# Thread: The law of conservation of total energy plus 1.

1. The law of conservation of energy has one extra component. Follow my logic and correct me if appropriate.Given;1). The singularity contained the universe, everything that is mass. energy and space.2). The singularity was finite (can not be ruled out)3). Space is increasing. Space is increasing (getting bigger) and the singularity was contained pre-mass, energy and space. If space is increasing then mass and energy must be decreasing. It is simple and logical, mass and energy (e=mc2) decay creating an increasing space. Space is the aether, created at the Big Bang and continuing to be created by all mass and energy.So New simple formula,The conservation of total energy = total mass + total energy + total space. The universe is decaying in potential energy this is the reason for a overall increase in entropy.Space is the field in field equations but needs to understood gravity dark energy and dark matter, black hole evaporation

2.

3. If space is increasing then mass and energy must be decreasing.....
why?

4. Originally Posted by Reaction
The law of conservation of energy has one extra component. Follow my logic and correct me if appropriate.Given;1). The singularity contained the universe, everything that is mass. energy and space.2). The singularity was finite (can not be ruled out)3). Space is increasing. Space is increasing (getting bigger) and the singularity was contained pre-mass, energy and space. If space is increasing then mass and energy must be decreasing. It is simple and logical, mass and energy (e=mc2) decay creating an increasing space. Space is the aether, created at the Big Bang and continuing to be created by all mass and energy.So New simple formula,The conservation of total energy = total mass + total energy + total space. The universe is decaying in potential energy this is the reason for a overall increase in entropy.Space is the field in field equations but needs to understood gravity dark energy and dark matter, black hole evaporation
I do think the universe is just matter, energy and space. The question is what is space. Maybe space is created as matter is diffused like in an inflationary phase. Maybe the universe started (this cycle) with all matter together or almost together with no space hardly left from the last cycle. As the universe inflated all the matter was diffused in a fractal kind of way with each and every piece creating its own space with its own field. The more diffused matter is, the more space there is. As the universe condenses the matter accumilates back into larger and larger pieces while space slowly shrinks along with the over size of the universe. When all matter has ALMOST accumilated again the cycle starts over.

5. Space is just the distance between stuff. It is not, itself, stuff.

It is more accurate to consider that the distances between things are increasing rather than "space is expanding".

6. Originally Posted by Strange
Space is just the distance between stuff. It is not, itself, stuff.
I agree

7. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
If space is increasing then mass and energy must be decreasing.....
why?
IF Mass and energy and space are finite (= 100%) and space is expanding and only three types of everything exist in this finite quantityTHENThe only logical option is the others (E=MC2) which are part of the same, must be decreasing. You see, if you want to believe that space is only the distance between stuff then your logic is flawed by evidence, the evidence which caused space to expand, inflation theory.If you want to believe that space is nothing then you are actually believing that nothing exists, but if you believe that space itself exists as something, created at the Big Bang and then continuing to be created by each piece of mass and energy as a natural decay process from particle to wave with a point of origin, energy transfer into a least potential form of energy, the gravitational wave, aligning with the field created by the Big Bang and continually still being created then every observation has a cohesive and simple answer.

8. If you want to believe that space is nothing.
There's a difference between space being nothing and there being nothing in space.

Shipping this to pseudo....

9. Originally Posted by Reaction
Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
If space is increasing then mass and energy must be decreasing.....
why?
IF Mass and energy and space are finite (= 100%) and space is expanding and only three types of everything exist in this finite quantityTHENThe only logical option is the others (E=MC2) which are part of the same, must be decreasing. You see, if you want to believe that space is only the distance between stuff then your logic is flawed by evidence, the evidence which caused space to expand, inflation theory.If you want to believe that space is nothing then you are actually believing that nothing exists, but if you believe that space itself exists as something, created at the Big Bang and then continuing to be created by each piece of mass and energy as a natural decay process from particle to wave with a point of origin, energy transfer into a least potential form of energy, the gravitational wave, aligning with the field created by the Big Bang and continually still being created then every observation has a cohesive and simple answer.
I don't think anything is being created and I don't think there is a such thing as a completely closed system. Matter expands when it heats up by adding space but not by creating it. Like in a balloon the space increases as the kinetic energy increases.

10. Originally Posted by Reaction
You see, if you want to believe that space is only the distance between stuff then your logic is flawed by evidence, the evidence which caused space to expand, inflation theory.
It is called the metric expansion of space. The only thing that increases is the metric; the measurement of distance between things.

I don't believe space is "stuff". Even though you left off the most compelling arguments (e.g. that the vacuum has measurable properties and non-zero energy) ...

