Time Does Not Exist

[xyz]

This thread seems to have wandered back to xyz’s old strange claim about the SI definition of the second somehow implying that “the speed of light is faster than time itself”. As I explained in this post, this view arises from a simple unit error. Speed has dimension LT^-1, time T, so the phrase “the speed of time” is physically nonsensical.

 

No. Changes in the Earth’s rate of rotation have no effect on the passage of time.

 

Due to the many forces that act on the Earth, its rotation rate varies constantly, and long-term, decreases steadily. This is one of the reasons it’s no longer considered an acceptable clock for defining a standard unit of time for high-precision measurements.

 

The current clock-based SI definition of the second uses a count of the transition between the 2 hyperfine levels of the ground state of ¹³³Cs atoms carefully contained in atomic clocks. Because fewer external forces act on these atoms, these “tick” rate of these atomic clocks of 9192631770 per second varies less than that of less acceptable clocks like the Earth, common quartz crystal clocks, mechanical pendulum and spring clocks, etc.

 

¹³³Cs atomic clocks are still not perfectly precise, but they are a mature technology, the best that can currently be built. More accurate atomic clock using different atoms are a subject of intense scientific and technological interest, especially ones with much higher “tick” rates corresponding to the optical EM range rather than Cs’s microwave radio range. The future best clock-based standard may be a ¹⁷¹Yb atomic clock with a “tick rate” on the order of 50,000,000 times greater than a ¹³³Cs one.

 

Such a clock can measure gravitational time dilation due to differences in height as small as 2 cm near the surface of the Earth!

 

You could, in principle, slow the Earth’s period of rotation to 1 per 48 hours, via a super-engineering scheme involving meteorite bombardment, super-stong materials and rockets, etc, or by just waiting (about 2,700,000,000 years). This would have no more effect on the length of the second, or any other standard unit of time, then changing the settings of a mechanical clock to run at one half its usual rate.

 

I think this statement shows a common misunderstanding of the theory of special relativity, one I’ve seen many times in students in introductory physics classes.

 

Time dilation doesn’t arise because moving makes clocks run slower by somehow adjusting their mechanisms the ways a clockmaker (or our fictional Earth-slowing super-engineer) can. Time dilation is the passage of time as measured by accurate clocks being different than that measured by equally accurate clocks with different velocities.

 

The predictions and experimental verifications of the predictions of Special relativity are not “cheap parlor tricks.” Xyz, can you find a a credible scientific source supporting the claim that they are :QuestionM:

Hi Craig , I am close to giving up on science after having another blow out and avoidance to the actual question and idea on another forum.  quoting back present information is not discussing the question.  

 

'' can you find a a credible scientific source supporting the claim that they are''

 

I and you have scientific credit, we can think about things, new does not exist yet.

 

I have axioms that nobody seems to listen to or intentionally ignores.

 

 

let us rewind a bit and for now just ignore time dilation, forget we even know how to measure time. 

 

scenario - I and you want to measure time, I am sure you will agree that time is a constant rate, the arrow of time moving in one direction, forward i.e we age. 

 

so let me presume that you agree we need to find something with a constant rate to record time, knowing we can't record future time we can only record the value of now and a history.

 

 

Now I suggest that the only thing that exists in the entirety of the Universe that is an absolute constant is distance between two set points.

 

 

A....................................B

 

A....................................B

 

A....................................B

 

now anything you may suggest to measure , by standard laws you have to measure it between two points. 0 then the result. 

 

 

I suggest that anything measured between two points other than distance is a speed and not a measurement of time. 

 

 

Now consider this, and you will see the simplicity of why a said time dilation of real time does not occur, notice I do not say an arbitrary timing failure does not occur. 

 

 

A to B takes 1 ly

 

B to A takes 1ly

 

 

1ly distance does not change either direction . 

