Heavy Science. Time Travel.

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
just in case no one else noticed,
General relativity fails in rotating frames
so it just does not apply to anything that spins (almost everything)

as to how time travel works,
most people assume that time flows from the past to the future,
I am convinced that it flows from unlikely timelines to the most likely timeline.
the world makes way more sense that way.
It's my understanding. That there is no set principal that governs the flow of time. While in this dimension, Time seems to flow from beginning to end. In another dimension, it could flow from end to beginning or from any point to any other point arbitrarily, It seems that the reason time progresses as it does for us in this relative environment may simply be an internal whim of space-time It is speculated in higher dimensions. Like that of maybe the 6th and higher. Time could flow backward or even erratically, as there seems to be no law or rule that governs the flow of time.

It probably has to with the horizon of spacetime and its curvature. I would assume. Spacetime in other dimensions could have a spacetime that is curved differently or even some kind of non symmetrical curve that could cause time to flow in erratic ways. This is, however. Just from my thoughts on it.
 
Last edited:

Kchoo

At Peace.
time travel.. No thanks...
Oh no no no... that is just too dangerous on so many levels.

Being able to instantly travel across large distance.... now THAT would be cool... But I don’t think time would be effected...

Well, it might take a while to send a signal from the new distant location back to Earth...

Heck, by the time the signal reached home, you could already be back home... haha... in that scenario...

That is, if it could be possible to instantly change locations in the universe?
 
It probably has to with the horizon of spacetime and its curvature. I would assume. Spacetime in other dimensions could have a spacetime that is curved differently or even some kind of non symmetrical curve that could cause time to flow in erratic ways. This is, however. Just from my thoughts on it.
In 1949 Kurt Gödel, one of the greatest geniuses in mathematical and scientific history, discovered that in a rotating universe, there would be "closed timelike curves" - trajectories through spacetime that would bring you back to an earlier point in time. Observers embedded in a rotating universe wouldn't see the rotation, of course, because they'd be rotating within it. I highly recommend a look at his paper on the subject - he spawned a fascinating new branch of theoretical study of GR which led to concepts like wormholes and warp field propulsion:

“An example of a new type of cosmological solutions of Einstein’s field equations of gravitation,” Kurt Gödel, 1949
http://kurtgoedel.de/cms-83FO/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Goedel.pdf

time travel.. No thanks...
Oh no no no... that is just too dangerous on so many levels.

Being able to instantly travel across large distance.... now THAT would be cool... But I don’t think time would be effected...

Well, it might take a while to send a signal from the new distant location back to Earth...

Heck, by the time the signal reached home, you could already be back home... haha... in that scenario...

That is, if it could be possible to instantly change locations in the universe?
In theory a wormhole would make instantaneous travel across cosmological distances possible, and open the door to time travel into the past as well (though I dispute this feature on theoretical grounds that I'm currently writing a paper about).

A rocket technician named Daniel Fry, who worked in the early US rocketry programs at White Sands Missile Proving Ground back in the 40s and 50s, published some fascinating and very easy to read books about physics and cosmology, and he described key features of warp field propulsion way back then - one of which is the scenario that you just mentioned. In one of his three short but fascinating books about physics, he described a round-trip to Alpha Centauri in the span of one hour, and noted that in this situation the space traveler could return to the Earth and appear to be in three locations at the same time; back on the Earth after his trip visiting an astronomer friend, traveling to Alpha Centauri in slow motion and deeply red-shifted as seen through the telescope, and moving backwards from the Earth toward Alpha Centauri (and the clock on this ship would appear to be running backwards).

His books were amazing. In them he explicitly predicted the dark energy effect acting between the galaxy clusters, some 40 years before it was discovered by astronomers. He described this effect as a gravitational repulsion acting between the galaxy clusters, rather than the cosmological constant model that astronomers embrace today. I'm looking forward to the results of the Dark Energy Survey so we can see which model is more accurate - if Daniel Fry is right, it may be possible to detect anisotropies (irregularities) in the dark energy effect, and open the door to a phenomenological explanation that may one day have technological applications (i.e., antigravity). All of his books are available online for free reading here (via the "Books" tab in the top right corner of the webpage):

Daniel Fry Dot Com

I contributed a chapter about gravitational field propulsion to the biography about Daniel Fry which was written by the owner of that website, Sean Donovan, because that topic is a key theme within Fry's books and also my primary area of interest in theoretical physics
 
Last edited:

spacecase0

earth human
"Evidence found that spinning black holes drag spacetime: Just as Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts," 11/06/1997
I sure missed that one,
came after I finished school (and I know that I have not kept up with new thing in that direction.
thank you for the updated info
and is it just me, or does dragging space time sound identical to some ether theories ?
Then why doesn't the past look any more improbable than the present? What's more unlikely about people riding around in horse-drawn chariots than men landing on the Moon and playing golf there? This model makes no sense to me.
maybe another way to phrase it will be better,
using the analogy of a hologram, and time would be the viewing angle.
when changes are made, it changes the entire hologram (for every viewing angle)
if we attempt a change that only changes one direction in time, that may or may not be possible depending on the attempted change..
 
