it's amusing you come to another site and continue to mention me in jealousy..
(shrugs)
A new interpretation of energy and matter
- Thread starter Gerry Nightingale
- Start date
it's amusing you come to another site and continue to mention me in jealousy..
(shrugs)
In reply to paddoboy, with 4,229 "somethings that mean nothing".
There are no "convoluted contradictions" involved, just my own interpretations of energy and matter...which you either do not understand, or do not accept. And that's fine.
There are no "Woo-woo" claims.
Energy is real, matter is real, and so is gravity, and also the Universe...which of these is "woo?"
You don't "like" what I propose? Okay. Please be sure to show me how wrong I am with regard to DM/DE theory, that all the "really smart scientists who went to really smart schools" propose
as being "true states of condition", and also how "correct" the ultimate "primogeniture particle started everything" theory is...welcome to modern theory based on wishful thinking!
("Quote-mining" doesn't prove me, or anyone else "wrong"...just that someone knows how to "look things up" because they don't know what else to do)
(Thanks for reading!)
There are no "convoluted contradictions" involved, just my own interpretations of energy and matter...which you either do not understand, or do not accept. And that's fine.
There are no "Woo-woo" claims.
Energy is real, matter is real, and so is gravity, and also the Universe...which of these is "woo?"
You don't "like" what I propose? Okay. Please be sure to show me how wrong I am with regard to DM/DE theory, that all the "really smart scientists who went to really smart schools" propose
as being "true states of condition", and also how "correct" the ultimate "primogeniture particle started everything" theory is...welcome to modern theory based on wishful thinking!
("Quote-mining" doesn't prove me, or anyone else "wrong"...just that someone knows how to "look things up" because they don't know what else to do)
(Thanks for reading!)
As is space, time, and space/time, remembering they all evolved from the BB.
On the rest of your claims, :shrug: The mainstream obviously think different, as that is where evidence points, and it doesn't become mainstream for nothing, or without the need to "run the gauntlet" It flourishes from just being an hypothesis, and advancing to scientific theory stage.
They were not just some crap pulled out of someones backside you know.
In reply to krash 661, re: ?
I like your "confused idiot" ideology avatar...it surely defines you! Yes, I'm insanely "jealous" of {shrugs} {LoL} {shakes head} and so on. It's amazing how "clever" you are!
"Topics" and "replies" that mean nothing, because you enjoy it, and you manage to get away with it all the time!
What made you think my mention of "krash" had anything to do with you? There was no "661" involved...you're just seeking attention, and hijacking MY THREAD with your "comments".
I like your "confused idiot" ideology avatar...it surely defines you! Yes, I'm insanely "jealous" of {shrugs} {LoL} {shakes head} and so on. It's amazing how "clever" you are!
"Topics" and "replies" that mean nothing, because you enjoy it, and you manage to get away with it all the time!
What made you think my mention of "krash" had anything to do with you? There was no "661" involved...you're just seeking attention, and hijacking MY THREAD with your "comments".
ahh yes..
the typical pathetic spewing from you.
what a massive joke you continue to be
as for my avatar thing-y,it's on the other site also.
it's an obvious symbolic metaphor.(figurative language)
but it's well known you would not be able to realize that.
an example of how pathetic you are,
it's massively obvious who you are referring to.
but like the typical feeble minded joke you are.
you do not realize this.
so again,
it's amusing you come to another site and continue to mention me in jealousy..
(shrugs)
In reply to paddoboy, re: #4,231.
Of course, "mainstream" says different, thinks "different" and as for "running the gauntlet" and "scientific theory", just what parameters are used to define the "possible" from "impossible?"
Just how is it possible to define the parameters of "castles in the air?" (calculus "supports" the castle? "castle theory" over logic and proportion? NO)
The "rest of my claims?" I think and believe energy exists as a "potential", a true metric, as well as gravity.
Many others support virtually this same concept...or do you think I'm wrong with this assertion also?
Is space real? Yes. (although very difficult to define, other than it's "space")
Is time real? Depends on the definition...as a math concept, yes, it's real. As true undefinable entity? "Time" as an actual, real "thing" of self? NO.
Is "space/time" a "real thing?" A true, actual entity that is present in the Universe as an actual quantum "force?" NO. (as an abstract to form a "commonality term" so one person knows what
another means in using the term space/time? Yes...it's useful as a term.)
The "BB/Expansion" theory? It does not have any "absolute" validity at all...a "castle" theory, supported by ever more elaborate calculus equations.
(I am certain if BB/E were not present...most of "modern physics" sites would be gone! What would there be to argue over endlessly?)
