Speculations

How Balance Solved Everything By: Cory ArmlinDE- Dark Energy, EM- Electromagnetism, 3D- 3 dimensional When you read this all I ask is that you finish the paper before giving any judgment. There is only one force that governs everything, Balance. Without this force existence in itself would be impossible. This force is observed to govern everyway of existence but one. You see it in the quantum world as every particle has a twin but with a different charge. You see it in the sky every day. The sun is mandated to maintain balance to survive. If balance was lost it would either implode or explode. Night day, hot cold, left right, good evil, sour bitter, and most importan…

Absolutely; everything “IS”. But due to the reference frame of different procedural step of its quantum being; “EVERYTHING WAS AND IT WILL BE”. And this “IS” relativity from univaso science point of view of res extensa verses res cogitan. For example; thunder and lightening are caused at the same time, but the difference in the procedural quantum steps of accessing there being as a function of the reference frame of the consciousness, subjects them to different times of effect, and this is E=MQ2. Let me re-use the ordinary example illustrated from my previous work that can establish the equilibrium frame work between relativism, absolutism and E=MQ2 as a function o…

I don't understand why don't physicists make gravitational-kinematic slowing of time? T=T0(Rc2-2GM)/Rc(c2-v2)1/2 T-slowed time T0 - usual time v - speed in gravitational field

I have my own theory for gravity... It involves space as not a force that pushes as Einstein explains but pulls ... Think of it as like a game of tug of war... Where the knot in the middle is like the earth... Space pulls all around it therefore earth is a sphere... The photons from the sun keep us in orbit and gives the earth its orbit as well... And could even explain the expanding universe... What goes up must come down... Except for light...i know this goes against the theory of relativity in some aspects but it makes sense to me... The sun leaves seven or eight pounds of photons on earth every year, one side of the earth gets heated up so it turns away from the sun t…

These are my thoughts, and only a work in progress. I have a grasp of the physical world and wish not to offend. Comment by all means... In my world, the Universe is expanding, the galaxies orbit each other, the stars orbit the centers of galexies, the planets orbit the stars and the moons orbit the planets. But when an apple falls,... there is no gravity to pull it to the ground. Still, the planets rotate and the tides still flow in and out. How is this all possible without gravity? It is possible because empty space, is not empty! Empty space is not a vaccuum. It is a matrix of magnetically charged, monopolar particles. These particals are all of an alike ch…

I don't see this as baseless in scientific fact or outside of mainstream physics so I'll post it here. If general relativity is right then what happens when the first of two objects free-falling towards a black hole at slightly different distances reaches the horizon from the perspective of the further object? It can't reach the horizon until the second object also reaches the horizon, which means that all objects would have to cross the horizon at the exact same time. Singularities are always a sign that the theory has broken down. Why general relativity is exempt from this obvious rule is completely beyond me. Two objects start along side each other and fall tow…

I was just sitting here on the couch thinking about things like "The electro magnetic force is infinite. and that time and distance are relative. And I started thinking that perhaps there's a sub-micro plane expanding faster than our macro plane. From a macro plane perspective this would be seen as an inward force. Then I thought about it some more and I figure that perhaps a single proton click governs general relativity for the macro perspective. and that a single click of a preon governs general relativity for the micro world, and that perhaps a single click of the gravaton governs relativity for the sub-micro world. The strong force that holds the governing …

The expansion of the universe is a hypothetical view implying a return to the middle ages with Earth at the center of the universe because the hypothetical expansion and the hypothetical acceleration of the expansion are the same for the same distance in all radial directions from Earth. Additionally, R.M. Santilli has established experimentally, the lack of expansion via spectrographic measurements according to which the redness of the sun itself at sunset experiences a redshift without any relative motion. In other words, redness of direct sunlight, (that without scattering) and not the redness of the atmosphere (which is indeed due to scattering) constitutes vi…