I sure missed that one,
came after I finished school (and I know that I have not kept up with new thing in that direction.
thank you for the updated info
and is it just me, or does dragging space time sound identical to some ether theories ?
No, gravitomagnetism isn't like ether theories because ether theories postulate an absolute rest frame that doesn't exist, and efforts to detect an "ether drag" as the Earth moves through the ether have been disproved.

Technically frame dragging is a purely geometric phenomenon. But differential geometry is difficult to work with and there's a more intuitive way of thinking about it, known as gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM).

In the weak field limit (where gravitational fields are fairly weak like they are around the Earth and where velocities are much less than the speed of light), the laws of gravitation can be expressed in the same form as the equations for electrical charge interaction and electromagnetic induction - with the exception that the sign of the interactions is reversed.

This means that gravitation acts analogously to electric charge, and in fact it may be more accurate to call "mass" a "mass charge" instead. With gravity like mass charges attract, and unlike mass charges repel - the opposite of electrical charge interactions. Other than this inverse sign of the interaction, the Coulomb interaction equation is identical in form to Newton's equation for gravitational interaction (and as we know, Newton's gravity equation works fine in the weak field limit for calculating the acceleration of the gravitational interaction).

Here's where it gets interesting: we can model any of the effects that we see with electrical currents and charges and induction phenomena, with gravitation as well, because the two are perfectly analogous in the weak field limit. One popular way to imagine this, is to draw an analogy between an electrically conducting wire, and a hollow pipe with a massive fluid flowing through it. So for example, if we create a coiled pipe in the shape of an electrical inductor, and run a very dense fluid through it in one direction, we've created a gravitomagnetic field in the same shape as the magnetic field around an inductor. Or if we oscillate the direction of fluid flow through that coil back and forth, we can create an alternating gravitomagnetic field that will radiate gravitational waves, just as an alternating electromagnetic coil will radiate electromagnetic waves.

In 1963 Robert L. Forward published a brief but fascinating paper called "Guidelines to Antigravity" that took this concept one step further, and proved that antigravity is a real physical phenomenon. Which is probably why it was almost completely ignored by mainstream physics, when it should have been hailed as a momentous discovery. His idea was very simple and absolutely convincing, and it goes like this:

If we wind an electrical coil around a hollow toroidal form (a toroid is shaped like a donut), and send an increasing electrical current through that toroidal coil, we create a dipolar electrical field: on one side of the hole of the toroid we find a positive electric field, and on the other side we find a negative electric field. The same principle applies to gravitation - if we replace the electrical winding with a hollow pipe and run a very dense fluid through it at an increasing (or decreasing) rate, we create a positive gravitational pole on one side and a negative gravitational pole on the other side.

In other words, a body of matter placed near the negative gravitational pole will be repelled away from the toroid - we've created an antigravitaitonal field.

Sadly, the coupling constant of gravitation is so incredibly small that it would take a fluid with a very high density flowing at high speed through large pipes wound into a gigantic toroidal shape (say, the size of a football field), in order to detect this effect. So we've never been able to try it out, but we know that it would work because the equations are very straight forward, and well-proven at this point via various astronomical observations and NASA's Gravity Probe B experiment.

Robert Forward understood this problem of magnitude, and proposed another very interesting idea as a potential solution: he suggested that it may be possible to develop a material with a high and nonlinear gravitomagnetic permeability, as an analog for the iron core that we use to amplify the magnetic fields produced by a magnetic coil. I assume that this is possible. But to the best of my knowledge nobody in the public sector has ever developed anything like that, and it would still take an extremely dense fluid, and preferably one in a superfluid state, flowing around a very large toroidal shape, to produce a detectable dipolar gravitational field - unless we could develop a material with outrageously high gravitomagnetic permeability. And nobody knows how to do that.

But I hope they develop such a technology one day. Imagine how cool it would be to have an amusement park "ride" where you could float in an gravitational field for awhile, before the fluid through the pipes began to lose acceleration and you floated back down to the ground. That's physically possible, but it's still an engineering challenge beyond our technological means.