11. I believe this "NEW CONCEPT" explains the basis for a theory of EVERYTHING. The universe started as a singularity- 100% particle Mass and energy are a transition step of particle/ wave duality and the continuously generated gravitational wave which is 100% wave. The universe is a particle to wave process. 1). Evidence 1993 Nobel prize shows evidence of indirect gravitational energy loss in a galaxy. Look at dark energy in this light, the imagine a Big Bang creating an expanding space and that space is added to by mass an energy through wave alignment. This creates a constant force with a decreasing mass= increasing acceleration. If this is the case then here is a simple mechanism of action;Place two balls of string on the floor about ten feet apart and tie the free ends together, the balls represents mass, and the tied free ends represent gravitational waves aligning and being continuously given off. Now walk away from the balls holding the tied ends. The balls move with you continuing to accelerate and the balls move together. One explanation explains dark energy and gravity as a wave pulling mass synchronizing action and reaction. It solves the problem of a whole lot more.

12. OK. What quantitative predictions does this new theory make that can be tested against observation or experiment?

13. Originally Posted by Reaction
I believe this "NEW CONCEPT" explains the basis for a theory of EVERYTHING. The universe started as a singularity- 100% particle Mass and energy are a transition step of particle/ wave duality and the continuously generated gravitational wave which is 100% wave. The universe is a particle to wave process. 1). Evidence 1993 Nobel prize shows evidence of indirect gravitational energy loss in a galaxy. Look at dark energy in this light, the imagine a Big Bang creating an expanding space and that space is added to by mass an energy through wave alignment. This creates a constant force with a decreasing mass= increasing acceleration. If this is the case then here is a simple mechanism of action;Place two balls of string on the floor about ten feet apart and tie the free ends together, the balls represents mass, and the tied free ends represent gravitational waves aligning and being continuously given off. Now walk away from the balls holding the tied ends. The balls move with you continuing to accelerate and the balls move together. One explanation explains dark energy and gravity as a wave pulling mass synchronizing action and reaction. It solves the problem of a whole lot more.
What reverses the singularity?Can you describe a transition step?How is a gravitational wave continuously generated or generated at all?How does a galaxy have gravitational energy loss?How is space created?What is dark energy if it is not kinetic energy?What FORCE or sequence of events pulls the strings in your anology to begin with?

14. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
If you want to believe that space is nothing.
There's a difference between space being nothing and there being nothing in space.
Shipping this to pseudo....
Lynn, your opinion is incorrect and that is why you can not understand such actions as dark energy, dark matter, inflation that is why you can not create a comprehendible understanding of the progress of the universe.

Funny because 4th grade math teaches that "nothing" doesn't exist so if space exists it is something according to BASIC RULES OF MATH. It is crazy that science thinks Nothing has energy and there is another problem with today's thinking... The brainwashing is pseudo science gone mainstream.

Remember that Physicists used to think that all waves needed a medium and in the 1880's Michelson and Morley were so sure there was an aether they spent 10 years trying to find it. They could not find it and incorrectly ruled it out, I believe. It never occurred to them that the aether is density dependent as an aether that is generated locally, by mass. (and energy).It is a false belief that there is no Aether because you can not explain inflation or dark energy without it. This is NOT pseudo science because it follows Isaac Newton's laws in a single reference frame, Einstein's general relativity in moving reference frames and it predicts dark matter and dark energy as a part of the same process that governs gravitation.

15. Originally Posted by bill alsept
Originally Posted by Reaction
I believe this "NEW CONCEPT" explains the basis for a theory of EVERYTHING. The universe started as a singularity- 100% particle Mass and energy are a transition step of particle/ wave duality and the continuously generated gravitational wave which is 100% wave. The universe is a particle to wave process. 1). Evidence 1993 Nobel prize shows evidence of indirect gravitational energy loss in a galaxy. Look at dark energy in this light, the imagine a Big Bang creating an expanding space and that space is added to by mass an energy through wave alignment. This creates a constant force with a decreasing mass= increasing acceleration. If this is the case then here is a simple mechanism of action;Place two balls of string on the floor about ten feet apart and tie the free ends together, the balls represents mass, and the tied free ends represent gravitational waves aligning and being continuously given off. Now walk away from the balls holding the tied ends. The balls move with you continuing to accelerate and the balls move together. One explanation explains dark energy and gravity as a wave pulling mass synchronizing action and reaction. It solves the problem of a whole lot more.
What reverses the singularity?Can you describe a transition step?How is a gravitational wave continuously generated or generated at all?How does a galaxy have gravitational energy loss?How is space created?What is dark energy if it is not kinetic energy?What FORCE or sequence of events pulls the strings in your anology to begin with?
I have not talked about reversing the singularity, why would you ask that? I have cover all the other questions so reread.

