Temporal Divergence Meter

Recommended Posts

MASS. It appears to be a man made concept that does not play a role in the grand scheme of things.

Mass is a comparative term man gives to things that don't go the speed of light. It sure seems useful enough for Engineering and Science.

• 1

• Replies 148
• Created

Popular Days

What do you want to believe?

I believe Modern Physics is a great starting place, thoroughly useful. Models can be improved upon and continually are. For the moment, I work with the best we have.

• 1
Share on other sites

A newton is not a unit of weight and, 1 N is the force of Earth's gravity on a mass of about 102 g = (19.81 kg).

A Newton....

It was taught to me that a Newton is a unit of force. Force = Weight

Weren't you also taught that Force = Weight?

• 1
Share on other sites

Does that Kilogram on the sun make a bigger explosion when it blows up?

I would say yes. It has more kinetic/heat energy. It also has more mass on the sun.

A hot cup of coffee has more mass than a cold cup of coffee.

Share on other sites

Weren't you also taught that Force = Weight?

I was in the middle of a long reply with links etc, but for sake of argument, Ill say "yes", LOL :)

W=mg

F=ma

Close enough, units seem to have preferences though..............

Share on other sites

I would say yes. It has more kinetic/heat energy. It also has more mass on the sun.

A hot cup of coffee has more mass than a cold cup of coffee.

I didn't say you could alter the temperature. But basically what we are taught in school is that a kilogram is a kilogram where ever it is. Even on the sun it is still a kilogram. But its gravitational weight is 27 times greater.

I don't know the answer. But that gravitational weight might figure into the amount of energy released. Whether it will impede or enhance the blast is something of interest to me.

• 1
Share on other sites

To me the equation E=MC^2 appears to be fiction as well. It doesn't work in experimental analysis. I've never seen anyone verify or prove it.

There have "only" been thousands of experiments that proved it. But two of the most famous took place on August 6 and again on August 9, 1945.

Good luck coming up with your BS conspiracy theories to try to explain why thermodynamics is "all wrong."

RMT

Share on other sites

Something that comes to mind, and I believe it applies somewhat to the discussion taking place in this thread at the moment...is when a group of Astronomer's mapped out the location of selected galaxies. They calculated where the galaxies would be located after a certain amount of time had elapsed and looked for them again.

To their astonishment, the selected galaxies were not where the calculations equated(?) they should be, and eventually it was determined that the movement of those galaxies was faster than the Astronomer's had originally calculated. I'm not proclaiming that mathematics doesn't have extremely important merits, however, sometimes there are unexpected surprises.

• 1
Share on other sites

Something that comes to mind, and I believe it applies somewhat to the discussion taking place in this thread at the moment...is when a group of Astronomer's mapped out the location of selected galaxies. They calculated where the galaxies would be located after a certain amount of time had elapsed and looked for them again.

To their astonishment, the selected galaxies were not where the calculations equated(?) they should be, and eventually it was determined that the movement of those galaxies was faster than the Astronomer's had originally calculated. I'm not proclaiming that mathematics doesn't have extremely important merits, however, sometimes there are unexpected surprises.

Now the accepted nonsense is dark matter and dark energy. That seems to be par for the course. Plenty of existing facts lying around that could be used instead.

The simplest I can think of is, is space rotating? The further you move away from a rotational center, the faster the rotating space would be. Is rotating space creating the centrifugal force in matter that is causing the ever increasing expansion of the universe? Galaxies do rotate. Are they dragging local space with them in a rotating pattern? And no one has come up an explanation for why all the stars in a galaxy rotate about the center as if they were a solid group.

Share on other sites

Now the accepted nonsense is dark matter and dark energy. That seems to be par for the course. Plenty of existing facts lying around that could be used instead.

The simplest I can think of is, is space rotating? The further you move away from a rotational center, the faster the rotating space would be. Is rotating space creating the centrifugal force in matter that is causing the ever increasing expansion of the universe? Galaxies do rotate. Are they dragging local space with them in a rotating pattern? And no one has come up an explanation for why all the stars in a galaxy rotate about the center as if they were a solid group.

Excellent points in there, Einstein. In all my contemplation's, never figured that the Universe itself is in a state of rotation.

Is the existence of dark matter ( suppose dark energy kind of goes with it ) really nonsense ?

An analogy that I liked was made by the guy in the new Cosmos show, when he said that you could compare the Universe to our ocean's. The stars and such ( the visible ), are like the white portion seen as crests of the waves. Merely on the surface, with so much more unseen within the depths of the darkness.

Would have to go back into the reports by the Astronomers to see where the galaxies were found. Did they accelerate within a linear manner, or did the Astronomers have to look "around" before finding the selected galaxies?

If I remember it right, nothing was mentioned about the galaxies veering off a linear course, only that they were further away from recorded pointed of origin to where they eventually were re-discovered.

Share on other sites

Overall the expansion appears to be uniform with no preferred center. But there are anomalous locations that don't fit the norm.

