Re: Review of your theories
Hello Ron.
You said:
>Yes, I'm aware of this fact. The point I was making is that as far as the MASS of an atom is >concerned, an electron adds very little to it. The major importance of an electron's presence >would seem to be as a means of stabilising the atom and to give matter a time function.
A nucleus can be perfectly stable all by itself. They're called ions. The most common form of this phenomenon is known as the Alpha Particle... a vast number of these are caught in the upper layer of the Van Allen belt, which is the reaction of cosmic radiation to Earth's Magnetic field.
Jupiter, also, has a Van Allen belt. It is much thicker than Earth's. Human exploration of the inner jovian system will not be possible until we can find a way to absorb alpha radiation. Beta radiation on the other hand is somewhat inconsequential to human lifeforms.
Electrons, also, are perfectly stable all by themselves. Free electrons are known as beta particles.
You said:
>Temperature and motion are two important factors with reagrds to time, while electrical charge is >one of the forces that can create motion.
Temperature and Electrical charge are relative to everything else, just like time, mass and length.
You need to read my other posts about three dimensional time, the creation of the universe and complex relativity, or join my complex relativity research team.
You said:
>I wasn't saying that photons were actual units of time. What I was trying to imply is that photons >ACT like the ticks of time, and each tick (emission or absorption of a photon) is the moment of >activity that can be referred or likened to the moment NOW. Planck made measurments of the >shortest time interval based on the emission of a photon, but I can't remember what that >measurement was.
Max Planck concluded that the shortest period of measurable time was 10^-43 seconds.
It is possible that the minimum wavelength of a photon is c/10^43. For a photon to gain more energy than this, it may be necessary for that photon to slow down and bifurcate into two separate particles, with independant trajectories through space and time, cumulatively having sufficient mass to equate to the energy of the bifurcated photon.
My girlfriend, for instance, is made up of googols of particles, but if I were to take her mass and quantize her wavelength, it would be shorter than c/10^43.
If a system exists to reflect and kind of photon to a focal point, those photons would continue to gain more and more energy. If their wavelengths began to inceed the minimum wavelength of a photon, but the system continued to focus them such that they remain one particle, half of the particle must begin to travel backwards in time, the gravity of which will begin to pull in the rest of the system, and a black hole will be formed which travels forward in time relative to its observer, and a white hole will be formed which travels backward in time, relative to the same observer.
It is likely that some critically massive supergiant stars are in fact, white holes, if their mass is sufficient to smash photonic wavelengths into less than the Planck Length. Their internal gravity however, is "usually" capable of slowing down outpouring of energy from singularity at their cores such that the light is dim enough by the time it leaves the corona that we can cannot detect the white hole inside.
As these white holes continue to move backwards in time, they will eventually "fill" the galaxy (and in fact, the entire universe) with matter, creating a quasar.
We observe our own creation backwards from the way it happened.
The universe could be likened to a tree, which grew from the seed of a solitary singularity. Galaxies, thus are the fruit on that tree and the seeds in that fruit are supergiant stars with blackhole potential.
The backdrop of the universe shows that intergalactic superclusters do indeed look something like trees.
You said:
>When I stated that forces created dimensions, I wasn't suggesting it was doing that to space >itself, but rather, forces of atomic elements interacting with each other is what gives shape and >form to matter, thereby creating dimensions. Anything else outside that is purely a mathematical >conveniance.
Everything in the universe has a mass, a length, a temperature, an electrical charge and exchanges of these properties are made possible by time.
Likewise, the properties of all "real" things have equal and opposite imaginary properties of mass, length, temperature, electrical charge and time.
Each and ever property, both real and imaginary has a three dimensional value.
That's 26 dimensions.
To add a 27th is to allow infinite possibilities for infinite different timelines.
This provides a loophole around the "grandma" paradox and other strange dualities of temporal mechanics.
To summarize, everything in the universe can be broken down into trinities.
For instance, the universe itself is:
1) Nothing occupying infinite space.
2) Everything occupying no space.
3) The complete opposite of both.
All at the same time, in perfect, equilibrium.
The universe is, in fact, the natural reaction to the existence of infinite nothing.
For all intents and purposes, the universe has always "just been there".
To further break down the universe into more trinities:
Space and Time begat Energy.
Time and Energy begat Space.
Space and Energy begat Time.
Time is three dimensional, having real, imaginary and "original" values, both positive and negative.
Energy is made up of mass which carries a specific charge at a specific time.
Space is made up of length and motion through time.
Mass and Charge are both three dimensional and have corresponding values which are equal, opposite and imaginary.
Length and Motion are both three dimensional and have corresponding values which are equal, opposite and imaginary.
The universe revolves around the axis of original time. By moving through original time, one will find near-perfect "copies" of the universe which have been altered by changes in universal history.
Time, therefore, is the crux of all creation.
You said:
>Yes, I agree. But I feel for a force to be able to interact with each other, it has to have some >form of structure that causes attractive forces to pull inwards. Energy as an outward repulsive >force is easy to imagine, but energy as an inward attractive force is more difficult to visualise. >I find the apparent 'stickiness' of attractive forces a fascinating one, and is a sublject I have >been researching for some time in the hope of finding even a glimpse of an answer.
Photons have this strange ability to cause things to move.
Have you ever observed a radiometer? This strange device that contains four oppositely shaded squares held inside a vacuum bulb on a pin and rotates when exposed to light?
Photons, therefore, can "push" massive objects.
Photons are nothing but little packets of energy propagated by interactions between various electrical charges.
Two objects which are motionless relative to each other and which emit a tremendous amount of heat, will repel each other. This is easily explained by photomotive force APPLIED by infrared photons smashing into electrons of the other object, causing said electrons to become even more excited than they were to begin with, spreading the excitement to surrounding atoms, and thus, causing the body to move.
Two objects which are motionless relative to each other and which do not emit any heat, will attract each other. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as "negative energy".
It is quite possible that photomotive force from universal background radiation will in fact, push objects closer together. The two objects inhibit the flow of universal background radiation and thus, more photomotive force is applied on the opposing sides of the objects than between them.
Gravity may simply be a result of photomotive force.
From what I understand of gravity, mass, density and size all have an effect on the intensity and range of a gravity well.
For instance:
A vast nebula which has the potential to form a supergiant star which will collapse into a black hole will have the same GRAVITATIONAL FORCE as the black hole itself, but the black hole is much denser, which makes the gravity field more localized, which makes it more noticeable.
Time likely has something to do with gravity also.
To change an object's speed is to change its *time*. Thus, to change an object's *time* is to change its speed.
What, therefore, would happen if the *time* of two objects was mutually changed due to the presense of mass, which, in fact, slows down *time*?
By slowing down time, each object will change speed relative to the other object, and the direction of that speed be inclined to be toward the other object.
And it is likely a combination of the two. Photomotive force will add to the "energy" of the two masses, making them more massive, causing them to slow down time even more, causing them to move towards each other more rapidly.
Likewise, the kinetic energy of the motion itself will add to the relative mass of each object, slowing time down even more, generating more speed.
You and I should bang heads together more often, e-mail me:
[email protected]
You said:
>Thanks again for your input. It's been very refreshing.
You too.
