The Particle of Time....The Chronotron

T

Transient0011

Chrono Cadet
Hello Friends of EarthTR125.0121

Understanding that the universe, or the aspect of the universe that we are able to perceive, is composed almost entirely of particles, sub-atomic particles, wave functions and forces I have been thinking for a very long time about the possibility of a particle which defines time.

However, this particle would have to be very "particular"

It would be tangled with every other particle in existence, thus allowing said particles to actually exist in a continuum. but at the same time not necessarily existing at the same temporal intervals.

It would exhibit different behaviors around gravitational forces, mass and densities.

It would exist for all quantum states, regardless of definite action or causation.

It would be present where there is space but not limited to places where there is no space defined.

It would arrange around other particles in such a way that it would define its actual world-line in respect to everything else in existence.

Feel free to add up and contribute. To actually concentrate in this concept is what we need to help the field of temporal sciences to evolve.

Moreover, we should think on how to define also particles for gravity, space, dimensions and the "stuff" reality and dimensions are made of.

 
Why have you chosen it to be a particle? Why don't you gather real facts instead? This looks like you are writing the concept for a fictional story. You already have the theory of relativity. How much more fiction do you really need?

 
This looks like you are writing the concept for a fictional story. You already have the theory of relativity. How much more fiction do you really need?
Click to expand...
Funny, but no. This is no fiction. My fiction stories are on the Fan Fiction Directory.I believe we should start by focusing on things like this. I don't know, it might be a particle, maybe something else we haven't discovered yet (like a foundation block principle outside reality). However, we must try to define it as best as we can. Believe me it will help much.

Even as I write, it occurs to me that this particle should behave in a way when it exist in the past related to things, in some other way when it exist in the present related to things and in another way when it exist in the future related to things. Much like light when seen from the back, within it and in front of it.

 
[i believe we should start by focusing on things like this. I don't know, it might be a particle, maybe something else we haven't discovered yet (like a foundation block principle outside reality). However, we must try to define it as best as we can. Believe me it will help much. /QUOTE]Your making this up. A belief isn't a fact. If you don't start with some facts, then maybe the moderator should move this to the fiction category.
Click to expand...
 
Okay, lets discuss the principles of time. In the past, people employed their observations to derive the nature of the universe. So far all I have done is define just that. In ancient Greece the atom was discovered by sheer observation. One man defined what he thought must have been the actual building blocks of creation. What I am trying to do is the same. I believe we should define time as an actual thing, not a passing event, but a thing which holds a continuum. Its not fiction but observation.

 
I'm not looking for theories. Since theories belong in the fictional category. Math can be used to describe facts. But without some real facts, math is just as useless as theories are. I was surprised to learn that the Magneton isn't actually a real particle. It's a mathematical convenience. The gravity field which is associated with the graviton, a particle which doesn't exist. Still no mention of particles for electric fields. And now you want to fabricate a particle for time fields. The facts do suggest that particles don't exist for these four basic fields. But waves of these fields are another matter.

 
Maybe we are looking at wave fields and not particles.
Click to expand...
Possibly. Electric and magnetic waves are well documented. The scientific community still wont acknowledge gravity waves exist. I know they exist. I don't seem to have a problem producing them in my lab. Podketnov doesn't seem to have a problem producing them either. But time waves would be a very exotic phenomena to observe. I've observed them in my lab. But this subject matter seems to be missing entirely from the scientific community. And that particular subject is probably why there have been no advances in physics for the last 70 years. Personally, I think there is a well orchestrated coverup in place. But if you want to learn about time waves or time fields, you might try listening to Al Bielek tell his story. Or even David Anderson. Both of these guys I thought were total nut jobs, until recently.

 
The scientific community still wont acknowledge gravity waves exist. I know they exist.
Click to expand...
What the frack are you talking about? Einstein predicted them. The physics community believes that Einstein was correct. The Standard Model predicts them. The problem has been detecting them. Gravity is by far the weakest of the forces - weakest by a factor of 39 powers of ten. Gravity is readily apparent on Earth. But astronomical events, 1000's to millions of light years away are hard to detect gravitatonally.

 
What the frack are you talking about? Einstein predicted them. The physics community believes that Einstein was correct. The Standard Model predicts them. The problem has been detecting them. Gravity is by far the weakest of the forces - weakest by a factor of 39 powers of ten. Gravity is readily apparent on Earth. But astronomical events, 1000's to millions of light years away are hard to detect gravitatonally.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is history has been rewritten to show that Einstein predicted gravity waves. And also that the Standard Model is now modified to predict them as well. Well I'll be damned. Kind of looks like historical modification technology is in place and working. Yup, somebody is modifying the past again. Just remember that I introduced you to my rotating gravity field concept years ago. Maybe you recall that I stated a gravity field changing in field strength intensity would be associated with a corresponding change in the flow of time. And that turns out to be true. So time acceleration is real. I don't see time acceleration technology being talked about by the scientific community. Unless you want to include David Anderson as part of the scientific community.

 
. . . you might try listening to Al Bielek tell his story. Or even David Anderson. Both of these guys I thought were total nut jobs, until recently.
Click to expand...
Uhh, OK. I'm a little new to all this and my mental faculties are not what they used to be. But Al Bielek is an old BS'er of the first water and David Anderson - well - he's a fantasy currently in storage at a UPS mail box store in Santa Fe New Mexico. And let me add that as fantasy creations go, the next time they dress the guy up in a suit for a Youtube run, they oughta pick a suit that at least sorta fits him. And they oughta get him a snappy hat to wear - you know - something nice from Ong's Hat Store.

 
Left before I Arrived, are you born in 1903? That means you are 110 years old this year in 2013. You must be the oldest member we have here.

 
I like this guy he thinking outside the bubble. Yeah but the thing is i have to agree and disagree with eins here on that because i think particle can only affect the thing and cannot be a cause of that thing. I thing time is an endless flow of energy affecting everything because it does not have any charge and also we dont even know what it is so yeah.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it might be more of a snap to effect. Certain things happened the first time around. In order for any changes to stay the same, there is a snap to effect that means that these things have to still happen. If they do not, the changes become thinner and thinner in probability until they are skinny like the steel in a building frame, and prone to snap at any time.

 
And now you can see, with 7600 views, that there is something going on with this. Something is trying very hard to "snap to" the other post I made so things don't start thinning out and breaking so much.

 
I had written before about the speed of electromagnetism being a set speed that was half the speed of the 2 approaching electromagnetism fields and that would be the fastest anything could travel. The disappearng distance between the two fields approaching each other would be quicker than one field measurement.Imagine if you can that the disapearing distance is actually " displacement of the areas substance" at that speed.If that is possible then it can be done three times simultainiously parallel to each other.

The displaced space is intesecting at speeds faster than two approaching fields by themselves.

I just thought that by now the theory that electromagntic field speed being the fastest speed possible would have been challenged by someone smarter than me.

Maxwell gave the basics just made it singular. multiplied through positioning will give maximum potentials.

Happy Earth Day 2016
Click to expand...
In the good old days of this forum , prove it would be required. Arguements and real spirited debunking , followed by examples of written fact in science would be quoted. So no arguement here concerns me.The two waves meet at a T intersection , a particle is at the intersection and the volume of the T is equal at all three points. Would the particle speed out at the speed of the , disappearing distance between two approaching electromagnetic fields , or the speed of an electromagnetic field?

Of course in my imagination there would be four electromagnetic fields and two T's and two particles opposed each other , ready to close the distance between themselves in a vacuum. I know colliders are round but maybe there needs to be a T intersection of two colliders in a smaller containment area. Most time travel devices are 500 pounds or smaller in book writers descriptions.

 
Back
Top