Silas_L Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) I have been working on this theory for some time, and it is polished enough to ask for critiques on. Just hoping for some feedback, maybe some more information. Mass Time Theory By: Silas Laking Twitter : @SilasLaking 4/6/2017 P∝(E) 1 V Equation: Broken down P∝(E=mc2) 1 V P = Relative passage of time on an inverse square. E = Energy Mc2 = Mass per cubic meter of space. V = Volume ∝ = Proportional to, but in this case, it is used as inversely proportional to. 1 = The denominator for the inverse square, representative of 1 unit of time per massenergy in a volume. 1 is Time, this is so because time moves forward. The concept for this equation started by painting a picture of a radioactively decaying substance in an otherwise empty volume of space, and realizing that it would still be subject to radioactive decay while not interacting with anything other than time. Though this is now a superfluous concept because the overall theory changed from that point in its evolution, it was the starting point of MassTime, and must be mentioned for posterities sake. Time would still pass. That was the thought that drove the work to define it. The next thought was examining something that clearly has a problem being examined in time. The best idea was to examine a galaxy's orbital speed, research on models for the galaxy rotational problem were short lived. The first reaction was that the less mass a volume has, the faster speed in time it moves. That would mean that that the inside orbits of the galaxy would be being observed moving slower in relation, not actually slower. “Doesn’t that mean that we are just observing the ghosts of stars at different points in their history?” was uttered to my room mate who helped me tremendously refine the theory, referencing The Cosmos, Neil Degrasse Tyson. It was reasoned that, if the passage of time difference could be known between the inner and outer motions of the stars in the galaxy, we could determine how the whole galaxy’s observation was being manipulated by MassTime. We would be able to calculate that the inner rings of the galaxy are being observed slower in relation to the outer rings, speed them up to the correct proportions, and it would look like it is supposed to. “But wait, wouldn’t that fix weak gravity too?” So, with that one observation, work pressed forward, and that is why you are reading this. MassEnergy as we observe it causes time to slow down in the volume of space that it exists. It was that though right there that was the entire basis for the rest of this paper. MassTime: Explained Terms: MT - MassTime EM - EnergyMass LC - Laking Constant RC - Riss Constant FR - Functioning Range The relative passage of time per volume in space is directly inversely proportional to the amount of EnergyMass in the given volume. according to a ratio displayed on the inverse square between 0 and 1 for each given force. Gravity, Time, Energy, Mass. In this equation, Energy must factor in all energy in a volume, in combination with the mass in the space (MassEnergy). This number is given to us with E=mc2. A more accurate input will provide a more accurate output. A second of time is unit of time, but our measurements do not relate to how it functions. So any measurement of time will work, because it provides a number on the inverse square with the compared ratios on that square, so you will always know how many seconds per second difference the objects are experiencing when calculating for the full energy and mass in a volume, relative to any other volume. True time passage can be derived by calculating a 0 mass volume in space, understanding that there is an upper limit to the frequency of time per volume. This is calculated by measuring the energy of a volume of space like so; .999/1∝(125 gev/c2=Δ)/V. This calculates a ratio on the inverse scale of .999999_ passage of time in a given volume of space on the inverse square graph, always being between 1 and 0, but never over the edge of the Laking Constant. These measurements are within the Functioning Range of existence. The lowest energy per volume in space is a known phenomenon that has yet to be explained, known in quantum field theory, and known in the Yang Mills existence and Mass Gap problem. In other words, the maximum speed of time per second per volume is roughly expressed with the higgs field and Yang Mills constant. .999/0-1∝(125 gev/c2=Δ)/V). This establishes a Laking Constant on the inverse square graph at the bottom of the MassEnergy inverse square per volume as a natural limit, similar to the speed of light which is also a laking constant in this theory. This would imply that there is a lower limit to how fast time can pass when the upper laking constant of EnergyMass in a given volume is achieved this describes a black hole. This establishes another Laking Constant, as the upper limit of MassEnergy, also graphed on the inverse square. With there being an upper limit of MassEnergy, that means (because both gravity and time directly correlates to mass per volume) that gravity can be linked to the function of time via the function of a mass in a given volume, that means a lower limit of gravity in an inverse square as well. So by deducing the speed of relative time per volume, the equation explains why