Appendum to the Quantum Gravity Combined Theory and in regards to the Quantum Gravity Cancellation Effect Theorem
- Assumes that an appearence, briefly ~holds state in regards to global position to Nucleus and ~fixed* radius
- This is not proven to my knowledge, however is a probability. Continued in footnote
- Again, note that a brief moment of fixed radius is needed to accept and therefore pass on a gain or loss. Otherwise we can forgo the first theory entirely and accept the second as only needed which is the Cancellation Effect. Continued in footnote
- Ok think bumble bee getting pollen from one flower, then the next ;)

Clarification of "fixed" in the previous statement needed
- (2D view for both sentences) The Electron as a function of Occellelation* and wave nature will vibrate perpendicular, that is along the radius line. Not however, to be confused with a [change in state] such as relates to a shift or jump in radial ~orbit*
Eg Frequency*
change in state: Can be seen as related to Spectrum output

Clarification of "Occellation" as it relates to the previous statement needed
- Can be said with the same statement "Not however, to be confused with a change in state such as relates to a jump* in radial ~orbit*" or a change in global position
- By the same token Occellation can also be realized as the change in combined [global radius orbit] and the [wave function of an Electron]

Clarification of "Orbit"
- the Electron is not to be envisioned as in an orbit around the Nucleus, rather it jumps from one global position to another

Clarification of "Frequency"
- Confusing here, because the Frequency can be realized to be 2 different things in the Atom
- First we have global radius as it relates to a shift or jump in radial ~orbit* , can seen as related to Spectrum
- Second we have a ~fixed* radius, definition realized as a function of wave motion

Ahem

Clarification of "holds" in first statement
- Not frozen, still in an wave motion > still having frequency > still in Occellation

A model or observation by myself would be helpful to say the least, non-the-less an explaination is required with or without a model

Extremely simplified, well imagine we have a spherical Nucleus and a Electron. Of which that Electron has a global position relative to the Nucleus for each appearence. A 2D view radius (circle and a line), and a 3D position according to that radius. Now the Electron that maintains a relatively fixed radius yet still being able to change its global position, we will not call that a change in state. But an extention or reduction of the radius we will called that a change in state, the same that is detectable by Spectrum due to the release of photons when this happens. It is unknown whether the Electron moves in a path to its next globabl position, it is rather explained as a disappearing and reappearing act. It is also unknown but theorized by my theory, that the Electron will briefly hold state before it goes to its next global position. If that were not the case, the Electron would behave and be classified as a particle, that is to say it would not have its own wave motion or frequency and would change global positions simultaniously at the speed of light where we could observe its afterglow so to speak..
The latter corisponds to my Cancellation Effect Theory, whereas the previous goes along my more elaborate and complete Combined Theory. Thats not to say that both cannot be valid or related in some way...

Footnote: ...

April 19 2003

And interesting idea came to mind just now after watching a program on the Science channel about the Big Bang and the Universe. We know that we are looking at galaxies as they were in space 13 billion years ago. These are the most distant we can observe for now at least. Lets break the speed of light for a second, bare with me. At the time of the Big Bang if objects were accelerated faster than the speed of light, to which now as we know it have slowed down.. Well what does that mean? That means that we could be looking at ourselves in deep space, we could be one of those distant galaxies... Interesting isnt it!? This is actually good enough to become a theory on its own at a later time, let me get back to my atom. But before I do one question I will ask...Has the speed of light always been the speed of light? We realize the speed of light as it behaves now in our time. Another quick question, is the speed and behavior of light Universal..um to our perception rather? That "to our perception" part is important I think..
One other thing back to the begining of this journal I mentioned that scientists believe they have picked up background radio waves from the Big Bang. I said then how rediculous I thought that was, turns out that person won a nobel prize for it. Although that makes me think twice, and a third time, and a forth, I still dont think thats what they have... Another stunning revelation occured to me, if that is true then the age of the Universe is by far and away older than the thought 13 billion years...More later.
Also I will be changing my theory regarding the speed of gravity, not to light, not to sound, but the speed of gravity. I dont believe the speed of gravity is either of those..
Another thing Ive never heard asked but Im sure it has been, if we are looking at a galaxy how it was and more importantly where it was 13 billion years ago, Where is it now? Perhaps the most profound example of Einsteins Theory of Relativity.

April 20 2003

The speed of gravity is unknown however it is less than light, and faster than sound. -TDuncan

Gravity is a rather weak force when you think about it. The pull you feel from the mass of the Earth should give you an idea of just how weak it is. With that said there is something that needs to be realized. Gravity is not focused, that is to say, if the gravity of Earth was focused, you would be as flat as a pancake. The gravity that is exerted on you can be measured by the density of matter directly underneath you, that is, from the core of the Earth to the crust. Thats not however the whole picture.

Lets make an experiment in our head. Ill stand over here and you stand over there 50 meters from me. Lets take an unusually dense substance not found equally throught the Earths compostion and condense it into an area directly underneath you say 2 meters in diameter, and extend that to the core of the Earth. Would you weight more than me? The answer is Yes, But at the same time I also weigh more as a result. The force felt by you is greater however.
Why do I feel the effect? Because as stated before, gravity is not focused/directional, that is to say its global or 360.

If you were standing on a suspension bridge over the grand canyon, would you feel lighter? Most likely, but it really depends on the composition and density of matter in the area underneath you as compared to the matter you were on before you went on the bridge regardless of depth of surface.

An atom that is fundemental to a certain matter substance, changes Electron count with respect to density. Therefore more Electrons present to exert a force the greater force felt. A denser matter will have more Electrons by nature.

[Sun May 18
This entire previous section and dates regarding gravity is incomplete with regards to the fact there is no mention of nuetrons protons nucleus ect. The focus was solely on the Electron and the Electromagnetic Radiation associated with them. This is due to the fact it is unclear to me whether those particles emit radiation aside from Electrons, and in that context I understood gravity information to be held in this radiation. If that doesnt make sense, think about it this way..If gravity is a wave function then those particles must send out information in waves eg Im not sure those particles are occilating or fixed. However should gravity prove to be a product of charged particles interacting, those particles may play a role.
]

Duncan's Law

- If 2 bodies are traveling forward in a straight line, one behind, and one in front, the body behind must exert a force on the body in front of it. As you approch the speed of gravity, time will slow down to allow this function. You can never surpass the speed of gravity.

Sounds familiar doesnt it?

This slowing of time has been proven and recorded in atomic clocks placed in a moving body and was thought to be related to the speed of light. Lets examine why its not related to the speed of light but rather the force of gravity.

Light typically has no force associated with it, so why should we assume that a deceleration of time has anything to do with light?

Einstein was correct to say that if he were moving at the speed of light, a deceleration of time would be needed to see his reflection in a mirror in front of him.

Using the same example, lets change this relation to the speed of gravity and in accordance with Duncan's Law, and now all of a sudden it starts to makes sense.

Duncan's Law states that "If 2 bodies are traveling forward in a straight line, one behind, and one in front, the body behind must exert a force on the body in front of it." Lets us say that the body in front is a hull window of a spacecraft and the body behind is you in your seat. Would the gravitational pull of the front of the hull, increase as you approach the speed of gravity? You might think yes, because the force is becoming directional, that is that gravity is not able to exert a force in front of it and is being sucked back. The answer is No it would not, everything must stay in a gravitational equalibrium. This is where the deceleration of time comes in to allow a force to be exerted on the body in front.

Where it gets really interesting, is when you try to surpase the speed of gravity...

Lets accelerate to the speed of light, not possible but lets just say. At this velocity, relative time would now be moving in a negative value. You say how can this be it doesnt make sense..if time reverses, then we never get to the speed of light for one...

Multiple instances of a mass object defined by the time it exsists
- The phenonmenon by which when matter is accelerated past the speed of gravity, an instance or copy of that matter is ~created whereby one instance is considered the past and the other instance is considered the future or present*.

- Unclear which instance is related to the present.. Or which copy we
- Which copy according to the Big Bang Theory, are we one? Let me think..

I think that our present, is a copy of our past, that is we are on the future instance. I believe that we could look into deep space and see a past instance of ourself if we were to have been accelerated past the speed of gravity by the big bang. Of course I don't believe that, but that is what would happen.

Imagine if you will, the Big Bang event. At the exact moment of explosion time is decelerated to a negative value.
This is a magnificent value and the length it takes for time to reach stoped thus forward is magnificent. Now freeze our instance at peak negative value, again at time zero, and send out a "ghost copy" that is our future.
Thats 3 key instances frozen...Wait a minute...thats alot more than 3 in realtime!

Infinate realities? nonono, Temperally yes but read on

Also In order for those instances of bodies to become one again in the same time you must accelerated the past instances to 0 time and forward. You have to do nothing, gravity is the acceleration or deceleration force of time. Remember? The instances come together due to the gravity pull of the instances, therefore time comes together. AHAH!

Now you ask!, how does an instance of time and gravity affect an instance of time and gravity of another? The effect happens in "realtime" "to an observer" and is seemless whereas the past instances are present in the present.

I want to now explore the behavior of light itself, which has nothing to do with it, during this phenonmenon.
I will continue that another day. And in more depth, well go down and explore the atom and its properties during this phenonmenon.

Before I stop for the day, I want to present a problem to this idea, and its a potentially substantial problem to say the least. If all temperary infinate instances are present in "realtime" thier combined mass would collapse space instantly. And you thought a blackhole was heavy...

Along those lines, I want a realistic picture of the Big Bang event in my head. I can now see an initial explosion event that goes out, decelerates and appears to implode back into itself as time equals zero then exploding outward as time moves forward...I dont like it. The Big Bang event past instances would never reach time zero if they collectivly collapse space.

Alright forget all that for a second. That pretty radical thinking. Heres what I think I know after somemore thought. Lets relate an atom as having a cycle. Thats time. All the atoms around you come together to form what we see as time and reality. Lets go back to our hyperspeed spaceship. The faster we go the slower time gets till we reach the speed of gravity then time stops. Atoms have to work harder as the result of force exerted on them to complete a cycle. When we restrict an atoms cycle we are restricting or slowing down time. That makes perfect sense when we say it like that.

Thinking somemore, what happens or what is a good model to represent an atom travling at hyperspeed? Ok what is a good model to represent a basketball traveling at the same speed? Would it maintain its geometry or would it change?
It would change, you would observe a definate distortion of shape starting at the equator of the spherical object. Perhaps or instead the buldge would be one sided, that is the side facing away from the direction of acceleration. Why? well because wouldn't the force in front of the basketball be greater also? Think about it for a second.

If we can say that atoms have a bond in space, that is, they cant be seperated - space cant be broken, one could say a blackhole is proof. Then we can think of it like a spring. You pull the spring apart as hard as you can, the greatest distance it will stretch out, we'll relate that to time equaling zero. Release the tension and time accelerates back to normal. Can our model of an atom and basketball now be pictured as being stretched out on both sides? Maybe true for the atom, but I wouldnt be so sure about the basketball now that I think about it, as the basketball doesnt have such a bond or does it? Well leave that as an unknown for now.

What is an analagy of space and atoms you have to relate to? Is it maybe an air or water analagy where you can distort it by and explosion or by droping a rock and the atoms move out of the way to allow the rock to pass then the atoms come back to occupy that space again? Ultimatly you cannot break space just as you cannot break water or air. That was the analagy I used to have also. A blackhole would contradict this, so I thought. Instead it is best imagined as a fabric such as a tarp, where you could roll a ball on it and it distorts the surface of the tarp. Its like that but in 3D. The 3rd dimension is where it gets difficult to imagine and at the same time, our analagy of water or air would seem to make sense wouldnt it? Think now of a cube section of space. Where a blackhole's event horizen, lets simply as call it "sealevel". Put that sealevel at the center of our cube, and put our blackhole according to it in the cube. Where do you suppose a star would be in relation to the blackhole? Could a star be below sealevel? And if so, what path would it take to the blackhole? Would it be pulled to sealevel eg the "mouth"? Could it be possible to be pulled in by the bottom instead? After all that is the source of the gravity.

Assuming Dark Matter(empty space) has substance/gravity/mass ect. Something crossed my mind, A galaxy has to have a gravitational pull on its blackhole and a blackhole has gravitational pull on the galaxy. Otherwise if we can go back to our water model, the blackhole mass would freefall to the bottom and never exert a pull on the galaxy, or would it? Kinda like dragging it to the bottom with it. In that sense.. Technically our galaxy in relation to deep space would be moving in the direction of the blackhole. The blackhole mass should be the engine, and the rest of the galaxy is the caboose. Now I dont know that this is the case as has been observed. So we can discount the water/air analagy and go for the fabric one correct? Remember the fabric/spring can only be stretched so far, and in that same token our galaxy movement wouldnt have to be in the direction of the blackhole. What puzzles me though, and maybe Im just tired ( they never stop coming ) is the orientation of some observable galaxies, some look at if they are all at a different angle in deep space. I dont know what in the hell that is all about, but it sure doesnt go along with a fabric/sealevel type analagy. It goes along my engine and caboose.

[Fri May 2 2003
Ill consider the above paragraph brainstorming and not well thought out, theres *no gravity/force in space per say, thats why you keep accelerating and why the Universe is expanding. Thats really all that needs to be understood. The orientation of a galaxy is just the way it happend to form. I think though that the engine and caboose thing was interesting but misguided. Anyway blah. But it does kinda suggest dark matter has no substance or force to act apon.
er..maybe

Oh I know what I wanted to add, the parts about time reversing past the speed of gravity..see thats not likely to occur. The parts relating to that idea can be dismissed. I do however think that time can reach close to 0.
]

Fri May 2 2003

Dark Energy

What is Dark Energy?
The unseen force as it would relate to Dark Matter. But remember there are 2 types of Dark Matter, Empty Space, and objects with mass such as a brown dwarf star but that are not readily visible, or is visible but on an extreme spectrum. Dark Energy relates to the previous as Empty Space.

I myself like to call this Energy "Wind" its the only thing that I can relate to. But what if I could relate this Dark Energy to something else, Gravity and Magnetic shields? Now previously I stated how I thought even if Dark Matter as it relates to empty space had some or any gravity pull to it, it would be extremely weak even accross several light years of it, barely and if at all affecting a nearby galaxy. What about that other thing Magnetic shields? Everything has a ying and a yang, a push and a pull, a positive and a negative, matter > antimatter. Gravity has Antigravity, but we dont call it that we call it Magnetic shields, or at least thats what Im calling it for something further down. So what about the magnetic shields of Dark Matter or does it even have one? Is it equally as weak as its gravity? _ and Yes, if we want to assume that Dark Matter as it relates to empty space has some combined mass and thus gravity.

*The greater the pull the equally greater the push. Thats how things works, thats how objects can orbit in space. I dont know if this goes along Einsteins Cosmic Constant or not but you could think of it that way. I know its hard to imagine that a constant exsists, but believe it for a second. If thats true then why does a blackhole exsist? A blackhole would have to have an equal push as its pull therefore not devour anything right?

Now go back to our space fabric analagy, even though there is an equal push of the blackhole mass the stars "slide down" into it because space is bent downwards.

That right there with the blackholes is the only thing that I dont like with the idea of a constant. Current models suggest the galaxy is rather flat, and a distinct event horizen at a blackhole, not so much a bend in space where stars would slide down because if we say that a galaxies blackhole mass is equal to its galazy size...And on that note, it wouldnt take long for all the stars in the galaxy to slide down...That is unless they can somehow create thier own bend in space enough to create a "safe pocket". Think of it like...Well think of it like that, the blackhole creates a funnel cone shaped dent in space, now halfway down that funnel cone, create a pocket on the inner edge, this would be a center radius system. The outter galaxies would be higher up and the center ones would be lower down. I would go for this model if it were not the fact it is denfinatly not flat.

What a flat galaxy suggests is that the funnel cone doesnt extend the radius of the galaxy. Ok... makes sense.

But back to how a star slides down now we have this better understanding. If you draw a blank you should.
Something about a blackhole is saying that its pull is greater than its push, therefore is does not have the capability to create an orbit environment.

Lets forget for one second that objects have a push, or magnetic shield. And lets not forget angle and momentem.
Something that is in orbit could sustain an orbit without a push, but by its momentum. An object is traveling forward and gravity is pull it back, this creates an orbit. An object without enough momentum will eventually slow down and get pulled into its affecting body. An object with too much momentum will break orbit or gain orbital distance from its affecting body.

But Magnetic shields do exsist, so how can we combine these orbit principals? Because if we add a push to momentum then we break orbit away from the body. Not neccisarily, we simply decrease momentum to acheive orbit. And this is exactly why the outter planets momentum is slower than the closer ones. No not quite, they can still have the same momentum or speed, just larger orbits. Mercury is traveling at roughly the same speed as Earth relative to space, you wouldnt think it by looking at a model but it will click once you figure radial orbit differences. But wait a minute..I thought we said that Mercury would have to have a greater momentum to maintain such a close orbit...And if both are travling at roughly the same speed the radial orbit would also have to be the same.
Ahah! Mercury IS travling faster than Earth relative to space. "For Mercury, orbit radius is 36,000,000 miles and period is 87.97 days, giving an orbital velocity of 29.76 miles per second." "The Earth revolves around the Sun at a speed of about 18.5 miles per second."

