Time Mechanics

The photon does have mass represented by the electron. Remember a photon is the observation of harmonic motion of the electron. A positron and electron of the same resonance will transmit destructive waves. How primal mass doesn't make into the category of "Pseudoscience" is beyond me. Mass is the definition of the flow of time and so is a wave the anti-observation. Particle physics makes sure the energies are balanced but lacks the ability to describe the process. Like y(+distance)y = e+(-distance)e-+u where space becomes component and space is described in physics as a flow of time. But that ends up being pseudoscience because it makes sense.

Link works now http://www.fileswap.com/dl/toYBlRmn/TimeMech.odt.html Edit: Added new link above which should be easier to read and I added another purpose statement at end discussing Dark Matter Galaxy Formations.

Doh! I got the text attached but its missing the graphs now. You'll have to use your imagination for the first few pages until I figure out what's wrong with the link. TimeM.rtf

Newton was a huge fan of pseudoscience because it gave him ideas. The mark of an intellectual is shown by their ability to keep an open mind. With that in mind there are people out there just trying to scam others, so remember to use your head.

I used graphical analysis to described referenced time. The formulas create a relationship between the observer and the observed. I used them to describe several elements of observation with an experiment at the end to determine if the analysis is valid. http://www.fileswap.com/dl/xWHSeD9A/Time.odt.html

All I was trying to say was frequency changes with temperature. Like you said one laser goes toward blue and one goes toward red no matter what. It was a bad example because position isn't considered relativistic and I didn't think about that when I used it as an example. However I need some help because I decided to re-write my paper. I approached it from a purely graphical perspective and instead of using my own operators I just wrote out statements from the graphs that I could use to cancel them out. And it worked like a charm. But I need an additional transformation function. I need to know the function for determining tau for a massive system at a radius. Example of a problem: There is an object of 1000000kg, find tau @ 10m, 100m, and 10000m from the center of mass. Whatever function is used to solve that is what I need.

The people who are peer reviewing are making statements like this. Although I'm aware peer review is an inevitable process. It's a process that shouldn't be as important as it is when Science is supposed to be blind to anything but facts. Don't get me wrong I'm sorry if I'm sounding offensive, but there is so little physics being discussed in a physics thread. And almost solely because we have difference in philosophy where Science in your eyes must use established methods to describe something new when history and myself are of the opinion that new ideas require new methods. And you guys keeping telling me I'm not allowed to do that because that's what the majority accepted. I have learned a great deal about how ideas are communicated in this thread. And I will re-write my paper with better communication in mind. The magnetic trapping method was employed so they wouldn't have to shift frequencies as much such that as an electron fell a level the medium would move to another part of the magnetic field where the same electron would be ripped back up and continued to cool with the same frequencies. This avoided the phenomenon I was alluding to. //Neat fact, MRI machines artificially modify nuclear states in the same way. If you didn't use magnetic trapping you would need to increase the frequency of the lasers(while also chirping) in order to follow them. In other words you would need more energy to move something the lower its state dropped. Same reason you need to modify quanta to make something go faster, you need to modify quanta to make something go slower. However, no one has that many lasers obviously. Or at least probably shouldn't. E=hf shows the frequency and energy changing, but not planck's constant. This incorrectly defines a quanta and creates a constant because frequency(1/s) is only in 1 reference frame or energy tensor. Vacuum space. Planck's constant changes when the energy field changes. Whether you add mass or just straight up cool a substance, taking out energy(or adding) changes the distance between points such as quantum states. It changes the resonance frequency or period for a wave. As for my use of Quantified Length, an electron at the at a p level or a d level have two different frequencies. Frequency=c/Wavelength. The wavelength of those electrons represents the quantified wavelength. This is a perfect time to stop and re-write my paper. Because my example of laser cooling is a classic mistake I'm making. Under Time Mechanics(for what its worth) I united all forces under referenced time dilation. It's accepted that quanta modification occurs due to a massive energy field but length contraction does not occur in an electromagnetic energy field. But it ended up recognizing the act of an electron moving to and from a proton as electric field length contraction which is not accepted. So to use it as an example on my part is just silly. My next paper will use only established equations and methods while the only new thing will be the equation which defines the constants in said equations.

For Lightspeed- http://imagine.gsfc..../grav_lens.html For Planck Length- http://www.astro.ucl...ght/doppler.htm If you don't think looking through a telescope an experiment. For Lightspeed- A Prism or Condensate For Planck Length- http://www.colorado....c/lascool1.html (at the bottom is a simple example of the need to adjust the frequency of a laser in order to match the quantified length as the medium becomes denser) Your're the kind of guy who thinks every mathematician can just understand any physics problem don't you? If I didn't use a single number or symbol and just wrote a huge paper, you still wouldn't know what I'm talking about. What on earth makes you think you can determine whether my math statements are coherent if you have no clue what they mean. You aren't asking questions, you're bloviating about the sacred nature of math. I would however like to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal not for approval but to get as many people thinking about it as possible. And in order to write a more "coherent" methodology I do need to know what physics is easy to understand and which is not. If a part of the paper is confusing, write it out and let me explain it sans math. If your issue is that everything is confusing, then pick anything. I'm not so worried about popular opinion because you get a lot of non-sense out of a crowd of "experts". I firmly believe Science is not a democracy or a popularity contest. Fair point. Although the dichotomy between the various fields is probably a discussion for another time.

This is indeed an unforeseen roadblock. I understand there are physicists who study and employ purely Classical Mechanics and there's nothing wrong with that. On the other hand there are people who work with nothing but lasers and crystals which require Quantum Mechanics and there's nothing wrong with that. Same goes with Relativism and Cosmology. My goal is to bridge the gaps between the fields. For example as you put with dimensional analysis there is the connection between Classical and Relativistic. But Classical has no bridge to Quantum Mechanics. So I would say the bridge is..... A Quanta is defined by its relationship of its period and energy. Where a period represents a quanta defined by its Planck Scale. In Quantum Mechanics the Planck Scale is a constant just as the Speed of Light is a constant under Special Relativity. However, both the energy of a quanta and the speed of light change when in the presence of a massive field. Making the Speed of Light and Planck Scale as constant as there different amounts of mass in the universe. In this sense a Quanta only exists because we didn't think about a wave in the context of General Relativity energy field. We never thought about what causes us to measure something in that particular way. And if you can link Classical Mechanics to Relativity, and you can link Quantum Mechanics to Relativity, then you can link Classical to Quantum now. And although the math is impossibly hard to understand, its not necessarily wrong to make that link. Case and point, as I was studying Ph.D Chemistry(ya I didn't stop at physics) a chem student asked how to calculate the half-life of a newly discovered substance. Lucky for him three Ph.D physicists who studied almost exclusively Quantum Mechanics were available to answer. Two of them concluded it was impossible and the third needed to be reminded that there were no charts for a newly discovered substance(he wanted to compare decay rates). At which point myself and others explained that you measure the mass....wait a prescribed time and measure again. Then fill in the half-life equation. Maybe its a problem with how universities define experts these days, but that kind of thing happens all the time. Its my goal to try to prevent that so that we as a whole can advance science instead of confusing others. Physics is unique as it is a field that has a major problem with egos. And before I learned that people get offended when you challenge an idea, when you challenge a math, or when you challenge a belief. Now I have to worry about challenging a field. I just want to advance physics, expect to be challenged.

