Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The conductive grid of Space-time

#1
trevorjohnson Offline
Space time is made up of an inactive field of a conductive grid, it only becomes active when energy acts on it. A second component of space time are blocks that line the grid. These void blocks, as I call them, are also made of an conductive grid much smaller and only become active when acted upon by matter. 
 
The smallest particles of matter, such as protons and neutrons, are made of extremely dense substance of space time. Their density puts a squeezing force in the surrounding space time they exist in. The force is stronger the closer to the particle. This causes a gravity field. When a gravity field touches another gravity field, the same squeezing force of space time on space time applies and the larger gravity field squeezes on the weaker one pulling it harder. Both objects then move towards each other in proportion to there weight.
 
Electrons and energy are also a squeezing force on space-time. Electrons get caught in electron shells around atoms. They add weight to matter by squeezing on space time and giving the impression of gravity. When they convert into light there weight converts into momentum and the become a stress only on the conductive grid, not on void blocks. Magnetism is a flowing of space time and its field doesn't create gravity either. A magnet acts like a fan for the conductive grid of space, seen by the repulsion of two north or south ends. The electrons in the magnet all circle in the same direction which acts as the fan for the conductive grid.
Reply
#2
C C Offline
Welcome to SciVillage, Trevor. (As long as you're not another hit-and-run bot or drop a post and vanish for good wayfarer.)
Reply
#3
Secular Sanity Offline
Happy to have you, but don’t expect us to waste our time on your alternative ideas.  They’re shitty.  I remember you from Sciforums.  I even watched your video.  Sorry, but it is what it is—bad.

I’m sure you have something else to offer, though.

Enjoy your stay, Trevor!  Smile
Reply
#4
stryder Offline
(Aug 3, 2017 08:24 PM)trevorjohnson Wrote: Space time is made up of an inactive field of a conductive grid, it only becomes active when energy acts on it. A second component of space time are blocks that line the grid. These void blocks, as I call them, are also made of an conductive grid much smaller and only become active when acted upon by matter. 

The smallest particles of matter, such as protons and neutrons, are made of extremely dense substance of space time. Their density puts a squeezing force in the surrounding space time they exist in. The force is stronger the closer to the particle. This causes a gravity field. When a gravity field touches another gravity field, the same squeezing force of space time on space time applies and the larger gravity field squeezes on the weaker one pulling it harder. Both objects then move towards each other in proportion to there weight.

Electrons and energy are also a squeezing force on space-time. Electrons get caught in electron shells around atoms. They add weight to matter by squeezing on space time and giving the impression of gravity. When they convert into light there weight converts into momentum and the become a stress only on the conductive grid, not on void blocks. Magnetism is a flowing of space time and its field doesn't create gravity either. A magnet acts like a fan for the conductive grid of space, seen by the repulsion of two north or south ends. The electrons in the magnet all circle in the same direction which acts as the fan for the conductive grid.

When someone posts something like this on a forum, I understand the potential of their intent.  Perhaps they feel they've found something out that no one else has and need to output it for a mixture of their own fear that it will be lost and perhaps even a little because they feel that the universe hinges on it. Perhaps they share it because they want to hash it out a little more with people that are either like minded or far more equipped in the field that they've chosen in the hope that they can gleam further insight into something that's of interest to them.

The problem of course is the scientific world can have some very elitist people that like to look forwards in regards to what they are working on, rather than attempt to engage people that they feel have stumbled at the first hurdle (Understanding the basic principles and history of Physics)

It is however difficult to interact on a topic that your not an authority on (in essence there isn't an authority, just empirical result from continued research and testing and the observations of a consensus.) Not everyone is an observer (Observing the research direct), some do just blindly follow suit which again makes any discourse awkward. (It's what relegates  science forums to trolling.)

On the subject at hand:
I would say a lot of what you have written is absent of clarity, how I mean is that as you write you have an intention to express into words something that is technically a very complex puzzle.  As you launch into an explanation, you'll find yourself skipping words or coming across as "Word salad" where your sentiments aren't fully understood.  This is common when someone tries to jump the gun and just expresses a conclusion, the problem of course is that science requires all leg's of that journey to be fully documented, fully explored and fully understood.

So what I suggest doing is roll back how you got your conclusions, place them into a systematic framework (What comes first? What needs a full in-depth exploration in prior to other observations/statements? What audience do you intend to explain this to?)  Don't just break it down into a write up or statement, but actually explore each step individually.

