Inside the box thinking about gravity in the SM

a reply to: dragonridr light did not create matter and the beginning of the universe

a reply to: Bandu
OK you agree the EU presentation is wrong, but as I said of that:

"I never see any mathematical predictions in electric universe presentations, which are what can tell us if a theory is consistent with observation or not."

So now I read what you say, and I have the same problem; not a single reference to experiments and observations that test your model, wait, what exactly is your model and what are the quantitative predictions it makes that can be tested?

Same question to blackcrowe, what are the quantitative predictions it makes that can be tested? It sounds here like you're saying it predicts the same things as existing models:

originally posted by: blackcrowe
This model should hopefully fit Einstein's theories. And if i can provide enough useful information. As suggested by phantom463. Known numbers should be able to be plugged in to it to confirm with known results.

So can you clarify, does it make any new or different predictions than current mainstream models? If so what are they and how did you arrive at those predictions, and have you searched experiments to see if they have already been tested?

If it doesn't make any new or different predictions, I'm not sure I understand the point of the model, maybe you could explain that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So now I read what you say, and I have the same problem; not a single reference to experiments and observations that test your model, wait, what exactly is your model and what are the quantitative predictions it makes that can be tested?

That's simple, just remove the word space-time with the word field density.
You know I say time is not a thing, right ?
Time is just a concept based on counting events and as charges move in a denser field the "counting" is slower... this is first you need to grasp...

All other things I say hold with all the experiments, and there is a lot of experiments supporting my theory, all of them if you take a closer look.. even those not consistent with Einstein's theory

Lets call gravity - field density, just for a second..
EM radiation bends in denser field, time goes slower in a denser field, time goes slower if you move in the field.
Even the black hole construct stops the EM field if it's dense enough.. NO ?

Why do you think the theory is based on some kind of something that has to be discovered ?
NO, the theory has been build on that what physicist all over the word has discovered the past 150 Years, the difference is, I see all the electrons and protons as a part of one, and not something that cancels each other.

minus 1 + plus 1 is 2 of charge 0 !!

How do you bend space-time ?
Is there a way in any meaning??
Forget that construct.

OK, I was not quite truthfulness saying the EU diagram is wrong, it is not but, just partial true, ...due to the field density and all the charges moving in it, there is always a small fraction of probability ( to be QM conform ) that the charges attract each other like the EU diagram says, not all the time, but for a fraction of being... that's why magnitude 22 less than coulomb force itself.
EU.. they got it almost right but incomplete... not even wrong

"The theory" I have can manipulate "gravity" direction ( if you understand how gravity works ), it is a coulomb force's shape given by the "time dilation" in the field density.
Density falls of 4/3 πr3 and electric field 1/r2, this is a chance to manipulate it.


#thanks to my mentor +2019.11.30+
"You can not change the density of the field as it is given by the charge distribution, but you can change the "probability" the charges move."

a reply to: blackcrowe

just one advice...
never use the word infinity in any theory, it means the dead of mathematics...
and mathematics is all they believe in

In this update. Three scales.

These scales are scalable. And should be relative. Large or small.

Scale/diagram 1 represents the 6 directions/3 dimensions without the undefined colour axis (to simplify).

This cube is rotated right 1/6 from previous diagrams. Where, the axis' remain in the same place. The colours are spinning.

B+- (up,down) axis is hidden by the 2d drawing of a 3d cube. Position noted and colour noted.

It is a % scale. It is 100% of the known Universe (at that point).

From the centre 0. The size of the Universe is 50% in any direction from 0.

The scale is centre 0 to +-50%. Which is 100% of axis' A,B,C.



Scale/diagram 2 shows the undefined colour particle axis. Represented as +-(uca) to represent only. Which is normally unseen. It is an axis running from near top corner of cube to far bottom corner of cube. With no defined colour charge. And is hidden by optical illusion. Near top/far bottom corners hidden by centre in most diagrams. Between (fw,right and (bw,left) position.

Rotated the same way as scale 1 to show axis.

Having previously discussed this axis. And provided diagrams also earlier in the thread.

There are actually two of these axis'.

This is another % scale.

The axis' cross at centre 50+- and run diagonally to corners of cube to 100%.

These axis' seem to be the drivers of the energy. Giving the push to 100%.



Scale/diagram 3 is a combination scale.

It is a scale of h and v light availability.

It has horizontal axis 0 to 50+-% (size of known Universe at that point) on A and C axis'. A axis not shown. Hidden by B axis. Though noted.

The vertical axis B is 0 to 90+- deg. (Can also be %).

The B axis has a half spin. As it spins through the horizontal axis. 90 deg might become 90%. This being the Gravitational potential as discussed in the earlier update with diagrams?

This scale has more than one use. And needs to be analysed further.



Further analysis required for all above scales.

a reply to: dragonridr

I don't mind you going off at a tangent.

But. You are referring to light in the form of matter we know.