The only requirement to be math is that it uses logic, symbols and numbers. Arithmetic math is unfair because it uses a limited set of operators. For example Boolean math is math because it uses numbers in addition to its own operators of which non are arithmetic. On face Time Mechanics uses numbers and symbols with logical conclusion. Computer math uses all sorts of its own logic commands with numbers, kinda messed up to say its not math. [math]KE = \frac{1}{2} mv^2[/math] Under Special Relativity this equation fails under arithmetic operators because as soon as you measure velocity, KE becomes relativistic. That means the act of defining a velocity makes KE undefined. Its actually a paradox. The solution was to add a new operator called gamma to define referenced time or transformed time. Under Quantum Mechanics this equation falls on its face because its not quantified. Hell 1 apple doesn't equal 1 apple. An apple has a particle and a wave state. One apple = <Apple|w>. If you scroll up the original Dirac function didn't use any math operators(well a minus sign for a grand total of two possibilities) and only qualified as math because he set true=0 and false=1 and ended up using numbers. The only operator was the funny looking d. It was called a paradox because it was counter intuitive logic. You can't quantify the grandfather paradox because you can't travel in time, but its still considered a paradox because its counter intuitive to established logic. BIG difference between a physical paradox and a philosophical paradox. [math]KE = \frac{1}{2} mv^2[/math] and Rab - (0.5)Rgab + (cc)gab = kTab bothrepresent a physical paradox. http://en.wikipedia....y_of_everything -Time Mechanics is the Theory of everything. It defines time and perception itself and unifies all models. A model with "some discrepancies" is a model with failed logic. Granted, we still use basic mechanics of logic with 99.9999999% success. But to put in terms you should understand, a Newtonian model doesn't have time dilation and hence is a universe without gravity. Not a small detail to me. This is the equation you guys want me to use to fulfill the rules of arithmetic math dx/dt=xdx. The dx however represent observation. Observation in which there is no variability. There is no variability because the rules of observation(Physics) don't change. I had to set dx equal to 1. Which creates d/dt=x. Then it worked. However, dx/dt=xdx does in fact mean something. What do you called a variable or undefined observer?........dead. But to sound less ominous we'll call them defined and undefined observation.

This discussion of the philosophy of math is seriously draining the original topic of this thread. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mathematics -In no where on the internet is there a definition of such thing as mathematics without a predefined system. If the "basics" of math exist please post a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox -You guys told ME math is a series of logic statements. A paradox is when a logic statement fails. By your definition a paradox is failed math. If Math=logic. And Paradox !=logic. Then Paradox !=Math. We can agree to disagree as I'm a physicist and you guys are mathematicians and as such work in completely different offices. Our philosophies can be different but the conclusions of my Unification need to be challenged. Doesn't anyone wonder why there is so much more energy from a nuclear reaction than a chemical reaction? Well its the same reason why nuclear velocities are so much faster than chemical velocities. They have different scales of time and different definitions of space.

-Originally Newtonian Math failed to factor in time dilation. -Currently Relativity fails to describe the Quantified world and Quantum Mechanics fails to describe the cosmological/Newtonian world. The reason we seek a GUT. -General Relativity fails to describe events past event horizons in what we call the information paradox. -Quantum Mechanics and Relativity fail to describe the existence of dark matter, however particle models do show its mass. -ANY math related to singularities and wormholes or attempts to describe black holes lead to any number of physical paradoxes. -Personally I view the Uncertainty of Prediction as a failure of Quantum Mechanics like Einstein did. But that is definitely subjective. -The Balmer series attempted to map the elemental(i.e. H, He,Li...etc) electron quantum states but when a function was derived for Hydrogen it failed to describe anything else. -The fact that we have no less than FOUR string theories at any given time of which all claim to be perfect. -VERY recently, a paper was published where the Higgs particle was mathematically rejected however for some reason there are two camps who claim flawless math. -Inflationary and Membrane theory, the math doesn't base its logic on anything but imagination. -Maybe my math fails to predict, only people are too worried about whether it passes the definition of math. Every letter, number, and operator has a name attached to it. Every series of statements of logic are written by a person. I just don't get, people tend to make mistakes. It's part of being human and our math is not free from this universal concept. In physics there has never been a perfect system of mathematics due to these things called discoveries. But tell that to the mathematicians who are in my field who believe math is flawless and even worse think paradoxes are normal.

Do you realize the sentence you quoted is in full agreement with you. I said I DON'T believe. My issue has always been the note worthy physicists who all have books published extolling their belief in the magic of mathematics even when the math is in direct conflict with the observed science. There are people who will openly profess meaning in the Fine Structure Constant. I can't reach those people because I can't even propose an origin for their constants because they believe, publicly and published, in the extra-meaning(magic) of a number.

