Looking for honest peer !

"Doing" physics is like playing slide guitar. A lot of people with no idea about what they're think they're doing it very well indeed - they're not.

Given the very loose and unscientific way in which you have chosen to define it, then yes. A photon travelling through "A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied." renders it occupied for the duration of its travel and thus "destroys" the space for that time.

 

Regarding the highlighted, no it isn't.

 

Quite clearly you know little physics , a photon traversing through space from point to point , the photon occupies the space not destroys it . The space still exists within the photon , photons are an overlay . The space is 100% passive to the photon .

 

Possibly. I do have a degree in it, but that was a looooong time ago.

Which all goes to demonstrate the level of gibberish that you produce.

By your own definition of space, if something is in the volume, it's not space.

 

Huh ? You seem to be confusing space and spatial room . An object occupies space taking up spatial room but the space is unaltered and still exists within the object that is taking up the spatial room .

 

No, you seem to be the one who is confused. Arbitrary definitions, nonsense equations, no verifiable predictions, no supporting experimental evidence and yet you are right, and the whole of physics is wrong.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

You're well into three digits.....

 

You're talking crap again pal !

I've done my research and I know what I know !

My theory corrects physics , arrogance and ignorance on sciences part is astonishing . I can only believe it's intentionally obtuse because I'd rather not believe that everyone is really stupid .

You're not coming across as a person who can think for themselves .

I've noticed you've avoided the postulates !

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

2) Space is immovable

3) Space is timeless and has no mechanism to age or decay

4) Space is the unique property of a void

5) Space has no mechanism to be visible light or visible dark

6) Space is transparent

7) Space has no physicality

Are you denying the truth of these postulates ?

Move an upside down glass on a flat surface to the left or the right and the space passes through the glass , the movement displacing the interior air to a different position but not displacing the original position space .

Do you deny the experiments truth ?

Added- Additionally place an upside down glass on a flat surface and leave it relatively stationary , the air stays the same air but the interior space is constantly changing because of the Earths rotation and orbital path around the Sun .


Now that is what you call relativity my friend , Einstein taught me this chit !

 

You know nothing.

It's difficult to say, not only is your physics and mathematics flawed, so is your written English

Again, it's difficult to say because it does not appear to be written in intelligible English.

 

Again, you're talking rubbish pal !

I know my English literature is quite good and it reads well ! I can read my friend and my writing reads the same as I read your writing .


Your side tracking of the truth is admiral but wouldn't you actually like to learn some exact physics for a change that is semantically correct ?

My seven postulates use no maths , your argument is frivolous and irrelevant . Why can't you admit the postulates are the truth of reality ?

 

Your English literature may very well be fine, it's your English language which appears to be deficient as the highlighted part above shows.

Do you mean admirable as opposed to admiral ?

It's difficult to learn anything from you, your physics is confused, your maths is non-existent and your English is unintelligible

Your postulates contain nothing of value. They serve to define (in mutually inconsistent terms) something that you call "Space" but so what ?

You claim to be fixing physics but you haven't yet demonstrated that it's wrong.

 

Indeed I made a few literate errors in the last post but you understood what was meant anyway, to be able to correct them !

Einstein claims space and time are interwoven , this is simply not true . That is the but so what !

The big bang /science claims that space is expanding , this is also simply not true and the but so what !

The seven provided postulates and the two simple experiments provided demonstrate this !

Contents:

1. Absolute Newtonian space
2. Micro bang theory ( Virtual particles popping into and out of existence ).
3. Binary energy particle ( A quantum singularity )
4. Binary energy particle expansion ( Singularity expansion)
5. The n-field theory (The interior field matter of a binary expansion)
6. The N-field theory (Atomic matter)
7. The gravity mechanism
8. The nature of light
9. The meaning of time

When I write number nine , I'll demonstrate no time dilation .

 

Einstein's theories have been repeatedly demonstrated to be accurate experimentally.

You claim that they are wrong. Based on your posts to date, I'd guess that you simply don't understand them well enough to be able to say whether they are correct or incorrect.

You have an individual and highly unscientific thing you call "space" so I'll avoid using that word for fear of confusion.

Yes the big bang carries with it the conclusion that the universe is expanding. This is demonstrably true as a large number of observations have shown.