16. Originally Posted by Strange
OK. What quantitative predictions does this new theory make that can be tested against observation or experiment?
There will be areas between galaxies of wavefront formation of space that act as light scatters from quasars. So a glow will be seen of dark matter in which no mass exists, actually it is a lot like what a spinning pinwheel would do to a fly trying to fly through it and light will scatter around it and appear to be a galaxy of dark matter.

17. Concerning the Pulling of strings in the analogy. The Big Bang created space itself as the gravitational wave/field traveling at the speed of light or a little faster as the least potential form of energy. Each mass and energy still generating these waves align with the waves created by the Big Bang in a continuous process, this wave alignment as space is expanding creates a continuous force. It has been known for 100's of years that when balls in a medium generate waves with Long wavelengths that the balls move together as the waves with long periods come together they bring the sources generating the waves together. People just lost the ability to learn the basics.

18. Originally Posted by Reaction
People just lost the ability to learn the basics.
So it seems.

19. Originally Posted by Reaction
Originally Posted by Strange
OK. What quantitative predictions does this new theory make that can be tested against observation or experiment?
There will be areas between galaxies of wavefront formation of space that act as light scatters from quasars. So a glow will be seen of dark matter in which no mass exists, actually it is a lot like what a spinning pinwheel would do to a fly trying to fly through it and light will scatter around it and appear to be a galaxy of dark matter.
OK. Not quantitative but a prediction I suppose. Is there any evidence for these "wavefronts" between galaxies?

20. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Reaction
People just lost the ability to learn the basics.
So it seems.
Here is an expletive example;When constructive wave interference is created by a two wave generating sources there is a reaction to the action of wave amplitude increase in the medium. This reaction creates a force of wave alignment between the sources and the sources spatially move together and touch. This wave synchronization aligns the sources with the exact formulas as Newton's laws of universal gravitation. Wave alignment is a contact force. This is fundamental yet unknown to date.

It is funny that the real and finally a sensible and understandable mechanism explaining gravity and dark energy are pseudo science.

21. Originally Posted by Reaction
When constructive wave interference is created by a two wave generating sources there is a reaction to the action of wave amplitude increase in the medium. This reaction creates a force of wave alignment between the sources and the sources spatially move together and touch. This wave synchronization aligns the sources with the exact formulas as Newton's laws of universal gravitation. Wave alignment is a contact force. This is fundamental yet unknown to date.
This is pretty exciting stuff.

Can you demonstrate, in appropriate mathematical detail, that this mechanism reproduces Newtonian gravity, at low energies.

And further that it accounts for things like the precession of Mercury and gravitational lensing.

22. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Reaction
When constructive wave interference is created by a two wave generating sources there is a reaction to the action of wave amplitude increase in the medium. This reaction creates a force of wave alignment between the sources and the sources spatially move together and touch. This wave synchronization aligns the sources with the exact formulas as Newton's laws of universal gravitation. Wave alignment is a contact force. This is fundamental yet unknown to date.
This is pretty exciting stuff.Can you demonstrate, in appropriate mathematical detail, that this mechanism reproduces Newtonian gravity, at low energies.And further that it accounts for things like the precession of Mercury and gravitational lensing.
Yes, but I would just be writing Einstein's equations for what you ask. The trick is to understand the mechanism of wave emission and wave alignment. In deep space you will be adding a constant force, a cosmological constant on the opposite side of Einstein's original constant. He had the constant on the wrong side. What I am telling you is the concept that Einstein could not piece together which simply is; everything decays and eventually becomes all space. It is a particle to wave unraveling, the very basis of an increase in entropy.
There is another correction factor with galaxies concerning dark matter and it is just a strength of fields issue and it requires a detailed mapping of all masses which is soon going to start.

23. What I find exciting is to be able to understand concretely, the missing pieces of knowledge, a few new chapters in wave interaction. It is old school and there are a few breakthrough and breathtaking original ideas that flow which allow for a possible instantaneous communication over distance.
Concerning Interference, there are three phases, dipole, monopole and free interference. I believe someone should follow up with me or without me and rewrite the laws in proper context.
It could be a fun ride to hop on...