I don't have "faith" in pursuing BB as a "goal to be reached" to "explain" everything...this is more of a "burning bush" syndrome, a "grab anything that might float" approach to explain how
the Universe "works", and so far, no definitive answers.
"BB/E" is like some belief in a Deity, using "scientists" as a substitute for priests or missionaries!
You tell me there is God...I say no, there is no God.
Can I prove there is no God? No. Can you prove there is a God? No.
You or ten million scientists telling me "we all believe, and therefor you must believe also" does not prove much, other than how desperate scientists are..."the end justifies the means" is, in
my experience, not workable in the real World.
(Thanks for reading!)
Of course, "mainstream" says different, thinks "different" and as for "running the gauntlet" and "scientific theory", just what parameters are used to define the "possible" from "impossible?"
Just how is it possible to define the parameters of "castles in the air?" (calculus "supports" the castle? "castle theory" over logic and proportion? NO)
The "rest of my claims?" I think and believe energy exists as a "potential", a true metric, as well as gravity.
Many others support virtually this same concept...or do you think I'm wrong with this assertion also?
Is space real? Yes. (although very difficult to define, other than it's "space")
Is time real? Depends on the definition...as a math concept, yes, it's real. As true undefinable entity? "Time" as an actual, real "thing" of self? NO.
Is "space/time" a "real thing?" A true, actual entity that is present in the Universe as an actual quantum "force?" NO. (as an abstract to form a "commonality term" so one person knows what
another means in using the term space/time? Yes...it's useful as a term.)
The "BB/Expansion" theory? It does not have any "absolute" validity at all...a "castle" theory, supported by ever more elaborate calculus equations.
(I am certain if BB/E were not present...most of "modern physics" sites would be gone! What would there be to argue over endlessly?)
I don't have "faith" in pursuing BB as a "goal to be reached" to "explain" everything...this is more of a "burning bush" syndrome, a "grab anything that might float" approach to explain how
the Universe "works", and so far, no definitive answers.
"BB/E" is like some belief in a Deity, using "scientists" as a substitute for priests or missionaries!
You tell me there is God...I say no, there is no God.
Can I prove there is no God? No. Can you prove there is a God? No.
You or ten million scientists telling me "we all believe, and therefor you must believe also" does not prove much, other than how desperate scientists are..."the end justifies the means" is, in
my experience, not workable in the real World.
(Thanks for reading!)
It is a translation as stated in the title.
No one is telling you what to believe. I'm just letting you know that the established mainstream science exists because of "standing on the shoulders of giants of the past and present, the weight of evidence, the proper scientific methodology and peer review.
That is the overall most logical approach, despite how much you see the need to show your delusions of grandeur quality. :shrug:
Space, time, space/time, matter, gravity, energy all exist, and removing one, means having nothing.
.. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
Sten Odenwald:
In reply to paddoboy, re: my topic.
How does my surety of my concepts translate to "delusions of grandeur?" Just what it is about me that pisses you off? You think everything I write is worthless garbage? Okay.
Since when is certainty a demonstration of "grandeur" (at my age, just feeling good is enough...I have no use for grandeur.
"Proper scientific methodology" and "peer review?" Are you serious? From who and what panel or committee? Tell me who/what /when/where and I'll submit anything they want!
I've mailed work of mine out for years and never had a single response at any University anywhere! (as expected...but still, I had a small hope of something)
I ALREADY know what "mainstream" says...and I strongly disagree with it. (can it be somehow you have missed this?)
"Standing on the shoulders of giants" . Yes, there WERE giants, and now Lilliputians shout from their shoulders and proclaim they too, are giants.
I am not interested in reading "interpretations" concerning "spacetime" from ANY source other than A.E.! You are writing to me about someone's else's interpretations of "what it all means" from
this source or that source...I will stay with the ORIGINAL source.
I think of the concept of "spacetime" as useful tool, in the same manner as a "fulcrum and lever", not as a HAMMER.
Einstein never said anything like "spacetime is a fundamental aspect of quantum functions" (paraphrase) and we both know it, at least I hope you know it.
I agree with "space/matter/energy" all exist...where have I written I did not? I also agree gravity exists. I also agree with "time" as a "measuring tool".
I do not agree that "tick-rates" serve to define reality. I do not agree that "Time" is true "entity of self".
I do not agree with spacetime as true thing, an independent function...would spacetime have any meaning if there were no matter, or space, or energy? No.
(what is with the innuendos to me, personally? Grandeur? really? This is being snotty because you think I "deserve it"...it has nothing to do with theory)
(Thanks for reading!)
