The Universe

Light travels with about 300.000 km/hour.

Or does it?

It certainly does not, I say. It travels with c. And c is not 300.000 km/hour, but c.

If we look at the equation, we see that we have 2 elements and 1 result: km (distance) and hour (time). The velocity is the result, and the distance and velocity are the fundamental elements.

What I say now might contradict some of your's opinion. I say now:

Velocity is the only fundamental element, an distance and time are the results.

Therefore velocity should not be describe by distance and hour, distance and hour should be described by velocity. And velocity should be according to c. That is, we could say v = 1/c.

This means that distance and time will be variable and relative to each other, because they are not fundamental elements, but just results.

Albert Einstein told us how to calculate the curvature of space and time, but he could not come up with an explanation to how to apply it to quantum mechanics.

In order to come up with an explanation to how it affects the quantum mechanics, we must have another theory.

Imagine the universe being built by pixels like you see on your screen.
This, of course is no correct, as it is just an analogy, but it is the closest analogy to explain the universe in human way.

Now I am going to combine something from the previous discussion, about velocity. I am going to make use of the v = distance/time. This is wrong, but this is how we interpret the world. In order to explain other things in the universe, using this interpretation means breaking the fundamental laws of physics, and giving us some results which may contradict with what we interpret today.

We live in an illusion. When we seam to break the laws of physics, we just break our illusion, and get another illusion. We do not break the laws of physics. They are still there, but we have just another interpretation of it. That is, the breaking of the physics are just breaking of the interpretation of the physics, meaning we will get 2 different interpretations.

Let us imagine the universe as pixels. Take on universe pixel, and apply light to it.

According to our interpretation of the world, light travels with the speed of v = distance/time.

According to our interpretation of physics, we say that one planck length is 1.6 * 10^-35

This is of course also based on our interpretation of physics, and involves time, as a constant.

1 km = (1000/(1.6 * 10^-35)) * 1000 planck lengths.

c = 300.000 * ((1000/1.6*10^-35)*1000)/hour.

How much time does it take light to travel 1 planck length?

According to physics, it is 10^-43 seconds.

c = 1.6 * 10^-35 m/10^-43 seconds.

Or in other words: c = 1 planck length/1 planck time.

The light needs this time to travel 1 planck length. If it needs to travel more lengths, then it is that time more.

First we must look at how litle the quanta of energy is. It is the planck energy, E_p = 0.5433 MWh.

This is based on the planck lenght.

This will be discussed later.

A photon of 0.5433 MWh travels with the speed of 1.6*10^-35 m/10^-43 seconds.

I would like to "put it in the same package" and say:

1 photon has:

(1.6*10^-35 m /10^-43 seconds)/0.5433 MWh.

It uses 0.5433 to travel at that speed.

OK, now I break the laws of physics. I will now take away the planck length it needs, because I would like to know how the universe was before the planck length was made, and what actually made the planck length and time.

(0/10^-43 seconds)/0.5433 MWh = 0.

Max Planck said that Distance = square root (h*G/c*c*c).

- where c is 0, according to this theory.

So it is the square root of infinity.

Now the universe was born with infinite space.

We plug the energy into it again:

(infinity/10^-43 seconds)/0.5433 MWh = infinity.

So from starting with nothing, we now gained infinite amount of everything.

I would now make my own litle universe in small scale applying this theory.

You have a stick with a permanent magnet on, placed at the top of it.

The stick is pointing upwards. The magnet is placed to the left of the stick.



Gravity gives energy to pull stick 1's top to the earth by rotating it. This energy created by letting that rotate, is also used to push stick 2 into a position, where it will be able to push stick 2 via magnets.

If stick 2 comes too late, stick 1's magnet will push stick 2's magnet back, because there is no more energy to push stick 2. If it comes too early, it will prevent the gravity from rotating stick 1.

It has to come into the position at the same time stick 1 goes into a position, where gravity stops giving energy to stick 1 and stick 2 has been brought in a position where it can not be reverted back, and thus it is stationary and stick 1 is mobile, and can be moved on. When it again reaches the point where gravity takes over, the gravity gives energy to first pull them all back again, and then, forth, again.

This makes the stick rotate over and over again.

This is caused because the energy has no time and space to reacter, thus causing it to create new energy.

