Liquid Space Time
Debate 1999
Dear Guests: It has been a
year since we upgraded the guest inputs into the format of Debate
99.
The experience has been fascinating and
rewarding, as seen compare to 1988, we have had a lot more
interest and inputs. I believe that some of the most
creative great minds are visiting this site. The debate pages are
very serious comments and questions, which expand the
understanding and thinking process of the reader about the
proposed Liquid Space-Time model for Universe. The present
paradigm of thinking and theories
of Astrophysics and particle Physics
theories including the theories and measurements of
the expansion of Universe, Black Holes
and Gravity all need to be re-evaluated.
It is the result of the comments that we
added general explanations about the Machinery of Gravitation,
Anti-Gravity, Faster than Light speed and others on the front
page.
I encourage you to take time and read
these Guest comments, the least they do is they expand your scope
of thinking. …………………………………………….
Confidentiality of Guests emails: It is the policy of
GIFTT not to publish, use, or give anyone the emails of Our
Guests. If you like to contact someone write to info@giftt.com and ask
your comments to be sent to the person by comment number. GIFTT
will send your information to them. It is then the privilege of
the Guest to return your email.
·
Debate inputs are printed according to size. Scroll down to get
to the real good stuff! Bottom
·
Inputs are posted as they came; they are not modified at all.
Posting them here does not mean we agree or disagree with them.
·
Comments are numbered so that year and number can refer them.
Guest comments are printed as they were sent.
They are not edited even for spelling and grammar.
·
As it was found appropriate, answers or clarification follows
Guest comments by GIFTT
·
This is the 1999 debate. It includes all debate inputs of 1999
for the past 12 months..
space-time-mass theory is very interesting. I would like to learn more.
Colvara,C. Pizani (Eng.) Porto Alegre, USA?
Good site. I looking for researchers in deformation of gravitational waves by application of Casimir Forces (tensor) in stron Magnetic Fields.
Brendan Muller , Bendigo, Vic- Australia
I think that the comments made on the
opposite forces to gravity were eye opening, and would like to
here more.
T.Martin, USA.
I would like to submit my thoughts for
debate at some time in the near
future. Would it be appropriate
to send them to this address or is
there another?
GIFTT: Please use
info@giftt.com
Nancy Rivetti, USA
GIFTT: Could not find
one. We like to get inputs from guests, is it worth to start a
chat room?
I appreciate the fact that such minds exist. I am extremely facinated by your intelect. However, I also feel it is a waste to have life pass you by. People get so caught up in work they forget to enjoy the finer things in like...(like a beer on a Sunday afternoon with a couple of close friends discussing there dreams and aspirations.) Anyway, I appreciate the terrific work you all have done, but I am saddened with the thought that you will let life pass you by. Thank You
GIFTT: I could not agree
with you more. It has been over 25 years with this theory.
You are right, we need to take the time
and smell the flowers. After all we will never never know the
real laws and math of Universe.
The nature of my research at this present
time is special engineering
and other topics dealing with space-time
"fabric". I am working along the
same lines except I have a prototype
invention that can produce artificial density.
Please, e-mail me a copy of the theory.
GIFTT: All the theory is
posted on this site.
I find your ideas about space-time to be interesting; however, you are not as close to the truth as you would like the public to believe. Put a man on Mars within the next 10 years and people will take notice. Until then, you are all talk.
GIFTT: You know, we may
need a man on the Mars for ten years to experiment this theory. I
was at JPL when comet Hale-Bopp was passing. Tried to
measure the deviation of the tail of the comet versus the
opposite direction of the Solar storm. The tail of the
comet being larger than 100 million miles and the errors in its
position versus Sun was far greater than the deviation we
were trying to measure. For exact position of the comets, we
really need another telescope and observers on the Mars.
mop McCarthur, USA
Its all a very nice theory that the mass or
'pressure' of space-time holds a
nucleus together; but at the same time you
have to have another external
'pressure' or force which is keeping the
particles which make up the mass of
space-time together dont u?
And u cant simply say that the force of
gravity does it because then this
theory would not exist because gravity would
have to therefore be the force
which is in fact keeping the nucleus
together.
Anyway, this may sound dumb, but im only 17
but thought perhaps there is a
logical answer, or perhaps the theory is
wrong
thanks
Giftt: The liquid
space-time theory suggests that there is equivalent mass to the
fabric of space-time. Some may find it easier to think the space
is filles with particles of space-time. But your question of what
then holds the space-time together, other than gravity,
I do not know the answre. You are a
brilliant kid, don’t stop thinking.
Richard Ferrell, USA
Could the following explain why there is mass unaccounted for: When matter decays does is not break into smaller less complicated componds or in some cases a lower element. When some of the decays accure they release electromagnetic radiation or particles, correct? Electromagnetic radiation in the lower spectrum can be lost in space by the form of heat or for mid and upper ranges of the spectrum just become background static. Light doesn't have a mass, but acts like it does sometimes or am I completely incorect? Can we just be losing all of our matter to radiation that cannot be messured in the mass aspect? Could all of the mass in the universe eventualy become light and never be recovered as mass again?
Giftt: Quite a few Astro
Phycisists agree with you! In fact the present Big Bang theory
and the forever expansion of a confine Universe suggests the the
end of Universe is the vanishing of all matter into radiation.
However the Universe is a gigantic Black Hole, so
All will have to be sucked back in!
Alex Van Nieuwenhove, Gent Belgium
I'm happy to see others are thinking in the
same way! it's really an exiting theory!
