IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

13 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Inside The Whole Black Sparkly Universe., implications of the black hole universe theory.

Omega892R09
post Jan 11 2010, 12:57 PM
Post #21





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Jan 9 2010, 01:53 PM) *
Light coming from an area of space
where there is greater curvature,
should appear shifted into the red,
because it isn't moving as quickly,
as in our part of the universe.

My understanding of the 'red shift' is that stars that exhibit such are further away and moving away from us faster effectively lengthening the wavelength of light and thus shifting towards the red end of the visible spectrum.

Your take is topsy turvy.

Red light certainly has a longer wavelength than blue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jan 11 2010, 01:02 PM
Post #22





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 24 2009, 03:15 PM) *
The thing about all of this,
is that we should look at black holes as mass, shrinking over time.
So there is no such thing, really, as a big or small black hole,
as they all are the same weight, in different stages of collapse, at any particular time.

Try not to confuse mass and weight, they are quite different entities.

Yeh I know! Even Garrison in his book on Oceanography manages to do that in one section.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 11 2010, 07:00 PM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Jan 11 2010, 09:02 AM) *
Try not to confuse mass and weight, they are quite different entities.

Yeh I know! Even Garrison in his book on Oceanography manages to do that in one section.


This is an ongoing inquiry, by me.
What i thought when i started this thread
will probably shift, as these ideas, and theories,
are integrated into whatever it is,
that i actually seem to see, forming.

It is a sort of topsy-turvy way of looking at things
...if you're still upside down.

The speed of light is a constant within the same curvature of space.
Within a higher curvature, light travels slower,
(perhaps because it wants to go in a straight line)
Within a lower curvature, (further away from a gravitational source),
light can travel faster. (because less curve is a straighter line?)
In an area of space, where light is slower, all things, that happen, occur relatively slower.
The maximum curvature of space,
is the point where light speed stops.
All things that happen, stop.
Time stops, for anything, at that, maximum, space curvature.
Beyond that point, there becomes less space curvature,
but it takes energy to push matter up into lower space curvature.

So lifting a rock, is actually,
raising something into a lower curvature of space,
where light moves at a greater rate.

The effort of lifting something up, is actually,
the energy to raise that object,
into a higher speed of light.
Where the time it takes for things to happen,
has changed.

This is why one weighs less, at the top of a mountain,
than in the valley below,
even with the same mass.

The curvature of the Earth is less,
farther away from its' center*.
And the further away from its' center*,
the faster light can travel.
The real thing that is lost is time.
Once a thing looses time,
all things stop, for it.
This point, according to the C-R-theory,
is 2886 km. straight down,
below sea level, at the core-mantle boundary.
There, there is no time,
and the speed of light is 0.

*actually the maximum space curvature where the speed of light stops,
not the geophysical center.

(edit) for clarification, and apostrophes

This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 11 2010, 07:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 12 2010, 07:15 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Satellites in orbit around the Earth have very accurate clocks on board.

The satalites in orbit (around the Earth)
would be experiencing less curvature of space,
than a clock on the Earth.

The satellite clock should run at a different rate,
faster, than any clock on the Earth,
because the curvature of space is even greater,
on the surface of the Earth, than at the satellite, up in orbit.

Lets see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL9oECuCJ3s

The blood rushes from your head,
because it gravitates to a greater curvature,
closer to the Earth, where your feet are,
...now that you're upright.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 12 2010, 07:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 13 2010, 08:13 AM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



The speed of light is thought to be a constant, throughout the universe.

The C-R Theory says that light speed is dependent on the curvature of space,
and it will travel faster when it is going through less curvature of space.
Theoretically, the greatest curvature of space, would be tightest around a point.
However, long before that point is reached, the speed of light is reduced, by curvature, to 0.
This gives the point, a radius around it,
where light speed stops, and all time is lost,
completely from anything there.

