Forward time

[swansont]

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.

But it is an effect that general relativity already predicts and explains, and this it is not evidence that supports your conjecture to the exclusion of relativity. The reason it is evidence for relativity is because it is not something that Newtonian gravity predicts. Similarly, mundane orbits are not evidence of GR, because they are also predicted by Newton. The precession of Mercury is, because Newtonian physics gets that prediction wrong, and GR gets it right.

 

So for you to count anything as evidence, it has to be something not already covered by standard physics.

[illuusio]

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

 

 

Why wouldn't we observe aberration? Is this hand waving or word salad? We are not moving _through_ the ether, we are moving with the ether.

[Nobrainer]

But it is an effect that general relativity already predicts and explains, and this it is not evidence that supports your conjecture to the exclusion of relativity. The reason it is evidence for relativity is because it is not something that Newtonian gravity predicts. Similarly, mundane orbits are not evidence of GR, because they are also predicted by Newton. The precession of Mercury is, because Newtonian physics gets that prediction wrong, and GR gets it right.

 

So for you to count anything as evidence, it has to be something not already covered by standard physics.

Hello

First, concerning the precession of Mercury GR gets it closer but not totally and more importantly GR does NOT take into account an adequate explanation of dark energy or dark matter.

I agree with GR but expand it by showing a different way to understand the process and to look at the math which includes the expanded actions of dark matter, dark energy, etc. Stephen Hawkins has a way for black holes to evaporate. I am suggesting that one process explains everything with a newly proposed mechanism.

Also Einstein stated that that acceleration causing the production of gravitational waves was conjecture( guesswork). He also stated later that he

thought gravitation was related to electeomagnetism but he admitted he did not know. So it is valid to use an indirect confirmation of gravitational waves as an example of energy loss in an isolated system. The fact that there appears to be energy loss does not state why by itself. Every system that exists creates forces and uniquely it doesnt matter standing by itself.

 

My understanding argues that this energy loss is a constructive wave interference which will lead to interesting effects of matter where there is no detectable mass.

Such as the actions of dark matter, dark flow, eddy's of space, dark energy all of these mysterious unexplained actions are part of this one process. It is the overall process that allows gravity, time and space to be forward driven and uniquely flowing irregularities of space itself.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Nobrainer

[swansont]

Why wouldn't we observe aberration? Is this hand waving or word salad? We are not moving _through_ the ether, we are moving with the ether.

If we are moving with it, then why would the light shift, as we see in aberration?

 

First of all, concerning the precession of Mercury GR gets it closer but not totally correct. I agree with GR but expand it by showing a different way to look at the math with includes the expanded actions of dark matter, dark energy, etc. Stephen Hawkins has a way for black holes to evaporate. I am suggesting that one process explains everything with a newly proposed mechanism.

Is that any different than the mechanism that Stephen Hawking has proposed?

 

Also Einstein stated that that acceleration causing the production of gravitational waves was conjecture( guesswork). He also stated later that he

thought gravitation was related to electeomagnetism but he admitted he did not know. So it is valid to use an indirect confirmation of gravitational waves as an example of energy loss in an isolated system. The fact that there appears to be energy loss does not state why by itself. Every system that exists creates forces and uniquely it doesnt matter standing by itself.

It's not conjecture. Regardless of what Einstein said (though without a citation, I don't even accept that he said it). Gravitational radiation is a prediction of GR.

 

My understanding argues that this energy loss is a constructive wave interference which will lead to interesting effects of matter where there is no detectable mass.

Such as the actions of dark matter, dark flow, eddy's of space, dark energy all of these mysterious unexplained actions are part of this one process. It is the overall process that allows gravity, time and space to be forward driven and uniquely flowing irregularities of space itself.

Then you need to make a mathematical model of this, because this description is incredibly vague.

[Nobrainer]

Here is the simple overview of my proposed solution to forward time;

 

The big bang created three types of matter; mass, energy and space. Space is the least potential form of matter, the gravitational wave. The big bang was a massive release of space, the monopole gravitational wave, the remaining potential energy that did not convert to space coalesced and stabolized and continues to decay from all mass and energy into the monopole gravitational wave creating adding to/ creating more space.