We haven't got to the photon yet in this model.

Your replies are cool though. Tangent or not.

Thanks.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If it doesn't make any new or different predictions, I'm not sure I understand the point of the model, maybe you could explain that.

It is a personal issue.

A compulsion to know.

I have no choice.

Just a compulsion/obsession.

Thanks.

a reply to: Bandu

just one advice...
never use the word infinity in any theory, it means the dead of mathematics...
and mathematics is all they believe in

It's not about infinity. It's infinity+-.

And it's all about that.

You obviously don't believe in maths.

minus 1 + plus 1 is 2 of charge 0 !!

There are 2 possible answers to that sum. And 2 is not one of them.

Thanks.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Oh NO, I think counting is very correct, if you do it properly !

What I was saying is that if you count charges ( electrons and protons ) there is not only the charge - and +
but also they density of the field.
I mean, if you count 1 electron, that has a charge of -1 and density 1 in the field, and one proton that has a charge of +1 and a field density of 1, you get a charge of 0 and a density of 2.

-1c1d plus +1c1d = 0c2d

if you say infinity+-, do you mean the + stands for the biggest and - for the smallest ?

a reply to: Bandu

Ok. Had same issue with Kryzma.

What answer would you give for -infinity plus +infinity=?

Thanks.

a reply to: Bandu
Actually time is the thing and it is quite physical in nature as time is couple to dark matter so that makes it physical in every way

a reply to: Bandu

On the contrary time speed Sapna dancer feel justice time speeds up in a denser material

a reply to: blackcrowe

Kryzma or Krzyma ?
...died November 30th 2019 on cancer, I have had no issues with...

Did Krzyma offended you somehow ? how ?
Crazy sh..it... but Krzyma was right in so many thinking...

To your question, -infinity plus +infinity makes the reality, this is what I think.

Why do you ask if the term infinity is nothing mathematics can not really work with ?

My question, do you think the universe is finite ? Big Bang "nothing" outside and so... or maybe infinite, and just not discoverable because of limitation and decay with distance.. ?

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Bandu
Actually time is the thing and it is quite physical in nature as time is couple to dark matter so that makes it physical in every way

Dark matter ?? is there one??
Billions of Dollars have bin spend to look for it but nothing found.
What about dark energy ?
There is more dark energy than "not so dark energy" in the Universe they say, what is energy anyway ?
Is energy not just another term for something not physical but just constructed to make mathematical equations ?

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Bandu

On the contrary time speed Sapna dancer feel justice time speeds up in a denser material

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So now I read what you say, and I have the same problem; not a single reference to experiments and observations that test your model, wait, what exactly is your model and what are the quantitative predictions it makes that can be tested?

originally posted by: Bandu
That's simple, just remove the word space-time with the word field density.
You know I say time is not a thing, right ?
Time is just a concept based on counting events and as charges move in a denser field the "counting" is slower... this is first you need to grasp...

The problem with this is, space-time is not just a word or words, it is mathematically woven into the equations of general relativity, a theory consisting of mathematical equations which has been tested many times and found to be consistent with observation.

So how do you replace space-time in the general relativity equations with field density? Also that sounds like a problem with basic dimensional analysis.

a reply to: Bandu

Yes dark matter does exist I have experimental proof for it that I found on the internet please check out this website www.scribd.com...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In my opinion space time is space time to separate things space space and space time and time is time you cannot join this two together general relativity is bogus equations has not been proven to be right in anyway my fitting tools equations and applied to Real world nobody knows what values plug into the expressions in the equation general relativity is only a gimmick. Let se you are communicating with the probe on Mars no you have to point your antenna Tu Mas antenna has two numerical values one is azimuth and one is elevation so what values will you plug into Einstein general relativity to achieve to arrive at this two numerical values no one in the world knows so which proves general relativity is all bogus

a reply to: Hyperboles

What on Earth are you talking about? There is little to no coherence in your post, it isn't even clear what you are trying to say... even the general message taking only key words seems to even show that even without any coherence, you have no idea what you are saying.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Bandu

Yes dark matter does exist I have experimental proof for it that I found on the internet please check out this website www.scribd.com...

C'mon, do you really believe a single word that guy Savvy says?
Here's a screenshot from that link, where he's offering to license his antigravity technology for space ships:



But if you watch that demo video he posted, the feet of his antigravity machine never get off the ground. The technology department at Space-X or any space ship making company is probably too "savvy" to have any interest in licensing a "spaceship" technology where the demonstrator can't even get off the ground one centimeter. The Avrocar technology (sort of a flying car, the military wanted to use them as "flying jeeps") was pretty much a disaster, but at least it got off the ground, though I don't think it got any higher than about 1 meter (it was supposed to be able to go up to an altitude of 3000m).

But this Vrillelectric contraption can't even get off the ground at all in that demo video, so who in their right mind would license that for a space ships or flying cars?