Looking for honest peer !

I don't think so some how , I'm very good and my math is improving .

 

You're going to continue to be a crackpot as long as you claim Einstein was wrong without proving it, and then claiming that your statements are "axiomatic" after Einstein proved them wrong.

"50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions."

 

When I write the contents of 9.

The Universe inside and out !

Author:

Introduction.

The Universe inside and out is a scientific theory and paper that investigates and researches past physics and present physics . An investigation that'll propose semantic errors , incorrect physics interpretation and ostensible content that has no others uses but that of the practitioner. The Universe inside and out conceptually considers the intricate details of physical process in search of relative correctness ! Additionally , The Universe Inside and Out proposes several theoretical notions , the beginning of the visual universe , the gravity mechanism , the true nature of light and the meaning of time .


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

I'll demonstrate and prove Einstein was wrong !

I'm still working on 1,2 , 3 and my introduction at the moment !

 

Scratches head !

 

But you've already been proven wrong. Space is expanding. Time is relative to speed. You start off from a faulty premise and then say you'll prove it at the end. That's not how science works. You have to start with the known and work toward the unknown. You're denying what's already known. Unless you can prove that what is known is itself false, nothing you say after that is relevant or true. To take an analogy from biology, you're trying to establish the life-cycle of Bigfoot when Bigfoot doesn't exist, and claiming you'll prove Bigfoot's existence at the end.

Your zero point energy theory makes even less sense than the Big Bang, by the way. Virtual particles popping into and out of existence? Nuts. You have less evidence of that than you do that Einstein's theories of relativity are wrong. And you have absolutely no proof of that.

 

Oh boy ! Another one who is clueless . Space is not expanding !

 

The Universe Is Expanding Faster Than We Thought, Hubble Data Suggests

"However, the Planck data gives a constant about 9 percent lower than that of the new Hubble measurements, which estimate that the universe is expanding at 73 kilometers per second per megaparsec, (A megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years.)"

https://www.space.com/39815-hubble-suggests-universe-expanding-faster-study.html

"A Universe obeying the laws of General Relativity cannot simply have a static spacetime so long as it's full of matter. When we look out at ours, we see that it appears both homogeneous and isotropic. These two properties are so important, because they tell us two important things:

1. Homogeneous means that the Universe is the same everywhere in space.
2. Isotropic means that the Universe is the same in all directions.

Combined, they tell us that the Universe has an even distribution of matter/energy in it, no matter where you go or what direction you look in. That, combined with the fact that distant galaxies appear to recede more swiftly the farther they are from us, leave very few options as far as an explanation goes.




A Universe that obeys the laws of relativity and is filled, isotropically and homogeneously, with matter and/or radiation, cannot be static. It must expand or contract, dependent on what's inside it and in what amounts.E. Siegel / Beyond the Galaxy


While this could have been due to a number of factors, including:

• The light from these distant galaxies getting "tired" and losing energy as they travel through space,
• A rapid motion, where the faster-moving galaxies wind up farther away over time,
• An initial explosion, which pushes some galaxies farther away from us by the present,
• Or the fabric of space itself expanding,

only the last option was validated by the full suite of data supporting both the general theory of relativity and the astrophysical distribution and properties of all the galaxies observed.




The differences between a motion-only based explanation for redshift/distances (dotted line) and general relativity's (solid) predictions for distances in the expanding Universe. Definitively, only GR’s predictions match what we observe.Wikimedia Commons user Redshiftimprove


It became apparent very quickly — as early as the 1930s — that there are no two ways about it: the Universe is, in fact, expanding. The fact that the redshift of an object matched up to the distance relation and the observed expansion rate as well as it did, no matter how far away an object was, helped confirm that."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...w-do-we-know-space-is-expanding/#5e633cad49e6

Guess who is really clueless in this thread.

 

I'm well aware of poor semantics and poor interpretation , are you ?

Back to math

Q / m³^n = 0

Where Q is charge and m is meter , are you able to do maths ?

P.s The fact that the redshift of an object is not a red shift of space ! Space is not expanding . NEXT!

 

Yes I can - you not so much.

What does "m³^n" even mean ? A volume raised to the power "n" ?