 

A journey of discover that will advance present science thoughts and theory , correcting semantic errors and incorrect interpretation , opening up a whole new era of science in regards to physics and physical process .

Nope ! I understand them well enough to be able to correct them .

Again you fail to ''hear'' .

Einsteins notions on time and light are incorrect and when I write 8 and 9 of the paper , this will be demonstrated and proven .

An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions , theory or hypothesis .

Einsteins notions on time dilation are ostensible . He interpreted the information incorrectly .

 

Guilty.

I hope it brings home to doubters how relevant Einstein's work is - as well as pointing to a case besides bombs and nuclear power plants where Newtonian physics just isn"t good enough..

 

I've started the next section , you guys hate reality don't you ?

2. Micro bang theory ( Virtual particles popping into and out of existence ).

We've already discussed the absolute of space and in a sense , space is an infinite volume of nothingness that as always existed and will always exist . It would seem quite impossible that a fundamental energy that powered the Universe could manifest itself from a nothingness . Any given point of space would have no force or pressure acting on it , it would seem a miracle was required for zero point energy (ZPE) , to be created at any given point of space . The notion of how energy first manifested if imperceivable , we can only make our best guess's , using our knowledge , logic and intuition of how this manifestation event could of possibly happened .
Micro bang theory is my proposal and best guess of how this is possible , using what knowledge we do know about the Universe .

 

It appears you need to go back and try to get the first part right, before moving on to part 2.

 

The first part is already correct !

I've also added to the second part and perhaps you might begin to understand reality .

2. Micro bang theory ( Virtual particles popping into and out of existence ).

We've already discussed the absolute of space and in a sense , space is an infinite volume of nothingness that as always existed and will always exist . It would seem quite impossible that a fundamental energy that powered the Universe could manifest itself from a nothingness . Any given point of space would have no force or pressure acting on it , it would seem a miracle was required for zero point energy (ZPE) , to be created at any given point of space . The notion of how energy first manifested if imperceivable , we can only make our best guess's , using our knowledge , logic and intuition of how this manifestation event could of possibly happened .
The present model , The Big Bang Theory , suggests the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state but gives no origin reason(s) of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested . Micro bang theory is my proposal and best guess of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested, explaining opposite polarity electrostatic point charges (mono-poles) , popping into and out of existence , being the fundamental energy that powers the Universe .

 

Old TV sets wouldn't have even worked without Relativity being factored in. In the old cathode-ray tubes, the mass of the electrons steered to create dots on the screen, move fast enough that the Relativistic mass increase had to be included.

 

He was only incorrect on some things !

 

Cool!! I'll remember that.

 

Here is another great one: Magnetic fields are really just electric fields viewed relativistically.

Proof: If you have an electrically charged sphere sitting in a room, and you stand near it, you would measure an electric field but not an electric field. However, if you run past the sphere, you have a charge in motion relative to you, and you would measure both an electric and a magnetic field.

 

I've done another edit , is there anyone who does not understand the following ?

It's difficult to express the Micro bang process mathematically in terms of units and values , the infinity of space having no representation in terms of dimensions or values , XYZt and entropy being irrelevant . To gain mutual understanding the Micro bang theory requests that you'll preliminary accept the value k to represent infinite absolute space . Additionally the Micro bang theory requests the preliminary acceptance of Q- to represent a negative charged mono-pole (traditionally an electron charge) and Q+ to represent a positive charged mono-pole (traditionally a Proton charge).

In preliminary acceptance of these values , the Micro bang theory expresses :

1) Q- / <E (k) = 0 to express a negative charged mono-pole divided by the lesser energy state of absolute space , annihilated out of negligible existence

2) Q+ / <E (k) = 0 to express a positive charged mono-pole divided by lesser energy state of absolute space , annihilated out of negligible existence


I also propose the force being imposed on any given point charge manifestation :

F = < E (force is equal to less than energy )

 

Guess what, once again the units don't match.

Your equation makes as much sense as saying that I weigh less than you are tall.......

 

Learn how to do some maths , I'm presently going over my maths with a forum moderator who I think is some sort of mathematician . I'll keep you updated ...

 

I did learn how to do some maths - it was an intrinsic part of my physics degree.

If that person is any kind of a mathematician they are going to ask you to define your terms and will quickly conclude that an equation which directly compares force and energy is utter nonsense.