Zero Point Theory - the universal constant Gravity

[Quantum Quack]

Gerhard, you may recall my question regarding the offset of magnet where by one pole is slightly stronger than the other?
You may recall the question: what if +1 + (-)1.023 = 0
What would this mean? And I wrote we would be in deep shit, deep shit big time... I did write this for a reason.
well.....
I just managed to find details of the Eridanas Void:

image source: http://current.com/community/92451003_the-eridanus-void-a-monster-black-hole-one-billion-light-years-across.htm

and this is exactly what I mean by deep shit.
What you are looking at is in effect "Absolute zero" and it is not a classic theorised black hole.

This anomoly causes the center of gravity to "refract" creating two centers of gravity instead of one. As with pseudo perpetual machines derived by use of gravity and magnetism an artificial COG has to be created for then to be successful.
What you see in the image is a lensing effect I predicted in 2004, but I didn't believe my own prediction. I did however express it in the form of literary fiction in a book yet to be finished, to be titled "The Center of Time" and I have dated emails in my archives discussing this anomally prior to 2007, if needed.

Notice the irony of the similarities as the image above was created in 2005. Prior to the discovery of the Eridanas Void in 2007


The phenonema described as Dark flow is a demonstration of the refraction of the universeal constant COG the black void described in the image is the cause of that refraction.
Accellerating Cosmic expansion may also be another symptom of a refracted COG as the strength of Gravity weakens accordingly.
It is also I believe the primary cause for the climate change we are experiencing...

and there is only one way this void can be created and it is not a "natural" event.

I write the above so that those "in the know" monitoring this dialogue can make up their minds as to whether or not to take me into their confidence or not. For me it doesn't matter either way.
This is why I published a web site called Zero Point Theory.

 

[Prof.Layman]

I have seen the picture of this black hole on television before, but I thought it was just a cheaply done special effect as no mention was made about it in particular. That is an amazing find, thanks for the link. But, I still can't help but wonder, is this thing for real? How old is this thing supposed to be anyways? It appears that they have found it on the CMB, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridanus_void Makes you wonder if it is just blocking the CMB picture or if the formation was actually 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

The supervoid is used as an explanation for the cold spot, because some don't see it can exist in any other way.

Those cold spots exist above the poles of nearly every planet, star and galaxy, and possibly dominion, and would be proportionately larger. You don't need a supervoid to produce these spots, because the background force is hundreds of thousands times stronger than ordinary matter.

The sun has two such cold spots about two light years south and two light years north. And yes they are linked to a force which stores energy in time.

This force is used to give celestial objects their position, orientation and relation to other objects. The line of force tends to be straight up and down, but varies, with some bending over to connect to a nearby object. Sometimes stars are attracted to them and you can see their shape. It is a form of connectivity. The same phenomenon takes place on a molecular level, with atoms, giving them specific charateristics of relating to other molecules, like receptor sites, bonding, polarity, magnetism etc.

When a star explodes, it is often possible to see material high-light these polar orientations. Scientists call them jets, which they believe are caused by the effects of a black hole, but the only black holes to be found are in theory.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The supervoid is used as an explanation for the cold spot, because some don't see it can exist in any other way.

Those cold spots exist above the poles of nearly every planet, star and galaxy, and possibly dominion, and would be proportionately larger. You don't need a supervoid to produce these spots, because the background force is hundreds of thousands times stronger than ordinary matter.

The sun has two such cold spots about two light years south and two light years north. And yes they are linked to a force which stores energy in time.

This force is used to give celestial objects their position, orientation and relation to other objects. The line of force tends to be straight up and down, but varies, with some bending over to connect to a nearby object. Sometimes stars are attracted to them and you can see their shape. It is a form of connectivity. The same phenomenon takes place on a molecular level, with atoms, giving them specific charateristics of relating to other molecules, like receptor sites, bonding, polarity, magnetism etc.

When a star explodes, it is often possible to see material high-light these polar orientations. Scientists call them jets, which they believe are caused by the effects of a black hole, but the only black holes to be found are in theory.