The dark matter was invented to account for all the missing mass. I keep harping about using the observable fact that mass only occurs in the form of weight. And weight is variable. Also weight can be reduced or cancelled out with rotation. And weights direction can be negative due to centrifugal force.

The dark energy was created to account for the expansion of the universe.

One more thing I want to point out. If space were actually curved, the universe would be looping back in upon itself. That doesn't appear to be the case.

Share on other sites

You brought up something in your post that I've been thinking...there have been theories of a Holographic Universe. Always see graphic of what our Universe "might" actually look like, however, was wondering if it is possible that our Universe also might appear like an old vinyl record, with grooves ( rings of... ???).

With explosions ( like the Big Bang ) , is there only a single blast wave, or does the expansion "field" contain more ?

Share on other sites

Overall the expansion appears to be uniform with no preferred center. But there are anomalous locations that don't fit the norm.

The dark matter was invented to account for all the missing mass. I keep harping about using the observable fact that mass only occurs in the form of weight. And weight is variable. Also weight can be reduced or cancelled out with rotation. And weights direction can be negative due to centrifugal force.

The dark energy was created to account for the expansion of the universe.

One more thing I want to point out. If space were actually curved, the universe would be looping back in upon itself. That doesn't appear to be the case.

Well, I agree with some of what you're pointing out, however, disagree with other points. Difficult for me to discuss my understandings in the context of this forum, however, do believe that dark matter does exist. Exactly what it is, I have some idea, but nothing that could be provided with a solid foundation of proof.

Share on other sites

The Big Bang is just a theory based on a linear progression of time. But we know time is not flowing at a constant rate. It varies with location. So if time is so variable, why are we assuming a linear progression? Not everything is so crystal clear.

I do accept that there are some things we may never know. Whether or not the Universe had a beginning is probably something in that category.

Share on other sites

The Big Bang is just a theory based on a linear progression of time. But we know time is not flowing at a constant rate. It varies with location. So if time is so variable, why are we assuming a linear progression? Not everything is so crystal clear.

I do accept that there are some things we may never know. Whether or not the Universe had a beginning is probably something in that category.

Discussing anything that has to do with time seems to circle back to one question; what is time ? Is time defined as that which is measured by my watch ? or some other man made device ? is time a cause or an effect ? does it actually exist at all ?

We do experience the passing of moments, and we developed a method of measuring those moments, but, to something eternal, despite the formation of and the depth of formation, maybe time isn't really anything at all, but a matter of mind, and nothing more.

Share on other sites

Well, I agree with some of what you're pointing out, however, disagree with other points. Difficult for me to discuss my understandings in the context of this forum, however, do believe that dark matter does exist. Exactly what it is, I have some idea, but nothing that could be provided with a solid foundation of proof.

No I don't accept the dark matter theory. The reason being is that we are over looking some very basic observation. Motion is that observation. By all rights I believe it should be elevated to the status of a basic force. All motion appears to be time oriented. One way. Combine motion with the weak force and the electromagnetic forces come into play. Combine motion with the strong force and the mechanical forces come into play. Combining the weak force and the strong force without the presence of the motion force is also a combination. There appears to be plenty to work with right here without fabricating something that by all rights is just pure fiction.

Share on other sites

Discussing anything that has to do with time seems to circle back to one question; what is time ? Is time defined as that which is measured by my watch ? or some other man made device ? is time a cause or an effect ? does it actually exist at all ?

We do experience the passing of moments, and we developed a method of measuring those moments, but, to something eternal, despite the formation of and the depth of formation, maybe time isn't really anything at all, but a matter of mind, and nothing more.

Now that is what I call motion. Time is our 4-D space. I call it a basic force. It is variable. And the possibility of negative motion just may be a reality. Based on my observation of a negative motion behavior with a Slayer Exciter coil.

Share on other sites

Here's a question: When "everything" was at a point of singularity, what was happening with the dark matter ? Couldn't have been in with that point, could it ? And if not, then....??? See what I'm getting at with this line of thought ?

Share on other sites

Here's a question: When "everything" was at a point of singularity, what was happening with the dark matter ? Couldn't have been in with that point, could it ? And if not, then....??? See what I'm getting at with this line of thought ?

The problem with the Dark matter is that that is where the missing mass of the universe is supposed to be. But if the mass were there all along as Dark matter, then the universe could not be expanding at an ever increasing rate as it does.

So then they hypothesized Dark energy.

For all we know the universe may not have originated at a point. What would be wrong with a large number of multiple locations coalescing into matter. Perhaps galaxies originated that way. It's all speculation no matter which way you go.

Share on other sites

To clarify a previous post , I am going to include quotes from some website, somewhere out there in the cyber sphere***:

"Dark matter and dark energy appear to be competing forces in our universe. The only things they have in common is that both were forged in the Big Bang...

Dark matter attracts, dark energy repels. While dark matter pulls matter inward, dark energy pushes it outward."

IF dark energy repels matter, how could it ALL be contained within the matter (singularity?) prior to the Big Bang ?

Yes, it all might be speculation, however, if nobody ask's the questions, then nobody would look for the answers.