Please post your comments.

Maybe you should read about geometrodynamic theory and unit system of J.A.Wheeler...



This post has been edited by Zephir on Jul 30 2006, 04:50 PM

It certainly doesn't. c is equal to 300,000km/sec.

This post has been edited by Pupamancur on Aug 2 2006, 12:06 AM

Oh, I am sorry, I wrote hour instead of seconds.

My fault, I am sorry.

But it is not the measurement units that count here...

Its the math they are used in, so.

But you are right.

---------------------

Important notice:

In case you find my information useful for a perpetual motion machine, you cannot use this as a patent on it.

No patent is allowed on perpetual motion machines - this is a law I give to you.

I will do anything in my power to prevent patents on perpetual motion machines, and as such, I want you to try to experiment with what I provide. But please don't patent it.

"We live in an illusion. When we seam to break the laws of physics, we just break our illusion, and get another illusion."

How are you going to falsify this proposition?

How will you test it?

1 km = (1000/(1.6 * 10^-35)) * 1000 planck lengths.

Why are you multiplying by 1000 at the end?

c = 300.000 * ((1000/1.6*10^-35)*1000)/hour.

This equation makes no sense

Either you are redefining the symbol c to be 300.000 times 1 kilometer of plancklengths times 1000 or if you mean this equation gives the speed of light it's just wrong.

How much time does it take light to travel 1 planck length?

According to physics, it is 10^-43 seconds.

c = 1.6 * 10^-35 m/10^-43 seconds.

Or in other words: c = 1 planck length/1 planck time.

The light needs this time to travel 1 planck length. If it needs to travel more lengths, then it is that time more.

It's very unclear what you want to accomplish with this please elaborate.

But to me the equations have no real impact. The conclusion being that plancktime is defined as the time it takes a photon to travel the planckdistance in vacuum. So? It's the definition of this term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Planck_time

OK, now I break the laws of physics. I will now take away the planck length it needs, because I would like to know how the universe was before the planck length was made, and what actually made the planck length and time.

(0/10^-43 seconds)/0.5433 MWh = 0.

Max Planck said that Distance = square root (h*G/c*c*c).

- where c is 0, according to this theory.

So it is the square root of infinity.

Now the universe was born with infinite space.

Why can you "just" remove the planck distance? That makes no sense at all. If this is the way to make new theories you can make any theory fit your conclusions beforehand.

How will you test this hypothesis?

Why should you even be able to use these equations BEFORE big Bang, as you presume - It's impossible to verify or test any equation is valid under the conditions before Big Bang

Your conclusion is based on a untestable presmption and you don't know if the equation you are using are even valid under these conditions.

Furthermore you can't devide by zero, så the result of your equation is totally invalid anyways, even should the above conditions be true.

And dividing by zero doesn't yield infinity it is simply not defined and logically makes no sense. How can you part something into nothing.

and the squareroot of zero is not infinity either it is zero.

I can't really comment the picture/figure it's too small to make out.

But the rest of your text I have the following comments:

Even is we assume that your untestable, unclear and mathematically misformed theory is correct, you still need to explain how your theory connects to magnetism that your "machine" is based on.

The last part seem very unrelated to the above theory and seems like the rabbit out of a hat kind of conclusion.

Lets see the connection between your theory and the explanationmodels for magnetism, that controls your little machine.

And there are no such thing as a permanent magnet and if there is one in your theory you must explain this phenomenon is consistent with the rest of your model.

Tell me if I am wrong but c is measured in seconds. But it would be the same for any interval chosen. So what is light's instantaneous velocity? What if you make the interval zero or even nonzero infinitely small?

Do these concepts come together?

I don't know what you mean. Could you explain it a little better?

c as in the constant speed of light is not measured in seconds it is measured in km/sec or distance pr timeunit signifying a velocity.

c stays the same. By your suggestion you are only converting units.

Instead of seconds you get c as distance traveled by light in a half second or distance traveled by light in a quarter second and so forth.

Untill it hits plancklength - then it by the definition of plancklength doesn't makes sense to narrow the time further.

You, my good man, are a complete *****! And your doodles on a piece of paper are so utterly worthless that i won't even comment on them!

Marcus Petersson, phd in physics at Oslo university.