Comments by "Charles Brightman" (@charlesbrightman4237) on "Something's Seriously Wrong With Voyager 1 Probe 23 Billion km Away" video.
-
Question: How do we properly protect a device from all harmful cosmic radiation, (including from long term neutrino impacts, while most neutrinos go right through us, not all of them do all of the time)?
F=ma, Force equals mass times acceleration.
Whether a device is stationary and the atoms, molecules, alpha particles, beta particles and neutrinos are moving OR whether the device is moving and the atoms, molecules, alpha particles, beta particles and neutrinos are stationary, the net force impact would be the same.
Plus there are things like surface charging and 'em' interactions as well.
5
-
@johnwalker1553 GRAVITY: (copy and paste from my files):
Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way.
a. Imagine a 12 hour clock.
b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions.
c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions.
(The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.)
d. Direct a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields.
e. Do this with the em fields on and off.
(The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results, cancelling out the em modalities of the laser, thereby leaving behind the gravity modality.)
f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects.
(Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.)
(And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
(An alternative to the above would be to direct 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.)
'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done.
'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world.
This test can speak for itself. It will either be true, partly true, or not true at all. It will either show what gravity truly is, might be, or is not. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
* And note: Whether my gravity test or another's, a gravitational black hole would have to be formed to prove the concept as being really true. A gravitational black hole that 'if' self fed itself, could literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, possibly this solar system, possibly put a black hole in this section of our galaxy, and potentially even causing a ripple effect in this galaxy and surrounding universe. But hey, if it does, no worries. Nobody would be left to prosecute those who did so. (Possibly famous last words: "Hey, it worked. Ooooppppssss.................)
But as NASA has already proven that low gravity conditions over a prolonged period of time is harmful to the human species, and large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons, those space bases probably being needed somewhere along the way out of this solar system and galaxy, we need to figure out what gravity truly is and see if we can generate artificial gravity so as to have smaller space ships and proper gravity conditions for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, at least all human life will most probably die and go extinct one day. Currently, no exceptions.
** Added note: Just trying to save at least 1 single species from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth so that life itself from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to. Gives me something to do while I exist, otherwise, what is it all and everything for? Even if my TOE idea were correct, but if it did not help species survive beyond this Earth, what good would it ultimately be?
So, are you feeling lucky? Doing nothing and at least the entire human species eventually dies and goes extinct with a high degree of certainty. Doing a gravity test, (mine and/or another's), and there is at least a slim chance of literally wiping out this entire Earth and all on it, and possibly more. Do you and other's truly want me to prove my TOE idea as being really true?
(Since all of life itself is ultimately meaningless in the grand of scheme of things anyway, do the gravity test and see what occurs?)
4
-
4
-
@johnwalker1553 "it could be gravitational anomalies"
a. Well, how would 'gravity' affect an object's operation in outer space? Sure, gravity can affect a biological species in harmful ways, but how would it do so to a non-biological object in outer space?
b. And then of course also:
1. What exactly is 'gravity'? (The common narrative is that matter bending the fabric of space time is what gravity is, of which then:)
2. What exactly is 'space' that it can bend?
3. What exactly is 'time' that it can bend?
I have my own current views, what are yours for these items?
c. And then also though, there could still be surface charging which could potentially contribute to electronics malfunctioning or even things like a stray neutrino or other cosmic particle changing even a single bit of data from a zero to a 1 or a 1 to a zero, of which, depending upon where in the computer program that change might have occurred, could have certain effects.
d. Many potential possibilities, but I am sure only 1 single absolutely true ultimate reason.
3
-
3
-
@johnwalker1553 Well here again:
What exactly is 'space' and what exactly is 'time'?
Here are my current views:
FOR ME:
'Space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. And for me, the 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe. 'Space' is most probably energy itself in the form of gravitational fields, electrical fields and magnetic fields, varying possibly only in density and energy frequency.
'Time' is the flow of energy.
'Time' (flow of energy) cannot exist unless 'space' (energy itself) exists. And 'space' (energy itself) that does not flow (no flow of time / energy) is basically useless. An entity cannot even think a thought without a flow of energy. If all the energy in the universe stopped flowing, wouldn't we say that 'time stood still'? Time itself would still exist, it would just not be flowing, (basically 'time' stopped).
But then also, how space and time are linked in what is called 'space time', (energy and it's flow).
* And everything in existence currently appears to be eternally existent energy interacting with itself. There is truly only 1 single 'eternal day', the day of eternally existent ever flowing energy.
2
-
@rufusapplebee1428 No, it's not the same as LIGO. (And please prove that dark energy and layers of multiverses actually exist.)
My gravity experiment cancels out the 'em' of the laser, of which, 'if' my TOE idea is correct, should leave a gravitational black hole behind. While I do not currently believe the black hole generated would self feed itself, since I do not know what I do not know, I fully acknowledge that once generated, it at least might be possible that the gravitational black hole might self feed itself of which, could literally wipe out this entire Earth and all on it and possibly more. But by not figuring out what gravity truly is, AND being able to generate artificial gravity (besides large rotating space ships which won't really work for space bases on planets and moons), then most probably all at least human life from this Earth will eventually die and go extinct.
2
-
@rufusapplebee1428 Oh also, as far as 'space' and 'time' go, consider this:
When we look at far away stars and galaxies, the 'em' from those stars and galaxies reach our eyes. If we move to a different location, unless something blocks the 'em', that 'em' still reaches our eyes.
The universe (outer space) at a minimum is filled with 'em' most probably at various energy frequencies and possibly various energy densities. And then when gravity is added, 'space' would be made up of gravitational energy fields, electrical energy fields, and magnetic energy fields. And the most logical rational explanation for 'time' at this time for me is the 'flow of energy', space time being energy and it's flow.
In addition, 'if' true, then in part this could be how space and time warp, bend and vary: (note also, this did not include the gravity energy field at the time, but would apply to the gravity energy field as well):
(copy and paste from my files):
Thought about space time:
Consider the following:
a. Wavelength equals speed of light divided by frequency.
b. Wavelength is how far a single 'em' photon goes in space, or possibly is the size of space itself. (Especially since 'space' itself has not been defined yet). Possibly different sizes of space for different 'em' frequencies.
c. Speed of light: 'light' being 'em' photons, 'speed' being distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points.
d. Frequency being 'hertz', 'hertz being cycles per second, or how far an 'em' photon goes at a specific size during one second.
e. "IF" wavelength changes (the frequency changes) then the distance a single 'em' photon goes would change and/or the size of space itself would change (assuming that an 'em' photon makes up 'space' itself).
f. Possibly 'space' varies due to 'space' being made up of 'em' itself and as 'em' frequencies change, 'space' changes.
g. Another possibility would be that as the wavelength changes (frequency changes) then as the distance a single 'em' photon goes would also change in it's time of existence, 'time' would change for any given 'em' photon length. The effect of that single 'em' photon makes in it's given time of existence.
h. Possibly 'time' varies due to the wavelength of the 'em' photon.
i. So, possibly 'space' varies due to energy frequencies changing and 'time' varies due to the wavelength of energy changing, the 'em' photon being energy itself. And if as I currently believe that what is called 'gravity' is actually a part of the 'em' photon, then the 'gem' photon makes up the energy unit that possibly makes up everything in existence in this entire universe including the universe itself, including 'space' and 'time' or 'space time' itself. It is also how space and time can warp, bend and vary.
2
-
@davidbwn Consider item #3 in the math so far for my TOE idea:
There are many more spatial dimensions than just 3 and many more time dimensions than just 1. It's just that the human species can only detect a net 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension at any one time.
(copy and paste from my files):
The mathematics for the TOE doesn't even exist yet as far as I am currently aware. It goes beyond any quantum field theory formulas that I am currently aware of. The outline though is basically as follows:
The formula has at least 3 levels to it:
1. The Internal Photon Level: The 3 interacting forces, (which might even be just a singular force with 3 different modalities), all interacting at basically 90 degrees to each other and all simultaneously pulsating and swirling. A complex part of the formula but I believe to be totally doable.
2. The External Photon Level: For each pulsating, swirling photon, all the pulsating, swirling photons interacting with it. An exponential part of the formula that I am not even sure modern day super computers could adequately handle.
3. The Inter-dimensional Photon Level: For each modality within each photon would have an energy frequency associated with it. The energy frequencies could be seen as being in their own space time dimension. (For me, 'space' is energy itself of which is the 'gem' photon and 'time' is the flow of energy; 'temperature' is the interaction of energy), so one would be dealing with way more than just 3 spatial dimensions and way more than just 1 time dimension (as there would many different energy frequencies with many different flows of energy). Whenever like resonate energy frequencies resonated with each other, they would affect each other, kind of like 'spooky action at a distance'. Anytime energy frequencies overlapped, there would be a temporary spike of some sort in each space time dimension. In addition, if in reality the 'gem' photon is just a singular force with 3 different modalities, it's possible that energy could 'slip' between modalities which would also affect the results. A very complex part of the formula on top of all the complexity that came before it.
4. Any time any energy moved in the system, the entire formula would have to be recalculated due to potential ripple effects.
5. In addition, I am operating in a realm where one plus one does not always equal two, and often does not.
Like I said above, I don't even believe the mathematics exists yet for what I am trying to do, but at a minimum, the formula would contain the above levels the way I currently see it to be. And I never said it would be easy.
2
-
@rufusapplebee1428 a. Numbers and mathematical constants:
"first of all, in general sense, i agree that modern science doesn't have good explanations and doesn't have complete information and engineering to edit the properties of or to be able to manufacture
a ) universal constants and other mathematical numbers:, except that they arise from the properties of solving some equations via calculus and other mathematical tools and then we have to guess and hack additional variables to those constants to match the mathematically guessed values to the observed values."
Of which then, my way above could be correct.
b and c. Space and Time: (Energy and the flow of energy). That even you apparently agree with as stated above:
"You are also correct about space being equivalent to energy and time being equivalent to flow of energy."
d. Gravity: "i agree both non unified gravity as curvature of space-time"
Of which, space being energy itself and time being the flow of energy, gravity would then have to be able to bend energy itself (or more probably energy fields) and be able to alter the flow of energy.
Would you agree with that?
e. Speed of light: " relativistic definitions for limits of speed of light as limit of causality are incomplete and we simply take them as is because they work ( in slower and upto equal to light speed, applications ) as standard model of physics,"
Of which, if 'speed' is distance divided by time, distance being 2 points in space with space between those 2 points, and space being energy itself, and time being the flow of energy, then 'speed' would in essence be energy itself divided by the flow of energy. Or more probably energy fields divided by the flow of energy of those fields.
And if space can vary (most probably being energy frequencies varying and/or energy density varying), and if time can vary (most probably being the flow of energy of those energy fields varying), then the speed of light should also vary depending upon what space and time it were in (or what energy frequency and/or energy density and what flow of energy it were in).
Would you agree with that?
f. "In order to get to that we have to unify quantum mechanics,"
Of which possibly my TOE idea above does (as posted above to John Walker), currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test above (also as posted above to John Walker). This is where I am currently at in my thinking, awaiting to do my gravity test, and while I do not believe it would wipe out this Earth and all on it, I acknowledge it's possible at this time in the analysis. (But also, not doing a gravity test, mine and/or another's, AND being able to generate artificial gravity, there would be a high probability that all at least human life from this Earth is going to die and go extinct. Per my current analysis.)
2
-
@rufusapplebee1428 a. Just woke up (currently east coast USA time zone for reference purposes).
b. "i agree with most of your comments,
except for applications which requires changing the speed of light or limit of causality, we use different terminology ( which is not standardized / accepted by scientific community )."
Well, if we both agree that 'space' is energy itself, and 'time' is the flow of energy, and 'speed' is distance divided by time, distance being 2 points in space with space between those 2 points, (in essence 'speed' being space divided by time, or energy itself divided by the flow of energy), AND that we both agree that space can vary and that time can vary, (space most probably varying due to energy frequencies and/or energy densities varying and time varying most probably due to the flow of energy varying), then the natural conclusion would be that the speed of light (or limit of causality) could vary as well depending upon what space and time it were in. Now sure, there would most probably still be a maximum speed limit set by nature itself, (the maximum energy frequency and/or maximum density divided by the maximum flow of energy), but the speed of light would vary below that maximum speed. Kind of like a car could go it's maximum speed and yet be able to go various slower speeds as well.
But then again, since space and time could vary (energy frequencies and/or energy densities could vary) and (the flow of energy could vary), the speed of light would vary being totally dependent upon what space and time it were in. (In a 'space' with a certain energy frequency and/or energy density and depending upon how the energy flowed, 'time'. It could be one way in one certain space and time configuration and a different way in another space and time configuration. Hence, even the maximum speed of light would vary depending upon what space and time configuration it were in.)
b. "One such explanation is dark energy expansion of space-time, "
Well:
1. 'Dark energy' or not 'dark energy' it's still energy. (Eternally existent energy, otherwise, from where did it come from and from what was it made from and what laws of nature allowed it to come into existence in this existence?). And 'expansion' of space time? Really? 'Space' is energy itself (most probably with energy frequencies and/or energy densities) of which by stretching out energy would be changing the energy frequency and/or energy density. And 'time' would be the flow of energy. Expansion of the flow of energy would most probably affect the flow of that energy.