What would be wrong with a large number of multiple locations coalescing into matter. Perhaps galaxies originated that way.

Nothing. Perhaps the galaxies, and a lot of the other stuff, did originate that way. And maybe the scientists will be surprised again. However, they have the resources and the mind power to make a way better guess than I do. So, if they proclaim that there was a "Big Bang", definitely have to give that serious consideration. IF they say there is dark matter and dark energy, also have to give that serious consideration, too.

Dark matter and dark energy isn't necessarily a new concept either, just recently made up to account for missing mass in our Universe. To quote Scripture from KJV( Genesis 1:2 - 1:3 ) :

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Darkness was upon the deep ? ...Face of the waters ? Earth was without form, and void, so what were the scribe(s) referring to in these remarks ?

***source of quoted material : Dark Energy vs. Dark Matter - HETDEX

Share on other sites

You have a Kilogram of nitroglycerin. On the earth' date=' that Kilogram weighs one Newton. But on the sun, it weighs in over 27 Newtons. Does that Kilogram on the sun make a bigger explosion when it blows up?[/quote']

I am not an explosive expert but I know an explosion is a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions are based on stoichiometry and use the mol as a unit of measure. A mol of a substance always contains a set value of atoms or molecules known as Avogadro constant ( 6.022×10^23). A mol of nitro weighs 227.08g/mol on earth;

1kg (1000g/1kg) (mol/227.08g)= 4.4037mols of nitro or 2.6519x10^24 molecules

Gravity, which affects weight, is about 27.9 times stronger on the sun than earth so a mol of nitro would simply "weigh" 27.9 times more there than here but it would have exactly the same number of molecules and be chemically the same reaction as it would here so, I don't think there would, as far as weight goes, be any difference in explosive energy provided, you send the stoichiometric amount of oxygen needed for the reaction to take place at all. (technically, if STP is used here to calculate the yield vs the increased temp of the sun, there would be a difference but for the sake of argument, Einstein was considering weight, not temp.)

For all we know the universe may not have originated at a point. What would be wrong with a large number of multiple locations coalescing into matter. Perhaps galaxies originated that way. It's all speculation no matter which way you go.

It seems you agree with my premise of a "Big Thaw (agglomerating)"

Share on other sites

Gpa

I am not an explosive expert but I know an explosion is a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions are based on stoichiometry and use the mol as a unit of measure. A mol of a substance always contains a set value of atoms or molecules known as Avogadro constant ( 6.022×10^23). A mol of nitro weighs 227.08g/mol on earth;1kg (1000g/1kg) (mol/227.08g)= 4.4037mols of nitro or 2.6519x10^24 molecules

Gravity, which affects weight, is about 27.9 times stronger on the sun than earth so a mol of nitro would simply "weigh" 27.9 times more there than here but it would have exactly the same number of molecules and be chemically the same reaction as it would here so, I don't think there would, as far as weight goes, be any difference in explosive energy provided, you send the stoichiometric amount of oxygen needed for the reaction to take place at all. (technically, if STP is used here to calculate the yield vs the increased temp of the sun, there would be a difference but for the sake of argument, Einstein was considering weight, not temp.)

Weight is not the only variable that affects the nitro. The flow of time is slower on the sun. Perhaps the weak force is affected as well. Maybe it becomes stronger. Making nuclear fusion more likely. But would something like that affect chemical reactions?

I think all bets are off as to what would happen. All the basic forces may actually be in a different configuration.

Share on other sites

• 4 weeks later...
Hi GPA and Dike Tater

The reason why I selected this accelerometer is it is super

accurate at 0.016 mg/LSB and just came out in the market look

at the date stamp.

Anyhow.

GPA this theory should be able to be proved or disproved

fairly quickly in my opinion.

All we need is ground gravity measurement station data

in specific locations around the world. Then select

specific event dates; big event.

1. 911

2. Fukushima

3. Katrina

4. All Presidential Elections

etc.

Since all these event changed future outcomes in the time line

this should be obvious to everyone right because if it did not

happen we would be living in a different world where people are

dead when they should be alive and the other way around OK.

Now get the dates for these events.

Look at gravity two weeks before and after the event to see

if there is any real changes in local gravity compared to

the average mean measurement. If would be interesting to

see if there was a lasting change in gravity after these event.

If there is a change then this helps prove that gravity is some

how correlated to time we hope while living on Earth.

Designer.

flawed logic here: these "events" were not spontaneously occurring singular moments in time. The planning, or lack thereof, for these events took years. What point in time would you measure for Fukishima? The EQ or the moment when some corporation or agency in Japan received a news they were winning a bid to build the site? no way to correlate gravity swings to "world events"; they are too complex

Share on other sites

• 2 years later...
flawed logic here: these "events" were not spontaneously occurring singular moments in time. The planning, or lack thereof, for these events took years. What point in time would you measure for Fukishima? The EQ or the moment when some corporation or agency in Japan received a news they were winning a bid to build the site? no way to correlate gravity swings to "world events"; they are too complex