mugaliens, that's an obvious typo.

As almost everyone knows, we spammed into existence five minutes ago. That's all there is on the menu.

For rebel, please provide verifiable objective evidence that E = MC² is incorect.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

No, you just think that, because we all sprang into existence with our memories intact. You remember your 34 years because They (TM) want you to.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

You guys definitely know how to do what I need to do, but your moving way to fast.

How do you use the vbcode functions?

Maksutov,

Anyone that has access to a pressurize room can physically prove that the expansion of energy is greater as you move away from (the Earth) mass.

gravity is a displacement of mass in an ocean of expanding energy.

Anyway I'm proving that E=MC^2 is correct, and I'm also showing what it means.

equations of mathematical proof.

Fe=Ce(Rc*Ep)

Ep=(Fe/Ce)/Rc

Ce=(Fe/Rc)*Ep

Rc*Ep=Fe/Ce

Rc=(Fe/Ce)/Ep

abbreviations stand for:

Fe= the number of electrons, "free energy"

Ce= the weight of mass or the nuclei, "condensed energy"

Rc= the rate the electrons are created, "rate of creation"

Ep= the measured amount of force caused by the expansion of electrons, "energy pressure".

Those equations go along with my theory from beginning to end!

I bet if scientists put Fe-Ce= to dark matter and Ep= to Dark energy into there equations of the standard "universal cosmology model" that it would make a lot more sense.

You need to start looking at the links. Hornblower has a link to a great thread, there are links to be found on the thread Nereid linked to earlier, and if you look around on the regular BAUT page you should see a link to the vbcode faq. Here's the link on the faq:

http://www.bautforum.com/misc.php?do=bbcode

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

There is a lot of signature lines and one liners that mention some "personal opinions", but my theory is backed by mathematical proof and years of measured phenomena.

The standard model still doesn't explain why a compass works in space, but mine does.

My model even shows mathematically how the universe can be expanding and the gravity or dispacement is still the same.

This model, explaining the existence of GOD; is much more dependable when it comes down to getting answers, unlike the standard model which only leads to more questions and more theories.

Nereid,

The only inconsistencies between Newton's understanding of gravity and mine is the definition of gravity, the facts are still the same.

Nereid,

Gravity is a displacement of mass (Ce )in a sea of (Fe). The pressure that is felt by mass (Ce), because of this displacement; is greater as you get away from Ce. Ep, energy pressure is what is greater as you get farther away from mass.

The periodic table shows how many electrons surround each atom. Notice that the farther you get away from the nucleus the more electrons there are.

Ep=(Fe/Ce)/Rc

With the use of this equation (same as post #58), you can see that the number of electrons (Fe) are proportional to the amount of energy pressure (Ep). Thus, the farther you get from mass the greater the gravity.

How far in space?

In something like LEO, a compass works because it is still going off of the earth's magnetic field lines. If you mean at interplanetary distances, a compass does not work, at least not in any meaningful way. It will simply spin based on the most prevalent magnetic field in the region. All of this is explained perfectly by standard theories.

cjl,

Yes, but how does the standard model explain how magnetic lines travel through empty space?

Before science came up with more theories of "dark energy" and "dark matter" how did they say the magnetic lines traveled through space? I beleive this is the moment when space was thought to be empty.

Do you know what year this compass experiment took place? Was there another experiment envolving two bricks set in space that slowly moved closer together and then stopped?

Oughtn't you research that on your own?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

This is what the Q&A section is for. why not ask there?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Magnetic lines are simply human constructs to better understand the magnetic field surrounding an object. Standard theory explains magnetic force quite well, and it is not up to us to explain to you all of the portions of the model you are attempting to debunk. It is up to you to research those yourself.

I'm sorry, those questions weren't for my benefit. They were to remind you that the standard model, that is called mainstream, contradicts itself constantly.

For instance: The mainstream can't even decide if light is mass or not. There misunderstanding of gravity, light, and the atom confuses them and causes more questions than answers.

Using my model doesn't contradict anything that I've said and it answers questions about gravity, light, and the atom. This model shows how light can be affected by mass (or gravity) and also shows that it's a wave that travels in Fe.