gravity functions the way it does. Continuing from what we have gone over already. If P/1 ∝ (E)/V and P is observed to be 0, that would mean that MassEnergy is equal to ∞. This calculation describes the function of the singularity in a black hole, as being at the laking constant at 0.999. The calculation states in this case, that the singularity is moving at a frequency of 0.0_1 seconds per second , but in this model of the universe, 0 and 1 are impossible answers, black holes exist at the laking constant. This means that the MassEnergy in that volume of space is as massive is as possible. This seems to be immeasurable because it is infinitely close to 0 seconds per second. Time slows down, but never stops. That asks the question, “What if the reverse were true?” If P/1 ∝ (E)/V and P is observed to be ∞, then that would mean that the MassEnergy in that volume of space is 0 and we know that this is not possible because of the persistent energy in space. The Higgs Field and Yang Mills existence and mass gap defines a constant minimum energy in the universe, and a minimum mass, inverse to the speed time per volume this is a Laking Constant . Understanding that 1 and 0 are impossible outputs in this equation means that the highest is .999, and the lowest is .0_1. The middle of this range, what measures time dilation between two volumes as perfect, is the Riss Constant, defining a true 1-1 ratio in seconds passing, at .5 on the inverse square. Though, the more accurate measurement input, the more accurate the output will be. By being able to compare the passage of time in two separate volumes of space relatively to each other, while accounting for the energy of motion as well as all other mass and energy in the given volume we can calculate MassTime coordinates for any volume of space. Get ready for the fun part. This applies to clocks on starships. MassTime: The coordinates Date = y/m/d/h/m/s It measures a specific moment in history, and the relative present. MassTime = 0.514mt The amount of time dilation that a volume of space is experiencing. This is expressed as 1:00 to 1:28 time dilation. This displays the Riss Constant as a precise 0.5, or 1:1. A more precise measurement input however, will yield more accurate results. Energy = 123545 Joules This is the part of the equation that describes “what” and “what it’s doing”. The calculated energy would come from knowing what is in the volume, the object. What that object is doing (moving, rotating, relatively still, is it hot, cold, is it being affected by gravity or solar wind). Joules is relative, again, the more accurate energy input, the more accurate the output will be. Velocity=Velocity simply determines how many measurements need to be taken per second for the masstime coordinate to make sense. Relative to hertz, or per second per distance measurements.(Each measurement, with an accelerating object would account for the time dilation between measurements.) Volume = 123m3 x1y2z3 (The volume measurement is fixed at the point of interest of each volume at the center, and the xyz tracks the volumes movement and the masstime calculation tracks the time dilation of the volume relative to time.) This designates how big the object is and the space around it, It also defines where that volume is and which direction it is headed over a set of measurements. 2024/June/29/3:04:01pm/.519mt/124351j/45m3/Latitude: 39.29 | Longitude: -77.58 That measures a single instant in masstime, and all of the information we could possibly know about the volume. This is an ideal situation. The more accurate the inputs, the more accurate the output. This is a predictive theory because if a spot of masstime is measured and does not fall on the inverse square of a property of MassTime, there is more MassEnergy to take into account than we expect. These measurements are subject to newton's laws, so if we are measuring an asteroid in space once every 3 minutes, and graph it on the MassTime coordinates, then we take a measurement that makes no sense, something acted on the asteroid in between the measurements. This could find phenomenon in the universe that we do not know about theoretically. When you string those instants of masstime together, you can calculate the difference between clocks moving at any speed over any distance, in any direction, at fluctuating speeds, accurately. There must be a point where each clock is in the same MassSpace to calibrate them to each other. This equation is defining the passage of time, quantifying the concept of time, and giving great credibility to several theories. 