Yeah like a cancer it spreads every where... the image shows a cancerous growth at the heart of the universes structural integrity. the void is a tumor.
here we have over 300 and numbers growing rapidly, dead spots in the worlds oceans, another example of impact. IMO

 

[Quantum Quack]

I have seen the picture of this black hole on television before, but I thought it was just a cheaply done special effect as no mention was made about it in particular. That is an amazing find, thanks for the link. But, I still can't help but wonder, is this thing for real? How old is this thing supposed to be anyways? It appears that they have found it on the CMB, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridanus_void Makes you wonder if it is just blocking the CMB picture or if the formation was actually 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

The reasons that it is so hard to believe is because you are looking at a super massive, 1 billion light year diameter, artificially created "malignant tumor" where only natural phenonema is or was expected to be found.
The reality of how we measure time and distance is yet to be revealed. Science believes we are looking at light info history, are they in for a surprise when they realise that it is actually witnessing something in real time.
and I might add it is not considered in the same way as a black hole [ which is the extraordinary bit ]

 

[Quantum Quack]

Here is another image of the same void...

You will notice in both images the shape of the voids horizon is nearly a perfect circle or sphere. This is another reason why it is not a natural event as nature doesn't produce perfect circles or spheres. Only intelligent life such as humans can get close to doing that. There is no doubt in my mind that the void is an artificially evolved phenonema.
Another way of looking at it is using the term "Inverse Sphere"
see: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/1-05-the-inverse-sphere
It is it's 3 dimensional spherical shape that makes it stand out as an anomoly. A void of "absolute nothingness" in the form of a near perfect 3 d sphere.... [no Cosmic background radiation/force present]

 

[Prof.Layman]

The reasons that it is so hard to believe is because you are looking at a super massive, 1 billion light year diameter, artificially created "malignant tumor" where only natural phenonema is or was expected to be found.
The reality of how we measure time and distance is yet to be revealed. Science believes we are looking at light info history, are they in for a surprise when they realise that it is actually witnessing something in real time.
and I might add it is not considered in the same way as a black hole [ which is the extraordinary bit ]

Right, I was like, they didn't even try to make that to scale. It is amazing that the claims of the CMB say that the universe is perfectly homogeneous when the energy that formed the map has traveled through the seams of the visable universe to get to us even. But then I guess, there is always an exception to every rule. I don't think it would even be physically possible for there to be a universe-in-mass in this black hole. It may be one of the oldest black holes that we have found. I think if the neutron is unstable in a black hole then it could break down into quarks, and then quarks would also be unstable. I think the enterior could lose a lot of mass, as matter is converted to energy (E=mc^2). Then a less concentration of mass at the center of a black hole could increase the Schwarzchild Radius since it would have a lower density. I thought this could explain the size of a suppermassive black hole that is the size of a solar system, but This, is just a monstrosity!

It is like finding a cosmic string, that physicist use to write about. There isn't one behind it is there? But, from some of the theoretical work I read about from the 80's in some popularized books on suppermassive black holes, if it behaves the same way as those theories predected, it could only have about the density of one. That being about the same as water. So then it would only act like it was a giant blob of water that is 1 billion light years across. I think maybe that the electron is the most stable particle that could exist in the black hole and that the critical density of them could be close to one that would make it about 1 trillion kilograms. If it is a sphere, most likely since it seems to be looking us straight down.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Right, I was like, they didn't even try to make that to scale. It is amazing that the claims of the CMB say that the universe is perfectly homogeneous when the energy that formed the map has traveled through the seams of the visable universe to get to us even. But then I guess, there is always an exception to every rule. I don't think it would even be physically possible for there to be a universe-in-mass in this black hole. It may be one of the oldest black holes that we have found. I think if the neutron is unstable in a black hole then it could break down into quarks, and then quarks would also be unstable. I think the enterior could lose a lot of mass, as matter is converted to energy (E=mc^2). Then a less concentration of mass at the center of a black hole could increase the Schwarzchild Radius since it would have a lower density. I thought this could explain the size of a suppermassive black hole that is the size of a solar system, but This, is just a monstrosity!

It is like finding a cosmic string, that physicist use to write about. There isn't one behind it is there? But, from some of the theoretical work I read about from the 80's in some popularized books on suppermassive black holes, if it behaves the same way as those theories predected, it could only have about the density of one. That being about the same as water. So then it would only act like it was a giant blob of water that is 1 billion light years across. I think maybe that the electron is the most stable particle that could exist in the black hole and that the critical density of them could be close to one that would make it about 1 trillion kilograms. If it is a sphere, most likely since it seems to be looking us straight down.

sorry but you are still missing the key point.

It......is.....NOT......a......Black....hole
it is void. BIG difference!

if it was merely a black hole I would not have bothered posting about it...
scientists consider it as a void of nothingness...
Due to prediction made in 2004, I consider it as a void of nothingness... a normally impossible to determine "inverse sphere" as described in the link I provided.
I am tempted to post the chapters of the book written in 2004 but shall wait until someone actually asks me to. [It explains using fiction as a vehicle what I didn't want to believe as true]
However I will say this: "Humanity is not the only race with a vested interest in this anomoly"

 

[Prof.Layman]

Looks like a black hole to me, idk maybe I just don't get it. The link you gave said it was a black hole, and the videos I saw of it happened while scientist where describing black holes. I don't see anyway possible it could be anything other than a black hole. I can't say that I agree with the current theory describing the object. Suppermassive black holes used to be an outrageous far fetched theory, I just wonder if the theoreticians that first described it where correct and if it does show to have a density of one. I am just saying that if it is a black hole that it should show to have a mass of about 1 trillion kilograms not a universe, maybe a bit less I think I calculated for a cube.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Looks like a black hole to me, idk maybe I just don't get it. The link you gave said it was a black hole, and the videos I saw of it happened while scientist where describing black holes. I don't see anyway possible it could be anything other than a black hole. I can't say that I agree with the current theory describing the object. Suppermassive black holes used to be an outrageous far fetched theory, I just wonder if the theoreticians that first described it where correct and if it does show to have a density of one. I am just saying that if it is a black hole that it should show to have a mass of about 1 trillion kilograms not a universe, maybe a bit less I think I calculated for a cube.

ok.. I see the problem I think:
From what I read all scientist know is:

In August of 2007, astronomers at the University of Minnesota located a gigantic hole in the universe. This empty space, stretching nearly a billion light-years across, is devoid of any matter such as galaxies, stars, and gas, and neither does it contain the strange and mysterious dark matter, which can be detected but not seen.

and this:

A contrary theory proposed in The Journal of Cosmology suggests that our observable universe orbits a super-supermassive hole just as the stars of entire galaxies orbit and eventually are swallowed by the supermassive black holes at their center. Like the stars closest to the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy which have a greater velocity than stars on the outer arms (where the Earth is located), stars at the edge of our known, Hubble-length universe, orbit one of these "universe-in-mass holes" at a greater velocity than those stars further away thus effecting the red shift and dimness of light and creating the illusion the universe is accelerating and exanding.

reference: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/05/the-eridanus-black-hole-a-monster-one-billion-light-years-across.html
the notion of it being a "universe in mass Hole" is only a theory proposed in the "Journal of Cosmology" to explain what scientists currently can not explain as it does not conform to expectations about typical black holes.
They have yet to determine what it is...

 

[Quantum Quack]

A few things of interest whist researching this.
Apparently there are no official released or university studies on the Eridanas supervoid [dia: 150 Mpc] available on the web.
Info resources appears strictly limited to unqualified and dubious sources, for example the Journal of Cosmology reference.
Wiki decribes some details.

A much larger void by quite a sigificant factor discovered in 1998, called the Giant Void, [dia: 300-400Mpc] has no wiki page nor is their any info easily available on the web.

It is the distinct lack of information on both massive voids that is puzzling me....

 

[Quantum Quack]

In fact the serious lacking of credible information about a major discovery such as the Eridanas Void or more importantly the Giant void is not good at all...
it appears we have a internet "void" as well...

