Mass=existence
Time=change
So the above describes massive matter

So also we have
Space=quantum vaccum
Absolute Time=speed of light and other bosonic matter

And there is also space pinning force in bosonic particles which were ruled out 100 years ago and since the we don't even know the graviton is reconfigured photon...

We're just overrun with idiots.

Can one establish a theory which entails all possibilities of function of mass;
energy;gravity and so on?
The answer is yes and no; unfortunately. This is because there may well be forces
and dimensions of which we have no knowledge as yet. I believe that many current
model/concepts of both empirical and theories are incorrect; as they are based on
invalid conclusions. Consider the following.
THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT;RELATIVE TO ANY FORM OF MASS IS NOTHING
The secret of light is that there are no photons. No "packets" of energy.
"Light" has no mass-of-self; no mechanism by which it can "store" anything.
That which has NO MASS cannot be acted upon in any manner that can induce
kinesis. NO GRAVITY EQUALS NO MOVEMENT.
What is actually occurring begins at a mass source...and the function of frictional
density. Frictional density is creating a condition which cannot be contained be
"contained" by the quantum dimension...there is no "where" for it to "fit". It is
a "new" factor . The "signal" from a given source is not "moving" in any way which
could be regarded as transit. It is creating a "push" factor that sublimates into
three-dimensional "reality".
The factor which we call "light" is actually a by-product of frictional factors.
There is no "velocity" in terms of linear transit...it is actually a "frequency"
response.
In this scenario; no matter where "speed" is measured; velocity is always the
same...because the "frequency" is already there.
I have written a paper with regard to my Light theory, as well as other papers
dealing with matter and energy.
THERE ARE NO PHOTONS...and by direct implication, there are NO ELECTRONS.

Sorry, idiot. There are photons, and by direct observation, there are electrons.

Here's a reply from Torg the Idiot....



Notes on Time
The following conclusions give considerable doubt as to the fundamental nature of time i.e., the classical model of “Time” as a co-equal linear of space/mass.
“Linear-Time” appeals to the human sense of logical proportion and the concepts of co-equal Universe in which Time is a dimension of itself, that possesses a past/present/future tense which can be measured and quantified…or is it possible there is no validity to the accepted standard of time? Rational and logical thought states “Linear-Time” does exist, and there are numerous subjective/objective experiments to verify the concept of time as a functional reality. But there exists a major flaw…the reality of time as a “thing of self” that exists with “mass/reality”. All physical human sense faculties are based upon action/reaction, an ideal state for us, as it “mirrors” the known Universe we exist in, as our senses tell us it is.
Fortunately, we also have minds that can think in abstract, to extrapolate conclusions from sources which seemingly have no bearing on one another…such as a stone falling to earth predicating the idea of an unknown force, gravity.
Based upon inductive/deductive logic and extrapolation, I have reached the conclusion that there is no foundation to support the rationale that Time exists as a valid concept. THERE IS NO TIME.
What has led me to such a conclusion, in the face of physics as we know and accept them to be? The continuity of space/mass/time? The answer is in the comparison of linear-time, or L.t., to the actuality of matter/mass. ALL MATTER IS IN A CONSTANT STATE OF TRASITION and thus there is no static/stasis “point of reality”. Consider the following.
Every atom-mass is in a “constant state of excitement”, of “transition” due to relative intrinsic/estrinsic energy states…all matter has a relative “potential” of energy, and the energy is never static.
If it is accepted that all “matter exists in a state of transitional constant”, then by these parameters, there is no “static point of reference”…no instant of “Now”.
The rebuttal of conclusions? What of verified findings of differences in recorded time chronometers and other precise recording instruments, known and verified data…how can they all be wrong? The answer is that our conclusions are wrong, not the experiments! An instance of “seeing what you wanted to see”. The differences of recoded time are a factor of the relative velocities of the objects involved, not the “shift” in time. The matter/mass of test objects are reacting to relativity factors. Current models of linear time state that “time” will gain an “elastic” quality for a give object as it gains velocity toward “C”, thus leaving normal time/mass/space behind, at least with regard to the “self” of the object.
This theory opens the possibility of “time-travel” or at least some form of observation…plausible if a device could be built capable of “warping” a given area of mass/space/time.
Since there is virtually no limit to human thought, then that which can be thought can be made…a time machine.
But in order to travel, or even observe a given “point” in time, it would mean that all of space/matter/energy/time exists in a state of unchanging continuity, one instant of existence followed by another, ad infinitum, an endless deck of cards each containing a static point containing a static point containing the entire Universe of itself!
From a standpoint of estimated mass values of the known Universe, the idea of a “static” mass is untenable. In what dimension would “old” mass inhabit itself? And from what source would “new mass arise? And how would “present” mass/reality orient itself in relation to “old” and “new” mass reality? One can debate such concepts endlessly, with no definitive answer in sight, because the concept has no validity.
“Linear-time” has no actuality of itself. It is a thought concept only, a way of rationalize mass/reality continuance in concert with our perceptions.
The functions of matter/energy, in fact all of existence would exist without human observers to verify its “there-ness”.
The Universe is a functional reality…Time is only an interpretational measure of that reality. Time has meaning only to us.

ADDENDUM CODA
“ATOMIC MASS IN A CONSTANT-STATE OF TRANSITION”…I believe this theory/concept to be completely my own. Although some science-fiction writers and many scientists over the past hundred years (1900 to present) have made references to some circumstances where matter, and possibly atoms, could be said to the “transforming,” I never have seen any references expressed as being applicable to “all matter” or “all atoms,” at “all times”…Although I must give credit to Einstein for “pointing out a path no followed”. As usual, one can rarely “go wrong” when listening to a master.

NOTES ON TIME
Due to his “ground-breaking” early work and stunning concepts of “Time” as a “relative” concept, without any valid existence as a “thing of self”…I consider my own concept/theory to be an extension of Einstein’s own work. Therefore: EINSTEIN/NIGHTENGALE.

MASS AND ENERGY
I consider my concept(s)/theory(s) of “Dimensional Energy” to be my own…although, again, some credit must go to Einstein. He “led the way” with the concept of “inherent”energy within an atom…what is of great mystery to me is why he himself did not posit the question “From whence the source of this ‘inherent’ energy?” I don’t think he ever accepted the idea, at least no in whole part, that “matter” creates energy of itself. His great mind mush have instinctively known this at some point, that “Somewhere there is a ‘red herring’ in this concept, all I must do is find it.” I think that the mathematical aspects of the search for the “red herring” led him down a path of parado from which there exists no suitable exit, no “viable” conclusions that would fit the parameters of “atom” energy. What he did not realize was that “math” has no “real” meaning in “Quantum” realities…it must have been maddening for him.
It is with some regret that I claim the “Nightingale” theory of “Dimensional energy” as my own.

NOTES ON GRAVITY
With regard to the “Nightingale” theory of “Dimensional/Atom” gravity…I feel I can safely call the concept my own. I have never seen any reference(s) to this concept in any print, not even the most daring science-fiction! The thought to pursue such a theory would never have occurred to me without the dirct influence “Dimensional Energy”…I wondered if there might be some correlational values that might be applicable to gravity as a “self”…and no one could have been more shocked by the answer than myself! The idea of “mass” having no gravity of “self”? That can’t be right…the idea is invalid on it’s face! If there were no matter, there would be no gravity…ergo, mass equals gravity. Simple. Except I looked further…and the answer changed as I looked deeper “into the glass.” It resulted in a completely “new” theory, a thing which I had never had in mind when I asked myself, “What is gravity?”

NOTES ON THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF ENERGY AND MATTER
The following theory(s) are based upon three concepts; (1) ALL MATTER IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE IS IN A “CONSTANT STATE OF TRANSITION”; (2) ENERGY IS OF A SEPARATE DIMENSION OF ITSELF THAT EXISTS IN ALL POSSIBILITIES OF THREE-DEMENSIONAL REALITY AND ALL CONTIMUUMS OF METRIC SPACE/TIME FUNCTIONS…MATTER IS NOT THE “PRIMAL CAUSATION” OF ENERGY…ENERGY EXISTS OF ITSELF IN A “QUANTUM-STATE,” INDEPENDENT OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL “REALITY.” ALL ENERGY EXISTS IN A STATE OF “NON-MASS.” ENERGY, OR E.(d), IS “CAPTURED/CHANNELED” BY THE FRICTIONAL DENSITY FACTORS OF MASS. MATTER, OF ITSELF, IS FUNCTIONALLY INERT, AND SERVES AS A “STRANGE ATTRACTANT” TO E. (d). ALL THE MATTER IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE, IRRESPECTIVE OF SIZE/FUNCTION STATE, CAN NEVER “SURRENDER” OR “RELEASE” IT’S INTRINSIC “ENERGY OF SELF,” REGARDLESS OF EXTERNAL FORCE(S). ENERGY E.(d) CAN NEVER BE INDUCED TO KINESIS…IT HAS NO MASS OF “SELF.” ONLY A FUNCTIONAL STATE OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL MASS CAN BE “FORCED” INTO MOVEMENT, NEVER “ENERGY.”
How can the Nightingale concept of energy/matter have any validity, in light of standard models of accepted physics and empirical reality? The answers lie within “reality” as it’s most common form, the atom…and then extrapolating energy/mass values. If one examines a given atom’s “potential,” regardless of it’s form/state, and then consider an atom’s “excited” state, wherein photons/electrons are being “emitted,” it becomes very apparent that emission?/sources values do not agree…that in fact, far more energy is being “emitted” than can be accounted for, given a zero mass loss at the atom itself. If photons and electrons have no “mass of self” and exist as an “excited” energy state-of-self from a three-dimensional mass, then by what mechanism is movement achieved? How can “C” be “maintained” by an entity that exists as an excited form of “energy” state-of-self? The answer is shocking. PHOTONS/ELECTRONS DO NOT EXIST AS A PRO-FORMA “PROXY” OF MATTER. THERE ARE NO PROTONS OR ELECTRONS EXISTING AS “PACKETS” OF ENERGY. In fact, at the core of the question of energy/matter states, virtually all of what is currently believed to be true with regard to matter/energy factors are false. We have been misled by incorrect assumptions.
Consider the following.
You are standing at one of the old-fashioned type of black-boards, a chalk in your hand. You draw a D-cell battery and a large loop of insulated wire, going from a cathode to anode, and complete a circuit. Standard doctrine states the electrical “potential” of the battery will move along the wire at “C,” and that you have also draw a short-circuit! Now step back away from the board and look at it’s surface, and of it unmarked and gleaming, save only the surface where you marked it with chalk…and even there you can still see the surface somewhat.
That surface is a representation of the quantum-dimension of energy. It was/is there BEFORE you drew on it, and will still be there long after you erase your battery/wire scenario. The electrical energy of the D-cell WAS PRESENT BEFORE THE BATTERY EXISTED, AND WILL STILL EXIST AFTER THE BATTERY HAS “EXHAUSTED” IT’S POTENTIAL. THE BATTERY DID NOT CREATE NOR “USE UP” THE ENERGY. IT CREATED A “PORTAL” BY THE ARRANGEMENT OF IT’S ATOMS/MOLECULES OF THERE-DIMENSIONAL MASS, AND THE WIRE MADE A “PATHWAY.”
But what of the short-circuit of the battery/wire? Does it not prove that there is a flow of electrons, that in fact they are “stacking” and overwhelming the mass’s ability to contain them…the wire, being the “least” amount of mass, will be subjected to hyper-thermic excitation and melt at the point of greatest stress? The battery/wire scenario completely negates the “no electron” statement. So there!
The answer to the battery/wire/short circuit conundrum is both simple and elegant…the “electricity” function/state exists at all times, independent of matter. Both the wire and the battery are being subjected to more “force” than the components can withstand by the action in-phase…in fact, the only limit to energy “actualization” is the amount of mass-in-place. The “special” intrinsic mass of the battery enabled the existence of a “matrix portal” for the actualization of E.(d). The wire served as a “focus” of frequency, and the short-circuit of the pathway caused the “frequency” of E.(d) factors “in-place” to hyper-excite the small amount wire “in-place.” The frequency in-place served to cause a resonant factor to mass in-place, and the mass could not support the “resonance.”
One can then ask, “That’s all vey well thought out, but how does such a concept translate to other mass/energy states?…The ‘no electron/photon’ must apply to all, or it applies to none.” An excellent question. The answer is that’s this doctrine does apply to all. Return to the black board and draw a star…and things become interesting.
The factors that apply to the board/battery/wire scenario also apply to the stars themselves. The one major function-in-place difference is the amount of mass-in-place. The small mass of the battery had a finite number of “transitions” of its mass (with regard to atom/molecule functions) and could sustain a “matrix” in-place for a short interval. A star mass can sustain “mater in a constant state of transition” almost without limit, by virtue of intrinsic mass values. (refer to other “Notes”). Still, the question of electron/photon values begs to be answered. What, if anything, is moving? Or at least a simulacrum of linear transit. If a given mass will respond to stimulus, then it surely must follow that “energy” must also respond to a “stimulus”…and energy does respond. It reacts by means of proxy…a causational inter-action of atom/mass.
At first, I assumed there must surely be some “fact” of matter/energy state that I overlooked or had left out. If “Light” has no means of transit-of-self, then what factor9s) would facilitate the actuality of light? Source/Emission theory demands some “actuality” of motion from a given source…energy or some form of energy-mass must be “moving” in response to a stimulus factor. In view of the reality of observable “facts,” my statements of “no photons or electrons” are complete drivel! It is not possible my concepts to be correct…except for the fact that current “facts” with regard to fundaments of atom-mass and energy are wrong. The secret of energy is the source, specifically the atoms at the source…and atom-mass friction.
Atom-mass density factors “in-stitu” of a given mass create a “new” factor with regard to the quantum dimension, a “presence” which the quantum dimension cannot “contain.” There is no “WHERE” for these ne factors to “fit”…and the Q.(d) responds in the only manner of which it is capable. It “RESONATES” IN DIRECT CORELLATION TO STIMULUS AT THE SOURCE. THERE IS NO “MOVEMENT” INVOLVED WITH REGARD TO DIMENSIONAL ENERGY.
The “actuality” of light in three-dimensional reality is the result of “wave” or “push” factor from a source, and that source is always a component of “frictional density factor(s)” ore FDf. If the FDf of a mass exceeds a threshold limit, then FDf will “push against every factor of reality (bearing in mind that FDf can never “leave” a source) and this “new” FDf has nowhere to “go.” It cannot escape from a source, nor can it devolve into a non-function of state of its own accord. The FDf “reality” is a “new” factor…lit cannot “fit” into the Universe of mass/atoms, nor can it gain access to the quantum/dimension “reality.” The FDf factors create a “distortion” of coherent relativity values. This “distortion,” if continuous, causes a “wave/bend” factor-in-place of the quantum-dimension. The end result is light.
(An interesting side-issue of FDf theory is that FDf is considered a “new” factor of mas/atom/quantum reality, it means quantum existence pre-dates three-dimensional reality…and thus NO BIG-BANG! ENERGY/GRAVITY FUNCTIONS EXISTED OF THEMSELVES IN A QUANTUM STATE BEFORE MATTER EXISTENCE.)
D.(g) serves as the primary “causation” of atoms/mass “condensate”…A.(g) seeks always to return to its true state of “non-mass,” but the “strange attractant” factor of three-dimensional actuality will no allow it. A.(g) can NEVER escape this factor, as matter can NEVER “cease to exist” as a reality-of-self. The factors of D. (g)+A.(g) create a constant function of “torsion” in the quantum-state/mass-metric “reality,” a condition which can NEVER end, so long as the two co-valiant factors exist. Once mass-in-place factor has reached a “stasis” point with regard to net gain, atom –FD(f) become “possible”…proximity of atoms reach a key threshold as “density” of matter forms a “new” factor, friction. (No mass-in-place can exceed a “stellar” limit, as mass/density/axis rotation factors will not allow it…matter must obey the dictates of “action re-action.” Loss of “heavy” condensates” will occur at equatorial regions due to relative velocity factors. NO “MASS-IN-PLACE” CAN “GAIN” INDEFINITE ATOMS; ”RELATIVITY” FACTORS WILL NOT ALLOW IT.)
D.(g)-A.(g) factor acts as the “primal causality” of the three-dimension “reality” of Light, by means of FD(f)…by direct implication, FD(f) is the source of ALL “QUANTUM” ENERGY REALITIES WITH REGARD TO MASS/MATTER FUNCTIONS. If there is no FD(f) present, then there are no “excited” energy states detectable. This statement hold “true” for any mass/value, even materials that are considered fissile…in a nuclear “detonation,” “raw” energy has been actualized into 3-D “reality” and finding no “empty” atoms to accept it, sublimated to its quantum-state. The mass of “fissile” matter was insufficient to sustain a “table” matrix-portal entanglement for more than an instant of “four-dimensional actuality.” (This affirms “relativity” as a constant! EMC2 IS STILL A VALID CONCEPT.) NO MATTER WAS “TRANSFORMED” OR DESTROYED BY THE DETONATION NOR WAS ENERGY “CREATED” BY THE PROCESS…matter reacted to stimulus, and that “re-action” process was very fast and violent as compared to “normal” function-states of matter.
Dg=Mg=<G.dM>
=DEP.=D2=”F.d.r.”>
=”E”

NOTES ON THE POSSIBILITY OF DIMENSIONAL GRAVITY
If one accepts the concept of “Gravity” as a function of singular atomic “fullness,” as a companion to dimensional energy, then it would follow that Gravity must have a continuum of self. (Refer to mass and E.d. theory “Notes”.) The concept of dimensional gravity/atomic “fullness” would reduce Gravity to a “dimensional Quantum” entity…a distinct separation from mass/matter reality, barring the circumstance of “atomic” fullness in mass/space. The theory of “G.d.” The quandary presented y this theory is simple. If gravity is a “Constant,” then how can mass form a star, or a planet, or any other mass of size larger than an atom?
The answer is the concept of “dimensional” gravity itself.
If there exists a true “quantum” state of gravity, its own continuum apart from mass/reality, a dimension that is “part and parcel” of E.d., then it is possible for this quantum/state to inter-act with “reality-in-place.” This line of supposition then begs the question, “How?”
If all matter is in a constant state of transition, and energy/gravity states are co-equal linears at atomic/matter existence…then the reality of the known Universe should be “static” with regard Mass formations, and this is not so. What then serves as “primal causation” for the coalescence of atoms to “gather” in given areas of space? The answer, again, is the effect of quantum-gravity, or more properly, effect/affect.
After much consideration and debate, I have come to the conclusion that the Dimension(s) of Energy/Gravity exert no small degree of influence upon matter/mass via “Extra-Dimensional Quantum Effect.”
For Example.
Let us think of Earth’s rotation…what causes it? I believe the “causation” is an ongoing effect of quantum gravity, by means of wave-function of gravity-in-place…an “effect” which is a constant. What do I mean by this statement? Gravity seeks always to return to its “massless” state, to escape the bonds of “strange attraction” to matter, and it cannot.
Unless an atom is completely “un-created” (an unlikely event) then gravity will always be present. Also consider my scenario of “mass-in-place” stated that atomic-gravity fields “conjoin” as mass forms density…this is an inherent feature of mass/gravity, and an excellent example of “one plus one” does not always result in “two.”
In the case of mass/gravity…ONE PLUS ONE EQUALS A GREATER “ONE.” Gravity must be considered a co-equal linear of mass/density. The “square” of mass/density may increase from one to a million(s) fold, and yet the inherent gravity of a given “mass-in-place” will remain a “constant”…were this not true, then Earth and its only child would have conjoined eons ago! (Yes, I think the Earth “spun-out” our Moon, but that is another paper.) “Mass” serves as a “focused” disturbance for quantum-gravity, which will continue as long as all non-variant factors are present, i.e. mass/gravity function…dimensional quantum/gravity.
But how does this concept explain rotation? What is the mechanism of action? The answer is that gravity exerts influence over “matter-in-place” and ITSELF. Quantum/wave function induces matter/wave function, a “tidal” effect. (Think of the Earth as both transmitter/receiver, sending an immense gravity “pulse” signal to itself.)
Examine the following scenario…Quantum-dimension gravity is “held in place” via “matter-in-place” gravity wave-function, and the difference in potential(s) between the reality of atom-mass of planetary-size bodies and the dimension of quantum-gravity serves as a “causation” for Mass-gravity to inter-act with quantum-dimension gravity…the greater the size of mass/density, the greater the “mimic” response of quantum-dimension gravity, resulting in a “focused” distortion. Quantum gravity always seeks to return to its own dimension, and the “focus” in-place of mass is the causation of “wave” action...and mass “spin” is the result.
The main paradox of “quantum/wave---kinetic/response” theory of rotation is, “How can a force of no mass itself exert so much influence over a ‘dense’ body…given that gravity is a ‘weak’ force?” The response to this question is a question in return. “Can a force that exists in its own dimension, and the dimension of our own “reality,” in every atom of matter, be considered “weak”? As compared with what other force? Even the largest stars cannot “break” the bonds of “weak” gravity!
The “kinetic-potential” of mass responds to the “expression” of gravity “movement in a quantum-state (gravity-field of a mass/body) causes a response of “gravity-in-place” mass…the “kinetic” response of a single molecule to this force would be very small (refer to “Brownian” motion and “Casimir” effect) but multiplied by “Goolgolplex”2 of molecules, the resultant expression of “potential” kinetic energy is all but immeasurable. The end result is “spin”…which in turn predicates another question. Can these same factors translate to “Orbit”?
I think it is necessary to return to “Star” formation origin to answer the question of “Orbit,” although many may find my conclusions somewhat unpalatable, due to the fact that this theory, if not in part or totality, to be a “supposition of anecdotal evidence” with little proof. Still, I believe that it may be correct.
In the “Star” formation scenario, I stated that “matter” formed into a “condensate” and the gravity factors that contribute to mass/place. If it can be assumed that “matter-inn-place” is gaining more atoms at an increasing pace (until a proportional-ration is achieved with regard to dimensional-quantum “effect/affect”), then at some point kinetic-forces would come into play…i.e., “heavy elements” would begin to “drag” in place, surrounded by “lighter” elements able to move at a faster pace. This process would continue until a predictable end-result occurs. There are two distinct possibilities: One…that “dense” bodies of matter are “spun” out of the “parent” mass. This event would likely occur at a mass/bodies equator, the region of greatest potential-kinetic stress…thus resulting in a ‘dense’ mass(s) in-line with the parent body. (Potential of expressed kinetic energy of dense-body equals “X” of distance equals velocity equals terminus.)
Possibility two…the “condensate” of lighter elements “withdraw” from “dense” bodies and form a nexus of lighter elements, leaving a dense-mass-in-place. Given the size and scope of both outcomes, I believe that both outcomes were likely to have occurred simultaneously. Given that the “dense” element bodies would have been in a state of hyper-thermic molecular excitation, it is likely that many “lighter” elements were “rafted” to the surface of a mass and “spun” out, forming moons. This theory “stellar/planetary formation” may seem rather glib or facile, and yet it is amply supported by “real-world” experiments and observations.
Such experiments and observations would suffer somewhat from a greatly reduced magnitude factor…but extrapolations from them would still be valid. Of course, I realize that comparation/values are subject to “new “ forces when speaking of a planetary size-mass and aspects of behavior of a cauldron of “cooking” iron ore, and many valid observations of what is “true for the one is true for the other” do not always “hold up.” But known values of kinetic forces are still valid…and they form a “base for my theories of “mass/gravity,” “quantum/gravity,” and their possible effects/affects of atoms and mass.
And so, back to the problem of rotation…how far from its “parent” body does gravity extend? Its “reach”? The answer is surface mass. The greater the “surface mass area” of “matter/density-in-place,” the “more” gravity will attempt to “escape” (Q.g. “over” greatest density-in-place) and finding “escape” impossible, returns to its parent mass. This mass may be a Star or planetary body…and I strongly suspect that I one could “peel” back the layers of over-burden of a mass, at some point one would find a Nearly round mass…it is the “shape” of this mass that defines the “quantum-wave” effect of grvity…the rise/fall of Q.g. distorts and “bends” as it “falls” back to its “parent,” and finds no available atoms to accept it (ech atom is full, and cannot contain “more”). This quantum action, though moving at “C,” is constant…and is the causation of the kinetic response of the parent mass as a “whole” to “follow the leader.”
A “DISTURBANCE” WITHIN A GIVEN AREA OF “QUANTUM/DIMENSION” GRAVITY CREATES A DIFFERENCE IN “POTENTIALS” OF GRAVIMETRIC INFLUENCE BETWEEN “QUANTUM” REALITY AND MATTER-REALITY…THE CONCENTRATION GRADIENT OF “ATOM”-MATTER GRAVITY RESPONDS TO THE DIFFERECE IN POTENTIALITIES OF MASS-GRAVITY/QUANTUM-GRAVITY…IF THE QUANTUM-GRAVITY “DISTURBANCE” AREA IS OF GREAT ENOUGH “SIZE,” ATOMS-MATTER WILL BE “FORCE” TO SEEK A CO-EQUAL BALANCE…THE “GRAVITY-IN-PLACE” OF EACH ATOM IS “FORCED” TO CON-JOIN WITH OTHER ATOMS, RESULTING IN A STATE OF “MATTER-IN-PLACE”…AS THE CONCENTRATION OF MATTE INCREASES, REPECTIVE ATOM’S “SPHERE OF INFLUENCE” GRAVITY EXPANDS…MASS “DENSITY-IN-PLACE” IS NOW A PHYSICAL THREE-DIMENSIONAL REALITY…MOLECULAR STRUCTURES BECOME A FACTOR AND FRICTIONAL-DENSITIES ESXIST IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL ACTUALITIES…”THERMAL” INFLUENCES BEGIN…THE “CONDENSATE” PROCESS OF “MATTER-IN-PLACE” CONTINUES AND “RE-INFORCES” THE “QUANTUM-GRAVITY” DISTORTION UNTIL AN EQUALIBRIUM IS REACHED, AT WHICH POINT THE QUANTUM-GRAVITY “DISTORTION” BECOME STABLE AND “FIXED” IN-PLACE BY THE “DISTORTION” OF MATTER-GRAVITY IN-PLACE.

NOTES ON THE POSSIBILITY OF PHOTONS AS A CONSTANT FUNCTIN OF METRIC REALITY
I began this paper with a simple question. What is the intrinsic nature of light? What is it of itself, at least with regard to its visible aspects? The answers I found that are commonly available, and the accepted doctrines associated with them, did not provide what I was looking for…so I began to look on my own. The answers I found were not even remotely what I expected. I began with the concept of “cause and effect,” the doctrine of an atom in an excited state, and the release of photons.
My primary question? From what source does an atom give forth photons? If an atom at certain “excited” state produces photons, of itself, than surely this would mean a “loss” of mass/atom function at some point. Can an atom produce an endless stream of photons, with no “loss” of its intrinsic energy state? The answer is NO.
The next and equally important question (at least to me) is by what mechanism of action does a photon travel from a source? If a “Photon” is regarded as a “quantum-state” energy function of defined parameters, that is a “thing of self,” then by what “effect” does it gain velocity (assuming an “un-energized” state exists) with regard to its original atom function? By definition, if true, it would mean and “excited” state atom/mass responded to stimulus by “creating” an infinite amount of photons, and at the same instant exerting “force” to propel them at C …and maintain this C regardless of time/distance/mass/gravity! “Spooky action at a distance” in fact and reality! Can this concept be valid? The answer is NO. The answer must be no, for if it were valid, then it would mean that an atom/mass reality is exerting “force” upon a quantum-state photon that has NO MASS OF ITSELF.
Atom/mass reality cannot exert any “force” upon quantum-state energy, other than to serve as a “strange attractant.” Energy has no means of “storing” or “communicating” momentum or the expressed “potential” of kinesis…it has no means of “movement” of self, as it has no “mass” of self. Energy, regardless of state/function, can “express” and “manifest” itself ONLY BY MEANS OF MASS.
How then to account for the emission of photons from a mass/source?
I could not arrive at a viable answer…until I began to compare light as an analog of “known” factors, such as radio-waves. Could there be comparative values of both quantum-state energies and their manifestation in three-dimensional reality? The answer was yes. If “light” and other emitted spectrums (radio-micro-x-ray) shared common values, such as “stimulus/emission” response at C from an atom-mass, then how do they “move” in mass/space at a constant value of relative velocity? I found a disturbing answer, which I thought could not be right.
If photons are regarded as a “pure” energy state, a manifestation of dimensional-energy (refer to “Notes on energy and mass”) in a “mass/reality,” then it became possible that photons were NOT MOVING, at least not in the conventional meaning of the word “move.” What if “photons” were a constant value of energy/state, present at all time/space/mass states, and the “stimulus” that creates the visible “light” is a quantum-dimension “wave” function?
It seemed at first “look” that such a concept/theory could not be correct, and yet it gave so many viable answers to so many conditions that I felt some parts of it must be correct.
A “DISTURBANCE” IN MASS/REALITY IS CAUSITIVE OF A “QUANTUM”-STATE “FREQUENCY” RESPOSE THAT “EXCITES” QUANTUM-STATE PHOTONS CREATING LIGHT. The “disturbance” in mass/reality is very likely resultant of the frictional-density of an atom-mass, irrespective of the source of the stimulus. (hyper thermic, chemical, electrical, etc.)
Could it be possible for a “unit” of quantum-state photon(s) to be excited to such a degree so as to “mimic” a “unit” of actual mass, such as an atom…and in this manner experience momentum? This must surely be no. If a “photon” were to possess any mass/density property (momentum) in three-dimensional reality, then every atom in the universe would be reduced to sub-atomic status in moments, at best!
The force exerted by photons at C would reduce any mass it encountered to a “new” reality of existence, somewhere past Planck’s Constant…in fact these “momentum” photons would destroy themselves and the source of emission in less than seconds (assuming that photons were “emitted” and mass/particle/wave functions were the mechanism of travel, “interference” patterns would be a complicit factor). The theory of “Emissions” from source does no work. The properties of kinetic-function and momentum can only be expressed as a quality of Mass…not a property of E.(d).
The “photons” or quantum-state energies exist OF THEMSELVES…it is a “signal” created by atom-mass friction that is an independent function, a factor which can be caused to occur. It is the amplitude of this “signal” at its origin that is the determinant factor with regard to the intensity of “light” in the mass/continuum. THE GREATER THE SIGNAL, THE GREATER THE RESPNSE OF THE QUANTUM FREQUENCY. Since I stated in other papers that a given atom-mass can never be destroyed in any conventional meaning of the word, it would then stand to reason that a large atom-mass, such as a star, could exert sufficient force by means of density/hyper-thermic factors to create a sustained signal-source from atoms. The exact nature of the “signal” created by atom-mass friction has eluded me thus far, but I believe I can state with some certainty that fact of its existence, its “action”, places an intolerable “foreign-factor” on quantum Wave function.
The quantum-dimension state exists of itself…There is no “where” for the atom-mass signal to “fit,” no compartment of “space” continuum potential. The signal is radiated “out” into the continuum of mass/space, the only “where” that is available. As has been demonstrated in experiments beyond count, the signal, or light does not vary at all with regard to its velocity form a given source…only it is not “photons” that are moving. It is a “signal” that the quantum-dimension cannot “contain”…a dimension that exists as a constant-function every where/when of mass continuum.
This “signal” into three-dimensional reality is what is being measured with regard to C. The quantum-reality has no “velocity” in any rational sense…there is NO fixed-point of reference, no “here” or “there.” There is no “more” or “less,” no “before” and “after.”
If it is assumed that the “Nightingale” theory of “Constant” state of existence of Photons/Quantum-wave “response is correct, that in fact photons-quantum waves exist at all times, in every metric and mass/reality…it still leaves the question of the mechanism of action from a source. I believe I found the function of action. A source of “signal” begins with an atom in an “excited” state…this demand a response form an aspect of the quantum dimension. Since this “signal” exists as a constant-state function, there are no parameters of mass/time/space to place constraints on it. At the instant of atom-excitation, the signal is already “there.” Distance and separation are aspects of three-dimensional reality. There are no such functions in the continuum of E.(d) reality. A photon of “quantum” energy cannot “contain” the “signal” of a quantum-wave, and surrenders the signal into mass/reality. Light.



AN ADDENDUM TO “NOTES ON TIME”
If one accepts “non-time” as valid, with regard to the dimensional reality mass/matter continuum of “normal” reality…could there be any other means by which “time” could exist as a formal entity? A record of previous existence, i.e. the continuity of “transitional” matter, a true functional state?
It would seem logical and correct that matter would possess an “intrinsic” memory of itself (an echo of “possibilities” in a quantum state) and all forms of matter of which it has been…would this not be a form of linear-time, an “echo” of Then” v. “Now”?
From the view of a quantum state, “Then” v. “Now” implies a “future tense” actuality, resulting in pro-forma linear-time states. This logical observation negates any value of non-time as valid concept. It also refutes all of my previous thoughts and concepts a sorry state of affairs! This line of questioning posed elusive and vague answers, if any, until one breaks the complex issue time/matter/existence into its main component, matter itself. If “transitional matter” is valid, then any concept/model of “time” would exist as a completely independent irrational structure, with no valid “linear” reference point.
This confirms my concept of “non-time” as a valid theory.

Wow that was strange. I think I hear an echo ? Oh maybe just the voices in my head.

No serious I think there is an echo so to speak . Yeah a repeat . I would think it is mechanized universe. Clock work with gears of different proportions. Inside the different size groupings is individual mechanisms. Colonies that do there thing.

There is an echo. I think it is hard to detect because of the length of the cycles. You can see your own hamster wheel of get up go to work come home go to sleep , get up go to work come home go to sleep , but it is harder to see .

So it is not like an echo you physically hear , but rather a perception of an echo . You are born you live you die.

So I did like the Then < Now thing
That was boss
See the echo in that if you were then instead of now