
Originally Posted by
streamSystems
In terms of the Universe returning to a previous pattern, I am suggesting that in however many thousands o years time, tens of thousands, it is possible that in a steady state Universe, in an oscillating steady state Universe, the pattern of the stars will return to a former position. No one has proved the Universe ISN'T steady state. The "expanding universe" theory has only credibility in trying to explain the red-shift effect, yet the red-shift effect can be better explained (theory associated to www feature below, p236 onwards (the quantum precedent)) by how this 3-dimension we exist in is tugged into ANOTHER dimension of time (as the theory highlights).
I have questions for you: Why do you add more dimensions watering plants if you cannot even prove time as physically existent in the first place?
If the Universe return to a former position, what is the big deal? You return back home from work and seat in the same chair to watch the same DVD movie everyday at the same hour. Does that mean something special beyond a returning to the same "position"?
I don't think this forum is the place to air new theories, either. I think the aim is if you have a new theory to maybe see how interactive it can be "relevant" to contemporary fields of research and associated expected research results. For instance, if the internet existed 100 years ago, and I posted my theory that raised the possibility of subatomic particles, explanations of relativity and quatum physics, I would be ahead of Einstein (and this theory could have been done 100 years ago: it was constructed from the pure logic of the mind, not research into atomic phenomena. The only thing this theory needed was computer technology to have the theory reviewed and re-reviewed, documented, and so on.
Einstein would have been keenly interested in any theory that presents with end-equations similar to his own. The problem my theory presents with, even though it proposes EVERYTHING modern science presents with, is a new form of energy and access and use based on what I term "unfolded" space-time. You see, contemporary science isn't looking for this UNFOLDED theory, and nor will they stumble across it without a theory like this. The theory is entirely UNIQUE to the UNFOLDED concept of space-time. Basically, if I built a craft that used this theory, that craft would be
impossible to understand through back-engineerig and contemporary scientific theory,
IMPOSSIBLE. You really need a theory that doesn't challenge well-known scientific facts. My theory doesn't, it only proposes research ventures not thought of. My theory explains the SAME observable facts and associated forces in a DIFFERENT WAY, but that doesn't make it wrong, because it doesn't challenge the same observable facts and associated forces. I am currently working on a "working application" of my theory).
Sorry to understand that your words are a demonstration that their author doesn't want to accept facts.
You talk about "well-known scientific facts". Great! Show me here the tests and experiments made solely to prove the fact that time exists physically and that flows.
Conquer, most theories that are not born from a University education lack depth, they make claims that challenge what science already knows through repeated experiments, and propose no productive models of proof.
I have my tests, they are very simple tests but are valiod enough to prove that clocks are not devices which can measure a physical passage of time but clocks are devices which functional work has been calibrated to make tic tic tic only.
With clocks my elementary school child made experiments to check "which environment causes stronger variations in the data pf clocks", the science project was named as "Can clocks detect a passage of time"? Or something similar, this was masde several years ago. Well, By installing clocks in different environments, the clocks provided different variations in their data.
The variations have an amazing "standard rate", like to day, the clock installed in the freezer compartment of the refrigerator slower its data at a rate of 6 seconds per day. The same variations are observed by micro-seconds at standard rates in atomic clocks installed in satellites and exposed to a different environment to the one where they were calibrated.
So, clocks cannot measure any physical passage ot time, and clocks indeed suffer of malfunction when are exposed to different environments other that the one where they were manufactured.
What about Einstein? Lol, you can read his papers and find out that he fell in the illusion that clocks mesured a physical passage of time. Such were the conventional ideas inherited from milleniums, but, today we must enforce reaslity over fantasies and Einstein's ideas must be reviewed in base of reality instead of being reviewed in base of the doctrines of his theories.
Now, to show you the difficulty my theory faces, it was born from a classically schooled tertiary medical education, it makes claims that doesn't challenge the contemporary understanding of physics (it only adds two extra dimensions of time which ISN'T a challenge, just an annexation), it arrives at ALL thoroughly researched known laws of atomic and subatomic physics, it arrives at ALL known accepted equations of geometry (including pi) and motion (force), including Einsteins energy-mass equation, YET (and please hear me here) YET no one of the scientific establishment will consider it because it does one perceived damaging thing, namely that the addition to the axiom of time is perceived as a challenge, and because of that it is discarded.
MY WAY THROUGH THAT THOUGH IS TO OFFER A SIMPLE YET EFFECTIVE EXPERIMENT CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS CANOT EXPLAIN WITH THEIR OWN MODELS OF SPACE-TIME THEORY.
Again, you are adding more dimensions to an idea, such is not science, your ideas belong to philosophy.
Before adding physical dimensions as requested by Physics, you must prove at least the physical existence of time. How long it will take for you to understand this essential step?
Trust me, I've seen it all in terms of stubborn and rigid refusal not to consider anything from anyone without a title and 50 years of research behind them. Don't worry about NASA.
I don't worry about NASA, I encourage others to write them the same questions so they must realize that they are teaching crap to the people by accepting Relativity and similar pseudo-science as scientific approaches.
Please go to the NASA site. Look for the link to questions and answers, it will take you to an e-mail address where you can write the questions that I made in the first posting of this thread. Wait for their answer. They
must answer the questions because such is what they promise.
If you receive any reply from them, please copy it and paste it here.
I think that this is fair, maybe they don't like me but they might like you and they may answer to you.
I myself had one year and two 5th year subjects only to complete before being awarded a degree in Medicine and Surgery, yet I coldn't complete that year owing to the mounting difficulty I had with beig colorblind (completely red-green) and the potantial litigation I faced in doing something "wrong" by a pateint in a clinical setting, such as not being able to pick a sore throat (red), a bruise (red), an infection, or interpret a stained slide (red staining).
But, even then no one regards one as educated unless they have a piece of paper (like Scarecrow in the land of Oz). You will find it very difficult to be accepted for anything in science WITHOUT a degree, no matter how intelligent you are. I myself have decided not to return to University owing to the uniqueness of the theory, and the shorter time it will take to prove the theory with a simple experiment.
You are incorrect about it. A young physicists with the required degrees presented his paper to a journal demonstrating that time is no more than a concept, a measure, a parameter. The "scientific inquisition" refused to review his papers. He has strong support by known mathematicians but still his paper practically destroys the conventional ideas about time and it is not accepted even for a review.