 

The entire universe has stays connected as it changes from particle to wave. The universe starts out as the singularity and ends as all wave. Time, space and gravity vacre actions of wave emission and alignment ( increase in amplitude) generated from each quanta.

 

 

So there is an undiscovered law that I incorporate here, I do not know Stephen Hawkins explanation, only mine and it has been cppyrighted for many years, sorry.

 

For mass and energy to be influienced by gravity, for time and space to be relative, dark gravity and gravity, for all this to happen, not only do mass and energy give off continuous in-phase waves since before time as we measure it began, from the big bang but these waves form continuous wavefronts as a "CONTACT FORCE" not a non contact force. This is the new law.

 

When two waves collide creating a new larger wave there is a measurable reaction to wavefront formation and the sources that are continuously generating the waves that collide are effected as a collinear reaction to wavefront formation. This is the mechanism of gravitation and it is a density dependent emission reaction.

 

 

As far as the math? Well good news, two theoritical physicists have incorporated dark matter and dark energy into GR... All I an doing is proposing a possible

Mechanism that is understandable.

 

 

In the 1961 world book encyclopedia

under the G book for Gravitation it says that Einstein dis not know the mechanism of Gravitation bit thought it was related to electromagnetism. This was in 1929, I think.

 

 

 

So the way things stay attached is by all things are emitting gravitational waves which form actions of combining wavefront formations with the reactions we call gravity in short distances and defined with mass and dark matter with long range distances with disturbances in space. Dark energy just becomes F = M x A and you can understand that I believe.

 

I have no problem being wrong, I am just looking to try to understand how the universe operates, how things fall, how time slows when you are further away from mass or if you accelerate in space. And this solution fits everything that I can think. So one process with wave emission and wavefront formation.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Nobrainer

[ACG52]

In the 1961 world book encyclopedia

under the G book for Gravitation it says that Einstein dis not know the mechanism of Gravitation bit thought it was related to electromagnetism. This was in 1929, I think.

 

 

 

[illuusio]

If we are moving with it, then why would the light shift, as we see in aberration?

 

 

Now that I think of what you have said, I think that you are not quite understood aberration of light. Why mixing ether at all with AoL? Sure ether causes light to bend, but not that much in case of Earth. AoL is related to finite speed of light with velocity of observer and his telescope (tube).

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

Now that I think of what you have said, I think that you are not quite understood aberration of light. Why mixing ether at all with AoL? Sure ether causes light to bend, but not that much in case of Earth. AoL is related to finite speed of light with velocity of observer and his telescope (tube).

If there was a fixed ether, why is there aberration? We are not in motion wrt the ether, according to you, and aberration is the result of motion.

[Tres Juicy]

If there was a fixed ether, why is there aberration? We are not in motion wrt the ether, according to you, and aberration is the result of motion.

 

 

Are you (Illuusio) suggesting that not only is there an aether but it is stationary in relation to the Earth (accounting for its orbit and rotation)?

[swansont]

Are you (Illuusio) suggesting that not only is there an aether but it is stationary in relation to the Earth (accounting for its orbit and rotation)?

Post 27 (emphasis added):

Why wouldn't we observe aberration? Is this hand waving or word salad? We are not moving _through_ the ether, we are moving with the ether.

[Tres Juicy]

Post 27 (emphasis added):

 

 

Wow...

 

This would require an incredibly complex motion of the aether...

 

Why would the aether be specifically "attached" to one planet in the entire universe?

 

Why would anyone think that?!

[Nobrainer]

It was a retro footnote because I grew up with encyclopedias and this may be silly but it was the first time I understood why Einstein could not link gravity to the other forces, I was probably 7 or 8 when I looked that up. It is the one I will never forget. Outdated sure, but still has not changed... That is the point.

[swansont]

Here is the simple overview of my proposed solution to forward time;

 

The big bang created three types of matter; mass, energy and space. Space is the least potential form of matter, the gravitational wave. The big bang was a massive release of space, the monopole gravitational wave, the remaining potential energy that did not convert to space coalesced and stabolized and continues to decay from all mass and energy into the monopole gravitational wave creating adding to/ creating more space.

"Monopole gravitational wave" is a phrase that holds no meaning for me. What is a monopole wave?

[Nobrainer]

Wow...

 

This would require an incredibly complex motion of the aether...

 

Why would the aether be specifically "attached" to one planet in the entire universe?

 

Why would anyone think that?!

 

 

In this hypothetical solution the aether is essentially a continuously generated by-product of the other forces and is "attached to ALL mass and energy" because it is generated by all mass and energy. It is the aether combining forming wavefronts with reactions that creates a whole picture of feedback with in the entire universe.

The aether is attached through being an in-phase wavefront formation at each stage of interaction. Gravity is a reaction to a monopole wave alignment of generated waves. Since the waves are generated in a circular, spherical form, the reaction tendency is to clump mass in round forms. It is a quite simple mechanism of waves generated and combining as a "contact force" with a reaction of dark matter and gravity

 

Prediction;

1). Dark matter force lessens as gravitation from mass increases. The closer you are to mass the less empty space wavefront formation creates gravitation.

2). All strong, weak, electromagnetic forces are contact forces between the exchange particles and not the exchange themselves but the waves acting as contact forces themselves.

 

"Monopole gravitational wave" is a phrase that holds no meaning for me. What is a monopole wave?

Sorry, let me explain what I mean; with the other three forces, they are considered particle exchange forces or dipoles. Particles, in a wave, acting as a wave are given off by one substance and absorbed by another. I am stating that I believe the real action is a wave aligning force created by the wave of particles and not by the exchange itself. So attraction is a wave alignment, increasing the amplitude and repulsion is the waves creating a field that bumps into the other field because they can not align in this spatial arrangement.

 

 

Now with gravitation it is a generated wave call it gravitons but it is not a dipole, it can not be absorbed into mass or energy, it is the end product of decay. As it is emitted and it collides with other emitted waves, all with the same frequency and wavelength forming a feedback system that adjusts the sources that are emitting the waves to continue

to emit the waves with the least amount of distructive interference, or wave friction ( just made that term up for the point). So these monopole waves, emitted waves that can not ab absorbed into mass or energy create the laws of physics both locally and tie the entire universe together.

 

Thanks for being nice about everything and allowing me to try to explain.

 

I am stating that all attractive forces are wave alignment forces but gravity is so much weaker because it is a monopole wave force, one end and not a dipole wave force , two ends.

 

Here is another prediction, given the right circumstances and adequate time, an entire galaxy with a black hole as the center could establish and equilibrium wave synchronization with all the mass and energy in that system and act as one all rotating like a plate rotates, each point on a rotating plate rotates one revolution at the same time.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Nobrainer

[swansont]

Sorry, let me explain what I mean; with the other three forces, they are considered particle exchange forces or dipoles. Particles, in a wave, acting as a wave are given off by one substance and absorbed by another. I am stating that I believe the real action is a wave aligning force created by the wave of particles and not by the exchange itself. So attraction is a wave alignment, increasing the amplitude and repulsion is the waves creating a field that bumps into the other field because they can not align in this spatial arrangement.

 

 

Now with gravitation it is a generated wave call it gravitons but it is not a dipole, it can not be absorbed into mass or energy, it is the end product of decay. As it is emitted and it collides with other emitted waves, all with the same frequency and wavelength forming a feedback system that adjusts the sources that are emitting the waves to continue

to emit the waves with the least amount of distructive interference, or wave friction ( just made that term up for the point). So these monopole waves, emitted waves that can not ab absorbed into mass or energy create the laws of physics both locally and tie the entire universe together.

 

Thanks for being nice about everything and allowing me to try to explain.

 

I am stating that all attractive forces are wave alignment forces but gravity is so much weaker because it is a monopole wave force, one end and not a dipole wave force , two ends.

 

Here is another prediction, given the right circumstances and adequate time, an entire galaxy with a black hole as the center could establish and equilibrium wave synchronization with all the mass and energy in that system and act as one all rotating like a plate rotates, each point on a rotating plate rotates one revolution at the same time.

Nothing here convinces me you are using the terminology the way actual physicists use it. i.e. it's word salad.

[Tres Juicy]

Nothing here convinces me you are using the terminology the way actual physicists use it. i.e. it's word salad.

 

It's gone beyond that now, it's become word soup designed to mask the fact that he has no evidence or even mathematical knowledge to back up what he's saying

[Nobrainer]

Think different- Albert Einstein

 

 

Sarcastically, I am not aware that the actual physicists have figured it all out and are perfect. With great ideas comes different thinking.

 

 

 

Nothing here convinces me you are using the terminology the way actual physicists use it. i.e. it's word salad.

With respect to using today's terminology, you may be correct. I am historically correcting an error. The error is; the false fact that wave interaction is a non-contact force. Wave interaction is a contact force and it is an historical term that has been long forgotten but makes all the difference. With respect to waves and understanding the process of the universe, I do care and understand it. Like you, I am sure, we both want to seek truth. In thinking for the last 100 years or so wave interaction has been thought of as a "non-contact" force. What this means is that they eliminated Newton's laws of motion with respect to wavefront formation. And yes, the terms I use are hundreds of years old because that is the time period as to when the error happened so out of respect for the field of physics I am correcting the error at the period of understand of that time. It can be much easier for a layman to understand in retrospect.

So putting the "word salad" talk away for a moment and addressing the real issue not a side issue, I stand by wave interaction having to follow Newton's laws of motion.

Here is a concrete example;

There are two vibrating balls in a medium, water, generating waves of an in-phase fixed frequency and wavelength in that medium. The balls generate waves and There is an action when the waves intersect, the waves collide and reform into a new circular wave with a new center. The centers of the waves before they collided was the individual centers of the equal size balls. The center of the new wave is the exact middle between the balls and the reaction to this newly created wave is that the balls come together and touch so that the waves appear to create this new wave with the least amount of field stress and tension. This is the actual reason for gravity explained so that anyone can understand.

 

To me, the word salad of today's Theoritical Physicist has confused everyone to the point of distancing everyone to understand the physical mechanism of how the universe works.

This is not word salad here;

1). Mass and energy naturally decay creating space, via continuing release of the gravitational wave.

 

2). When in-phase waves collide as a contact force, there is a reaction to this new wave formation. These reactions are the reasons behind gravitation and dark matter.

Dark energy and dark matter and gravitation are actions grouped together as "Dark Wave" actions. Now anyone who does not understand this process is talking "word salad". - thanks for the idea of word salad..

 

 

 

(I hope the terminology is acceptable so far, if not rewrite it in a way that is acceptable to you and show me. My point is that you are being dismissive over terms and not concepts and YOU are losing out. It is you that is wasting time if you are not getting this because you have a problem with translation and not concept.)

 

It's gone beyond that now, it's become word soup designed to mask the fact that he has no evidence or even mathematical knowledge to back up what he's saying

Your mostly wrong on both accounts, well I do have problems with the math, yes but I can struggle through it sometimes. The point is not the math, math can be adapted to any process.

 

 

But I am explaining the actual process which accounts for the actions dark matter, dark energy and gravity.

Here is an interesting angle if you are really interested in the math.

"ScienceDaily (Sep. 6, 2012) — A pair of mathematicians -- one from Indiana University and the other from Sichuan University in China -- have proposed a unified theory of dark matter and dark energy that alters Einstein's equations describing the fundamentals of gravity."

 

 

Now you can still complain but you would not be contributing to understanding. So if you need to see the math- I refer you to follow up with their paper. I did not create the math, I just understand the process that the math explains...

Thank you for allowing me to clarify.

 

It's gone beyond that now, it's become word soup designed to mask the fact that he has no evidence or even mathematical knowledge to back up what he's saying

Your mostly wrong on both accounts, well I do have problems with the math, yes but I can struggle through it sometimes. The point is not the math, math can be adapted to any process.

 

 

But I am explaining the actual process which accounts for the actions dark matter, dark energy and gravity.

Here is an interesting angle if you are really interested in the math.

"ScienceDaily (Sep. 6, 2012) — A pair of mathematicians -- one from Indiana University and the other from Sichuan University in China -- have proposed a unified theory of dark matter and dark energy that alters Einstein's equations describing the fundamentals of gravity."

 

 

Now you can still complain but you would not be contributing to understanding. So if you need to see the math- I refer you to follow up with their paper. I did not create the math, I just understand the process that the math explains...

Thank you for allowing me to clarify.

 

Forward time, dark matter, dark energy lead to one inescapable conclusion; the conservation of energy and momentum of has to be violated, period. The reason it is violated is because mass and energy decay into space itself causing the expansion of the universe. Dark energy is a constant force on a decreasing mass over time. Simply stated, F = M x A.

The mechanism is as follows;

The big bang created the force via release of mass and energy and space, but the space continues to decay via release of the gravitational wave expanding space and at the same time constructively wave interfering creating the force to continue constantly in the direction of the mass and energy original movement. This results on a measured mass that is decreasing in mass with this constant force.

 

Einstein created his theories without the knowledge of dark energy and dark matter so he used the conservation laws as fact. But the Energy- Momentum tensor of normal mass and energy is not conserved in this process and the new understand arises.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Nobrainer

[MigL]

The reason your example may work with balls in water is because water waves are in a medium, ie water, there is a distinct difference between water and the wave, they are not the same thing. EM waves on the other hand haven't, nor need a medium. The photons which comprise them are bosons which follow Bose-Einstein statistics. This means you can stack as many as you want into the same state with no repercussions or interactions. So what is the mechanism by which this'decay' from EM waves to gravitatonal monopole ( HUH ?? ) waves happens ? What is the mechanism for mass and energy 'decay' to create space through the continuous release of gravitational waves. It has been experimentally confirmed that the half-life of a proton is greater than 10^32 yrs ( 10,000 billion, billion, billion years !!!), how does that jibe with your decay of mass-energy into space ??

 

Or does it all sound so unbelievably strange because you are using 100 yr old terminology ????

Edited September 27, 2012 by MigL

[Nobrainer]

The reason your example may work with balls in water is because water waves are in a medium, ie water, there is a distinct difference between water and the wave, they are not the same thing. EM waves on the other hand haven't, nor need a medium. The photons which comprise them are bosons which follow Bose-Einstein statistics. This means you can stack as many as you want into the same state with no repercussions or interactions. So what is the mechanism by which this'decay' from EM waves to gravitatonal monopole ( HUH ?? ) waves happens ? What is the mechanism for mass and energy 'decay' to create space through the continuous release of gravitational waves. It has been experimentally confirmed that the half-life of a proton is greater than 10^32 yrs ( 10,000 billion, billion, billion years !!!), how does that jibe with your decay of mass-energy into space ??

 

Or does it all sound so unbelievably strange because you are using 100 yr old terminology ????

 

The reason that two or more sources generating in-phase waves attract each other in a medium is because it is an undiscovered law that has been overlooked for 400 years that allows the waves to form wavefronts with reactions.

 

It is not hard to understand every action in the universe with this simple process that has been unknown/ ignored until now. Stating that infinite stacking of boson's is yesterday's news and creates confusion and unknown actions such as not having a reason for dark energy or dark matter. By correcting this wrong thinking, wave emission and wave front formations act as if matter exists (dark matter and dark energy). Also Stephen Hawkins even (believes space has a aether-like function as to moving mass and energy during inflation. Again the aether is back on. Semantics become the sticking point.

By mistaking the obvious, and thinking there is no aether then you have multiple disconnected explanations that are incomplete like GR and dark energy.

I will answer your questions in a question;

 

A swimming pool's water level never changes, whether it rains all day or whether it is hot and sunny and has not rained for a month. To the life of the swimming pool,

time stands still, what is the mechanism and why?

[swansont]

With respect to using today's terminology, you may be correct. I am historically correcting an error. The error is; the false fact that wave interaction is a non-contact force. Wave interaction is a contact force and it is an historical term that has been long forgotten but makes all the difference. With respect to waves and understanding the process of the universe, I do care and understand it. Like you, I am sure, we both want to seek truth.

 

Truth? Not really. I seek models that describe how nature behaves. All we can do is find out if the models do a good job by testing them. There is no truth-finding, per se. That's philosophy. To quote Prof. Jones, "If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. "

 

This is the actual reason for gravity explained so that anyone can understand.

How do you test it to see if it's right?

 

To me, the word salad of today's Theoritical Physicist has confused everyone to the point of distancing everyone to understand the physical mechanism of how the universe works.

This is not word salad here;

1). Mass and energy naturally decay creating space, via continuing release of the gravitational wave.

How do you test this to see if it's right? What predictions does this statement lead to?

 

2). When in-phase waves collide as a contact force, there is a reaction to this new wave formation. These reactions are the reasons behind gravitation and dark matter.

Dark energy and dark matter and gravitation are actions grouped together as "Dark Wave" actions. Now anyone who does not understand this process is talking "word salad". - thanks for the idea of word salad..

How do you test this to see if it's right? What predictions does this statement lead to?

 

 

Einstein created his theories without the knowledge of dark energy and dark matter so he used the conservation laws as fact. But the Energy- Momentum tensor of normal mass and energy is not conserved in this process and the new understand arises.

You speak of tensors and yet do not do math.

 

Conservation laws stem from continuous symmetries; energy is conserved because of time-translation symmetry. How is this violated?

[Nobrainer]

The math was done by prof Ma and Wang in incorporating dark energy and dark matter into GR. In order to do the math correctly the conservation of energy- momentum tensor has to be violated and that is the assumption that they made in there model.

 

Admittedly I have conceptualized the process of the universe and copyrighted it in 2004. It's old to me. Step by step i put all the pieces together and it took a while. If gravity accounts for the actions of dark matter and energy what would the mechanism be like? And the solution was I interesting to find, it changes and clarifies everything.

In order for the universe to work in only three dimensions, time, space and gravity have to become measurable actions of a baseline process. As sound has relative qualities because there is a fundamental energy exchange from a source into a wave, it became obvious that Einstein's relativity by definition has this fundamental process. There was no other way in tbree dimensions only that time and space could be variables. They had to be wave functions. That was the biggest hurdle for me. Once I got that then everything fit. And that meant that space itself was included in the laws of conservation. With space as part of the conceptual equation then all the observations which made no sense now made perfect sense. Dark matter and dark energy become wave functions also.

Gravity, dark matter became reactions to the reactions of waves forming wavefronts and all sorts of predictions fell into place. one prediction is that this new "dark wave" would always be trying to form wave fronts and galaxies under the right circumstances would violate Kepler's laws and rotate in plate-like uniformity with a black hole In the center. Dark flows could happen, no mass will ever be found to cause dark matter because dark matter is a function of wavefront formation. And on and on.

I then traced the initial error in thinking to a principle called the Huygens principle and realized everyone ignored the back action that the principle describes. The reason the ignored it is because they did not see a reverse wave but I realized there should not be a reverse wave forming because the sources are continuously closer than tbe reverse wave and the every is translated to stress- tension or gravitation between the sources generating the waves. I realized we all missed tbe simple fact that wavefront formation is a contact force and Newton's laws of motion apply. And tben I created a simple test. I dropped ping pong balls in water to create ripples and watched the reaction to wavefront formation....

 

That is a brief overview of how I took the universe apart to look inside and discover the mechanism of operation. Every now and then I will share it with who ever might be u retested but my goal was to understand how the mysteries work that is all. No fame, no glory just no confusion. I just wanted to know. And it is funny to be this far ahead of Theoritical physicists. And the temper tantrums people have, wow! Back in the mid 90!s I though I was wrong because I had Rhe universe increasing in acceleration so I put it down ard wrote a comedy screenplay. Then out of the blue I read about dark energy and ....eventually copyrighted it and published it in a general science journal abd then left it alone for a long while. I get it. If you don't that is okay...

There is one mystery left for me to create a working model , my understanding of the universe leads to an interesting proposition. In my opinion,Einstein was wrong about spooky action at a distance and instantaneous communication is possible and does not violate any physics laws. Funny that I can see answers when others can't. I think it is because I sometimes spend a month or two thinking about one thing until I have disected it to death.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Nobrainer

[MigL]

ou've created a universe in your own mind which works a certain way, makes no prdictions and is untestable. To everyone else it is unnecessarily complex,or simply wrong as it involves throwing out every scientific insight of the last 300 yrs ( since Hyugens ). And it seems no one can convince you of your narrow-mindedness or ignorance of physics. You seem to think everyone else has blinders on.

 

I think this is the reason I don't like to post in speculations. Sometimes the subjects are interesting but it attracts the wrong kind of people.

 

 

[Nobrainer]

No predictions? - you are ignorant and wrong. Actually read precious posts. You straight out lie, why?

Predictions

1). Violations of Kepler's laws- 2nd law most obvious

 

"KARACHI. A team of academicians and their assistants observed Venus in the sky during the 73-second period of total darkness besides witnessing the violation of Kepler’s second law of planetary motion in the form of variation in aerial velocity." -UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI

Department of Mathematics

Astronomy Program

 

 

2). No dark mass with bw found with the actions of dark matter

-Independent analyses of data from the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope have found no trace of low-mass dark matter – the mysterious substance thought to make up much of the universe. The results appear to go against recent direct evidence for low-mass dark matter, although some physicists believe there is no conflict.- physicsworld.com

 

 

3). Gravitational energy should be lost in an isolated system as the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics shows;

 

"Of particular interest has been the possibility of verifying with great precision the theory's prediction that the system should lose energy by emitting gravitational waves in about the same way that a system of moving electrical charges emits electromagnetic waves." press release - The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Nobrainer

[swansont]

The math was done by prof Ma and Wang in incorporating dark energy and dark matter into GR. In order to do the math correctly the conservation of energy- momentum tensor has to be violated and that is the assumption that they made in there model.

Are you discussing the work that they did? Or just adopting some framework because it seems to agree with you? Regardless, a proposal does not an accepted theory make.

 

 

Admittedly I have conceptualized the process of the universe and copyrighted it in 2004.

As an aside, you've repeat this as if it means something. Copyright attaches to whatever you write. It does not lend any weight to the veracity of what was written.

 

——

 

So, are you going to discuss the predictions and tests of your model?

 

 

1). Violations of Kepler's laws- 2nd law most obvious

 

"KARACHI. A team of academicians and their assistants observed Venus in the sky during the 73-second period of total darkness besides witnessing the violation of Kepler’s second law of planetary motion in the form of variation in aerial velocity." -UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI

Department of Mathematics

Astronomy Program

Cite?

 

2). No dark mass with bw found with the actions of dark matter

-Independent analyses of data from the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope have found no trace of low-mass dark matter – the mysterious substance thought to make up much of the universe. The results appear to go against recent direct evidence for low-mass dark matter, although some physicists believe there is no conflict.- physicsworld.com

Cite? Just giving the website — and a pop-sci site, at that — is insufficient.

 

3). Gravitational energy should be lost in an isolated system as the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics shows;

 

"Of particular interest has been the possibility of verifying with great precision the theory's prediction that the system should lose energy by emitting gravitational waves in about the same way that a system of moving electrical charges emits electromagnetic waves." press release - The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

This is accounted for already with standard physics. As I've explained, this cannot be used to support any other theories. You have to find something that GR doesn't predict/explain.

[Nobrainer]

You left that one wide open--- that's funny but I don't have to use your own words...

Anyhow let's get this straight first,

The 1993 Nobel prize in physics did this for me, it showed me that gravitational waves exist, are emitted and have a speed. It indirectly confirms their existence. That is why I can use it because I was asked to show proof of what I am saying and I am saying that Gravitational waves exist, are emitted and have a speed, frequency and wavelength.

Here is a quote from the Nobel Prize commitee 1993

"Here a new, revolutionary "space laboratory" has been obtained for testing Einstein's general theory of relativity and alternative theories of gravity."

The last four words allow should show you you are wrong. Any theory with emitted gravitational waves is not eliminated. This is indirect proof of gravitational waves. I believe I was answering a question about proof of emitted gravitational waves, this is proof. No one owns the proof and you do not make any sense.

Two parts

1). All mass and energy decay creating the action of energy transfer into gravitational waves- I agree. Where I differ is with the concept that gravitational wave emission is the clock of time, and the generated space. The emission of THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVE EMISSION IS SPACE-TIME, created by and the reason behind the big bang.( maybe this part should be in speculation, haha) The big bang created space, mass and energy but I believe space is the monopole gravitational wave created at the big bang and the remaining mass and energy (4%?) still decays as an energy transfer into a wave with a specific speed, frequency and wavelength from the source.