Thoughts for 2005-2006-2008-2009
02/04/05
I have not stopped thinking, I have merely
stopped writing. Before I forget what I've been thinking about,
I'd better write down my thoughts. I'm not getting any younger.
Time is NOT the fourth dimension, as Einstein
thought. I'm sure he would agree with me that it is the FIRST
dimension, without which the other dimensions could not exist.
This is an important point. We need to change our entire way of
thinking about time, so the best way is to renumber it as the
first dimension. After all, there cannot exist two points in the
universe without time. You cannot go from point A to point B
without time.
Time had to PRE-EXIST, or at least the potential
for time had to pre-exist the other dimensions. Now that we have
renumbered Time as the first dimension, we need to get rid of the
notion that these four dimensions can be separated by simply
numbering them one, two, three, and four. They are one and the
same. None can exist without the others. Numbering them is just a
convenient way for us mere humans to talk about them. They ARE
and they ALWAYS WERE. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever
shall be... etc. This applies to the four dimensions of the
universe.
Time, as a dimension, is unique. You can travel
back and forth along the dimensions labled x, y, and z. Since
time is linked to the expansion of the universe, you cannot
travel back along the time "line." One can only travel
from the past into the future as the universe itself is doing,
dragging all the other dimensions that give it existence along
with it. Going from the future into the past is unthinkable since
there is not enough energy available to accomplish reversing the
expansion of the Universe. If the entire Universe were eventually
to stop expanding and begin to shrink, one would not go back from
the future to the past. The direction of time would change and
one would still be "traveling" from the past into the
future... in a different and imperceivable "direction."
02/22/06
Watching "The Ghost Particle" program
on NOVA this week, I was happy to "discover" that
"recent" events in physics have shown that the neutrino
is not massless, as was once thought... a definite problem for my
theory which presumes that ALL particles in this Universe have
mass.
On a car drive home from a long trip, I thought
long and hard about the neutrino/mass significance, and decided
that if Einstein had known neutrinos had mass, he would not have
given up on his unified field theory so easily. He followed what
he was being told by other physicists as fact, not theory, and
let them talk him out of his own gut feeling. The neutrino was
proposed by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 and between 1930 and 1939, all
that nonsense about it being massless emerged, even before proof
of its existence was ever certain.
We need to go back to Einstein's Unified Field
Theory and start over, using the knowledge that we have today.
The clue may be sitting on my father's kitchen
table in a mayonaise jar replica of an electroscope that I built
to try to explain what I thought was going on between my
space/time theory and the "new" knowledge that
neutrinos have mass. What causes the collapse of the
"gold" foil leaves may not be just ambient background
radiation as we were told in high school, but the combination of
that plus the bombardment of particles from the stars...
including the neutrino.
I thought of a new experiment which would prove
Einstein's Unified Field Theory starting position once and for
all. Over the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan, place
a series of electro-magnetic screens to see if they can reduce
the neutrino count from above the detector, the same as it has
been reduced by the mass of the earth from beneath it. If any
reduction at all can be made in the neutrino count, that would
show that for all practical purposes, to the neutrino, gravity is
indistinguishable from electro-magnetism (a point made by my own
theory).
07/22/08
E=MC2
E=MT
G=A=T= E=M
Gravity is indistinguishable from the constant
Acceleration of the inflating universe that is Space-Time that
gives particles Energy and creates Mass in them.
10/18/08
Great excitement! I saw Joao Migueijo's explanation for his Variable Speed of Light theory on TV
tonight and realized that it fits in perfectly with my own
continueous inflation of space/time theory. I sent him an e-mail
to let him know that the experimental evidence that can prove my
theory can prove his theory at the same time, and it depends on
them fixing the glitches in the CERN Hadron Collider and giving
up the search for the mystical Higgs Boson to use it for more
important matters... like proving my theory!
01/02/09
From: http://arxivblog.com/?p=596&cpage=2#comment-4082
Do nuclear decay rates depend on our distance from the sun?
August 29th, 2008
Here’s an interesting conundrum involving nuclear decay
rates.
We think that the decay rates of elements are constant regardless
of the ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where
beta decay can be influenced by powerful electric fields).
So that makes it hard to explain the curious periodic variations
in the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 observed by
groups at the Brookhaven National Labs in the US and at the
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesandstalt in Germany in the 1980s.
Today, the story gets even more puzzling. Jere Jenkins and pals
at Purdue University in Indiana have re-analysed the raw data
from these experiments and say that the modulations are
synchronised with each other and with Earth’s distance from
the sun. (Both groups, in acts of selfless dedication, measured
the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 over a period of
many years.)
In other words, there appears to be an annual variation in the
decay rates of these elements.
Jenkins and co put forward two theories to explain why this might
be happening.
First, they say a theory developed by John Barrow at the
University of Cambridge in the UK and Douglas Shaw at the
University of London, suggests that the sun produces a field that
changes the value of the fine structure constant on Earth as its
distance from the sun varies during each orbit. Such an effect
would certainly cause the kind of an annual variation in decay
rates that Jenkins and co highlight.
Another idea is that the effect is caused by some kind of
interaction with the neutrino flux from the sun’s interior,
which could be tested by carrying out the measurements close to a
nuclear reactor (which would generate its own powerful neutrino
flux).
It turns out, that the notion of that nuclear decay rates are
constant has been under attack for some time. In 2006, Jenkins
says the decay rate of manganese-54 in their lab decreased
dramtically during a solar flare on 13 December.
And numerous groups disagree over the decay rate for elements
such as titanium-44, silicon-32 and cesium-137. Perhaps they took
their data at different times of the year.
Keep em peeled beause we could hear more about this. Interesting
stuff.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283: Evidence for Correlations Between
Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance
My Response to this is as follows
(1/2/09):
To me, the relationship of nuclear decay rates
and the distance from the sun is evidence of the local effects of
space/time inflation. We are "blind" to this inflation
because we are tied to the earth and bound by its space/time
inflation. It is only when we leave the earth that we can see
that space/time inflation is not constant but varies relative to
speed and gravity. Now we have proof that we are also tied to the
Solar System's space/time inflation, and I expect that over a
great deal of time we may discover that we are also tied to the
space/time inflation of our galaxy... if we should live long
enough for the experiment to run its course.
2/20/09
Space-time, dark energy and the accelerated
expansion of all matter in the universe are one and the same.
Contact Jim Gerrish at: jimgerrish@yahoo.com