Now what happens to our pull equal push idealogy? Its would seem to be disproven wouldnt it? So maybe Magnetic shields are not the yang of gravity after all. Its interesting to note that because its proven that they do exsist, theres one around our own planet that protects us. What we can say though now is that the pull of an object is greater than its push. The exact percentage of the two forces I dont know. But what you do know is that the closer you get to a body the greater the force, push and pull.

Now back again to Dark Matter as it relates to empty space, does it have a magnetic push or not? Since Im assuming that it has little gravity pull if any, then its push will be even smaller. So just forget gravity and magnetic shields when talking about what Dark Energy is.

Back to the top then, What is Dark Energy?
It has Got To Be Wind, I really dont know what else it would be. Do you?
My Universal weather/storm systems theories have a place in this.

An interesting addition to the big bang theory is suggested I seen today. Its that of the big bang event and the matter that was it, barely escaped being pulled back in. So we have the matter being decelerated rapidly after the event and it barely escapes um..The stuff that escaped implosion, actually all of it should have, but the matter was decelerated greatly and gradually gains speed over time till where we are today still gaining speed. I like it alot.
I have no problems with this and it makes perfect sense. It does though make you wonder if some of the matter did get pulled back to center, namely the matter that started in the core..and what of that matter afterward? You would think a blackhole would take its place. See thats the interesting thing here, if there was such a mass in the begining it would have to reside or rather it would BE a blackhole. And extremely massive and mother of all blackholes at that. Explain that please. Are we saying that the "mother blackhole" exploded and thats the big bang?
Or are we saying that the pysics and properties of space and matter didnt exsist until after the big bang? eg gravity didnt exsist until after the big bang.. See theres the problem with the big bang and you know right there that theres more than meets the eye. It was not just mass collected into this great big mass in space then exploding...It was something else going on. Something had to introduce this mass into space and explode on entering "sealevel" or "above", if left to explode later it would have already falling unto itself a blackhole. I dont know, I can think of a glass ball droping on the floor then shattering, but..theres no hard floor...

What if we say instead of droping the glass ball, throw it up in the air, it hits the ceiling and shatters? But theres no ceiling either...

What if we throw 2 glass balls together?

What if we collide 2 blackholes?

Recent experiments and a theory suggests the afterglow of the big bang is detectable. This is similar to the resonance of the big bang thought to have been detected. I said back then it could be a million other things, and Ill say the same thing to this, but I wont discount either of them as being possible.

Altough if it were not for this perhaps we couldnt be certain a big bang occured, why not a central whitehole that spreads matter in all directions?

How about this, instead of a single mass of matter that exploded, why not have dust or whathave you spread out accross space in a rather static state or not moving enough to form into something, then set off a chemical explosion in the center, a chain reaction of this dust matter gets ignited and hello big bang. This sounds promissing, the question hasnt been if there was a big bang so much it was, what was there before the bang? Also the nature of the explosion, was it atomic or chemical in nature? Id say chemical given the right fuel could be magnificent on the order of a big bang. What if the dust or whathave you was moving very rapidly and it couldnt form into anything because of chemistry, perhaps it was an energy cloud of some strange order, but when the chemical reaction takes place it ignites and later cools off to matter.

Fri May 3 2003

More on trajectory and momenutm and the big bang

So it seems that we have observed 2 blackholes joining each other to create a larger one.
_url

No mention of an explosion in that article. That is fine and dandy. Check it out. It all depends on trajectory and momentum and distance between each blackhole. If you have 2 objects fairly distance enough from each other on passby, they begin to come about and start to form an circular orbit. This circular orbit on each passby gets smaller and smaller and the 2 objects orbit faster and faster, till you have them both so close they eventually become one without a major fuss. IF however the trajectory and mean distance between them is small enough the 2 objects begin what you can call a collsion course. These 2 blackholes will be moving at near the speed of gravity near proximity of one another. It may be that they barely just barely miss hitting each other, and possibly slingshoting away from each other and never attain orbit. There is of course another case where they do collide whether on first encounter or a later orbit pass, and there path can be modified by surrounding matter such as stars ect that either make this collsion happen or not happen. But the real big idea here is that it is possible for 2 blackhole masses to collide. Now what do you think will happen when they do? Thats all she wrote baby, were talking Massive Explosion, something that a supernova pales in comparision to. Think about it, neither of the masses that is the blackholes "singularity" gives way and breaks apart to gravity pull. So you have 2 extremely solid compact dense objects colliding at the speed of gravity.

Continued....