It is curiously funny that without truly knowing the correct answer to the way the universe most people eliminate possibilities without proper venting. Michelson and Morley did find that if there was an external aether it did not effect the speed of light so they eliminated the possibility of any aether. The idea of an internally generated aether joining a complex aether field created in the past was not even on anyone radar. They had no clue that the aether (wave-field) affects/modulates the speed of light internally. Remember that the speed of light always is constant (to the observer independent of the speed of the source)- because the internally generated aether ( the gravitational wave/field) is creating the laws of locality, the speed of light which is also emitting a gravitational wave is synchronizing and aligning increasing the amplitude of the field as it expands and appears as a stationary field but it is continuous being generated, continuously expanding as photons of all spectra are star-generated and replace the generated by-product in specific packets as electromagnetic fields decay into monopole gravitational wave/fields. It's a lot or absorb, and I am too tired to clarify anything right now. Zzz

24. This is all starting to sound suspiciously familiar.

Instantaneous communication over distance is nothing to get excited about. Violating causality is fraught with problems.

25. Amazing, the sheer genius you can find on internet science forums.

</sarcasm>

26. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Reaction
Originally Posted by Strange
OK. What quantitative predictions does this new theory make that can be tested against observation or experiment?
There will be areas between galaxies of wavefront formation of space that act as light scatters from quasars. So a glow will be seen of dark matter in which no mass exists, actually it is a lot like what a spinning pinwheel would do to a fly trying to fly through it and light will scatter around it and appear to be a galaxy of dark matter.
OK. Not quantitative but a prediction I suppose. Is there any evidence for these "wavefronts" between galaxies?
Dark Matter will be demonstrated to be empty space. Then they will look for what they missed and they will come across an old principle, the Huygens principle and what were perceived to be the shortcomings and how Huygens actually had it the whole time and never knew.

27. Originally Posted by AlexG
Amazing, the sheer genius you can find on internet science forums.
Feeble attack, here is your story, you have your own theory and I stepped on it and so you add nothing except open your mouth and leave absolutely no doubt who you are. I pity ignorance.

He is your opportunity to shoot me down and prove me wrong.

What I enjoy is intelligent discussion, for example I claim that a physics law was missed.
The missing law is that wave generation from two or more sources create a reaction to wavefront formation.

As proof; I suggest you pick up two ping pong balls and hold them 1/4 inch apart and 6 feet above still water and drop them. The action is that when the ping pong balls hit the water they create two ripples which join to become one bigger ripple. The reaction is that the ping pong balls pop up and touch. There is a reaction to joining wavefronts. It is a fact, it was completely ignored but it is true, wave formation is a CONTACT FORCE.

Here is your chance to show everyone that I am wrong and you are right or I will take silence as your true ability to use your mind. Now "put up or shut up"(1).

Reference
1). http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/...+up+or+shut+up
Put up or shut up (informal) -
if you say someone should put up or shut up, you mean they should either take action in order to do what they have been talking about or stop talking about it

28. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
This is all starting to sound suspiciously familiar.Instantaneous communication over distance is nothing to get excited about. Violating causality is fraught with problems.
You put the Cart before the horse. There is and NEVER can be a violation of causality. Have you ever seen a magic trick where too know that it is a trick, you know that magic is not possible but you can not figure out how it works. Right now it is like that to you. You can not see that it is possible with out violating causality but it does not and is still instantaneous. It happens at the same instant but is 100% cause and effect and never any other way.

29. It happens at the same instant but is 100% cause and effect and never any other way.
Cause comes BEFORE effect. It they happen at the same instant, how is one before the other?

30. That would be a zero modulus of elasticity. This is a good teaching moment:

.... For example imagine a solid tube at absolute zero and you rotate one end of the tube and the other end instantly rotates. Now this example with mass is impossible but my point is that your action, which took time to do is the cause and effect, the arm rotating the tube, the tube rotating at both ends simultaneously is the effect. This hypothetical ( in reality it can never happen this way) example is given to show that a cause and effect can not exactly happen instantaneously even though an effect can happen in two places at once. You are limiting your understanding and then exploiting your self imposed limit by a false understanding of how the cause and effect actually exist.

It reminds me of a conversation I was having with an astrophysicists who is well known on Cable and he stopped and said: you are not acting like a student and I said that is because I am trying to tell you that wave theory is incomplete and missing a few chapters.

31. So the cause is the action of rotation, the effect is both ends rotate at the same moment in time. Whether you rotate it from the middle or either end in the above hypothetical example the ends still rotate at the same time if you could establish a zero modulus of elasticity. In real life, mass is connected with wlecteomagnetic fields which act as flexible springs and delay time. I may have figured out a simple way to beat the system. I could be totally wrong, but right now I don't see that I am wrong but with this and this only I can not say 100% that I am right either.

32. Originally Posted by Reaction
Yes, but I would just be writing Einstein's equations for what you ask.
Ah. I might have known.

It is truly incredible the range of things that people (with no apparent mathematical ability) think can be described by Einstein's field equations: displaced aether, springs, waves, unicorns, internal combustion engine ...

