Light is converted gravity

[newbie123]

It really doesn't matter, just continue your line of thinking and I will continue mine. I am not wrong.

you can't get work without energy and you can't get energy without work, it is simple Physics. they go hand and hand.

you can't even take a measurement of time without doing work.

Jerry

I don't think  anything in the universe can exist without time....  But that doesn't necessarily   mean that everything is equal to "time", and "Time = Energy"  ....   If it this is common physics knowledge as you guys seem to imply,  can you show me some good references?

Prove that you guys aren't just trying to push your (or someone elses)  half baked theories here...

   

[gravityblock]

If it this is common physics knowledge as you guys seem to imply,  can you show me some good references?

Prove that you guys aren't just trying to push your (or someone elses)  half baked theories here...

I've been trying for the last 7 months.  I can't make one hair on your head black or white.  I can't do your thinking for you or for anyone else.  There is no need in attempting to prove that Time is Energy, until people can come to terms with Time being a basic elementary truth of the universes and all other individual forces or energies arise from Time.  It's like trying to teach a baby to ride a bicycle before they can walk, it's not going to happen.

I did a poll that asked people if mass was equivalent to energy.  That didn't go very well.  They said I was mis-stating Relativity Theory and everything else.

It is impossible to prove or teach someone anything, when they will disagree and find faults in everything that is said or mentioned, including references that are widely accepted throughout the physics community.

I've posted a video on space-time and the speed of light in two different threads, and not 1 comment on it.  I've given references to other things, and not 1 comment on them either.  What good are references, when there is no discussion of those references, or they are automatically rejected without putting any thought into it, for the simple reason that it doesn't conform to their current ideas and thoughts on the subject?

I will try to find some good reference materials that can easily be understood without the mathematics, since you are leaving a door open for this to be a possibility.  I won't post the references here in this thread, since it is slightly off-topic here.  I will post it in the thread, "Why does mass slow time".


Thanks,

GB

[newbie123]

I've been trying for the last 7 months.  I can't make one hair on your head black or white.  I can't do your thinking for you or for anyone else.  There is no need in attempting to prove that Time is Energy, until people can come to terms with Time being a basic elementary truth of the universes and all other individual forces or energies arise from Time.  It's like trying to teach a baby to ride a bicycle before they can walk, it's not going to happen.

I did a poll that asked people if mass was equivalent to energy.  That didn't go very well.  They said I was mis-stating Relativity Theory and everything else.

Well, first consider where you are posting these things... Lots of  people here will say the majority of main stream physics is a big conspiracy..   Which is fine (imo)  if they  can provide real evidence to support it.

It is impossible to prove or teach someone anything, when they will disagree and find faults in everything that is said or mentioned, including references that are widely accepted throughout the physics community.

Anyone can disagree or agree with something, but if facts and credible references aren't used to support their idea, their opinion is meaningless...

[gravityblock]

Well, first consider where you are posting these things... Lots of  people here will say the majority of main stream physics is a big conspiracy..   Which is fine (imo)  if they  can provide real evidence to support it.

There is a big conspiracy with main stream physics.  It is not being taught correctly.  The universities having one set of physics books, while the physicists working for the military have another set of physics books that is different from the universities.

The question is, which set of physics books do you want to learn from, aside from you're own theories, so you can formulate and extend those theories further with correct concepts?

[newbie123]

There is a big conspiracy with main stream physics.  It is not being taught correctly.  The universities having one set of physics books, while the physicists working for the military have another set of physics books that is different from the universities.

The question is, which set of physics books do you want to learn from, aside from you're own theories, so you can formulate and extend those theories further with correct concepts?

Why would this be a conspiracy?  Or do you believe that military physicists have "futuristic information" in their books  .. i.e. how anti-gravity is possible, etc.