Thread: Did albert Einstein wrong when he turn to the time Dimension

ok-what i am saying is not the mainstream,that for sure,because i have new define..and other point of view..

but ok...let move to the question..
Did albert Einstein wrong when he turn to the time Dimension,and he didnt stay and try maybe to look if there are other elemant that could Match the missing element ,that will be Instead the "missing aether",maybe the space himself could bring the process (the fuel)and the missing energy that allow the universe to stay at the same way he is be now (not big Frozen material that could not have any Oabrtzih)
and explain why he make enough energy that will allow the universe stay at the way he is staying today...???
if space himself could change his state not only the material inside-- else the space himself that keep/allow the material and the energy to be at the space ---were been changing here state to energy..

for more understand i will try to make it simple--material and energy can be only at place that can hold them,there for there volume is not zero..

let take for example one point in space

let see what we are having there..

we have at that point :
e(energy) ,m(material),and the last thinks the space/area-this is very hard to explain this word at english(because this turn is not exsist at english-at hebrew this call merchav-that mean the place that allow the material can be -since material or energy,can not been at "
no -where"...
if this place(that have no volue=0,since he can hold the energy-could change his state or splite)-then we have the missing energy..

so maybe the black hole-is just place where-the space himself change his state..??



ok-let here what you can say..


cohen avshalom charly
israel /haifa
icarus5-universe at time minus
www.icarus5.com

if you like

you can say :hii / or nice...

that ok..

icarus5

Cohen,
hi. There are not huge numbers of members on the forum. It may be a while before anyone replies. Also your English is difficult to understand: people will need time to read it carefully to get what you mean.

When you talk about 'missing energy' do you mean 'dark energy'?

John Galt

yes i am understanding that this can take some time...that fine

the missing energy that i am speaking could be also from process that i call
exchange energy from area to energy
the same way then
e=mc^2

but this time the energy will came by Conversion of area to energy..


and as i said before ,some of my thinks ,are not at the mainstreem...

anyway thanks for the replying

icarus5

All I know is that there are space dimensions (up, left and forwards) and there are time dimensions (distance, speed, etc)

Bad Wolf..


nice to meet you..


bad wolf-how can you define -area after super nova---let say there were been star or other object ,and the object was distroy by supernova-what will be his

up, left and forwards) and there are time dimensions (distance, speed, etc

???


lol..


icarus5

I do not understand what you are reffering to.

Let me define the observable effects in my known dimensions. First of all all known dimensions in my theory splits into 3 main dimensions...

1) Inverse.
2) Time.
3) Space.

That is the order of hieracrchy but I do believe this belief to be malleable so there is no definte 'super strong dimensional hierarch'. For instance the fact that space and time interact with each other means they are interconnected some way and some how. Anyway, because of this I like to make this apparent in a chart that goes like this (crude at best):



The inverse is the exact opposite occuring in that area of space's anti-universe. It will have anti time effects and anti space effects, but itself is also anti, but the fact that this event interacts with each other is because of the inverse or invert dimension as I label it. That is if the universe is going from chaos to order then the anti universe is going from order to chaos as time is going backwards naturally.

Now because no area of the universe exists in the same time frame, these invert effects are localised to the area of like you say, the supernova. That means that a supernove (anti-supernova) is occuring in the same spacetime region, but on the inverse plane... I have no theory yet as to how the two (at least) inverse planes interact but believe them to be the source of anti matter. Both inverse universes share their matter and become converted to accomodate itself with the universe it has just entered. I also therfore conclude that there must be some interacting exchange particle allowing for matter to become anti matter and vice versa...

You see, the area of the supernova after in our (pro) universe or (C2O (Chaos to order)) is usually a black hole. But in the inverse region of the same spacetime in the anti universe (O2C (Order to chaos)), then the black hole has just become a supernova. Which logic would dictate meaning that a black hole is actually order... These two could interact with each other during this unique event and cause all sorts of interesting phenomena.

The brilliant idea behind this is that energy and even momentum, and baryoness is conserved during these exhangements of matter and anti matter because of the nature of matter and anti matter itself...