Below, this timeless shell,
time begins again,
and light can start moving again, but it is separated,
and encased entirely within a, no-time-zone.
Or as C-R Theory calls it, a neutral zone.
There, there, even the most minuscule distance, becomes infinite.
As it takes time, to move any distance,
and there is no time left, in anything,
at that particular amount of curvature, in space.

So, if time slows down,
distance should appear to increase,
toward the point, where even light, can never reach.

That means there is lots of room there,
at absolute 0 time.

In this sense,
the very tiny, is very far away,
and could be relatively huge and massive.

And anything, with any mass, curves the space around it...
And time slow down for anything in a greater curvature of space,
causing the experienced distance, in greater curvature,
to appear to increase.

The furthest things away from you,
as you move into greater space curvature,
should appear to be receding, at near (your experience of)
the speed of light.


(i still think, that laser speckling is caused by the coherent photons
drawn toward the intense space curvature of the black-holes, under the electron shell, of the surface atoms the laser is shining upon)

(laser light doesn't show the surface of matter very well,
but the intense space curvature below the electron shell,
acts like a super powerful microscope.
I think this is called, gravitational lensing, the coherent light is drawn towards the black-holes, but as the curvature increases, the distance for those photons increases, and they appear to us as bright clumps of light, as they travel off into that greatly magnified distance towards the closest black-hole)

hmm,
i sort of feel like i got the universe beside me,
in a neat little round box.

(edit) added
Here is a thought, if it takes longer to travel a curve than a straight line,
and light going through a magnifying glass bends the light in a way, that focuses it from a point, that would slow that light down.
Could this be the cause of magnification?
The bending of light, causing it to slow?!
Focused light is making its' own greater curvature.

A concave lens would cause the light to bend the other way, causing it to have less curvature, making things appear further away!

WOW!

This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 13 2010, 08:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 13 2010, 11:53 PM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



All this is new to me.

It's almost like there aren't the words
to describe this simple concept.
this whole notion of coming and going,
space-time curvature, mass, weight,
magnification...

The concept of a universal real time, being inherent in matter,
depending on the amount of space curvature that it, exists in.

There is only one direction, and that is up,
you can only go so low, (hehe "solo")
when it comes to space-time curvature.

i'm still trying to grasp all of this.

If i was a beam of light,
i would be arriving at my destination,
as soon as i left for it, no matter how distant.
for me, time has stopped,
and distance has become 0, to any line of sight, in the universe.

If i was a beam of light going toward a black-hole, the curvature of space would tighten, and even though i'm going the speed of light,
i would come to a certain point, in space, where matter,
above and below me, would be moving faster than the speed of light,
relative to the speed of light, in my part of more curved space.

The icky black nothingness.
to paraphrase Douglass Adams.

I think there are some belief systems,
that talk of the void.
This would be it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 14 2010, 07:20 AM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



The speed of light:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
QUOTE
It is generally assumed in physics that fundamental constants such as c have the same value throughout spacetime, meaning that they do not depend on location and do not vary with time.

i would add, in the same curvature of space.

The speed of light has been measured to be just under 300 000 km/sec.
This is the fastest speed possible to go to in any space-time curvature.
Where space-time has a greater curve, the experienced distance,
must appear to increase,
yet, the speed of light there,
would appear to still be that same constant.

As one goes through greater space-time curvature,
time would seem the same,
the speed of light, would seem the same,
but the measured distance from things,
being there, in a greater curvature of space,
would increase. (from your perspective, from there)

So, from a non-observers perspective, the speed of light varies,
throughout the universe,
but from an observers position, anyplace in the universe,
time, and the speed of light, would seem a constant,
there, and throughout any amount of curvature.

Just, that things would appear to be moving away,
in distance, from you faster,
from your particular position,
in a greater curvature of space-time.

...is anyone else getting this?

Distance is determined by the speed of light
at any given curvature of space-time.
As the speed of light slows down,
distance would be seen (from there) to increase.