T0 | T | T = T0 | [(x,y,z)t+ | (x,y,z)t-]ts - The three reference of time are equal to the observers defined universe in reference to the wave energy(t+) and particle energy(t-) whose ratio of energy states is observed as a magnitude of regional dilation in ts. The paper builds the equation piece by piece. It can be hard because physicist include new operators and tend to ignore coefficients and set constants equal to 1. Like.....Maxwell-Faraday equation that has an upside down triangle to denote "curl". And Quantum Mechanics that uses bras and kets. I'm going to answer your question ahead of time. ( | ) means "in reference to". In classical math is represents another order so T | T | T would be T3 , but in physics(i.e the universe) each order is a unique measurement and so there is no functional connection. It's the mathematical way to say it is what it is. I'm going to be unavailable for the rest of the day(some sports event) so I wanted to tell you guys about my favorite math equation. It's called Dirac's equation. Or more specifically his origin of bras and kets. <m|n>=dmn; If m-n=0 then d(m-n)!=0; If m-n=1 then d(m-n)=0; If you ever asked a physicist what determines whether or not a particle decays chances are they'll respond in a ghostly tone that we don't know and that's its quantum. In a nutshell that what this explains. Before it became funny, this was a serious issue. So Dirac represented this as a graph with vertical asymptotes. In the equation d(m-n) m represented a root cause and n represented the observation. If cause and measurement were equal than a value of infinity or 100% certainty existed. If cause and measurement weren't equal then a value of 0 or a value of 0% certainty existed. The really cool math component that only exists in Quantum Mechanics was that d symbol. Dirac combined the derivative and integral symbols to create an operator that isn't sure what function is in play. Just that the universe seems to know and that's all that's important. You can draw the symbol by making the integral and put a loop at the bottom to create a d. Heisenberg established the area under a wave as a measurement of certainty. And that all measurement(in the quantum world) is the commutation of a wavelength(uncertain) and momentum(certain). Why do I love this equation? Because that funny looking d which described an unknown function was in fact the wave function(|w>). He knew something existed before it actually existed.

Excellent...then lets move on to something more complex. //Edit from previous post: The predicted AVERAGE velocity would be 10m/s instead of 0. The 20m/s was me being even dumber. Dilation as a measurement of energy and not space...... Variable Particle Time Scales(Dark): Black Hole->Dark Matter(Strong Force) Dilation as a measurement of space and not energy...... Variable Particle Position(Dark): Horizon(Schwarzschild Radius)->Uncertain Absorption(Wavelength) In quantum mechanics are spectral lines and uncertain absorption are the dark areas. By collapsing or expanding a medium and even heating/cooling changes the relative position of the electrons, you can change the spectral lines. Variable Particle Time Scales(Bright): Planet/Star->Normal Matter Variable Particle Position(Bright): Light Year->Nanometer Any bright position has dimension and is described by its Newtonian definition. Such that the Earth has a radius, a number that doesn't factor in warped space/time. Variable Wave Time Scales(Dark): Dark Energy->Dark Matter(Weak Force) Variable Wave Position(Dark): Horizon(Cosmological)->Uncertain Emission(Time,Half-life) In quantum mechanics there are no nuclear spectral lines, so its the dark wave interactions we only map with time. Why do we measure it with time? Because a wave has no defined dimension because it has no position. This is a dark photon by property as it has all the properties of a wave but exists dark to Normal Matter. To pontificate even further, this where x=d/dt; As position is equal to a constants(see half-life charts) time derivative such as half-life. We use the same definition to age the universe as we take the position of a celestial body and set it equal to the constants(Hubble's!) time derivative. AND that Hubble's constant is changing with time because the observer(you and me) are aging as well. Variable Wave Time Scales(Bright): Gamma Waves(frequency)->Radio Waves(frequency) Variable Wave position(Bright): 13.7 billion years->An instant Time Scale becomes 1/s, Position is age #, the Observer is the definition of a second. This is the conceptual understanding of the three references of time. These are the physical representations derived from Time-Mechanics. I figured it was unification because I don't have a property left that doesn't fit into the full equation. Hopefully this is easier to read than the math.