Edited January 30, 2016 by xyz

[NotBrad]

Time dilation is best represented by an inversely proportional relationship between velocity and what we call "time". But my point is that this relationship does not prove that time can actually be defined as a plane on which we exist. If we consider that the velocity of our galaxy is(according to google) moving an estimated 2.3 x 10^5 m/s and the speed of light is a rounded 3.0 x 10^8 m/s that works out to show that light only moves 1304.35 times as fast as our galaxy. So, if we were to stop our galaxy dead in its tracks somehow, would the the galaxy vanish if observed by somebody on the outside who continued moving at the same speed? And here is the more relevant question; Does the collective energy of the galaxy also have to be removed for this phenomenon to occur, or does it even matter?

 

This leads into my most important concept that has been rattling around in the back of my head for literally years: I think that if we reduce the "temperature" of an atom to absolute zero, that it ceases to exist entirely. But my previous perception on the topic was that this was due to the fact that any energy firected towards it, particularly light would be absorbed in a completely inelastic collision and would therefore reflect no energy to be observed. But my new idea is that rather than this being the only case, that there could also be another answer; That as an object slows down it actually experiences an increase in it's relativistic passage of time and any chemical/atomic processes within it could potentially be accelerated.

There are two problems with this concept:

1. The law of diminishing returns applies to this, we cannot ever actually reach absolute zero(0K) because there is nothing that can actually absorb all that energy effectively excluding the theoretical particles referred to as anti-matter, but these cannot be used as this does not aid the concept.

2. Due to the fact that we cannot actually measure a vacuum there is no way to actually be certain that an object has no velocity.

 

There is more I'd like to say but I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on the matter first.

[xyz]

Time dilation is best represented by an inversely proportional relationship between velocity and what we call "time". But my point is that this relationship does not prove that time can actually be defined as a plane on which we exist. If we consider that the velocity of our galaxy is(according to google) moving an estimated 2.3 x 10^5 m/s and the speed of light is a rounded 3.0 x 10^8 m/s that works out to show that light only moves 1304.35 times as fast as our galaxy. So, if we were to stop our galaxy dead in its tracks somehow, would the the galaxy vanish if observed by somebody on the outside who continued moving at the same speed? And here is the more relevant question; Does the collective energy of the galaxy also have to be removed for this phenomenon to occur, or does it even matter?

 

This leads into my most important concept that has been rattling around in the back of my head for literally years: I think that if we reduce the "temperature" of an atom to absolute zero, that it ceases to exist entirely. But my previous perception on the topic was that this was due to the fact that any energy firected towards it, particularly light would be absorbed in a completely inelastic collision and would therefore reflect no energy to be observed. But my new idea is that rather than this being the only case, that there could also be another answer; That as an object slows down it actually experiences an increase in it's relativistic passage of time and any chemical/atomic processes within it could potentially be accelerated.

There are two problems with this concept:

1. The law of diminishing returns applies to this, we cannot ever actually reach absolute zero(0K) because there is nothing that can actually absorb all that energy effectively excluding the theoretical particles referred to as anti-matter, but these cannot be used as this does not aid the concept.

2. Due to the fact that we cannot actually measure a vacuum there is no way to actually be certain that an object has no velocity.

 

There is more I'd like to say but I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on the matter first.

''Time dilation is best represented by an inversely proportional relationship between velocity and what we call "time". ''

 

Yes, that sounds like a very accurate strict definition that removes any related fairy tales to the change of real time. 

 

I would happily accept that definition.

 

''But my point is that this relationship does not prove that time can actually be defined as a plane on which we exist. ''

 

Time can not be defined has a plane on which we exist, By using words I can manipulate time and invent time travel etc, time is not something that physically exists, that is why it is manipulable, 

 

 

''So, if we were to stop our galaxy dead in its tracks somehow, would the the galaxy vanish if observed by somebody on the outside who continued moving at the same speed?''

 

Our Universe may already be ''invisible'' to an outer observer , motion and speed being unrelated. Light diminishes over distance from the source following the inverse square Law . Objects at a distance within the radius where light diminishes fail to reflect light. Objects over distance x vanish by vanishing point , as in perspective drawing. 

So do not consider there is nothing there just because you can not observe it. 

An experiment for you, 

 

equipment - 1 candle , 1 lighter, 1 dark warehouse, several various objects, a marker pen to draw a circle. 

