Speculations

This is my third post on the subject, which I start almost a year ago. I HAVE listened to what you guys were saying, and I have decided to do the testing on the wheel ONLY covered by a glass bowl. It is completely covered this way, and even if I blow on it it will not move. My results are positive, it spins, slightly. Further on I will try to make a video. I am not a fraud, you have my word, and my word means something, at least to me. If you check me on facebook (where I have several pages), you will see I am a serious writer and musician. I have no intention of fraud. So, does this not "prove" telekinesis ?

You might wonder how cold is space, here's a great article here. My idea is you can cool or cold anything in a vacuum? Sounds pretty convenient, you only get to cook in the morning though

Based on my understanding of the available evidences, I estimate that there is an error in the BBT theory. Therefore, I have the following questions to Moderator: How important is BBT to modern science? Is there any possibility to discuss science without BBT? Why do you close the discussion every time that I dare to claim that there might be an error in the BBT? Is it forbidden to criticize the BBT in this forum?

I think we are on the verge of a revolution in QT. For years supporters have been telling us it's 'counter intuitive' Oh, really? I think it's counter science. I think the problem with wave-particle duality is the original premise that there are two different states of a particle. But that's fodder for another thread. I think science went off the rails when Schrodinger, frustrated by his lack of ability to measure where a particle is at any given time came up with the wave function formula. Science isn't about probabilities. I believe at this point in time we can not measure micro world! Why? Because to measure you must disturb the system you want to measure. This outs…

I am coming at this as an interested layman and quite a lot of the mathematics is beyond my abilities, but I do read an awful lot and am aware of most of the general principles, so please be gentle. Relevant General principles: There is nothing about local space or time that is unique or special. The speed of light is not about light but is more accurately thought of as the speed of causality or something similar. Odd facts The furthest in time our telescopes can see in time is almost to the "big bang" and prevented from seeing further by the cosmic background radiation. That corresponds with the furthest in distance our telescopes can see because of the red-sh…

ABOUT DARK MATTER It is thought that within galaxies Kepler’s and Newton’s laws are not valid. On this basis the notion of ,,dark matter” has been introduced. Because matter (mass) generates electromagnetic energy, dark energy has also been thought of. Some scientists think that the Universe is more than 75-80% dark matter and dark electromagnetic energy. Others think that the laws of Kepler and Newton must be rewritten. In this paper I will demonstrate that dark matter and dark energy do not exist. In our Universe the laws of Kepler and Newton are valid in the cosmic vacuum as an ideal medium. But in this paper I will also demonstrate that the laws of Kepler a…

Systems for measuring CMB are relatively simple (you don't need a satellite), I was wondering if perhaps anyone has been monitoring it for any length of time?

Hello~ This new theory consists of every second, millisecond, nanosecond, always happening, over and over and over again. Such as a machine that does the exact same task over and over. This idea is basically a way of thinking about time in an infinite way, everything that; has been, could have been, will be, and could be, is always happening, and if you look at a giant time-line of everything that's happened in recorded history, also forthcoming events, it's a long straight line up to the present, and once there, there are an infinite amount of branches off, which are possible realities, and with each new choice a different branch is selected, and the others move off…

How do the simplest constituent particles of matter (quarks and leptons) accelerate? Basically where I'm stuck right now is, all the fundamental forces including gravity seem to fit together coherently if I can assume that particles are always accelerating. The problem with that is that particles would have to be affected by multiple waves at once, and every wave affecting the particle would be a high number (somewhere between 10^80 and !(10^80) or something) simultaneously, every instant, which: - is too demanding mathematically to work with in most applications, perhaps not though - doesn't fit with the idea of there being discrete wave packets of inertia (photons) wh…

Hi Everybody, Please try out this speculative explanation of various quantum effects. It takes this as its main non-standard assumption: the expansion of space does not necessitate a changing distance between any two particular physical objects, and expansion occurs on all scales in the universe. Imagine that a photon begins as a point, but expands it radius by c(t), i.e. the photon gets bigger over time, until an interaction occurs somewhere on its expanding surface. The interaction can only happen at one particular point on the shell of the enlarged photon because the energy of the photon is quantized- it can only give up its energy once. However, the probabilit…

In 1992, E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen found that, under certain conditions, ceramic superconductor with composite structure has revealed weak shielding properties against gravitational force. In classical Newton's theory of gravity and even in Einstein's general theory of gravity, there are no grounds of gravitational shielding effects. But in quantum gauge theory of gravity, the gravitational shielding effects can be explained in a simple and natural way. In quantum gauge theory of gravity, gravitational gauge interactions of complex scalar field can be formulated based on gauge principle. After spontaneous symmetry breaking, if the vacuum of the complex scalar field is…

We can't see space, but we know it has a shape. Why? Because light bends when it travels in space possibly due to relativity. So why doesn't light travel in a straight line even though the space is bent? That means the space has a limit or shape, that light travels in certain direction of this shape will be less affected or more affected by relativistic effect. Now we can't see space, because space is transparent, but it has a quanta, a space is built grain by grain as I've read somewhere, because it needs a unit, or else nothing would exist in it. Lastly, since it is transparent, and we can pass through it, how do we detect it? The same way that light curves with space, …

This speculation is all about space being a negative energy field while matter is a positive energy field which allows matter to change since the space around it is negative.In other words, space is the southpole while matter is the northpole. For me ,this would reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity since quantum mechanics lies in the positive energy field of matter while general relativity lies in space which has negative energy field.Gravity is the pseudoforce as a result of the interaction of matter and space. After all it is only my speculation, but who knows?