2024/June/29/3:04:01pm/.519mt/124351j/45m3/Latitude: 39.29 | Longitude: -77.58 2024/June/29/3:04:02pm/.520mt/124354j/45m3/Latitude: 40.31 | Longitude: -77.58 2024/June/29/3:04:03pm/.521mt/124359j/45m3/Latitude: 41.42 | Longitude: -77.58 Though the MassTime coordinates above are laughable in actual quantities and relation, it is an example measurement of a volume accelerating through MassSpace. MassTime: Predictions Times maximum frequency of time per volume can be determined by using the higgs field and the mass gap. Representing E=mc2 with 125 gev/c2 and Δ, would show as such for time closest to 1 at the inverse square for a nearly EnergyMass-less void in space. This is a laking constant. Compared to the speed of light, as a law of nature. .999_∝(125 gev/c2=Δ) 1 V Times minimum frequency per volume can be determined by using the inverse of such. The most energymass that has been measured by a supermassive black hole is 40 billion solar masses putting out an energy of absurd proportion, the most massive ever observed. But know that those observations were done not with visible light, the black hole is very far away and skewed by dust and distance. So the difference in mass measured by energy output of the black hole could be slightly different, but we are going to use the 40bM⊙ because it is an easy number for the example. In essence, black holes are the inverse of the higgs field and mass gap, pushed beyond the upper laking constant for energymass in a given volume. This also implies there is an inverse black hole. .0∞1∝(10e1000j=40bM⊙) 1 V With all of that information in the pocket, here is a formal prediction of MassTime. 4 trillionths per second per second difference between gps satellites and their ground counterpart clocks will be calculated using P/1 ∝ (E)/V This measurement will explain the reason why we must set GPS satellites 38 microseconds faster per day. Special Relativity predicts that we should have to set those clocks 7 microseconds slower per day. Masstime with the reverse calculation done from known variables (time passage of the GPS satellite relative to the ground) predicts .0000000004 seconds per second difference in favor of the satellite moving faster in time, as practical application has shown us. This shows that the masstime model predicts the satellite to move .012 seconds faster per relative second than the clock on the ground per year. The calculation done by knowing the rate at which the clocks tick between the two, it was possible to back calculate what the output of masstime would be( 0.5000000004 to 0.5000000000 as an example). Using the output as a ratio of second per volume, I was able to determine the .012 number per year. The actual passage of seconds per year difference between the two is .0135 calculated by calculating the 38 microsecond difference per day up to the difference per year in relation to the timer on the ground. The number of seconds per year difference between the satellite and earth's surface volumes will be between .011 and .014 seconds per year relative to each volume (the satellites spot in space versus the clocks space on the ground), this is a very general prediction, but the math supports an extremely precise measurement as long as the information input into the equation is as accurate. The measured volume is not dependant on the unit of measurement. This means that the theory scales. The maximum frequency of time per volume may be calculated as approximately 1:186,334. The minimum frequency of time per volume may be calculated as approximately 1:5.376344e-6. The vast majority of the credit for this does not belong to me. It belongs to the people who came before me, and spent their lives building science for the betterment of humanity. Edited April 12, 2017 by Silas_L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

imatfaal Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please read the rules of that forum and be prepared to answer questions and counter arguments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 I have been working on this theory for some time, and it is polished enough to ask for critiques on. Just hoping for some feedback, maybe some more information. Mass Time Theory By: Silas Laking Twitter : @SilasLaking 4/6/2017 P∝(E) 1 V Equation: Broken down P∝(E=mc2) 1 V P = Relative passage of time on an inverse square. E = Energy Mc2 = Mass per cubic meter of space. V = Volume ∝ = Proportional to, but in this case, it is used as inversely proportional to. 1 = The denominator for the inverse square, representative of 1 unit of time per massenergy in a volume. 1 is Time, this is so because time moves forward. What are the units of P? Why is mc2 mass per cubic meter? You have written E=mc2, which is a common way of writing E=mc^2; this has units of energy Instead of making up new math symbols, can't you just use fractions? (i.e. inversely proportional to x is proportional to 1/x) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) This measurement will explain the reason why we must set GPS satellites 38 microseconds faster per day. Special Relativity predicts that we should have to set those clocks 7 microseconds slower per day. Masstime with the reverse calculation done from known variables (time passage of the GPS satellite relative to the ground) predicts .0000000004 seconds per second difference in favor of the satellite moving faster in time, as practical application has shown us. Firstly, general relativity correctly accounts for the 38us difference. You can't just use special relativity in this case. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html Can you show, in detail, how you calculate the value with your theory? ∝ = Proportional to, but in this case, it is used as inversely proportional to. Then why don't you just write the equation to show it is inversely proportional. You start with: [latex]\frac P 1 \propto \frac E V[/latex] To make P inversely proportional to the value in the other side, you just invert it: [latex]P \propto \frac V E[/latex] I don't see how you can calculate anything useful from this without knowing the constant of proportionality. In other words, instead of writing: [latex]P \propto \frac V E[/latex] You need: [latex]P = k \frac V E[/latex] Where k is the constant of proportionality. This could also solve the problem that you equation fails dimensional analysis. Mc2 = Mass per cubic meter of space. Is this supposed to be Mc^{2}, as in Einstein's equation? If so, are you aware that this is incomplete? The full equation is [latex]E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2[/latex] Edited April 12, 2017 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Argent Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Is this supposed to be Mc^{2}, as in Einstein's equation? If her really means it to be "mass per cubic metre", then surely the right side of the equation reduces to mass and he is asserting that the "relative passage of time", whatever that means, is directly proportional to mass. Which seems little different from insisting that sunrise is proportional to goose flight. Or may be I am missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 If her really means it to be "mass per cubic metre", then surely the right side of the equation reduces to mass and he is asserting that the "relative passage of time", whatever that means, is directly proportional to mass. Which seems little different from insisting that sunrise is proportional to goose flight. Or may be I am missing something. You have the idea entirely correct. This equation links the inverse square of gravity to the inverse square of time dilation experienced relatively between two volumes in space. This is true regardless of either volumes position in space, volume, speed (fluctuating), rotation, and overall energy. Firstly, general relativity correctly accounts for the 38us difference. You can't just use special relativity in this case. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html Can you show, in detail, how you calculate the value with your theory? Then why don't you just write the equation to show it is inversely proportional. You start with: [latex]\frac P 1 \propto \frac E V[/latex] To make P inversely proportional to the value in the other side, you just invert it: [latex]P \propto \frac V E[/latex] I don't see how you can calculate anything useful from this without knowing the constant of proportionality. In other words, instead of writing: [latex]P \propto \frac V E[/latex] You need: [latex]P = k \frac V E[/latex] Where k is the constant of proportionality. This could also solve the problem that you equation fails dimensional analysis. Is this supposed to be Mc^{2}, as in Einstein's equation? If so, are you aware that this is incomplete? The full equation is [latex]E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2[/latex] Firstly, general relativity correctly accounts for the 38us difference. You can't just use special relativity in this case. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html Can you show, in detail, how you calculate the value with your theory? Then why don't you just write the equation to show it is inversely proportional. You start with: [latex]\frac P 1 \propto \frac E V[/latex] To make P inversely proportional to the value in the other side, you just invert it: [latex]P \propto \frac V E[/latex] I don't see how you can calculate anything useful from this without knowing the constant of proportionality. In other words, instead of writing: [latex]P \propto \frac V E[/latex] You need: [latex]P = k \frac V E[/latex] Where k is the constant of proportionality. This could also solve the problem that you equation fails dimensional analysis. Is this supposed to be Mc^{2}, as in Einstein's equation? If so, are you aware that this is incomplete? The full equation is [latex]E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2[/latex] Essentially my equation actually ignores both special and general relativity rules, and expresses the same result from a different calculation. My idea of Space, Time, Gravity, Energy, and Mass, are much different, and I have reasoned that the passage of time is measurable. When the equation is input with an objects (E=mc2) EnergyMass, we know exactly what that object is, where that object is going, how hot or cold it is. But then, that object must be defined within the realms that we can observe. This is where the volume (3 dimensions) and its location (x/y/z) come from. That is the entire right side of the equation We are removing the thought of gravity as a whole for the calculation with the reasoning that gravity gives no information on how time actually functions. We know that gravity is dependent on the mass of an object, and that mass is structured naturally to move through time and increase its entropy. But time and gravity, though they both function through the mass in a given volume, are not directly dependent on each other, nor do they affect each other. With that in mind, removing gravity and focusing on time, I started to introduce the idea that energy, and mass both functioned on an inverse square as well (may not apply, but this is just the reasoning). If a volume has enough energymass, time nearly stops functioning. This is a black hole. If a volume has no energymass, what does time do? Therefore, the less energymass a volume has, the