This is where Sources/References are utilised.  Since while Science uses replication of research to calibrate what is empirically true, there is a point where replication of results becomes redundant at which point such research discontinues testing that subject and relegates it as being true (And therefore something sourced and Referable).  The only time this fails though is when our methods and technologies of research change over time, then some of the things we originally assumed to be true were actually "false positives".

So with that in mind, perhaps we should look at the initial point... What is space time?

Spacetime (wikipedia.org)
(warning: Never use wiki as a scientific reference in a paper, the reason for this is that it can and will constantly be edited and not necessarily by people that are knowledgeable on the subject.)

Quote:In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur.

So in essence it's just a model for measurement of Three Dimensional space and Time.  Therefore Spacetime itself isn't an "inactive field of a conductive grid", however it doesn't mean you can't map a field in Spacetime.

(This one entry to your first paragraph is technically enough to get the elitists to want to ignore the rest of the paragraph (and subject) and enough of an error to get trolls to want to bite.)

It's known in the soft sciences, that "To Err is Huamn" (and yes that is purposely misspelt)  So if you get something wrong, then you should have the opportunity to have another go to correct yourself.  So have another look at what you've concluded, read further on the subject from established sources and then try testing/applying what you learn against what you've established as principles common to yourself.

If you can do that, then you should find that you can engage respectable people in the topic who are knowledgeable on the subject.

Other than that, Enjoy Scivillage.com!
Reply
#5
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Aug 3, 2017 08:24 PM)trevorjohnson Wrote: Space time is made up of an inactive field of a conductive grid, it only becomes active when energy acts on it. A second component of space time are blocks that line the grid. These void blocks, as I call them, are also made of an conductive grid much smaller and only become active when acted upon by matter. 
 
The smallest particles of matter, such as protons and neutrons, are made of extremely dense substance of space time. Their density puts a squeezing force in the surrounding space time they exist in. The force is stronger the closer to the particle. This causes a gravity field. When a gravity field touches another gravity field, the same squeezing force of space time on space time applies and the larger gravity field squeezes on the weaker one pulling it harder. Both objects then move towards each other in proportion to there weight.
 
Electrons and energy are also a squeezing force on space-time. Electrons get caught in electron shells around atoms. They add weight to matter by squeezing on space time and giving the impression of gravity. When they convert into light there weight converts into momentum and the become a stress only on the conductive grid, not on void blocks. Magnetism is a flowing of space time and its field doesn't create gravity either. A magnet acts like a fan for the conductive grid of space, seen by the repulsion of two north or south ends. The electrons in the magnet all circle in the same direction which acts as the fan for the conductive grid.

how does geometric force relate to straight lines as a process of correlative conductivity of forces ?

added.. assumedly 2 transient points correlate as polar thus negating the dimensional geometric force to form a polar point which in turn then re-defines the geometric force into straight lines which in turn then conflict with the attomic directional flow of force...
unles you assert the nature of the underlying force to be individual spinning insular forces that just happen to allign polar to leave a vacuos proces of liniar nature(which would seem to suggest a concept of hyper space and somewhat pure conjecture of theory).

while i do not state an opinion to say straight lines are not possible, straight lines as a formation of space does tend to suggest to be somewhat secondary and purely relative to geometric force.
Reply
#6
Zinjanthropos Offline
Whew! I counted 23 claims in those three paragraphs. I do think that if you are going to state your scientific facts then it might be a good idea to back them up with evidence or citation.

This is a small point but if you want to sound legitimate then I think it helps to know when to use the word 'there' and its soundalike cousin 'their'.
Reply
#7
C C Offline
I suspect it's all wasted effort, anyway, whether one is being diplomatically welcoming or candid. Lately it seems like saying "Howdy" in any way at all sends them to flight. Maybe too many Yank accents in here confusing them, causing them to think they took a wrong turn back at Kent Hill Park.

- - -
Reply
#8
RainbowUnicorn Offline
which reminds me of hyperbolic wave theory for multi verse matter creation.
i think brian green & michio kaku make some interesting comments about this theory.
for those not too familair this is effectively where matter is created by the intersection of 2 different universes which tends to also relate to bubble universe theory.
Reply
Reply
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)