This is important,
i think.

(edit) it's hard to find the right words
to describe the relative changes in the speed of light,
and distance, and time, in our universe,
without losing all sense of sensibility.

But the universe looks quite different now,
...that i'm no longer standing on my head.


Perhaps length, is a better descriptor, than distance.

How did that go...
if the speed of light "c" is made equal to one (1),
then time"t", becomes a measure of length"l".
(that's a little "L")

(edited) repeatedly...

This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 14 2010, 09:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 15 2010, 01:17 AM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (lunk @ Jan 14 2010, 03:20 AM) *
Perhaps length, is a better descriptor, than distance.

How did that go...
if the speed of light "c" is made equal to one (1),
then time"t", becomes a measure of length"l".
(that's a little "L")


http://www.superstringtheory.com/unitsa.html
QUOTE
Speed of light

The measured value of the speed of light is



so why would physicists want to pretend that instead c=1? What they are really doing is choosing a relationship between a unit of time, the second, and a unit of space, the meter, so that these two units are not independent but related. The natural constant of relation is the speed of light, so that

Setting c=1



If we relate meters and seconds so that one second is equal to 300 million meters, then c=1. It's very simple. Now notice that in this system of units, mass and energy have the same units, because the relationship E = m c2 in units with c=1 just reduces to E = m.


Looks like this is tieing into super-string theory.

...What rhymes with eloquent?

(edit) added
The greater curvature of space time, makes light go slower,
and this causes the length between things, to increase.
The electron shell is in a high curvature, just above, maximum curvature,
so there, time has almost come to a stop, compared to our time, in this curvature. The maximum speed of light, there, would be almost at a stand still, compared with here, but it would seem normal there, and the distances to things (there, at the electron shell) would seem vast.

It looks like light,
don't do Doppler.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 15 2010, 01:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 15 2010, 09:19 AM
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



What appears to us as the electron going around the center of an atom,
at the same speed, and spin seemingly forever,
would seem like a few micro seconds to the electron,
in its' greater curvature of space-time.

Looking at the universe as being a logarithmic scale,
there must be a greater scale than ours,
where we appear at almost a standstill.

Looking up at us, from the intense curvature of the electron shell,
we would appear to be moving at near light speed,
and very, very, far away.

(edit) added
If the speed of light slows, as it goes through greater curvature of space,
it's apparent frequency should appear to increase, being viewed from that higher curvature.

Cosmic rays anyone?

This would mean that the elecro-magnetic spectrum of light,
generated from a source, in a greater curvature of space,
should make a higher frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum,
viewed from, a lesser curvature of space.
Or the bigger something is, the lesser the curvature of its surface,
and it would generate, the lower frequency of light, there.

This should mean, that really big stars would be red,
and smaller ones, orange, yellow, blue, and so on.
There are other elemental factors at work, though,
that may glitch anomalies,
but generally...

.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 15 2010, 10:09 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 15 2010, 03:44 PM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



If, we could change the curvature of space-time,

We could slow, or speed up time,
We could move vast amounts and volumes, of mass,
We could stop things from being radioactive, because nothing radiates in maximum curvature where there is almost infinite room...

So how can we change the curvature of space?

It seems pretty simple,
It's just a matter of getting enough stuff from a lesser space-time curve,
in a small enough volume of space,
that, by its' own mass,
creates a maximum space-time curvature zone, around itself.

The volume of space needed, to make this,
would be very, very, small.

...and i don't know if want to even try this experiment...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 15 2010, 06:29 PM
Post #31



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Light has mass.
It is stuff.

But a magnifying glass wouldn't work.
You would need an equal force of coherent light,
focused, from all sides, on a single central point.

How many?

The smallest volume that can exist in space is the tetrahedron,
(4 points, the minimum necessary, to have any volume of space.)
But, in itself, a tetrahedron does not have a center,
the same distance from its' corners or sides.
So, you need a bunch of them, all the same size,
pointing toward the center point.