 

The way that I see it is this: the only means by which it can be ascertained whether or not the universe is expanding or contracting is by knowing what its dimensions are at any given time. Does anyone know what it is at the moment? And a related question - what is beyond its outer reaches??

 

Actually we know that the universe is expanding based on sophisticated measurements of the distances and speeds of far distant objects. Nothing can account for these measurements except the expansion of space itself. An object cannot gain speed without an outside force acting on it, and yet that is what we see when we look out into space... distant galaxies are moving away, at increasing speed. Since no visible force is currently acting upon those distant galaxies to increase their speed in any way, the only explanation for it is expansion of space itself.

And while I sympathize with the desire to know what is "outside" the universe, everything we know is within the universe, all space-time, all light, all matter, all energy, all gravity. There's no way to know what is outside because we can't even comprehend what outside would be like.

Dimensions? I read that the furthest known object is now 46 billion light-years away. So the universe is at least 46 billion light-years across. And it's believed there are still further objects that we just haven't seen yet. Since the universe itself is only 13.8 billion years old, that means the universe at one time was expanding faster than the speed of light. My question: How can we see an object 46 billion light-years away if the longest that light has been travelling is 13.8 billion years? The light hasn't had time to reach us yet! My only theory is that the light has travelled with the expanding space to exceed the speed of light and so reach our eyes/telescopes in a shorter time period.

 

And what was it - or what is it, presuming it's still there? And where do you get all those numbers from?

 

It's a galaxy spotted by Hubble. Here's from Space.com:

"But though the sphere appears almost 28 billion light-years in diameter, it is far larger. Scientists know that the universe is expanding. Thus, while scientists might see a spot that lay 13.8 billion light-years from Earth at the time of the Big Bang, the universe has continued to expand over its lifetime. If inflation occurred at a constant rate through the life of the universe, that same spot is 46 billion light-years away today, making the diameter of the observable universe a sphere around 92 billion light-years."

And more...

"Instead of taking one measurement method, a team of scientists led by Mihran Vardanyan at the University of Oxford did a statistical analysis of all of the results. By using Bayesian model averaging, which focuses on how likely a model is to be correct given the data, rather than asking how well the model itself fits the data. They found that the universe is at least 250 times larger than the observable universe, or at least 7 trillion light-years across."

https://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html

Wikipedia lists the same galaxy as being just 13.3 billion light years away, but fails to take into account the expansion of space. It does note that on the page, though, that the actual distance is far greater because of the expansion of the universe.

 

I don't wish to be rude but how can you believe all that supernumerary crap?

 

Science! I took a couple of semesters of astronomy, so I have a basic grounding in the fundamentals. Everything builds on everything else, like Copernicus, then Galileo, then Newton, then Kepler, then Einstein. Even measuring the speed of light was a major breakthrough because light travels further than the circumference of the earth in under a second.

 

You mean it's all hearsay then?

 

Yes , meter cubed to the power of n? Does that work?

 

Everything is hearsay unless you can do the experiment yourself and verify it. Your own name and parentage are hearsay. All of history is hearsay, and many times removed from the source, most of the time.

 

I have proofs but nobody cares ....Most of ''your'' hearsay is mediocre minded !

 

Start with this simple physics

(e) + (+1e) = N for neutral , 0 net charge


That does not mean no net force F .

F = G



How about this :

+1e / m³^n = 0

and this :

e / m³^n = 0

and:

((e) + (+1e) / t ) * (e / m³^n ) + (+1e / m³^n )/t) = >4/3 pi r ³ / t

1E³

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

I know what I'm talking about ..... I've wrote some of the content so far that is in blue , 7 is a good way off yet , I might not even bother because of the arrogance of science with their BS that is astonishing .

Understand Higgs , Newton , Tesla. Einstein and Dirac were all considering the same thing which being precise is :

5. The n-field theory (The interior field matter of a binary expansion)

The Earth pushes down on the n-field ,curving it and increasing the n-field density , that is why the Earth is oblate . Proof of existence and evidence of the n-field .

The earth (N-field particle) emits a n-field , this field , wormholes towards the poles , it is inverted because the poles have less energy so it inverts the higher energy of the emitted n-field .

Physics is easy ...........Just imagine being inside a rubber ball but you were being attracted to the surface of the rubber ball in one direction. The rubber compresses in that direction . The rubber ball is expanding but the further you go away from the center of the rubber ball , the rubber balls density decreases .

D / X^n = 0 where D is density and X^n is a vector with unspecified length . You know if you was take a point charge Q and stretch it out in a linear manner , the density will become 0 at L= X^n where L is length

(Q / X^n ) / t = 0

If you was to take a point charge and stretch it out isotropically


(Q / R^n ) / t = 0

Where R is real coordinate space xyz

I'm obviously still working on the maths ....

I'm just so good at this ''chit'' !

 

Updated version of my theory wrote thus far ! Honest comments please ?

The Universe inside and out !

Author:

Introduction.
The Universe inside and out is a scientific theory and paper that investigates and researches past physics and present physics . An investigation that'll propose semantic errors , incorrect physics interpretation and ostensible content that has no others uses but that of the practitioner. The Universe inside and out conceptually considers the intricate details of physical process in search of relative correctness ! Additionally , The Universe Inside and Out proposes several theoretical notions , including the beginning of the visual universe , the gravity mechanism , the true nature of light and the meaning of time .

Contents:

1. Absolute Newtonian space
2. Micro bang theory (Point charge temporal transition to lower energy state points).
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

1. Absolute Newtonian space .

For purposeful and meaningful discussion I feel it is of utmost importance that we firstly all agree upon the definition of space .
A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.
It is important we do not change the context of this definition where semantics are important . People often generalise space as being contents included which is contradictory to our definition of space and not of fact .
Newton believed that absolute space remains always similar and immovable , independent of everything else . In consideration of what is space ? I propose that space is the unique property of an infinite void , agreeing with Newton that space is absolute and immovable . In regards to space , my scientific research as revealed there is no evidence that suggests anything other than these provided seven 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

There's no reason or reasons why these postulates are not of axiom value and hold true to observation . It would be quite absurd , subjective and illogical to disagree with the postulates without providing proof of evidence to demonstrate falsity of the postulates . Objectively , the seven postulates hold true and are unarguable without evidence of the contrary . 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 .
It is universally important that we define simplistic axiom's in a simple understandable manner that clarifies the exact content that all readers of the information can easily relate to without misinterpretation of the information.

Let us now in brief detail discuss each postulate individually to clarify our understanding !

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

It would be illogical to suggest that space , which has no physicality , can be created or destroyed ! There is no observed evidence to suggest anything other than the proposed postulate . Even after a nuclear bomb test , when the cloud settles , the observed space remains unaltered although there will be an increased radiation/energy levels , occupying that space .

2) Space is immovable

Bodies traverse through space and a bodies emitted spatial field moves with the body through space . The body moves relative to other bodies and all bodies move relative to space . Space itself being the relative stationary reference frame of fixed geometrical points . There is no evidence observational or otherwise to suggest that geometrical points of space can be displaced . Minkowski space-time , XYZt , is a four dimensional manifold coordinate system where the background is ''fixed '' and an objects coordinates are calculated by this . Einsteins four dimensional space-time and curvature is of field lines relative to the ''fixed'' reference frame of Minowski's space-time . However , in all scenarios , XYZt , is a finite metric visual measurement within a greater Newtonian absolute space .

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

Observationally with our eyes we can observe the decay of things and the aging of things . However , we never observe with our eyes the aging or the decaying of the space . Neither can we measure the age or decay of space as the only property of space itself is spatial room . It is quite clear literally speaking , that space itself has no mechanism to age or decay .

4) Space is the unique property of a void

A void is empty space and the only property of a void is the space until some thing such as matter is placed within the void ''frame'' . I do not feel this postulate needs a greater explanation other than this .

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

We only observe the visible light of objects but at times we can observe visible light when visible light is formed , such as a rainbow . Generally we do not observe visible light of / in the space between masses but we can detect it . The space itself has no mechanism to produce visible light and the space does not have magnitude of permeability to cause sufficient interaction with electromagnetic radiation to produce visible light .
Space neither has mechanism to be visible dark , darkness is of objects that are not illuminated , darkness not existing of the space . The space being relative transparent and clear to observation , passive to all matter .

6) Space is transparent

See postulate 5 .

7) Space has no physicality

There is no evidence to suggest that space itself has physicality , presence of bodily structure . Space is passive and this is seemingly evident . In the inflation of a balloon , the exterior space of the balloons surface , passes through the surface of the balloon , unimposing to become interior space . Similar we can 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 space . There can be no doubt that space has no physicality and the demonstration and simple experiments of the balloon and the glass confirms this .


2. Micro bang theory ( Point charge temporal transition to lower energy state points ).


We've already discussed the absolute of space and in a sense , space is an infinite volume of nothingness that has always existed and will always exist . It would seem quite impossible that a fundamental energy that powered the Universe could manifest itself from nothingness . Any given point of space would have no force or pressure acting on it , it would seem a miracle would be required for zero point energy (ZPE) to form at any given point of space . The notion of how energy first manifested is seemingly imperceivable , we can only make our best guess's , using our knowledge , logic and intuition of how this manifestation event could of possibly occurred.
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, proposing opposite polarity electrostatic point charges (mono-poles) , popping into and out of existence .
The Universe inside and out considers the conditions of a very high-density and high-temperature state , firstly recognising and proposing , that for any form of energy to exist or any event to take place , that energy or event would with a certainty need a pre-existing spatial volume to exist in or occur in . Thus concluding a pre-existing absolute space as explained prior in section 1 .
The Universe inside and out now explores the physics involved in the process and what would happen to a manifested point charge , that manifested at any given point of real coordinate space. In conceptual thought of a point charge namely zero point energy , it would be seemingly apparent that the surrounding spatial points of real coordinate space would have a lesser magnitude of energy and a lesser dense state than the higher density , higher energy state of the point charge .
In consideration of thermal dynamics and spectral emissions , a higher energy state points energy , traverses to lower energy state points . In the second law of thermodynamics ,heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature. Too assume a point charge does not function the same way would seem unrealistic ! Proposing that a manifested point charge undergoes a temporal transition , changing from one state or condition to another over a period of time , would seem realistic and an evidential proposal based on thermal dynamics and spectral emissions .
One could suggest that the point charge simply self annihilates by dispersing into space , by the natural self drive mechanism of higher energy temporal transition to lower energy state points . This would seem a ''true'' assumption and for our understanding the Universe inside and out proposes and requests you accept the self annihilation to be namely , The Micro bang process .
It is propositioned to you , that from the instant of manifestation of the point charge , the charge energy is instantly attracted to all of the surrounding real coordinate space of lesser energy , in an isotropic manner . This event being a conditional and natural transitional state , causality of self annihilation . It is also propositioned to you that the speed of this temporal transition process is the constant of c . The speed of light being a causality of the temporal transition of energy to a lower state energy .
It's difficult to express the temporal transition of energy changing from one state or condition to another mathematically in terms of units and values. The infinitive of space having no representation in terms of dimensions or values , XYZt and entropy being irrelevant .
To gain mutual understanding the Universe Inside and Out requests that you'll preliminary accept the value R^n to represent a n-dimensional , unspecified volume of real coordinate space .
Additionally for the purpose of the Micro Bang process , it is requested 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 process expresses :

1) (-Q / R^n)/t = 0

A negative point charge divided by an unspecified volume of real coordinate , lesser energy space .

2) (+Q / R^n)/t = 0

A positive point charge divided by an unspecified volume of real coordinate , lesser energy space .

Both the negative point charge and positive point charge , diminishing out of existence to 0 magnitude and 0 density .

 

‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Don't you agree?

 

Sorry, I initially misread the title of this thread as asking for advice on finding an 'honest beer'. Sadly I think that might actually have been a more interesting/productive topic than this one. Having read the scientific 'theories' expressed here I also have a sudden and urgent desire to consume one if only to kill the taste of this thread.

 

Yes, but unless we're talking about going back to the dawn of time, historical hearsay is accompanied by tangible evidence: for example, in the natural world the discovery of fossils and skeletal remains, and in things material, detected by electronics ie, cultural, coinage and military antiquities found by metal detectorists. And my own name and heritage are a matter of record, and fully documented in the appropriate official government agencies and genealogical repositories. Putting it crudely, 'hearsay' might or might not be interesting, but either way it isn't definitive proof of anything.

 

Proofs are not the currency of science. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.