|
|
| Author |
Message |
gb6724
science forum Guru
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1119
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:37 am Post subject:
I have found that a looooooooooot of astronomers figured out dark e
|
|
|
The patent is not made as a respect to the scientists having beaten
me
in time. Steven Hawkings was right. The evidence has gathered up and
humanity is reaching a knowledge of starting to understand the origin
of the Universe. The result could have been found almost a 100 years
ago. All the information existed for explaining dark energy back then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gb6724
science forum Guru
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1119
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:02 am Post subject:
Re: I have found that a looooooooooot of astronomers figured out dark e
|
|
|
| Quote: | The patent is not made as a respect to the scientists having beaten
me
in time. Steven Hawkings was right. The evidence has gathered up and
humanity is reaching a knowledge of starting to understand the origin
of the Universe. The result could have been found almost a 100 years
ago. All the information existed for explaining dark energy back then.
|
Rotation, acceleration, einstein's relativity ads mass to acceleration,
and the added mass regarding the rotational swirling energy
acceleration
is the dark energy. If galaxies are accelerated in mass/inertia, then
the accelerated energy applies to all galaxies and the accelerated
state of galaxies repel, right? Because the galaxy already has
9 times more mass energy than its actual mass.
If galaxies are moving away from each other everywhere, than
indeed there was a big bang. This is the current theory of the
Universe.
So the only question remains how did the big bang start, what caused
it? (based on current theories)
I have a theory where all the agreement among science breaks
down, that these theories are all according to Einstein's equiations.
That in reality, Galaxies do not expand, that light redshifts,
and the Universe is a lot older, and galaxies born and die,
and matter comes and goes. Forms out of the plasma of space
and can re-convert to space-time. That in the lack of inertial
energy matter arises from the plasma of space, and in regions
containing high inertial energies matter converts back into
space-time. This theory opposes the common theory that
mass grows with speed, the basic element of Einstein's relativity
theory. This theory has an unusual correlation of speed and
mass, and everything I see about my original theory on
this seems to be a valid model. The relationship of mass
and energy seems to be reversed, that mass dissipates
in high energies, and reaching zero mass at c, the mass
disappears, or the particle becomes equivalent with the
energy of space, and thus annihilates into space, and
vice versa, when inertial energy reaches zero in space,
then the energy becomes equal to a particle formation,
and this relation explains the big bang, but also proves
the classic Einsteinian explanations of relativity incorrect,
or rather a fix toward the Unification Theory, or the theory
of everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb6724
science forum Guru
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1119
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:06 am Post subject:
Re: I have found that a looooooooooot of astronomers figured out dark e
|
|
|
| Quote: | The patent is not made as a respect to the scientists having beaten
me
in time. Steven Hawkings was right. The evidence has gathered up and
humanity is reaching a knowledge of starting to understand the origin
of the Universe. The result could have been found almost a 100 years
ago. All the information existed for explaining dark energy back then.
Rotation, acceleration, einstein's relativity ads mass to acceleration,
and the added mass regarding the rotational swirling energy
acceleration
is the dark energy. If galaxies are accelerated in mass/inertia, then
the accelerated energy applies to all galaxies and the accelerated
state of galaxies repel, right? Because the galaxy already has
9 times more mass energy than its actual mass.
If galaxies are moving away from each other everywhere, than
indeed there was a big bang. This is the current theory of the
Universe.
So the only question remains how did the big bang start, what caused
it? (based on current theories)
I have a theory where all the agreement among science breaks
down, that these theories are all according to Einstein's equiations.
That in reality, Galaxies do not expand, that light redshifts,
and the Universe is a lot older, and galaxies born and die,
and matter comes and goes. Forms out of the plasma of space
and can re-convert to space-time. That in the lack of inertial
energy matter arises from the plasma of space, and in regions
containing high inertial energies matter converts back into
space-time. This theory opposes the common theory that
mass grows with speed, the basic element of Einstein's relativity
theory. This theory has an unusual correlation of speed and
mass, and everything I see about my original theory on
this seems to be a valid model. The relationship of mass
and energy seems to be reversed, that mass dissipates
in high energies, and reaching zero mass at c, the mass
disappears, or the particle becomes equivalent with the
energy of space, and thus annihilates into space, and
vice versa, when inertial energy reaches zero in space,
then the energy becomes equal to a particle formation,
and this relation explains the big bang, but also proves
the classic Einsteinian explanations of relativity incorrect,
or rather a fix toward the Unification Theory, or the theory
of everything.
|
I'll let the astronomists figure it out. Its proven pointless to
swim in the finish line 2 months late. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb6724
science forum Guru
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1119
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:11 am Post subject:
Re: I have found that a looooooooooot of astronomers figured out dark e
|
|
|
| Quote: | The patent is not made as a respect to the scientists having beaten
me
in time. Steven Hawkings was right. The evidence has gathered up and
humanity is reaching a knowledge of starting to understand the origin
of the Universe. The result could have been found almost a 100 years
ago. All the information existed for explaining dark energy back then.
Rotation, acceleration, einstein's relativity ads mass to acceleration,
and the added mass regarding the rotational swirling energy
acceleration
is the dark energy. If galaxies are accelerated in mass/inertia, then
the accelerated energy applies to all galaxies and the accelerated
state of galaxies repel, right? Because the galaxy already has
9 times more mass energy than its actual mass.
If galaxies are moving away from each other everywhere, than
indeed there was a big bang. This is the current theory of the
Universe.
So the only question remains how did the big bang start, what caused
it? (based on current theories)
I have a theory where all the agreement among science breaks
down, that these theories are all according to Einstein's equiations.
That in reality, Galaxies do not expand, that light redshifts,
and the Universe is a lot older, and galaxies born and die,
and matter comes and goes. Forms out of the plasma of space
and can re-convert to space-time. That in the lack of inertial
energy matter arises from the plasma of space, and in regions
containing high inertial energies matter converts back into
space-time. This theory opposes the common theory that
mass grows with speed, the basic element of Einstein's relativity
theory. This theory has an unusual correlation of speed and
mass, and everything I see about my original theory on
this seems to be a valid model. The relationship of mass
and energy seems to be reversed, that mass dissipates
in high energies, and reaching zero mass at c, the mass
disappears, or the particle becomes equivalent with the
energy of space, and thus annihilates into space, and
vice versa, when inertial energy reaches zero in space,
then the energy becomes equal to a particle formation,
and this relation explains the big bang, but also proves
the classic Einsteinian explanations of relativity incorrect,
or rather a fix toward the Unification Theory, or the theory
of everything.
I'll let the astronomists figure it out. Its proven pointless to
swim in the finish line 2 months late.
|
(the way out found out that I am late is that I found chats
among professional astronomers on dark energy conducted
a while ago) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb6724
science forum Guru
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1119
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:20 am Post subject:
Re: I have found that a looooooooooot of astronomers figured out dark e
|
|
|
| Quote: | The patent is not made as a respect to the scientists having beaten
me
in time. Steven Hawkings was right. The evidence has gathered up and
humanity is reaching a knowledge of starting to understand the origin
of the Universe. The result could have been found almost a 100 years
ago. All the information existed for explaining dark energy back then.
Rotation, acceleration, einstein's relativity ads mass to acceleration,
and the added mass regarding the rotational swirling energy
acceleration
is the dark energy. If galaxies are accelerated in mass/inertia, then
the accelerated energy applies to all galaxies and the accelerated
state of galaxies repel, right? Because the galaxy already has
9 times more mass energy than its actual mass.
If galaxies are moving away from each other everywhere, than
indeed there was a big bang. This is the current theory of the
Universe.
So the only question remains how did the big bang start, what caused
it? (based on current theories)
I have a theory where all the agreement among science breaks
down, that these theories are all according to Einstein's equiations.
That in reality, Galaxies do not expand, that light redshifts,
and the Universe is a lot older, and galaxies born and die,
and matter comes and goes. Forms out of the plasma of space
and can re-convert to space-time. That in the lack of inertial
energy matter arises from the plasma of space, and in regions
containing high inertial energies matter converts back into
space-time. This theory opposes the common theory that
mass grows with speed, the basic element of Einstein's relativity
theory. This theory has an unusual correlation of speed and
mass, and everything I see about my original theory on
this seems to be a valid model. The relationship of mass
and energy seems to be reversed, that mass dissipates
in high energies, and reaching zero mass at c, the mass
disappears, or the particle becomes equivalent with the
energy of space, and thus annihilates into space, and
vice versa, when inertial energy reaches zero in space,
then the energy becomes equal to a particle formation,
and this relation explains the big bang, but also proves
the classic Einsteinian explanations of relativity incorrect,
or rather a fix toward the Unification Theory, or the theory
of everything.
I'll let the astronomists figure it out. Its proven pointless to
swim in the finish line 2 months late.
(the way out found out that I am late is that I found chats
among professional astronomers on dark energy conducted
a while ago)
|
Just to fix Einstein's mistake of E=mc2
m becomes zero at c velocity.
m becomes infinity at 0 velocity.
Einstein's E only applies to c and keeps an equal relation between E
and m,
while m has the above variation depending on velocity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb6724
science forum Guru
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1119
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:22 am Post subject:
Re: I have found that a looooooooooot of astronomers figured out dark e
|
|
|
| Quote: | The patent is not made as a respect to the scientists having beaten
me
in time. Steven Hawkings was right. The evidence has gathered up and
humanity is reaching a knowledge of starting to understand the origin
of the Universe. The result could have been found almost a 100 years
ago. All the information existed for explaining dark energy back then.
Rotation, acceleration, einstein's relativity ads mass to acceleration,
and the added mass regarding the rotational swirling energy
acceleration
is the dark energy. If galaxies are accelerated in mass/inertia, then
the accelerated energy applies to all galaxies and the accelerated
state of galaxies repel, right? Because the galaxy already has
9 times more mass energy than its actual mass.
If galaxies are moving away from each other everywhere, than
indeed there was a big bang. This is the current theory of the
Universe.
So the only question remains how did the big bang start, what caused
it? (based on current theories)
I have a theory where all the agreement among science breaks
down, that these theories are all according to Einstein's equiations.
That in reality, Galaxies do not expand, that light redshifts,
and the Universe is a lot older, and galaxies born and die,
and matter comes and goes. Forms out of the plasma of space
and can re-convert to space-time. That in the lack of inertial
energy matter arises from the plasma of space, and in regions
containing high inertial energies matter converts back into
space-time. This theory opposes the common theory that
mass grows with speed, the basic element of Einstein's relativity
theory. This theory has an unusual correlation of speed and
mass, and everything I see about my original theory on
this seems to be a valid model. The relationship of mass
and energy seems to be reversed, that mass dissipates
in high energies, and reaching zero mass at c, the mass
disappears, or the particle becomes equivalent with the
energy of space, and thus annihilates into space, and
vice versa, when inertial energy reaches zero in space,
then the energy becomes equal to a particle formation,
and this relation explains the big bang, but also proves
the classic Einsteinian explanations of relativity incorrect,
or rather a fix toward the Unification Theory, or the theory
of everything.
I'll let the astronomists figure it out. Its proven pointless to
swim in the finish line 2 months late.
(the way out found out that I am late is that I found chats
among professional astronomers on dark energy conducted
a while ago)
Just to fix Einstein's mistake of E=mc2
m becomes zero at c velocity.
m becomes infinity at 0 velocity.
Einstein's E only applies to c and keeps an equal relation between E
and m,
while m has the above variation depending on velocity.
|
Complex. I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T CARE, that's why they'll figure
it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:12 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums |
send newsletters
|
| |
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
New Theories