 

 

Method -

1.place candle in a central position in the warehouse,

2. draw several circles on the floor isotropic to the candle, at different radius's 

3. On each circle circumference line place an object

4. turn the lights off

5. light the candle

6. observe how many objects you can see, from the candle reference point, observe no walls , just darkness, 

 

candle.....A.....B.....C.....D......E.....F

 

 

The intensity relatively defining how big your observed space is. 

 

 

I will get back to you soon on the other parts.

 

After a pause in thought. -

 

''This leads into my most important concept that has been rattling around in the back of my head for literally years: I think that if we reduce the "temperature" of an atom to absolute zero, that it ceases to exist entirely. But my previous perception on the topic was that this was due to the fact that any energy firected towards it, particularly light would be absorbed in a completely inelastic collision and would therefore reflect no energy to be observed. But my new idea is that rather than this being the only case, that there could also be another answer; That as an object slows down it actually experiences an increase in it's relativistic passage of time and any chemical/atomic processes within it could potentially be accelerated.

There are two problems with this concept:

1. The law of diminishing returns applies to this, we cannot ever actually reach absolute zero(0K) because there is nothing that can actually absorb all that energy effectively excluding the theoretical particles referred to as anti-matter, but these cannot be used as this does not aid the concept.

2. Due to the fact that we cannot actually measure a vacuum there is no way to actually be certain that an object has no velocity.''

 

 

I do not think it ceases to exist, it just becomes relatively ''invisible'' because it does not emit any light and/or does not reflect any light.   It would become an absolute ''negative''.  I think to understand this we need to look at this in the context of ''positive'' and ''negative'' and a relationship to Quarks. 

 

 

By positive and negative, I am not considering a standard positive negative although I do apply some principle use of standard positive and negative polarities. 

 

Consider that we know that positive is repulsive to positive and also know that positive is attracted to negative, 

 

This relatively shows us that negative must be attracted to negative, 

 

So let us consider why negative is attractive to negative!

 

Let us take a mass and call it m1, let us say for the thought of the experiment that m1 has an entropy equilibrium of positive and negative. 

 

q(m1)=.5 neg

q(m1)=.5 pos

 

where q is ''charge/polarity''

 

Now let us consider that .5 of m1 wants to expand because + repels + , so all the + wants to expand from itself, 

 

however .5 of  m1 wants to contract, neg pulls neg back together, 

 

consider gas expansion and metal expansion, >E = > 4/3 pi r³ = >V= <D  where V is volume and D is density

 

Now consider that anything + is anti-matter. anything - is  matter. 

Edited January 31, 2016 by xyz

[CraigD]

Hello good sirs(?). I would simply like to interject some food for thought. Does time dilation occur within a black hole? Have we physically observed time dilation within a black hole using these scientific clocks? Can we actually retrieve one if we were to throw it into a black hole? Would the results matter if we cannot retrieve them? If the answer is no to any of those questions then the entire concept of time dilation becomes irrelevant quite quickly.

Because there are no black holes close enough to us to reach with present-day spacecraft, nor observable natural clocks, I don’t believe any experimental measurement of time dilation near a black hole like you ask about has been performed.

 

However, gravitational time dilation occurs due to any gravitational field, not just those of black holes, so direct measurement of it have been done many times using the gravitational field most accessible to us, Earth’s.

 

The first, and arguably best-known is the 1959 Pound–Rebka experiment, though it’s a complicated experiment involving getting resonance between gamma ray emitting and absorbing iron atoms by mounting the emitter on a loudspeaker vibrating at a speed that momentarily cancels the predicted gravitational blueshift, not a simple one comparing 2 accurate clocks at different altitudes.

