Bufofrog

It seems that this theory you are alluding to is a half remembered comment from a Netflix movie, which is not much to go on. I would hazard a guess that it is not a theory since you mention that infinite time and infinite 'things' are involved so it is not an idea that could be falsified.

Do you have a citation or a website the describes this theory?

As an ex submariner this skeezes me out... Yuck.

Put 4 x 10^-7 into the calculator press the X button then press the Pi button. Then press the X button and type in 8.854 x 10^-12 press the = button. Press the square root button then press the 1/x button.

Define 'accurate logic'.

Are you saying that if the science doesn't meet your everyday experience it can't be correct? That would mean no SR, GR or quantum physics, even though much of our technology uses these concepts? How could these ideas yield these technologies if they are not viable explanations. Is it just luck... ?

So we can't trust math or the results of experiments? What should we trust then, your imagination?

If you love knowledge (concentrating on physics), I would suggest you go to a local Community College and take some physics and math courses. I think though this is not something you wish to do since you feel you have already "found the answer". Since you seem most interested in sharing your Fibonacci clock idea, I would suggest that you should not present it on physic sites because you are not going to get a very positive reception. If you search for discussion sites that are along the lines of "alternate physics" or something you will be able to find a forum that will think this is a great and wonderful idea. Just a suggestion for you.

Here you go.

Oh for-crying-out-loud just present your model/theory with out all of this set up. My mom thinks I'm a genius, if that will help the thread along.

So present your model!

I actually did LOL... +1 Yes, bring it on!

Nope, I said you FTL statement was silly, I never mentioned any diagram. I didn't come to a conclusion, I asked a question which you did not answer. I asked, if dark photons are ultralight are they lighter than massless photons? I did listen and it appears you were just making up stuff. I did, hopefully now that I have asked the same question twice you will answer it. Of course there are great ideas, we are discussing scientific principals developed by some incredible minds through history. It sure seems like a forum to me, what do you think it is?

Then don't make silly unsupported claims. Dark photons are ultralight? Are they lighter than massless photons?

Or IOW ignoring all the questions and comment from members...

Nah, I don't agree with your opinion. The fact that some avenues of inquiry are going to lead to a dead end is not a problem. The current state of physics and astrophysics is nothing short of amazing. Your gloom and doom scenario is completely unfounded IMO.

I assume you are talking about string theory and the multiverse hypothesis, these are hardly accepted in mainstream physics. String theory has some interesting concepts so some physicist are working on it - it is not 'accepted'. The multiverse is a hypothesis, so again it is hardly accepted. Physicists are allowed to work on any far out idea that they can get funding for. So the OP is misleading. Some of his objections are due to him not understanding physics and the others are not really 'accepted' by the physics community.

I don't think you looked hard enough. There are tons of reactionless drive proposals on the internet, from the very simple to quite complicated. There are also lots of perpetual motion proposals and FTL spaceship proposals. None of these work of course but that doesn't keep people from 'cranking' them out. If you enjoy making these things up, like a science fiction story, that's fine and understanding why they don't work can be a round about way to learn some real physics.

I don't think it is strange. You can make a bunch of arbitrary numbers say anything you want. The Fibonacci sequence is a real thing and you can see the pattern play out in sea shells, growth patterns in flowers and others, but can it tell you the mass of the earth in kilograms - uh, no. Humans are really good at finding patterns, so good in fact that we can see patterns where none actually exist. If you start combining numbers without a good physical reason for doing so, you will more than likely end up with something that is meaningless. This type of endeavor is called numerology and it is an easy trap to fall into. You have clearly spent a lot of time going through all of this so it will be difficult for you to let go of this and look at the real physics in the world. Good luck on your journey - but let me warn you, don't be seduced by the dark side (numerology).😊 Of course. Of course. I am dismissing it because I think I have done the proper inquiry, which is noting that the numbers you picked to multiply together were arbitrary and the units you are using (kg, hours, minutes, seconds) are arbitrary. You are not showing anything fundamental but simply arriving at a predetermined number by throwing unrelated numbers together. You even admitted as much with this statement:

That is not a perfect clock, that is 60 numbers evenly placed inside a circle, that will not help you know what time it is. There is no physical reason to place the numbers in that configuration. A clock has arbitrary units of hours minutes and seconds, they are not fundamental numbers. You then divide the first 30 numbers by the second 30 numbers for no physical reason. You then cube the result for no physical reason (the fact that the earth has volume is not a reason). You follow this by saying that the result is multiplied by 10 for no reason to result in the number 5.972. The only thing you forgot was there are 24 hours in a day so we must raise 5.972 to the 24th power. So there you have it 5.972 x 10^24kg. Of course kg are just an arbitrary number made by humans. So the bottom line is this is numerology and it is not amazing that you can get the number 5.972, you get that result because you arbitrarily picked numbers to get that result. edit to add: Thanks for the explanation for the 60 numbers.

You can't be serious... unless by 'highly visible' you mean 'indistinct smudge'.

I'm sure no one is upset, the members are just trying to help you understand some physics concepts and point out where you went off track. In your second post you have a clock that has the "60 digit Fibonacci cycle". Where did those '60 digit' numbers come from? The Fibonacci sequence is 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34..., so I am not, sure what your numbers are. Thanks.

This is just numerology. Your multipliers are arbitrary and kg is arbitrary.

Your OP is in the wrong section, it should be in Speculations. You also are suppose to present your idea here and not send people to a different site to read your proposal.

No problem. So the particles don't gain mass when they lose energy, how about your claim that the particles lose most of their charge when they lose energy? How do particles make up space? That sounds like an oxymoron.