How does my surety of my concepts translate to "delusions of grandeur?" Just what it is about me that pisses you off? You think everything I write is worthless garbage? Okay.
Since when is certainty a demonstration of "grandeur" (at my age, just feeling good is enough...I have no use for grandeur.
"Proper scientific methodology" and "peer review?" Are you serious? From who and what panel or committee? Tell me who/what /when/where and I'll submit anything they want!
I've mailed work of mine out for years and never had a single response at any University anywhere! (as expected...but still, I had a small hope of something)
I ALREADY know what "mainstream" says...and I strongly disagree with it. (can it be somehow you have missed this?)
"Standing on the shoulders of giants" . Yes, there WERE giants, and now Lilliputians shout from their shoulders and proclaim they too, are giants.
I am not interested in reading "interpretations" concerning "spacetime" from ANY source other than A.E.! You are writing to me about someone's else's interpretations of "what it all means" from
this source or that source...I will stay with the ORIGINAL source.
I think of the concept of "spacetime" as useful tool, in the same manner as a "fulcrum and lever", not as a HAMMER.
Einstein never said anything like "spacetime is a fundamental aspect of quantum functions" (paraphrase) and we both know it, at least I hope you know it.
I agree with "space/matter/energy" all exist...where have I written I did not? I also agree gravity exists. I also agree with "time" as a "measuring tool".
I do not agree that "tick-rates" serve to define reality. I do not agree that "Time" is true "entity of self".
I do not agree with spacetime as true thing, an independent function...would spacetime have any meaning if there were no matter, or space, or energy? No.
(what is with the innuendos to me, personally? Grandeur? really? This is being snotty because you think I "deserve it"...it has nothing to do with theory)
(Thanks for reading!)
Probably because you had nothing.
Unless you are claiming conspiracy?
Show me the evidence you have that falsifies mainstream cosmology.
That's what I mean by delusions of grandeur.
Oh, we still have a few giants around.......and at least three Liliputians that I know of on this forum, all claiming to have a ToE!
Quite laughable!
You are nearly there.You just need to remember that time is far more than just a measuring tool....It fits in with what Albert Einstein really said. Space/time no less. Not some phrase taken out of context.
We have a couple of time threads...read up on them.
Check out GP-B.
In reply to paddoboy, re: my topic of energy.
You know some living giants in theoretical physics? Who? (pick your three "best" and tell me why they are worthy of the title "Giant...just a sentence will do for each)
We seem to be quite close in some areas, and worlds apart in others...only my concepts are vastly different from the "mainstream" with regard to the "how and why" of radiant energy.
I am not advocating "pink elephants actually control everything" or that "All of physics is claptrap".
You want to lump me in the "conspiracy" crowd? No...I have very little faith in "conspiracy" delusions and tirades that start with "...they are hiding things from us! They are keeping the real
truth from us...!" I want no part of it.
Is there a "meme" mindset prevalent in physics theory? Yes, I think so, in the sense of no one wants to be left "out" of the pack, and no one wants to risk being a pariah for uttering and
publishing ANYTHING contrary to "what is expected and accepted".
As for anyone I mailed to, I have doubts that any of it was read at all, or maybe a cursory glance and then discarded. I took a chance, and it didn't work.
"Time threads?" Yes, I have read many, many time "threads". I don't want to read anything anymore concerning "trains/clocks/light/observers/FTL ships/the twin paradox/time is faster here/
time is slower there/relativistic speeds and what would happen to this thing, that thing, and the other thing/ time travel is possible soon/etc. etc.
No, I've had my fill, thanks...Albert went thru all this already, and I'm happy to stay in his "house".
Am I proposing a new ToE? NO. A new GuT? NO. I don't have a clue! And likely never will...it doesn't bother me if I don't "hold the Universe in my palm".
(Thanks for reading!)
You know some living giants in theoretical physics? Who? (pick your three "best" and tell me why they are worthy of the title "Giant...just a sentence will do for each)
We seem to be quite close in some areas, and worlds apart in others...only my concepts are vastly different from the "mainstream" with regard to the "how and why" of radiant energy.
I am not advocating "pink elephants actually control everything" or that "All of physics is claptrap".
You want to lump me in the "conspiracy" crowd? No...I have very little faith in "conspiracy" delusions and tirades that start with "...they are hiding things from us! They are keeping the real
truth from us...!" I want no part of it.
Is there a "meme" mindset prevalent in physics theory? Yes, I think so, in the sense of no one wants to be left "out" of the pack, and no one wants to risk being a pariah for uttering and
publishing ANYTHING contrary to "what is expected and accepted".