The only use for the mainstream theory are the values that have been measured throughout the universe and these values can be used in my model to calculate equations with numbers instead of variables.

There is nothing in the mainstream theory that can't be explained better by using my model.

I'm not trying to debunk anything. I'm trying to prove the truth, if that happens to disprove something else; then so be it.

I had the feeling that everyone coming to this forum was interest in finding out the truth about the universe and how we could all use it's "power" to benefit us all, but reading some of the comments of others shows me that it's more of a tug-of-war. Everyone should be focused on helping me to prove this theory not disproving it with more theories.

I guess I'll stop asking questions if no one wants to participate in the rebuttal of this conversation!

Well, they failed rather miserably in that goal, as the mainstream model does not contradict itself in that area. This simply shows how little you know about this subject, and why you need to look into it more before criticizing it.

Please demonstrate. All we currently have from you is handwaving and wild claims.

cjl,

The equations that I have posted on this thread are hardly wild claims. My theory of the creation of the universe is scientifically possible and doesn't need 75 different theories to explain how the universe works.

Here's a demonstration! Light is supposed to be a proton because gravity can affect its direction. Now, there is at least 3 different theories in that statement.

Using only one theory, the one disclosed at the top of this post, I can explain light and how gravity affects its direction. Light is a wave that travels in the expansion of the electrons. Light (as a wave) is pushed into a lower expansion rate (mass) by the higher expansion rate of the free electrons. This is observed as light being turned toward planets and black holes. If a higher pressure pushing something to a lower pressure is a wild claim, then I'm in the wrong forum. If you would look into what I've been writing all this time, you would see that everything in my model is scientifically possible, is easier to understand, and uses the same information to prove all natural phenomena in the universe.

I might be going out on a limb, but I believe one theory should explain it all instead of at least 50 of them that are backed up by more theories.

I wish I could get my drawings to this forum, it is so much easier to understand what I'm saying when you can see it in action.

Here's another demonstration using the same theory. Centrifical force is caused when an object is motion. When an object spins (for instance) the atoms on the outer edge spin faster than the ones in the center. Since the atoms on the outer edge are spinning faster, they are interfering with the creation and expansion of more electrons than the center. This causes the energy pressure to be lower on the outer edge, thus if your sitting in the center of a merry-go-round; you are pushed to the outer edge by a higher pressure in the center. The faster the object spins, the more atoms that are pushed to the outer edge, and the more electrons (energy pressure) are interfered with (reduced).

Ep=(Fe/Ce)/Rc

This explains centrifical force using my equations and my theory of the creation of the universe. There are no contradiction no faults and no other theories involved.

I would be more than happy to demonstrate farther if you would let me know exactly what your interested in.

If by "facts" you mean well-established observational and experimental results, may one conclude, from your statement, that your idea has been shown to be inconsistent with the way the universe 'works' by the millions of observations that are consistent with the theory of General Relativity (GR), but inconsistent with "Newton's understanding of gravity"?

More directly, that your idea cannot account for things like gravitational lensing, the Shapiro time delay, gravitational redshift, and the 'advance' of the perihelion of Mercury?

Amusing, naive, and ridiculous. Aside from bad spelling, grammar, logical disconnects, inability to distinguish fact from fiction, remain focused on a single concept for more than a sentence or two; rebel, I think you might be onto something.

Well, rather than spouting random claims, useless equations, and the like, provide examples of exactly how your theories work. Note that this would include samples of how your equations would be solved for specific cases, and how they accurately represent reality.

Are you trying to represent standard theory here? There definitely isn't anything in standard theories that claims light is made of protons...


No, the wild claim is that you can simply make broadly generalized equations, without even units, and no sample solutions that demonstrate the way in which they actually predict numerically (and agree with observation), rather than continuing with your unsubstantiated assertions. You can spout all the jargon you want, but it is meaningless without working equations that agree with the observed properties of the universe.

Scientists would love it if there was only one theory that explained everything. However, you have yet to make a viable, testable theory, so this is irrelevant.

