Just missed two fundametal actions of mass and energy, that's all.

[michael turner]

1). Sound is relative because there is one action, wave generation, from a source and depending on your reference frame's movement relative to the source, you precieve, experience, the frequency at a different rate than the rate emitted from the source. Example, airplane overhead. SpaceTime is relative for EXACTLY the same reason, time and space are actions of matter decay into a wave. It is the basis of the clock of the universe. The universe started as a big bang unlocking space itself, a critical mass release of the monopole gravitatioal wave. Yet still each piece of matter reformed and once reformed began the slow decay process. We measure time from the basis of this slow decay process. Each piece of matter and energy decay naturally creating their own time and space.
2). All of physics has missed a very important principle until now. There is a tension buildup ****of wave interaction that is relieved by spacially bringing the objects generating the waves together. Matter and enegy generate waves and the waves collide and align and the objects that generate the waves tough as a back action of generated colliding waves.****
This is the missing understanding of the way the universe operates.****
Thank you for letting me anounce this today,****
Sincerely,****
Michael Turner****

[SteveA]

There's a theory that appears to have had quite a bit of success that I've been checking out recently. It's based upon the idea that all things are motions and that these motion are quantized into units and those units are comprised of two aspects - the component of motion in time and the component of motion in space. Here's the site http://rstheory.org/. The original author/developer had still been working on the ideas and it appears others have further developed them - including what appears to be a more detailed (and likely more accurate, though complex) version here http://rs2theory.org/.

I mentioned this because I think it's similar to what you're saying - time is similar to energy or change and matter is similar to a structure or space and so there ways to convert things between these representations. I also think that space could be described as a network of material interconnects, much like the internet - you don't see the pathways through which the information flows, but just see the information. The observed ordering of events can determine where things are located within that network.

Also, I don't think photons need to be considered separate entities as that also gives a conflicted/dual view - if we detect things via. photon, then what determines whether or not we're seeing a photon, or information regarding an object that the photon "emitted"? I think it ultimately needs to be that we just detect information regarding objects and that information doesn't contain anything outside of the descriptions of those, otherwise we have a vicious cycle - for example, if we see something, and we say that this is due to photons conveying the information to us, then did we see the thing or did we just see photons? If we decide that one observation was of a photon, but some other observation of a photon represented a property of something else, and we want things to be consistent, then we need other information to determine whether or not we say a photon or information regarding the object ... well if we decide to measure another photon to make the decision, what decides whether or not that photon is a photon etc. etc. etc.

I believe an observer actually detects something equivalent to an infinitely fast photon that contains all the experienced information in a moment, this would appear the only way to unite all this information as a single conscious event. Also, it would seem we'd need something faster than light to basically "hold space together" and the definitions of light speed, time and distance that are currently used in physics are cyclic definitions that aren't consistent, but are instead statistical measurements and it ends up being that it takes energy to construct a distance (and there's a confidence level involved as well). This may be unavoidable, but I think the definitions are misleading and it's really just 2 properties that are used to describe 3 units, which means something isn't solid in the definitions (beyond the fact that they're statistical definitions to begin with).

[michael turner]

There's a theory that appears to have had quite a bit of success that I've been checking out recently. It's based upon the idea that all things are motions and that these motion are quantized into units and those units are comprised of two aspects - the component of motion in time and the component of motion in space. Here's the site http://rstheory.org/. The original author/developer had still been working on the ideas and it appears others have further developed them - including what appears to be a more detailed (and likely more accurate, though complex) version here http://rs2theory.org/.

I mentioned this because I think it's similar to what you're saying - time is similar to energy or change and matter is similar to a structure or space and so there ways to convert things between these representations. I also think that space could be described as a network of material interconnects, much like the internet - you don't see the pathways through which the information flows, but just see the information. The observed ordering of events can determine where things are located within that network.

Also, I don't think photons need to be considered separate entities as that also gives a conflicted/dual view - if we detect things via. photon, then what determines whether or not we're seeing a photon, or information regarding an object that the photon "emitted"? I think it ultimately needs to be that we just detect information regarding objects and that information doesn't contain anything outside of the descriptions of those, otherwise we have a vicious cycle - for example, if we see something, and we say that this is due to photons conveying the information to us, then did we see the thing or did we just see photons? If we decide that one observation was of a photon, but some other observation of a photon represented a property of something else, and we want things to be consistent, then we need other information to determine whether or not we say a photon or information regarding the object ... well if we decide to measure another photon to make the decision, what decides whether or not that photon is a photon etc. etc. etc.

I believe an observer actually detects something equivalent to an infinitely fast photon that contains all the experienced information in a moment, this would appear the only way to unite all this information as a single conscious event. Also, it would seem we'd need something faster than light to basically "hold space together" and the definitions of light speed, time and distance that are currently used in physics are cyclic definitions that aren't consistent, but are instead statistical measurements and it ends up being that it takes energy to construct a distance (and there's a confidence level involved as well). This may be unavoidable, but I think the definitions are misleading and it's really just 2 properties that are used to describe 3 units, which means something isn't solid in the definitions (beyond the fact that they're statistical definitions to begin with).

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Let me expand my understanding to you with simple concepts to convey.
All matter and energy decay into a monopole wave as a puddle of water, bound water, becomes water vapor, free water. The change of matter and energy, even photons( bound potential energy) to the gravitational wave, unbound energy is spacetime. Time is the change from matter and energy to the gravitational wave and space is the resulting area, density dependent area.
Here is a simple example, the time it takes to bake a cake is the cakes baking time. The universe works the same way, from the time the universe came into existance, space was running the show. The fabric of space is the continously generated gravitational wave and how it forms wavefronts with interacting matter and energy, but time is the change of matter and energy into space from the time matter and energy coalased, bound together and formed wavefronts after the big bang, anotherwords time as we measure it started from the decay point of Magnetic fields once they reformed after the big bang. All of physics has missed this simple understanding and has gone off in a completely wrong direction. Again, as a flashlight gives off light, matter and energy give off space. As matter and energy decrease, space increases. I have understood this for years and copyrighted it years and years ago. The world didn't want to listen back then, maybe now.

[michael turner]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Let me expand my understanding to you with simple concepts to convey.
All matter and energy decay into a monopole wave as a puddle of water, bound water, becomes water vapor, free water. The change of matter and energy, even photons( bound potential energy) to the gravitational wave, unbound energy is spacetime. Time is the change from matter and energy to the gravitational wave and space is the resulting area, density dependent area.
Here is a simple example, the time it takes to bake a cake is the cakes baking time. The universe works the same way, from the time the universe came into existance, space was running the show. The fabric of space is the continously generated gravitational wave and how it forms wavefronts with interacting matter and energy, but time is the change of matter and energy into space from the time matter and energy coalased, bound together and formed wavefronts after the big bang, anotherwords time as we measure it started from the decay point of Magnetic fields once they reformed after the big bang. All of physics has missed this simple understanding and has gone off in a completely wrong direction. Again, as a flashlight gives off light, matter and energy give off space. As matter and energy decrease, space increases. I have understood this for years and copyrighted it years and years ago. The world didn't want to listen back then, maybe now.

You might like this thought, first the quote
"(Reprinted from the Theosophy-Science Group Bulletin, Volume XX, Number 3, June, 1981.)
The last years of Einstein were spent in pursuing his cherished dream of evolving a general theory of the universe. He never succeeded. Nor anyone else did, so far. The body of knowledge which we call physical science is at present only a loose collection of numerous different theories, each constructed to explain a particular domain of facts and not applicable to another set of facts. There has not been a general theory covering all physical phenomena, from the microscopic to the macroscopic."
Here is my opinion- because no one could imagine that matter and energy interactions had a byproduct of the gravitational wave ( see the 1993 Nobel Prize in Phusics). And no one looked at the complete huygens's Principle and understood that under Newton's laws there has to be a backaction. Undiscovered laws such as that waves of equal energy when colliding think that they are solids to each other and they bump unto each other and send a tension back towards the generating source. No one has figured out that there is wave tension that wave tension creates gravity. So Einstein had the math correct and the 3 forces of nature can not relate to gravity because they are dipolar forces and gravity is a byproduct wave tension force. If two construction workers are carrying two two by four boards and the construction workers walk into each other at 45 degree angles the boards touching first, the boards collide and travel a different path and the tension sends the construction workers spacially together, that is gravity. Time and space and gravity are actions of this process- simply yet overlooked.

[austintorn@aol.com]

I like your idea, Michael, about decay. It's like the universe is an unwinding spring, and so there must be decay of energy's quality, although not its quantity. It takes time, of course, and that's what constrains its pace of decay, allowing intermediate forms such as life and flowers, these emergent forms becoming of the growth from decay in which loss is traded for gain in complexity.

[michael turner]

Thank you Grandmaster,
it has been a little while since I have been back. One if my stumbling blocks, not anymore, was if photons showed decay and how could it be shown if it could without changing everything that seems to fit with my current understanding. Finally I realized electromagnetic radiation is like a pond with a spring that is feeding the pond as the water is evaporating, you won't notice the process of filling and evaporating going on as long as the spring, a source of replunishmemt, is continuing to fill in where the evaporation has taken place. With electromagnetic radiation, say emitted from a star, it is the star that looses mass in order for the photon to appear never to change. This implies that the red shift is a true velocity change and not a decay change. A photon will only decay if it is cut off from it's source and it could be shown to be absorbed by a lower energy level than it would if it was continously replunished by it's source. This is another reason that the universe is in a stable situation as far as smelling flowers and life. It is like a song on the portable radio, it is constant as long as you are with the radio and the batteries are still at a capacity to discharge. A constant current.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Here’s a post about the quality of energy decay:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/genera...tml#post120237

And here’s a photon decay method that allows their recycling (a spring feeding the pond):

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post120365

[michael turner]

Here’s a post about the quality of energy decay:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/genera...tml#post120237

And here’s a photon decay method that allows their recycling (a spring feeding the pond):

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post120365

Hey Austintorn, the first URL was a chance vs. Divinity thread, did not make sense as to the description. The second thread was titled, "an Idea", and matched exactly. The source of replunishmemt is
the source of wave generation itself, not an outside source as a flashlight replenishes the intensity of light as long a the battery has power. Second, I believe that the byproduct of this decay and replunishmemt is the gravitational wave in which wave front formation and the backaction act as an overall active framework and feedback of the entire system. As you sweat, your body cools, as a gravitational wave is given off matter and energy interact through the wave tension of wave front formation. As your body cools, condenses so to does space condense, flatten as matter and energy give off the the gravitational wave. Conservation of momentum is Dark energy and gravitational wave synchronization is dark matter.