The consciousness as a part of the Universe If we accept,that everything in the world is relative, then the outside world, those we see , we can accept that is inner.As a result we can suppose, that inner world of man that is to say the consciousness is outside.At the same time The consciousness is the same at each men.From these two admission we can make conclusion , that consciousness is the first dimension of the Universe that is to say to be externally and the same everywhere.This explain us the philosophical question, which is first the substance or consciousness.The ANSWER is that they are different dimension of the Universe.We can make interesting conclusi…

Hi all I just posted a paper on ViXra, http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0163 , with title as above and will be very interested in any constructive criticism etc (which mayl be acknowledged by name in future versions, unless otherwise requested). Evidence for the model would be a formal proof that the basic tenets of QM can be derived from it, which I believe should be possible and is something I am currently considering. Note that emphatically nothing in the paper is intended to suggest that QM is in any sense "wrong", quite the reverse. It is merely an attempt to discern and sketch a realist or "operational" underpinning to QM. It is fairly short (10 well-spaced pag…

So, a thoughts been lodged in my head for awhile that I'd like to discuss, to see if it's taken as common knowledge or as a revolutionary point of view. From my perspective, the speculations of a "Gravitron" somewhere in matter isn't right, mainly because light has no room to cary it with it as it's doing loops in spacetime. So, Einsteins theory of relativity shows that spacetime bends around matter; isn't that gravity right there? What if spacetime is a fabric, a three dimensional fabric laced by strings, and matter is an obstruction to this fabric, a sort of cosmic tumor? (not going for a nilhist perspective on this one, trust me) lets say that, theoretically, this fabr…

The position of an object (or an event) in spacetime can be described with a set of 4 coordinates: 3 spatial coordinates and 1 temporal. (x,y,z,t) Say we have event A with coordinates (0,0,0,0) That represents something that happens at the origin right now. Then some other random event B. Say event B has coordinates (x,y,z,t) . One can choose a set of spatial axes so that x axis is aligned to the direction between the observer and event B, so that we get simplified coordinates (x',0,0,t). Now: 1.If B has coordinates (0,0,0,0) we can safely conclude that A=B (= sign meaning that A & B are 2 events that took place at the same place at the s…

Hi all. I remember a while back I introduced myself as a new member... and then needed to disappear for two weeks. well, the two weeks turned into something like 4 months, But Im back now for a while anyway. so excuse me if I don't respond to posts daily. anyway here is a link to an article describing how radiometric decay can be sped up significantly by the removal of electrons from around the atom. after reading the article, discuss what implications this will have on accurate radiometric dating, and thus on the accurace of the theory of evolution. http://creation.com/billion-fold-acceleration-of-radioactivity-demonstrated-in-laboratory also, please comp…

Daniel posted this: It is a fact that space is a familiar entity, in contrast with time which is so mysterious. but do we really know what we think we know so well? Here below some considerations and question marks. _it has been established that there is a relation between space and time: any distance corresponds to a certain duration. We cannot get information from any distance in zero time because nothing can go faster than Speed Of Light. IOW in order to observe real simultaneity, information (EM radiation or any kind of other signal) should transfer at infinite velocity and this is not the case. In short, everything that we observe in the space dimensions is…

Theory: perhaps dark energy is only gravity. That's why we can't detect it, only see its effects. Maybe our universe is just an irregular bubble in a very large black hole. That would account for gravity being all round the perimeter of our universe pulling the galaxy's to the edges. Then what? Why did the bubble form? Heat is a basic catalyst to create a reaction. Is the center or creation point of our universe becoming a larger void or is it full of fairly uniform matter like the rest of the universe? Food for thought. Good day. Chrisb PS; A very small spec of a black hole would contain a huge amount of matter, perhaps a universe full.