You could post them to a site like photobucket and link there from the forum...

This is all fine and good, but it does not fit with some fairly well observed phenomena.

Units?

There are also no units, and there is also no possible way to use this theory, nor is there evidence to back it up. That makes it rather useless at this point from a scientific standpoint...

I would be rather interested in equations that work, as well as samples of how you would use your equations to predict the behavior of the universe (and how it agrees with the observed properties).

Nereid,

According to the Wikipedia:"A gravitational lens is formed when the light from a very distant, bright source (such as a quasar) is "bent" around a massive object (such as a massive galaxy) between the source object and the observer. The process is known as gravitational lensing".

I accounted for this when I explained that light travels in the medium of the expansion of energy. I said that Ep (energy pressure) is greater as you go farther away from an object. Witch means the greater pressure pushes (or bends) light toward mass (such as a quasars). Thus the observer would have experienced gravitational lensing.

According to the Wikipedia:
"The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar system tests of General relativity. Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return (as measured by the observer) than it would if the mass of the object were not present."

This was accounted for when I explained that light and electromagnetic waves both travel in the same conductor (or medium) and both travel at the same speed. When light or electromagnetic waves are affected by Ep (or gravity), then they bend. Everyone knows that the quickest path between two points is in a straight line, so when they are bent; the amount of time it takes to send or receive the radar signal is delayed. Oh by the way, and the wikipedia also states: "Radar is a system that uses electromagnetic waves to identify the range, altitude, direction, or speed of both moving and fixed objects such as aircraft, ships, motor vehicles, weather formations, and terrain".

According to the Wikipedia:"In physics, light loses energy when it moves away from a massive body such as a star or a black hole; this effect reveals itself as a gravitational redshift in the frequency of the light, and is observable as a shift of spectral lines towards the longer, or "red," end of the spectrum".

I've been accounting for this over and over. Once again, Ep (energy pressure) is greater as you get farther away from mass (such as a star, black hole, or quasar). As light moves away from mass it loses energy, because the pressure (or resistance, or gravity) is greater. The Wikipedia states that:"The receiving end of the light transmission must be located at a higher gravitational potential in order for gravitational redshift to be observed. In other words, the observer must be standing "uphill" from the source". Now, isn't going "uphill" an example of a higher pressure or more resistance?

I haven't really touched on the subject concerning the "advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Although I have mentioned it back post #37 of this thread. #4.) more than two objects but less than every object in the universe.

I know it's hard to understand, but it's only because you've been learning the wrong information for years. It would be much easier to teach someone who isn't brainwashed by science books.

cjl,

Sorry, my typo I meant to type photon. Two letters make a big difference!

If you've read my theory at the top of this post you know my belief on mass being condensed energy. Here's some measured values to go with my equations: Energy = 1 kg x (the speed of light in meters/second)2
Energy = 1 x 300,000,0002
Energy = 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules (a metric energy unit)

This is equivalent to 25,000,000,000 kWh (kiloWatt hours) of electricity, or 25 billion kWh. This is enough electricity to power 47,564,688 60-watt light bulbs for an entire year. Thus, it is quite easy to see that just one kilogram of matter is equivalent to an enormous amount of energy.

My only complaint with this mainstream equation E=MC^2 is the speed of light ^2 is actual the rate of creation multiplied by the expansion rate of the electrons. The answers come out the same because the rate of creation of the universe and the expansion rate of the electrons are both equal to the speed of light. So as you can see, my equations are correct and useful. In fact, the equations are exactly what lead me to my model.

These values and measurements also provide proof that mass is condensed energy, witch further verifies my models solidity.

If I haven't proved some of my wild claims or my useless equations yet, then I don't believe your reading them correctly. Read post #82 addressed to Nereid, it shows how my model and theory support many common natural phenomena.

Thanatos,

Sorry if I'm moving to fast for you, but my single concept is that my model proves that God created the universe. Trying to explain this concept to people that don't believe in creation is not easy.

I also know that I'm on to something.

Please excuse my spelling and grammar, the only time I get to write to this forum is when I'm suppose to be sleeping.

cjl,

You haven't seen anything yet. Wait till we finally get to inventions that are just waiting to be made using my though process and my models equations. Things like a gravitational propulsion unit (GPU), programmable insulation, storm catchers, superconductors, and "time travel" just to name a few. These will have to wait until the basics are learned first, because without the understanding of the basics; the more advanced solutions can't be followed.

Also note that without a valid and well tested set of basics, the advanced solutions mean nothing.

We can agree on that at least.

Superconductors exist, but sure, I'll be happy to wait until you have something to demonstrate.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Hilarious.

Your units still don't work (just as they haven't with any equation you've posted so far), so you equation isn't correct. An expansion rate is a velocity and a creation rate has units of 1/time, so you are still missing a unit of distance (m/s * 1/s = m/s², not m²/s²). Please explain how the square of the speed of light it equal to a velocity times a rate when the units don't add up.

Van Rijn,

[QUOTE][/Superconductors exist, but sure, I'll be happy to wait until you have something to demonstrate.QUOTE]

Yes, very weak forms of superconductors do exist. I'm talking about "real superconductors" that when formed into a coil, continuously emit mega volts of electromagnetic waves.

There are presently 2 types of superconductors, both of witch emity weak electromagnetic waves. Here are the two types:Type 1.)"The Type 1 category of superconductors is mainly comprised of metals and metalloids that show some conductivity at room temperature. They require incredible cold to slow down molecular vibrations sufficiently to facilitate unimpeded electron flow in accordance with what is known as BCS theory. BCS theory suggests that electrons team up in "Cooper pairs" in order to help each other overcome molecular obstacles - much like race cars on a track drafting each other in order to go faster. Scientists call this process phonon-mediated coupling because of the sound packets generated by the flexing of the crystal lattice."

and type 2.)"Except for the elements vanadium, technetium and niobium, the Type 2 category of superconductors is comprised of metallic compounds and alloys. The recently-discovered superconducting "perovskites" (metal-oxide ceramics that normally have a ratio of 2 metal atoms to every 3 oxygen atoms) belong to this Type 2 group. They achieve higher Tc's than Type 1 superconductors by a mechanism that is still not completely understood. Conventional wisdom holds that it relates to the planar layering within the crystalline structure (see above graphic). Although, other recent research suggests the holes of hypocharged oxygen in the charge reservoirs are responsible. (Holes are positively-charged vacancies within the lattice.) The superconducting cuprates (copper-oxides) have achieved astonishingly high Tc's when you consider that by 1985 known Tc's had only reached 23 Kelvin. To date, the highest Tc attained at ambient pressure for a material that will form stoichiometrically (by formula) has been 138 K. And a patent has been applied for a 150K material which does not form stoichiometrically (see below list). One theory predicts an upper limit of about 200 K for the layered cuprates (Vladimir Kresin, Phys. Reports 288, 347 - 1997). Others assert there is no limit. Either way, it is almost certain that other, more-synergistic compounds still await discovery among the high-temperature superconductors."

Previous two paragraphs can from www.superconductors.org

As you may notice type 2 is better than Type 1. Also please notice that type 2 uses 2 metal atoms to every 3 oxygen atoms. Having lighter elements in its compound than type 1.

According to my model atoms displaces Ee (expanding energy) and Ee displaces mass. This means that: THE AMOUNT OF Ee DISPLACED IS EQUAL TO THE ATOMIC WEIGHT OF AN OBJECT.

Using proof from www.superconductors.org they also show that electromagnetic waves have less resistance because the atomic weight is less in type 2. Realizing that gravity is resistance (or displacement) proves that the larger the atomic weight the larger the amount of Ee is displaced, or visa versa, because they are equal. Exactly what I've been saying.

Now back to real superconductors, the electromagnetic waves have no resistance to current flow. Much the same way back in the sixth grade when you wrapped a copper wire around a pencil and continually made millivolts of free power, a real superconductor will continually make megavolt of free power. Using the electromagnetic waves made from the Earth in a vertical direction to cut threw the coil wires that are in a horizontal direction.