Couldn't we consider the electromagnetic
force as a space creating force, because it's the only elemental
force who isn't an attaction force between masses? It would have
as a consequence that space is quantified and that it has an
energy-mass-equivalent. It would also explain the Heisenbergs
uncertainty priciple, because it 's inpossible to measure
correctly the coordinates of an moving foton at a "space-wave
front". Indeed a theory with revolutionary consequences...
GIFTT: This is
wonderful, you are thinking beyond the liquid space-time model.
You are expanding it to explain other unexplained phenomenon. And
above all you are linking gravity, space-time and
electro-magnetism with each other. Einstein spent the last 30
years of his life figuring this out. I wish he was alive to see
this and comment. Please write more.
If the prescence of "nuclear force" on earth is so great, how powerful would it be elsewhere? In other words, is universal pressure the same everywhere in the fabric of space-time? Is there a proven theory on what causes black holes, curved space, etc.? Is Einstein's theory correct about traveling through the space-time continuum? If so, why have'nt there been any changes in the field of space flight. Frankly, that is the only way we will find out, to explore our limitless possibilities.write back. Ilook forward to hearing your answers.
Giftt: Einstein’s
theories have been experimentally and mathematically proven. The
pressure from a liquid space-time on particles would be the same
if Universe if finite and closed and if the liquid space-time is
non-compressible. A good study on the math and science of Black
Holes would be Professor Hawking writings.
Mark Ross-Tacoma, Washington USA
If the universal pressure of the universe on a rock or a person or a car cancels itself out, then why doesn't it cancel itself out in respect to the nucleus of an atom? And what about the pressure at the edges of the universe? Are you claiming this as the expansion force? Or, is it negated by the gravitational force?
Giftt: Imagine a cubical
metal made of wire mesh. The cubical inside a swimming pool does
not collappse because the water goes through the mesh. The liquid
space-time goes through objects and only has pressure where there
is no space-time, i.e. inside the particles. As for the edge of
the Universe, if you would think that space-time is curved, we
are at the edge of it!! As for the force responsible for the
expansion of Universe and the machinery of Gravitation please
click on the subject on front page.
Dr. Peter Heaslip- USA
To ascribe mass to space is the equivalent
of making something out of
nothing.
losing its so-called density at a very
significant rate (since the
volume of space is increasing). In
that case, the supposed force that
acts in place of gluons must be becoming
continually weaker. So why is
this change in force not noticeable?
I suspect that this space = missing mass
theory is something of a
bean-counters approach to astro-physics.
What's wrong with good old
black holes for accounting for missing mass?
Giftt: Your observation is
correct if the space time was expanding.
Instead, mass is constantly melting away
and transforming into space time.
This in turn adds to the volume of
space-time and that is why universe is
expanding. You might thing of this force
of expansion as what Einstein called
the Anti-Gravity force.
In fact that is where most of the
anti-matter has gone, it has gone to
space-time.
I found your page highly astute and
fascinating. I believe you've hit on something with
particles"melting" to become spacetimemass. I think
your heading in the right direction with answer to the missing
mass of the universe. I only wish I had more to offer at this
time. The link supplied below are some of the links I found
dealing with acutely similar theories of spacetime, all on the
same search page found under your home page. I am sending you the
links because the information is too vast and intricate for
e-mail and I have not the time to surmise.
One important idea that I get from reading
all these theories is that we are on a verge of profound
understanding of our world, its nature and beyond. I don't think
it will take as much time as previous periods for science to
capture the exciting possibilities of these new theories.
(The suggested links of our guest are added to the info-links page.)
Giftt: Your comments and
great references are greatly appreciated, they are posted here as
well as in the Links and books pages. I truly believe that the
liquid space-time is the very much-needed new model for the
Universe. It is extremely difficult to make experiments
(Like the comet tail deviation suggested
in the experiment section). We need to promote this hypothesis so
that we get the interest and funding of the Governments and other
large institutions to measure the equivalent mass of the
space-time.
… and of course, you are so very
right!! the truth is love, and the universe is love, it comes
from love and will return to Love and the cycle of Love will go
forever.
I have just started reading
quite a bit about astrophysics and such. Your theory at
first glance sounds reasonably logical. However I would
like to know if the energy in the universe has been taken into
consideration as mass. It seems to me that energy and
radiation is what fills up most of the universe. Seeing how
in almost any given direction there is a pretty equal amount of
x-ray background radiation. I'm lead to conclude this radiation
is uniform all over the universe, and if it is true that the
universe is uniform throughout then the energy that stars, black
holes exc.. give off would be uniform also, at very large
distances. If it is true that light and energy travel out from a
source in a cone shape. And that would explain why we can
only see so far into the universe because the light would be too
dispersed for us to make any thing out of it. So if you took the
total amount of energy at any point space (vacuum) I would
think it would be pretty equal. I would think that we are
floating in a sea of energy rather than some unknown substance.
Giftt:Your observation and
thinking is correct, but the total mass of the radiated energy
That is emmited from stars is not
enough to be noticed. The problem is that for example the Sun is
the solar system only transfers a few million ton of its mass
into energy per second. It takes the Sun or any other star
Billions of years to even consume a noticable fraction of their
mass and spread it into the space. Even if the stars havealready
emmited energy equal to their total mass into the space, still
the total observed mass of Universe doubles.
Even in this case 80% of the mass of
universe will be missing.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |