Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.

# Theory of Space-time,gravity,energy,magnetism

## Recommended Posts

On ‎25‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 8:47 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.

Sorry, but what? Not only are you totally wrong I cannot even tell you why you're totally wrong because I can't follow what you're trying to say.

I will let you into a little secret. Mathematics doesnt represent reality. Mathematics has irrational numbers being entered into formulae as constants. It has irrational numbers for answers being fed into further formulae. And the final answer for almost every mathematical calculation is usually an irrational number too.

Any number with infinite decimal places (or infinite decimal places hidden by rounding up or down) can never represent something in a material reality. This is because irrational numbers can only ever represent irrational quantities. In English, everything in our material universe (matter, energy, space, time, etc) comes in or is built up out of discrete units which cannot be divided any further. In essence, rational quantities.

An example is distance - 0.000000000000000000000000000000000016 metres is the size of the building blocks for that one which is a rational number. Yet if I do a formulae that tells me I will travel 0.3333 (infinite 3s) metres in a second then thats an irrational number. An answer which is incompatible with discrete, irreducible units, for distance.

Humans are not intelligent enough yet to get rid of maths and replace it with something else. When it comes all our physics will get thrown out and replaced with something new. In my opinion we will discover we already have the answers buried in Gnosticism and Plato`s ideal forms.

They mean perfection can only exist in the mind, the material universe is an imperfect attempt at replicating it, and therefore is evil. We will come to see the cause of things as being attempts at perfection which have failed. Maths is perfection, rational quantities are not. The universe doesnt work off perfection (only our minds can because they are separate from it) it works off imperfections.

Edited by RabidMongoose
• 1

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Sorry, but what? Not only are you totally wrong I cannot even tell you why you're totally wrong because I can't follow what you're trying to say.

Well I'm not sure I can break it down any further then that. Gravity is a density in space time, magnetism is a flowing of space-time, and light and energy are a squeezing on space time. There I broke it down into one sentence for you. For some reason no one has ever given the effort of putting 2 dimensional drawings of gravity into 3 dimensional. There I did and that's what I came up with.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Any number with infinite decimal places (or infinite decimal places hidden by rounding up or down) can never represent something in a material reality. This is because irrational numbers can only ever represent irrational quantities. In English, everything in our material universe (matter, energy, space, time, etc) comes in or is built up out of discrete units which cannot be divided any further. In essence, rational quantities.

That's nice and logical. Maybe I  can use that information somewhere.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sepulchrave said:
• Laser interferometry is an extremely sensitive technique used in many situations, and if you understood general relativity you would see why it is a good choice for detecting gravitational waves.
• When the math junky gives a clear description of what gravitational waves should look like, and 50 years later when we finally have sensitive enough detectors we find gravitational waves matching that description, we believe the math junky.
• Sound, smell, mass, luminosity, etc. are all dimensions. They help describe an object. They do not give an object its "location" because that word means "position in space-time".

Wow! ok well now I am confident that I was right not to spend big money studying physics at college. I can remember being the kid in the class who would correct the teacher as they wrote up on the board, and here we are again   Well believe what you want I'm not going to stop you. Did you know sound waves travel at light speed because they're waves and they do cartwheels and jumping jacks.

Still I'd like to hear someone refute the OP like you would pointing out someone's perpetual motion machine needs an energy input. That's not really what my posts are. And I can refute some of the material in the OP so don't tell me it can't be done, I will accept that your to simple to read or understand the whole thing though.

##### Share on other sites

Managed to catch a video on youtube that's called '

The lecturer there explains that Peter Higgs et al defined the Higgs Field in 1964, which is claimed to occupy the entirety of space as a condensate.

I've definitely learned something.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Wow! ok well now I am confident that I was right not to spend big money studying physics at college. I can remember being the kid in the class who would correct the teacher as they wrote up on the board, and here we are again

I feel sorry for your teachers.

4 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Did you know sound waves travel at light speed because they're waves and they do cartwheels and jumping jacks.

No, I did not know that. In fact, I distinctly recall explaining how the speed of a wave can be predicted. But I am familiar with the ``straw man'' rhetorical fallacy.

4 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Still I'd like to hear someone refute the OP like you would pointing out someone's perpetual motion machine needs an energy input. That's not really what my posts are. And I can refute some of the material in the OP so don't tell me it can't be done, I will accept that your to simple to read or understand the whole thing though.

Since you asked, I would refute your OP by stating: ``Your concept of space-time energy grids is wrong because it is not Lorentz invariant.''

******************************

Incidentally, there also seems to be an ``anti-appeal to authority'' fallacy at work here: Attributing everything in a field (i.e. general relativity) to one expert (i.e. Einstein), ignoring all developments and contributions from others (i.e. Schwartzman, Eddington, Bondi, Wheeler, Feynman, etc.), then claiming that said field is invalid because modern intellectuals are just parroting the opinions of the original expert.

• 2

##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Wow! ok well now I am confident that I was right not to spend big money studying physics at college. I can remember being the kid in the class who would correct the teacher as they wrote up on the board, and here we are again   Well believe what you want I'm not going to stop you. Did you know sound waves travel at light speed because they're waves and they do cartwheels and jumping jacks.

I am quite sure any school worth its accreditation would've turned you away well before you spent any of your Mom's money.

5 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Still I'd like to hear someone refute the OP like you would pointing out someone's perpetual motion machine needs an energy input. That's not really what my posts are. And I can refute some of the material in the OP so don't tell me it can't be done, I will accept that your to simple to read or understand the whole thing though.

The fact that you don't realize how totally you have been proven wrong is very telling.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

The fact that you don't realize how totally you have been proven wrong is very telling.

quit bothering me, your creativity is insignificant but mine isn't. So stop bothering me.

1 hour ago, sepulchrave said:

Since you asked, I would refute your OP by stating: ``Your concept of space-time energy grids is wrong because it is not Lorentz invariant.''

I still don't know what you mean by this because you have a tendency of throwing out big names and providing no further information. My statements are so simple I really see no need for long explanations.

I suppose if you say how does the Lorentz variant work with this idea, I'd have to say special relativity dismissed an ether because the earth moving through the ether would have been noticeable, and if light waves, not gravity waves (we now know they re the same and would be equal in speed thanks to professor sepulchrave) that traveled on the ether would be different in speed depending on the direction the earth was moving through the ether. Is this what you mean by Lorentz invariation? I'm not sure what you mean. Anyways the conductive grid doesn't have the same problem as the ether because it only becomes active when acted upon. Understand?

##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

I still don't know what you mean by this because you have a tendency of throwing out big names and providing no further information. My statements are so simple I really see no need for long explanations.

I do have a tendency of throwing out technical words without explanation. However the technical word itself is usually a hyperlink to a fairly comprehensive source (in the present case it is Wikipedia, as it I often find it an excellent source for technical explanations).

I think your description of Lorentz invariance is correct.

I think your conductive grid violates Lorentz invariance. Based on my understanding of your previous statements, your theory states that compression in this grid is responsible for all energy sources, including electromagnetism. Specifically, the grid is distorted near an atom leading to the formation of electron shells.

However if there is a single, uniform, grid filling the whole Universe, then there should be a difference in the electron shell structure of an atom at rest and an atom in motion. If I understand your theory correctly, and this is the case, then it is not Lorentz invariant.

##### Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 7:52 PM, trevorhbj said:

I think you dramatically rule out the importance of imagination

No, you're dramatically ruling out the importance of mathematics. You cannot do physics on imagination and observation alone. I think Sepulchrave has pretty clearly outlined why this is the case.

On 7/31/2017 at 7:52 PM, trevorhbj said:

you seem smart

The guy has a PhD in physics.

I'll reiterate my point - science, physics especially, is not imagination and word salads. If you cannot use numbers to prove and predict then its borderline pointless.

##### Share on other sites
17 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

I will accept that your to simple to read or understand the whole thing though

And everyone else has accepted that you don't know what you're talking about. Muddled word salads and a weird refusal to listen to accepted, proven science = pseudoscience. You can't work in a field you do not understand, and by "field" I mean science, not just physics.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
16 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

quit bothering me, your creativity is insignificant but mine isn't. So stop bothering me.

You hubris is the only thing not insignificant about you son.

##### Share on other sites

Umm anyway

13 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

I think your conductive grid violates Lorentz invariance. Based on my understanding of your previous statements, your theory states that compression in this grid is responsible for all energy sources, including electromagnetism. Specifically, the grid is distorted near an atom leading to the formation of electron shells.

From my imagination I would say the universe and the conductive grid are at a standstill, the movement of the earth and the sun are pulling us through the conductive grid, and to a person standing at rest on the earth this does seemingly cause a variation in the speed of light. If you shot a light in the direction that you're traveling, the light would seemingly travel slower as you catch up to it  given your movement through the universe. So the speed of light does become distorted by galactic and solar movement however travels along the conductive grid at a constant speed.

13 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

However if there is a single, uniform, grid filling the whole Universe, then there should be a difference in the electron shell structure of an atom at rest and an atom in motion. If I understand your theory correctly, and this is the case, then it is not Lorentz invariant.

Why should there be a difference in an electron shell of an atom at rest then one in motion? The electron shell doesn't form at the speed of light. It is constant as a part of the nucleus of the atom.

Another quick point about gravity waves, they try to detect them from systems that are continuous in there output, example two black holes orbiting each other aren't going to make but a continuous output because the gravity wave coming from them isn't going to vary since they move at a constant rate. An explosion makes more sense because you're starting from a quiet gravity wave atmosphere to the sudden movement of weight.

Edited by trevorhbj

##### Share on other sites

Since we are on the subject of particle physics, I was talking with a friend last night and we were discussing, among other things, that science has shown something that is faster than the speed of light. This may not be the precise evaluation of the phenomenon, but I am referring to entanglement of two particles, what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance." I think the process is that if you reverse the charge (or spin?, I don't remember which) of one of two entangled particles, the other instantaneously reverses. And this entanglement does not seem to be affected by distance. It has already been done over some distance (a few miles I believe) but if, let's say, you had one particle on Earth and the other on the Moon and changing one caused an instantaneous change in the other, you have in some way "broken" the light speed barrier, because I believe it takes just over two seconds for light to travel from Earth to the Moon, and the entanglement happens instantaneously. Extrapolate this to Mars, or Pluto, or the nearest star system and you have a real mystery as to how one particle "knows" how the other particle has been altered over vast distances.

I've read a bit of Hawking, but I don't pretend to understand this or much of the various theories postulated today, but it's a fascinating puzzle.

• 2

##### Share on other sites
10 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

From my imagination I would say the universe and the conductive grid are at a standstill, the movement of the earth and the sun are pulling us through the conductive grid, and to a person standing at rest on the earth this does seemingly cause a variation in the speed of light. If you shot a light in the direction that you're traveling, the light would seemingly travel slower as you catch up to it  given your movement through the universe. So the speed of light does become distorted by galactic and solar movement however travels along the conductive grid at a constant speed.

That is a good, rational, theory. It is particularly excellent that it provides predictions that can be experimentally verified.

Unfortunately, it happens to be wrong. A ``conductive grid at a standstill'' violates Lorentz invariance, and suggests phenomena that are not observed in nature.

10 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Why should there be a difference in an electron shell of an atom at rest then one in motion? The electron shell doesn't form at the speed of light. It is constant as a part of the nucleus of the atom.

I don't think there should be any difference between electron shells in an atom at rest and in one in motion, but earlier you said:

On 2017-07-29 at 1:00 PM, trevorhbj said:

[snip] The orbiting electron puts a squeezing on both the conductive grid [snip]

So you are stating that an orbiting electron distorts the conductive grid; therefore a electron orbiting in an atom that is moving in this conductive grid would provide a different distortion than one from an atom at rest.

Again, this doesn't happen, and again this violates Lorentz invariance.

9 hours ago, Sundew said:

... but I am referring to entanglement of two particles, what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance." ...

I've read a bit of Hawking, but I don't pretend to understand this or much of the various theories postulated today, but it's a fascinating puzzle.

I don't think anyone has a good philosophical explanation for entanglement.

Entanglement was predicted from theory, as it is a direct consequence of the (relatively simple) postulates of quantum mechanics. Everyone, and I mean everyone, hates entanglement (or, more generally, hates the problem of measurement, i.e. ``god playing dice with the Universe'') and tries to find loop-holes, or add extra parts the the theory, to get rid of it.

So far, no success.

• 3

##### Share on other sites
On 8/7/2017 at 10:24 AM, trevorhbj said:

I still don't know what you mean by this because you have a tendency of throwing out big names and providing no further information.

My statements are so simple..

And largely wrong and disproven by historical and well-known observations.  Trevor, this is just embarrassing to watch and you are being quite rude to someone who is being endlessly patient with you.  Sep has been dead right on every politely and patiently outlined correction to your word salad and ill-thought-out musings.

You have done little or no research, you just make stuff up.. and frankly the only thing saving these threads of yours from being complete trainwrecks are the excellent educational posts by sep and others.

Pick another hobby..  One you might understand.  And I too, feel your teacher's pain..

Sepulchrave, as always, I salute you!

• 3

##### Share on other sites

So, the idea behind using lasers is to see if the initial emission of high energy pulls 'space-time' in anticipation of receipt of energy?

Will this be kept and maintained in space until Betelgeuse goes pop? Will it prove gravity or (negative and positive) flow?

'Gravity' waves might not rule out Trevorhbj's OP

• 1

##### Share on other sites
11 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

So you are stating that an orbiting electron distorts the conductive grid; therefore a electron orbiting in an atom that is moving in this conductive grid would provide a different distortion than one from an atom at rest.

Again, this doesn't happen, and again this violates Lorentz invariance.

I think Lorentz invariance is based on sound waves moving across an atmosphere being related to light waves moving across an ether. Light waves move across space-time not an ether which would absorb the light waves. LIGHT WAVES NO MATTER THE SPEED OF THERE SOURCE WILL TRAVEL OUTWARDS THROUGH SPACE-TIME AT 186,000 MPS. A light wave is always going to travel in space unaffected by other fields at light speed. If you were to move at light speed and shine a flashlight in the direction of the light you would be continuously catching up to the light coming from the flashlight. I don't see how the movement of the earth through the universe is any different. The earths movement does distort the speed of light. What exactly does the Lorentz invariation say about this? Does the light from the flashlight in the experiment move at double the speed of light?

Other wise I'd have to say the conductive grid is a hollow and not an atmosphere. The energy acting upon it moves around at light speed regardless if the grid it moves around on is moving. But I think in the early experiment using an interferometer to measure for the ether, they were looking for changes in the speed of light so small they were undetectable. has anyone repeated the experiments since then? It doesn't make any sense that in one example the speed of light slows down in relation to your reference point, and then in the Lorentz variation The speed of light is constant in all directions regardless of your reference point. Which is it? your the doctor.

##### Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

That is a good, rational, theory. It is particularly excellent that it provides predictions that can be experimentally verified.

Unfortunately, it happens to be wrong. A ``conductive grid at a standstill'' violates Lorentz invariance, and suggests phenomena that are not observed in nature.

Could you please point out what exactly is wrong with what I said. again your name dropping and not explaining.

##### Share on other sites

If light travels as a wave, and its speed is constant, then motion of the earth through the universe would definitely distort someone standing on earth's perspective of it. If you stood on a black hole and shined a light up the light would barely leave the flashlight and then just freeze there. Same thing if you were moving the speed of light and shined a flashlight in the direction your moving the light would barely come out and then you would be constantly catching up to that single light wave. Einstein said light moves at a constant speed regardless of the speed of the source of the light. From this we get the Lorentz invariation experiments.  However if the speed of the light source is catching up to the light it emits then one side would seem slower and the other faster. If you were to go faster then the speed of light you would begin watching the universe in reverse as you would be in the field of light that was previously shed by objects. The conductive grid allows for what Einstein said and for the obvious nature that gravity AND momentum slow down and bend light. So philosophically speaking I think both of these statements are true by observation and light along the conductive grid is the same as a car down the road past some church bells causing the doppler effect. I don't know how Lorentz showed that there was no ether do you?

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

If light travels as a wave, and its speed is constant, then motion of the earth through the universe would definitely distort someone standing on earth's perspective of it. If you stood on a black hole and shined a light up the light would barely leave the flashlight and then just freeze there. Same thing if you were moving the speed of light and shined a flashlight in the direction your moving the light would barely come out and then you would be constantly catching up to that single light wave....

Oh dear.  At that level of 'understanding' {cough/splutter} you guys are expecting this person to sensibly debate Lorentz?

I can't really offer any more commentary without breaking rules..  I would simply repeat my earlier post, and suggest that sometimes, threads should be put out of their misery...

• 2

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Oh dear.  At that level of 'understanding' {cough/splutter} you guys are expecting this person to sensibly debate Lorentz?

I can't really offer any more commentary without breaking rules..  I would simply repeat my earlier post, and suggest that sometimes, threads should be put out of their misery...

I agree and on trevor and maybe on the thread but I am enjoying reading what Sep and some others are posting as I am learning a lot.  I basically ignore trevor's silly drivel and read the responses.  If Sep stops answering then absolutely agree the thread should be closed.

• 2

##### Share on other sites

You guys and Trump are the same, you're both just stiff minded when it comes to reality.

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, trevorhbj said:

You guys and Trump are the same, you're both just stiff minded when it comes to reality.

Get off your Mom's computer little boy

• 1

##### Share on other sites
On 8/8/2017 at 5:26 AM, Sundew said:

Since we are on the subject of particle physics, I was talking with a friend last night and we were discussing, among other things, that science has shown something that is faster than the speed of light. This may not be the precise evaluation of the phenomenon, but I am referring to entanglement of two particles, what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance." I think the process is that if you reverse the charge (or spin?, I don't remember which) of one of two entangled particles, the other instantaneously reverses. And this entanglement does not seem to be affected by distance. It has already been done over some distance (a few miles I believe) but if, let's say, you had one particle on Earth and the other on the Moon and changing one caused an instantaneous change in the other, you have in some way "broken" the light speed barrier

Well, not really, but then again sorta yes.... No 'thing' broke the light speed barrier, no (measurable) energy broke the light speed barrier, and other than the fact that a characteristic of the particle changed, not even useful information broke it.  And we have not (yet?) come up with a usable way to make this 'quirk' take anything with it.

Sure, things may change and maybe we will uncover something 'usable' out of this weird and apparently instantaneous (*) behavior, but until then.. it is not a contender.

I trust you are also aware that other things 'effectively' break the light speed barrier, eg distant receding galaxies...  But they don't actually violate the relativity theories (I won't try to go further down that road, as I ain't as eloquent as Sepulchrave and will probably get it wrong anyways!

Start here, maybe.. but to really understand this fully... well, you have to be a better man than me!

* - I say 'apparently', becoz I suspect we are missing something here, and that eventually it will be shown it isn't *really* an example of instantaneous cause and effect....

• 1

##### Share on other sites

In my theory, the force spreading out from the small particles of super dense space-time is similar to thermal energy. Like an ice cube cooling a drink. Density in space time is a reaction to the density of the super small particles of matter. Between two gravity fields, space-time latches and pulls two objects together as a result of this force.

Edited by trevorhbj
• 1