Theory of Everything - View Single Post

Dragonclaw · **Thank you, -** 11-26-2005, 05:54 AM

Thank You for taking the time to read my proposal.

Re:MKirkpatrick,

You make a valid point, all this is hypothetical without proof. What experiment could prove or disprove this theory if it hasn't been done already. This site already led me to another theorm called the Raman effect. Is this proof or disproof in the thoery? Does the Raman effect apply to materials at rest or in motion.
An experiment might be possible...
Place a centrifuge into a vacuum, possibly space and place a semi-transparent and/or a transparent material at one or both ends. Then accelerate the material at a constant acceleration to it's maximum. All the while sending a single wavelength and/or multiple wavelengths at it. By viewing the light that is emmitted, we could determine if the momental potential energy is, in part, transferred to the photon. Taking into account wavefronts, droppler effects, etc. Then seeing if the wavelengths are more energetic.

Another thought was if light is a secondary fuel to a blackhole, then the absence/addition of it could change the gravitation force around the blackhole. If the FTL wavelengths were to be reduced, then the core fluidic material would collapse even further in on itself. Would this increase density compensate for the loss of negative force from the loss of FTL wavelengths.
If it did, would there be a time dilation between the loss and the compensation and would a slight gravitaional flux be noticable. How big of a time dilation would there be? What is the speed of gravity?

Are there any other experiments or detectable evident to support or disprove this theory?

Re:Guille

Quantum Theory really hurts the head when trying to understand it. It sounds as if you understand it very well...you must have a very big asperin bottle. The formulas E=mc^2 and F=ma sounds as if they are paradoxal. There must of been some attempt to explain this...could you forward a link for me to read. Wouldn't m=m/1-(c^2-V^2)^.5 begin to explain this discepancy?
Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You all.

Respectfully,
Raymond Richard.

	(#4 (permalink))
Dragonclaw In Training Status: Offline Posts: 2 Thanks Given: 0 Thanked 0x in 0 Posts Join Date: Nov 2005 Rep Power: 0	Thank you, - 11-26-2005, 05:54 AM Thank You for taking the time to read my proposal. Re:MKirkpatrick, You make a valid point, all this is hypothetical without proof. What experiment could prove or disprove this theory if it hasn't been done already. This site already led me to another theorm called the Raman effect. Is this proof or disproof in the thoery? Does the Raman effect apply to materials at rest or in motion. An experiment might be possible... Place a centrifuge into a vacuum, possibly space and place a semi-transparent and/or a transparent material at one or both ends. Then accelerate the material at a constant acceleration to it's maximum. All the while sending a single wavelength and/or multiple wavelengths at it. By viewing the light that is emmitted, we could determine if the momental potential energy is, in part, transferred to the photon. Taking into account wavefronts, droppler effects, etc. Then seeing if the wavelengths are more energetic. Another thought was if light is a secondary fuel to a blackhole, then the absence/addition of it could change the gravitation force around the blackhole. If the FTL wavelengths were to be reduced, then the core fluidic material would collapse even further in on itself. Would this increase density compensate for the loss of negative force from the loss of FTL wavelengths. If it did, would there be a time dilation between the loss and the compensation and would a slight gravitaional flux be noticable. How big of a time dilation would there be? What is the speed of gravity? Are there any other experiments or detectable evident to support or disprove this theory? Re:Guille Quantum Theory really hurts the head when trying to understand it. It sounds as if you understand it very well...you must have a very big asperin bottle. The formulas E=mc^2 and F=ma sounds as if they are paradoxal. There must of been some attempt to explain this...could you forward a link for me to read. Wouldn't m=m/1-(c^2-V^2)^.5 begin to explain this discepancy? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank You all. Respectfully, Raymond Richard.