User:Nicholascobalt

Unified Field Theory

E = mc², is misunderstood that as somethings Energy increases (for example increased velocity, as something approaches the speed of light) the variable is mass and not the speed, yes the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant but until the mass reaches that speed we aren't dealing with constant speed. Something doesn't become more massive as it's speed increases it becomes more photonic, light is the maximum speed attainable because upon reaching this speed the properties of mass no longer apply the properties of photons do, atomic structure instead becomes energy, wavelength, frequency. Which is actually just the way we interpret it at that speed, in fact all mass at rest has frequency and wavelength, Planck constant applies to energy in all forms.

Something could also become photonic by adding energy in other ways, but the smoothest transition with the least loss of energy and least structural distortion would be to increase velocity (the same idea in place on a highway, two things moving in the same direction at the same speed will never collide)

Light isn't the exception to the rule, something is a particle or something is a wave, it is the rule, anything accelerated to this speed would act in the same way. Being unable to react chemically or mechanically with other photonic masses would lead to the inability to engineer an engine capable of increasing speed once this change took place, also consciousness would be impossible without chemical interactions so the experience to someone traveling in a faster than light vessel that was somehow slowed and reformed into the massive vehicle and passenger would seem instantaneous, which is no more time travel than slowing the atomic movement of an individual with a cooling agent, then defrosting the individual at a later date and treating the symptoms of cell damage and hypothermia.

A singularity cannot be infinite, the nature of infinity and reality conflict and anything with a mass of infinity, a volume of zero (in which case mass would be zero also, leading to no gravitational field), or a gravitational field of infinite strength in any part of it's field would decrease over distance but again given the nature of infinity it would extend infinitely and have infinite strength at all locations.

There is no difference between a graviton and a gluon, we can take a look at a singularity, and see two separate things worth noting, in a formed singularity we see gravitational forces causing an event horizon, but the repulsing forces between electrons of any two particular atoms, even negative ions, is dwarfed by the gravitational forces in a singularity, so every singularity is actually a super massive naturally occurring and technically stable element, with an atomic mass of X where X is unique to each singularity, rather than a mass comprised of many separate atoms. As any atom it has atomic structure, electrons are outside of the event horizon (proof included in next paragraph) but due to the size most singularities have they would be spread out, the same percentage of the atom would be nothing as any common atom would be, though the shell configuration 2 6 10 14 18 18 etc wouldn't apply due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and it is likely being in a random satellite to a singularity but outside the event horizon that many if not all electrons would be lost entirely.

Now that it is easily seen that a fusion reaction takes place within a singularity when any atom enters, and we know that when a singularity forms the most common place is in a star where fusion reactions take place constantly. If you take this singularity and trace it backwards as it was created over time the event horizon always existed, at a certain point the event horizon would be only just beyond the surface of the very large atom that is the singularity, and before that it was at the surface of the atom, and just before then it was just inside the electron shell of the atom. (which causes the fast moving electrons to satellite the nucleus, Occam's Razor would say this isn't magnetic as proven gravitational forces can explain it without the need for an additional force, "magnetic" forces would be better described as gravitonic forces) Most atoms are at this stage, or fusion reactions wouldn't be possible, since it is known that atoms with atomic mass of one are capable of fusion.

Creating a smaller singularity artificially would lead to a singularity with the total gravitational field of the atoms it is comprised of.

Nicholas R. Iverson Nicholascobalt (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You've seem to have stumbled onto my Wikipedia Page! Well I strongly suggest that you read my ideas because that's all you'll find here - nothing about me other than that.

I Am Nicholas Ryan Iverson

How to create exotic matter.

In order to create exotic matter you need to bend spacetime in a unique way. First take empty space, no mass, and then take energy away - a strong electrical draw or endothermic reaction could cause this. As you cannot take energy away from nothing I'm going to assume that this is imposible, but if you succeeded you would have created a vaccuum in spacetime (not like a low pressure but more like regular space) and then that space would have been efectively slowed as far as the speed at which time travels, and as a vaccuum would be expected spacetime fills it'self, that space would then travel through time relatively faster than the normal speed of one second per... second. Exactly half the ammount of time faster the space is moving through time after the reaction takes place there will be from the void exotic matter with a mass and energy equal to what you put into the system (negative mass and energy equal to what you drew from space-time) and the properties of which would corespond to the type of reaction and the nature of spacetime itself. A similar method would be used to create matter from energy, with posative energy and mass of course.

Nicholascobalt 11:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My solution to the ontological paradox

The solution to the paradox is that it is built upon assumed tangent timelines in which the item was created before the loop began.

Even though the events that make up the loop only actually occur once, time flows like electricy along the path of least resistance. Where a logic loop in time would be possible, the continuation of events will be based on the loop that is consistent. One example where information can be lost is a temporal black hole, the consistent loop contains information that has a history but one that never occurs.

Anyone with a time machine can travel back in time and with themselves as witness read someones mind.

Consistent logic and Temporal Hole

A time traveler is asked to guess what is written on a piece of paper - so they travel back in time and take thier past self with them when they guess and get it right seemingly on the first try. Also, only with this understanding it is possible.

In order to reach the correct answer, at some point you must have guessed wrong, but knowing this was the wrong answer when it was your past self’s turn to travel back in time to guess with thier past self as witness they would have guessed something different and eventuality would cause them to get the right answer the first time, because chronologically there was no second time.

If you knew that you would guess right the wrong answer couldn't be given. There can be no example of the loop ending with a wrong answer being fed out each time, because a wrong answer would lead to the loop changing and only a consistent loop can end.

In most instances of the ontological paradox, an item is taken into the past by the owner to give it to the person they received it from, and the resulting loop would age the item each time the loop took place. The item of course would not age. The reason the item does not age with each loop is because it was created at some point, and that relative to the loop time continues and the events that make up the loop only occur once. (If tangent universe theory applies then of course the item would be aged by one loop infinite times, each tanget being identicle up to that point and differing only in the object being older, the true tangent would be the first alternative age where the object could no longer age, is destroyed or removed in some other way from the timeline, causing a different though not neccesarily importantly different tangent in a way other than the age of aformentioned object)

Nicholascobalt 08:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, is it a paradox if someone is told that they would die of a heart attack, and during exercise meant to prevent the heart attack they have a heart attack and die? For this to happen time travel isn't required, it could be an educated guess from a doctor or a guess from a stranger with no basis and would be, though ironic, not a paradox.

Nicholascobalt 09:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe in Spinoza's God - well almost, read on.

Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence. No two substances can share the same nature or attribute. Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by the some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one." [2] A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute). Substance cannot be caused. Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused. Substance is infinite. Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.

Conclusion: There can be two infinite substances, without either being dependent on each other, because there is unlimited space that they could occupy. Proof: If there was not infinite space that a substance could occupy then it would be limited by space and this would act as a restraint making the substance dependent upon space. However substance cannot be dependent upon anything else (premise 1) therefore space is infinite.

This is only really siginificant because there can be two infinite substances an infinite distance away from each other, or even together and never restrain each other, unless of course they react in some way that leads to a third substance that wouldn't react with whatever substance was in surplus or instead of a third substance perhaps nothing.

There is a posibility that there was no surplus of a substance and exact equal ammounts, but it's just as likely that there was more of one than the other, though it may be hard to imagine anything infinite being more or less than anything else you could describe as infinite, compare them to numbers, every number has infinite numbers smaller than itself, and by comparing two of these numbers you can find a difference, the same could be said to compair two things infinite in size.

Nicholascobalt 23:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that as something accelerated to "the speed of light" it would become Electromagnetic radiation and that this is simply another phase of matter and effectively the speed that magnetic and electric components of matter oscilate. And that the actual speed that this occurs varies for differing substances and affects the amplitude and wavelength of the resulting radiation. Nicholascobalt 23:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Today I designed a transmission where the gears from one torque are accessable in a linear fasion and would shift between gears faster - automatically as needed - and end the need of accuators or a clutch.

Nicholascobalt 11:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A temporal black hole is the opposite of a physical black hole but very similar (and in some instances the same thing) though a temporal black hole only takes a single point in time, it can move through space at unchecked speeds, while a physical black hole takes only one point in space and travels unchecked through time. The formation of a temporal black hole is quite different than a physical black in that it forms backwards and unforms as it travels forwards through time, or it exists and everything that it includes exists in one form or another before and up until it ends but afterwards information from the relative past would be lost. The formation of a temporal black hole is usually caused by a time travel paradox where information is gained and from a definitive source, but the information of How it was gained is lost. Going back in time to help yourself find something you lost before it is too late to retrieve it, which is only possible if you would still then travel back in time, so giving yourself instructions to go back in time to find that something causes a consistent loop - the only events that actually happen aren't caused by events that "happen" but did happen at some place with no when, or behind the event horizon of the temporal black hole.

Nicholascobalt 11:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)