more time dilation it experiences. This is how the inverse was calculated using the higgs field and yang mills gap. What are the units of P? Why is mc2 mass per cubic meter? You have written E=mc2, which is a common way of writing E=mc^2; this has units of energy Instead of making up new math symbols, can't you just use fractions? (i.e. inversely proportional to x is proportional to 1/x) P is the ratio of time dilation, sorry, still refining the vernacular. That's not a made up symbol, it means proportional to, but there isn't an inversely, so I just use that ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please read the rules of that forum and be prepared to answer questions and counter arguments Sorry! New to this :x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 P is the ratio of time dilation, sorry, still refining the vernacular. Ratio of time dilation to what? Ratios have two parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) Ratio of time dilation to what? Ratios have two parts. Basically, when we calculate each volume (say a 1m^3 cube) around a mass on earth (Lets use a bag of lead shot as the point of interest) So this dude is standing on top of some tower, and drops the bag of lead shot. When we analyze the entire event from the release of the bag, to the stopping of the bag, we know a few things about what has happened. We know the bag was experiencing inertia when it was released, because it takes time to accelerate. We know the bag as it accelerates increases in mass thanks to special relativity, and energy thanks to gravity. (so as it falls its EnergyMass increases) We know the bag has a temperature relative to the area around it. (Nice sunny clear day, in New York, lets say 22.5 Celsius) We know where the bag was released from. We know where the bag landed (and transferred its EnergyMass to) With that in mind, note that gravity is adding energy in to the equation, so it is not used to calculate the time dilation. Now, with the MassTime theory in mind, lets say that the bag of lead shot, and that super chill dude who carries around lead shot for reasons, are at the Riss Constant (1 second to 1 second time dilation, they are experiencing the exact same time) When that super chill dude releases the bag, he doesn't have any effect on the bag anymore, so their volumes of masstime can now being to be calculated separately, the point at which this takes case is the instant that gravity starts to take effect on the bag of lead shot. As the bag falls and all of the known variables take effect, we use that to calculate its time changing, with the thought in mind that time moves forward, has a finite past, and a finite speed. (Big Bang, Arrow of Time) So, the equations would follow, again, this is examples, so, don't trash my numbers, i know they are not 100% accurate Super chill guy Bag of lead P/1∝(E)/V - P/1∝(E)/V In this example of MassTime the energy portion of the equation is factoring in the object (its mass, its matter, its temperature, its potential energy) The volume, is centered at the point of interest on each side. The lead shot, and the super chill dude. Plugging that in would be like so. Numbers from the human body numbers from calculating the mass falling with gravity according to newtons laws, calculating the newtons, and converting to watts via joules. P/1∝(100w=90kg)/1m^3 - P/1∝(0.98w=1kg)/1m^3 This calculation needs to be done at a very fast rate, for each volume. This output will need to be given at least 1 per second to accurately track the bag, and the super chill dude. With this in mind, knowing the minimum, and maximum possible frequency as calculated by the higgs and yang mills VS black holes, the equation would solve something close to this (again, don't know this for sure yet, so bare with the example) Super Chill Dude in MassTime (Super chill because he doesn't move at all for this example) 0.52315/1(100w=90kg)/1m^3 @ 1x1y1z Falling Bag in Masstime 0.52316/1∝(0.98w=1kg)/1m^3 @ 1x1y1z 0.52315/1∝(0.99w=1.01kg)/1m^3 @1x1y2z 0.52314/1∝(1w=1.02kg)/1m^3 @1x1y3z 0.52313/1∝(1.01w=1.03kg)/1m^3 @1x1y4z Bare in mind, that these comparisons would have to be made every second to show the dilation each time experiences. This accounts for General AND Special relativity when calculated this way essentially by comparing time to it self. Edited April 12, 2017 by Silas_L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Essentially my equation actually ignores both special and general relativity rules, and expresses the same result from a different calculation. My idea of Space, Time, Gravity, Energy, and Mass, are much different, and I have reasoned that the passage of time is measurable. You missed the question I asked: Can you show, in detail, how you calculate the time dilation for a GPS satellite with your equation? And when I say "in detail", I mean show all the steps and values used to calculate the value. That's not a made up symbol, it means proportional to, but there isn't an inversely, so I just use that If P is inversely proportional to X, for example, then you write [latex]P \propto \frac 1 X[/latex]. So why make up new ways of expressing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 We know the bag as it accelerates increases in mass thanks to special relativity, and energy thanks to gravity. (so as it falls its EnergyMass increases) These would be the same thing. They are not separate factors, which is one reason relativistic mass is shunned. So, the equations would follow, again, this is examples, so, don't trash my numbers, i know they are not 100% accurate We need something pretty close to 100% accurate in order to assess your idea. Also, if the results are the same as for relativity, something that you get right that relativity gets wrong or doesn't address. Otherwise, why replace relativity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) These would be the same thing. They are not separate factors, which is one reason relativistic mass is shunned. We need something pretty close to 100% accurate in order to assess your idea. Also, if the results are the same as for relativity, something that you get right that relativity gets wrong or doesn't address. Otherwise, why replace relativity? Because this model scales up and down with mass. It explains things as small as a massless void, and things as big as galaxy rotation. Additionally, it isn't necessary to have 100% accurate inputs. Science in its current form functions off of a crapload of assumptions and guesses. You want a perfect answer? Give it perfect data. If you want an answer that is really super close becuase you know almost everything to the precision needed, then it will give you an answer, that is equally as precise as the data you input. This means that you only need to know what any volume is approximately to get an answer that is equally approximate. This equation is as accurate as the information you input in to it, but you do not need perfect accuracy for it to work. Edited April 12, 2017 by Silas_L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Because this model scales up and down with mass. It explains things as small as a massless void, and things as big as galaxy rotation. Without formulas, it doesn't really explain anything. And relativity has been tested pretty thoroughly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Because this model scales up and down with mass. It explains things as small as a massless void, and things as big as galaxy rotation. Are you claiming that your model explains gravity rotation curves, that are currently thought to require dark matter? In which case, please show the calculations that prove this. Still waiting... You missed the question I asked: Can you show, in detail, how you calculate the time dilation for a GPS satellite with your equation? And when I say "in detail", I mean show all the steps and values used to calculate the value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

John Cuthber Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Can we set up a special part of the site (probably within "speculations" or the trash can) for people who pop up with something that they label as a "theory" but which barely counts as speculation? It would reduce clutter in the other areas of the forum. Essentially every time someone opens a thread with something like "I have been working on this theory ...", my reaction - before I even look at their post-i s "no, you have almost certainly not not", and I don't think I'm the only one. Why do we offer resources to people who can't even be bothered to find out what the word "theory" means in the context of science? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 13, 2017 Author Share Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) Are you claiming that your model explains gravity rotation curves, that are currently thought to require dark matter? In which case, please show the calculations that prove this. Still waiting... As far as the Dark-matter bit, please visit my twitter as I just uploaded an image there. Yes, I am claiming dark matter is a farce. There is also a link to the entire working theory on my page. It is a google docs link. As far as the satellite/ground-clock scenario. We measure (lets just say) the point of interest for each volume is the clock that is on the satellite, and the synchronized clock on the ground. We automatically account for the 38 microseconds per day because we know it happens. Applying it to the formula would be like so. Initial Equation - P/1∝(E)/V Earth Clock - P/1∝(38900w=750kg)/10m^3 Satellite Clock -P/1∝(42500w=240kg)/10m^3 So the output for the earth clock would be .0000000004 difference in the ratios (when we really factor in all of it, which we know because we have to to keep them in orbit and functioning now)/. Earth Clock - .5439028193 Satellite Clock - .5439028191 This shows that the clock is experiencing time relatively faster as a ratio of time dilation. Here is the link to my working document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C2TjYBAl4ubyFMvbo2Uk8b3Mdo-watLuzaHzypu5AWM/edit?usp=sharing Edited April 13, 2017 by Silas_L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 As far as the satellite/ground-clock scenario. We measure (lets just say) the point of interest for each volume is the clock that is on the satellite, and the synchronized clock on the ground. We automatically account for the 38 microseconds per day because we know it happens. How do you "know it happens"? Applying it to the formula would be like so. Initial Equation - P/1∝(E)/V Earth Clock - P/1∝(38900w=750kg)/10m^3 Satellite Clock -P/1∝(42500w=240kg)/10m^3 Where do the numbers come from: What is 38,900w ? What is 750kg ? What is 42,500w ? What is 240kg? So the output for the earth clock would be .0000000004 difference in the ratios (when we really factor in all of it, which we know because we have to to keep them in orbit and functioning now)/. Earth Clock - .5439028193 Satellite Clock - .5439028191 How do you get from the above equations to these results? Please show your working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

