Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 18:23:14 UTC No. 16488127

First let's start with what causes gravity. Often when discussing the magnitude of gravity, we talk about the "acceleration" of gravity.
This is something that has always troubled me. Imagine a book sitting stationary on a shelf. How could gravity be accelerating that stationary book?
Now imagine driving a dragster. You can feel the acceleration as it slams you into the back of your seat.
Imagine taking the seat out of the car after the race and laying it on the ground on its back. Now sit in it so that you're facing the sky.
It's the exact same sensation as your acceleration during the race. You and the stationary book on the shelf are both accelerating into the sky.
All objects on Earth are accelerating into the sky. But how can that be possible? Why don't we fly out into space?
The answer is that space is accelerating downward into earth at the same (but opposite) acceleration. It is moving past us at escape velocity and I will prove it.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 18:24:16 UTC No. 16488128

Consider the equations for gravitational potential energy (GPE) and kinetic energy (KE).
If what I'm saying is correct, that gravity is caused by space rushing past us, then we can consider GPE the same as KE since movement through space is by definition kinetic.
So let's set the equations equal and solve.

[math] \frac{1}{2}mv^2 = \frac{GMm}{r} [/math]
[math] v^2 = \frac{2GM}{r} [/math]
[math] v = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}} [/math]

Thusly, we have derived the equation for escape velocity. Space moves towards matter at exactly the escape velocity.
But this could just be a coincidence so let's verify this using another method.
Given that gravity is just space moving past matter, it would be fair to say that gravitational time dilation is just kinetic time dilation for the same reason GPE is KE.
So let's set the two equations equal to each other again and see what we get.

[math] {\sqrt {1-{\frac {v_{e}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}} = \sqrt{1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math]

The left side of the equation is gravitational time dilation where [math] v_e [/math] is the escape velocity at any given point. The right side is kinetic dilation.
You can see just by looking at the equation that gravitational time dilation is equivalent to moving through space at escape velocity.
This is in agreement with my theory that space moves towards matter at escape velocity and confirms it using two independent derivations.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 18:25:33 UTC No. 16488130

You might have some questions at this point. I will attempt to answer them.
>If space flows into matter, then where does it go?
It goes to some "other" place. I call this the anti-universe.
>With space leaving, why doesn't the universe shrink? How does it come back?
It returns from the anti-universe via anti-matter.
>What are the implications for gravitons, dark matter, and dark energy?
Gravitons will never be found because they don't exist. Gravity is not a force mediated by particles. It is the movement of space.
Dark matter was invented to explain why galaxies don't fling themselves apart. I theorize that dispersed anti-matter in intergalactic space is exerting a pressure on galaxies that keeps them together.
Antimatter particles can be thought of as spouts that expel space into our universe. As such, are naturally self-dispersing by putting space between themselves and other objects.
Dark energy was invented to explain the expansion of the universe. In my model, the expansion of the universe can be explained by an imbalance in the ratio of matter to anti-matter.
If more anti-matter than matter exists in the universe, then the universe will expand. Something is causing this imbalance and is causing it to worsen with time.
I propose that the imbalance is caused by fusion destroying matter in stars. Since anti-matter does not congregate, there is no similar mechanism for its destruction.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 18:27:33 UTC No. 16488132

What did I mean by rediscover? Aether theories are nothing new. Newton offered no definitive explanation for gravity, however he often turned to aether theories as a potential cause.
But the main proponent of aether theories that I think we should pick up from is Karl Pearson. He was a prominent English polymath who largely inspired the work of Albert Einstein.
He predicted the existence of antimatter in the 1890s, thats 30 years before modern physicists and 70 years before it was experimentally verified. He called them "squirts" as they squirt out space-fluid.
And it's not just conjecture. His work is supported by comprehensive mathematics in his paper "Ether Squirts". We need to pick up from where he left off. Clearly our current model of physics is at a dead end and it's time to backtrack.

Where do we go from here?
Anyone with a solid understanding of physics needs to re-examine Pearsons work. Unfortunately, the math is gibberish to me.
Furthermore, we need to start looking at observational data that supports this theory that has been handwaved away because of being inconvienient.
A couple things come to mind:
>the Pioneer Anomaly, where the Pioneer space probe was accelerated back towards Earth by an unknown force. I propose that this must have been antimatter.
>the Flyby Anomaly, similar to the Pioneer Anomaly where satellites are pushed towards matter faster than expected (again due to antimatter)

Ether Squirts - https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2369570.pdf
Pioneer Anomaly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
Flyby Anomaly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:20:21 UTC No. 16488195

>Dark matter was invented to explain why galaxies don't fling themselves apart. I theorize that dispersed anti-matter in intergalactic space is exerting a pressure on galaxies that keeps them together.
what is your explanation of dark matter spots without galaxies around them?

>Dark energy was invented to explain the expansion of the universe. In my model, the expansion of the universe can be explained by an imbalance in the ratio of matter to anti-matter.
not correct, the energy comes into play when the expansion rate increases.
why is expansion increasing in your opinion?

since matter is only stabilized energy, shouldnt it be more about energy?

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:33:44 UTC No. 16488210

>>16488195
>what is your explanation of dark matter spots without galaxies around them?
I was not aware these existed. Could you provide an example?
If there is no galaxy (or large cluster of matter) to act on, how could the presence of dark matter be established in that area?

>why is expansion increasing in your opinion?
I have stated that I believe space flows out of the universe via matter and back into the universe via antimatter.
If the ratio of matter and antimatter was perfectly even, then the universe would be static.
If there was more matter, then the universe would shrink due to a net loss of space.
If there was more antimatter, then the universe would grow.

I believe that the loss of matter to fusion in stars is causing the ratio of matter and antimatter become more and more lopsided.
This is causing the universe to grow faster and faster because there is less matter for space to drain out of our universe.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:38:47 UTC No. 16488369

>>16488210
>If there is no galaxy (or large cluster of matter) to act on, how could the presence of dark matter be established in that area?
some of the gravitational lensing we see isnt showing mass near by it, so its by light deflection.
I was also thinking this is only related to galaxies but its not.
go through the quality lectures regarding this, typing 'dark matter lecture' into youtube is simply to exhausting in the meantime.
but I saw this in detail and also by different physicists, so its a thing.

>...
>I believe that the loss of matter to fusion in stars is causing the ratio of matter and antimatter become more and more lopsided.
>This is causing the universe to grow faster and faster because there is less matter for space to drain out of our universe.
yes, I got that with in and out by matter and antimatter, I find it interesting.
antimatter is out there and not accessible since space flow from it.
if we assume its only small particles and they have enough 'space flowing' from them, you literally cant reach them but they would explain the dark matter effect.

but when you say the mass defect changes the ratio (fusion process), ... I mean you use einstein equation for calculating the amount of energy that is set free from it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy#Mass_defect
the mass vanished but the energy is conserved (and now is light).
so the stable state of that energy was dissolved and while the energy is conserved, you say something must still be lost forever.
you could even try to argue entropically, after all, the production of matter is quite complicated.
the existing matter is from the big bang and although heavier nuclei are also formed through fusion, the net result is that more is converted into energy.
(anything elements we have is also made from super novae)
of course we can create a little mass by making it in a collider but its a lot of effort (so entropy).

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:43:48 UTC No. 16488376

btw and not connected to this discussion.

I am also thinking about plenty of things we have no clue about.
Ive been trying to get to grips with the subject of what exactly time is for ages and yesterday (I didnt discover anything but) had an interesting thought.
could it be that time actually consists of more than one dimension (in our universe, not parallel) in order to maintain the property of flow?
the view on space-time only give the impression of 'it already happened' but we in it, the time goes by, it flows.
this propertie isnt understood and giving it more than one component/dimension might lead to something like a flow.
weird shit, I know.
but it came to my mind after reading your approach.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:47:28 UTC No. 16488380

>>16488376
it also irritates me that the number of dimensions should not be a prime number, hence the idea.
3 space dimensions are already very incontrovertible, there is no universe with stable planetary orbits unless it has exactly three space dimensions. this has been analyzed mathematically down to the last detail. and i don't like rolled-up dimensions and the like. if time had two dimensions, the total number would be 5...

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 22:55:38 UTC No. 16488445

>>16488123
You are making a gross mistake. You are still thinking in terms of classical physics and not in terms of Quantum Mechanics and waves.

Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:23:37 UTC No. 16488481

>>16488445
No. You have been lied to. The specifics of Quantum Mechanics and waves are gatekept behind organizations like CERN.
You think they have your best interests in mind? Laughable. I almost pity your ignorance.
How does Quantum Mechanics explain things like Pioneer Anomaly or the Flyby Anomaly?
How does it explain the lack of a Graviton? The lack of any direct evidence for Dark Matter or Dark Energy?
It doesn't explain this because if CERN admitted they were wrong about everything, you wouldn't give them another Billion Dollars to fund their next city-sized particle collider.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 01:18:26 UTC No. 16488633

>>16488123
We could use any help
we're looking for talent:
>>>/x/39270304

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 01:19:31 UTC No. 16488635

>>16488633
In return we will enable you to reach your pursuits more than any other ideological system created by humanity could have.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:31:59 UTC No. 16488762

>>16488376
I don't know if this will help, but here's how I understand time. And I use the term "understand" loosely.
Movement can either be through space or time.
An object has an absolute magnitude of movement that it can divide between space and time.
The total magnitude never changes and is c - the speed of light.

