Time Machine

E=mc2Should be seen as Energy [total]= the mass of an object times the energy [1] times the energy [2] that binds that energy [1]I often hear that the 'C' equals the speed of light therefore has a time constituent, but no, in this case, the 'C' in Einstein equation is just a convenient way to encase energy in its purest form.Nothing I have said here either contradicts Einstein.I use time in my work, but like Einstein I know it is merely something to hang my work on, it gives order but plays no other part at all.[This message has been edited by V-Bird, 03-28-2004]

Therefore as there is no time to travel back in, just your version of what is extent, you can entirely dismiss any thoughts of time travel.The only way is forward, and you can fast-forward, this is times arrow, a dreadful term but one that for the time-being I'll leave alone and intact.

Because everything thing that can be said to have existence has energy either bound or un-bound. Everything else is imaginery.For example, I have in my mind an image of the Horse-head nebula, you too have this image now I hope, is what you are seeing in your minds eye real or imaginery, does it have substance?A dream is no different, speculation too for that matter, now take that image and change it to the image of God, do it slowly incrementally and what have you done?You have done exactly the same thing as some people do when they imagine time is real and space is real.A construct can be manipulated all you wish, physical things can't be.In reality you cannot change what is not there, outer-space is as close as we get to having a nothingness, it is not a complete nothingness as it has energy passing thru it. [that is what differentiates outer-space from the great void]That energy is the purest and least 'tainted' of all, light.

I was trying to take it step by step in an attempt to see where the chasm is.Both are forms of energy, do you agree with that?'' That isn't what you said, though. ''It is what I have been saying all along.The four forces are part of EMR. They are in balance within EMR.See my message '53'.In light, the wave is a simple sine wave, now the strong force is held in check by being at 180deg to the movement, this is the 'spin' of quantum maths, the dips of their movement coincide and the crests depart./\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\= EMR
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/= the strong force held in check.The above ignores the weak force and gravity for the moment./\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\= EMR
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\= the strong force.This turn or spin creates matter, by bending it.So light looks like this head on...|
|matter looks like this||gravity loks like this|_or_|The weak force is merely the 'phasing' of the sine wave. [Which I can't contrive to form in the above manner.]Any clearer?

In what respect is this 'wrong'?I am trying to explain a multi-dimensional phenomena in just two.I know that spin etc are more complex, but in the final picture what I have explained here is what happens.There is no profundity in this, it is merely an explanation.If, the four forces are not part of EMR, please tell me where you believe they derive their energy from to form matter.

If they were the same thing yes, but the strong force is the equal and opposite.

I am fascinated as to where Sylas believes the four forces eminate?, where do they appear from?, how do they turn EMR into matter?The four forces in my model are within and journey with the EMR.They have to journey with it as they certainly can't 'catch up' with it and then manipualte it, now can they?

I am describing exactly what Einstein and Feynman produced a long time ago.Neither, if they were alive and up to speed with modern Physics, would have too much trouble with anything I have stated, the former would probably be aghast at my simplifications the latter would do it a whole lot better.

I think I have explained much more than anyone here has so far their opposing views.So far I have had 'bullshit' succinct but valueless, 'some nut called Zharkov' wrong but no withdrawal, 'plain wrong' with nothing more so far... altho I do believe that Sylas won't leave it there.
----Reading is not always understanding.If, after all this you believe that time exists as anything other than a construct or that space is something real and mutable then sadly you will not have understood either Einstein or Feynman, no matter how much you may have and still do read their work.[This message has been edited by V-Bird, 03-29-2004]

OK, you just don't understand what I am saying?So...let's return to the blow by blow method of finding the chasm...Do you understand that Time has no physical substance?...that Space has no physical substance?...that everything that exists is formed from energy?...that energy is acted upon from within to make matter, gravity and decay?...that the four fundemental forces are present within EMR?...Energy is simply movement?If you answer all those positively then there is no opposing views just a difficulty in language.

'' Does anybody? ''Hopefully some, but obviously not you.'' Most of the rest of your message is just a list of unsupported assertions. ''Assertions tend not to have question marks following them, they are simple questions, the next question is do you agree with these ''assertions'' or not?I have had a quick look and have found the simplest expalnation on the net [maybe] have a look...Forbidden Fix link. --Admin[This message has been edited by V-Bird, 03-29-2004][This message has been edited by Admin, 03-29-2004]

Or from the 'other side'...Telenor | Sidan hittades inte | 404[This message has been edited by V-Bird, 03-29-2004]

First...Does anone on this forum believe that 'time' and 'space' are real, mutable objects?Second...Where do the 'gluons', 'bosons' and ''gravitons'' derive their energy and where do they reside?

'' The forces arise from particle interactions; ''Agreed, but where did the particles come from, what energy formed them.The building block for all particles is energy... pure energy... EMR.The rest is fine and agrees with all I have posted on those particular matters.Unification is something I keep right away from unless moved to comment, I believe it is some way off as there is much to 'overturn' before it could be accepted, the answer I feel is likely to be the cause of much angst and I don't believe that the proposers will get any recognition in their lifetime, it has to be radical as we are at a dead-end at the moment and some of the very basic tenets are likely quite wrong.Just my opinion...

Yeah, I thought you might like the first link... hahahaha The second is not so easily dismissed, and contains a kernel of truth.[Hence my 'from the other side' remark.]Comprehending nonsense is not a gift, it's a curse.The gift is to blow away the chaff, not the wheat.Einstein did not get everything right and is not beyond scrutiny, scientific endeavour is never really finished, even an apparent '.' rarely is anything as such.