It's worth noting that the rate of time would also be affected by such a device: time would be very slightly dilated (slowed down) on one side of such a device, and time would be slightly accelerated on the other side of the device. So an observer looking outside from their position within the positive gravitational pole would see the world around him speed up slightly (you'd probably need a pair of highly precise clocks inside and outside of the field to even detect it), and observer within the negative gravitational pole would see the world outside of the field slow down slightly.

It sounds like pretty wild stuff, but it's all 100% legit gravitational physics.
 
Last edited:

spacecase0

earth human
I like the ideas, had never seen any of that before
the last bit gets me thinking,
would like your thoughts on something
the math for all of this seems messy to me,
so, for the reason of making the math easier,
what if we take space-time warping and change that over to leaving space (distance) fixed, and then use the idea of a time field.
so then you would end up with a time field, electric field, and magnetic field.
this is what i have been playing with for the last few years in the hope that it will predict something new just because the math seems more straightforward that way.
the time field would be modeled as spin or just movement,
the electric field would be modeled as a diverging or converging spin
and magnetic is the curled electric field (like an electromagnetic coil)
this puts gravity being caused by an unequal time field from one place to another
thoughts ?
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
In 1949 Kurt Gödel, one of the greatest geniuses in mathematical and scientific history, discovered that in a rotating universe, there would be "closed timelike curves" - trajectories through spacetime that would bring you back to an earlier point in time. Observers embedded in a rotating universe wouldn't see the rotation, of course, because they'd be rotating within it. I highly recommend a look at his paper on the subject - he spawned a fascinating new branch of theoretical study of GR which led to concepts like wormholes and warp field propulsion:

“An example of a new type of cosmological solutions of Einstein’s field equations of gravitation,” Kurt Gödel, 1949
http://kurtgoedel.de/cms-83FO/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Goedel.pdf


In theory a wormhole would make instantaneous travel across cosmological distances possible, and open the door to time travel into the past as well (though I dispute this feature on theoretical grounds that I'm currently writing a paper about).

A rocket technician named Daniel Fry, who worked in the early US rocketry programs at White Sands Missile Proving Ground back in the 40s and 50s, published some fascinating and very easy to read books about physics and cosmology, and he described key features of warp field propulsion way back then - one of which is the scenario that you just mentioned. In one of his three short but fascinating books about physics, he described a round-trip to Alpha Centauri in the span of one hour, and noted that in this situation the space traveler could return to the Earth and appear to be in three locations at the same time; back on the Earth after his trip visiting an astronomer friend, traveling to Alpha Centauri in slow motion and deeply red-shifted as seen through the telescope, and moving backwards from the Earth toward Alpha Centauri (and the clock on this ship would appear to be running backwards).

His books were amazing. In them he explicitly predicted the dark energy effect acting between the galaxy clusters, some 40 years before it was discovered by astronomers. He described this effect as a gravitational repulsion acting between the galaxy clusters, rather than the cosmological constant model that astronomers embrace today. I'm looking forward to the results of the Dark Energy Survey so we can see which model is more accurate - if Daniel Fry is right, it may be possible to detect anisotropies (irregularities) in the dark energy effect, and open the door to a phenomenological explanation that may one day have technological applications (i.e., antigravity). All of his books are available online for free reading here (via the "Books" tab in the top right corner of the webpage):

Daniel Fry Dot Com

I contributed a chapter about gravitational field propulsion to the biography about Daniel Fry which was written by the owner of that website, Sean Donovan, because that topic is a key theme within Fry's books and also my primary area of interest in theoretical physics
Thank you! A rotating universe. .. I had never even conceived this idea. This is something entirely new to me, Thank you so much :)
 
I like the ideas, had never seen any of that before
the last bit gets me thinking,
would like your thoughts on something
the math for all of this seems messy to me,
so, for the reason of making the math easier,
what if we take space-time warping and change that over to leaving space (distance) fixed, and then use the idea of a time field.
so then you would end up with a time field, electric field, and magnetic field.
this is what i have been playing with for the last few years in the hope that it will predict something new just because the math seems more straightforward that way.
the time field would be modeled as spin or just movement,
the electric field would be modeled as a diverging or converging spin
and magnetic is the curled electric field (like an electromagnetic coil)
this puts gravity being caused by an unequal time field from one place to another
thoughts ?
Yeah it always surprises me that gravitoelectromagnetism isn't widely discussed, because it's fascinating and theoretically well-established, and in the weak field limit it's very simple to work with mathematically. I've always thought of gravity as a temporal field, but to get the whole picture you'd need to include both space and time in your derivation, and then you're back to dealing with the tensor calculus of GR.