As for anyone I mailed to, I have doubts that any of it was read at all, or maybe a cursory glance and then discarded. I took a chance, and it didn't work.
"Time threads?" Yes, I have read many, many time "threads". I don't want to read anything anymore concerning "trains/clocks/light/observers/FTL ships/the twin paradox/time is faster here/
time is slower there/relativistic speeds and what would happen to this thing, that thing, and the other thing/ time travel is possible soon/etc. etc.
No, I've had my fill, thanks...Albert went thru all this already, and I'm happy to stay in his "house".
Am I proposing a new ToE? NO. A new GuT? NO. I don't have a clue! And likely never will...it doesn't bother me if I don't "hold the Universe in my palm".
(Thanks for reading!)
Pssssssst, Einstein is the one who used the trains to talk about clocks/light/observers. Einstein is the one who proposed that time is affected by relative velocities. The fact that you cannot figure out this obvious fact has me rather concerned that there may be some real issues with you. Hopefully it is no more than a reading comprehension issue and nothing more serious.
Yeah, except for that tick that causes him to hit the enter key every few seconds.
In reply to origin, re: your reply.
What is "Pssst" indicate? You want to share a secret, or are you leaking somewhere?
Einstein? Trains? Observers? Yes, I have read it many times, and I wrote that I am NOT interested in someone else's interpretation of his observations!
Which part of that did you not understand?
P.S. don't "invite" a troll to respond to YOUR comments on my "thread". Start your own "Ace and Gary" show on your own "Topic"...I am NOT going to tolerate you being "oh so clever" by
inviting a troll in to make comments that are personal...or do you want the "mods" to intervene?
(Thanks for reading!)
What is "Pssst" indicate? You want to share a secret, or are you leaking somewhere?
Einstein? Trains? Observers? Yes, I have read it many times, and I wrote that I am NOT interested in someone else's interpretation of his observations!
Which part of that did you not understand?
P.S. don't "invite" a troll to respond to YOUR comments on my "thread". Start your own "Ace and Gary" show on your own "Topic"...I am NOT going to tolerate you being "oh so clever" by
inviting a troll in to make comments that are personal...or do you want the "mods" to intervene?
(Thanks for reading!)
comical..
as if it's not obvious as to who you are referring to.
you just can not keep me out of your nonsense.
it wasn't me(krash) who came here talking about me(out of the middle of no where), with out me knowing about it.
funny.
you were shown numerous times of einstein writings, not just interpretations.
you just do not want to accept what einstein established,and yet claims you agree with him, but yet turns around in the next sentence implying to think he's wrong, only because you are a " want to be scientist " and nothing more.
do you even listen to your self ?
The former.
Apparently you do not even like Einstein's interpretations of his own work? You said you had never heard Einstein talk about curved space (which is insane, since that is pretty much the point of GR) and when I supplied you his GR paper where he talks about curved space you ignored it; whinning about me 'looking things up'. It will be fascinating to see to what lengths will you go to hold on to your absurd interpretations of GR.
I did not understand how you can delude yourself so completely in the face of overwhelming evidence showing that you are completely and 100% wrong!
I have no idea what you are talking about, is this some sort of delusion/paranoia thing?
WTF is an "Ace and Gary" show?
By all means invite the mods in, maybe then we can all figure what in the hell you are talking about.:shrug:
Mod Hat:
Okay everybody... this may indeed be the Alternative Theories forum... but that doesn't mean that the rules are totally void.
Da Rules
Keep it civil, or don't comment. If you disagree with the theories here, but cannot offer evidence as to why, then simply state you disagree; do not fall to insults and such... lets clean up our acts a bit, alright?
On Topic:
Wait... you are claiming the speed of light never changes? As in, never ever?
The speed of light as we know it, C, is the speed of light in a vacuum. This speed changes both in atmosphere, in the presence of extreme gravity, through various medium (such as fluids), and light has even been frozen in place for a full minute.
Okay everybody... this may indeed be the Alternative Theories forum... but that doesn't mean that the rules are totally void.
Da Rules
Keep it civil, or don't comment. If you disagree with the theories here, but cannot offer evidence as to why, then simply state you disagree; do not fall to insults and such... lets clean up our acts a bit, alright?
On Topic:
Wait... you are claiming the speed of light never changes? As in, never ever?
The speed of light as we know it, C, is the speed of light in a vacuum. This speed changes both in atmosphere, in the presence of extreme gravity, through various medium (such as fluids), and light has even been frozen in place for a full minute.
Last edited: