The Particle of Time....The Chronotron

Transient001

Transient001

Quantum Scribe
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?
 
Einstein said:
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.
 
Factual evidence is hard to find. However, there are many experiments, equations and theories which try to define that which I have stated so far.
 
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.
 
Transient001 said:
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.
 
Darby said:
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.
 
Einstein said:
. . . 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.
 
Back
Top