Black hole question revised, is it a recycler of time?

[DEADspace69!!]

The Idea for me is to prove that gravity is a direct response to the removal of space time between the nucleus of an atom and its surrounding particles and that a black hole is responsible for galactic and universal time recirculation. It seems to me if you squeeze out all of the atomic space in an already dense object like a Neutron star, the result would be an event such as a black hole. However it should not have gravitation field because it would have nothing to create it other than the illusion of gravity. I theorize that when matter is pushed into the black hole by the vacuum of space and released via the jet's that in fact the energy ejected has actually been in time reset to zero time that can be measured using relative time. Essentially recreating a new time for those particles. after they have been stripped of their current status of time but not energy. So I theorize that the universe is neither expanding or collapsing, merely recycling over and over. I say this because the Hubble theory shows universal movement of galaxies away from each other the further they are from the observer this would only make sense to me if they were not repulsed by the modern physics solutions but by the result due to the ejections of zero time atoms into space from the galactic center or black hole, where depending on the relative time to each other this would either repulse or attract each other, similar to one mass cannot occupy the same space at the same time, two slightly different relative time's also should obey this law. When I look at time distortions like this, instead of gravity causing universal movement, I see the result of time racing to its symbiotic relationship with atoms, passing by existing atoms of a different time slightly effecting or slowing their relative time as they approach their target atom needed to exist in space time, that movement I would call it gaining time which may explain why time appears to slow down the further you are from a large mass, I would also conclude this would work all the way down to the sub- atomic level and beyond. So the closer you get to an atoms core the faster time travels, this also works in reverse so the further away you are from the center the slower the relative time is. So what I meant in my last post was to create a probe with the highest density of layered matter I could think of, a perfectly spheroid of carbon, calculating the time relative to the decay of whatever the mass is at the singularity, holding it somehow near the event horizon till all atoms were aligned towards the center of the black hole, this also should accelerate time for those particles, then repositioning it near at furthest point away from its axis of rotation to begin its path towards it. With the already time accelerated particles, sending it thru either pole which I believe to have a small tube of zero time kind of like the eye of a hurricane but made of zero time where there is no movement, directly into the black hole's center, where relative time and the reset to zero time event might transpire. The result that I am hoping to achieve is to send a time stamp into a black hole, measure the delta time to relative time when it reappears thus proving my theory of the non existence of gravity, and replacing gravity it with the idea that every atom, galaxy, and universe is at a slightly different time, but there is universal time limit as well.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Moved to speculations. Please take a moment to read the rules of that forum.

 

Thanks

 

[DEADspace69!!]

1.Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

 

Ok, I will provide a case that science can measure and a prediction that is testable. I will need a little time to put it together. However I think the observations of galaxies and stars having the apearance of being both older and younger along with the Hubble measurements of galactic repulsion already shows it. Also this is just a theory and that's what we need more of in this science of physics these days. Thank you for your input. Now I need to get to it, because time is ??????

[Phi for All]

Also this is just a theory...

Hypothesis. A theory in science is the most trustworthy explanation you can ever get.

 

Every time someone says, "This is just a theory...", a researcher loses his grant money.

[Greg H.]

Hypothesis. A theory in science is the most trustworthy explanation you can ever get.

 

Every time someone says, "This is just a theory...", a researcher loses his grant money.

Please, think of the researchers!

[DEADspace69!!]

Before I present a case that science can measure and a prediction that is testable and in regards to the comments posted by Greg H.,Phi for All and imatfaal I have question for all of you. Do you or would you all still consider my case recomendations for science to study if I was infact just an uneducated, raised in an area where the onl way to understand physics was with only and exclusively the use of thought experimentation for conclusions to how the universe works and why. Where I was raised there was no one who could understand the language of science and physics when I spoke of it to them so they called me crazy. They would say things like, what the hell are you talking about. I merely would say something like this "there must be something faster than light" or "if we use physics to move that object using that piece of wood and that rock you cal lift or move that", or " what do you think about this?". Making statements like this to the people where I was brought up with had a two folded result. On one hand the thought I was mentally gone, some kind of outcast, but when they couldnt figure out how to do something, I was the one they asked in private how I would do it. Now before I go any further with a description for my case, you need to know a few thigns about me.

1. I do not use text books for any other reason than varification of my thought experiments, I believe that if someone reads about any subject they will by human nature only able to see it from that perspective and therefore closing or dampening their mind to creative thought. I hope this makes somewhat sense to you.

2. Because of where I was raised "on a mountain that was located between two mountains" I was able to observe a variation of astronomical events due to the lack of light and that my chores were being done late at night and around 3:00 am. These events, I did not realize at that time that they would change the way I interprate the physics of the entire universal code.

3. I have no formal education, I made it to 8th grade, but since entering the work force with a shovel and a G.E.D. I have slowly earned the respect and gained a reputaion for be the go to guy for creative inovations along with consulting for oversight and providing prediction's for the team in my current field. I have held title's that include Chief, Senior, and Consultant, and what they dont get is how I am able to perform these tasks without using text books, calculators, or computers, and they know full well that I have no degree in any thing. This sometimes intimadates them, because of the time and money they spent getting educated, but when they get to know me for what I am "A True Thinker" the relationships become more team worthy.

So I would ask you this, would you trust someone who has no formal education, cannot write a mathematical equation, can only use basic words and sketches to describe his to attempts to descrbe a solution and way for science to explore such a complex theory or hypothosis knowing this.

[ajb]

So I would ask you this, would you trust someone who has no formal education, cannot write a mathematical equation, can only use basic words and sketches to describe his to attempts to descrbe a solution and way for science to explore such a complex theory or hypothosis knowing this.

Is that a rhetorical question as I am sure you can guess the answer?

 

1. I do not use text books for any other reason than varification of my thought experiments, I believe that if someone reads about any subject they will by human nature only able to see it from that perspective and therefore closing or dampening their mind to creative thought. I hope this makes somewhat sense to you.

Then how can you have any proper understanding of what we do know?

Edited January 17, 2014 by ajb

[Unity+]

Please, think of the researchers!

Those greedy crackpots!

[Endy0816]

Here is a picture of a Neutron star. Since you apparently ignored my whole "these features are not unique" post, maybe this will do the trick.

 

 

 

I am glad you are a creative thinker, but what matters is how your ideas match up with reality. Many many other creative thinkers have already been over this territory. You do them and yourself a disservice by ignoring what they have published.

 

Spend a few days on Wikipedia bouncing through topics and you'll at least have a decent understanding from which to build upon.

 

[DEADspace69!!]

To answer your question ajb, Then how can you have any proper understanding of what we do know?. What generally happens is someone makes a comment in about science then for some reason I start to visually see it and begin to deconstruct it down to it's smallest parts using thought experimentation and visualization and it always leads to a black hole. I dont know why I have the ability to do this. I don't have illusions of grandure and in no means are a genius. But I can see thing's in my head from a different perspective than most. After I present my case for study on this forum the only way I can using my simple language, you should be able to interprate it into your higher degree of mathematic's and maybe you can better understand me as a person who may very well be searching for the same thing you are. By the way ,what is it your searching for in mathematics or physics? It really doesnt matter to me, but your profile suggest's that your in this for a purpose, and the time you have spent learning your skills is admirable.

[Endercreeper01]

Time gets faster the closer you are to the atom's center? What do you mean by this?

Write that as an equation, and include how you got there.

[ajb]

...I start to visually see it and begin to deconstruct it down to it's smallest parts using thought experimentation and visualization and it always leads to a black hole.

But unless you have some idea of what is really involved in physics then how can you be at all sure your visualizations mean anything?

 

After I present my case for study on this forum the only way I can using my simple language, you should be able to interprate it into your higher degree of mathematic's...

Possibly, but if your ideas are not founded on accepted science, and in physics that usually means some mathematical model, then I doubt I will understand you.

 

By the way ,what is it your searching for in mathematics or physics?

This is not relevant to this thread.

 

All I will say is that mathematics is necessary in attempting to explain the Universe.

 

The Idea for me is to prove that gravity is a direct response to the removal of space time between the nucleus of an atom and its surrounding particles and that a black hole is responsible for galactic and universal time recirculation.

So with what I have said in mind, why should anyone take this idea at all seriously?

[DEADspace69!!]

I went ahead and purchased some literature in re to "Physiscs and Matematics" this weekend as to better explain mathematicaly my prediction. I must let you know I after thumbing thru them I see your point, I must be able to explain to this audience in their termanology, not just rambling's of a backwoods hillbilly. Fact is I really think I'm on to something big. As a side note I think also may have stumbled onto another prediction or three. But yet again, because of your criticism's of my ideas I will not present them to this forum without researching first and using mathematics to try to explain. Thank you for at least taking the time to respond, I know and hope the next reply on this matter you will be at least somewhat impressed and can see where I am going with this. However and not to tick you off, but your comment " I will say is that mathematics is necessary in attempting to explain the Universe", cannot be entirely true. There must first be a vision in concert with scientific faith that I see less and less of these day's. "Before the mathematical equation there must be a vision" then mathemetics is used to explore the vision, then the research is done and conclusions are made, is this not how it works? Thanks again.

[ajb]

"Before the mathematical equation there must be a vision" then mathemetics is used to explore the vision, then the research is done and conclusions are made, is this not how it works?

In reality it maybe a bit of a blend of the "vison" and the "mathematics", however the two are not usually distinct. The theoretical physicist will think rather mathematically from the start, maybe not as mathematically as a mathematician, but still he is looking for models and how to calculate things in these models. His thinking is guided to some extent by the mathematical constructions he works with as well as observations of the natural world.

[DEADspace69!!]

After doing some research and learning the basic language of mathematics in physics, I have come to realize my ignorence, Soon I will be able to spend less time drawing all over the barn and garage walls and just write some simple equations to show better some of my predictions both past and present. One time I spent an entire weekend trying to see my hypothosis/theory of my prediction that light waves may be responsable for universal movement as they reach the universal barrier, I used four sheets of plywood both sides, with a small marker, and some spray paint, when all I had to do was write a few simple equations. I dont intend to stop drawing out my thoughts in the future, now I will incorporate the two as one. Someone said its a beatiful equation, I never thought about it as art, now eyes open. Thank's......