What is it you were asking again?

Here are my dimensions that I use starting with spatial ones:


Space (?)-SD Dimensions:


1. (1-SD) Forward/Backward

2. (2-SD) Left/Right

3. (3-SD) Upwards/Downwards

4. (4-SD) Inward Extremity/Outward Extremity (Bigger on inside than outside and vice versa)

5. (5-SD) Matter contact/Matter non-contact (Touch matter/anti matter/ not touch matte /anti matter)


Time (?)-TD Dimensions:


1. (1-TD) Speed (Any direction/Any direction)

2. (2-TD) Acceleration (Accelerate/Decelerate)

3. (3-TD) Distance (Closer/Farther)

4. (4-TD) Time (Past/Future)

5. (5-TD) Cause and effect (change past or future)

6. (6-TD) Alternate Event (event happening naturally different (coin flip opposite (head instead of tails (alternate universe)))).


Invert (?)-ID - Dimensions:


1. (1-ID) Pro/Anti Universe


So in my theory here are 12 dimensions... at least observable anyway. However they don't interact as space and time do with each other, they sub branch. For instance if you make a 3D cube of space, now do a 3D cube of time using, time, cause and effect, and parallel universes. You'll see it fit better and understand time a lot easier, and more importantly paradox free (at least in sight anyway, it can get more complicated and I'll explain that later). Actually I'll explain it now. If there is a paradox made in ordinary time that you know of (i.e the 4th dimension, or as I call it the 4th time dimension). This paradox exists through some bizarre and un natural phenomena, it ruptures the time-space fabric, and tears a huge hole in it where that part of time was. Unlike a spacetime black hole, a timespace black hole has the ability to reach out and destroy anything that is attributed to it, wherever in the inversespacetime or inversetimespace continuum it may be. In this instance, and ONLY THIS, may Marty McFly be erased from existence...


My theory is called 'The rudimentary unification theory of habituation' or TRUTH (ironic). It is called this because I believe the universe is very simple and yet it is simple when one understands that the universe best exists in not going from chaos to order or order going to chaos, but in a balance. Not balance either. Being chaos or order at any time with any amount of strength or weakness, I believe the universe acts this way natrually (take wave/particle duality for instance, order (particles) and waves (chaos) these work best separately and there is no reason to unite them into one, they are one already).



I know I know, complete jargon garbage... At least thinking this way helps me understand the easier dimensions and simpler theories of the universe such as relativity.

Bad Wolf-ok ,
first -i didnt know that you have your theory-but then this is ok-this is mean you like to thinks,and i like this(but this is look like many other theory)

second:can you link your theory..??

3.i dont say that you wrong and i am complete right-just i say i have my idea..

and i look at : black hole as area,that change his state...

4. i thinks that after this area change his state,this area has process of splite of the area --(that mean new area are creating inside of this new area zone)-but then i didnt yet speak with large a bout this happen by my idea...

i am speaking that near process happen also at area that not yet has define,,(i am calling that area,not format area),and i dont thinks that this area can hold e+m till he will have the process that i call (creation energy-that mean from one side you get area,and from the other way you will get area that can hold m+e..

that way you are getting at the CMR ,the gamma ray..
else the CMR would not appear..on the scan ..

icarus5

Dimensions are "degrees of freedom of movement", So:

Originally Posted by Bad Wolf

Space (?)-SD Dimensions:


1. (1-SD) Forward/Backward

Dimension

2. (2-SD) Left/Right

Dimension

3. (3-SD) Upwards/Downwards

Dimension

4. (4-SD) Inward Extremity/Outward Extremity (Bigger on inside than outside and vice versa)

Not a Dimension

5. (5-SD) Matter contact/Matter non-contact (Touch matter/anti matter/ not touch matte /anti matter)

Not a Dimension

Time (?)-TD Dimensions:


1. (1-TD) Speed (Any direction/Any direction)

Not a Dimension

2. (2-TD) Acceleration (Accelerate/Decelerate)

Not a Dimension

3. (3-TD) Distance (Closer/Farther)

Not a Dimension

4. (4-TD) Time (Past/Future)

Dimension

5. (5-TD) Cause and effect (change past or future)

Not a Dimension

6. (6-TD) Alternate Event (event happening naturally different (coin flip opposite (head instead of tails (alternate universe)))).

Not a Dimension

Invert (?)-ID - Dimensions:


1. (1-ID) Pro/Anti Universe

Not a Dimension

Janus..


i not so like the consept of mater and anti mater,i like to think in very basic way,before we are trying to find higher consept...

but i know,that the anti mater ,and the mater are very popular,because they are catching idea.

icarus5

Originally Posted by cohen avshalom

Janus..


i not so like the consept of mater and anti mater,i like to think in very basic way,before we are trying to find higher consept...

but i know,that the anti mater ,and the mater are very popular,because they are catching idea.

icarus5

It is not just a catching idea, they have been observed and are even being employed in technology.

KALSTER

i just not so like this idea,that all...

remark:
i had some nice time to sleep from last night...i so like the weekend-this give me some time for sleep (the gmt at israel +2 gmt)...lol

icarus5

Thanks for the feedback Janus - NOT (like I didn't know that was going to come from you ) You 'aint getting in my time machine...

Perhaps you should post your full theory, Bad Wolf.

Dimension is a broad term, he is just using a dictionary definition. However, if you have calculations and explanations, I know I, at least, would be interested in reading them.

Its difficult for me to explain because when I try to imagine non minkowski space or minkowski space curved and warped I have trouble trying to model the geometry and would not be able to even concievably imagine how new vectors would be intraploated into equations. I lack the mathematics to do this and whats more I don't even think I can even begin to explain phenomena I encounter, I don't even know if anything already known will help me.

In one of my calculations for instance I need a huge number or unit of time or speed added to make the number correct, and its ALWAYS the same number. Its not a number really but a power, power to the 66 noughts actually. I do not understand where it is coming from...

PS My full theory is here there and everywhere and its not a founding theory like relativity is in its own respect, my theory effects all physics and I don't know where to begin mapping from, I'm just trying to stick with basic algebra but I'm stuck in a rut there because the stuff I think about needs much better maths... I'll just post a few titles of my ideas (and yes I do divide by zero in some of them, screw maths rules)

C = U(y/EmS)

Where C = the maximum velocity of the object (in m/sec/sec)
Where U = the Unknown Constant (10 to the power 66)
Where y = the Lorentz factor
Where E = the energy of the object
Where m = the mass of the object
Where S = the charge of the object

Using that equation and taking the normal veloctiy of an electron using the above I was able to get the electrons max velocity and that above is the equation to find the maximum possible velocity of an object (with the properties it has), it only works on electrons at the moment for some reason but it does work. I actually (laught at this) did trial and error to find what I wanted ^_^)

Light and electrons are related more than protons and light, electromagnetism and light are very kinshipped.

I can't even defend any questions here you may ask, all I know is that this worked for me. I'm fully aware of how dodgy this equation is but it worked quite accuratley actually I also like to think of charge as 'phantom energy'.

One I really would like to show you is what I call 'Unique Relativity' that one is going to blow you away.... all I'm saying is if you travel towards a planet at 0.5c and you see light passing you at 1c then at what speed relative to you, relative to the planet is light travelling towards it? 1.5c Heeeheeeheeeee.

Originally Posted by alienmindsinc

Perhaps you should post your full theory, Bad Wolf.

Dimension is a broad term, he is just using a dictionary definition

No, I'm using the scientific definition. In science, you do not use broad terms, rather all terms have precise meanings.

Janus , Janus, Janus. What would you suggest then would make this theory viable then? In your all knowing physics knowledge *SATIRE*.

Ok, a little less of the jabs please. You guys have got a good and interesting discussion going on, let's not turn it into a personal thing.

Originally Posted by Bad Wolf

That is if the universe is going from chaos to order then the anti universe is going from order to chaos as time is going backwards naturally.

This was were I skipped. Specifically at '... as time is going backwards naturally.'. How do you get there? I never knew that's true.

It's not true for the known universe. May be for the anti universe?

Steve