Infinite Theory

[HydrogenBond]

Time is a reference variable that we plug into equations. We can use negative time in equations. For example, we can plot the building of a house over time. We can go back into time and see earlier aspects of the building process on our graph. However, in reality, time only moves forward. We would not see the house spontaneously dismantling back to the foundation. But if we wanted to abstract that via the plot, the plot has that unnatural capacity. To avoid too much math abstraction, we define the limits called past, present, future.

 

It is possible to define the universe as present only, via math, but this premise would not be constrained by reality.

 

Relative to stars, the light we see is in the present, but the source of that light was from the past. But since we can plot time on graphs, if we wanted to call the past the present, we can get the plot to reflect that. This is where common sense needs to step in.

 

The farther away an object in the universe, the light we receive in the present, had to stem from increasingly distant past. It is not relevant whether the universal space-time is expanding or at what speed. The speed of light is constant in all references. It simply chugs along a given amount of time. That is why we call it lightyears. What is interesting are the most distant objects reflect what the universe was doing near the beginning of the time plot, even if the light reaches us in the present. But again, with math/plots we can abstract this as present. But if the idea is to define reality, we need to go back to the observable constraints of past, present and future.

 

If would be interesting if houses spontaneously dismantled, but not likely.

[Turtle]

Time is a reference variable that we plug into equations. We can use negative time in equations. For example, we can plot the building of a house over time. We can go back into time and see earlier aspects of the building process on our graph. However, in reality, time only moves forward. We would not see the house spontaneously dismantling back to the foundation. But if we wanted to abstract that via the plot, the plot has that unnatural capacity. To avoid too much math abstraction, we define the limits called past, present, future.

 

It is possible to define the universe as present only, via math, but this premise would not be constrained by reality.

 

Relative to stars, the light we see is in the present, but the source of that light was from the past. But since we can plot time on graphs, if we wanted to call the past the present, we can get the plot to reflect that. This is where common sense needs to step in.

 

The farther away an object in the universe, the light we receive in the present, had to stem from increasingly distant past. It is not relevant whether the universal space-time is expanding or at what speed. The speed of light is constant in all references. It simply chugs along a given amount of time. That is why we call it lightyears. What is interesting are the most distant objects reflect what the universe was doing near the beginning of the time plot, even if the light reaches us in the present. But again, with math/plots we can abstract this as present. But if the idea is to define reality, we need to go back to the observable constraints of past, present and future.

 

If would be interesting if houses spontaneously dismantled, but not likely.

 

fancy you showing up. how timely. let's put your reply in the context of time. just a couple days ago, i rebuked you for your own proselytizing.

let's just set the table straight for you & all the other dear tender readers. your {hydrogenbond] post above - as all your posts - is subterfuge to disguise your metaphysical/theological/religio likeable ideas. other than sharing some words common to science, your post is void of any sensible meaning in the application of the scientific method. as i said before, your intent is always to position science as arbitrary in order to position your "hardware" (i.e. god) as its equal. you have offered no credible links or other support, nor do you ever, nor is there any indication that you intend to. shame on you!

 

the only reason you responded presently is that i rebuked grit. at least he had the chutzpa to make clear his motivation. in the future i suggest you guard against lies of ommission.

 

Lie

Lying by omission

One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service. Propaganda is an example of lying by omission.

 

but of course god the father lied so what's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

 

Lying in the Bible

The Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible both contain statements that God cannot lie (Num 23:19[12], Hab. 2:3[13], Heb 6:13–18[14]). However, what would be perceived as examples of God lying can be found[15] in both testaments (2 Thes 2:11[16][17], 1 Kings 22:23[18], Ezek. 14:9[19]).

 

Various passages of the Bible feature exchanges that are conditionally critical of lying (Prov 6:16–19, Ps. 5:6), (Lev 19:11, Pr. 14:5, Pr. 30:6, Zep 3:13 ), (Isa 28:15, Da 11:27). Most famously, in the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (Exodus 20:2-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21), Ex. 23.1 · Mt. 19.18 · Mk. 10.19 · Lk. 18.20 a specific reference to perjury.

 

Other passages feature exchanges where lying seems to be conditionally promoted. (However some Christians would argue that lying is never promoted, but that even those who are righteous in God's eyes sin sometimes.) Old Testament accounts of lying include:[20]

 

Rahab lied to the king of Jericho about hiding the Hebrew spies (Joshua 2:4–5) and was not killed with those who were disobedient because of her faith (Hebrews 11:31).

Delilah repeatedly accused Samson of lying to her (Jg. 16:10, 13) as she interrogated him about the source of his strength.

Abraham instructs his wife, Sarah, to lie to the Egyptians and say that she is his sister (Gen 12:10), which leads to the Lord punishing the Egyptians (Gen 12:17–19). However, it can be argued that this was not actually a lie as she was, in fact, his half-sister (During the time of Abraham, it was not unheard of for one to marry their half-brother or half-sister). Regardless, Sarah was knowingly omitting the fact that she was Abraham's wife—a lie of omission.

In the New Testament, Jesus refers to the Devil as the father of lies (John 8:44) and Paul commands Christians "Do not lie to one another" (Colossians 3:9, Cf.Leviticus 19:11). St. John the Revelator reports that God said "..all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." [Rev 21:8]

 

Whereas most Christian theologians conclude that the Bible does not contain any intentional untruths, some scholars believe differently. Among those who conclude that the Bible contains lies and intentional untruths is Thomas Jefferson. He edited his own version of the Bible and omitted what he considered to be falsehoods. In describing the Bible, Jefferson wrote of "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture", "roguery", "dupes and impostors", "corruptor" and "falsifications".[21] Biblically , it is unknown whether Adam or Eve was the first to lie. God had said not to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, but when Satan querries Eve, she says that God has said not not even as to touch the fruit, lest they die, however this instruction to not eat the fruit was given to Adam prior to Eve's creation, so there is no way to know if Eve's statement was repetition of an incorrect addition by Adam to her on God's instructions, or if her incorrect addition was self-generated.

 

i have an infinite capacity for calling a fig a fig and a trough a trough. :evil:

[36grit]

So, let's put God and religious beliefs behind us. Please accept my humble appollagie, I wont mention God again.

Let's talk about the science behind the theory.

 

According to Einstien time slows down when in motion. A very difficult concept to grasp here on earth where it seems so constant. What are the mechanics behind the theory of relativity?

 

Infinite theory explains it like this: As we alter our position in time/space, by using energy other than time itself, the gravitational momentums (future distance) stretch. As a result the atoms in motion produce less past distance. Therefore the moveing object has a slower time frame than one standing still.

 

 

In the atomic world of quantum physics, I hear things exist here and there and sometimes in two or more places at once. This may seem very strange to the casual observer, but in infinite theory it is simply "bubbling" gravitational momentums defineing the exact position of the atom from present instant to present instant.

 

Some things apprear to "quantum leap" at the atomic level. That is to say that they are here and there without moving through any space. This is an illusion caused by the atoms collapse and reinstatement from present instant to present instant according to the evolving time signature of the universe.

 

Light is to slow. If we are ever going to travel the stars and explore the universe, we'll have to expand on the current theories. I'm not sure how it could be done, but if we could map the current gravitational momentums available. And, if we could "tune" our atoms to recieve ones far away, as a path of least resistance, Quantum leaping of mass would be possible.

Shame me if you want to, but this I know, that distance is the biggest thing in the universe, and time is all that we truly have.

[Turtle]

So, let's put God and religious beliefs behind us. Please accept my humble appollagie, I wont mention God again.

Let's talk about the science behind the theory.

 

cat's outa da bag bro. :cat: we're in the weightroom & having pointed out the cat myself you may as well go ahead & mention how it figures in your theory.

 

According to Einstien time slows down when in motion.

 

in any technical written discourse it is rather important to dot your i's and cross your t's. by the grammar in your very first sentence one might get that you mean time is in motion. ?? do you? if not that, then what? where have you written the clarification? where is the math?

 

the rest of your "theory" as written follows a similar style of unclear & undefined terms; i'll give you the benefit of honest rather than willful ignorance on that use.

 

if you really want to understand what scientists think - what they do and do not agree on and why- then a little more reading in our legitimate threads goes a long way. if i recall, those you posted to are quite lengthy and judging by how long you have been here before you posted & the nature of your posts i find it difficult to conclude that you read the threads due diligently.

 

Shame me if you want to, but this I know, that distance is the biggest thing in the universe, and time is all that we truly have.

 

yes well thank you. a trough is as a trough does.

[36grit]

This maybe further evidence to support my theory.

 

in quantumm mechanics we see that the things that make up the atom sometimes act like an energy and some times they act like a particle. Infinite theory seems to provide a reasonable explanation for this.

 

Time moves from instant to instant. Particles cannot exist inbetween because they are that which defines the present time. Inbetween time instances the atom collapses into a state of energy, mostly momentums. Gravity is drawn in by these momentums until the atom becomes reinflated to the particle state that once again defines the present. When the atom collapses into it's energy state the electron draws close to the center. As the atom draws in gravity, the electron moves outward and contains the gravity drawn in. The atom becomes a particle state again. This back and forth motion of the electron converts the gravity (future space) into the distance of past space. In other words, these actions fuel the expansion of the universe.

[Rade]

Time moves from instant to instant.

I do not agree. Time does not move, things move. When we say that runner A is faster than runner B when they move between two locations, we do not say that the time is fast, we say the time it takes for runner A to move the distance is short compared to the time for runner B. Hence, time cannot move, because things that can move can be said to move fast or slow, and time has no such attributes. Time has the attributes of long or short. The motion belongs to things (or waves of energy), not to time. Time is nothing more than the number of motion. Each present (now) is within time the same way the concepts odd and even are within the number line. If your "theory" requires time to move, I see it having many problems.

[36grit]

I do not agree. Time does not move, things move. When we say that runner A is faster than runner B when they move between two locations, we do not say that the time is fast, we say the time it takes for runner A to move the distance is short compared to the time for runner B. Hence, time cannot move, because things that can move can be said to move fast or slow, and time has no such attributes. Time has the attributes of long or short. The motion belongs to things (or waves of energy), not to time. Time is nothing more than the number of motion. Each present (now) is within time the same way the concepts odd and even are within the number line. If your "theory" requires time to move, I see it having many problems.

 

Every precept is a gamble.

 

Not mine. I stole it from a fellow theorist. I do believe he was a real quantum physicist with a video on youtube.

Watched the infamous "slit experiment" again. I'd say, "It'd be difficult to watch anything happen outside of the present.

While we're watching a particle, step away for awhile, waves (and particles perhaps), Seems to add weight to my theory".

[HydrogenBond]

If we took at still picture of an action scene, we will stop time. With time stopped, can anything occur in the photo?

 

Instead of a picture, say we put a video on pause, so time is stopped. All the action is frozen. Before any action can resume, we need to add time or get the movie clock moving again. If we add time as a trickle, via the slow motion setting, action moves slower.

 

An interesting time effect is connected to motion blur. This occurs where the shutter speed is too slow for the action. The action has left over time, But since time has stopped in the photo, the excess time shows up as uncertainty in distance; blur. From the blur ot\r uncertainty in distance, we can get the impression of action in a still photo, since there is still some time left over.

 

[36grit]

Reminds me of something I saw on TV once. A mad scientist placed a strobe light on a stream of water comming out of a faucet. When the timeing of the strobe was properly adjusted it revealed that the stream was actually several drops of water falling down and seperated by thin layers of air. I was dumb founded, things are never what they seem. I wonder if we magnified the blured lines in the photo if we'd see segmants of time in a similar manner. Interesting.

I've often thought of this water expierament when pondering the mechanics of time. A freind of mine recently told me that scientist have discovered the smallest instant of time.

 

PS: I don't really think that the scientist on tv was a "mad" scientist, but the experiment did trigger a lot of ideas within this one. I enjoy swimming in a realm of insanity, where all things are possible. Imagine, digital time! and what is the difference between that which is in the moment and that which is not. I wonder if there are any other theories besides mine. I wonder how we can prove any of them when we can't even prove gravity, yet things posses weight.

Well, it's time for me to go pound nails, Putting up a walnut handrail today. I have a lot more ideas and possibilities to share on this forum. I'd like to thank those responsible for this website, for giving a my thoughts a home.

[36grit]

Alright, I think my theory needs a little adjusting after watching a speech from Berkly University on dark matter and dark energy.

Imagine the faucet and the strobe light and the drops of water falling down. Now put a screen on that faucet. The water rolls around the sceen and you can see air bubbles rising up through the stream. Now imagine looking straight down at the sream, or say, a several drop cross section. Now imagine the water as gravity (future distance), the air bubbles as gas molecules forming out of the electomagnetic streams of light that are balling up as they ram into the edge of the universe. Where there is nothing to absorb or reflect the light. And no distance to travel through. Now, compare the cross section of the faucet that you can imagine, with the picture that the berkly scientist show us as a dark matter map. They refer to this fiber like material as scaffolding because the four percent of the universe that is mass, seems to be all located along these fibers. We know that this dark matter is there because to gravitaional lenzing. Gravity causes gravitational lenzing. The gas is pulled towards these gravitaional fibers where they form the cosmological things of the unverse.

I realize that this last paragraph modifies my theory a little bit, but it is an evolving theory.

I'll have to post my thoughts on dark energy another time.

 

[36grit]

My interpretation of an accepted theory:

 

When two objects move towards each other at 100% velocity

a time dialation occurs

as a matter of perception between the two entities

 

New Theory

By Mark Beal

 

(an extension of "Jet theory", and "Infinite Theory")

 

State of the art:

Time dialation happens on a plane of space

when velocity exceeds the speed of light

time becomes compressed and converts into distance (space)

a gravatron is one measure of past distance space

 

The nucleous of an atom is a quantum feild of vacuum energy

gathered together as the result of an influx of light time

quantum particles that include states of mass

"protons and neutrons" are manipupated by this vacuum energy

at near the speed of light

the velocity of these particles cause an atomic time dialation

("even if there is only one particle")

electrons are massless objects

they are pushed outside of this quantum feild

by the outward flow of gravatrons being produced

the distance between the nucleaous of the atom

and the electron perimeter is a mass feild

a mass feild is a distance of newly formed gravatrons

pushing against the matrix of past distance space

The electrons orbits are defined

by waves of gravitrons converting back to time energy

as distance is pushed out in waves radiating out from the atom

at a very high rate

similar to the rays radiating out from the sun

gravatrons are polar

they face always face there parent object

these bands of distance/time intensify as the group and flow

from smaller objects to larger objects

these waves are the under lying currents that connect all things

from the smallest proton to the solar system

from the great rivers produced by galaxies

unto the very end of the ocean of this matrix of time we call

the firmament, expanse, and universe

[dduckwessel]

The universe is matter for sure. As to what 'kind' of matter is the question.

 

A hologram produces a life-like image but it has no substance. Our universe is like a hologram but with substance.

 

The universe is programmed into our collective-consciouness but only recently has Quantum Physics challenged our ideas of reality.

 

Jesus could walk on water - why? He had a body like our own. Why can't I walk on water?

 

My collective-conciousness (and yours) tells me the water is real and that I will sink. What would happen though if, as Jesus, my conciousness were no longer convinced the water was what I have always believed it to be?

 

What if I suddenly knew the water was a hologram?

 

This was what separated Jesus from us. He knew the true state of the water.

 

The water will act the way 'we think it should' until the collective-consciousness is reprogrammed. That most likely will not happen though because death appears as the only portal through which the consciousness ceases to be fooled by the apparition.