Hello, and warm greetings from Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. I believe I understand how attractive, as well as repulsive gravity is generated. All we need is someone competent, who could help performing few relatively simple and inexpensive experiments. My understanding comes from contemplating how our solar system (a complete, natural gravitational system) works. It is worth noting that Newton's apple did not fall just under a tree. It fell under a tree, but in our solar system, where the Sun, and (almost) all planets and their moons, spin and rotate : http://www.natura…

Hello, and warm greetings from Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. I believe I understand how attractive, as well as repulsive gravity is generated. My understanding comes from contemplating how our solar system (a complete, natural gravitational system) works. It is worth noting that Newton's apple did not fall just under a tree. It fell under a tree, but in our solar system, where the Sun, and (almost) all planets and their moons, spin and rotate : http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6324.pdf " The obtained empirical data contradict the equivalence principle …

My idea is to out source jobs to as many countries as possible. But any ideas are welcomed here, stocks, investments, you call it. P.S. Let me know if this thread is in the right place

/thread

I want to create an invisible cloak, basically any light photon that bounces off this cloak becomes ultraviolet, therefore the eyes cannot perceive it, render it invisible

Looking for a pair of subtractive color glasses, what would the world looks like through it? P.S. The sky would look white I think, saves energy? Invisible ship? P.S. Black is a mixture of magenta, yellow, and cyan P.S. Magenta, yellow, and cyan makes black light?

I believe elements have not always had the same electron sequences, Has i have tried to show here: http://alphaomegadotme.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/grouped-elements-old-quarkstargalaxyuniv.xls , fig 1/2 are what i believe they where at one time, In fig 3, Shows what they are now believed to be, the difference between past/present electron seq is shown in purple, At this present time Sulphur has an electron sequence of 2 8 6, But i was wondering what effect would occur to sulphur if the electron seq jumped to 2 9 5? Also aluminium 2, 8, 3 to 2, 9, 2?

A continual observation of the world at large , shows most things being a fairly equal spread of having a solid ridged , predictable element , as well as having a vague, flexible , unpredictable content. Are we limiting our understanding of the Universe by always expecting and testing for ridged , predictable , content , before taking a scientific subject area as a serious contender , as a model for reality ? Mike

Let’s think about a logical example: When somebody ask you how many people (whom you know) love you, you will easily be confused. But if you were asked how many of them you love, it will be much easier for you to answer. This example implies a physical aspect: we can not count how many objects in the universe which exert the gravitational force on the earth but we can aggregate all the gravitational forces which the earth exerts on every object in the universe. Why's that. That’s because the earth is unique. It is like you are unique. Only you can feel your love with some people meanwhile you hardly can know how many of your friends really love you. This is also tru…

On the Origin of Relativity Sam Azar Abstract: In the search to explain Coulomb's law, the electric permitivity eo, and the magnetic permeability uo, the structure of the universe from the cosmos to the atom itself is revealed, and possibly the actual cause of the Earth's magnetic field. The paper is concluded with proposals to test the arguments · The velocity of all mass via the big bang is the speed of light. It has direction and velocity; hence it shall be called the expansion vector. · There is only one fundamental entity in the known universe, loosely known as corpuscles, photons, strings, or quanta. I shall refer to it as quanta "q". · Everything in the univ…

I am new here, so hopefully this is an appropriate post for the speculations section. This is about the first principles of gravity and the differences between Newton's version and Einstein's version. When looking at the effects of the two versions, the differences are obvious. Newton used the inverse square law where the force you feel from another mass is inversely proportional to the square of the distance you are from it. Go twice as far away and you feel 1/4 the force. When modelling planetary orbits, you always end up with an elliptical orbit that never precesses. Unfortunately for his theory, the orbit of Mercury precesses. Newton was wrong. Einstein's is quite…

I must be crazy This is still a work in progress. Unfortunately, hackers have been constantly delaying my progress by modifying or even deleting files so I decided to post before suffering another devastating setback which have occurred more than a few times before. I can only speculate as to why. I believe enough is done to validate the convergence of the model and to get a reasonably good idea about how valid the hypothesis may be. Hopefully you can suspend your disbelief long enough to get to the model and the evidence. This post is actually a prelude to the much more important logical model for a TOE which I hope to release soon. It has been on hold …