This shape, is known as the iso-metric-vector-matrix.

There would have to be one beam of coherent light,
for every inward facing tetrahedron,
aimed, from the center of the base of each,
through each central peak,
toward that central point,
the tetrahedrons all surround.

This way, the wall of photons, from just, these directions,
should form a point, where the mass of photons,
will inevitably exceed that volume of space.
And the maximum curvature of space-time would envelop that point.

Perhaps an optical crystal could be made and grown,
specifically for this purpose.
(shine a light on it, and maximum space-time curvature appears)

...i just don't know if that maximum space-time curvature,
would go away, ever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 17 2010, 04:15 PM
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Here is an interesting thought:

The wing of a plane, cutting through the air,
creates a curvature, in the air, as the top of the wing, has a greater curve than the underside, and the mass of the plane is drawn up, toward the greater curvature, it creates, as it goes through the air.

By increasing the curvature of the underside of the wing,
creates another curve, pulling down, the wing,
in the direction of the greater curvature,
it makes through the air.

perhaps i'm just flapping my wings...
but does this sort of make sense?

...i suspect it is NOT the conventional way of thinking of lift.

(edit) added picture:
The conventional way of thinking of lift

Notice how the greatest curvature of the air is in the direction of lift.
In other words, the wing, can be thought of as falling (up) into a greater curvature, that the wing is creating, going through the air.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 17 2010, 08:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 19 2010, 12:47 AM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



The Moon is moving away from the Earth, at about an inch a year.

If the moon was to stop, it would fall into the Earth.
...or into a greater gravitational curvature from the Earth.
For the Moon to be going away from the Earth, energy must somehow be applied to the moon, to raise it to a lesser gravitational curve.
Now, if the Earth is growing in diameter, its' gravitational curve would be expanding outward, too. And for the moon to fall to a greater curvature,
it would have to gain kinetic energy,
which would make it go faster,
and fling it further away.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 19 2010, 08:48 AM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



What is gravity?
(Or, why do i fall for the tighter curvatures...)

When something falls, say, toward the ground,
it accelerates, and gains kinetic energy.
Which is slowed or lost, in mechanical energy, if it hits anything,
or heat energy (if it's going really fast.)

All objects, regardless of their mass ((edit) if it is dense and close, enough), move toward the ground,
at the same accelerating rate,
if dropped into the same amount of increasing gravitational curvature,
at the same time.

Super-string theory suggests that if the speed of light is 1,
mass would equal energy.

So, as gravitational curvature increases, time is lost, by everything in it.
This lost time, is turned into kinetic energy, that gets added to the mass,
as tighter curvature is encountered.
Eventually, the curvature of gravity will be so tight, that the speed of light (there) will be only 1 m/s, compared to the speed of light, (here) of ~300,000,000 m/s.
But "there", that single meter,
would still look like 300,000,000 m "here" at lesser curvature.
It would take light a second to travel that meter,
at a greater gravitational curvature than here.

At an even greater gravitational curvature the speed of light would go,
even a shorter distance, in a second.
Eventually, from our perspective here,
the speed of light would be traveling no distance at all in a second.
And time would have stopped there, from our perspective here.
But there the distance to anything would be infinite,
and the all light and energy could not travel, and all that would be left would be the mass of the object, plus the kinetic energy, of the object, in the form now, of mass, in, what now has become for it, infinite volume.

Space is volume, and time is relative,
to the gravitational curvature toward
a central point, but before that, time becomes 0,
as the curvature of gravity becomes tighter
than the escape velocity of light.

As something moves into slower time it gains kinetic energy, as it gains kinetic energy it moves faster into more denser curvature, as long as nothing stops it, it will keep gaining kinetic energy as it looses more real time. once all real time is lost, energy can no longer be radiated and that energy is suspended from escaping out to the rest of the universe. As time has run out completely there, from our perspective, at a lesser curvature.

Now the hammer and the feather that get dropped into greater gravitational curvature, in a vacuum, would fall together at the same rate, but as they dropped the hammer would see the feather moving further away from it. as time goes slower through greater curvature distance between things, must appear to be getting farther apart.

When the hammer and feather reached maximum curvature they would seem to be infinitely distanced apart. (and unreachable to the rest of the universe, but they still have mass, and that will cause gravity,
that radiates spherically out from their centers of gravity,
expanding space by slowing time, a little more.


For the towers to accelerate at free fall speed,
there must have been no resistance at all, underneath,
or the kinetic energy extracted from their real-time, by moving through tighter gravitational curvature, toward the Earth, would be lost, and they would not have fallen, as fast as they did.


This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 19 2010, 08:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 20 2010, 11:04 AM
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Ever thought, that something going away from you,
is really just an illusion of it, or you, shrinking?

The distance between the center of things remains the same,
but if one thing, or the other, shrinks, we call that distance.

We measure distance,
relative to the outside circumference of
objects around points.

If i have 2 balloons, 1 foot apart, both full of air.
And i let the air slowly out of one balloon,
the distance between the outside surface of the balloons would grow.
but the center of each balloon would remain the same distance apart.

From the surface of either balloon,
it would look like the other balloon was moving away,
if we didn't know about the shrinkage of the size of the balloons.

Travel could be thought of as, growing or shrinking of stationary objects in space.

So, if i could inflate myself to any size, and i wanted to go to the moon, i could just fill myself up with energy until my radius would reach the moon,
all the way from Earth, and i haven't actually gone anywhere.
The other thing i could do, instead, with my cosmic imagination, would be to inflate the moon (by putting energy into it, until its' radius reached me, on Earth.)

The energy that we put into a rocket, to go to the moon, is like adding,
to the length of the radius, of the size of the rocket.
Now, i have shown earlier, how time can be seen as a measure of length.
So what we are doing, by putting energy into the rocket,
so it can expand its' radius, until that, reaches the moon.
...and a radius gives a circumference
and circumference means curvature.
The smaller the circumference, the greater the curvature.

Looking up through less curvature, things appear very far away (stars)
Looking into greater curvature things appear very close. (atoms)

It's all black holes*, up and down.

*though not the dangerous conventional black holes they talk about in physics, and portray in the movies, magazines, and novels.

QUOTE
On a sad note, all of these new articles still list Black holes (conventional) as monsters, lurking in the galaxies, waiting to devour whatever unfortunate victims stagger nearby. The C-R theory, on the other hand, tries to show home readers to appreciate the fine design, and noble purpose that nature truly intended for a Black-Hole C-R. Indeed, our life, here on earth, would be seriously less pleasant if it were not for our friend, the Black-Hole C-R, powering our sun. (Unfortunately, current science won’t discover or acknowledge this for many years to come.)


http://blog.cr-theory.org/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 20 2010, 09:53 PM
Post #36



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE
Mass–energy equivalence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

m = E/c²

The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second.

but, if we give c the value of 1 (1 x 1 = 1)

then m=E.

but if we give c, a value of 0,
m, becomes infinity.

yet, if we use the equation,

E = mc²

and c is given the same value of 0,
E just becomes 0


So, if time was to stop,
then light can't move any distance at all,
radiant energy, would stop existing,
and mass would be infinite,
...from our perspective far away, at a lesser curvature.

(edit) added
if we say that the speed of light "c" is infinity, then
energy would be infinite, and mass would be 0.

In conclusion;
mass changes to energy,
as the speed of light,
changes between 0 and infinite m/s.

If there is no maximum speed of light,
then space caries on forever,
in scale, up and down.
From the infinitely big, to the infinitesimally small,
both ways forever.

Our entire universe and everything in it,
could be at the center of one atom, in a gazillion
in a much bigger universe, of magnitude where the speed of light
is much faster then ours. Like c² faster, or something, even quicker than that.

.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 21 2010, 01:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 21 2010, 12:44 PM
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



..."So lunk, what is the variable speed of light?"

There are 2 answers:

c=(sqrt(Em))/m

c=-(sqrt(Em)/m)

solving for m, now gives us 2 answers:
(or mass can be seen in two different states, at the same time)

m=c^2/E
and m=0

I think, we can conclude from this,
that mass does not actually exist!

Matter is a fiction
caused by intensifying gravitational curvatures, in space.

That means that space is a fiction
of decreasing gravitational curvatures, too.

...much, much more to come.

http://www.myalgebra.com/algebra_solver.aspx

Note: Square root of x, is abbreviated, sqrt(x)

.

(edit) added:
Sorry, i keep jumping ahead of myself.

What we have,
is a universe where the speed of light goes from
greater than 0, to less than, infinity, m/s,
but is experienced as the same at any gravitational curvature.
perhaps, gravitational gradient, is a better term.

As matter goes into a denser gravitational gradient, its'
real time is turned into energy, as the time it takes light
to travel, a given distance, is reduced, relative to an
observer in a constant lesser gravitational gradient.

We can only "see" a portion of the scale things, in this
infinite scale, at every level, in this gravitational
gradient, before they become too far away, or too
small.

The idea of a no-time zone, or neutral zone, always
exists in denser gravity gradients, than the one we are
in.
This means that the speed of light is always greater
than zero, but can be infinitesimally small,
and the speed of light is always less than infinite,
but distance that it can travel can be huge.

So the straight line we are seeing in the logarithmic graph of mass versus diameter, is the constant line of time, and that goes on forever.

So the formula for time should be...
i think, rise over run, or

t=m/d

t=the ratio of mass to diameter

or perhaps more correctly,

time is frequency to diameter.

(i'm still hashing all this out.)

Time is therefore a measure of density.

...now i got to think about what all this implies,
just a second...

Notice how anything further away than the sun, in this graph, is off this line?
That is because of the error in reading the distant,
slower, speed of light as a Doppler Effect.
Fail.

Light from those things further away from us moves slower,
where they are in the universe, causing that light generated there,
to appear to be red shifted, making experts think that some things
are accelerating away from us,
but it is just a trick of the light.

Now, try to think of time, in kilograms per meter.

...hmmn

This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 22 2010, 01:21 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 22 2010, 02:37 AM
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Light, at our gravitational gradient, travels at slightly less than 300,000,000 m/s. This will always be the same at any density of time, measured in a vacuum, there.
But from a different density of time,
the speed of light would appear to be faster or slower.

but light, generated from within a higher time density,
traveling to here, would be going our measure of light speed, here,
but the frequency of that light would be lower,
if measured here, in a lesser density of time.
...i think

It gets a little confusing with all the pockets of time density gradients, in a round universe, that has time density gradients throughout of its' own scale.
From stars to atoms and beyond.
The time density gradient increases around/toward the nucleus of the atom.
So light would have a long way to go to get there, as light gets closer to the nucleus, the distance increases, going through denser time gradients.
(if you can figure out how to get light past the electron shell.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 24 2010, 10:07 AM
Post #39



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



We live in a universe of gravitational gradients.

Time is lost to kinetic energy, in matter going through an intensifying gravitational gradient. For the speed of light to remain the same, the distance it travels in 1 second of time must always be about 300,000 km.

From an observer in a less denser gradient of gravity,
light seems to travel a shorter distance through a greater gradient of gravity, and a longer distance through a lessening gravity gradient.

At the highest density of gravity, that we can see, light almost comes to a stop,
relative to us,
and energy can no longer radiate away, because it needs time to travel. Yet if we could be in that space, where the gravitational curvature seems to stop light, we would find the light measured there to still be going ~300,000 km/s. and there is an even greater density of gravity below that, where light seems to almost come to a stand still. And areas above that, where matter appears to be going the speed of light away.