An object traveling at c through space experiences no passage of time, all of its movement is through space.
An object at rest in space would travel through time at c.
As I've said, gravity is actually the movement of space which is why it causes time dilation.
It causes an object to be moving through space at escape velocity.

I have a strong feeling that time is not a dimension at all, but an emergent characteristic of the fluid properties of space.
Perhaps time is caused by the flow of space into matter. And movement through space interferes with that flow in a way that slows time?
However it works, I think it's inextricably linked to the anti-universe where space flows to and from.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 10:32:39 UTC No. 16488982

>>16488762
>I have a strong feeling that time is not a dimension at all
What information do you specify when you want to meet with someone?

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 10:54:30 UTC No. 16488987

>>16488123
IT'S BEGINNING TO LOOK A LOT
LIKE XMAS

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:01:05 UTC No. 16488993

>>16488982
Like in dating apps? Income and dick size.

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 15:21:54 UTC No. 16489230

>>16488982
I tell them to meet me at the nearest Schelling Point; whether we actually meet or not will depend on our intellectual compatibility.

bodhi at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:52:51 UTC No. 16489527

>>16488130
>I call this the anti-universe.
Eric Dollard calls it "counter space"

bodhi at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:57:05 UTC No. 16489528

>>16488132
>Newton offered no definitive explanation for gravity,
This isnt true, he also posited it was fluid dynamics/centripetal. He wrote a book about it. He just gave up on it to study other things

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 22:20:34 UTC No. 16489737

>>16488481
re from yesterday, I wrote the first replies and now going through the posts.
you unfortunately, you cant just wipe quantum mechanics off the table by accusing them of not being able to explain effects that cannot be explained by GRT either.
and isnt evidence of hick particle enugh reason for the city-sized colliders?
you need to spend time on quantum mechanics. plenty.
I dont like what we are up to regarding string theory but even these approaches have to be looked at.
we cannot afford the luxury of neglecting any path in order to find the way forward.
why should nature do us the favor of making it easy?

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 22:21:34 UTC No. 16489739

>>16489737
*higgs particle

Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 22:37:52 UTC No. 16489764

>>16488762
first block is SRT, fully agree.

second block is GRT.

pretty wild and difficult to take a position to take a position to/on.

spacetime is one thing, you cant fully separate it from something happening.
it starts with the possibility to define speed (frame of reference) and so far ends with the above theories but it remains connected.
another approach is its connection to entropy.

when I separate time for my thought experiments, I try to take this into account on the one hand, at least our physical experiences, and on the other hand to identify what makes it special.
in any case, I cant see any possibility of dropping time as a separate dimension.
this universe has a beginning. even the word makes problems when there wouldnt be something like time.
time is also relative, but it is still there.
arguing this way would question also space.
interesting that this is happening at the moment in string theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYSKEbd956M´

so many circles are closing in the last years.
I think the perplexity of all the individual but effective ways of understanding at least suggests that many of them must be correct and that the next step in understanding will be considerably more complex than we would like it to be.

I dont want to cause any more confusion here as we already have created, but I keep asking myself whether it is possible that spatial scales (in themselves perhaps a kind of dimension) could have different physical laws that are not completely compatible with each other.
best example GRT vs QM

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 02:36:27 UTC No. 16490093

>>16489737
>you need to spend time on quantum mechanics. plenty.
How much time? How many years do I need to waste? I will not be gatekept behind a false proposition.

Imagine if this were 2000 years ago. And I told you that I had a theory that the Sun moved across the sky because the Earth is spinning.
And then you told me that no, the Sun moves across the sky because Apollo drags it behind his chariot.
When I try to refute this, you tell me I need to spend more time studying the Pantheon of the Gods before discussing things I know nothing about.
You tell me that I need to learn about how the moon is really Artemis and how all the constellations came into being.
Only when I've learned all these minor details can I join the discussion on how the universe works.