 

[Prof.Layman]

In fact the serious lacking of credible information about a major discovery such as the Eridanas Void or more importantly the Giant void is not good at all...
it appeasr we have a internet "void" as well...

I was told in school that you should never trust any information you find on the internet, as some of the information could be wrong and ruin your work on anything. When I first tried to tell someone on the internet about relativity they told me that it was only an illusion and that telling people that it was actually spacetime contraction had to stop, it was just a matter of perception. As no books I read described it this way, it was a total shocker.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I was told in school that you should never trust any information you find on the internet, as some of the information could be wrong and ruin your work on anything. When I first tried to tell someone on the internet about relativity they told me that it was only an illusion and that telling people that it was actually spacetime contraction had to stop, it was just a matter of perception. As no books I read described it this way, it was a total shocker.

You may not know it but my profession is actually a web designer. So I am familiar with the net and it's psychology [ got alot to learn I might add ]
and when I see a serious lack of official recognition for something that has been officially declared as true it indicates censorship of some kind.
How many universities are trying to work out what the Eridanas Void is? for example.

For an anomoly of such a scale you woud expect at least one major university to be working on it. It appears none are....or if they are it is maintained as classified and secret.

so it is a puzzle... no doubt about it.

 

[Prof.Layman]

Ah, the Eridanus Void must be what happens when too many of Stephen Hawkings dopplegangers win the black hole wars, lol.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ah, the Eridanus Void must be what happens when too many of Stephen Hawkings dopplegangers win the black hole wars, lol.

ha... but still if so why is wiki still referring to it and them as voids and not black holes do you think?

 

[Prof.Layman]

I did find this link, of Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D., http://current.com/1of204c This article seems more like reading the Book of the Dead or the Satanic Bible. It claims that Big Bang Theory is founded on relegious principles that have a Earth centered models. This is simply not true, and it seems to be the source of where all his accusations come from, that is a bad sign. In Big Bang theory, any location can be viewed as the center, use of Earth is only by convenience. But, any model should show that a location at any galaxy can be equally valid. This brings me to another point, how does the doppler shift of light, as he puts it, "know" what direction a body is traveling relative to Earth at all times? It doesn't, it just proves that space is actually expanding between galaxies. But, then he points out special cases of where the doppler shift changes, I think this is to be excpected of GR. These are stars or galaxies that are accelerating very quickly. Relativity states that an object in constant motion can be the center of a model or consider itself to be at rest but not an object that is accelerating. You can scientifically prove that an object is accelerating! Even if there is no absolute frame of reference! He then goes on about graviton holes that are smaller than the Planck Length and how they can refurbish matter, it is total nonsense and he is clearly a total crackpot. For one, something smaller than the Planck Length cannot be detected. By definition the distance is the distance it would take an infinite amount of energy to detect a variation. I haven't seen any infinite amounts of energy all bundled up into the Planck Scale, have you? During the conference they had of the discovery of the Higgs Boson, they even stated that they have given up on even trying to find the graviton, because it clearly doesn't fit into the standard model. Then it follows that if the Higgs Boson is discovered and can explain gravity, the graviton is not even necessary. That means that they will most likely never find it because it does not exist!

 

[Quantum Quack]

That means that they will most likely never find it because it does not exist!

yeah... finally... the recent CERN 8 billion euro experiment has inadvertently provided further proof of validity to the higgs boson not existing...[ chuckle]
The funny thing is that even if they found the particle they were looking for that particle MUST have a center of gravity. So I guess they will have to continue to chase the rabbit of "infinite reduction" even further until they hit the "inverse sphere" of zero point theory.
Zero Point theory clearly explains that the source of gravity is in fact NON-existance, Zero. And that gravity is the dimensional collapse of 3 dimensional "zero space" towards absolute zero...[ non-existance ]
So looking for something that doesn't exist is rather silly don't you think...

I wonder how much more money they are going to invest trying to find something that doesn't exist... yet everything has an evident center of gravity... the solution is staring them in the face...

