. Gravitation, in this sense is nit related to wave emission but to constructive wave interference from all gravitational wave interaction. In other words there is a feedback system that translates wavefront formation into a back action tension. In this sense systems are always guided by the path of least stress/ tension and it fits perfectly with GR except the overall process includes dark energy and dark matter too. One process, in-phase wave emission with constructive wave interference creating gravity(local) and dark matter (non-local). Overall Loss of energy = an increase in space and not equal to gravitational potential.

As overall mass and energy decrease, overall space increases.

Example; take two balls of yarn and place them on the floor 10 feet apart and tie there strings together and walk perpendicular to the center line drawn of the two balls with Rhe two strings together and attached to both balls of yarn.. Two actions happen, the balls, acting as mass, travel towards the actions of the strings (representative as the generated aether, the gravitational wave) increasing in acceleration until they completely unwind matching the speed of the strings (dark energy) and the two balls of string also come closer together until they touch, unwinding together.(gravity). This is a crude and very simple example to explain the difference between the two actions, wave emission and constructive wave interference.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Nobrainer

[ACG52]

I am stating that the reason the laws are universal and governed by local surrounds is because the local surrounds govern the laws of physics by a universal process of mass and energy decay into monopole gravitational waves

 

Are you using a random word generator?