In the weak field limit that we're talking about here, the equation for gravitomagnetic induction is no more complicated than the electromagnetic induction equation, and in his paper Robert Forward provides this very simple algebraic equation (Eq. 10 in the paper) for calculating the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration field produced by a given mass current (analogous to the electric current in the induction law) for a toroid of any given dimension:

gravitomagnetic induction equation.Forward.jpg

You can find addition clarification in his paper here:

"Guidelines to Antigravity," Robert L. Forward, 1963

And here's an illustration from the paper to help people visualize the proposed device:

gravitational dipole generator.jpg
 
Last edited:

Gambeir

Celestial
No, gravitomagnetism isn't like ether theories because ether theories postulate an absolute rest frame that doesn't exist, and efforts to detect an "ether drag" as the Earth moves through the ether have been disproved.

Technically frame dragging is a purely geometric phenomenon. But differential geometry is difficult to work with and there's a more intuitive way of thinking about it, known as gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM).

In the weak field limit (where gravitational fields are fairly weak like they are around the Earth and where velocities are much less than the speed of light), the laws of gravitation can be expressed in the same form as the equations for electrical charge interaction and electromagnetic induction - with the exception that the sign of the interactions is reversed.

This means that gravitation acts analogously to electric charge, and in fact it may be more accurate to call "mass" a "mass charge" instead. With gravity like mass charges attract, and unlike mass charges repel - the opposite of electrical charge interactions. Other than this inverse sign of the interaction, the Coulomb interaction equation is identical in form to Newton's equation for gravitational interaction (and as we know, Newton's gravity equation works fine in the weak field limit for calculating the acceleration of the gravitational interaction).

Here's where it gets interesting: we can model any of the effects that we see with electrical currents and charges and induction phenomena, with gravitation as well, because the two are perfectly analogous in the weak field limit. One popular way to imagine this, is to draw an analogy between an electrically conducting wire, and a hollow pipe with a massive fluid flowing through it. So for example, if we create a coiled pipe in the shape of an electrical inductor, and run a very dense fluid through it in one direction, we've created a gravitomagnetic inductor that generates a gravitational dipole field in the same shape as the magnetic field around an inductor. Or if we oscillate the direction of fluid flow through that coil back and forth, we can create an alternating gravitomagnetic field that will radiate gravitational waves, just as an alternating electromagnetic coil will radiate electromagnetic waves.

In 1963 Robert L. Forward published a brief but fascinating paper called "Guidelines to Antigravity" that took this concept one step further, and proved that antigravity is a real physical phenomenon. Which is probably why it was almost completely ignored by mainstream physics, when it should have been hailed as a momentous discovery. His idea was very simple and absolutely convincing, and it goes like this:

If we wind an electrical coil around a hollow toroidal form (a toroid is shaped like a donut), and send an increasing electrical current through that toroidal coil, we create a dipolar electrical field: on one side of the hole of the toroid we find a positive electric field, and on the other side we find a negative electric field. The same principle applies to gravitation - if we replace the electrical winding with a hollow pipe and run a very dense fluid through it at an increasing (or decreasing) rate, we create a positive gravitational pole on one side and a negative gravitational pole on the other side.

In other words, a body of matter placed near the negative gravitational pole will be repelled away from the toroid - we've created an antigravitaitonal field.

Sadly, the coupling constant of gravitation is so incredibly small that it would take a fluid with a very high density flowing at high speed through large pipes wound into a gigantic toroidal shape (say, the size of a football field), in order to detect this effect. So we've never been able to try it out, but we know that it would work because the equations are very straight forward, and well-proven at this point via various astronomical observations and NASA's Gravity Probe B experiment.

Robert Forward understood this problem of magnitude, and proposed another very interesting idea as a potential solution: he suggested that it may be possible to develop a material with a high and nonlinear gravitomagnetic permeability, as an analog for the iron core that we use to amplify the magnetic fields produced by a magnetic coil. I assume that this is possible. But to the best of my knowledge nobody in the public sector has ever developed anything like that, and it would still take an extremely dense fluid, and preferably one in a superfluid state, flowing around a very large toroidal shape, to produce a detectable dipolar gravitational field - unless we could develop a material with outrageously high gravitomagnetic permeability. And nobody knows how to do that.

But I hope they develop such a technology one day. Imagine how cool it would be to have an amusement park "ride" where you could float in an gravitational field for awhile, before the fluid through the pipes began to lose acceleration and you floated back down to the ground. That's physically possible, but it's still an engineering challenge beyond our technological means.

It's worth noting that the rate of time would also be affected by such a device: time would be very slightly dilated (slowed down) on one side of such a device, and time would be slightly accelerated on the other side of the device. So an observer looking outside from their position within the positive gravitational pole would see the world around him speed up slightly (you'd probably need a pair of highly precise clocks inside and outside of the field to even detect it), and observer within the negative. gravitational pole would see the world outside of the field slow down slightly.

It sounds like pretty wild stuff, but it's all 100% legit gravitational physics.

Your bread and butter Morrison is Einsteinian Physics. An area which is potentially helpful, but I'm afraid that your zeal to defend and buttress the ideas and theories which were born of the physics of Einstein are actually probably working against that objective.

Ya see Morrison, the people who plan out human history have objectives and like every other important thing there's the old and the new, and my guess is that the old, which is Einsteinian Physics, is now part of a more involved plan of destruction and to shortly become another victim in global holocaust of supposed education which I think will be by design.

There's one sure fire way to do that and this is what my detectives blood see's going on under the covers, and so the way to accomplish this is to create a conflict and then to provide a series of gross misdemeanor crimes as a defensive tool used to oppresse the other side, that side will be the one seen as speaking the truth. The old will be cast as a pack of liar's abusing their positions and typically these will be the one's to be destroyed because:

In order to create something new the price is usually the destruction of the old ruling paradigm. We can't really destroy Newtonian Physics because it's just too fundamental to be denied, but Einsteinian Physics is another matter and well on it's way to destruction, primary via ill advised defense of the whole instead of molding itself on to the ever changing reality of the fluidity of human knowledge: Just saying ....probably not accidental then that what seems to be manifest lies are being used to prop up what is also evidently a failed theoretical base of science, which happens to be Einsteinian Physics.

Not sure why they are doing this BTW, but I do see it and am saying I see this happening as an on~going process.

Now isn't the real problem with Einsteinian Physics that the theory of gravity does not explain the reason the galaxy rotates as it does, that is because it rotates as if there were invisible spokes going from the galactic core out to the far reaches, like for example say to this mud ball we are all stuck on, and isn't the original idea that the masses of bodies in space were all connected together in a round about way, and so operated very mechanistically? However now we find there isn't enough matter to explain this stable rotation of the galactic mass by the laws of gravitational mass? Isn't this what the issue is and the reason we now have the inventive invisible now fulfilling the role of the missing matter in the galaxy and in the Universe?

This is my understanding of what's wrong with Einsteinian Physics, and it's the reason this nonsensical idea of invisible matter was created and invented just in order to prop up what is evidently a failed gravitational theory, because not doing that means there is no way to explain how the stars and planets remain in orbit about the galactic core using Einsteinian Physics, and that then is a big problem.

Now a more inventive mind could have created a more advanced work round than the voodoo physics which have sprouted forth to hold the line, but I do think that anything which is place in the public eye, and especially through the mind control educational establishment is put there for a specific purpose.

So correct me then if I've misunderstood the situation. Either there is, or there is not, enough matter to explain why stars stay in orbit about the galactic core? Yes or no? There either is or there isn't.

So I'd like to get that nailed down first before getting on with the other issues of present day voodoo physics. However, the destruction of Einsteinian Physics will not be a good thing I'm quite sure, but I do see this is the evident end goal.
 
Last edited:

Kchoo

At Peace.
Your bread and butter Morrison is Einsteinian Physics. An area which is potentially helpful, but I'm afraid that your zeal to defend and buttress the ideas and theories which were born of the physics of Einstein are actually probably working against that objective.

Ya see Morrison, the people who plan out human history have objectives and like every other important thing there's the old and the new, and my guess is that the old, which is Einsteinian Physics, is now part of a more involved plan of destruction and to shortly become another victim in global holocaust of supposed education which I think will be by design.

There's one sure fire way to do that and this is what my detectives blood see's going on under the covers, and so the way to accomplish this is to create a conflict and then to provide a series of gross misdemeanor crimes as a defensive tool used to oppresse the other side, that side will be the one seen as speaking the truth. The old will be cast as a pack of liar's abusing their positions and typically these will be the one's to be destroyed because:

In order to create something new the price is usually the destruction of the old ruling paradigm. We can't really destroy Newtonian Physics because it's just too fundamental to be denied, but Einsteinian Physics is another matter and well on it's way to destruction, primary via ill advised defense of the whole instead of molding itself on to the ever changing reality of the fluidity of human knowledge: Just saying ....probably not accidental then that what seems to be manifest lies are being used to prop up what is also evidently a failed theoretical base of science, which happens to be Einsteinian Physics.