 

A simpler test was done in 1976 using a suborbital sounding rocket (see: “Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space-Borne Hydrogen Maser”, Vessot, R. F. C. and Levine, M. W. and Mattison, E. M. and Blomberg, E. L. and Hoffman, T. E. and Nystrom, G. U. and Farrel, B. F. and Decher). Many similar tests have been done since, a recent one in 2015 usin the space radio telescope RadioAstron (see “Gravitational Redshift Experiment with the Space Radio Telescope RadioAstron”

D. Litvinov, N. Bartel, K. Belousov, M. Bietenholz, A. Biriukov, A. Fionov, A. Gusev, V. Kauts, A. Kovalenko, V. Kulagin, N. Poraiko, V. Rudenko)

 

Because of these and many other experiments done over the last 100+ years, time dilation as predicted by the theory of Relativity is considered confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

My real question to you is this:

can you stop an object completely, and if you can what would that mean in terms of history and future?

To dilate time infinitely – that is, to make the ratio of proper time of 2 observational frames [math]\frac{t_1}{t_0}=0[/math] – you’d need to either accelerate a clock to the speed of light, or place it at exactly at the event horizon of a black hole. The first is theoretically impossible, because it would require an infinite amount of energy. The second is impractical, because we lack spacecraft able to travel the needed distances, and perhaps theoretically, astromechanically, impossible.

 

Though we can’t practically demonstrate infinite time dilation, we can still apply theory to answer your question.

 

For people in the non-accelerated or moved to an event horizon frame (the one with t₀), history and the future would be unchanged, other than the knowledge that such an amazing experiment had be done.

 

For people (or machines, or whatever was used) on the accelerated or move frame (t₁), in their local frame, the laws of physics would be unchanged, so nothing unusual would happen. However, when the experiment ended, and their time dilation factor returned to [math]\frac{t_1}{t_0} \approx 1[/math], they’d find that an infinite amount of time had passed in the rest of the universe. All the stars they formerly knew, and maybe matter itself would be gone.

 

What we observe as time dilation does not necessarily have to actually be that which we believe it to be. Have any of you gone back in time?

I think it’s important to acknowledge that time dilation is a real, observed effect, regardless of any theory created to explain it.

 

A problem I have with what xzy has written in this and other strange claim threads is that they appear to unambiguously claims that the effect doesn’t happen – that is, that outright deny the observations of the many experiments that show time dilation to occur exactly, within the error bounds of the experiments, as predicted by the theory of Relativity.

 

As for time dilation “actually being that which we believe it to be”, I find the concept of “actually being” troublesome. Time dilation is a well-defined concept that practically everyone with a undergraduate science education understands. It’s not necessary for us to grasp what it “actually is” to discuss it, and use theory to precisely predict its effect on physical phenomena. I think it’s critical, though, that we all understand conventional theory, because people that don’t literally don’t know what they’re talking about when they use the term “time dilation”. Unless people can agree on the conventional meaning of the terms they use, communication is impossible.

 

Unfortunately, it takes hours of study to understand the prerequisite physics to understand the easiest parts of Relativity. I’m confident it can be taught to any psychologically healthy, literate person, regardless of their previous math/science education, in just 2 or 3 terms of college, because I’ve actually, successfully taught such classes. Learning introductory science outside of a school setting, is, I’ve observed, much more difficult.

 

I’m hopeful that the internet may someday remove the barrier of access to conventional classes, but despite progress in that direction, don’t think it’s there yet.

 

How can you disprove his concepts of reality with the interpretations of experiments being entirely dependent on unproven(albeit reasonable) theories?

In orthodox science, the concepts of proof and disproof, and the lack of proof familiar to us in ordinary life give way to the making and confirming of predictions of physically observable pheonomena. A theory must make predictions, and these predictions be confirmed, for the theory to be accepted.

 

Relativity makes predictions that have been confirmed by many experiments, contradicted by none, so it’s well-accepted.

 

I don’t understand the “concept of reality” xyz is trying to communicate, but the only predictions based on it I’ve read in this predict that experiments like Hafele-Keating will have results other than they do. This makes it wrong.

 

 

Time dilation is best represented by an inversely proportional relationship between velocity and what we call "time".

Written as a formula, when you say “inversely proportional relationship”, you’re saying something like

[math]\frac{t_1}{t_0}=\frac{c}{v}[/math]

I think you’d do better to avoid using natural language, and write the convention definition of velocity time dilation,

[math]\frac{t_1}{t_0}=\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)^2}[/math]

[xyz]

In orthodox science, the concepts of proof and disproof, and the lack of proof familiar to us in ordinary life give way to the making and confirming of predictions of physically observable pheonomena. A theory must make predictions, and these predictions be confirmed, for the theory to be accepted.

 

Relativity makes predictions that have been confirmed by many experiments, contradicted by none, so it’s well-accepted.

 

I don’t understand the “concept of reality” xyz is trying to communicate, but the only predictions based on it I’ve read in this predict that experiments like Hafele-Keating will have results other than they do. This makes it wrong.

Exactly that , you do not understand me.  I have not said once that you do not observe a frequency rate change in the Caesium atom.  I am saying the change in your clock that is recording the time, does not affect the time it is recording. Time does not have a frequency rate because time is a ''pole''. 

Take any camcorder and record/measure time, a camcorder is continuous while recording in real-time, the camcorder records frames per second, these frames are continuous. 

 

 

I do know what I am talking about, I am not some fly by night hero. I have spent years thinking about science, no going out of the house, no work, sitting and thinking like the thinker, no other distraction in a world of my own.

Edited February 1, 2016 by CraigD

[Maine farmer]

What you seem to believe is that time is independent of action, that there is some universal time that exists independent of the universe?

 

 

 

 

 

I do know what I am talking about, I am not some fly by night hero. I have spent years thinking about science, no going out of the house, no work, sitting and thinking like the thinker, no other distraction in a world of my own. 

 

Perhaps you do know what you are talking about, but, as you say , you are in a world of your own, so it will be difficult to communicate with people in another world. Knowing nothing about you or your circumstances, I won't hazard giving any advice, but  in  defense of distractions, I would say that sometimes when I am having difficulty with a problem, distractions often bring insight, and sometimes inspiration.

[CraigD]

Exactly that, you do not understand me.

Let’s see if you can help me better understand what you’re writing by answering some yes/no questions.

 

1. Do you agree that the quantity measured by clock follow agree with the predictions given by the theory of Relativity?

2. Do you agree that Hafele–Keating experiment confirmed this?

 

In this

Scenario 1 - take two identical video cameras, one camera (a) we will set up recording Caesium clock (a) which is in a inertial stationary reference frame, the second camera /b/ we will set up recording Caesium clock /b/ which is in motion. We start the recordings synchronised from a starting point of zero/nothing. We record for three hours to a synchronised stop.

3. Is the velocity of the first camera the same as the velocity of clock (a)?

4. Is the velocity of the first camera the same as the velocity of clock /b/?

5. Is the velocity of the second camera the same as the velocity of clock (a)?

6. Is the velocity of the second camera the same as the velocity of clock /b/?

[xyz]

What you seem to believe is that time is independent of action, that there is some universal time that exists independent of the universe?

 

 

I believe there is no such thing as time .  

[xyz]

Let’s see if you can help me better understand what you’re writing by answering some yes/no questions.

 

1. Do you agree that the quantity measured by clock follow agree with the predictions given by the theory of Relativity?

2. Do you agree that Hafele–Keating experiment confirmed this?

 

In this

3. Is the velocity of the first camera the same as the velocity of clock (a)?

4. Is the velocity of the first camera the same as the velocity of clock /b/?

5. Is the velocity of the second camera the same as the velocity of clock (a)?

6. Is the velocity of the second camera the same as the velocity of clock /b/?

1.yes

2.yes

3. 

4,

5,

6,I had not thought about velocity I thought about fps. 

 

My answers of yes though are dependent to the perception . 

 

I think we may need to start here. 

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by xyz

[Maine farmer]

I believe there is no such thing as time .  

Forgive me, but that is difficult to believe.  If you were to say that you believe time is merely a perception of the mind, that would be easier to buy.  

[xyz]

Forgive me, but that is difficult to believe.  If you were to say that you believe time is merely a perception of the mind, that would be easier to buy.  

But apart from the simultaneous of now =0, what  other time do we experience?

 

And if time did not exist, this would have no affect on the Universe, if there is nobody to time something that does not stop the something happening. I consider time is an invention for use rather than a perception or illusion. 

[Maine farmer]

I think I have an idea of your view, and am not in complete disagreement.  However, we experience time in our memory of past events and our anticipation of future events.  As I sit here writing, I am waiting for the grain to mix in the milking cows ration, and even without viewing the clock in the corner of the screen, I can get a pretty good feel for how long it takes to mix properly. 

 

Also consider that even animals experience time.  Just watch a predator stalking it's prey until it determines the right time to strike, and how it pounces and aims for where a moving animal will be.  It anticipates the prey's next move and times it's actions accordingly..

 

Then again, if you want to start talking about the universe in terms of quantum mechanics, , from what little I understand about what little I've read, time and space lose all meaning at the subatomic level, so you may have something there.  I'll be  very interested to read about that!

[xyz]

I think I have an idea of your view, and am not in complete disagreement.  However, we experience time in our memory of past events and our anticipation of future events.  As I sit here writing, I am waiting for the grain to mix in the milking cows ration, and even without viewing the clock in the corner of the screen, I can get a pretty good feel for how long it takes to mix properly. 

 

Also consider that even animals experience time.  Just watch a predator stalking it's prey until it determines the right time to strike, and how it pounces and aims for where a moving animal will be.  It anticipates the prey's next move and times it's actions accordingly..

 

Then again, if you want to start talking about the universe in terms of quantum mechanics, , from what little I understand about what little I've read, time and space lose all meaning at the subatomic level, so you may have something there.  I'll be  very interested to read about that!

I am reading your post above in your future, this post is of your past, now my memory as I have read it. When you read this it will be a communication from the past, I will be in the future, you will also be in the future, our now's are divided by the separation of space, if you was here in my room we would share the same now, you would be reading this now as I write it, and like wise if the reverse and I was there with you, I would be in your now. 

 

So just because we can not see each others now, do not presume that our now's are not simultaneous. 

 

At every point of space exists now, and in space exists things that experience now and travel through now, time past is the memory of now, future time is observing a distant now, the present is the observer of now.  Definition - Time is a continuous simultaneous observation of events of the Universe. 

 

 

 

''from what little I understand about what little I've read, time and space lose all meaning at the subatomic level, so you may have something there. ''

 

 

Can you point out which particular thing I said made you think this?   

[Maine farmer]

Sorry, I should have said that from what little I have understood about what little I have read (about quantum mechanics) time and space lose all meaning at the subatomic level, , so you might have something there,(if you were to get into the universe on the subatomic scale. )  I have not had as much "time" as I would like to have to study quantum mechanics at anything more than a very superficial level, but I think you might find some inspiring insights in that field.

[xyz]

Sorry, I should have said that from what little I have understood about what little I have read (about quantum mechanics) time and space lose all meaning at the subatomic level, , so you might have something there,(if you were to get into the universe on the subatomic scale. )  I have not had as much "time" as I would like to have to study quantum mechanics at anything more than a very superficial level, but I think you might find some inspiring insights in that field.

Arr , I see, well yes I have a few ideas on things smaller than most things.  I think I know how most things are formed by subatomic particles being conformed from absolutely nothing. Now I am not sure your imagination will imagine this, but can you imagine a ''nothing particle''?

 

 

The particle is negative by all means, and the particle is mass itself, but without physical body or structure, more like a Ghost, so can we call it the Ghost particle just for discussion purposes?

 

The maths that shows the existence of the Ghost particle is this 

 

4/3 pi r³   -  4/3  pi  r³  =

 

answer left blank

 

 

 

But also the Ghost particle is infinite in volume V=∞

 

 

Now let us consider the entirety of space is made from  the Ghost particles, and all Ghost particles are attracted to Ghost particles, making the existing fabric of space . (At this stage we have an infinite void made up of negative Ghost particles).

 

OK so far?

 

 

Add on - Ghost particles are a ''zero point'' of any reference point of the entirety of space that adjoins the ghost particles together. (explaining the whole)

 

Ghost particles have isotropic centripetal force of their adjoining selves and hold a stationary existence that can never be displaced where time and motion stand still always holding the value of an absolute stationary reference frame. 