Welcome to the infinite scale of gravitational gradients.

Where the distance to things, and their size, is dependent on the gravity gradient, light must travel through.

We call intense gravitational gradient points, atoms or stars.
Atoms are tiny in a greater gravitational gradient,
Stars are massive and very far away, looking up, through the lesser gravitational gradient.

The true variability in the universe is time.
If time is short, distance is short,
if time is long distance is long.

Yet the passage of time should seem the same at every curvature,
like being in a moving elevator, you don't know it's moving.
And this is a good analogy, because if the elevator is going down,
you are losing your potential energy, and energy takes time to radiate.
So potential energy is potential time. This potential time is lost, to kinetic
energy, as you descend into denser gravitational curvature.
Energy must be applied to the elevator to lift you up into a lesser gravitational curvature.
At a lesser density of gravity, light can move at a greater speed, but measured there, would still be ~300,000 km/s.
Measured at the base of the elevator, light would measure the same speed, but this would appear to be going slower than the speed of light at the top of the elevator, if that, was measured from the bottom.
So what is changing, is the apparent distances of things in different gradients of gravity, from the perspective of any place inside the gravity gradient.

So for instance, the hydrogen electron has a very small circumference it must travel around its' nucleus.

Most electrons travel around atoms at almost the speed of light.
An electron is in an intense gravitational curvature, and light must travel -300,000,000 m/s at every curvature.

How many times does that electron have to go around the nucleus, to go 300,000,000 meters?!

So distance is a constant, at every scale, as it is the time it takes, for light to travel for 1 second, at any curvature, that varies.

So if an electron is traveling around a hydrogen proton,
at its' curvature, a second, of its' time would be, 300 000 km, and we know it goes around the proton (for 300,000 km) at
our time in 1 second.

snipped from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_radius

QUOTE
The lowest value of n is 1; this gives a smallest possible orbital radius of 0.0529 nm known as the
bors radius

the Bohr radius of hydrogen has a value of 5.2917720859(36) × 10^-11 m (i.e., approximately 53 angstroms)


2*pi*r=circumference
(2x53Ax3.14) = 333.0088156A rotation around the proton

3.3x10^-13 km

300 000 km
3x10^5

in one second of time the hydrogen electron should do less than 9.1x10^17 rotations.

(could someone check my math, this is looking a little too freakingly true)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_timeline

QUOTE
The present time is approximately 4.3 × 10^17 seconds after the Big Bang; the Sun and Earth formed about 2 × 10^17 seconds after the Big Bang.


That would be 1 second, electron time,
and that would be,
nearly an eternity for us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 24 2010, 11:19 AM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



As the gravitational density increases,
time becomes shorter,
distance becomes vaster,
until time becomes so short, and distance becomes so vast
that energy has too far to radiate, from there, into our lesser gravitational gradient, in the universe. Even gravity, from dense matter would become too far away(in a lesser gravitational gradient) or too small (in a denser gravitational gradient) to affect us, in this universe much more,
than a single atom.

So the deeper you look into matter the vaster the space will become, and the more things will be found, and when they are looked at, there will be even more space in their structures, made of more smaller things, with even vaster space between, add infinitum.

time is the ratio of mass to diameter.
And mass must have volume,
but mass doesn't exist, and there is only intensifying gravitational curvatures.
So what is left is energy, which radiates out in a sphere...
then time is the volume of a sphere divided by its' diameter.

Eat more pi

(edit corrected) and the answer is:
(4/3*pi*r^3) / (2*r)

the gradient of time = 2.09 r^2

cheers

(edit) Added
...And i thought the answer to life, the universe, and everything,
was 42.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 25 2010, 06:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

13 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd August 2019 - 10:09 AM