Could you please demonstrate, actually prove is the appropriate word here as we are dealing with mathematics, that the Einstein field equations can be applied to the mechanism that you are describing.

If you can't do this, I will be forced to assume that you don't know what you are talking about and are just making things up.

33. Let me see if I understand you correctly. In a pseudoscience forum, in which I was denegraded, with out a non- disclosure signature, in an open forum you want me to show PROVE, how by adding a changing strength field and clarifying the Hubble constant as a force, you want me show you a new streas tensor and add it to all 10 of Einstein's equations? The math from my IPhone how the universe works or you will take what away from me? You? Laughable so do it. Hey Siri, can my phone please list the.... Laughable. I state in concrete terms the mechanism, a missed physics law but you are so preprogrammed to demand math that you do not have the ability to ask the right question. So you are not getting what you want so do what you said you will do. It was nice chatting while it lasted.

I am sorry I'd I come off rude but there is no way I will show any math in a forum like this. It would be idiotic.

34. I am sorry I'd I come off rude but there is no way I will accept random unsupported claims in a forum like this. It would be idiotic.

I have no reason to believe that the only reason you are unable to provide a proof is because of your phone. Where have you published papers on this vital research?

[I expect a comment about conspiracy, prejudice, closed-minded journals/reviewers, didn't go to the right university, don't have the right qualification ...]

35. Originally Posted by Reaction
That would be a zero modulus of elasticity. This is a good teaching moment:

.... For example imagine a solid tube at absolute zero and you rotate one end of the tube and the other end instantly rotates. Now this example with mass is impossible but my point is that your action, which took time to do is the cause and effect, the arm rotating the tube, the tube rotating at both ends simultaneously is the effect. This hypothetical ( in reality it can never happen this way) example is given to show that a cause and effect can not exactly happen instantaneously even though an effect can happen in two places at once. You are limiting your understanding and then exploiting your self imposed limit by a false understanding of how the cause and effect actually exist.
But as you just said, repeatedly, it is impossible and in reality it cannot happen this way. So this is no basis from which to form an argument. In reality there is no such thing as a perfect solid and no way to transmit force along that solid faster than the speed of sound for that medium. So you cannot transmit that force across any distance instantaneously.

There is no such thing as absolute simultaneity.

If you are claiming I am limiting my understanding of how cause and effect actually exist, you should use an example that can actually exist, no?

Originally Posted by Reaction
It reminds me of a conversation I was having with an astrophysicists who is well known on Cable and he stopped and said: you are not acting like a student and I said that is because I am trying to tell you that wave theory is incomplete and missing a few chapters.
From the above it seems that you skipped a few chapters yourself.

Instantaneous transmission of information across distance violates causality. You only need to work up an example using two observers who each can transmit "instantly" to the other, with simultaneity as defined in their own frame reference, and when you put relative motion into the equation you find messages arriving before they are sent.

36. Originally Posted by Strange
I am sorry I'd I come off rude but there is no way I will accept random unsupported claims in a forum like this. It would be idiotic.I have no reason to believe that the only reason you are unable to provide a proof is because of your phone. Where have you published papers on this vital research?[I expect a comment about conspiracy, prejudice, closed-minded journals/reviewers, didn't go to the right university, don't have the right qualification ...]
Bottom line, it is inappropriate to present it here and you know it

37. So where would be appropriate? I would hope you have submitted the paper proving that this mechanism works to a highly respected peer-reviewed journal...

38. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Reaction
That would be a zero modulus of elasticity. This is a good teaching moment:.... For example imagine a solid tube at absolute zero and you rotate one end of the tube and the other end instantly rotates. Now this example with mass is impossible but my point is that your action, which took time to do is the cause and effect, the arm rotating the tube, the tube rotating at both ends simultaneously is the effect. This hypothetical ( in reality it can never happen this way) example is given to show that a cause and effect can not exactly happen instantaneously even though an effect can happen in two places at once. You are limiting your understanding and then exploiting your self imposed limit by a false understanding of how the cause and effect actually exist.
But as you just said, repeatedly, it is impossible and in reality it cannot happen this way. So this is no basis from which to form an argument. In reality there is no such thing as a perfect solid and no way to transmit force along that solid faster than the speed of sound for that medium. So you cannot transmit that force across any distance instantaneously. There is no such thing as absolute simultaneity.If you are claiming I am limiting my understanding of how cause and effect actually exist, you should use an example that can actually exist, no?
Originally Posted by Reaction
It reminds me of a conversation I was having with an astrophysicists who is well known on Cable and he stopped and said: you are not acting like a student and I said that is because I am trying to tell you that wave theory is incomplete and missing a few chapters.
From the above it seems that you skipped a few chapters yourself.Instantaneous transmission of information across distance violates causality. You only need to work up an example using two observers who each can transmit "instantly" to the other, with simultaneity as defined in their own frame reference, and when you put relative motion into the equation you find messages arriving before they are sent.
When instantaneous communication not transmission, there is no transmission in the normal sense. Any transmission of a message instantaneously would violate the laws of physics because nothing can be transmitted faster than (c). I really don't want to give it away yet sorry. And that may be a cop out in your mind but I do not work for free so others can mooch. That is not personal, just generic. I need to get off my butt and patent it but then the 16 year clock starts. If you figure it out I will tell you you are right.