People are too invested in the current model. The "experts" have spent years and decades of their lives on this broken theory.
They will remain willfully ignorant unless we drag them to the truth.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:04:08 UTC No. 16490116

>>16489764
>I keep asking myself whether it is possible that spatial scales (in themselves perhaps a kind of dimension) could have different physical laws that are not completely compatible with each other.
>best example GRT vs QM
I think of it like this.
Imagine you have really blurry vision and you are looking at sand draining down an hourglass for the first time in your life.
Because you can't make out the individual grains, you would probably interpret it as a fluid.
Now imagine you spend years and years studying this sand-fluid and based your entire understanding of fluid dynamics on it.
It would have similar and analogous properties to real fluid, but also some distinct differences too.

Now consider real fluid, (water, air, whatever). In the same way that sand-fluid is an approximation of real fluid, water is an approximation of space-fluid.
Space-fluid, as I've described it, it a perfect fluid. It is not made of particles like water. But it flows and has waves and ripples like real fluid.
I think that the speed of sound (wave propagation) in space-fluid must be the speed of light.

I used to design oil wells. When designing an oil well, you want the fluid flow out of the well to be at above its speed of sound.
You do this by using a choke point to force it through a small area and increase its speed.
If you accomplish this, pressure disturbances (information) from equipment above the well can't reach past that choke point to disturb the well below.
No information can reach past the choke point. The choke point is an event horizon. Black holes are oil wells. Space flows into black holes.
The escape velocity at the event horizon is the speed of light. Therefore, the "speed of sound" of space is the speed of light.

Here is documentation of how oil well chokes work. It is exactly like a black hole. Please read it and take me seriously. I beg you. No one ever has.
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/20/3992

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 11:09:10 UTC No. 16490332

>>16490116
I know how laval nozzles work.

anon, QM is based on measurements, not opinions.
I hate some of the stuff and how they look at entropy and information, especially this hawking radiation thing.
I tried to read penrose to develop a better understanding of entropy but man this stuff is really brutal.
I have never been put to the test so hard.
atm Im reading only for entertainment, but will continue working/reading on it at some point.

I also prefer to look at it from einstein but that doesnt mean you can neglect the measurements.
and one thing became clear in your posts, you have only little to no knowledge about the QM side.
read brian greene, this book here was the best I found.
it doesnt start with QM, but looks at the entire field of fundamental physics and its development.
he also discusses alternative approaches and always makes it clear when an idea or a connection is not yet considered certain or reliable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_the_Cosmos
and read it twice or three times and you will have a good overview.
reading it only once doesnt help enough since you need an overview and then care for the details again to have the full picture of possibilities in mind.
and then come back and we go on with a discussion.
this will show you that a little more has to be taken into account and has to make sense for a further development.
reality doesnt do you the favor of being as simple as your approaches show.
and there are plenty of smart people out there, there must be a reason why its currently getting tough to look deeper.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:36:28 UTC No. 16490764

>>16488123
>out of antimatter
Gravity affects antimatter the same as matter.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:41:07 UTC No. 16490768

>>16488762
>An object traveling at c through space experiences no passage of time
I never got this. Even from its own perspective, a photon will be in one place at one time and at another place at another time. If something moves through space it must also experience time, especially because there is a speed limit.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:42:15 UTC No. 16490770

>>16488762
>an emergent characteristic of the fluid properties of space
Space (and nothing) can flow without time existing to allow change in the first place. Time isn't emergent. For something to emerge, time must already exist.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:44:07 UTC No. 16490772

>>16490770
*can't flow

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:46:26 UTC No. 16490776

>>16490768
your perspective
when you increase speed space bends toward you.
reaching c means you already are at your destination because its full bend toward you.
another anons perspective (of you)
when your speed increases you get shorter and shorter
reaching c means you disappear for that anon.

think of it like a limes but dont come up with conclusions for what happens when you already reach that state.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:50:15 UTC No. 16490780

>>16490776
Even from a photon's perspective, it's not instantly everywhere. It can't be due to the speed limit. So it experiences time.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:51:43 UTC No. 16490782

>>16490780
an excellent and very debatable question whether a photon experiences time.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 20:25:24 UTC No. 16490814

>>16490764
This has never been proven.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 20:40:16 UTC No. 16490822

>>16490768
>If something moves through space it must also experience time, especially because there is a speed limit
No, it's actually the opposite. The object is trading movement through space for movement through time.
At the speed of light, it's movement through time is zero so it can't go any faster. It has nothing left to trade.
If it went faster it would be at a deficit and would be moving backwards through time.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 04:39:21 UTC No. 16491290

>>16490093
anyone who closes their eyes can tell you the universe is made of waves dude, keep coping