And 'red shift' can be explained utilizing 'normal' physics (look for another post to you after this one).
c. "special higher dimensions which although still being connected and interacting with our universe but don't have higgs fields in those dimensions ( due to some made up mathematical reason ) and allow faster than light applications, such as wormholes, negative matter which from our 4 dimensional space-time's perspective behaves mostly as energies (waves) and in higher dimensions behaves as matter ( particles ) for example tachyons, custom blackholes exhibiting kugalblitz like behaviour in our 4 dimensional space-time and complex dark matter like behaviour in higher dimensions, etc."
One could just as well claim 'God' with those fairy tale beliefs with no actual factual evidence to support those beliefs, (other than possibly math of which modern science does not even apparently know how numbers and mathematical constants even exist that they utilize in the math).
d. "Regarding, other ways of unifying gravity although on universal scales can theoretically be done "
And I offer above an actual experiment that can be accomplished that can speak for itself. It will either be true, partly true, or not true at all. It will either show what gravity is, might be, or is not. In any event science would 'win' and move forward (or possibly wipe out this entire Earth, all on it, and possibly more) Right now in the analysis, it could go either way.
e. "it is my understanding, that once we try to start miniaturizing these gravitational experiments they require very precise instrumentation setup, large energies or specific raw materials ( different kinds of dark matter or dark energies ) to catalyse these experiments."
No dark energy nor dark matter is needed in my experiment.
f. "It's not impossible, but actual engineering of gravitation unification is complex."
Sure, I never said it wasn't. Take the singular nature of laser light, and with curved densities of electrical and magnetic energy fields of a precise nature, cancel out the 'em' of the laser light. "IF" my TOE idea is correct, a gravitational black hole should appear. (And possibly a neutrino being a substance with high gravitational and very low 'em' characteristics).
* Look for 2 more posts to you after this one.
2
-
@rufusapplebee1428 Red Shift:
(copy and paste from my files):
Red Shift: Consider the following:
a. Current narrative: Space itself is expanding. (Even though science does not fully know yet what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand).
b. But consider: The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies, (even modern science claims 'em' has momentum), continuously, over a prolonged period of time, with other galaxies doing the same, with nothing to stop them from doing so, would tend to push galaxies away from each other and even potentially allow the cosmic web to form between galaxies.
And then, when we here in our galaxy, look at far away galaxies, with other galaxies in between, the net effect of all those galactic interactions would have galaxies furthest from ours move away faster the further those galaxies were from us, including us perceiving a red shift of energy.
c. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? What the current narrative is ('a' above), or 'b' utilizing known physics?
* Added note: Plus, 'if' my analysis is correct that our spiral shaped galaxy is collapsing in upon itself, then consider also:
d. When we look at solar systems between ours and the center of the galaxy, those solar systems would be getting pulled faster towards the center than ours, hence also seeing a red shift of energy.
e. When we look at solar system between ours and the outer edge of the galaxy, our solar system would be getting pulled faster towards the center then them, hence also seeing a red shift of energy.
f. Only if we looked at solar systems adjacent to ours should we see a blue shift of energy (as the solar systems became closer together as they moved towards the center of the galaxy). I also propose looking for blue shifts of energy between our solar system and adjacent solar systems to confirm or deny this current belief.
g. But if true, would also add to our observation of seeing a red shift of energy in this universe as our spiral shaped galaxy collapses in upon itself.
Of which, not only would species from this Earth have to get off of this Earth before the Sun becomes a red giant one day and wipes out all life on this Earth if not even the entire Earth itself, but species from this Earth would also have to successfully get out of this collapsing spiral shaped galaxy, otherwise, most probably death awaits us all and this Earth and all on it are all just a waste of space time in this universe. All life from this Earth would eventually die and go extinct. Currently, no exceptions.
3 basic ways out of this galaxy to potentially continue to survive, (as a species or whatever evolves from our species):
1. Long way: Outward through the galactic plane.
2. Medium way: Outward through the angled solar system's plane.
3. Short way: Outward, about 90 degrees from the galactic plane, as adjusted for the galactic magnetic lines of flux for a smoother ride. (Basically 'rise above' the collapsing spiral shaped galaxy).
* And music, don't forget music. It's going to be a long trip.
2
-
2
-
@rufusapplebee1428 IF one existed throughout all of literally future eternity, who cares how long it took to get there? Might as well go slow and enjoy the ride. One would literally have eternity to get to their destination. (Other than one would have to get out the galaxy before it collapsed in upon itself). So, one would still have to move in a certain direction with at least a certain speed, and the sooner the better as one could move slower longer.
IF one did not exist throughout all of literally future eternity, well, one would still die one day from something, would forget everything one ever knew and experienced, and would most probably be forgotten one day in future eternity as if they never ever existed at all in the first place, (future eternity being a really, really long time, literally a flow of energy without end).
Either at least 1 single species on and from this Earth survives literally throughout all of future eternity somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence, even if only by continuous evolution, OR none do and all of life itself from this Earth would all be ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Life itself from this Earth failed to survive throughout all of future eternity. And no entity would be left to care about anything or anyone ever again, at least not from this Earth. This Earth and all on it would all just be a waste of space time in this existence.
And currently, it appears we were all destined to die and go extinct even before we even ever came into existence. We never even had a chance to survive throughout all of future eternity. But it's nice to dream about anyway.
Peace. Eternal Peace awaits us all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@johnwalker1553 a. "energy cannot be created without an anchor."
Then this copy and paste from my files:
And for those who claim energy came into existence, and can possible cease to exist, then I ask:
Energy coming into existence:
a. Where did the stuff that made up energy come from?
b. What stuff existed to allow energy to come into existence?
c. What laws of nature were in existence to allow this to occur?
Energy ceasing to exist:
d. Where does energy go when it ceases to exist?
e. What does energy turn into when it ceases to exist?
f. And again, what laws of nature were in existence to allow this to occur?
b. Space and Time: There is also this copy and paste from my files:
Consider the 'speed of light':
a. 'Speed' is distance divided by time.
b. 'Distance' is two points in space with space between those two points.
c. If 'space' and/or 'time' did not exist in actual existent reality, except for as concepts, then 'speed' could not exist in actual existent reality, except for as a concept.
d. If 'speed' exists in actual existent reality, then 'space' and 'time' both have to have some sort of actual existent reality.
e. Likewise, 'light' which is currently considered as 'em' also has to have an actual existent reality, in addition to being a concept, for 'light' to exist in actual existent reality, in addition to being a concept.
f. So, if the 'speed of light' actually exists in existent reality, then 'space', 'time', 'speed' and 'light' ('em'), all also have to actually exist in existent reality, otherwise, the 'speed of light' could not actually exist in existent reality, other than just as a concept, (which would put a major kink in a lot of physics formulas).
c. And then also, numbers and mathematical constants for the formulas:
(this copy and paste from my files):
'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, the 'gravity' modality acting 90 degrees from the 'em' modalities, which act 90 degrees to each other, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows:
Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction.
Then:
1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe.
(And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have. This would also be the maximum potential energy point or as some might call it, the 'zero point energy point'.).
And also how possibly mathematical constants exist in this universe as well.
* Note also: Nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and mathematical constants can exist and do what they do in this universe from the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP). While the SMPP has it's place, I believe we need to move beyond the SMPP to get closer to real reality.
1
-
@johnwalker1553 For reference purposes, here is a copy and paste of my TOE idea. And I fully admit, it is currently dependent upon the gravity test posted above, which will speak for itself. But basically, the very nature of reality would most probably be a single force with 3 different modalities is how it is currently appearing. A 3 in 1 force being the force that makes up everything in existence in this universe, including space and time, including numbers and mathematical constants, and including you and me with our consciousness, memories and thoughts. This is just where my current journey has led me.
(copy and paste from my files):
Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a.
My Current TOE:
THE SETUP:
1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism.
2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.).
3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them.
4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them.
5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them.
FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO:
6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field.
7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field.
8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality.
9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons.
10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary.
11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks.
12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do.
THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA:
13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc.
14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe.
15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe.
16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate.
17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure.
18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons).
THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY:
19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up.
20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency.
21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies.
NOTES:
22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well.
25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true.
26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught?
DISCLAIMER:
27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justsayin3600 Well, please show how 'b' is really true and 'a' is not really true in this following copy and paste from my files:
GOD DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST EXCEPT FOR AS A CONCEPT:
For those who claim God actually exists (besides as a concept), consider the following:
a. An actual eternally existent absolute somethingness truly existing.
b. An actual eternally existent absolute somethingness that has consciousness, memories and thoughts truly existing.
People who claim God actually and eternally exists basically are claiming that 'b' above is correct but yet simultaneously seem to be saying that 'a' is impossible to occur.
'a' above can exist without 'b' existing but 'b' cannot exist unless 'a' exists. Even per the scientific principal of Occam's razor, 'a' is more probable of being really true rather than 'b'.
I am one step away from proving God's existence, but am unable to find any actual evidence to do so. And nobody I've talked to seems to have any actual evidence of God's actual existence either. All humans appear to have are 'Theories of God'. Some humans appear to go their whole life basing their life upon their specific theory of God. They even at times kill other humans based upon their own theories. Many give their God human characteristics and cannot even prove the existence of their God much less the characteristics given to their God. Some have circumstantial arguments for a God's existence, but others have circumstantial arguments for no God existing. Not one has any actual factual evidence that their God actually factually even exists. Hence, at this time in the analysis, God does not actually exist except for as a concept created by humans for humans. Humans have personified Nature and called that personification "God". It appears many of them are delusional and are believing in fairy tales as if those fairy tales were really true. Instead of what is claimed "God creating man in God's image", it's more likely that "Man created God in Man's image".
Further consider that if the emotional parts of the brain override the logic and reasoning parts of the brain, people can be made to believe basically anything at all as being really true. Plus modern science has already proven that humans can have visual and audio hallucinations that are very real to that individual. All the more reason for critical thinking being needed and to follow the facts wherever those facts might lead.
In addition, while modern science does not know what consciousness actually is yet, memories and thoughts appear to require a physical correctly functioning brain to have those items occur. Where is God's brain? Where are God's memories stored at? How are God's memories stored and retrieved? How does God think even a single coherent thought?
If inside of this space time dimension we appear are existing in, then where?
If outside of this space time dimension we appear are existing in, then where is the interface between that dimension and this dimension? No such interface has been discovered as of yet as far as I am currently aware of.
* Note: Since this is a search for the real absolute truth concerning God, Intelligent Designer, Pre-existent Consciousness, etc, feel free to copy and paste this elsewhere to further the analysis and discussion.
* For those who claim God actually exists besides just as a concept, please prove that 'b' above is really true and that 'a' is not really true.
1
-
1
-
Matt Schutzman a. "you do realize you are asking multiple highly complex questions..."; So?
b. "... in completely different areas of scientific study in a YouTube comment right?"; I am an American in America with free speech making comments in a public YouTube comment area. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the US Congress.
c. "Just because no one has outright explained to you, what has taken science thousands of years to understand, does not mean that the proof does not exist. It means you are asking questions that are simply to difficult to explain and require too much background scientific knowledge to explain in a YouTube comment."; I have my own answers, I was wondering what others thought about these items. And if people cannot answer questions simply, then maybe they are not smart enough?
d. "Anything that hasn't been answered is either currently being debated in the scientific community, or there can never be a definitive answer to."; Really? Do my gravity test and 'if' it is really true, and does not literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, then potentially have the literal theory of everything for this universe. And hey, I did it in a YouTube comment area too.
e. "Essentially the answers to all of your questions are that you are lazy and refuse to go and do the research yourself."; You do not know me, and I have my own answers for these items. Maybe you are the one who is lazy by your response to me without answering those items?
f. "...or that no one is going to be your personal tutor for highly advanced topics."; Do my gravity test and 'if' true, learn these highly advanced topics from me? Just because I ask questions here on the internet in no way means I don't already know the answers to at least some of these items. You assume without knowing.
g. "If you want to ask your questions one at a time, in an objective way I will do my best to answer them."; Then piss off. Others who are as smart and are nicer than you might answer. And this is not the only place I place those items.
h. "However there is still no guarantee that there is an answer to the question or if you will understand the answer if there is one." The one single ultimate answer to ALL questions in existence, including questions that have never even ever been asked is: "It Does Not Ultimately Matter", or in today's vernacular "IDNUM".
i. Have a nice day.
1