I have a theory on gravity, light, creation of the universe, atoms, and how it all started.


In the beginning the earth was void and without form. There was no matter at all. Then GOD said “Let there be light”.

This was the start of the big bang, but not the creation of matter. When you put a glass of water outside on a hot day, condensation starts to form on the outside of glass. This is also true for light or “energy” in the vast void of space. The “energy” is hot as all forms of energy are, and the void of space is cold as we can prove today. This difference in temperature formed a layer of condensation on the expanding energy. Energy expands, because there is no opposition in the void of space; energy is created and expands in a specific pattern of creation. This condensation is the creation of matter, or condensed energy.

The ball of expanding energy is now surrounded by a layer of condensation in the sea of cold space. The condensed energy on the outside of this bubble starts to freeze, like all water does in a freezer. The energy keeps expanding and pushes on the frozen walls; this compression gives us all of the natural elements on the period table. Compression continues until the frozen walls can no longer contain the creation of energy.

The big bang starts with a crack, and then, condensed energy is separated by the expanding creation of “free” energy. Thus the world of physics begins. Gravity, light, elements, motion, quantum mechanics, and the rest of the laws of physics now apply. All theories of physics can be done away with; this way there’s no misunderstanding of the basics. Gravity is the difference between the expanding rate of “free” energy compared to the expanding rate of condensed energy. “Free” energy expands faster than condensed energy, thus a higher pressure pushes you down to a lower pressure. This gravity is the same in space as on earth.

Light is nothing more than a wave that travels through the creation of energy. The reason light is a constant speed is because the conductor that it travels through is created in a consistent pattern. Light cannot be slowed down or sped up because only GOD can create or destroy energy.

The elements were formed from the compression of condensed energy. The heaviest elements were on the inside wall receiving the most pressure and the lightest elements were on the outside wall of the expanding ball. Until it exploded, then they were scattered throughout the universe.

Atoms do exist of a proton and a neutron nucleus, but the electrons do not move around the nucleus. The electrons are the expanding “free” energy that is called the pattern of creation. The electrons are still created in a pattern, and then they expand, just like they did in the beginning.

Using this thought process answers questions that scientists can't.

I have removed this from Neried's thread and started it's own, as it should be. Please try not to hijack existing threads with your ATM ideas in the future. Please PM a mod if you wish to have a title change.

Also note you are required to answer all direct and pertinent questions directed to you. "I don't know" is an acceptable question.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

This is a good example of a "creation myth" that might impress some primitive tribe on an isolated island in the middle of the Pacific. It's based entirely on analogy, and unfortunately, not even a very good analogy.

Actually, most of the "events" you mention have been painstakingly figured out to an increasing degree of accuracy over the last century by learned and thoughtful physicists and astronomers. Their "figuring" is based on observations repeatable by anyone, whereas your explanation is apparently based on imagination alone.

The true story, now robust but always in development, is actually much more beautiful and interesting than your imaginary one. You might start your more serious investigation into "gravity, light, atoms, and how it all started..." by checking out Weinberg's The First Three Minutes. There have been quite a few new discoveries since he wrote that in the 80s, but it provides a good foundation for finding out what contemporary science has come to understand lately.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

The "In the beginning" thing was dealing with the Earth, not the universe.
But I get the point.

Could energy have predated the Big Bang?
A popular phrase I've heard suggests that it did.

"No free lunch".

If there was a Bang then the energy had to come from somewhere to make it.
If energy is released from an atom then how could it get there unless it was by the activity of yet MORE energy?
Again, "No free lunch."

So the concept of "condensed" energy has at least some philosophical validity for me.

Of course, that implies that all matter is energy and all energy is matter.
There is a seemingly infinite number of states of matter according to the level of density.

It's somewhere right about here that I ask myself, "Is Light matter?", and my head explodes.

Maybe somebody that has devoted their life's time to the questions can get there mind around that, but I can't.
Not unless they can explain it to me.

Rebel said, "Using this thought prosses answers questions that scientists can't."

I don't understand that conclusion.
If anything, it makes the Universe more difficult.
We're stuck in a "go with what you know" position.
Trying to make sense of something with countless, undetectable properties doesn't sound any easier to me.

[QUOTE=David Mc;973275]

Could energy have predated the Big Bang?
A popular phrase I've heard suggests that it did.

David Mc,
The creation of energy was the first step in the creation of the universe. Without the condensation of energy there can be no dispacement or gravity.

Not all matter is energy and all energy is matter. Energy is either condensed(matter), or it is free(expanding). All matter is condensed energy and expands at a slower rate than "free energy".

Light is not mass, light is a wave that travels in the pattern of creation or the "free energy". The pattern of creation is constant, therefore the speed of light is constant.

I urge questions, because it is so hard to forget years of learning the wrong information.

[QUOTE=David Mc;973275]The "In the beginning" thing was dealing with the Earth, not the universe.
But I get the point.

David Mc,
"In the beginning" was the start of the universe, all the pieces of condensed energy formed stars and satalites including the Earth.

Did you just make that up, or did you read it somewhere?

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

It all (as usual) comes down to baseball.

"In the big inning..."

The Red Sox proved this again this past weekend for the umpteenth time.

Personally, I'm more interested in the recreation of the Universe. I'd like to see what It does with Its time off.

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

Maksutov,


Yes, I did derive most of my information from the Bible. Other factors that influenced my thought process were: nature, supporting facts, existing laws, and common sense.

The Creation Of The Universe can't take a day off. The instant "free energy" slowed, then light would slow down, and the difference in displacement would be less, causing less gravity.

sorry about my paper up there, I can't seem to indent the left margins. That sure would make it less confusing to read.

I'm reminded of a freshman English essay: the parts that are good are not very original and the parts that are original are not very good.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

The thing is, that you first have to prove that the current theory is wrong, or at least provide some strong evidence that yours is better.

Neither common sense nor the bible constitute any form of proof whatsoever. Supporting facts are, however I have not seen any of them in your posts so far.

__________________
But you're sure the astronauts are lying; you just don't seem to know what they're lying about: Jayutah


I are Learnding.

Let's start with this.

The condensation of water on a glass only occurs when the water is colder than the atmosphere. Also the amount of relative humidity is also taken into account and the glass itself serves as the condensation nuclei. Here are some questions I have.


What is the condensation nuclei for the "energy", can it condense on a void because the condensation of water must have a nuclei?

Where is the condensation nuclei in the void, how is it measure, is it homgenous?

If the energy is expanding at the speed of light, how can any process condense energy onto the outside shell of the expanding "ball"? (note that the ball of energy has to represent the warmer water vapor condensing upon the colder void in order for your analogy to move beyond this point.)

I will stop here for now.

Bigsplit,

Thanks for asking questions, I think the other guys belong on ATM, because they sure don't ask questions.

Water forms as condensation because there is a layer of insulation between two different temperatures. This formation of insulation means that passivation needs to exist between the two different temperatures. Nature's example of passivation is the rainbow; you can't look at a rainbow and tell that exact point where red becomes orange; because passivation has already occurred in the light spectrum. Is a rainbow "proof" of passivation?

Condensed Energy is all matter or the nucleus of all atoms. The passivation process starts as soon as two differences in temperature react with one another. Just like the cold glass of water on a hot day. Is condensation on a glass "proof" of passivation? Before the temperature of anything can change there is a certain amount of time that must go by before it is completely changed called a latent period. There is an example of it when "the bomb" was drop on Japan. The people standing by a bridge left there outlines on the bridge, because the temperature in front of them was different than the temperature behind them. Does the "proof" of latent heat and a latent period "prove" that there was an allotted amount of time for passivation to occur once hot energy was introduced to the cold of space?

Sorry, I couldn't find the meaning of homgenous, at least it wasn't in my dictionary.

I believe that the passivation explained how condensed energy got onto the outside of the expanding ball of free energy.

I kept putting "proof" in there for the people who don't like to ask questions, but ask for "proof". Hopefully they will let me know exactly what they need "proof" of.

Please, keep asking questions. Did you mean homogenous?

You may want to brush up, rebel, on what constitutes "proof"

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

moderator,

Is "proof" information gather by expermintation, that can be readily repeated by anyone?

How long ago did this "creation event" occur under your model?

You have all the elements being created right at the start, how do you explain the relative abundance and the distribution of the different elements with your model?

Inflation theory > your theory.

Bearded One,

The great thing about not being against the mainstream is that you can use the hard work done by others. At last check it started about 13.7 billion years ago.

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

latent period
n 1: the time that elapses between a stimulus and the response to
it [syn: reaction time, response time, latency]

By using the dictionary, you can see that there is a specific amout of time that must go by after a stimulus is "injected".

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

stimulus
n : any stimulating information or event; acts to arouse action
[syn: stimulation, stimulant, input]

Again, and a stimulus is any act to arouse action.

If, you can agree that introducing "light" or the electron to a cold vast space is a stimulating action (with the mainstream). Then by definition a latent period occurred.

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

insulator
n : a material such as glass or porcelain with negligible
electrical or thermal conductivity [syn: dielectric, nonconductor]
[ant: conductor]

Since, electromagnetic waves and light both travel at appx. 670 million mph, then(by the use of my model) it would be safe to say that the electron "free energy" is an insulator that negligiblely conducts them both.

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

conductivity
n : the transmission of heat or electricity or sound [syn: conduction]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Insulator \In"su*la`tor\, n.
1. One who, or that which, insulates.

Within this amount of time(latent period) an insulating layer of condensation began to build on the expanding energy. Natures example of this is the cold glass of water on a hot day.

Now, since all mass contains atoms, the condensed energy "atoms" begins to freeze as the expanding ball grows. Eventually the condensation freezes completely. Once again there is a latent period of time before the complete ball has a chance to freeze. Starting now until the explosion, the atoms on the inside layer of this ball are being crushed together by the expansion of electrons. This crushing pressure squeezes the elements together, the more dense substances are on the inside of the wall. Once the frozen ball can't handle the pressure it shatters, scattering elements "atoms" everywhere.

I could have "proven" more in my last paragraph, but I figured most of us are fimiliar with expanding pressures, crystalization, exertion of pressure, and the periodic table of the elements.

I would suspect so, yes.

__________________
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!"

(my bold)

Do you mean 'theory', as in 'speculative idea', or 'guess'?

Or do you mean scientific theory?

If the latter, please provide at least one reference, to a paper published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal, which presents details of this theory.

Bearded One,

Cockcroft and Walton demonstrated, in 1932, that energy was equal to mass times the square of the speed of light. This also proved energy and mass to be homogeneous. The following is a quote from Einstein...

"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."

Nereid,

I don't read many papers or journals, but I'm sure Einstein published a few. My theory is the "same" as his. We both beleive that E=mc-squared.... I don't have a squared key.

from my previous writings E="free energy", the electron
M="condenced energy", the atom, matter, mass
C="pattern of creation", expansion of "free energy",
and the speed of light.

It's good that you have tried to answer my question.

However, it seems that I still don't know whether what you have posted is a scientific theory - one which has been written up and published in peer-reviewed papers, in relevant journals - or not.

Have you published this 'theory' of yours in a peer-reviewed journal, or not? A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice (and if 'yes', then please provide a reference).

Let me try a different question: Other than in your posts in this thread, where may anyone interested in learning more about this 'theory' of yours go (to learn more)? Specifically, where can freely accessible material on this 'theory' be found (other than in this thread)?

Nereid,

No.

Anyone interested in learning more of "my" theory need only substitute the proper "labels" into the proper equations.

Fe=Ce(Ee multiplied by Rc) same as E=mc-squared

the only difference between the two equations is that I show you what the variables stand for. I show why c-squared is light speed times two. I can show you in a model where E and m are represented by true factors, not just numbers.

First of all, do you mean times two, or squared? These are vastly different concepts. Second, what do you mean by true factors?

How could these speculative ideas of yours be tested?

Specifically, what quantitative predictions of observable phenomena can be objectively made that would be different from the corresponding predictions made from GR or the Standard Model?

As BAUT is focussed on astronomy and space, please try to provide examples relevant to astronomical phenomena.

cjl and nereid,

I mean (Rc times Ee)= 670 million mph times 670 million mph, C-squared....I wish I had a scientific keyboard.

The speed that light travels and the speed that electromagnetic waves travel are both 670 million mph. This has already been measured no more experimental test are necessary to prove this fact.

As I've been trying to explain: the "rate of creation" and the "expansion of free energy" are the same.

Nereid,

Waves flow threw or in a conductor, this has been proven.

Different conductors produce different wave speeds, this has been proven.

quan·ti·ta·tive
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: 'kwän-t&-"tA-tiv
Etymology: Medieval Latin quantitativus, from Latin quantitat-, quantitas quantity
1 : of, relating to, or expressible in terms of quantity
2 : of, relating to, or involving the measurement of quantity or amount
3 : based on quantity ; specifically of classical verse : based on temporal quantity or duration of sounds

Quantitative predictions of observable phenomena have already been made just not torward this model. They are the same qauntities in both my model and the standard one, exept.... they were lead to believe that gravity is a pull to the center of mass. Mine shows that gravity is a dispacement of electrons and mass.

The periodic table of the elements prove that there are electrons surrounding every atom. Recently sciece has taken a step into the right direction and eliminated the term "shell" around an atom. My model shows that the electrons are created in a specific pattern throughout the universe and atoms, no matter where they are, displace them.

And yes, there are some relatively easy experiments that would prove my theory against the standard one. Proof that gravity is stronger as you go away from mass, not closer.

Well, then, your idea has already been disproven; congratulations.

__________________
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!"