Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
trevor borocz johnson

Theory of Space-time,gravity,energy,magnetism

203 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

trevor borocz johnson
Space time is made up of an inactive energy field in a grid structure, it only becomes active when energy acts on it. A second component of space time are blocks that line the energy grid. These void blocks, as I call them, are also made of an energy grid much smaller and only become active when acted upon by matter. 
 
The smallest particles of matter, such as protons and neutrons, are made of extremely dense substance of space time. Their density puts a squeezing force in the surrounding space time they exist in. The force is stronger the closer to the particle. This causes a gravity field. When a gravity field touches another gravity field, the same squeezing force of space time on space time applies and the larger gravity field squeezes on the weaker one pulling it harder. Both objects then move towards each other in proportion to there weight.
 
Electrons and energy are also a squeezing force on space-time. Electrons get caught in electron shells around atoms. They add weight to matter by squeezing on space time and giving the impression of gravity. When they convert into light there weight converts into momentum and the become a stress only on the energy grid, not on void blocks. Magnetism is a flowing of space time and its field doesn't create gravity either. A magnet acts like a fan for the energy grid of space, seen by the repulsion of two north or south ends. The electrons in the magnet all circle in the same direction which acts as the fan for empty space.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, Emma_Acid said:

I don't understand how people can think they're coming up with reasonable hypotheses when they obviously and fundamentally don't get the basics. WTF is an "inactive energy field"?? How does "energy" (a description of a system's properties, not a noun) act on it?

While I encourage interest in physics, I do find that posts by people who haven't done The Learning give off the impression that science is basically highfalutin guesswork.

Hmm... the idea of the "inactive energy field" kinda sounds similar to the Quantum Field theory of Zero-Point Energy ?

https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-explain-zero-point-energy-to-a-non-physicist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

As for the rest of it, I would have to say that the post - like the theory - has Zero Point ? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
6 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

WTF is an "inactive energy field"??

You may be able to get away with such a cliche predictable response to this type of post with other people who don't understand science, but not me my intelligence is high and have proven some of my other theories before. Don't come whackin at my thread with your nonsense about "oh, this is something original so I automatically have the right to swear and be an arhole" you ar.

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

 

32 minutes ago, trevorhbj said:

You may be able to get away with such a cliche predictable response to this type of post with other people who don't understand science, but not me my intelligence is high and have proven some of my other theories before. Don't come whackin at my thread with your nonsense about "oh, this is something original so I automatically have the right to swear and be an arhole" you ar.

That is very interesting Trevorhbj. Could you tell us a little more about these other theories that you have proven ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
23 hours ago, trevorhbj said:
The smallest particles of matter, such as protons and neutrons, are made of extremely dense substance of space time.

How are they made up of other particles? You didn't address this on your other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

How are they made up of other particles? You didn't address this on your other thread.

they re not made up of other particles what do you mean quarks? Baw I dismiss quarks protons and neutrons are the smallest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:
2 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

 

That is very interesting Trevorhbj. Could you tell us a little more about these other theories that you have proven ? 

My theory for energy production using explosives was true, doesn't mean this is true, just saying I deserve more credibility then to be written off so fast as "someone who doesn't even understand science"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus

I thought, with the gravity, that the squeezing creates a void of entropy that has to be filled, that creates the field.  I just thought entropy could be added.  Also, I personally, think doing that is a selfish act, and rude, if the particles had a personality, to create gravity like that.

though, if they were contracting in the first place i think that would be strong force, and the existance of the field in general would be the appearance of the weak force, because it is destructive.

 

Though, I'm still under my assumption that gravity is a secondary force caused by centrifugal force, but, I guess centrifugal force could then give rise to the other 3 forces as well.  I guess it's just what came first the chicken or the egg.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
1 hour ago, Opus Magnus said:

I thought, with the gravity, that the squeezing creates a void of entropy that has to be filled, that creates the field.  I just thought entropy could be added.  Also, I personally, think doing that is a selfish act, and rude, if the particles had a personality, to create gravity like that.

though, if they were contracting in the first place i think that would be strong force, and the existance of the field in general would be the appearance of the weak force, because it is destructive.

 

Though, I'm still under my assumption that gravity is a secondary force caused by centrifugal force, but, I guess centrifugal force could then give rise to the other 3 forces as well.  I guess it's just what came first the chicken or the egg.

 
interseting could you explain more what a void of entropy means? I don't mean the squeezing creates a void, the area that experiences squeezing is denser then normal space-time. Centrifugal forces are you talking about the idea that the planets circle around the sun like something going down a drain? explain more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
8 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

My theory for energy production using explosives was true, doesn't mean this is true, just saying I deserve more credibility then to be written off so fast as "someone who doesn't even understand science"

That's very interesting trevorhbj. Obviously, explosives produce energy when detonated, but I assume you mean something a bit more than that ?

When you said that you had "proven" this theory, could you explain how you did so ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
10 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

they re not made up of other particles what do you mean quarks? Baw I dismiss quarks protons and neutrons are the smallest.

Smaller than electrons? Why do you dismiss quarks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
13 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

On the other hand, trevorhbj managed to explain all 3 of these topics in a mere 267 words, without any equations! Where is the profit in that? I guess trevorhbj will make profit by sales of his ``trevorhbj to English dictionary'', but how will that pay for my mortgage?

I'm withholding some inventions from the public, so I'm just giving away a lot of stuff to get started. The OP is a boiling down of many pages of nonsense from three entirely filled scientific notebooks that took

 years. It's my best work though I think. 

 

13 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

A substantial fraction of my own time, and other scientists' time, is spent suppressing the fundamental theories discovered by one trevorhbj.

 There are so many branches of science I wouldn't understand, like explain x rays effect on space with my theory, or the flapping of wings, or pressure in water, These are just a few from my limited knowledge that I could try to explain, I'm sure sepulchrave could think of a bunch more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus

Well, based on what sepulcherave said, I don't know if I want to continue.  I feel like my ideas might get stolen, and sold for profit.  It seems like all too often if some man has a revolutionary idea, that when it gets gotten ahold of they turn it into something destructive like the atomic bomb.  Though, I think, the idea that there are 4 forces in quantum mechanics, that makes the cross, and I think it's a manifestation of the church, and part of it.  Relativity was invented by a Jewish man, so it's Jewish and duality instead.

Anyway, I mean, the strong force, I think, squeezing the particle together, that brings the entropy, the information of the particle inward, then that information being contracted inward appears like less information about the particle, so by reactive force, a field forms around the particle to make up for the information of the particle that seems to have been lost.  Like a wanting, or a hunger.  I think an example of this maybe be how far the cold reaches on an ice cube of water.  There appears to be a certain distance of how far the cold will travel on an ice cube, like a field.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson

Does anybody know if it is true or has been said before that space itself is conductive exemplified by the arcing that occurs between two wires in a vacuum? If space itself is conductive then that has to prove that its made up of something, I say inactive energy grid, but it could just as well be called inactive magnetic grid, or some word between inactive and grid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
22 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

they re not made up of other particles what do you mean quarks? Baw I dismiss quarks protons and neutrons are the smallest.

I don't believe in protons and neutrons. What do you have to justify the existence of protons and neutrons, in the first place? And what is the mass/size of proton/neutron (if they do exist) in your "theory"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
16 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

[...]

The fact is, us "professional scientists" are all in the pocket of big publishing companies and big universities. In the "fake science" that we professionals push on the public, an adequate theory of gravity takes at least 300 textbook pages to explain; similarly so for electromagnetism and quantum theory. These theories contain a lot of "fake equations" that are so complicated we "professional scientists" must teach a 12- or 13-week course just to begin to understand it.

[...]

Why go through all the years of learning and researching, biting your nails to the elbow while trying to find errors in your derivations/calculations/experiments, when you simply can come up with "theory" by just staring at the ceiling (first class math is more than enough for that).

Heck, I have my own theory of everything... At some point it involves fairies (not sure about elves, yet), but I have to figure out just few minor details... :rolleyes:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
7 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Does anybody know if it is true or has been said before that space itself is conductive exemplified by the arcing that occurs between two wires in a vacuum? If space itself is conductive then that has to prove that its made up of something, I say inactive energy grid, but it could just as well be called inactive magnetic grid, or some word between inactive and grid.

Matter can move through space, so I suppose is it acceptable to describe space as ``conductive''.

Most scientists would not agree that this ``proves'' that space is made of ``something''; this line of thinking sounds like the arguments for space begin filled with a luminiferous aether - arguments that were discarded a century ago.

Of course space is filled with an electric and magnetic field; if space is also quantized then I suppose one could loosely describe it as a ``grid''. However, no matter how you describe it, these fields and space itself must be Lorentz invariant (i.e. studying this ``grid'' must tell you whether you are standing still or moving at a constant speed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Time we measure from earth so it's limited days months years none of that matters to but us. 

Space is measured in light years as we understand it today.  So far Einstein is right but who know's, maybe we can prove him wrong one day.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 7/26/2017 at 6:41 AM, RoofGardener said:

Hmm... the idea of the "inactive energy field" kinda sounds similar to the Quantum Field theory of Zero-Point Energy ?

 

On 7/25/2017 at 0:47 PM, trevorhbj said:
Space time is made up of an inactive energy field in a grid structure, it only becomes active when energy acts on it. A second component of space time are blocks that line the energy grid. These void blocks, as I call them, are also made of an energy grid much smaller and only become active when acted upon by matter. 
 
The smallest particles of matter, such as protons and neutrons, are made of extremely dense substance of space time. Their density puts a squeezing force in the surrounding space time they exist in. The force is stronger the closer to the particle. This causes a gravity field. When a gravity field touches another gravity field, the same squeezing force of space time on space time applies and the larger gravity field squeezes on the weaker one pulling it harder. Both objects then move towards each other in proportion to there weight.
 
Electrons and energy are also a squeezing force on space-time. Electrons get caught in electron shells around atoms. They add weight to matter by squeezing on space time and giving the impression of gravity. When they convert into light there weight converts into momentum and the become a stress only on the energy grid, not on void blocks. Magnetism is a flowing of space time and its field doesn't create gravity either. A magnet acts like a fan for the energy grid of space, seen by the repulsion of two north or south ends. The electrons in the magnet all circle in the same direction which acts as the fan for empty space.

I would suggest  a book on the current understanding of physics or the cosmos by Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, or Leonard Susskind.  You can probably find TED talks.  You might be interested in String Theory.

Protons and neutrons seem to be made of smaller particles yet, sets of 3 quarks each.  Magnetic strong and weak forces which hold nuclei together are many times stronger than gravity.   If you are going to stick with relativity and spacetime, you will have to throw out the notion of grids, space doesn't seem to be the same everywhere all the time.  

I think you would enjoy looking into what some of the Nobel prize winners think about physics and the universe.  They have done a lot of the preliminary work for you.  You can build your theory in the area that has no explanation yet, maybe you could contribute.  Who knows.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank_Hoenedge

If the energy emission of the CMB and Stellar bodies flood each part of space with photons, like the 160MHz Microwave emissions, how would any such inactive energy field exist in an re-ionized spatial reference?

Although this sounds like a challenge it's intended as a reference to that one speck of dust in space that is in receipt of a converging energy potential from the surrounding star field higher in electronvolts than it could realize if it was broken down.

It's kind of like that one time there was a singularity before the big bang that contained all the energy that would enter the cosmos, the same energy that wasn't drawn back onto itself when the singularity consumed the last of the space time holding it in a field where gravity can manifest. You know, the one where the flow rate of energy transfer was so high that the cosmic inflation happened.

 

Now if it was me seeking discourse, I'd propose a starship capable of 0.2c speed, that was lined with meta-materials that provide static-cling to photons, the meta-materials are bent round the back of a wedge into a ball with a design to promote resonance pickup and coherence. The ball has two holes like photon slits.

I'd put forward that the ball can provide an s-curvature of acceleration by lowering the wavelength of incoming solar radiation (i.e. from 1.2mm to 0.9mm) due to the rate of transit on the meta-materials being slower than the velocity through space. You could then use the holes in the ball to focus incoming solar radiation into ejected matter to initiate an explosive force to provide thrust.

 

But such a concept would probably end up in the Dirac sea compared to the EM drive, why run before you can walk right?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
11 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

I don't believe in protons and neutrons. ......

Well, I spoke to some protons and neutrons down at my local pub last night, and apparently they don't believe in YOU ! :P

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
5 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Matter can move through space, so I suppose is it acceptable to describe space as ``conductive''.

Most scientists would not agree that this ``proves'' that space is made of ``something''; this line of thinking sounds like the arguments for space begin filled with a luminiferous aether - arguments that were discarded a century ago.

I was wondering what are gravitational waves if space isn't made of something?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
9 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

I was wondering what are gravitational waves if space isn't made of something?

That's what I'm saying is that space-time has properties like density which is how it has waves, the OP is just an attempt to explain how those properties could co exist in a 3d universe.

 

14 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Matter can move through space, so I suppose is it acceptable to describe space as ``conductive''.

mmm I don't know what you definition of conductive is but I meant electricity not matter. How would space conduct matter? anyways its proof enough in my mind that  space-time is a substance, that it can conduct electricity by itself. As you know element's and molecules vary on how well they conduct electricity. Has anyone ever answered why elements and molecules conduct electricity?

 

14 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Of course space is filled with an electric and magnetic field; if space is also quantized then I suppose one could loosely describe it as a ``grid''. However, no matter how you describe it, these fields and space itself must be Lorentz invariant (i.e. studying this ``grid'' must tell you whether you are standing still or moving at a constant speed).

I'm not going to say I think one way or the other on the grid concept because its just a loosely structured idea and I've had those in the past and they were wrong later on. So I'll just throw it out there that you create gravity waves in the grid if you're moving and if you're standing still you don't. I thought of detecting gravity waves by using an elastic microphone or a quartz gyroscope in a vacuum jar and setting off a large explosion far away. Maybe one of the two would pick up gravity waves. I even put a provisional patent on that.

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.