 

[Prof.Layman]

yeah... finally... the recent CERN 8 billion euro experiment has inadvertently provided further proof of validity to the higgs boson not existing...[ chuckle]

I was saying that the graviton does not exist, not the Higgs Boson, unless news of that discovery has changed? During the annoucements I saw from July, 4th they tended to slip up and say that the Higgs Boson is responisble for gravity, but the source of gravity would actually come from the Higgs Field. It is pages of pure equations that describe how the standard model could be tied together. I have argued before that I don't think gravitons can exist mathmatically because then the surface of any sphere would then have to have an infinite number of force carriers in order for everything around it to feel the force of gravity at extreme distances. Like a light bulb, it is round so then the light coming away from it diverses, then it creates the illiusion of the light getting dimmer with distance. The photons just split apart, and the further from the source the further away they will be from each other. The graviton would then have to act in a similar way, but in order for it to relay the message of gravity to everything else in the universe the density of gravitons on any surface would have to be infinite. I think it is good for relativity and cosmology that we found the Higgs Boson and not the Graviton. I think it still leaves room in quantum mechanics for gravity to be described as a curvature of space, it is pages of equations crammed together after all. This way quantum mechanics can't win the war on more accurately describing the true nature of gravity. If it found the graviton it could have started to do that. So in a way it is still a victory for cosmology.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I was saying that the graviton does not exist, not the Higgs Boson, unless news of that discovery has changed? During the annoucements I saw from July, 4th they tended to slip up and say that the Higgs Boson is responisble for gravity, but the source of gravity would actually come from the Higgs Field. It is pages of pure equations that describe how the standard model could be tied together. I have argued before that I don't think gravitons can exist mathmatically because then the surface of any sphere would then have to have an infinite number of force carriers in order for everything around it to feel the force of gravity at extreme distances. Like a light bulb, it is round so then the light coming away from it diverses, then it creates the illiusion of the light getting dimmer with distance. The photons just split apart, and the further from the source the further away they will be from each other. The graviton would then have to act in a similar way, but in order for it to relay the message of gravity to everything else in the universe the density of gravitons on any surface would have to be infinite. I think it is good for relativity and cosmology that we found the Higgs Boson and not the Graviton. I think it still leaves room in quantum mechanics for gravity to be described as a curvature of space, it is pages of equations crammed together after all. This way quantum mechanics can't win the war on more accurately describing the true nature of gravity. If it found the graviton it could have started to do that. So in a way it is still a victory for cosmology.

The so called Higgs discovery is contraversial and yet to be confirmed. I believe the announcements were terribly premature although necessary to support the concerns of the huge investment made in it's search more than to do with actuall discovery. [ an act of politics rather than good science ]
There is no solid support for the declaration that I have found.

If the Higgs had been revealed it would be a huge global media frenzy... because most realise that it is the ultimate quest of science to discover the truth about matter and gravitational forces.

I believe you are correct. The use of a gravton model is inadequate.
However there is evidence I believe to suggest that 3 d space can be a form of an infinite matrix of zero points, [therfore replacing the graviton model] each exhibiting a quala of gravitational force with in a field of gravitation. Using this method of approach one can start to appreciate the advent of zero point energy and how energy can be extracted and returned to the field.
It was because of this infiinite matrix of zero points [ combining to make zero space universally], that eventually led me to discount the use of a Planck minimum as this would naturally lead ot the notion of a fixed dimension particle called a graviton.
zero space can be defined as:
+x + (-)x + (t=>0) = 0

zero space therefore has a time component and it only has the potential to deliver energy because absolute zero is paradoxed
+x + (-)x = absolute 0

esentially it means that absolute zero [ non-existance ] underpins reality. Reality exists in zero space due to the necessity of time [ motion ] required to resolve the non-existance of absolute zero.
Thus absolute rest is "non-existant" -as only absolute zero [which is non-existant] can only be at absolute rest.
"Nothing can be at absolute rest"
and well.....absolute zero is that "nothing"

zero piont theory is entirely self justified, self evident and entirely a natural outcome of zero being paradoxed.