Ned

I am clueless because personal opinion and comments seem to get a suspension or a ban . Are we meant to just ''preach'' present information ? Is there any point to a discussion if there is no neurological diversity , meaning alternative answers ? 

My started threads keeps getting closed down as soon as somebody doesn't like my opinions , so please tell me , what is the correct way to use a science based forum ? 

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

if we think in the dark, how will we see the light? 🧐🤔🙄

Sounds like you agree that darkness doesn't exist . I can't talk to you about thinking , my last post on thinking got locked !

6 hours ago, PeterBushMan said:

Why China, Vietnam, North Korea support Russia?

China, Vietnam, North Korea  all called Russia as big brother.

Mao called Satin as big boss.

Chinese Called Stain as Kind father, "cifu".

Chinese President Dr Sun Yat-sen said "Russia is our teacher."

The West laughs at Russia lost a war to Japan, which Japan lost more soldiers. The West must forget the battle of Singapore, and the battle of Indonesia.

 

 

 

Neigbours , communism , different cultures . There is only really 3 players in this world games but there is only one purpose . 

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No. The shareholders own them.
And the rest of your post isn't much better.

The share holders invest in them but do you honestly think that the governments of the world would allow energy to be controlled by anyone other than themselves ? The managers of energy companies are just ''puppets'' in a world of control . I'm not talking about money here , I'm talking about control . Look how the US shut down Nicolai Tesla , Edison being a Gov employee . 

The fact is John , the earth is full of conductive elements and because of this , the Earth is  conserving a large amount of electrical energy  , that is increasing the internal energy of the Earths system . In light of this , the whole world needs to cut down on their electrical energy use before we end up with the Earths orbit being displaced . No worries don't listen to me , I'm a nobody who knows nothing ! 

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How can we be sure that you're rational or haven't just plugged yourself into the mains?

Rational thinking requires the mind to calculate multiple outcomes simultaneously . Another persons rational thinking may differ from my own rational thinking , that is the affect of simultainety . It isn't difficult to think of the causality of any situation  with some degree of accuracy , predicting a future based on each and every model . Unlike politics , in science we apply scientific method to chaos , bringing order to disorder . 

Needs and wants in life are two different things , we need food , we need energy to cook our food . Wants in life are very subjective ,'' I'' want a huge television or a 2 ltr engine in my car so I can just waste vital supplies in vanity ! 

12 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The rationale behind this is that the government is paid by the energy companies.


 

The rationale behind this is that the government owns the energy companies and that is why they are able to set the tarrifs . Additionally they are seemingly ripping us off with their one way electric meters . In the UK brown is often live and blue is neutral . Energy comes through my meter then through the brown wire , the energy then travels back through the blue wire in circuit back into the national grid . AC is a cost effective way of making money alright , there is no meter measuring how much energy goes back into the national grid through the blue wire ! 

I don't think it exists , I think what we call darkness is just simply when objects are not illuminated . 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

What's the evidence that supports your speculation?

 

 

 

No, the claim isn't that they can slow down time, the claim is that the frequency of the clock is affected, and if you are trying to realize the second, as one does with a cesium frequency standard, you have to account for any frequency changes that move you off of the 9192631770 Hz that is the definition of the second. Temperature not being 0 K is one of those effects. You can calculate the amount of frequency shift, and adjust your frequency assessment so that the clocks remain accurate. 

Quote

The official definition of the second was first given by the BIPM at the 13th General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1967 as: "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." At its 1997 meeting the BIPM added to the previous definition the following specification: "This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K."^{[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium_standard} 

I do not believe that is correct because the title time dilation itself claims a change of time . Yourself seems to admit that there isn't an actual time dilation , referring to it as a simple change of frequency . You beat me too it by mentioning O K which is proof the constant frequency while at rest is dependent to the constant state the Caesium is kept at . 

You have just supported my math  Δu∝Δf  by admitting ''the claim isn't that they can slow down time, the claim is that the frequency of the clock is affected''. My models support there is no time dilation , they  demonstrate there is simply a sychronisation offset  (the operation or activity of two or more things at the same time or rate.) 

Are you in agreement that as my models show , there is a mechanical timing dilation rather than a time dilation (measure of history) ?