Not sure why they are doing this BTW, but I do see it and am saying I see this happening as an on~going process.

Now isn't the real problem with Einsteinian Physics that the theory of gravity does not explain the reason the galaxy rotates as it does, that is because it rotates as if there were invisible spokes going from the galactic core out to the far reaches, like for example say to this mud ball we are all stuck on, and isn't the original idea that the masses of bodies in space were all connected together in a round about way, and so operated very mechanistically? However now we find there isn't enough matter to explain this stable rotation of the galactic mass by the laws of gravitational mass? Isn't this what the issue is and the reason we now have the inventive invisible now fulfilling the role of the missing matter in the galaxy and in the Universe?

This is my understanding of what's wrong with Einsteinian Physics, and it's the reason this nonsensical idea of invisible matter was created and invented just in order to prop up what is evidently a failed gravitational theory, because not doing that means there is no way to explain how the stars and planets remain in orbit about the galactic core using Einsteinian Physics, and that then is a big problem.

Now a more inventive mind could have created a more advanced work round than the voodoo physics which have sprouted forth to hold the line, but I do think that anything which is place in the public eye, and especially through the mind control educational establishment is put there for a specific purpose.

So correct me then if I've misunderstood the situation. Either there is, or there is not, enough matter to explain why stars stay in orbit about the galactic core? Yes or no? There either is or there isn't.

So I'd like to get that nailed down first before getting on with the other issues of present day voodoo physics. However, the destruction of Einsteinian Physics will not be a good thing I'm quite sure, but I do see this is the evident end goal.

With the lack of evidence supporting dark matter, maybe it is better to look to an older, lighter, matter. :Thumbsup:
The power of light itself...

We already know that light is bent by gravity, but is it bent by the attraction from a massive body, or is the massive body attracted to the light?

Think about it, it’s actually kind of a powerful thought....

And it may not have anything to do with ‘dark matter’ at all.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
I don't know, I speculate that a lot of what we call Dark matter, Is really just the force of the big bang,
The universe is expanding, but we view the universe as if it should be slowing down in its expansion, not speeding up. Well, That would be the case that the expansion should be slowing down. If it wasn't for space-time and how it affects matter. The faster an object of mass moves the slower time passes for this thing. My assumption is The explosive force of the big bang happened much faster than light. We see the cosmic microwave background. That is the assumed edge of our universe. Or in my eyes. is The very first matter that was moving through space slowly enough to not be converted into pure energy. As the matter that's moving faster than light tends to usually break down.

In my imagination. Dark energy is like a current or the undertow of a wave in the ocean. The force of the big bang was so insane the explosion was actually faster than light. So Our expansion, the expansion of our universe. is at least in my theory is being pulled to accelerate from the force of the original explosion of the BB. basically, I'm saying the Vacuum effect. Dark matter is a negative force created by the force of the big bang explosion force, towing what matter managed to coalesce in it's wake.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
My question is on another planet entirely. If spacetime can rotate. It must have an axis, I'm beginning to wonder if Spacetime isn't a lot like the matter in our universe. in the sense that Massive regions of space-time. All rotate and even orbit other possibly larger regions of space-time.


o_O
 

Kchoo

At Peace.
My question is on another planet entirely. If spacetime can rotate. It must have an axis, I'm beginning to wonder if Spacetime isn't a lot like the matter in our universe. in the sense that Massive regions of space-time. All rotate and even orbit other possibly larger regions of space-time.


o_O
Time does not really exist as a tangible thing... it cannot be touched, or shifted...

So it boils down to the forces acting on bodies in space.

Time is not a force, just a measurement... it cannot be changed, only measured.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Time does not really exist as a tangible thing... it cannot be touched, or shifted...

So it boils down to the forces acting on bodies in space.

Time is not a force, just a measurement... it cannot be changed, only measured.
Not entirely true. While time is viewed as an illusion more or less from a physical approach. Space-time can be manipulated, Look at how a large body of mass curves space-time, You get gravitational lensing. Time, At least space-time, Can, in fact, be touched so to speak brother. the gravity of the mass curves the space-time yes? Well, that is physical mass. so. Clearly, it's physically affecting space-time.
 