imatfaal Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 ! Moderator Note Silas_L per requests I am going to have to insist on a little bit of detail. Please stop enlarging on your ideas and answer questions - streams of numbers and seemingly misused equations help no one. Start from basic maths or physics and expand in small steps into your novel idea. And please stop trying to get members off site to download documents. We have no limit on space - but we do have a limit of patience; ideas should be explained here and that explanation should proceed from the known to the new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 13, 2017 Author Share Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) How do you "know it happens"? Where do the numbers come from: What is 38,900w ? What is 750kg ? What is 42,500w ? What is 240kg? How do you get from the above equations to these results? Please show your working. IGNORE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS AND PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU ARE DOING WITH THE INFORMATION. THE NUMBERS AT THIS POINT ARE NOT IMPORTANT. WE KNOW HOW GRAVITY, LIGHT, AND SOLAR ENERGY EFFECT THE SATELLITES IN ORBIT OTHERWISE WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP THEM IN ORBIT. MY MAIN POINT IS THAT THIS EQUATION CALCULATES THE SAME RESULT AS GENERAL RELATIVITY, WHILE ALSO ACCOUNTING FOR MOTION, AND TIME DILATION. ONCE I HAVE ACTUAL NUMBERS (that make real sense, still doing research) I WILL PLUG THEM IN AND DEMONSTRATE. So with all of that in mind, go reread the conceptual aspects of this. I already have shown in theory, and mathematically how to deduce the maximum frequency of time. Go reread it with that in mind. Edited April 13, 2017 by Silas_L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 THE NUMBERS AT THIS POINT ARE NOT IMPORTANT. The numbers are very important. How can we know that your theory works without them? WE KNOW HOW GRAVITY, LIGHT, AND SOLAR ENERGY EFFECT THE SATELLITES IN ORBIT OTHERWISE WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP THEM IN ORBIT. And we have theories which can calculate all these effects. Yours, apparently, can't. MY MAIN POINT IS THAT THIS EQUATION CALCULATES THE SAME RESULT AS GENERAL RELATIVITY, WHILE ALSO ACCOUNTING FOR MOTION, AND TIME DILATION. How do you know that without the numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

imatfaal Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 ! Moderator Note Silas_L - reread my moderation note above and follow the instructions. If you do not comply with our rules we will have to lock the thread - we do not allow threads to remain open here unless the OP engages in a dialogue. Soap-boxing, assertions, and directions to off-site links will just lead to more warnings and thread closure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) Everything that I have described above will spit out a ratio in-between the math below, sorry, I was still mashing all this out. Sorry for the delay! Here is the google docs link to the one that is super polished and stuff. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C2TjYBAl4ubyFMvbo2Uk8b3Mdo-watLuzaHzypu5AWM/edit?usp=sharing This is the heart of the theory, in actual, pure, mathematics. The maximum ratio of time dilation that it is possible to experience is calculated below. It is known now, thanks to countless hours of research by hundreds of thousands of people what the measured energy of the Higgs field is, as well as the weight of a ground state of a hydrogen atom. These numbers are large and cumbersome, so thanks to mathematics, and E=mc2, we have the measurements handy in Joules per meter. The numbers are so: Energy in Joules per Meter Higgs energy : 0.0000000000055631jm Hydrogen Atom at Ground State : 0.0000000000083672jm When the energy of both the Higgs, and Hydrogen Atoms ground state are added together to form the E portion of the equation, you come up with this number. 0.0000000000139303 This number is the minimum possible EnergyMass in a volume of space in the MassTime model. The number below, represents the inverse of that of EnergyMass per volume. Given the information above in the MassTime model this number represents the point at which the event horizon of a black hole begins. 0.9999999999860697 However, when you calculate for the lowest energy possible in a volume, and graph that on an inverse square, you can use that number to calculate the maximum frequency of time as I have done so below. 0.9999999999860697 (0.0000000000055631jm=0.0000000000083672jm) 1 V This equation shows that for every 1 second passing, the lowest EnergyMass volume being measured experiences 1.999999999972139 seconds. With this in mind, that means that if we measured the same way at the event horizon of a black hole, for every 1 second passing, the event horizon at the very edge of a black hole would experience 0.0000000000278606 seconds. These are the measured Laking Constants on the inverse square. Edited April 14, 2017 by Silas_L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 It is known now, thanks to countless hours of research by hundreds of thousands of people what the measured energy of the Higgs field is, as well as the weight of a ground state of a hydrogen atom. These numbers are large and cumbersome, so thanks to mathematics, and E=mc2, we have the measurements handy in Joules per meter. The numbers are so: Energy in Joules per Meter Higgs energy : 0.0000000000055631jm Hydrogen Atom at Ground State : 0.0000000000083672jm Can you explain how you get these numbers? Where did you get the energy of the Higgs field? Where did you get the ground state energy of a hydrogen atom? How do you convert these to joules/meter? Incidentally, "jm" is wrong in at least two ways. The symbol for souls is J not j. Also, jm would be joule-meters. Joules per meter should be either J/m or J m^{-1}. Given the information above in the MassTime model this number represents the point at which the event horizon of a black hole begins. 0.9999999999860697 How do you calculate this from the above values? Please show all the steps involved. However, when you calculate for the lowest energy possible in a volume, and graph that on an inverse square, you can use that number to calculate the maximum frequency of time as I have done so below. 0.9999999999860697 (0.0000000000055631jm=0.0000000000083672jm) 1 V This equation shows that for every 1 second passing, the lowest EnergyMass volume being measured experiences 1.999999999972139 seconds. How do you calculate this (1.999999999972139 seconds) from the equation? Please show all the steps. These are the measured Laking Constants on the inverse square. They are not measured. So you have a prediction for time dilation at the event horizon that differs from GR. That is good because it means that if we could ever measure this, we could see which was closest to reality. Unfortunately, we cant. So... Can you show, in detail, how you calculate the time dilation for a GPS satellite with your equation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

imatfaal Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 ! Moderator Note No No No. I made it quite clear that you were to proceed from the Known to the New. Where are all your figures coming from? The ground state of Hydrogen has an energy of 13.6eV. Your figure is huge compared to that - and it is units which are not dimensionally equivalent to energy (not dimensionally equivalent to anything I can think of). Energy should be in Joules - for very tiny energies we use eV (and associated mass eV/c^2). The mass of a hydrogen atom is closer to your figure - but even so not correct from my memory. Please give sources before you move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Silas_L Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) ! Moderator Note No No No. I made it quite clear that you were to proceed from the Known to the New. Where are all your figures coming from? The ground state of Hydrogen has an energy of 13.6eV. Your figure is huge compared to that - and it is units which are not dimensionally equivalent to energy (not dimensionally equivalent to anything I can think of). Energy should be in Joules - for very tiny energies we use eV (and associated mass eV/c^2). The mass of a hydrogen atom is closer to your figure - but even so not correct from my memory. Please give sources before you move on. Oi, snap! Thanks, I wasn't paying attention to the conversion last night. The numbers are corrected now. So the 13.6eV number is in energy, and energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. The weight in a mass measurement is irrelevant because of this. The energy of the Higgs was off too, but here is the correct calculation now. The Higgs in this equation is represented by 125GeV (1.25e^+11 eV). We are using the eV of the Higgs because that is theorized to propagate the universe in a constant field, such as in quantum field theory investigating the "0 not possible" phenomenon. Again, energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. The weight in a mass measurement is irrelevant because of this. So the equation would actually look like this. 0.9993281288633913P/1 ∝ (0.0006718379510901jm=0.0000000331855186jm)/V The volume is irrelevant, because it doesn't matter how big or small the volume is, this is the absolute minimum energy it can have. (Edit: Sorry for the slowness, I am still trying to translate the idea in words, let alone numbers. But this is a real, honest to god number). Edited April 14, 2017 by Silas_L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

imatfaal Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Watts is Joules per second NOT Joules per metre (BTW: if you continue to use jm for Joules per metre - which in itself if wrong - I will assume you are trolling and/or not caring about communication with the members "0.9993281288633913P/1 ∝ (0.0006718379510901jm=0.0000000331855186jm)/V" This equation features all new numbers and is mathematically incorrect - how can it follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts