Time Flow and Black holes

[PureGenius]

I will say this I think I may have figured out a way to incorporate higher speeds into relativity .

 

I will state some new postulates.

I kn

No object can attain infinite velocity.

 

No object can attain infinite mass.

 

Light equals mass at below the speed of light

 

The Mass of any object is equal to zero at the speed of light

 

 

Mass equals energy field strength at the speed of light.

M c = e=mc2. Xs5 = New e. field

 

 

The calculation is this. M= e at c or m=0mass at c = e=

Light equals mass at 0 velocity

 

Moving at 1c energy fields strengthen by 5 times

 

Mass is reduced by 100 percent at the speed of light

After an object reaches the speed of light it must be converted to energy using Einstein's conversion, then this number becomes the new base number for the second speed of light vector

When slowing by one c reverse the process and the conversion to arrive at the original starting mass once original velocity is attained.

 

Time dilation is equal to energy field strength increase ie 5 times base time

Time period at 1c Xs5= expanded timeframe

 

Exceeding the speed of light, converts mass to energy slowing down below c energy returns to mass so when objects slow below c one reverses all postulates.

So mass at c equals 0 +e variable which is original mass converted using e=mc2 Xs5 for 1c

So if you reduce v by 1c. Take e convert it using e=mc2 divide by 5 for each reduction of 1c

 

 

I am Shawn j. Thanks for reading

Edited August 28, 2013 by PureGenius

[PureGenius]

High Velocity Relativity

 

We know light will travel through most mediums and this is always in a uniform velocity, my postulate is the instant light slows below the speed of light ie through atmosphere or water there has already been a translation to a lower energy potential. Also as matter accelerates to the speed of light , it has been losing mass , but not within its system ie galaxy etc only as an absence, of its interaction, with the electromagnetic forces outside itself, so at one fifth the speed of light +1/5 of c minus1/5 of mass = + 1/5 energy e=mc2 = energy potential, for the mass of the total system

, at the next vector of 1/5 c + - the same. Extrapolating up to the speed of light we just exchange all mass to e=mc2 Xs 5= energy potential. This exchange is the explanation of actual time dilation, for this increased energy potential equates to base time +5Xs = New Time. As the electromagnetic forces of the universe are reduced, so is the corresponding energy within that system released by a factor of five.So the net result is 1m 0c= converted 0m 1c= 5Xs e. Whatever electromagnetic force is effecting our galaxy, it is clear that force can be nullified by attaining the speed of light at least by a factor of five, consider it a type of time escape velocity. As in to escape earths atmosphere one must attain a velocity of approximately 25,000 mph. So extrapolating 186,000 miles per second is 1 factor of our universes speed limit. Creating a 5 times time dilation each factor of c up to 930,000 times base time.Then time most likely cannot flow forward. 34,596,000,000 miles per second is our universes speed limit. And our time dilation limit is 930,000 Xs base time. I have allot more if anyone is interested in publishing my ideas e-mail me.

Edited August 30, 2013 by PureGenius

[PureGenius]

I calculated all the variables including time dilation and speeds above the speed of light ,using my High Velocity Relativity theory, I arrived at the conclusion .That our universe is11,542,458,272 years old. I am currently working on my black hole theory but this was a fun distraction.

Edited August 31, 2013 by PureGenius

[ajb]

Currently the measurements are saying that the Universe is about 13 billion years old. Your figure does not quite fit and of course we see no reasoning for your age.

[PureGenius]

the size of the universe is 200000000000000000000 miles across., or 20 sextillion miles. I have also recalculated the age of the universe to be exactly 16,000,000,000 or 16 billion years. I'm just using a combination of extrapolation mathematics and High Velocity Relativity . I do all my calculations on a five inch tablet, my paper notebook is only five inches I completed all of this in about ten inches of workspace . That's why Einstien said imagination is more important than knowledge .It's about perspective really.

 

 

 

I am Shawn j and these numbers are accurate.

Edited September 1, 2013 by PureGenius

[Klaynos]

these numbers are accurate.

Prove it.

[ACG52]

So far, all I've seen are bland, unsupported and inaccurate assertions, completely uncoupled from any actual observation or experiment. Using the vedas as a scientific source is nonsensical. As is simply making up 'equations' which have no meaning.

[Klaynos]

So far, all I've seen are bland, unsupported and inaccurate assertions, completely uncoupled from any actual observation or experiment. Using the vedas as a scientific source is nonsensical. As is simply making up 'equations' which have no meaning.

I agree. Coupled with statements about speed without saying what that speed is relative to is completely meaningless.

[arc]

the size of the universe is 200000000000000000000 miles across., or 20 sextillion miles. I have also recalculated the age of the universe to be exactly 16,000,000,000 or 16 billion years. I'm just using a combination of extrapolation mathematics and High Velocity Relativity . I do all my calculations on a five inch tablet, my paper notebook is only five inches I completed all of this in about ten inches of workspace . That's why Einstien said imagination is more important than knowledge .It's about perspective really.

 

 

 

I am Shawn j and these numbers are accurate.

 

Using miles to express ass-tronomical distances is as logical as your car's odometer measuring distance in widths of a hair.

 

I think my car gets 200000000000000000000 hairs per tank full, but I'm a little fuzzy on the math.

[swansont]

The rules of speculation demand a model, ways of testing it, or some sort of evidence to support the claim. What have you got?

[PureGenius]

Well I would explain the math but it would take ten pages , The model is a dual universe the basis of all my calculations is high velocity relativity and the basic structure is purely mathematical and the conceptual make up is beyond the scope of this forum. I understand that I don't show my calculations but I do most of the formulaic variables in my head and writing then out might take 50 percent more time and that would be extremely inefficient, I will say my system conserves more energy than current physics by a factor of five.

Base speed 31.596 billion 5times base time dilation =

998307216000000000000 miles across I just realized this must be doubled for actual size our universe 5 times c2 = diameter. 9 sextillion miles across.Divided by speed of light 186,000 mps

5367243096774193.548. That's five quadrillion years at 1Xs the speed of light from one side to the other. Now if we divide this in half we should have an estimate of The age of our universe, 10734486193548387.096 divided by five for times speed of light dilation =I incorrectly used just 5 times instead 5Xs c should have been930,000 Xs substituted then divide 11542458272.633. Divided by c = 62056.227. Age of our universe... accurate. Or age universe will exist. So energy has a direct relation to time and the velocity is only a means of attaining that increase of energy .but this equation also limits the amount of space to time dilated specifications. Ie 9 sextillion miles across our universe. Any more than that and no object will ever be able to get there. Without suffering absolute time stoppage. Ie every electron every planet ie all energy nullified. These are some v of my calculations without corrections.

Edited September 1, 2013 by PureGenius

[arc]

The rules of speculation demand a model, ways of testing it, or some sort of evidence to support the claim. What have you got?

 

Ummmm, I think I still have a half a tank of gas?

[ACG52]

Well I would explain the math but it would take ten pages , The model is a dual universe the basis of all my calculations is high velocity relativity and the basic structure is purely mathematical and the conceptual make up is beyond the scope of this forum. I understand that I don't show my calculations but I do most of the formulaic variables in my head and writing then out might take 50 percent more time and that would be extremely inefficient, I will say my system conserves more energy than current physics by a factor of five.

Base speed 31.596 billion 5times base time dilation =

998307216000000000000 miles across I just realized this must be doubled for actual size our universe 5 times c2 = diameter. 9 sextillion miles across.Divided by speed of light 186,000 mps

5367243096774193.548. That's five quadrillion years at 1Xs the speed of light from one side to the other. Now if we divide this in half we should have an estimate of The age of our universe, 10734486193548387.096 divided by five for times speed of light dilation =I incorrectly used just 5 times instead 5Xs c should have been930,000 Xs substituted then divide 11542458272.633. Divided by c = 62056.227. Age of our universe... accurate. Or age universe will exist. So energy has a direct relation to time and the velocity is only a means of attaining that increase of energy .but this equation also limits the amount of space to time dilated specifications. Ie 9 sextillion miles across our universe. Any more than that and no object will ever be able to get there. Without suffering absolute time stoppage. Ie every electron every planet ie all energy nullified. These are some v of my calculations without corrections.

This seems to be a lot of numbers and buzz words thrown out completely at random. The mean nothing, have nothing to do any physical theory.. There's no way to test anything, there are no predictions that can in any way be verified, (although there many which can be falsified with the most basic observations and experiment), there are no calculations because " the conceptual make up is beyond the scope of this forum."

 

 

swansont, on 01 Sept 2013 - 2:06 PM, said:

The rules of speculation demand a model, ways of testing it, or some sort of evidence to support the claim. What have you got?

[PureGenius]

In other words you don't understand it the idea that I've invented a better way to measure space time . I find it telling that acg arc and swan have formed a committee against me thanks for the compliment. It's like your against New ideas not very scientific if you ask me . I have also noticed that I've shown allot more supporting structure for my theory than half the members of this forum.

Edited September 1, 2013 by PureGenius

[doG]

the basis of all my calculations is high velocity relativity and the basic structure is purely mathematical and the conceptual make up is beyond the scope of this forum...

 

How arrogant...

[PureGenius]

Ummmm, I think I still have a half a tank of gas?

 

This seems to be a lot of numbers and buzz words thrown out completely at random. The mean nothing, have nothing to do any physical theory.. There's no way to test anything, there are no predictions that can in any way be verified, (although there many which can be falsified with the most basic observations and experiment), there are no calculations because " the conceptual make up is beyond the scope of this forum.":wacko:

 

Funny I wonder if any of you are capable of understanding the complex interrelationship between time velocity energy and consciousness , I'd like to see your individual calculations for the age and size of the universe show your work so everyone can see your advanced knowledge of physics , As I see it what I've done is revolutionary and you all should be thanking me .

[ACG52]

In other words you don't understand it the idea that I've invented a better way to measure space time . I find it telling that acg arc and swan have formed a committee against me thanks for the compliment. It's like your against New ideas not very scientific if you ask me . I have also noticed that I've shown allot more supporting structure for my theory than half the members of this forum.

In other words, you don't understand that you've presented nothing at all which in any way supports anything you've posted. Everything you've posted directly contradicts all actual measurements, all actual observations, in fact, all of physics as has been verified over the last hundred years, by thousands of experiments, with results accurate to 14 decimal places. You're telling the forum that thousands of highly educated physicists and Nobel Prize winners were and continue to be wrong, and you've got it right.

 

But nobody here will understand your 'calculations' or your 'conceptual makeup'.

Edited September 1, 2013 by ACG52

[PureGenius]

In other words, you don't understand that you've presented nothing at all which in any way supports anything you've posted. Everything you've posted directly contradicts all actual measurements, all actual observations, in fact, all of physics as has been verified over the last hundred years, by thousands of experiments, with results accurate to 14 decimal places. You're telling the forum that thousands of highly educated physicists and Nobel Prize winners were and continue to be wrong, and you've got it right.

But nobody here will understand your 'calculations' or your 'conceptual makeup'.

 

I think I've given all the necessary variables for the concept of time dilation I did not go to college , and most of my theory can be found in modern physics papers Einstein Stephen hawking etc, you have to understand I'm only working with theoretical physics, as far as I am aware no one person could say 100 years of scientific study was wrong. I think I'm building on current theories, it's a matter of perspective and I could be wrong and I do make mistakes .

[ACG52]

I think I've given all the necessary variables for the concept of time dilation

 

What you've actually shown is that you don't understand the concept of time dilation or relativity at all.

 

You've simply made up numbers, and in some cases tried to justify them by referencing Hindu religious mythology, which seems absurd.

Edited September 1, 2013 by ACG52

[PureGenius]

It took me one hour to recalculate the size and age of our universe using high velocity Relativity and I'm wondering when you guys are going to be done with your calculations ? Out

[ACG52]

But your 'recalculation' is meaningless, and your results aren't anywhere near what's actually observed, your 'high velocity Relativity' is something you've made up.

 

Real calculations, actually based on General Relativity give an age of the universe of 13.7 billion years, and a radius of the OBSERVABLE universe at 48 billion light years. These are calculation based on observation, not imagination, and they've been done by many people over many years.

 

Claiming you're right and the rest of the world is wrong has a definite air of the absurd.

[imatfaal]

Base speed 31.596x10^9 5times base time dilation =

998307216x10^12 miles across I just realized this must be doubled for actual size our universe 5 times c2 = diameter. 9 sextillion miles across.

NB I changed to standard form to read it more easily

 

So you have a speed 31.596e6 (what units) which you SQUARE (not 5times base time dilation what ever that means) to get 9.98307216e20 miles. Speeds squared [(m/s)^2 DNE m] do not give distance. So what are you doing?

 

You were told you must provide a model - in my opinion you have just typed some stuff. If your next post does not explain, to at least some minimum standard, the first line of your model then I will report the post and ask another moderator to consider closing the thread.

[PureGenius]

But your 'recalculation' is meaningless, and your results aren't anywhere near what's actually observed, your 'high velocity Relativity' is something you've made up.

 

Real calculations, actually based on General Relativity give an age of the universe of 13.7 billion years, and a radius of the OBSERVABLE universe at 48 billion light years. These are calculation based on observation, not imagination, and they've been done by many people over many years.

 

Claiming you're right and the rest of the world is wrong has a definite air of the absurd.

 

Acg you did not show your calculations. At least I tried, I'm not going to apologize for pushing the limits of theoretical physics .

[ACG52]

 

 

At least I tried, I'm not going to apologize for pushing the limits of theoretical physics .

You're not pushing the limits of physics, you're simply making stuff up without any justification or basis and claiming it has some meaning.

[PureGenius]

Closing this thread would be ludicrous , at almost a thousand views and some very interesting debate your going to petition to have thus thread shut down. I may be arrogant but I'm not stupid, and I've stated over and over that I didn't have the education level of a PhD. Why does this thread receive so much attention from moderators ? I think just on the merits of my popularization of relativity this thread deserves to remain open.