Kchoo

At Peace.
Not entirely true. While time is viewed as an illusion more or less from a physical approach. Space-time can be manipulated, Look at how a large body of mass curves space-time, You get gravitational lensing. Time, At least space-time, Can, in fact, be touched so to speak brother. the gravity of the mass curves the space-time yes? Well, that is physical mass. so. Clearly, it's physically affecting space-time.
Is gravitational lensing Curving space time or curving a beam of light?

Yes, curving anything can increase the time by the amount of the curve divided by the straight line of site, but time did not change, only the perception of it, as it took the light a tiny bit longer to reach the reciever.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Is gravitational lensing Curving space time or curving a beam of light?

Yes, curving anything can increase the time by the amount of the curve divided by the straight line of site, but time did not change, only the perception of it, as it took the light a tiny bit longer to reach the reciever.
To my understanding The Light curves because spacetime is curved. It's exactly like a concaved lens. The gravity curvature creates a lens of gravity that curves the light. :)
 

Kchoo

At Peace.
To my understanding The Light curves because spacetime is curved. It's exactly like a concaved lens. The gravity curvature creates a lens of gravity that curves the light. :)
Ypu may be right.

In the mathmatical model, gravity does distort space, but we must keep in mind it is a model.

A magnet can bend water flowing from a faucet, but the magnet is only shifting the water, not the space around it.
 
Last edited:
Your bread and butter Morrison is Einsteinian Physics. An area which is potentially helpful, but I'm afraid that your zeal to defend and buttress the ideas and theories which were born of the physics of Einstein are actually probably working against that objective.

Ya see Morrison, the people who plan out human history have objectives and like every other important thing there's the old and the new, and my guess is that the old, which is Einsteinian Physics, is now part of a more involved plan of destruction and to shortly become another victim in global holocaust of supposed education which I think will be by design.

There's one sure fire way to do that and this is what my detectives blood see's going on under the covers, and so the way to accomplish this is to create a conflict and then to provide a series of gross misdemeanor crimes as a defensive tool used to oppresse the other side, that side will be the one seen as speaking the truth. The old will be cast as a pack of liar's abusing their positions and typically these will be the one's to be destroyed because:

In order to create something new the price is usually the destruction of the old ruling paradigm. We can't really destroy Newtonian Physics because it's just too fundamental to be denied, but Einsteinian Physics is another matter and well on it's way to destruction, primary via ill advised defense of the whole instead of molding itself on to the ever changing reality of the fluidity of human knowledge: Just saying ....probably not accidental then that what seems to be manifest lies are being used to prop up what is also evidently a failed theoretical base of science, which happens to be Einsteinian Physics.

Not sure why they are doing this BTW, but I do see it and am saying I see this happening as an on~going process.

Now isn't the real problem with Einsteinian Physics that the theory of gravity does not explain the reason the galaxy rotates as it does, that is because it rotates as if there were invisible spokes going from the galactic core out to the far reaches, like for example say to this mud ball we are all stuck on, and isn't the original idea that the masses of bodies in space were all connected together in a round about way, and so operated very mechanistically? However now we find there isn't enough matter to explain this stable rotation of the galactic mass by the laws of gravitational mass? Isn't this what the issue is and the reason we now have the inventive invisible now fulfilling the role of the missing matter in the galaxy and in the Universe?

This is my understanding of what's wrong with Einsteinian Physics, and it's the reason this nonsensical idea of invisible matter was created and invented just in order to prop up what is evidently a failed gravitational theory, because not doing that means there is no way to explain how the stars and planets remain in orbit about the galactic core using Einsteinian Physics, and that then is a big problem.

Now a more inventive mind could have created a more advanced work round than the voodoo physics which have sprouted forth to hold the line, but I do think that anything which is place in the public eye, and especially through the mind control educational establishment is put there for a specific purpose.

So correct me then if I've misunderstood the situation. Either there is, or there is not, enough matter to explain why stars stay in orbit about the galactic core? Yes or no? There either is or there isn't.

So I'd like to get that nailed down first before getting on with the other issues of present day voodoo physics. However, the destruction of Einsteinian Physics will not be a good thing I'm quite sure, but I do see this is the evident end goal.
Okay so your post boils down to basically two points: first you suggest that Einstein's theories were put forward as part of the long-standing socioeconomic control system, and then you assert that general relativity (GR) is wrong because of the galactic rotation curves.

The first point would require that some group gave Einstein his theories to put forward, or alternately, that Einstein was part of that group and deliberately created a misleading theory as part of some kind of disinformation operation. Neither of those work as viable hypotheses because the history and development of his ideas are well-known, and his theories have been validated in every regime that could be tested during his lifetime and for a century following their publication. Some group would've needed to knowabout the galactic rotation curves more than a century ago, to have potentially developed a better model of gravitation than GR. That's simply impossible because it took a century of global technological development and the entire infrastructure of the modern astrophysics community to detect and quantify the dark matter effect. And there's a raft of additional reasons why this hypothesis doesn't work, but it would take days to lay out all of the historical and scientific arguments, and that stuff can be easily found online anyway if you want to study it. The problem with making broad and largely unspecific allegations like this is that it sets up an asymmetric debate, and in the past I've found that people who do this tend to keep moving the goal posts around so it becomes a futile and frustrating waste of time to discuss. Ultimately it comes down to a simple point: you have no evidence to back up this assertion; it's just a vague and unfounded suspicion apparently borne of the modern climate of rampant disinformation and endless PsyOps being deployed against the public. What really worries me about the fallout of all the endless betrayals and manipulations of the public, is that now we're so confused and resentful that even when somebody tells us the truth, the knee-jerk reaction is to disbelieve it, because we now tend to disbelieve everything. That's an enormous psychological crisis with all manner of horrific consequences; socially, politically, and scientifically.

There are several problems with your second point. First, we don't yet know what's responsible for the galactic rotation curves: it might be evidence that GR is incomplete, or it might be evidence of superparticles or WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles of another kind), or it might be a quantum mechanical effect associated with the quantum field of the vacuum, or it might be something else altogether.

All we know for sure is that GR works in a dizzying variety of experimental and observational regimes, including the very recently detected realm of gravitational waves. The marvelous Clifford Will review paper that I cited earlier in this thread provides a comprehensive scientific review of all the evidence we now have about tests of GR; I suggest that everyone who's interested in disproving the validity of GR should read that paper to gain a better understanding of GR and why so many physicists still believe in it, even in the face of the as-yet unexplained effects commonly known as "dark matter" and "dark energy."

It is worth noting however that GR and quantum field theory have not yet been united into a single unified field theory, so it may be that these "dark matter" and "dark energy" effects could be understood within the context of such a theory, if we had one. In any case we'll all learn something momentous when one or both of these effects are correctly explained, so I'm very excited to see how this all develops in the years ahead - if nothing else, they're proof that physics is about to grow in some unexpected new direction. And I live for that stuff.

With the lack of evidence supporting dark matter, maybe it is better to look to an older, lighter, matter. :Thumbsup:
The power of light itself...

We already know that light is bent by gravity, but is it bent by the attraction from a massive body, or is the massive body attracted to the light?

Think about it, it’s actually kind of a powerful thought....

And it may not have anything to do with ‘dark matter’ at all.
No, the deflection of starlight can't be a simple attraction, akin to an electrical charge being attracted to an opposite electric charge. Einstein conducted that calculation a few years before he developed GR, and it only predicted 1/2 of the subsequently observed deflection. The prediction of GR was correct however. In fact at this point all non-metric theories have been ruled out, as described in that review paper by Clifford Will that I cited earlier in this thread.

My question is on another planet entirely. If spacetime can rotate. It must have an axis, I'm beginning to wonder if Spacetime isn't a lot like the matter in our universe. in the sense that Massive regions of space-time. All rotate and even orbit other possibly larger regions of space-time.

o_O
It's possible that spacetime is rotating in galaxies and galaxy clusters; that could explain the dark matter effect. But to the best of my knowledge nobody has been able to mathematically model in that way, or offer a theory to explain why it would be rotating at the required rate in the first place. If somebody can do that I'd love to read about it.

At this point it's hard to understand the relationship between spacetime geometry itself, and the quantum fields within it. Spacetime holds energy when it's curved, and quantum fields are expected to contribute their own energy to the vacuum as well but when that quantum field energy is calculated it produces a huge number that doesn't conform to observations - this is often called the "vacuum catastrophe." It's a huge problem that we don't have a model that incorporates both theories under one umbrella, because it means that we can't answer simple questions like "how much mass-energy is in a cubic centimeter of empty space?"

Is gravitational lensing Curving space time or curving a beam of light?

Yes, curving anything can increase the time by the amount of the curve divided by the straight line of site, but time did not change, only the perception of it, as it took the light a tiny bit longer to reach the reciever.
The arcing trajectory of photons through curving spacetime produces a time delay called the Shapiro time delay, which conforms to GR perfectly - in fact it's one of the most precise tests of GR. Time dilation and curved spacetime are both very real effects that are borne out by all of our observations. In fact the Global Positioning System wouldn't work without special relativity and the general theory of relativity.
 
Last edited:
Top