 

To express the dimension's of the Ghost particle is to leave the dimensions blank, to express the whole of the ghost particles is to leave the value infinite. 

 

Defining the value of ''nothing'' to be 0 to ∞

 

 

So when we now consider before the big bang there was nothing, 0 to ∞ expresses to be true. 

 

In present terms you could define the ghost particles as ''distance'' or no ''distance'' or maybe dark energy.

 

Ghost particles are indestructible, immortal if you like, they are also inseparable.

 

So jumping forward slightly this takes me to the Higgs bosson, a denser concrete existence of the ghost particles.

 

The Higgs a negative that is denser than the ghost particle , a greater mass than the ghost mass, so these Higgs are attracted to other Higgs, to make up a Quark, that then make up a proton. 

 

 

Only positive can expand the mass, positive being anti-mass, but the mass of the ghost particles is never affected by positive, the bond is to tight. Only the concrete existence of the Ghost particles can be affected.

 

 

This might sound strange, 

 

If we could remove all the positive energy from matter, all the matter would reside in a singularity, everything would be reversed, the expansion would contract, we would have one big negative rock at the center of the universe.

 

All mass is attracted to mass, because mass is negative, all mass attracts and ''holds'' positive, but positive always wants to expand the mass causing vibration. 

Edited February 2, 2016 by xyz

[NotBrad]

-snip-

Whoa mind thoroughly boggled. If you said what I think you said, cool. If you didn't, also cool. But the terminology just blew my mind, screw quarks and photons, they sound lame.

 

HELLO GHOST PARTICLE!

[xyz]

Whoa mind thoroughly boggled. If you said what I think you said, cool. If you didn't, also cool. But the terminology just blew my mind, screw quarks and photons, they sound lame.

 

HELLO GHOST PARTICLE!

I think you understand me, I think you understand what I said , and  yes a big whoa, Quarks and Photons are lame , Hello Ghost particle. 

 

 

People struggle to understand my ideas because lets us just say describing ''God'' is not easy. 

 

Science says my science is not science, they are correct, I believe my ideas are ahead of science and that is why they fail to understand my advancement on present science from their own knowledge data bases. 

 

You  may understand this then now - 

Positive ion's repel positive ion's so therefore negative is the only answer of attraction of bodies to bodies 

 

If we examined air , we can clearly observe that when increasing the positive energy in a volume of air , the air with become more positive and expand from itself, and we can observe that when the air becomes a more negative again, it contracts back to original form. We also observe this in metal expansion, I believe we also observe this with gravity. 

 

I believe m1neg is attracted to m2neg and the distance divider or the work is created by m1pos and m2pos and we already have all the evidence that shows this to be possibly true and the mechanism of gravity.

 

We know like wise polarities / charges, repel, a fact we all know and can clearly observe and test. 

 

Consider black holes, consider black holes are a spherical ''growing'' of Ghost particles, consider the mass of this sphere of ghost particles submerged in ''light''

 

 

Consider now the density of ghost particles in this sphere compared to the density of the fabric of ghost particles in the surrounding space, and consider then external bodies that have denser ghost particles than the surrounding space, The density of one attracting the density of another through the lesser density of the space. 

 

Yes I understand it sounds mad, but I think you will understand and then realise the complication in even trying to explain it, it seriously hurts my brain to think on this sort of level. 

 

added - I am not talking Godly but God is a void in the imagination, and the void is the answer.  Religion fills the void with God, I fill the void with science and the Ghost ''God'' Particle.

 

Maybe I should explain my maths, 

 

I sort of describe something using maths, the maths does not really give a result although sometimes it gives a result. 

 

i.e

 

4/3 pi r³  -   4/3  pi r³ =

 

 

I am not adding any values , even pi does not exist in the above calculation, all's this says is take a volume of a sphere, take an identical sphere, take the volume away from the identical volume which  leaves the answer of nothing.  Explaining one part of nothing.

 

The second part to nothing would be 

 

0^∞ =4/3 pi r³ ∞=

Edited February 3, 2016 by xyz