Today, we use time in a majority of uses. From cooking food to counting down to the new year. But in my eyes, we are viewing time incorrectly and impractically. For example: If you are on the east coast of the US at noon, and on the other side of the earth its dark with night, according to humans it is a different "time". The very meaning of time is being thrown out in this example. We don't use time in a scientific sense, we use it in a hypothetical sense. Time is woven into the fabric of space, it is a constant, therefore if you are on one side of the universe, the other side is the same time. Understand so far? So the way we use time today is completel…

While this is usual, I am amazed to see such absurd irrational fallacies and acts of faith in the name of science, and even sometimes by high level scientists ready to tell any bullshit to politicians in order to keep the credits on their projects. People still fancying that anything might be possible because, supposedly, "nobody knows" what can be discovered, and what can have potential applications. What is this based ? On history, maybe ? Of course, in general, it is true that scientific research can be useful, and that some discoveries in fundamental science had wonderful application. But... Is this a good reason to tell any bullshit and to worship science in a relig…

From the next figure model we can claculate Redshift value. In this model, we assume that the cause of Redshift is the interactions between the light and surround something. So, we can apply modified Beer Lambert model. [latex]Z=\frac{\lambda _{c}}{\lambda _{t}}-1[/latex] Beer Lambert law [latex]\frac{I_{c}}{I_{t}}=e^{-kd}[/latex] [latex]\frac{I_{c}}{I_{t}}=\frac{E_{c}/tA}{E_{t}/tA} \cong \frac{h/\lambda _{c}}{h/\lambda _{t}}=\frac{\lambda _{t}}{\lambda _{c}}[/latex] [latex]\frac{\lambda _{c}}{\lambda _{t}}=e^{kd}[/latex] [latex]Z=e^{kd}-1[/latex] From known data Z=1, L=6 k=0.09 So [latex]Z=e^{0.09d}-1[/latex] where d=13.75-L d; distance(Billion year) …

From well known Redshift formula, we can draw a diagram about the Universe expansion. Other factors, i.e., Doppler effect, etc. are ignored.

Our Earth is still 'not yet fully explored and occupied', so declaring something extinction is almost always a probability thing, right? Coelacanth were thought to be extinct, until one popped up in a fisherman's net, but this is an isolated incident, except that people are both hearing and seeing the giant red headed woodpecker. So with these and other examples readily available, why is cryptozoology so ill-respected respected in general? The question I'd really like an answer to is how would a layman prepare an argument for the non-extinction of anything, sans a body?

mayan calender says its the end of the world. even in kuran there are saying's that world going to end in 2012 hindu religion as also says that it's the end. WHAT DOES SCIENCE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS???

I know how to make a device that allows you to go to another place without traveling the space in between.This is how you do it you put an object on the ground that is going a constant speed of 18 miles per hour backwards and on top of that object is a object that is going a constant speed of 1 miles per hour forwards.The object that is going a constant speed of 1 miles per hour forward has on it a rectangular platform with two objects on it that are side by side.One of the objects is going a constant speed of 1 mile per hour backwards and the other object is going a constant speed of 9 miles per hour.IF you are on the platform you will observe the objects going a way fro…

Okay... here goes. A Theory of Quantum Gravity: Fresnel Shells in Crumple Space. So, Einstein views space-time as smooth. Long sweeping curves, like heavy objects on a wide sheet of stretchy rubber. However, WMAP has measured the curve of the universe and shown that over all, the universe is flat. Frankly, that makes no sense. With all this matter in it, space should have SOME sort of curve to it, either negative or positive, but no. It's flat. So, how is this possible? The huge sweeping curves of Einstein's general relativity seems like a great deal of wasted, errr… "space". I mean, if you think about it, it has to be curving into SOME…

I had considered working through on my own, but decided i'm more interested in advancing the theory than protecting it. If possible, I would like some feedback or insight on where to look at for the major holes in this before investing the time / resources on the details. Any thoughts? Is there any string research being done on quantum level particles and their movement or transition through dimensions? Theory Summary: The following describes how gravity is unified into relativity at a quantum level. To sum up, the 4th dimension (not considering space/time as the 4th dimension) is scale. It is very simple to understand and visualize 'scale', this s…

I must say I find this to be quite an extraordinary statement. Can I ask what, precisely, you meant by "better off"?