If you disagree then that is contradictory to your statement ''No, the claim isn't that they can slow down time, the claim is that the frequency of the clock is affected'' . 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What is the equation for which this is a solution? How is it that 0 represents an attractive force? In QM it represents no coupling between the states

I used 0+1 

0 is an attractive force because it is negative of energy and has a conservation of energy force . 0 is any point of absolute space  E→0 . 

0 is more attractive than 1 , 1 is more attractive than 2 , so on....

Consider this , if all x=0 , then hf/x=c 

However , that would be relative to the construction phase of space-time , the growing observable universe . x would become var(x) as photons bombarded the boundary , edge of space-time . 

In a real life physical example , consider a light bulb . For purposes of the discussion we will say the element of the bulb has an Eigen value of 10 . We will say the room space has an Eigen value of 2 . 

10/2 = 5 

We can now say the room space has an Eigen value of 5 when illuminated by the bulb . Of course if you want to know the Eigen value of any point in the room , that would be 5/V , V being volume of course . 

Michael Morley proved the speed of light was constant in any direction which I use as a citation to prove that all unbounded energy is attracted outwards to the edge of space-time by the force 

59 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, we do. We also know that the frequency shifts in the presence of electric and magnetic fields. We also know why these shifts occur.

 

And what is the source of this equation? (e.g. a textbook, or journal article) Because that's not time dilation.

The source of the equation is just math symbols off the internet that I've put together to explain why the frequency of the Caesium shifts . I am aware that isn't the time dilation calculation. However , my equation is the correct physics for the process . 

The correct terms for what science calls a time dilation is a synchronization offset , there is no change of time as demonstrated already with my provided models  . 

You asked for evidence , the models I provided are evidence and I ask the ''judge'' to allow those as evidence . The equation I provided is also evidence and the fact that the Caesium can alter frequency by climate control is additional evidence and support . 

Consider it this way , science is practically claiming they can slow down or speed up time by climate control . 

However , although there isn't an actual time dilation , I'd like to add for the record , there is an ageing dilation . 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s why we take great pains to make sure such perturbing effects are minimized. IOW, this is taken into account.

(to call it fake time dilation is to admit that one doesn’t understand time dilation)

Science knew the Caesium atom frequency was a variant before they defined time to equal the frequency . They have to set climate control to keep a steady state . 

I know alot about time dilation and know that Δu∝Δf .  u is internal energy and f is frequency , I am sure you aware the given time value is arbitrary ? 

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why do you do that ...
You don't know how to express an idea mathematically, so you reach into a bag  of 'scientific verbage', and say "This represents what I'm trying to say".
When actually, it refers to something totally unrelated.

I follow what it says on the information I'm viewing . My Matrix's aren't  any different to the one on the link I provided ! 

How are they unrelated ? I am going off this bit of information I provided earlier . 

("Eigenvalue" also refers to a mathematical property of square matrices, a usage pioneered by the mathematician David Hilbert in 1904. Some such matrices are called self-adjoint operators, and represent observables in quantum mechanics.)^[5]

35 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

 

Why aske me? This thread is about your ideas; you provide answers.

 

(If this was in mainstream sections of the forums I could provide an opinion based established theories)

One possible formation of the Universe is the following diagram matrix where the Eigenvalue 0 is an attractive force . 

This can be viewed as a black hole in present terms . The matrix I am interested in is the space-time curvature matrix which I have not this far provided . When the space-time curvature occurs then the Eigenvalue of each given element increases because of the dot product . 

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. 

Why are we in the middle? Why not for instance Andromeda, or observer "X"? 

Isn't Andromeda suppose to be ''drifting'' towards us ? 

I think the reason we are central might be because of a black hole but it might just be a visual thing and kind of an illusion . 

If you look out into the night sky at the distant stars , you'll observe the space between stars appears to be short distances  . However , if we was to travel to one of these distance stars , as we approached the distance between would appear to increase . By time we arrived at the distant star how far apart would other bodies actually be ? 

Are we just the center of our own vision ? 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

you don't recognize sarcasm ?

Why not ?
You've already made up all sorts of stuff.
And 'eigenstates' makes no sense.
 

That would make dimensional analysis interesting, but extremely wrong, because the vertex of a cube are not a force in any way imaginable.

Well if Eigenstates isn't correct then I am at a loss because I can't find any other present physics that explains what I am trying to explain . 

Quote

 An eigenstate is the measured state of some object possessing quantifiable characteristics such as position, momentum, etc. The state being measured and described must be observable   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_eigenstates  

This does apply to my notion so it must be the right line of reasoning . 

Its not the vertex of a cube that is the force , it is the empty space that applies the force because it has 0 Eigenstate . 

Quote

In mathematics, a square matrix is a matrix with the same number of rows and columns. An n-by-n matrix is known as a square matrix of order {\displaystyle n}. Any two square matrices of the same order can be added and multiplied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_matrix

("Eigenvalue" also refers to a mathematical property of square matrices, a usage pioneered by the mathematician David Hilbert in 1904. Some such matrices are called self-adjoint operators, and represent observables in quantum mechanics.)^[5]

3 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Nope.  (And you don't have a model)

That was a 3d moment I provided that explains orbitals and the electrodynamics of moving bodies . Yes I do have a very good model ! 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Before you go, can you at least explain what units a 'conservation of energy force' is measured in ?

I think you might like this part of my model . 

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

Before you go, can you at least explain what units a 'conservation of energy force' is measured in ?

Seems as the conservation of energy force is a new term , I'd have to make up a new term and unit that would only get ridiculed. The best I could come up with using present terminology is using Eigenstates . 

However I'd like to use cubiks of force as a unit because 8 points of space form the smallest cube possible with no core . 

In essense that is using volume to explain the force magnitude but there is two sets of forces at work . 

It's difficult to explain because the value of any point of absolute space is 0 , 0 eigenstate , but the value of any point within space-time is a value of 1 , 1 eigenstate . Both these values are constants but 0 can become a ''positive'' constant rather than a ''negative''constant by conserving a point of energy that tries to pass through . 

I have quickly drew another diagram to show you as you are polite and interested . 

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

Before you go, can you at least explain what units a 'conservation of energy force' is measured in ?

Additionally in absolute space there is no motion until the space-time frame as grown  . The conservation of energy force of absolute space applies ''the brakes'' and any matter or energy leaving the already formed quantum mainframe , for a better word , become ''gluons'' (fixed in position) , growing the quantum mainframe (space-time).

33 minutes ago, joigus said:

Let me guess... It's either time for lunch or time to go to sleep.

The second one is my present position.

Is your present position ever any different from your position in time ? 

The rate of history is constant , the rate of timing history is presently broken ! 

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

The evidence itself would be a fact, but the theoretical framework that incorporates it is not.

 

 

When two rockets travel at the same speed in different directions , d/t proves one of the clocks was innacurate ! 

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

 

Of that I have no doubt.

To add more facts , the Caesium atoms frequency can change without there being any motion of the clock by changing the climate control ! 

We didn't need to fly atomic clocks around the world , we could of left them stationary and changed the climate control to ''fake a time dilation''  showing a change of frequency ! 

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

We already know E=mc^2, so this is nothing new, and "when the wave function collapses at the edge of space-time" , "energy will be inverted in direction" and "sending a CBMR back into the space-time reference frame" is word salad.

 

And a second course.

 

Wanting science at a science discussion site. The very idea!

I have no idea why you are calling it word salad , it is plane English ! 

As I said , I am finding this forum a bit weird . 

Science discussion doesn't just involve talking mainstream science or the words new science becomes pointless . 

Ocean waves crash on the rocks and some of the wave energy is reversed in direction . 

''so this is nothing new''   - Everytime I write anything new you feel fit to tell me provide evidence from something old . You ask me to use present terms . In regards to new , you are asking the impossible although I'm making my best efforts to oblidge . 

If you want new , I'll write new but you'd never understand it because I'd use unfamiliar terms such as a Quantum mainframe . Then you'd say it was word salad because I haven't used old terms etc . 

A Quantum Mainframe is an unspecified volume of conserved energy . This energy is conserved by the space and has inertia . The Quantum Mainframe can be viewed as ''fused'' with space and indistinguishable from the space in appearance , transparent in nature .The Quantum Mainframe is stationary but not immovable and in present terminology can be compared to a Higgs field . 

All things within a Quantum Mainframe move independent of the frame , motion creating kinetic energy within the frame that is dispersed in wave energy and/or eddy currents . Larger areas and higher speeds having the most affect on the frame .

Way more advanced than mainstream and uses reference such as Higgs but what's the point if people are just going to keep mocking the new ? 

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I still don't understand what your idea is trying to portray from this diagram??

What is virtual time?

In what manner is history recorded?  

Virtual time is space-time and history is recorded at 1.s of history per 1.s passed measure . The diagrams portray the exact measure of time and what time is , demonstrating time is invariant , not variant . 

I

3 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

First rule of the speculations section:

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.

I see nothing here that is testable or constitutes evidence. There is no measurement that is suggested.

Your diagrams convey far less information than you think they do.

 

Dear Moderator , if speculations were backed up with evidence wouldn't that make it facts rather than speculation ? I am confused . 

The drawings themselves are evidence of the process of measuring time . 

4 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. And what will the observer located at "X" see when turning around, looking away from earth?

Undetermined ! The observer will most likely observe new discovery . 

6 hours ago, swansont said:

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You can brag about how good it is, but at some point we need to have the pudding. How does one test your ideas? What confirmable predictions does it make?

It predicts that when the wave function collapses at the edge of space-time , that the energy transformation will be E=mc^2 . It also predicts that some of the energy will be inverted in direction , sending a CBMR back into the space-time reference frame . It also predicts that the energy transformation maybe observed as a ''glow'' in the distance . 

It also explains the mechanism of gravity as being an Eigenstate , the absoloute of space having the maximum possible gravity potential , a conservation of energy force . 

I don't think I'm going to stick around this forum though as its a bit weird to say the least ! 

19 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You are not answering the question. What does the observer at "X" observe when looking at earth?

 

Your personal interpretation is obviously incorrect.

 

I can't draw "the feeling of amusement when reading word sallad". But I can understand it pretty well. 

Observer x observes the milkyway and maybe beyond . 

My personal interpretation is more correct than the present model because my interpretation advances the present models , relying on the present models to certify my model by correcting the errors  . You will find if you study the big bang theory , they explain the Universe started from a high temperature , high density state . The big bang model does not explain how the high temperature and high density state was derived . They magically manifest this state and infer that not even space existed before the BB . 

In essense they looked out into space , took all the matter and energy , then placed it in one location . This isn't good logic , there is no evidence to support that all the matter and energy was ever in one position and there is certainly no evidence that shows there was no space before any event . 

In my interpretation the absolute space existed before any event and the observable universe started from a low temperature , low density , sparse state which seems more likely than the instant manifestation of high temperature and high density . 

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

@Ned Please answer my question about your diagram above. 

That is what your diagram looks like, with earth in the centrum. The present established cosmological models does not match your description.

 

In my case not completely wasted, I'm learning new things by arguing from the mainstream perspective and checking my views against established theories. But thanks for the heads up! 

Indeed the present model does not match my description because I interpret that the present model has errors , which I have pointed out . 

My diagram isn't a dome , you have misinterpreted the information . The ''roof'' of my model is absolute space that is empty and unoccupied of matter and energy . The space-time boundary is impassable only because it takes time to build a quantum bridge . 

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

Special, like in a short bus kind of way?

My simple clock demonstrates many things that is why it is so special ! 

If science wants to argue that time speeds up or slows down then they have to disagree about velocity . 

4 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

What do you mean by special?

Time is used as a coordinate along with the 3 dimensions of space, e.g. "I'll meet you for lunch at the Café Royal at 1pm". 

Your question is a bit like asking is dimension a position? 

Your clock is just showing coordinates on a chart, there are an an infinite number of discreet positions. From your chart are you suggesting that the direction of time goes around in a circle so eventually you end up back in the past?    

The clock is special because it shows many things but perhaps this version of the same clock may be easier to understand for you . 

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?

 

What makes our position what?

In what way?

The two options provided are not false dichotomy , they are logically accurate based on what we presently observe , solids and space . We can't suggest there is nothing beyond the last visible body because that isn't logical . However , we can describe free space beyond the last visible body and space-time that has a uniform value of 0 . 

Our position in space is relative to other visible objects , not relative to the space . 

The present model tries to desribe our observable universe like some dome or firmament that is expanding . Describing it this way is sort of stating a ceiling or roof over our heads . This implies the distant stars have a ''dark side'' and send no light the opposite direction to Earth into free space . 

Logic tells us there is free space beyond the distant stars for reasons given . 

I have provided a special clock that measures time !