Temporal Divergence Meter

[Einstein]

Discussing anything that has to do with time seems to circle back to one question; what is time ? Is time defined as that which is measured by my watch ? or some other man made device ? is time a cause or an effect ? does it actually exist at all ?

We do experience the passing of moments, and we developed a method of measuring those moments, but, to something eternal, despite the formation of and the depth of formation, maybe time isn't really anything at all, but a matter of mind, and nothing more.

Now that is what I call motion. Time is our 4-D space. I call it a basic force. It is variable. And the possibility of negative motion just may be a reality. Based on my observation of a negative motion behavior with a Slayer Exciter coil.

 

[KerrTexas]

Here's a question: When "everything" was at a point of singularity, what was happening with the dark matter ? Couldn't have been in with that point, could it ? And if not, then....??? See what I'm getting at with this line of thought ?

 

[Einstein]

Here's a question: When "everything" was at a point of singularity, what was happening with the dark matter ? Couldn't have been in with that point, could it ? And if not, then....??? See what I'm getting at with this line of thought ?

The problem with the Dark matter is that that is where the missing mass of the universe is supposed to be. But if the mass were there all along as Dark matter, then the universe could not be expanding at an ever increasing rate as it does.

So then they hypothesized Dark energy.

For all we know the universe may not have originated at a point. What would be wrong with a large number of multiple locations coalescing into matter. Perhaps galaxies originated that way. It's all speculation no matter which way you go.

 

[KerrTexas]

To clarify a previous post , I am going to include quotes from some website, somewhere out there in the cyber sphere***:

"Dark matter and dark energy appear to be competing forces in our universe. The only things they have in common is that both were forged in the Big Bang...

Dark matter attracts, dark energy repels. While dark matter pulls matter inward, dark energy pushes it outward."

IF dark energy repels matter, how could it ALL be contained within the matter (singularity?) prior to the Big Bang ?

Yes, it all might be speculation, however, if nobody ask's the questions, then nobody would look for the answers.

What would be wrong with a large number of multiple locations coalescing into matter. Perhaps galaxies originated that way.

Nothing. Perhaps the galaxies, and a lot of the other stuff, did originate that way. And maybe the scientists will be surprised again. However, they have the resources and the mind power to make a way better guess than I do. So, if they proclaim that there was a "Big Bang", definitely have to give that serious consideration. IF they say there is dark matter and dark energy, also have to give that serious consideration, too.

Dark matter and dark energy isn't necessarily a new concept either, just recently made up to account for missing mass in our Universe. To quote Scripture from KJV( Genesis 1:2 - 1:3 ) :

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Darkness was upon the deep ? ...Face of the waters ? Earth was without form, and void, so what were the scribe(s) referring to in these remarks ?

***source of quoted material : Dark Energy vs. Dark Matter - HETDEX

 

[Gpa]

You have a Kilogram of nitroglycerin. On the earth, that Kilogram weighs one Newton. But on the sun, it weighs in over 27 Newtons. Does that Kilogram on the sun make a bigger explosion when it blows up?

I am not an explosive expert but I know an explosion is a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions are based on stoichiometry and use the mol as a unit of measure. A mol of a substance always contains a set value of atoms or molecules known as Avogadro constant ( 6.022×10^23). A mol of nitro weighs 227.08g/mol on earth;
1kg (1000g/1kg) (mol/227.08g)= 4.4037mols of nitro or 2.6519x10^24 molecules
Gravity, which affects weight, is about 27.9 times stronger on the sun than earth so a mol of nitro would simply "weigh" 27.9 times more there than here but it would have exactly the same number of molecules and be chemically the same reaction as it would here so, I don't think there would, as far as weight goes, be any difference in explosive energy provided, you send the stoichiometric amount of oxygen needed for the reaction to take place at all. (technically, if STP is used here to calculate the yield vs the increased temp of the sun, there would be a difference but for the sake of argument, Einstein was considering weight, not temp.)

For all we know the universe may not have originated at a point. What would be wrong with a large number of multiple locations coalescing into matter. Perhaps galaxies originated that way. It's all speculation no matter which way you go.

It seems you agree with my premise of a "Big Thaw (agglomerating)"

 

[Einstein]

Gpa

I am not an explosive expert but I know an explosion is a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions are based on stoichiometry and use the mol as a unit of measure. A mol of a substance always contains a set value of atoms or molecules known as Avogadro constant ( 6.022×10^23). A mol of nitro weighs 227.08g/mol on earth;
1kg (1000g/1kg) (mol/227.08g)= 4.4037mols of nitro or 2.6519x10^24 molecules
Gravity, which affects weight, is about 27.9 times stronger on the sun than earth so a mol of nitro would simply "weigh" 27.9 times more there than here but it would have exactly the same number of molecules and be chemically the same reaction as it would here so, I don't think there would, as far as weight goes, be any difference in explosive energy provided, you send the stoichiometric amount of oxygen needed for the reaction to take place at all. (technically, if STP is used here to calculate the yield vs the increased temp of the sun, there would be a difference but for the sake of argument, Einstein was considering weight, not temp.)

Weight is not the only variable that affects the nitro. The flow of time is slower on the sun. Perhaps the weak force is affected as well. Maybe it becomes stronger. Making nuclear fusion more likely. But would something like that affect chemical reactions?

I think all bets are off as to what would happen. All the basic forces may actually be in a different configuration.

 

[AuditorMaterial]

Hi GPA and Dike Tater

The reason why I selected this accelerometer is it is super
accurate at 0.016 mg/LSB and just came out in the market look
at the date stamp.

Anyhow.

GPA this theory should be able to be proved or disproved
fairly quickly in my opinion.
All we need is ground gravity measurement station data
in specific locations around the world. Then select
specific event dates; big event.
1. 911
2. Fukushima
3. Katrina
4. All Presidential Elections
etc.

Since all these event changed future outcomes in the time line
this should be obvious to everyone right because if it did not
happen we would be living in a different world where people are
dead when they should be alive and the other way around OK.

Now get the dates for these events.

Look at gravity two weeks before and after the event to see
if there is any real changes in local gravity compared to
the average mean measurement. If would be interesting to
see if there was a lasting change in gravity after these event.
If there is a change then this helps prove that gravity is some
how correlated to time we hope while living on Earth.

Designer.

flawed logic here: these "events" were not spontaneously occurring singular moments in time. The planning, or lack thereof, for these events took years. What point in time would you measure for Fukishima? The EQ or the moment when some corporation or agency in Japan received a news they were winning a bid to build the site? no way to correlate gravity swings to "world events"; they are too complex