39. Originally Posted by Reaction
patent it but then the 16 year clock starts.
20 years.

40. Dark Matter will be demonstrated to be empty space. Then they will look for what they missed and they will come across an old principle, the Huygens principle and what were perceived to be the shortcomings and how Huygens actually had it the whole time and never knew.
Are you a Michael Turner sock puppet ?

As proof; I suggest you pick up two ping pong balls and hold them 1/4 inch apart and 6 feet above still water and drop them. The action is that when the ping pong balls hit the water they create two ripples which join to become one bigger ripple. The reaction is that the ping pong balls pop up and touch. There is a reaction to joining wavefronts. It is a fact, it was completely ignored but it is true, wave formation is a CONTACT FORCE.
Sure sounds like Michael Turner. Exact same nonsense.

I am sorry I'd I come off rude but there is no way I will show any math in a forum like this.
Of course you won't, because you don't have any.
And why is that ? Because Huygens Principle has nothing to do with gravitation.

I am pretty sure now that you are actually a Michael Turner sock puppet. Last time around you made your grand exit by overwriting all your posts with "101". Very mature, by the way.

41. Ah yes. I thought it was familiar.

If anyone wants to see how petulant he was last time: http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash...el-turner.html

One of the more bizarre attempts at revisionism.

42. The new additive tensor appears to divide into two separate tensors, one tensor a contraction tensor brings the objects generating the waves together, the other tensor, a negative energy tensor or a pulling tensor. The additive tensor is further divided into GR as a subset within ranges associated with GR but with in the control of overall galaxy shape and movement that becomes a new or extended contraction tensor with testable limits defined soon by the detailed mapping of universe's actual masses. The tensors are only mathmatical descriptions of a single overall process. The key to unlocking the secret to understanding is worth repeating. There is a hidden variable process and that process created space via release of the gravitational field at the Big Bang and that process continues via mass and energy decay into the gravitational wave. So no matter how many ways I say it there are two new laws1). All mass and energy decay giving off gravitational waves and 2). All gravitational waves align into wavefronts as an action, this is a contact force with a reaction of the sources also aligning, gravitation. So to simplify, masses traveling directionally as a result of the big bang align, by giving of a gravitational wave and continually forming wavefronts which create continuation of constant force with a decreasing mass by combining with the space created from the Big Bang and is pulled along with it- dark energy Galaxy Wavefront formation as a sum total of all gravitational waves generated by the galaxy creates plate like rotation of galaxy spins- dark matterStop the personal put downs and jealous please. Stick to proving me wrong instead of playing like a 5 year old.

43. Originally Posted by Reaction
When instantaneous communication not transmission, there is no transmission in the normal sense. Any transmission of a message instantaneously would violate the laws of physics because nothing can be transmitted faster than (c).

Instantaneous communication has exactly the same problems as instantaneous transmission. It isn't the faster than c transmission that is the problem, it is the violation of causality that can occur with instantaneous communication, whatever the method involved.

Originally Posted by Reaction
I need to get off my butt and patent it but then the 16 year clock starts. If you figure it out I will tell you you are right.
Tell you what. You patent it, and then come and explain it properly, with the appropriate formalism. Don't come here making claims without any substance to back them up. It is up to you to present a theory and provide the formalism that allows it to be tested with scientific rigour. A hand waving description isn't good enough.

44. I am sorry I'd I come off rude but there is no way I will show any math in a forum like this. It would be idiotic.
Just another crank.

45. Originally Posted by Reaction
1). All mass and energy decay giving off gravitational waves and 2). All gravitational waves align into wavefronts as an action, this is a contact force with a reaction of the sources also aligning, gravitation.
So - a region whose energy content does not change therefore doesn't have a gravitational field ?

Stick to proving me wrong instead of playing like a 5 year old.
Once again you are getting this wrong rather badly. The onus is on you to provide the evidence that you are right and mainstream science is wrong, and not the other way around. However, since you do not even have any maths ( except F=ma, your maths for dark matter ) you will find that pretty hard to do.

46. Lets see, the Huygens principle, deduces from maxwell's equations,GR, it all fits nicely. I was hoping that an imaginative person could understand the mechanism of quantum entanglement, instantaneous communication with out the transmission of energy. It really is not that hard. You can't not even think of a possibility? You are right I am talking to the wrong people.

47. If you could only do the math to demonstrate that this idea works ...

48. Originally Posted by Reaction
Lets see, the Huygens principle, deduces from maxwell's equations,GR, it all fits nicely. I was hoping that an imaginative person could understand the mechanism of quantum entanglement, instantaneous communication with out the transmission of energy. It really is not that hard. You can't not even think of a possibility? You are right I am talking to the wrong people.
You are talking to people who understand the scientific method. It seems you do not, if you expect us to show you are wrong without your providing the formalism that would allow that.

It seems to me the people you are looking for are people who will believe in extraordinary ideas without any evidence.

I understand quantum entanglement, which is why I have been saying the things I have been saying. It cannot be used for instant communication. It does not allow retro-causality.

49. Originally Posted by Strange
If you could only do the math to demonstrate that this idea works ...
And I though you said if I did not show you the math you were through with me, don't make yourself a fibber.

50. Show us the math!

51. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Reaction
Lets see, the Huygens principle, deduces from maxwell's equations,GR, it all fits nicely. I was hoping that an imaginative person could understand the mechanism of quantum entanglement, instantaneous communication with out the transmission of energy. It really is not that hard. You can't not even think of a possibility? You are right I am talking to the wrong people.
You are talking to people who understand the scientific method. It seems you do not, if you expect us to show you are wrong without your providing the formalism that would allow that.It seems to me the people you are looking for are people who will believe in extraordinary ideas without any evidence.I understand quantum entanglement, which is why I have been saying the things I have been saying. It cannot be used for instant communication. It does not allow retro-causality.
And again you are short sighted, show me where I mentioned retro- causality. I did not because it can not happen. So you are faced with the delima of not having the brain power or creativity or create a method by which instantaneous communication can exist and not violate and laws. That is your limit. And it is so freaking easy and right under your nose too.

52. Originally Posted by Reaction
And again you are short sighted, show me where I mentioned retro- causality.
You seem completely oblivious to the fact that retro-causality is a direct consequence of instantaneous communication between objects in relative motion.

Originally Posted by Reaction
I did not because it can not happen. So you are faced with the delima of not having the brain power or creativity or create a method by which instantaneous communication can exist and not violate and laws. That is your limit. And it is so freaking easy and right under your nose too.
Yeah right. Either put up or shut up. Stop talking in riddles and playing guessing games. Stop trolling us with unsubstantiated claims.

How old are you? Why are you playing the "I know something you don't, and it is up to you to guess what it is" game?

Stop making claims without the evidence to back them up. Either provide the formalism or crawl back under your rock. Your stance is completely unscientific and unreasonable. How can we assess a theory when we have been given no theory to assess?

It seems you are just here to troll us.

53. Originally Posted by Reaction
Lets see, the Huygens principle, deduces from maxwell's equations,GR, it all fits nicely. I was hoping that an imaginative person could understand the mechanism of quantum entanglement, instantaneous communication with out the transmission of energy. It really is not that hard. You can't not even think of a possibility? You are right I am talking to the wrong people.
Electromagnetism and gravity are two distinct phenomena.
Say, do you even understand Huygens Principle ? Can you explain it to us in the appropriate detail ? Do you know when and how to apply it, and what its limitations are ? I have the distinct feeling that you are just throwing around terms without actually understanding them.

54. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Reaction
Lets see, the Huygens principle, deduces from maxwell's equations,GR, it all fits nicely. I was hoping that an imaginative person could understand the mechanism of quantum entanglement, instantaneous communication with out the transmission of energy. It really is not that hard. You can't not even think of a possibility? You are right I am talking to the wrong people.
Electromagnetism and gravity are two distinct phenomena. Say, do you even understand Huygens Principle ? Can you explain it to us in the appropriate detail ? Do you know when and how to apply it, and what its limitations are ? I have the distinct feeling that you are just throwing around terms without actually understanding them.
I understand that the Huygens principle should be the Huygens law, do you know why it is still a principle? And not a law? You tell me that and I will explain why it is a law. I assume you are not aware that Einstein thought gravity and electromagnetism were connect but he did not know how.

55. Originally Posted by Reaction
I assume you are not aware that Einstein thought gravity and electromagnetism were connect but he did not know how.
Why the hell would it matter what Einstein thought (at some indeterminate time) about this or anything else? He may have been wrong. In fact, he was wrong. He was wrong about quite a few things. He isn't some sort of divine prophet.

56. Concerning retro-causality and instaneous communication. I will give you one last hint. This example is only a poor reflection of what I am alluding to but I think it makes a point which is two events can be controlled to happen instantaneously without any effect before cause. I have a iron rod 20 feet long suspended in air by wires and with two flashlights pointing up with light on the ceiling. I rotate the iron bar and the flashlights, relative to each other, instantaneously move together and point down. I am NOT showing instantaneous communication but I am showing cause and effect can hold during two instantaneously events caused by an earlier event.

57. Originally Posted by Reaction
Concerning retro-causality and instaneous communication. I will give you one last hint. This example is only a poor reflection of what I am alluding to but I think it makes a point which is two events can be controlled to happen instantaneously without any effect before cause. I have a iron rod 20 feet long suspended in air by wires and with two flashlights pointing up with light on the ceiling. I rotate the iron bar and the flashlights, relative to each other, instantaneously move together and point down. I am NOT showing instantaneous communication but I am showing cause and effect can hold during two instantaneously events caused by an earlier event.
Sorry, but this is completely incorrect. The speed of sound through iron is not instantaneous. When force is applied to one part of the bar, it takes time to propagate to another part. And whilst, if you apply force to the exact centre of the bar, the two ends will move simultaneously in relation to the centre, the same would not be true were the experiment not set up to be symmetrical, so your simultaneity here is completely frame dependent.

And the retro-causality part applies when communication is between different frames of reference, in motion relative to each other. The ends of the bar are not in relative motion - each end will consider the other to be at rest in relation to themselves.

58. Originally Posted by Reaction
I assume you are not aware that Einstein thought gravity and electromagnetism were connect but he did not know how.
You assume wrong. Einstein's "Unified Field Theory" attempt is well known - and it was a miserable failure.

I understand that the Huygens principle should be the Huygens law, do you know why it is still a principle? And not a law?
Because it is subject to limitations which limit its domain of applicability. For example, it only applies to problems in an odd number of dimensions ( so much for gravitational waves in 4D space-time ! ), and it cannot explain diffraction. See here for details :

Huygens' Principle

59. Originally Posted by Reaction
I will give you one last hint.
Why all the hints? Why not just explain yourself? Is it because you don't actually know what you are talking about?

60. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Reaction
I will give you one last hint.
Why all the hints? Why not just explain yourself? Is it because you don't actually know what you are talking about?
Have a read through the other thread. He will just do whatever it takes to deflect attention away from his own ignorance of physics.

61. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Reaction
I assume you are not aware that Einstein thought gravity and electromagnetism were connect but he did not know how.
You assume wrong. Einstein's "Unified Field Theory" attempt is well known - and it was a miserable failure.
I understand that the Huygens principle should be the Huygens law, do you know why it is still a principle? And not a law?
Because it is subject to limitations which limit its domain of applicability. For example, it only applies to problems in an odd number of dimensions ( so much for gravitational waves in 4D space-time ! ), and it cannot explain diffraction. See here for details :Huygens' Principle
I can read, and you are not correct as far as why it is not a law. Use your brain not someone else's brain

62. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Reaction
I will give you one last hint.
Why all the hints? Why not just explain yourself? Is it because you don't actually know what you are talking about?
Have a read through the other thread. He will just do whatever it takes to deflect attention away from his own ignorance of physics.
Dear Markus- FO

63. Originally Posted by Reaction
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Reaction
I will give you one last hint.
Why all the hints? Why not just explain yourself? Is it because you don't actually know what you are talking about?
Have a read through the other thread. He will just do whatever it takes to deflect attention away from his own ignorance of physics.
Dear Markus- FO
So I assume he got it right then.

64. Reaction is just another crank. Not a particularly bright one.

65. Originally Posted by Reaction
The law of conservation of energy has one extra component. Follow my logic and correct me if appropriate.Given;1). The singularity contained the universe, everything that is mass. energy and space.
No, as to my reasoning. First of all, it is unprovable. But in reality it is just a matter of choice and convenience.

Originally Posted by Reaction
2). The singularity was finite (can not be ruled out)
That is in contradiction to 1) Zero size isn't finite.

Originally Posted by Reaction
3). Space is increasing. Space is increasing (getting bigger) and the singularity was contained pre-mass, energy and space.
What do you define by 'pre-mass'

Originally Posted by Reaction
If space is increasing then mass and energy must be decreasing.
No, If I inflate a balloon (not counting the weight of the air inside) then it will take up more space, but weigh the same (even a little more actually)

So sorry, so far I haven't seen a single right step.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement